Gay Homophobe. My Proposed Retaliation and Re-education Plan.

Would those Groups accept it though? if i went to an Anti Marriage Equality Church and said let me join to to educate and discuss would they alter their views enough to look at it from our side?

if i went to westboro would they be open to dialog?

a reply to: Darth_Prime
Hi Darth, I'm not sure that question was directed at me, but it seems to make sense in regards to my post, so I'll reply.

If one has problems with homophobia, or specifically gay issues, there are some wonderful organizations for all (Triangle Project, for example).
Cape Town or Joburg Pride have tried to be inclusive, but have at times failed, and there may be smaller or more localized prides in the townships.

With other activist groups I'm not so sure.
I might be accepted as a gay person, but they might be mainly focused on black lesbians, for example.
They might also have ideologies about "pinkwashing" or against Israel (while I don't mind criticism and debate on the issue, I feel uncomfortable about tacitly supporting pro-Islamist groups who actually want to hang gay people behind the leftist rhetoric).
That is, if I opened my mouth I would probably last as long as trying to preach gay and lesbian equality in a fundamentalist church.

So it's a mixed bag, and it probably raises similar issues for women's groups or HIV activism (neither of which are necessarily about gay issues as such).
Now we have an equality court that deals with cases of discrimination that almost make gay groups obsolete beyond spokes-people to get media quotes.
The homophobia in other African countries is a growing concern however, and things are far from perfect here.
However, I'm not comfortable commenting on a lot of it, because it feels like I'd be commenting on the dirty laundry of another community.
We do come from a very uniquely segregated history, and so far I find more in common with people from my own community, even if some of them are somewhat homophobic.

It can be very lonely, because in clubland gay people don't want to hear about politics, and in the political groups they come from positions of dishing out historical guilt and the whole blah blah about "imperialism".

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Dear Darth_Prime,

Would a group accept your services? Got me. I can say a few things, though. I'm in a position to accept that help, to at least a small extent.

I would think that concentrating on finding groups more concerned with working on projects would turn up the more readily accepting groups.

If you want to explore this more concretely, send me a U2U and we''ll discuss it. If not, leaving it in the theoretical world is fine, too.

With respect,
Charles1952

Hi Charles,

Thankyou for your kind reply.

In response to your thoughts; Sure it's possible to invent or modify the use of other words to cover gay and homophobe. In fact other words are use already such as - homo and bigot.

If you were able to eliminate the use of the words gay and homophobe and revert it to their original meaning, because of the gay stigma attached to them, they will probably just die.

For example, if you watch the old black and white movie 'A Town Called Alice' you'll see in very matter of fact terms the use and definition of the word boong (oo as in book) it was a slang term invented for non white people. Mercifully this word has died the death it deserved, but nobody would dare reinvent its meaning due to its past racist connotations.

So, in short whatever we do, the old word will simply become defunct because of its negative attachment to homosexuality.

As for the word straight, yes I'm aware of that rather 1950's definition of it. Slang has now redefined it to mean either heterosexual and/ or boring i.e. 'Man, do you. Have to be so straight?' means don't be so dull. This could be a localized thing, but here downunder it means that when I hear it.

a reply to: charles1952

I'll send you a message soon


to further the conversation about words and slang etc.

how about people using the word "Gay" in place of "Lame" or "Stupid" or "Dumb" etc IE: That's so gay

why and when did associating Gay with Lame become a thing?

"Chick" used to mean a baby fowl.
"Hot" used to mean a warm temperature.
"Cool" used to mean a not-so-warm temperature.
"Fat" used to mean the protective insulating layer of an animal or plant.
"Groovy" used to mean carved with many grooves
"Sweet" used to mean of sugary taste sensation
"Derivative" used to be a mathematical calculus function

There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of words that have been "stolen" resulting in a change to their definition/meaning over time.

A huge percentage of english words in today's dictionaries did not have all those multiple meanings... 100 years ago, 500 years ago.

It's no wonder the english language is the toughest one to learn.

Most other languages do not substitute, alter, or multiply the definition and/or usage of a word. I empathize with anyone trying to learn to fluently speak, read, and write english as a second language... it's a long tough road to haul.

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: markosity1973
we need some kind of negative, ugly term to describe the hatred one group has for the other.

The word is 'prejudice' probably? I don't like the 'intolerant' word. Too prone to abuse.

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Pinke
The terrible sin demanding penance is the mauling of the word "gay."

Really? O.o

Gays didn't want to use any of the other common names for themselves, so they went word-shopping. They settled on gay because some of the connotations of the word (including licentious) lent themselves to a sexual usage.

I want you (and other posters, myself included) to take the lead in discouraging the use of insulting words which tend to inflame angry passions in this discussion.

To be clear, 'gay' started as an insult created by the rest of society. Most of the current terminology did, gay people just reclaimed some of it much like the word Atheist.

Lesbian is linked to the isle of Lesbos which Romans used to imply unfeminine qualities. Again. Insult. Romans also used to use the same word for courtesan / escort as they did for lesbian activities implying that lesbians are without morals / are there for male entertainment. Again. Male centric and insult. The written records which refer to eros (love) occurring between same sex is overwhelmingly used as slander throughout history.
Later words ... 'bent', which isn't used for obvious reasons. There was that word which means 'pile of sticks' because gays are only good for burning. I can go on.

Being upfront Charles, you've discussed this topic for how many years now? Yet instead of getting yourself informed you pour some five tonne concrete fantasy on top of reality without a single reference to known history or critical thought almost every time. The same story applies when you bring up sexual disease and intimate partner violence (a topic we've discussed before in depth). You do not care about these issues, you're just using them.

You default to the negative every single time.

I want people to keep in mind (as long as they can, anyway) that the people they are talking to are not psychiatric cases, they are people with beliefs, attitudes and opinions.

Everyday.

I want you (and others) to explore the possibility of being with groups that have traditionally disagreed with you.

You mean a significant part of society? The one third or so of ATS that are very anti on the subject? The Muslim persons at my work? The people from the worship centre near me? My next door neighbour who is a nun? My insurance agent? My Christian friends who avoid leaving their children in the room alone with gay people?

We're with these groups everyday.

Show up without a lot of fanfare and drama, and work, side by side, on one project.

You know gay people don't always arrive on a parade float, yes? I mean that's just a sometimes thing. Perhaps you're linking the 'gay movement' with 'gay people'?

I am in a position to try to bring in Atheists and Gays to some projects run by a Catholic organization.

Are you in a position to stop institutionalized bullying and isolation? Discourage families rejecting and discriminating against their own sons and daughters? To criticize Russia, Nigeria, or India's destructive policies? You are in this position, but have you?

I've defended Christian rights multiple times, because I understand that sometimes what is my belief, thought or idea are some people's lives.

Would Westboro Baptist be in the spot they're in, even legally, if their signs simply read "God hates sin?"

Yep.

Brandon Eich case ... Isn't this an attempt to stop (by example) other people from doing or saying things opposed by that group of Gays?

Sure is. Eich turned his career political.

It goes both ways and it's a form of social pressure. Remember when Ellen represented JC Penny? American Families Association, Knights of Columbus, One Million Moms ... blah blah. That was just Ellen taking the job. It's best not to play oppression olympics, it gets nowhere and we have more cards.

The problem comes about from expressing it. If I were to decide that N----r meant "happy fellow," and went into a Detroit bar calling everybody that, I would be killed.

The equivalent would be me going to church and saying that bigot meant 'aweso Christian friend'. It's far more important to be understood though. You wouldn't be pleased if I kept getting offended everytime you said the word 'straight' for example, but you are enforcing an idea every time you say it.

Wouldn't a Gay couple say that their right to get married had been taken away if those punishments were imposed on newly married Gay couples?

Yep. Do you understand why these people are angry though? This has been happening to gay people just for being for a looooooooong time and recently too.

the goal is "No matter what we do, we want people to treat us (and think) like it's all normal and approved, and to vote to give us all the benefits that people who behave differently get."

I won't start on the 'behave differently' benefits, the rest though ...
You have to understand, Charles, that you can dress this up in whatever bow tie you like. We can have BBQs, and you can introduce us to your friends, but at the end of the day we are enemies. Not in that we can't have a conversation, be civil or work together, but we are fundamentally ideologically opposed to one another.

Its in your language. Its in the examples you use, your language, your rhetoric. How you characterize all gay motives as attention seeking, dramatic, totalitarian, sex related, ignorant, intolerant, and attempting to turn your beliefs into a thought crime. Despite all this, your knowledge of the history and experience of gay people seems basic being generous. (Nothing hypocritical about me saying this given I do have a knowledge of ancient Jewish and Christian history)

Believe me, I comprehend the religious arguments. I understand that many Christians and Catholics sincerely believe that gay parenting is bad, that the 'loss' of the family unit will ruin their countries and harm children. You (the Knights) fund studies and education programs on these topics to the tune of millions of dollars. Not for charity or science, not to help gay people or stop ignorant violence in foreign countries, but to define what relationships between people on an international scale. We have a fundamental and very personal disagreement there.

Is helping some homeless people together and painting a fence going to resolve any of that? Or is it just policing the tone so everyone can feel a little more comfortable and some others a little superior?

It's a bit like offering to shake the hand of someone you're about to shoot to death then using the refusal to justify it.

If you want, I can maybe make a counter suggestion for productive mutual bonding and learning activities but we will see how you feel during the next exchange.

a reply to: Pinke

Dear Pinke,

I've thought about your post for a long time. I even prepared a point by point rebuttal, but, obviously, I didn't post it.

I'm sorry to ask you to do more writing, but if you could expand and explain the following I'd be grateful. It really is important to me.

You have to understand, Charles, that you can dress this up in whatever bow tie you like. We can have BBQs, and you can introduce us to your friends, but at the end of the day we are enemies.

With respect,
Charles1952

I thought homo was Latin for man. Not sure, didn't check but I thought it was.

So yes you are correct, the phobia ( fear) wasn't the best idea for whoever came up with using this to describe feeling against gays. I imagine it was a gay person who first used the word though.

lo Charles,

Sorry, I've been busy working and had no time to reply. To explain ...

Charles, it appears to me that religion, specifically monotheistic religion as carried out by people who identify themselves this way is dangerous to mind, body, and soul. Some persons appear to do okay with it and suffer no damage, but that's true of any destructive behavior.

I see religion as similar to many human traits. Take stupidity. It doesn't matter how people got stupid, be it innate stupidity or learnt. I want stupid people to have a productive life in society but stupid acts are going to get in the way of this. I'm okay with saying that stupid acts are wrong. If you cannot resist being stupid, then you are wrong.

I'm actually kind of worried that society has to keep updating rules with new religions. Its a bit like judging the truth of an idea by its popularity. The idea of monotheistic religion is popular now, but the same ideas weren't popular in ancient times so why do we bother with them? What makes them better than Zeus or Ra?

Religion is always telling society "we'll tell you whats right and wrong, you stay out of our lives" which roughly equates to "we are the final moral authority". I lose sleep over this. Seriously.

The other thing that upsets me is religious apologetics: Religious people may blow themselves up, but that doesn't mean religions are evil. Religious majorities may be overwhelmingly responsible for multiple human rights violations, but that's just politics. Jehovas witnesses deny their children health care, but we have to give them their stupid rights. There are factors we haven't studied. Economics. Culture. All kinds of things. One or all could be the cause ... Or maybe it's religion?

Honestly I think we should remove religious rights. I think if we did the number of religions would drop. There are only two general arguments for religious rights. One, it gives a section of society some special benefits which no one else is entitled to. And two, if religious people say they have rights, people will accept them more easily. Why should the government endorse religion at all? They clearly only want these rights for agenda and mercenary reasoning.

The rights themselves are a little fuzzy, too. You say you want to believe whatever you like ... I believe in luminous the light bulb god, and he allows me to go home three hours early from work and not serve gays. See where I'm going? I know it's ridiculous and no one is calling for that, but there needs to be a logical argument against it.

There is no logical stop anywhere. If you say people can't practice dangerous religious ideas, there are laws against it ... well there were laws against Christianity once. Laws change in a blink!

Religious rights shouldn't even be on the radar of the United Nations, for two reasons ... I don't think it's important, and I don't think a nation's foreign policy should be decided by groups shouting out about the current popular religion of the century. I think foreign policy should be decided in accordance with well thought out logic and moral criteria. Perhaps if they are being killed we should put forward sanctions as a first step, but maybe we should just ignore them altogether.

I'll never forgive Christianity for destroying the Egyptian Ankh symbol, or Scientology for implying they have something to do with science. Did you know that Christos used to mean 'anointed' in Greek?

Don't get me wrong, I really have nothing against religious people, it's religious practice I have a problem with. Practice is separate from belief. I believe being non-practicing is the correct path for Christians. It's a hard path, but sometimes the greatest rewards come in overcoming the greatest obstacles.

Again, I have nothing against religious people, but in everything the first consideration must be "are we helping this person towards the greatest good?" Not what they want perhaps, but what is truly good?

You should recognize everything above, Charles, you wrote most of it.

Sorry to be clever and perhaps pretentious, but I knew if I simply summarized your opinions to explain what the word 'enemies' means it would be just as vague to you as my last post. I'd like you to understand what some of the things you say mean to other people. I'm not saying it's a perfect interpretation of all your opinions, it's a Frankenstein's monster of them but it gets the point across in a way summary doesn't.

I've already said I will continue to defend people's right to believe whatever from the most numerous Christians to the single individual who alone comes up with an understanding of the universe and gives it a name. It appears to be a major difference between us: I believe you have a right to your beliefs and practices, though sometimes they upset me and can hurt people. You don't mind when mine are made illegal. If Pinke travels to a foreign country and gets imprisoned, oh well! But you know, Pinke can totally hang with the Knights of Columbus - an organization that spends millions of dollars in causes against the existence of Pinke's friends.

If you want to take anything from this understand I'm not going to hang out with you because we're enemies. I'll show up for just about any normal reason, but not to some kind of show and tell where people demonstrate their tolerance by standing next to the person they think will burn in hell for all eternity, and kind of secretly seem to hope I get legislated out of existence just in case people make the mistake of thinking I'm normal.

Already said earlier but I'll reiterate:
1. For you this is a special event, bonding with people who may furiously disagree with your existence to prove you can. It's challenging, exciting and widening horizons, no? For me, it's another forgettable Tuesday where I have to police my thoughts and actions because people are easy to offend.
2. Answer honestly, do you want to hang out with a bunch of people who mistakenly think you have a mental illness but haven't managed to cure it in any significant way? Still they would very much like you to manage your illness by ceasing to be Christian. Why would you do that to your friends?


References:
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Nine

originally posted by: Pinke

Dear Pinke,

That was a wonderful post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Charles, it appears to me that religion, specifically monotheistic religion as carried out by people who identify themselves this way is dangerous to mind, body, and soul. Some persons appear to do okay with it and suffer no damage, but that's true of any destructive behavior.

Sadly, there aren't many studies supporting that position, while there are many studies showing the opposite.

I'll never forgive Christianity for destroying the Egyptian Ankh symbol, or Scientology for implying they have something to do with science. Did you know that Christos used to mean 'anointed' in Greek?

The Ankh has been destroyed? Scientology is a Christian religion? And yes, I knew that.

Dear Pinke, I could do that sort of thing to all of those comments, but religion and homosexuality are fundamentally different. A belief in God has been held by the vast majority of people throughout all of history. Freedom to do so was, perhaps, the most basic goal of the colonists and was clearly enshrined in the Constitution. "Gay marriage?" not so much.

It is the Gays that want a change, not the Christians.

Dear Pinke, I'm glad you wrote it that way. You don't ever have to be apologetic for being clever, I admire it. if you were pretentious, I didn't see it. I still think your post was very well done, thoughtful, thorough, and the result of hard work. I treasure the fact that you went to so much trouble.

If you want me to address the other comments I will. I feel as though I might have short-changed you. Oh, well, onward.

I've already said I will continue to defend people's right to believe whatever from the most numerous Christians to the single individual who alone comes up with an understanding of the universe and gives it a name. It appears to be a major difference between us: I believe you have a right to your beliefs and practices, though sometimes they upset me and can hurt people. You don't mind when mine are made illegal.

Many practices are illegal, not many relating to homosexuality anymore, but it seems a weak argument to say that because Person X allows religious people to believe as they wish (as if you can stop people believing as they wish), religious people should allow Person X to do anything he wants. And don't be silly, of course it matters if you are jailed in another country, and I'd be as strong as supporter for you as I am for other wrongfully imprisoned people.

Now to the Knights. I suppose your attitude depends on your goal. If people have a wrong belief about a group of people, doesn't it make sense to go to them and show them that they're wrong? I suppose, though, that it doesn't make sense if they're declared enemies and your goal is to force people and laws to change. I'm not a big supporter of force myself, but other people feel differently.

(As an aside, Catholics don't believe that just being gay gets you a one way ticket to Dante Land.)Of course, nobody wants to legislate Gays out of existence. That's just fear-mongering, and unworthy of you.

But you know, Pinke can totally hang with the Knights of Columbus - an organization that spends millions of dollars in causes against the existence of Pinke's friends.

Once again, no one is denying your existence or your right to exist. I can hang with Democrats (I was even fortunate enough to spend time with Walter Mondale) with the result that even if we disagreed about politics, both sides came away with the feeling that everyone involved is a decent person. But you want to stay enemies. Frankly, I don't see this insistence on force rather than cooperation and understanding, but take any path you wish.

If you want to take anything from this understand I'm not going to hang out with you because we're enemies. Feel free to be my enemy, Pinke, but I absolutely will not be yours.

For me, it's another forgettable Tuesday where I have to police my thoughts and actions because people are easy to offend.

That's called life. I have to do it at school board meetings. Besides, haven't we seen that it's awfully easy to offend everyone over the Gay issues? I'm trying to find a way to ease that offense, but as I said, I understand that some prefer the black and white of a battlefield.

2. Answer honestly, do you want to hang out with a bunch of people who mistakenly think you have a mental illness but haven't managed to cure it in any significant way? Still they would very much like you to manage your illness by ceasing to be Christian. Why would you do that to your friends?

I'm assuming your reversing the situation. I will answer honestly.

If they think I have a mental illness but I don't, will it be effective to give them doctor's reports or get a law stating I don't have mental illness? Of course not. The only thing that will work is for me to show them that I don't have a mental illness, they won't be persuaded otherwise. If they think changing my religious beliefs will manage an illness I've shown them that I don't have, I would ask them to produce some evidence that dropping Christianity would be useful. (Again, studies don't show that at all.) Why would I do what to my friends? Would dropping my Christianity hurt them? They might increase prayers for me, and feel sorry for me, but they would get on with their lives. They wouldn't get me fired, picket my house, or spray paint the place I work at.

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: charles1952
originally posted by: Pinke
Sadly, there aren't many studies supporting that position, while there are many studies showing the opposite.
Dear Pinke, I could do that sort of thing to all of those comments, but religion and homosexuality are fundamentally different.

Charles, I don't hold any of those opinions, so it would be a waste of time; but no my beliefs on how I want to live are not 'fundamentally' different to yours. You just pretend yours are special and mine are dangerous.

I find it concerning that you think you can 'force' a community to be on the down low for hundreds of years, forbid the writing and publishing of secular philosophy, and then judge those communities harshly since they didn't instantly inflate into perfection immediately after you took the historical boot off their throats.

A belief in God has been held by the vast majority of people throughout all of history. Freedom to do so was, perhaps, the most basic goal of the colonists and was clearly enshrined in the Constitution. "Gay marriage?" not so much.

Civil rights weren't part of your constitution originally. Atheists couldn't hold office. Black people could be slaves. Native Americans weren't included. "Freedom?" Not so much.

it seems a weak argument to say that because Person X allows religious people to believe as they wish (as if you can stop people believing as they wish), religious people should allow Person X to do anything he wants.

Agreed. I'll let my dachshund 'Mike' know that unfortunately his marriage will have to be postponed indefinitely since gay marriage won't actually lead to him being eligible for a marriage certificate. Hope he isn't mega disappointed. Suppose this means you’ll never make that argument again? Awesome.

And don't be silly, of course it matters if you are jailed in another country, and I'd be as strong as supporter for you as I am for other wrongfully imprisoned people.

You've said more than once you don't think gay people should be protected from persecution in other countries.

Now to the Knights. I suppose your attitude depends on your goal. If people have a wrong belief about a group of people, doesn't it make sense to go to them and show them that they're wrong?

You mean by telling them? Or is that too forceful? Reckon you can get me a mid-mass slot?

Put simply I don't want to aid in the Roman Catholic fantasy that:
A: Homosexuality automatically means anti-religion; this is nonsense yet you keep implying it as if gay people can't believe anything
B: Atheists and homosexuals are some anti-Catholic tidal wave in need of diplomatic intervention
C: Gay people are defined almost entirely by their sexuality
D: Gay people can’t be around religious people without melting suddenly
E: Or feeding any other miscellaneous fantasy by adopting a label chosen from your specific perspective at a charity event. Case in point, I wouldn't be surprised if you were showing our 'enemies' discussion to your knight's friends going, 'see I told you Pinke hates us!' Put simply I don't believe you have my 'actual' well being in your heart, your beliefs come first.

I suppose, though, that it doesn't make sense if they're declared enemies and your goal is to force people and laws to change. I'm not a big supporter of force myself, but other people feel differently.

Why do you continue to present yourself as the ever loving martyr and myself as the aggressor forcing you to change? Are you that assailed and oppressed?

You keep trying to shape this conversation to suit your narrative of what you think gay people are like. You imply I don't care for your feelings, about society, that you as a Catholic are the benevolent and reasonable guardian at the gates of history and I'm assailing you by believing that gay marriage isn't a big deal (or anything to do with your religion in particular frankly). I believe it’s not unreasonable that a teenager should be able to address their sexuality with educational resources available at the appropriate time without fear of reprisal, bullying, or death. You think your beliefs are infinitely more important than mine; important enough that you personally should be shielded from the nuclear fallout of two women or men holding hands during a ceremony to celebrate their love in a moment that’s zero to do with you. Who is forcing who here?

You are probably anti-gay Charles. Not even probably. You deliberately take negative things about gay people at face value, you repeat them in an incredibly biased fashion ignoring your own religion's involvement in other’s lives, and you are trying to stop homosexuality ‘spreading’ (correct me if am wrong). You try to hold back how the gay community wants to develop relationships as if it's anything to do with you. You claim gay people’s sincerely held religious beliefs are simply political (really offensive btw!). You get upset about slurs applied to gay people as if they 'took' them from you. You seem to want to rail road gay people’s behaviors in your mind into whatever you think they should be.

Most of that is all about you and not what’s best for the gay community which you don't care for.

Pinke is not anti-religion at all. I have no intention of campaigning to remove religion from schools. I don't care if you get married. You can talk to gay Catholics all you like. You can buy adverts in a newspaper, I don't care. You can advertise Catholic counseling. Go nuts. The moment I personally push for religion to be removed from human rights charters and bullying curriculums, let me know. I'll be being a hypocrite.

Of course, nobody wants to legislate Gays out of existence. That's just fear-mongering, and unworthy of you.

You’re willing to entertain the idea that homosexuality isn't all about sex and allow for it to be added to anti-bullying curriculums in public schools? Gay support services being advertised? You want to be involved in solving ‘coming out’ depression and mental problems caused by prejudice and take ownership of your community’s contribution to those issues? You will encourage other countries to follow suit?

Or are you going to continue to claim that those problems are 'innate' to homosexuality all the while saying 'we love you' in a never ending recruiting drive?

Once again, no one is denying your existence or your right to exist. [sic] But you want to stay enemies.

Sorry, you’re twisting my meaning and it’s bordering on deliberate.

If you want to hang out with me purely based on political jockeying to demonstrate how super awesome you are in some perceived war we're allegedly having then no ... I'm going to decline. It's patronizing. If you want to meet me just as Pinke your friend who you don't project agendas onto, go nuts.

I'm trying to find a way to ease that offense, but as I said, I understand that some prefer the black and white of a battlefield.

Are you? Or are you just saying mean things in a nice way and assuming that makes it double plus good?

Read your post here. Easing offense? Your generalizations are the very definition of black and white.

Pinke out.

So now we don't have a legitimate term for homosexuals? What about hetrophobes? You know, the homosexuals who hate straight people. What're we gonna call them? We need some terminology here that won't change cause it's getting confusing.

a reply to: Pinke

Dear Pinke,

Some ugly words have been used. I suspect neither of us likes that. May we call a truce and borrow Obama's "Reset" button?

Allow me to go back to the very basics, we can start over more cautiously.

1.) I may be wrong about something I say, but I never lie on ATS.
2.) There are two people on ATS I have no respect for, whatsoever. Neither are connected to the Homosexual debate in any way.
3.) I see individuals as much more interesting, and undoubtedly more valuable, than groups.
4.) I prefer less coercion to more.
5.) If the government can constitutionally pass laws giving, taking, or amending something, it's not a human right. This one is tricky because of the definitions available for "Human Right." There are many, and perhaps they should be discussed individually, if at all.
6.) I prefer persuasive discussion to orders, demands, and threats.
7.) To have a comfortable conversation, hateful terms should not be used.

Can we start from there?

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Pinke
1.) I may be wrong about something I say, but I never lie on ATS.

Your argumentation is disingenuous; is different word.

dis•in•gen•u•ous (ˌdɪs ɪnˈdʒɛn yu əs)

adj.
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; insincere.
[1645–55]
dis`in•gen′u•ous•ly, adv.
dis`in•gen′u•ous•ness, n.

As evidenced by a post mysteriously not present in this thread:

originally posted by: charles1952
The new information was primarily three words: "We are enemies." That was like a cold shower, but it made things fit into place. This was never about "tolerance," or "acceptance," or even "equal rights." There was never any serious effort to persuade people to be brothers. They have declared war, and calling them hypocrites, even if it is true, will have absolutely no effect.

I've wasted piles of posts under the pretense of an actual conversation, no? It took a single comment for you to flip pancake ideologue style.

The odd thing about being an ideologue is you often end up describing yourself when trying to generalize others. I'm dropping the mic.

originally posted by: Fylgje
So now we don't have a legitimate term for homosexuals? What about hetrophobes? You know, the homosexuals who hate straight people. What're we gonna call them? We need some terminology here that won't change cause it's getting confusing.

Why??? is it a requirement to have 'terms for people??

When people meet or are introduced shouldn't they just be plain Jane Brown
in the case of a female, or John Smith in the case of a male. Anything
other than that is irrelevant!! and may only become revelant if a relationship
(be it business - platonic - or emotional) develops.

I don't need to know what sexuality, gender, nationality or religion anyone is
to admire, respect, agree, disagree, spend time with.
Like gravitates toward like and in time all necessary information is 'on the table'

Because I'm not 'gay' or 'religious' doesn't mean I cant enjoy a friendship, or time
spent with either. I do not define people by their gender religion age or
anything else, and I don't expect people to judge me on mine ....
So lets all be a mix of 'PEOPLES'

Having said all that... I am of an age where those, and other words are not used
in the context that I was taught and often when speaking I have to think about
not using certain words, As some of them which were then acceptable are no
longer politically correct!! ....

Homophobia is just another ploy of homosexual males in their quest to dominate the world and have everybody accept them as something positive. It's meant to give power and weaken any adversaries, which is what fear does. It implies homosexuality is something dangerous which can affect someone who is scared of it. People who protest and don't see this might appear weaker in their arguments or they become demonized and driven out of the game.