GLR Forum
General Forum => GLBT General Topics => Topic started by: Feral on Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 08:36
-
From Big Gay Picture (http://www.biggaypicture.com/story/2006/4/10/15124/6771):
What exactly do conservative Christians want? According to the Los Angeles Times, they want the right to loudly and publicly condemn homosexuality, and criticize and harass GLBT people and organizations, even in public school settings. Anything less amounts to harassment and discrimination against them, the result of a world that is "anti-Christian" and intolerant of their version of Christianity.
The Los Angeles Times story is here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-christians10apr10,0,6204444.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines).
-
Religion has no business in politics.And gay interests and rights are politics.
K6
-
Religion has no business in politics.And gay interests and rights are politics.
Well, that's not exactly true - religions such as Christianity or Islam have lots to do with politics, and Vatican and others have always interferred with politics. The question to be answered is, of course, whether some group of citizens shall be granted the right to harass onother group of citizens under the premise of "freedom of belief" and "free speech". Most civilized societies have reached a consensus in this question: there is no right to abuse others, bottom line. Anyone is free to believe what he/she wants, but the just state will no way allow somebody to assault his fellow citizen and get away with this. Unfortunately, in too many countries - in Germany too - the religious organizations have been granted exceptional liberties on the subject of harrassment and discrimination at the workplace. That's why catholic priests can freely instigate to hate crimes against gays and lesbians without being imprisoned, and gay and lesbian employees are practically deprived of any rights at their workplaces in catholic hospitals (funded mostly by federal government).
The church (and religion in general) is not under attack - while it most certainly should be. All those black-and-white magicians shall be demasked, and their lies and cheating be fighted with the weapons of science and enlightment. The liberal society shall re-gain the leadership in the "religious question" and make an end to this evil by and by.
-
If religion and churches venture into the realm of politics,they are to be treated accordingly and consequently.That is ruthlessly.They enjoy no sovereign immunity from what could befall anyone involved in politics,and colliding with real world interests.Including ours.If we are to be serious political actors,we should neither forget nor forgive what churches and religion did to us.
K6
-
[..] If we are to be serious political actors,we should neither forget nor forgive what churches and religion did to us. [..]
Certain religious fundamentalists should be tried under gay jurisdiction - similarly as some Nazis were judged by Israelis. The elementary basics of justice shall be kept, though - any particular simple catholic priest cannot be made responsible for the crimes of his predecessors or supervisors.
-
Certain religious fundamentalists should be tried under gay jurisdiction - similarly as some Nazis were judged by Israelis.
Most assuredly.
Ordinarily I avoid discussion of purely hypothetical situations--reality differs too much from theory to make such conversation worthwhile. In this instance, however, the principle at hand is quite plain. If we would have justice, we must make that justice for ourselves. We might quibble about how long the list of defendants shall be but, short or long, there will be defendants. There can be no question that a sovereign gay state will hold the savages of the world to account for their barbarism.
And if some religion should claim that they are being discriminated against in the process...then let it be so.
-
Certain religious fundamentalists should be tried under gay jurisdiction - similarly as some Nazis were judged by Israelis. The elementary basics of justice shall be kept, though - any particular simple catholic priest cannot be made responsible for the crimes of his predecessors or supervisors.
The moment we have established a gay independent State,we must put on the first flight out all non-gay members of anti-gay religious denominations.Our country is to be emptied of such denominations,and their assets expropriated.Gays who have been members of the clergy
of such denominations ought to be tried for treason,account being taken of and credit being given to those who acted as informants for our side
on the activities of churches.In Europe and nowadays,churches are cautious with politics because they were at times and in the past taught terrible lessons by some revolutionnary secular powers (like in France and in 1789).If we cannot be liked by anti-gay churches,we cannot afford not to be feared by them.
K6
-
we must put on the first flight out all non-gay members of anti-gay religious denominations.
If being a member of an anti-gay religious denomination is their only crime, expulsion would be reasonable. I would question the likelihood of this level of 'innocence' however. Persons who are guilty of crimes against the gay people should not escape justice, regardless of where they dwell.
-
If being a member of an anti-gay religious denomination is their only crime, expulsion would be reasonable. I would question the likelihood of this level of 'innocence' however. Persons who are guilty of crimes against the gay people should not escape justice, regardless of where they dwell.
They will have most probably fled before our taking over,and thus find themselves beyond our reach.But should they fall into our hands,my tendency would be not to put them on trial.In fact not to put any non-gay on trial.Because what certain heterosexuals did to us was political,and not really juridical,the sanction and solution ought to be political,in fact geopolitical and simple: expulsion.Preceded,in the case of persons who comitted crimes
against gays,with a warning of the following sort: if they remain in our country,beyond a certain date we will consider ourselves as no longer responsble for their security.
K6
-
Happily, this is a hypothetical discussion. Should we find ourselves with sovereign powers the matter would be quite serious. As we find ourselves, it is just a friendly conversation about a place that does not exist, with courts that do not exist and a police force that does not exist.
Persons who are guilty of crimes against the gay people should not escape justice, regardless of where they dwell.
It will be the gay people who decide what are and what are not crimes worthy of punishment. I cannot support any happy excuses of political or religious conscience; that these monsters actually believe in what they do is hardly a mitigating circumstance. Instead, I find it to be evidence of motive to be used in the prosecution.
-
Happily, this is a hypothetical discussion. Should we find ourselves with sovereign powers the matter would be quite serious. As we find ourselves, it is just a friendly conversation about a place that does not exist, with courts that do not exist and a police force that does not exist.
Persons who are guilty of crimes against the gay people should not escape justice, regardless of where they dwell.
It will be the gay people who decide what are and what are not crimes worthy of punishment. I cannot support any happy excuses of political or religious conscience; that these monsters actually believe in what they do is hardly a mitigating circumstance. Instead, I find it to be evidence of motive to be used in the prosecution.
The only ones over whom we would have real competence in matters of trials and as a State would be gays,specifically those who have committed treason against our interests.The others,all non-gays,only acted according to their own interests,in which I see no crime.Some it is true,acted viciously.But that is no reason to put them on trial.At most,it would justify consequent administrative,executive and extra-judiciary action,no court interfering in the process.A watered-down version of the Morgenthau plan for defeated nazi Germany.According to that plan,
which was finaly not implemented,the procedure to follow with high ranking nazis was purely administrative: capture,identification and vertical emigration,the whole matter being settled in five or six hours.
K6
-
Clearly then some gay nationalists can be further described as revanchist and some cannot.
When a snake bites your child, you do not go looking for the snake with the blood on it's jaws; any snake will do. Now, this is an extreme position, one that I will not defend in most circumstances. But here we are talking about snakes with blood on their jaws. Surely you cut off such a snake's head, lest it bite again. I speak metaphorically, of course. Beheading is not, of necessity, called for--but neither is it automatically out of the question.
All criminals act in their own interests, except perhaps true psychopaths (and I believe at least some psychologists would tell us that even madmen act in their own interests after a fashion). This does not exempt them from punishment for their crimes. I would call upon a gay government to bring all of the torturers and murderers to justice, and I would work to topple a false gay government that would not do so. Surely some of the enemies of the gay people will find themselves beyond the reach and resources of the gay government, but by rights they should at least die hunted men.
-
All criminals act in their own interests, except perhaps true psychopaths (and I believe at least some psychologists would tell us that even madmen act in their own interests after a fashion). This does not exempt them from punishment for their crimes. I would call upon a gay government to bring all of the torturers and murderers to justice, and I would work to topple a false gay government that would not do so. Surely some of the enemies of the gay people will find themselves beyond the reach and resources of the gay government, but by rights they should at least die hunted men.
That can perfectly be effected without trial.A gay State would expectedly have the proper agencies to deal with problematic non-gays.Its immigration services would handle those who abuse our hospitality by expelling them.A certain branch of its intelligence services,more familiar
with action,could remove more completely and definitely those who have persecuted gays.All the more efficiently without any delay or interference by a court,where the defendant could turn the tables on us,pursue his homophobic propaganda show,and rally certain sectors of the international opinion to his defense.
K6
-
Happily, this is a hypothetical discussion. Should we find ourselves with sovereign powers the matter would be quite serious. As we find ourselves, it is just a friendly conversation about a place that does not exist, with courts that do not exist and a police force that does not exist.
Persons who are guilty of crimes against the gay people should not escape justice, regardless of where they dwell.
It will be the gay people who decide what are and what are not crimes worthy of punishment. I cannot support any happy excuses of political or religious conscience; that these monsters actually believe in what they do is hardly a mitigating circumstance. Instead, I find it to be evidence of motive to be used in the prosecution.
I fully agree. The gay people shall execute justice for crimes against gay people, without any regard on where the criminals dwell. "If the mount does not come to Muhammed, Muhammed goes to the mount" is an effective solution for those who try to escape their due treatment. The rules for persecution crimes against the gay people shall be installed by the gay people itself, with legislative of the future gay state being one of the possible authorities for implementation of necessary legislation. In the absense of the gay state some other groups/organizations can be tempted to help justice on their own - who could condemn them for this? However, a fair process with considering actual weight of the crimes of any particular defendent is only possible on a regular Court of Justice, therefore should be the favored solution if possible.
The only ones over whom we would have real competence in matters of trials and as a State would be gays,specifically those who have committed treason against our interests.The others,all non-gays,only acted according to their own interests,in which I see no crime.Some it is true,acted viciously.But that is no reason to put them on trial.At most,it would justify consequent administrative,executive and extra-judiciary action,no court interfering in the process.
[..] the procedure to follow with high ranking nazis was purely administrative: capture,identification and vertical emigration,the whole matter being settled in five or six hours.
I would oppose the "vertical emigration" (we undersand us well, I think) as contradicting my basic beliefs on humanity. Everybody shall be treated accordingly to the severity of his/her crime, and there shall be no excuse because of an assumed "self-interest". On contrary, the pursuing of base interests makes a crime even worse (e.g., a simple homicide turns into a murder).
In the most modern jurisdictions, a man cannot be imprisoned for an action commited before these particular action was declared a crime. Therefore, the persecution shall concentrate on crimes which are universally regarded as crimes by humans everywhere - murder, grievous bodily harm etc, and instigation to such crimes. Recent German history might one more time serve with examples - upon the re-unification, high-ranking GDR officials and simple soldiers were tried for shootings on the FRG-GDR border, although they acted in accordance with the GDR laws. The devise was simple: "Murder does not come under the statute of limitations". It is understood that persons with hight influence (e.g. high-ranking politicians and religious leaders) load heavier guilt upon their shoulders than a simple hatefull idiot in the local baseball team. Those who commited severe crimes shall be seized and persecuted, the small fishes can be set free upon short trial and a guilt recognition.
All criminals act in their own interests [..]. This does not exempt them from punishment for their crimes. I would call upon a gay government to bring all of the torturers and murderers to justice, and I would work to topple a false gay government that would not do so. Surely some of the enemies of the gay people will find themselves beyond the reach and resources of the gay government, but by rights they should at least die hunted men.
Achieving justice for the victims of gay bashing and governmental terror is one of the very reasons for the gay state to exist - the victims shall be revenged. Any gay government which shall prove to be overly lenient towards the mentioned criminals makes itself guilty of the very crime of persecution circumvention, and possibly of high treason.
That can perfectly be effected without trial. [..] All the more efficiently without any delay or interference by a court,where the defendant could turn the tables on us,pursue his homophobic propaganda show,and rally certain sectors of the international opinion to his defense.
The trial on a proper court is always the better solution - and we can use such a trial for transmitting the message as well. Whenever it proves not possible to seize the criminal alive, he/she shall be tried in absense and the justice be helped on another way. If a person publicly declares an open war against homosexuals, he makes himself a subject to the rules of war, with all the consequences. If the snake cannot be captured for a dental treatment, it shall loose its head completely.
-
A certain branch of its intelligence services, more familiar with action, could remove more completely and definitely those who have persecuted gays.
You make an interesting point, one which changes the meaning of much of what you have previously written. Hypothetically speaking, trials and prison terms are to be preferred over the actions of 'intelligence services'. Since this hypothetical state does not yet exist, there is no way to evaluate it's judicial procedures. It seems likely though that a judicial process would be the more useful to the interests of justice in the vast majority of cases. It also seems likely that alternative forms of justice might, in theory, be called for.
Eichmann was tried. Many more were not. Very occasionally, the accused are innocent. The hangmen of Iran and those who directed their actions deserve justice. It would be a good thing if those persons punished for 4,000 murders were, in fact, the persons in question.
-
You make an interesting point, one which changes the meaning of much of what you have previously written. Hypothetically speaking, trials and prison terms are to be preferred over the actions of 'intelligence services'. Since this hypothetical state does not yet exist, there is no way to evaluate it's judicial procedures. It seems likely though that a judicial process would be the more useful to the interests of justice in the vast majority of cases. It also seems likely that alternative forms of justice might, in theory, be called for.
We both arrive at similar results,but by different ways and based on different perspectives.To me,those who have persecuted gays are a matter
of national (and in certain respects also international) gay security.The proper agency to deal with them is our intelligence services,which are to
collect information on their deeds,and then decide a course of action.Since these are adversaries which played dirty with us,we should play the
same game.They should go under such a general heading like "Perished in the course of the politico-military activities which were rendered necessary by the pursuance of our independence".
K6
-
The trial on a proper court is always the better solution - and we can use such a trial for transmitting the message as well. Whenever it proves not possible to seize the criminal alive, he/she shall be tried in absense and the justice be helped on another way. If a person publicly declares an open war against homosexuals, he makes himself a subject to the rules of war, with all the consequences. If the snake cannot be captured for a dental treatment, it shall loose its head completely.
There are risks involved in trials against ennemy political leaders.This was demonstrated in the trial against Slobodan Milosevitch before the International Court of Justice in the Hague,which lead nowhere in four years: Milosevitch died before the conclusion,and had besides started
to turn the tables on his accusers.The same with the trial against Saddam Hussein,which also drags on and leads nowhere.War is a process
different from a court action.It is political,and does not embarasses itself with juridical procedures or conclusions.The moment a vicious homophobe has started a war upon us,he must not be allowed to decide when the conflict involved will end,by being turned into a juridical procedure for example.At the beginning our political independence,we must first establish a reputation as a reliable international actor certainly,but also as a mean one who neither forgets,nor forgives,nor gives any quarter to an archennemy.Trials of archennemies would make us appear as weak,and whould not establish for us a reputation which would guarantee the security of future gay generations.Whenever we cannot be liked,we must be feared.
K6
-
[..] War is a process different from a court action.It is political,and does not embarasses itself with juridical procedures or conclusions.The moment a vicious homophobe has started a war upon us,he must not be allowed to decide when the conflict involved will end,by being turned into a juridical procedure for example. [..] Trials of archennemies would make us appear as weak,and whould not establish for us a reputation which would guarantee the security of future gay generations.Whenever we cannot be liked,we must be feared. [..]
It is always tempting to believe that one holds the final truth - unfortunately history proves that this is usually not the case. Whereas in a case of open war with clear enemy one solely needs to aim that enemy and pull the trigger, execution of justice is a bit more delicate process. Haven't you learned from the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution 1917? All the guys on the tribunals started their activities by quick beheading "declared enemies of the people", than they felt urged to execute their political rivals, and at the end noone was secure from the guilotine. No, we cannot go this way, unless we want a massacre among gays finaly. The secret service you propose might gather the informations and perform the necessary steps if ordered to do so, but the judgements must be made by proper judges. It is not said that a process must take years - in the most obvious cases (which we are pursuing) the evidences can be collected quickly. A short process is better than no process at all - a person might actually prove innocent. Btw, what does make you think that a simple security officer is more qualified to make an appropriate decision than a proper judge?
No - each person shall make the job which he/she was trained for - judges should judge, and special agents shall execute the judgements.
-
A short process is better than no process at all - a person might actually prove innocent. Btw, what does make you think that a simple security officer is more qualified to make an appropriate decision than a proper judge?
No - each person shall make the job which he/she was trained for - judges should judge, and special agents shall execute the judgements.
My impression is that the juridical processes which are familiar to us in the context of our respective organized societies do not really lend themselves to implementation in the realm of international relations,that is to relations between peoples.For their agencies,national courts ou such international bodies like the UN or its Security Council,are mainly debating societies.Which puts them at a disadvantage when faced with other organizations less focussed on debate,or whose debates are less abstract and more realistic.A court will ask itself wether an action is legal or illegal,or just or unjust,while neglecting wether it is or not feasible.Whereas an intelligence agency will dwell mainly in matters of State interest,and of success or failure of its operations.Vicious homophobes aren`t debating,they are acting.And the proper answer to their action is another action,not a debate.
K6
-
It is always tempting to believe that one holds the final truth - unfortunately history proves that this is usually not the case. Whereas in a case of open war with clear enemy one solely needs to aim that enemy and pull the trigger, execution of justice is a bit more delicate process. Haven't you learned from the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution 1917? All the guys on the tribunals started their activities by quick beheading "declared enemies of the people", than they felt urged to execute their political rivals, and at the end noone was secure from the guilotine. No, we cannot go this way, unless we want a massacre among gays finaly.
No,I have said before that gays must remain subject to court action for their deeds against their own people.They are to be tried in a regular
manner should they commit acts of treason.I am not however in favour of extending the authority of our courts to matters having to do with
non-gays or international relations.We should put no non-gay on trial for actions against our interests.The reaction to such actions should come
from our immigration services,and if that doesn`t do from such executive bodies like our intelligence services or (in case of invasion) our armed
forces.
K6
-
Ahem, if I understand you right, you are suggesting the following system:
- justice before a court for gays, and
- more or less arbitrary execution for allegedly hostile non-gays, without any process?
This would indeed implicate that we regard non-gays as being less worthy of a fair treatment - a dangerous thought, in my view. This might bring us too close to the practices of National Socialists, if applied consequently. The temptation to persecute someone quickly should not be given in - or we will sell out our very principles: the judges and the executive officers must not be the same persons. If the intelligence gains certain knowledges, it shall provide them to the responsible judges - if necessary, military judges under the premise of confidentiality.
-
Ahem, if I understand you right, you are suggesting the following system:
- justice before a court for gays, and
- more or less arbitrary execution for allegedly hostile non-gays, without any process?
This would indeed implicate that we regard non-gays as being less worthy of a fair treatment - a dangerous thought, in my view. This might bring us too close to the practices of National Socialists, if applied consequently. The temptation to persecute someone quickly should not be given in - or we will sell out our very principles: the judges and the executive officers must not be the same persons. If the intelligence gains certain knowledges, it shall provide them to the responsible judges - if necessary, military judges under the premise of confidentiality.
We must enjoy over non-gays slightly more powers,or at least powers of a different kind,than over our own nationals.Powers of an administrative (immigration) or executive (intelligence agencies,armed forces) nature which raise in no way an issue of equality or unequality between us
and non-gays.Relations with non-gays fall into the category of the international variety.Vis-à-vis the foreign and international environment,we must be in position to react more rapidly and radically,so as not to put in jeopardy our political independence.Some immigration review board,and not a court,would decide as for the presence of non-gays on our soil.And some planning committee would decide as for the course of action to follow in intelligence operations.My preference goes to the quick removal,from our territory,of homophobes in general,under the general and admited international custom that we as a sovereign people have no obligation to greet foreigners.That their presence in our country is not a right but only a privilege.In a few cases,like those of dangerous non-gays evoked by Feral and who could prove dangerous even after being expelled,
especially to gays residing abroad,some other course of action would have to be contemplated as to render them definitely inoffensive.A court is too slow an instrument to deal with foreigners or foreign powers.It deliberates in the abstract - legaly and morally - whereas foreigners and foreign powers act in real life and create real accomplished facts.It goes without saying that either an immigration review board or an intelligence planning comittee would remain under the authority of a democratic government of ours,which would set their general tasks and objectives.As for non-gays who deal normally with us,they would fall under the competence of our diplomatic services,and again not our courts.
K6
-
Ahem, if I understand you right, you are suggesting the following system:
- justice before a court for gays
This is no privilege.For we would actually claim over gays more competence and powers - in assessing their loyalty for example - than over non-gays who by virtue of their different set of interests ow us no loyalty.This would be balanced only by due process before a court,and also by the principle that a gay could not be deported from our country.He would have a clearly defined legal right to remain in that Republic of ours.Relations between gays are to be juridical.A certain number of homophobes are we must admit,gays themselves.These would have to be prosecuted for treason,but again in an orderly and juridical fashion.
K6
-
"If religion and churches venture into the realm of politics,they are to be treated accordingly and consequently.That is ruthlessly.They enjoy no sovereign immunity from what could befall anyone involved in politics,and colliding with real world interests."
How wrong you are. Please explain the continued existence of the Vatican as a sovereign nation-state with full diplomatic relationships with nearly every nation on the globe, control over one of the largest ideological business ventures on the planet and its thus resulting worldwide strangehold control on morality, politics, etc.
The solution for "Christians" or any other extremist religious fanatics in our future homeland is simple: A rapid-determination court will sentence them to "hard labor;" they will be put into our castle dungeon and be forced to serve as publicly available sex slaves for those in need. Lesser criminals will be sentenced to "community service," in which they will be forced to work as publicly available prostitutes and turn 2/3 of their earnings over to the state as restitution for their crime(s). :+
-
"If religion and churches venture into the realm of politics,they are to be treated accordingly and consequently.That is ruthlessly.They enjoy no sovereign immunity from what could befall anyone involved in politics,and colliding with real world interests."
How wrong you are. Please explain the continued existence of the Vatican as a sovereign nation-state with full diplomatic relationships with nearly every nation on the globe, control over one of the largest ideological business ventures on the planet and its thus resulting worldwide strangehold control on morality, politics, etc.
The solution for "Christians" or any other extremist religious fanatics in our future homeland is simple: A rapid-determination court will sentence them to "hard labor;" they will be put into our castle dungeon and be forced to serve as publicly available sex slaves for those in need. Lesser criminals will be sentenced to "community service," in which they will be forced to work as publicly available prostitutes and turn 2/3 of their earnings over to the state as restitution for their crime(s). :+
The history of Europe was a bit different from the one of the US.There has been in the past and in Europe secular and anti-religious political revolutions in the course of which churches were taught a lesson and educated by way of blood and ashes.Which is probably why churches
are more cautious when they operate nowadays in the wholly secularized environment of Europe.They do not meddle in politics or in social matters to the same extent they do elsewhere,particularly in the US.Churches,in my view,are to be completely driven out from a country of
ours,their non-gay followers being simply expelled.Their gay followers,insofar as they have such a following,could be sorted under a condition
called "National Indignity",with no right to vote,hold office,or be employed in any position putting them in contact with the gay youth.Gay clergy
should by tried for treason.Pagan denominations could be encouraged and even supported financially among the general gay population.Political cadres would be trained in a completely secular mindset,with absolutely no place for religion in politics or social matters.The gay youth would be raised and educated in the secular veneration and service of the gay nation-State.
K6
-
Yiek! Seems that Christians have really very few friends here... :L
There is no question, that at least the 3 monoteistic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) do have a very disturbed relation to the same-sex love. If we recall newer and older statements made by the religious leaders, and read carefully the scriptures, we should acknowledge that there is no place for us in their mids.
One can reasonably doubt whether Catholizism has much in common with the early Christianity, because most of Catholic teaching is based on Tora and is contradictory to the very principles taught by Jesus of Nazareth. Alike, many of the branches of modern "Christianity" have a very confuse understandiding of the basic principles of what they claim to believe. It must be not forgotten, that Religion as such is something very private, and all the Priests and Ayatollahs and Rabbies are solely scholars, who more or less rightfully have usurped the right to interpete particular scriptures.
I do not think that a private religious belief of an individual into existence of some kind of a God can endanger his or her loyalty to the gay state, neither does a belief constitute a crime. While the state has the right to influence the manifestations of religious beliefs, it has generally no right to sniffle in people's religious and political beliefs. While the state itself must be secular, its citizens are free to be whatever they wish.
Religious or political organizations and their activities are quiet a different thing. There is no need for us to tolerate destructive activities of hostile organizations, therefore local organizations of Catholic Church etc shall be declared illegal and their representatives and agents be forbidden to entry the territorium under gay legislation.
The belonging to such illegal organizations shall constitute an impediment for entering any kind of political office, whereas the belief itself shall be of no importance. Officers in military or secret service might be, however, required to fullfill more tight criterions. While entering into office the candidate must declare his commitment to the constitution and swear that he will serve the state and the people at the best of his abilities - if someone is loyal to an enemy, he of course cannot work for the state.
Being gay and a priest is not a crime and no high treason to the gay state. Being gay and instigate homophobia is. The gays in question, whether priests or politicians, shall be aware that they might become subject to the justice of the gay people and its state.
@ Vizier: you are not seriously suggesting to make Papa Ratzi and his cohorts to sex sklaves? Who can be that much desperate to even touch that ladies gentlemen?
=))
-
Yiek! Seems that Christians have really very few friends here... :L
For reference,I am an atheist.I became an atheist almost at the same time I decided to be gay at age 16,what a coincidence.I was raised as a catholic.But religion and metaphysics never really interested me.And the traditional catholic system of education I went through produced a large crop of politically radical atheists,at least in my generation.As far as I am concerned,there is no room for gayness and christianism in a same country.In a country of ours,christianism is to be completely eradicated,its cadres expelled,its places of worship closed down,and all its assets confiscated.
K6
-
Being gay and a priest is not a crime and no high treason to the gay state. Being gay and instigate homophobia is. The gays in question, whether priests or politicians, shall be aware that they might become subject to the justice of the gay people and its state.
A gay who is a member of the clergy of,say,the catholic church,is a traitor.The proper courts shall assess each case according to its merits.Those gay priests who have passed on information to us on the ennemy body constituted by the catholic church,far from being punished,shall be decorated.
Those who have failed to inform us about the designs of the catholic church,when it was in their power to do so,shall see the consequences and pay the price.
K6
-
Here a noteworthy report from the other side of the barricades, from a man who got beaten at a gay pride for expression of his homophobic views:
"Protester attack not provoked
Wednesday June 21, 2006
On June 11, the annual gay pride parade was held in Calgary. My friend Merle and I attended, not merely to observe, but to peacefully express an opinion. We held up signs reading ‘No pride in sodomy’. (Pride is usually associated with some kind of an accomplishment: sexual acts hardly qualify).
For the most part the exchanges between the parade participants, observers and we two protesters were pleasant and cordial and were an example of people of good will agreeing to disagree. That changed when two men spit on us. One of those men (probably weighing in at close to 300 pounds) shortly thereafter tackled Merle to the ground – from behind – and punched him in the head. It was all caught on film. The police have quite properly charged the gentleman with assault.
The attack was filmed in its entirety by City TV, which aired the clip on its 6 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. newscasts, with the report that intolerance was alive and well in Calgary, and we – Merle and I – were it. Take note: Two people can peacefully – peacefully – protest a prominently liberal cause, get spit on and attacked in the process, and yet it is they who get labelled by our balanced media as intolerant. Stephen Harper complains about bias in the media. He is entirely justified and if this incident isn’t a prime example, I don’t know what is.
– Jeff Willerton, Airdrie"
I think it is important to controll emotions, especially if the assumed "homophob" seems not to belong to the aggressive ones - a kiss might be a better solution than a stick over the head. :=SU