Be a Supporter!

Chicago's discrimination

  • 2,294 Views
  • 61 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-02 01:17:38 Reply

At 8/1/12 09:49 PM, RacistBassist wrote: I'm sorry, but gays not getting a nod from the government isn't hurting anybody.

Don't be stupid, it's hurting the gays in question. It's more then "a nod" we're talking about vital protections for their relationships, property rights, and every other issue that effects any other couple. Maybe next time try not to bury this shit at the end of your postings hmmm?


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-02 01:27:51 Reply

At 7/30/12 11:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I would also like a reason to show that such a view actually fits within the Christian religion

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live? There's a crap ton of prohibitions against homosexuality. Also beastiality, incest, etc. Also there are numerous passages in the Old Testament where God is very clearly killing off anybody that either doesn't believe, or is fucking with those that do believe. Hell, how does God even introduce himself to his first disciple? "hey, hey Abraham! I'm the one true God! Listen, I need you to prove your loyalty....KILL YOUR KID!!! Kill your kid for me!!!"

Also let's not act like "Christianity" is a unified field theory. It ain't. It's got among the most sects, divides, and disagreements within it's numerous branches. You can't use the Bible as the only metric for Christian thought and belief, this has been shown time and time again and it's time the idea that "Christianity begins and ends with The Holy Bible" was retired once and for all.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-02 12:21:18 Reply

At 8/2/12 01:27 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
At 7/30/12 11:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I would also like a reason to show that such a view actually fits within the Christian religion
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?

I know there's a lot of crazy stuff in the Bible.

Also let's not act like "Christianity" is a unified field theory.

I know that too, and that's largely why I scoff at those who say the Bible is support for any negative act. They pick and choose whichever portions of the Bible they want to use and ignore those which are inconvenient or irrelevant. Yet, they come back and say the Bible is why homosexuality is wrong. My argument is directly attacking their argument. It is not meant to stand on its own.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-02 14:24:43 Reply

At 7/31/12 10:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Had a chance to make a good comparison and you give me this? Why not just shit on the floor and call it a mountain?

It's a good one. you can't just cast it aside because you don't like it. If gays can get married, why can't cousins?


Incest is directly tied to an dramatic increase in birth defects.

Only if the female (if there is one) gets pregnant and gives birth. but hey, we got pills condoms and abortions for that kind of thing.


If you wanted to make a better argument, you should have dropped down polygamy. In cases where polygamy is not a front for massive abuse (see Warren Jeffs) I have nothing against it. It is a personal thing and I have no business in it.

You didn't expect me to just hand this to you, did you? Incest is a personal thing but you seem to rather against it. (and no I don't support incest, that's just freaking sick)

I could have sworn I answered this a few days ago. Reckon i wrote out my reply got distracted with something else then closed the browser without double checking.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-02 14:54:39 Reply

At 8/2/12 02:24 PM, Korriken wrote: Only if the female (if there is one) gets pregnant and gives birth. but hey, we got pills condoms and abortions for that kind of thing.

That's like saying a gun isn't dangerous unless you shoot it at something. It's stupid. Incest is sex with a relative. Sex presents a risk of pregnancy, even when protection is used. The thing is, the risk of conception is dropped by a smaller ratio than the risk of brith defects is raised by concieving with a close relative. That's a net gain in danger. That physical and actual hamr to a third person is more than enough to oppose incest. There is NO equivalent to that with homosexual relationships. NONE.

You didn't expect me to just hand this to you, did you? Incest is a personal thing but you seem to rather against it. (and no I don't support incest, that's just freaking sick)

Why should you? You have a people to oppress. Why think rationally when you can be Saddam?

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-02 20:14:36 Reply

At 8/2/12 01:14 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I 100% disagree with Dan Cathy's opinion. I believe it to be intolerant, idiotic, and outmoded thinking. I believe the issue of gay marriage to be as vital an issue of equal treatment and inclusion as the abolishment of segregation.

All that said, I do support, respect, and believe in Mr. Cathy's right to hold that opinion, and openly speak it. He did nothing illegal, he was asked a question, he answered it honestly based on his beliefs. Donating to causes to stop gay marriage from being legal isn't illegal either, it is however in my opinion prejudice and not something I agree with whatsoever. It is ridiculous that any government agency (state or federal) should try to use this to run him out of business, or stop him from expanding. If the people don't want to buy his product because they have serious qualms about how he spends the money he takes in from the company, then I would recommend those people simply don't eat at his restuarant and don't financially support it in any way. That is YOUR right, and there is nothing illegal in that either.

Vote with your wallet, don't let big brother shut him down...because once you start sending the message to the halls of power that The Bill of Rights is something you'll occasionally look the other way on, you've opened a very bad door and a very slippery slope.

;;;
Very Nicely said.

For the life of me I don't see the problem with gay marriage. THere is no reason it can't be legal under the law & at the same time have no bearing what-so-ever on ANY religious group !
I really don't understand why anyone that isn't directly affected cares !

I sort of get the religiously handicapped , who are against it because of their particular religiously motivated idiosyncracies !
But I see the solution as quite simple IMO.
If any religion doesn't believe gay marriage is right or should be sactioned then they simply don't marry anyone in their church. It is their club house, they already make up all the rules for their organization, Like how one should dress, what is taught, which days they want as religious ones, how people of the group should act....its already totally in their control & they decide on any changes on what they do & if they want to marry Gay & Lesbians let them. IF they don't that should be fine as well & it should be pointed out to them.

I have had my own very religious mother who has no problem with what a person does in their choice of lifestyle but she is very upset by the right of Gay people to marry. She believes as her religious group does, it should only be for a man & a woman.... but still she feels threatened (that's how I see it) by them having the same right as she does ! And she feels the law should be on her side, completely in opposition to myself.

I feel everyone should be equal under the law -period-
others for whatever reason obviouly have personal agenda's .
Which I feel needs to be pointed out ...the law & everyone under it are entitled to all the same protections & punishments, no matter what.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-02 23:02:43 Reply

At 8/2/12 02:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
That's like saying a gun isn't dangerous unless you shoot it at something.

an unloaded gun is harmless unless you swing it at someone like a club.

It's stupid. Incest is sex with a relative.

so? works for the royal families of europe.

Sex presents a risk of pregnancy, even when protection is used.

Unless its gay incest.

The thing is, the risk of conception is dropped by a smaller ratio than the risk of brith defects is raised by concieving with a close relative. That's a net gain in danger.
That physical and actual hamr to a third person is more than enough to oppose incest.

Does this mean you're anti abortion? Because, you know, abortion leads to the death of a 3rd person.

There is NO equivalent to that with homosexual relationships. NONE.

Both are deemed immoral by many groups, so there is that.


You didn't expect me to just hand this to you, did you? Incest is a personal thing but you seem to rather against it. (and no I don't support incest, that's just freaking sick)
Why should you? You have a people to oppress. Why think rationally when you can be Saddam?

Well it's almost an ad hitlerum...


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 00:14:39 Reply

Oh, btw, Chick-Fil-A apparently had a record breaking day.

It would seem that Cathy's stance didn't have the effect the left wanted it to have. it had the opposite effect.

I had me some waffle fries and a chicken sandwich earlier today. it was tasty.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 00:32:38 Reply

Korriken,

We can argue other issues until the cows come home, but that won't make a shit worth of difference with gay marriage. So how's about you stop trying to distract the issue and instead confront it head on. Why should one person's views be forced upon another?

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 05:42:02 Reply

At 8/1/12 09:49 PM, RacistBassist wrote: To be fair, no matter where you spend money, you will end up funding something you do not agree with. It's inevitable, unless you spend 24/7 being a watchdog researching deeply into every place before you go there

True, but this sounds a lot like the familiar "other bad things happen so don't pay attention to this one'"argument people make when they don't mind supporting the Bad Thing in question.

I'm sorry, but gays not getting a nod from the government isn't hurting anybody.

I'm going to falsely assume this is a joke.

At 8/3/12 12:14 AM, Korriken wrote: Oh, btw, Chick-Fil-A apparently had a record breaking day.

It would seem that Cathy's stance didn't have the effect the left wanted it to have. it had the opposite effect.

I had me some waffle fries and a chicken sandwich earlier today. it was tasty.

The immorality and ignorance of America is best summed up with images of a line going round the block for a greasy fast food restaurant who satisfies their bigotry rather than their nutritional needs. The near rapturous ecstasy of showing the world just how much they hate faggots by shoveling greasy chicken into their hateful maws is going to be idiosyncratic with the word "America" for years to come. So, congratulations, I guess.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 11:09:56 Reply

At 8/3/12 12:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Korriken,

We can argue other issues until the cows come home, but that won't make a shit worth of difference with gay marriage. So how's about you stop trying to distract the issue and instead confront it head on. Why should one person's views be forced upon another?

1. this topic was about politicians trying to force Chick Fil A out of town or prevent them from coming by illegal means. not whether Chick Fil A is oppressing anyone. you derailed the topic and I decided to humor you for a bit.

Why you decided you had to make this about you I have no idea, but I suppose I'll humor you for a bit longer.

Simple. 2 people have opposing issues, especially when it comes to the subjective concept of decency someone has to prevail and someone has to lose. Obviously who loses is determined by the laws and the people of whatever nation.

It could be said pedophiles are being oppressed (and good thing they are). You could also say cannibals are being oppressed (again, good thing)

You can even say teenagers are being oppressed because many things like drinking smoking and sex are illegal for minors. it doesnt hurt anyone else so why not?

why not legalize gay marriage? because the people as a whole don't agree with it. If they did agree, it would be legal. If the people as a whole believed that sex with a 13 year old was ok, it would be legal. Don't like it? convince the people to change their minds.

And shoving it in their faces doesn't work. Every gay pride parade and organized public affection display only makes things worse.

At 8/3/12 05:42 AM, Feoric wrote:
The immorality and ignorance of America is best summed up with images of a line going round the block for a greasy fast food restaurant who satisfies their bigotry rather than their nutritional needs. The near rapturous ecstasy of showing the world just how much they hate faggots by shoveling greasy chicken into their hateful maws is going to be idiosyncratic with the word "America" for years to come. So, congratulations, I guess.

I just LOVE how you lefties rage about Chick Fil A. It's really fun to watch the seething rage that you display when someone with means publicly opposes your views. I also find it humorous when the politicians go through possibly illegal means to get their way when someone dares to say differently.

Also, you scream and stomp your feet about hate and ignorance while being hateful and ignorant yourself, because, obviously, you only hear perfectly healthy foods, right? you would never eat anything fried, right? you're so perfect that you have the right to judge those who do, right?

Keep doing it, you're giving me some mild source of entertainment.

Or better yet, I want to see your cheers when someone actually tries to shut down a Chick Fil A forcefully by smashing out its windows or setting it on fire or something. Wonder how long that will take?


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 12:45:45 Reply

At 8/3/12 12:14 AM, Korriken wrote: Oh, btw, Chick-Fil-A apparently had a record breaking day.

It would seem that Cathy's stance didn't have the effect the left wanted it to have. it had the opposite effect.

Yeah, a record breaking day. Unless the right wing media succeeds in making every day Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day, judging from Chick-Fil-A's nosedive in public perception, I'd venture a guess that they might be in a spot of trouble when it comes to overall sales. You'll notice that they didn't mention in their press release what their sales were the days before and after their "record breaking" day, only that one day.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 13:45:11 Reply

At 8/3/12 12:45 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
Yeah, a record breaking day. Unless the right wing media succeeds in making every day Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day, judging from Chick-Fil-A's nosedive in public perception, I'd venture a guess that they might be in a spot of trouble when it comes to overall sales. You'll notice that they didn't mention in their press release what their sales were the days before and after their "record breaking" day, only that one day.

*shrug* they poll people "who have eaten fast food in the last month" and not "who ate at Chick Fil A" in the last month.

I don't trust that poll no more than I trust Obama when he mentions tax breaks. I could poll people in california, Massachusetts, and New York and get the results that America has suddenly taken a center left rather than center right position.

Also, This guy got what he deserved for being a typical self righteous leftist prick.

I'd venture to say the whole "nosedive in public perception" has more to do with the poll targeting the audience it wants to get the results it wants than it does with Chick-Fil-A losing customers, which apparently, it isn't. Maybe on a couple of college campuses, but those are bastions of leftist zombie training anyway.

Chick-Fil-A will survive and continue pissing off the left for years to come.

Chicago's discrimination


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 15:02:16 Reply

At 8/3/12 01:45 PM, Korriken wrote: *shrug* they poll people "who have eaten fast food in the last month" and not "who ate at Chick Fil A" in the last month.

I don't trust that poll no more than I trust Obama when he mentions tax breaks.

... So you DO trust it more? (Careful with those double negatives there.) :P

I could poll people in california, Massachusetts, and New York and get the results that America has suddenly taken a center left rather than center right position.

To be fair, I could poll pretty much anywhere and arrive at the conclusion that the country is center-left rather than center-right on key issues- Social Security, Medicare, taxes, banking regulation, war, campaign finance, etc. etc.

I'd venture to say the whole "nosedive in public perception" has more to do with the poll targeting the audience it wants to get the results it wants than it does with Chick-Fil-A losing customers, which apparently, it isn't.

Just curious, do you have any evidence at all to back up the two claims you're making here? Where is the evidence that YouGov is deliberately skewing their poll to make Chick-Fil-A look bad? Where is the evidence that Chick-Fil-A hasn't lost customers?

Maybe on a couple of college campuses, but those are bastions of leftist zombie training anyway.

Newsflash, college kids eat an ungodly amount of fast food, so does it make a whole lot of business sense to alienate a large portion of one's customer base with these kinds of political statements?


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 15:24:59 Reply

At 8/3/12 03:02 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
At 8/3/12 01:45 PM, Korriken wrote: *shrug* they poll people "who have eaten fast food in the last month" and not "who ate at Chick Fil A" in the last month.

I don't trust that poll no more than I trust Obama when he mentions tax breaks.
... So you DO trust it more? (Careful with those double negatives there.) :P

I could poll people in california, Massachusetts, and New York and get the results that America has suddenly taken a center left rather than center right position.
Just curious, do you have any evidence at all to back up the two claims you're making here? Where is the evidence that YouGov is deliberately skewing their poll to make Chick-Fil-A look bad? Where is the evidence that Chick-Fil-A hasn't lost customers.

Yougov is something you can join and take polls with, which means its polling base is an internet savvy with too much free time on their hands crowd. But I suppose it would depend on who commissioned the poll and what questions they put on it. Either way I wouldn't put too much stock in it. Time will tell.

I'm sure Chick Fil A lost some customers and undoubtedly gained some too. Whether its a net gain or loss has yet to be seen. Either way, at best you can expect a few college campus locations to possibly be evicted by the colleges and relocate, but it's not likely anything major will come of this unless Occupy protestors decide to Occupy Chick-Fil-A

Newsflash, college kids eat an ungodly amount of fast food, so does it make a whole lot of business sense to alienate a large portion of one's customer base with these kinds of political statements?

if Chick Fil A was only on college campuses, I would say yeah, but the bulk of them are either standalone restaurants or in mall food courts.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 15:36:24 Reply

At 8/3/12 11:09 AM, Korriken wrote: 1. this topic was about politicians trying to force Chick Fil A out of town or prevent them from coming by illegal means. not whether Chick Fil A is oppressing anyone. you derailed the topic and I decided to humor you for a bit.

Actually, it was you who put it on this course. I was saying that the statements by the Boston Mayor were valid and you chose to argue that point.

It could be said pedophiles are being oppressed (and good thing they are). You could also say cannibals are being oppressed (again, good thing)

Only an idiot would even think these are on the same plane as the issue of homosexuality. Neither of those situations involve two consenting adults without physical harm to anyone involved or outside of the group.

why not legalize gay marriage? because the people as a whole don't agree with it. If they did agree, it would be legal. If the people as a whole believed that sex with a 13 year old was ok, it would be legal. Don't like it? convince the people to change their minds.

So we should put all issues up to the people? What about the Constitution?

And shoving it in their faces doesn't work. Every gay pride parade and organized public affection display only makes things worse.

How does forcing one's views upon others make ANYONE better off? Are we to just stick with the status quo because it's the status quo even if it hurts people? Even if it has no benefit whatsoever? Even if it was intentionally meant to hurt people?

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 17:03:22 Reply

At 8/3/12 11:09 AM, Korriken wrote: I just LOVE how you lefties rage about Chick Fil A. It's really fun to watch the seething rage that you display when someone with means publicly opposes your views. I also find it humorous when the politicians go through possibly illegal means to get their way when someone dares to say differently.

"You lefties?" I don't self identify myself as a leftist, but you're extremely narrow minded so I can see how you think everyone in America can be boiled down to just "left" and "right." It has more to do with tribalism than anything else; 'my side yay, your side boo,' which circumvents any preconceived notions of an intellectual discussion, so long as you can just brand people's "team" on their foreheads based on whether you agree with them or not. Also, do me a favor and show me anywhere in the thread where anyone thought the mayors blocking the expansion of CFA was legally a good idea.

Also, you scream and stomp your feet about hate and ignorance while being hateful and ignorant yourself, because, obviously, you only hear perfectly healthy foods, right? you would never eat anything fried, right? you're so perfect that you have the right to judge those who do, right?

I see what you're trying to do here and it's not really working. There's nothing ignorant about pointing out the fact that fast food is unhealthy? Not too sure what mental gymnastics you had to go through to make the case that I have to always eat healthy food in order to point out the ludicrousness of a bunch of ostensibly anti-gay marriage supporters going out of their way to eat shitty greasy food as a smug political demonstration.

Keep doing it, you're giving me some mild source of entertainment.

So you think finding an excuse to post your really shitty opinions with equally shitty arguments is entertaining?

Or better yet, I want to see your cheers when someone actually tries to shut down a Chick Fil A forcefully by smashing out its windows or setting it on fire or something. Wonder how long that will take?

It's probably happening right now. Those godless nazi liberals are always the perpetrators.

It could be said pedophiles are being oppressed (and good thing they are). You could also say cannibals are being oppressed (again, good thing)

See I actually don't understand what has to happen to a person's brain in order to think that the very clear oppression of gay couples in this country can be diminished, because, well, you could make the argument that cannibals are being oppressed, and that's a good thing, because we all hate cannibals, so therefore the oppression of gays is sort of alright, because the interpretation of whether or not a group of people is being oppressed is, like subjective, man!

why not legalize gay marriage? because the people as a whole don't agree with it. If they did agree, it would be legal. If the people as a whole believed that sex with a 13 year old was ok, it would be legal. Don't like it? convince the people to change their minds.

Yeah, I mean, having sex with a 13 year old is morally equivalent to gay marriage. Another good point.

And shoving it in their faces doesn't work. Every gay pride parade and organized public affection display only makes things worse.

Excellent point! I look back on the failure of the civil rights movement and I say to myself gosh! If only they were more subtle! Surely then they would have won the good fight then.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 20:46:54 Reply

At 8/3/12 05:03 PM, Feoric wrote:
"You lefties?" I don't self identify myself as a leftist, but you're extremely narrow minded so I can see how you think everyone in America can be boiled down to just "left" and "right."

nah, that's just your perception of me. Doesn't really make a lick what you "identify" yourself as. I could be the most liberal prick on earth and "identify" myself as a centrist. Works well for many politicians

It has more to do with tribalism than anything else; 'my side yay, your side boo,' which circumvents any preconceived notions of an intellectual discussion, so long as you can just brand people's "team" on their foreheads based on whether you agree with them or not.

If you say so.

Also, do me a favor and show me anywhere in the thread where anyone thought the mayors blocking the expansion of CFA was legally a good idea.

Legally no, given that it is clearly illegal to block a business from doing business based on the views of its owner. Any fool saying that legally its a good idea would be shot down.

I see what you're trying to do here and it's not really working. There's nothing ignorant about pointing out the fact that fast food is unhealthy? Not too sure what mental gymnastics you had to go through to make the case that I have to always eat healthy food in order to point out the ludicrousness of a bunch of ostensibly anti-gay marriage supporters going out of their way to eat shitty greasy food as a smug political demonstration.

Only because of your hatred for those who eat Chick Fil A to show their support for it. Otherwise they would just be eating fast food. Problem if you went through the trouble to describe in some detail the act of eating fast food.

... The near rapturous ecstasy of showing the world just how much they hate faggots by shoveling greasy chicken into their hateful maws is going to be idiosyncratic with the word "America" for years to come. So, congratulations, I guess.

"Faggots shoveling greasy chicken into their hateful maws." sounds pretty hateful and judgmental to me. Mix that in with what you just said, and yes, I can FEEL the hate coursing through you and it is strong. Faggots being rather ironic given that many of them are anti gay, and some others showed support because they don't want big brother to dictate who can and cannot open a business.

So you think finding an excuse to post your really shitty opinions with equally shitty arguments is entertaining?

Say what you will, but you're the one spouting hatred in the name of tolerance. so yeah, keep being a hypocrite.

It's probably happening right now. Those godless nazi liberals are always the perpetrators.

that didn't take long. Typical. Got no legal recourse since speaking your mind isn't illegal so they have to turn to criminal acts.

See I actually don't understand what has to happen to a person's brain in order to think that the very clear oppression of gay couples in this country can be diminished, because, well, you could make the argument that cannibals are being oppressed, and that's a good thing, because we all hate cannibals, so therefore the oppression of gays is sort of alright, because the interpretation of whether or not a group of people is being oppressed is, like subjective, man!

Typical. You can call me stupid all day long to shrug off any argument I make, which is kind of entertaining. Gays are no more "oppressed" than whitey. Do we kill gays? no. do we falsely accuse them in order to lock them away? no. Can they marry? in some places yes. If you wanna be gay and get married the answer is simple, just move to California where they put up with everything. You talk about how immortal it is to force your will upon someone else while trying to force your will upon everyone else.

Yeah, I mean, having sex with a 13 year old is morally equivalent to gay marriage. Another good point.

In some parts of the world both are perfectly legal. in other parts of the world both are illegal. It all depends on how you look at it. also, if the 13 year old wants it, who are you to tell him/her no? it's their decision, much like gays deciding they want to get married.

Excellent point! I look back on the failure of the civil rights movement and I say to myself gosh! If only they were more subtle! Surely then they would have won the good fight then.

Big difference there. Last time I checked a pile of gays walking down the road won't get hosed down or have dogs sent after them. But I suppose people will try to link their cause to the civil rights movement. Also, you really should do your homework. the blacks had it much much worse. the gays have it easy and should be thankful they're not oppressed. Can't say I've ever heard of a gay being lynched by a lynch mob, or systematically abused or having their property confiscated because of them being gay.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 20:58:01 Reply

At 8/2/12 12:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I know there's a lot of crazy stuff in the Bible.

Ok, but you said The Bible is Christianity, then tried to act like there's nothing in The Bible that would fuel anyone who identifies as a Christian to feel like the book teaches or promotes a bigoted or prejudiced attitude and challenged people to show you otherwise. That's all I attempted to do, just to be clear.

I know that too, and that's largely why I scoff at those who say the Bible is support for any negative act.

Huh? You said The Bible is Christianity...and in this case The Bible is a very clear and valid thing for a Christian to point to when saying "I believe homosexuality is wrong, it will make God angry...and we definitely shouldn't let them get married". The Bible backs that view 1000%.

They pick and choose whichever portions of the Bible they want to use and ignore those which are inconvenient or irrelevant.

Hey! Kind of like what you're doing to try and separate Dan Cathy's 100% Bible supported, Christian views from what YOU want Christianity and the Bible to be.

Yet, they come back and say the Bible is why homosexuality is wrong.

Well, it says that it is so...if one is to identify as Christian, and furthermore one identifies Christianity, or at least an article of the faith being that The Bible is the valid text which teaches Christian values...then it is very easy to see, and could in fact be argued that it is an imperative that Christian be anti-homosexuality.

My argument is directly attacking their argument. It is not meant to stand on its own.

Well, your argument stinks, because it isn't actually based in fact, it's based on the cherry picking you yourself decry, and ignoring very blatant and bold faced evidence.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 21:01:09 Reply

At 8/2/12 02:24 PM, Korriken wrote:
It's a good one. you can't just cast it aside because you don't like it. If gays can get married, why can't cousins?

You can do better then the slippery slope shit. By the way, cousins CAN be married in certain states, even first cousins. Why not try one of the sillier one's while your at it?

You didn't expect me to just hand this to you, did you? Incest is a personal thing but you seem to rather against it. (and no I don't support incest, that's just freaking sick)

Gay marriage is not equivalent to Incestous marriage. This is a false equivalency that is frankly disgusting and I'm absolutely sick of hearing it.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 21:07:03 Reply

At 8/3/12 08:46 PM, Korriken wrote: "Faggots shoveling greasy chicken into their hateful maws." sounds pretty hateful and judgmental to me. Mix that in with what you just said, and yes, I can FEEL the hate coursing through you and it is strong. Faggots being rather ironic given that many of them are anti gay, and some others showed support because they don't want big brother to dictate who can and cannot open a business.

I see what you're doing here, and it's quite annoying. Picture a Neo-Nazi shouting "white power", "kill the N****rs", and "The Jews control all the money!" Then picture that same Neo-nazi standing back and smugly saying he's being discriminated against when people call him out on his hateful views. That's you. You're supporting the denial of rights (far beyond the mere title of marriage) for a large swath of the population and when people respond with things like "that view is shitty and hateful" you stand back with a smug attitude and act as if you're being attacked. Grow up.

If you wanna be gay and get married the answer is simple, just move to California where they put up with everything. :

let's turn this bullshit argument around. if you want to live in a world where religion rules and gays have no rights, go live in iran where that kind of thing is allowed. leave the freedom to the land of the Free.

You talk about how immoral it is to force your will upon someone else while trying to force your will upon everyone else.

This is a crappy argument. No one is asking you to marry a man. No is asking you to perform a gay marriage. No one is asking you to attend a gay marriage. No one is asking you to even approve or tolerate gay marriage. No values are being forced upon you. The ONLY value that can even be creatively claimed is being forced on anyone is the value that is is immoral to force one's values upon others. So let's weight this: asking those who don't like gay marriage to butt out v. those who want to allow two consenting adults to be able to enter into a relationship that harms no one. So, how's about you do what you wish the government would do and fuck off.

In some parts of the world both are perfectly legal. in other parts of the world both are illegal. It all depends on how you look at it. also, if the 13 year old wants it, who are you to tell him/her no? it's their decision, much like gays deciding they want to get married.

Someone clearly doesn't understand the age of consent...

Big difference there. Last time I checked a pile of gays walking down the road won't get hosed down or have dogs sent after them. But I suppose people will try to link their cause to the civil rights movement. Also, you really should do your homework. the blacks had it much much worse. the gays have it easy and should be thankful they're not oppressed. Can't say I've ever heard of a gay being lynched by a lynch mob, or systematically abused or having their property confiscated because of them being gay.

Really? Have you lived in a bubble? Does the name Matthew Shepard not ring a bell? If you think gays aren't persecuted you're just flat out mistaken (or deliberately not paying attention in order to further your support of the discrimination).

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 21:14:40 Reply

At 8/3/12 08:58 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Well, your argument stinks, because it isn't actually based in fact, it's based on the cherry picking you yourself decry, and ignoring very blatant and bold faced evidence.

OK, back to point A, because this is getting annoying.

If the plain text of the Bible is the source of Christianity, than these same folk who claim the Bible and Christianity as support against homosexuality are failing when they eat shrimp, or by outlawing child slavery, or by outlawing the stoning of women. By not maiming their adulterous wives they are going against the Bible.

Therefore, they are cherry picking which text of the Bible to use and which to not use. They fail at following the text of the Bible.

Then there is the Spirit of the Bible (faith, devotion, and the teachings of Jesus). By choosing to restrict the rights of others purely out of dislike for their lifestyle, they are directly going against the teachings of Jesus, and thus they are not following the spirit of the Bible.

The only way the Bible can be legitimately used to go against homosexuality would be following the text 100%, including the massive amount (vastly outnumbering the anti-homosexual portions) of scripture that preaches the virtues of live and live, and being kind to all others regardless of their choices and deeds. That would lead a person to disapprove of homosexuality and believe it's a sin, but would lead them to do nothing about it as the rest of the Bible commands them not to.

So exactly how is the argument wrong?

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 23:26:06 Reply

At 8/3/12 09:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
I see what you're doing here, and it's quite annoying. Picture a Neo-Nazi...

you calling me a neo nazi? ... nah.

Then picture that same Neo-nazi standing back and smugly saying he's being discriminated against when people call him out on his hateful views. That's you.
Guess you are. So I'm a skinhead now because I don't believe as you do. very nice. I'll be sure to shave my head in the morning. any other choice phrases?

You're supporting the denial of rights (far beyond the mere title of marriage) for a large swath of the population and when people respond with things like "that view is shitty and hateful" you stand back with a smug attitude and act as if you're being attacked. Grow up.

nah, I'm just pointing out that he was being a total hypocrite. of course, seeing such is impossible for you when you agree with what he's saying. It's the problem with some folks. Course, you're spouting your own hatred, calling my a neo nazi when you have no proof that I am a neo nazi at all. If anything that's slander.

uh huh. right.... well, no, that's wrong. I didn't say I was being attacked. I'm saying he's spewing hate for Chick Fil A supporters

let's turn this bullshit argument around. if you want to live in a world where religion rules and gays have no rights, go live in iran where that kind of thing is allowed. leave the freedom to the land of the Free.

Nah, I like Texas just fine, where speaking your mind is legal and politicians don't try to force people out of business for their personal beliefs.

This is a crappy argument. No one is asking you to marry a man.

No, but they're telling me to go against my beliefs... I find it slightly ironic that the Catholic religion has fallen so far as to allow gays into the priesthood. *shrug* It's almost enough to make one lose faith.

No is asking you to perform a gay marriage. No one is asking you to attend a gay marriage.

no, but there have been discrimination lawsuits against churches and such for refusing to marry gay couples.

No one is asking you to even approve or tolerate gay marriage.

no, I'm just being labeled a hateful ignorant bigot because I don't throw my beliefs aside.

No values are being forced upon you.

like hell.

The ONLY value that can even be creatively claimed is being forced on anyone is the value that is is immoral to force one's values upon others.

possible.

So let's weight this: asking those who don't like gay marriage to butt out v. those who want to allow two consenting adults to be able to enter into a relationship that harms no one.

Do as you will, just don't do it in front of me... which is why I don't live in California and never will.

So, how's about you do what you wish the government would do and fuck off.

I'd have no problem if the government would get out of the marriage business. Course, I would also have no problem with gay civil unions granting the same rights as a marriage as far as taxation and such goes.

Someone clearly doesn't understand the age of consent...

Which depends on which country you're in. thanks for making my point.

Really? Have you lived in a bubble? Does the name Matthew Shepard not ring a bell? If you think gays aren't persecuted you're just flat out mistaken (or deliberately not paying attention in order to further your support of the discrimination).

When was the last time cops showed up in riot gear to a gay parade with the intention of shutting it down forcefully? Hell in this day and age a group of Illegal Immigrants can parade down the road and not get arrested and deported.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-03 23:53:30 Reply

At 8/3/12 11:26 PM, Korriken wrote: you calling me a neo nazi? ... nah.

No. Metaphor.

nah, I'm just pointing out that he was being a total hypocrite. of course, seeing such is impossible for you when you agree with what he's saying. It's the problem with some folks. Course, you're spouting your own hatred, calling my a neo nazi when you have no proof that I am a neo nazi at all. If anything that's slander.

Nice. Why actually respond when you can intentionally twist and play the false victim again. Sounds very GOP to me.

uh huh. right.... well, no, that's wrong. I didn't say I was being attacked. I'm saying he's spewing hate for Chick Fil A supporters

Feoric may be doing so, frankly, I haven't cared to read much into what he wrote, but the smug attitude has existed the entire debate, long before anybody made any comment about the Chick FilA supporters.


Nah, I like Texas just fine, where speaking your mind is legal and politicians don't try to force people out of business for their personal beliefs.

You don't get it. You MUST leave in order to be able to live in the Theocracy you so crave. Let's match it up to what you want more closely. Not only can you not have your theocracy, you will be taxed higher, lose hospital rights, lose many proibate rights and more for openly declaring your following of Christianity. Either pay more for your beliefs, emotions, lifestyle, and soul or go to Iran.

Starting to make sense now?

No, but they're telling me to go against my beliefs... I find it slightly ironic that the Catholic religion has fallen so far as to allow gays into the priesthood. *shrug* It's almost enough to make one lose faith.

What the hell do others' marriages have to do with your beliefs? What does their personal relationship have to do with your beliefs?

no, but there have been discrimination lawsuits against churches and such for refusing to marry gay couples.

And the churches will win every time. So, the possibility of lawsuits is enough to deny them marriage?

no, I'm just being labeled a hateful ignorant bigot because I don't throw my beliefs aside.

No. You're only labelled that because you are forcing your restrictive beliefs upon those who clearly don't believe what you do. Would you like it if you were forced to pray toward Mecca 5 times a day? Or if the women you know were not allowed to show any skin at all? What you ask of Gays is no different than that.

like hell.

How?! How does gay marriage, a ceremony that exists 100% separate from you rlife altogether have any effect your values? Really?

Do as you will, just don't do it in front of me... which is why I don't live in California and never will.

Again, would you have it where you were not allowed to declare as Christian without losing privileges? keep your Biblethumping and crosswaving elsewhere, and not in front of me. Because I believe that, (under your logic) I now have the right to glo into your home and restrict your actions. No intestate rights for you. I mean, your personal Christian declaration has 100% to do with my values.

Which depends on which country you're in. thanks for making my point.

The age of consent isn't a moral decision though. It's a safety decision based upon when we believe a person is ready to make certain decisions and understand their consequences. Society has determined that a person below that age is too prone to being taken advantage of to make the decision on their own. The only reason it's an arbitrary number is because a case by case evaluation would bog the system down. Your decision about homosexuality has no such safety based reason. At best, it's morally based. The government is NOT in the business of picking and choosing morals to foist upon everyone.

When was the last time cops showed up in riot gear to a gay parade with the intention of shutting it down forcefully? Hell in this day and age a group of Illegal Immigrants can parade down the road and not get arrested and deported.

So just because things aren't "as bad" means they should shut up and take it? What kind of thinking is that?

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-04 00:17:46 Reply

At 8/3/12 11:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
nah, I'm just pointing out that he was being a total hypocrite.
Nice. Why actually respond when you can intentionally twist and play the false victim again. Sounds very GOP to me.

I did respond. you ignored it. Stop being dishonest. Here. I even deleted the irrelevant parts for you. just look up.

Feoric may be doing so, frankly, I haven't cared to read much into what he wrote, but the smug attitude has existed the entire debate, long before anybody made any comment about the Chick FilA supporters.

so you don't bother to read what he wrote, then you judge me on my response to him? genius.

You don't get it. You MUST leave in order to be able to live in the Theocracy you so crave.

who said I wanted to live in a theocracy? wasn't me.

Let's match it up to what you want more closely. Not only can you not have your theocracy, you will be taxed higher, lose hospital rights, lose many proibate rights and more for openly declaring your following of Christianity. Either pay more for your beliefs, emotions, lifestyle, and soul or go to Iran.

You know, I was doing to ignore the whole "to go iran thing" but that's the worst analogy ever, given that christians are openly persecuted in Iran. That would be like you moving to, well, Iran, where they hang gays.


Starting to make sense now?

Given that non muslims are persecuted in Iran? no.

What the hell do others' marriages have to do with your beliefs? What does their personal relationship have to do with your beliefs?
And the churches will win every time. So, the possibility of lawsuits is enough to deny them marriage?

will they? we'll see.

No. You're only labelled that because you are forcing your restrictive beliefs upon those who clearly don't believe what you do. Would you like it if you were forced to pray toward Mecca 5 times a day? Or if the women you know were not allowed to show any skin at all? What you ask of Gays is no different than that.
How?! How does gay marriage, a ceremony that exists 100% separate from you rlife altogether have any effect your values? Really?
Again, would you have it where you were not allowed to declare as Christian without losing privileges?

and exactly how does declaring yourself as gay cost you privileges? We don't live in the middle east.

keep your Biblethumping and crosswaving elsewhere, and not in front of me.

funny statement given that I don't wear a crucifix (or wave any other form of cross) and I don't thump bibles.

Because I believe that, (under your logic) I now have the right to glo into your home and restrict your actions. No intestate rights for you. I mean, your personal Christian declaration has 100% to do with my values.

right... Not sure how you got to that conclusion, but you should take that logic to the olympic games. might win gold in gymnastics. When was the last time someone kicked in your door and told you you couldn't be with your gay lover?

The age of consent isn't a moral decision though.

is it? I would beg to differ.

It's a safety decision based upon when we believe a person is ready to make certain decisions and understand their consequences. Society has determined that a person below that age is too prone to being taken advantage of to make the decision on their own.

and why is it Society's place to make such a decision? at 10-13 (depending on state) a child of divorced parents can decide which parent they want to live with. that's a pretty important decision that can have a large effect on the child's life.

So just because things aren't "as bad" means they should shut up and take it? What kind of thinking is that?

you're the one making the analogy. not me... well Feoric was anyway. Had you read his posts you would know that.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-05 03:24:44 Reply

At 8/3/12 09:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote: OK, back to point A, because this is getting annoying.

Because I'm right? Yeah...I hate that too. It's off topic anyway, but this thread has been pretty swingingly wildly anyway.

If the plain text of the Bible is the source of Christianity,

Which was your argument. My argument is (and has always been if you bother to check any post I've ever made when someone tries to say all you need for Christianity is the Bible) that it is only PART of Christianity and the teachings of whichever church or sect the Christian(s) in question belongs to.

than these same folk who claim the Bible and Christianity as support against homosexuality are failing when they eat shrimp, or by outlawing child slavery, or by outlawing the stoning of women. By not maiming their adulterous wives they are going against the Bible.

True, but not necessarily their church or what they have been taught to believe, or have been taught is Christianity. Since many Churches teach things that are not explicitly in the Bible text, but they interpret from it. That's been my whole point. You can't boil Christianity to the Bible.

Therefore, they are cherry picking which text of the Bible to use and which to not use. They fail at following the text of the Bible.

This is not the argument you initially made...you initially charged that Christians could not hate or discriminate on gays because the Bible wouldn't back it (but must now admit it does), you also fail to address the argument I continue to make that The Bible is not the be all end all of Christianity, and continue to treat the religion as a unified field theory. That's what's annoying me right now and why the argument is worthless really. You won't play fair and address points that shoot your thesis to hell.

Then there is the Spirit of the Bible (faith, devotion, and the teachings of Jesus). By choosing to restrict the rights of others purely out of dislike for their lifestyle,

Actually, it's because God says he doesn't like that lifestyle and will punish it with Hell.

they are directly going against the teachings of Jesus, and thus they are not following the spirit of the Bible.

There's a lot of stuff Jesus said that they don't follow. Jesus didn't want churches really and they ignored that completely. The Bible isn't the unabridged Jesus anyway...it's a committee made "greatest hits" collection.

The only way the Bible can be legitimately used to go against homosexuality would be following the text 100%,

No, the only way the Bible can be legitimately used to go against homosexuality is to point out the parts where it says God is against homosexuality.

including the massive amount (vastly outnumbering the anti-homosexual portions) of scripture that preaches the virtues of live and live, and being kind to all others regardless of their choices and deeds.

So? There's still explicit and uncompromising prohibitions in there as well that believers can absolutely use to condemn and sanction actions and ideas they don't fucking like. Then there's whole institutions that do the same. I think it's wrong as fuck and it sucks...but I can see WHY they might get the idea to do such shitty asinine things.

That would lead a person to disapprove of homosexuality and believe it's a sin, but would lead them to do nothing about it as the rest of the Bible commands them not to.

Nothing? The Bible and The Church has taught marriage is always between a man and a woman, and they believe only God can sanction a marriage. So that leads a believer to think that while it wouldn't be cool to say, murder a gay person...it WOULD be ok, and in fact perhaps a religious imperative to make sure that gay marriage never, ever, occurs...or God will be pissed and the Bible is full of examples of how bad God can act when He's pissed.

Like I said, I think Dan Cathy and people like him are wrong as hell and their arguments are piles of crap that have no place in a logical discussion about what should be a matter of secular law. But I can follow the logic that would lead them to form such opinions, and because I like my freedom of speech and other rights, it must unfortunately mean I have to be in defense of speech and the exercising of the rights of others I don't like.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-05 23:26:46 Reply

At 8/5/12 03:24 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Because I'm right?

Yes, but on a different question. Think of two lonely ships passing in the night completely unaware of the other's existence.

You are arguing that a person can in the purest sense use the Bible to support the position against homosexuality. I never argued against that. Hell, I bet I could find a part of the Bible that says following the Bible makes you the Devil. But that's very different. Like I've told many people: just because you can do something doesn't make it right.

My argument is that it's completely specious to use Christianity as a base. So what if Christianity isn't a unified theory? The argument that uses the Bible as evidence against homosexuals and homosexual marriage is pretty damn unified. They point to leviticus. The problem with this is exactly what I said before. By choosing to rely upon the base text, yet ignoring the vast majority of that text, the argument is hypocritical at best. It essentially says "The Bible is the be all end all... when we want it to be, otherwise, it's just a book of stories that are not relevant to today's times." "Love and kindness to all, except when we feel like not likeing them, then it's A-OK to dig through the Bible and find a text that supports our misdeeds, and then it's not only tolerated by our peaceful loving religion, it's encouraged."

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-06 01:03:36 Reply

At 8/5/12 11:26 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You are arguing that a person can in the purest sense use the Bible to support the position against homosexuality.

Yes sir.

I never argued against that.

This is what you said:

"I would also like a reason to show that such a view actually fits within the Christian religion"

I then said the Bible says so, you then tried to dismiss that like the Bible didn't really seem to matter all that much. You wanted a reason, you got one, and you've been wriggling ever since.

Hell, I bet I could find a part of the Bible that says following the Bible makes you the Devil.

Give it a shot...it won't change that The Bible is explicit in saying unequivocally homosexuality is wrong. You fucked up, you argued badly, admit it, accept it, and let's get back to the real fucking issue already.

Like I've told many people: just because you can do something doesn't make it right.

But it is right! I'm right in presenting explicit biblical prohibitions against homosexuality as being a very excellent base for a Christian to be against homosexuality and equal rights for homosexuals.

My argument is that it's completely specious to use Christianity as a base.

Holy shit no it isn't...unless you know, you're going to try and divorce the Holy Bible from the religion. Are you a Christian? Is that you're issue?

The argument that uses the Bible as evidence against homosexuals and homosexual marriage is pretty damn unified. They point to leviticus.

Curse them for using evidence inconvenient to your attempt to paint Christianity as a religion tolerant of homosexuality.

The problem with this is exactly what I said before. By choosing to rely upon the base text, yet ignoring the vast majority of that text, the argument is hypocritical at best.

How the fuck is relying upon a very explicit, unequivocal prohibition in the text somehow wrong? It's like saying the 10 commandments can't possibly apply because there are clear instances where God, or those God anoints don't abide by them. This is a wiggle, and it's laughable.

It essentially says "The Bible is the be all end all... when we want it to be, otherwise, it's just a book of stories that are not relevant to today's times."

Or it's just saying "My holy book says gays are wrong...therefore it is part of my faith not to want gays to have rights and priviledges that are ascribed to that faith". That's ALL that has actually been said that caused this entire issue to even crop up. We're not talking about someone saying "death to gays" we're talking about someone saying "God is the author and authority upon marriage...he frowns on homosexuality and has explicitly come out against it...thus we should not provoke him by marrying them".

"Love and kindness to all, except when we feel like not likeing them, then it's A-OK to dig through the Bible and find a text that supports our misdeeds, and then it's not only tolerated by our peaceful loving religion, it's encouraged."

Please, you're bitching that they don't follow the interpretation you want to push. Also I know many Christians who in fact DO tolerate homosexuals, but don't believe in their lifestyle or that they have a right to marriage. Tolerance doesn't mean liking everybody. It just means trying not to fuck with their existence. My whole point is their IS a basis for the idiocy that the Christian Right trumpets about something that doesn't effect them because it's a matter of law, not spirituality.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-06 17:09:35 Reply

At 8/5/12 11:26 PM, Camarohusky wrote: ... "The Bible is the be all end all... when we want it to be, otherwise, it's just a book of stories that are not relevant to today's times." "Love and kindness to all, except when we feel like not likeing them, then it's A-OK to dig through the Bible and find a text that supports our misdeeds, and then it's not only tolerated by our peaceful loving religion, it's encouraged."

Yes there are Christians out there who hate. The Westboro Baptist Church and most likely this douche in Wisconsin.

BUT I'm not sure Dan Cathy falls into this category. Because yes, it does preach "hate the sin, love the sinner". But it also commands the faithful to: a) live Christian values b) promote & proselytize Christian ethics. Therefore there is an implied task of helping people not live sinful lives...to include homosexuals. So when Cathy made his comments about marriage (he also included divorce and I'm not all pissy about his 'hate speech' about ppl like me who are divorced and re-married)...he also issued statements about how his company does not discriminate against his employees, franchisees and customers regardless of race, gender, sexuality and faith and pledges to continue treating everyone with dignity and respect.

I fail to see where he is being the hypocrite you claim him to be.

Furthermore, marriage is a religous union according to some people's religious beliefs that do have set parameters. Therefore in a secular society that values individual civil rights and tolerance...we have to learn that we will not agree with one another over very personal lifestyles and belief structures.

So here is the 500lbs Gorilla in the room. Should the government be involved in defining and regulating marriage? What right is it for them to be so involved in a) a person's status with their church and b) romantic relationship with another consenting adult? Maybe if it was left up to individual churches rather than the Feds or States or Counties or Cities...this subject would not be so divisive.

And yes I support both the right for homosexuals to marry AND Chick-fil-a.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
EKublai
EKublai
  • Member since: Dec. 13, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 18
Animator
Response to Chicago's discrimination 2012-08-10 12:35:05 Reply

At 8/6/12 05:09 PM, TheMason wrote:
So here is the 500lbs Gorilla in the room. Should the government be involved in defining and regulating marriage? What right is it for them to be so involved in a) a person's status with their church and b) romantic relationship with another consenting adult? Maybe if it was left up to individual churches rather than the Feds or States or Counties or Cities...this subject would not be so divisive.

And yes I support both the right for homosexuals to marry AND Chick-fil-a.

My philosophy on this pretty much brings me to the same conclusion. A Christian may call himself a Christian, but all people apply religion to fit their own needs, so really all Christians follow a different version of Christianity and essentially, a different God altogether. Some of these versions are very similar, but in the end, one discrepancy between belief systems is a rift. That's why there are churches, to be the umbrella under which many people of similar but different belief can come together and at least pretend to be praying to the same God.

But back to the point. If the individual chruch's requirement is to not perform homosexual marriages, then a homosexual couple should not be getting married there. They need to be married under THEIR God in a church that VOLUNTARILY offers to sanctify their union. It's completely on the churches , not on the state nor the federal government, to change its own views of God in order to help its congregation and fulfill its congregation's needs. Otherwise, there is no purpose for a church at all.


BBS Signature