• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

"I'm a Christian who believes the Bible, and I don't believe in homosexual marriage."

Status
Not open for further replies.
uh, that's not something between choice and genetics, it's just genes that are sometimes triggered and sometimes not. kids don't have choice over their developmental environments.



hahahaha

that's some good trollin'

as per the twins studies in epigenetics, thats not what it says. identical twins have matching DNA, however only 20% of both the twins are homosexual, this means its not the genes which trigger homosexuality, its something that happens right after, before a human choice but after the genes are in place. If it was solely the genes which played a role then the 20% should have been a minimum of 90% of twins would both be homosexual if either one was.
 

Arkeband

Banned
Is there any alternative way, in your eyes, to accept gay people without leaving that church?

I think this is the argument for the church needing change from within. The further you go on the scale from completely accepting toward "hellfire and brimstone douchebag", the less likely those hearts and minds are ever going to be changed. So it's up to ChristianGAF and all of those "I'm a Christian, but..." people to not only talk the talk but walk the walk. If your faith is that important to you, and you still congregate, it's your duty to engage your congregation about it, because they will actually listen to you.

You're accepting, great, awesome. But you staying mum about it means that the guy up in arms about it next to you thinks his hate is surrounded by support just because you both believe in Jesus.

Be a leader, not a silent ally. And if they push back and say 'no, you're wrong', then your attendance is better spent elsewhere.
 

aeolist

Banned
as per the twins studies in epigenetics, thats not what it says. identical twins have matching DNA, however only 20% of both the twins are homosexual, this means its not the genes which trigger homosexuality, its something that happens right after, before a human choice but after the genes are in place. If it was solely the genes which played a role then the 20% should have been a minimum of 90% of twins would both be homosexual if either one was.

i suppose you could call it "choice" if you wanted to be a pedant about it. the kid's parents or guardians choose what environment their charges will be brought up in, even though i very much doubt anyone makes that kind of decision while specifically trying to account for potential sexual orientation. in either case you can't say it's the kid's choice.
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
i suppose you could call it "choice" if you wanted to be a pedant about it. the kid's parents or guardians choose what environment their charges will be brought up in, even though i very much doubt anyone makes that kind of decision while specifically trying to account for potential sexual orientation. in either case you can't say it's the kid's choice.

You can take the twin example in another direction. How much of it was the environment if it was largely similar?

It is complex.

Genetic
Epigenetic
Hormomal
Environment. Maybe. Haven't seen to much here.last I saw adopted children raised by homosexuals were not more likely to be gay.
Birth order in males

Ultimately it is largely irrelevant. Even if it was a choice, which it isnt, I don't care.
A person wants to marry another consenting adult? Go for it.
 

Ray Wonder

Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
I think this is the argument for the church needing change from within. The further you go on the scale from completely accepting toward "hellfire and brimstone douchebag", the less likely those hearts and minds are ever going to be changed. So it's up to ChristianGAF and all of those "I'm a Christian, but..." people to not only talk the talk but walk the walk. If your faith is that important to you, and you still congregate, it's your duty to engage your congregation about it, because they will actually listen to you.

You're accepting, great, awesome. But you staying mum about it means that the guy up in arms about it next to you thinks his hate is surrounded by support just because you both believe in Jesus.

Be a leader, not a silent ally. And if they push back and say 'no, you're wrong', then your attendance is better spent elsewhere.

I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I'm not religious in the slightest. I was just being curious. I agree with what you said though.
 

Monocle

Member
Personally I'm not interested in being friends with anyone who would offer me some weird chimera of love fused with disapproval of a core aspect of my personality, and act like they're doing me a favor for overlooking something unsavory in my character. Just go away.
 
Personally I'm not interested in being friends with anyone who would offer me some weird chimera of love fused with disapproval of a core aspect of my personality, and act like they're doing me a favor for overlooking something unsavory in my character. Just go away.

I think a lot of conservatives view it as having an overweight friend. You may think he really needs to stop eating so much and wish he would get healthier. But just because you disapprove of his eating habits doesn't mean you can't be friends.

I don't agree with this, but I think that's a similar thought process.
 

bounchfx

Member
I think a lot of conservatives view it as having an overweight friend. You may think he really needs to stop eating so much and wish he would get healthier. But just because you disapprove of his eating habits doesn't mean you can't be friends.

I don't agree with this, but I think that's a similar thought process.

except they're not making it so their overweight friend legally can't order a super sized fry and two double chocolate milkshakes
 

leadbelly

Banned
I don't find this semantic exercise useful or interesting. The belief that Jews and Gentiles shouldn't intermix is bigoted. Or prejudiced. Or shitty. Take your pick.

Not necessarily intolerant though. That is the point.

When a word has such a strong connotation, it is important to understand what it actually means.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
Not necessarily intolerant though. That is the point.

When a word has such a strong connotation, it is important to understand what it actually means.

One does not understand what a word actually means by cherrypicking a particular dictionary definition that suits them. That's one of the lowest forms of argument. Not only is it tedious but it avoids discussion of the actual merits of a position.
E.g., for the topic at hand.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intolerant

: not willing to allow some people to have equality, freedom, or other social rights
 

i-Jest

Member
OP, I find it disgusting that people STILL think this way in our day and age. Hundreds of years ago a people weren't allowed to marry because of the color of their skin. They were subject to chattel slavery, at the blessings of the Catholic church, and deemed three fifths of a human being (Three-Fifths Compromise) by the American government.

We can't continue this line of thinking and expect we'll be just fine in the long run. Ultimately, ignorance hurts two people, the ones it is directed at and the ones who perpetuate it. This thinking just hurts our progression, not just as a society, but as a species.
 

Monocle

Member
I think a lot of conservatives view it as having an overweight friend. You may think he really needs to stop eating so much and wish he would get healthier. But just because you disapprove of his eating habits doesn't mean you can't be friends.

I don't agree with this, but I think that's a similar thought process.
That makes sense, and it's one of the reasons I would never want to be friends with someone like that. My sexuality is not a handicap in my life apart from issues that directly result from intolerance. It isn't a physical or mental abnormality or some sort of unhealthy habit or state, and I find people who think that it is are insufferable. Their misplaced pity is insulting, and frankly I have nothing but contempt for faith based beliefs that contradict science, especially when they affect me personally. If you're going to vote against my ability to live as a regular person, I want nothing to do with you. If you're going to define me solely in terms of who I'm attracted to and uncritically accept your own inventions about what kind of person I must be, I don't need someone that shallow in my life.

I'm fortunate to pass for straight without trying, but still, if it weren't for hypocritical people who say they're cool with me but still disapprove of my "lifestyle" (as though I eat breakfast and brush my teeth differently than "normal" people), I wouldn't have to constantly police my own thoughts to make sure I don't casually out myself to coworkers or whoever and create that awkward moment where they visibly stop for a second to realign their ideas about me. It's subtle but still degrading, and something I just don't want to risk dealing with unless I really want to get to know them better.
 

leadbelly

Banned
One does not understand what a word actually means by cherrypicking a particular dictionary definition that suits them. That's one of the lowest forms of argument. Not only is it tedious but it avoids discussion of the actual merits of a position.
E.g., for the topic at hand.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intolerant

The Oxford English Dictionary...

And that particular definition isn't contradictory either. Obviously not willing to allow people their rights would be intolerant. Simply holding the belief that something is wrong in itself, however, is not necessarily intolerant. The funny thing is, even though the definition you used isn't contradictory at all, I did acknowledge that the meaning has shifted in recent years. I meant very much the traditional meaning of the word. The traditional meaning however, is still how it is defined within the more established English dictionaries though. Like the Oxford English Dictionary.

The point I am making is there needs to be further context in my mind when considering whether a person who believes Jews and Gentiles shouldn't marry is a tolerant person or not. I think it would be tolerant for instance if the person would accept the right for a Jew and Gentile to marry regardless of whether they personally feel they should.

Not only is it tedious but it avoids discussion of the actual merits of a position.

No, on the contrary, the reason I bring it up is it tends to be used as a tool to shut down debate. To repress viewpoints and ideas in the name of 'tolerance'. To be a 'tolerant' society however, in the traditional sense, is to be accepting or allowing for the existence of different views, regardless of whether you like them or not. And so when making the argument for example that we should not be tolerant of intolerance, what does that actually mean exactly? It is kind of paradoxical to begin with, but what exactly is intolerance? This is why I brought it up.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
The Oxford English Dictionary...

Is one dictionary out of many, yes.

And that particular definition isn't contradictory either. Obviously not willing to allow people their rights would be intolerant.

Like the people whose beliefs are summarized in the image in the OP. Which is what this thread is about.


Simply holding the belief that something is wrong in itself, however, is not necessarily intolerant. The funny thing is, even though the definition you used isn't contradictory at all, I did acknowledge that the meaning has shifted in recent years. I meant very much the traditional meaning of the word.

No traditional Scotsman is intolerant. Got it.


The traditional meaning however, is still how it is defined within the more established English dictionaries though. Like the Oxford English Dictionary.

So what?

No, on the contrary, the reason I bring it up is it tends to be used as a tool to shut down debate. To repress viewpoints and ideas in the name of 'tolerance'. To be a 'tolerant' society however, in the traditional sense, is to be accepting or allowing for the existence of different views, regardless of whether you like them or not. And so when making the argument for example that we should not be tolerant of intolerance, what does that actually mean exactly? It is kind of paradoxical to begin with, but what exactly is intolerance? This is why I brought it up.

Has it also struck you that it's paradoxical for you to be telling people that they should not be expressing their view that certain beliefs are bigoted? You are doing the same thing you're complaining about.
 

Phreak47

Member
OP, I find it disgusting that people STILL think this way in our day and age. Hundreds of years ago a people weren't allowed to marry because of the color of their skin. They were subject to chattel slavery, at the blessings of the Catholic church, and deemed three fifths of a human being (Three-Fifths Compromise) by the American government.

We can't continue this line of thinking and expect we'll be just fine in the long run. Ultimately, ignorance hurts two people, the ones it is directed at and the ones who perpetuate it. This thinking just hurts our progression, not just as a society, but as a species.

And for interracial marriage in the US, you don't need to go back nearly that far.

The duality of this "I don't approve but I love you" amongst Xtians is hardly new. "Love the sinner, hate the sin", they'll say. But I've also witnessed bible study groups and have heard a lot of things Xtians say when they think they're only amongst themselves (having grown up around this nonsense.) They'll say, "don't worry, God will judge them." To what degree you want to believe their "love" for the "sinner" is genuine is up to you, but from what I've witnessed and heard in my life, I find this "love" to be dubious at best, but probably better characterized as words of one who both fears and loves (as instructed) a totalitarian ghost that they better heed, or else.
 

leadbelly

Banned
Like the people whose beliefs are summarized in the image in the OP. Which is what this thread is about.

No. Again, not supporting homosexuality is a matter of their own opinion. Denying them the right to be homosexual I would consider intolerant.


Has it also struck you that it's paradoxical for you to be telling people that they should not be expressing their view that certain beliefs are bigoted? You are doing the same thing you're complaining about.

Why would it? I was simply arguing against your usage of the word 'tolerant'. You made a hypothetical and claimed it to be intolerant. I simply stated that it is not necessarily so. That is all.
 
And for interracial marriage in the US, you don't need to go back nearly that far.

The duality of this "I don't approve but I love you" amongst Xtians is hardly new. "Love the sinner, hate the sin", they'll say. But I've also witnessed bible study groups and have heard a lot of things Xtians say when they think they're only amongst themselves (having grown up around this nonsense.) They'll say, "don't worry, God will judge them." To what degree you want to believe their "love" for the "sinner" is genuine is up to you, but from what I've witnessed and heard in my life, I find this "love" to be dubious at best, but probably better characterized as words of one who both fears and loves (as instructed) a totalitarian ghost that they better heed, or else.

Remember that for them their understanding of the greatest love is a God who sends people that don't ascent to a specific narrative to hell. So the love the sinner hate the sin is totally within their rubric of love.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I've always wondered, if any conservative leaning Christians would like to help me out, how exactly do you (or maybe Christians that you know, if you don't do such thing things yourself) justify following one part of the Bible (in the gay marriage case, I guess it'd be Leviticus) while ignoring others.? Aand I'm not even talking about the whole "helping the poor", "camel in the eye of a needle" stuff. I mean some stuff that's just straight up applesauce, like killing someone who commits adultery or works on the sabbath or eats shellfish.
 
I'm not going to disagree with this, but I'd argue that condemnatory Christian responses towards gay people haven't historically reflected this perspective. If you look at what they actually have said, it's that gay people are the products of molestation, sexual abuse, or dysfunctional family dynamics. Or they use falsified research and unscientific magazine surveys to make general claims about the prevalence of unrealistic sexual practices involving rodents in places they wouldn't go, to make up lies about the effects of actual sexual practices, the prevalence and causes of mental illness among gay people, reductions in average lifespan by gay men, the negative results of children being raised in gay homes, and so forth. Or they fight tooth and nail against anti-bullying measures specifically because the idea of gay children being accepted is anathema to them. It says something that the same people from the same organizations that have been telling the same lies for decades are responsible for the situation in Uganda, and that campaign was just as based in animus as any of the campaigns here have ever been.

They don't actually spend a lot of time talking about the inherent evil of a man being with another man or a woman being with another woman so much as they spend time trying to convince people by dint of lies that gay people are actually engaged in disgusting, degenerate, and immoral-on-their-own-terms behaviors. And you just don't see that sort of vitriol directed towards alcoholics, even inveterate alcoholics who haven't admitted they have a problem.

I'll admit that there's a difference between the misled (the rank and file, by and large) and the people who have promulgated that nonsense, but to the extent that these attitudes have been broadly supported by conservative Christian institutions and organizations supported by that rank and file, I don't feel especially charitable here.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure most historical belief that there must be "something wrong" with homosexuality to put it on a par with things like excessive promiscuity (which can spread STDs, cause problems with paternity, foment jealousy and discontent, etc.), gambling, drug use, and alcoholism is the simple fact that the idea of engaging in homosexual behavior revulses most straight people, for reasons likely largely evolutionary, so to see two men or two women kissing or fucking is to see two individuals crossing what is a pretty sharp line shared by a solid majority of people.

So in the case of Christians stigmatizing homosexuals via pseudoscience, pseudopsychology, pseudosociology, and other pseudo disciplines, well, there has never been a major social movement to normalize and even celebrate alcoholism. Not to mention that it's possible to enjoy alcohol and fatty foods on occasion without abusing them, meaning the average person has a personal bridge to problems like alcoholism and gluttony, can relate to those problems in some way. Yet in the case of homosexuality, we have seen not only a normalization of open homosexuality in the past 40 years, but a downright fascination with it - from gay characters, to entire gay genres of art and entertainment. Christians' faith is in a book that explicitly condemns homosexual behavior, a commandment that is undergirded by that common "Ew" reaction, so they have a pretty solid reason, from their perspective, to expect that the structure of reality more generally will align with that two-ply feeling.

So yes, you're right that, historically, Christians' arguments contra homosexuality have been about more than mere abstract moral objection, that they have attempted to co-opt the language of science in order to hold back progress toward great equality, but at its root, this phenomenon isn't much more than garden-variety confirmation bias, which is a problem that afflicts pretty much every human on the planet, meaning I think at least some slack can be cut to them for engaging in it, even given the rather shitty byproduct of it in this case.
 
I think a lot of conservatives view it as having an overweight friend. You may think he really needs to stop eating so much and wish he would get healthier. But just because you disapprove of his eating habits doesn't mean you can't be friends.

I don't agree with this, but I think that's a similar thought process.


Ladies and gents let's add gay is like unhealthy eating and obesity to the bingo list of bad comparisons

Oh and from the comment above me: alcholics. Awesome.
 
FWIW, I'm pretty sure most historical belief that there must be "something wrong" with homosexuality to put it on a par with things like excessive promiscuity (which can spread STDs, cause problems with paternity, foment jealousy and discontent, etc.), gambling, drug use, and alcoholism is the simple fact that the idea of engaging in homosexual behavior revulses most straight people, for reasons likely largely evolutionary, so to see two men or two women kissing or fucking is to see two individuals crossing what is a pretty sharp line shared by a solid majority of people.
Do you have any evidence to support that assertion? Just out of curiosity. I'm more reminded of how most Muslims are disgusted by the thought of eating pork. Even many former Muslims are still weirded out by the texture of it and feel that something is off, even when they no longer believe it to be sinful and may even enjoy the taste of it. Socialization is a powerful thing.
 

Phreak47

Member
I've always wondered, if any conservative leaning Christians would like to help me out, how exactly do you (or maybe Christians that you know, if you don't do such thing things yourself) justify following one part of the Bible (in the gay marriage case, I guess it'd be Leviticus) while ignoring others.? Aand I'm not even talking about the whole "helping the poor", "camel in the eye of a needle" stuff. I mean some stuff that's just straight up applesauce, like killing someone who commits adultery or works on the sabbath or eats shellfish.

Generally, there's three answers you'll get.

1) You don't take those parts literally (Parable argument)
2) Jesus came to "fix" all that
3) What do you mean, ignore? All of the Bible is perfect and true

Now, while 1 and 2 are clearly horseshit, if you ever meet #3, just smile, back away, and keep going.
 
Do you have any evidence to support that assertion? Just out of curiosity. I'm more reminded of how most Muslims are disgusted by the thought of eating pork. Even many former Muslims are still weirded out by the texture of it and feel that something is off, even when they no longer believe it to be sinful and may even enjoy the taste of it. Socialization is a powerful thing.

I'm using "likely" in the colloquial sense, not the statistical, i.e. "This is what I think is the better argument". Proper propagation of the species pretty much requires that the vast majority of sexual activity be heterosexual in nature. We have heterosexual desire to facilitate that side of the coin, of course, but "anti-desire" running the opposite direction does a far better job of discouraging non-procreative bisexual dalliances than mere indifference. In general, I tend to favor a Pinkerian view of human nature as largely similar, with socialization as a more secondary, superficial process, but I admit that's my own bias.
 

J10

Banned
Ladies and gents let's add gay is like unhealthy eating and obesity to the bingo list of bad comparisons

Oh and from the comment above me: alcholics. Awesome.

All you need is a new code word for fag like blacks have 'thug' and the bingo card is complete.
 

YoungHav

Banned
My FB has been going HAM with this and comments on transsexuals. It's disappointing being related to such stupid people. Respect for some family members lowered.
 
Has anyone posted anything here about Spiral Dynamics or Ken Wilber's Integral Theory?

Integral Theory in particular explains politics quite well.
 

Get'sMad

Member
thought I had cleaned up my FB friend list pretty good over the years but I got my first one of these bigot memes on my timeline today and immediately went to the unfriend.
 

y2dvd

Member
I'm going to go on a little rant here.

I grew up with these childhood friends that I'm still friends with today. They were brothers and were raised as Jeohvah's Witnesses. One of them had strong beliefs and the other one always felt somewhere in the middle. We'll call the latter brother J.

I had not visited J for a few years due to me moving to a different city and him having a family. This past weekend, I was at a friends housing warming party and J lived close by, so I decided to stop by ahead of time and catch up.

We picked up right where we left off. Just shooting the shit, having laughs and what not. Before leaving, I thought I'd ask him about same-sex marriage being legalized. I was hoping he was going to accept it, being how neutral he used to be on his religion.

Boy was I disappointed. He was totally against it. He thought homosexuality was unnatural and gross. He actually brings up some examples of how dolphins commit homosexual acts. I'm like, then shouldnt that tell you that homosexuality is a natural occurrence then? There are plenty of other species that practices too. J takes it back and says animals are different and too stupid to think for themselves. Again, that means it's all the more of a natural occurrence by that argument.

Nothing new brought to the table. He thinks it's by choice and therefore they are sinners. He reflected on his life and said this woke him up and makes him realize he needs to clean up his ways and repent for Christ because this was a sign that the end is coming. I was baffled. I go, wait a minute, so the 3 simutaneous terrorist strikes across the world, the shooting in Charleston, the devastating earthquakes, and all the other recent tragic events didn't set off this reflection to do better in life, but same-sex marriage did the trick? How is this even close to the same travesty as anything that I've just mentioned? It truly baffles and sickens me.

I had to carefully express myself to question and point out his bigotry without us blowing up at each other, because I'm not even sure if he realized he was being one, and explain to J that same-sex couples just wants the same rights is all. It never got heated but that's due to me refraining myself severely. It wasn't worth completely losing a long time friendship over, but it was highly disappointing. I just hope some of the points I've brought up will open his eyes a bit on the topic. J's brother will be a losing battle for sure.
 
Ladies and gents let's add gay is like unhealthy eating and obesity to the bingo list of bad comparisons

Oh and from the comment above me: alcholics. Awesome.

I don't believe in this. Please don't misunderstand. I'm saying in someone's logic who says "love the sin, hate the sinner." They like having a "gay friend" to my example above.

It doesn't actually make sense. But in their head they justify it like this. It's weird.
 

Caronte

Member
I'm not a christian, but I've never understood why changing the legal name for marriage was never an option. Using a different name just for gay couples is obviously wrong (different names, different laws) but why couldn't they change the legal name for straight and gay 'unions' and leave the word marriage to the catholic side of the wedding (the church) which wouldn't have any legal meaning?
 

reckless

Member
I'm not a christian, but I've never understood why changing the legal name for marriage was never an option. Using a different name just for gay couples is obviously wrong (different names, different laws) but why couldn't they change the legal name for straight and gay 'unions' and leave the word marriage to the catholic side of the wedding (the church) which wouldn't have any legal meaning?

That creates a whole lot of work and problems to appease some extremists. Christians can go create some new word and use it themselves if they care that much.
 
I'm not a christian, but I've never understood why changing the legal name for marriage was never an option. Using a different name just for gay couples is obviously wrong (different names, different laws) but why couldn't they change the legal name for straight and gay 'unions' and leave the word marriage to the catholic side of the wedding (the church) which wouldn't have any legal meaning?

Because that would be a gross stupidly waste of time and money.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
No. Again, not supporting homosexuality is a matter of their own opinion. Denying them the right to be homosexual I would consider intolerant.

We're talking about gay marriage. It's right in the thread title.

Why would it? I was simply arguing against your usage of the word 'tolerant'. You made a hypothetical and claimed it to be intolerant. I simply stated that it is not necessarily so. That is all.

Unfortunately you'll have to do a bit more than quoting a dictionary to establish that.
 
Proper propagation of the species pretty much requires that the vast majority of sexual activity be heterosexual in nature.
Would it? I mean, all it would really require is at least one successful fertilization per year per woman. Given that the majority of human sex seems to be social in nature (and is used for a multitude of things like social bonding and stress relief), very little of it seems to actually be devoted to reproduction. Plus, wouldn't it be less beneficial to have everyone reproducing all the time? You'd get indirect fitness benefits from non-reproductive relatives helping out with rearing and care-taking (and they'd still pass down at least half of their genes).
We have heterosexual desire to facilitate that side of the coin, of course, but "anti-desire" running the opposite direction does a far better job of discouraging non-procreative bisexual dalliances than mere indifference. In general, I tend to favor a Pinkerian view of human nature as largely similar, with socialization as a more secondary, superficial process, but I admit that's my own bias.
At the very least, homosexuality isn't deleterious, or it wouldn't have survived since the dawn of humanity and we wouldn't still see it today. That variety might have upsides. Having homosexual behavior be seen as disgusting due to a biological basis due to evolution might make sense if most people are inherently bisexual by default and had a proclivity towards homosexual intercourse. But I'd see it more as the capacity to feel disgust would be something we've evolved to feel--and it having a plasticity to it that would make it adaptable as well--but the specifics of it would be more environmentally based, whether that would be how one would react to eating insects or some other behavior that's not inherently disgusting. Bisexuality would be beneficial from the point of conflict reduction in the way that bonobos have sex. But I, too, am just speculating for fun.
 

Monocle

Member
No. Again, not supporting homosexuality is a matter of their own opinion. Denying them the right to be homosexual I would consider intolerant.
That's about as incoherent as saying it's fine not to support blackness and tallness as long as you don't deny people the right to be black and tall. Apart from the obvious absurdity of objecting to an inherent trait and talking about it like you could separate the trait from the person without radically transforming or outright murdering them, it's incredibly presumptuous to judge others as inferior for something as benign as the kinds of consenting adults they're attracted to. (Let's be honest, the anti-gay marriage crowd sure as hell aren't judging gay people as different but equal. Being gay is a problem to them. "Gay behavior" is a flaw. A sin. Something they'd be better off without.) It's a ridiculous notion that someone can accept gays without supporting what comes with a sexual orientation, like attractions to other people and the freedom to openly act on them without risking a social cost or personal safety.

"Oh yeah, you can be gay! Just don't do anything straight people do because of their orientation, like develop crushes or pipe up in a conversation about hot characters on TV or date or have sex or get married to someone you love."

On an unrelated note, I love ice cream but don't support cold temperatures. Excuse me while I microwave this Klondike bar and spoon the lukewarm ooze into my food hole.
 
That's about as incoherent as saying it's fine not to support blackness and tallness as long as you don't deny people the right to be black and tall. Apart from the obvious absurdity of objecting to an inherent trait and talking about it like you could separate the trait from the person without radically transforming or outright murdering them, it's incredibly presumptuous to judge others as inferior for something as benign as the kinds of consenting adults they're attracted to. (Let's be honest, the anti-gay marriage crowd sure as hell aren't judging gay people as different but equal. Being gay is a problem to them. "Gay behavior" is a flaw. A sin. Something they'd be better off without.) It's a ridiculous notion that someone can accept gays without supporting what comes with a sexual orientation, like attractions to other people and the freedom to openly act on them without risking a social cost or personal safety.

"Oh yeah, you can be gay! Just don't do anything straight people do because of their orientation, like develop crushes or pipe up in a conversation about hot characters on TV or date or have sex or get married to someone you love."

On an unrelated note, I love ice cream but don't support cold temperatures. Excuse me while I microwave this Klondike bar and spoon the lukewarm ooze into my food hole.

Beautiful
 

dan2026

Member
Marriage as a concept has nothing whatever to do with Christianity.
It was around long before that religion ever existed.
 
It is nothing but bigotry. Pure "gays are icky" bigotry.

Jesus said NOTHING about gays. But Jesus REALLY bashed divorce people, adultery, etc. If you treat divorced people like you treat gays then maybe you have a strong (but whacked out) religious view that is consistent. But otherwise you are just a bigot.
 
"Oh yeah, you can be gay! Just don't do anything straight people do because of their orientation, like develop crushes or pipe up in a conversation about hot characters on TV or date or have sex or get married to someone you love."

Also nobody has really engaged me on this point, but I've mentioned several times that cosmetic surgery has progressed to the point where one could easily change their racial appearance and pass as a different race. So this whole "gays are fine but their behavior isn't" strikes me as no different than "being genetically African is fine, but looking it isn't." Incidentally I'd consider getting some cosmetic surgery far less of a hassle than policing your mind 24/7 for the duration of your life in order to quash lustful homosexual thought, or living a life of complete celibacy and even the denial of any sort of romantic non-sexual love.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom