Or, don't pretend the religious rights are tolerating things the religious right actively campaign for government to stop.
Mass lobotomy/castration of gays for being gay happened 60 years ago. The prohibition was campaigned for by the religious. They haven't left this idea that salvation can come from government rule.
Like take Alabama. There are still congress people holding that smoking weed is against their religion, and so do not want to pass legal weed. Same for alcohol, by the by.
See, it's quite easy to establish tolerable as "Only behaving within biblical dictates". So next time, just own it. Just say "I don't like what you are doing, and I want government to stop it". Be honest.
He's not saying all Christians everywhere are like that. No where did he make that claim.I've never before heard of lobotomy being considered a treatment for homosexuality, but then, Western psychiatry did go through a phase where they were using all sorts of things as an excuse to poke people's brains out, so it's hardly incredible.
But if you're going to pretend that all Christians everywhere are like your "good old boys" in Alabama, then don't complain if the same sort of stereotyping gets used back on you.
I could say a few things you wouldn't like about gays, if I wanted to.
As @Rocinante said, I'm not. I'm pointing out that the pretense of Christians in general being above using force to stop what they consider sin is just that, a pretense. They are a diverse bunch of people, united really only by considering Jesus their savior and a few other things. They have groups quite willing to use force to enact their vision, and we know this because they have (I gave a number of examples).I've never before heard of lobotomy being considered a treatment for homosexuality, but then, Western psychiatry did go through a phase where they were using all sorts of things as an excuse to poke people's brains out, so it's hardly incredible.
But if you're going to pretend that all Christians everywhere are like your "good old boys" in Alabama, then don't complain if the same sort of stereotyping gets used back on you.
I could say a few things you wouldn't like about gays, if I wanted to.
If they had the option they did. They voted for the DA in Texas who fought for the sodomy law. The current DA in Texas is hinting that he might try to enforce that same law.The vast, overwhelming majority of Christians have never:
1. Tried to forcibly take control of another adult's sex life.
2. Voted for a ballot measure to do so.
3. Voted for a candidate who said he was going to try to do so.
See, there's a key factor here, what does the Bible actually teach Christians about how to deal with homosexuality?I know that some amount of gays do fucked up things like drag queen story hour/grooming and the like. I acknowledge it and oppose it. I'm asking even less of you here: just stop pretending that Christians are some passive people that never use force to stop what they believe is sin. Because large groups of them absolutely do.
But let's use a real example: Scott Lively. Scott Lively went to Uganda and managed to get a death penalty for gay sex law enacted there. He also wrote the Pink Swastika, which called the nazis gay, and that's why they did the holocaust. Relevantly, he also ran for governor in a US state, and got 98k votes in the republican primary, or 36%. That state? Massachusetts. So yeah, I quite frankly don't believe you. There is a significant amount of Christians who are quite fine voting for horrible things. Just like there's a significant number of LGBTs quite fine with voting for socialism/communism. Just be honest and admit it. I'm not saying all Christians do X. I'm saying Christians are a diverse bunch of people who do a lot of things, and pretending they are all good (or all bad) is dumb.
You know what this guy looks like to me?
He looks like these corrupt roman bureaucrats and senators you see in pretty much every story about Rome. The people who did little of value, were rewarded with a cushy position, and now stuff their faces with everything edible and force themselves on slaves or indentured servants if we want the modern definition.
A brief look at his platform shows his #1 campaign issue is abortion, #2 is gun rights, and #3 is small government. Anything that can be remotely taken as anti-gay is somewhere around 5th place behind giving parents more control over their children's education and auditing and prosecuting corrupt government officials. It's a bit disingenuous to claim that voting for Scott Lively was purely from some wicked desire to do horrible things to gay people.But let's use a real example: Scott Lively. Scott Lively went to Uganda and managed to get a death penalty for gay sex law enacted there. He also wrote the Pink Swastika, which called the nazis gay, and that's why they did the holocaust. Relevantly, he also ran for governor in a US state, and got 98k votes in the republican primary, or 36%. That state? Massachusetts. So yeah, I quite frankly don't believe you. There is a significant amount of Christians who are quite fine voting for horrible things. Just like there's a significant number of LGBTs quite fine with voting for socialism/communism. Just be honest and admit it. I'm not saying all Christians do X. I'm saying Christians are a diverse bunch of people who do a lot of things, and pretending they are all good (or all bad) is dumb.
I really don't care what it preaches. I'm pointing out quite clearly what Christians actually do, which is all I care about. And what they do is a variety of things, not all good or bad.See, there's a key factor here, what does the Bible actually teach Christians about how to deal with homosexuality?
And the answer is 'if a Christian is practicing it, and refuses to stop doing so when called to account within the church, to put them out of the church, and Love and pray for them from afar. That's it. That's what Christianity actually teaches about it. I can go through and quote the various passages in the New Testament on it if you'd like.
Groups of Christians force not just their sexual ethics, but other ethics as well on others. You are arguing using anecdotes from your life, where, given you aren't the type to force your beliefs on others, the people you interact with are the same way.I am not, and have not been pretending 'all christians are good' or 'no christians do this.' I've been stating directly that the experience portrayed in the meme image is a lot more common, especially among the younger generations, than christians trying to use government to force their sexual ethics on others.
First, this was in response to this claim:A brief look at his platform shows his #1 campaign issue is abortion, #2 is gun rights, and #3 is small government. Anything that can be remotely taken as anti-gay is somewhere around 5th place behind giving parents more control over their children's education and auditing and prosecuting corrupt government officials. It's a bit disingenuous to claim that voting for Scott Lively was purely from some wicked desire to do horrible things to gay people.
I pointed out that a third of the republican voters in Massachusetts were willing to 4 years ago.The vast, overwhelming majority of Christians have never:
1. Tried to forcibly take control of another adult's sex life.
2. Voted for a ballot measure to do so.
3. Voted for a candidate who said he was going to try to do so.
Well that's fair. So, given I linked to his platform, where did he say he was going to pass such laws?First, this was in response to this claim:
I pointed out that a third of the republican voters in Massachusetts were willing to 4 years ago.
Also, again, when the guy actually for gays to be locked up and got it enacted in Uganda, I'm quite comfortable going WTF at the voters, even if it was like his 5th platform. It's like voting for a person who 'just happens' to be a known klukker. Some things ought to be disqualifying.
I also pointed out numerous other examples that aren't about gays.
To be clear, I don't trust a word he said after the law was passed. He has a history of inventing history, given his authorship of the Pink Swastika.This looks a lot more like you've had an unhealthy serving of Kool-Ade and gotten your opinions from some smear campaign against him. I want to see your sources for your claims that he's promoted such laws.
The president America needed, but didn't deserve.
No doubt, although if the American public were willing and able to put Ron Paul in then that would at least mean more people were awake and aware of the problem whereas now the people are only awake to their partisan causes.... I give Trump credit for trying to fix things, which hasn't happened in a long time, and means quite a lot. But many times his diagnosis was just plain wrong and strengthened those he wanted to fight, which is why he couldn't make headway. Make no mistake, I am not in doubt that if Ron Paul had reached the office he would have been martyred by it.In fact, even if he were president, I'm still inclined to think @Circle of Willis's outline in the AH thread is more on the mark than Paul inheriting a cooperative federal government and making his wishlist a reality. That's already what happened to Trump IOTL, and we all know how how his presidency wasn't nearly enough to drain The Swamp and bring Washington aboard, when there's already mountains of evidence that the Establishment doesn't play by the rules (and in fact, rarely, if ever did for reasons other than to save face).