Sickened by the Hate!

[Julie Marie]

There was an article on Yahoo about Maine losing gay marriage.  When I went to the section that replied to the article I was shocked and sickened by the disgusting, hateful comments.  Maybe I'm living in a shell but I really thought those people represented a minority but not from what I read.

One suggested we engage in another civil war to get rid of the ->-bleeped-<-s.  And the level of ignorance was astounding.  These phobes quote law that doesn't even exist.  And of course they quote the bible too.

Where does all this hate come from?  No wonder we function so poorly as a country.

Julie

[Dana Lane]

Sometimes it is hard for people who haven't been 'enlightened' to grasp things like 'basic rights'. I grew up in the South where racism and discrimination against anyone that didn't fit in to the 'normal' society was practiced by almost everyone I knew. I grew up with a bad outlook on things myself but somehow I 'woke up'.  It is hard to even talk to those kind of people about human rights. Their mind is closed.

[Flan]

"Because Everyone is Saying It, Doesn't Make It Right"

"We live in a world where children so often are given the message that the ends justify the means; where harmful, even violent families, in communities, and around the world goes unnoticed, unmitigated, and often unreported; where childrens ethical education can come from a T-shirt slogan or bumper sticker, an Internet site, or the evening news; where rigid moral absolutism or moral relativism has replaced true ethical thinking. In a world such as ours, Just Because It's Not Wrong Doesn't Make It Right is an essential tool." - Barbara Coloroso

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but they make a good excuse." - Thomas Stephen Szasz

[heatherrose]

Why are you surprised? Aside from illegal imigration and welfare recipients
"we" are the cause of all the countries woes. The first thing heard from the
right, after florida was devastated by hurricanes and 9/11, was that it was
God's wrath because of the U.S.'s tolerance of homosexuality.

We have rooted for hate crimes legislation and anti-discrimination laws, but
the only time the law comes into effect, is after the crime scene has been
cleaned up. Buy a gun, learn how to use it to defend yourself
because you are the only one that you can count on.

[Janet_Girl]

I hate to say this but America was founded on hate.  Hatred of the British Church, hatred of the King, hatred of taxes, even hatred of tea.  America for all intents and purposes is a Christian country, even with the separation of church and state.

The only way to get equal rights it to fight for them.  And remember that the Nazis gain control by blaming the Jews.  Whatever group is hated at the moment, is the reason for the downfall of the country.  Just look at history.  The true reason for the downfall of America is Hate, period.


Janet

[Julie Marie]

I hate to say this but America was founded on hate.  Hatred of the British Church, hatred of the King, hatred of taxes, even hatred of tea.  America for all intents and purposes is a Christian country, even with the separation of church and state.

What separation of church and state?  The referendums that have voted out gay marriage, denied gays the right to adopt, campaigned against equality, all have a strong religious support base.

The only way to get equal rights it to fight for them.  And remember that the Nazis gain control by blaming the Jews.  Whatever group is hated at the moment, is the reason for the downfall of the country.  Just look at history.  The true reason for the downfall of America is Hate, period.

vs    Without someone to hate, how can you rally people to do anything? 

Julie

[Janet_Girl]

Exactly, Julie.  Hate, unfortunately, makes the world go round.  But it is how we portray that hate is the key.

Will it be hatred of the Christian community, or hatred of an unjust law?  Hatred of intolerance, or hatred of the intolerant.  Everyone has someone they hate.  Even if they won't admit it.  Are you against illegal aliens?  For closing our boarders?  Cut welfare?  How about just being in a union?

And before you jump all over me.  Think really hard about that.  Everyone hates someone, it just depends on whether or not you are blaming them for the problems in the world.

It is the intolerance, not a religion group or people, that is the problem.

JMHO,
Janet

[Britney_413]

I really don't understand it either. Unless I'm wrong, I believe also that it is the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees "equal protection under the law." If it is not that amendment, it is one of the others. A lot of these laws are already unconstitutional to begin with. As to hate, what I can't understand is why people are so preoccupied with what other people do when it doesn't even affect them. Like two guys walking down the street holding hands. You don't have to approve of it but at the same time you don't have to keep staring at them and you have no reason to get in their business about it.

I have psycho-analyzed this stuff for years and the main conclusion I have come up with is that people try to transfer their own problems and shortcomings on someone else. When I see people with nothing better to do than stare at you or get in your business, it probably means that their lives are completely empty. People who are mad at the world are really mad at themselves. The same people who can't stand two men or women being married often need to be asking themselves about how healthy their own marriage currently is.

I think part of the transphobia out there stems from homophobia as well. A lot of men (mostly) are so insecure with their own sexuality that if they see an attractive woman in the distance that interests their attention only to find out upon closer look that she is a transwoman, they are scared that their prior "misaligned" attraction makes them gay and therefore get angry toward the transwoman.

I can sum all of this up by saying that for the most part this country is an incredibly sick society on multiple levels.

[Cindy ✅]

I think you are being a bit hard on yourselves as Americans. Yes there are obvious looneys and we overseas seem to get their messages beamed to us. But the USA as a country and Americans as individuals have an awful lot to be very proud off for contributions to the world community. Some pretty dodgy things too.

I don't think your society is any better or any worse than others. In Australia we have the hate crimes, the homophobes, the nazi element and the plain intolerant. One of our politicians, the Rev Fred Nile, still publically prays for rain to fall on the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras. Notice his title, Rev, seems to be a rubber stamp for bigot all over the world.

We have the paedophiles, and the others who commit crimes that are just not comprehensible.

In sleepy Adealide there are places I wouldn't walk as a male, never mind as a female.


Sadly I think hate is universal and is certainly not restricted to the 'christian' west. Intolerance appears to be ingrained in all societys, particularly in the civilized ones.

Cindy

[Tammy Hope]

There was an article on Yahoo about Maine losing gay marriage.  When I went to the section that replied to the article I was shocked and sickened by the disgusting, hateful comments.  Maybe I'm living in a shell but I really thought those people represented a minority but not from what I read.

One suggested we engage in another civil war to get rid of the ->-bleeped-<-s.  And the level of ignorance was astounding.  These phobes quote law that doesn't even exist.  And of course they quote the bible too.

Where does all this hate come from?  No wonder we function so poorly as a country.

Julie

the anonymity of the internet magnifies all sorts of misanthropic behavior.

go on youtube sometime and just pick some random video and read the comments.

For instance, some girl is discussing how she does her make-up, right?

there will be a number of posts telling her she's a , a number telling her she's ugly as hell, a number telling her she's the hottest thing on two legs (which she isn't either one) and so forth.

All for some random girl on a video that they will never actually meet in real life.

Why?

Because they can - they can be a$$holes on-line in a way they can't on the street.

It only makes sense that any demographic which gives people a hook upon which to hang their misanthropic tendencies (Jews, blacks, hispanics, Catholics, gays, trans, whatever) will get that sort of thing in spades.

In my opinion, your mistake is that you have too high a view of humanity. People who start with the assumption that people are basically good are the ones who are shocked when people say and do bad things.

People, as a group, are NOT basically good.

Knowing that keeps me from being shocked when I see things like you describe.

Post Merge: November 05, 2009, 03:29:00 AM

What separation of church and state?  The referendums that have voted out gay marriage, denied gays the right to adopt, campaigned against equality, all have a strong religious support base.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about what the expression "separation of church and state" actually means.

Not only that, but the way it is commonly used in current law (which is something different than your remark implies) isn't even what it was intended to be.

All separation of church and state was EVER meant to be in the founding generation was that the government would not establish a state church which enforced certain doctrinal beliefs and practices on the citizens.

(Heck, the last state to do away with the official state church was over 40 years AFTER the constitution was ratified and no less a non-Christian figure than Thomas Jefferson signed legislation - passed by many of the same people who worked on the Constitution - authorizing Federal funds for the printing of Bibles to give to the Indians)

Even in our modern, watered down, version of separation, it still only describes what GOVERNMENT may do with a solely religious objective.

Even though you and i both know the great majority of anti-gay marriage votes are cast because of a religious worldview, they are the votes of private citizens and they are not the enforcement of a specific religious practice on any group of people.

IF the referendum said that no gay person may be married - instead of that the marriages were not legally recognized - THAT would be meddling with doctrine and would be a question of church and state.

Not that i think they are voting correctly, not that I don't realize that they are religiously held views driving the vote...but the bar for separation of church and state is considerably higher than that.

[Stealthgrrl]

Never underestimate the human creature's seemingly limitless capacity for stupidity.

[tekla]

What it really points to is the very real fact that there are two America's living in some cases very close to each other.  Sure, it's a defeat for gay marriage, but on the other hand, even in Maine - not exactly the cosmo center of the US, not really part of the 'liberal northeast' but more the American equivalent of a Maritime Provence, poor and rural - the pro side was able to get about 47% of the votes to 53% opposed.  That's still more or less, roughly - half.  Its certainly not some landslide of opinion one way or the other.

Now I'm also just as sure, that the vote was not even in Maine, I'm sure it was far more pro in the areas around the colleges and universities, and in the more urban areas, and the more rural (and kids Maine very, very rural) the vote was far more opposed.  More pro on the coast and to the south, more opposed inland and north. 

That's because as time has gone on we've been separating along political lines.  And those lines also have a lot to do with education and income.  The more 'progressive' an area is, the more urban it tends to be, the higher the average income, and education levels.  Those places with very high education levels, in the US say Bay Area, Seattle, enjoy much higher wage levels then the more rural areas in between them, which tend to vote on the more 'conservative'.  Classic 'town and country' stuff that's been goin' on in the USA since just about time began.  It's just that since 1920 America has been more urban than rural and its taken 'bout that long for the urban centers to get power away from the rural areas. 

But they are halfway there.  Even in Maine.

[Julie Marie]

Now I'm also just as sure, that the vote was not even in Maine, I'm sure it was far more pro in the areas around the colleges and universities, and in the more urban areas, and the more rural (and kids Maine very, very rural) the vote was far more opposed.  More pro on the coast and to the south, more opposed inland and north. 

An article I read yesterday said the reason the pro side was winning early but eventually lost was because in the rural areas the votes were counted by hand and the results took longer to be reported.

But the gay marriage issue still seems to have brought the haters out of the woodwork.  And with Internet anonymity, their real selves shine through.

Julie

PS: Welcome back Kat!

[tekla]

I don't worry about the ones on the net.  I worry about the ones who get on TV and proceed to raise huge amounts of tax free money, from other tax free groups, to oppose this. And then run huge TV campaigns that have nothing to do with the real issues to force some point of law being inflicted on everyone.

I also worry that they ran almost the same ads in Maine that they did in Cali, and apparently no one thought to counter them, or they could not.  Either way.

[Tammy Hope]

I've heard commentary - both professional comments on TV and also from a couple of friends who live in Maine - that the voters up there have an established reputation of rejecting big changes made by legislative fiat.

The lady I know, who is pro-gay marriage by the way, says that if the issue had been on the ballot in the first place, instead of coming out of the legislature, it would have passed fairly easily.

Of course, I can't prove that - it's just one's opinion.

[Alyssa M.]

I don't worry about the ones on the net.  I worry about the ones who get on TV and proceed to raise huge amounts of tax free money, from other tax free groups, to oppose this. And then run huge TV campaigns that have nothing to do with the real issues to force some point of law being inflicted on everyone.

No, I don't worry about them, not so much.

I worry about the ones that will have a beer with you, that will share Thanksgiving dinner with you, that will call you a friend or even a sister -- and then, when they get the chance, in the privacy of a voting booth, will tell you "F--- YOU" in a way that really matters, that really affects your life.

It will happen, they day is near and the hour is at hand, that a bare majority will tolerate us queer folk enough to allow us to marry whom we please. But that's meager cause for rejoicing.

[Julie Marie]

I worry about the ones that will have a beer with you, that will share Thanksgiving dinner with you, that will call you a friend or even a sister -- and then, when they get the chance, in the privacy of a voting booth, will tell you "F--- YOU" in a way that really matters, that really affects your life.

Kinda like Ted Bundy, John Gacy, Dennis Rader, you know, those really social types who don't always tell you what's on their mind? 

Julie

[SusanKC]

Julie,

Absolutely!  I agree.  The good news is the outcome is only 6 percent apart, about that of California's equally dispicable prop 8.  All reasonable people can do is force repeated elections to repeal the repeal until it's won.  Then be prepared to defend it until the stupidity and hatred die off, maybe to be replaced by other wrongs.

I try not to be sickened by the hate out there - I'd be hugging the toilet most of the time.  I do get outraged to the extreme by the mental and moral vacumn passing itself off as conservatism floating around waiting to ambush anyone who does not meet their standards.  It is not conservitism; I refuse to call it "right" wing, there is nothing right about them.  It's facism.  Just today, and not on the web, but on the news,

I saw the group protesting at congress about possible public health care with a large sign comparing it to the death camp at Dacau.  Showing a pile of bodies!   :oThese fanatics have no shame, absolutely no humanity, or sense of what history means.  I bet that did not show on the Farce News Channel.  These are of the same mindset (mind???) of the protesters that appear to be of the age eligible to be medicare recipients (you know, socialized medicine for the few), but demanding no public health coverage for anyone else!

Oh well.  Life is interesting with the good people in it.  The rest keep you on your toes.  With that, I'll Ginger Rogers out of here.

SusanKG

[tekla]

The good news is the outcome is only 6 percent apart, about that of California's equally dispicable prop 8.

I've been thinking on this too, and aside from what I said above about the people in the Maine Campaign not being able to counter the Cali ads, it is interesting to note that the percentage is quite close, and it mirrors the percentage in other places as well.

So how is that?  Maine and California are about as different as any two states could be.  How is the voting split on the same percentage.  Weird.

As I said, there are two very different Americas living side by side in some cases.  Its a very clear split on some very basic social issues and a pretty clear alignment.  It's also in part a reflection of a decided systemic preference for rural over urban in terms of voting/representation, particularly at the State level. 

I was surprised that the issues moved this fast, though I had no doubt that once any court read it in light of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment that the judges would be hard pressed (as has been showed repeadedly) not to find it a violation:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But to put it to a vote?  I always questioned that strategy myself.  It would have to win in an almost overwhelming way in places like New York and Cali before it's going to carry in someplace like Wisconsin or Maryland, and it's never going to happen - short of a Federal Imposition - in Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia or Utah.  Sure it's in effect in Iowa, due to a court ruling, but I lived in Iowa for a long time and hell is going to freeze over before they would support it in a popular vote.  Lucky for some, they don't have that process in their State Constitution like Maine and California do.

I think its just going to take the time for nature to cull the herd and as the older voters pass from the voting rolls (except in Chicago) its going to ever so gradually go away.  Cause I sure don't see the Supreme Court in any sort of a hurry to vote about it.

[Julie Marie]

I think its just going to take the time for nature to cull the herd and as the older voters pass from the voting rolls (except in Chicago) its going to ever so gradually go away.  Cause I sure don't see the Supreme Court in any sort of a hurry to vote about it.

Like a broken record I'm stuck on this one question, why would the US Department of State issue a publication called The Principles of Democracy and in it say

"Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual"

but still allow the majority to vote away the rights of the minority?  I know it's not the Department of State allowing it, but it seems our federal government is.  We have a Constitution.  We have a definition of democracy.  We have a publication explaining in plain English what the principles of democracy are, all supported (supposedly) by the US government yet we still are voting to take away minority rights.  It's mob rule.

I've asked this question over and over, here and elsewhere, and I've not once gotten an answer.  Did I enter the Twilight Zone?

Julie