Support NeoGAF

[Dude Abides]

I don't really have a problem with it, I just wish his "news" would be more diverse.

If only there were a bunch of other threads about news wholly unrelated to gay people that you could click on and read instead. If only!

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Was hoping for a biblical basis to his newfound opinion. I find only an emotional appeal.

sigh.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Was hoping for a biblical basis to his newfound opinion. I find only an emotional appeal.

sigh.

You can't find what isn't there.

 

[methane47]

Alot (Not ALL just alot) of the things/sayings/commandments/nuances in the bible pretty much things that were taught in the olden days which helped to keep someone healthy.

Take that how you want it.

If only there were a bunch of other threads about news wholly unrelated to gay people that you could click on and read instead. If only!

FWIW Im sure you could imagine a situation where a poster continously posted about something that you may or may not find interesting (pokemon for example) at a rate of 2 times a day and after weeks of pokemon posts you enter a thread to say "hey dude... thanks but enough with the pokemon threads"

 

[A Human Becoming]

So you think you should dictate what he posts? Or are you saying that others don't post topics not related to gay issues? Or are you saying that you want to suck dick?

Wow, aren't you a fucking asshole. I wasn't saying any of that stuff. The dude finds cool articles, I was just hoping he would be more diverse. He even clarified that the percentage of articles he posts about homosexuality are far less than I perceived.

 

[mantidor]

You can't find what isn't there.

didn't Jesus say "love everyone and yourself"? I think that pretty much covers it. I'm almost sure that is in the Bible.

 

[Majmun]

didn't Jesus say "love everyone and yourself"? I think that pretty much covers it. I'm almost sure that is in the Bible.

Would actually be pretty stupid if it ain't so.

 

[levious]

Was hoping for a biblical basis to his newfound opinion. I find only an emotional appeal.

sigh.

There's not much clear in the new testament, which is likely the focus of what he studied.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

I've never heard a minister tell a gay joke.

a lot of ministers are gay jokes!

 

[Fenderputty]

As much as I like the news stories you post Gaborn, I can't help but notice and be troubled by the pattern of what you choose to post. With an estimated 50% of your stories involving homosexuality, it's clear you have your own agenda.

Why shouldn't he?

 

[PhoenixDark]

eh? You're an expert on bible study? I found your post and attitude funny, that's all. We all do that at times, like how a group of users can start debating theoretical physics at the drop of a hat.

This isn't physics, it's religion. The pastor isn't a theologian, I'm quite familiar with the religion, grew up in a very religious home etc. In short I know enough to make some comments here. I don't think it's particularly disputed or controversial to say the bible is very clear on homosexuality, nor does one have to be a theologian or pastor to make comments on Biblical facts, whether it's "the bible condemns homosexuality; Jesus preached exclusively to Jews; Adam is the first man; etc" ...

 

[Hitokage]

This isn't physics, it's religion.

Which is why you can't simply stamp down QED.

 

[levious]

what few references are actually in the new testament are in fact debated quite often phoenix. Whether it's interpretive, translation issues, etc.

And I referred to him as a relative expert, as in relative to you or I.

 

[Hitmonchan107]

I think a LOT more do than GAF gives credit for. The problem is, much like this gentleman in the op, expressing our feelings on gay rights means going against what the older members of the church believe. It risks making us an outcast among fellow believers. While atheists here may say, "What's the problem? Screw what they believe and do what's right", as this story shows, its never tha simple. Risking the loss of what otherwise are strong relationships...is a tough thing to face and accept.

While that's true, you have to ask yourself if those relationships are worth accepting the demoralization and castigation of an entire group of human beings.

It's like being a white citizen during the slavery period. Should you hold your tongue and watch people suffer at the expense of personal relationships?

It's a tough thing to do. Whenever I went to church regularly, I would hear about the sins of homosexuality every now and then.

But I didn't just sit by and let it happen. I argued it. I may have lost some friends, but if those people stopped being my friends for my beliefs, then they weren't truly friends to begin with.

 

[krypt0nian]

Wow, aren't you a fucking asshole. I wasn't saying any of that stuff. The dude finds cool articles, I was just hoping he would be more diverse. He even clarified that the percentage of articles he posts about homosexuality are far less than I perceived.

You you do or do not want to suck dick? Because you're leading me on with the hot fucking asshole talk, sexy.

At least today you've outed yourself a little and each day it can only get easier for you. <3

 

[I <3 Memes]

Surprised? No I'm not. I'm never surprised when religion compromises it's beliefs just to stay relevant.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I swear people on GAF look for any reason to jump down someone's throat. I just say I wish his news would be more diverse and suddenly I don't want him to post anything pro-homosexuality, when I even said in my initial post I like the stories he posts.

People are allowed to post about whatever interests them. He doesn't need to be more well-rounded to suit you. Other people post topics on this forum.

 

[The Technomancer]

My respect for Mr. Rogers just increased 20 fold. I really thought his persona on the show was just an ace

Oh yeah, no, Mr. Rogers was a saint. There's a whole article out there I read once about how everyone he met loved him because he loved every single person that he met.

EDIT: http://www.pittsburghinwords.org/tom_junod.html

Once upon a time, a little boy with a big sword went into battle against Mister Rogers. Or maybe, if the truth be told, Mister Rogers went into battle against a little boy with a big sword, for Mister Rogers didn't like the big sword. It was one of those swords that really isn't a sword at all; it was a big plastic contraption with lights and sound effects, and it was the kind of sword used in defense of the universe by the heroes of the television shows that the little boy liked to watch. The little boy with the big sword did not watch Mister Rogers. In fact, the little boy with the big sword didn't know who Mister Rogers was, and so when Mister Rogers knelt down in front of him, the little boy with the big sword looked past him and through him, and when Mister Rogers said, "Oh, my, that's a big sword you have," the boy didn't answer, and finally his mother got embarrassed and said, "Oh, honey, c'mon, that's Mister Rogers," and felt his head for fever. Of course, she knew who Mister Rogers was, because she had grown up with him, and she knew that he was good for her son, and so now, with her little boy zombie-eyed under his blond bangs, she apologized, saying to Mister Rogers that she knew he was in a rush and that she knew he was here in Penn Station taping his program and that her son usually wasn't like this, he was probably just tired. ... Except that Mister Rogers wasn't going anywhere. Yes, sure, he was taping, and right there, in Penn Station in New York City, were rings of other children wiggling in wait for him, but right now his patient gray eyes were fixed on the little boy with the big sword, and so he stayed there, on one knee, until the little boy's eyes finally focused on Mister Rogers, and he said, "It's not a sword; it's a death ray." A death ray! Oh, honey, Mommy knew you could do it … And so now, encouraged, Mommy said, "Do you want to give Mister Rogers a hug, honey?" But the boy was shaking his head no, and Mister Rogers was sneaking his face past the big sword and the armor of the little boy's eyes and whispering something in his ear—something that, while not changing his mind about the hug, made the little boy look at Mister Rogers in a new way, with the eyes of a child at last, and nod his head yes.

We were heading back to his apartment in a taxi when I asked him what he had said.

"Oh, I just knew that whenever you see a little boy carrying something like that, it means that he wants to show people that he's strong on the outside.

"I just wanted to let him know that he was strong on the inside, too.

"And so that's what I told him.

"I said, 'Do you know that you're strong on the inside, too?'"

"Maybe it was something he needed to hear."

 

[krypt0nian]

People are allowed to post about whatever interests them. He doesn't need to be more well-rounded to suit you. Other people post topics on this forum.

Liu Kang, it's ok. He's troubled by the agenda. He's not a bad person.

 

[itxaka]

I thought that gay males were forced to talk about anything gay about 50% of the time in order to push the gay global agenda. This thread pretty much confirms it. Move over Masons, the new boss are in town and they are fabulous!

 

[José Mourinho]

I always thought it was a case of, "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin." As in, most Christians don't have a problem with the homosexual themselves, more so the act.

I'm not sure exactly how that works. But something like that anyway.

 

[A Human Becoming]

People are allowed to post about whatever interests them. He doesn't need to be more well-rounded to suit you. Other people post topics on this forum.

I know, Gaborn just tends to post more consistently and has more quality news stories. He's a better filter I guess is what I'm saying.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Liu Kang, it's ok. He's troubled by the vagina. He's not a bad person.

fixed

 

[AniHawk]

Oh yeah, no, Mr. Rogers was a saint. There's a whole article out there I read once about how everyone he met loved him because he loved every single person that he met.

EDIT: http://www.pittsburghinwords.org/tom_junod.html

if i had a time machine, he would probably be the first non-family member i would want to meet.

 

[Door2Dawn]

fixed

Why would he be trouble by the vagina?

edit: Oh because hes gay. I get it hehe.

 

[krypt0nian]

I always thought it was a case of, "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin." As in, most Christians don't have a problem with the homosexual themselves, more so the act.

I'm not sure exactly how that works. But something like that anyway.

That is better known as the worst cop out of the centuries principle.

 

[pirata]

As much as I like the news stories you post Gaborn, I can't help but notice and be troubled by the pattern of what you choose to post. With an estimated 50% of your stories involving homosexuality, it's clear you have your own agenda.

So? 100% of the threads that I've posted so far have been about the 1977 Japanese film House. People post things that interest them. Gaborn has no obligation to "diversify" his news. This is a message board, not a newspaper, for goodness' sake!

 

[Dreams-Visions]

You can't find what isn't there.

true.

I guess I just...I would like to see an actual Biblically-established argument that fully addresses the contentious scriptures surrounding this issue and offers a logical conclusion from them that condones homosexuality. Instead, most arguments seem to either attempt to ignore said scriptures entirely or present little more than an ad-hominem-filled emotional appeals to win Christians over...which is why their progress has been so slow.

For example, in this article/letter, he closes by discussing killers or thieves not being explicitly listed in his Denomination's constitution. But those things go without having to be said. They don't have to be pointed out because while people may struggle with thievery or lying or whatever else he mentioned, people do recognize them as wrong and that they are daily struggles...and that from the perspective of the Christian, the experience of being Christian is about never completely giving up and giving in. No, it's about refusing to accept that those things which book considers "sin" are in fact things that have no control over, who's power even Christians must ultimately succumb to. And so for many Christians, the notion of simply accepting homosexuality is akin to accepting that man can't beat "sin"...which they'd suggest is antithetical to what they believe. Right or wrong, I'm pretty sure this would be a major bone of contention.

My point here is that I don't think an emotional appeal of this sort will work for studied Christians who hold what they believe to be a grounded, Biblical opinion on this matter. I don't think pointing out general struggles everyone deals with will make anyone serious about their beliefs conclude that homosexuality is anything more than another "struggle" or "vice" which a given (wo)man may have to struggle with and "overcome" through hope, love, whatever.

I guess that's why I'll continue to look for biblical appeals. Emotional appeals are nice, but won't change The Church.

idk. I'm babbling. Sorry, guys.

That is better known as the worst cop out of the centuries principle.

not really. it's easy to understand when using a non-volatile issue (ie: anything other than homosexuality). your mother loves you in spite of yourself sometimes, right? she'll continue to do things that she believes are in your best interests, even if she catches you stealing money out of her wallet, right? She may discipline you by taking away some luxury or something you enjoy doing for some period of time to teach the lesson, but she still loves you, right?

extrapolate and apply liberally.

 

[Count Dookkake]

100% of the threads that I've posted so far have been about the 1977 Japanese film House.

I fully endorse your agenda.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Awesome how this thread turned into a witch burning.

 

[Hitmonchan107]

I always thought it was a case of, "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin." As in, most Christians don't have a problem with the homosexual themselves, more so the act.

I'm not sure exactly how that works. But something like that anyway.

I hate that line of logic. (I'm not saying you follow that logic.)

That's like saying, "Brad is an absolutely wonderful person. But because he has gay sex, God is ashamed of him, and he's going to burn in Hell for eternity. What a shame. Great chef."

Our actions make us who we are. You can't separate what we do from who we are.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Awesome how this thread turned into a witch burning.

Not for me, when I didn't even have any ill intentions.

 

[Door2Dawn]

Awesome how this thread turned into a witch burning.

What?

 

[José Mourinho]

That is better known as the worst cop out of the centuries principle.

Why? Just because you don't agree with somebody's principles or whatever doesn't mean you can't like, and live along side them. Sometimes it does, other times not so much.

I'm not defending it, makes no odds to me. But somewhat reasonable. Rather than just straight up hating people for something they can't and shouldn't help.

I hate that line of logic. (I'm not saying you follow that logic.)

That's like saying, "Brad is an absolutely wonderful person. But because he has gay sex, God is ashamed of him, and he's going to burn in Hell for eternity. What a shame. Great chef."

Our actions make us who we are. You can't separate what we do from who we are.

But Christians would think that about a lot of people. "insert name here is a really nice guy. He helps out when he can and gives lots of money to charity. He hasn't repented though so he's going to hell."

All I'm saying is, is it really that bad if religious people are tolerant of something even if they don't believe it to be right? Like I said above, rather that than full blown hate.

 

[SouthernDragon]

I swear people on GAF look for any reason to jump down someone's throat. I just say I wish his news would be more diverse and suddenly I don't want him to post anything pro-homosexuality, when I even said in my initial post I like the stories he posts.

Post your own news stories, then. GAF is a regulated free market, go ahead and post appropriate content!

That said, I will share this story. Thanks, Gaborn!

 

[Prologue]

This "issue" always seems so hypocritical to me. You have anti-gay marriage protest and all of that nonsense. People actually take time out of their own day to get involved, instead of doing something more productive. Who are we to condom "them"? You have people who go to church 7 days a week and gossip all the way to the grave and god only knows what else. People sin everyday, and then all of a sudden theres talk about homosexuality and people get on their high horse. Oh, "it ruins the image of marriage", marriage is what you make it. If joe and tommy from down the street get married and that ruins the strength of your marriage, than obviously it wasn't strong enough to begin with.



I'm straight and go to church every-week

.

 

[Slappers Only]

This "issue" always seems so hypocritical to me. You have anti-gay marriage protest and all of that nonsense. People actually take time out of their own day to get involved, instead of doing something more productive. Who are we to condom "them"? You have people who go to church 7 days a week and gossip all the way to the grave and god only knows what else. People sin everyday, and then all of a sudden theres talk about homosexuality and people get on their high horse. Oh, "it ruins the image of marriage", marriage is what you make it. If joe and tommy from down the street get married and that ruins the strength of your marriage, than obviously it wasn't strong enough to begin with.



I'm straight and go to church every-week

.

Have we considered downgrading marriage to "civil union" in order to achieve equality?

 

[Beer Monkey]

I doubt that. The bible is pretty clear on homosexuality. I'm not religious and support gay rights

The Old Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality. Of course, Christians aren't really living under the covenants of the Old Testament or they wouldn't eat shellfish, touch the skin of a dead pig, feel that slavery is wrong, and so on.

The New Testament isn't really that clear at all.

Best part of the Old Testament? That it tells you not to have sex with your brother's wife, or your daughter in law, or your fathers wife, or your mother in law, or your uncle's wife. But sex with your own daughter? Apparently OK.

 

[mnemovore]

Have we considered downgrading marriage to "civil union" in order to achieve equality?

Why is gay people getting married so offensive to you that to avoid it you would rather redefine the status of an enormous amount of people?

 

[krypt0nian]

Have we considered downgrading marriage to "civil union" in order to achieve equality?

Great in concept but are you suggesting the the people who have the privilege of marriage according to the state would voluntarily give that up so everyone could have the same equality?

People go kicking and screaming when you even suggest that their rights are compromised.

 

[Hitmonchan107]

All I'm saying is, is it really that bad if religious people are tolerant of something even if they don't believe it to be right? Like I said above, rather that than full blown hate.

Here's the problem: In America, our politicians are mostly Christians. Most of them practice that logic of, "Don't hate the sinner -- hate the sin."

It's their way of denying gays equal rights while still maintaining an image of acceptance.

"I think of you as an equal. I really do. But I believe that what you do is morally reprehensible; and therefore, you shouldn't be given the same marital rights as I do. It's not a question of equality. It's a question of belief."

The Old Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality. Of course, Christians aren't really living under the covenants of the Old Testament or they wouldn't eat shellfish, touch the skin of a dead pig, feel that slavery is wrong, and so on.

The New Testament isn't really that clear at all.

Best part of the Old Testament? That it tells you not to have sex with your brother's wife, or your daughter in law, or your fathers wife, or your mother in law, or your uncle's wife. But sex with your own daughter? Apparently OK.

This times a million and one. Too many Christians don't realize this.

 

[Escape Goat]

wrong thread lol

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

The Old Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality. Of course, Christians aren't really living under the covenants of the Old Testament or they wouldn't eat shellfish, touch the skin of a dead pig, feel that slavery is wrong, and so on.

The New Testament isn't really that clear at all.

Best part of the Old Testament? That it tells you not to have sex with your brother's wife, or your daughter in law, or your fathers wife, or your mother in law, or your uncle's wife. But sex with your own daughter? Apparently OK.

Literal interpretation of the old testament also means you believe the earth was created in six days. Most Christians accept evolution, which runs counter to a rigid belief in allegory as literal truth, as it is a legitimate scientific theory.

Literal interpretation of the old testament would mean that homosexuality is considered unnatural and a sin, however, science is finding that homosexuality is a natural trait, not a "decision," by the same logic that allows Christians to accept evolution, they would also accept homosexuality, because it is natural and part of God's creation.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The Old Testament is pretty clear on homosexuality. Of course, Christians aren't really living under the covenants of the Old Testament or they wouldn't eat shellfish, touch the skin of a dead pig, feel that slavery is wrong, and so on.

The New Testament isn't really that clear at all.

Best part of the Old Testament? That it tells you not to have sex with your brother's wife, or your daughter in law, or your fathers wife, or your mother in law, or your uncle's wife. But sex with your own daughter? Apparently OK.

At the same time the Old Testament was written for the Jews, which is true; the Law wasn't given to Gentiles. Yet despite that the majority of Christians disagree or are oblivious, and half assedly follow the Law, picking and choosing what they like (tithes! tongues!) and what they don't like (diets wtf!)

 

[Herpes Reasons]

At the same time the Old Testament was written for the Jews, which is true; the Law wasn't given to Gentiles. Yet despite that the majority of Christians disagree or are oblivious, and half assedly follow the Law, picking and choosing what they like (tithes! tongues!) and what they don't like (diets wtf!)

"if you love me, follow my commandments." -jesus

but i do think christians (or humans in general) do enjoy pick and choosing according to their upringings.

didn't Jesus say "love everyone and yourself"? I think that pretty much covers it. I'm almost sure that is in the Bible.

yup. Jesus said to love your enemies and lay down your sword.

 

[Shogmaster]

Literal interpretation of the old testament also means you believe the earth was created in six days. Most Christians accept evolution, which runs counter to a rigid belief in allegory as literal truth, as it is a legitimate scientific theory.

I have strong doubts about that, especially these days.

 

[kehs]

I have strong doubts about that, especially these days.

Seriously, my buddie's 20 year old sister was still under the belief that god made white people and black people came from monkeys exclusively.

 

[The Lamp]

I'm sure one could debate your view, but seeing you outright slam the door on the argument put forth by a comparative expert in the field is pretty funny.

Anybody who examines and studies the Bible can be a "comparative expert" in the field of....the Bible.

The New Testament isn't really that clear at all.

What about 1 Corinthians 6:9?

 

[José Mourinho]

Here's the problem: In America, our politicians are mostly Christians. Most of them practice that logic of, "Don't hate the sinner -- hate the sin."

It's their way of denying gays equal rights while still maintaining an image of acceptance.

"I think of you as an equal. I really do. But I believe that what you do is morally reprehensible; and therefore, you shouldn't be given the same marital rights as I do. It's not a question of equality. It's a question of belief."

Fair point.

I just don't know what's expected from religious people though. I mean, Christians on the whole believe homosexuality is wrong. They can't condone it because that would go against what they are taught and believe. But tolerating it to the degree they are able to, which is to not go round picketing gay pride parades and spewing hate to gay people, who ultimately, are born that way and can't help it (nor should they try). Is about as good as you're going to get from most serious religious people. And at least from my point of view, that's not all that bad. It's not perfect by any means. But it's better than nothing.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts. Personally I think gay people can do what they want. Other than kiss me, being a straight male I'm not down for that.

 

[krypt0nian]

not really. it's easy to understand when using a non-volatile issue (ie: anything other than homosexuality). your mother loves you in spite of yourself sometimes, right? she'll continue to do things that she believes are in your best interests, even if she catches you stealing money out of her wallet, right? She may discipline you by taking away some luxury or something you enjoy doing for some period of time to teach the lesson, but she still loves you, right?

extrapolate and apply liberally.

Why? Just because you don't agree with somebody's principles or whatever doesn't mean you can't like, and live along side them. Sometimes it does, other times not so much.

Because they are hating something that people are born with. The "sin" is not a choice. These aren't principles they are hating.

The cop out part comes from expecting that people not act on their natural sexual urges. To not be fully fleshed out people.