The abortion debate I understand, the gay rights issue escapes me.

[Hamlette]

We should be able to win the gay rights issue. It astonishes and saddens me. I'm completely pro choice but at least I see the other point of view on that issue.

there is nothing on the other side of the gay issue except bigotry.

Is there something I am missing?

[FreedomAngel82]

1. That's all I got

Just bigotry and "religious reasons." These people forget that the Bible does NOT rule our land.

[benevolent dictator]

5. They also pick and choose from the Old Testament

I've yet to have anyone meet my challenge of finding something Jesus said in his teachings about homosexuality, they're always quoting from Leviticus and parts of the Bible that say things like we should stone people to death for wearing to kinds of fabric blended together.

They just pick and choose to fit their prejudices.

[Djinn]

15. unfortunately so do "good" religious types

most religious people base their beliefs on a text that can be interpreted a million different ways. There is no way of saying exactly which interpretation is correct - taking the bible as an example, it was written over a 1000 years ago, over several decades, by several people, in a language that only a tiny handful of people living in Syria still speak (although even that is a modern version of Aramaic) and was edited over the years to fit various political neccesities.

I would like to think that if Jesus existed he was of the "love your brother" persuasion rather than the "smote" persuasion but we don't know.

That's why ALL religion should be completely and utterly kept out of politics.

If one's religion precludes one from doing something more power to you but don't use it as a justification to prevent me from doing something or conversely to compel me to do something.

Unfortunately some religious people beleive it is a compulsion of their religion to bring everyone else into the fold - that's their justification for their bigotry towards gay people. Doesn't help when leaders of religious groups (of ALL persuasions) bang on about evil homosexuality is.

[benevolent dictator]

35. I agree

"taking the bible as an example, it was written over a 1000 years ago, over several decades, by several people, in a language that only a tiny handful of people living in Syria still speak (although even that is a modern version of Aramaic) and was edited over the years to fit various political neccesities.

I would like to think that if Jesus existed he was of the "love your brother" persuasion rather than the "smote" persuasion but we don't know."

The funny/sad thing is, I've met people who when I told them that it could have been mistranslated or misinterpreted over the centuries as it was written and rewritten, they've come back with "Well there's really only the two main versions we use, the King James Version and NIV."
To which I say, "Hmm... that's right, I forgot, the Bible was written all at once all by one person all in an easily translatable language. That's right..." :sarcasm:

I have no problem if people want to take the Bible as a metaphor or just a general guidline for life ("Thou shalt not kill" sounds good). In fact, I have no problem if people want to take it more literally than that, but I think that those people using the Bible to justify gay-bashing should have to live kosher, keep the sabbeth, and not wear poly-cotton blends, not pick and choose the laws from Leviticus that they want to follow. If Leviticus and Exodus are right about gays, why would they be wrong about all those other laws that no one chooses to follow anymore? They pick and choose to hide their bigotry under a mask of religion. They claim to be Christians but then don't follow any of Jesus' actual teachings.

[JohnnyCougar]

39. Well, actually...

Djinn sayeth:

I would like to think that if Jesus existed he was of the "love your brother" persuasion rather than the "smote" persuasion but we don't know.

That's one thing that there is pretty moch zero speculation on. Four seperate authors at four different times say exactly the same thing about Jesus. His life was an example of strict non-violence, and he taught people that everyone's life has value - from the lowest leper to the highest king. He taught people that "sinners" are to be firgiven and cared for, and not cast off and hated. He taught us that the real sins were the sins of state and society, where institutions classify people as good or evil based on their attained social power, and not their good deeds.

When you see fundimentalists praising Jesus, and then judging their neighbor right afterwards, they don't know Jesus. In fact, they don't even have the slightest clue. But I have to tell you, Jesus was a very smart man. If you remain patient with people and show them you care about them, even the looniest fundy will listen to you. Reacting to people and "hating" them for what they do only adds to their peril. To get people to listen to you, you must show a genuine intention for peace and understanding. It almost never fails.

[Djinn]

48. problem is JohnnyCougar

is that no-one knows whether Jesus existed at all, yes I get the point about "faith" but I honestly don't see how you claiming YOU know Jesus but others don't is any better than the fundies doing thr same thing

[JohnnyCougar]

9. It's not the Bible that is dictating their behavior.

They SAY it is the Bible.

Their own fears dictate their behavior. They manipulate the Bible's words to support their fear-based actions. The entire Republican message is an appeal to fear alone.

[Karenina]

20. Yurbud posted this some days ago

and I have yet to stop laughing! It's BRILLIANT and priceless!!! :rofl:

yurbud Donating member (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-23-05 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
15. The real reason men oppose gay marriage


By Les Veeryl


Legalizing gay marriage will undermine marriage and family for one simple reason: most men find it extremely difficult remaining heterosexual.

Only cultural pressure forces us to seek the company of women and competition with other men drives us to find the most attractive women, just as it drives us to buy the biggest SUV.

This is also why once we have gone to all the trouble seduce a woman, our sexual encounters are so brutal, brief, and disappointing for the woman. As much as we try not to think about it, it’s just not a man.

Most women become unconsciously aware of this over the course of their marriage, which is why they cut their hair progressively shorter and cultivate the physique of John Madden, hoping the resemblance will catch our eye and rekindle our original feigned passion.

The cultural norm of heterosexuality forces us to channel our desires into sports, so we have the excuse to touch each other in violence that society would not allow in love. As we grow older, this pattern continues with male exclusive outings like golf, hunting, and fishing. Wealthy men feel less of a necessity to preserve the façade of woman lovers and have male only clubs, where than can merrily chat naked in steam rooms and smoke cigars.

It is torture enough to be forced by our wives to watch Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and see the care-free life of abandoning society’s blind devotion to procreation. I have to remind myself that it’s just a TV show, that there aren’t really people like that in the world.

But what if men were allowed to marry?

That could be enough to push many of us over the edge.

If I knew society would tolerate my true orientation, what would stop me from telling that blonde guy at the club that he looks good in the shower, and then asking him out for more than a beer? And unlike a woman, who requires months of pleading and showering with gifts before sex, another man would gladly give it up in the parking lot on the way to get the beer.

What would make my son, a handsome running back who just started shaving his chest, strive to achieve at school and establish a career if he knew instead he could simply find an older sugar daddy to marry who will shower him with gifts and pedicures?

President Bush has proposed banning gay marriage not out of ignorance prejudice or spite, but personal necessity. On a trip to Canada a while back, he said to the Prime Minister’s press secretary:

Well, you got a pretty face. You got a pretty face. You're a good-looking guy. Better looking than my Scott anyway.Text


More recently, he actually had a gay prostitute pretend to be a reporter in White House press conferences as some sort of role-playing fetish.

If even our president can barely restrain his homosexual impulses, isn’t obvious that a constitutional amendment banning marriage is all that stands between us and a fashion-conscious, color-coordinated, poodle-walking Armageddon?

[jsw_81]

41. I love it!

That's classic.

[lenidog]

2. Some also try and wrap the issue up as special rights

basically the say that gays have the same protections as other citizens so they don't need anything more. Its nothing more than camoflage for bigotry.

[Ravenseye]

33. Exactly it's Camoflage

Saying they have the same rights is like saying 100 years ago that Blacks don't need to legally be able to marry whites. They can marry other Blacks, so they have the same rights.

Of course people get upset (some people) when you compare gay rights to racial rights.

All I know is that the gay people that I know deserve to be able to marry each other. I can't imagine what it would take (Cheney) to know a gay person, love that gay person, yet still not do everythign in your power to provide them with the rights they deserve.

[Ravenseye]

34. dupe error (nt)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. that about sums it up

[Hippo_Tron]

4. The gay population of this country is like 2%

America treats minorities like complete shit until they become a threat to them.

[Solly Mack]

6. Not missing anything....it's bigotry

[BattyDem]

7. You're not missing anything ... it's all about bigotry

The arguments against gay marriage are the same as the arguments that were used years ago against interfaith marriage and interracial marriage: it's immoral, it will harm children and it will undermine the institution of marriage.

Do a Google ... you'll find a lot of info about it. It's amazing how the bigots in this country keep using the same arguments over and over again against different groups of people. :eyes:


edited for clarity

[BlackVelvetElvis]

8. It's all about FEAR.

The mere existence of GLBT people scare the crap out of them.
Why else would they say "I don't hate gays, I just wish they'd go back into the closet."
I held hands with a girlfriend of mine in public and was threatened by 5 rednecks with beer bottles. I didn't know I had that kind of power!

[Djinn]

16. they were probably just jealous

especially if your girlfriend has all her own teeth and only one head!

[BlackVelvetElvis]

56. I got in my car and chased them down.

Watch the rednecks run!

[gumby]

10. Excuse me?

You don't understand the "bigotry" against gays but you "understand" the bigotry against women?

[REP]

11. Took The Words Outta My Fingers

It's okay to deny women basic human rights? There's two sides to that issue? WHAT?

[Jack_DeLeon]

18. I think his point is....

that he understands why people are against abortion, becauase they think it is murder. Which IMO it might not be, however its definately killing.

While the post doesnt understand why people are against gays since its nothing like murder or killing.

[Hamlette]

42. actually, I'm a she, I've had an abortion, I'm a feminist....

and yes, I see the other side of the debate. if you think it is murder, you'd get all worked up about it.

I'm also against abortion, btw. I just don't think anyone should tell me what to do, its a difficult decision.

[NAO]

12. I understand the pro-choice viewpoint; the gay issue is religious dogma

As an agnostic, I can completely understand the pro-choice viewpoint. You don't need to believe in a supernatural being to understand that killing a human being is wrong. If you accept their premise (I don't, but it is conceivable) that a fertilized egg is a human being, then abortion on demand is infanticide, morally no different than killing 6 month old children. The whole thing turns on the definition of a person, which is why they like to reference Dred Scott.

But the gay issue is different. It is solidly based in their revealed scripture (aka "The Bible"). It is made quite plain in both the Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is 'an abomination to God'. There is no doubt, no ambiguity of definition.

For Christians who believe that their revealed holy book is in fact the 'infallible Word of God', it is necessary to condemn homosexuality. Either that, or they have to start explaining away passages in the Bible, and that is an ugly (but not uncommon) practice in Christianity.

[Lexingtonian]

13. not much

Opposition to gay marriage is highest in the parts of the country where "family values" are imploding- the divorce rates are highest, spousal abuse complaints are probably highest, and women are most in the process of demanding equal standing.

Opposition to other gay rights has to do with phobias and vague ideas and experiences involving pedophelia and sexual molestation and sexual violence and seduction/exploitation. Rarely involving actual gay people.

It's called projection, or maybe just shooting the messenger. Gay people of the present are scapegoats for the way society was more deeply diseased in the past in a general way, and symbols of change- they are resented for their lives visibly improving while hetero peoples' lives have become (temporarily) worse.

It's all about the pathological nature of the past...and in some quarters, present.

[EFerrari]

14. Bigotry is always projection. That's why it's so powerful.

Thanks for the reminder.

[OneBlueSky]

17. you obviously haven't been reading your Bible . . .

it's all right there, according to the Christianoids . . . nothing that Jesus ever said, of course, but why get bogged down in details? . . .

[Walt Starr]

19. It's an old axiom of politics, "bread and circuses"

They have to throw somebody to the lions in the circus. The Repukes have chosen the entire GLBT community.

[H2O Man]

21. I think that

the issue involving homosexual peoples is very simple: throughout history, every petty dictator has known that in order to make the general population forget about their own low level of being, all that you have to do is unite them in hatred of some minority group.

I believe that it is the duty of the religious left to confront this issue, much in the manner that Rev. King confronted the hatred of black people.

[dbt]

23. Dead ON it, H2O Man!

I was just getting ready to point out that this nation, as a (w)hole, has always had to have some group to be AGAINST in order to function "properly." (That's a SICK word, but it's all I got right now.)

Beginning c. 1492, the struggle was against other races. But now that the Native Americans have been neutralized and Black People and Asians have proved too numerous and much too hip to the White Man's tricks, other groups have had to be substituted. Gay People are in vogue as targets right now--but the focus will ultimately fall on some other group. Intellectuals and Jews come to mind.

I YEARN for another M.L. King, but I fear we will never see the likes of him again.

[H2O Man]

26. We've always hated some group.

Hatred, be it aimed at an ethnic group, a "race", a religion or lack thereof, is not inherent .... and therefore it must be constantly cultivated in order to be brought into being .... because in a large human social group, hatred demands existence. This is what I was taught years ago; it's not anything original from me. But I think that I've witnessed it on every level of society: from my isolated community in rural, upstate New York, to the national level. I see that those who hate must then act upon that hatred, and become hatred itself .... and what is more hateful than a person disguised in religious garb preaching hatred of two adults who love one another?

Hatred is running amuck in the United States, and many other parts of the world. One of my mentors from my teen years moved out of the USA years ago .... and when I most recently spoke to him, he was saying that the rest of the world views the USA as having become hatred. Our federal government is hatred: it hates and is hated. And the administration wraps itself in the flag and religious garb.

When we look around us, we see more and hatred .... beware of Mexican immigrants; gays threaten the sacred institution of marraige; anyone who questions the wisdom of slaughtering the Iraqi population is against democracy; we need to destroy the constitution in order to protect it. Hatred and violence is found in the streets of every city in America. And it has spread into the homes, schools, and workplaces.Hatred is a cancer on the soul of America.

I also wish that we had people like King today. But I am sure that he is watching us today, and is pleased when we show that the truth of his message has taken root. We can combat hatred daily in our own lives. We can cultivate love. And we can visit that mountain top Martin spoke of.

[Misunderestimator]

29. That was beautiful, H2O Man!

[H2O Man]

45. Thank you. n/t

[Hamlette]

44. thanks for reminding me, H2O...of something I try to deny

there is even a name for it...the mudsill theory. The mudsill is:

1 : a supporting sill (as of a building or bridge) resting directly on a base and especially the earth
2 : a person of the lowest social level

We have to have someone on the bottom to feel better, important...superior. (ugh, what horrid human emotions, why don't we fight against them instead of giving in to them?)

But, since there is no basis for the hatred of gays, I think we can win this one. As someone here said, we need a MLK. How true.

Did you see Bill Maher last week? Scarborough said the hatred of gays is NOT in the bible so it is not a religous deal. Bill was so taken aback he couldn't counter. Pity. Bill should have said, if its not god, why do you hate 'em?

[H2O Man]

47. The people at the bottom.

I have always admired Martin, because he appreciated having the opportunity to serve as a prophet to a group of people that many in America didn't think deserved a prophet. In a very real sense, we know that if Martin were here today, he would be preaching and marching and spending time in jail, for those same people. And he would still risk his life, for them, and for us. That's a powerful man, and we may not see his likes again in this generation.

Now that would be a waste, wouldn't it? That would mean that what Martin struggled for did not take root. Because Martin didn't want it to end: he didn't want people to feel compelled to struggle for social justice because some outside force requires it. We need to find the Martin-force inside ourselves. We need to make Martin real.

There is certainly a way to see his likes again in this generation. In my opinion, we would do well to start today. This country is getting out of control, and too many people are suffering from too many social ills that we can cure.

[Hamlette]

50. I wonder where Martin would be on this issue. . .

I have been disappointed in some black church leaders coming out against gay rights.

I'm thinking only religious people can have a voice in our society. Hard to say how much legitimacy Martin got because of his church affiliation. And one good thing I need to remember is that without the church organization, the civil rights movement would have been harder and taken longer. But dang....I wish so many religious leaders, including black religious leaders, they didn't hate homosexuals. How can they see it as different? (I've heard them say it is different because gays can hide their "beliefs" while black can't hide the color of their skin. As though that makes a difference.)

[H2O Man]

52. Well, that's a good question.

And I hope that you do not mind if I try to answer it. Keep in mind that some of Martin's harshest critics were other ministers. That famous letter from the Birmingham jail cell was in response to just that. On 4-16-63, he read an "open letter" from eight liberal white ministers, warning him that his tactics were harmful to America.

We know that as he became more involved in the civil rights struggle, and more famous as a spokesman for blacks, and began to spend more and more time "on the road," and away from his family, Martin was under great pressure. He was, as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr wrote, a passionate man. One friend said he "really believed in the gospel of love." (Schlesinger;1978; pg 389)

Schlesinger, while he does not get bogged down in this, is clear that King's behavior in this area had to be viewed in a larger context. The black experience in America for too long had been one of manhood denied. And I think that it is likely that the unfortunate harshness found far too often among black and even Hispanic religious "leaders" and church-goers, in regard to homosexuality, is rooted in that past experience.

I am confident that Martin would have been outspoken on this issue. He would have recognized that there is nothing "manly" about being homophobic. And that there is nothing democratic about denying any of our brothers and sisters their Constitutional rights. And that there is no room -- NONE -- in the gospel for mistreating any of God's children because of whom they choose to spend their adult lives married to.

Finally, while I do not agree that only religious folks can have a voice in this society, I do believe that those who are religious have a special obligation at this point in time, to take a stance against the ugly and hateful homophobia that is poisoning our culture.

As a married man who loves the Constitution and America and religion, I know that homosexuality is not a sin, but that hatred of gays and lesbians certainly is.

[Hamlette]

53. damn, one more reason to regret the loss. . . .

thanks H2O for your thoughtful words...I appoint you the next Martin!

[H2O Man]

54. You left out an "a" .....

I believe I'm a Martian. (grin) Thank you for this thread; it has been one of the most pleasant of recent discussions.

[soleft]

22. I saw a Cuban film called Strawberry and Chocolate

In the film a young man, very pro Castro, overcomes his homophobia to befriend a gay neighbor.

It struck me that the movie shows his political doctrine, which is devoid of religion, as his justification for his homophobia. "It weakens society"

So it appears to me that homophobia predates God - actually, religion and homophobia are probably defenses against the same thing, man's earliest emotion - fear of death.

[readmoreoften]

49. No, homophobia really got a mouthpiece with much of western culture.

There are many Native American tribes, African tribes, and pagan people who had important place for GLBT people in their cultures. Even Greece was complex on the issue. It seems to me that totalizing ideologies can't deal with the complications that arise from transcending a binary structure.

[Nimrod]

24. I don't think it's about religion OR bigotry at the core

Seriously, I don't. I think religion and bigotry are being exploited for a different cause entirely.

I came to a realization a long time ago. As unpleasant as it is, a large number of people find homosexual activity "icky", especially so for male-on-male. More men find female-on-female kind of hot, which is why nearly all anti-gay ads depect males rather than females. That "ick" factor is what's letting this work so well.

Anyway, our rulers understand this "ick" factor, they understand the bigotry, and they understand the religious opposition. Quite simply, this is being exploited for their own purposes, regardless of their own feelings on the matter.

Every one of these criminals willing to go live on TV and yell "EW! EW! GROSS! COOTIES!" gets the sympathies of fellow "ick"ers. The ones that call it a "threat to marriage" grab all the bigots who REALLY want a talking point to regurgitate. Then you get our buddies in Big Religion (tm) who call for our public executions and get all their fellow brain-dead sheep who can't do anything but nod their heads and maybe drool a little bit.

These groups combined constitute a HUGE base.

Now with all this support, they can begin to take over and set precedents for any number of things. A perfect example: Once the Constitution has been amended to take away gay rights, it'll be MUCH easier to do it a second time... and a third... and a fourth...

We are just the beginning. We are simply being exploited in a scheme to grant yet more power to our rulers and remove power from the unwashed masses. I hate to say it, but comparitively we're a pretty easy target, which is why they're starting with us.

Just my $0.02.

[Cats Against Frist]

43. I agree -- there is the "ick" factor

If you believe that people are predisposed to become gay, and that it's not a choice, I would think that you would believe that people are predisposed to be heterosexuals, and that that is not a choice.

Sex is messy business -- I actually have a weird phobia of getting "male sexual fluidity," on my hands. JUST the palms of my hands. I have an "ick" factor, for that.

Now, I'm sorry, but I also have an immediate and strong reaction to the idea of MY, say, mouth, hand, or any other body part, meeting up with another female's "third base."

It makes me go "ick." Unfortunately, that is, because I've often thought it would be both more interesting, and less traumatic to be a lesbian. I'm simply not. Why? Ick. If I liked it -- or even if I was indifferent to it -- I'd probably be married to a woman, right now.

Your thesis, I think, holds true, anecdotally, of course, in the case of my father, who is about as religious as a roll of tape, but is still against gay marriage, because of the "ick," factor. I think it's a combo of the "ick" factor, and the "ick" factor CHANELLED through religious custom and interpretation.

I don't really think that part is that important, though -- only the fact that this is really just another classic case of "fear of the other," which is an engine of American society.

[Nimrod]

57. Nothing wrong with having an "ick" response

When you get down to basic mechanics, there's a LOT of activities (both homo and hetero) that give me the willies. Male sexual fluidity (nice term) on the face - regardless of the gender of said face - makes me cringe. To each his hangup. :)

For a frightening number of people, the image of two men holding hands is enough to trigger the "ick" response. Possibly because men are socially trained not to touch each other, but that's another subject entirely. Seriously, try to find a single piece of anti-gay propaganda that depicts two cute women. Betcha can't. They're specifically targeting the "ick" factor of men. This is why I say we're an easy target.

Incidentally, I do believe that people are predisposed to be heterosexuals (or bisexuals, or vegisexuals, or whatever). That's why I get irritated whenever someone brings up the "don't knock it 'till you've tried it" bullshit to try to bring someone over to the other side. What turns you on turns you on, and what turns you off turns you off, and nobody knows better than you which is which. So there is absolutely no need to be apologetic about it.

[LynneSin]

25. Personally I think we need to start targetting the corporations on this

I work for a major corporation in Delaware (one can only guess what type of industry that is :eyes: ). But I'm proud to say that my company recognizes domestic partnerships and will provide benefits for domestic partners (ok, it's not married same sex-couples but hell it's a start in the right direction). My company also does a good job recognizing diversity including the GLBT community. Personally I think we need to take a look at other major corporations, find out their policies towards domestic partners and start fighting to get them to include it in benefits.

Does it solve the bigger picture - no. But hopefully people in my company who were on the fence about gay equality might get a clue that we can provide the same benefits and rights to the GLBT community and it's all alright!

We passed the Civil Rights act back in the 60s and yet I can drive through Southern Delaware or Northeast Maryland and I'll still see the Dixie Flag promimently displayed on homes & vehicles. There are just some folks who will NEVER EVER get over it no matter what the government says. But maybe if we can start going to the corporations and find out who now is recogniting domestic partnerships and offering benefits that are equal to same sex, well it's start down the same path.

[H2O Man]

27. Very good points.

I like the idea of not waiting for some "leaders" making progressive changes from the top. Change things on the local level, including within the workplace.

[northzax]

38. the thing is, most large companies

already do this. Companies, as a whole, don't give a shit about 'morality,' they care about getting the best people to do the job for the lowest price. Take Virginia, it's illegal for companies to provide benefits to unmarried people, whoever they are. So the big companies all self-insure, so they can provide the benefits that allow them to attract the best talent.

[Trailrider1951]

28. Yep, it's the same thing, fear and hatred, that I saw growing up

in the '50's and '60's. Only then, the target was these Americans:





Fear and hatred, covered by "it's God's plan". Bull!!! God's got nothing to do with it.

[Hello_Kitty]

30. Both represent a threat to patriarchy

Women controlling their own reproduction is completely antithetical to patriarchy. Plus, the idea of sexually free women is just plain scary to a lot of people on a lot of different levels. Gay people are seen as repudiating the strict gender roles that are the mainstay of patriarchy. And like their aforementioned slutty hetero female counterparts, they might "spread" their influence to others and then the whole military industrial house of cards would fall down.

[megatherium]

31. The polite arguments against human rights for gays

are that they don't need any "special rights" and that it dilutes the sanctity of marriage to allow same sex marriages (i.e., a slippery slope argument). These are the arguments they give in public, implying they don't have much concern about gay people who aren't (allegedly) trying to push their agenda in the schools, etc.

But if you read their literature, the stuff for their followers, you will find very creepy stuff. They say that homosexuality is dangerous, unnatural, and addictive. A staple of anti-gay literature is the claim that gay men are a threat to children. Find the Focus on the Family web site, or the Family Research Council web site, if you want to see what these people are about.

[renaissanceguy]

32. They'd kill us if they could get away with it

and justify it somehow by the Bible, that they're carrying out God's mission or something.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.21326152

[H2O Man]

36. Genocide.

Most people think of genocide as being the institutionalized killing of an entire group of people. Thus, images of the nazi's policies towards Jews, or the "manifest destiny" policy of "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" come to mind.

But there is more to the true definition of genocide. Your post has me thinking about the United Nations definition, which I do not have in front of me .... but which I think actually applies in many, many ways to the current US government-church policies.

The word "genocide" came from a Dr. Raphael Lemkin, who came up with it about 1944. Two years later, he was among the informal group of international legal experts who worked at coming up with a good working definition for the UN's Economic & Social Council, as requested by the General Assembly. Their draft policy was adopted by the G.A. on December 9, 1948.

Their definition states that "genocide" involves a wide range of institutionalized actions that are geared to destroy a specific group of people. Doesn't have to be killing each and every one of the group. It includes institutionalized actions that cause serious harm to individuals within the group -- and that harm can be mental as well as physical. It includes actions that prevent the group's individuals from giving birth, and looks to transfer custody of kids from within the group to others outside of it. The UN included things such as conspiring to commit these acts, and public incitement to stir others up to commit these acts.

We know that there is a difference between prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice is a person disliking a group of people; discrimination is putting that prejudice into action. Institutionalized discrimination is, of course, when that prejudice is carried out by either government or civil institutions -- which includes the courts and the political action groups associated with churches.

I might be wrong, but to me, I think our government is actively promoting a policy that fits this description. And I think that, as hasrd as the Bush administration is trying to discredit the UN, it is still enjoying a higher level of respect than the administration.

Wouldn't it be great if democratic Christians and others would examine this more closely? I'm no lawyer, and I'm not even particularly smart or insightful. So I might be off base. But when I read your post, this idea clicked. What do you think?

[megatherium]

37. There is some logic to this.

Anti-gay propaganda includes the frequent assertion that gays are more likely to be child molesters. This is a version of the blood libel, an ancient belief that Jews (or other targetted groups) are a threat to children. (In the case of the Jews, the blood libel specifically claims that Jews kill gentile children to consume their blood, or bake their blood into passover bread. The blood libel, by the way, is still widely believed in parts of the Muslim world.) A libel this frightening is required to motivate exterminationist hate, to motivate genocide.

Of course, the Bible does prescribe death for homosexuals. There are fundamentalists who believe the death penalty should be enforced against gays; although mainstream anti-gay spokespeople aver this as a goal, they profess compassion for gay people (as part of their "they can change" propaganda).

[H2O Man]

55. I agree

that the propaganda being used by the religious right is extreme: it is extremely hateful, extremely inaccurate, and geared to appeal to the most base of human instincts.

I must say that for me, one of the most disappointing things that occures in this situation is the the "moderate" and "middle-of-the-road" people from all walks of life, who do not step forward and say this is very wrong. It is not the gay & lesbian community that needs to be isolated; rather, it is those extremists who peddle hatred in our society.

[jsw_81]

40. You fail to understand the widespread influence of fundamentalist religion

The United States is a country that, in religious terms, has much more in common with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan than with Canada, France, or Germany. We are something of a "freak" when compared with other industrialized nations.

As a result of this widespread and intense religiosity, there are something like seventy million or more Americans who interpret the Bible as the literal word of God. These people take the Bible's commands/teachings regarding homosexuality very, very seriously, and most of these individuals consider the very idea of gay rights (not to mention gay relationships) inherently evil and sinful. For them, compromising with liberals on issues like this is tantamount to compromising with Satan himself. This is why so many Christian voters flocked to the polls last fall to ban gay marriage; many saw it as a battle with "evil" and weren't about to let evil prevail.

The only way this country will ever move forward on issues like gay rights (and choice, the environment, science etc.) is if we follow Western Europe's lead and become a more secular culture where the separation of church and state is strict and absolute. But since many Christians -- especially the fundamentalists -- are brainwashed much in the same way that Muslim fanatics are brainwashed (e.g. our "holy" book is supreme, don't think for yourself, don't trust scientists or other secular figures etc.), I think it's safe to say that we will remain in the Dark Ages for quite some time.

[dsc]

46. They believe all of the following

A) Being gay or lesbian is a choice

B) Gays and lesbians go to Hell

C) If gays and lesbians are treated well or even discussed nicely more people will choose to be gay and lesbian

and thus

D) More people will go to Hell.

It should be noted though that the very same Fundamentalists firmly believe that not worshipping Jesus will send you to Hell, so if we give in to them on this we could see

A) Being Jewish is a choice

B) Jews go to Hell

C) When Jews are treated well more people become Jews

and thus

D) More people will go to Hell.

And on and on with other religions.

[readmoreoften]

51. Convert or Kill

I think that the rabid fundamentalist belief that homosexuality is a choice facilitates their ability to belief that they can eradicate us without mass murder. Our homosexuality can be 'cleansed' and we can be 'identical to them'. I think if they believed that we were 'born' gay they might resort to aborting gay fetuses and exterminating gay adults.

Thankfully, they are not a majority.