MTV needs to be bitch slapped

[anu-la1979]

Regarding your comment about race relations:

Race relations have come a long way since before the Civil Rights movement. While I personally believe that some of the policies put forth during that era now only breed resentment among the populace and might be amended to account for the current climate-I personally (as a minority but not an african-american) feel that all of the efforts in terms of education have brought this country forward by LEAPS and BOUNDS. Sure racism exists…but it not as obviously prevalent nor is it as roundly overlooked or condoned as during before the Civil Rights movement. Should we spend more money? Absolutely…the amount of money spent is merely a pittance to this government and is beneficial both economically and spiritually. Moreover, just because not EVERYONE is convinced, doesn’t mean that we should stop educating people on differences and tolerance. Education isn’t an overnight phenomenon-it takes years. And dissent within communities is only natural. What is important is that we swing the balance towards tolerance rather than hate.

I haven’t decided about hate speech laws yet. Not because I’m for racial slurs but because I believe in freedom of speech and I don’t feel that we should bend the principles of our constitution to pander to a PC mindset.

Also I want to point out that not everyone that aligns themselves with Republicans and/or Conservatives is a homophobe, anti-abortion crusader. Some of us just like our tax dollars.

[Pathros_1983]

*Originally posted by anu-la1979 *
**Race relations have come a long way since before the Civil Rights movement. **

TRUE. But they havent gone all the way, have they? I wouldnt dare say cut back programs promoting tolerance of different people, not at all. Im simply saying you can’t codemn someone for their feelings. In Sullivans article, (which prompted me to write this post) he stated how hate because of ignorance can be cured through education, but not all hate is a result of ignorance. There are people who hate gays because they find homosexuality a sin. Some hate gays because they feel threatened by them. Others are envious of them, so they hate them.

I see where you are coming from in your post, and im not at all advocating we cut back prgrams that educate people. That was NOT my intent. My intent was to show that the reasons behind hate are not always ignorance and its not right to codemn those with feelings.

[Slacker]

MTV has always been a pillar of integrity. They have a strict no-drug policy. So they’ll only show videos that contain rampant drug content during “MTV News” updates. Then they’re not showing it, see - it’s news! Remember Smack My Bitch Up?

That’s it though. They’ll only relax their drug standards if it’s late at night, and it’s “news.” Well, unless the song is really popular, like Then I Got High.

The funniest SNL News moment in recent memory is when they commented on MTV’s airing of two days worth of nothing but anti-hate messages in lieu of normal programming. Then they returned to the regularly scheduled Eminem’s “I’m Gonna Cut You Bitch” Weekend.

[puk]

re: Slacker
does MTV even pretend to be serious when they air this kind of crap?

[kaylasdad99]

First, can we clear up the confusion about non-objective vs. objective? Perhaps it’s just me being dense, but given all of the high-profile “celebrity news providers” who make little or no effort to mask their contempt for ideas and opinions not in accord with their own political agendae, I have the impression that the world is chock full of examples of “non-objective journalism.” Purely objective journalism, on the other hand, appears to be in such short supply that a strong argument could be made for the mythical nature of it.

Second, I think I’m ready to weigh in on Pathros_1983’s argument. Pathros (is it all right if I call you Pathros? Or I could just call you Mr. _1983), I think I noticed you in the above agreeing that discriminating is wrong. It would therefore follow that (for a legislator) institutionalizing and codifying discrimination through legislation is also wrong. This leads me to the argument that calling upon legislators to pass such legislation is also also wrong. And finally, using a powerful forum (such as a pulpit, for example) to urge people to lobby their legislators to pass such legislation is also also also wrong. Now, all of the foregoing are ACTS (discriminating, passing legislation, advocating for the passage of legislation, and exhorting others to lobby for the passage of legislation), and are not merely holding thoughts and beliefs.

I really am trying to avoid setting up a strawman, here, a task made more difficult by the fact that I don’t watch MTV, and I didn’t see the programs you have been describing (indeed, outsode of Rock The Vote, I was unaware that MTV had any news operation at all). But it would seem to me, that unless the program was heaping scorn only upon the subjects of “man in the street”-type segments, in which said subjects merely voiced their opinions about the morality of homosexuality and/or the issue of equal rights for gays, you don’t have an argument. After all, you DID concede above, that while THOUGHTS and BELIEFS are not subject to the disapproving scrutiny of the general public (a point with which I agree), ACTIONS and BEHAVIORS can be. Now, to the extent that the aforementioned actions and behaviors are limited to sabre-rattling, as it were, I cannot condone anyone forbidding them (First Amendment). But answering such sabre-rattling with derision, scorn, and contempt in any forum available is quite fair play.

I found this bit somewhat bizarre:

Does that mean those ideas should give way to discrimination? no. Does that mean that we should allow equal gay rights even though we don’t like homosexuality? In the minds of the anti gay rights activists, no.

Ya see, mon ami (see how easy that was? ;)), to not allow gays equal rights IS discrimination. Unless “allow equal gay rights” (a highly nonfelicitous, and I may say, even torturous choice of word order) is not the same as “allow gays equal rights” on your planet, then to say “No” to the one (discrimination) MUST be to say “Yes” to the other (equal rights for gays).

Is there anything that I seemed to have missed in the views you express here? Because I will be glad to read any clarifications of your position that you wish to post.

[Pathros_1983]

I found this bit somewhat bizarre:

Does that mean those ideas should give way to discrimination? no. Does that mean that we should allow equal gay rights even though we don’t like homosexuality? In the minds of the anti gay rights activists, no.

Ya see, mon ami (see how easy that was? ;)), to not allow gays equal rights IS discrimination. Unless “allow equal gay rights” (a highly nonfelicitous, and I may say, even torturous choice of word order) is not the same as “allow gays equal rights” on your planet, then to say “No” to the one (discrimination) MUST be to say “Yes” to the other (equal rights for gays)

I said in the eyes of those opposed to equal rights for qays, not me.

Purely objective journalism, on the other hand, appears to be in such short supply that a strong argument could be made for the mythical nature of it.

perhaps, but this is the BBQ pit, and im ranting!

It would therefore follow that (for a legislator) institutionalizing and codifying discrimination through legislation is also wrong. This leads me to the argument that calling upon legislators to pass such legislation is also also wrong. And finally, using a powerful forum (such as a pulpit, for example) to urge people to lobby their legislators to pass such legislation is also also also wrong. Now, all of the foregoing are ACTS (discriminating, passing legislation, advocating for the passage of legislation, and exhorting others to lobby for the passage of legislation), and are not merely holding thoughts and beliefs.

Ok so let me reiterate something, and if its unclear let me know. I agree descrimination is wrong. I acclaim that legistlating against hate is impossible, but against descrimination is not. So why not legislate against descrimination against gays? Because, like I said before, these people equate homosexuality with murder. (on a fundamental level, in that its a sin) Im not advocating this idea, or codemning it. Im simply saying its how they feel, and its their right to feel that way. If you disagree with that, and want to push forward towards legilsation “educating” that holding those ideas is wrong, then you’d have to deal with education that goes against some interpetatios of the bible. Thats a whole other thread.

As for the program im describing? Perhaps my rant is more at MTV at a whole (that targets youth), but for the program in question it was a push to end descrimination, that entailed a movie about Matthew Shepard, and then a q and a segment afterwords. I was simply ranting on the ideas they expressed. (refer back to my OP to see what im talking about)

Im not sure, but did you miss the point I was getting across? That MTV abuses its power to fill the youth with nonsense? That nonsense being this whole idea of “hate is bad because you have to love everyone.” That sounds cynical and BAD, (its late best word I could think of) but I think you can get my point by reading all of my other posts.

PS - yes there are gramatical and speeling (Pfffft) errors, but I really don’t care enough to look over them.

[kaylasdad99]

Are we using the same meaning of the word discrimination, here? I’m talking about institutionalized discrimination, as codified in the law (e.g. no teaching credential held by a homosexual will be deemed valid in the state of South Crackerfornia). Please note that I am unaware of any of the fifty states having that law on the books, which is why I invented a fifty-first state to attribute it to. But I think it illustrates my point about what I mean when I speak of discrimination in this thread; after all, it is within the memory of living man that Anita Bryant strongly advocated for a law in Florida that would have that same effect. You, on the other hand, appear to have in mind private party discrimination, such as can be practiced by anyone, simply by acting like a prick (e.g. Fred Phelps – no relation – has a yard sale, and for every gay man who tries to buy an item, he adds fifty dollars to the price). Is this the type of discrimination you think shouldn’t be legislated against? I hope you don’t believe we shouldn’t legislate against the type in the first example.

As to the issue of MTV filling the heads of the young with nonsense, I agree with you. I’ve always had a brief against MTV; they believe that music is a visual art, and I believe music is an aural art. My blind musician wife thinks so, too. So, I’ve never watched it, and I only even know about Rock The Vote because NPR mentioned once it so they could relate the whole “boxers or briefs?” incident. As such, I’m wholly unequipped to discern whether the program you speak of is nonsense.

As to spelling errors, Pfffft, yourself. I couldn’t care less about your spelling errors; I just want to be able to understand what you post, whatever language it’s in.

I apologize for the “your planet” dig; so tell me: do you support equal rights for gays?

[Oblong]

I didn’t read all the way through so my apologies if it’s been brought up.

If “hate is good”, as you argue,

I don’t think he argued hate was good. He’s saying that in a free society, there will be people who hate. It’s the nature of the beast.

We have a constitutional right to hate for whatever reason we like. It’s when he act in an illegal way on that hate that it becomes a problem.

Prejudice and discrimination are not the same thing. Prejudice is protected by the first amendment.

What I object to is MTV’s, and others, insinuations that if you oppose hate crime laws, then you are a bigot who thinks Mathew Shepard got what he deserved.

[Pathros_1983]

*Originally posted by Oblong *
**I didn’t read all the way through so my apologies if it’s been brought up.

If “hate is good”, as you argue,

I don’t think he argued hate was good. He’s saying that in a free society, there will be people who hate. It’s the nature of the beast.

We have a constitutional right to hate for whatever reason we like. It’s when he act in an illegal way on that hate that it becomes a problem.

Prejudice and discrimination are not the same thing. Prejudice is protected by the first amendment.

What I object to is MTV’s, and others, insinuations that if you oppose hate crime laws, then you are a bigot who thinks Mathew Shepard got what he deserved. **

Thank you, oblong, you summed up exactly what I was trying to say.

As for whether or not I support equality for gays? First of all, in the situation of the gay man at the yard sale, I would not hike up the price 50 dollars because he was gay. If a a piece of legislation came about that would openly segregate gays, or put them in a sort of caste system (ie crow laws of the past) then I would be against it. Of course, that can be interpeted in many ways, such as would I support full out equal rights (because one could assume that If I dont agree with agree segregation, then I should be supportive of all equal rights). If I saw legistlation that wanted to give gays the rights to marry, or anything of that nature,(im not sure what gays are and are not allowed) I would oppose it. Why? Because I feel that homosexuality IS wrong, and I would not want to raise my children in a society where gays have respected positions of power and are looked upon (and their lifestyle) as acceptable and prehaps admirable. Does that mean I would tell my kids to go beat up the gay kid because he was not “right?” No, I would tell my children to do what Jesus would do, and “love the sinner, not the sin.” Does that mean I have a problem with the mayor of my city being homosexual? If that were the case, yes, but all that I could or would do to prevent that was to not vote for them. I wouldnt support legislation that forbids gays from participating in government or any part of society, but if the traditional laws, set up on Christian ideals, do not accept homosexuality or recognize it in certain instances, then I would not support legislation that would ammend that. That seems contradictary - not allowing gays to marry but allowing them in government - but I don’t see a problem with the status quo as it is now. Does that make sense? Where would I need to clarify?

[kaylasdad99]

Thank you for your candor thus far. One more question, if you will, and then I think the issue of clarity will be dealt with. Certain municipalities will have in place lists of conditions which would disqualify a person from holding elected office. Such conditions might include:
being a convicted felon,
being a non-citizen of the United States of America,
being a past holder of a given office (in places where term limits apply),
being younger than the legal voting age
among others.

Would you be comfortable with having being a homosexual on such a list?

[Pathros_1983]

*Originally posted by kaylasdad99 *
**Thank you for your candor thus far. One more question, if you will, and then I think the issue of clarity will be dealt with. Certain municipalities will have in place lists of conditions which would disqualify a person from holding elected office. Such conditions might include:
being a convicted felon,
being a non-citizen of the United States of America,
being a past holder of a given office (in places where term limits apply),
being younger than the legal voting age
among others.

Would you be comfortable with having being a homosexual on such a list? **

There have been people who would add being Mormon to that list, and I cannot oppose that and be in support of not allowing someone who is gay to hold office. Does that mean I agree or accept them holding that office? No, but as I said, all that I would do to stop that would to simply vote for the other guy. Public officials, after all, are a representation of the people, and if the people in large choose someone who is homoesexual then that is their choice. Does that mean eventually then there will be full rights for gays? Maybe, but unlike the civil rights movement, you are dealing with an opposition that takes religion into account, and youd have to get rid of religion first. That will never happen.

[MrVisible]

Originally posted by Pathros_1983

Because I feel that homosexuality IS wrong, and I would not want to raise my children in a society where gays have respected positions of power and are looked upon (and their lifestyle) as acceptable and prehaps admirable.

I want you to read, and reread that sentence, Pathros. Read it as many times as you can stand it. And every time you look in the mirror from now on, know that you are looking into the face of a deeply prejudiced person.

As a gay man, there is nothing I can do to earn your respect. If I was to be the architect of a peace treaty that would wrap things up in the Middle East without another shot being fired, it wouldn’t qualify me, in your view, to be a member of the Senate, because of my sexual orientation. If I could come up with a cure for cancer, you would not believe that I was qualified to oversee a government health agency. If I had the military genius of a Patton or a Napoleon, you wouldn’t, if it was up to you, let me be in the military.

That’s the definition of prejudice, you know. Pre-judging people, based not on their abilities and their character, but on criteria which are completely irrelevant to the situation. When you say that I shouldn’t be “acceptable” because you believe the way that I am is wrong, you’re judging me without knowing anything else about me.

Let me tell you a little bit about myself, and then I want to tell you a bit about what it’s like to be a homosexual in this country right now. I’ve heard thousands of times that gay people choose to be gay, and that is often used as justification for prejudice and hatred. Not that that makes any sense. But for your information, I first discovered that I was attracted to other guys when I was thirteen years old. Take a moment to think about that. Remember being thirteen? The insecurity, the longing to fit in, the feeling of ostracism? Why, at that age, would I have possibly made a choice that would alienate me from my family and friends, make me the object of derision, both from individuals and from my culture in general, and make it much more difficult to simply live my life? I didn’t have a choice; my sexual orientation, (not “lifestyle”) was not my choice.

In the many years since that realization, I’ve worked hard to be a good person. I’m kind to my family, friends, and the people around me. I’ve got a difficult job, that I do well, and cheerfully. I give to my community, I pay my taxes, and I try hard to live well, and do good.

Recently, I met this guy. He’s great; caring, gentle, playful, funny, smart, handsome… I’m thinking that I would really like to spend the rest of my life making him happy.

If that happens, here’s some of what I have to look forward to.

If he becomes ill, and has to be hospitalized, even if we had been together for a decade, I wouldn’t be allowed visitation rights as a family member. Imagine, if you will, being denied permission to see your wife when she was sick, and needed you.

If I wanted to have him covered under my health insurance, in most cases, I’m out of luck. Nothing I do can substitute, in the eyes of the insurance company, for that government-issued marriage certificate.

There are a lot of things that hetero couples get, without question, that gay couples are denied. In fact, there are 1049 of them in this list, compiled by the General Accounting Office of the US government.

I’m attracted to members of my own gender. Why should that mean that I can’t earn your respect and acceptance as a human being? Why should that mean that my government denies me the rights that are enjoyed by everyone else?

Please keep in mind, when you answer, that I don’t belong to your religion; I don’t believe in a god that can condemn people for loving each other. How can two people loving each other be a sin?

[Pathros_1983]

First of all, re - read what I have said in my many posts. If you had, then you wouldn’t have said some of the things that you said. Furthermore, this has NOTHING to do with the OP.

*Originally posted by MrVisible *
I want you to read, and reread that sentence, Pathros. Read it as many times as you can stand it. And every time you look in the mirror from now on, know that you are looking into the face of a deeply prejudiced person.

So if I find something morally unacceptable, then in the name of being tolerant, I should accept that persons lifestyle? What does that say for moral standards? Note what I say here: I FEEL homosexuality is wrong. You can condemn my feelings, but I’m somehow prejudiced for feeling the way I do?

As a gay man, there is nothing I can do to earn your respect. If I was to be the architect of a peace treaty that would wrap things up in the Middle East without another shot being fired, it wouldn’t qualify me, in your view, to be a member of the Senate, because of my sexual orientation. If I could come up with a cure for cancer, you would not believe that I was qualified to oversee a government health agency. If I had the military genius of a Patton or a Napoleon, you wouldn’t, if it was up to you, let me be in the military.

Read my OP. I quote a gay rights activist. If I didn’t have respect for his intelligence, do you feel that I would have made reference to his ideas? I DO respect his abilities as a person, but I do not respect his lifestyle. If Napoleon were gay, then I would respect his genius as a military leader, but would not consider him a moral icon because of his sexual preference

That’s the definition of prejudice, you know. Pre-judging people, based not on their abilities and their character, but on criteria which are completely irrelevant to the situation. When you say that I shouldn’t be “acceptable” because you believe the way that I am is wrong, you’re judging me without knowing anything else about me.

I knew Andrew Sullivan was gay before I even read his essay, yet I still read and admire his abilities as a writer. I saw no prejudice there. I Do admit that if I were say a gay person is unable to perform a job, or is somehow not as smart as me because they were gay, then yes, that would be prejudice. Saying that the standards they live are not acceptable because I do not find homosexuality morally justifiable, is not.

Let me tell you a little bit about myself, and then I want to tell you a bit about what it’s like to be a homosexual in this country right now. I’ve heard thousands of times that gay people choose to be gay, and that is often used as justification for prejudice and hatred. Not that that makes any sense. But for your information, I first discovered that I was attracted to other guys when I was thirteen years old. Take a moment to think about that. Remember being thirteen? The insecurity, the longing to fit in, the feeling of ostracism? Why, at that age, would I have possibly made a choice that would alienate me from my family and friends, make me the object of derision, both from individuals and from my culture in general, and make it much more difficult to simply live my life? I didn’t have a choice; my sexual orientation, (not “lifestyle”) was not my choice…
Please keep in mind, when you answer, that I don’t belong to your religion; I don’t believe in a god that can condemn people for loving each other. How can two people loving each other be a sin?

Okay these two quotes tie in together. Why? Because your lack of faith in “my God” probably answers a lot. Its your agency to choose what to worship. If you don’t believe or share in my faith, then that’s fine. But I can no more help having the testimony that I have, as you say you cannot help your sexual orientation. If your sexual orientation finds fault with my religion’s views, as my religious views obviously find fault in your lifestyle, then so be it. That was the whole bloody point of the OP, that people don’t accept the fact that others have faith in something different. I respect that others are gay, even though I find it an abomination. Just like I would expect you or anyone else to respect my religion, even though you may not have faith in it, or accept its views towards your lifestyle. The only time my religion would be the one at fault, would be if it promoted destructive behavior of gays, because they chose to be gay. Did I not say, “love the sinner, not the sin?” Did I not say that I would not support legislation extending the oppression, as you see if, of gays? In my first few posts, I stayed away from labeling gays, or condemning them from a personal point of view. Only when asked, did I offer my person opinion, and that opinion in your mind is somehow less important than yours, even though mine is based in religion.

I don’t believe in a god that can condemn people for loving each other. How can two people loving each other be a sin?

Again, that is your agency. But if you want a theological answer (which doesn’t belong in this thread) then I will tell you, two people loving each other is NOT a sin. What is a sin, is the way you love other guys and how that conflicts with the most basic of Christian ideas, and that is creationism. I’m sure you’ve heard, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” If someone so whole heartedly believes in this faith, then would they not see homosexuality as a sin?

Recently, I met this guy. He’s great; caring, gentle, playful, funny, smart, handsome… I’m thinking that I would really like to spend the rest of my life making him happy.
If that happens, here’s some of what I have to look forward to.
If he becomes ill, and has to be hospitalized, even if we had been together for a decade, I wouldn’t be allowed visitation rights as a family member. Imagine, if you will, being denied permission to see your wife when she was sick, and needed you.
If I wanted to have him covered under my health insurance, in most cases, I’m out of luck. Nothing I do can substitute, in the eyes of the insurance company, for that government-issued marriage certificate.
There are a lot of things that hetero couples get, without question, that gay couples are denied. In fact, there are 1049 of them in this list, compiled by the General Accounting Office of the US government.
I’m attracted to members of my own gender. Why should that mean that I can’t earn your respect and acceptance as a human being? Why should that mean that my government denies me the rights that are enjoyed by everyone else?

If you have a problem with those laws then go back to the fundamental roots of ALL laws in this country, and that is the bible. The bible does not accept homosexuality. Neither does the laws of this country. This country, however, does NOT make laws to oppress gays further. The laws that do keep gays “oppressed” are those that do not recognize a moral bonding between two men, or two women, because that is, in the traditional sense, not a part of the creation. You can disagree all you want, but that is the basic fact of it. You can not have faith in this, but again, that is the basic fact of it. If you want to live freely – where you can practice gay marriages and have equal rights for gays, then perhaps go somewhere where it is accepted. The majority of Americans, disagree with homosexuality, and therefore would not, on a fundamental Christian level, allow it to be “acceptable.” (note for future reference, when I say something I usually say “I” – when I talk about the masses, I will not… so do not quote my ideas when I’m referring to the masses.)

[Zaphod_Beeblebrox]

kaylasdad99 wrote:

French, huh? Odd, because I ran it through a couple of dictionary sites, looking for definitions in both English and French, and still couldn’t find it.

Actually, though the common spelling is péquenot, the word is a perfectly real French slang word. Though it is not used in French-speaking Canada, it’s quite common in France.

[kaylasdad99]

*Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox *
**kaylasdad99 wrote:

French, huh? Odd, because I ran it through a couple of dictionary sites, looking for definitions in both English and French, and still couldn’t find it.

Actually, though the common spelling is péquenot, the word is a perfectly real French slang word. Though it is not used in French-speaking Canada, it’s quite common in France. **

I guess I must have selected some kind of hoity-toity dictionaries that don’t count slang as real words.

But once Pathros_1983 gave me “yokel” I went right to Babelfish and got péquenaud. Go figure.

[MrVisible]

Ahem.

Originally posted by Pathros

First of all, re - read what I have said in my many posts. If you had, then you wouldn’t have said some of the things that you said. Furthermore, this has NOTHING to do with the OP.

I reread your posts. And I’m impressed; you really do spout the rhetoric of ignorance thoroughly. I particularly loved that “Adam and Steve” bit. Original? No. Interesting? No. Prove anything? No. But man, was it hackneyed. Sure went a long way towards establishing your credibility as an open-minded kinda bigot.

And as to the OP, you were bashing MTV for bashing gay bashers. Incoherently. Starting a thread like that, and then acting surprised when your homophobia is called into question is a bit unrealistic, isn’t it?

Okay, now to the meat of the matter.

If your sexual orientation finds fault with my religion’s views, as my religious views obviously find fault in your lifestyle, then so be it. That was the whole bloody point of the OP, that people don’t accept the fact that others have faith in something different. I respect that others are gay, even though I find it an abomination.

The difference between you and me, Pathros, is that I never called your religious practices an abomination. I never condemned your viewpoint, or your religion. I said I didn’t ascribe to it. I’ve never lobbied to keep anti-religious laws in place. I’ve never considered not supporting a political candidate whose policies I agreed with because of their religious background.

I don’t object to your feelings, Pathros. I object to your actions. You see, some people feel the need to do harm to others, for no real rational reason. Mature people, moral people, keep those feelings in check. You, apparently, haven’t yet reached that level of maturity. Let me present some quotes:

. If you want to live freely – where you can practice gay marriages and have equal rights for gays, then perhaps go somewhere where it is accepted. The majority of Americans, disagree with homosexuality, and therefore would not, on a fundamental Christian level, allow it to be “acceptable.”

If I saw legistlation that wanted to give gays the rights to marry, or anything of that nature,(im not sure what gays are and are not allowed) I would oppose it. Why? Because I feel that homosexuality IS wrong, and I would not want to raise my children in a society where gays have respected positions of power and are looked upon (and their lifestyle) as acceptable and prehaps admirable.

Does that mean I have a problem with the mayor of my city being homosexual? If that were the case, yes, but all that I could or would do to prevent that was to not vote for them.

Look, a lot of people who are against gay rights (not necessarily ME) are against it because they find it to be an abomination. They easily equate homosexuality with murder. So, do murderers have much freedom in this country? No. Now im not saying that homosexuals are that level of a person, im just saying that a lot of anti gay rights activists easily equate them as such. Hence to justify their feelings. Perhaps its dixiecratic, but perhaps its just fundamentalist Christianity.

I’m going to let your prejudice speak for itself there. If you can’t see how acting on these beliefs is hurting and oppressing your fellow human beings, then there’s nothing that I can say that will help relieve your ignorance.

I want to present you with a question, though. Is it right to impose Christian values on non-Christians, through legislation? Keeping in mind, of course, that we live in a country (assuming that you are in the United States) where the separation of church and state was a major impetus behind its origin? That there is a constitutional amendment establishing such a separation?

To quote James Madison during the congressional debates on the First Amendment,

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

And if that’s unclear, here’s the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States itself:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the freedom of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Are you getting this? I have as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in this country as you do. Your religion does not give you the right to oppress me, just because it tells you that I am an abomination. Stop opposing laws that will give me the same legal rights and protections as every other law-abiding citizen in this country, stop calling me an abomination, and I will be happy to respect whatever beliefs you hold, as long as you’re not using them as an excuse to hurt other people.

[Pathros_1983]

I reread your posts. And I’m impressed; you really do spout the rhetoric of ignorance thoroughly. I particularly loved that “Adam and Steve” bit. Original? No. Interesting? No. Prove anything? No. But man, was it hackneyed. Sure went a long way towards establishing your credibility as an open-minded kinda bigot.

Rhetoric of ignorance, that’s original. Resulting to personal insults? Genius. When I said the Adam and Steve bit, I said “I’m sure you’ve heard of this before.” I never intended to be original or creative by using that saying. I used it to support how flawed you were in thinking how can “god condemn someone for loving someone else.” Or rather how flawed you were in interpreting Christian beliefs. It does prove something. It proves a fundamental belief as to why Christians oppose homosexuality. You, apparently don’t believe in that, but that is your choice.

And as to the OP, you were bashing MTV for bashing gay bashers. Incoherently. Starting a thread like that, and then acting surprised when your homophobia is called into question is a bit unrealistic, isn’t it?

From what I understand Homophobia would be someone who’s afraid of being gay. Even if that isn’t the case, would it not be someone who’s generally afraid of gays? I tried to not let this get into a morality of homosexuality argument, but rather a thread ranting at MTV. See the subject? yeah, this thread wasn’t intended to bash gays, but has been interpreted as such by questions that were presented to me first, not vice versa.

The difference between you and me, Pathros, is that I never called your religious practices an abomination. I never condemned your viewpoint, or your religion. I said I didn’t ascribe to it. I’ve never lobbied to keep anti-religious laws in place. I’ve never considered not supporting a political candidate whose policies I agreed with because of their religious background. I don’t object to your feelings, Pathros. I object to your actions. You see, some people feel the need to do harm to others, for no real rational reason. Mature people, moral people, keep those feelings in check. You, apparently, haven’t yet reached that level of maturity. Let me present some quotes:

That sure is admirable. You can now claim the better person because of it. Now tell me, when did I ever condone action that would harm homosexuals because of their lifestyle, or did I physically harm someone for being gay? NEVER. In fact, I do recall stating that I condemn people who do that. Did I not say, “love the sinner, not the sin?” Right. I keep my feelings in “check” in the manner that I would never condone violence because someone was gay. Does that mean I accept them for being gay? I accept the persons choice as being their choice, but I do not accept that choice as being the right one. (even though you would argue it was never your choice, you get my picture there)I also said I would never vote for someone who was homosexual because it would be accepting that lifestyle. If you voted for someone who was of a certain religion, then you would be voting for the morals that they have that could be associated with that religion, correct? After all, its those morals which affect their decision making, is it not?

I’m going to let your prejudice speak for itself there. If you can’t see how acting on these beliefs is hurting and oppressing your fellow human beings, then there’s nothing that I can say that will help relieve your ignorance. I want to present you with a question, though. Is it right to impose Christian values on non-Christians, through legislation? Keeping in mind, of course, that we live in a country (assuming that you are in the United States) where the separation of church and state was a major impetus behind its origin? That there is a constitutional amendment establishing such a separation?

Do you complain when laws prevent a criminal from doing whatever they want to do? Or how about a convicted sex offender? Do you try to pass legislation that gives people sitting in jail the same rights as those who are not? As for my prejudice, how do you propose to resolve my prejudice? Send me to sensitivity training that will tell me all that I’ve felt, known, and searched for years about God is a lie, and that your moral standards are superior than my own? When it comes to creating laws, I agree, it should not be in a direct conflict as to oppress someone from practicing their beliefs. But what if those beliefs are destructive? what if someone commits murder or thievery on account of their religion? whether you want to admit it or not, all of modern laws have basis in religious views of “right and wrong.”

Are you getting this? I have as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in this country as you do. Your religion does not give you the right to oppress me, just because it tells you that I am an abomination. Stop opposing laws that will give me the same legal rights and protections as every other law-abiding citizen in this country, stop calling me an abomination, and I will be happy to respect whatever beliefs you hold, as long as you’re not using them as an excuse to hurt other people.

Right, you have as much as to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so much as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others, and is in complete harmony with the law. If the law forbids gay marriage because of its basis in Christian beliefs then so be it. Madison had a good point, and that applies directly towards you, but it also applies towards those Christian who would view gay marriage as being something that would directly violate what they consider to be their religious beliefs. Legally speaking, perhaps gay rights should be left to the states, and if the majority of that state allows gay marriage, then so be it. I would still not agree with it, but would accept it because it is their right to do that. If gays were the majority in America, and were allowed marriage, I would still view that wrong, but would be powerless to stop it because that would be the will of the majority. These same arguments were used in the Civil Rights movement of the 60s, but there’s one VERY important difference here. That being that now, its rooted in religious doctrine.

Again, where have I condoned hurting gays because they are gay? Do you have to insist that is what I’m doing so as to make me seem more “evil?” You can say that you are the better person because you don’t see ME as an abomination, but by telling me to violate my moral principle, you are in turn doing exactly what I am doing, and as I said before, that is your choice, your agency, your freedom think and feel that way, but not how I feel, therefore not how I’m SUPPOSED to feel.

[MrVisible]

Originally posted by Pathros_1983

Now tell me, when did I ever condone action that would harm homosexuals because of their lifestyle, or did I physically harm someone for being gay?

Well, gee, thanks so much for not advocating beating the crap out of me. You’re a real pal. But tell me; do you not see the harm in equating homosexuality with murder? Criminal offenses? Equating gay men with sex offenders? Do you not see the harm in spreading hatred of your fellow human beings?

Here’s one question for you, Pathros. Think about this. Think really hard.

When I have sex with my boyfriend, who am I hurting?

[Pathros_1983]

*Originally posted by MrVisible *
Do you not see the harm in spreading hatred of your fellow human beings? Here’s one question for you, Pathros. Think about this. Think really hard. When I have sex with my boyfriend, who am I hurting? **

(yes I know thats not the full quote, but thats what Im addresssing in this post) When you have sex with your boyfriend, you hurt no one, (but in my mind) yourself. Its when society accepts and says what you do with your boyfriend is “ok” then do I think it hurts people. (not in a physical sense) So as to spreading hatred? YOU KEEP IGNORING ONE THING THAT IM SAYING OVER AND OVER. “love the sinner, not the sin.” I do not spread hatred of gays, I spread dissaproval of homosexuality.

Read Sullivans article, then maybe you’ll see what I’m talking about.

[Oblong]

When I have sex with my boyfriend, who am I hurting?

Don’t sell yourself short.

Sorry, couldnt resist!