|
computer parts posted:Ron Paul has demonstrated that he has many conservative Christian policies (such as trying to define life as beginning at conception). It's not a leap to conclude that he feels similarly about other topics, such as gays. That... has nothing to do with whether replacing everyone's marriage licenses with civil union licenses and banning the government from using the word "marriage" is anti-gay though? You're focusing in on his reasons and you're probably correct in that. But there are other reasons people have fielded for getting government out of marriage, are they secretly anti-gay as well? DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Apr 17, 2016 |
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 23:10
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Ron Paul wasn't/isn't and he was the face of that movement for quite a while. This doesn't disprove my point. His positions on gay marriage are dumb old man opinions, and while he was the face for a while simply because he was actually in Congress that doesn't mean every libertarian agreed with him. I am still baffled at the idea that libertarians, a group as a whole that was pro-LGBT, slowly turned into LGBT haters between the 70s and the 2000s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:I am still baffled at the idea that libertarians, a group as a whole that was pro-LGBT, slowly turned into LGBT haters between the 70s and the 2000s. This happened to evangelicals regarding birth control. DeusExMachinima posted:That... has nothing to do with whether replacing everyone's marriage licenses with civil union licenses and banning the government from using the word "marriage" is anti-gay though? You're focusing in on his reasons and you're probably correct in that. But there are other reasons to for getting government out of marriage besides a particular Bible interpretation. Yeah, like finding gays icky.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
So do I secretly find gays icky because I think using the word "marriage" instead of "civil union" violates separation of church and state?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:So do I secretly find gays icky because I think using the word "marriage" instead of "civil union" violates separation of church and state? No, but you are foolish for attributing a religious identification to a non-religious term.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This happened to evangelicals regarding birth control. This has nothing to do with what libertarians did or did not do. Again going back to your original post, we're talking about marriage as private contract and that idea dates back to at least the early 70s (and probably earlier). It did not spring up in response to the gay marriage movement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Ye gods, people, five pages and no actual theology discussion? I'd at least have expected a bit on dominionism and/or the prosperity gospel, given the religious leanings of the current runner-up (and possible Presidential candidate) in the Republican primary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Ye gods, people, five pages and no actual theology discussion? I'd at least have expected a bit on dominionism and/or the prosperity gospel, given the religious leanings of the current runner-up (and possible Presidential candidate) in the Republican primary. The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus. Supply of marriage certificates (no homo), that is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:This has nothing to do with what libertarians did or did not do. It demonstrates a group that changed beliefs radically in only 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
I don't have a good reason to think they're lying, so I think they actually believe what they're saying. This is in general how you should treat other people when they are discussing their ideology, especially when it's not exactly mainstream. But 'harm = bad' is part of a set of moral beliefs, conceivably you could have a set of aliens who believe the opposite. Even in human societies, that's not always the case either, for example harmed caused in the process of justice is usually ignored, so long as it was proportional and justified by circumstance. Also your idea of consent as almost limitless is kind of dubious, I have no problem sending someone to jail for assault if they assault someone, regardless of whether or not the person 'asked for it' - it's a really bad excuse open to abuse, and even if true, I don't think consent always overrides the responsibility of justice that as state has, there are limits. I'm also not sure it's the prevention of natural disasters is driving force behind anti-LGBT stuff, that's more done after-the-fact. They are not like you, they do not have a harm-based moral system, it's one of a strict set of codes that are bad because reasons, which they aren't willing to interrogate. it's that lack of skepticism and emotional attachment to those rules that are the reasons they want to make it law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I don't have a good reason to think they're lying, so I think they actually believe what they're saying. The reason is that saying "gays are icky" is not an accepted reason anymore, especially among younger people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It demonstrates a group that changed beliefs radically in only 30 years. I never denied this could happen. In any case I want to lay out what I think your assertion is because I think we have gotten a tad sidetracked: you are asserting that libertarians, disgusted with the idea that gay people might get married, came up with the idea that marriage should be a private contract between two people. Somehow this solves their ickiness at gay marriage despite the fact that under this idea two men or two women could enter into such a contract?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Projecting that onto them is not justified, maybe some have that response, maybe some don't, doesn't change the fact that that position will probably have more to do with the attachment to libertarianism as an ideology than anything else. I mean there's got to be some people who are pro-marriage, yet still find 'gays icky'. That's what is meant by 'tolerance' after all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:I never denied this could happen. Yeah I'm kinda lost too. He mentioned Ron Paul as a transformative sort of figure, but I don't recall Paul making marriages/civil unions one of his big causes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:I never denied this could happen. rebel1608 posted:
Unless you find Libertarians to be inherently special in some way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Unless you find Libertarians to be inherently special in some way. They're not inherently special in that they can't radically change over time. However they did not turn anti-LGBT rights and gay marriage between 1976 and now. That is the specific claim you are making and it is wrong. Whatever evangelicals have to do with birth control is irrelevant to that claim. I never ever asserted that groups in general couldn't change radically over time. fast cars loose anus fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:They're not inherently special in that they can't radically change over time. However they did not turn anti-LGBT rights and gay marriage between 1976 and now. That is the specific claim you are making and it is wrong. Actually it's not, because you're conflating "Libertarians" with "The Libertarian Party". You actually haven't shown that Libertarians as a whole were pro-LGBT in the 70s and are still such today/ a decade ago. Again, remember that the face of the Libertarian movement (Ron Paul) was not a member of the Libertarian party. computer parts fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually it's not, because you're conflating "Libertarians" with "The Libertarian Party". You actually haven't shown that Libertarians as a whole were pro-LGBT in the 70s and are still such today. I am not confusing them but if you can't understand that a political party made up of libertarians is a good proxy for what libertarians think I don't really know what to tell you. This is especially true since it's not a big tent party like Republicans or Democrats. In any case you haven't come close to proving your idea that libertarians are now anti-gay marriage, and in fact your idea is incoherent. If they were anti-gay marriage, they wouldn't want the government to get out of the marriage licensing business because that would allow for gay marriage. Like you do understand this right? That when libertarians float the idea of marriage privatization they don't set limits on who can enter into such a contract?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Yeah I'm kinda lost too. He mentioned Ron Paul as a transformative sort of figure, but I don't recall Paul making marriages/civil unions one of his big causes. Paul had also said that at the federal level he opposed “efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.” He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism."[151] He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996. The act allows a state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The act also prohibits the U.S. Government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul has been a cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in each Congress since the bill's original introduction. It would bar federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Speaking in support of the Marriage Protection Act in 2004, he urged those of his fellow congressional representatives who “believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage” to vote for the bill because its passage, requiring only simple majorities in both Houses of Congress, would be much more readily achieved than the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which, as a Constitutional amendment, would require not only much larger majorities in both Houses but also ratification by the state legislatures.[151] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."[94] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Again I want to state this as clearly as possible. You asserted that libertarians proposed marriage privatization because they did not like gay marriage. Marriage privatization allows for gay marriage. Therefore you have made the following argument, boiled down to its essence: quote:Libertarians opposed gay marriage so they proposed a system that allowed gay marriage. If you cannot see the contradiction there I simply cannot help you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:Again I want to state this as clearly as possible. Marriage privatization allows for gays to become a union, it does not allow for what they have to be legally declared "marriage". The fact that this is proposed as a solution when people were protesting for gay marriage is suspect. Put it this way - saying #AllLivesMatter is not itself inherently controversial. Saying #AllLivesMatter as a response to #BlackLivesMatter is controversial. Also remember: we've had people in this very thread who think marriage is an inherently religious term. They are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Marriage privatization allows for gays to become a union, it does not allow for what they have to be legally declared "marriage". The fact that this is proposed as a solution when people were protesting for gay marriage is suspect. But these unions would apply to heterosexual marriages too. No one would have a legally declared "marriage" that's the point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:But these unions would apply to heterosexual marriages too. No one would have a legally declared "marriage" that's the point. Put it this way - saying #AllLivesMatter is not itself inherently controversial. Saying #AllLivesMatter as a response to #BlackLivesMatter is controversial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Man that is a weird way of looking at the world. Someone proposes a solution to the constant court and legal battles over gay marriage that gives everyone all the benefits of marriage - must be because they don't like the idea of gays marrying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:Man that is a weird way of looking at the world. Someone proposes a solution to the constant court and legal battles over gay marriage that gives everyone all the benefits of marriage - must be because they don't like the idea of gays marrying. Well, in the context of the leader of your movement trying to pass a law that "would bar federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act " I think it's fair to assume you're not operating in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Alright well we're going to have to agree to disagree and let's not confuse Ron Paul with all libertarians either. e: also anecdote is not data but I've never met a single libertarian online or in real life who didn't support gay rights which is why I find that assertion so strange. fast cars loose anus fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
It's quite funny how some people have deloped enough of a persecution complex that anything less than total 100% agreement means someone is trying to oppress them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
I've never met a libertarian who openly said gays shouldn't marry but I've met plenty who would equivocate about "letting the states decide", which is functionally identical to banning it. Honestly the only libertarian I've met who wasn't a crypto conservative was my old boss, who was a weirdo libertarian ex hippie who thought the government should be out of the marriage business, but that wasn't going to happen any time soon so give gays the right to marry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:In any case you haven't come close to proving your idea that libertarians are now anti-gay marriage, and in fact your idea is incoherent. If they were anti-gay marriage, they wouldn't want the government to get out of the marriage licensing business because that would allow for gay marriage. Like you do understand this right? That when libertarians float the idea of marriage privatization they don't set limits on who can enter into such a contract? If it's a private contract and not a civil right, then businesses can decide not to recognize it, landlords can evict you for it, hospitals can refuse to accept it for visitation or medical decisions, adoption agencies can turn you away, presumably governments can choose which contracts they will or won't accept for purposes of taxation, inheritance, child custody, etc. I'm sure it varies from libertarian to libertarian whether giving every bigot in town veto power over gay people's lives is the regrettable cost of liberty or the goal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
Yeah, but there's a difference between belief in the magic of the free market, because material power relations somehow don't factor into actually-existing liberty, versus using the beliefs as a deflector shield against honestly held bigotry. It's stupid on it's own terms, you don't need to project onto them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Ye gods, people, five pages and no actual theology discussion? I'd at least have expected a bit on dominionism and/or the prosperity gospel, given the religious leanings of the current runner-up (and possible Presidential candidate) in the Republican primary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I'm also not sure it's the prevention of natural disasters is driving force behind anti-LGBT stuff, that's more done after-the-fact. They are not like you, they do not have a harm-based moral system, it's one of a strict set of codes that are bad because reasons, which they aren't willing to interrogate. it's that lack of skepticism and emotional attachment to those rules that are the reasons they want to make it law. Why do they have a laserlike focus on restricting the rights of LGBT people and women who want abortions while ignoring all sorts of other sinful behavior that our society proudly displays? It's hard to treat their position as some sort of good-faith defense of Christian sexual morality when they only want heavy-handed enforcement of their beliefs in very specific circumstances. No one is calling for the arrest of cohabiting heterosexual couples even though they might give a sermon saying that it's bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Why do they have a laserlike focus on restricting the rights of LGBT people and women who want abortions while ignoring all sorts of other sinful behavior that our society proudly displays? It's hard to treat their position as some sort of good-faith defense of Christian sexual morality when they only want heavy-handed enforcement of their beliefs in very specific circumstances. No one is calling for the arrest of cohabiting heterosexual couples even though they might give a sermon saying that it's bad. maybe because they're not complete retards and would prefer to pursue politically achievable goals? you're basically saying "well if they're such socialists why aren't they pushing for the imposition of full global communism now"
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:It's possible for two people to have two different beliefs on a religious topic, and for both of those beliefs to be religious in nature and sincerely held. There are literally thousands of examples of this. It's also possible for two people to start from the same premises and reach a different conclusion. That happens all the time, on all kinds of topics, religious or not. It's like you're some kind of robot. "Two people read the same book and reached different conclusions?! DOES NOT COMPUTE" The question is why they hold those different beliefs and why they came to those different conclusions. The answer is because they interpreted that information through entirely different worldviews, which were created by different cultural surroundings, upbringings, and formative experiences. That, not religion, is the cause of their views and conclusions. ToxicSlurpee posted:In one sense that's true but laws against murder, assault, stealing, fraud, and so forth cross an extra barrier; these are actions that involve actively harming somebody else and even then you can get into some suggestions. What about laws against, say, public intoxication or sleeping in public? Nobody is necessarily being hurt there, but many communities have decided that certain things (or people) are icky or distasteful and should be banned from public view even if they aren't actually harming anyone. Anti-LGBT laws typically much more resemble those kinds of laws - ones intended to discriminate against populations seen as undesirable and force them to change their lifestyle or get out. Keep Autism Wired posted:I've wondered where this "religious right" phenomenon comes from where Christians (especially in the south) are super into regressive republican politics. Isn't christianity supposed to be all about helping the poor and needy, welcoming people, forgiving people, treating people well, and all that? Since the South and West were historically poor, uneducated, had low population density, and a poor relationship with higher government, churches typically acted as both community gathering points and cultural centers. As a result, a lot of social stuff tended to happen at the church, and the religious happenings in a town would often shift to reflect social and cultural changes and movements. This isn't unique to the US South, either - religious trends worldwide tended to follow cultural and philosophical movements in the region, though there was some cross-pollination between areas. For example, take the Social Gospel and liberation theology, two Christian movements very centered around the helping the poor and working toward social equality. The former originated in the industrial slums of the early 20th-century North as a reaction to the poverty and need there, and preached labor rights and unionization, free housing and healthcare for the poor, and subsidized education for everyone. The latter arose in Latin America during the Cold War as a reaction to the brutal hyper-capitalist right-wing dictatorships, and similarly sought to help the poor and fight for positive social change. On the other hand, Christian fundamentalism arose from the rural areas and frontiers, and reflected the cultural values of the area and time - such as a rejection of fancy-pants science and liberalism, an ambition to bring about a better and more pure Christianity to reflect the superiority of America's democratic government and its great destiny to own the whole continent, an intention to spread local moral beliefs such as temperance to the whole world, and a particular hatred for minorities and other "other" demographics. Religion is often (if not always) just a mirror that reflects the cultural values people already hold, except with a halo painted on top.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What about laws against, say, public intoxication or sleeping in public? Nobody is necessarily being hurt there, but many communities have decided that certain things (or people) are icky or distasteful and should be banned from public view even if they aren't actually harming anyone. Anti-LGBT laws typically much more resemble those kinds of laws - ones intended to discriminate against populations seen as undesirable and force them to change their lifestyle or get out. First of all those laws are usually enforced when someone is doing something that could be viewed as "harm" like being belligerent drunk in public or sleeping in a public park. Second of all you're comparing a group of people, LGBT people, to actions done by an individual. I think laws like those are probably unneeded and should be enforced in very limited situations but they're certainly not comparable to anti-LGBT laws. Popular Thug Drink posted:maybe because they're not complete retards and would prefer to pursue politically achievable goals? you're basically saying "well if they're such socialists why aren't they pushing for the imposition of full global communism now" Pushing for bringing back sodomy laws, reversing gay marriage, and banning all abortions isn't exactly a realistic political goal but that doesn't stop them. My point is that the Religious Right has always had a very narrow focus on a couple of "culture war" issues while ignoring other behavior in society that their religion very clearly condemns. Religious Right leaders will happily partner with an Orthodox Jewish leaders for example to push anti-gay legislation or happily partner with conservative politicians that have a "sinful lifestyle" on their common political aims but they would never consider such a partnership with LGBT leaders because they are viewed as nothing other than an enemy. Even though all of those people are sinners in their eyes they're willing to overlook some sins but not others. When it was revealed that Ted Cruz had failed to tithe the proper amount on his tax return I saw some commentary from evangelical leaders along the lines of "we all struggle with that." Can you honestly say there could have been a similarly lenient response if it were found that Cruz had one time, even before his marriage, engaged in gay sex? The overwhelming majority of evangelicals engage in premarital sex but there's no talk about bringing back fornication laws, adultery laws, refusing service to cohabitating couples, firing dirty hetero sexhavers from their jobs, etc. Of course those things aren't politically realistic but they're not even discussed, it's clear that they're not wanted, for the obvious reason that many of those same evangelicals who want to punish gays for their sexual behavior would be punished if their own sexual sins were policed. Do you really think it's coincidental that the religious right has left heterosexal male sexuality off the table while focusing on policing women and LGBT people? EDIT: I should also point out that it was a mainstream belief in the 80s and 90s among the Religious Right that gays and drug users dying from AIDS was a deserved punishment for sinful behavior. How is this a logical expression of Christian belief rather than simply bigotry? The implication there I guess is that 30 Million dead Africans as "collateral damage" is an acceptable trade off to wipe out the gays. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:The overwhelming majority of evangelicals engage in premarital sex but there's no talk about bringing back fornication laws, adultery laws, refusing service to cohabitating couples, firing dirty hetero sexhavers from their jobs, etc. i'm sure they would if it wasn't painfully obvious they'd be ridiculed
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The question is why they hold those different beliefs and why they came to those different conclusions. The answer is because they interpreted that information through entirely different worldviews, which were created by different cultural surroundings, upbringings, and formative experiences. That, not religion, is the cause of their views and conclusions. But worldview, cultural surroundings, upbringing, and formative experiences are cornerstones of religious practice and mindset. They're largely the same thing, not a contradiction. Concluding from it being one, to it not being the other, is a non-sequitur. Also if you continue to insist that the existence of differing beliefs shows that they can't come from the same religion, again you run into the counterexample of transubstantiation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:When it was revealed that Ted Cruz had failed to tithe the proper amount on his tax return I saw some commentary from evangelical leaders along the lines of "we all struggle with that." Can you honestly say there could have been a similarly lenient response if it were found that Cruz had one time, even before his marriage, engaged in gay sex? They'd probably be okay with it as long as he said "We all struggle with sin" and continued to advocate lynching all gays. Just like they were fine with the Duggar guy molesting his sisters and they're currently fine with Donald Trump trading out for a younger model wife every 10 years even though pretty much the only thing Jesus said about sex and marriage is that divorce is for the hard-hearted and remarriage afterwards is adultery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:First of all those laws are usually enforced when someone is doing something that could be viewed as "harm" like being belligerent drunk in public or sleeping in a public park. Second of all you're comparing a group of people, LGBT people, to actions done by an individual. I think laws like those are probably unneeded and should be enforced in very limited situations but they're certainly not comparable to anti-LGBT laws. Wrong - the point of those laws is to criminalize undesirable groups (such as alcoholics and homeless people), and enforcement varies widely by jurisdiction and minority status. For example, in Texas, the laws are broad enough that police can go into a gay bar and arrest anyone who catches their eye for vessbot posted:But worldview, cultural surroundings, upbringing, and formative experiences are cornerstones of religious practice and mindset. They're largely the same thing, not a contradiction. But plenty of people in this thread are saying it all comes from religion! Yet when I suggest that maybe it's one of those many other cultural factors in people's lives, the response is that religion is one of those cultural factors and that there's no way to know which cultural factor is responsible so we can't rule any of them out. And then a few posts later everyone's back to blaming religion specifically while totally ignoring the existence of other factors, and the circle starts all over again. Can't have it both ways, it's not logically consistent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
Think of it in the frame of how a cult operates. The model isn't perfect, because we're talking about multiple different sects of Christianity, from mormon to evangelical, but it's close. You want to control information, movement, and social structure in a way that benefits you (the cult leader) personally. This requires a measure of authority. In case of the religious right as an "entity", this means stacking the deck with as many elected officials as possible who share your agenda. It's no different than doing like a state-level equivalent of what Quiverfull people do: homeschool your kids and don't let them interact meaningfully with outsiders, so that nobody ever reveals to them that their situation isn't normal; eventually they'll turn 25 and be more or less set in their ways. Only in most cases at the state level it's typically more rhetorical, along the lines of "jealously guard the status quo, and make sure that everybody knows their place and nobody gets uppity unless it's us." As many small towns will readily demonstrate, it's actually pretty easy to create a practical theocracy if everybody agrees to quietly ignore or disingenuously interpret the First Amendment, and the people who stay in that environment will come to believe that such a state of affairs is normal and correct. They have a position of privilege and a cult-like mentality, so they view outside influences trying to change them, for example by legalizing gay marriage or decriminalizing interracial relationships, as a direct attack on their fundamental beliefs. It doesn't make those people any less unsavory, mind you- their 1950s fantasy of a Leave It To Beaver world where racism and gender politics don't exist because nobody talks about it in public can only be possible at the cost of a boot on some minority's neck. Edit: Also, at least one of these factions believes, honestly and truly, that God is going to come down and end the world any week now, which is why it's difficult to get any of these assholes to do anything especially forward-thinking. Similarly, at least one of these factions believes it is absolute fact that our planet and everything on it was created, exactly as it currently is (technology notwithstanding), about 6,000 years ago, and that geological and fossil evidence of past events is a clever ruse from Satan. They cannot or will not conceive of a world that is capable of changing around them because God Didn't Make It That Way. deadly_pudding fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Apr 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 18:48
|
|
