The Culture Wars: The Radical Progressives' Agenda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

OK. Some here are very against sex education.

[/quote]

Who? And do you mean the free “fisting kit,” penis lollypops, transgender/questioning radical in the kindegarten, brought to you by GLSEN kind of sex ed? Or the “this is how mums and dads make babies” kind of sex ed?[/quote]

No “this is how to have safe sex and not get STDs” type of contraceptive advice. It’s totally necessary

[/quote]

Look at it this way. If junior is given federally administered fisting kits and putting condoms on bananas with his mouth, in a non-judgemental, rainbow-like atmosphere of jollyness and celebration then junior is going to have problems. This isn’t Oscar Wilde behind bars. This is transgender Harry in the nursery with the federal fisting kits. And Maoist Mary discretely diverting half the primary school girls to abortion clinics or for STD treatment after radicalising them first.[/quote]

How does that follow on from what I said?

[/quote]

Because ‘fisting kits’ is what passes for sex education nowadays. Now, if these epidemics of STDs are already so bad, what with the fisting kits in the playground already available, maybe it’s time to admit that more sex ed “prevention” isn’t the answer.

62

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

OK. Some here are very against sex education.

[/quote]

Who? And do you mean the free “fisting kit,” penis lollypops, transgender/questioning radical in the kindegarten, brought to you by GLSEN kind of sex ed? Or the “this is how mums and dads make babies” kind of sex ed?[/quote]

No “this is how to have safe sex and not get STDs” type of contraceptive advice. It’s totally necessary

[/quote]

Look at it this way. If junior is given federally administered fisting kits and putting condoms on bananas with his mouth, in a non-judgemental, rainbow-like atmosphere of jollyness and celebration then junior is going to have problems. This isn’t Oscar Wilde behind bars. This is transgender Harry in the nursery with the federal fisting kits. And Maoist Mary discretely diverting half the primary school girls to abortion clinics or for STD treatment after radicalising them first.[/quote]

How does that follow on from what I said?

I feel we are reading from different scripts[/quote]

Don’t bother dude.

He is pushing this shit as far as he possibly can.

In his mind one negative incident (whether it’s true or not) is somehow representative of what happens in the average sex education class.

63

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

YES![/quote]

OK. Some here are very against sex education.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

And you would agree that it’s time to stop lying to the public about the rate of disease and poor mental health that a good portion of homosexual men suffer from?[/quote]

Sure, facts are facts. People should live in reality.

[/quote]

Well great then we agree that the populace should be informed about the facts regarding the gay population. And that the overwhelming majority of HIV positive cases are from male homosexual men. Most people don’t know this because the liberal media has done a great job of covering up the truth. This neither helps young gay men stay safe, or a population understand the ramifications of unprotected sex.

64

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

YES![/quote]

OK. Some here are very against sex education.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

And you would agree that it’s time to stop lying to the public about the rate of disease and poor mental health that a good portion of homosexual men suffer from?[/quote]

Sure, facts are facts. People should live in reality.

[/quote]

Well great then we agree that the populace should be informed about the facts regarding the gay population. And that the overwhelming majority of HIV positive cases are from male homosexual men. Most people don’t know this because the liberal media has done a great job of covering up the truth. This neither helps young gay men stay safe, or a population understand the ramifications of unprotected sex.

[/quote]

ZEB,

I don’t know about the US, but in the UK there have been huge campaigns especially for homosexual men URGING them to wear condoms. No one denies this.

If this is different in the USA, then perhaps it explains our differing viewpoints

65

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It has been proven over and over again that the biggest enemy of homosexual men is their own poor choices. There is no one who can dispute that it is a fact. [/quote]

You mean like regular people?

Interesting.

66

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

YES![/quote]

OK. Some here are very against sex education.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

And you would agree that it’s time to stop lying to the public about the rate of disease and poor mental health that a good portion of homosexual men suffer from?[/quote]

Sure, facts are facts. People should live in reality.

[/quote]

Well great then we agree that the populace should be informed about the facts regarding the gay population. And that the overwhelming majority of HIV positive cases are from male homosexual men. Most people don’t know this because the liberal media has done a great job of covering up the truth. This neither helps young gay men stay safe, or a population understand the ramifications of unprotected sex.

[/quote]

ZEB,

I don’t know about the US, but in the UK there have been huge campaigns especially for homosexual men URGING them to wear condoms. No one denies this.

If this is different in the USA, then perhaps it explains our differing viewpoints[/quote]

There was, call it a “test case” for education in the San Francisco area. Millions of dollars were spent trying to educate gay men on the dangers of unprotected sex.

What do you think happened?

The incidence of HIV actually went up!

What is it that drives gay men to take such chances? I don’t know but it could be the same thing which causes them to become depressed, anxious and suicidal. And we certainly know that it’s the same thing that leads the the gigantic HIV numbers in their population

67

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It has been proven over and over again that the biggest enemy of homosexual men is their own poor choices. There is no one who can dispute that it is a fact. [/quote]

You mean like regular people?

Interesting.[/quote]

I never said otherwise so save your sarcasm Lifty. But unlike “regular people” the male homosexual population has a larger problem with promiscuity. And that is why I quote the CDC to point out that something needs to be done within that population to reign in the terror and pain that they are causing themselves!

68

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
‘Lord Carey said Christians are being treated like bigots and face the same sort of persecution homosexuals were once subjected to’.

LOL

Sensationalist gibberish!!..statistically speaking, a very large percentage of homosexuals have been PHYSICALLY assaulted (at least once) just for being gay…I don’t know of ANY christians who have ever been physically attacked JUST because of their faith. Laughable comparison. [/quote]

So you’re comparing statistics to anecdotal evidence?

69

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Lord Carey said Christians are being treated like bigots and face the same sort of persecution homosexuals were once subjected to.
[/quote]

That’s like a KKK member complaining about being persecuted by a group of black people.[/quote]

Except Christian tenets aren’t based on hate of homosexuals.

70

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Lord Carey said Christians are being treated like bigots and face the same sort of persecution homosexuals were once subjected to.
[/quote]

That’s like a KKK member complaining about being persecuted by a group of black people.[/quote]

Except Christian tenets aren’t based on hate of homosexuals. [/quote]

One is a more extreme case but the analogy still holds.

71

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
‘Lord Carey said Christians are being treated like bigots and face the same sort of persecution homosexuals were once subjected to’.

LOL

Sensationalist gibberish!!..statistically speaking, a very large percentage of homosexuals have been PHYSICALLY assaulted (at least once) just for being gay…I don’t know of ANY christians who have ever been physically attacked JUST because of their faith. Laughable comparison. [/quote]

So you’re comparing statistics to anecdotal evidence?[/quote]

Yup.

72

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

  • To go to back to the article itself, this is basically an issue of DRESS CODE. Of course, a dimmmunition of dress-code rights COULD lead to or fuel certain anti-faith sentiments.

That being said, is keeping your religious jewellery out of public view really that big of a deal?

I’m sure no employer is going to start strip searching/metal detecting their employees to search for crucifixes etc.

Lots of other non-religious bodily decorations are not GENERALLY accepted/approved of in the workplace, this is merely a new addition to a rather arbitrary list. [/quote]

Yes.

Not to me personally - but when people start feeling the desire to ask that as if we don’t have / need that basic level of freedom - then yes, it’s a very big deal. What kinda question is that?

Question: Would the thought of asking something like that even enter your mind if it were another symbol other than a Christian cross?
ex. maybe a ‘gay pride’ symbol?

73

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

  • To go to back to the article itself, this is basically an issue of DRESS CODE. Of course, a dimmmunition of dress-code rights COULD lead to or fuel certain anti-faith sentiments.

That being said, is keeping your religious jewellery out of public view really that big of a deal?

I’m sure no employer is going to start strip searching/metal detecting their employees to search for crucifixes etc.

Lots of other non-religious bodily decorations are not GENERALLY accepted/approved of in the workplace, this is merely a new addition to a rather arbitrary list. [/quote]

Yes.

Not to me personally - but when people start feeling the desire to ask that as if we don’t have / need that basic level of freedom - then yes, it’s a very big deal. What kinda question is that?

Question: Would the thought of asking something like that even enter your mind if it were another symbol other than a Christian cross?
ex. maybe a ‘gay pride’ symbol?[/quote]

Dude, in principle I agree with you. Thing is though, with regards what is & isn’t accepted in the workplace their has always been many rather ridiculous rules.

A lot of employers would NEVER employ a tattooed individual. Many employers stipulate that if you want to grow facial hair, you can only do so by first notifying your manager (ASDA do this) <<<Not really 100% fair IMO, but I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.

As I said earlier, in many ways, dress codes etc are ARBITRARY. The only real thing I’m seeing changing here is that Christianity specifically is no longer being afforded an extra layer of protection.

74

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

  • To go to back to the article itself, this is basically an issue of DRESS CODE. Of course, a dimmmunition of dress-code rights COULD lead to or fuel certain anti-faith sentiments.

That being said, is keeping your religious jewellery out of public view really that big of a deal?

I’m sure no employer is going to start strip searching/metal detecting their employees to search for crucifixes etc.

Lots of other non-religious bodily decorations are not GENERALLY accepted/approved of in the workplace, this is merely a new addition to a rather arbitrary list. [/quote]

Yes.

Not to me personally - but when people start feeling the desire to ask that as if we don’t have / need that basic level of freedom - then yes, it’s a very big deal. What kinda question is that?

Question: Would the thought of asking something like that even enter your mind if it were another symbol other than a Christian cross?
ex. maybe a ‘gay pride’ symbol?[/quote]

Dude, in principle I agree with you. Thing is though, with regards what is & isn’t accepted in the workplace their has always been many rather ridiculous rules.

A lot of employers would NEVER employ a tattooed individual. Many employers stipulate that if you want to grow facial hair, you can only do so by first notifying your manager (ASDA do this) <<<Not really 100% fair IMO, but I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.

As I said earlier, in many ways, dress codes etc are ARBITRARY. The only real thing I’m seeing changing here is that Christianity specifically is no longer being afforded an extra layer of protection. [/quote]
I’m not even Christian, but this isn’t an “extra layer of protection”.

Psychologically there is a shift occurring that I can very easily ‘feel’. As tattoos and facial hair are becoming more and more accepted - at this same exact time - Christian crosses are becoming less and less accepted.

There has always been a negative social stigma with tattoos, and beards have always been seen as “unprofessional”. But Christianity? Nah - something is happening here.

75

'April 2012: The Catholic Schutzenverein voted in March 450 to 28 to not to allow homosexual or lesbian “kings” or “queens” to preside activities together with their partners. The German federal anti-discrimination commission screened this decision and declared it to be in disrespect of the law.

The Schutzenverein has pronounced to pursue the legal debate.’

'March 2012: An online call to “see churches burning” was published as a “Christmas wish” in 2011 by a group of leftwing extremists called ‘Antifa Freiburg’. “We will not give up hope that there will be a miracle and we can warm ourselves next year at the glow of burning churches.” Prosecution investigated but droped the case.

After the organisation ‘Antifa Freiburg’ expressed the wish on their webpage to “see churches burn down in the upcoming year”, several complaints had been lodged against the leftwing extremists. The prosecution was investigating for the suspect of incitement but came to the conclusion that the statement was just a “tasteless publication which is not relevant under criminal law.” Moreover it was claimed that it would not be possible to determine the author. According to criminal intelligence, an Icelandic company provided the webpage to the organisation.

The droping of the case was reported in the German-language Catholic news portal www.kath.net. This lead ‘Antifa Freiburg’ to publish another wish in March 2012: namely to see Kath.Net burn… ’

'March 2012: About fifteen people came to St Eloi’s church to insult parishioners at the end of Sunday Mass. It is not the first time this Catholic church is targeted by anti-Christian acts, as it had already been covered whith tags and anti-Christian posters.

Source:

www.infos-bordeaux.fr/2012/actualites/bordeaux-des-catholiques-insultes-a-la-sortie-de-la-messe-2648’

76

I know quite well the St Eloi’s Church.
Years ago, i used to live in the very same street.

The underlying issue here is that a few years ago the major of Bordeaux, Alain Juppe (who is now a minister of Sarkozy’s government) offered this church to a small group of christian traditionnalists called l’institut du bon-pasteur.
It should be noted that this group was not exactly a catholic group back then. They were still officially excommunicated.

This gift was an obvious electoralist move toward the far right.
And that has been hotly debated in bordeaux, even amongst catholics.
If i recall correctly, my godfather, who is a catholic priest in Bordeaux, was quite upset about this whole story.

77

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It has been proven over and over again that the biggest enemy of homosexual men is their own poor choices. There is no one who can dispute that it is a fact. [/quote]

You mean like regular people?

Interesting.[/quote]

I never said otherwise so save your sarcasm Lifty. But unlike “regular people” the male homosexual population has a larger problem with promiscuity. And that is why I quote the CDC to point out that something needs to be done within that population to reign in the terror and pain that they are causing themselves![/quote]

As has been pointed out to you before, the average number of partners gay men have is meaningless because the data is skewed by a very small minority.

The median number of partners, which is more significant for the average person is 6 as opposed to 5.

Of course you ignore this because it does not fit into your narrative, which gets old after awhile.

78

[quote]kamui wrote:
I know quite well the St Eloi’s Church.
Years ago, i used to live in the very same street.

The underlying issue here is that a few years ago the major of Bordeaux, Alain Juppe (who is now a minister of Sarkozy’s government) offered this church to a small group of christian traditionnalists called l’institut du bon-pasteur.
It should be noted that this group was not exactly a catholic group back then. They were still officially excommunicated.

This gift was an obvious electoralist move toward the far right.
And that has been hotly debated in bordeaux, even amongst catholics.
If i recall correctly, my godfather, who is a catholic priest in Bordeaux, was quite upset about this whole story.

[/quote]

Interesting. Thanks kamui.

79

Britain’s most senior Roman Catholic Church cleric has called for Christians to wear a cross every day.

In his Easter Sunday sermon, Cardinal Keith O’Brien will tell worshippers to “wear proudly a symbol of the cross of Christ” each day of their lives.

The leader of the Church in Scotland, he will voice concern at the growing “marginalisation” of religion.

His comments come as a case is going to the European Court of Human Rights to allow employees to wear crosses.

Andrea Williams, of the the Christian Legal Centre, said it was “time for Christians everywhere to mark their allegiance to the cross”.

The government says UK law “strikes the right balance” between employees’ rights to express their beliefs at work and the requirements of employers.

80

Anybody have any stats on christian discrimination in the UK?

Any bad experiences?

I’m not doubting it does happen, though, WHERE, when & how exactly it tends to happen in a way which is even close to being comparable to the ways in which other minorities such as blacks & homosexuals etc used to be routinely treated in the UK is something which is yet to be made clear.

The words: Spitting, out & dummy come to mind…but hey, maybe I’m wrong, maybe Christians are now in the UK the new ‘fags’/lepers etc.