Why supporting gay marriage means splitting the country

Seriously?

 

He hates, yes hates, gays unless he will specifically say that the authors of the Bible got it dead wrong when they say to kill gays and that gays can't get into heaven, and that gays deserve to burn in the "lake of fire".

- - - Updated - - -

Gays are good for the planet, as technically they can not (directly) have children with each other. Now that the earth is nearing its holding capacity, being gay is more and more being seen as not bad, and not as neutral, but as being good. Being gay is green.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa!! Are you trying to tell us that the Bible/conservatives were on the wrong side of history regarding, say, slavery? The Bible approves of slavery, even beating slaves to death as long as the death drags out past about 48 hours, and Jesus accepted slavery, so they obviously have god/Jesus on their side - so how could slavery be wrong if they have god/Jesus on their side!? For slavery to be bad, god/Jesus would have to be wrong.

http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/slavery/

- - - Updated - - -

The followers of ZEUS used to think the same thing. For some strange reason there are not a lot of followers of Zeus today.

 

I don't understand what you are talking about in the first part of your post. I need some clarification before I can effectively respond because I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I will say that I do not support intrusive government policies meant to force diversity, based on either income or race. If you want a clear example, I will say that I do not support using HUD subsidies to pay for expensive properties in expensive areas so that poorer kids can go to wealthy public schools. The solution is to change the way school districts are funded and to focus on bad parenting, which is the real difference between those who get good educations and those who don't. A good education requires desire, a stable environment, a pencil, books, and a computer--that is it. It is up to parents to foster a healthy learning environment in the home. The idea that kids "learn" in class has always been a farce. People learn when they have time to think about the material and can engage it on a personal level. The kids that go home, do the reading, and study the material are the ones who do well. When I was in China, I visited their most prestigious university, and it was nothing compared to the University of Texas at Austin in terms of resources, yet their students are definitely more elite than we are. Chinese schools often lack even AC, but they don't have a problem doing the assigned work.

I understand how humans operate at a subconscious level, far more than most.

Like O'Brien? Maybe. If I were in a position of authority and gained from a system, I would cooperate with it; if I don't benefit from the system, I don't follow it. This is what everyone does, they just lie to themselves about why they are doing it. Moral machinery evolved to help humans manage conflicts in human groups; in other words, morality has always been of instrumental value, though it has now taken on a life of its own, unbounded from the original context in which it emerged. This is why it's so easy to develop thought experiments that quickly lead you into total moral confusion. In fact, every time we bomb a house and kill 10 civilians to get one terrorist, we are engaging in hypocrisy. Only the logic of materialism can get you out of the quandary--conventional morality simply can't accommodate it. Why are the lives of civilians less valuable than American lives? Materialism can explain it, but your moral system collapses and fails to accommodate that reality.

 

Yes. Just becuase you're against homosexuality doesn't mean your against or hate homosexuals.

 

Amen. You can't necessarily change irrational bigots... you just only go over or around them, on your way to what's new or right.

 

Watch your back.

 

Actually, you look around... there are those who will certainly be enemies. In any case, it's not just about one person... it's about encouraging people to consider new/better ways of thinking, even as older ways are also considered.

An idea whose time has come, is unfathomably difficult to 'kill'.

 

Then the best you can hope for is to be a victimizer rather than a victim, which will work like a charm exactly as long as you can keep what goes around from coming around...

...but evidently you're gonna have to learn the hard way, so happy trails.

 

Only infidels, protestants, and renegades are repugnant to our supreme law of the land:

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.​

 

The trans bathroom bill is a similar issue to this. Despite what you hear about "rape culture" the truth is that physical rape is not endemic in the US or other western countries, but in places where it is endemic (such as lower caste India), the majority of rapes happen in or near restrooms. Women appear to have an instinctive understanding of this. There is also no real disagreement within psychology or psychiatry that trans people suffer from a host of mental problems and bad outcomes, no matter how "liberal" and supporting their environment may be. A lot of women just want to feel safe. It's instinctive for them to not want a penis in the women's restroom. Being nice to transgenders is not going to beat a real (and in much of the world, still relevant) instinct related to self-preservation. People who push this really strongly won't get what they want, they will just encourage splits within the country.

 

In the early 1900, the support for interracial marriage was under 10%. In the 50's, it was under 40%. When the Supreme Court struck down Miscegenation Laws, support
for interracial marriage was under 50%. Now support for interracial marriage is over 80%.

I'm sure that some conservatives will either grow up emotionally, or they will die off from old age ... this is not the end of the world - any more than interracial marriage was.

 

Fascinating. We not too interested in rape statistics in New Delhi when our statutes, and business interests do not extend down there. Got links to support any of these assertions? Here in the states to assess risk, we are going to want to distinguish between bathrooms in a residences or hotels of course, because the vast majority of rapes are acquaintance rapes, rather than mysterious transsexuals lurking in stalls. I will also wonder how one defines 'close to a restroom' for the purposes of documenting this relationship between restrooms and rapes. Stranger rapes predominantly happen in urban areas and there are bound to be toilets in any building and buildings have walls adjacent to streets, parking lots and alleys. Maybe pseudo-transsexuals are taking a pick axe to the wall to get to the alley and victims.

I think women are smart enough to figure the real risks, despite their 'instincts'

 

Yup. Heard this kind of rationalization years ago ... "Just because you're against interracial marriage doesn't mean you are against or hate black people ..."
You really need to look yourself hard in the mirror and accept that you have irrational fears - if you're going to be a bigot - be a man and be truthful about it - don't
pretend that you are an "accepting" person and then pull bigoted opinions out of your arse.

 

Being a certain race is genetic. Cannot be changed. Being a homosexual is mental. Can be changed. Am I'm bigoted against those who practice incest? And no I don't have an irrational fear. I don't even have a normal fear. What's there to be afraid of? What I do have is common sense.

 

I've read about that, but I've never seen it in process. I have seen the voucher system, charter schools and bussing at various times in my life. I have two grade school age children, so I would notice this if it happened anywhere near to me. Our local schools here use magnet programs, and allow for zoning exemptions.

I still think market forces are a much bigger factor overall. I suspect HUD is a convenient scapegoat. By that I don't mean to imply that HUD isn't working towards integration, I just mean that from a conservative leaders perspective it seems like an easy group to blame (or to use as a dodge and not really give a direct answer) when constituents complain about too many minorities.

 

Well, I definitely don't support any attempts to use the government as a way to either segregate or desegregate. Frankly, I don't like zoning laws at all and think they are terribly destructive to the country. If we removed zoning laws, urbanization would double and you would get more inclusion, as well as more stable rent.

 

Another fundamental point I'd like to make is this. When you fail to persuade someone of your position, you have two choices. First choice is you agree to get along with them even though you have a disagreement on something. The second choice is to settle somewhere along the spectrum of enduring hostility. The camps we call liberal and conservative have clearly failed to persuade each other of basic things. Abortion is one of those things but it didn't split up a country because most people don't get abortions and they're kept under the table. Gay marriage might not split up the country since most people aren't gay and most gays don't actually want to get married. But transgender bathroom bills basically weaponize mentally disturbed individuals in the "culture wars" and deploys them into potentially anywhere. Combined with the "smug" liberals and their threatening attitudes and apparently increasing propensity to riot, it seems like it's all going to end pretty badly.