Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Confronting Prejudice.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Confronting Prejudice. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/21/2011 4:42:04 PM   
lockedaway


Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

lockedaway
I would like to think that I will not be judged too harshly but some people say that the polyamory I enjoy is just another form of adultery.  I guess I will find out when I die.


I do hope that if you are judged by some god or other at the end of your days, that god will exhibit more compassion towards you than I have ever seen you exhibit here.


Tweak...you are an insipid fool.  And I don't say that lightly and I don't say that to be mean.  You accuse me of not having compassion because I believe that people who have the physical and mental ability to WORK do not and I should not be responsible to pay for them.  Got it?  Believing in personal responsibility does not render me un-compassionate.  Believing it does, however, renders you a fool; a lazy, shiftless, jealous, envious, fool.  If I am wrong in that assessment of you......tell me why.

I believe in charity.  Charity is only philanthropic when it is voluntarily given.  When it is stolen from you to consolidate your voter base......it is tyranny.  If you are too stupid to understand that, why keep engaging me? 

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/21/2011 4:49:12 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

No...that is YOUR definition. 

Find me your sources for men marrying any time prior to our current change in the law.



KenDoll likes to reinvent history to support his points. Marriage in most cultures was religious in nature and evolved to ensure that a woman's young were protected by a male. To claim it was never gender specific and only a legal construct is ridiculous. Later societies did recognize same sex relationships similar to marriage, but that was the point...they were SIMILAR, they werent called marriage.

And that is why those who oppose same sex marriage are not anti-gay. Equal rights doesnt mean you have to call it the same thing.

So you're saying I made up the well known fact that Emperor Elagabulus married his male lover and refered to him as his husband?

Also most cultures != all cultures so your claims are internally contradictory (which is something of a new low as you're usually only that spectacularly wrong when you do math).

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/21/2011 4:53:23 PM   
lockedaway


Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

No...that is YOUR definition. 

Find me your sources for men marrying any time prior to our current change in the law.



KenDoll likes to reinvent history to support his points. Marriage in most cultures was religious in nature and evolved to ensure that a woman's young were protected by a male. To claim it was never gender specific and only a legal construct is ridiculous. Later societies did recognize same sex relationships similar to marriage, but that was the point...they were SIMILAR, they werent called marriage.

And that is why those who oppose same sex marriage are not anti-gay. Equal rights doesnt mean you have to call it the same thing.

So you're saying I made up the well known fact that Emperor Elagabulus married his male lover and refered to him as his husband?

Also most cultures != all cultures so your claims are internally contradictory (which is something of a new low as you're usually only that spectacularly wrong when you do math).


If you are giving ONE example, Ken, I don't think it is very valid.  ONE example is an aberration.  Tell us what "cultures" what "races" what "civilizations" considered same sex relations to be the subject of marriage prior to the past 50 years or so. 

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/21/2011 5:12:22 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

FR

If you have first hand experience with a number of the people you are finding those feelings about, then there is nothing you can proactively do about it. If you dont have first hand experience, and are only reading things, then remember that your sources are almost certainly speaking with an agenda. Discount them, ignore them, whatever, because you arent really reacting to the people but to fiction.

I am wondering if this is, in your convoluted way, an apology for the umpteen times you have called me an "anti-Semite' without the slightest justification?

It would be nice if you practised what you preached Willbur, though, truth be told, my expectations aren't very high.

_____________________________



(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/21/2011 5:24:02 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

If you are giving ONE example, Ken, I don't think it is very valid.  ONE example is an aberration.  Tell us what "cultures" what "races" what "civilizations" considered same sex relations to be the subject of marriage prior to the past 50 years or so. 

Here's just a few:
Woman-woman marriage - something akin to what we call gay marriage - is widely practised through African cultures.

Many Native American Indians tribes, Indian and East Asian cultures also have had arrangements that correspond to gay marriage. These institutions attracted the ire of missionaries and conquistadors and exterminated ruthlessly when discovered by Westerners.

There are many many more such examples, enough to fill volumes in fact.* Any one with any familiarity with the anthropological record will attest to validity of the above. To claim that alternative forms of marriage are without historical or cultural precedent is to exhibit gross ignorance of the subject matter.

* For example see Epstein, Julia, Straub, Kristina; Eds, Body Guards: The Cultural Politics of Gender Ambiguity, Routledge, London, 1991

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 8/21/2011 5:36:36 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to lockedaway)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/21/2011 5:32:54 PM   
lockedaway


Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

If you are giving ONE example, Ken, I don't think it is very valid.  ONE example is an aberration.  Tell us what "cultures" what "races" what "civilizations" considered same sex relations to be the subject of marriage prior to the past 50 years or so. 

Here's just a few:
Woman-woman marriage - something akin to what we call gay marriage - is widely practised through African cultures.

Many Native American Indians tribes, Indian and East Asian cultures also have had arrangements that correspond to gay marriage. These institutions attracted the ire of missionaries and conquistadors and exterminated ruthlessly when discovered by Westerners.

There are many many more such examples, enough to fill volumes in fact. Any one with any familiarity with the anthropological record will attest to validity of the above. To claim that alternative forms of marriage are without historical or cultural precedent is to exhibit gross ignorance of the subject matter.


Name them.  Don't give us bullshit statements.  Name the cultures.  Name the tribes.  C'mon genius. 

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/21/2011 5:59:10 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
You were given a link in my post. In fairness, I did add the reference as an afterthought. As you seem to have missed it - it's the book listed at the end of my post #45. You'll find lots more references in the bibliography too.

Alternatively, go and research the matter in any University Library anthropology section (assuming you know how to research). Or, look up issues of the Journal of the History of Sexuality there.

It can only do you good to research and actually learn something. You might actually make an informed statement for once. Wouldn't that be a pleasant change!

On the record to date, your posts are so ignorant and/or ill-informed it appears your aim is to appear as ignorant and ill-informed as possible.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 8/21/2011 6:17:57 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to lockedaway)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/22/2011 12:22:28 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
"This isn't a troll thread."

I have not read any of the responses, and this is not a troll response. It may be hard to believe but really it is not.

I am prejudiced out the ass, I mean TOTALLY prejudiced. Against everyone. You can't trust anyone period. I got about a dozen people I can really trust and it took me years to get them, some, decades.

Prejudice is normal. When you use unusable factors in determining the level of prejudice, like skin color or race, or sexual preference or even appearance, that is when you err. But prejudice itself is not a bad thing. In fact it has saved many lives.

Don't get caught up in this mamby pamby bullshit. Prejudice is natural. Bigotry is the fucking problem. There is a difference.

Maybe I'll read the rest of this later, maybe not.

T^T

(in reply to imperatrixx)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/22/2011 5:25:23 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.......wow, Imp, you are such a stereotype.  Too funny.  You have a problem with Christians, eh?  You have a problem with a code of conduct like that Ten Commandments?  You have a problem with things like "honoring thy mother and father" and "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" and "thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife"?  That is pretty fucked up since Christianity is responsible is arguably one of the most liberty spreading theologies in the history of man.  Oh...I get it, a religion that speaks to the virtue of Jihad is much more life affirming.

Have their been some atrocities in the name of a Christian God...sure.  But what was the Holocaust done in the name of?  The State....right?  The State and the Aryan race.  What about the millions upon millions that were killed just under the rule of Josef Stalin?  What was that done in the name of, sport?  Communism and the proletariat, right?  What about the Japanese rape of the world from Australia to the Aleutians?  What was that done in the name of...the Emperor, wasn't it?  What about the slaughter in Darfur and the Gold Coast in Africa....that is being committed in the name of...what?  Money and material, right?

You are such a well reasoned and brilliant guy, tell me this; how many millions of lives have been taken in the name of Christianity? 
If you take the 100 Years War out of the equation...which had its justifications as well as its detractions...how many people would you say have been put to death for not worshiping Christ?  Care to venture a figure? 

Perhaps you would like to tell me what is wrong with teaching Creationism?  Do you have a problem that with the philosophy that a Supreme Being created the universe?  Do you also have a problem with the philosophies of Socrates, Pluto, Aristotle and Nietzsche?

Do you know what I am prejudiced against?  I guess I can't help it.  I'm prejudiced against asshole children from the ages of 15 to 30 years of age that have been taught that the U.S. is an evil country, that somehow a government owes them a living and that Christianity is a bad faith, Christians are bad people and that the notion that there is a being that is supreme to man is some sort of fantasy.  I don't know...I just fucking hate people like that.



Does the Spanish Inquisition ring a bell?

How about the Crusades?

Want me to list more?





< Message edited by rulemylife -- 8/22/2011 5:29:32 AM >

(in reply to lockedaway)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/22/2011 6:36:11 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx

This isn't a troll thread.

If I see someone post...Muslims hate women, Muslims are terrorists, Muslims are whatever, I react to the prejudice.

But the more I read about fundamentalist Christians doing abhorrent things, I find myself thinking...typical fundie freak. Fundamentalist Christians beat their kids. Not surprised. Fundamentalist Christians want to teach creationism in public school? Of course, those backwards motherfuckers do.

I'm really starting to become prejudiced. Not against all Christians, but against the really devout ones. I know that most people are Christian in name and I don't hold that against them, but the super evangelical fundamentalist ones...is what I'm feeling prejudice? I don't like having an automatic disdainful reaction to a group of people, no matter who they are.

So the question is - how do you stop prejudice? I always see people talk about stopping prejudice in society, or in other people, but how do you stop it when you feel it growing inside yourself?

Because I will be honest - I hate these people. I really do. And that kind of scares me about myself.


I grew up in a fundamentalist household. When I see things like the post where a seven year old was spanked to death because God wanted them to, what I see has less to do with religion, and more to do with simple mental instability. If you want to know where I reside on the religion meter, it is a point that has and will be a moving target. I left home when I was 16, and left religious things behind me. Probably the most communication that went between my mother and myself over the next year was trying to get her to sign the paperwork for me to join the military. She eventually did. My dog tags read NONE next to the religion stamp.

That's about where I stayed for the next fifteen years. The time since has been a graduated move back towards some of it, but I'll be the first to tell you, I will never again be at the place I was before I left home. A couple of things figure into that, the first being the understanding that religion is a personal matter, at least for me. While the Bible talks a lot about society and how it should conduct itself, the overall lesson is that when you;re called to answer, you're not answering for other people. You're answering for your own actions.

More than that though, what pulled me back was seeing my two daughters actually love going to church. I didn't take them. My ex did. So I went with them a time or two to see why. In there came another realization in that, one's view of religious things can depend a great deal on who is doing the teaching. And the fact is, there's value in what they're teaching. A lot of folks like to talk about founding fathers and Christianity. I suppose I've read that Jefferson was a deist a thousand times in response to someone saying the US was founded on Christian principles.

Jefferson's life to was one where religion held the status too of being a moving target. What he wrote about the teachings of Jesus was that they contained the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man". This was after he took all the mystical stuff away and concentrated on what was actually taught.

Having been there, run away, sort of drifted a distance back, what I can tell you is that fundies don't normally beat their kids to death. I had enough whippings as a kid, but never was I in fear of my life, and generally I deserved some punishment. A good bit of the political actions from the fundie side come from two points. One they had a power over society that's been eroded over the years. They're no different than any other group when it comes to power. I don't care who it is nor what their cause is, power becomes the absolute goal. The second is they see a good many actions taken by the left as a direct attack upon them, and rightly so. A lot of left minded folks hate the church. They can argue it all day long but the obsessive need to sever Christianity's influence from society describes that fact better than any words ever will. That battle, like just about everything we do as a society has reached the land of absurdity so often that what is clear from it, is there no middle ground.

I'll admit, I'm prejudiced against fundies to a degree. I'll also admit that I can understand where they're coming from, and where the other side is coming from. I can see answers that could reduce the tension between them for the most part, but also realize for those totally hanging on the ends, whether it be fundamentalism or hatred of, there is no set of answers that will ever satisfy either side. There are a lot of good people who believe strongly. Like many issues, however when it comes to anything religious-  or political for that matter, - it's who is pushing the buttons that drives the mob mentality.

Personally, I don't have a problem living next to one, cause I do. I don't have a problem either living next to atheists, done that too. I've brought people into my house before, for sometimes an extended period, because they had no where else to go, and that included fundies, gay couples, pagans.. mainly because if you take the time, you'll find both good and bad in any belief, and in any lifestyle. The question boils down to where you will engage yourself, and whether or not you will allow either side to push you away from your personal center.



_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to imperatrixx)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/22/2011 7:18:47 AM   
Anaxagoras


Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway
You have a problem with Christians, eh?  You have a problem with a code of conduct like that Ten Commandments?  You have a problem with things like "honoring thy mother and father" and "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" and "thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife"?  That is pretty fucked up since Christianity is responsible is arguably one of the most liberty spreading theologies in the history of man.  Oh...I get it, a religion that speaks to the virtue of Jihad is much more life affirming.

Have their been some atrocities in the name of a Christian God...sure.  But what was the Holocaust done in the name of?  The State....right?  The State and the Aryan race.  What about the millions upon millions that were killed just under the rule of Josef Stalin?  What was that done in the name of, sport?  Communism and the proletariat, right?  What about the Japanese rape of the world from Australia to the Aleutians?  What was that done in the name of...the Emperor, wasn't it?  What about the slaughter in Darfur and the Gold Coast in Africa....that is being committed in the name of...what?  Money and material, right?

You are such a well reasoned and brilliant guy, tell me this; how many millions of lives have been taken in the name of Christianity? 
If you take the 100 Years War out of the equation...which had its justifications as well as its detractions...how many people would you say have been put to death for not worshiping Christ?  Care to venture a figure? 

Does the Spanish Inquisition ring a bell?

How about the Crusades?

Want me to list more?

I agree with Locked in that secular violence is the big problem of more recent times. The events you listed occurred a very long time ago in the Medieval era when Christianity was vastly more militant. In the aftermath of the 18th Century Enlightenment, conflict based largely on Christianity occurred very infrequently whilst conflict based on political ideology and nationalism multiplied. It is often hard to separate the elements of conflict as religion is mingled with cultural identity. It seems that at times religion is cited in conflict where in reality it is in essence more of an offshoot of a historical/cultural identity, e.g. conflict in Northern Ireland (especially after the early 1900's) was not so much based on religion as nationality, an issue where the labels Catholic and Protestant were and are used interchangeably with Unionist and Nationalist.

One of the worst examples of religiously themed violence in the 20th Century was the Ustaše in Croatia who were Catholic, and alligned with Bosnian Muslims. They caused a mass genocide of Orthodox Serbs but here religion was a signifier of national identity rather than as an end in itself. Some might point to 1930's Spain where Catholic principles were cited on the right and there was a Catholic party but this wasn't really a conflict over religion, it seemed to be more about national identity and extreme right-centre-left political instability than religion, the Church was a big part of the establishment and traditional culture, which the socialists challenged very intensely. Religion is still a large cause of violent strife but thats mainly with certain other cultures that haven't had an event akin to the Enlightenment where there is a strong cultural disassociation between religion and politics.

< Message edited by Anaxagoras -- 8/22/2011 8:22:57 AM >

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/22/2011 7:34:47 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
In several decades of observations, I've noticed something.

Christians are like Doms. the ones that stand on top of a hill and beat their chests and scream to the world "Look at ME dammit. IM a GOOD (fill in either Christian or Dom here) are just a bunch of fucking poseurs.

A Christian or Dom(me) doesnt need to announce him or herself to the world. They just quietly go about their existence and lead by example. They live the commandments instead of contantly lecturing others on how they're fucking up. They show people what living morally does. They help people and willingly show charity even when there is nothing in it for them.

The problem we have now is that those who make headlines (especially the politicians) wrap themselves in the mantle of Christianity but they don't follow the practices. The Perrys, O'Donnels etc. They are no more a good Christian than Tomas de Tourquemada was a Dom.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Anaxagoras)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/22/2011 9:43:06 AM   
MusicalBoredom


Posts: 620
Joined: 5/8/2007
From: Louisiana/New York
Status: offline
Hillwilliam I think you right.  I think that's why we tend to fall into easily assigning bad behaviour that's observed by someone to all of the people that have a similar attribute.  I think it's a result of the media wanting to tell a story that makes you keep watching.  We as a society love to hear about the racists white guys or the uneducated rednecks in southern state.  We can't get enough of some Islamic nutjob.  A closeted gay Baptist preacher can have a whole hour long show dedicated to it.  We also love to gawk at the some absurd behavior that's acted in the name of God by some clearly insane Christain.  We also do this to corporations who do something illegal or hugely unethical, a rouge police office, some drug addicted welfare mom, and most politicians.

Who would watch "Cops" if it were a couple of officers driving around saying hi to people all over town? No one would watch the news about some hard working Chrisian guy who worked all day at the insurance office, came home and helped cooked dinner, helped with the homework and put the kids to bed.  We also don't want 30 minute docudrama about a single Grandmother who ended up having to take in her grandchildren and the neighbors kids because those parents were unfit and she works 8 hours a day at Target but still gets some government assistance to help with the medical costs of the kids.  Now if the guy molests his kids or one of the grandmother's wards goes on a shooting spree then we want every single detail of their lives.

In that way, all we see are the failings of a few and nothing about the mediocre (we would care if they became famous) successes of the many.


(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/22/2011 10:37:10 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

No...that is YOUR definition. 

Find me your sources for men marrying any time prior to our current change in the law.



KenDoll likes to reinvent history to support his points. Marriage in most cultures was religious in nature and evolved to ensure that a woman's young were protected by a male. To claim it was never gender specific and only a legal construct is ridiculous. Later societies did recognize same sex relationships similar to marriage, but that was the point...they were SIMILAR, they werent called marriage.

And that is why those who oppose same sex marriage are not anti-gay. Equal rights doesnt mean you have to call it the same thing.

So you're saying I made up the well known fact that Emperor Elagabulus married his male lover and refered to him as his husband?

Also most cultures != all cultures so your claims are internally contradictory (which is something of a new low as you're usually only that spectacularly wrong when you do math).


If you are giving ONE example, Ken, I don't think it is very valid.  ONE example is an aberration.  Tell us what "cultures" what "races" what "civilizations" considered same sex relations to be the subject of marriage prior to the past 50 years or so. 


Ancient China and the Roman Empire prior to 342 CE. Which you would have already known if you read my earlier post when you asked.

A further argument could be made for the Classical Greeks particularly the Spartans and Japan during the fuedal period.

(in reply to lockedaway)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/22/2011 10:49:27 AM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline
I actually think it is OK to actively dislike what fundamentalist Christians are proposing and work against it.  It is not OK to hate them as a group.  About the only way to combat that is to meet some of them on an individual basis, you may find that you like them as people, so it is harder to hate a group that they are a member of.  Of course, that strategy could backfire, too.  You could end up deciding you were right in the first place.

My personal example is that I think the mormon church is about the stupidest organization in the world, and that is saying a lot.  Their weird rituals and beliefs, along with their made up history, seem really backwards and primitive to me.  On the other hand, I can name many individual mormons that I know and like very much, and that I consider to be honorable people.  It is hard to "hate" mormons as a group, knowing the people that I know.

The thread about the Christians beating their kid to death is very emotional.  I think it is important to remember that people who are totally non religious also kill their kids from time to time.  It is certainly OK to be prejudiced against people who are depraved enough to do such a thing, it isn't necessarily OK to consider it an indictment of Christianity.  Some asshole killed his girl friend's 4 year old daughter the other day, because he was practicing the moves he saw in professional wrestling on her.  Does that mean professional wrestling is to blame?


< Message edited by Iamsemisweet -- 8/22/2011 10:56:13 AM >


_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to lockedaway)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/22/2011 11:19:48 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

I actually think it is OK to actively dislike what fundamentalist Christians are proposing and work against it.  It is not OK to hate them as a group.  About the only way to combat that is to meet some of them on an individual basis, you may find that you like them as people, so it is harder to hate a group that they are a member of.  Of course, that strategy could backfire, too.  You could end up deciding you were right in the first place.

My personal example is that I think the mormon church is about the stupidest organization in the world, and that is saying a lot.  Their weird rituals and beliefs, along with their made up history, seem really backwards and primitive to me.  On the other hand, I can name many individual mormons that I know and like very much, and that I consider to be honorable people.  It is hard to "hate" mormons as a group, knowing the people that I know.

The thread about the Christians beating their kid to death is very emotional.  I think it is important to remember that people who are totally non religious also kill their kids from time to time.  It is certainly OK to be prejudiced against people who are depraved enough to do such a thing, it isn't necessarily OK to consider it an indictment of Christianity.  Some asshole killed his girl friend's 4 year old daughter the other day, because he was practicing the moves he saw in professional wrestling on her.  Does that mean professional wrestling is to blame?



Yeah, it's kind of like the fact that I hate a lot of things liberals do, but don't necessarily hate them as individuals.


_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/22/2011 11:24:06 AM   
DomYngBlk


Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline
As opposed to conservatives which you are fine with. Of course, you are middle of the road and don't lean one way or another. Fucking nose growing yet?

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/22/2011 11:27:10 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

No...that is YOUR definition. 

Find me your sources for men marrying any time prior to our current change in the law.



KenDoll likes to reinvent history to support his points. Marriage in most cultures was religious in nature and evolved to ensure that a woman's young were protected by a male. To claim it was never gender specific and only a legal construct is ridiculous. Later societies did recognize same sex relationships similar to marriage, but that was the point...they were SIMILAR, they werent called marriage.

And that is why those who oppose same sex marriage are not anti-gay. Equal rights doesnt mean you have to call it the same thing.

So you're saying I made up the well known fact that Emperor Elagabulus married his male lover and refered to him as his husband?

Also most cultures != all cultures so your claims are internally contradictory (which is something of a new low as you're usually only that spectacularly wrong when you do math).


If you are giving ONE example, Ken, I don't think it is very valid.  ONE example is an aberration.  Tell us what "cultures" what "races" what "civilizations" considered same sex relations to be the subject of marriage prior to the past 50 years or so. 


Ancient China and the Roman Empire prior to 342 CE. Which you would have already known if you read my earlier post when you asked.

A further argument could be made for the Classical Greeks particularly the Spartans and Japan during the fuedal period.



... and which ones survived to anything remotely close to the last few centuries? Just curious. I'm also curious too about the surviving bloodlines from those unions since familial unions traditionally generate offspring that doesn't require a third party to accomplish.

We can debate that fact too if you like, but about the only thing humanity has proven itself capable of doing and doing well is breeding. There's a shitload of evidence you'll have to wade through in that debate.

Before you go ballistic, understand, I have no issue with loving couples of any type, any race, well as long as they're human - I do have issues with granting cobra's the right to sue - equal rights under the law.

I do have a problem with shredding the traditional term for what is uniquely non-traditional relationships.


_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/22/2011 12:14:17 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan
... and which ones survived to anything remotely close to the last few centuries? Just curious. I'm also curious too about the surviving bloodlines from those unions since familial unions traditionally generate offspring that doesn't require a third party to accomplish.

We can debate that fact too if you like, but about the only thing humanity has proven itself capable of doing and doing well is breeding. There's a shitload of evidence you'll have to wade through in that debate.

Before you go ballistic, understand, I have no issue with loving couples of any type, any race, well as long as they're human - I do have issues with granting cobra's the right to sue - equal rights under the law.

I do have a problem with shredding the traditional term for what is uniquely non-traditional relationships.


I never claimed any of the Western institutions survived to the modern era, christianity has beenmilitantly anti homsexual for centuries.

In the East the Hijira culture of the subcontinent has survived to the modern era and while not mainstream there are instances of hijira "marrying" men.
http://www.despardes.com/lifestyle/feb05/eunuch-marriage-0228.htm

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Confronting Prejudice. - 8/22/2011 12:23:23 PM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

As opposed to conservatives which you are fine with. Of course, you are middle of the road and don't lean one way or another. Fucking nose growing yet?


Conservatives aren't in power dy. Four years ago, dems took over congress. I didn't have a problem with that. In fact, I even voted for a few of them. Two years ago they added the presidency to their grasp, and the instant they did, they started doing same shit the other side had done, just on the flip side. What I like best is power split. Now they get going and start again like they have some kind of mandate from the American people, I'll probably be here on your side more often.

I say that because both sides have proven themselves unfit to govern. When I find someone who actually gives a shit about the country, who governs from a mid-point that ignores the fringes, then I'll stay behind them to the bitter end. Until then, I'll play among the flakes on this side. And fortunately, there are plenty of them.


_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to DomYngBlk)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Confronting Prejudice. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125