Slashdot Mirror
Churchill Accused of Sealing UFO Files, Fearing Public Panic
Newly released secret files show that Winston Churchill ordered a cover-up of an alleged encounter between a UFO and a RAF bomber because he feared public panic. From the article: "Mr Churchill is reported to have made a declaration to the effect of the following: 'This event should be immediately classified since it would create mass panic among the general population and destroy one's belief in the Church.'"
True, the nation might be responding to bitter human enemy's nighttime heavy bomber raids with a stiff upper lip, but I say! An extrasolar tourist on a sightseeing holiday? That is really terrifying.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
But creationism is not even a theory, it's a child's bedtime story.
This could be:
a. Yet another part of the ever growing, ever large conspiracy to cover up the existence of seeming observational aliens
b. A maneuver by Churchill to silence a few pilots who didn't want to fly the channel anymore and made up a story to get out of getting themselves blown up. If the story had gotten out (true or not), it would've caused possible panic and more importantly a good reasons for pilots to refuse to fly, this with the backdrop of the a truly catastrophic war.
Read the article and find that the story is told by the grandson of a guard who overheard a conversation. Wow, that is just brilliant.
Bye!
Nope, no room for doubt here. From the article:
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Even assuming this nth hand story is true, UFO aliens. It could just as easily be one of Hitler's various secret experiments or any number of less exciting things.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?
Read Genesis. God created the heavens, the Earth, Man and assorted other critters and varmints. God creating aliens is never mentioned. And the Bible is infallible, so UFOs with an alien crew would put theologists in a bit of a bind. And in the part about Noah's Ark, it is never mentioned that Noah rounded up two aliens.
2. Why would you deny evidence in front of you?
Unfortunately, religion is not about evidence, it's about faith. Which is why religion has caused humanity so much suffering over the milleniums.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I would argue that the boom in popularity of science fiction/fantasy movies and TV (e.g. E.T., Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Stargate SG-1, etc.) over the past 40 years has done more to prepare people for the possibility of extraterrestrial life than any NASA press release.
Also, the article annoys me greatly be implicitly equating UFOs with extraterrestrial spacecraft throughout:
Really? During a meeting discussing an unidentified flying object?
The comment about the Church implies that the object was assumed to be extraterrestrial, which is perhaps the least plausible bit: why would a group of military experts assume such a thing?
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Well, There is no god, and just about everything that surrounds us is conclusive proof that there is no such thing as a god.
Regarding why anyone would deny evidence ... that's what religious people do. The only way to believe in a magic flying jew that is his own father is to deny logic, science, and any kind of common sense.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Not that it matters much, but I am a highly-spiritual atheist...or at least, "atheist" is what most people label me as. My definition of god isn't the same as that of most religions' definition, hence the label.
god to me isn't a discernable being, but rather an abstract idea. I don't refer to all objects as god (like most religious philosophy), but rather only the connection between them. My primary argument that I use against the common religious definition of god comes from, strangely enough, an extremely scientifically inaccurate movie:
"god must be greater than the greatest of human weaknesses and, indeed, the greatest of human skill. god must even transcend our most remarkable-to emulate nature in its absolute splendor. How can any man or woman sin against such greatness of mind? How can one little carbon unit on Earth-in the backwaters of the Milky Way, the boondocks-betray god, ALMIGHTY? That is impossible. The height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create god in their own image."
Living With a Nerd
Well, we all suffer from a lack of "spirituality" because there is no such thing as a spirit.
We are animals. We do not have souls or spirits. What you call "spirituality", I call childish superstition.
The guy that sued the school board was doing the right thing. I don't have kids, but if I did, I wouldn't allow anyone to try and teach them lies at school.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
No, it is not "just a theory".
You might question the specifics (For example, what species in particular do we come from, what methods are involved in evolution, or even if natural selection works at all the way it's been described). But there are NO DOUBTS about a very simple fact: Animals fuck, and their offspring is a combination of their DNA. After a long time, species change, new species are created, other disappear. That process eventually created us. That is the simple truth. And we can prove it any way. Just watch two dogs fuck, wait nine months, and tell me what you get. There you go, proof of evolution. Does your son look similar to you? bam! evolution. Kiwi is proof of evolution.
You might question the specifics, and they might even be wrong, but that doesn't deny the principle behind evolution. "You don't have enough fossils, therefore god created adam and eve" is just plain stupid.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
As to why evolution occurs, it is because the laws of nature are such that it must occur. Any deeper theological or philosophical reason is beyond the scope of science. I think a lot of people misinterpret evolution, I know I did until only a few years ago. For example the phrase "survival of the fittest" can be misinterpreted as though species "want" to survive or survival is a "good" thing. The correct intepretation, however, is that species/individuals with attributes that happen to be suited to survival (through random mutation) survive and thus those attributes are passed on while less "desirable" attributes die out. The only logic or reason behind it is in our own minds.
As to how it occurs, this is well understood (it follows from natural law) until you get down to the mutation level. I am not a biologist so I am not sure how well the mechanisms involved in individual mutations are understood.
Like that would have been a bad thing?
Absolutely. What I don't understand is why all the crackpots that believe in the invisible space-jew would actually care about aliens. Hell, the bible has been proved wrong so many fucking times we've lost count. Dinosaurs, for instance. They would just say "The devil created those aliens" or "god put those aliens there to test your faith", or some other bullshit, just like they do now with all the rest of the stuff they were wrong about.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
I took it as meaning Churchill became an atheist after reading the report.
>Kinda different.
The real question is why does shit like this get posted here? I see "OMG READ UFOES!!" stories on slashdot and io9 more often than I like. Actually, I'd like it to be never. Unfortunately, conspiracy theories and wishful thinking get ad impression from morons. Considering there's no shortage of paranormal shows on television and that the "History" channel is little more than the conspiracy theory channel, we might be entering a new age of ignorance and superstition. So much for the whole information age revolution. Turns out the information most people crave is almost always bullshit that appeals to their existing biases and general craziness.
A non-trivial percentage of the human race freaks out if women don't cover themselves in a tarp. So yes, I think aliens may ruffle some feathers.
You're an idiot.
What possesses you to believe that a peaceful, non-economic race of beings with super-light travel actually exists? Any race of beings with interstellar space flight capability would want trade or conquest; allowing beings such as ours to evolve naturally is a waste of resources that could be accessed now, instead of in 5000 years.
Every time I read comments such as yours it literally makes me laugh and shake my head.
Its very important to keep this in your head as you continue to read... Why do conquerers conquer? Resources!
If a race exists which has interstellar travel, they literally have unlimited resources. Think about it. And so a race with interstellar travel and unlimited resources would need to trade or conquer for what reason? Oh that's right, they would have zero reason to do so.
More than likely, they would be explorers, observers, teachers, or all the above.
Seriously. Think about it.
Disturbed spirituality is common in Atheists (for example, the guy that sued the school board because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the word "God" and he doesn't want his daughter to hear THAT WORD).
Yikes, so many ad-hominems, and so many attempts at mind-reading. I don't normally dignify such comments with replies, but I'll pinch my nose and make an exception this time.
I'm not an athiest, and I don't want appeals to "God" or any other "higher power" in our Pledge of Allegiance; the fact that "under God" wasn't even a part of the pledge until 1954 underscores my belief that it doesn't belong there. I don't think "God" belongs on our currency, either, or any other piece of government officialdom. Attempts to retcon the religious belifefs, or lack thereof, of the Founding Fathers aside, I don't think religion or "spirituality" belong in the public sphere.
What you said: Nihilism in our lower classes leads to much worse situations than a little faith.
What that means: Nihilism in our lower classes leads to much worse situations than a few "harmless" lies told to the little incompetent bastards for their own good, and which coincidentally keepd them from rioting or rebelling against us, the ruling oligarchy.
Fixed that for you.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
No, it is not "just a theory".
You used quotation marks. I do not think that punctuation mark means what you think it does.
I said evolution is a theory. Which it is. It's a scientific theory. Scientific theories are theories. Theories can have good substantiation. Theories can have bad substantiation.
If we limit suffering to only those cases where humans have lost their lives at the hands of their fellows, religion wins, hands down.
See if you can bring up some statistics around that precise quote. I would wager you'd be surprised. A good read of the below is always a start:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/04/war_audit_pdf/pdf/war_audit.pdf
I would also ask you to consider the following quote:
'when people begin to use religion to justify hatred and killing, and thus abandon the compassionate ethic of all great world religions, they have embarked on a course that represents a defeat for faith'.
As such, can you truly claim that wars committed to in the name of religion actually follow the tenets of the religion they claim to represent? At the end of the day, if a Christian and a Muslim declare war on each other, aren't they abandoning their faith in the name of conflict?
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
I don't want to flame you, but I really dislike the term "spiritual". It just springs to mind chubby girls pretending to be witches behind their parent's house. I've always like the term agnostic. I believe in a higher power, but to say that one particular group can completely understand it, and that nobody else can is the height of hubris, hence my problem with religion.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
These are the kinds of people that absolutely won't believe in the medicinal properties of herbs (really, how do you think medicine got invented? We noticed X + Y vegetable cures chronic pain, and 2000 years later some scientist isolated chemicals that he packaged into a pill as a pain killer...), won't believe that meditation helps reduce stress (non-scientific bullshit, you could just sleep...), etc; anything that doesn't sound like it came out of a lab coat is obvious bullshit.
A gross misrepresentation and over-generalisation. I personally do not 'refuse to believe in the medicinal properties of herbs'. What I refuse to accept is that chewing on a leaf is somehow more effective than the refined medicine created from that leaf. I have no doubts that the brain'sstate can be affected by meditation, reading a book, playing a videogame, spending time on the firing range, or having a nap.
Thus these people are ignorant to the portion of the world that has not yet been explained. These people would have been ignorant to the concept that the earth rotates around the sun 500 years ago-- I mean shit, look at the sky, the sun starts at one point in the sky and winds up on the exact opposite side. Obviously it goes around the Earth! And all contemporary reasoning has not explained how in the fuck the earth could be going around the sun, or spinning, so such claims are bullshit.
I suspect that you may be trolling here. If not, you are demonstrating a remarkable level of ignorance about the basic tenets of scientific thinking.
I think the significance of German WW2 technology has been overstated by history. They experimented with some neat stuff and had the Allies bested in a few areas (rocketry) but ultimately they wasted resources that could have been put to more productive uses. The Allies managed to best them technologically in key areas -- anti-submarine warfare, small arms, nuclear technology, computing, radar, etc. Other than rocketry I'm hard pressed to think of a sector that they beat the Allies in.
That sounds a tad revisionist history. The US, very specifically, decided to go for evolutionary technological improvements. The Germans were specifically going for revolutionary improvements.
The US anti-sub improvements existed because of significant German U-boat innovations. Small arms? Germans. New style of warfare; including combined operations? Germans. Nuclear technology - Germans - stalled by their own scientists and what kicked Manhattan into overdrive. I do agree with computing and radar - especially radar, which allowed the Allies to operate at night and maintain ship harbor pickets.
Germans had superior aircraft (really until 1944), rocketry, and even missiles. Let's not forget German's superior armor (second only to Russia - first to introduce sloped armor), artillery, and anti-tank infantry. Literally, the only reason the Germans did not take over the world is they over reached. And in doing so, opened a second front against the Russians. Again, complete Hitler incompetence.
Basically, the US had the shittiest tanks in the war, only slightly better than countries such as France, Italy, so on. And many a tank crew paid for the technology imbalance with their lives. Depending on the battle and allowed engagement range, it took up to 6:1 of the US' tanks to kill one German tank. And often that was because the US had air superiority. The Sherman sucked ass!
Don't confuse technology with application of technology. Its largely because of Hitler's complete incompetence and misuse (resulting in massively wasted resources) that German's superior technology failed to win the war. There are many, many, many books written on this very subject.
FTFS:
This event should be immediately classified since it would create mass panic among the general population and destroy one's belief in the Church.
One can take the bolded section in one of two ways:
1. If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?
Or
2. Why would you deny evidence in front of you?
Frankly, I don't buy it that Churchill actually made the church quote. Until someone proves differently, I think someone pulled that out of their ass.
"The allegations involving Churchill were made by the grandson of one his personal bodyguards, an RAF officer who overheard the discussion, who wrote to the Ministry of Defence in 1999 inquiring about the incident after his grandfather disclosed details to his family."
So what we have is a story passed down over three generations, related third-hand that Churchill said this. Considering the British public's fear of V-weapon atacks, I can see the panic angle. But the religion angle? That sounds like it made its way into the story over the years. It doesn't sound like something Churchill would say.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Incorrect. Hebrews 11.1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Therefore faith is complete hogwash.
And yet, not one has ever in human history produced this "incontrovertible physical evidence" of the existence of God.
There's a word for claiming you have some "incontrovertible physical evidence" but never producing it while at the same time asserting over and over that you've got such evidence. It's not a very nice word.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"Belief in God" is quite different from "Belief in what the Church tells you."
Here's a two-thousand year old quote for you:
Churchill was a ruler.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Well, we all suffer from a lack of "spirituality" because there is no such thing as a spirit.
We are animals. We do not have souls or spirits. What you call "spirituality", I call childish superstition.
You can not prove this assertion. Your belief about such things is just that; belief. Others believe differently. Granted, the fundies can be absolutely maddening in their insistence that they "know" that their favorite book of "the word of God" is complete and unerring, but when it comes right down to it, none of us really knows.
There's a quote, but for the life of me I can't recall the origin... "Every thinking person must be an agnostic."
Wow. I didn't think it was possible to read a sentence and simultaneously completely fail to understand it.
Let's try that again, shall we?
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
You know, like when your cellphone lets you "magically" talk to people on the other side of the planet.
The fact that it works is EVIDENCE of the electromagnetic waves that your bare eye CAN'T SEE.
The fact that the phone works gives you faith in the existence of electromagnetic waves.
Or like how none of us have seen your brain, but we have FAITH that you've got one in there (even though some of the evidence might indicate otherwise), because the body of evidence overwhelmingly indicates that humans can't continue to function without a brain.
Or, more likely, when confronted by a Christian "forcing their beliefs down your throat," you just don't notice, because it doesn't bother you as much as one of those damn gays trying to force you to not persecute or discriminate against them.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Since you are obviously either Christian or an explicit sympathizer, why should we expect Christians to harass you? They are too busy harassing people who don't bow to their religion. I have yet to experience a Vegan knocking on my door asking me to join. In fact, here in the heart of vegan country, I have never been harassed by a vegan. I'm pretty sure you're just making up harassment stories to support your point. You aren't Bill O'Reilly are you?
Support SETI@home
True, but some come to faith by evidence.
What exactly is that? Is that not a contradiction in terms?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Or, more likely, when confronted by a Christian "forcing their beliefs down your throat," you just don't notice, because it doesn't bother you as much as one of those damn gays trying to force you to not persecute or discriminate against them.
--Jeremy
God loves everybody. Gays and straight people alike. Homosexuality is a sin (because relationships based on sexual preference are, naturally, sinful), but God still loves them. The Bible, last I checked, says we shouldn't be mean to people; why would homosexuals be an exception? The "Christians" you're talking about aren't Christians at all, and it's extremely unfair and short-sighted to assume that all Christians (not to forget Atheists) support such extremist (and un-Godly) views.
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
You might mention that to the religious right. They trott out the 'gays' or the 'immigrants' every election cycle to rile up the righteous. We see this all the time about someone claiming to be a 'proper' Christian in a forum, but where are you when religious extremists are spewing vitriol all over the screen, the headlines, and in church? Nary a peep.
I'm beginning to think you fear your own people, and you have lost all hope of control of your church.
I'm confronted with people who try and force their beliefs down my throat all the time. Vegetarians, vegans, gays, straights, liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and many others are far more guilty of it than Christians.
Really? How so? I can't see how this can be possible. Gays, for example, just want to live normal lives like you and me. Christians wants to force their superstition on gay people by forcing them to live along those superstitious lines. Thankfully people a lot smarter than you have understood that you are not allowed to force your religious views on anybody, and have now told the nutcases in California that everybody is equal, and that consenting adults can marry anybody they wish.
Remember, when gays demand equal rights, they are not forcing anything at all on you. They are only trying to stop you forcing your superstition on them.
Please note, when I call your religious views superstition it is not to be mean. They are superstition. All religious views are. By definition.
I wonder what the Christian nutcases would say if, for example, Hindus started demanding that the federal government protected their particular superstition. I would love to see the proposition in California that banned the eating of beef.
"Atheists" are highly religious--
Sigh. This comes up every now and then and it is, as what most religious nuts say, pure and utter rubbish. Atheism is religion in exactly the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. An atheist doesn't deny the existence of God, he simply refuses to generate a belief system around random ideas. The number of things that are unlikely to exist is exactly infinite. An atheist fails to believe in all of them, God has no special place in that lack of belief. I do not believe in blue midgets that go invisible if you try to look at them. I assume you do not believe in them either. Is that lack of belief of yours a religion?
Now, to what is often named "strong" atheism, the active denial of the existence of a particular God with a particular set of properties. Once someone gives me a testable hypothesis of "God" and I have falsified it, I will of course know that this particular form of "God" doesn't exist. I do, for example, know that "The God who created the world 6000 years or so ago" does not exist simply because the property "who created the world 6000 years or so ago" has been falsified, the earth is significantly older and the proof is incontrovertible. That particular God I know for sure does not exist. U can't say that about the little blue men in the forest who go invisible when you look at them. I can not say that they do not exist, I just fail to believe in them. As I fail to collect stamps.
These are the kinds of people that absolutely won't believe in the medicinal properties of herbs
Please stop making stuff up. Lying just isn't a good way to conduct a debate. There is not a single atheist in the world who won't believe in something that has well documented effects. Honestly, you are just being childish.
Thus these people are ignorant to the portion of the world that has not yet been explained.
Pure and utter rubbish. You really do not know anything at all about science. Anything where there is a viable hypothesis is debated within science, and if you can postulate a theory on it you are golden. The problem is that some people insist on believing stuff that has been proven wrong. Lots of herbs have very good medicinal value, and science makes use of this by detecting what in the specific herb has the actual effect, and then scientists will try to isolate said substance and improve upon it.
Example - a scientist finds a plant that in some cases prevents the body from rejecting implants (found while walking in the mountains of Norway). He doesn't discover this fact until he gets back to the lab of course, but decades later, hundreds of thousands of implants have succeeded where they would otherwise fail. The plant as such had a moderate effect, when the drug was refined from the plant it had a significantly higher success rate. The scientist would have been an idiot to ignore the real result, and he would have been an even bigger idiot if he had not refined the active ingredient and made it into a pill.
Because these people have no tolerance for anything that isn't physical, proven, and accepted by hard reasoning, they have no spirituality.
Ignorant rubbish. Thanks to the people you apparently despise so you are alive and you will grow old. If it wasn't for them you would be dying in your cave waiting for someone to come back with some fire harvested from a lightening strike.
Well, we all suffer from a lack of "spirituality" because there is no such thing as a spirit.
We are animals. We do not have souls or spirits. What you call "spirituality", I call childish superstition.
You can not prove this assertion. Your belief about such things is just that; belief.
Ah, but you got it all wrong. Let me try to explain. You are right that he can not prove that there is no spirit or soul. That is impossible. You can in fact not prove a negative. I can not prove that there are not invisible pink unicorns in the forest. I can not prove that there is not little blue men living in my carpet and every time I try to look at one he hides behind something. I can not even (practically) prove that there is not a tiny china tea pot circling our solar system in the Oort Cloud.
The one thing I can do is to be rational though. You see, all the things I can not prove the non-existence of is exactly an infinite number. In other words, you can come up with an infinite number of things I can not prove do not exist. Believing in that infinite number of things is irrational though. As is the belief in a soul or a spirit. As is the belief in God. In Santa Claus (though I have seen some compelling documentation for his existence).
So, until someone shows that there is a soul or a spirit, or at least some compelling arguments that point in that direction, he is right. We do not possess such things any more than there is invisible pink unicorns or tiny china tea pots in the Oort Cloud.
No thinking person believes in the infinite number of things that may exist. So, for any given value of "something" we are all atheists. Even you. So, your quote is not only bad, it is provably wrong. Every single individual in the world, thinking or not, is an atheist.
Evolution would be more indicated if your son had traits that were present in neither of his parents.
He does. And no, mutation is not the only way to dramatically alter genetic material. Your understanding of the process of evolution is about 150 years old and needs updating.
The really short: The difficult point is speciation. Can evolution through regular mating lead to speciation? What is speciation? Assuming you start with one mating pair and you track all their offspring as if they were the root in a tree with a lot of branches, speciation is what you get if some time in that evolutionary tree, one of the descendants of the original pair can no longer mate with another descendant. Does speciation happen? Yes, even in the lab. The theory of common decent has not been in question in the scientific community since it was observed quite a while ago. The latest findings in the newer genetic mapping studies only confirmed what was already known while still adding more specific knowledge.
Get over it guys, the theory of common decent has more supporting evidence and scientific backing than does the theory of gravity.
And some believers find solace and comfort, even relief, from their religion.
This is actually part of the problem with religion. I leave the reasons why as an exercise for the student. Answers will be graded for style as well as content.
The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
You forgot Atheists.
A fiery religious fundamentalist is only trumped by a fiery atheist when it comes to discussion about existence of God.
I actually do believe that aliens (intelligent life on other planets) must exist out there somewhere. The universe is just TOO big for there not to be:
The low end of the estimate for the number of stars in the observable universe on wikipedia is 3 x 10 ^ 22
If just one out of a million of those stars had planets, you'd have 3 x 10 ^ 16 planets with stars
If just one out of a million of those stars with planets had life you'd have about 30 billion planets with life.
and if just one out of a million of those planets with life had intelligent life you'd have roughly 30,000 alien civilizations out there.
I also feel that my numbers are VERY conservative. The actual number is probably closer to 30 million-30 billion...but I am just guessing :-D
Of course, all that life out there is sooooo far away that we would never have any hope of having any real contact with them. That whole speed of light thing...
Nah, you just feel more threatened by an atheists disbelief than a theists belief so it seems that way to you.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
"their views are based on cold, hard, bloody, rotting, diseased evidence..."
So - where's this evidence? Do vegans live ten years longer, on average? Twenty years? Maybe they live twice as long as meat eaters? If there are any credible citations, I might consider converting.
I do know from study and from experience that hard working men, especially in cold climates, need the condensed energy found in meats and meat products. A guy can eat two tons of vegetables, and not have the energy and stamina needed to get through a day's work. Add four to eight ounces of meat to his two tons of vegetables, and he's a new man! In fact, he won't need those two tons of veggies at all - he'll opt for a couple of sensible servings, along with a slice of bread and a piece of pie.
Of course, I don't expect an audience of nerds and geeks to appreciate that. I know that SOME of the nerds and geeks have worked hard sometime during their lives, but many of you have spent your lives in offices, classrooms, and other sheltered areas, seldom lifting anything heavier than a can of Mountain Dew.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I... uh... I was more making a cock joke... than looking for an actual answer. But thank you for that.
The vast majority of people find homosexuality objectionable - and the gays are demanding that we accept them as equals.
[Citation needed] on your demographics, first of all.
Second, I assume what you mean by demand is that they leave no room for refusal, that they are overbearing in their attempts to get you to acknowledge them. If they are being overbearing, or violent, then they are bad people, just as you, or any homophobe, would be wrong in being overbearing or violent to them. Moral issues must always and explicitly go both ways. If they are violent, they are a criminal; if you are, you are. Those who are not being a bad person in any way who are also homosexual (and they are out there; I'd suspect they're the majority) should not be lumped in with the criminals any more than all black people or all businessmen or all {FOREIGN NATIONAL}s should be assumed to be criminals.
Because it's not actually all that hard to identify criminals. There are some, scammers and the like, that are probably hard to track down, but when you come across someone who likes hurting people, you're going to have an inkling. If the cops in your area are understaffed, corrupt, or stupid, or the jails become nothing more than catch-and-release, then identifying criminals doesn't help, but it's not that hard to tell someone who actually is a decent human being from someone who isn't.
And because it's not all that hard to tell who the actual bad people are, let me say clearly and distinctly that we don't need people making up rules where if you break those rules "you are a bad person." There are bad people out there. You don't have to pretend. Go out there and go looking; you will find them. It's not hard to tell the difference. If you think gays are bad, go spend a week living with rapists or arsonists or something like that. Those sort of people are not a myth. You do not need to imply that "maybe that gay person is one of those mythical rapists I hear so much about" just because you don't see that side of life. Go find people that have actually been in those terrible situations, and understand through them that there are plenty of bad guys without making more by means of moral statute.
Gays do have all the same rights as regular people. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else
Rubbish. The government prevents gays from marrying the people they love, while you and I are free to marry.
Oh and please show me the marriage law that says you have to love someone or be sexually attracted to them in order to get married
Why do you think I think there is such a law?
So out side of history paralleling religious beliefs in how society was set up, there is really nothing about marriage being between a man and a woman that is discriminatory
The fact that you don't see that when you say "marriage being between a man and a woman" that is discriminatory by definition.
This is why this activist judge
Yeah, all judges who limit the powers of the government are activist judges. And you are a fucking communist for demanding the government decide who I can and can not marry as a consenting adult. I hate communists like you who want to give the government unlimited powers.
Marriage is simply a legal maneuver and that it.
Correct, and it is a legal maneuver that California tried to arbitrarily limit. Why do we not just ban white men from marrying black women or vice versa. There is no difference right? There would be no discrimination, right? Moron.
This is why they have gay parades all over the nation
No, they have gay parades all over the nation for the same reason that African Americans had to march on Washington. Do you really think it is OK for states to stop Negroes from sitting on the same bench as you and I?
They act abnormally so that thy can be normal
Any oppressed part of the population will try to get out from under that oppression. That is normal. What is not normal is to let petty insecurities about your own sexuality demand that all people who are what you fear you are have less rights that "normal" people.
Perhaps we should take you at your word and demand all people in the nation wear "normal" clothes. Perhaps the government can make a standard piece of clothing that fits everybody and then demand we all wear that.
I hate communists like you.
[Citation needed] on your demographics, first of all.
Prop. 8. The vast majority of people know that the meaning of the word "marriage" is fitly described as: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)
Now, do I want to legislate that moral point of view? That is a different question entirely. Not in the least, but the law should still uphold the definition of the word itself. However, separation of church and state exists for this reason: Marriage is a point of religious debate and the state should stay out of it. Yes, you read that correctly. Take marital status out of all of the existing laws. It doesn't belong there. Replace it with the status of a civil union - the civil agreement between any two people to live together for certain tax, health, social, etc. benefits as are currently afforded by law to "married" people, which discriminates against a variety of groups of people who may wish to file joint taxes, etc. (not only homosexual couples, but, for example, two relatives who couldn't marry each other could still benefit from cohabitation and jointly filing).
You want the legal benefits that are currently associated with marriage? Go to a judge and file the paperwork for a civil union. You want a bona-fide "Marriage", blessed by whatever church you ascribe to? Go to the church. And then go to a judge and get the civil union as well, because your religious Marriage document won't mean diddly squat in the eyes of the law. As it well ought not to. Some churches will hold marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples. Some will not. Both will claim that the other is wrong. And what each church claims about the other's marriages won't matter in any legal sense. As well it ought not to.