|
Earwicker posted:North Korea's lovely government has nothing to do with anything, atheist or not. North Korea is not an atheist country by any stretch of the imagination. They just don't openly acknowledge how fanatically religious they are. EDIT: For more content, this article (from Florida, surprise!) seems relevant.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 02:46 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 18:07 |
|
|
Dr. Jamming posted:This is highly problematic, and really just a rephrasing of the old "aren't we just being intolerant of intolerance?" the claims "I believe people of all orientations are just fine." and "I believe homosexuality to be immoral" are not at all equivalent outside of abject moral relativism. One is a perfectly fine thing to say, and the other strongly indicates a deficiency in the speaker, and is worthy of scorn. To add my thoughts to this: The two things are not even equivalent in a basic rhetorical sense. It is the difference between someone saying "I am Steve" and someone else saying "I hate Steve, he is a bad person". The reason there is a stigma attached to the anti-homosexual belief (aside from it being wrong) is that it is not an indelible part of someone's identity. It is an [awful] opinion. Being homosexual is not an opinion or a position on an issue. It is the difference between accepting someone for who they are and accepting someone for their horrible, bigoted beliefs. One is much easier than the other, especially given that homosexuality is not considered dangerous. Wildlife Analysis fucked around with this message at Feb 13, 2013 around 03:08 |
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 02:59 |
|
|
Apollodorus posted:North Korea is not an atheist country by any stretch of the imagination. They just don't openly acknowledge how fanatically religious they are. Ok, I stand corrected. But my point was more that whatever the government of North Korea is doing and whether that is grounded in atheism or religion or whatever else, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the bulk of the anti-gay bigotry in the US is coming more from religious quarters than from anywhere else. Obviously people can be an atheist homophobe but the large scale cultural force pushing the "homosexuality is wrong" messaging is definitely a Christian one. Pointing out that some atheists (or non-atheists) in other countries at other times have been oppressive or cruel or bigoted doesn't really change that. No matter what happened in Stalin's USSR, the push for gay rights in America involves pushing back against particular mainstream organized religious groups and a mentality that is popularized and supported by religious belief. Earwicker fucked around with this message at Feb 13, 2013 around 03:04 |
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 03:00 |
|
|
I don't understand the phrase "Christians have always been prepared for a fight. Jesus gave us armor for the front, not the back; we're not running anymore,". What does "armor for the front, not the back" even mean? "Not running anymore"? What were you running from, you crazy old man? And wasn't one of Jesus' big things "Turn the other cheek"?
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 14:09 |
|
|
So let me get this straight. Being gay is a choice. Being gay is a mental disorder. God created everyone equal. God hates fags. Ergo these bible thumpers are all mentally ill sinners and, after carefully weighing the pros and cons and most likely sampling a selection of buttholes, vaginas and giant, throbbing cocks, decided to be straight but are still fully capable of being gay, and are going to burn in hell for all eternity with the rest of humanity. God and Jesus hang out in heaven with nobody and smoke weed everyday. Sounds reasonable enough. Schubalts posted:I don't understand the phrase "Christians have always been prepared for a fight. Jesus gave us armor for the front, not the back; we're not running anymore,". What does "armor for the front, not the back" even mean? "Not running anymore"? What were you running from, you crazy old man? Jesus wanted them to turn around, open themselves up like Kirk Johnson and receive his rock-hard glory deep inside them. Nastyman fucked around with this message at Feb 13, 2013 around 22:11 |
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 14:54 |
|
|
I grew up in rural Indiana, and these sorts of attitudes were/are everywhere. Hell, I remember being happy that GW Bush won back in 2000. It really bums me out to read this story, but it doesn't surprise me seeing what part of the state it comes from.Schubalts posted:I don't understand the phrase "Christians have always been prepared for a fight. Jesus gave us armor for the front, not the back; we're not running anymore,". What does "armor for the front, not the back" even mean? "Not running anymore"? What were you running from, you crazy old man? The armor of God is what this is referring to. It's very popular with evangelical ministers because it's both biblical and is an allegory that uses military symbolism. The whole 'Jesus was a peacemaker' thing gets lip service, but not much else. And honestly, categorizing Jesus as a new age hippie is sort of inaccurate too. Edit: You can see how popular the 'armor of God' stuff is with a simple Kickstarter search: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects...-armor?ref=live http://www.kickstarter.com/projects...roject?ref=live Pfirti86 fucked around with this message at Feb 13, 2013 around 16:20 |
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 16:15 |
|
|
Schubalts posted:I don't understand the phrase "Christians have always been prepared for a fight. Jesus gave us armor for the front, not the back; we're not running anymore,". What does "armor for the front, not the back" even mean? "Not running anymore"? What were you running from, you crazy old man? You know how hard it is to be a conservative Christian these days. Gays have been persecuting them for a while now.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 16:20 |
|
|
So basically parents are paranoid about finding out there might be outed gays. They prefer them hidden and discouraged. Im glad this seems to be nipped in the bud but  . What this thread has taught me though is proms not in liberal bastions charge more for singles than couples which begs the question: is prom in more conservative circles just trying to hook up as many people as possible for nuclear families out of high school? Our prom was very chill/nonserious and a huge number of folks came just for dancing and afterparties. Blindeye fucked around with this message at Feb 13, 2013 around 21:32 |
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 20:44 |
|
|
Honestly if these people didn't hate gays then they would find a loving loophole interpretation of the bible that makes it so they don't have to hate gay people just like every other thing the bible says they should do that they don't want to do. Seriously, you ignore not eating shellfish, not wearing mixed fabrics, not cutting your hair, and you refuse to give to the poor, but hating gay people? That's the one that you can't find a way around? Bullshit. If you really wanted to you'd find a way. I mean holy poo poo the passage itself that says it that is easy as gently caress to reinterpret! AND IT TOTALLY DOESN'T EVEN SAY poo poo ABOUT LESBIANS!
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 21:23 |
|
|
Its so annoying when Christians hate on homosexuals, while they literally ignore the Seven Deadly Sins , particularly gluttony. The context that was written in was to shame the peasant who ate two hunks of rock hard biscuit rather than just the one. The idea of having lettuce and tomato on a two slices of bread would be a staggering level of extravagance to them. The thought of KFC's double down would make their head explode. It doesn't take much thought to think of how the average christian is guilty of committing all seven deadly sins regularly. On top of that, I am not sure if homosexual sex is even a sin. Sure the bible says its an "abomination" and "man shall not lay with an other man", but I don't think its ever specifically referred to as a "sin". Its a pretty safe bet their hatred for homosexual people doesn't have a single thing to do with their religion other than to confirm their hate. I don't think woman on woman sex is even mentioned. Its odd how some Christians are against gay marriage. You would think they would be for it, even forceful with it. Being married would mean less gay sex, having one sexual partner, rather then possibly having several.  "You fags better get hitched pronto and remain loyal to each other. No more picking up at night clubs!"The worst thing about this horrible woman and people supporting her is that these are just kids trying to celebrate their entry into the adult world. This woman is trying to sabotage that. Does it make her feel good to be full of so much hatred?
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 21:48 |
|
|
Shnag posted:On top of that, I am not sure if homosexual sex is even a sin. Sure the bible says its an "abomination" and "man shall not lay with an other man", Wasn't that part just meant for the priesthood anyway? I seem to remember Leviticus having a whole laundry list of poo poo that was supposedly unclean, but if you washed your hands afterwards and stayed out of the church for a week or two you were pretty much in the clear.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:10 |
|
|
Schubalts posted:And wasn't one of Jesus' big things "Turn the other cheek"? No gently caress that, Jesus wants to punch you in your big, dumb gay rear end.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:19 |
|
|
Shnag posted:Its so annoying when Christians hate on homosexuals, while they literally ignore the Seven Deadly Sins , particularly gluttony. The context that was written in was to shame the peasant who ate two hunks of rock hard biscuit rather than just the one. The idea of having lettuce and tomato on a two slices of bread would be a staggering level of extravagance to them. The thought of KFC's double down would make their head explode. It doesn't take much thought to think of how the average christian is guilty of committing all seven deadly sins regularly. On top of that, I am not sure if homosexual sex is even a sin. Sure the bible says its an "abomination" and "man shall not lay with an other man", but I don't think its ever specifically referred to as a "sin". Its a pretty safe bet their hatred for homosexual people doesn't have a single thing to do with their religion other than to confirm their hate. I don't think woman on woman sex is even mentioned. Its odd how some Christians are against gay marriage. You would think they would be for it, even forceful with it. Being married would mean less gay sex, having one sexual partner, rather then possibly having several. The seven deadly sins are a catholic concept that most Protestants would not agree with. There is no way the bible implies that homosexuality is not a sin. It is mentioned in concert with things that demand strict and severe penalties, up to death. Women are ignored because the only time the bible cares about them is detailing how unclean they are during their period. Women do not matter, so they are barely in the bible, with Ruth being the exception.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:26 |
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:The seven deadly sins are a catholic concept that most Protestants would not agree with. There is no way the bible implies that homosexuality is not a sin. It is mentioned in concert with things that demand strict and severe penalties, up to death.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:31 |
|
|
Nastyman posted:Wasn't that part just meant for the priesthood anyway? I seem to remember Leviticus having a whole laundry list of poo poo that was supposedly unclean, but if you washed your hands afterwards and stayed out of the church for a week or two you were pretty much in the clear. I wouldn't be surprised if rules for priesthood get mixed in with the general rules. I believe when Christianity was in more serious competition with other religions and cultures they made rules to target them. Romans being one of them. Romans had different views on homosexuality . The hate against homosexuality was more a shot against the Romans then anything, though I may be wrong.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:33 |
|
|
quiggy posted:Better words by better people have been written on this subject and I have class in ten minutes, but here's a good example: Wow, Dan Savage seems like one hell of a bigoted dickbag. Thanks for the link, it's certainly opened my eyes about the guy.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:56 |
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:Those things being, among others, eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics. Leviticus is a bunch of crazed, nonsensical ranting; it's really not much of a surprise nobody listens to any of it. Except for the indictment on homosexuality, because that's somehow special, for undefined reasons.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:59 |
|
|
Shnag posted:I wouldn't be surprised if rules for priesthood get mixed in with the general rules. I believe when Christianity was in more serious competition with other religions and cultures they made rules to target them. Romans being one of them. Romans had different views on homosexuality . The hate against homosexuality was more a shot against the Romans then anything, though I may be wrong. The Romans were not get enlightened on homosexuality. It was ok for men to be the penetrator, never to be penetrated. Men were still expected to get married to a woman and an actual homosexual relationship would be considered weird and inappropriate. We don't know much about their views on lesbians since they were patriarchal as hell and is not write that stuff down.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 23:08 |
|
|
So what's the countdown that the Special Ed. Teacher loses her job?
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 23:11 |
|
|
o prbl posted:Wow, Dan Savage seems like one hell of a bigoted dickbag. Thanks for the link, it's certainly opened my eyes about the guy. Are you loving serious? How much Dan Savage have you read if that quote log was eye opening?
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 23:12 |
|
|
Lampsacus posted:Well, Christians point to the NT hatin' on the gay. Not the OT. Its such a common and faulty argument to say "Oh but you Christians mix your fabrics!" Because most WASPs say the old laws have been superseded and homosexuality is labeled as a sin according to the new laws. This is the part in the discussion with them where I point out that all the references in the NT were written by Paul, the same guy who said women should be silent and should never ever be given authority over a man. But I guess that part was bullshit, and the other stuff they already agree with is the real truth.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 23:15 |
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:The Romans were not get enlightened on homosexuality. It was ok for men to be the penetrator, never to be penetrated. Men were still expected to get married to a woman and an actual homosexual relationship would be considered weird and inappropriate. We don't know much about their views on lesbians since they were patriarchal as hell and is not write that stuff down. I never said they were good views on the issue, just different. And yeah, women generally get screwed when it comes to history.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 23:26 |
|
|
Nastyman posted:Wasn't that part just meant for the priesthood anyway? I seem to remember Leviticus having a whole laundry list of poo poo that was supposedly unclean, but if you washed your hands afterwards and stayed out of the church for a week or two you were pretty much in the clear. I think they were rules for cleanliness for a nomadic tribe that existed 2000ish years ago, and even so by the time that Jesus showed up, he passed along the message that the only thing from that time that still applied was to be nice to poors. Also, there are some questions about the accuracy of translation, since the originals were written without any vowels Edit because my phone autocorrects "any" to "hang" for no loving reason at all 
buttscratch fever fucked around with this message at Feb 14, 2013 around 18:25 |
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 23:38 |
|
|
WHERE MY HAT IS AT posted:This is the part in the discussion with them where I point out that all the references in the NT were written by Paul, the same guy who said women should be silent and should never ever be given authority over a man. But I guess that part was bullshit, and the other stuff they already agree with is the real truth. Pretty sure even Paul's writings weren't as simple as that, but it's been a while since I'd last studied the early Church. 'Course, Paul also isn't Jesus, and Jesus hates figs, not fags.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 23:41 |
|
|
StrifeHira posted:Pretty sure even Paul's writings weren't as simple as that, but it's been a while since I'd last studied the early Church. "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." - 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." - 1 Cor. 14:34–35 Paul was pretty backwards on a lot of things (at least by today's standards), and contradicts himself a few times. He even states openly that his work is simply his opinion/interpretation, so I don't know why anyone takes it as absolute truth.
|
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 00:03 |
|
|
WHERE MY HAT IS AT posted:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." - 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Quick check confirms my suspicions that those verses are suspect to both interpretation and questionable in if they're actually Pauline. Previous statement on Paul not being Jesus still stands regardless. Also huh, girlfriend was right, there isn't anything explicitly against lesbianism in the NT. Guess I owe her a soda.
|
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 00:26 |
|
|
Lampsacus posted:Well, Christians point to the NT hatin' on the gay. Not the OT. Its such a common and faulty argument to say "Oh but you Christians mix your fabrics!" Because most WASPs say the old laws have been superseded and homosexuality is labeled as a sin according to the new laws. Not sure how this is a "WASP" thing when there are plenty of Italian, Polish, Hispanic and Irish Catholics and many many others who also point to the NT to justify homophobic bigotry.
|
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 00:31 |
|
|
President Kucinich posted:"Separate but fabulous" This really didn't get as much love as it should. Very well done.  I'm going to steal this for when people bring up having "separate" things for gays/lesbians. Gonna tell them that Kucinich came up with it.
|
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 00:42 |
|
|
It kind of amazes me how even ten years ago the social acceptance of homosexuality was so different. I mean, growing up (especially in rural Ohio) everything was "dude you're a fag" and "dude that's gay as gently caress." It reminds me a lot, actually, of a line from a King short story--I can't remember the title, it was about a jazz player in the 30's who watches a fat woman become a mob boss--where the narrator says something like, "We don't play that friend of the family poo poo until after eleven." After that quip he sees his black pianist frown but comments something like, "I grew up saying the word, and habit's hard to break." I always think about that now. I still say words like gay and fag and mean them not exactly derogatorily; it's the kind of thing I say to my friends because between friends insults are compliments. (Hell, my best friend is gay and calls me a fag pretty constantly, and that's the sort of thing I'm not quite sure how to field.) Point is, although I'm pretty much lost in the sauce when it comes to internet social justice (otherkin tumblrs or whatever the gently caress), I'm really, really glad, in an  sort of way, that--despite throwbacks like this prom bullshit--things are generally improving.
|
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 01:33 |
|
|
o prbl posted:Wow, Dan Savage seems like one hell of a bigoted dickbag. Thanks for the link, it's certainly opened my eyes about the guy. Yeah, the reason he's so famous isn't because of backing from the LGBT community but because he's pretty palatable to "mainstream" (read: white, male, straight) America. Unfortunately, if he were being supportive of surprise sex victims and not being transphobic and biphobic and felt like he could go five minutes without reminding us of how disgusting he thinks women's genitals are, he'd be languishing in obscurity like most progressive gay writers.
|
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 01:45 |
|
|
3Romeo posted:I always think about that now. I still say words like gay and fag and mean them not exactly derogatorily; it's the kind of thing I say to my friends because between friends insults are compliments. (Hell, my best friend is gay and calls me a fag pretty constantly, and that's the sort of thing I'm not quite sure how to field.) Point is, although I'm pretty much lost in the sauce when it comes to internet social justice (otherkin tumblrs or whatever the gently caress), I'm really, really glad, in an We used to throw about that stuff all the time when I was a kid, kids are dumb though and even though I was gay I never thought twice about it. It really is still a derogatory insult as the meaning remains intact and even if it's just something you stick with because it's from your youth, and you're used to it, you're still reinforcing the idea that homosexuality is a bad thing. When I hear it now I do wince a little even when I'm the guy saying it. Getting rid of old habits is hard 
NoneSuch fucked around with this message at Feb 14, 2013 around 01:53 |
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 01:49 |
|
|
Lots of Biblical ignorance up in this thread. This would probably be the clearest New Testament reference against homosexuality (including lesbianism): Romans 1:24-27 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Homosexuality was certainly a sin in the Old and New Testament, and was punishable by death in the OT. It is listed in Romans 1 in a laundry list of other sins, but is not really elevated above the others. In fact, the sins listed in chapter 1 are used to show that a trouble maker in the Roman church was no better than anyone else (see chapter 2). For those that think Jesus was down with the gays or any other "sins" listed in the OT see Matthew 5:17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." The Bible is NOT ok with homosexuality and you really can't twist it to be. The Jesus of the New Testament never excused "sin", but definitely never ostracized "sinners". Whether or not you can mesh hating the sin but not hating the sinner is up to you, and it is definitely hard to do when Christians like this use their pet "sin" to hate on others. Pride is also an abomination according to the Bible, but I guess the church has forgotten that.
|
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 03:22 |
|
|
But then again, why quote the bible - a book written, compiled and managed by human beings - when it also says you can't eat shellfish, but you can gently caress your dad. That book.. if Christ really exists; he's doing this all day long 
|
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 03:36 |
|
|
Yeah, I never really doubted the Bible condemned it, just that the condemnations weren't really numerous or strong enough to warrant a 24/7 crusade against it. Also from the New Testament it depresses me how everyone kind of missed...just about everything that Jesus ever said.
|
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 03:36 |
|
|
Religious Man posted:Lots of Biblical ignorance up in this thread. Mark 7 posted:Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”
|
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 03:46 |
|
|
Death by Cranes posted:But then again, why quote the bible - a book written, compiled and managed by human beings - when it also says you can't eat shellfish, but you can gently caress your dad. Leviticus 18:7 - The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Dad loving is definitely out. Wolfy posted:Yeah, I never really doubted the Bible condemned it, just that the condemnations weren't really numerous or strong enough to warrant a 24/7 crusade against it. Also from the New Testament it depresses me how everyone kind of missed...just about everything that Jesus ever said. You're exactly right. Anyone who wants to get depressed about the missed opportunity for Christianity to be a religion of love and acceptance ought to read how Jesus handled the woman who was caught in adultery (see the first part of John chapter 8). I apologize if I sound preachy. I certainly don't want to give the impression that I agree with those that wanted to hold a separate prom to oppress the highschoolers mentioned in the OP, but I do want to give some actual replies from the Bible (which is supposedly the handbook for Christians) to those who are spouting off "facts" that don't have any biblical grounding. ^^^ I can certainly appreciate that one. Religious Man fucked around with this message at Feb 14, 2013 around 03:50 |
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 03:47 |
|
|
Religious Man posted:Leviticus 18:7 - The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. I think he was talking about Lot, whose story would seem to show that, in extreme circumstances, dad loving is in.
|
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 03:49 |
|
|
McCloud24 posted:I think he was talking about Lot, whose story would seem to show that, in extreme circumstances, dad loving is in. Didn't think about that one, although I don't think it was shown in a positive light. Seems like it is presented as, "Hey, this happened."
|
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 03:52 |
|
|
Schubalts posted:I don't understand the phrase "Christians have always been prepared for a fight. Jesus gave us armor for the front, not the back; we're not running anymore,". What does "armor for the front, not the back" even mean? "Not running anymore"? What were you running from, you crazy old man? Armor is a long-standing metaphor for faith in Christian literature, poorly used in this instance. For example, The Fairie Queene. As a gay Christian, sometimes I just don't even know.
|
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 04:55 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 18:07 |
|
|
Religious Man posted:I apologize if I sound preachy. I certainly don't want to give the impression that I agree with those that wanted to hold a separate prom to oppress the highschoolers mentioned in the OP, but I do want to give some actual replies from the Bible (which is supposedly the handbook for Christians) to those who are spouting off "facts" that don't have any biblical grounding. You can't really present anything from a 2000 year old book written over hundreds of years by tons of different authors and then translated by hundreds of different people as "fact", as there are simply too many ways to interpret it. I don't want to derail this any further, but I wanted to mention that the book Unprotected Texts was an interesting read on the subject of sexuality in the Bible.
|
| # ? Feb 14, 2013 06:06 |
|
