Right-wing Conservatives Always Love To Persecute The Effeminate

[Rakhmetov]

True to their longstanding practice of attacking those too weak and powerless to defend themselves the reactionaries and conservatives love to attack homosexuals and lesbians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKM2p8NLv1w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61_rPgitFmc&feature=fvw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8hYRN2nBgk

[Rosa Provokateur]

They hate us because we're beautiful. VIVA LA AFEMINADO!

[Richard Nixon]

Ironically Nietschze would claim that Christians protect the effeminate.

[h0m0revolutionary]

homosexuals and lesbians.



lesbians are homosexuals </being anal>

[Rosa Provokateur]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/wpr/lowres/wprn27l.jpg

[Raúl Duke]

VIVA LA AFEMINADO!

I think correctly it is said "El Afeminado" and even then I doubt "afeminado" is even a real word in Spanish...

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Well yeah when you want to stir popular support by pointing and deriding a sub-group within a society then homosexuals are it.

Homosexuals come from all races are a minority and include both sexes, so you cannot be attacked for racism or sexism in your pursuit of homophobia. Also the whole homosexuals can take your sexual partner and please them in a way you cannot compete with angle works quite well at stirring up shit amongst people who have been told by the media for over a century they aren't attractive enough.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I think correctly it is said "El Afeminado" and even then I doubt "afeminado" is even a real word in Spanish...

Hmm... damned babblefish:glare:

[MarxSchmarx]

1.

Ironically Nietschze


Why is it ironic coming from the coiner of "The Will to Power"?

2.

would claim that Christians protect the effeminate.

Where?

3. So what?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Um, effeminate doesn't mean homosexual. Gay guys can be effeminate, but so can straight or bisexual men. Personally I'd love to be more effeminate, in appearance at least.

[Collectivism]

They persecute the effeminate because they hate women. ALL right-wingers support wife-beaters.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

What a stupid thread. Full of strawman arguments from unwashed leftist idiots.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What a stupid thread. Full of strawman arguments from unwashed leftist idiots.

What a stupid post. Full of baseless assumptions by a right-wing idiot.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The standardization of gender and sexual norms as we know them now is definately connected to the development of capitalism.

In reaction to the upheavals and plain horrors of early industrialization, bourgeois reformers set out to make all sorts of new social norms and rules:

Tea-time was introduced in the UK to promote a drink among workers that was not alcoholic and promoted the "virtues" of hard work. Children were taken out of the mills because industry needed adult workers with full sets of fingers and a degree of education.

Women were also taken out of the mills to create more stability in raising the next generation of workers. To promote this new role for women as unpaid domestic workers, the Victorians built up an ideology that said that women were naturally "innocent" (like children) and soft and nurturing and loved housework and abstaining from political discussions (or smoking and pants for some reason).

Ideas of masculinity were solidified for men and so now men were viewed as natural competitors with no emotion or empathy towards others (and loved smoking and hats for some reason). This fits in to justify a world where male workers have to compete and if they joined together - well that's bad news for the employers at the shape-up.

Masculine women and effeminate men obviously threatens the capitalist "great chain of being" when it comes to sex and gender roles - except, of course when the ruling class suddenly needs female workers (then women are suddenly able to "kick-ass" as Rosie the Riveter).

It's sad to see how people internalize these roles and the harm this does to people who do not fit the capitalist mold.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

What a stupid post. Full of baseless assumptions by a right-wing idiot.
I didn't make any assumptions but only replied to this awful thread full of strawman arguments. You have no idea what conservatism actually is, do you commie?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I didn't make any assumptions but only replied to this awful thread full of strawman arguments.

Assumption 1: The idea that simply yelling out "strawman" will convince anyone with a functioning brain, especially considering the shit that conservatives regularly say about homosexuals.

Assumption 2: That we're unwashed. Unless you've taken a scientific survey of the unrestricted membership of this board (and I would bet money that you haven't), this is based entirely on the "lol dirty hippies" stereotype. You were saying something about strawmen?


You have no idea what conservatism actually is, do you commie?

It comes in multiple forms, but a common thread is a reactionary nostalgia for the "good old days" that never existed.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Assumption 1: The idea that simply yelling out "strawman" will convince anyone with a functioning brain, especially considering the shit that conservatives regularly say about homosexuals.

Assumption 2: That we're unwashed. Unless you've taken a scientific survey of the unrestricted membership of this board (and I would bet money that you haven't), this is based entirely on the "lol dirty hippies" stereotype. You were saying something about strawmen?
1) It is a strawman argument backed up by no eivdence. It is a smear against the great name of conservatism.

2) That's not an assumption, just an insult.


It comes in multiple forms, but a common thread is a reactionary nostalgia for the "good old days" that never existed.
Largely incorrect.

Have you ever read conservative polticial thought?

[Raúl Duke]

Have you ever read conservative polticial thought?

There's 2 issues around discussing conservatism.

1) Differences between nations: Conservatism in the U.S. may differ from the UK to a degree and each strain differs from nation to nation. The OP is discussing the topic probably with the U.S. conservatism in mind.

2) What conservative political thought/text/etc say might differ in practice and actual intentions/motive.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

There's 2 issues around discussing conservatism.

1) Differences between nations: Conservatism in the U.S. may differ from the UK to a degree and each strain differs from nation to nation. The OP is discussing the topic probably with the U.S. conservatism in mind.

2) What conservative political thought/text/etc say might differ in practice and actual intentions/motive.
Both points are true but the second could apply to any political group.

[Jazzratt]

What a stupid thread. Full of strawman arguments from unwashed leftist idiots.

What absolute cobblers. This would be a lot of strawmen if the conservative right did not, in fact, target the LGBT community and the "effeminate" (or at least those that do not conform to expectations of gendered behaviour). They do though, as has been made abundantly clear by people like that Oral Whatsit twat from the first two videos, the kind of people that do right-wing talkshows in the US and the conservative wankers from a few decades back in charge of this travesty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28).

If you're taking issue at our guessing at the motives of the lovely people described above then please "enlighten" us as to the reasoning you believe your lot apply.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

If you're taking issue at our guessing at the motives of the lovely people described above then please "enlighten" us as to the reasoning you believe your lot apply.
Define "target" and "persecution". You are strawmanning the right by esentially saying that we violently attack and persecute those who deviate from the natural action as a sex ("gender" doesn't exist, only sex). This is untrue and if you look throughout history the most violent people tend to be commies.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Also Section 28 was a completely justified defense of family life and marriage (and indirectly the civilisation that is dependent on marriage and family).

[Jazzratt]

Define "target" and "persecution". You are strawmanning the right by esentially saying that we violently attack and persecute those who deviate from the natural action as a sex ("gender" doesn't exist, only sex[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]).This is untrue and if you look throughout history the most violent people tend to be commies.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]

I'm implying nothing of the sort. The persecution need not be violent, rhetoric and legislation can also be used to greatly harmful effect. Simply being homophobic is targetting homosexual people, as are despicable laws made in their detriment. I daresay that a number of "rank and file" conservatives are more vicious than their leaders, though.


Also Section 28 was a completely justified defense of family life and marriage (and indirectly the civilisation that is dependent on marriage and family).

It was an orwellian piece of legislature basically aimed at making sure that homosexuals could not be portrayed as happy, normal people. As we all know if there is one thing likely to turn your children gay and cause you to file for divorce it's the shocking revelation that being homosexual isn't a horrific perveted nightmare filled with nothing but AIDS, misery and rape.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

It was an orwellian piece of legislature basically aimed at making sure that homosexuals could not be portrayed as happy, normal people. As we all know if there is one thing likely to turn your children gay and cause you to file for divorce it's the shocking revelation that being homosexual isn't a horrific perveted nightmare filled with nothing but AIDS, misery and rape.
It was a necessary piece of legislation to defend marriage and the family from advocates of hedonistic homosexual "relationships".

[Jazzratt]

It was a necessary piece of legislation to defend marriage and the family from advocates of hedonistic homosexual "relationships".

Why put the scare quotes up? Are you such an emotional cripple that you cannot fathom any kind of relationship aside the kind you want being anything other than ersatz and meaningless? Do you have absolutely no understanding of how relationships work?

Why does marriage need defending anyway, especially if homosexual relationships are such shams. Wouldn't the superior form of relationship, as you and your mob deem it, "win out" so to speak? I don't even see why they would be in competition at all given that they are mutually exclusive in their appeal; a straight person who could enter a traditional marriage is never going to be interested in a homosexual relationship and vice versa.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Why put the scare quotes up? Are you such an emotional cripple that you cannot fathom any kind of relationship aside the kind you want being anything other than ersatz and meaningless? Do you have absolutely no understanding of how relationships work?

Why does marriage need defending anyway, especially if homosexual relationships are such shams. Wouldn't the superior form of relationship, as you and your mob deem it, "win out" so to speak? I don't even see why they would be in competition at all given that they are mutually exclusive in their appeal; a straight person who could enter a traditional marriage is never going to be interested in a homosexual relationship and vice versa.
Marriage needs to be defended because it is the absolute backbone of civilisation. It is necessary for biological, moral and culutural reproduction, all of which are necessary for the survival of civilisation.

[Robert]

For the record, there are a few prominent, conservative gays in the USA who are celebrated by the right. A few who come to mind include:

Norah Vincent, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/06/business/conservative-gay-columnist-is-under-fire.html

Andrew Sullivan (I know he's British but he's ours now), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan

and the gun-toting, ass-kicking ... Tammy Bruce, http://tammybruce.com/

[Dr Mindbender]

Also Section 28 was a completely justified defense of family life and marriage (and indirectly the civilisation that is dependent on marriage and family).

Curtailing the equality of gays doesnt defend anyone.

If homosexuals were to gain marriage rights and equal status, it isnt going to suddenly signal the end of your right to be a ignorant posh twat living the nuclear family image.


Marriage needs to be defended because it is the absolute backbone of civilisation. It is necessary for biological, moral and culutural reproduction, all of which are necessary for the survival of civilisation.

How the hell is it necessary for 'biological reproduction'? Almost every species seems to be reproducing just fine without it.

[Jazzratt]

Marriage needs to be defended because it is the absolute backbone of civilisation. It is necessary for biological, moral and culutural reproduction, all of which are necessary for the survival of civilisation.

While I disagree with that as well it isn't what I was asking. How is marriage defended by opressing and closeting people who aren't going to be getting married anyway?

[Dr Mindbender]

While I disagree with that as well it isn't what I was asking. How is marriage defended by opressing and closeting people who aren't going to be getting married anyway?

I wouldnt say they wouldnt be getting married anyway, but its more a moot point since its a point of principle.

Moreover i think the question is what is to be gained by sustaining the misery and marginalisation of those who do not posess the biological urge to conform to conservative sexual and emotional 'norms'?

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Curtailing the equality of gays doesnt defend anyone.

If homosexuals were to gain marriage rights and equal status, it isnt going to suddenly signal the end of your right to be a ignorant posh twat living the nuclear family image.
Yes, it is. Such a thing would be revolutionary, a direct attack on our civilisation.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010723.html


How the hell is it necessary for 'biological reproduction'? Almost every species seems to be reproducing just fine without it.
Stable biological reproduction in humanity requires marriage.

[Pogue]

wait, how are gay people too weak to defend themselves??

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

While I disagree with that as well it isn't what I was asking. How is marriage defended by opressing and closeting people who aren't going to be getting married anyway?
Laws such as Section 28 were necessary to stop the flow of nonsense homosexual propaganda.

[Dr Mindbender]

Yes, it is. Such a thing would be revolutionary, a direct attack on our civilisation.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010723.html
Strawman argument. Gays arent demanding supremacy, only equal standing to heterosexuals.

Can you explain how that is a threat to your rights without barking or posting links to essays filled with pseudo-religious soundbites?

I havent got the time or energy to read the ramblings of old petit bourgeioise bible thumpers.



Stable biological reproduction in humanity requires marriage.
Absolute bollocks.

Humans were stabilly reproducing millenia before the arrival of religion or marriage.

[Jazzratt]

Laws such as Section 28 were necessary to stop the flow of nonsense homosexual propaganda.

:lol: What homosexual propaganda? Can you produce any examples contemporary to the introduction of the law and do you have any examples of such propaganda from when the government finally saw sense in 2003 onward?

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Strawman argument. Gays arent demanding supremacy, only equal standing to heterosexuals.

Can you explain how that is a threat to your rights without barking or posting links to essays filled with pseudo-religious soundbites?

I havent got the time or energy to read the ramblings of old petit bourgeioise bible thumpers.
Because the existance of "homosexual marriage" would completely undermine the family and traditional goal (as that is the goal of the homosexual activists).


Absolute bollocks.

Humans were stabilly reproducing millenia before the arrival of religion or marriage.
No, they weren't. They were reproducing but not monogamously or in a dignified and humane way.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

:lol: What homosexual propaganda? Can you produce any examples contemporary to the introduction of the law and do you have any examples of such propaganda from when the government finally saw sense in 2003 onward?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_lives_with_Eric_and_Martin

"We fight for something more than reform. We must aim for the abolition of the family."

- Gay Liberation Front

[Jazzratt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_lives_with_Eric_and_Martin

If you weren't a spoon-chewing lackwit you'd probably have read in that article the stated aim of the book:


I wrote Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin back in 1981 because I became aware of the problems which some children face when meeting family groupings different from the ones they are familiar with, i.e. mum and dad, possibly mum and dad divorced, maybe a step-parent.

Purely fucking educational.


"We fight for something more than reform. We must aim for the abolition of the family."

- Gay Liberation Front

[Citation needed] Specifically one that indicates that is the platform taken by the GLF in its entirety or, at the ery least, the quote originated with a major activist within the organisation.

Incidentally I think the traditional family is fucking stupid but I don't think it can or will be destroyed simply by recognising alternatives legally.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

If you weren't a spoon-chewing lackwit you'd probably have read in that article the stated aim of the book:

Purely fucking educational.
No, it says such relationships are good things making it propaganda.

And be quiet, commie.


[Citation needed] Specifically one that indicates that is the platform taken by the GLF in its entirety or, at the ery least, the quote originated with a major activist within the organisation.
It's from their manifesto.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because the existance of "homosexual marriage" would completely undermine the family and traditional goal (as that is the goal of the homosexual activists).

How would marriage rights for homosexuals undermine the family? And what is this "traditional goal" you speak of?

[Dr Mindbender]

Because

No, they weren't. They were reproducing but not monogamously or in a dignified and humane way.

What the fuck do monogamy or dignity have to do with stable breeding?

I think you're confusing asinine religious concepts with the scientific concept of natural equilibrium.

[Dr Mindbender]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_lives_with_Eric_and_Martin

"We fight for something more than reform. We must aim for the abolition of the family."

- Gay Liberation Front

I think they are referring to the institutionalised idea that 'the family' (in the conservative sense) is the only acceptable social unit, not your right to form a family.

It's probably badly worded, as plenty of gay couples form families of their own despite the negativity and pessimism of social dinosaurs like yourself.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

How would marriage rights for homosexuals undermine the family? And what is this "traditional goal" you speak of?
As the definition of "marriage" would completely change. It would not longer be when one man and one woman become "one flesh" together but merely a contract between two individuals (of any sex). It would become a contract like all other contracts and therefore lose all its importance.

And the "traditional goal" was a typo. I think that I mean to say "traditional marriage".

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

What the fuck do monogamy or dignity have to do with stable breeding?

I think you're confusing asinine religious concepts with the scientific concept of natural equilibrium.
No, this has nothing to do with the scientific concept of natural equilibrium.

Until the coming of Christian marriage (marriage in some form has essentially existed in all cultures, religions etc.) women were fairly badly treated and sex was mainly a form of domination. Marriage afforded women dignity and respect.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As the definition of "marriage" would completely change. It would not longer be when one man and one woman become "one flesh" together but merely a contract between two individuals (of any sex). It would become a contract like all other contracts and therefore lose all its importance.

Marriage is a contract already. How would extending the right to homosexuals to make such a contract diminish your ability to express your love in such a manner?

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Marriage is a contract already. How would extending the right to homosexuals to make such a contract diminish your ability to express your love in such a manner?
Marriage is quickly turning into a contract as a result of cultural marxism, yes, but It wasn't so in the past and I hope to try and stop it becoming so.

[willdw79]

True to their longstanding practice of attacking those too weak and powerless to defend themselves the reactionaries and conservatives love to attack homosexuals and lesbians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKM2p8NLv1w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61_rPgitFmc&feature=fvw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8hYRN2nBgk
I apologize if someone already pointed this out.

The thread begins with "attacking those too weak and powerless to defend themselves the reactionaries and conservatives love to attack homosexuals and lesbians"

Homosexuals cannot protect themselves?

Several things jump out at me.

1. Homosexuals are diverse, many fight strong many don't just like any other grouping.
2. Why are they by themselves? Are they by themselves? Are they us? Yes! They/Us fuck the divisiveness, I want to make it clear to give more power to my position. I am not gay, but we need more non-gay men/women to get involved with issues that used to be so-called homosexual issues.
An attack on homosexuals is a divisive attack on us all. I told my wife that I am going to the gay parade in San Francisco next year and she kinda laughed like I am full of shit. But we talked about it and I really am going. Fuck this gay bashing shit. It is the same as sexism, racism, beating on elderly people or disabled folks and we need to fight against it, all of us.

Capitalism is not capable of stopping those things, because it encourages unhealthy competition and a disdain for non-conformity whether the non-conformity be ascribed or chosen. The capitalists have found ways to make money off of people who feel bad.

These weaknesses of capitalism should be exploited by all revolutionaries because as communists/anarchists our goal is to strengthen society. Capitalists do not fight for the quality of every person's life, they only fight for the ruling class. We should expose this blatant weakness in the ruling class and their working class sympathizers by standing side-by-side with homosexuals in their struggle.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Marriage is quickly turning into a contract as a result of cultural marxism, yes, but It wasn't so in the past

Umm, no actually, I think you'll find that people got married for reasons other than love throughout history.

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about when I said that conservatives yearn for the good old days that never were.

[Dr Mindbender]

No, this has nothing to do with the scientific concept of natural equilibrium.

Until the coming of Christian marriage (marriage in some form has essentially existed in all cultures, religions etc.) women were fairly badly treated and sex was mainly a form of domination. Marriage afforded women dignity and respect.

It isnt as if christianity is beyond reproach; until the last couple of centuries it also practiced forced marriages for instance.

[Jazzratt]

Marriage is quickly turning into a contract as a result of cultural marxism, yes, but It wasn't so in the past and I hope to try and stop it becoming so.

If marriage is not a contract then there should be no legal or financial difference between marriage and cohabitation.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Umm, no actually, I think you'll find that people got married for reasons other than love throughout history.

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about when I said that conservatives yearn for the good old days that never were.
I never said that the did only marry because of love.

Again, another strawman anti-conservative argument.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

If marriage is not a contract then there should be no legal or financial difference between marriage and cohabitation.
No, that's incorrect.

Marriage is more than a contract not less.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I never said that the did only marry because of love.

Again, another strawman anti-conservative argument.

So why shouldn't homosexual couples be able to marry just the same as heteros? If straight people already marry for reasons other than love, what difference does it make if homosexuals do the same?

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

So why shouldn't homosexual couples be able to marry just the same as heteros? If straight people already marry for reasons other than love, what difference does it make if homosexuals do the same?
Because a marriage is between a man and a woman. It is also sacred and homosexual depravity will destroy it.

[Dr Mindbender]

Because a marriage is between a man and a woman. It is also sacred and homosexual depravity will destroy it.
Do you have any evidence to back this up or do you admit you're just talking out of your god-bothering arsehole?

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Do you have any evidence to back this up or do you admit you're just talking out of your god-bothering arsehole?
The evidence is in front of your face.

The whole definition of marriage will be changed with "same-sex marriage". Marriage is between a man and a woman, "homosexual marriage" is contradictory.

[Dr Mindbender]

The evidence is in front of your face.

The whole definition of marriage will be changed with "same-sex marriage". Marriage is between a man and a woman, "homosexual marriage" is contradictory.

Strange, i've typed 'marriage definition' into google and nowhere under the top results does it mention 'man and woman' specifically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBF_en-GBGB224GB225&defl=en&q=define:marriage&ei=aTKlSqixO8yrjAeco9SgDg&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

I'd suggest that your definition is already out of date. You seem to be under the impression that language remains stagnant, it doesnt; it evolves and progresses with changing attitudes.

And you've still failed to back up your assertion that homosexuals are 'depraved' or less worthy of the choice to marry.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

And you've still failed to back up your assertion that homosexuals are 'depraved' or less worthy of the choice to marry.
They are depraved because homosexuals are always sexual egoists and nihilists.

[h0m0revolutionary]

They are depraved because homosexuals are always sexual egoists and nihilists.

proof please.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

proof please.
It is common knowledge.

Here is an example: http://sfist.com/2009/06/28/sf_gay_pride_parade_photos.php?gallery0Pic=6 (http://sfist.com/2009/06/28/sf_gay_pride_parade_photos.php?gallery0Pic=6)

Look at all the pictures.

[Jazzratt]

It is common knowledge.

You're talking out of your arse.


Here is an example: http://sfist.com/2009/06/28/sf_gay_pride_parade_photos.php?gallery0Pic=6 (http://sfist.com/2009/06/28/sf_gay_pride_parade_photos.php?gallery0Pic=6)

Look at all the pictures.

It's a fucking carnival, of course people will look outrageous you twat.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Marriage is quickly turning into a contract as a result of cultural marxism, yes, but It wasn't so in the past and I hope to try and stop it becoming so.What the hell are you talking about? "Traditional marriage" is a contract: the father's property (daughter) to another party.

Even becoming a nun was a contract - a marriage to Jesus! Marriage for women has (from the dawn of private property until very recently) been nothing more than a contract of property relations.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Until the coming of Christian marriage (marriage in some form has essentially existed in all cultures, religions etc.) women were fairly badly treated and sex was mainly a form of domination. Marriage afforded women dignity and respect.Christian marriage is a concept in flux just as the concept of marriage has always been in flux depending on what's going on in the culture.

Until the 12th century, homosexual acts were permitted by the Catholic church and priests were allowed to get married.

Also it's laughable to argue that "Christian marriage" afforded women dignity considering the historical double standard in the treatment of women in regard to being granted divorce, holding onto property and so on.

Which would you rather be, a wife in an Iroquois tribe who has veto rights over what the leaders of the tribe say or a European wife at the same time in 17th century Europe? As far as dignity and rights go, the Iroquois wife had it much better than peasant or noble women.

Capitalism and industrialism have unintentionally done more to increase women's dignity than Christianity or any form of marriage. The ability to work and earn an independent wage has meant that women could collectively organize at work and could leave a loveless or abusive marriage and be able to support themselves.

[Dr Mindbender]

They are depraved because homosexuals are always sexual egoists and nihilists.

The same could be said for tory MP's so i still don't see your point.

[Richard Nixon]

What the hell are you talking about? "Traditional marriage" is a contract: the father's property (daughter) to another party.

Even becoming a nun was a contract - a marriage to Jesus! Marriage for women has (from the dawn of private property until very recently) been nothing more than a contract of property relations.

In the mediaeval age, yes, today, no.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the mediaeval age, yes, today, no.Today, no - as would be implied when I said... "UNTIL VERY RECENTLY". That was my shortest post ever - I can't believe you didn't read the whole thing before responding.

But it wasn't just the middle ages, it was in Puritan colonial America and pre-civil war America too. In fact this is why young women were the first industrial workers - mills could get farmer's daughters only by signing contracts with their fathers. As part of the contract, strict rules about gender segregation and restrictions on freedom of travel were inclued to keep mill girls "pure" so they could be married off later.

Again, it wasn't religion or the goodness of capitalism that gave women more indempendence and rights, it was changes in society through industrialization that slowly created a spece for women to make a wage independantly and therefore, they could live independantly without a husband or family to support them.

This is one of the examples of how capitalism was initially progressive over the older order and industrial life was also better than restrictive rural life for many people. Unfortuanely because capitalism relies on a minority control over the majority of society, full freedom and liberation while made possible by the system come into conflict with the needs of the ruling class - needs like a family structure where one parent works and the other works for free raising kids - it's like privitized homecare.

It would be better - under capitalism - for both men and women if there was free (socialized) healthcare (including abortion and maternity care), paid maternity and paternity leave for the first several months after a child is born, free (socialized) childcare available anytime and public (socialized) education and after-school care for parents who have to work late. Then a single-parent family will be helped as well as hetero/homo-sexual 2 parent families will also be helped... and kids will have stabiility and safty until they can take care of themselves.

[Richard Nixon]

Paid maternity and paternity leave? How in the world would the workplace function exactly? Also the father doesn't need to be at home with a baby half the time! As for tax payer supported abortions why should I be expected to support what is murder or is there a conscientious objector thing like for the draft?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Paid maternity and paternity leave? How in the world would the workplace function exactly?

It seems to function just fine (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Moneyandworkentitlements/Parentalleaveandpay/DG_10029398) over here. I'm sure companies have temporary cover arrangements for those on leave.


Also the father doesn't need to be at home with a baby half the time!

What makes you think it's entirely for the benefit of the baby? Surely spending some quality time together can be beneficial for the whole family.


As for tax payer supported abortions why should I be expected to support what is murder or is there a conscientious objector thing like for the draft?

Abortion is not murder. Do you support the death penalty for women who get abortions? If not, you're a stinking hypocrite. If so, you're a disgusting example of a human being.

[Richard Nixon]

It seems to function just fine (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Moneyandworkentitlements/Parentalleaveandpay/DG_10029398) over here. I'm sure companies have temporary cover arrangements for those on leave.


Maybe, but nothing too excessive.


What makes you think it's entirely for the benefit of the baby? Surely spending some quality time together can be beneficial for the whole family.


Yes, just shorten working hours somewhat.



Abortion is not murder. Do you support the death penalty for women who get abortions? If not, you're a stinking hypocrite. If so, you're a disgusting example of a human being.

So between a rock and a hard place I assume? Besides there are other punishments for murderers then the death penalty.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe, but nothing too excessive.

By what standard?


Yes, just shorten working hours somewhat.

Who's going to make up for the lost hours? Other employees? They won't be happy about that. No, better to grant full-time leave and have someone cover them for the duration. That way someone has a chance to gain work experience and contribute to the economy, and the company gets a full days work done in the meantime.


So between a rock and a hard place I assume? Besides there are other punishments for murderers then the death penalty.

That is true. However, that still puts you in the position of criminalising women for daring to decide what happens to their bodies.

[mykittyhasaboner]

oops

[Richard Nixon]

By what standard?

Current working hours and wages.


Who's going to make up for the lost hours? Other employees? They won't be happy about that. No, better to grant full-time leave and have someone cover them for the duration. That way someone has a chance to gain work experience and contribute to the economy, and the company gets a full days work done in the meantime.

True.




That is true. However, that still puts you in the position of criminalising women for daring to decide what happens to their bodies.

I think abortion is murder thus I wouldn't think so.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Current working hours and wages.

Wouldn't that represent an unfair advantage to the better paid? Besides, after a certain point you're earning more than enough money so that you don't need paid maternity/paternity leave.


I think abortion is murder thus I wouldn't think so.

So you think chucking women into prison for having an abortion is A-OK? Well, women are going to have abortions anyway, so in addition to criminalising women and throwing them into prison, such a position would also have the effect of pushing abortion underground, away from the control and oversight of trained and qualified professionals and into the black market, which has, shall we say, lax standards.

If there's no back-alley chop-shop for women to turn to, they may decide to take matters into their own hands. I hope you're willing to accept fully-grown women dying from septicemia and other infections gained from using non-medical tools for medical purposes in unsanitary conditions, as well as overdoses and complications arising from home-brewed abortifacients.

Finally, if a woman is resigned to the fate of carrying a foetus to term, she may just dump the resulting baby somewhere. I hope you like the idea of babies being found in dumpsters or on people's doorsteps. Are you willing to massively increase the funding for orphanages and other places that look after abandoned children?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sorry, did my abortion comment offend you? Were you aborted as a fetus?

Conservative ideas simply don't make sense and abortion is a good example:

Conservatives are against abortion and yet never put forward a national childcare service to raise unwanted children (OMG Socialism!) and also stereotype poor people as "Welfare Queens" and want to cut welfare to poor mothers. This is because conservatives could care less about the actual welfare of babies and mothers but want to promote their fucked up fantasy of a world where women have to take care of children as unpaid house-slaves. If conservatives really cared about fetuses they would support universal healthcare... oh wait, you folks don't want government beurocrats deciding what's best for your body - unless you are a woman with an unwanted pregnency, that is!

[Richard Nixon]

Wouldn't that represent an unfair advantage to the better paid? Besides, after a certain point you're earning more than enough money so that you don't need paid maternity/paternity leave.


Yes, if you can afford to not need paid maternity/paternity leave you don't need it.


So you think chucking women into prison for having an abortion is A-OK? Well, women are going to have abortions anyway, so in addition to criminalising women and throwing them into prison, such a position would also have the effect of pushing abortion underground, away from the control and oversight of trained and qualified professionals and into the black market, which has, shall we say, lax standards.

If there's no back-alley chop-shop for women to turn to, they may decide to take matters into their own hands. I hope you're willing to accept fully-grown women dying from septicemia and other infections gained from using non-medical tools for medical purposes in unsanitary conditions, as well as overdoses and complications arising from home-brewed abortifacients.


The majority of women will stop having abortion once it's illegal. Of the 25% or so who still have it most will not die anyways. Back alley abortionists are very professional and there will only be a minor lowering is safety standards and considering the number of fetuses that will leave it's both utilitarian wise and morally wise the best option.


Finally, if a woman is resigned to the fate of carrying a foetus to term, she may just dump the resulting baby somewhere. I hope you like the idea of babies being found in dumpsters or on people's doorsteps. Are you willing to massively increase the funding for orphanages and other places that look after abandoned children?


Sorry, did my abortion comment offend you? Were you aborted as a fetus?

Conservative ideas simply don't make sense and abortion is a good example:

Conservatives are against abortion and yet never put forward a national childcare service to raise unwanted children (OMG Socialism!) and also stereotype poor people as "Welfare Queens" and want to cut welfare to poor mothers. This is because conservatives could care less about the actual welfare of babies and mothers but want to promote their fucked up fantasy of a world where women have to take care of children as unpaid house-slaves. If conservatives really cared about fetuses they would support universal healthcare... oh wait, you folks don't want government beurocrats deciding what's best for your body - unless you are a woman with an unwanted pregnency, that is!
[/QUOTE]

Yes I do support more welfare programs for babies though not UHC>

[Robert]

So you think chucking women into prison for having an abortion is A-OK?

I have never met a pro-lifer who proposed anything beyond closing abortion clinics and penalizing the abortionist himself with fines and, in some cases, prison. Have you?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have never met a pro-lifer who proposed anything beyond closing abortion clinics and penalizing the abortionist himself with fines and, in some cases, prison. Have you?

Terrorist tactics and death threats against abortion clinics are well known and well documented in the US.

I met people from an anti-abortion group who said that abortion was worse than the holocaust because more fetuses are "killed" by abortion than in the holocaust.

So I asked if they supported shooting doctors who perform abortions. I asked if they supported bombing abortion clinics.

They said no.

So then I asked if they were against bombing Nazi concentration caps. Against shooting the people who run the gas chambers.

Then they said it wasn't the same thing. Then I told them they had to take down their signs equating abortion with the holocaust then. They said no, it was a holocaust - each year! So I pressed again and eventually they said they could see how someone could bomb a clinic.

I use the same argument against "meat is murder" vegetarians too and I got one to concede that they would rather have products tested on prisoners or the homeless than "innocent" animals.:rolleyes:

[Robert]

So I asked if they supported shooting doctors who perform abortions. I asked if they supported bombing abortion clinics.

They said no.

So you proved that an abortion clinic is not fully analogous to a concentration camp. I agree.

Did any of these folks call for imprisonment of women who abort? How many?

[Jimmie Higgins]

So you proved that an abortion clinic is not fully analogous to a concentration camp. I agree.

Did any of these folks call for imprisonment of women who abort? How many?No, it didn't come up while they were trying to decide if they should support bombing and shooting abortion clinics.

[Jazzratt]

I have never met a pro-lifer who proposed anything beyond closing abortion clinics and penalizing the abortionist himself with fines and, in some cases, prison. Have you?

What about the cowardly fucks that shot this kind man in cold blood?

http://www.feministe.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/drtiller.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller)
(Picture is a link). They clearly thought that anyone brave enough to provide abortions deserved to die.

[Richard Nixon]

What about the cowardly fucks that shot this kind man in cold blood?

http://www.feministe.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/drtiller.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller)
(Picture is a link). They clearly thought that anyone brave enough to provide abortions deserved to die.

Personally I'd compare anti-abortion terrorists to Nat Turner and John Brown, unnecessarily fanatical who merely hurts the cause.

[Robert]

This whole thing started when I questioned Noxion's suggestion that Pro lifers want the woman in prison.

Everybody knows there are homicidal people who want to kill the abortionist. Point conceded. It's wrong and has been roundly condemned in and out of pro-life circles.

There may well be some hillbilly in the Ozarks who wants to imprison women who have abortions, just as there are communists that harbor Stalinist fantasies.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Now watch, somebody will find ONE slack-jawed yokel in butt fuck Egypt who wants to imprison women for having an abortion. If that happens I will blow a fucking gasket. I know, it's fun, so just fucking find Fetid Fanny the Fuckface in French Fork, Florida from the First Church of Salvation on the internet, post it here and get it over with.

A slack-jawed yokel you say... well I couldn't find one in Egypt, but I did find one who went to Iraq (well sent other people to Iraq)...


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/H.R._1997_signing.jpg/250px-H.R._1997_signing.jpg


This is good ol' George W. Bush signing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. To be fair it doesn't arrest women for abortion, but it is part of the fetus "personhood" strategy of anti-abortion groups. Many women have been imprisoned for "criminal acts" against their unborn fetuses in the US and it's no secret that this is a strategy of the anti-abortion movement to create a challenge to Roe v. Wade. If a woman can be arrested for "recless endangerment" drinking or doing other things that harm their fetus while pregnent, then legally, abortion would be murder - right?

The sick thing is that by creating an social atmosphere where women are ashamed to have an abortion and gutting the laws so it is nearly impossible for many low income woemen to attain abortions, it is the anti-abortion movement that is creating sistuations where women who should not or can not care for a baby are compelled to continue the pregnency. It is much better if women could obtain free safe abortions on demand rather than bringing unwanted and uncared for children into the world.

[Robert]

To be fair it doesn't arrest women for abortion

"But of course since he invaded Iraq, you see ...."

Unbelievable.

[Jimmie Higgins]

"But of course since he invaded Iraq, you see ...."

Unbelievable.
I know it's totally hilarious! I couldn't resist when you said the yokel thing.

I'm obviously not saying that George W. Bush imprisoned women who had abortions - I'm talking about the "fetus personhood" strategy of the anti-abortion movement as I explained in my post.

[Robert]

At least no one has linked Bush's DWI to pro-life hypocrisy.

Yet. :lol:

[Jimmie Higgins]

At least no one has linked Bush's DWI to pro-life hypocrisy.

Yet. :lol:Why, was he pregnant at the time?

[Jazzratt]

Personally I'd compare anti-abortion terrorists to Nat Turner and John Brown, unnecessarily fanatical who merely hurts the cause.

I think they are the logical conculsion of your beliefs and rhetoric. When you tell someone that a group of people who provide a medical service are in fact nothing more than a pack of murderers it's only a matter of time before someone wants to take the law into their own hands. They've taken the words they hear in church, on talk radio and online from sexist bigots and turned them into action. In a way they are what a lot of the ani-choice movement wishes it was, with the "courage" to mete out punishment to innocent, unarmed doctors.

Edit: Oh wow, comparing these vicious thugs to heroes of your country's past. Dickhead.

[Richard Nixon]

I think they are the logical conculsion of your beliefs and rhetoric. When you tell someone that a group of people who provide a medical service are in fact nothing more than a pack of murderers it's only a matter of time before someone wants to take the law into their own hands. They've taken the words they hear in church, on talk radio and online from sexist bigots and turned them into action. In a way they are what a lot of the ani-choice movement wishes it was, with the "courage" to mete out punishment to innocent, unarmed doctors.

Edit: Oh wow, comparing these vicious thugs to heroes of your country's past. Dickhead.

I do not either of those of the two groups of people to make it clear.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I fully support Nat Turner and John Brown and the North in the Civil War. I also support the resisters in the Warsaw ghetto and resisters in Palestine. These groups and individuals were fighting against systems of oppression - if you don't want abortion then no one should force you to have one whereas slaves, Jewish people in occupied Poland and people in Palestine do not have the option of simply not going along with the systems they were/are subjected to.

Are fetuses systematically oppressed by abortion? No, they can not survive without the mother. On the other hand, women would be oppressed if they were forced to give birth - or forced to have abortions/sterilizations.

[Richard Nixon]

resisters in Palestine. people in Palestine

BTW, by this do you mean Jews in Palestine between the Balfour Declaration and the creation of Israel or Palestinians currently in Gaza and the West Bank?

[Jimmie Higgins]

BTW, by this do you mean Jews in Palestine between the Balfour Declaration and the creation of Israel or Palestinians currently in Gaza and the West Bank?No I mean Palestinians.

If England had occupied independent Jewish settlements and began settling it with British people, then there might be a parallel.

As it is in reality, settlements were part of and dependent on British imperialism so saying that Zionist settlers are anything like people in occupied Poland or occupied Palestine, is totally ahistorical.

[willdw79]

Personally I'd compare anti-abortion terrorists to Nat Turner and John Brown, unnecessarily fanatical who merely hurts the cause.
Both John Brown and Nat Turner were good people. You are mistaken using them as your example. You should read the book called "Lies my Teacher Told Me".

[Jimmie Higgins]

Both John Brown and Nat Turner were good people. You are mistaken using them as your example. You should read the book called "Lies my Teacher Told Me".

Right - I don't think John Brown hurt the cause of abolition. Union troops rallied around him as a symbol and sang "John Brown's Body" giving them renewed focus after initial defeats and political unclarity (Lincoln and other Union officials claiming that the war was not about slavery) at the beginning of the civil war.

Sure the southern establishment hated him and called him a terrorist, but abolitionists saw him as a martyr and symbol of liberation.