Author | Thread |
|
11/20/2008 05:02:07 PM · #1226 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99: Originally posted by DrAchoo: Originally posted by BeeCee: Lots more who have passed through my life at various points. I really tend to forget just who's gay and who isn't because it's just not that important in my interactions with them :) |
Not to be cynical, but outside of your cousin you probably forget who's gay and who isn't because none of those people play a big role in your life... |
Hmmm. Well. No. I'd say it's more evidence that she relates to them as people first and their sexual identity is way down the list.
What priority do you place on the sexual identity of individuals you encounter daily? Is that what you think about when you see a random woman? a man? The woman who rings up your groceries? Your co-workers? Do you internally relate to them as people or as sexual beings and consider how they fit with how you define yourself sexually?
I'm not trying to go all Sigmund on you, but it's something to consider. |
Perhaps I'm reacting, in a cynical way, to people listing the gay people they know as some sort of liberal badge to say, "hey, look at me@! I know LOTS of gay people!" I think this probably dehumanizes gay people just as much as anybody on the other side could. (We could ask Mousie) When Louis asked me if I knew any gay people, I had no fantasy he would care if any of my patients are gay because we have so little interaction. I thought he meant on a personal, intimate level.
You asked what priority I place sexual identity on daily encounters and I'm sure the answer is not really more or less than anybody else. Interestingly though, everybody was quickly able to parade out their list of people they know down to "the guy who did the windows". If people truly didn't care, wouldn't the answer more often be, "I don't know"?
Message edited by author 2008-11-20 17:04:00. |
|
|
11/20/2008 05:10:00 PM · #1227 |
Did anybody read the journal article I linked or watch the TED talk Gordon linked? I think therein lies the true hope of having one side understand the other (not necessarily reconcile, but understand). |
|
|
11/20/2008 05:14:49 PM · #1228 |
Man, tell me this isn't us!
On the July 25, 2005 episode of The Daily Show, liberal host Jon Stewart
tried in vain to convince conservative U. S. Senator Rick Santorum that
banning gay marriage was an injustice. Quickly realizing the futility of this
effort, Stewart remarked, “It is so funny; you know what’s so interesting
about this is ultimately you end up getting to this point, this crazy stopping
point where literally we can’t get any further. I don’t think you’re a bad dude,
I don’t think I’m a bad dude, but I literally can’t convince you.” The stopping
point Stewart felt was the invisible wall separating liberal and conservative
moralities. Santorum’s anti-gay-marriage views were based on concerns for
traditional family structures, Biblical authority, and moral disgust for
homosexual acts (which he had previously likened to incest and bestiality).
To Stewart these concerns made about as much sense as the fear of theta
waves; it was impossible to see why a decent, moral person (or at least not a
bad dude) would want to violate the rights of a group of people who weren’t
hurting anyone.
The exchange between Stewart and Santorum was not unique; you
can witness liberals and conservatives talking to the wall in almost any
forum that brings liberals and conservatives together. More unique was
Stewart’s realization that his interlocutor was not “a bad dude,” that he too
seemed genuinely concerned for what is right, even though he came to the
opposite policy conclusion. Stewart was heavily criticized by his show’s
liberal fan-base for this comment (taking it easy on the “evil bigot”
Santorum), just as Fox News conservative Sean Hannity would be if he
were to find any virtue in liberal politicians such as John Kerry or Hillary
Clinton. Talk shows featuring the battle of good versus evil sell better than
those that explore shades of gray; it’s more entertaining to watch people
throw rocks at each other over the wall than it is to watch the slow,
difficult process of dismantling the wall and understanding each other’s
point of view.
This is from the essay I linked and if you want to understand the difference between the two moralities then you have to read it or watch the video. :)
Message edited by author 2008-11-20 17:16:23. |
|
|
11/20/2008 05:17:12 PM · #1229 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Originally posted by Spazmo99: Originally posted by DrAchoo: Originally posted by BeeCee: Lots more who have passed through my life at various points. I really tend to forget just who's gay and who isn't because it's just not that important in my interactions with them :) |
Not to be cynical, but outside of your cousin you probably forget who's gay and who isn't because none of those people play a big role in your life... |
Hmmm. Well. No. I'd say it's more evidence that she relates to them as people first and their sexual identity is way down the list.
What priority do you place on the sexual identity of individuals you encounter daily? Is that what you think about when you see a random woman? a man? The woman who rings up your groceries? Your co-workers? Do you internally relate to them as people or as sexual beings and consider how they fit with how you define yourself sexually?
I'm not trying to go all Sigmund on you, but it's something to consider. |
Perhaps I'm reacting, in a cynical way, to people listing the gay people they know as some sort of liberal badge to say, "hey, look at me@! I know LOTS of gay people!" I think this probably dehumanizes gay people just as much as anybody on the other side could. (We could ask Mousie) When Louis asked me if I knew any gay people, I had no fantasy he would care if any of my patients are gay because we have so little interaction. I thought he meant on a personal, intimate level.
You asked what priority I place sexual identity on daily encounters and I'm sure the answer is not really more or less than anybody else. Interestingly though, everybody was quickly able to parade out their list of people they know down to "the guy who did the windows". If people truly didn't care, wouldn't the answer more often be, "I don't know"? |
My experience has been that learning someone is gay is really no different than any other personal detail you learn about people you spend time with, like when a co-worker talks about their wife and kids when you stop to chat in the hall. It's part of who they are, but it's not the main part. |
|
|
11/20/2008 05:21:06 PM · #1230 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Originally posted by BeeCee: Lots more who have passed through my life at various points. I really tend to forget just who's gay and who isn't because it's just not that important in my interactions with them :) |
Not to be cynical, but outside of your cousin you probably forget who's gay and who isn't because none of those people play a big role in your life... |
For the most part the ones I do remember as being gay, outside of my cousin, are because it DID play a part in our interactions; for example the man who I regularly helped shop for women's wear at Salvation Army, the other who I helped find sexy muscle shirts to show off his nice body for his boyfriend, or the customer at the laundromat who told me the women's clothes were his girlfriend's until I saw him downtown wearing them. After that he realised he didn't have to pretend with me, and started bringing his boyfriend with him.
But that's no different than remembering the customer who came in regularly in search of outrageous hats or the one who weekly bought most of the nicknacks we had to resell in her own second-hand shop. I don't remember them because they're gay, per se. Most customers, gay or straight, I don't recall. Some, for various reasons, I do.
Oh, there's also the lesbian and the post-surgery transgendered woman my daughter used to work with.... the list keeps growing. |
|
|
11/20/2008 05:29:30 PM · #1231 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Originally posted by Spazmo99: Originally posted by DrAchoo: Originally posted by BeeCee: Lots more who have passed through my life at various points. I really tend to forget just who's gay and who isn't because it's just not that important in my interactions with them :) |
Not to be cynical, but outside of your cousin you probably forget who's gay and who isn't because none of those people play a big role in your life... |
Hmmm. Well. No. I'd say it's more evidence that she relates to them as people first and their sexual identity is way down the list.
What priority do you place on the sexual identity of individuals you encounter daily? Is that what you think about when you see a random woman? a man? The woman who rings up your groceries? Your co-workers? Do you internally relate to them as people or as sexual beings and consider how they fit with how you define yourself sexually?
I'm not trying to go all Sigmund on you, but it's something to consider. |
Perhaps I'm reacting, in a cynical way, to people listing the gay people they know as some sort of liberal badge to say, "hey, look at me@! I know LOTS of gay people!" I think this probably dehumanizes gay people just as much as anybody on the other side could. (We could ask Mousie) When Louis asked me if I knew any gay people, I had no fantasy he would care if any of my patients are gay because we have so little interaction. I thought he meant on a personal, intimate level.
You asked what priority I place sexual identity on daily encounters and I'm sure the answer is not really more or less than anybody else. Interestingly though, everybody was quickly able to parade out their list of people they know down to "the guy who did the windows". If people truly didn't care, wouldn't the answer more often be, "I don't know"? |
Yes, I think you are being cynical. I think we're reaching into our memories for examples because we want people to realise that these ARE real people; our neighbours, our co-workers, our customers and patients, our fellow students and church-goers and friends. They're NOT some abstract idea. They can and are hurt by our words and actions. When we deny a group rights we're not merely supporting an abstract, we're causing pain to real, live human beings who are just the same as you and me, people we interact with EVERY day, whether we know it or not.
And if you've noticed, we ARE having to search our memories, having to dig to remember just who we know has a same-gender partner, because otherwise we don't think about it that way. And the ones I do know are only because happenstance has revealed it to me. I certainly don't think about whether this man has a girlfriend or a boyfriend. But if I happen to meet his boyfriend, or if he mentions him, I might recall when asked later, the same as if I'd met his girlfriend.
Message edited by author 2008-11-20 17:30:24. |
|
|
11/20/2008 05:30:09 PM · #1232 |
Dr Achoo, I understand WHY you are against gay marriage. There are many things allowable in this country that I am against. However, the difference between us, is that I can accept that my morals, that my definitions of good and bad, differ from those of others. And in that acceptance, I can accept that things in the world will not always be how I want them. So, I can freely allow other people to do as they wish, as long as it doesn't interfere with my life. As long as no one forces me into gay marriage (or any kind of marriage for that matter), I'm fine with there being gay marriage.
For example, I am completely against the death penalty. I don't think there is any instance in which it is the best method for dealing with a criminal. However, I know that others feel different. So, I don't seek to over turn the death penalty. However, if ever on a jury for a death penalty case, I will not vote guilty, knowing that I have a hand in sentencing that person to death. In this instance, the death penalty would directly effect me and my protest would be lodged.
I can control my world in any way I wish, but that is all I attempt to control. My moral values are mine and I don't force them on any others. That is the true difference here. You think you have a right to dictate how others live their lives. I don't.
I am pretty sure, at this time, that my son is not gay. However, I would like to believe that, gay or not, he would be allowed to love whom he wants to love, in any way I am allowed to love whom I want to love. Its as simple as that. |
|
|
11/20/2008 05:49:42 PM · #1233 |
Originally posted by dahkota: Dr Achoo, I understand WHY you are against gay marriage. There are many things allowable in this country that I am against. However, the difference between us, is that I can accept that my morals, that my definitions of good and bad, differ from those of others. And in that acceptance, I can accept that things in the world will not always be how I want them. So, I can freely allow other people to do as they wish, as long as it doesn't interfere with my life. As long as no one forces me into gay marriage (or any kind of marriage for that matter), I'm fine with there being gay marriage.
For example, I am completely against the death penalty. I don't think there is any instance in which it is the best method for dealing with a criminal. However, I know that others feel different. So, I don't seek to over turn the death penalty. However, if ever on a jury for a death penalty case, I will not vote guilty, knowing that I have a hand in sentencing that person to death. In this instance, the death penalty would directly effect me and my protest would be lodged.
I can control my world in any way I wish, but that is all I attempt to control. My moral values are mine and I don't force them on any others. That is the true difference here. You think you have a right to dictate how others live their lives. I don't.
I am pretty sure, at this time, that my son is not gay. However, I would like to believe that, gay or not, he would be allowed to love whom he wants to love, in any way I am allowed to love whom I want to love. Its as simple as that. |
Please watch that video or read that essay. The guy is like a Rosetta Stone of translation. I understand where you are coming from. If you watch him, you may understand where I'm coming from. I also want to remind people that I am far from conservative on all issues. I'm with you on the death penalty and I have quite liberal views on the environement and gun control. Frankly, to many of my church friends I appear to them as you guys may to me.
You may feel you aren't pushing your view on others because everybody shares the two moral axises of avoiding harm and fairness. You don't have to push your views because EVERYBODY agrees. However, you do not value (as much) the three axises of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and (in this case perhaps especially) chastity/purity. Because they are less important you a) don't feel the need to share those views with others and b) don't understand why other people want to share those views with you.
If that doesn't make sense, read the essay. :) |
|
|
11/20/2008 05:54:47 PM · #1234 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb: Originally posted by Louis: Aside from the people here, I wonder if you know or have ever personally known a homosexual person? If so, in what capacity? If not, why do you think that is? This is naked curiosity and might be too private for you to answer, so feel free to ignore. (Others can also answer if they like; a kind of poll.) |
You're kidding, right?
You said that like it's unusual. I guess that maybe to some it is, but only if you kind of live in a small world. |
No, I'm not kidding. I was asking Jason particularly because I wanted to know if he had reconciled his views with the lives of others he has known. If you've been paying any attention to anything I've said at all in these parts over the last few years, you'll recognize less of the "Alice in Wonderland" in my question, and more of the genuine curiosity an objective observer has for the way people construct their views. I'm only replying to you because you seem to have a.) forgotten who and what you're talking to, or b.) have accidentally used language similar to what a cosmopolitan socialite might use when reacting to the sudden appearance of a country bumpkin at a formal dinner party. I ain't no bumpkin, hyuk-hyuk-hyuk. |
|
|
11/20/2008 05:57:35 PM · #1235 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: You asked what priority I place sexual identity on daily encounters and I'm sure the answer is not really more or less than anybody else. Interestingly though, everybody was quickly able to parade out their list of people they know down to "the guy who did the windows". If people truly didn't care, wouldn't the answer more often be, "I don't know"? |
That doesn't follow. Suppose you asked me "How many people do you know who are Republicans?" and, if I answered with a number you then accused me of placing an undue emphasis on political orientation? See what I mean?
R.
|
|
|
11/20/2008 05:57:42 PM · #1236 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If that doesn't make sense, read the essay. :) |
I read the essay, and while it provides a measure of understanding about why you feel the way you do, it doesn't excuse the discrimination. |
|
|
11/20/2008 06:00:57 PM · #1237 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by NikonJeb: If they hit on you, decline if that's not your thing, but remember that you may have hit on someone whose interest didn't include you, either.
If someone asks you out, it's a compliment, not an affront to your existence. |
Once I calmed enough to be coherent that's what I told him, and he agreed once he'd had time to digest it. He still remembers, years later.
Maybe it's a tiny thing, but if we can all make one person see there's hope yet for compassion and understanding. |
You could point out that the discomfort and anger he felt are exactly what women feel about guys about 100% of the time. |
|
|
11/20/2008 06:05:42 PM · #1238 |
Originally posted by GeneralE: Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by NikonJeb: If they hit on you, decline if that's not your thing, but remember that you may have hit on someone whose interest didn't include you, either.
If someone asks you out, it's a compliment, not an affront to your existence. |
Once I calmed enough to be coherent that's what I told him, and he agreed once he'd had time to digest it. He still remembers, years later.
Maybe it's a tiny thing, but if we can all make one person see there's hope yet for compassion and understanding. |
You could point out that the discomfort and anger he felt are exactly what women feel about guys about 100% of the time. |
*chuckle* Oh, I'm sure I got that part in there, too. |
|
|
11/20/2008 06:08:02 PM · #1239 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99: Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If that doesn't make sense, read the essay. :) |
I read the essay, and while it provides a measure of understanding about why you feel the way you do, it doesn't excuse the discrimination. |
Of course it doesn't in your mind because you may not value the other three axises. I'm not using this essay as a weapon for argumentation, but rather as a tool for understanding. I understand now exactly why you feel that way.
I thought this was very revealing in the essay when he wrote this:
For example, one of the leading approaches to the
study of political attitudes states that political conservatism is a form of
motivated social cognition: people embrace conservatism in part "because it
serves to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty; to avoid change, disruption,
and ambiguity, and to explain, order, and justify inequality among groups
and individuals" (Jost et al., 2003, p. 340; see also Social Dominance Orientation,
Pratto et al., 1994). This view of conservatives is so widespread
among justice researchers that it sometimes leads to open expressions of selfrighteousness
and contempt. At a recent conference on justice research, for
example, a well-known researcher began her talk by stating categorically that
affirmative action was the morally and practically correct policy. She then
asked why many people oppose it. She dismissed the reasons conservatives
sometimes give (mere theta waves) and then enumerated the self-serving
mechanisms that gave rise to their delusions. For this speaker, affirmative
action embodies justice and care, end of story. In her moral worldview, that's
all there is.
I'm not saying one morality is better than another, but on this issue it appears my "morality equalizer" has more channels than yours. In other words, we both value care/harm and fairness/justice, but I have the additional channel of "purity/chastity" that to you may be, as Haidt puts it, "theta waves" (meaning something not real or unimportant). Once this is understood, everything else falls into place.
Message edited by author 2008-11-20 18:10:18. |
|
|
11/20/2008 06:31:23 PM · #1240 |
Man, Haidt just reveals one gem after another. This is from another essay, but it's for Louis and it just reflects, once again, eloquently how I fee about Dawkins (and I guess Harris).
1) Intuitive primacy but not dictatorship. It's clear that Richard Dawkins (in The God Delusion) and Sam Harris (in Letter To A Christian Nation) have strong feelings about religion in general and religious fundamentalists in particular. Given the hate mail they receive, I don't blame them. The passions of Dawkins and Harris don't mean that they are wrong, or that they can't be trusted. One can certainly do good scholarship on slavery while hating slavery.
But the presence of passions should alert us that the authors, being human, are likely to have great difficulty searching for and then fairly evaluating evidence that opposes their intuitive feelings about religion. We can turn to Dawkins and Harris to make the case for the prosecution, which they do brilliantly, but if we readers are to judge religion we will have to find a defense attorney. Or at least we'll have to let the accused speak. |
|
|
11/20/2008 06:37:33 PM · #1241 |
In a sense, Sam Harris preaches to the choir when people like me read his books (though "End of Faith" is more philosophical than "Letter"), but my response, I suppose, is that the accused has had so much air time that it's high time a response was heard, which until now has been sorely lacking. Bertrand Russell notwithstanding. |
|
|
11/20/2008 06:39:27 PM · #1242 |
Originally posted by Louis: In a sense, Sam Harris preaches to the choir when people like me read his books (though "End of Faith" is more philosophical than "Letter"), but my response, I suppose, is that the accused has had so much air time that it's high time a response was heard, which until now has been sorely lacking. Bertrand Russell notwithstanding. |
Well that's fair enough. I'd guess Haidt would say the same if we heard only from the Defense Attorney he'd wanna hear from the prosecution. |
|
|
11/20/2008 07:03:30 PM · #1243 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You may feel you aren't pushing your view on others because everybody shares the two moral axises of avoiding harm and fairness. You don't have to push your views because EVERYBODY agrees. However, you do not value (as much) the three axises of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and (in this case perhaps especially) chastity/purity. Because they are less important you a) don't feel the need to share those views with others and b) don't understand why other people want to share those views with you.
If that doesn't make sense, read the essay. :) |
Please don't think you know me, nor the people I live with. Just for your information, I am surrounded by cops and fire fighters. I am surrounded by hunters, by farmers, by conservative right wing good old boys. Don't assume that everyone I know agrees with me on anything. I don't have to push my views because I don't feel the need to push my views. Just for a heads up, most of the christians I know don't give a crap about gay marriage as long as they continue to subsidize farm crops and pay cops. Most are completely against gun control and for the death penalty. Many carry guns on them as a matter of habit, even the ones who aren't cops (concealed carry is allowed in Virginia).
Don't tell me what I value and don't assume that everyone fits neatly into the categories shown in the video. Don't divide everyone into an us and them and assume you know what side everyone is on. you are so quick to judge me without ever having met me. That is where you and I differ. I assume you know what is best for you. I assume you can look out for your own life and don't need my help. How do you know if I value loyalty or not? Are you assuming because some guy on a video told you some people do and some people don't and, since I disagree with you, I must not? I live with cops and firefighters and come from a Military family and you tell me a don't value respect and authority? that is all I know. And, you really have no ideea about how I feel about chastity or purity. And in fact, as I am FOR ALL TYPES OF MARRIAGE, would say that I place a higher value on them than you. you judge me without knowing me. you judge my thoughts, beliefs, and morals without even knowing who I am or what I believe in. That is what I am trying to show you. You judge, you label, you divide. I accept people for who they are without trying to change them. I try to understand people without judging them or labeling them. I am less for controlling what people do and more for understanding and accepting everyone, no matter how different.
Achoo, we are very very different. And you are allowed to feel morally superior if you please. However, having been raised in the catholic church and spending hours and days and years following that faith, I am confident with stating one thing: while I am not now a christian, I know, in my heart, that I follow the true message of Jesus - love everyone. |
|
|
11/20/2008 07:16:06 PM · #1244 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: ... but if we readers are to judge religion we will have to find a defense attorney. Or at least we'll have to let the accused speak. |
Hasn't religion already had a pretty long (over 5000 years by at least two calendars) turn already? |
|
|
11/20/2008 07:18:59 PM · #1245 |
Originally posted by Louis: Aside from the people here, I wonder if you know or have ever personally known a homosexual person? If so, in what capacity? If not, why do you think that is? This is naked curiosity and might be too private for you to answer, so feel free to ignore. (Others can also answer if they like; a kind of poll.) |
Originally posted by NikonJeb: You're kidding, right?
You said that like it's unusual. I guess that maybe to some it is, but only if you kind of live in a small world. |
Originally posted by Louis: No, I'm not kidding. I was asking Jason particularly because I wanted to know if he had reconciled his views with the lives of others he has known. If you've been paying any attention to anything I've said at all in these parts over the last few years, you'll recognize less of the "Alice in Wonderland" in my question, and more of the genuine curiosity an objective observer has for the way people construct their views. I'm only replying to you because you seem to have a.) forgotten who and what you're talking to, or b.) have accidentally used language similar to what a cosmopolitan socialite might use when reacting to the sudden appearance of a country bumpkin at a formal dinner party. I ain't no bumpkin, hyuk-hyuk-hyuk. |
Sorry, I appear to have said that wrong....the you I was referring to was the figurative you meaning that unless you live in a very small cosmos, gay people are very much a part of society.
I know you're not a bumpkin, believe me.
I am starting to get a little frustrated with the way Jason's picking apart some of the discussion......in response to your question, I was just kind of surprised that the question is even asked.
I guess maybe I'm just more conditioned to people who have different lifestyles and cultures than I and being gay just doesn't matter in the slightest to me.
I guess what most bothers me, and that I'm ashamed of to a certain extent is that I was never really aware of how bad it is to be gay because it was never a big deal to me. My friends never really complained, they didn't make a big deal out of it, they just quietly dealt with the inequities that Mousie talks about quite openly, and yet even now, I don't see the utter horror from as many people that should be horrified at the abysmal treatment of an entire segment of our society.
We do know better than to persecute people in this manner, and in this country especially, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for this treatment.
Doc, PLEASE forgive me, I do have respect for you.....to a point, but I'm mortified that a person who I'd consider to be a really bright, analytical guy, could not see how incredibly awful your viewpoint seems to me.
Yeah, I listed off a pile of people that I know that I am quite cognizant that they are gay, but it's because a lot of them are finally more comfortable about standing up and fighting for rights that they have by the very fact that they are human, JUST LIKE YOU AND I, yet people who have antiquated, and just plain wrong, views of them, do everything in their power to deny them basic human rights.....so yeah, I am conscious of that, and maybe a little likely to overcompensate in my guilty compassion for the rest of my fellow man who would be inhumane and cruel.
|
|
|
11/20/2008 07:21:39 PM · #1246 |
Originally posted by dahkota: Achoo, we are very very different. And you are allowed to feel morally superior if you please. However, having been raised in the catholic church and spending hours and days and years following that faith, I am confident with stating one thing: while I am not now a christian, I know, in my heart, that I follow the true message of Jesus - love everyone. |
Well, I certainly didn't mean to get you ruffled. I don't feel superior. I feel different. Simple as that. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was trying to explain how I saw you through the eyes of Haidt and perhaps we could find a common ground there. You could simply tell me I was wrong rather than assume the worst. Geez. |
|
|
11/20/2008 07:37:43 PM · #1247 |
Originally posted by GeneralE: Originally posted by DrAchoo: ... but if we readers are to judge religion we will have to find a defense attorney. Or at least we'll have to let the accused speak. |
Hasn't religion already had a pretty long (over 5000 years by at least two calendars) turn already? |
I'll tell you what, give it another 40-50 years and then you can do whatever you want. ;) |
|
|
11/20/2008 07:40:39 PM · #1248 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: ... but if we readers are to judge religion we will have to find a defense attorney. Or at least we'll have to let the accused speak. |
Originally posted by GeneralE: Hasn't religion already had a pretty long (over 5000 years by at least two calendars) turn already? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: I'll tell you what, give it another 40-50 years and then you can do whatever you want. ;) |
But that's the point. The absurdities, inequities, and downright cruelty in the name of whatever God who's being offered up with "The Answer" to justify it has to stop.
40-50 more years is unacceptable.
|
|
|
11/20/2008 07:44:59 PM · #1249 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Originally posted by GeneralE: Originally posted by DrAchoo: ... but if we readers are to judge religion we will have to find a defense attorney. Or at least we'll have to let the accused speak. |
Hasn't religion already had a pretty long (over 5000 years by at least two calendars) turn already? |
I'll tell you what, give it another 40-50 years and then you can do whatever you want. ;) |
Exactly, your position is essentially a selfish one -- "We must restrict your rights so that I won't feel uncomfortable."
Suppose those who find religious evangelism annoying pass a law requiring all Christians to visibly carry a two-foot long wooden cross whenever they are in public .... |
|
|
11/20/2008 07:50:04 PM · #1250 |
You know, I really hate how people in our society are defined based on the configuration of their genitals.
Message edited by author 2008-11-20 19:50:21. |
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 07:11:42 PM |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 07:11:42 PM EDT.
|