An Interesting Question on Liberty

[CavKiller37]

I've just read an article from the LA Times about gay rights versus religious rights.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-christians10apr10,0,6596503.story

There are some interesting points raised.

1. The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians.

2. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.

3. By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.


Should gay groups be protected while religious groups that think gays are evil not be protected? Should the university have to recognize said religious groups?

I think his argument about homosexuality being a lifestyle choice is way off base but I don't have anything to back it up. Any thoughts?

What is the big problem with reovking the tax-exempt status of churches? I think they should all have to pay taxes because they are all businesses. Any opinions?

[Rat Bastard]

I would say that the religious groups that don't like homosexuals are free, in America, to their views. When they interfere with said people, and discriminate, then that is different. The homosexual proportion of the human population is estimated at about ten percent, and, if I am not mistaken, this ratio extends into the rest of the animal kingdom. Though I must say that it likely gets selected out early in some groups, say, lions. Guess what happens the first time a guy lion tries to mount another? :lol: But the conservative xtians are going to have to adapt to the reality of "gayness" in the population. I guess I have to say, that if homosexuality is expressed in some portion of the population naturally, then that is just the way some people are, and I have to say, also, that xtianity is an attitude, trained into people (some say brainwashed), is intolerant, and unenlightened. That sort of lack of thoughtful understanding- religion and its brutal enforcement- is the leading killer of homo sap in this world.

[Lindsay]

I heard that research is now saying that homosexuality is genetic. Could be. A book I read, "the naked ape" by desmond morris, suggested that it is caused by having a mother who was extremely masculine and/or a father who was extremely feminine during early childhood. Either way, I don't see it as a "lifestyle choice," where as, unless there is a gene for christ psychosis, religion is a lifestyle choice. Of course, having a mother and/ father who were fundies could influence ones life choices. But then again, all one has to do is allow oneself to examine and accept the facts to be cured of christ psychosis. homosexuality has no facts set against it, except for the obvious difficulty in passing on ones genes through reproduction. all in all, I see these "conservative christians" as being hypocritical... their "right" to be mentally impaired pales in comparrison to the rights of gays based on the points stated above.

[Sigma]

What I find absolutely hilarious is that people like this claim that homosexuality is a life style choice and for that reason shouldn't be protected yet religion is just as much if not much more of a personal lifestyle choice than sexual preference. They don't seem to see that if we are to discriminate based on whether or not the lifestyle is a choice or not then religion can't be protected.

[FishFace]

First and foremost, evidence is building that suggests homosexuality is genetic, and through some quirk of genetics, it means that the siblings of the gay child are more likely to survive, or something like that. (Evolution wins again, folks!!)

What's even more outrageous is that these nutters are protesting that they cannot practise their faith because gay people have rights. Sounds like someone has their y-fronts in a twist. I think most religious folk realised that hating gay people was archaic and dumb, and I think most of the bible passages are dubiously translated anyway.

To me, the whole notion of people being able to do anything because of their religion is just nuts - over here people have lawsuits about being able to wear religious dress instead of a uniform. If you ask me, someone should either admit that the uniforms are dumb and don't need to be so strict, or that religious dress is dumb and they should just lump it.
It makes no sense for one person to be able to wear a turban because he's religious when the next guy can't wear flip-flops because... he wants to.

[ocmpoma]

1. The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians.
That's the same as saying that policies which protect ethnic groups discriminate against racists.

2. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.
Even if sexual orientation isn't "inborn", it's still obviously not a choice in the same way that, say, music preference is a choice. If people "choose" to be gay, then people also "choose" to be straight. Next time someone suggests that homosexuals choose to be so, ask what / when / where / why they chose to be straight.

3. By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals [I assume this label is meant to imply intolerance of homosexuality -oc] in the same category as racists.
Which is where they belong.

[Philboid Studge]

Being born-again means you get twice as many rights as everybody else.

[Choobus]

Being born-again means you get twice as many rights as everybody else.
I thought it just meant you were twice as much as an arsehole as single birth christians.

[StillSurviving]

I thought the genetic thing was viewed differently by the majority of lesbians and gay men. The gay men claim it is genetic, while lesbians felt it was actually a choice. That's just something I read somewhere once. Anyone able to comment on the accuracy?

[Tenspace]

First and foremost, evidence is building that suggests homosexuality is genetic, and through some quirk of genetics, it means that the siblings of the gay child are more likely to survive, or something like that. (Evolution wins again, folks!!)
Can you expand on that?

[Tenspace]

I thought the genetic thing was viewed differently by the majority of lesbians and gay men. The gay men claim it is genetic, while lesbians felt it was actually a choice. That's just something I read somewhere once. Anyone able to comment on the accuracy?
There is a genetic link involving the expression of the sex determination gene, SRY, and the time course of the expression with regard to the masculinity of the individual. In the case of men, a reduced expression time results in a male-dominant body, but with minimal testosterone the brain does not develop as fully masculine. This is considered the common explanation for obvious effiminate traits in males. Due to the fact that we're all female until SRY does its thing, this condition is not seen in females.

[FishFace]

Tenspace, the article is here: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519

Specifically:

Mothers of gay men produced an average of 2.7 babies compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. And maternal aunts of gay men had 2.0 babies compared with 1.5 born to the maternal aunts of straight men.
@StillSurviving, that appears only to be for men, so I don't know what the shabaz is concerning lesbians.
Perhaps for lesbians it is a 'lifestyle' choice. But still, a choice like that does not mean you can discriminate. It's similar to saying, since you choose to wear x brand of shoes, you're a sinner. Discrimination against homosexuality is about as clever as discrimination against... bricklayers. Or something.
Being homosexual doesn't harm anyone, except for overly sensitive nutcases. Who can shove it.

[Tenspace]

Tenspace, the article is here: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519

Specifically:

Mothers of gay men produced an average of 2.7 babies compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. And maternal aunts of gay men had 2.0 babies compared with 1.5 born to the maternal aunts of straight men.

But don't you see how those stats are irrelevant if you consider that women who have more babies have a higher probability of having a gay son - therefore it's tautological to state that women who have gay sons are likely to have more surviving children. It's the number of sons that correlates with the "gayness potential" - not that the presence of a gay son induces a positive selection pressure.

[Tenspace]

We are all female until the expression of AMH and SRY - it should be obvious why genetic amplification of homosexuality is prevalent in men and nearly nonexistent in women.

[Realityhack]

"What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn't mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn't work?" asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal.
He asserts that antidiscrimination policies regarding homosexuality are different because they protect people based on conduct. Baylor's organization seeks to exempt religious groups from those policies.
emphisis added
Seems to me there are an auful lot of people who bleive that. How would this same girl feel if confronted with a group saying that on campus? Should she be able to be denied access to say a healt plan based on the 'behavior' that she worked? After all she could chose not to right?
What about being evengelical? Thats definately a choice. I think I should be able to fire anyone who belives in any religion I disagree with. After all clearly they are not of sound mind. Lets make that legal to... um... actual... lets not you fucking retarded 'evengelical' cunts.

This is some very high level bullshit but its 100% bullshit.

[FishFace]

But don't you see how those stats are irrelevant if you consider that women who have more babies have a higher probability of having a gay son - therefore it's tautological to state that women who have gay sons are likely to have more surviving children. It's the number of sons that correlates with the "gayness potential" - not that the presence of a gay son induces a positive selection pressure.
I'm pretty sure the maths doesn't work there. First off, it's an increase of 17.4% from 2.3 to 2.7, and if what you stated were correct it should be very close to 10%, seeing as that's the number of gays in the population, apparently.
Secondly, even if it were 10%, scientists are not stupid enough to compare the number of children in a family with a gay child to a family without children. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't count the gay child as 'extra,' if you see what I mean.

[Realityhack]

In any case causation is not demonstrated.

[Tenspace]

Actually, I think we're speaking from the same side of this issue. First, I'm a firm believer that genetic causation can come from external factors like envirnonmental pressures and social interactions. Second, the expanded discussion which I didn't include in my previous post relates to the hormonal influences of the mother on the fetus. Consecutive male births increase hormones that restrict AMH and SRY in the developing male fetus. Oddly, this effect is reduced significantly by a single female pregnancy/birth. I'd go as far as to suggest the hormonal influences from the mother's body that restrict the expression of sex-deteriming genes are likely to have an effect on a female fetus' development, possibly in an inverse fashion to the effect on males. I'll have to reread the article and see if birth order is part of the data set. It might bear out that female siblings of gay men who showed the greatest fecundity were those who were born after at least two males.

[Metman07]

"1. The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians."

This same argument could have been used against the abolishment of slavery. The Bible sanctions slavery and Christians used this as an argument.

"2. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait."

There is growing evidence that homosexuality may be at least partially genetic. It could caused by hormones while still inside the mother. Even if homosexuality does not have physiological or genetic causes, most gay people don't choose to be gay.

"3. By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians."

Homosexuality is not race, but it is something that homosexuals do not have control over. I know some Christians argue that homosexuals can change (against the advice of the APA and other organizations), but then people can undergo cosmetic surgery to change their race too.

[RenaissanceMan]

Yeah, I can just imagine the conversation now:

Religious nut: Gays are an affront to religion! It's a lifestyle choice... they can choose not to be gay.

Rational person: But isn't being religious a 'Lifestyle choice' too? Why should your views carry more weight?

Religious nut: Religiousness isn't a lifestyle choice! It comes from GOD!

[CavKiller37]

Why do christians (and muslims) hate gays so much anyway? The bible doesn't even get too much into it. I have a hard time believing that they are so unified against something that is barely touched upon in the bible. There has to be some other reason, apart from general douche-baggery.

[calpurnpiso]

Why do christians (and muslims) hate gays so much anyway? The bible doesn't even get too much into it. I have a hard time believing that they are so unified against something that is barely touched upon in the bible. There has to be some other reason, apart from general douche-baggery.
The reason, IMHO,is because iulius Caesar ( a head priest aka Jesus Christos and Lord and saviour of Rome) had been derided by his enemy the Senate ( personified by the Satan of the gospels) of been gay and: "men of all women in the Empire and wife of all the men). They initiated the rumor he was the lover BOTTOM of the King of Bythinia Nicomedes. The gospels bring this name up as Nicodemus friend of Jesus, but leave it at that!.

So, the followers of Iulius Caesar as a GOD who adopted the title of Head Priest
( Greek= Archieros Megistos, shortened to Iessous Christos=Jesus Christ) knew him ONLY for his celestial title. The cult to Divus iulius which became the cult of the emperor along his title of head priest ( Jesus Christos) was observed in TEMPLES throughout the empire. There were temples to caesar in Jerusalem, Athens, Alexandria and many other cities. The anger toward homosexuality by the Priests of the Cult who became the CHRISTIAN PRIESTS we know today, was viewed as a SIN influenced by SATAN ( The senators were priests of MANY gods who were TOLERANT of other beliefs systems and sexuality). Some devotees of the Cult of Divus Iulius ca 60 ce ( about 100 years after the death of Caesar), begun to write about the Lord and Savior who had giving his blood in sacrifice to save humanity (Rome). By now in the temple of Divus Iulius ( its ruins can be seen today in the Roman Forum) the image of the god Caesar ( Iessous Christos= head priest) was displayed as it was during his funeral 100 years earlier, on a TROPAEUM wearing his red cloack, the FATAL puncture wound given to him by the soldier he had forgiven, Cassius Longinus. We KNOW about this wound and WHO inflicted it because Caesar was the FIRST man in history to have been given an AUTOPSY describing the wounds:

http://www.forensic-psych.com/articles/artLondonTimesJC3.9.03.html

From: http://www.geocities.com/caesarkevin/caesar_12.html

"Gaius Cassius Longinus, as said, was Praetor Peregrinus for 44 BC. It is said that he already had a grudge against Caesar for not endorsing him for the position of Urban Praetor and for stealing his lions in Greece. Cassius was more than qualified for the position of Urban Praetor, as Caesar understood. He however wanted the position for his close friend, Marcus Junius Brutus. Marcus Brutus was a plebian and was at this time about 41 years old. It was rumoured he was Caesar's son. It was well known that Caesar was involved with Brutus' mother Servilia. As consul in 59 had bought her a pearl valued at six million sesterces. He likely had a genuine affection for Brutus and had arranged for him to be elected Consul for 40 BC. Before he had pardoned him and Cassius in August of 48. "

And...

"Caesar grabbed Casca's arm, his hand still holding the dagger. With his free hand Caesar used his own pen to stab Casca in the arm. Casca had yelled out in Greek for his brother to help him. Caesar had tried to get up still holding Casca's dagger but was struck with another blow. Then the lot of them attacked in a pack. They stabbed him so quickly and ferociously that they wounded each other in the process. Brutus stabbed Caesar in the groin and was wounded in the hand by another dagger. The sources don't believe that Caesar said anything, even when he saw Brutus with a raised sword. But some said that Caesar said in Greek to Brutus: "You too, my son?" In any case Caesar let go of Casca and did cover his face with his toga so no-one could see him die. He received 23 stab wounds. By chance or by purpose, Caesar then fell and died at the foot of Pompey's statue, now splashed with his blood. Gaius Julius Caesar was dead. He was 55 years old.

Immediately there was panic in the senate chamber. Brutus tried to give reason for the act but obviously none were about to listen to him. He wanted all to run and proclaim liberty! The senators rushed outside and soon everbody in the area was in a panic. Soon the conspirators made their way up onto the Capitoline hill. Caesar's dead body lay on the floor of the Curia for some time until three slaves got the body and took it back on a litter to Caesar's house, with one arm hanging down. Caesar's body was examined by the physician Antistius. He concluded that only one wound Caesar received was fatal, which was in the breast (likely through the heart). "

The cult of Divus Iulius became DOMINANT in ROME, compared to the other VERSIONS throughout the Empire Judea, hispania, Syria, Egypt, etc etc during the middle of the 1st Century. Those other versions would become in time the CHRISTIAN HERESIES ( pelagianism, Arrianism, Donatism, Coptics, Gnostism, neo Platonism ( mixed with Greek philosophy). The cult of Divus Iulius after 29 bce when the temple was dedicated by Augustus, INFLUENCED HEAVELY Judaism and ALL other tribal faiths. This was very easy to do in Judea since the KING, Herod, was also a HEAD PRIEST ( Jesus Christ in Greek) and could CREATE the FAITH/ DOGMA. So, the day Caesar was killed became in their lunar calendar 15th of Nisam which is PASSOVER ( this event was mixed with the tales about the exodus!). In Chirstianity it became the Passion of Christ. Palm Sunday (Triumphal entrance of Caesar in Rome, his assasination and betrayal by the senate/friends, his apotheosis, his comet and his resurrection in the from of his son/ successor "head priest aka Jesus Christ, emperor Augustus.

One must realize NO FAITH remains PURE!! ..and the cult of Divus Iulius had zealots like the person known as MARK who begun writing the gospels about 100 years after the death of Caesar, which are nothing more than mutations of his life, passion, betrayal by the Senate (satan), temptations by the senate (Satan) to keep power ALL to himself instead of distributing the wealth among the poor and needey, his assasination been stabbed by LONGINUS, the betrayal of Iunius Brutus ( depicted in the Gospels as Iudas Iscariot, the name Iscariot been the corruption of the LAtin word SICARIUS which means assasin).

So, by 325 ce, the Jesus Christ Constantinus I, who NEVER GAVE up his status as DIVINE, started the idea to make the Cult of Divus Iulius ( the one in ROME), the God and Saviour HEAD PRIEST ( aka jesus Christ), the ONLY LEGAL cult of the empire. The cult had blended with Mithraism who was a MILITARY cult. It was very appropiate to have a FIGHTING HEROIC CONQUERING jesus Christ ( Caesar's title of head priest) as was Constantinus. After 300 years the historical events had mutated into a supernatural thing, turning Caesar into Christ, the holy city of ROME into Jerusalem, Cremation into crucifixion, the Rubicon into the Jordan, etc etc.

homosexuality became a sin, accepting other beliefs as fact became a sin, doing research became a sin, philosophy became a sin..these nuts became so obsessed that their intellect became fogged by delusions. The ONLY thing that matter was the Saviour!! Some castrated themselves, some begged to be killed and crucified themselves to immitate Christ ( Donatist Circumcellions 4th Century). A branch of the cult of Divus iulius that remained in Arabia ( veterans of Caesar that married the locals settling in the region) mutated into what would become Islam!. Christianity, Judaism and Islam originated from the cult of Divus Iulius. This is the reason they are SO SIMILAR and many of their religious festivals occurr at the same time of the year.
...:cool:

[Silentknight]

Why do christians (and muslims) hate gays so much anyway? The bible doesn't even get too much into it. I have a hard time believing that they are so unified against something that is barely touched upon in the bible. There has to be some other reason, apart from general douche-baggery.
Another reason is because it's one of the few remaining biblical prejudices that they can still get away with using to control the lives of other people. They no longer have slavery, they can't go with racism, and sexism isn't as much of an option anymore. The fact that they had to dig all the way back to the book of Leviticus to justify their views says a lot. Just read the book of Leviticus and you'll see what other kinds of idiotic tribal laws are in the same context.

[Chiot Vulgaire]

I've officially lost all respect for anyone, (even those so-called "good christians") who believes in god and the bible... it's become nothing but a hate-cult. Apparently they dont have to be Neo Nazis or Klansmen to be hateful bigots. They can simply believe in god and go about harassing people who are gay. It makes me sick to think that any number of the american populace will actually turn a blind eye to this sick practice.

If they actually get away with this, then we can claim that we can harass and assault christians based on the fact that we don't tolerate THEIR lifestyle. Sounds pretty good to me, actually. We can look out for the gays and make life hell for jesus' ass-lickers.

[Sandy]

It would be wonderful if we could legislate the equality of all Americans. We cannot but we did take a giant step forward during the civil rights marches. I never could understand racism, anti-Semitism or homophobia. I saw it in my own home and it was made clear that I could not date a Japanese man or a Jew. Okay we were at war with Japan but no Jew ever attacked any member of my family.

I made a point to stop this bigotry when I had my own family. My older girl dated a University professor and brought him home for the holidays. He was black! so what? Both girls are happily married to Jewish men! so what? We also have a number of gays throughout the family tree! so what?

Nothing bothers me as much as having these dingbat religious people trying to prove they are superior to anyone. I see them as having to focus on the truth through a sieve of separating out anything not associated with Jesus. I'd rather communicate with my friendly old dog.

[Metman07]

Why do christians (and muslims) hate gays so much anyway? The bible doesn't even get too much into it. I have a hard time believing that they are so unified against something that is barely touched upon in the bible. There has to be some other reason, apart from general douche-baggery.
They can use homosexuals as scape goats. Abrahamic religion is one big cult and they must find something to blame all the world's problems on. In the past Christians blamed the world's problems on the the Jews, the Muslims, the Gypsies and the Heretics. Gays are an overwhelmed minority, so they are easy to pick on. It's something that unites Christians. They can all join together in fighting a common enemy: the fags.....a huge threat to our society :rolleyes:

[calpurnpiso]

I've officially lost all respect for anyone, (even those so-called "good christians") who believes in god and the bible... it's become nothing but a hate-cult. Apparently they dont have to be Neo Nazis or Klansmen to be hateful bigots. They can simply believe in god and go about harassing people who are gay. It makes me sick to think that any number of the american populace will actually turn a blind eye to this sick practice.

If they actually get away with this, then we can claim that we can harass and assault christians based on the fact that we don't tolerate THEIR lifestyle. Sounds pretty good to me, actually. We can look out for the gays and make life hell for jesus' ass-lickers.
There is NO such thing as a good and moral Christian!..as there is NO such thing as a good and moral SCHIZOPHRENIC!!
One must realize that those mentally ill folks ( the former erroneously accepted as "sane", since the illness is masked under religious faith/belief , while the later is labeled mentaly ill been committed to mental health institutions) can NOT understand what is moral, good, evil, real or imaginary.

We can CLEARLY see BOTH are unable to differentiate fantasy from reality and this neurological defect is what causes the problems. As a vision impaired person keeps bumping into things a reason impaired religious-psychotic keeps following the hallucinations and irrational thinking produced by the illness ( faith triggers) which by now has replaced reason and logic. Intolerance, hypocresy, immorality, absurd thinking, psychopathic behavior become perfectly logica in their defective brains.....so....homosexuality and lack of belief ( atheism) of others are regarded as SIN, perversion and, ironically, forms of mental illness!!! :cool:
:cool:

[FishFace]

Do people actually listen to cal... His rantings seem a little... unsettled. As if he has some sort of internal inbalance or deep seated fear/hate of religion?
Sounds as bad as the people preaching in the street...

[Philboid Studge]

Do we listen to Cal? I'm going to name my next kid after him.

Did you bump your head?

[Choobus]

Cal may have a rather extreme poinjt of view, but I'll take his brand of crazy over a fucking godidiot any day.

[FishFace]

Fair dos.