# Most disgusting yahoo comment exchange I've ever seen.



## The Buttmonkey (Jul 31, 2012)

I AM SICK of you gays and lesbians who think that we not ONLY have to allow you to do what you want but call us HATEFUL if we dont openly AGREE with your lifestyle. JUST AS YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAYWHAT YOU HTINK SO DO WE!!!!!​  Reply  







_0_users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down_0_users disliked this comment
*RK2485*  23 mins ago Report Abuse Welcome to a group of people trying to gain equality. You have a right to think and say what you want about gay marriage, but you do not have a right to block gay people from marriage, civil unions, or whatever you want to call it.​ 





_0_users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down_1_users disliked this comment
*Kevin*  11 mins ago Report Abuse bet me RK2485.​












I know not everybody here may support same-sex marriage, but I imagine a few of you do, and to those of you who don't, this is pretty much what you look like.



I'm working on an angry response. How can you have the gall to say "bet me"?! Simply disgusting.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jul 31, 2012)

Not to minimize that obviously crappy remark on his end, but I've encountered a LOT worse. Like being told that I'm "a fag enabler" and have had death threats.

In the end, arguing with people like that will not work. When people are so convinced that they are right, there's no point in trying for civil discourse.


----------



## Gemmeadia (Jul 31, 2012)

The amount of fail that yahoo comments provide makes me cringe. Every time i read a REMOTELY political article on there it makes me want to gag that not only are so many ignorant/hateful comments, but that there are way worse things happening in the world from people more extreme and these are only the people that decide to comment on yahoo.


----------



## The Buttmonkey (Jul 31, 2012)

Well, I might have over reacted, and I'm a little bit ashamed, but this was my response...

Kevin, you may not realize this, but you're acting like a hateful bigot! "Bet me"? As in, bet me that I have the right to stomp out a minority's rights? Bet me?! Bet me I can't stop those women from voting? Bet me??!!! Bet me I can't keep those damn n****** from voting? Bet me?????!!!?! Bet me I can't exterminate those dirty Jews? BET ME????!?!!?! BET ME I CAN'T KEEP THESE SLAVES! BET ME I CAN'T BURN THIS WITCH! BET ME I CAN'T CRUCIFY JESUS, I DON'T AGREE WITH HIS OPINIONS!


----------



## tacotiklah (Jul 31, 2012)

I'm probably the LAST person anyone on here would expect to say this (apparently I rustle jimmies here because I don't put up with bigotry and I call it what it is; bigotry), but responding like that doesn't help and does more harm than good. Often times these people troll the hell out of you just to get you to act like that, then shit say "See, they're so mentally unstable. The gay menace will consume your sanity."

Be the bigger man and walk away. Let them stew in their own hate because of whatever personal reasons.


----------



## Varcolac (Jul 31, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Not to minimize that obviously crappy remark on his end, but I've encountered a LOT worse. Like being told that I'm "a fag enabler" and have had death threats.
> 
> In the end, arguing with people like that will not work. When people are so convinced that they are right, there's no point in trying for civil discourse.



No, no, you're not a "fag enabler." Fag enablers are straight white cisgendered males like me who think LGBTQ buggers like you should have some semblance of equal rights. You're just a QUILTBAG.

To the OP;






Don't worry yourself. The internet is full of trolls and idiots, and thanks to Poe's Law, one is never sure which is which. Ignore. Move on. Nobody can correct the entire internet, much as we'd like to try.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jul 31, 2012)

^Well the person I was chatting with ended up claiming to be from that one church we don't talk about on here, and apparently my facebook profile pic passes pretty well, so he thought he was talking to a cis-woman and I would have had to have been a complete idiot to have disabuse him of that notion. But trust me, I got called a whore of Babylon and many other things. Personally I was hoping for a few kitchen references since those occasionally make me laugh.


----------



## Varcolac (Jul 31, 2012)

Ah, well in that case get yourself into the kitchen and make me a gorram sammich.*


*NOT REALLY LOL, FEMINISM AND STUFF, ALSO THE ATLANTIC OCEAN BEING IN THE WAY AND THE FACT THAT I CAN MAKE MYSELF A DAMN FINE SAMMICH AND I PROBABLY WOULDN'T LIKE THE KIND OF AMERICAN CRAP YOU'D PUT IN IT ANYWAY, YOU FUCKERS DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT MARMITE IS.


----------



## The Buttmonkey (Jul 31, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Often times these people troll the hell out of you just to get you to act like that, then shit say "See, they're so mentally unstable. The gay menace will consume your sanity."
> 
> Be the bigger man and walk away. Let them stew in their own hate because of whatever personal reasons.




Yeah I know all that, I don't get involved in internet hate spewing much AT ALL, but I guess I was particularly mad today.

Yeah, immediately after I posted that I regretted it. 

But still  screw that guy.


----------



## pink freud (Jul 31, 2012)

It is well known that Yahoo Comments is a bastion of intellectualism and moral fortitude.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 31, 2012)

So um... nobody else thinks he has a point? _Does_ thinking a religious institution shouldn't be extended to people who, in the eyes of his particular flavor of religion, aren't practicioners of said religion make him _hateful? Does _not agreeing with their lifestyle because as far as his religion is concerned it's sinful in the eyes of god make him _hateful_? An idiot, perhaps, but the position he takes isn't "hateful" by default.

I think Drakk was touching on that in the LGBT thread recently, actually. 

All that said, his follow-up to the response does suggest that he as an individual probably _is_ hateful .


----------



## flint757 (Jul 31, 2012)

They all group themselves together so as to hide like sheep in the herd. Much harder to find people who genuinely aren't being hateful through the guise of religion IMO. Can someone disagree and not be a douche, absolutely, but I find that most of the people I run into touting religious values are typically major hypocrites and bigots (not because they are against gay marriage either). Of the people I know who are overtly religious (at least on the surface) are racist, assholes who hate on gays because they "think" that is what their religion wants them to do, but have never even read the bible before. This is the typical Christian I run into, but I have also run into the exceptions so I'm not making broad generalizations either.

Imagine if some other faith was the dominant faith like many other nations and there Christian's were fighting for their rights. I'm sure they'd love the idea of equality so everyone can have their own faith (mainly them) and laws don't discriminate against their beliefs. It is a shame that cannot take place here in the states. People only like change when it suits them, even if it doesn't affect them like so many claim it will (why would it? )


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 31, 2012)

I think the problem here isn't that people who think gays shouldn't be allowed to have religious marriages are hateful (though some certainly are), but rather that the government has involved itself in a religious institution. I think states and countries that take the route were civil unions are legal regardless of sexual orientation and churches are allowed to choose whether or not they will give a religious marriage based on their own doctrine are on the right track. If there were no government rights attached to marriage, then there'd be no harm in denying anyone access to it based on sexual orientation or any other reason.


----------



## The Buttmonkey (Jul 31, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> So um... nobody else thinks he has a point?
> 
> All that said, his follow-up to the response does suggest that he as an individual probably _is_ hateful .



Well, when I read the first post I agree on a fundamental level. It's anyone's right to think lowly of someone, just like this whole Chick Fil-A thing. Dan Cathy is perfectly within his rights to state that he dislikes gay marriage (paraphrasing) and the governor of Boston has every right to say that he thinks lowly of people who think that way.

What I don't think is cool is the fact that people like Dan Cathy decide they are then "protectors" of the sanctity of marriage and family as _they_ define it. Which to me, reeks of oppression. The majority defining the laws that rule the minority.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 31, 2012)

I never said religious marriage. For what I was referring to would be what you described basically Tim. 

Also, marriage comes up in more things than just the bible. They do not have a patent on it. And if an Atheist can get married the point overall becomes kind of null and void.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jul 31, 2012)

Thinking Christians somehow have a patent on marriage is a wholly ignorant viewpoint. People have been married for generations before the Abrahamic religions were ever founded, so no, marriage is not a religious institution by any means. As for civil unions, most consider that just another "separate yet unequal" bone thrown to us to keep us quiet for a little longer. They lack most of the legal privileges marriages bestow. This isn't about religion, it's about rights.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 31, 2012)

flint757 said:


> IAlso, marriage comes up in more things than just the bible. They do not have a patent on it. And if an Atheist can get married the point overall becomes kind of null and void.


 
Which is where the concept of civil unions comes in to play. It isn't the marriage in a church that grants a person any of the rights they want so badly anyways, it's the marriage certificate they're granted by the government whether or not they were married in a church. Attaching any sort of restrictions on who can get that certificate that favor the beliefs of one religion over another is a little to church-and-state-y for my blood. In that sense, the overall point of the "rights" of marriage are based 100% on the government's involvement, not the church. 

The only solutions the government _should_ have are to give the benefits to everybody, or get rid of them entirely. If an individual church wants to grant special benefits to people married under their standards in their church, fine. That's cool, and the government wouldn't be able to say anything about it, and to do so wouldn't be denying anybody any basic anythings. The problem here isn't religious people, it's the government.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 31, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Which is where the concept of civil unions comes in to play. It isn't the marriage in a church that grants a person any of the rights they want so badly anyways, it's the marriage certificate they're granted by the government whether or not they were married in a church. Attaching any sort of restrictions on who can get that certificate that favor the beliefs of one religion over another is a little to church-and-state-y for my blood. In that sense, the overall point of the "rights" of marriage are based 100% on the government's involvement, not the church.
> 
> The only solutions the government _should_ have are to give the benefits to everybody, or get rid of them entirely. If an individual church wants to grant special benefits to people married under their standards in their church, fine. That's cool, and the government wouldn't be able to say anything about it, and to do so wouldn't be denying anybody any basic anythings. The problem here isn't religious people, it's the government.



Who just happen to be run by religious people and given the right to govern by religious people.


----------



## troyguitar (Jul 31, 2012)

People still use Yahoo!?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 31, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Who just happen to be run by religious people and given the right to govern by religious people.


 
Which wouldn't make a damned bit of difference, if there were laws in place keeping state and religion separate.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 31, 2012)

Sadly this isn't the case and I have no clue how to make it the case...


----------



## ZEBOV (Jul 31, 2012)

I don't get why people want to be married, regardless if they're homosexual or not. Dammit, just love and fuck each other! I think marriage is a goddamn joke though.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 31, 2012)

Because paying taxes becomes easier and you get all kinds of cool benefits. As for hospital whether gay or straight if you're just "dating" you could potentially get locked out of the room.

These are a few reasons for those looking for a logical reasoning.


----------



## Watty (Jul 31, 2012)

ZEBOV said:


> I think marriage is a goddamn joke though.



Apparently, so does the Hebrew bible...it was only ever a means of formalizing an agreement between two men as to the worth of the woman who was being "sold" into "matrimony."

Can we get three cheers for religious ignorance!?

I find it hilarious that these people continue to cry out for the sanctity of marriage when I'm sure the psudeo divorce rate among homosexual couples is orders of magnitude lower than for their heterosexual counterparts.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jul 31, 2012)

ZEBOV said:


> I don't get why people want to be married, regardless if they're homosexual or not. Dammit, just love and fuck each other! I think marriage is a goddamn joke though.



From a legal standpoint, I get why people wanna do it. From a religious standpoint, I agree with your last sentence since it's "sanctity" is as you said "a goddamn joke".

Where I'm at with this is that if two consenting adults wanna marry, then it's no one else's place to tell them no. I personally don't care if you call it marriage, civil union, partnership, or assisted suicide; give the same legal rights to gays as other Americans. Cherry-picking what citizens get what rights is wrong and sets a dangerous precedence. The other factor at work here that some people don't seem to be focusing on is that this is another example of a major breach in the separation of church and state. This is people trying to legislate their faiths and beliefs on others. 

I saw a great quote and it went something kind of like this:
"Wanting to ban gay marriage because it's against your religion makes as much sense as trying to eliminate all production of donuts because you're on a diet."


----------



## Watty (Aug 1, 2012)

On a happy note; for those who might no have known...

Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon) and his wife just donated 2.5 million to WA's measure to get same sex couples the same rights as everyone else, apparently at the behest of a homosexual employee.

Aside from the obvious PR move, it's definitely a step in the right direction...if not only a good counterpoint to the whole Chic-Fil-A debacle.


----------



## Don Vito (Aug 1, 2012)

This is actually very tame to what I usually see on Yahoo every once in a while.

Still not good though.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 1, 2012)

^this.

I remember asking why people hate bisexual men so much and the answers ran the gamut from the obligatory "it's a sin and they will burn in hell" to "because they'll cheat on me with a guy and that's icky" to "they are walking petri dishes of HIV". 

So many feels felt, and none of them good.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Aug 1, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> ^this.
> 
> I remember asking why people hate bisexual men so much and the answers ran the gamut from the obligatory "it's a sin and they will burn in hell" to "because they'll cheat on me with a guy and that's icky" to "they are walking petri dishes of HIV".
> 
> So many feels felt, and none of them good.



To be fair, there's a lot of anti-bi sentiment in the gay community too, from what I've heard. Lots of men sneering and saying "oh, he's just not ready to completely come out yet," and lots of women claiming "oh, she's just doing it for the attention."


----------



## highlordmugfug (Aug 1, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> To be fair, there's a lot of anti-bi sentiment in the gay community too, from what I've heard. Lots of men sneering and saying "oh, he's just not ready to completely come out yet," and lots of women claiming "oh, she's just doing it for the attention."


Semi-related: there's a lot of bashing that goes back and forth between vegetarians and vegans (on both sides) too. People, even when they have common goals and should be working together will compartmentalize any minor difference they can find and be shitheads to each other about it.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 1, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> Semi-related: there's a lot of bashing that goes back and forth between vegetarians and vegans (on both sides) too. People, even when they have common goals and should be working together will compartmentalize any minor difference they can find and be shitheads to each other about it.



This. Hence why I try my best to not get into the "gays hate bis, everyone hates trans, blah blah blah" shit because it's too counter-productive. People honestly can be like school children.


----------



## The Buttmonkey (Aug 1, 2012)

Here's Kevin's response. 

Clark, clark, clark. As an American I get the RIGHT to not only vote my concious but to be able to openly fight and oppose legislature that I deem unsuitable for America--JUST LIKE THOSE "UNBIGOTED" GAYS AND LESBIANS. They have a lot of rights. What they want is for those who are against their lifestyle to say that their lifestyle is ok. If you don't , why you are just a "hatefilled bigot". This is not about tying them up to a fence to let them die. THIS IS ABOUT THEM WANTING TO DENY US OUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEEChH AND OUR RIGHT TO ACT ACCORDING TO OUR CONCIOUS


----------



## flint757 (Aug 1, 2012)

This is why thing are never going to change or at least not at a fast pace.

Comment related to Chick-Fil-A and some McDonald Hoax:
Hoax: McDonald&#8217;s and KFC support Chick-fil-A | Twitchy



> You poor thing. You have believed the great lie. You think that it is okay for everyone to just go about leaving other people alone to live their own lives. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen. No one lives isolated from others. We all impact others as we go through this life. As a Christian, it is my call in life to never leave another life just as it was when I came into it's presence. Either I will have a negative or a positive effect on it. I pray it will be positive and eternally effected. And, yes, I will have to be the one answering to God when my times comes. I will have to give an account for how I impacted others for the Kingdom of God. I've failed many times but that's what so great about God's Kingdom. I have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the intercessor, who ever makes intercession for me with the Father. God, through the Christ, is able to take whatever mess I make and have it turn out for good. Not for my good but for His Kingdom's sake.
> Learn about God and His ways before you condemn us for ours. We who are truly Christians endeavor to honor Him and be a blessing to others.



They think it is their knightly duty or something. While ultimately what this person is saying has no malice it is ultimately misguided and has negative ramifications for all, but those who believe in the Christian faith. What is strange to me is that while condemning them isn't the answer it seems that they do not see that they condemn the rest of us (atheists, agnostics, different religion, gays, etc.).

[EDIT]

To add my issue really is that one cause does not have more right than another. I mean several different religions came to America in the colonial days and the government was set up to NOT have a national religion which is what we've done, even if not officially. You don't even have to quote anything about separation of church and state for this to be true. The only reason there is a problem is because they make up (just barely) the majority and this is how the law/government has been setup for a long time. So in their minds they are entitled and we are encroaching on their right to govern what everyone else does. Here's the thing, times change and so do laws and yes even the constitution (OH NO!!!). Here in Texas it was a worse crime to beat a horse than a child, that law has changed. Was it right because the law was setup that way originally? No.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 1, 2012)

That is something that has always confused me, to be honest - I am a Christian myself, and many of the points of Jesus were firmly planted on tolerance, and captivation by example, not judgement. 

There is also zero justification for the ban on homosexuality other than the Church having opted to retain the law books of Israeli tribes as a part of the sacred texts. It would be nice and dandy should it be so for historic reasons, but truth is that they have been used to make sure enough cannon fodder was generated back in the day - more men, more power. How these medieval views on homosexuality, contraception and sexuality in general persist to this day is still a mystery to me, especially if you realize that there are ZERO mentions of some sexual code of conduct from Jesus throughout his public life.

There are many rather disturbing fallacies in harassing someone because of their sexuality, regardless of how civilized or well intended such an action is. Marriage here is discussed as a civil contract that provides benefits to the couple, not a religious act - in this context, even attempting to drag religion into the discussion is uncalled for, and an effort to disguise unjust homophobia with "the will of God". I don't know about other Christians, but what a shit God we'd be worshipping if He was to condemn people, let alone do so because of who one feels attracted to - I believe in freedom of choice, and that whatever form divinity has, it isn't that of a judge and executioner that goes "LOL BUTTSECKS, EH? SEE HOW YOU LIKE THIS!" when someone dies...


----------



## The Buttmonkey (Aug 1, 2012)

Well, I sorta apologized to him. Here's our next correspondence.

Well, fundamentally I agree with you. NOBODY can force you to agree with them. Sometimes they do get a little overbearingly defensive, but like RK2485 says, they are a group of people trying to gain equality. To me it's understandable to act more sensitive when you feel you're being oppressed. I just don't like how this whole thing seems to be the majority (heterosexuals) voting for what the minority can and can't do. Like in the 20's, older white men had to be thoroughly convinced to allow women to vote. They surely couldn't vote themselves?

Anyways, no one can tell you or me what to think and believe (I live in Georgia, lots and lots of anti-gay sentiments here) but I think it just isn't right to tell them they're not allowed the same "marriage status" as us! If America was led by a gay majority, I think me and you would both be raising hell to get our rights to marry the women we love!

No hard feelings, I was feeling angry when I wrote my first response, but now that I slow down, I realize we're more alike than we originally thought.​





_0_users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down_0_users disliked this comment
*Kevin* &#8226; 42 mins ago Report Abuse Clark no hard feelings towards you either. But taking your thoughts to the logical conclusions, yes it was set up where the majority decided. If you let gays have marriage, why not let Mormons have polygamy? Why not let Satanists commit human sacrafice? Why not allow a Muslim to commit honor killing? Why not..... You have tgo draw the lines. If the gays want to do what they do in the priva y of the bedroom--let them. Just dont dictate the terms of the debate by saying we have to give them this or that. WE DON'T!​


----------



## flint757 (Aug 1, 2012)

Who is this we? Because we as civilians do not make laws and we includes these gay people he is alluding to who vote for politicians. 

Slippery slope much....some people.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 1, 2012)

Slippery slope argument fail.

Drak, how many human sacrifices have you made so far this year? It better be at least one, or else this guy is wrong. We can't have that...


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 1, 2012)

His "we" is a disguised form of "the people that matter". No matter how I look at these interventions, it is clearly so, even down to the good old classic "do what you want as long as it's in your intimacy and nobody knows of it", which has its roots in typical hypocrisy - if I don't see it, it isn't there.

Unfortunately for the kind gentleman, it's there whether he sees it or not, and I'm not sure of how the LGBT community works in his region, but I've been to many a "gay bar" in my life and not only I didn't have my heterosexuality sucked away by some evil voodoo, they weren't exactly having monster orgies in the middle on the street, sodomize old ladies with dildos, or persecute random males to offer alternative cures for constipation... There's no "they" and "we". As long as this dichotomy persists, then equality and true social evolution will never take place.

EDIT: I just noticed the human sacrifices part. How can you have such a distorted view of facts that an anonymous gay couple getting married somewhere is comparable to someone taking the life of another human being?! Is he some sort of antisocial psychopath?!


----------



## The Buttmonkey (Aug 1, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Slippery slope argument fail.



Hahah TBH I kinda did that in my first comment...


----------



## Necris (Aug 1, 2012)

Fred the Shred said:


> That is something that has always confused me, to be honest - I am a Christian myself, and many of the points of Jesus were firmly planted on tolerance, and captivation by example, not judgement.


Unfortunately, without derailing this into a religious debate, you are picking and choosing what you want to believe and it's really no surprise since the Bible really is just the big book of multiple choice and contradicts itself enough to be extremely confusing but I've seen plenty of apologists try to spin this one too so lets put it to rest, yes he didn't say anything about homosexuality directly* but through his support of the Laws of Moses he condemned it all the same.
* (Unless you consider what Paul said about homosexuals under Jesus's own authority in Rom. 1:26-27 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10.)

Jesus stated he approved of "Gods" plan for the world.
The punishment your "God" sends down for the "crime" of homosexuality is easily seen in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jesus was born under the laws of Moses and stated his support and endorsement of those laws which include the laws laid down in of Leviticus multiple times throughout the bible, even going so far as stating that belief in the writings of Moses was required to follow him.


> "&#8220;For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?&#8221; (John 5:46-47.)"


In the sermon on the mount he states his intention to fulfill these laws.

A clear example of his intention of following the laws to the letter (and his desire to do so) can be found in Mark when he chastised the Pharisees for not following the laws of God in favor of following their own traditions when they refused to stone their unruly children (a law first set down in Leviticus, the same book which condemns homosexuality).


> "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[1] your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,'[2] and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[3] 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that." Mark 7: 9-13


He does so in Matthew as well.

Jesus death only abolished the Ritual laws and practices set down by Moses, the moral laws and practices which condemned homosexuality among other things still stand.

The bible itself says the moral laws are never to be abolished, only established.


> "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31.


If you want a longer more in depth breakdown of this go here:
In Defense of God

TL;DR: Your own bible and prophet disagree with you.


----------



## The Uncreator (Aug 1, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> ^Well the person I was chatting with ended up claiming to be from that one church we don't talk about on here, and apparently my facebook profile pic passes pretty well, so he thought he was talking to a cis-woman and I would have had to have been a complete idiot to have disabuse him of that notion. But trust me, *I got called a whore of Babylon* and many other things. Personally I was hoping for a few kitchen references since those occasionally make me laugh.



Wow, some people spend so much energy on hate. I never understood it.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 1, 2012)

Actually, you are turning it into a religious debate indeed, and one based on pretty much no substance. Where is the law of God, not man, banning homosexuality? Also, randomly pulling excerpts is pretty much what I see a) ultra-conservative Christians and b) atheist fundamentalists doing. A simple contextualization sees that Jesus refers to the law of God, not the never-ending list of precepts the jewish people came to adopt at the time.

For example, he's not legitimating the death sentence or anything of such ilk, but the superimposition of rituals over the basic principles, and I truly feel that one needs quite the effort to see any of the sentences legitimating Jewish and not religious law. Oddly enough, religious law is based on 10 principles that pretty much summarize social common sense. In none of these 10 laws will you find references to homosexuality, birth control, repressing your sexuality to kingdom come, and the other trash perpetuated to this day.

One thing is for certain, and that is that "my" god's law is simple, to the point, and defends love and civility. I don't care for what was added there, no am I a logically impaired person, and most certainly not uncultured, to not defy the convenient inclusions of books of law in the Bible. It's most interesting that most of the morally barbaric customs are usually justified by quotes from books such as Proverbs and the Leviticus. A coincidence, I'm sure.

I will gladly discuss all this with you (or anyone for that matter), simply not here, as it will derail the thread to hell and back, IMO. 

PS - men chose the books, and I deny that any man can claim to know in absolute "the will of God". I denounced the Catholic Church for many reasons, one of which being the infallibility of the Pope perpetuating "laws" that were no more than ways to keep the populace in check as if we had some divine punisher waiting in a random dimension. I don't believe in God creating man as a final purpose, I believe the possibilities of evolution and physics are the Creation itself, and that we are sorely tempted to believe we're the creation / nature / random deity's special snowflake, unparalleled by anything else, and that a messiah of any kind would only exist as a man, etc.. The cosmogony of the christian faith is a very interesting subject, and I'd suggest reading the work of people who happen not to live in the XIII Century, like Thebault de Chardin, for interesting - and actually far more fundamented - theories. 

PS2 - you can easily take excerpts of the Bible to prove I should kill my sister for not marrying the chosen man, yet the law says "thou shalt not kill" - got to love the nomadic tribes' dichotomies.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Aug 1, 2012)

Idiots and morons will push against social progress, but eventually they'll lose. You can't stop progress. Inform and educate those that want to listen on why you want your lifestyle respected, and if they're decent enough to give you the time of day then that's a start. Those that don't even want to hear opposing arguments are generally the kind of people who are stuck in a corner, and the reason they don't want to hear arguments is because they have nothing to back up their own. Don't get into debates and you don't actually have to start validating your own opinions. Calling out bigots is vital. but trying to misinform them is often a waste of time. Talk to those willing to listen, and eventually everyone else gets left behind. Society moves on. 

Leave the bigot-shaming to those of us with nothing better to do.


----------



## Necris (Aug 1, 2012)

Fred the Shred said:


> A simple contextualization sees that Jesus refers to the law of God, not the never-ending list of precepts the jewish people came to adopt at the time.For example, he's not legitimating the death sentence or anything of such ilk, but the superimposition of rituals over the basic principles, and I truly feel that one needs quite the effort to see any of the sentences legitimating Jewish and not religious law.


You're equivocating here.



> Oddly enough, religious law is based on 10 principles that pretty much summarize social common sense.


This is outright incorrect.
The 10 commandments appear twice in the same book (Exodus) and again in another. The two versions of the 10 commandments in Exodus are inconsistent yet are both put forth as Gods law. These commandments also have additional commandments within them. The version in Deuteronomy is consistent with the Exodus 20 list.



> 3 Versions of the 10 Commandments
> ---------------------------------
> 
> *Exodus 20:2-17* (The most commonly known)
> ...


*
Not sacrificing a goat cooked it's mothers milk and not mixing the blood of your sacrifices with yeast don't strike me as common sense teachings.




In none of these 10 laws will you find references to homosexuality, birth control, repressing your sexuality to kingdom come, and the other trash perpetuated to this day.
One thing is for certain, and that is that "my" god's law is simple, to the point, and defends love and civility. I don't care for what was added there, no am I a logically impaired person, and most certainly not uncultured, to not defy the convenient inclusions of books of law in the Bible. It's most interesting that most of the morally barbaric customs are usually justified by quotes from books such as Proverbs and the Leviticus. A coincidence, I'm sure.

Click to expand...


You are correct, but in other parts of the bible the word of god aside from the (more than) 10 commandments is sent through intermediaries, Prophets, unless of course you reject the notion of the words of Moses, Christ and his apostles as being sent from God, in which case you've made Bible and the entirety of it's contents completely frivolous. You seem to be operating under the assumption that unless the laws are carved into a stone tablet by the finger of god himself they aren't his commandments, that somehow when going through a go between on Earth they are somehow rendered invalid, that's dishonest at best.




PS - men chose the books, and I deny that any man can claim to know in absolute "the will of God".

Click to expand...

This argument is a mainstay of apologetics and it doesn't fly.
What you have essentially just said is that neither the prophets, the writers, the preachers or even you yourself can know the will of God and if that is the case how are you making the determination that he calls for civility and tolerance? By using the Bible? In what way is anything contained within the Bible even slightly trustworthy through that lens?

We can to take this one to PM's but I felt this was better to address in the thread.*


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 1, 2012)

Not to be "that person", but pm or a new thread would be great since it's kinda steamrolling this particular topic. Jmo of course and should probably be ignored.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 1, 2012)

Necris said:


> You're equivocating here.
> 
> 
> This is outright incorrect.
> ...



Moses is not God. Any derivation from his laws was applied to the Jewish tribes of yore. I am not one to judge the social context of something that took place a few thousand years ago - it is however a good thing to remember that the Deuteronomy is already a formal precepts and laws book, and that as such I question its validity from a theological standpoint, much like I would all non-theological oriented works. The views of the men of that time are interesting in terms of context and historical value, but have no theological weight.

Many theologists have verified what I speak of. While I formed the notions myself, I too sought information and validity, as the contradictions found in numerous passages of these books in regards to the ten (no, they really aren't more than those described in the Exodus, as what you describe).

I find no contradiction between finding sense and enlightenment in God's law and casting aside the adendas that were made to attempt to pacify and discipline a people that roamed the deserts millennia ago. The examples of Jesus citing Moses were often ways to project a point of view, and often to illustrate the degradation of fundamental law precepts. 

Also, you mistake my argument. I am not apologetic - I take no responsibility for the actions of people other than myself or those I drove to do something. You cite two different books as being factual, take quotes off context, and refuse to accept my separation of historical narrative and theology. I respect that entirely, but this promiscuity of man and God is a presupposition I don't agree with for reasons I explain. Prophets were most cryptical people in a number of times, as were their sayings, so let us not go there, frankly. 

Also, you also assume - wrongly - that I claim to be some enlightened being that knew exactly what the will of God is. I don't - I try to derive my conduct from the principles that were laid rather clearly by Jesus, which are, as summarized by the man himself, to love others as I do myself - simple, yet hard to put in practice at all times due to one's very nature. The Bible may be a collection of books, but you seem to ignore that God didn't say who got in or not - the Catholic Church did, in the Vatican II council IIRC. The same Church that blacklisted... the Bible. Under pain of excommunication, no less. Interesting way to uphold power over the masses via the convenient revelation of the will of God in times of tremendous political turmoil and volatile alliances.

I am a Christian, yet that did not remove my sense of logic or criticism. The words of Christ are something I try to follow, yet there is much to be discussed regarding the validity of many things. The Aramaic texts uncovered at the Dead Sea reveal Judas was, as defended by many a theologist, the one who was asked by Jesus to be the one to turn him in, not a traitor. The Church maintains the Greek translation (most do, actually). The dogma of the eternal virginity of Mary is defended by the most numerous sects within Christianity - there isn't a single word in the gospel to support that, and Jesus' brothers are cited more than once.

What I am trying to say is that the principles are there for anyone to see (and agree or not) with, but a very careful eye needs to be put on what was decided by the Vatican to be included, and in what form, and in what context. Does this undermine my faith? Not one bit. Does it make me hard to pigeonhole into a more "popular" trend of thought? Maybe, yet I'm hardly an isolated case. There is a lot of grey in all this black and white, and much to learn - again, if the laws are easily spotted, at least apparently, many other aspects surrounding them aren't, but I will of course respect others' opinions on that.

tl;dr - I do not deny the words of my prophet, I just have my reservations in accepting law books and "divinely inspired inclusions and exclusions" made in times where consolidating the Church's power was a priority, and we all know how well religion and politics work together. Irrelevant as it may be to this discussion, I find this a most fascinating subject.  In all this, not one word from Jesus condemning gay people. What an absent minded bloke he must have been as it's so obviously wrong...


----------



## skeels (Aug 1, 2012)

Do you think the guy was trying to say "bite me"?

And y'know just couldn't get down right? 
These computers these days... You know they've got an awful lot of buttons and stuff...



Also, I probably shouldn't even do this..

*deep breath and winks at ghstofperdition*

If you listen to Jesus, he says he has only one commandment.
Love.

End/


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 2, 2012)

skeels said:


> Also, I probably shouldn't even do this..
> 
> *deep breath and winks at ghstofperdition*


----------



## avenger (Aug 2, 2012)

I don't understand how these situations spiral out of control so fast.

The solution is so fucking simple. Gay, Straight, Bi, Trans, Beast, whatever... give everyone the same right to do whatever they please but never stop any one party from being allowed to express their opinion or view on anything.

I firmly believe a Christian should be able to say stop and say hey I don't agree or support this and it goes against my teachings. On the other side a gay/queer/homosexual/whatever should be allowed to say I believe in gay marriage.

I also think the people should basically be allowed to do whatever they want unless it is directly harmful to those around them or causes physical harm to someone.


Who the fuck am I though


----------



## The Buttmonkey (Aug 2, 2012)

I didn't really want this to be a "huge post thread" but they're pretty thoughtful and civil so I guess they're ok.


----------



## wlfers (Aug 2, 2012)

Not trying to be rude, but I'm pretty surprised that this is the most disgusting comment exchange you've witnessed on yahoo. 

Probably one of the first things you discover on the internet (besides porn) is that people will be as shitty as they can be behind the safety of their monitor- it really doesn't accomplish much to get worked up about it. 

Anyway on this specific topic, I'd figure if the gays were going to burn eternally then the christians would leave them alone on earth... why try to save them? Someone should rationalize with them that heaven is better off without homos so let them "sin" on earth


----------



## groph (Aug 2, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> So um... nobody else thinks he has a point? _Does_ thinking a religious institution shouldn't be extended to people who, in the eyes of his particular flavor of religion, aren't practicioners of said religion make him _hateful? Does _not agreeing with their lifestyle because as far as his religion is concerned it's sinful in the eyes of god make him _hateful_? An idiot, perhaps, but the position he takes isn't "hateful" by default.
> 
> I think Drakk was touching on that in the LGBT thread recently, actually.
> 
> All that said, his follow-up to the response does suggest that he as an individual probably _is_ hateful .


 

Maybe, but I see it as conservative backlash and liberal-bashing. Honestly it kind of does grind my gears when a "liberal" assumes somebody is being hateful but really more often than not, the exchange in question has some substance to it. IE it's not a "conservative" going "AIN'T NO GAY MARRIAGE IN MY 'MURRICA! FLAT TAX RATE, RON PAUL YEEEHAWWW" and then a "liberal" going "YOU RACIST, HATEFUL FACIST NEOCON GARBAGE!" in response. Generally the argument has been developed to some degree giving the "liberal" in question some ammunition to call the "conservative" hateful. Usually it's a matter of somebody being oblivious to their social privilege (uh oh, a "liberal talking point!") as is the case when someone says something to the effect of "You don't see straight people going around flaunting their heterosexuality, why do homosexuals need a pride parade!" or "Why does it even matter, it's just a fast food chain offering an opinion, it's not even a big deal." Easy for them to say.

Basically it comes down to "conservatives" playing the victim because the terrible "liberals" are calling them racists, sexists, classists, homophobes, etc. and it hurts them so. _It's so hard being a white man today, with everybody thinking you're the devil! I can't even step outside my own front door and call my neighbors n*****s without some college liberal calling me a racist!_ This is to illustrate a really broad point in a pretty vulgar sense; AKA bullshit on the Internet, just like these Yahoo comments so take this as you will.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 2, 2012)

groph said:


> Maybe, but I see it as conservative backlash and liberal-bashing. Honestly it kind of does grind my gears when a "liberal" assumes somebody is being hateful but really more often than not, the exchange in question has some substance to it. IE it's not a "conservative" going "AIN'T NO GAY MARRIAGE IN MY 'MURRICA! FLAT TAX RATE, RON PAUL YEEEHAWWW" and then a "liberal" going "YOU RACIST, HATEFUL FACIST NEOCON GARBAGE!" in response. Generally the argument has been developed to some degree giving the "liberal" in question some ammunition to call the "conservative" hateful. Usually it's a matter of somebody being oblivious to their social privilege (uh oh, a "liberal talking point!") as is the case when someone says something to the effect of "You don't see straight people going around flaunting their heterosexuality, why do homosexuals need a pride parade!" or "Why does it even matter, it's just a fast food chain offering an opinion, it's not even a big deal." Easy for them to say.
> 
> Basically it comes down to "conservatives" playing the victim because the terrible "liberals" are calling them racists, sexists, classists, homophobes, etc. and it hurts them so. _It's so hard being a white man today, with everybody thinking you're the devil! I can't even step outside my own front door and call my neighbors n*****s without some college liberal calling me a racist!_ This is to illustrate a really broad point in a pretty vulgar sense; AKA bullshit on the Internet, just like these Yahoo comments so take this as you will.


 

Yeah, trust me, I realize that oftentimes it _is_ out of hatred that someone takes the anti-gay marriage stance. I was just saying that "hate" isn't the default setting for all who oppose it.


----------



## loki (Aug 2, 2012)

I am not religious. I consider myself an agnostic but if I had to choose I probably lean towards atheism. I have a nephew who is gay and I am very proud of him as far as what he is and what he has accomplished. When I was married my wife had many, many gay friends and I was ok with them. As an employer I have hired several persons who I knew were gay and fired some for reasons other than being gay. I really don't care about gay or not as long as they are not assholes.

I support civil unions and oppose discrimination of gays but I believe marriage has nothing to do with love as an institution. Marriage exists as a means of promoting a long-term bond to ensure that children are cared for until they are adults. Married couples receive tax breaks to compensate them for the enormous expense of raising children.

The government does not care about anybodies love but it does care about the consequences of a "reproductive union": children. If a man and a woman live together the government does not care unless there are children involved. If a man and women gets married and decide to get a divorce the government does not care and uncontested divorces are easy and simple. The situation only gets complicated when there are children involved.

Gay relationships are not reproductive therefore they do not deserve the tax breaks given to "married couples". I do not believe it is fair that a gay couple will be able to have a nicer house, a better car and a more luxurious lifestyle because they can get married without worrying about the expense of children. For that reason and that reason only I oppose gay marriage and I think the whole argument for gay marriage is dishonest and misleading. Of course an intelligent and educated person is against bigotry but most people are being duped into supporting a political position which is nothing more than an effort to buy gay's votes by the democratic party.


----------



## Necris (Aug 2, 2012)

loki said:


> I am not religious. I consider myself an agnostic but if I had to choose I probably lean towards atheism. I have a nephew who is gay and I am very proud of him as far as what he is and what he has accomplished. When I was married my wife had many, many gay friends and I was ok with them. As an employer I have hired several persons who I knew were gay and fired some for reasons other than being gay. I really don't care about gay or not as long as they are not assholes.
> 
> I support civil unions and oppose discrimination of gays but I believe marriage has nothing to do with love as an institution. Marriage exists as a means of promoting a long-term bond to ensure that children are cared for until they are adults. Married couples receive tax breaks to compensate them for the enormous expense of raising children.
> 
> ...



If you really wanted to be consistent in your beliefs you would call for married couples to be ineligible for benefits until they had children. 

According to the data from the 2010 US Census Bureau 46% of Married Couples were without children (while this does include couples who have already raised a child to adulthood who has since moved out on their own) so apparently they're getting benefits they don't deserve according to you. Adoption is possible (but difficult) for gay couples so they can raise children just like a heterosexual couple, but they don't get those benefits when they do adopt.
"It's a democratic conspiracy" is pretty much par for the course judging from your posting history and just underlines the fact that your opinion has no basis in reality and certainly isn't supported by facts.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0064.pdf


----------



## The Buttmonkey (Aug 2, 2012)

Pretty intelligent position, Loki. You raise some good points.

I didn't think a married couple got any tax breaks for children unless they actually HAD children though. ? That's the last thing on MY mind at 17, lolol.

and if they do recieve tax breaks don't you think it may have something to do with the fact that oftentimes one person's (usually husband's) income supporting two people. and plus homosexuals could always opt for adoption. ?

Just more talking points unsupported by cited facts, don't take it as a direct challenge, heheh.


Edit: lol wow, Necris said the same thing as me only in a more challenging tone.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Aug 2, 2012)

@Loki

Because people who are gay never have kids ever or wish to adopt.  And I guess all that stuff about potentially being locked out of the hospital if the person you're in love with gets incredibly sick doesn't matter either.

Also: your argument seems to be based on spite alone.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 2, 2012)

loki said:


> I am not religious. I consider myself an agnostic but if I had to choose I probably lean towards atheism. I have a nephew who is gay and I am very proud of him as far as what he is and what he has accomplished. When I was married my wife had many, many gay friends and I was ok with them. As an employer I have hired several persons who I knew were gay and fired some for reasons other than being gay. I really don't care about gay or not as long as they are not assholes.
> 
> I support civil unions and oppose discrimination of gays but I believe marriage has nothing to do with love as an institution. Marriage exists as a means of promoting a long-term bond to ensure that children are cared for until they are adults. Married couples receive tax breaks to compensate them for the enormous expense of raising children.
> 
> ...



Not all people have children and many of them are married. Just like single people (or couples) with children aren't necessarily married. Also, married couples get additional tax break FOR their children as well as non-married couples and single people with children (pretty good chunk too). In fact the taxing for children is almost separate of the marriage tax break.

Gay people can adopt or have a surrogate child as well which means there are ways for them to become a family and arguably deserve the tax break you described. 

Please read up or know something on a subject before making broad and borderline rude allegations. Excluding the tax thing there are many other reasons to want the state to recognize your marriage. In some cases it is just a validation that they are equal and not second tiered citizens.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Aug 2, 2012)

The whole gay political thing is probhably the dumbest bullshit there is. I support equal rights, but marraige IS NOT A POLITICAL MANNER, it pertains 100% to the church, which means they have the right to deny anyone they want, and to admit anyone they want. It is discrimination to make it illegal for gays to have a civil union, church however is totally seperate in that regard. I think its close minded and hateful, but it should have seperation from civil unions so people really understand the problem.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 2, 2012)

Except not all churches even agree that it is a bad thing.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Aug 2, 2012)

thevisi0nary said:


> The whole gay political thing is probhably the dumbest bullshit there is. I support equal rights, but marraige IS NOT A POLITICAL MANNER, it pertains 100% to the church, which means they have the right to deny anyone they want, and to admit anyone they want. It is discrimination to make it illegal for gays to have a civil union, church however is totally seperate in that regard. I think its close minded and hateful, but it should have seperation from civil unions so people really understand the problem.



Marriage is not a religious institution. 
Your username is REALLY ironic.


----------



## Necris (Aug 2, 2012)

Sure they can deny anyone they want, that isn't the issue, aside from a small minority of activists no-one is trying to make Churches marry Gays against their will and they shouldn't, a portion of very vocal Christians are going into hysterics over something that just isn't happening.

The bottom line is that Marriage is a legal contract.
Christians cannot claim that the Bible is the authority on what constitutes legal marriage; there are plenty of non-christians getting married in this country outside of churches, as long as the constitution is not paying deference to any particular religion you don't get to use any holy book to define what legal marriage is.

We can't have gays vote on whether or not two Christians can get married, a minority cannot dictate the rights of the majority and the converse is true as well, Christians have no right to vote on whether or not gays can get married, a majority cannot take away the rights of a minority, the constitution and our laws protect against this.

In practice what is happening is exactly that. The Christians in this country are attempting to use their majority to dictate on a national level what marriage is legally defined as and discriminate against a minority.


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Aug 2, 2012)

ugh, I can't wait for something else to brought up by the media so everyone will go apeshit over that instead of this shit, good fucking grief. It's only a hot topic because the elections are coming up anyway, after that no one will even care anymore, as always.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Aug 2, 2012)

BlindingLight7 said:


> ugh, I can't wait for something else to brought up by the media so everyone will go apeshit over that instead of this shit, good fucking grief. It's only a hot topic because the elections are coming up anyway, after that no one will even care anymore, as always.



You couldn't be any more wrong.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Aug 2, 2012)

Necris said:


> Sure they can deny anyone they want, that isn't the issue, aside from a small minority of activists no-one is trying to make Churches marry Gays against their will and they shouldn't, a portion of very vocal Christians are going into hysterics over something that just isn't happening.
> 
> The bottom line is that Marriage is a legal contract.
> Christians cannot claim that the Bible is the authority on what constitutes legal marriage; there are plenty of non-christians getting married in this country outside of churches, as long as the constitution is not paying deference to any particular religion you don't get to use any holy book to define what legal marriage is.
> ...



If thats the case then it shouldnt be, there should be no association with church to state, the legality is all that matters in a union. Gay people can throw their own wedding, or find a church to support them. Its ridiculous that the focus is so much on the religious aspect instead of the legality. Im sick of seeing church problems in government when they dont belong there to begin with. I mean isnt that illegal in the first place? Lol


----------



## thevisi0nary (Aug 2, 2012)

Guitarman700 said:


> Marriage is not a religious institution.
> Your username is REALLY ironic.



sorry for my explanation, im saying the religious aspects have no place in legality, a church has no say on the basis of religion because there is supposed to be seperation of church and state. Thanks for your insults though


----------



## flint757 (Aug 3, 2012)

BlindingLight7 said:


> ugh, I can't wait for something else to brought up by the media so everyone will go apeshit over that instead of this shit, good fucking grief. It's only a hot topic because the elections are coming up anyway, after that no one will even care anymore, as always.



This wasn't even an on topic issue last election. This is the most active I've seen this topic in a long time, I really think were hitting a turning point. Whether it goes better or worse is the question. I personally think all the Chick-Fil-A shit is backfiring and might make things harder not better.

The problem is many conservatives don't consider the groups he supports to be bigoted and pending on interpretation that is up for another discussion all together. The other issue is many conservatives are trying to claim the outrage was about what he said and that the left were taking away his freedom of speech which wasn't the case. Most people were upset about his actual actions, not his words. Even if it was the case, people vocalizing their distaste and boycotting are both protected under the first amendment just as much as his religion and freedom of speech is. People really need to realize that while you have the right to say whatever you want you are not protected from the backlash or any returning commentary as those actions are also protected.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 3, 2012)

I agree with flint. The battle for LGBT rights has always been on America's mind, but only recently has it gotten as hot and heavy as it is. I see it as a watershed moment and at first I thought that the Chick Fil A thing would be that big boom before a major confrontation over it, but reflecting on similar past struggles for the rights of other minorities has led me to believe that it is just one of a series of things that will happen. I don't believe for one second that this will be the last of it. 

Over half the country is in support of it and that number keeps growing. The problem with the religious opposition to it is that they believe it is a holy crusade to stop this from happening. Like it will bring about end times or some shit because it will invite God's wrath into the world. So they feel they have to stop it at all costs and if some sins or transgressions were committed in the process; well it was for the greater good. I think I've heard of people having this kind of mindset before:






Also, regardless of your stance on this, I saw an amazing point:





I've been in and out of churches for so many years and never ONE TIME have I seen that many people line up to try and volunteer at food banks with me, go handing out cheeseburgers to homeless people, give blood at blood banks, or volunteer at the local animal shelter. Nope, but when gay people wanna marry, they'll line up in droves to stop that evil shit. You can't tell me there isn't hatred in that.


----------



## BIG ND SWEATY (Aug 3, 2012)

i wonder if there is anyone on SSO that is actually against gay marriage because i would honestly really like to hear their reasoning behind it besides "the bible says its not ok".


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 3, 2012)

Ghost, did you actually just compare people who don't support gay marriage to Osama Bin Laden? That's.... not really helping anything.


----------



## anthonyferguson (Aug 3, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> So um... nobody else thinks he has a point? _Does_ thinking a religious institution shouldn't be extended to people who, in the eyes of his particular flavor of religion, aren't practicioners of said religion make him _hateful? Does _not agreeing with their lifestyle because as far as his religion is concerned it's sinful in the eyes of god make him _hateful_? An idiot, perhaps, but the position he takes isn't "hateful" by default.
> 
> I think Drakk was touching on that in the LGBT thread recently, actually.
> 
> All that said, his follow-up to the response does suggest that he as an individual probably _is_ hateful .



Therein lies the false impression that homosexuality is a sin. It is widely accepted in today's world of Christianity that being gay is not a choice, and as such a great many people in the church (my dad included) are tearing their hair out right now. Particularly in the UK. 

Situations like this turn sour because of money (as per). If he didn't have billions no-one would give a crap, but being so public waving his flag of bullshit and flashing cash causes the problem.

EDIT: Woooo Scotland and Sweden! Haven't seen them plunged into the sea or incinerated with fiery death from heaven.


----------



## anthonyferguson (Aug 3, 2012)

thevisi0nary said:


> The whole gay political thing is probhably the dumbest bullshit there is. I support equal rights, but marraige IS NOT A POLITICAL MANNER, it pertains 100% to the church, which means they have the right to deny anyone they want, and to admit anyone they want. It is discrimination to make it illegal for gays to have a civil union, church however is totally seperate in that regard. I think its close minded and hateful, but it should have seperation from civil unions so people really understand the problem.



O rly? Henry VIII ring any bells?

Yep you have him to thank for divorce.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 3, 2012)

Gay marriage is legal in Portugal -the church wisely opted to stay of what it is a legal rights battle with the negligible exception of some members of the clergy, that were reminded by the Cardinal that while they are of course allowed to have an opinion, they will not represent the church on that. I was pleasantly surprised, to be honest.

Now to calmly hope that, one day, Christian institutions all over the world will understand how religion and state law promiscuity has quite the nasty historical record and are not to be mixed. This applies to any religion or creed, no matter what.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 3, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Ghost, did you actually just compare people who don't support gay marriage to Osama Bin Laden? That's.... not really helping anything.



Only the ones that seem to think hellfire and plague will rain from the skies if a gay person gets married, yes.
The reasons for being against it are really varied though. Not every person that is against it is religious. Those people have other reasons (not entirely sure what they would be though) but no, I didn't compare those people. 

And the comparison there is the particular mindset of that we're inviting God's wrath and that gays need to die, etc, etc. 
So I'm actually only referring to a smaller group of people as opposed to the whole. 

For those that insist on reading it as a simple "the bible says it's wrong", I urge you to consider BOTH positions on it and for the alleged "six anti-gay" bible verses, please take a biblical concordance with the original ancient greek and hebrew definitions of the words in them as well as try to understand the mindset of the customs and traditions of those times. You'll find that there are meanings deeper than what you may see at first glance, so I ask you please reserve religious judgment before doing this. 

<----- this person spent much of their life hiding who they were and fearing eternal damnation until they did this and learned things about the bible that would curl the toes of most people nowadays. It was this among a couple other truths that made me 100% in opposition of the vast majority of the denominations of the modern church. People do NOT spend enough time reading and studying the bible and as such go off half cocked taking things WAY out of context. There are definitely some passages in there that still pertain to gays and that's because they pertain to heterosexuals too. Like not cheating, lying, stealing, killing, etc. My other point on this is that if it really mattered that much to God and is as evil as people says it is, why are there only six passages pertaining to the subject when things like murder and rape are repeated consistently over and over and over again throughout both testaments? (keep in mind that if God was trying to make a point, you find that point being repeated ad nausem. So what's with the lack of time spent on the subject?)
Next question would be, why is it that people of this faith cannot be tolerant of people that are LGBT if Jesus Himself spent time being kind and courteous to what were considered the absolute worst of people in His time here on earth? You'd think that leading by example would be enough to show you how it's done.


----------



## liamh (Aug 3, 2012)

Eradicating homophobia....One Yahoo argument at a time.


----------



## nostealbucket (Aug 3, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Also, regardless of your stance on this, I saw an amazing point:



This. So much this!! I honestly don't give a single fuck about Chick-fil-a and their ideas. Their food is fucking good, though.
(sort of on topic) I once knew a guy who used to be the youth director at my church (I'm an atheist, btw). He was so anti gay, he wouldn't watch a movie because the people who produced it were gay. He also thought aliens were demons and he supported the westborro baptists...
If they realized that lifestyles and opinions that differ from their own don't contribute to the end of the world, I think the world would be a better place. But that makes too much sense...


----------



## The Buttmonkey (Aug 4, 2012)

liamh said:


> Eradicating homophobia....One Yahoo argument at a time.



Aww heck yes! 









Edit: I have a yahoo problem and I admit it, and that is the first step to recovery. At least I brought it to you guys so I can be held accountable for my actions unlike most yahoo comments people.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 4, 2012)

Yahoo scares me. The authors are kind of stupid and incredibly biased as well.

The people who post there are way too honest about what is happening in their heads. Just because your anonymous doesn't give a green light to be a total dick.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Aug 6, 2012)

I was going to put something epic and thought provoking in here, but I changed my mind (saved in notepad), rant about "unwedded" taxation and death taxes *shakes fist*.

What I will say is why, can we here, see what is wrong so easily and offer solutions yet the people in charge of their various concerns cannot?

i r disapoint 

*Biblical points of interest*
Nice to see mention of the various translations and versions of the Bible. From what I hear the Geneva bible is the most informative, with notes on translation as a footnote to each page, predating the popular King James translation which was an adaptation favouring British monarchistic tradition.

I didn't really get on with the Bible, too many aliens, inter dimensional beings at war with humanity and an extra helping of wrath, for my liking. 
Also I could never understand why god chose to release the 10 commandments on mere stone tablets, rather than CD-Rom, Vinyl, and Cassette to provide an audio translation for the visually impaired. After all, he is all powerful.

Also, as angels don't have genitals (hence their sign in numerology as 7, denoting the number of orifices of the body) why were they messing around with our women??? *shakes fist*

It's especially ironic that many of the main characters in the Judeo-Christian litererature could fall into this debate. After all, Moses was adopted by an infertile couple after being found floating down the Nile and Jesus was an unmarried who spent most of his time with men, knowing only two women intimately: His mother and Mary Magdelene, a woman whose background is widely debated, most likely for political reasons (some allude to the possibility she was of noble descent, but this was kept secret to demean her role in the new testament and maintain the patriarchal power structure of the church of st peter, others still cast their efforts lower  ).

I wonder what Mithra(s) would say about all this?

_Random search provides more detail here_
Jesus as a reincarnation of Mithra

*Conclusion*

Anyway, many countries, states and regions have seen there is a requirement for equal rights and have made services available. Those slow to act will eventually be forced to do so or seem intolerant. They'll get there in the end! 


*Note: a friend of mine is a theologian, qualified at a prestigious university and related to an eminent chruch leader in London. I'll ask him for details on his opinion on this next time I see him. He'll know all the pertinent remarks in the old books.
At the moment I'm reading his treaty on Apollinarius the younger who decried the argument that Christ was purely supernatural (being a combination of human and the spirit, or _logos_) and disagreed with the theories of Arius (Arianism), and his relevance to the council of Nicea to unify the literature and beliefs of Christendom in AD 325.

The Christology of Apollinarius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinaris_of_Laodicea

Arianism (Christ as a subordinate of god)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea


----------



## Jakke (Aug 9, 2012)

For my own health, I stay out of Yahoo. It's on my doctor's orders after I once entered an article on abortion. I very nearly facepalmed myself to death that day..


----------



## dethFNmetal (Aug 9, 2012)

I'm not gay myself, and I don't necessarily agree with it but hatin on people like that us just wrong in any scenario.


----------



## Jakke (Aug 9, 2012)

^Can't really see how you "don't agree with" something that no one has chosen to be. It's like me saying that I don't agree with people having brown eyes, or being women.

*EDIT* How am I "misguided" for pointing out sexuality is not a choice? Did you, dear anonymous, choose your orientation? If you have some evidence for this claim, by all means, bring it forth. I really thought this "choice" bullshit was behind us.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Aug 9, 2012)

dethFNmetal said:


> I'm not gay myself, and I don't necessarily agree with it but hatin on people like that us just wrong in any scenario.




I'm not from Denver myself, and I don't necessarily agree with it.....


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 9, 2012)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> I was going to put something epic and thought provoking in here, but I changed my mind (saved in notepad), rant about "unwedded" taxation and death taxes *shakes fist*.
> 
> What I will say is why, can we here, see what is wrong so easily and offer solutions yet the people in charge of their various concerns cannot?
> 
> ...



Ah, so you are interested in the similarities between Christ and Mithra as well, I see.  Another point that's worthy of note is that many metaphors pertaining moral teaching can go as far back as Sumerian or Assyrian writings, and a fair bit of symbolism was taken from ancient religions. It's a fascinating subject to read, and the very hazy lines in some dates leave a lot of speculation regarding whether the cults of Christ and Mithra are one and the same, and how the birth of Jesus was established to be celebrated on the Sun God's date as well - there is much historical data to retrieve yet, though, and I follow this with great interest.

Back on topic, how all of the teachings in the gospels are suddenly selectively overridden to give way to the Holy Chicken and gay hatred is still beyond me, and a poor advocate for those claiming that "God is love". Just sayin'. Also, the whole "agreeing" or not with homosexuality is a bit silly - it's not like gay people have a choice.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 10, 2012)

Guitarman700 said:


> I'm not from Denver myself, and I don't necessarily agree with it.....



I don't like ranch. So hell-fire and brimstone must descend upon Hidden Valley and cleanse us of their foul concoction...


----------



## Jakke (Aug 10, 2012)

I'm not red-headed, and I don't necessarily agree with gingers. Will you stop being so ginger? You are in fact offending me.


----------



## tacotiklah (Aug 10, 2012)

^ They have no souls and will be damned to hell and a lifetime of directing only half decent movies. GOD HATES GINGERS!!!















(ucwatididthere?)


----------



## Jakke (Aug 11, 2012)

We need to stop gingers recruiting our children, it's immoral! It's a life in personal and spiritual bondage.

We need to help them accepting their non-ginger potential, and we need to show our children this is the wrong life choice. This lifestyle only leads one way, and I can tell you there ain't chicken frying down there!
We need to show support for the brothers we have in the makers of Southpark, they know and preach the truth. Liberals and other heathen judge them for telling what we know is the truth! We must show a united front against the ginger threat. This is not only a threat to our children, but to the moral fibre of this forum and the entire SSO way!

Let us show this in song brothers and sister! Does everybody know "ain't no gingers gonna make into heaven"?


----------



## The Buttmonkey (Aug 11, 2012)




----------



## soliloquy (Aug 28, 2012)

for what its worth, i found this on a random website:


> I'm gay. I Went to Chik-Fil-A on Wednesday, and instead of joining the kiss-in, I just paid with my gay money and left. They'll be handing out LOTs of it, this week. I'm doing this from now on when I eat there.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 28, 2012)

Civil Disobedience for the win


----------

