Before I start Ranting, and you stat foaming at the mouth, Realize this. I AM NOT GAY!
Now to where I rant.
First off, This is the exact same thing that happened in the era between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement to Black people.
It was illegal to treat them as subhuman, but white men were more human than blacks, hispanics, and women.
Now it is illegal to discriminate in the workplace, and that there are laws against racism, plus culture's hatred for it. But, the white men who want to be the majority still find this need to discriminate.
Now where you foam at the mouth.
The first outlet is always those who are different in outward ways. Skin color, Height, Hair color, Gender, whatever you want. So we make fun of/Hate Mexicans. "Q: There is a black guy and a mexican in a car. Who's driving? A: The Cops."
Is that NOT Outward racism? Honestly?! How is that tolerable? Because whites consider themselves a majority? Because that is shrinking guys! Notice that Ploticians focus on controlling Hispanics as much as they focus on controlling Whites? Its a sign!
Then we find a way to discriminate against those who ae different than us in mental /political /moral issues. Here is where Gays come in.
During this part, feel free to throw a chair, or other large blunt object at that photo of me you found, just not AT MY Real body. Vent your anger elsewhere.
Imagine this scenario. Two identical twins are in high school. They are both White, tall and good-looking. One is Gay, the other straight. Who will be liked by his peers? That's right, the straight one if the gay one reveals his desires.
He could be shy, and somewhat social, Kind, caring, a good christian, but if people know he is gay, Pfft. There goes all respect for him.
Because of one defective gene that he has no control over, He catches about as muck flak as you can get. His popularity drops like a stone, even if he doesn't flirt with guys, or stuff like that. He is treated like a pedophile. People HATE him for something he cannot control.
What is one of the most popular insults? "YOURE GAY!" Why? because people hate gays. It is the same thing as saying to a white guy, "YOURE BLACK."
Does any of ths make sense?
No. But it happens.
Please control your Boiling blood, and do NOT shoot me, or my friends, or family.
Then, needing a legitimate way to discriminate against Gays, we make up a reason.
RELIGION! Of course! Jesus was some darker-skined guy in Isreal who loved his neighbor as himself, and forgave all that asked for forgiveness, so he MUST hate Gays! Of course!
WHere in the bible does it say that being gay is bad?
Actevalation 4:67! Of course! and ... Moses 2:36! and....
Point proven?
Does the bible define marragie? Not to my knowledge. (feel free to correct me, but you better tell me a REAL chapter in a REAL book.) Either way, it doesn't define homosexuality as evil!
So why can't we at least say "Hey, I don't want to be involved, but You go ahead"? Why?
Shouldn't civil Unions be allowed at least? WHY NOT? Give me a dozen good reasons. That don't involve your personal fear of the unknown.
So to conclude...
- We ARE discrimanatory, even though that was supposed t have stopped 60 years ago...
- There is no basis in religion against homosexuality
- At least alow Civil Unions! C'mon!
Motor.On
4 comments:
Okay first off I have no problem with gay marriage, except that if you allow gay marriage, you're gonna have to allow other things such as bigamy and incest. (What, is it bad to "discriminate" against gays, but good to do so against people who want to marry their sister or multiple spouses?)
Second, your thing about discrimination is complete bullshit. I think white men are the most discriminated people on the face of the earth. We are blamed for everything that goes wrong. If a black dude can't get a job, it's the white man's fault. If a white man makes a racist joke about a black man, it's evil. If a black man makes a racist joke about a white man, it's acceptable. I don't understand how this is tolerable. Then again, there are people like you who contribute to it. First off you blame white people for everything, which only contributes to racism. Second, democrats try to "even the field" by making laws against racism, which in reality only perpetuate it. The laws point out differences and single out races, which by definition makes the laws themselves racist. You can't get legislate away racism by saying "you have to treat black people differently than you normally would", because that singles out black people and says "They're different". That is NOT what we want. We want everyone to be considered equal. It is retarded to say look how different these people are, treat them differently. You should instead make no laws giving different rights to different races. The way to solve racism is to let it naturally go away. laws that give special rights to a race minimize the success of that race and make people hate it. If a black man gets a job over a white man, due to affirmitive action, the white guy will think "he got the job because he's black" and he may even start to dislike blacks because they have distinct advantages over his race due to affirimitive action. A law that was meant to end racism only perpetuates it. Once again, this proves the point that most democrats legislate based on emotion rather than logic. If we think through this instead of just say "i think white people suck", we can determine that logically you make no sense.
I have no idea how that contributes to bigmay, but that's another thing alotgether...
THe reason that we are "the most discriminated against on the face of the earth" is because that is what we did!
YOU MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT RACISM! It will NOT go away on its own. NEVEr EVER! If a white man can consider himself above someone else, and then enforce that on his children, it will NOT go away.
That is like saying that the poor will get out of poverty without help (once again another topic).
Did I say that it was right for anyone to be racist? Nope! I said specifically that ther is NO reason for Racism EVER! (If i didn't say it specifically, now I did. :-P)
I DO think this through! Why else would I possibly be able to argue with any purpose?
Maybe we do use more emotion than Conservatives, but that is because t makes more sense. THere are some situations where emotion is necessary over Logic.
One of the major problems with compters solving real-world problems is that they have no empathy. None. It is all logic.
BTW, my abortion argument is Logic. If I was emphatic, I would be one of those people holding a picture of a dead baby on a street corner. Trust me, I would go that far.
How is Racism NOT at the fault of Whites?
We were the ones who transported living goods from Africa to America into apparently perpetual slavery. We also freed the slaves.
Sometimes, you have to highlight the bad to see the good.
Racism against blacks is the result of our society. And guess who had the biggest part in creating that society? That's right, white men. The problem now is that even though racism is not longer practiced consciously, it is still embedded in our subconcious (the rest of this argument I'm getting from the book blink by Malcolm Gladwell.) This is actual scientific stuff. If you take an Implicit Association Test (IAT), it is PROVEN that people (everyone, including blacks, living in the U.S.) prefer whites over blacks. I am not racist towards blacks. My rating when I took the test was 'strong preference for European American compared to Black American.' If you don't believe me, take the test yourself at www.implicit.harvard.edu. Also, racism doesn't exist subconciously ONLY for blacks. There are tests for women too, and they show that people have a stronger identification with males and jobs than with females, even thoughe everything is SUPPOSED to be equal. In blink, Gladwell talked about how most CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are tall, suggesting we automatically prefer tall people. So yes, I would say our society is still very racist, and would not agree that white males experience a ton of prejudice.
Yeah I tend to be logical to the point of fault. But I read this scenario somewhere (K5 maybe?): you are driving along in the dead of winter with your girlfriend and see a homeless man sleeping on a bench under a few layers of newspaper. Your girlfriend quickly suggests that the government get homeless people off the street. You shoot down her argument by saying that such a plan would be too expensive. The government (and in the end, the taxpayer) cannot afford to buy a new house, etc for every homeless person. Instead, you suggest that the government spend more on education, decreasing poverty levels. Your argument is logical, while your girlfriend's is emotional. But neither plan solves the problem: your girlfriend's doesn't prevent more people from becoming homeless and yours doesn't help those that already are. That's a simplistic example, but it shows that both logic and emotion are needed to make a good decision. Like I said before, I believe that logic should be the greater part of the two in serious decision making.
Post a Comment