Woman sues all of the gay people on earth

[Muti]

 

[jack476]

I certainly hope that this is tossed out.

Why? I can't wait to see what this lady's case/comedy routine will actually look like. I legitimately half hope the court agrees to hear her case because there haven't been enough really crazy but ultimately harmless (and, as a result, funny) religious whackjob lawyers since Jack Thompson was disbarred.

And also (regarding her petition) I really wonder how much of a devout Christian she really is if she can't even spell "Genesis" properly (she spells it with a J).

But I guess being so preoccupied with being the ambassador to God and the only standing against that tide of of homogays threatening to turn America into a fabulous sin orgy, a few spelling mistakes are to be expected.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Why? I can't wait to see what this lady's case/comedy routine will actually look like. I legitimately half hope the court agrees to hear her case because there haven't been enough really crazy but ultimately harmless (and, as a result, funny) religious whackjob lawyers since Jack Thompson was disbarred.

The case has been dismissed.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ay-people-on-earth.812524/page-2#post-5102808

 

[Choppy]

With respect to Lisab's question and JakeBroadsky's response on understanding the views of social conservative, I believe that both indoctrination and local peer pressure play big roles.

Many religious conservatives are indoctrinated from a very young age. They grow up going to church, have doctrine repeatedly drilled into their heads, often when they are too young to have any intellectual tools for recognizing problems of logic or wrestling with any ethical questions. When they do begin to develop the capacity to challenge some of these ideas they can face very real and sometimes very severe consequences for daring to challenge the rhetoric. In some religions, in some countries, the legal penalty for apostasy (renouncing an criticising one's faith) is death.

In first world countries like the USA, the consequences are more benign, but they still exist. Challenging one's faith can lead to severed family ties, severed financial support, social ostracism, or even just an endless cascade of arguments from one's social network. Imagine being a teenager who is told repeatedly that homosexual acts will lead one's soul into a lake of hellfire. Imaging trying to challenge that notion and losing your internet privileges or cell phone access for even bringing it up. Imaging being told that your parents won't pay for your university tuition if you come home from that liberal school with such outrageous ideas anymore. Imagine being told that you're breaking your grandmother's heart. As a person develops in such an environment, I suspect that often one's mind begins to search for means to reconcile logical fallacies and ethical challenges in a way that reduces a cost function that accounts for all these social factors to some acceptable level.

The alternative requires a lot of courage, tenacity and independence.

 

[davenn]

Many religious conservatives are indoctrinated from a very young age. They grow up going to church, have doctrine repeatedly drilled into their heads,

I don't think doctrine and being brainwashed by such has anything to do with it ( or at least very little)

there's only 2 real options
1) you believe in the bible and live your life accordingly or
2) you live by your own rules and do whatever you want to do with no acknowledgment of a higher power that you will be answerable to

The choice is yours

 

[StatGuy2000]

So, I wasn't going to reply since this starts heading off topic, but since someone else did:

I'm not really sure if this qualifies as "social conservative". Typically, social conservativism is equivalent to classical liberalism, which is about personal freedom and personal responsibility (in keeping with "small government"). Social liberals can claim something similar. The reality is that both favor government intrusions, just different types.

Next, "fiscal" and "social" overlap substantially, particularly for anything that costs money to the government (social security/medicare).

I would call this issue "religious conservativism" and say that it actually contradicts social conservativism by increasing scope of government.

This distinction is important to me, because as a nonreligious conservative I disagree with almost every religion-motivated position of the party (I'm pro choice, for example). But I do still follow the party line on nonreligious social issues (strong anti-drug/crime policy, for example).

You might say that republicans have a bit of a split personality in that way and I'd agree. In the US, unfortunately, the religious element has a lot of the power.

Both sides of the spectrum preach freedom because that's the root of modern democracy, but both have certain pet issues on which they want conformity, not freedom.

I also agree with Rick. Nothing to see here, don't mind the crazy lady; they'll cart her back to the home soon enough.

Russ, it's interesting that you define social conservatism as such as bolded above, because it contradicts the tendencies that I've observed among social conservatives in both Canada & the US. From what I've observed, social conservatives in the US & Canada tend to have the following tendencies:

(1) An insistence that governments, whether at the national or local level, take active political measures to essentially legislate morality. This has been exhibited throughout history including measures such as Prohibition (in that example, aligning themselves with social reformers at the time), limiting free speech (in particular, railing against nudity in film or in aggressively pursuing obscenity laws against certain musicians or porn producers -- consider the case of Larry Flynt), aggressively opposing abortion, opposing all forms of sex education that doesn't insist on "abstinence only", etc.

(2) A general fear or discomfort toward any social innovation, and insistence on following established traditions.

Neither of the tendencies of (1) and (2) above to me is consistent with the notions of classical liberalism or personal freedom or responsibility, or even with keeping of "small government". You do define this as "religious conservatism", and I agree with you that religious conservatives contradict your definition of what a social conservative is, but at least in the US and Canada, there really is no distinction between social and religious conservatives, at least as far as I can see.

If anything, your definition as bolded above can more properly be the definition of libertarianism, because the core libertarian beliefs are about personal freedom and responsibility in both the social and economic fronts.

 

[Czcibor]

This is just so...ugh, I can't find the words.

Honestly I try, I really try, to understand the world view of very socially conservative people. Again and again, I fail.

I understand how fiscally conservative people see the world, the type of conservative the media calls "hawks", and "small government" conservatives. I understand them, and appreciate their views as valid. I even find some common ground with them sometimes...not much but that's OK .

It's the social conservatives that leave me perplexed. It seems the core of their worldview is, "Fear people different from you, and squash them!". It's frightening.

Divide views into two cathegories:
-sacred values;
-subject of cost benefit analysis.

You understand those which are subject to cost benefit analysis, even though you may personally reach a different conclusion. Treat sacred values as something which is a subject of faith.

Don't worry. Righ wing people face often same challenge when seeing left wing. For example it is hard for right wing in the EU to understand, why left wing which supports secular state, homosexual rights, women rights and so on let in so many Muslims who try to undermine such "depraved" state.

 

[Czcibor]

I certainly hope that this is tossed out. But I've seen crazy things like some of the propositions in California.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/68342454/woman-sues-all-of-the-gay-people-on-earth

Maybe judge should ask her letter of credence? She claims being ambassador after all... If she fails to produce such one signed by Jesus, then to trash the case because of technical reasons.

Anyway - looks like a mental case.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The case has been thrown out and was obviously stupid, no need for further discussion here devolving into political finger pointing.