Is it wrong to demonize "Rosary Rattlers" as they are sworn enemies of GLBT?

[nullnaught]

The question is inconsistent. Revenge is not a logical thing, so how can you ask if it is logical? You bar emotional (moral) comments, but then try to justify an animal (emotional) instinct reaction to pay back.

Revenge is a moral issue, inspired by emotion. It's impact is moral in nature, with consequences both to the doer and the victim.

In order to understand this, give me a logical reason to 'pay back' one based without emotion. You can't. Logic dictates that an emotional response will trigger an emotional response in return.

Logically, humans act and react more than they think and reason. If I slap you, you will punch me, that would lead to me beating you with my cane, which leads to you grabbing a knife or a gun....

Logically the outcome you desire would be one that favors your position, thus not feeding that emotional tit for tat response ultimately defuses the situation. It is difficult for two people to have a fight if one refuses to fight.

I don't believe it has to be motivated for a desire for revenge. Kill your enemy before he kills all of you as he has already killed enough doesn't sound like revenge to me. It sounds like survival tactics. I'm not sure game theory uses revenge in its nomenclature, but it would definitely cover what I'm talking about. So if it uses the word revenge, clearly it can be spoken of logically; and by the way, who in the know, believes emotions are not logical? that is spock-era sci-fi thinking. Not current A.I. theory at all, if I am not mistaken.
In any event, I don't think you can just dismiss the question. I did not mean to bar emotional comments. I don't think they are synonymous with moral comments as opposed to ethical comments. I think all three are different things. None of them reach me. I was asking you to explain it in a way I can understand, or I can't understand your explanaition. It seems like a tautology. I don't hear moral or ethical. Emotional, is logical and I can listen to that. But not emotions that are based on opinion about what god wants. Or what the universe wants. I can understand emotional arguements based on the psychological and sociological needs of humans as actually demonstrated by these sciences. But not "It's just plain wrong to burn 'em at the stake in spite of that's what they do to us, metaphorically if not any longer literally."
The reason to pay back is either to stop or to teach. Not necessarily to pay back. I say destroy the church to stop them destroying us. It is a strategey of survival.
Is my position clear? could we start this as a seperat thread? I think it can't be covered as a sub-plot here adequetely and I think it diverts attention from the main point:
Let's destroy the Catholic Church!mile:

[Genersis]

I don't believe it has to be motivated for a desire for revenge. Kill your enemy before he kills all of you as he has already killed enough doesn't sound like revenge to me. It sounds like survival tactics.

And if we start doing that, the Catholic Church would be completely justified doing the same back to us. Instead of unjustified like they are now.

[nullnaught]

In another thread I pointed out that there are the raging screamers, shaking their scantily clad booties on top of parade floats, then there is larger, unseen, unmentioned whisperers.

In my day to day life I spread the 'Good Gay News' to all the people I meet. I whisper to them, consult with them, drop a word of wit (plant a seed).

It took me a decade, but I have convinced my neighbors that gay people are not two headed monsters seeking to devour their children. The next time the Gay Marriage Vote comes up they will be less likely to throw out the NO TO GAY MARRIAGE sign on their front lawn, cover their cars in anti-gay stickers and actually seriously think about the quiet gay couple who have demonstrated though over a decade of living and being part of the community that its really ok to be gay.

They might vote no next time, but not without a twinge of guilt. If I am patient and wear away at their resolve long enough the day will come when they will go in and vote yes for gay marriage.

The Local Baptist Church that is one of my clients used to preach long and loud against 'homosexuals'. However its now difficult for that pastor to stand in his pulpit and preach anti-gay hate-speech after 8 years of me fixing the church toilets, donating my time and half the materials to put a new roof on the church when they needed it most and didn't have the funds and of course the many hours he and I have spent 'talking shop' - you know religious stuff.

His congregation has noticed his new found 'silence' on the issue.

No its not a spectacular effect, no I will not single-handedly change enough opinions on the matter to win the next Gay Marriage Vote, but I know I made it real easy for the Johnson's girl to come out to her family, and that the Smith's son will be less likely to run off to the big city and get ran down by that place since he will be just a wee bit more comfortable to be gay out here where 10 years ago the people were dead set against 'The gay'. Now they are not so dead set, they are just a little more tolerance, a little less prone to screaming words of hate, a little less given to stern reproach in their eyes.

I protest silently, with gentle acts and kind smiles and forgiveness. I don't have to wave a flag, or dance on my front lawn or even put up the only YES on Prop 22 sign to get their attention. I lead by example, I show that being gay is normal, that being part of a gay partnership doesn't mean my house will be flaming pink and there will be all night raves and near naked boys marching down the street.

I show them that gay is normal, gay will have a lawn and have pretty much the same concerns that the rest of them do, concern when the street floods, concern about the new crime wave, concern over the abandoned lot turning into a dumping spot....

In my 20's I was much more politically active. Part of protests and rallies, part of the papering campaigns. I even danced shirtless on more than one float - no less and even in a kilt Worn the correctly.... :tongue:

I actually do write and stay in touch with several members of the Clergy in both Episcopalian and Catholic Churches. Been doing that for decades, slowly introducing new ideas and slowly 'arguing' the case for positive change. I have whispered in the ear of more than one bishop in my life.

I'm not hiding in some city in the Gay Community, I'm out here on the front line, standing alone or just with my partner - a wide open target. I'm not flag waving and drawing attention to the work I do in service of the LGBT community (or any of the other things I do).

Each time we shop together, more of the conservative types see that we argue over healthy diet over junk food just like a long married straight couple do. They see the sameness, not the difference, and are less likely to buy into the stereotypes.

They see a man, who works with tools and talks like a man, limps like a man, who doesn't lisp, make 'gay phrases' my catch phrases, who doesn't know teal from china, and who doesn't bother with fashion, hairdressing, and the like.

I'm busy out here breaking the stereotypes, slowly changing the perceptions of what they think gay means, wining one vote at a time with great patience and gentle words and acts of kindness.

Yes and while you are take a very slow but loving approach to change peoples minds, why shouldn't the larger community take a faster less loving aproach and try to destroy those who are trying to destroy us? I think the best way to stop them spewing hate is to destroy them. There will be poor always, just as there will be charity without the Catholic's hatred. We can only benefit from an end to Catholic "charity" as it comes coupled with hatred. That is not charity, that is Nazi-like propaganda.
Sure they will feed you and house you and then tell you to go burn the faggots. But we have to let them do charity so they can poison minds, right?:confused:

[Genersis]

That is not charity, that is Nazi-like propaganda.

Heh. Godwin's law.:tongue:

I might as well say what i'm thinking:
Bit like "Group X is covertly killing us, we must kill X first!"

[Bowyn Aerrow]

HEALTH CARE
The nonprofit health-care system includes 637 hospitals, accounting for 17% of all U.S. hospital admissions. The Church also runs 122 home health-care agencies and nearly 700 other service providers, including assisted living, adult day care, and senior housing. The hospitals alone have annual expenses of $65 billion and account for 5% of U.S. health-care spending.

CHARITIES
Catholic Charities USA consists of 1,400 agencies that run soup kitchens, temporary shelters, child care, and refugee resettlement. In 1999, Catholic Charities had collective revenues of $2.34 billion. Most of that comes from state and local governments and from program fees. The Church accounts for only about 12% of income.

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/con...778004.htm

Other stuff on its 'good works': http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/page.aspx?pid=1149

Faith: Many people need faith. Faith makes grief bearable to many, it also makes it possible for many to get out of bed and just go to work - they have faith that life is worth all of this effort.

Again, for the record, I do disagree with many of the policies and doctrines the church holds, yet it is offset somewhat by the good that the church does.

To attack, destroy, tear down, kill, etc the Catholic church affects many more individuals than the Pope, Cardinals and bishops. It affects many others - billions of people, since the Church does stretch out its charitable good works to many who are not catholic.

The Catholic Church is the world's largest source of charity in the world. It affects billions of people on a daily basis. We cannot forget the good that it has done and continues to do.

Revenge does not take consequences into consideration. Logic does. Logic considered the whole, not just a part, logic must consider that the Catholic Church is more than just 'anti-gay'. That would be Phelps and his so called Church whose only focus is to demonize homosexuals.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/23/...s-20111024
On gays and the Catholic church ^^^

In essence, the Catholic church IS changing its stance on the gay question. Like it or not the church will eventually be doing gay marriages - eventually.

There is no need to destroy the Church. It is changing its view point and this is also offset by the billions of people who have directly and indirectly have benefited by the Church.

I don't believe it has to be motivated for a desire for revenge. Kill your enemy before he kills all of you as he has already killed enough doesn't sound like revenge to me. It sounds like survival tactics. I'm not sure game theory uses revenge in its nomenclature, but it would definitely cover what I'm talking about. So if it uses the word revenge, clearly it can be spoken of logically; and by the way, who in the know, believes emotions are not logical? that is spock-era sci-fi thinking. Not current A.I. theory at all, if I am not mistaken.
In any event, I don't think you can just dismiss the question. I did not mean to bar emotional comments. I don't think they are synonymous with moral comments as opposed to ethical comments. I think all three are different things. None of them reach me. I was asking you to explain it in a way I can understand, or I can't understand your explanaition. It seems like a tautology. I don't hear moral or ethical. Emotional, is logical and I can listen to that. But not emotions that are based on opinion about what god wants. Or what the universe wants. I can understand emotional arguements based on the psychological and sociological needs of humans as actually demonstrated by these sciences. But not "It's just plain wrong to burn 'em at the stake in spite of that's what they do to us, metaphorically if not any longer literally."
The reason to pay back is either to stop or to teach. Not necessarily to pay back. I say destroy the church to stop them destroying us. It is a strategey of survival.
Is my position clear? could we start this as a seperat thread? I think it can't be covered as a sub-plot here adequetely and I think it diverts attention from the main point:
Let's destroy the Catholic Church!mile:

[Bowyn Aerrow]

You are a violent thing aren't you?

The Catholic Church hasn't burnt people at the stake since the early 1800's. It's stance on torture and violence has changed drastically for the past 200 years, It frowns upon gay bashing (violence) and other forms of violence.

Its stance on homosexuality is that its not bad to be gay, it is a sin to act on those urges. The Pope and Cardinals would staunchly tell you that beating up a person who is gay is wrong. That burning a gay is wrong - worse of a sin than homosexuality itself.

It seems to me you mistake Fred Phelps, Ted Haggard and Christian fundamentalists for Catholics. You are, sir, barking up the wrong tree.

You (and Wes too) have shown a bit of ignorance on the stance of the Church and other Denominations.

Again, and again and again, the Catholic church is being swayed in our favor. Its a slow process that is best won through gentle persuasion not through violence.

There is no need to destroy it.

Yes and while you are take a very slow but loving approach to change peoples minds, why shouldn't the larger community take a faster less loving aproach and try to destroy those who are trying to destroy us? I think the best way to stop them spewing hate is to destroy them. There will be poor always, just as there will be charity without the Catholic's hatred. We can only benefit from an end to Catholic "charity" as it comes coupled with hatred. That is not charity, that is Nazi-like propaganda.
Sure they will feed you and house you and then tell you to go burn the faggots. But we have to let them do charity so they can poison minds, right?:confused:

[East]

Just a quick insert...just as much as the soft touch is necessary...so is the 'in your face" activists who push the envelope forward and force people to deal with the issue. You need both approaches.

Bowyn...I applaud your efforts in the rural conservative environment but the urban areas were once anti gay as well and it took GLBT people being visible and being brave for decades now to change minds and hearts...not to diminish what you do but I don't think you should diminish and dismiss the efforts of the people before you in the urban areas. Their efforts were not insignificant and actually opened the doors we all walk through today.

[nullnaught]

Heh. Godwin's law.:tongue:

I might as well say what i'm thinking:
Bit like "Group X is covertly killing us, we must kill X first!"

I'm sorry you are thinking that. I can't imagine how you got there from here, because there is nothing covert about the way the Church has been and continues to be killing us first. There is no question, until this post, of weather the Church has been killing us that I have seen. Did I miss it? Seriously, perhaps I did.
In any event, where in the world are you comming from. Do you seriously entertain any thought but that the church wants us dead? Have you listened to how they interpret the bible? They wrote the killing book, we wish to burn it.

[nullnaught]

And if we start doing that, the Catholic Church would be completely justified doing the same back to us. Instead of unjustified like they are now.

What are you talking about "back to us?" Are you completely unaware that they started killing us first? A long time ago? They still incite it everywhere they can? they hate us for no reason. I think us destroying them is self defense and not unjustified. What would be unjustified would be to not sit around and use every legal means at our disposal to destroy them.

[nullnaught]

You are a violent thing aren't you?

The Catholic Church hasn't burnt people at the stake since the early 1800's. It's stance on torture and violence has changed drastically for the past 200 years, It frowns upon gay bashing (violence) and other forms of violence.

Its stance on homosexuality is that its not bad to be gay, it is a sin to act on those urges. The Pope and Cardinals would staunchly tell you that beating up a person who is gay is wrong. That burning a gay is wrong - worse of a sin than homosexuality itself.

It seems to me you mistake Fred Phelps, Ted Haggard and Christian fundamentalists for Catholics. You are, sir, barking up the wrong tree.

You (and Wes too) have shown a bit of ignorance on the stance of the Church and other Denominations.

Again, and again and again, the Catholic church is being swayed in our favor. Its a slow process that is best won through gentle persuasion not through violence.

There is no need to destroy it.

Yes, I suppose having been brought up in a Catholic household, the bloodthistyness of my childhood has never quite worn off. The further I get from the church, the less violent I am, funny thing.
There is a need to destroy the RCC, and that would come from the vote on prop. 8 wich the catholic church influenced from the pulpit (Wes has hard numbers on that. I think that is important. We are not making claims about the church, as far as their anti-gay political influence, that we can't back up with facts.). As long as the church is still influencing anti-gay votes, they are an enemy that needs destroying.