The Hypocrisy of "Gay" "Athiests" or "alternative" lifestyles.

originally posted by: majel42
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck
Unless I am missing something the US was founded om importing ideas from outside and on progressive thinking !

As soon as people started settling the US they went about killing all the native animals and the native people, so you may wish to rethink a better analogy for your claim.

Which liberal ideas upset you ? That all men and women are created equal ? That there should be a separation of church and state ? That some people don't believe in an invisible mythical being living in the sky that will smack their bottoms if they miss Church ? Which older ideas would you like to return to segregation ? Slavery ? Women as chattel belonging to their husbands, that children should be seem and not heard ? Adultery as a stoning offence (only for women though), an eye for an eye, death for spilling your seed on the ground (that one applies only to men).

Religion is loosing its appeal because society is becoming more educated and intelligent and the more this happens, the more people realise that religion is a man made construct not a divine gift.

Ahh, here's one I missed.

First, those imported progressive ideas you mentioned were based primarily on Christian ideas.

Sure, the invasive Europeans are just like invasive exotic species, killing off the competition and taking over, a sound analogy.

I never made any statement about being upset about liberal ideas, you're the one saying that about me. I suppose you have some problem with invasive weeds in your lawn. Also, I'm offended that you are trying to make it seem like I want slavery, segregation, public stoning, and the like "re-instituted". That was mean spirited and I'd like an apology.

All those basic rights you mention are also Christian based and concerning religion as a man made construct, all that education and acquired knowledge it also a man made construct. In addition, I believe that intelligence and knowledge are actually divine gifts.

a reply to: nugget1

www.huffingtonpost.com...

42% vs 73% of the general population.

a reply to: nugget1

You can't just make a claim and not back it up with facts.
I would venture a guess that at least 50% of the people defending the LGBT community are hetrosexual christians like myself.
And I think like the LGBT community in general numbers of populace they will make up about 10% of the total ATS community.
In fact I think both the Christian Right and the LGBT community are evenly represented, it's the hetrosexual christians and atheists that make up the majority in these threads.

But like you I pulled the numbers from my rear end so I could be completely off base.

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Topics like these puts everyone on defensive.

Reading your weed analogy I think you were just trying to say that gay rights etc. are inevitable and will take over even though some will try and kill off those ideas with various strategies(like weed killer).

Correct me if I am wrong.

I would have gone with tidal wave but that's just me.

Just sayin'.

Thank you, you get it. Star for that.

Although I personally never use weed killers, esp from Monsanto.

ETA: Although you're spot on, I'm going to clarify here, that I never mention gay rights, or any groups by name in my analogy, but about new ideas in general. Somehow people are missing that.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I think you are right about knowledge being divine and wisdom but intelligence I feel is a human experience.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

Thanks for your good words. I'm beginning to believe the original post is true based on the types of replies my analogy was getting.

I was just voicing my observation from the perspective of my woodland habitat and then all this crap was flying at me from people who are probably living such lifestyles. They were putting words in my mouth and putting labels on me, I must be the enemy in their eyes, yet I can't see how I was on anyone's side in this fight.

ETA: Wait, I think I get it. I mention Jesus in my signature area. That is what must have made me the enemy.

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: nugget1

www.huffingtonpost.com...

42% vs 73% of the general population.

That survey was done on 100 people. that is a pretty small number, and those that claim to be christian also said:

At the same time that it found plenty of religious LGBT people, Pew also found that a third of them said there was a "conflict between their religious beliefs and their sexual orientation or gender identity."

About three-in-ten of respondents added that they have "been made to feel unwelcome at a place of worship or religious organization."

www.huffingtonpost.com... ws-lesbian-gay-survey_n_3442858.html

Reading the whole article puts the survey in a little different light, and it supports my feeling that Christianity is not friendly to GBLT. I am not saying in any way that they aren't spiritual, just that most don't feel welcome in traditional religion. The article you referenced seems to be saying just that.

mclarrenmp4, I can make a statement on the conclusions I draw any time I want, and I DON'T have to back it up. It is just my view on the world I see, and I don't think responding rudely was called for, unless you're looking for a fight- in which case, you'll have to look elsewhere.
When I think somebody makes an inaccurate statement, I research it, and I've discovered more than once that it was I who was wrong.
It's a better way to learn something new than by being confrontational.
I'm not on ATS to see how many enemies I can make, I'm here to exchange ideas and learn.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
In reference to my last post.

I can see now how Gryphon66 was actually placing me in the conservative camp by quoting me.

Either way I resent how people are misrepresenting my statements.

I didn't place you in any "camp." I don't have any issue stating what I mean.

You stated that what were once alternative lifestyles (gays, atheists, one can reasonably guess from the thread) were now becoming mainstream and vice versa (mainstream becomes alternative.)

So, once again, 80+% Christian in America, 90-95% heterosexual ... both groups are still well in the MAJORITY and will be.

There's no comment there about you, personally, or your politics, or ... anything else about YOU.

I don't even know you.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks for clarifying your statements, I appreciate that.

I was starting to get a little steamed with some of the replies.

a reply to: txinfidel
Pot calling the kettle black....

I'm so tired of this alleged "agenda" the gays have, did Caucasians assume African Americans had an "agenda" when they wanted equality? ((Not being sarcastic, it's an actual question))

The only "agenda" gays have is to be treated equal & have the same rights as EVERY human being because they are HUMANS. Anything else that is assumed to be an "agenda" is b.s We aren't trying to take over the world, we're not trying to turn your children into homosexuals (primarily because it is impossible to turn someone's sexual preference into something else)

You can't be taken seriously if you are preaching equality, but also completely opposed to someone that has an opposing view point. To the point where you call them names. To the point where you start bashing God and Religion, Parenting and lifestyle choices.

Last I checked, Extremists tend to have extreme ways of handling things, that doesn't mean that you should lump everybody in the same group. Some people are just sick & tired of being told they are going to hell, sick & tired of being denied human rights, sick & tired of people thinking that some how a person's sexual preference has ANY impact on their own life. If you were seeing children committing suicide because their parents have abandoned them & people getting treated like cattle, wouldn't you be pissed off? Lots of people name call, not just gays & atheists.

I do wonder about some peoples parenting capabilities when all they do is preach hate & intolerance. What kind of a child are you going to raise when they are brought up in such a hateful, hostile environment? That is why people start bashing parenting choices.

Now my theory would have to think that clearly these people are angry about some aspect of society and perhaps that should be addressed. Maybe they are just acting rebellious. But what good does rebelliousness serve if you become vindictive and lash out against and hurt other innocent people?

*sigh* Really? People are angry about some aspect of society? No # sherlock!!! Wouldn't you be pissed off too if the tables were turned & heterosexuality was a sin, heterosexuals were abandoned by their families, they were beat, raped & killed. If you were denied the same rights that homosexuals have. ((Seriously think long and hard about it, put yourself in their shoes))
The problem we have now is the same problem we had back when Caucasians were intolerant to African Americans. Do you think that it was pointless of African Americans to act they way they did? To get pissed off like some of them did?

I agree that people peddling religion on your doorstep or on the street are bad and annoying. But some of the stuff that the gay community and atheist community does is way worse and incredibly annoying.

*facepalm* What the gay community isn't even slightly comparable to people peddling religion. Do you think African Americans fighting for equality was just people "peddling" their beliefs onto Caucasians?? Right I forgot marching in parades is way worse then heterosexual males raping homosexual females! Damn we are so annoying because we are asking for human rights, sorry our bad. NOT!!

Until the LGBT community gets the same HUMAN rights as every other HUMAN on this earth, we won't shut up.

Extremists will always do what extremists do so please don't lump everyone else under the same category.


p.s If anyone is going to hell, it would be the religious people for how they treat homosexuals & all the other biblical crap they break. What with all their judging, mixed material clothing & working on Sundays.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks for clarifying your statements, I appreciate that.

I was starting to get a little steamed with some of the replies.

Trust me, around here, if you haven't already noticed, you're going to get plenty of $#!^ thrown right at you ... you won't have to go looking for it, no matter which "side" you're on ... LOL.

Best, and remember to duck!

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: mclarenmp4

Thanks for your good words. I'm beginning to believe the original post is true based on the types of replies my analogy was getting.

I was just voicing my observation from the perspective of my woodland habitat and then all this crap was flying at me from people who are probably living such lifestyles. They were putting words in my mouth and putting labels on me, I must be the enemy in their eyes, yet I can't see how I was on anyone's side in this fight.

ETA: Wait, I think I get it. I mention Jesus in my signature area. That is what must have made me the enemy.

With the wording you have, is it any wonder why people have gotten mad? Even the wording in the post I'm responding to is enough to piss people off.

I'm pretty sure your poor choice of subject matter & poor choice of wording is what has pissed people off, I know it's made me very irked. I could care less about Jesus being mentioned in your signature but I do care when people think that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals. Which yes, that is what you are saying, whether you meant it to or not.

Assuming that people are treating you poorly because Jesus is in your signature area tells me that you assume the worst in people. I HATE ASSUMPTION!! Haven't you ever heard the expression: Assumptions make an ASS of You & Me.

a reply to: beezzer
Good point Beezzer, because I find that that the same countries that strongly persecute gay people (or openly and recognizable lgbti people) are the same countries that persecute open and recognizable Christians!
Radical Islamism is certainly a threat to both gay people and Christians (one can also add atheists).
Being gay has also not excluded me from being a white male, and all the blame and reverse discrimination that can go with that according to radically Marxist fueled gender theories and politics.
That's where I currently find the most important issues that affect my life at present - affirmative action and employment equity based on race and gender.
That's something I share with other white men in SA, and I suppose other debates are secondary to that.

I'm not so worried about the US, because they bicker and argue, but currently it seems very unlikely that any side of the culture war is likely to overthrow the other and create some form of tyranny.
It's fairly balanced, and there's still a common commitment to free speech and democratic values from I see.

I'm more concerned when extremists go to countries that already have histories of recent political oppression, where the political opposition is scarcely respected and tolerated.
Here they may be pouring further fuel on fires that serve populist powers that have little interest in all freedom of religion, and Christians could be oppressed by other religions, but also by rival churches, or homophobes that are also racial and nationalistic fascists that will ultimately turn on Christianity.
I'm thinking of a documentary I saw recently about neo-Nazis in Russia, who might appreciate Scott Lively's "Christian" homophobic propaganda for now, but they also have no moral issue with bombing churches in future.

In South Africa most of my friends are Christian, and we rarely have these kinds of debates.
I think some of them feel quite bad about what's happening in Uganda, and about local examples of homophobia.
Some Christian media certainly tries to bring the US debates here, but I think the racial legacies and debates are too prominent for people to vote along religious lines.
And race/class debates have split the Gay Prides to an extent, and churches here are also sometimes split along mostly race and class lines.

That's not to say groups and events are segregated and there aren't integrated exceptions, but there's no doubt that identity politics play a large part in how mega-churches are marketed.
For Gay Pride events this has raised important issues of inclusivity, but for churches it's rarely admitted and discussed.
For example, we have the largely white Mighty Men's movement (led by Angus Buchan - a white farmer) and black charismatic churches that focus on exorcising witchcraft demons from their private parts in church (their "biscuits" and "vuvuzelas").
I can't imagine the two ever doing the same thing, although they both borrow heavily from US charismatics and spiritual warfare ideas (largely invented by Jack Chick and his assortment of authors, or religious discourses that were once largely regional minorities).

So when we say "Christian", that could mean a large amount of movements (in Protestant Christianity there is no real central authority, and anyone who disagrees and gets a different "revelation" can found their own sect).

They may tolerate each other and agree on certain things, but when they occupy the same space and come into competition they can also come to blows, such as I read happened in the town of Wells in Texas, when the local Methodist community assaulted members of the Church of Wells.
The church "evangelized" at a homecoming ceremony by telling people (including kids) they were going to burn in hell.
I wouldn't know which group to support in this case as a gay person, and assuming He exists, I'll allow God to be the referee.

originally posted by: Margana

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: mclarenmp4

Thanks for your good words. I'm beginning to believe the original post is true based on the types of replies my analogy was getting.

I was just voicing my observation from the perspective of my woodland habitat and then all this crap was flying at me from people who are probably living such lifestyles. They were putting words in my mouth and putting labels on me, I must be the enemy in their eyes, yet I can't see how I was on anyone's side in this fight.

ETA: Wait, I think I get it. I mention Jesus in my signature area. That is what must have made me the enemy.

With the wording you have, is it any wonder why people have gotten mad? Even the wording in the post I'm responding to is enough to piss people off.

I'm pretty sure your poor choice of subject matter & poor choice of wording is what has pissed people off, I know it's made me very irked. I could care less about Jesus being mentioned in your signature but I do care when people think that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals. Which yes, that is what you are saying, whether you meant it to or not.

Assuming that people are treating you poorly because Jesus is in your signature area tells me that you assume the worst in people. I HATE ASSUMPTION!! Haven't you ever heard the expression: Assumptions make an ASS of You & Me.

Wow, slow down a bit.

I'd be interested in having you show me posting anywhere, at anytime, about infringing on gay rights.

I'd also like to know how you got that from my analogy, please, I'd really like to know. I'd like exact quotes, no summaries.

I can agree that the Jesus thing was a stupid assumption, but clearly it is a possibility.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: Margana

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: mclarenmp4

Thanks for your good words. I'm beginning to believe the original post is true based on the types of replies my analogy was getting.

I was just voicing my observation from the perspective of my woodland habitat and then all this crap was flying at me from people who are probably living such lifestyles. They were putting words in my mouth and putting labels on me, I must be the enemy in their eyes, yet I can't see how I was on anyone's side in this fight.

ETA: Wait, I think I get it. I mention Jesus in my signature area. That is what must have made me the enemy.

With the wording you have, is it any wonder why people have gotten mad? Even the wording in the post I'm responding to is enough to piss people off.

I'm pretty sure your poor choice of subject matter & poor choice of wording is what has pissed people off, I know it's made me very irked. I could care less about Jesus being mentioned in your signature but I do care when people think that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals. Which yes, that is what you are saying, whether you meant it to or not.

Assuming that people are treating you poorly because Jesus is in your signature area tells me that you assume the worst in people. I HATE ASSUMPTION!! Haven't you ever heard the expression: Assumptions make an ASS of You & Me.

Wow, slow down a bit.

I'd be interested in having you show me posting anywhere, at anytime, about infringing on gay rights.

I'd also like to know how you got that from my analogy, please, I'd really like to know. I'd like exact quotes, no summaries.

I can agree that the Jesus thing was a stupid assumption, but clearly it is a possibility.

Sorry, I thought you were the one who made the OP. I will still go ahead & tell you why I think people got mad with the different things you said and use your quotes.

In the same way that people have imported non-native, exotic plants and animals that become invasive species, they have imported exotic ideas. Now native plants and animals are rare or endangered and are the new exotics in their home environment because of the invading non-native species.

These progressive and liberal ideas were at one time like an invasive species, an exotic invader, however, now that these ideas are like weeds all over our land, the older ideas are like the disappearing native species once so common

What is this "exotic" idea you speak of that has been "imported".
What progressive & liberal ideas were like "an invasive species" that has now become a "weed" over our land?

Again, poor choice of words, I can see why people first started to get mad at you.

Boy! I try to use a "weed" analogy to be as neutral as possible and someone claims I'm suggesting to treat gays like weeds and exterminate them.

Can you see why people thought using weeds as analogy was a horrible idea & got mad. If you view a weed as something different then what it is, you need to state so if you are going to use it the way you did. Yea you basically said gays were weeds & need to be killed off and that's why people got mad at you. I would have been just as pissed off if I had caught that earlier when I wasn't in a calm state of mind.

In reference to my last post.

I can see now how Gryphon66 was actually placing me in the conservative camp by quoting me.

Either way I resent how people are misrepresenting my statements.

Your statements are very easily misinterpreted. You picked a poor choice of words & now you must face the music. You shouldn't be mad that people can't read your mind and know what you were actually trying to say.

Sure, the invasive Europeans are just like invasive exotic species, killing off the competition and taking over, a sound analogy.

*sigh* Homosexuals aren't taking over anyone, trying to turn anyone into homosexual or trying to replace heterosexuals? If you want a more apt analogy, think of plants that live in symbiotic relationship with their environment, that is what the LGBT want. Not to turn everyone into LGBT. IF you think about the black civil rights movement using your invasive weed analogy, your analogy says it was about black people wanting to wipe out white people and replace them with more black people, and not about blacks having equal opportunity.

ETA: Although you're spot on, I'm going to clarify here, that I never mention gay rights, or any groups by name in my analogy, but about new ideas in general. Somehow people are missing that.

People aren't missing the fact that you didn't say gay rights & or any other groups by name in your analogy, they are left to assumption that is what you said because they can't read your mind. With what the subject matter was about and you not specifically identifying one way or another what you were talking about, it was assumed that you were meaning homosexuals & atheists. You can't get mad at people for that.

Now I hope that you can understand why so many people got mad at you.

I don't like to partake much in the Christian/Atheist/Homosexual lifestyle related threads but OP shares very similar viewpoints that I do.. or atleast I think so.

I find it almost obnoxiously ironic (yes, it's so ironic to me that it is obnoxious).. that supposed "tolerant people" are intolerant of the intolerant. Often times, it's just two groups that are intolerant of each other equally.. who's wrong here? Are we going to play the chicken or the egg game and try to figure out where the conflict originated or can we just agree to disagree and move on?

Yes, I understand awful things happen to some people. There are rotten apples in every group. My heart goes out to anyone who has been through seriously traumatic or violent situations which leads to more dire conflict. I do not blame victims for the views they may have after going through trauma. I am actually tolerant of this. Which is kind of paradoxical because that would indicate I am tolerant of people who commit such atrocities. No. This is where the line is drawn. I believe, people should be entitled to believe whatever they want as long as they don't affect other people's lives.


It is just in my firm belief that even if everybody had the same orientation, color, religion, salary.. these atrocities would still occur. We could all be on the same level playing field, look exactly the same, and still there would be some products of the environment who are pure evil. These people should not be associated with the general public. See; Westboro.

a reply to: ZeussusZ

We have Jehovah's come around weekly also and I can tolerate them. They are nice people and the information that is provided in their booklets is interesting. Good read on the brasco anyway.

a reply to: introV

It is just in my firm belief that even if everybody had the same orientation, color, religion, salary.. these atrocities would still occur. We could all be on the same level playing field, look exactly the same, and still there would be some products of the environment who are pure evil. These people should not be associated with the general public. See; Westboro.

It is a known fact that there will still be crime if everybody is the same, as you put it, humans are prone to it. Orientation, color, religion, salary, etc doesn't matter because crime is a human condition not something that only afflicts some people. To think other wise is naive.

Breaking it down in it's simplest form:
We all have bodies with working stuff, therefore we are all human and all equal. (Therefor everyone is prone to crime, illness & positive things too) The only reason we aren't all equal is because of the governments. The Majority hating on the Minorities and The Minorities hating on the Majority & other Minorities is something they have done in order to keep the people busy & unable to rebel against them. It's been that way forever!

So let's stop hating, start realizing we are all the same & work on making a better future. One where Aquaponics/Hydroponics is how we get food to everyone globally, not GMO. Where food, water & shelter are free. Where each child is taught the way that best works for them, whether it's visually, hands on, etc, in school. Where there is justice in the Justice System because prisons only house those who can't be rehabilitated & the rest are rehabilitated in the true proper way, getting down to the root of the problem & helping them through counseling & other methods.
^^^^That can all be possible, if we work together. What's stronger, a stick or bundle?

a reply to: halfoldman

You make some interesting points halfoldman. You generally do which is why I have always respected your opinion.
What I kept thinking about while reading your post was the disparity in perceived oppression by minority groups. What I mean by that is that gays here( The U.S.) feel oppressed and have been for so long that they do not see the special status they are starting to be given. Contrast this with places like Uganda which you mentioned where violence is practically encouraged. Your country of South Africa has always been interesting to me because of the dynamic of the minority whites being able to hold on to their power and it is truly amazing that the Africans did not rise up and slaughter all of the whites there to me.

In the U.S. the melting pot has been stirring for a very long time and culture becomes a bit amalgamated and we constantly see new subcultures created and pitted against each other. This is the "NWO" at work. Divide and conquer. When any group becomes to strong subcultures are introduced to divide them and bring them down. We can see what happened to african american community in the U.S. following the civil rights movement and how Blacks had split into a muslim(radical) subgroup and protestant groups.

Gays enjoy a great amount of freedom here and pretty much the last obstacles to any perceived oppression outside of forcing others to agree with the lifestyle have been removed. Now gay people are a part of a gay culture which is being used to further divide a divided nation. They become as Stalin called useful idiots in this way.

Atheism as well. I always think of the Pike Mazzini letters and how they would unleash the atheist and nihilist on the world. These are radical revolutionaries. I think about the communist idea of perpetual revolutions. All of this is to say that while all of us have our own interested view points few of us if any can see how that is being used against us as a whole.

I had an interesting thought since my last post. I could easily envision a future where the different groups which compose LGBT are pitted against each other. I mean once the revolution dies down they will need to continue on and competition may be generated between say transgendered people and homosexual males. Right now they are vying for the same recognition and have banded under the same banner but once that goal is reached to maintain identity the subgroups will break off because of their differences.