# Will violent gay secular fascists impose their will on Christian America? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 18, 2008, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-violent-gay-secular-fascists-impose-their-will-on-christian-america/473382 "2008-11-18T23:25:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-violent-gay-secular-fascists-impose-their-will-on-christian-america/473382/61 "2008-11-19T17:31:12Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Yeah, but Ned Beatty? Sure, Jon Voight has creepy eyes and Burt Reynolds was probably all stretched out, but NED BEATTY? Jon Voight may have creepy eyes, but he sure do got a purty mouth. RE Ned Beatty: The bigger the cushion… ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-violent-gay-secular-fascists-impose-their-will-on-christian-america/473382/62 "2008-11-19T17:46:38Z")
> [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](#): > > Quit being so damn reasonable, **RT**! > > But seriously, if it is wrong to be uncivil to people who are unjustly restricting your rights, it is IMO purely for external reasons (e.g., such incivility tends to set back the cause of civil rights by creating more hostility in the oppressors toward the oppressed). But if I were (say) a black man living in the Jim Crow South, I really don’t see why a supporter of Jim Crow would have any right to demand or expect my civility toward him. Again, it might be wrong in the sense of counterproductive for me to be uncivil–John Lewis did 1000 times more for civil rights than Eldridge Cleaver–but this wrong is purely extrinsic, not intrinsic to the act, as it were. I’d agree that those who are restricting rights have no basis whatsoever to demand or expect civility towards them in return; humans being what we are, that’s a silly thing to expect, and it’s a rather ludicrous demand on the face of it alone. But, I would still say that such incivility doesn’t get a waiver on moral grounds even in the face of severe provocation. I’d say you’re right about the external ones, but there’s also ourselves to consider. [QUOTE=jsgoddess] Can you define a couple of things for me? “Incivility” and “acceptable.” What do you mean by them? [/QUOTE] Incivility; rudeness, barbed mockery, insults, aggressive behaviour without actual violence. Acceptable, in this case; perfectly fine and decent, reasonable, without argument against. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-violent-gay-secular-fascists-impose-their-will-on-christian-america/473382/63 "2008-11-19T18:27:55Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Incivility; rudeness, barbed mockery, insults, aggressive behaviour without actual violence. Acceptable, in this case; perfectly fine and decent, reasonable, without argument against. For me, there’s no ethical component to rudeness. It’s not pleasant, which means that someone can shun the hell out of you for doing it and consider it not acceptable in their company, but it’s not inherently wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-violent-gay-secular-fascists-impose-their-will-on-christian-america/473382/64 "2008-11-19T18:53:03Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > For me, there’s no ethical component to rudeness. It’s not pleasant, which means that someone can shun the hell out of you for doing it and consider it not acceptable in their company, but it’s not inherently wrong. I would agree, but i’d say the wrongness comes from intent to be unpleasant, which I suspect would be the motivation when we’re talking about things like this. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-violent-gay-secular-fascists-impose-their-will-on-christian-america/473382/65 "2008-11-20T01:48:35Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Because fear is the primary tool used by the powers that be in both the anti-homosexual and the anti-segregation movements, moreso than that in the _**anti-women movements (which were more based on the infantilaztion of women than fear**_). While there were certainly overtones of fear of women (witches and succubi) in the history of women, it wasn’t nearly as dominant as it was in the anti-segregation movement. -_emphasis mine_ Have you read the _Malleus Malificarum?_ It may not have been doctrine at the time it was written, but it was a reflection of the church’s deep misogyny. I wish I still had that list of writings of the early church fathers that demonize women, but I burned them when I got married. These writings put Leviticus to shame. But this is GD, and I can’t back that up, so I’ll retire in silence. I know my place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-violent-gay-secular-fascists-impose-their-will-on-christian-america/473382.md?page=3)