Anti-gay homophobes - what country would you choose?

reply to post by carpooler

Both concubinage and marriage could be used as diplomacy.
Donna Angelina and Yopanqui were concubines, since Pizarro already had a Spanish wife (N. de Trujillo).
Pocahontas became the bona fide wife of John Rolfe, and was not a concubine (it's not clear whether her father, chief Powhatan approved of the marriage, since she was held held for ransom at the time).
The Jesuits only arrived in Peru in 1568, and by then the 40 year conquest was virtually over, officially ending with the murder of Tupac Amaru in 1572. It is unlikely that they had much effect on concubinage amongt the wealthy, and most of the Inca royalty mixed with the Spanish upper class, either through marriage or concubinage.

Concubines can become bona fide wives - usually upon the death of the official wife. One thinks of the whole Camilla, Diana, Prince Charles saga.
Although Charles was already with Camiilla when he married Diana, she wasn't the right bloodline or social status to produce offspring.

The Inca Empire, despite its weaknesses was far from "ludicrous", and its system of taxation made sure no corner of the Empire ever went hungry in times of need.

reply to post by Schrödinger

I suppose the majority is often a mix of various minorities.
Once, it seemed that the White Anglo-Saxon male was favoured as the "majority" over the minorities.
If you're in the US, the general impression in SA is that minorities make up the majority of the imprisoned population, and that they face harsher policing and sentencing. So I'm not quite sure what they are getting away with at the expense of the "majority".
Pregnancy leave for women is a right as a consequence of heterosexual sex. So the genders are not equal in the biological sense that women's bodies bear the possible consequence of male and female sex.
Of course the people who do not procreate get no special leave at all!

A lot of what is happening is action and reaction - the minorities came from a position of disempowerment and only gained a level of equality and freedom from persecution through public activism.
If white males specifically feel discriminated against as a result, then they should organize and also become activists for their cause.
Most of the Christian minority groups who protest against gays would also be anti-Neopagan groups like Asatru. To my mind a lot of them are ideological extremists, however, that's their right, just as it's the right of people they target to assert their space. When groups are linked to terrorism (like some of the Odinist and Christian Identity groups) their activities will doubtlessly be closely observed by the FBI, and they'll be dealt with when a crime is committed.

In South Africa white males are a minority, and we are being discrimminated against with Affrimative Action and Employment Equity quotas (even the post-apartheid generations). And we are organizing in civil groups like Afriforum - however it's about real issues of safety, and making a living. Carrying battle axes or keeping slaves generally don't make good causes. In any case, as a community beginning to organize, we have to set aside a lot of religious and other differences, because ultimately being white is where the discrimination lies.
Zimbabwe is our neighbor, and Mugabe turned on the gays before he turned on the whites and the opposition party, so minorities in SA are somewhat anxious.


[edit on 14-8-2010 by halfoldman]

This is such a tired issue. Unbiased specialists know what the truth is. When true gay men are exposed to a chemical from testocerone, their brains respond like women. It's a medical condition. Now there are fringe homosexuals for whom it is a lifestyle choice. You can argue all you want but it's true.

Now I live in New Orleans, which has a huge openly gay population. Huge. Decadence festival. Funny as hell. But the problem I have is the way it get's forced down everyone's throat. There was an issue here where a bar wanted to have a big willy contest during decadence, fulle xposure. The city objected and they made enough of an issue it was allowed. Men in tiny thongs prancing and making out in the streets. It would have been disgusting if it was heterosexuals. You can take your kids to Mardi Gras you just don't take them on Bourbon st. During decadence festival the entire French Quarter is unfit for kids. Forcing people to support the behavior or being labled as homophobic or prejudiced is ridiculous.

Homophobia is real. I've had patients who are as scared of gays as someone who is claustrophobic is afraid of an elevator. You can have a phobia for anything. And they are all real. Brain Activity studies show that people with various phobias all respond similarly to the the offending stimuli.

I see the term Christian-homophobes a lot. Homosexuality has been demonized for ages. Most religions view it as a lifestyle choice, and while in some cases it is, for the most part it isn't. The brain is wired abnormally. But understand their viewpoint, they viewed it as a lifestyle choice for hundreds of years. And the major religons view making that lifestyle choice as deviant behavior. So of course they speak out against it. THe people are honest faithful believers to their religous doctorine! It doesn't mean they are homophobic.

Here's where the problem comes in. Gay rights advocates always seem to refer to everyone who is antigay as homophobic, this is in fact false. 99% of these people have no medical condition or defect which makes them have an irrational fear of gays. They simply think it's wrong. There is a difference between being afraid of something and disagreeing with it. Many religions even accept it as a legitimate medical condition. But much like an addictive personality issue, they believe that we are not so primal that we can't overcome urges. They believe that we should be able to overcome a simple brain wiring issue that makes you attracted to the opposite sex. There are some medical researchers who believe that they are close to correcting the defect that causes homosexuality. And while most gays would choose not to have something like that done, I'm sure a small minority would. I think it's sad that there is as much research on this as there is on correcting violent behavior. But objecting to homosexuality doesn't make anyone homophobic. Finding it immoral isn't wrong or right. It's a personal preference and what you choose to believe.

About 5-8% of the population is gay. So it is outside what is considered normal. So I understand how some religous groups view it as immoral. But are they right? I don't know. I could care less. I'm sure the homosexual community in New Orleans wouldn't want Christians parading the streets and getting in their faces forcing religous doctorine upon them, no more than I should have the homosexual lifestyle turn into a circus in my streets, to the point where you have to cover your kids eyes.

Just because people find the lifestyle objectionable or don't support gay marrige doesn't mean they are evil homophobes. Some are, but so few you've probably never seen one who's truly homophobic. You see people who seek to strongly adhere to their religous beliefs speaking out against it. THey aren't homophobic they simply disagree with the lifestyle. If it's a lifestyle they think you should choose a more moral one. If it's a medical condition they think you should overcome your base instincts.

Either way, everyone needs to be more understanding. What someone chooses to do in their own home is their business. When they force it into the public arena and turn it into a spectacle like it does in NOLA, then it's open to criticism. Most Americans could care less who's homosexual, even though half of the country thinks that it's immoral. Only about 35% of the country supports gay marrige while most of the country supports some type of civil partnership. But after all isnt marrige left up to the religions?

Most Americans don't care if your gay. Just don't try to force them to accept it as the norm. They really don't care and they are entitled to think it's wrong as long as they don't infringe on your rights. If you try to force someone into your way of thinking your going to have a fight on your hands. So just be gay. Screw who ya want. Fall in love with who you want. But understand that most of the world still finds certain heterosexual behavior "deviant", so what do you expect them to think of homosexuality? And odds are unless your in the streets prancing around with your butt cheeks hanging out nobody will bother you. But if you are out prancing with the cheeks out and shouting to the world how gay you are, most folks are going to find it offensive, just like they would if someone who's straight was doing it.

And not being homophobic I'd still choose America. Because it's ok to think homosexuality is ok, and it's ok to think it's wrong. It's nice where people can be anything they want to be as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else, that's why cannibalism isn't allowed. This isn't the middle east or the carribean where you'll be killed for being gay. And I promise I won't parade the streets shouting to the world in a thong how much I love women. I promise not to grope my wife in the streets or do anything sexual in public view. I'll wait till I get home. I expect the same courtesy.

reply to post by DrJay1975

Thanks for an interesting post, with some vivid examples of what it is about gay behaviour in the US that people are actually opposed to (disinhibited behaviour at carnivals and designated events).
Despite your moderate position, I think the descriptions (at least from my gay position) of "faithful" fundamentalists and exhibitionistic gays is somewhat one-sided.
Are gay activists the only people to make homosexuality a public issue?
If all the gays went home quietly every single day, would homosexuality disappear from the political and religious discourse?
So we must hope to pass as straight and go home - thinking that an invisibility means acceptance, or has ever achieved anything for us?
I don't think so, homosexuality has become a career-move and an industry for a whole anti-gay/homophobic collective.
I'm certainly not talking about all Christians, just as I hope and assume you weren't talking about all gays. You seem to imply that only 1% of Christians are clinically homophobic (really, so many more are just parroting slogans?) but you don't statistically contextualize "gay" behaviour. Do all the gays in America descend on Bourbon Street during Mardi Gras - is it representative enough to justify anti-gay positions?
Homophobes certainly use the more outrageous behaviours at gay events to win support, by painting themselves as "sane" opposition to "deviancy".
But they never stop there. Most of them already believe that homosexuality is not fixed, but is chosen, and that their religious "therapies" can cure it. When they connect gays to everything disgusting from corprophilia, to pedophilia and even serial killers, beastiality and Nazism they are not being "honest" or "faithful", but they are in fact bearing false witness. Take the corprophilia videos shown in churches in Uganda (threads on ATS). Here, they are saying this is what gays (all gays, not a few fetishists) do in the "privacy of their homes". Is it OK for even some Christians to lie and spread alarmist propaganda?
It's all good and well to say gays are no longer killed in the US (at least not legally). But some of the missionaries from the US seem to support such laws where they can influence what they can no longer achieve at home.
With a collection of homophobic research tanks pumping out questionable statistics, anti-gay books, sermons and websites, the US fundamentalists are making an impact on global forces that are increasingly discovering that they can be homophobic. Gay acts are no longer just a judicial issue, but following the US lingo: homosexuality is becoming a moral "lifestyle" issue. And a "lifestyle" is not fixed, but anything you construct it to be. It appears that when even American Christian groups are preaching against homosexuality (in a society already regarded as rife with adultery, divorce, porn and immorality) then anti-gay sentiments should prevail in societies like Iran, that view themselves as morally superior to the "Great Satan" of the West.
Despite our liberal SA rights and consitution, many regard homosexuality as "unAfrican", and homophobia seems to give Africanists a moral superiority that they are denied economically.
Fundamentalist Christianity is not a private religion, but a missionizing movement, and in some forms a movement that sees itself as destined to take command of all levels of society. The US may be advanced enough to handle that, but how these messages are interpreted elsewhere are causes for concern. In Nigeria there are charismatic US-influenced pastors who've poured acid down children's mouths to "exorcise" their demons.
Here in SA even infants have been accused of being witches by a dangerous mix of charismatic missionizing and local beliefs.
And we do have fundamentalists protesting at gay marches. In fact, they capitalize on gay events - we are their bread and butter. Along with a minority of pagans, we are the visible, tangible proof to such people that Satanic forces are real, four bits of the Bible are true, and the end times are upon us.

Interestingly, there was a mother on the radio who has one son who is a more outrageous gay marcher evey year at Joburg Pride, and his brother shouts homophobic Christian slogans from the side-lines. Makes one think: perhaps there's a gene for attention grabbing behavior, no matter what the ideology, some people are just exhibitionists? Reminds me a bit of the Fred Phelps brigade. Perhaps that is the core issue in more free societies: can exhibitionism be banned? Can sexuality, in even suggestive forms be relegated to the private? Is religiously pushing patriarchal heterosexism also one form of public sexuality, or burning condoms in public?
Isn't religion also filling children's heads with sex all the time?
What kind of discourse is it that tells children to commit to virginity until marriage, or that condoms are porous - isn't that sexual?

This makes me wonder, I've just viewed a program called "Taboo", which showed a Shiite Muslim ritual in which men and boys flog themselves bloody in public (sometimes even to death). Then I've read in Charles Kimball's "When Religion Becomes Evil: Five warning signs" that Islam is about to surpass Judaism as America's second largest religion. Considering it's growth (surpassing that of the Episcopalians) will the US allow such rituals in public (does it already)?

Sadly, this whole scenario does trap a silent majority of Muslims, Christians and gays (many of whom are Christian or Muslim) between extremist discourses.
From my experience of coming of age in apartheid SA, I thought I was the only "abnormal" one, and it was my exposure as a teen to some photos of queer visibility in the US that saved my life (at one point quite literally).
I think that isolating experience drives gays to forms of deliberate visibility - and yes, it does go too far in some cases, but it is a wider issue for us than just upsetting conservative people.

The day they stop advocating homophobic laws that criminilize me, and stop talking blatant rubbish about gays in public I'll go home quietly.
The day that benign celebrities like Ricky Martin can come out without being accused of pushing an "agenda" down "innocent" straight America's throat, I'll go home home quietly. The day I don't get hassled for how I speak, or move I'll go home quietly.
Until that day, I'll never be convinced that moderate heterosexuals have my rights or interests at heart, or that anything that gay people do or do not do can ever make them acceptable to homophobes.


[edit on 19-8-2010 by halfoldman]

A short deconstruction of anti-gay positions:

Gay=public, pushy, sexual
Straight=normal, conservative, non-sexual

No understanding of a constant barrage of overt and implied heterosexist positions as "normal" based on heterosexist patriarchy, from the Bible to the media, to reality TV.

No clarity on what constitutes "pushing" the gay agenda.
Could range from police crackdowns in the Orient (simply being gay), to Western coming out, to public displays of sexuality in designated events.

No comparison to straight sexuality flaunted daily.
Gays as the pawns in a wider debate? Gays as the symbol to a wider exhibitionism? A stereotype of gays as symbols of Westen debauchery, encouraged both by Western and non-Western moralism?
A slight against the "gay peril" is a victory against US imperialism?

Oppress gays and sexuality will return to the private?
A paradox, since gays came out because sexuality was never private in the first place.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by halfoldman]

Many religions even accept it as a legitimate medical condition.

reply to post by DrJay1975

Great to know that.
I hope it's not the same religions that viewed curing cancer as an extention of Faith Healing? I suppose the medical legitimacy of people who lay on hands and babble in gibberish also goes for curing HIV and being lame?
With "medical knowledge" like that abounding, we can all rest more assured.


[edit on 19-8-2010 by halfoldman]

Everytime I see street children begging, or impoverished mothers I wonder about the "inherent goodness" of heterosexuality. All that misery it perpetuates and the agonizing collapse of our shared world.
Even 92.5% of HIV infections are heterosexual ("HIV/AIDS: A very short introduction" by Alan Whiteside: Oxford, 2008, p. 14).
So we live with the terror of that orientation as "normal" every day.
Society and the planet must pay for its results.
It is shoved down our throats daily, in its many forms.
Yet, ridiculously it is claimed to be a private orientation.
But the chilling effects are not private.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by halfoldman

 

I would argue that Enlightenment thinking actually came from the Christian religion, and we owe our Western human rights to Christianity.
If this is not so, then why do we not find post-Enlightenment personal, gender, religious, or gay rights in Muslim countries (for example)?
However, there is a sentiment in Christianity to become prescriptive and fundamentalist.
Exactly what does it prescribe?
Should gays be stoned?
In that case, what is its difference from radical Islam?

Fundamentalists are telling us at once that our sociey is better and more free, but really it should also go back to pre-revolution France.

1. A generation of gay people results in humanity being extinct unless
the lesbians turkey baster themselves, and some male gay man
offers to donor himself to the lesbian couple.

2. No one should be killed but ppl that do not get along should
consider not being neighbors. Several subgroups of humans
do not cohabitate well with each other, history books are
full of this evidence.

3. Several religions are anti-gay, but I do not really associate
with any of them as all as far I can see are frauds with some
small bits of wisdom.

4. pre-revolution France was hell on earth for the poor peasants,
so I do not think many ppl want to go back to Monarchy.
Even though I descend directly from the state of Navarre
between France and Spain in the past I'd say its a bad idea.

en.wikipedia.org...

One more time with feeling...BAD IDEA...

5. If I wanted to credit enlightenment to anyone it would either
be the Buddhists or the Hindus, and even then its hard to
know truth from fiction. As they are both religions again
I know humanities capacity for corrupting anything and thus
what may have had a good meaning at its outset is not the
end products centuries later.

6. Watch Zeitgeist the movie and you will see the origins of Christianity
for what they really are.

Google Video Link

For centuries and likely Eons the major constant has been lies.

As Sun Tze said war is deception, and the war has been for control.





[edit on 19-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

reply to post by Ex_MislTech

I certainly hoped that my statement you quote would have caused some more debate, but it has been largely overlooked, as usual.
To some other points;
1. Let us divide sex acts from sexual orientation. Gay people have straight sex and children, just as usually heterosexual people have gay sex.
This should not be confused with an argument that everyone is bisexual.
However, it raises the issue, how do we define gay?
If we include everybody who's ever had a same-sex attraction, teenage experimentation or sex in a homosocial environment that would include a lot of people. However, we reduce it to a minority who is exclusively attracted to the same gender.
Attraction and practical reality don't always coincide.
Even the idea of "romantic love" or that marriage partners should be attracted is a relatively recent Western construction.
For royalty it is still not expected, and therefore we forgive their private affairs, because they marry for the bloodline breeding.
Just so, many gays have children, and most same-sex acts across the globe are probably not even performed by self-defined gay people.
However, it would be hypocritical to give straight people all this choice of "love" they previously scarcely had, while forcing gays into loveless bisexuality.
Suffice to say that as an orientation without confines, heterosexuality can also lead us to extinction via overpopulation, and this is currently a much greater threat than a lack of pro-creation. In fact, the planet could do with a sterile generation.
2. If neighbors who don't agree must be seperated that does not bode well for gays, since we are born to heterosexuals and must live amongst them. Are you proposing apartheid and segregation? These are now dirty words in the West, but other faiths have no problem with segregating outsiders in their countries.
3. Interestingly the French Revolution is often blamed on the Freemasons or Illuminati. It did away with the anti-sodomy laws, which were only reintroduced to France by the Nazis.

Thanks for a great post!

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Ex_MislTech

 

1. Let us divide sex acts from sexual orientation. Gay people have straight sex and children, just as usually heterosexual people have gay sex.

If you have sex with women and men that is defined as Bisexual
by most of the planet.

Suffice to say that as an orientation without confines, heterosexuality can also lead us to extinction via overpopulation, and this is currently a much greater threat than a lack of pro-creation. In fact, the planet could do with a sterile generation.

A sterile generation cannot produce offspring, that would be the end.

As for over population the Neo-Malthusians are just spreading
their propaganda.

We are a Tech Zero society, once we get past this we can do as
professor hawking has said and save humanity from certain
extinction either thru nature or our own designs.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

You and I may feel we are smart, but I KNOW he is smart, and
thus I will take his point over most of the other inhabitants of
This pale blue dot amidst billions of galaxies.

2. If neighbors who don't agree must be seperated that does not bode well for gays, since we are born to heterosexuals and must live amongst them. Are you proposing apartheid and segregation? These are now dirty words in the West, but other faiths have no problem with segregating outsiders in their countries.

First I'd like to make it clear I am no fan of religion, but
90% of the planet believes in some form of supreme being.

Apartheid is a racial reaction, partition already takes place in
schools now and religious indoctrination is outlawed.

Additional partition for special needs kids, and the violent.

Yet we declare religious freedom in this nation.

So we have made indoctrination illegal, but yet there are teachers
in classrooms that are not sex Ed classes teaching children how
to be gay and it is not on the syllabus for the class.

So they have in fact become militant gays, and are pushing
an agenda.

So here we are at the point in the cross roads where the gays
are using the school system indoctrinate the children of ppl
that wish to practice their religious freedom and raise their
children as they see fit.

This interjection of state forced education of lifestyle flies
in the face of government for the people by the people.

No one has the right to brain wash anothers child to some
form of counter culture, be it the ghetto culture or the gay culture.

There is a civil war forming over this now.

You can go peacefully or not, the children issue has angered
the religious ppl a great deal.

The "cram it down our throat" methods does not make for good neighbors.

So it is going to be a war, or the two groups will make room for
each other and reach for tolerance.

The day of federal government forced agendas against the
constitutional rights of the people are coming to an end.

Homosexuality goes against most religions on the planet,
using the majority tax dollars to go against their beliefs
is living on borrowed time.



[edit on 19-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

Instead of me leaving, i say collect all the gays, and ship em to an island land let the fudge packing commence! Leave my heterosexual countries alone. maybe we can just ship em all to cali and cause an earth quake and have the state seperate from the rest of the continent, maybe then us heteros can have peace of mind that we arent going to be try and converted to this perverse way of life. I'm not a homophobe I'm a naturalist!

If you have sex with women and men that is defined as Bisexual

reply to post by Ex_MislTech

No, I think I made the distinction.
If, for example, a heterosexual man is raped by another man, he is not "bisexual", despite the gay act.

That is a brutal example, but there are many reasons why people may act "against their natures" or orientations, ranging from situational, economic, social and procreative pressures.

Far from converting anyone, my aim would be making everyone happy and secure in their orientation. People who are secure, will generally not feel threatened by another orientation. Last time I checked it was homophobes who were trying to convert gays to their unfortunate, problematic lifestyles, and not vice-versa.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by Ex_MislTech

Homosexuality goes against most religions on the planet,

Yeah, I'm sure you've studied them all intensely to make such a ridiculously sweeping statement.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by halfoldman]

Leave my heterosexual countries alone.

reply to post by clever024

What countries may that be?
Zimbabwe, Iran, Mauritania and Sudan?
You can keep 'em.
By all means, please do.

(My heart goes out to there long-suffering populations.)


[edit on 21-8-2010 by halfoldman]

Apartheid is a racial reaction, partition already takes place in

reply to post by Ex_MislTech
A 'racial' regime like apartheid cannot take place without gender
discrimination.
Apartheid was also sexist and homophobic.

The Apartheid government was hostile to the human rights of LGBT South Africans. Homosexuality was a crime punishable by up to seven years in prison; this law was used to harass and outlaw South African gay community events and political activists en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not sure what kind of racist, sexist "homobhobic" valhalla is imagined.
I doubt many people would choose to live in a hateful place, or raise children there.

Why must we imagine that something which never worked can work again, just so that some "conservatives" can express their intolerance?


[edit on 21-8-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by clever024

Instead of me leaving, i say collect all the gays, and ship em to an island land let the fudge packing commence!

A common misunderstanding in some posts: nowhere did I argue that anyone has to leave their countries to live in a homophobic country.
I'm asking what model of current homophobic countries they would choose, and I deliberately mentioned one Islamic and one Christian country.
Then I asked what kind of laws could consolidate an anti-gay position - what does it actually want (i.e. the death sentence, bans on certain behaviours, and so forth)?

However, this poster is quite clear in that he wants a removal of known homosexuals. So I guess that's one answer.

To half old Man,
Inca was the theological head of their culture. He bred many of the wives of the lower level men who were gelded. When the Jesuits, got into this picture, they accused the commoners of going through their lives, being 'sleep walkers'. When these guys realized what total bunk they were living, they flocked to the Spaniards and the last Inca disappeared into the Amazon Jungles. But for thousands of years, diplomats were indeed used as hostages, kept for the purpose of guaranteeing whatever peace was being brokered. These people, weren't commoners, as they would have then been expendable.
Again, just like I said to you, before, about the Goths' King of Rome, the Catholic Spaniards enforced; "one man marries one woman, and no homosexuality allowed, period"! To a degree, one thousand years downstream, these were the same kin folks that Theodoric chased out of Italy, before he grasped for the Purple, in Constantinople. This new Gay revolution in our midst, may well sink our culture down to the level of debasement of the French Revolution, from 1795- 1800. But then, there's always someone ready to come riding in on a white horse, to turn everything upside down. That our First Republic is tanking, shouldn't surprise anyone. But it really takes foresight to glean the name of the third antechrist of Nostradamus, and properly locate the coming demise of our First Republic, here in North America. Personally, my decoding, of Nosty, doesn't see a Second Republic of the U.S.A.. Rather, whatever barbarian horde, comes down the road, at the right time, will be given power, to get the apostate politicians and jurists, off of the backs of the common people. Washington's Third Prophecy probably equals the Nosty stuff from another perspective. You gotta combine George's "Blue Ensign", with Nosty's King with the Blue Turban. So for a place to start, look for a West Coast State, with a Blue State Flag, IMHO. Oregon, anyone? But back in the old days, the Oregon Country was a lot bigger than it is today. It ran all the way up to the southern border of Alaska, at 54deg. 40 min. of Latitude. It also ran all the way East, to the Continental Divide in Montana and Wyoming. I'm sorry to wander off topic, but IMO this is right where the Gay revolution is leading. Think of a million, furious Chinese, trying to collect on their country's IOU''s, contracted by Uncle Sugar, only to have the World Court freeze everything west of the Mississippi River, as still belonging to French Royalty, per the 1815 survival of the Lost Dauphin. And if you believe in the DNA, match in Paris, Louis Charles was titular Louis XVIII. Spreading out along the Trans Canada Highway and spilling down over the Crow's Nest Pass onto the Plains, while getting a World Court pass, to cross the territory of the Western Regency, via I-90, I-84, and even as far south as Donner Pass, east of San Francisco, several Chinese army groups could really do what Washington predicted. And the new "Red Dawn", in Michigan, and their Univ's., Wolverine mascot, now becomes really creepy. All that this would take, IMO, is for a large minority of Westerners, to swear their allegiance to the "Great Founding Treaty of Paris of 1790" , and honor the Mississippi River as the abiding natural border between New France and the United States of America. We've seen birthers, but what about a new crop of "Founders", who in future dire straits, rediscover their Imperial Christian Patrimony. So how much sino- cizing will it take for the People's Republican Army to declare America's gargantuan debts, 'Paid in Full'? I figure that it will be when they kill all of the males, and carry off all the females in several midwestern States, or what was divided out of the Northwest Ordinances, the old Northwest. These lands aren't really the original Treaty of Paris declared U.S.A. and they certainly are not anything that evolved over time from French Louisiana.

reply to post by carpooler

The last Sapa Inca, Tupac Amaru was executed in 1572, in a dreadful spectacle (although he did hold out along the Amazon jungles for a while).
He had his intestines removed by a torture machine, and this was presided over by the Dominicans. Nevertheless, the missionaries were not in favor of the political decision. They smuggled out Tupac Amaru's descendants, many of them to Sicily.en.wikipedia.org...
Even the Spaniards were largely outraged and waxed lyrically over the conquered kingdom, which they desribed as once free form adultery and vice.
Of course "conquest" is a relative term. To the large, rural peasant populations many of the even pre-Incan traditions remained, and still do so today.



[edit on 21-8-2010 by halfoldman]

To halfoldman, I'm not to sure about your history. I was raised Catholic, and the info we had was that the Society of Jesus,(Jesuits) were the ringleaders in the Spanish Conquest of Peru. You seem to grab names out of the air, and lose the flavor of this great European endeavor. For a mere handful of conquistodors, to upend not one, but two great native American empires, both Aztecs and Incas, required real heavenly dispensation. You may alibi, this magnifiscent victory, but my point about the homosexuals being guilty of concubinage, with gay marriage frauds, stands on it's own merits. With our equality under the laws, doctrines, it opens this long ago closed door, to heteros, also. My earlier rant, is beyond any war gamer's horizons, but figuring in the public's revulsion against the homosexual revolution, I believe this will be the lynchpin for the "Blue Ensign Jihad", which George Washington warned, was in our future. He said peace for a long while, under the Blue Ensign, and no further mention of his dear, Stars and Stripes. Just like Fifth Cent. Rome, we'll be under the thumb of martial law for an extended period of time, but to no avail. Provinces will replace the smaller several States, and this will finally normalize things from the Arctic to the Antarctic, all across the Americas. And of course, it will all be George W. Bush's fault. Actually, looking back in a hundred years, it really will be seen as W's screwups. Obama, could, and probably should have, let the Wall Streeters really go over the Bushies' engineered financial cliff. Then at least we'd already have started to pick up the pieces. As it is, we still have to go through the great financial 'cornbinder', which is lurking like the Wolf at the Door. We won't even need the Roman's twenty five year volcanic winter, to sink our First Republic, but just a new river of ink, running red. But like the Jesuits back in the Seventeenth Century, the new imperial christian forces will resort to the same time tested drill, of blaming most of the troubles on the homosexuals, just like the Goths did, with their King of Rome, dictates, around the dawning of the Seventh Century AD. When things really go down in flames, you have got to know, our salvation will ride or fall, on the precepts of the nuclear family, once again. We've come way too far, just to surrender to a bunch of homosexual idiots, who want to destroy this vital corner stone of our Western Hegemony.

My question is, if someone is an "anti-gay homophobic", doesn't the "anti-gay" portion of the question cancel out the "homophobic" portion, thus implying that the person is actually pro gay?