Religion as a Mental Illness

[Angela Harlem]

You're very right. I agree. I think religion needs to be respected as much as any other topic, like politics or social issues (though I fail in respect, I know), but unlike the others, it is a personal thing for many. And who's side gets more support? Neither should, I dont think, but what do we do when we have one side of the coin offended by a certain faith's views, and then those of that faith getting offended by criticism?
I'm speaking in general here, it seems we are reaching the same point anyway

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't know Angela, you make some very good points

Maybe we should all just hug and kiss or something

 

[BonosSaint]

This description could fit multitudes of people who do not follow religion per se-- many of our great artists, some of our great leaders. Maybe our brains are just charged differently.

I remember a quote by Neil Young where he talked about some psychiatrists wanting to study him because he had epilepsy and they wanted to know what he saw during the seizures. I doubt Neil Young could be considered a religious fanatic.

Mental illness or not, I'd hate to be deprived of some of the visions created by my favorite artists. I don't want to be denied the color in an increasingly grey world (or black and white, if you prefer).

 

[Angela Harlem]

Picasso was a communist who found friends in others who alongside him, hated fascism. And that brought us Guernica Not religion, but a possible mental illness to some lol.

Ah, I had a point and I lost it

and for Mrs S though

 

[BonosSaint]

We throw the mantle of mental illness around so easily.

Seems the working definition is if someone behaves or thinks differently from us, they are mentally ill.

PS, some of the Christians I've met are among the most psychologically healthy I've met. (As are some agnostics, some athiests). The choices people make don't bother me. Passion, whatever form, doesn't scare me. Vision doesn't scare me. Fanaticism, of any type, scares the hell out of me.

I define a fanatic as anyone who crosses the boundary of suggest into demand, anyone who sets the rules by which all people should live. To me, that borders on delusional.

However, this topic suggests something else. The correlation between pain and art. Doesn't seem to me there is much great "happy" art.

 

[melon]

No no, sorry Mrs S I didn't mean it like that. On that note though, I am saddened that you do feel offended by others in here, no doubt I have been one to do so at various times as I am probably too outspoken in my own criticisms and state of being offended by religion. If so, I do apologise. You are one of the nicest people when talking about your faith and never do any judging or pulpit lecturing.

But on melon's original post though, I was referring to what I believed was a combination of irony, shit stirring, and perhaps mild sarcasm. Facts aside, or rather, valid opinions, which the article seems to suggest and that others have taken to discussing. Part of which I am sure was melon's intention anyway. I could be entirely wrong on the former even being part of it. I am too cynical. But yeah, as well, we do tend to stick to our replies in a regular way. I know I do as well.

I read insulting and ignorant comments on sexuality in this forum on a regular basis, whereas equally insulting and ignorant racist, anti-Semitic, or misogynist comments would be closed instantly. Then when I've requested such threads to be closed on the basis of ending such a double standard, I'm told to "lighten up." Knowing full well that I can't get my point across by writing racist or anti-Semitic threads, I thought I'd reduce religion to the same level that sexuality is reduced to here: as a "curiosity" devoid of all happiness and reduced to a misunderstood psychosis.

I've tried for years to try and get people to think "empathetically" and to cut out the crap. Needless to say, it didn't work, because I could not find any equivalent for my target audience. After all, trying to address the "majority," who is used to getting everything it wants like a spoiled, pampered child, and make it think like a "minority" was just too much of a stretch.

So, hopefully, this is one step in that direction to get people to understand. BTW, my thread here is 100% scientifically accurate. I did not make up this epileptic illness, and, yes, it is still thought in science that dopamine and serotonin levels do determine how religious or non-religious a person is.

As far as I see it, religion is 90% about "community" and maybe 10% about "theology." I've known many "devout" Christians who wouldn't go to church alone. Or how many people would freely abandon a church if the pastor became a little too out there, but all your friends there thought it was alright? We go a long ways just to "fit in," even if I believe that such depths for socialization flies against what religion should really stand for. But I guess I'm not immune either: I stopped going and no longer consider myself "Catholic," because I cannot stand the theology these days, and nor do I identify with the culture anymore.

But I digress. The next time someone wants to make a half assed comment about sexuality, think of this thread, because I'm perfectly capable of reducing anything to an unflattering banality.

Melon

 

[Angela Harlem]

You're preaching to the converted, dear. I support your views more than you probably realise.

 

[melon]

You're preaching to the converted, dear. I support your views more than you probably realise.

I wasn't addressing you specifically. When I wrote this thread, I wasn't sure who would read it, but I was also wondering if the people I targeted this to would bother to reply.

Anyway, people should know me better, as well. I've never been completely anti-religion, but I also think we need to deal with the "Taliban" in our midst who seek to monopolize Christian theology and manipulate it into a simplistic, judgmental, and small-minded religion.

Melon

 

[Angela Harlem]

Yep, I'm with you now. I misunderstood that as being to me, instead of about the points I made... Sorry, it's a tad late here and I've been reading on postpartum depression, of all things coincidentally insignificant....

For the record, I agree with everything you said in the following post as well. As I no longer enjoy the privilege modship, I can only spit my venomous agreement in probably rather inappropriate ways though.

 

[BonosSaint]

Point taken, Melon. Although I'd note that many of the responders to your post are not people who have made half-assed comments about sexual orientation or believe that one's sexuality is a " curiosity devoid of all happiness and reduced as a misunderstood psychosis." Some have, however. I think even many of the Christians on board understood the arguments you've posted earlier and support you entirely. I've been accused of painting with a broad brush (and sometimes justifiably so) on other issues. I have no patience with people who have problems with anyone else's sexuality, but don't usually answer the posts because I think their posts speak for themselves. They are preaching to the choir. But I'm not about to silence them and you're not going to convince them. From what I can see, most of the posters on sexual orientation are either indifferent or supportive. It's just that the opponents are more vocal.

It's easy enough to reduce anything to "an unflattering banality."
Any side of an issue does it all the time. I stop paying attention then and as a whole, I'd rather not stop paying attention to your posts because you have some great ones. I've stopped paying attention to a few others, including probably those people you
are probably directing your post to. But I don't discard someone who identifies themselves as a Christian or other religion, a priori.
And even if I do not follow a religion, I would not reduce anyone who does to having a chemical imbalance. I abandoned my religion and most of my beliefs a long time ago and I don't think I have any less chemical imbalance than anyone else.

 

[BonosSaint]

Edit part of post above to read:

"I don't have patience with people who have problems with anyone's adult consensual sexuality..."

 

[ylimeU2]

I define a fanatic as anyone who crosses the boundary of suggest into demand, anyone who sets the rules by which all people should live. To me, that borders on delusional.

Hear, hear.

I completely agree.

Religion and the followers of a particular religion don't bother me in the least. In fact, I enjoy listening to someone who can explain to me how they feel and why they believe. I despise having anything forced down my throat, though. When I feel like someone is trying to do just that, I will become defensive of my beliefs or, really, lack there of. And it will make me leary to the next person who wants to come along and maybe have a proper discussion. In the end, I suppose it all comes down to the individual, but as humans will do, everyone gets lumped into one group or another.

I do think this is an interesting idea. I've found myself thinking about it since I first read it last night.

 

[echo0001]

Hey Melon

I read your thread because I'm split minded on a lot of subjects. I believe science has made the world a better place, and it's told us a lot about ourselves. On the other hand (other side of my brain), I don't like to see human experience reduced to nothing more than a chemical reaction. And as a scientist could argue that religion is chemically dictated, I could see the argument that the reason that it's chemically dictated is because god arranged it that way.

'K, that's that bit.

It didn't occur to me that your thread here was an attempt to fight fire with fire. I don't know if it will work; it's hard to get ignerts and bullies to see any farther than the tip of their nose. I noticed an instance or two of the kind you mentioned, and I didn't like them. I also didn't respond. I've never seen arguing change the mind of a fanatic. After all, ignorance is bliss--it must feel awfully reassuring to have no doubts.

Changing a double standard is something else; it might be easier to change. I don't know if this is the way to change it, but hell...I don't have any better ideas....more power to you.

 

[deep]

ignorance is bliss--it must feel awfully reassuring to have no doubts.

I'm not big on

absolute truths

but you may have stumbled upon one, here.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Wow, what a freak show. It's funny how some find around 80% of Americans "delusional" or "mentally ill" because they just so happen to believe in a God. Sounds to me like an excuse to dismiss any thoughtful logic that you might not agree with. Maybe anger is a mental disorder as well.

 

[melon]

Sounds to me like an excuse to dismiss any thoughtful logic that you might not agree with.

This sounds like the crux of most "Christian activism" in America today.

Actually, I mentioned this in another thread. I think America suffers, in general, from severe xenophobia--"fear of strangers"--and religion, in general, feeds on it. And, like clockwork, when people are able to "humanize" strangers into neighbors, the fear goes away and religion looks for something new to be afraid of. First, it was fear of women. Then it was fear of racial minorities. And now Christianity hinges on its last fear: fear of homosexuals. It's a pity that Christianity, in general, is so fucking pathetic. It is mentally ill, when it constructs so many pseudosciences to support its view of the world.

But, actually, the main point of the original article is that most "prophets" are probably very . Notice how in the Old Testament that most of the prophets end up killed. Maybe the "prophets" in the OT were the equivalent of the town looney and they got tired of hearing their insane rantings and ravings.

Melon

 

[Macfistowannabe]

This sounds like the crux of most "Christian activism" in America today.

Actually, I mentioned this in another thread. I think America suffers, in general, from severe xenophobia--"fear of strangers"--and religion, in general, feeds on it. And, like clockwork, when people are able to "humanize" strangers into neighbors, the fear goes away and religion looks for something new to be afraid of. First, it was fear of women. Then it was fear of racial minorities. And now Christianity hinges on its last fear: fear of homosexuals. It's a pity that Christianity, in general, is so fucking pathetic. It is mentally ill, when it constructs so many pseudosciences to support its view of the world.

But, actually, the main point of the original article is that most "prophets" are probably very . Notice how in the Old Testament that most of the prophets end up killed. Maybe the "prophets" in the OT were the equivalent of the town looney and they got tired of hearing their insane rantings and ravings.

Melon

You're attempting to put all the eggs in one basket. There are different forms of Christianity which offer different takes on what appears to be your only issue. It's not a one-way street, on the contrary to your argument that all the issue involves is a bunch of Bible-thumpers who attack the people rather than the lifestyle. I don't see the opposition to homosexuality as irrational, especially when you have groups like GLSEN stepping foot in public schools and distracting the learning environment. By stamping every denomination altogether, it only goes to show that you don't see the PCUSA, the Episcopalian Church, Dignity, or the UCC any different than more conservative outfits of Christianity. Your apparent fear of Christianity cancels out any merit towards your argument. All you seem to notice is the very conservative outfit of the church, and it doesn't speak for all that Christianity is about - and in fact, it is about more than one issue.

 

[2Hearts]

80'sU2isBest, I'd love to hear your stories if you're still around...

 

[melon]

I don't see the opposition to homosexuality as irrational, especially when you have groups like GLSEN stepping foot in public schools and distracting the learning environment.

Like I said, xenophobia based on the irrational idea that homosexuals can be "recruited." It doesn't happen.

Now since we're talking about "distracting the learning environment," how about those creationists / "intelligent design" folks?

By stamping every denomination altogether, it only goes to show that you don't see the PCUSA, the Episcopalian Church, Dignity, or the UCC any different than more conservative outfits of Christianity. Your apparent fear of Christianity cancels out any merit towards your argument. All you seem to notice is the very conservative outfit of the church, and it doesn't speak for all that Christianity is about - and in fact, it is about more than one issue.

The conservative aspect of Christianity still have a choke-hold on the rest of Christianity. Look at the Episcopal Church, for instance. The liberals are always trying to bend backwards to make the conservatives happy, and for the conservatives, nothing short of blatant homophobia will please them. If the liberals in the Episcopal Church were smart, they'd ignore the conservatives and excommunicate them, if necessary. After all, conservatives generally feel no qualms about splitting off of churches they see as becoming "too liberal"; whereas liberals still feel as if they have this sense of obligation to keep conservatives in the fold. As such, they constantly and consistently betray their own morality just to keep a loud right-wing base placated.

Since we're big on "absolute Truths" these days, I'd love to see the liberal churches develop a backbone and declare conservative theology to be blatantly incorrect.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

It's not a one-way street, on the contrary to your argument that all the issue involves is a bunch of Bible-thumpers who attack the people rather than the lifestyle. I don't see the opposition to homosexuality as irrational, especially when you have groups like GLSEN stepping foot in public schools and distracting the learning environment.

please, tell me: what is this lifestyle? you seem to know much more about it than i do.

like, take today. i woke up early and went for a good run through the Zoo and then laid out for a bit trying to get some sunshine. i then took a nap, and made some lunch. tonight, i'm going to see a movie with a friend (straight girl) and we might head downtown afterwards and go to a bar for a drink. tomorrow, my landlord and i are having a BBQ. our neighbors are all invited, and they range from single gay men to a lesbian couple to straight couples with children and single straight girls. monday, i'll probably go to the gym and read my book, maybe go out to dinner that night with another friend.

this is as much the gay "lifestyle" as anything else.

but reality doesn't help a community that, as Melon has pointed out, needs enemies. so they are created. monsters are made so that the followers have something in common.

all communities do this, btw. Americans do it -- no matter your thoughts on the GWOT, there's been a rally-around-the-flag effect that gave GWB a 2nd term. in the gay press, there are myriad articles on gay bashings, gay discrimination lawsuits, vile quotes from religious leaders, and homophobic politicians plotting the next wave of anti-gay legislation. not that this stuff doesn't exist, but it also serves a very real purpose: scare gay people, make them think they are constantly under seige, and then they are going to be more likely (at the end of the day) to buy your newspaper or magazine so they can keep themselves aware of the dangers out there.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Melon and Irvine, do you think the homosexual community is free of discriminatory behavior? If you do, watch the PBS documentary "Flag Wars" sometime. The basic synopsis is that affluent snobby homosexuals set their sights on taking over and "revitalizing" a poor minority neighborhood in Columbus, Ohio. When I say "revitalizing", I'm not talking about revitalizing for the sake of the people who live there; I'm talking about "revitalizing" by using strong arm tactics to try to force these minority people out of the homes they'd lived in for decades. The strong arm tactics included, but weren't limited to, pressuring city council to enforce extreme codes. One man was fined repeatedly for having a little sign hanging in from his porch that was carved in "African-Relief" style, while across the street, his neighbors proudly flew their Gay pride flag with no legal problems whatsoever. The head of this movement to force the poor people from their homes, a lesbian realtor named Nina, was a particular b**** who treated the poor people like absolute crap, and even referred to one lady who was dying of cirrhosis of the liver as an "idiot" for refusing to sell.

This documentary was intense, and very very sad. Watch it if ypu get a chance.

And don't bother telling me "Well, that kind of thing happens to gays, also", because as you know, 2 wrongs don't make a right, especially considering the fact that the victims in this case, poverty-stricken African Americans and Hispanics, have never had enough clout or financial resources to do something like that to any group of people.

And I know that some people who read this, will think that by mentioning this incident that I am being "homophobic", or even in the words of one particular person "fanning the flames of hatred", but really, I just wanted to present some of the gay community's discriminatory sins, as some of the homosexuals on this forum never hesitate to present the discriminatory sins of the "self-proclaimed" Christian community.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Like I said, xenophobia based on the irrational idea that homosexuals can be "recruited." It doesn't happen.

So what are they doing in our elementary schools, forcing questionnaires regarding sexual orientation in Framingham, Massachussetts for example? Why are they replacing Algebra classes with programs regarding homosexuality?

Now since we're talking about "distracting the learning environment," how about those creationists / "intelligent design" folks?

Let them teach that in religion class. Evolution could be considered a rational possibility, but it cannot be proven overnight. "How we got here" is surely open to interpretation.

The conservative aspect of Christianity still have a choke-hold on the rest of Christianity. Look at the Episcopal Church, for instance. The liberals are always trying to bend backwards to make the conservatives happy, and for the conservatives, nothing short of blatant homophobia will please them. If the liberals in the Episcopal Church were smart, they'd ignore the conservatives and excommunicate them, if necessary. After all, conservatives generally feel no qualms about splitting off of churches they see as becoming "too liberal"; whereas liberals still feel as if they have this sense of obligation to keep conservatives in the fold. As such, they constantly and consistently betray their own morality just to keep a loud right-wing base placated.

You have to have a sense of understanding that the church does not want to split up. So in a sense, at least one side will bend over backwards. I would guess that they won't find much middle ground.

Since we're big on "absolute Truths" these days, I'd love to see the liberal churches develop a backbone and declare conservative theology to be blatantly incorrect.

There have been numerous denominations claiming that the Bible is deeply flawed, and replacing gaps they dislike with liberal ideology. Often the case is that they're not worth buying into because they appear to be more politically motivated than spiritual. Take this link for example: http://mccchurch.org/

The church believes:
- Christ lived an "alternative lifestyle" and loved other men besides John.
- Christ wore a purple robe to the cross as a connotation of his "homosexuality."

 

[80sU2isBest]

80'sU2isBest, I'd love to hear your stories if you're still around...

Glad to oblige.

The first concerns my father. Back in 1990, my father had emphysema and had pneumonia in both lungs. The meds weren't working, and the doctors even told us to call our out-of-town relatives in as soon as possible, if they wanted to see my dad before he died. The situation wasn't just dim, there was no light of hope whatsoever. My dad was going to die At least that's what everyone felt except me. I felt in my spirit that he wouldn't die, that it wasn't his time yet. It wasn't wishful thinking; it was a peace. I told my best friend and my brother about my conviction, and they both said they had the same conviction. That night, the three of us went into his room and prayed over him as he lay sleeping. The next day, the pneumonia left one lung suddenly and completely, and was leaving the other lung rapidly. The doctor said that he could not explain it, because theeds were not working, and declared it a miracle.

The other incident concerns God saving my life. I was driving my car headed north toward an intersection. Around 1/10 of a mile form the intersection, what I can only describe as a "silent voice" told me to stop at the next intersection. In my mind, I argued with the voice, saying "But my light is green". But the voice said "stop because that car is not going to stop". As I got closer, I could see that the car headed west at that intersection was making every indication of stopping; it was slowing down. So, in my mind, I kept saying "but it is going to stop, I can see it". Nevertheless, I kept getting the message that I needed to stop at the intersection because "that" car was not going to stop. Well, I got to the intersection, my light was still green, but I obeyed and stopped. I then saw that sure enough, the car stopped, also. But that turned out not the be the "that car" that the voice was talking about. Coming from the west, headed east, a Mustang travelling at a high speed ran its red light. If I had not been told to stop, and had not obeyed, I am sure I would have been hit and probably killed, but most assuredly seriously injured.

 

[melon]

Melon and Irvine, do you think the homosexual community is free of discriminatory behavior? If you do, watch the PBS documentary "Flag Wars" sometime. The basic synopsis is that affluent snobby homosexuals set their sights on taking over and "revitalizing" a poor minority neighborhood in Columbus, Ohio. When I say "revitalizing", I'm not talking about revitalizing for the sake of the people who live there; I'm talking about "revitalizing" by using strong arm tactics to try to force these minority people out of the homes they'd lived in for decades.

It's called "gentrification," and if you've been in places like Boston, you'd realize that there's no vast homosexual conspiracy. No, the fact is that wealthier *people* are coming back to urban areas that they abandoned after the race riots in the 1960s.

My point is that "gentrification" is happening in several cities around the country and to single out homosexuals as engaging in "discriminatory behavior" is laughable. Gentrification is annoying, but inevitable in a capitalist society, where increasing demand will (surprise, surprise) lead to increasing prices.

Affluence and snobbiness is certainly alive and well in heterosexuality, and if that PBS documentary tried to say otherwise, then I'd have to have a word or two with the producer.

And don't bother telling me "Well, that kind of thing happens to gays, also", because as you know, 2 wrongs don't make a right, especially considering the fact that the victims in this case, poverty-stricken African Americans and Hispanics, have never had enough clout or financial resources to do something like that to any group of people.

Again, this happens as a result from all wealthy people. Again, look at Boston. I lived there for two years, and it is a prime example of gentrification.

You know what this is the equivalent of? Let's use good old S&L junk bond king, Michael Milliken, as an example. Rich and white and heterosexual. He stole hundreds of millions of dollars from working people through his scams. Now what if I said, as a result of Milliken's crimes:

"Look at those all those rich heterosexuals screwing over poor people!"

No, instead, you've shown a prime example of dominant versus subordinate hegemony. If a member of the dominant hegemony commits a crime (Timothy McVeigh, for example), then it's reduced to a "small group of fanatics" that committed the crime. If a member of the subordinate hegemony commits a crime (the 9/11 hijackers), then, all of a sudden, everyone in the subordinate hegemony (Muslims) is suspect and we have to create a large response (war on terrorism) to stop these people!

Likewise, trying to blame the "big, bad homosexuals" for all of society's ills is a typical response from the dominant hegemony.

Melon

 

[melon]

So what are they doing in our elementary schools, forcing questionnaires regarding sexual orientation in Framingham, Massachussetts for example? Why are they replacing Algebra classes with programs regarding homosexuality?

Link, please? I've never heard of this.

Let them teach that in religion class. Evolution could be considered a rational possibility, but it cannot be proven overnight. "How we got here" is surely open to interpretation.

Evolution *is* the rational possibility. Creationism and intelligent design are merely irrational religious ideas masquerading as pseudoscience.

And people can believe in creationism and ID all they want--in church.

You have to have a sense of understanding that the church does not want to split up. So in a sense, at least one side will bend over backwards. I would guess that they won't find much middle ground.

Yes. "Ecumenism." Well, as I see it, conservatives aren't interested in compromise, so I haven't a clue why liberals want to compromise with stubborn people.

There have been numerous denominations claiming that the Bible is deeply flawed, and replacing gaps they dislike with liberal ideology. Often the case is that they're not worth buying into because they appear to be more politically motivated than spiritual. Take this link for example: http://mccchurch.org/

The church believes:
- Christ lived an "alternative lifestyle" and loved other men besides John.
- Christ wore a purple robe to the cross as a connotation of his "homosexuality."

Well, you know what? That's their right to believe whatever they want, just like it's conservative Christianity's right to believe in global floods and other nonsense. But here's the difference: conservative Christianity's nonsense seems to infiltrate our lawmaking process, whereas MCC's nonsense is ignored. If you want a prime example of why gay marriage should be fully legal, it's the MCC. A religious group with religious freedom and should have the right to grant gay marriages if they so choose.

Melon

 

[beli]

I'm not gay nor am I religious nor am I a resident of the USA so I'm not overly interested in the gay versus USA brand of Christianity argument. I can understand the, umm, "grief" (for want of a much stronger word) but......

regardless of alterior motives this thread raised a topic of which I have no knowledge. And as my posts here are about me! me! me!

I would like to continue the original discussion.

I can understand that people might view the original post to imply that religious people are fruitcakes and nonreligious people are depressed basketcases but I would still like to discuss this issue further.

Please

And yeah, like someone said, why the lack of happy art?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Likewise, trying to blame the "big, bad homosexuals" for all of society's ills is a typical response from the dominant hegemony.

Melon

Melon, I was almost certain your response would be in this vein.

By the way, show me once in all my posts in which I blamed the the "big, bad homosexuals" for all of society's ills. In fact, the extent of my expressed view on homosexuality so far has been to say I think it's wrong. You come a lot closer to blaming the "big bad Christians" for all of society's ills than I do the homosexuals. In fact, this was my first post in which I pointed out anything. You, on the other hand, are constantly blaming Christians.

I think it's rather hypocritical that some people in this forum go on and on about Christian prejudice against homosexuals, yet feel there's nothing wrong with being prejudiced against Christians, even Christians like me, who although thinking homosexuality is wrong, don't make a big deal about it, untl they're pushed.

Think about it, melon, how many times have I actually commented on homosexuality? Only a few, and each time, it was because I was asked and all I said was that I thought it was wrong. I never judged anyone in this forum for being a homosexual. And, I've NEVER started a thread against homosexuality.

On the other hand, threads are started all the time against "Christians" who think homosexuality is wrong, and I've even been told that I am "fanning the flames of hatred" by even believing that homosexuality is wrong.

There is so much prejudice against Christians in this forum it's ridiculous, especially since the ones exhibiting this prejudice are the one complaining about Christians they think are prejudiced.

 

[pax]

Oh good, the pointless generalizations are starting to come out now.

 

[80sU2isBest]

It's called "gentrification," and if you've been in places like Boston, you'd realize that there's no vast homosexual conspiracy. No, the fact is that wealthier *people* are coming back to urban areas that they abandoned after the race riots in the 1960s.

My point is that "gentrification" is happening in several cities around the country and to single out homosexuals as engaging in "discriminatory behavior" is laughable. Gentrification is annoying, but inevitable in a capitalist society, where increasing demand will (surprise, surprise) lead to increasing prices.

Watch the documentary, melon, and you will see that this was a neighborhood that had historically been minority "owned". This was not a case of the homosexuals reclaiming what they ran away from in the 60s, this was case of seeing something new that they wanted and not caring what they did to get it.

And they weren't just a bunch of people who "happened to be gay". Their expressed purpose was to establish a gay community.

If you would have seen the snobby elitist attitude that these young urban professionals were openly displaying against the minorities, you might have been as angry as I was.

And I'm not saying that all gays are that way. But this particular group was - they were conniving and scheming and downright rude to the people they were trying to run out of the neighborhood.

Do you resent it because I painted a particular group of gays as discriminatory, greedy jackals? Well, you paint all conservative Christians as discriminatory, hateful, greedy jackals.

I do find it odd that you give prejudice against financially impoverished people a softer name like "gentrification" and then poo-poo it by calling it simply "annoying". You seem to be all about "social justice". Why aren''t you taking a stand against this?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Oh good, the pointless generalizations are starting to come out now.

Staring to come out now? They started when the thread started.