Homosexuality Is The New Totalitarianism

[Guest Anna_Banana]

I won't comment on this as it's too long, so I'll simply quote a few paragraphs. I will say that Mr. O'Brien whole-heartedly expects childishness from the "cup cake-like homosexuals," so please give adult criticism to show that we aren't the barbarians he describes us as. Discuss your thoughts/opinions. My only question: Conservative propaganda or factual observation?

http://wordincarnate.wordpress.com/the-new-totalitarianism/

The moral high ground:

The Catholic Church, for example, does not condemn homosexuals as persons; it condemns as sinful those activities which are not only an offense against God, but are destructive of the person, as well as society in the long run. In rejecting these two amendments, Parliament simply decreed that henceforth any negative public reference to homosexuality must be considered a possible hate crime against homosexual persons, prosecutable and (where a verdict of guilty is delivered) punishable by a jail sentence.

Militant homosexuals:

There is a widespread drawing back as journalists, teachers, and pastors ponder their options. At the same time activist homosexual groups have been bombarding a number of pro-family, pro-life organizations in Canada with mockery and threats, and planning strategies (in open forums) for neutralizing all opposition, warning that those who don’t keep silent on homosexuality will go to court, and to jail. The high level of emotional violence in homosexual militants’ strategy is at times astounding. They seem consumed with hatred and determined to bring about an entire social revolution in their favor.

Heterosexuality is the only true happiness:

I should mention at this point that over the years I have known several persons with homosexual inclinations, some of whom are members of my extended family and some of whom I count as friends. Of these, the happiest are those who do not define themselves according to their sexual inclinations. They know that their personhood derives from something else, from their inherent dignity as human beings. By contrast, the unhappy have insisted on the single defining factor of their active homosexuality and pursued it as if it were the only meaning of their lives. Of this latter group three are now dead, one by AIDS, and two others by murder—murder committed by other homosexuals. It should be pointed out that the murderers were people who were not driven to such acts by oppression from a “homophobic” society, but committed their acts from motives of jealousy, rivalry within the “homosexual community.”

Suppression of free speech:

Imagine for a moment a parent-teacher meeting at your local school, a consciousness raising session at which parents are informed that the education system has mandated a program promoting the “correct” attitudes children should have about homosexual relations and acts. Suppose a parent believes that the government is wrong about this matter, and stands up to voice his disagreement and to request that his child be withdrawn from class whenever the unit is taught. Imagine a few other parents grumbling, voicing their frustrations about State-imposed programs that have nothing to do with real education. Suppose one of these parents gets hot under the collar and says something about homosexual acts being immoral or destructive or simply “dysfunctional.” Maybe a parent on the other side of the room has a homosexual child, or sibling, or friend, and gets hot under the collar too, shouts a retort, bursts into tears, shakes a fist. Angry comments erupt on all sides, more fists are shaken in the air (an ancient gesture of frustration, no intention to assault is implied). But it looks an awful lot like incitement to violence, doesn’t it? The offended party complains to the police. An investigation ensues. Defense lawyers must be hired. The Children’s Aid Society is called in to investigate the “homophobic” family—homophobia now legally a sign of dysfunction and the homophobic family a fermenting vat of hate crime. More hearings, much fear, much financial cost, much damage done to normal parents and children. Far-fetched? It has already happened regarding other moral issues involving parental rights and education systems in this country, and the new law promises to give us more such incidents. And if some judge decides to make an example of the case, normal parents are going to spend time in prison.

The new Reich:

A whiff of Germany in the early 1930’s is discernible in the atmosphere. Of course, glancing about our streets we do not see any concentration camps or marching jackboots. But will our prisons some day hold politically incorrect inmates whose only crime is speaking the truth? And as for jackboots, militant homosexual groups have behaved like cup cake hooligans of the late 1920’s and early 1930’s, for example their outrageous behaviour at Archbishop Adam Exner’s residence in Vancouver. When the archbishop decided to withdraw his Catholic schools from a bank, due to its promotion of homosexuality, he was threatened by crowds of angry protesters yelling obscenities outside his window late at night. The police advised him to take security measures for his personal safety.

.Anna

[Guest ricka]

Anna---thanks for posting this. I think it merits discussion here. These are my own observations:

I belong to and am active with Basic Rights Oregon which is the GLBTQ political and social change organization for our state. I guess that would make me an activist. So I _know_ what our agenda is: We were successful in winning a 37 year legislative fight to end discrimination and to make violence toward GLBTQ people a hate crime in this state. We are now engaged in a public education campaign for marriage equality. Nothing we have fought for has ever been about limiting the rights of others _under the law_.

I've heard much about the "gay agenda" flavored by the kind of vitriol that Mr. OBrien parrots. I've heard it from my own family in fact. In my experience it is unproductive to reply or try to engage irrational, emotionally charged thinking using reason, on this on any other subject where projected personal rage and fear is at the root of the accusations. Unfortunately we are in a time in our society where we are seeing a great deal of this kind of projected, self-righteous hatred toward one group or another. Historically in our country there have been times when this has been true--toward Native Americans, African Americans, Chinese, Japanese, and Latinos, Muslims, Jews---all victims of the same kind of discrimination, hatred and prejudice fueled by the hateful rhetoric of a vocal few. And I am sure every one who is reading this thread experiences this on some level.

Ironic that O'Brien in his defense of the Catholic Church ignores the Churches scapegoating gay men as responsible for the world-wide pedophilia scandal and cover-up. That is "hate the sin not the sinner?" I think not!

Ricka

[Guest April63]

I think he does have some points though. They may not be perfect, but I do see some reasoning behind his argument.

[Guest Elizabeth K]

Anna B - as usual, your brain is one of the most beautiful things about you (HA! Now you will get the bighead!)

Me? I am jus' a simple Southern Belle - my goodness how people carry on!

I read some weeeeeell thoughtout, misguided arguements in the parts you have shown. I see some VERY powerful, right sounding statements. GOD, Country. Family! I wanted to stand up and applaud! BUT - I refuse to go to the pulpit and be 'SAVED.' You see, I already have made my peace with GOD! I already have raised a wonderful set of children who love me, each other, their spouses - and general feel responsiblity toward a green world (sarcastism? maybe a touch, but true), and my country?

My country! It's okay mostly - but it has essentially abandoned me in my transsexual condition. You Vet's here on Laura's understand a great part of this 'patriotic dysphoria.' AND I cannot get protection on the job, to keep from being fired because I so desparately want to transition!

I digress... please forgive me.

Tough ole broad, this Southern Lady! I grew up with strong values! YES - when ANYTHING gets in the way of you being a happy person - something is wrong!

So allow me this one little criticism (I jus' don't have the patience for all of this other stuff, 'cept for):

I should mention at this point that over the years I have known several persons with homosexual inclinations, some of whom are members of my extended family and some of whom I count as friends. Of these, the happiest are those who do not define themselves according to their sexual inclinations. They know that their personhood derives from something else, from their inherent dignity as human beings. By contrast, the unhappy have insisted on the single defining factor of their active homosexuality and pursued it as if it were the only meaning of their lives. Of this latter group three are now dead, one by AIDS, and two others by murder—murder committed by other homosexuals. It should be pointed out that the murderers were people who were not driven to such acts by oppression from a “homophobic” society, but committed their acts from motives of jealousy, rivalry within the “homosexual community.”

'homosexual inclinations"??? How delicately put - not GAY maybe, just INCLINED!

"some of whom I count as friends" ??? Some of my best friends are kykes, jigger bears and whoallus!" WELL - maybe they hate you for saying that!

"Of these, the happiest are those who do not define themselves according to their sexual inclinations" ??? May I see the paperwork on this - or are you making this stuff up as you go along? Also - how about the heterosexual people 'who do not define themselves according to their sexual inclinations' ??? But there is a wonderful truth here: Moderation in all things. I personally don't want to define myself 'transsexual' - but I have all this outside pressure to do so! SOCIETY MADE ME TRANSSEXUAL! Otherwise I would just be a person...

"... murderers ... committed their acts from motives of jealousy, rivalry within the “homosexual community." He knows so much about the “homosexual community" that he knows of 'motives.' And I guess jealously and rivalry exist ONLY in this “homosexual community." And EVERYONE knows AIDS is GOD's punishement for being gay.

Well - such an expert should know how to fix the world - WAIT - that's what he thinks he is doing???

Oh well - another biggot to ignore!

Fun! (well sorta - well... maybe kinda depressing! Think I'll go make some lemonaid and lie down for a while!)

Lizzy

[Guest ~Brenda~]

Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation has been controversial since the dawn of time.

The idea that homosexuals are attempting to form a totalitarian society is absurd.

The fight for equality and rights as human beings has been the motivation of all repressed peoples.

Gays, Lesbians, and Transgendered people have suffered insults, injury, and death by those who have had no regard for thier inate human rights.

Michael D. O'Brien's article is an article of loose fact and heavy on prejudice. His arguments are inflamatory and are feabily supported by leaps in logic and innuendo.

The laws passed to protect the rights of homosexuals are important laws because they are the beginning of recognition that humanity is far more than the simplistic ideas derived from the ancient.

Parliament simply decreed that henceforth any negative public reference to homosexuality must be considered a possible hate crime against homosexual persons, prosecutable and (where a verdict of guilty is delivered) punishable by a jail sentence.

There are many sentences quotable in this article, but I decided on only one to show the importance of what is happening here.

Hate crimes against us has been historically rampant. It was not that long ago that if one of us was killed, the general attitude from the authorities was that we deserved it anyway.

It took a very long time for the authorities to recognize that we are also human and deserve equal rights and protection under the law. The quote describing Parliament is very important because any public condemnation of homosexuals as homosexuals is grouping all homosexuals as a target. Parliament got it right on this.

No one has the right to publically to condemn an entire sector of the population.

If there were laws like this when Hitler came to power, he would have been impeached by publically talking hate against the Jewish people.

I find it ironic that by arguing his case against homosexuals, Michael O'Brien successfully proved the very reason why laws need to be in place to protect them.

Brenda

[Guest Eth]

I read this yesterday but was too tired to reply then so I'll do that now.

I think the article exaggerates things over and over again until it has exaggerated on its exaggerations so many times that it only barely has any semblance of truth - and by that I mean to say that it is the equivalent of saying that since you're getting married today you're most certainly going to need dozens of wedding cakes very soon, because if the amount of spouses you have just increased from 0 to 1 in X years it's bound to do so again and again until either you die or have an infinite number of spouses! There's a tiny fragment of "truth" in that statement too. I'm just taking the raw numbers and using math to predict a future based on this one thing. If I ignore all outside sources I might even think it's true! This seems to me to be basically what he's doing. If the "gays" are getting more rights, surely they'll accumulate more rights than the average person and take over the world!!! I mean it's the same concept right? They went from 0 to 1 rights in X decades and then they got half a dozen more in only the next few decades... OMG THEY'RE ALREADY TAKING OVER THE WORLD!!! SAVE THE CHILDREN!!!

I also laugh at the blatant irony that this article teems to the brim with. Half the accusations he made against the "gay agenda" are things that the conservatives of today have been pushing themselves - just against gay people rather than against all people. Considering that giving one group EQUAL rights to the rest of the groups out there is not anywhere close to pushing things down the throats of others or forcing them to adhere to anything that will upset their daily lives - unless of course their daily lives revolve around 'gay bashing' - I would have to say that this argument is BS.

This is what I got out of it as a whole:

He thinks that he and likeminded people who think being gay is wrong/a sin/whatever should be allowed to have and express these opinions however they want, and telling them they have to respect gays as equal human beings is abominable.

So, basically he thinks racism/sexism/any type of prejudice is OK. I was going to add "as long as your beliefs say it is so" to the end of that sentence, but when I thought about it some more, it didn't even necessarily imply that. So, yeah, I'd leave it as "he thinks prejudice is OK". I don't think anything more needs to be said about that to know that he is wrong.

If we did add "as long as your beliefs say it is" to the end, then my argument would change to "Why?". Why should anyone's beliefs about some omnipotent entity that cannot be proven to exist give them any sort of privilege or immunity from the law? See, this bothers me in our country. Marriage seems special for religious people in that they seem to have taken over the term and have successfully restricted its use and definition. Churches aren't taxed. I believe some Native-American religions allow them to do drugs that no one is allowed to do. There are so many laws giving *SPECIAL RIGHTS* (note the flashing colors to enhance display epic irony) to religious persons under the guise that they should be allowed to express these beliefs (even if they harm others or incite/promote hatred), but when there is nothing supporting them that really boils down to being the same as if the person just wanted to do it themselves. Religion is the scapegoat and the middle man. There is truly no difference between saying "Gays are an abomination, let's ostracise/ridicule them!" and "God says gays are an abomination, let's ostracise/ridicule them!". God is the little "reason" they've come up with to support what they're already doing. Adolf Hitler NEVER would have incited so much hatred against the Jews had his argument not included religion and instead been "Let's kill Jews because I don't like them". So, no. I don't think religion should be paid any heed on a legal level and I think it should be ignored on the basis that it doesn't do much of anything good for the building of society and only serves as an excuse to do wrong and as a catalyst once that wrong has been started. That's not my opinion as a 'queer'; that's my opinion as a person who has witnessed what religion does to people and how it blinds them of their own insanity and often cruelty. I just want to note here that I know there are some people who don't do anything 'bad' with their beliefs, although I'm still skeptical about how 'harmless' it is to hold them. I wonder how many people wouldn't have done the things they did do had they not believed in God. Then the "reasons" the hate mongerers had to incite hatred in the first place would have been meaningless to their ears. But I digress.

He also talks about the abandoning of "moral absolutes". He thinks that as society progresses and becomes more accepting of diversity and less grounded in religion, that we will become open to more things (duh!) and forget our old prejudices. He's afraid of a world where he can't immediately tell the difference between 'right' and 'wrong' and where it's in fact possible for the "good guys" to actually be the "bad guys". But instead of rationalising this and realising that the very things he preaches are the "evils" he's so afraid of, he instead says the other side must be evil hiding behind a white mask. Yes, surely the ones looking for equality have an alterior motive!

Personally, I think we NEED to abandon moral absolutes because honestly that is not how our universe works. Things are not ALWAYS one way or the other. The bad guys don't wear black cloaks and aren't always bad. The good guys aren't dressed in white and aren't always right. Things are not always predictable and in the end, there is no such thing as good and bad. I don't understand morality because it seems blind to so many truths. If morality is your pool of knowledge telling you what to hate and what to love, then you can easily be misguided. Logic instead is what we should be using; always. Every situation is new and unique, and we should assess them individually. We should never say that X is always wrong or always right - especially when there is no such thing as "wrong" and "right" in the first place. In reality, no matter what we do none of it truly matters in the sense that we are not automatically labeled "good" or "bad" based on our actions. That's society's doing - not the universe's. Society often makes no sense or draws irrational conclusions too, so I'm not so sure I want society defining moral absolutes. Every situation needs to be questioned and studied individually so that we can determine the appropriate response. We should base our actions on reason and rather than thinking "murder is bad" (for example), we should think "this particular person murdered someone for their money, and if we allow people to murder each other tons of people will be murdering each other left and right, and society will dissolve into chaos. Yeah, I think we need to have a punishment for this".

3,000 years ago we might have needed a "moral absolute" to make the general populace agree and to keep ourselves moderately structured, but it's 2010 CE now. We have the ability to use logic and reason to draw rational conclusions. We don't need to depend on something as ancient and flawed as moral absolutes when we can do so much better by being a little more bendable. Every construction worker knows that if you build a structure too rigidly it will eventually snap/collapse, but if you give it just enough bend, it will almost always stay standing (barring natural disasters but you get the analogy). In short, if he thinks that abandoning moral absolutes will destroy society: he's wrong. But I don't think he thinks that at all. I think that he knows that if we abandon moral absolutes, religion won't have so much control over things anymore. Religious dogma thrives on moral absolutes, convincing us that we are on a particular "side" and that the other side is BAD and EVIL and that this is unquestionable. But in my opinion, it's the same as being a small child and being afraid of the dark again. At first we believe that the dark is bad and that evil lurks within and we fear it horribly. What if we considered that to be a "moral absolute"? The dark is ALWAYS bad. ALWAYS evil. We should run from the dark or if we can figure out how we should fight it and scream at it until it goes away. Yet of course, with an open mind and a little logic and reason we could discover that the dark is merely an absence of light. Nothing has changed except that there is little light reflecting off of the surfaces around us and into our eyes, and thus we can't see as well. There's probably no monsters coming to get us, either. Especially not in our bedrooms or under the bed. This very same thing applies to just about everything in life. That which we believe to be evil or always wrong is not always wrong or evil. Most of the time it's just different. I'm not scared of the dark; are you? Well I'm not scared of gray areas either. I'm very much open to learning all I can about that which I encounter in this endless expansion of space and time that we call the universe.

Also, he says that acceptance of homosexuality is just the start. Next we'll allow polygamy and pedophilia! Oops, isn't he forgetting beastiality and necrophelia? Or maybe homosexual pedophilia with a 3 month old elephant and a dead person at the same time!

How many times have we heard this stupid argument several times? It's just idiocy. One has nothing to do with the other. Period. To be honest I actually wonder what's wrong with one of those things though... Namely: Polygamy. I personally don't think I'd go for it off the bat but maybe. I mean I'm not opposed to it. What if three or four or a dozen people love each other? Seems a little bit foreign to me but then I'm quite a bit foreign to most people myself, so why should I say they're any less valid than I am? I actually fail to see how allowing six people to enter a single marriage or anything like that would be a bad thing if they're all consenting participants. As for necrophelia - I honestly don't care. I'd probably oppose it just for the health hazards and if those didn't exist I'd support it only if the dead person had written their consent before dying or something. Because I really really don't care. It's not my business what someone else wants to do with a dead body unless it's my dead body. To me, it's very icky. So I'll opt out, thanks. At the same time I won't judge anyone else for it. It's not my place to care. As for beastiality - I'm opposed because animals cannot consent and I think it would amount to animal abuse. I oppose pedophelia for pretty much the same reasons. So, what's his arguments against them? Because all I heard was "POLYGAMY IS EVIL" and not much more. This falls right back to why I oppose moral absolutes. Opposing something "because it's evil" is stupid. I'd rather oppose something for various logical reasons that I can conclude using rational thought.

Also, he equates giving gays equality to NEO-cup cakeSM, claiming that some people will be "more equal than others". I'm sorry, but isn't that how it is right now? Don't we already give some people more rights than other people? Aren't things already inequal? I fail to see how giving one group equal rights to the others will result in a cup cake America. Using that logic, wouldn't making the black slaves equal in the eyes of the law have started a totalitarian rampage by now? I mean, you'd think we'd be wearing brown jackets and oppressing people (who?) by now! Especially after we gave women equal rights! I mean, a minority that makes up 50% of the population? Maybe the jackets will be pink and the uniforms will also sport high heels. What about the Japanese and when we made them equal? Oh yes, I'm sure all of these people would love to turn the US into cup cake America and start oppressing people (again, who? He failed to really specify that).

I answered his absurdities with my own above, but I think what he's really afraid of is that religion will be taken off of its pedestal and lose its power over the people and the law. Gosh darned right it will. Why should religion have control over any of us? Why does his beliefs trump my right to freedom? Whether you follow a religion or not, I doubt you want someone else's beliefs to be imposed on your daily life - so why should you impose yours on anyone else either? Socially - believe whatever you want. I don't care. Why should I? It's your business and not mine. Legally - get religion the hell out (*pun intended*). If you want religion to define your life - fine. Pray over a bowl of cereal in the morning or whatever you want to do. But I don't want religion in mine so keep it out of politics and legislation. Being religious should not give you anything special under the law. That would be (is) absurd.

[Guest Jenny4]

To Eth,

No offence, but I was offended by your coments about religion. First of all, religion gives a point to life. According to an atheist, all life is for is to live long enough to reproduce, reproduce, then die.

I also took offence when you stated that religion is trying to interfere with our lives. That is exactly what the entire chapter of Romans 14 tells us Christians not to do.

This man is very lost in his heterosexualist pride.

Okay, now to respond to Mr. OBrian.

Say my faith tells me black people are bad, can I preach againt them?

So God gave you the power too condemn people too?

What about Romans 14? Can we just pick and chose which laws to obey?

So this 'gay agenda' is worse than the 'black agenda?'

Are gays excluded from John 3:16?

But you're just perfect, aren't you?

So, there's no such thing as the straight agenda?

Blacks and women are taking over society too?

2% of the population is gay, will equal rights increase it by 98%?

Mr. OBrian, reaad the Bible before you teach it. The Bible teaches anyone who actually reads it that ''God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son so that whomever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.''

But gays don't count there, do they?

[Sally]

OK, this is the political forum and debates are expected and as this is a rather hot topic people can get a bit agitated by it.

We do need to remember that everyone is entitled to their opinion and even when you disagree do not attack their beliefs or them personally - politics and religion are very easy to get out of hand.

This is a good topic for discussion but if the responses get out of hand we will be forced to remove it from the forums.

Remember - play nice!

I am sorry but they do call me Momma Sally!

OK, continue the debate and no low punches, let's keep this fight clean.

Love ya,

Sally

[Guest Evan_J]

leaps in logic and innuendo.

Brenda honey, your post was so spot on it was all I could do just choose one phrase that captured my overall opinions of O'Brien.

Eth, I would have had to reprint your entire post . It broke it into perfect little bits and pieces.

I think the main motive to this is (as you said): "I think what he's really afraid of is that religion will be taken off of its pedestal and lose its power over the people and the law."

For some people that is unthinkable because they have been saturated to the bone to believe that "religion in all things" is the only way to their salvation. For others it is that the idea of not being controlled terrifies them; that they might be asked to think and be responsible for their own behaviors leaves them paniced and afraid.- How much easier it is to say "but we had to do it. God wanted us to."

And actually, Jenny, you and Eth are on the same side

It's that Eth uses a lot of facetiousness when speaking/writing. The bulk of the statements you make referrence to are made in sarcasm. I think you just took it at face value. Not with the inflection intended.

As to whether or not Eth is "atheist" I couldn't guess and only they can say. I do however read (by the context ) that they are a rationalist. I can't fault that nor do I consider it definingly "atheist". I myself am Christian but agree in whole with Eth's stances regarding the "placing of religion on pedestals" and endowing its tenants/creeds with legal standing

[Guest Anna_Banana]

I'm amazed out the interest this topic received in one day! I'm glad to see people have serious opinions after all. I'll give you some of my passing thoughts while they are on my mind:

-As "militant" as the LGBTQPRSXYZ (did I get all the sub-groups?) community may be, the religious-conservative community is just as well. We've seen groups like Westboro Baptist actively picketing the funerals of fallen soldiers because they were homosexual. Not only is this highly unnecessary (dead is dead, let them rest in peace), but it is insulting to the family who has to put up with such an immature display of hatred. Assuming morality was actually a factor, how is the family responsible for their child's biological basis and/or personal life choices? You certainly aren't punishing the gay soldier; he or she is gone from this world.

-I will say that Mr. Obrien may have a point when it comes to free speech. No person or organization should force feed society into learning about sexuality. When I was in the fifth grade, my parents felt it was too early for me to take Sex Ed, so they withdrew me from the program. If a heterosexual family wishes to not have their children learn about the sexual spectrum, it should be up to them to make a similar withdrawal as well. However, heterosexual families and homosexual families alike should have the decency to respect each other's personal space. Mr. Obrien comments that a group of opposing parents may shout insults and distasteful remarks at each other over their sexual tendencies. While I understand this may happen, the simple truth is, it happens. Not everything has to be handled with a law suit as we've become accustomed to in Western society. However, should problems persist in an on-going manner, by all means pursue legal action. But always choose to settle things in a civil manner before escalating.

-I can't seriously comment on Mr. Obrien's belief that only heterosexual people can find happiness. It may be so that he knows of homosexual individuals that were in unfortunate circumstances. But his remarks are akin to saying, "black people will never find happiness because they are always in-fighting" or "hispanics are always dealing drugs, so they can never be free of hardship." I could pick any group of people and find a negative stereotype to play on. "White people will never live past 35 because they are always eating unhealthy food."

-"A whiff of Germany in the early 1930's." I guess so. So many radical Christian groups are acting like deranged hooligans. Flash mobs, with no discernible connection to each other, are appearing around the world at a moment's notice. Tea Party rallies and protests in the United States. Strife in Africa. War in the Middle East. Most of the Polish government wiped out in a "plane crash." STOP THE PRESSES! WE'RE ON THE VERGE OF A WORLD WAR! RALLY THE TROOPS!!

I'm selling a nice collection of tin-foil hats, caps, and berets. Get yours before Big Brother gets you!

.Anna

[Guest Eth]

To Eth,

No offence, but I was offended by your coments about religion. First of all, religion gives a point to life. According to an atheist, all life is for is to live long enough to reproduce, reproduce, then die.

Yes, I am Atheist. I also don't think there is any point to life (some Atheists do but I do not). As for the whole living, reproducing and dying thing; no not really. I don't think that has any point. I think that no matter what we do it serves no purpose. We would have to overcome the laws of the universe or become omnipotent beings ourselves (and as I speak these words I think of the vastness of space and the endless array and assemblies of matter and energy, and the invisible fibres that hold it all together) before I'd think we were doing anything important. Of course even then that's not so important.

Just for the sake of describing how I think: I think about things on a scale of importance. That's difficult to explain briefly though so I'll use size as an analogy. If a quark were to stop existing or change shape, we'd never notice. Atoms change all the time. Energy is constantly converted and expended (well; we lose control of it. Energy can't be destroyed; just converted). An ant dies. I've thought about so many molecules popping in and out of existence it just doesn't move me. A cat dies. That's unfortunate. A person dies. From an individual's perspective this can be bad, or even devastating, but from a universal perspective it means very little. There are 6.8 billion people on Earth and even the entirety of Earth does not matter to me. Because you see, if it exploded tomorrow the galaxy would move on. The Milky Way contains roughly 200,000,000,000 stars. We just happen to revolve around one of them. Also, if our galaxy suddenly popped out of existence, it wouldn't even be noticeable to the universe. There are hundreds of trillions of galaxies out there. If the entire universe was squished out of reality, it'd probably mean nothing to the infinite number of universes that likely exist in the multiverse. I don't think we'd ever even know that anything happened, either.

But what does that say about us as individuals? Well, to me it means that nothing we ever do will serve any grand purpose and that even if we're remembered for a thousand years that it won't mean a thing in a time when the human race hasn't existed for 300,000,000 years. I don't think there is an afterlife. I think that life exists only when all of the little articles of matter that make up our composition are assembled just right, and that when they are no longer assembled in that way, we cease to exist. I might be wrong, but that is my opinion. The universe is vast - so unbelievably vast that we cannot fathom it. It makes the entire Earth look tiny in comparison. We can't even see the whole thing either, because we exist only for a short period of time while the universe goes on for billions and billions of years (maybe infinite?).

We are in a little bubble of time and space and are mostly insignificant, from what I can tell. So I don't see why we can't just live and enjoy life? We need to build laws to structure ourselves and to ensure that just about everyone has the freedom and ability to enjoy themselves to their fullest. We have the potential to do or be just about whatever we want and we can do it just about however we want. You can even have and hold your own theories or beliefs about the entire nature of the universe and the value of human life. You can work for the respect of your friends and peers or you can earn enough to live and support yourself and then go goof off whenever. You can spend almost all your time playing video games or messing with a computer. You can become a rock star. You can go swimming in the coral reef. You can do whatever. But here's the thing: in order for us to enjoy life we must try to please all parties as much as we can using rationality. If an individual wants to hold some unproven/unprovable belief, that's fine! Go ahead and do so I give you all if my best wishes. But that which seems faulty (and I know you don't like my calling it that but that's how it has to be said) should by no means be imposed upon the masses. Legally, I think that religion should be ignored and kept out of it.

That is what life means according to this Atheist. 'Purpose' might be nice but I can't find it logically, so I'm fine with living a life that has no "point".

I also took offence when you stated that religion is trying to interfere with our lives. That is exactly what the entire chapter of Romans 14 tells us Christians not to do.

A lot of proclaimed Christians have a habit of picking and choosing what they want to do and don't want to do and then looking to the bible to back themselves up while ignoring the parts that say they are wrong. Your bible is not infallible by any means and if you believe it is so well - I won't get into that. That's irrelevant to this discussion.

This man is very lost in his heterosexualist pride.

Okay, now to respond to Mr. OBrian.

Say my faith tells me black people are bad, can I preach againt them?

So God gave you the power too condemn people too?

What about Romans 14? Can we just pick and chose which laws to obey?

So this 'gay agenda' is worse than the 'black agenda?'

Are gays excluded from John 3:16?

But you're just perfect, aren't you?

So, there's no such thing as the straight agenda?

Blacks and women are taking over society too?

I think we largely agree on these things here with the exception of the spiritual aspects.

2% of the population is gay, will equal rights increase it by 98%?

Where did you find those numbers? I'm just curious because I'd like to learn more. I've mostly heard 10% - not 2%.

I did not mean to cause for anyone's offence but I did intend to state things as I see them and to argue them as I think I should. I will state this though; a lot (I'd dare to say the majority of) religious people have a habit of shoving their doctrines down other people's throats in so many ways it's insane. Sometimes in big ways, and other times in smaller ways; ranging from the outright damnation of entire groups to the little words and actions they always throw into every tiny thing (the constant "god bless", "oh god did it" and the many variations of those and similar statements). I as an Atheist find it rather offensive to constantly see religious holidays advertised and spoken about as if everyone follows them. It annoys me very much when people say "Merry Christmas" and "How was your Easter?" to people they don't even know. I don't celebrate those things; thanks for assuming I did, though. Similar to how people assume your gender identity for you. It annoys me very much to hear "God Bless America" being sung in public places, and it was very distressing for me when I was very young (back when I was actually in public school) and "one nation, under God" was still in the Pledge of Allegiance (I was punished for refusing to say that many many times). I'll also take a line from my friend here (they'll know who they are) and ask how you think I would feel if I was a surgeon and I just spent 8 hours operating on your loved one and worked my butt off without food or sleep to save them for you and when I walked out to tell you they were okay, all you had to say was "Oh, well thank God for that". Yes, I am sure the omnipotent diety did all the work. Heck, I bet if the surgeon walked away and did nothing they'd still be just fine, right? God will take care of them.

Again, I didn't mean to offend you so I'm sorry you were offended. I hope you don't think poorly of me just as I do not think poorly of you. I won't have any further comments to make about this sub-topic we seem to have opened up as I do not want to detract from the original poster's intended topic of discussion. This post was mainly to make clear my feelings on the matter and that my words weren't meant to offend but to convey my thoughts on the subject, some of which were bound to offend some people in little or large ways. I'm sorry you had to be one such person who was offended and hope that there is no bad blood between us. Also, as Evan said: I do have a habit of adding playful sarcasm into my long-winded speeches. It's my mechanism for lighting things up and keeping myself from going into much darker corners of my thoughts when these topics I am passionate about arise for discussion and debate. I apologise if that caused for any of your distaste towards my last post.

Sincerely,

-Eth

[Guest Ryles_D]

I'd have an easier time agreeing if they didn't do the exact same things they whine about us doing. I was watching something where they complained about letting schools teach that gay people shouldn't get beat up for being gay because "it utilizes an authority figure and peer pressure"- well that's exactly what they do! What do you call a priest telling his congregation that gays will burn in hell? Or teens using "gay" as synonymous with "bad"?

"They seem consumed with hatred and determined to bring about an entire social revolution in their favor."- there's plenty of hatred in our opposition as well. Homophobia is filled with hatred and intolerance. Our hatred comes from being persecuted as a result of their hatred. This isn't a good thing- but he can't act like we woke up in a glorious utopia where we're treated as equal and no one ever says a bad word against LGBT people and decided to start a war on heterosexuality. First- we aren't! We're starting a war on being murdered and kept from living our lives. Our actions are due to being killed and discriminated against by the people who are upset that they aren't allowed to get away with discriminating against us anymore!

And those parents who are homophobic and get put through a trial? If they had a gay child they'd likely push the poor thing to suicide or at least cause them severe emotional trauma trying to "fix" them! How is that a functional family?! And they're asking that the school allow mistreatment of an entire segment of students just because some parents don't like the idea that some people are gay. How is that fair?

The LGBT have shown no sign of trying to systematically discriminate against straight people in the way that we've been discriminated against. We don't want to make it so that straight people can't marry, adopt, or show affection in public. We just want all the rights they take for granted! Those people who are in jail for "speaking the truth" are really people who have spoken with ignorant hatred and were justifiably called on it they probably even brought it up to harassment (which is illegal no matter who you are or who you're harassing)- some of them are people who have taken lives in the name of that "truth". How dare we ask that criminals be put in jail!

[Sally]

OK, I am going to move away from the religious aspects as far as discussing any one religion but it can not be totally ignored because it is one of the major tools that is used against us which is very distressing for a Christian - however I no longer attend any sort of organized services as I believe that they have gone so far away from the simple message of love everyone and into excluded as many as possible.

Now onto the real problem - using the same tactics as the groups they dislike - be sure that we are not doing that same thing - it runs rampant throughout society and there is where all of the violence escalates, I do not like the idea of an abortion and am not too clear on when it is considered to be necessary and the right thing to do but I am positive that bombing abortion clinics and assaulting or killing the doctors, nurses and office works is NOT the right thing to do.

As to how easy it is to misuse facts (or create your own) to prove your own agenda, recently Fox News aired a lot of talking about the nuclear treaty and it was interesting that they talked with Republican leaders who misquoted even the transcripts of the treaty and even suggested that Ronald Reagan would never have signed a treaty like this when in fact he did - almost the same document back in the 80s - called SALT - I was watching the Daily Show on April 8 - when they ran this 7 minute commentary - if you have the time watch this to see just how easy it is to manipulate the news both by Fox News and Jon Stewart - at least when Jon does it - it's a joke where as Fox News IS the joke but one that is believed by so many that it is the number one news network in the US.

Here is a link if you want to watch.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-apri...big-bang-treaty

Be careful to never use these tactics - it is how wars are started and continued with no real basis for ever starting them in the first place - look deeper and see where the profits are being made.

Love ya,

Sally

[Guest CattalieChan]

Dang, it's so unfair that hate crimes are centered on homosexuals. The government needs to legislate a quota, so all groups have equal hate crime rates. No, seriously is there any legislation to stop hate crimes?

Amber