Gov. Deal vetoes religious liberty bill

[Gass3268]

It will be overridden.

No it won't. It didn't get enough support the first time around for an override and after the backlash there is no way Republicans that voted against it will jump on the crazy train.

It was unanimous in the house and nearly the same in the Senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source: Atlanta Journal Constitution

Looks like there is enough support in the Senate for both an emergency session and an override.

Yet in the House it looks like they would need 4 more votes to even get the special session to attempt an override. If they could even convince 4 Reps to switch sides, they would then every Republican to back the override plus a Democrat. Good luck with that!

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Coward. The people wanted it signed. Go with the people not big business.

The irony of this statement even tickles me and I'm a conservative.

Do you not realize it really was religious freedom protections(backed by the grassroots) vs big business (who want special rights for the lgbt).

"Special rights?" F-ck off, you are literally the worst.

It's a special right to ask for assurances that I will not be shamed at and turned away from a restaurant? The only "special right" I see in this situation is the right we'd be giving lunatic bigots to treat a particular group of people like garbage.

It only seems like a special right to you because you are used to moving through society with your privilege unimpeded. How horrible and unfair that you are forced to tolerate the presence and legitimacy of people who are different! Poor little put-upon JCL!

Hagrid,

Do I want some guy who likes to play dress up as a girl (which is what many "transgendered individuals" are) going into a girls restroom where they could harass my soon to be wife or my future kids? I don't think so.

If I were a business owner I'd still treat my patrons with respect regardless. However I won't be forced to violate my closely held religious beliefs to do so. You are aware I'd rather that government stay out of marriage. Are you aware that many of the "rainbow coalition" are using the force of government for the purpose of revenge rather than gaining actual equity. That is something you can't deny. There has been deliberate targeting of businesses ran by and owned by people of faith and conscience by the gay community for destruction if they don't make nice and do business (and violate said religious conscious by aiding in a gay wedding) these religious freedom bills are trying to ensure by statute the first amendment religious liberties so enjoyed since the beginning of the American experiment. In your nation (Canada if your actually a native of BC) people of faith are targeted for jail for even preaching in support of traditional marriage.

[IceAgeComing]

Do I want some guy who likes to play dress up as a girl (which is what many "transgendered individuals" are) going into a girls restroom where they could harass my soon to be wife or my future kids? I don't think so.

err how on earth did you manage to come to that conclusion

[Indy Texas]

Coward. The people wanted it signed. Go with the people not big business.

The irony of this statement even tickles me and I'm a conservative.

Do you not realize it really was religious freedom protections(backed by the grassroots) vs big business (who want special rights for the lgbt).

"Special rights?" F-ck off, you are literally the worst.

It's a special right to ask for assurances that I will not be shamed at and turned away from a restaurant? The only "special right" I see in this situation is the right we'd be giving lunatic bigots to treat a particular group of people like garbage.

It only seems like a special right to you because you are used to moving through society with your privilege unimpeded. How horrible and unfair that you are forced to tolerate the presence and legitimacy of people who are different! Poor little put-upon JCL!

Hagrid,

Do I want some guy who likes to play dress up as a girl (which is what many "transgendered individuals" are) going into a girls restroom where they could harass my soon to be wife or my future kids? I don't think so.

If I were a business owner I'd still treat my patrons with respect regardless. However I won't be forced to violate my closely held religious beliefs to do so. You are aware I'd rather that government stay out of marriage. Are you aware that many of the "rainbow coalition" are using the force of government for the purpose of revenge rather than gaining actual equity. That is something you can't deny. There has been deliberate targeting of businesses ran by and owned by people of faith and conscience by the gay community for destruction if they don't make nice and do business (and violate said religious conscious by aiding in a gay wedding) these religious freedom bills are trying to ensure by statute the first amendment religious liberties so enjoyed since the beginning of the American experiment. In your nation (Canada if your actually a native of BC) people of faith are targeted for jail for even preaching in support of traditional marriage.

Do you seriously think that's a big enough problem that you have to treat transgender people that way?

It's statistically more likely that your future son would be harassed in a restroom by a cisgender male than that the scenario you describe above would take place. 

[user12345]

Coward. The people wanted it signed. Go with the people not big business.

The irony of this statement even tickles me and I'm a conservative.

Do you not realize it really was religious freedom protections(backed by the grassroots) vs big business (who want special rights for the lgbt).

"Special rights?" F-ck off, you are literally the worst.

It's a special right to ask for assurances that I will not be shamed at and turned away from a restaurant? The only "special right" I see in this situation is the right we'd be giving lunatic bigots to treat a particular group of people like garbage.

It only seems like a special right to you because you are used to moving through society with your privilege unimpeded. How horrible and unfair that you are forced to tolerate the presence and legitimacy of people who are different! Poor little put-upon JCL!

Hagrid,

Do I want some guy who likes to play dress up as a girl (which is what many "transgendered individuals" are) going into a girls restroom where they could harass my soon to be wife or my future kids? I don't think so.

If I were a business owner I'd still treat my patrons with respect regardless. However I won't be forced to violate my closely held religious beliefs to do so. You are aware I'd rather that government stay out of marriage. Are you aware that many of the "rainbow coalition" are using the force of government for the purpose of revenge rather than gaining actual equity. That is something you can't deny. There has been deliberate targeting of businesses ran by and owned by people of faith and conscience by the gay community for destruction if they don't make nice and do business (and violate said religious conscious by aiding in a gay wedding) these religious freedom bills are trying to ensure by statute the first amendment religious liberties so enjoyed since the beginning of the American experiment. In your nation (Canada if your actually a native of BC) people of faith are targeted for jail for even preaching in support of traditional marriage.

Do you seriously think that's a big enough problem that you have to treat transgender people that way?

It's statistically more likely that your future son would be harassed in a restroom by a cisgender male than that the scenario you describe above would take place. 

#BanAllBathrooms #HoldItTillYouGetHome

[Virginiá]

#BanAllBathrooms #HoldItTillYouGetHome

Mandatory catheters for everyone!

#UseTheTube

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Coward. The people wanted it signed. Go with the people not big business.

The irony of this statement even tickles me and I'm a conservative.

Do you not realize it really was religious freedom protections(backed by the grassroots) vs big business (who want special rights for the lgbt).

"Special rights?" F-ck off, you are literally the worst.

It's a special right to ask for assurances that I will not be shamed at and turned away from a restaurant? The only "special right" I see in this situation is the right we'd be giving lunatic bigots to treat a particular group of people like garbage.

It only seems like a special right to you because you are used to moving through society with your privilege unimpeded. How horrible and unfair that you are forced to tolerate the presence and legitimacy of people who are different! Poor little put-upon JCL!

Hagrid,

Do I want some guy who likes to play dress up as a girl (which is what many "transgendered individuals" are) going into a girls restroom where they could harass my soon to be wife or my future kids? I don't think so.

If I were a business owner I'd still treat my patrons with respect regardless. However I won't be forced to violate my closely held religious beliefs to do so. You are aware I'd rather that government stay out of marriage. Are you aware that many of the "rainbow coalition" are using the force of government for the purpose of revenge rather than gaining actual equity. That is something you can't deny. There has been deliberate targeting of businesses ran by and owned by people of faith and conscience by the gay community for destruction if they don't make nice and do business (and violate said religious conscious by aiding in a gay wedding) these religious freedom bills are trying to ensure by statute the first amendment religious liberties so enjoyed since the beginning of the American experiment. In your nation (Canada if your actually a native of BC) people of faith are targeted for jail for even preaching in support of traditional marriage.

Your closely-held religious beliefs are wrong. It's about time civilized societies stop tip-toeing around that and call your doctrine what it is.

Even so, we'll make nice and let you believe what you want. But as soon as those beliefs cross into the territory of permitting discrimination based on traits individuals can't control, that's where your freedom ends. You do not have the freedom to encroach on another person's right to enjoy equal access to society. Period. It's not "revenge" to ask that I be treated like every other customer... you simply don't and can't understand what it feels like to be legitimately discriminated against. I know, because everything changed for me when I came out—and it was a real eye-opener. If you were in the position of belonging to a discriminated against group, you would understand why it's not absurd to want every business shut down that would treat me like a second-class citizen.

And don't get me started about what you think you believe happens in "my nation." I have a bridge to sell you if you think I could get my Aunt Kathy thrown in jail. I almost wish it were so, but it's not.

[Intell]

Guy with a huge boner for big business, HP, still good job even if for despicable reasons.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Coward. The people wanted it signed. Go with the people not big business.

There was a time when "the people" also wanted slavery and Jim Crow and segregation. No matter how you try to slice and dice it by using Jesus as a justification for your bigotry, it's discrimination. You're the ones wanting special rights: you want to have the right to impose your flawed, narrow-minded religious interpretations onto others who do not believe the same way. 

Seeing "Christians" trying to defend this is baffling, although not surprising given their track record of hypocrisy. According to my understand of Christianity, Christians believe that no one is perfect and that we are all sinners, and that no one sin is greater in the eyes of God than another, so why are Republicans and evangelical conservatives targeting this one group of sinners? Sounds to me like it's the Christians who are wanting special rights. Gay people wanting to be treated equally under the law is not special rights, it's equal rights. You know, does this mean it's okay for a business to refuse service to a black person, a Hispanic person, a Jewish person, a Muslim, or even someone who's been divorced or a single mom with children out of wedlock all because "I think that's what Jesus would do?" I don't recall Jesus turning away sinners. If your faith really "compels" you to discriminate against people, maybe you just shouldn't work in the public. Doesn't the Bible also say let he without sin cast the first stones? You "Christians" are not perfect, you're sinners as well, and your sins as heterosexuals are no less sinful than the sins of others and homosexuals. The sooner you all realize that gay people do exist and are not going away, the better we will all be. We've put up with your self-righteous hatred and prejudice for years, now it's time for you all to tolerate that the country has changed and we now have (some of) the same rights under the law as you all do. Why don't you all pick another group of sinners to hate and leave us alone? Or better yet, why don't you actually be a Christian and do what Jesus actually said to do: love thy neighbor as thyself, feed the hungry, cure the sick, house the homeless, clothe the naked, and spread love and acceptance instead of hate and intolerance?

As for Nathan Deal, I don't call him a FF. He only did this because the money train would stop coming to Georgia had he signed it. You're going to see a lot more of this from Republicans who are torn between the economic conservatives (who want the gay people's money) and the social conservatives (who want nothing to do with the gays) in their party. Nathan Deal decided that money and revenue coming to his state was more important than the Bible and protecting the "muh Jesus said so" values of his state's "Christians." SINNER! This only makes him smarter than Pat McCrory in North Carolina. Had the big businesses not pressured him, he probably would have signed it, so big businesses really are the FFs here. Nathan Deal is just another cowardly old bigoted Republican man blinded by greed.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Coward. The people wanted it signed. Go with the people not big business.

There was a time when "the people" also wanted slavery and Jim Crow and segregation. No matter how you try to slice and dice it by using Jesus as a justification for your bigotry, it's discrimination. You're the ones wanting special rights: you want to have the right to impose your flawed, narrow-minded religious interpretations onto others who do not believe the same way. 

Seeing "Christians" trying to defend this is baffling, although not surprising given their track record of hypocrisy. According to my understand of Christianity, Christians believe that no one is perfect and that we are all sinners, and that no one sin is greater in the eyes of God than another, so why are Republicans and evangelical conservatives targeting this one group of sinners? Sounds to me like it's the Christians who are wanting special rights. Gay people wanting to be treated equally under the law is not special rights, it's equal rights. You know, does this mean it's okay for a business to refuse service to a black person, a Hispanic person, a Jewish person, a Muslim, or even someone who's been divorced or a single mom with children out of wedlock all because "I think that's what Jesus would do?" I don't recall Jesus turning away sinners. If your faith really "compels" you to discriminate against people, maybe you just shouldn't work in the public. Doesn't the Bible also say let he without sin cast the first stones? You "Christians" are not perfect, you're sinners as well, and your sins as heterosexuals are no less sinful than the sins of others and homosexuals. The sooner you all realize that gay people do exist and are not going away, the better we will all be. We've put up with your self-righteous hatred and prejudice for years, now it's time for you all to tolerate that the country has changed and we now have (some of) the same rights under the law as you all do. Why don't you all pick another group of sinners to hate and leave us alone? Or better yet, why don't you actually be a Christian and do what Jesus actually said to do: love thy neighbor as thyself, feed the hungry, cure the sick, house the homeless, clothe the naked, and spread love and acceptance instead of hate and intolerance?

As for Nathan Deal, I don't call him a FF. He only did this because the money train would stop coming to Georgia had he signed it. You're going to see a lot more of this from Republicans who are torn between the economic conservatives (who want the gay people's money) and the social conservatives (who want nothing to do with the gays) in their party. Nathan Deal decided that money and revenue coming to his state was more important than the Bible and protecting the "muh Jesus said so" values of his state's "Christians." SINNER! This only makes him smarter than Pat McCrory in North Carolina. Had the big businesses not pressured him, he probably would have signed it, so big businesses really are the FFs here. Nathan Deal is just another cowardly old bigoted Republican man blinded by greed.

Is being gay an intrinsic or God given difference? Absolutely not. Faith and science are in agreement on this. The Founders are with me on this. Do I need to say what Jefferson said or what Washington did?

[Derpist]

There was a time when "the people" also wanted slavery

Only if by the people, you mean the elite aristocratic planter class which in many ways was the antebellum Southern equivalent to today's liberal capitalist corporate elite.

[afleitch]

Is being gay an intrinsic or God given difference? Absolutely not. Faith and science are in agreement on this. The Founders are with me on this. Do I need to say what Jefferson said or what Washington did?

No they aren't. You don't get to make up science.

[Derpist]

Is being gay an intrinsic or God given difference? Absolutely not. Faith and science are in agreement on this. The Founders are with me on this. Do I need to say what Jefferson said or what Washington did?

No they aren't. You don't get to make up science.

There is absolutely nothing biologically essential about the modern social construction of sexual orientation as it exists almost exclusively in Western societies.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Coward. The people wanted it signed. Go with the people not big business.

The people also want Garland to get a vote and a hearing in the Senate...

What happened to your belief in the 1960 senate rule?

Which 1960 Senate rule would that be?  I highly doubt I ever expressed any belief in some random 60s rule for no apparent reason, but feel free to enlighten me

Still waiting for an answer, JCL...

[RINO Tom]

There was a time when "the people" also wanted slavery

Only if by the people, you mean the elite aristocratic planter class which in many ways was the antebellum Southern equivalent to today's liberal capitalist corporate elite.

"Liberal" corporate elite?  Jesus, man.

Also, what of the elite aristocratic business class in the North that adamantly opposed slavery, mostly on economic grounds?  Hardly grassroots.

[Derpist]

There was a time when "the people" also wanted slavery

Only if by the people, you mean the elite aristocratic planter class which in many ways was the antebellum Southern equivalent to today's liberal capitalist corporate elite.

"Liberal" corporate elite?  Jesus, man.

Also, what of the elite aristocratic business class in the North that adamantly opposed slavery, mostly on economic grounds?  Hardly grassroots.

The business class wasn't the primary class fighting slave power. It was clerics in the North who saw an unspeakable moral evil in slavery - and rallied a burgeoning Northern middle-class to the cause of abolitionism. The exact same kind of people...who form the Republican base today and are mocked by our corporate elite as being bitter and clinging to their guns. Abraham Lincoln after all, was a rural hick from the West. John C. Fremont grew up as a poor Southern boy. Some of the other most tenacious enemies of slave power were working-class Appalachians, who outright waged a bloody Unionist insurgency against the Confederacy.

Then after the Civil War, it was the liberal capitalist elite that abandoned Reconstruction. The overwhelmingly working and middle-class coalition that coalesced behind Grant lost out to a liberal business and financial elite, who eventually adopted views even more virulently racist than the old Southern aristocracy (see: eugenics, the popularity of a Birth of a Nation, and Woodrow Wilson).

[Zioneer]

Is being gay an intrinsic or God given difference? Absolutely not. Faith and science are in agreement on this. The Founders are with me on this. Do I need to say what Jefferson said or what Washington did?

No they aren't. You don't get to make up science.

There is absolutely nothing biologically essential about the modern social construction of sexual orientation as it exists almost exclusively in Western societies.

Then why do LGBT folks show up in literally every society, including in nations that have literally condemned them to death?

[Derpist]

Is being gay an intrinsic or God given difference? Absolutely not. Faith and science are in agreement on this. The Founders are with me on this. Do I need to say what Jefferson said or what Washington did?

No they aren't. You don't get to make up science.

There is absolutely nothing biologically essential about the modern social construction of sexual orientation as it exists almost exclusively in Western societies.

Then why do LGBT folks show up in literally every society, including in nations that have literally condemned them to death?

If you're referring to Africa, then that's largely an outcome of colonialism.

People who take gay or lesbian as their identity are specific to the West largely because of a history of strange sexual restrictions. History is filled with people who do things that immediately lead Westerners to label them as "gay". Except nobody in ancient Greece or China or Persia or whatever identified as "gay".

It is entirely a modern Western phenomenon to take mundane sexual acts and turn them into the crux of one's identity and OMG YOU KNOW ITS THE NEW CIVIL RIGHTS WE NEED TO UNITE AS A PEOPLE.

Insofar as there is a "gay movement" in places like Africa and Middle East, this is largely a relic of Western colonial imposition. Africans very understandably view the "gay movement" as a Western colonial imposition. Of course, they fail to mention that their draconian bans on same-sex fun is also a product of Western colonial imposition (British anti-buggery laws to be specific). They are both different socially constructed sides of the same particularist coin - a strange sexual puritanism that once convulsed the West.

[Zioneer]

Is being gay an intrinsic or God given difference? Absolutely not. Faith and science are in agreement on this. The Founders are with me on this. Do I need to say what Jefferson said or what Washington did?

No they aren't. You don't get to make up science.

There is absolutely nothing biologically essential about the modern social construction of sexual orientation as it exists almost exclusively in Western societies.

Then why do LGBT folks show up in literally every society, including in nations that have literally condemned them to death?

If you're referring to Africa, then that's largely an outcome of colonialism.

People who take gay or lesbian as their identity are specific to the West largely because of a history of strange sexual restrictions. History is filled with people who do things that immediately lead Westerners to label them as "gay". Except nobody in ancient Greece or China or Persia or whatever identified as "gay".

It is entirely a modern Western phenomenon to take mundane sexual acts and turn them into the crux of one's identity and OMG YOU KNOW ITS THE NEW CIVIL RIGHTS WE NEED TO UNITE AS A PEOPLE.

Insofar as there is a "gay movement" in places like Africa and Middle East, this is largely a relic of Western colonial imposition. Africans very understandably view the "gay movement" as a Western colonial imposition. Of course, they fail to mention that their draconian bans on same-sex fun is also a product of Western colonial imposition (British anti-buggery laws to be specific). They are both different socially constructed sides of the same particularist coin - a strange sexual puritanism that once convulsed the West.

Yeah, no. That's completely inaccurate and if you actually think that, there's no point in talking to you.

[afleitch]

Is being gay an intrinsic or God given difference? Absolutely not. Faith and science are in agreement on this. The Founders are with me on this. Do I need to say what Jefferson said or what Washington did?

No they aren't. You don't get to make up science.

There is absolutely nothing biologically essential about the modern social construction of sexual orientation as it exists almost exclusively in Western societies.

Then why do LGBT folks show up in literally every society, including in nations that have literally condemned them to death?

If you're referring to Africa, then that's largely an outcome of colonialism.

People who take gay or lesbian as their identity are specific to the West largely because of a history of strange sexual restrictions. History is filled with people who do things that immediately lead Westerners to label them as "gay". Except nobody in ancient Greece or China or Persia or whatever identified as "gay".

It is entirely a modern Western phenomenon to take mundane sexual acts and turn them into the crux of one's identity and OMG YOU KNOW ITS THE NEW CIVIL RIGHTS WE NEED TO UNITE AS A PEOPLE.

Insofar as there is a "gay movement" in places like Africa and Middle East, this is largely a relic of Western colonial imposition. Africans very understandably view the "gay movement" as a Western colonial imposition. Of course, they fail to mention that their draconian bans on same-sex fun is also a product of Western colonial imposition (British anti-buggery laws to be specific). They are both different socially constructed sides of the same particularist coin - a strange sexual puritanism that once convulsed the West.

Yeah, no. That's completely inaccurate and if you actually think that, there's no point in talking to you.

I however will


It's from an old effort post

Society is shaped by those who hold authority. Many people held authority by virtue of having a penis. There will always be identification and demarcation along gender and sexual lines precisely a society based on serving the needs of heteronormative power model (and I make no apology for going all ‘feminist’ here) is the hegemony. The reason why sexuality is an issue for those who have a minority sexuality is because same sex acts were opposed by the hegemony. It didn’t matter whether you just liked casual same sex encounters or wanted to be able to be publically seen and safe with a romantic sexual partner for life. Everything on that spectrum was oppressed. If homosexual behaviour was not specifically excluded (or excluded by omission) in civil, social and religious structures and statutes then there wouldn’t be an LGBT identity as you know it today, because it wouldn’t be defined as a characteristic. There would never have been a black identity either because skin colour like sexual attraction would never be identified as a discernable characteristic. It’s not as if society divides along hair colour, though there are issues of ‘preference’ involved even in that. And of course this demarcation with proscribed gender roles and correct and incorrect sexual behaviour is perpetuated within certain understandings of religious revelation as being mandated by god and this can further perpetuate this.

If you say to someone that heterosexuality is a construct, therefore deconstructing everything from marriage to an erection, you’ll be casually dismissed in various academic and scientific circles (as well as the local pub) because it doesn’t fit in with someone’s sexual-social experience. But if you say that homosexuality is a construct there are enough ‘bourgeois’ (to use that term) who have an issue with homosexuality that stems from religious, social, cultural and power structures to take note. Therefore the constructionists are essentially ‘useful idiots’ and the very playthings of the structures they so vehemently oppose. Why people are straight and do straight things like marry and have children or associated with that; cheat, divorce and abandon their children is of no real concern to anyone. Funny that. Perhaps it should be, but it’s not. You can’t engage people on that premise. However if you make the issue about the gays, then you can demonstrate your philosophical prowess to an audience that doesn’t give two sh-ts about Marxist theory because a predominantly straight audience really want to know why people don’t think and act like they do.

So we have the ‘constructionist’ camp; i.e the concept of sexual orientation was invented in the 19th Century mainly through medical discourse which constructed the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy for bourgeois purposes (because everything, apparently, is a class struggle) This means that prior to this point homosexuality was characterised not by sense of identity but by sexual acts which were perceived as structures of power (with an active and passive role) This view is ideologically and in many ways politically grounded. You need to have your Marxist hat on. Despite the fact that most people don’t wear that hat, hasn’t deterred many constructionists within queer theory who in full Frankfurt School mode neglect to communicate that the primary focus is not necessarily to discover an accurate historical model but to foster a new social construct reflective of their political leanings. To them, the homosexual can’t simply ‘accept’ his or her groundings as a gay/LGBT because that is part of the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy that is symptomatic of bourgeois capitalism. Instead they should, in effect be politicised into someone who questions all the concepts in the basket of the bourgeois, such as gender and heterosexuality and class therefore meaning that all these things (even men and women themselves) disappear as a class and are no longer subjects of oppression. If you de-stable heterosexuality then you eradicate homophobia (or so was the thinking) But once you start deconstructing something, therefore proving that it’s a construct, you start doing it with everything. It made no difference to them throwing both heterosexuality under a bus as throwing homosexuality under a bus. Even when LGBT academics do this and crawl up from underneath the wheels, they still realise (not that they assumed anything other than that) that they are sexually attracted to whom they are attracted to and therefore the whole experiment hasn’t really validated anything. Whatever the other sciences are up to at this time doesn’t concern them because academic bubbles are precisely that.

However constructionists also make a mistake in assuming that the ‘now’ is more entrenched and is therefore more relevant than the ‘then.’ What is considered ‘gay’ now might not be what is considered so in a hundred years’ time, or a new term is used that describes the social grouping or self-identification of those with non-heteronormative sexuality. Or they might simply do different things in an environment that is more open or more closed towards them. Therefore what is currently the ‘now’ will for the future be the ‘then’ and because what they did ‘then’ is not what they do ‘now’ so the ‘then’ is dismissed. The experiences of those in the past are dismissed and the new ‘now’ are told that their experiences are constructed. Which as you can see is deeply problematic.

In contrast to this you have ‘essentialists’ (which would be my own view) where both knowledge and practice are not constructed but are ‘discovered’ (for which you can at times read inherent) but subject to repression and then rediscovery through both history and experience. It emphasises continuity and the dichotomy of liberation/suppression to what was already there.

[Derpist]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I largely agree with that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I mostly agree with that. Except this history is something largely specific to the West (and more specifically the modern West) - which is why the notion of gay people is a modern Western phenomenon. This identity is entirely a product of the peculiar sexual history of the West and it makes no sense to try to impose it on other societies.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I largely agree with that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I mostly agree with that. Except this history is something largely specific to the West (and more specifically the modern West) - which is why the notion of gay people is a modern Western phenomenon. This identity is entirely a product of the peculiar sexual history of the West and it makes no sense to try to impose it on other societies.

If a man moves in with another man with whom he has sexual and intimate romantic relationships with in Uganda, what are they 'imposing' on their society other than themselves?

[Derpist]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I largely agree with that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I mostly agree with that. Except this history is something largely specific to the West (and more specifically the modern West) - which is why the notion of gay people is a modern Western phenomenon. This identity is entirely a product of the peculiar sexual history of the West and it makes no sense to try to impose it on other societies.

If a man moves in with another man with whom he has sexual and intimate romantic relationships with in Uganda, what are they 'imposing' on their society other than themselves?

If that's all they do, nothing. But that is not the entire story. The Western elite then demands that all of society recognize their new Western-style lifestyle as a fundamental identity, which sparks pretty brutal anti-colonial backlash (often ironically based on British anti-buggery laws), which then sparks more imposition by the West (such as denying life-saving humanitarian aid). In fact, this is pretty much that miserable man David Cameron pulled. It's a horrible legacy of colonialism.

As an individual action, it's hard to really get that worked up, but it's a sign of a troubling colonialist trend. Culture and all of that seems to only flow in one direction (and when it tries to flow the other direction, it ironically gets shut down by SJWs as "cultural appropriation"). There's also an irritating trend for people to treat peculiar Western cultural constructions as universals that everyone in the world has to adopt or else.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I largely agree with that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I mostly agree with that. Except this history is something largely specific to the West (and more specifically the modern West) - which is why the notion of gay people is a modern Western phenomenon. This identity is entirely a product of the peculiar sexual history of the West and it makes no sense to try to impose it on other societies.

If a man moves in with another man with whom he has sexual and intimate romantic relationships with in Uganda, what are they 'imposing' on their society other than themselves?

If that's all they do, nothing. But that is not the entire story. The Western elite then demands that all of society recognize their new Western-style lifestyle as a fundamental identity, which sparks pretty brutal anti-colonial backlash (often ironically based on British anti-buggery laws), which then sparks more imposition by the West (such as denying life-saving humanitarian aid). In fact, this is pretty much that miserable man David Cameron pulled. It's a horrible legacy of colonialism.

As an individual action, it's hard to really get that worked up, but it's a sign of a troubling colonialist trend. Culture and all of that seems to only flow in one direction (and when it tries to flow the other direction, it ironically gets shut down by SJWs as "cultural appropriation"). There's also an irritating trend for people to treat peculiar Western cultural constructions as universals that everyone in the world has to adopt or else.

No. What the 'western elite' wish is for them to be left alone. Not to be subject to harrassment, punishment, physical abuse or in the case of two women 'corrective' rape.

Why do you continue to think that two men or two women in a couple is a 'western style' lifestyle? What would you have them do?

[MaxQue]

Why that obvious rethread of the San Francisco troll has not been banned yet?