Jessica Sideways Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Today, when I was talking with my little sister about the connotation of the word "gay" and things turn to where she says that "gays are not oppressed". Then, I mentioned the fact that most states still discriminate against gay people by not permitting them to marry and she wanted to say that being gay is against the Bible. Well, that really got under my skin, as there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. This separation is truly vital to our well-being and our freedom to choice of religion or for some, the freedom from religion. Therefore, let's think about what could happen if the US had a majority of persons in other religions. The United States has been influenced fairly badly by Christianity, as it advocates for the marginalization of many people. We have seen how Christianity has polluted the minds of many Americans and even as I was typing this post, my sister noticed me typing this post and she started an objection of human rights. I would like to make it very clear that the discrimination against the gay's right to marry IS discrimination. This is discrimination based on someone's sexual orientation. Just like the Christians used the bible to advocate against inter-racial marriage or in favor of slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 TBH, I think it's an American disease... I live in a 'Christian' Country. The Queen is head of the Church of England and Wales. We have Bishops in the House of Lords... yet we'll elect atheists to government, and regard a Prime Minister who prays as an oddity... almost something lacking in moral fibre in the man. You'd think that we'd be the fundamentalist nation, yet we regard the Evangelist as little better than someone who talks to an imaginary friend while rooting in trash cans. I wonder why that is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 TBH, I think it's an American disease... I live in a 'Christian' Country. The Queen is head of the Church of England and Wales. We have Bishops in the House of Lords... yet we'll elect atheists to government, and regard a Prime Minister who prays as an oddity... almost something lacking in moral fibre in the man. You'd think that we'd be the fundamentalist nation, yet we regard the Evangelist as little better than someone who talks to an imaginary friend while rooting in trash cans. I wonder why that is... Because the clergy are fat on tax monies and there is no real incentive to bring everybody to Jesus? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 Clergy pay taxes like everyone else here in the Soviet Serfdom... Charities get tax breaks, churches don't They get no Government money You live in a church house as a priest, you get taxed on the benefit as an employee The pay you a stipend - it's taxed and national insurance is paid Car - Taxed The House of Lord is the remnants of when we were an Oligarchy and tries to keep a lid on the House of Commons. A lord can't be an MP unless he relinquishes his 'Noble' status... Christopher Guest (of 'This Is Spinal Tap' fame) is an English Lord... and, until the current parliamentary scum decided that the Lords (many of whom are no better off than me, they just had an ancestor with a good sword arm) were too much of a threat to their power (the Lords are often the last thin line between us and dictatorship) had thr hereditary right to 'sit' It's not the best system but it seems to work most of the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 Clergy pay taxes like everyone else here in the Soviet Serfdom... Charities get tax breaks, churches don't They get no Government money You live in a church house as a priest, you get taxed on the benefit as an employee The pay you a stipend - it's taxed and national insurance is paid Car - Taxed The House of Lord is the remnants of when we were an Oligarchy and tries to keep a lid on the House of Commons. A lord can't be an MP unless he relinquishes his 'Noble' status... Christopher Guest (of 'This Is Spinal Tap' fame) is an English Lord... and, until the current parliamentary scum decided that the Lords (many of whom are no better off than me, they just had an ancestor with a good sword arm) were too much of a threat to their power (the Lords are often the last thin line between us and dictatorship) had thr hereditary right to 'sit' It's not the best system but it seems to work most of the time... I didn't know that. I just parroted what another heathen said. Thanks. hehe. I really like the dialogues between your politicians. Debate is very different than it is in our white house. I like how yall do things and your attitudes even though there is plenty of disagreements. I watch your politicians interact with each other. Our politicians are mostly very disingenuous or very stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 Completely off topic, but you'll get a kick out of this... In the house of commons there are two white lines. They are the distance apart of two 6 foot men with swords drawn at fullest extent. the sword tips would just touch If someone crossed the line with a drawn sword, the ushers could kill them... I miss those days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 and the adversarial parliamentarian system has to have argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 Completely off topic, but you'll get a kick out of this... In the house of commons there are two white lines. They are the distance apart of two 6 foot men with swords drawn at fullest extent. the sword tips would just touch If someone crossed the line with a drawn sword, the ushers could kill them... I miss those days... Hehe. I thought I saw some fellers with swords in parliament on tv one time dealing with a citizen. No guns. It was this year I think. Maybe I remember wrong. My meds effect my memory. Frustrating... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 They'd be the Ushers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 and the adversarial parliamentarian system has to have argument... Argument appeals to me be'ins that I try to be a free thinker. Our politicians a lot of times just talk past eachother it seems to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 Ego frot each other... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 Ego frot each other... I had to look up Frot and found it in wiki. Hehe. I still value the kind of debate where people work together in the discussion. Sometimes politicians do that sometimes not. We really don't see that here in the states. A lot of rallying the sheep and talking past eachother. My opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica Sideways Posted August 12, 2007 Author Share Posted August 12, 2007 Completely off topic, but you'll get a kick out of this... In the house of commons there are two white lines. They are the distance apart of two 6 foot men with swords drawn at fullest extent. the sword tips would just touch If someone crossed the line with a drawn sword, the ushers could kill them... I miss those days... Oh. My. God. THAT IS SO FREAKING AWESOME! Nowadays, politicians are fat, lying assholes who could not even wield a sword. Humm, seeing as I am a MtF transsexual, neither can I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
מה טבו Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 On topic, Kyle, your sister doesn't think gays are discriminated against because she doesn't see us as fully human. She doesn't see us as deserving of the same rights as her. To her, this is like dogs asking for the right to vote. This is just a symptom of a true and profound evil lurking in Christianity. Your sister, if she says that gays don't deserve equal rights because "it's against the Bible to be gay," implies that she thinks government should be based upon Christian law, and only heterosexual Christians deserve the full scope of human rights. Everyone else should be subjugated. So it's not just gays and lesbians, it's all non-Christians. If we don't like to be second class citizens, we should just become heterosexual and Christian. It's the same desire to eliminate other groups that has been behind every holy war, and is now behind the modern campaigns for eradication of various groups through assimilation. And therein lies the evil - a true egocentricity - the highest form of arrogance. Ask her how she'd feel if the situation were reversed - say she had to live under Sharia law in Iran and be subjugated to Muslim "values" in government. How would she like to be forced to wear a niquab because the Q'ran says so? How would she like to be told that if she wanted equal justice under the law, all she had to do was become a Muslimah? She'll probably just bitch about Islam, and how a Christian nation is different because Christians don't oppress others like that. She'll then have no problem turning right around and objecting to equal rights under the law for gays and lesbians because "that's different." Christians with this kind of mentality are cognitively incapable of following the Golden Rule. Truly following the Golden Rule - treating others as you'd like to be treated in the same situation - involves acknowledging that the situations of others are different. It involves understanding beyond yourself. It involves seeing people with whom you disagree - or of whom you disapprove - as fully human and as your civil equal. It involves seeing yourself as less than perfect and realizing that maybe you don't have all the answers for everyone. In short, it involves decency. Common decency. And encapsulated in that little concept is everything that American Christianity seems to stand so firmly against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 Completely off topic, but you'll get a kick out of this... In the house of commons there are two white lines. They are the distance apart of two 6 foot men with swords drawn at fullest extent. the sword tips would just touch If someone crossed the line with a drawn sword, the ushers could kill them... I miss those days... Oh. My. God. THAT IS SO FREAKING AWESOME! Nowadays, politicians are fat, lying assholes who could not even wield a sword. Humm, seeing as I am a MtF transsexual, neither can I. The pen is mightier than the sword friend. Your ideas are what counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Wolf Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 Typical Christian response. It's pathetic they refuse to see that the separation of church and state is a fact that has been penned down in the constitution, and other federal documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 On topic, Kyle, your sister doesn't think gays are discriminated against because she doesn't see us as fully human. She doesn't see us as deserving of the same rights as her. To her, this is like dogs asking for the right to vote. This is just a symptom of a true and profound evil lurking in Christianity. Your sister, if she says that gays don't deserve equal rights because "it's against the Bible to be gay," implies that she thinks government should be based upon Christian law, and only heterosexual Christians deserve the full scope of human rights. Everyone else should be subjugated. So it's not just gays and lesbians, it's all non-Christians. If we don't like to be second class citizens, we should just become heterosexual and Christian. It's the same desire to eliminate other groups that has been behind every holy war, and is now behind the modern campaigns for eradication of various groups through assimilation. And therein lies the evil - a true egocentricity - the highest form of arrogance. Ask her how she'd feel if the situation were reversed - say she had to live under Sharia law in Iran and be subjugated to Muslim "values" in government. How would she like to be forced to wear a niquab because the Q'ran says so? How would she like to be told that if she wanted equal justice under the law, all she had to do was become a Muslimah? She'll probably just bitch about Islam, and how a Christian nation is different because Christians don't oppress others like that. She'll then have no problem turning right around and objecting to equal rights under the law for gays and lesbians because "that's different." Christians with this kind of mentality are cognitively incapable of following the Golden Rule. Truly following the Golden Rule - treating others as you'd like to be treated in the same situation - involves acknowledging that the situations of others are different. It involves understanding beyond yourself. It involves seeing people with whom you disagree - or of whom you disapprove - as fully human and as your civil equal. It involves seeing yourself as less than perfect and realizing that maybe you don't have all the answers for everyone. In short, it involves decency. Common decency. And encapsulated in that little concept is everything that American Christianity seems to stand so firmly against. Indeed... just over 150 years ago Black didn't deserve equal rights and could be legislated *against* since it was the ordained way of things, and they had the bible passages to prove it... A Black Pastor friend of mine gets very uptight when I point this out... and claims it's not the same thing at all (even though he obejcts to legislation against gay folk) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 Completely off topic, but you'll get a kick out of this... In the house of commons there are two white lines. They are the distance apart of two 6 foot men with swords drawn at fullest extent. the sword tips would just touch If someone crossed the line with a drawn sword, the ushers could kill them... I miss those days... and the adversarial parliamentarian system has to have argument... Hey, Grandpa, is there any way you can send some of your politicians across the pond to stand up to G. W., since our democrats haven't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica Sideways Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 On topic, Kyle, your sister doesn't think gays are discriminated against because she doesn't see us as fully human. She doesn't see us as deserving of the same rights as her. To her, this is like dogs asking for the right to vote. This is just a symptom of a true and profound evil lurking in Christianity. Your sister, if she says that gays don't deserve equal rights because "it's against the Bible to be gay," implies that she thinks government should be based upon Christian law, and only heterosexual Christians deserve the full scope of human rights. Everyone else should be subjugated. So it's not just gays and lesbians, it's all non-Christians. If we don't like to be second class citizens, we should just become heterosexual and Christian. It's the same desire to eliminate other groups that has been behind every holy war, and is now behind the modern campaigns for eradication of various groups through assimilation. And therein lies the evil - a true egocentricity - the highest form of arrogance. Ask her how she'd feel if the situation were reversed - say she had to live under Sharia law in Iran and be subjugated to Muslim "values" in government. How would she like to be forced to wear a niquab because the Q'ran says so? How would she like to be told that if she wanted equal justice under the law, all she had to do was become a Muslimah? She'll probably just bitch about Islam, and how a Christian nation is different because Christians don't oppress others like that. She'll then have no problem turning right around and objecting to equal rights under the law for gays and lesbians because "that's different." Christians with this kind of mentality are cognitively incapable of following the Golden Rule. Truly following the Golden Rule - treating others as you'd like to be treated in the same situation - involves acknowledging that the situations of others are different. It involves understanding beyond yourself. It involves seeing people with whom you disagree - or of whom you disapprove - as fully human and as your civil equal. It involves seeing yourself as less than perfect and realizing that maybe you don't have all the answers for everyone. In short, it involves decency. Common decency. And encapsulated in that little concept is everything that American Christianity seems to stand so firmly against. Yeah, she has always been so disrespectful of me since I started advocating for gay rights when I was a Christian. Imagine the tirades she started when I became an Atheist (no longer a Buddhist, but I am implementing Buddhist values into my daily life) and even more so when I found out that I was a transwoman and a lesbian. Every time she said that gays should not have the right to marry, I asked "Why do you think that?" or "On what basis?". This kinda stopped her in her tracks and just had her evilly looking at me sneering "Shut up." But yesterday afternoon, she wanted to use my computer and I said she could if I could ask her a few questions. So I asked her, "What basis do you have to discriminate against gays?" She squirmed for an answer and told me that "society is not ready for gay marriage". Oh ho ho, that is a load of crap. Canada legalized gay marriage and so far, Canadian society has not burst into flames or gone into anarchy. In fact, they made it illegal to harass anyone because they were homosexual. The pen is mightier than the sword friend. Your ideas are what counts. True. Thanks. Typical Christian response. It's pathetic they refuse to see that the separation of church and state is a fact that has been penned down in the constitution, and other federal documents. Yeah, but since people like my sister are trying to Christianize the US, I am planning my move to Canada after my surgery. Indeed... just over 150 years ago Black didn't deserve equal rights and could be legislated *against* since it was the ordained way of things, and they had the bible passages to prove it... A Black Pastor friend of mine gets very uptight when I point this out... and claims it's not the same thing at all (even though he obejcts to legislation against gay folk) Truly? Well, I guess you could call that willful blindness. Hey, Grandpa, is there any way you can send some of your politicians across the pond to stand up to G. W., since our democrats haven't? Isn't Tony Blair the Bush pussy in the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Pretty welll.... he's just retired. We have Prime Minister Gordon Brown. On topic, I think I'll post the content of a mate of mine's blog here from 2005 (he is an American author) THE END OF THE WORLD AS THEY KNOW IT (2005) Yesterday, somewhere in Connecticut, two men got married. They received their official Civil Union license, along with all the legal rights that any other married couple benefits from. I imagine that they kissed and said I love you. Then the sun went down on another perfect day. And despite this, the world didn't end. Behold, a pale horse did not show up, and an angel didn't blow a trumpet or open seven seals. The rivers did not run red with blood, the seas didn't boil, and locusts didn't storm the local Wal-Mart. The world kept turning. Married couples were still married when they woke up this morning. Children laughed and played. People went to work. A dog chased a cat. And all was right with the world. The sanctity of marriage is still just fine. What is marriage, at its core? "Well Brian, it's a pact you make before God—" Let me stop you right there and call bullshit on that bullshit. A pact before God? Which God? Do married Muslims make a pact before the Christian God? Do married Christians make a pact before the Hindu God? Do married atheists make a pact before any God? "Well, then it's a slap in the face to traditional marriage." Surely you jest. How, exactly, is it a slap in the face to traditional marriage? Because two people with the same kind of sexual organs enjoy saying, "I love you" and would like to take care of each other, support each other, share their lives with each other, grow old together, and maybe share a tombstone fifty years from now? That's a slap in the face to your own marriage? Why? Is it because maybe, deep down inside, you can't say the same things for you and your spouse? What is a traditional marriage, anyway? My second marriage was held in a vineyard, where Cassi and I exchanged both Celtic-pagan and 'traditional' Protestant vows. Why? The first part was to make us happy. The second part was to make our families happy. Our minister was female. Both our ceremony and reception were held outdoors. Coop, Mike, Mikey, Big Joe, and Jason wore tuxedos. Nothing about it was traditional (especially that last bit). When a member of the Ororo tribe shows up at the hut of his future spouse, delivers a goat, and then takes his beloved away to his own hut to consecrate the marriage—is that any less traditional than doing the fucking Chicken Dance during the wedding reception at the local VFW? "But Brian, think of the children!" I am. These two men in Connecticut can adopt a child, and show it love, tuck it in, read it a story, feed it, nurture it, care for it, support it, teach it right from wrong, pick it up when it falls down, and help it grow into a fine human being. And God (any god, take your pick) forbid something should happen to them, now they can legally assign that child as their beneficiary. Yeah, that's much worse than growing up in an orphanage. Rosa Parks passed away recently. I'm sure that even my youngest readers are fully aware of her contributions to our society. A portion of our society was afraid of Rosa Parks. Afraid of what she represented. But she, and others like her, put their lives on the line so that African-Americans could have the same rights as everybody else. People died for those rights. They died because a certain segment of our society didn't want, "those uppity niggers having the same rights as the rest of us." "It's a slap in the face to traditional democratic values," they cried. "Think of the children!" Today, we are faced with a similar struggle. Homosexuals would like to enjoy the same rights as everybody else in America. But a certain segment of our population is threatened by that. And we need to support the homosexuals in their struggle. I don't care if you're straight or gay. Don't care if you're Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Wiccan. Don't care if you're a conservative or a liberal or a moderate, or a writer or a reader or an editor. You need to stand fast and speak out loud. Make sure your voice is heard, because if you don't, then the voices of intolerance and hatred will drown you out. I'm not talking about joining hands and singing "Kumbaya." I'm not talking about Political Correctness run amok. I'm talking about simple, basic human rights. The right to hold the hand of someone you love, the right to share your life with them, and the right to make legal decisions together. The right to say, "I love you." I promise you that your world won't end. Your marriage won't be destroyed. But maybe some of the walls that separate us will be. And that's a good thing for everybody. Especially the children... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Completely off topic, but you'll get a kick out of this... In the house of commons there are two white lines. They are the distance apart of two 6 foot men with swords drawn at fullest extent. the sword tips would just touch If someone crossed the line with a drawn sword, the ushers could kill them... I miss those days... Oh. My. God. THAT IS SO FREAKING AWESOME! Nowadays, politicians are fat, lying assholes who could not even wield a sword. Humm, seeing as I am a MtF transsexual, neither can I. The pen is mightier than the sword friend. Your ideas are what counts. From scientific tests, only if the pen is very large and very sharp... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 From scientific tests, only if the pen is very large and very sharp... Oh I dunno GH. Writing things out and having the world read it can be a lot more productive and/or damaging then taking one person out via a sword. Just my $0.02 As the phrase in the Gladiator went... Control the mob.. Control Rome. It's exactly why corporates own the media, the pen is surly mightier then the sword IMO> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Hmmm.... not a Terry Pratchett fan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts