Hate Crimes/culture

[Guest end3]

Society has been that way for centuries based on Christianity. Only now are we starting to depart from the old Christian norms. In the past homosexuality was deemed evil because of the Christian tradition. Today in our society we're able to see that there is nothing wrong with it. Its because we're becoming more and more free to question religious authority that we can see that.

 

I appreciate your efforts, and I think you are sincere. Again, from an evolutionary standpoint....(not something stupid like two males can't reproduce), but from a societal view, what are the specific reasons for and against allowing all relationships as valid. Thanks,

[mcdaddy]

We're starting to realize that hate towards homosexuals based on bronze age myths is evil.

 

That's fine, but very general. Three things.....why did the myth declare it evil. Why did society agree with it. And, why is it ok now.

Because the stories that composed the old testament were written by desert, dwelling, goat herders. It was an agricultural society where marriage was of the up most importance in preserving power and wealth amongst families. That's why in biblical society women were property and their virginity was key in securing a marriage. That's why gays were hated. Its the information age. Those bronze age norms don't matter. We understand so much more about sexuality, psychology, and we have freakin' birth control.

Why are you Christians so supportive of these social norms from a society that existed so long ago and so far away?

 

I don't have an answer about homsexualityJC. I don't subscribe myself, but I can't see the harm against society at this point.....and is the reason I am asking. I DO however have an opinion on women.

 

You don't "subscribe"? Wtf does that mean? You don't know why they are gay? Your "god" (read:nature) created them that way.

 

I'm not attracted to men....i.e. I don't "subscribe". What verbage would be acceptable to you. Please loose the attitude. I am trying to understand here. Obviously society has adopted anti-gay for a long time. What I am looking for in this conversation is what qualities did homosexuality bring to society that made it detrimental in regard to something they would accept of disapprove of. Again, I don't accept that "just because Christianity said so" as a valid answer to what society has done with the stance.

 

And my apologies, by subscribe I thought you meant " I dont get it" and I was thinking, really? But I see what you mean. That's the problem of message boards. No non verbal to go with the written word.....easy to get wires crossed.

[Legion]

Are you going to spank me? Send me to my room?

 

No, of course not. But I'll tell you what I CAN do. I can make your time here miserable. I will hound you like none other.

 

Don't be so jumpy. Try asking me to clarify if you don't agree or understand before you start waving your red flag around like a bad ass.

 

Please don't tell me what to do or what to be. I'm not telling you what to do. You think this little cutsie act you play flies with me? Guess again. I'm telling it to you straight. I'm watching you buddy. And IF I see you pull that "I know you know" bullshit again, I'm going to be on you like stink on shit.

[mcdaddy]

Am I supposed to be frightened? Is that the point of this? Is that what your ego needs to hear?

 

If the person I was talking to didnt take offense to that exact comment , "who the fuck are you" to jump in and wave your dick around? See what I'm saying? Did he ask you to jump in and protect him? Damn. I'm not trying to be the thought police. Just thought the query had an obvious answer. That's it. Maybe I could have worded it so that people other than the intended recipient weren't so easily offended by it, but I didn't know you were policing my posts.

[JoeCoastie]

Society has been that way for centuries based on Christianity. Only now are we starting to depart from the old Christian norms. In the past homosexuality was deemed evil because of the Christian tradition. Today in our society we're able to see that there is nothing wrong with it. Its because we're becoming more and more free to question religious authority that we can see that.

 

I appreciate your efforts, and I think you are sincere. Again, from an evolutionary standpoint....(not something stupid like two males can't reproduce), but from a societal view, what are the specific reasons for and against allowing all relationships as valid. Thanks,

Homosexuality has been observed in in over 1500 species. There's a definite reason it exist. Sexuality is more than just reproducing. Is your attraction to the opposite sex based on the prospect of having a child? Of course not. Sex is a drive we have weather or not we're trying to reproduce. That's why we like all kinds of sex. Protected sex, oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation don't create babies, but people enjoy them none-the-less. Sex between two consenting members of the same sex hurts no one and because we see that it is gaining the societal approval.

Pedophilia and bestiality (I figure this is what you were getting at) hurt people and creatures that can't consent and thus are not gaining societal approval.

[Legion]

Ego, most definitely. No one has yet rid themselves of ego, nor will they.

 

I don't want you to be frightened. I want you to be aware of the consequences of your actions. Let me give it to you one more time. This is called a conditional statement. It's an antecedent followed by a consequent.

 

IF I see you pull that "I know that you know" stuff again, THEN I will be on you like white on rice.

 

I feel very passionately about this. This is an indicator to me of someone who routinely tresspasses upon other people.

[mcdaddy]

#1- that's the last kind of person I am. Seriously.

 

#2- Hug it out bitch!

 

[mcdaddy]

Ego, most definitely. No one has yet rid themselves of ego, nor will they.

 

I don't want you to be frightened. I want you to be aware of the consequences of your actions. Let me give it to you one more time. This is called a conditional statement. It's an antecedent followed by a consequent.

 

IF I see you pull that "I know that you know" stuff again, THEN I will be on you like white on rice.

 

I feel very passionately about this. This is an indicator to me of someone who routinely tresspasses upon other people.

 

If it becomes a problem I'd love to be the first to know. But it's a first time offense (not that I think I did anything wrong) but still, easy on the trigger, dude!

[LivingLife]

I appreciate your efforts, and I think you are sincere. Again, from an evolutionary standpoint....(not something stupid like two males can't reproduce), but from a societal view, what are the specific reasons for and against allowing all relationships as valid. Thanks,

I hope you are not going the route of paedophiles and bestiality? Those have victims.

 

Why acknowledge non traditional relationships? Why not?

 

The only reason to assume gay is wrong is b/c of indoctrination and legacy mindsets.

 

Seeing that gays have been around like forever should indicate that this is a natural occurring thing and legitimising or recognising that fact, is not going to suddenly lead to more gay folk. There may be a spike as more come out of the closet but in reality nothing changes other than society coming to terms with the facts, gays are here to stay, they come from hetero couples.

 

Personally I think folk that judge on the ick factor, male on male watch too much gay porn or think this is how they are 24/7. The same folk have no compunction with girl on girl porn.

[Legion]

#1- that's the last kind of person I am. Seriously.

 

Those who trespass don't normally see what they are doing.

 

#2- Hug it out bitch!

 

Did you just tell me what to do in a cutsie wutsie wittle way? Yeah man, I'm going to be watching you.

[mcdaddy]

Wow. Whatever.

[Paine]

I reject the entire PREMISE that there is such a thing as a HATE crime.

 

CRIME IS HATEFUL BY ITS VERY NATURE>>>and when that hack son of a bitch AGUS, Holder, begins prosecuting his fucking "homies" for beating white folks the same way they jump on the race baiters bandwagon for white on black crime, THEN and only THEN should anyone with a scintilla of intellectual honesty EVEN ENTERTAIN UTTERING THE PHRASE "HATE CRIME".

 

To allow yourself to buy into the concept of HATE crime, and its assumption of a protected class is, by its very nature, intellectually dishonest.

[♦ ficino ♦]

This is what the report in Associated Press says Ravi (the student at Rutgers who webcammed his roommate) was convicted of:

 

"Ravi was convicted in March of invasion of privacy, bias intimidation on the basis of sexual orientation — an offense widely referred to as a hate crime — and trying to cover his tracks by destroying text messages and tweets and tampering with a witness."

 

Here's the link to the full article:

 

http://www.google.co...2d91871f546d926

 

"Sodomy" was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court some years ago.

 

I think population issues definitely have something to do with societies' attitudes toward same-sex relationships. In ancient Sparta, arable land was scarce, and they didn't want to divide up holdings. So men tended to delay marriage. In the meantime, they'd have sex with non-spouses, often other guys. On the eventual wedding night, the new Spartan wife would dress as a boy and come in to her husband and they'd have anal sex. Later on they'd get used to what I suppose was the missionary position (ha ha) and have kids, etc. If the couple could not have kids, the husband would impregnate a slave or other surrogate and adopt that kid. So they had many customs different from those of the ancient Hebrews.

 

Plato's dialogues generally show a positive attitude toward same-sex love, but in the late Laws, a fictionalized law code for a newly-founded city, same-sex relations are banned on the grounds that the new city needs population.

 

The Sioux Indians had a conception of four sexes, not two. The "berdache" was someone who had sex with other men. The role of the berdache was as a teacher and spiritual person. Warriors would go into the berdache's tent before battle. They had a female equivalent of this. Their understanding of human nature was more complex than the Hebrews'.

 

Freud is famous for saying something like a man's greatest fear is "assimilation to the female." But how that is understood depends on culture, and maybe Freud's whole concept behind this statement is culture-bound, I'm not sure. I think many people (men at least) sort of assume that being gay is a way of being like a woman, so they fear it. Being gay is really not a way of being like a woman.

 

Anyway, as a gay teen trying to find a place in the world, I was nevertheless a bit creeped out by guy-on-guy public displays, even though I yearned for someone to love. That's how strong the effects of society and religion are.

[Thackerie]

Not really going to get into this thread — it seems to have been derailed already by some grouchy guy who has appointed himself as forum monitor or something.

 

Just wanted to clear up one thing, though. The jerk with the camera was NOT convicted of a hate crime. He was convicted of four other crimes and given a lousy slap-on-the-wrist 30-DAY sentence.

 

OK. That is all. Carry on.

[midniterider]

Don't understand the question.

 

Just saying before that there culture was anti-gay.....and now a person can be convicted of a "hate" crime for what once was the norm....being anti-gay.. For example, I think there are still sodomy laws on the books in Texas.....which was the norm a number of years ago. Now, one can be convicted of harboring "hate" for still believing the law from 50 years ago......which begs the question, why was homosexuality so agregious that they made laws against it in the first place.

 

Why was homosexuality so agregious? Why was being black so agregious? Why was women voting so agregious? It wasn't agregious at all. It was just hate and people accepted it or were condemned. It was manipulation. People are getting tired of having to hide who they are and are fighting for basic civil rights. Assholes like to control other people, so we have crap like the Defense of Marriage Act and these bible belt states passing laws to keep gays from marrying.

 

Speaking of hate: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/22/video-of-north-carolina-pastors-plan-to-get-rid-of-gays-goes-viral/?hpt=hp_c3

 

I've heard of anti-sodomy laws. I wonder how many cases go to court. :-)

 

Not sure I really agree with the result of the recent court case where this kid videoed his gay roommate having sex resulting in the gay guy committing suicide. What is our definition of bullying and is there an age limit? I think once you are out of high school we should drop the 'bullying' term. Otherwise I could say the IRS bullies me into paying taxes and the cops bully me by writing me tickets and the dentist bullys me by gouging my insurance. Regarding this court case, the guy did not have to jump off a bridge, nor did his maggot roommate have to show the sex video to all his friends. I think whatever type of justice that presides over leaked sex tapes (violation of privacy?) should prevail in this case. Like a lawsuit. When someone can be held criminally responsible for someone else's suicide because of a sex videotape, that worries me.

[Legion]

Mcdaddy, I may have overreacted a little bit. I'm on edge for a variety of reasons.

[BrotherJosh]

I hate to be *that guy* but the word is egregious, not agregious.

[mcdaddy]

Thanks for that. It's all good. Hope whatever is going on gets resolved for you. No worries.

[midniterider]

 

I'm not attracted to men....i.e. I don't "subscribe". What verbage would be acceptable to you. Please loose the attitude. I am trying to understand here. Obviously society has adopted anti-gay for a long time. What I am looking for in this conversation is what qualities did homosexuality bring to society that made it detrimental in regard to something they would accept of disapprove of. Again, I don't accept that "just because Christianity said so" as a valid answer to what society has done with the stance.

 

Homosexuals were 'different' from heterosexuals. Like someone previously said, people fear 'different.' So different becomes 'wrong.' And wrong must therefore be 'illegal' or at least under the control of those who are 'the same.' So ignorant people make ignorant laws that cannot be enforced like 'anti-sodomy' laws or try to control 'different' people by not letting them marry. It is based out of irrational fear.

 

Now if you're asking why some xians blow some scripture out of proportion (resulting in society's stance on things) while totally ignoring other scripture, I dont know.

[Guest end3]

I hate to be *that guy* but the word is egregious, not agregious.

 

sorry, my bad. damn redneck upbringin'

[Legion]

I hate to be *that guy* but the word is egregious, not agregious.

 

sorry, my bad. damn redneck upbringin'

 

There's no need to bash on rednecks yourself End. They'll do that for you. Save your energy.

[Guest end3]

Why was homosexuality so agregious? Why was being black so agregious? Why was women voting so agregious? It wasn't agregious at all. It was just hate and people accepted it or were condemned. It was manipulation. People are getting tired of having to hide who they are and are fighting for basic civil rights. Assholes like to control other people, so we have crap like the Defense of Marriage Act and these bible belt states passing laws to keep gays from marrying.

 

Yes, and this is my question. What specifics are argued today regarding why gays marrying would be detrimental to "the norm". Guess I should do some research rather than burdening.

[mcdaddy]

In redneck country, but I've never been called one. Guess I don't meet the requirements.

[Guest end3]

I hate to be *that guy* but the word is egregious, not agregious.

 

sorry, my bad. damn redneck upbringin'

 

There's no need to bash on rednecks yourself End. They'll do that for you. Save your energy.

 

I'll shoot a big word in here in a minute that the'll have to look up....lol.

[mcdaddy]

Why was homosexuality so agregious? Why was being black so agregious? Why was women voting so agregious? It wasn't agregious at all. It was just hate and people accepted it or were condemned. It was manipulation. People are getting tired of having to hide who they are and are fighting for basic civil rights. Assholes like to control other people, so we have crap like the Defense of Marriage Act and these bible belt states passing laws to keep gays from marrying.

 

Yes, and this is my question. What specifics are argued today regarding why gays marrying would be detrimental to "the norm". Guess I should do some research rather than burdening.

 

Seems from all I hear most aren't so opposed to gays marrying per se, it's a "slippery slope" thing. Because next people will be marrying their pets. It only logically follows.