Support NeoGAF

[Kinsei]

Disagreeing with someone is saying they're less than them, understood.

Well they don't want us to have equal rights sooo.

 

[JeTmAn81]

To me a key distinction is, homosexuality (or bi, or any other part of the expanding acronym) are not behaviors so much as a state of existence. So they're less objecting to people doing X, but rather people being X. This is why it's often framed as being a choice by these people, when we know it's actually not; it's easier and more compatible with the religious framework to condemn choices, rather than the person. If they accept that being gay is a natural thing, their objections are no longer logical. So they don't. I don't think we have to extend all the way to objecting to religion as a concept in order to draw this distinction.

To the extent they are condemning choices, it's actions that are tied to the (non-optional) state of existence (being gay). Just because you're gay, you don't have to act on it, etc. But there the root of the issue is with not understanding the nature of the person; once done, the objections to the natural behaviors that stem from it fall away (relationships, sex, marriage, etc.).

So far as this point is concerned, I think it's true that most people who have a problem with homosexuality do not feel it to be biological. That idea's not completely unfounded since the best research shows a mix of nature and nurture factors contributing to homosexuality, but even if those people did accept a purely biological basis that wouldn't remove Bible-based objections.

There are just too many inherited behaviors which society finds roundly unacceptable to accept the idea that just because behavior is biological in origin it should be accepted. Pedophilia is one of those, obviously.

I have a very good friend who was born with a sexual attraction to young boys. He has never acted on this attraction and as far as I know there was no abuse or anything like that in his childhood to cause it. So that's the way he was born, but that doesn't mean it's ok for him to act on those urges.

I don't mean to equate pedophilia with homosexuality as so many people have unfairly done before, but to point out that a confirmed biological basis for behavior is not enough to change everyone's minds.

 

[Mecha]

christians are worse than homosexuals

There are a lot of cool Christians and homosexuals out there, there's no reason to judge an entire group of people.

 

[CornBurrito]

You are certainly making a lot of assumptions there. I know its fun to put Christians all in a box where if you disagree with homosexuality or gay marriage in any way, shape, or form you are therefore a hateful virulent bigot but that is not necessarily always the case. The image in the op mentions not supporting marriage so im assuming they mean that it should not be legal - but the OP mentions that simply disagreeing with their lifestyle is enough to get you in that box as he questions how you can even be friends or love them and that is what I was speaking to - because that is exactly how I feel about it. I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I also don't think it's a dealbreaker in terms of being able to care about or be friends with someone. And I don't care if they want to get married or not. That's a civil deal, not a religious one so why not? It's not like they are forcing churches to marry them or forcing a gay marriage on anyone that doesn't want one. So who is it hurting? I have mentioned this many times in other threads, but if you are a Christian and you believe that homosexuality is a sin - well, in the eyes of God sin is sin. It's not like one sin is any worse than the other to God. We don't care about 90% of sin committed by others so why the big deal about this? I can be friends with sinners obviously (since we all are). Not agreeing with the lifestyle does not always = HATE.

What is the gay lifestyle? Wanting to start a life together with someone and form a stable two parent home?

 

[TheOctodad]

christians are worse than homosexuals

Judging whole people groups is worse than both.

 

[gutter_trash]

too much text for a meme, more like a rant. A meme has to be simple. Those failed.

 

[y2dvd]

they're just trying to let people know who the real victims are.

The spot on parody to this.

https://youtu.be/h1UxAH9FMY0

 

[Siegcram]

If someone says they "disagree" with homosexuality, they're not worth talking to.

 

[TheSpecialOne]

christians are worse than homosexuals

Such an embarrassing and thoughtless post. It added absolutely nothing to this discussion.

 

[DoktorEvil]

I'm a Christian and the way I see it, sure, homosexuality is a sin. So is a ton of stuff that I as a straight guy do like covet neighbors possessions. So we're both sinners, as is everybody. We're all born in sin. Sin sin sin sin.
The message that Jesus came to bring was to ignore all that sin and just love everyone.

So that's my 2 cents. I can't cast any stones because I sin like crazy, as does everybody. I have a ton of gay friends because they're awesome people. I couldn't give a shit that they're gay.

Pretty much how I feel as well. I may have grown up in Catholic education, but I also grew up among LGBTQ folks and have no leg to stand on regarding what the Federal/State/City government can and cannot do with respect to civil rights and marriage.

John 8:7 "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Her being Mary Magdalene, a prostitute who was inches from being stoned to death. Shaming sexuality is as old and tired as life itself.

I'm personally happy that there are much fewer limits for that community, as some of those people are better practicing Christians by virtue and example than a good number of Evangelicals and Catholics.

If someone says they "disagree" with homosexuality, they're not worth talking to.

And you need to ease off on the self-righteous comments and slights. You sound more like a bigot.

Note:

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

 

[Paracelsus]

For the guy pushing the argument, divorce was already debated in the bible and open to interpretation, there already were some 'granted some conditions it's about right' instances. Adultery is considered a sin but we have mentions and examples of forgiveness.
What I don't understand is how do we go from 'the bible says gay relationships are a sin period' to 'let gay couples marry in a church'. I mean, these couples technically would want to laugh at that book, yet they want to exchange vows on it.

 

[magnifico]

Bible also says it's basically a sin to have too flat of a nose or are blind. You probably can't approach God if you aren't Pinocchio anyway.

Leviticus 21:18 ►
"For whatever man he be that has a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that has a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,"

 

[Enron]

What is the gay lifestyle? Wanting to start a life together with someone and form a stable two parent home?

well, ask the OP. Since they were the ones who specifically mentioned "lifestyle" in their post. But yes, gay lifestyle/life/etc as you know is used interchangeably with "homosexual".

 

[Gnome]

You are certainly making a lot of assumptions there. I know its fun to put Christians all in a box where if you disagree with homosexuality or gay marriage in any way, shape, or form you are therefore a hateful virulent bigot but that is not necessarily always the case. The image in the op mentions not supporting marriage so im assuming they mean that it should not be legal - but the OP mentions that simply disagreeing with their lifestyle is enough to get you in that box as he questions how you can even be friends or love them and that is what I was speaking to - because that is exactly how I feel about it. I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I also don't think it's a dealbreaker in terms of being able to care about or be friends with someone. And I don't care if they want to get married or not. That's a civil deal, not a religious one so why not? It's not like they are forcing churches to marry them or forcing a gay marriage on anyone that doesn't want one. So who is it hurting? I have mentioned this many times in other threads, but if you are a Christian and you believe that homosexuality is a sin - well, in the eyes of God sin is sin. It's not like one sin is any worse than the other to God. We don't care about 90% of sin committed by others so why the big deal about this? I can be friends with sinners obviously (since we all are). Not agreeing with the lifestyle does not always = HATE.

I make no assumption, I speak directly about the people who share the image in the OP. And the statement it makes is self contradictory and seeks to make the person sharing it seem justified in voting against gay marriage without having to take responsibility for deny people rights.

 

[InsaneZero]

this is both accurate and inaccurate.

the letters to the church in Corinth are a reflection of the opinion of the disciples that there have to be rules and guidelines for behavior within the context of the newfound freedoms of those who have become believers. It's not a free-for-all, do whatever you want to do experience, as your post suggests. In fact, as I recall, Paul had very real concerns about a whole list of issues and explicitly said to "expel immoral brothers' until they get themselves together and learn their lessons, after which they should be welcomed back with open arms.

So unless we're going to ask Christians to ignore the Pauline letters full stop, I'm not sure if your argument represents the end of the discussion.

That letter is about shunning people that commit dick moves like cheating on other people's spouses or get too caught up in worldly desires. My point was that Christians shouldn't be too tied up in following the letter of the law and imposing it on other people that they neglect the spirit of JC's teachings.

 

[HUELEN10]

Bible also says it's basically a sin to have too flat of a nose or are blind. You probably can't approach God if you aren't Pinocchio anyway.

Leviticus 21:18 ►
"For whatever man he be that has a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that has a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,"

Okay, nowhere does it say that that is a sin, not even in the verse you posted.

It also never says anything about condemning any sexual orientation; all it talks about is prohibiting certain sexual acts, and there are a lot of them. what I don't get is people picking and choosing just to hate.


Best example I can think of is this baptist girl I Know who outed her trans sister and kicked her out of the house, while being promiscuous and not being married.

 

[Mass Effect]

There's really no point in arguing with people like this or trying to point out their hypocrisy in how they interpret the bible/their faith. It's better just to consider them terrible people and make sure as few people as possible listen to what they have to say. Discredit them as much as possible.

In other words, marginalize them.

 

[Poop!]

Religion has zero... nothing to do with being legally married in the U.S. Anyone that uses any argument with religion at their base just looks stupid.

 

[krypt0nian]

That guy sounds like a real monster. You are, however, trying to paint with a broad brush. I don't see the vast, vast majority of people who forward this as signing up to his 'logic.'

I'm not painting with any brush. You asked a question and I provided a link.

 

[GameGuru59]

Isn't that exactly what they're commanded to do. Even Jesus stated the most important commandment is to love your god with all your heart mind and soul and to love your neighbour as yourself.

As in your breaking a much more important commandment by discriminating. The whole point of the good Samaritan parable is that your neighbour is literally anyone.

I think most Christians would agree with that, but some Christians (the ones against gay marriage) would say that they love the sinner, and not the acts. This would comport with the Christian assumption that we have all fallen short of being sinnless, and that we all have different vices.

Note:

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

This.

 

[excelsiorlef]

And you need to ease off on the self-righteous comments and slights. You sound more like a bigot.

Note:

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

:|

My existence is not a matter of opinion.

 

[DOG3NZAKA]

This shit pisses me off so much. It makes no sense. I have a friend who says this sort of crap

"I don't judge. I'm not a homophobe and have nothing against gay people. I just don't agree with it and don't like it. "

What does that even mean? It's so contradictory. It drives me up a wall.

 

[halfbeast]

here's a question for you all: what defines your friendship with someone who basically disapproves with who you are? I stopped socializing with many people who kept nagging me about my eastern european roots, showing me news reports of some criminal acts and then asking me why "my people" are so rotten.

 

[Archaix]

:|

My existence is not a matter of opinion.

But who's the real bigot here? The person who wants to deny people basic rights and wants to believe their entire life is an affront to god, or the person who just wants to live life with the same rights as others? Really makes you think, doesn't it.

 

[GhaleonEB]

This is an interesting point. I know that within Orthodox Judaism for example it is the act that is considered a sin. Whether the person is homosexual or not is irrelevant.

Understood. What I'm trying to say is, I don't think actions based on one being homosexual (engaging in homosexual relationships) are on the same level as other actions the church judges to be sinful, because they are tied to who the person is. Their options are to live a closeted / stifled / incomplete life, or be condemned. I don't think that's as reasonable an ask as say, don't kill anyone. So while the church may not condemn the person, by condemning the act they are sort of doing it by proxy, they just don't or won't acknowledge it.

 

[entremet]

Bible also says it's basically a sin to have too flat of a nose or are blind. You probably can't approach God if you aren't Pinocchio anyway.

Leviticus 21:18 ►
"For whatever man he be that has a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that has a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,"

This is about requirements to serve as Jewish priests, a tradition that died off after the Persian invasion.

This is why context is important, even under critical examinations, which are fair game.

 

[GameGuru59]

:|

My existence is not a matter of opinion.

But your reaction to other's beliefs is.

 

[magnifico]

Okay, nowhere does it say that that is a sin, not even in the verse you posted.

It also never says anything about condemning any sexual orientation; all it talks about is prohibiting certain sexual acts, and there are a lot of them. what I don't get is people picking and choosing just to hate.


Best example I can think of is this baptist girl I Know who outed her trans sister and kicked her out of the house, while being promiscuous and not being married.

Maybe it doesn't outright use the word "sin" but according to the passage God sure doesn't want these people approaching him.

Leviticus 21
16 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;


Dont let the dwarves near me!" Maybe God is a Tolkien Elf

 

[EmptySpace]

I definitely agree with you if the person in question is trying to make the behavior they don't like illegal. There really isn't a place at the discussion table for such people.

But let's use a comparison here to my best friend, who happens to be Hindu. He believes that eating meat (not just cows, but all meat) is immoral, because his religious beliefs tell him so.

However, he has no interest in forcing others to agree with him, and certainly no interest in seeing this behavior made illegal. He's still my best friend even though I regularly engage in behavior he deems sinful. Is that okay? Are you allowed to think someone is wrong or that someone is engaging in evil behavior, as long as you don't try to make that behavior universally outlawed? Or is my friend wrong, too?

Please note these are honest questions intended to further discussion.

ideal situation would be people who believe in nonsense shouldn't be the ones deciding on laws and policies.

i couldn't care any less if some uninformed, ignorant person thinks climate change isn't happening because it's god creating the clouds or some other bullshit, but it is a major problem if it hinders scientific research about the issue and/or forego taxes on companies which produce an enormous amount of pollution.

either they are completely ignorant, or they are using it for their political and financial greed as with a lot of these things. they have connections to oil and gas companies but that's not at the forefront of their campaigns against increased tax, etc.

same thing with gay marriage and any other thing that is being held down because we have to conform to tradition or rules set by people exponentially older than the first king of rome without any sort of logical reason besides, "just 'cause it hurts me emotionally".

so yes, they can believe that pokemons are evil incarnates but they shouldn't make the rules and laws.

 

[Principate]

That letter is about shunning people that commit dick moves like cheating on other people's spouses or get too caught up in worldly desires. My point was that Christians shouldn't be too tied up in following the letter of the law and imposing it on other people that they neglect the spirit of JC's teachings.

Which is ironic considering how issues JC had with overzealous Pharisee's, which eventually plotted to have to him killed.

The laws are laws, but Christians have too much of their own bullshit to sort out, instead condemning others. That time would be better off spent, like JC said loving god or loving their neighbours as themselves. Considering how much of a issue racism still is, the whole fight seems to be missing the forest for the tree's.

 

[Siegcram]

And you need to ease off on the self-righteous comments and slights. You sound more like a bigot.

Note:

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

Biology is not an opinion.

 

[excelsiorlef]

But your reaction to other's beliefs is.

I would not want to be friends with someone who believes that me being trans or lesbian/bi is "wrong" "bad" sinful" "immoral"

This is not liking saying well we don't have the same taste in music.

 

[berzeli]

I think what you're trying to get at is that some behaviors are more voluntary than others, and we (as a species and as a society) tend to give more leeway to behaviors which we see as less voluntary. I absolutely agree with that, and 1) discussed that above, and agree that much of the resistance to the overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is not a learned behavior is due to this cognitive dissonance, and 2) specifically chose the word "behavior" to avoid this problem.

It's used as an illustration. If you'd like, blow it up: most Hindus believe that eating meat is evil, not just my friend. The same size is there is in the hundreds of millions, rather than 1.

Yes, that's entirely possible. I think Haly is right (he posted earlier in this thread) that this very well could be a disingenuous post, as a sort of pot-shot at homosexuals to make it clear that they think you're bad and evil without looking like a bigot at the same time.

I think that's quite possible, but I also think it's a bad idea to assume the worst possible motives from everyone you disagree with.

You're really starting to lose me, and in my opinion you've utterly failed to present a coherent argument to support your initial post which is what I was responding to:

One might make the argument that it is not possible to be unjudgmental when you are against something like homosexuality.

Maybe that's true, but I'm not sure, so let's talk about it.

Is it not possible for religions and their respective dogmas to be inherently judgemental in one or more aspects?

Maybe it is, but then, we're basically objecting to the entire concept of religion at this point: they believe certain things are true as an article of faith.

All Christians do not believe in the exact same Christianity in the exact same way and criticising a specific aspect of a religion is not objecting to the entire concept of religion. I've mentioned how people used the bible to justify their earnest belief that interracial marriage was wrong, there is also the issue of female priests in Christianity where people have differing opinions. People believing in an specific thing because of their faith does not make them immune to criticism, and criticism of those specific things is not by itself objecting to the entire concept of religion.


Now with regards to the "I have a friend..." and as to why I took umbrage with it; Of course it is possible to have differing opinions on things and remain friends. It is not unusual, nor somehow evidence that a bigoted opinion is not bigoted. If you don't see a meaningful difference between eating meat and who you love I'm not sure that I can get to you as to why it is meaningless in this context.

Finally, yes assuming the worst is not a particularly good thing, but that has not been a focus of the arguments that I've made. And assuming the worst could also be said of those who are criticising the criticism of those who condemn gays.

 

[TheOctodad]

This shit pisses me off so much. It makes no sense. I have a friend who says this sort of crap

"I don't judge. I'm not a homophobe and have nothing against gay people. I just don't agree with it and don't like it. "

What does that even mean? It's so contradictory. It drives me up a wall.

I think, deep down, they mean that they would be cool with it but their beliefs make them think it's bad.

It essentially creates this split mindset of what I believe vs. what God believes (really my denomination, my pastor, my opinions) and I am told I have to defer to "god" or I will go to hell.

 

[Novocaine]

That's not all they're doing, they also go to third-world countries and get bills like "Kill the Gays" passed into law.

And the people behind that are sitting members of our government, that these nimrods posting memes on Facebook vote for, because Jesus.

I agree. I could go on all day about the evil shit that gets done in the name of god, but in this specific instance I think it's a non-issue. Just some holier than thou bullshit that can be easily ignored.

 

[Fracas]

Such an insulting and dehumanizing image, good lord. I mean it literally says "I don't agree with who you are and I don't want equal rights for you, but I guess I'll still let you be my friend."

I've seen this posted several times on my FB feed. Fuck every single person that shared it. Being a Christian and being a disgusting homophobe shouldn't go hand in hand like it does here.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

What is the gay lifestyle? Wanting to start a life together with someone and form a stable two parent home?

There is no gay lifestyle. I really hate that statement. The life someone chooses to live is now different because they live it with someone of the same sex? What the fuck does that even mean?

People who say I don't agree with your lifestyle but I like you on this issue are just hiding behind a thin veil. When that "lifestyle" is a central part of who they are you rejecting it is you rejecting them. Regardless of whether you claim love and other bullshit actions speak louder than words here.

Love is not just a concept of where you say it and the person just believes you when fundamental words coming out of your mouth are saying the opposite to them. "You love me but don't agree with a fundamental part of my life that I can't change and makes me happy and complete."

Give me a fucking break, some people honestly. I'm not gay and was born catholic but I really can't fuck with that aspect of my religion.

 

[Principate]

I would not want to be friends with someone who believes that me being trans or lesbian/bi is "wrong" "bad" sinful" "immoral"

This is not liking saying well we don't have the same taste in music.

True but it is like being acquainted with someone that has varying levels of racism, sexism what have you.

 

[GameGuru59]

I would not want to be friends with someone who believes that me being trans or lesbian/bi is "wrong" "bad" sinful" "immoral"

This is not liking saying well we don't have the same taste in music.

No one said you have to be friends, but you (rather, we as a whole) shouldn't excommunicate them from society either. And if you're a Christian, you're supposed to love them anyway- "love your enemies" an all that.

 

[Hankodank]

IMO it's an extremely passive-aggressive way of spewing a hateful message while playing the victim card to garner sympathy.

It's the smiley/wink emoji at the end of the "I hate you" text...

 

[leadbelly]

Understood. What I'm trying to say is, I don't think actions based on one being homosexual (engaging in homosexual relationships) are on the same level as other actions the church judges to be sinful, because they are tied to who the person is. Their options are to live a closeted / stifled / incomplete life, or be condemned. I don't think that's as reasonable an ask as say, don't kill anyone. So while the church may not condemn the person, by condemning the act they are sort of doing it by proxy, they just don't or won't acknowledge it.

I guess so yeah. It certainly makes it difficult for a homosexual to live a fulfilling life. Although, that would go for any religious practice that requires you to be celibate I suppose.

 

[Principate]

I guess so yeah. It certainly makes it difficult for a homosexual to live a fulfilling life. Although, that would go for any religious practice that requires you to be celibate I suppose.

TBF Jesus wasn't too big on the whole marriage and having sex thing either. In fact you shouldn't really be having any but if you are have to, choose one partner of the opposite sex (he actually said wife since he was talking to men but it's essentially the same thing).

.

 

[Ash Sparrow]

Again, I think that it's entirely fair for the LGBT community and her supporters to be intolerant of the intolerant at this point.

If it were just about attacking the people that attack you, but not people who by in large mean you no harm. Not stereotyping and labeling all Christians for instance, writing things like LOl stupid Christians. or "one day they'll all be gone" I’ve wrote to West Boro condemning their acts, I’ve counseled someone in what to say biblically to a person that says restaurants should refuse gay people. I have spoke out against gay beheadings in other countries. And I’ve seen messed up intolerant things toward my own belief in a timeline by the very people I was defending. Wouldn’t change my defense, but yeah lot of terrible people out there. Make sure you don’t become what you hate.

 

[Red Mage]

Meaningless personal anecdote: My grandfather is a Baptist pastor. My mother (his daughter) has been divorced twice and he never said a word in protest.

He flipped out over the SCOTUS ruling. I've never seen him so angry.

Let's just say I understand where you're coming from.

 

[FLAguy954]

The current problem I'm facing is people saying that they believe whole-heartedly in the teachings of the Bible yet cherry-pick the content that fits their perception, blatantly ignoring the content that makes their faith look archaic.

Seriously this. Their cherry-picking is lame as hell.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I guess so yeah. It certainly makes it difficult for a homosexual to live a fulfilling life. Although, that would go for any religious practice that requires you to be celibate I suppose.

Celibacy is usually an individual vocational choice. I'm gay, and a Buddhist, and I often consider celibacy or ordaining as something I'd like to do in the long term. The only people who are going to do well with renunciation are those that choose it for meaningful reasons. The irony of the church telling people that homosexuality is God calling us to be celibate is most gay people would tell you that it isn't their calling. It's either something that resonates with you or it doesn't, the people who it does resonate with are going to be few, and the only way to honestly know is if you have options and it's something you can actually choose for deeply felt reasons. That's why I'm not celibate now, I'm honestly not in that position yet to choose it for the right reason.

 

[TheOctodad]

Meaningless personal anecdote: My grandfather is a Baptist pastor. My mother (his daughter) has been divorced twice and he never said a word in protest.

He flipped out over the SCOTUS ruling. I've never seen him so angry.

I know of quite a few churches that marry MANY couples that are living together and even have a kid, and divorced people remarrying, but refuse to marry gay couples. Some of these even have women pastors.

It's baffling how inconsistent their hermeneutic is for this to be the case.

 

[Spinluck]

I have gay friends but

Pls understand.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Biology is not an opinion.

Actually, it is an opinion supported by scientific research subject to change. As is sexual preference.

A lot of things you hold as fact do indeed evolve with time and scrutiny.

In this very thread, you can't even find people who can agree if sexuality as biolgocially driven or behaviorally driven. That's the nature of ever evolving studies and misinformation due to the internet.

But, the state has no right infringing on a citizens civil rights regarding something like marriage as a union. I agree with SCOTUS.

 

[Siegcram]

Actually, it is an opinion supported by scientific research subject to change. As is sexual preference.

A lot of things you hold as fact do indeed evolve with time and scrutiny.

In this very thread, you can't even find people who can agree if sexuality as biolgocially driven or behaviorally driven. That's the nature of ever evolving studies and misinformation due to the internet.

But, the state has no right infringing on a citizens civil rights regarding something like marriage as a union. I agree with SCOTUS.

The existence of homosexuality is not up for debate. So trying to equate things by calling them opinions when they are not comparable in the slightest is asinine.