Right wing conservatives are evil? Well, I have evidence that they are.

Prophex, don't let these guys phaze you. There are many issues involved here. First of all, our topic is Right Wingers as evil.
This side topic is apparantly addressed in regards to legislation and definition of morality. Are you guys with me so far?If a toddler bonds with his Elmo or Teddy Bear, he is deriving pleasure, bonding, and fullfillment from the kindly stuffed animal.
Is this natural? Yes...for a three year old.If a pre teen boy bonds with his sports idol such as Miguel Cabrerra and wants autographs and thinks that the guy is so cool is this natural? Yes, for an eleven year old.If a pre teen girl falls in love with the latest teen guy on the Disney Channel, and she puts up pictures and writes letters and all, is that natural? Perhaps a bit insecure, but yes for a ten year old girl.If Holmes and I are close friends and I think that he is a handsome guy and he also likes me...it is natural to a point. I may be attracted to holmes avatar (that disco look! LOL) but the fact remains that at some point, holmes is holmes and I am me. There is no communion. There is no complimentary union. There is only idolatry. I could choose to marry holmes, but I would not be fullfilling anything natural in either of our lives. Woman are from Venus for a reason. Men don't know much about Venus.Now...as far as telling Berberry or holmes or anyone else what is right for their lives, I agree that they just need to figure it out for themselves.Prophex, as a Christian, I can encourage you to bond with whomever you want to bond with...be it your homies or be it that fine girl in social studies. As long as you have bonded with Jesus first, you won't trip out and become too infatuated with anyone human! True Dat. Animals don't know how to bond with Jesus as far as we know. They won't be judged.I like the pink avatar, by the way! Chris has the whole "divine light" behind him in his avatar! Definitely original! This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-01-2005 05:05 PM

Pleasure, instant gratification, what ever you want to call it really drives us as humans to do things that once thought about do not make sense, are not logical. I am not hating on, blaming, or trying to belittle homosexuals, I am simply pointing out that it is an activity similar to all those things we do to have some sort of instant pleasurable feeling. There isn't really a way to escape it. It just disturbs me that berberry namely, is turning this into a personal disscussion, insulting me, and frankly not responding to me decently.

quote:

---

Yet, to some animals we are far behind. We can't change sex. (Snails can.)

---

We don't have to, we have far greAter movement, and far more advanced systems to help us find the other gender.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

quote:

---

It is better to take time and write decent, well-thought out posts in reply to posts you have taken time to digest and ponder. The very reason "the masses are here to take you on" is because you are writing crappy posts that are easily countered, and deserve to be.

---

I prefer to think it's because they are such staunch opposers to my opinion. Helps my self esteem. lol

quote:

---

In paired isolation, obviously male-female pairs would produce more kids than same-sex pairs. However, in some social species it appears that homosexual group members increase the number of surviving children for the group.

---

Yes, this is what I was arguing, but you twisted the argument. That whole paragraph you wrote quite nicely wasn't in disagreement with my post.

quote:

---

If you aren't interested in looking at holistic effects on social groups across generations, you're not interested in looking at reality, and thus stuck in your hole of simplicity.

---

Or I wasn't looking at it. You mixed it up. I AGREE!!!I am seriously sorry for the lately poor responses. This is very short, but there is nothing here I am debating with you about.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

prophex writes me:

quote:

---

I was asking you

---

And the answer is that we get the same sort of fulfillment and satisfaction out of our relationships that you heterosexuals get out of yours. But you didn't ask any questions at all until you had already assumed you knew the answer.

quote:

---

If being in a homosexual relationship has provided anything other than immediate gratification or a false feeling of true love...

---

What the hell is it about the bible that makes you people so goddamned arrogant? What do you know about true love? Why do you refer to homosexual relationships as providing a "false feeling of true love"? Have you been in a homosexual relationship before? How the hell would you know anything about it?

quote:

---

...it may not be a hinderence. It remains a hinderence.

---

Huh? Do you even read back over your posts before you submit them?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Ok. Berberry lets get back on topic. What three things make you think that Right Wing conservatives are evil?I would say that the three things I dislike are these:
1) Holier than thou attitude. I DO love Jesus, but I don't look upon anyone who does not as any less than me. I fight them because they disrespect my "ignorant attitudes and beliefs."2) Legislation of Morality. This is a biggie. The Schavio case is one recent example of this battleground. Michael Newdow is another.3) Lack of creativity. Most right wingers are DULL.

quote:

---

I like the pink avatar, by the way! Chris has the whole "divine light" behind him in his avatar! Definitely original!

---

Yeah, Chris hasn't been on lately, but thanks for the thought

quote:

---

If Holmes and I are close friends and I think that he is a handsome guy and he also likes me...it is natural to a point. I may be attracted to holmes avatar (that disco look! LOL) but the fact remains that at some point, holmes is holmes and I am me. There is no communion. There is no complimentary union. There is only idolatry. I could choose to marry holmes, but I would not be fullfilling anything natural in either of our lives. Woman are from Venus for a reason. Men don't know much about Venus.

---

Yeah, your definately right. At a level such as mariage it is so far beyond the relationships that can be attained with male and male, female and female.

quote:

---

Prophex, as a Christian, I can encourage you to bond with whomever you want to bond with...be it your homies or be it that fine girl in social studies. As long as you have bonded with Jesus first, you won't trip out and become too infatuated with anyone human!

---

Yeah, that is why I didn't get so far into the man and woman thing, it still is far less worthy of disscussion then, the relationship that is most important, with our God. A homosexual relationship is a hinderance to this far more profitible relationship, as is a straight relationship. Obviously, only one is a necessity for population growth.By the way the fine girl in social studies line is hilarious.This message has been edited by prophex, 04-01-2005 07:17 PM

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

Phatboy writes me:

quote:

---

I DO love Jesus, but I don't look upon anyone who does not as any less than me. I fight them because they disrespect my "ignorant attitudes and beliefs."

---

If I have said anything disrespectful of you lately I'm not aware of it. You have become much more thoughtful and introspective in recent months (as I think I've mentioned before) and I find myself disagreeing with you less and less sharply. You don't seem like a fundie anymore, and thus I would not characterize you as ignorant.In fact, there's nothing in this post I disagree with at all (except of course that I don't worship Jesus). You are one of those Christians who respects the views of people who do not share your beliefs. That sets you apart from the fundies. I wouldn't go so far as to say I have no issues with you, but I can respect you because you are willing to respect me.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Me:

quote:

---

If being in a homosexual relationship has provided anything other than immediate gratification or a false feeling of true love then, it may not be a hinderence. It remains a hinderence.

---

Yousir:

quote:

---

Huh? Do you even read back over your posts before you submit them?

---

Took it out of context.

quote:

---

And the answer is that we get the same sort of fulfillment and satisfaction out of our relationships that you heterosexuals get out of yours. But you didn't ask any questions at all until you had already assumed you knew the answer.

---

I see, you are definately right, the seperation between male and male, female and female, and male and female isn't that big of a gap, these relationships are both sometimes based on pleasure. The difference is in the way, 2 different types of humans come together, whereas in homosexual relationships they are the same.

quote:

---

What the hell is it about the bible that makes you people so goddamned arrogant? What do you know about true love? Why do you refer to homosexual relationships as providing a "false feeling of true love"? Have you been in a homosexual relationship before? How the hell would you know anything about it?

---

Besides the last post that you apparently haven't responded to (prolly wasn't to you), I really don't know how you would know that I read the bible. Oh I know, its a pre-learned prejudice to go with all people who point out something that doesn't make sense with homosexuality.I know enough about the world to realize that there is something peculiar about a gay relationship within the human species. Now I do not intend to offend you on a personal level here, and hope that it doesn't seem arrogant. But within reason, there is simply no place for a human to want to be in a gay relationship. Within evolution it is a better way to survive to be straight. Wouldn't you agree?It doesn't make sense sexually, ideally, and for survival of the species.You seem to get heated when we disscuss the reasoning behind a human to want to be gay, so lets not get into that again please. I realize you are probabaly more experienced in the ways of the world, and that you have a great amount of knowledge in relationships. So if you want to shrug me off and just stop typing to me, you can. I know I must seem like some arogant kid who knows nothing to you, especially because you are someone who is what we are disscussing it seems.I am honestly sorry for my arrogance at times, and my unwillingness to leave myself and step in the shoes of another for just a moment.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

The whole issue on "rights" highlights this topic. Wheelchair access for the disabled was enormously expensive for many small businesses. The issue of discrimination boils down to money, apparantly.Right wing politics is criticised for the attempt to define the parameters of proper inclusion.
In other words, who gets in Da Club and who gets left out?Left wing politics wants everybody to have a pass to da club.What if society went one step further....like say...brother and sister having the "right" to marry? The Right would disagree.
So would I...the moderate.What does anyone else think? Should brother/sister marriages be let in da club? Why or why not?This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-01-2005 05:48 PM

How is that related at all?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Because in all probability, the right wing would legislate morality against it whereas someone in the far left would say that it would be nobodies business but that family.Maybe I should use another example...how about step siblings having the right to marry?What I am getting at is the definition of morality. God fearing folk use the Bible. What other sources are used? Public opinion??This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-02-2005 02:27 AM

Hi Phatboy,Barring jar's highly pertinent point in the previous post, I'll accept the bait.I'm usually fairly suspicious of talk of "rights". It's usually a case of law for the powerful, and rights for the weak. The right of wheelchair access was won through a good deal of hard work and organization on the part of wheelchair users. They made a fair point about their requirements, and the rest of society (largely) agreed.To my knowledge, incestuous siblings are yet to put any effort into winning new rights. If they fought for it, I don't see that I'd have any particular qualms in supporting it.What's the point?mick[added in edit - I posted this at the same time as Phatboy's response to jar]This message has been edited by mick, 04-01-2005 07:55 PM

They don't have that right now?But regardless of the familial relationship, can you show any reason that brother and sister, step siblings, cousins, distant cousins, kissing cousins or any other relation should not marry?I can think of one that was pertinent but that may be immaterial now.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

prophex writes me:

quote:

---

The difference is in the way, 2 different types of humans come together, whereas in homosexual relationships they are the same.

---

Differences in gender are not the only differences between people. No two people are the same, therefore no two people in a homosexual relationship are the same.

quote:

---

I really don't know how you would know that I read the bible.

---

Perhaps you haven't (like most fundies), but if not you must have come by your prejudice and bigotry by some other means. What is it?

quote:

---

I know enough about the world to realize that there is something peculiar about a gay relationship within the human species.

---

Then you don't know much about the world at all, but that's typical for fundies. For that, you don't need to read the bible I suppose. You can pick that sort of lunacy up most anywhere so long as you restrict your relationships to people who refuse to think.

quote:

---

Within evolution it is a better way to survive to be straight. Wouldn't you agree?

---

No I wouldn't. I'm not straight, yet I'm surviving just fine. I am in excellent health so survival isn't an overbearing concern for me.Any what does evolution have to do with sexuality?

quote:

---

It doesn't make sense sexually, ideally, and for survival of the species.

---

Why not? You keep saying this, yet you refuse to back it up with any sort of evidence. Why is that? Are you beginning to realize that all this stuff is only true in your own small mind?I wouldn't worry too much about survival of the species. Unless you are afraid that everyone is going to suddenly become gay, that shouldn't be a concern at all.

quote:

---

You seem to get heated when we disscuss the reasoning behind a human to want to be gay

---

No, I get heated when fundie busybodies assume they know everything there is to know about things they are wholly and completely ignorant of. Like, for instance, when they assume that anyone would "want to be gay". It isn't a matter of wanting, it's a matter of being. I am gay. I never wanted to be gay, nor did I ever want to be straight. It's is simply what I am.

quote:

---

I am honestly sorry for my arrogance at times, and my unwillingness to leave myself and step in the shoes of another for just a moment.

---

If you are unwilling to try to understand matters from the perspective of someone besides yourself, then you are not honestly sorry about anything.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

quote:

---

Perhaps you haven't (like most fundies), but if not you must have come by your prejudice and bigotry by some other means. What is it?

---

I have said that homosexuality doesn't make any sense, in evolution it is a bad survival strategy, for the species esp. I really don't understand why this has made you think that I have prejudices againt homosexuals.

quote:

---

No I wouldn't. I'm not straight, yet I'm surviving just fine. I am in excellent health so survival isn't an overbearing concern for me.

---

Reproduction is needed for survival of a species. You are referring to the survival of yourself.

quote:

---

If you are unwilling to try to understand matters from the perspective of someone besides yourself, then you are not honestly sorry about anything.

---

That's wierd, thought I was apologizing for this.I hate talking about this, especially now that it has become personal, and you have taken direct offense to things.That, I was trying to avoid.

---

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.