Interesting article on homosexuality

[Mr. Boyce]

I don't doubt atheists would feel that way.

 

My general approach, though, is that viewing political life as only a structure of individual rights misses out on important things: social duties and obligations, some of which limit "rights." I also think there's some merit to the notion that judges keeping minting new rights. I view the family as being an intergenerational and procreative unit valuable to society, even when a family is unfortunate and the two cannot reproduce. I hate to say this, too, but I find it impossible to put judges on a pedestal and worship their decisions: I don't see the Constitution as the source of our general American morality. (But all this is moving away from the main topic here).

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Mr. Boyce writes:

I don't doubt atheists would feel that way.

 

That would seem to conflict with your earlier remark about how opposition is NOT based on religion; if religion wasn't a significant component of opposition, being an atheist shouldn't correlate with being on either side of gay issues.

[Mr. Boyce]

I don't see things so black and white. Most people will identify themselves as religious. . . but not really follow through on the tough stuff when it comes to voting. They pick and choose (remember the term "cafeteria Catholic"?). I have met very few religious people who do not try to think for themselves but merely follow church teachings. . . those teachings are important, as you may know, but they are usually viewed as arguments, not orders, for a viewpoint.

 

When it comes to atheists, I merely am assuming they generally will have a "let me be" libertarianism or "it's all the same" sense of relativism. While there really are aggressive, in-your-face, atheists, most that I have met are just happy with their views and want to be let alone.

 

My view of atheists is personal and anecdotal. . . but I would not be surprised if some study somewhere bore this out.

 

 

[skeptic]

"While there really are aggressive, in-your-face, atheists";

 

Where?? :-}

[packsaddle]

Skeptic, you take a book by Hitchens, say, or Dawkins...and hold it really close to your face.

[NJCubScouter]

My experience from years of reading forum posts, articles etc. regarding equal rights for gay people is that for many opponents of equal rights, religious doctrine is the main factor. In fact I would say that it is the main factor overall. Just read back over the years of discussion in this very forum and you will see many attempts to justify discrimination against gay people based on quotations from the Bible, what God must have intended, etc. etc. And I've actually seen bumper stickers saying God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

 

On the other side, I would say most people who favor equality for gay people base their views on the general idea that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong, without necessarily having a religious basis for that view. The legislatures of many states have placed sexual orientation in the same category as race, religion, etc. as prohibited bases for decisions regarding employment, public accommodations, etc. However, there are some religions that have taken a stand against discrimination against gay people; Reform Judaism and Unitarianism come to mind. Then there are other religions that are split on the issue, but with significant numbers of members favoring equal rights; this includes the Episcopalian Church and I believe it also includes Methodists and Presbyterians.

 

So there are certainly people on both sides of this issue with at least a partial religious basis for their views, but this is much more strongly present on the pro-discrimination side.

[sherminator505]

"My view of atheists is personal and anecdotal. . . but I would not be surprised if some study somewhere bore this out."

 

Of course not! I'm sure that if any one of us dug deep enough, and looked in the right places, we could find a study or two that supports our particular point of view. Even the tobacco industry has that ability. Granted, they probably funded the supportive studies in the first place, but I digress.

 

I have a few questions. I have heard some chatter on these threads about the "gay agenda." What is their agenda, in your view? What do you think they are trying to accomplish? And how many "studies" do you need to decide whether those ends are good or bad?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[Mr. Boyce]

Just to clarify. I don't discount the religious beliefs as a factor, but I do think some religious people follow them more than others.

 

I think the most famous book on homosexual activism and propaganda techniques was written some time back (and sold a good many copies), After the Ball. Read it and see what you think.

 

With atheist activism, just recently wasn't there a campaign last Christmas to do ads on the sides of buses in major American cities trying to water out Jesus from the holiday?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

With atheist activism, just recently wasn't there a campaign last Christmas to do ads on the sides of buses in major American cities trying to water out Jesus from the holiday?

 

Yes, and a lot of other billboard and bus ad campaigns. Did you have a point?

[DanKroh]

After the Ball is about as influential to gay rights groups as a Fred Phelps tract is to the average Christian Church.

 

Sherm,

 

Psst. I'll let you in on a secret. There is a gay agenda, and I know what it is:

 

1. Spend time with family

2. Buy milk

3. Be treated equally

 

[Mr. Boyce]

re: the atheist. No, just responding to a fellow above.

 

 

re: AFter the Ball

 

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

To overcome Americans' deep-rooted aversion to gay men and women, psychologist Kirk and ad man Madsen propose a massive media campaign designed to correct stereotypes and neutralize anti-gay prejudice. PW termed this "a punchy call to arms, Madison Avenue style." Illustrated.

Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.

[NJCubScouter]

correct stereotypes and neutralize anti-gay prejudice

 

Wait... is that supposed to be a ''bad'' thing? To me, that sounds like a good thing.

[Eagledad]

>>Psst. I'll let you in on a secret. There is a gay agenda, and I know what it is:

 

1. Spend time with family

2. Buy milk

3. Be treated equally

[Beavah]

There agenda plan is several years long and is actually quite scary when you see how far they are set to go.

 

Yah, to be fair, what Eagledad is describing is the same for any special interest lobby. Doesn't matter if it's pro-gay, pro-life, pro-spotted owl, pro-drilling, or whatever. If they have enough money, they hire professionals to put together a full press media campaign, including disinformation, fake ("sample") letters to the editor for newspapers, strategy layouts, script pitches to TV shows and movie houses, chain emails to send out to whip up supporter frenzy, spin-talk suggestions, how to get maximum Twitter penetration how to try to discredit "enemies" who disagree. You name it. Usually da worst are the industries, including da public sector unions, and of course the political parties themselves. But da "ethics" lobbies are pretty bad.

 

Most Americans would pick up any of these plans and be disgusted. For that reason they are usually labeled confidential and are closely guarded. I'm really surprised Eagledad got to see one. But they're certainly not unique to da gay lobby. That's why from climate change to other issues, yeh have to be alert to this stuff and its sources, and seek out sources on da other side, or yeh will allow yourself to be manipulated.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Mr. Boyce]

Perhaps this goes with any "group" that believes it is oppressed. . . they believe they are oppressed until you give them all and everything they demand.

 

It has the feel of a demanding child. I'm not happy that in American politics, it's such a "my way or the highway" approach.

 

It MAY be the case that the group is not being oppressed.

 

It MAY be the case that not all the demands are reasonable or sensible.

 

I don't like this "only I get to call the tune", and "only I get to say what is really real" aspect.