Support NeoGAF

[PedroLumpy]

don't really know, that's why i was agreeing with what another poster pointed out. i guess he's making it apparent that he's an avid supporter of gay rights (which is cool and all), or maybe he just wants neogaf to have a better understanding and acceptance of gay rights in general. but what i'm saying is actually impartial here, whereas i just think he lays on his support a bit thick at times. every topic related to the story is always painted in a positive light and typically from a very liberal point of view.

i just don't think the topics allow for much discussion or debate.

Holy crap man, it's not some massive conspiracy, he's gay, so he has a tendency to post stories about homosexuality. It's not his job to provide any and all stories/viewpoints to us.

Man you act like he's trying to trick us or something.

 

[WanderingWind]

don't really know, that's why i was agreeing with what another poster pointed out. i guess he's making it apparent that he's an avid supporter of gay rights (which is cool and all), or maybe he just wants neogaf to have a better understanding and acceptance of gay rights in general. but what i'm saying is actually impartial here, whereas i just think he lays on his support a bit thick at times. every topic related to the story is always painted in a positive light and typically from a very liberal point of view.

i just don't think the topics allow for much discussion or debate.

Well, as an impartial party as well, let me say this. You are obviously uncomfortable with a gay dude posting about being gay. Which is fine, I suppose, but there is no need to project that discomfort onto him for not being shying about his sexuality.

First, you noticed that he posts a lot abut gay news. Congrats? Do you follow him on Twitter, too? Second, you think he lays on his support for his own rights and freedoms a "little thick," "positive" and "liberal." As opposed to "weak" "negative" and "conservative" (which is hilarious considering who you're talking about, by the way.) He's gay. What would you expect him to post about, when concerning gay rights issues? Is there a valid conservative viewpoint on this issue? If so, I haven't heard it.

Lastly, there is plenty of room for discussion here. What doesn't make that true? The fact that it doesn't show homosexuality in a negative light?

All that aside, why on earth do you care what somebody posts about on a discussion board? I'm honestly a little befuddled as to what you're trying to communicate here.

Edit: If anything I'm more insulted I'm being characterized as a LIBERAL.

See?

 

[Simplet]

I did not "bring up" homosexuality. You did, last page, with a Bible quote about who men lie with.

You just made a blatant and dishonest attempt to try and deceive people and avoid responsibility for what you say.

It is now clear you are willing to lie to promote your bigotry.

Actually no one brought homosexuality up since the thread itself has been about homosexuality fom the beginning. It also seems to me that he's been arguing this from a strictly religious and scripture-based point of view since the beginning, which is actually very relevant in this situation since we are talking about a pastor. He even criticized the pastor for not enforcing other parts of the scriptures that did not concern homosexuality more strictly out of fear of driving away parishioners.

 

[Bidermaier]

this is stupid. just put your penis wherever you feel like. If you want to convince yourself that you are normal because your partner is either of the same or oposite sex it is your freaking problem. Gays and religious freaks you both bore me to death.

 

[Gaborn]

Well, as an impartial party as well, let me say this. You are obviously uncomfortable with a gay dude posting about being gay. Which is fine, I suppose, but there is no need to project that discomfort onto him for not being shying about his sexuality.

First, you noticed that he posts a lot abut gay news. Congrats? Do you follow him on Twitter, too? Second, you think he lays on his support for his own rights and freedoms a "little thick," "positive" and "liberal." As opposed to "weak" "negative" and "conservative" (which is hilarious considering who you're talking about, by the way.) He's gay. What would you expect him to post about, when concerning gay rights issues? Is there a valid conservative viewpoint on this issue? If so, I haven't heard it.

Lastly, there is plenty of room for discussion here. What doesn't make that true? The fact that it doesn't show homosexuality in a negative light?

All that aside, why on earth do you care what somebody posts about on a discussion board? I'm honestly a little befuddled as to what you're trying to communicate here.



See?

Just to clarify, even though I knew what you meant and I think most people will take it the right way but still... I'm gay. I'm also a libertarian conservative. You were suggesting that the he was saying my views should be "weak" and "negative" towards gay rights (and conservative as well), not saying that just because I am a libertarian and conservative that my actual views ARE negative or weak towards gay rights. Again, I know what you meant, but it came off a little funny the first time I saw it.

 

[krypt0nian]

this is stupid. just put your penis wherever you feel like. If you want to convince yourself that you are normal because your partner is either of the same or oposite sex it is your freaking problem. Gays and religious freaks you both bore me to death.

What are you babbling about?

 

[WanderingWind]

Just to clarify, even though I knew what you meant and I think most people will take it the right way but still... I'm gay. I'm also a libertarian conservative. You were suggesting that the he was saying my views should be "weak" and "negative" towards gay rights (and conservative as well), not saying that just because I am a libertarian and conservative that my actual views ARE negative or weak towards gay rights. Again, I know what you meant, but it came off a little funny the first time I saw it.

No, I was suggesting that the opposite of "laying it on thick" would be "laying it on weakly" (not an actual idiom, but you get the point), the opposite of "positive" would be negative, etc.

I know you're a conservative (which is why I posted the "which is hilarious considering who you're talking about, by the way" comment) but your views on homosexual rights certainly aren't. They're liberal as hugging trees and eating granola, I'm afraid.

 

[KibblesBits]

Just because.

 

[krypt0nian]

Just because.

You're a good man.

 

[Gaborn]

No, I was suggesting that the opposite of "laying it on thick" would be "laying it on weakly" (not an actual idiom, but you get the point), the opposite of "positive" would be negative, etc.

I know you're a conservative (which is why I posted the "which is hilarious considering who you're talking about, by the way" comment) but your views on homosexual rights certainly aren't. They're liberal as hugging trees and eating granola, I'm afraid.

lol, fair enough I suppose.

 

[Punchy4486]

No, I was suggesting that the opposite of "laying it on thick" would be "laying it on weakly" (not an actual idiom, but you get the point), the opposite of "positive" would be negative, etc.

I know you're a conservative (which is why I posted the "which is hilarious considering who you're talking about, by the way" comment) but your views on homosexual rights certainly aren't. They're liberal as hugging trees and eating granola, I'm afraid.

If you think that believing you deserve the same rights as everyone else is liberal, then sure. I like to to call that reasonable.

 

[MilesWebber]

I took a back door approach

 

[WanderingWind]

If you think that believing you deserve the same rights as everyone else is liberal, then sure. I like to to call that reasonable.

I mean, I could post enough links to choke a goat (how many would that be anyway?) that shows that giving homosexual dudes and dudettes equal rights isn't exactly a strong, Republican platform, but why? You know it's true.

But yeah. It's pretty shitty that equal rights for all has become a "us vs. them" debate, more than a discussion on how to ensure its existence.

 

[mclaren777]

I love how righteous and moral people like Mclaren are, 'you will suffer unimaginable agony for eternity because you were born with a different sexual orientation'...

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth.

 

[btkadams]

It might just be what I notice more often, seeing I already know you're gay. Like I said, I enjoy the stories you post.



Well, I do think he does partially have an agenda, but it's not one of ill intentions. Troubling wasn't the word I was looking for; I even consulted a thesaurus to find a better term.

i know you're probably long gone from the thread but i'm just curious as to what you think his agenda could be. i don't understand.

don't really know, that's why i was agreeing with what another poster pointed out. i guess he's making it apparent that he's an avid supporter of gay rights (which is cool and all), or maybe he just wants neogaf to have a better understanding and acceptance of gay rights in general. but what i'm saying is actually impartial here, whereas i just think he lays on his support a bit thick at times. every topic related to the story is always painted in a positive light and typically from a very liberal point of view.

i just don't think the topics allow for much discussion or debate.

how can he lay on his support a bit thick? you don't make sense. it seems like you have a problem with gay people if a certain amount of gay threads is too much for you.

this is stupid. just put your penis wherever you feel like. If you want to convince yourself that you are normal because your partner is either of the same or oposite sex it is your freaking problem. Gays and religious freaks you both bore me to death.

???? are you saying people who fight for gay rights have a problem? i am not trying to point fingers i just have no idea what you're saying.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth.

I'm actually letting you off easily. Your views are much more bigoted and illogical.

 

[Monocle]

I think it's sinful.

And as Zenith pointed out, I'm opposed to it in the same way I'm opposed to the practice of fornication, adultery, bestiality, friends with benefits, etc.

I can only hope you saved enough ire for this abomination:

Gay bathhouses and Red Lobster: equally vile in the eyes of the Lord.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I can only hope you saved enough ire for this abomination:

Keep that disgusting, devil food away from me!

(I'm allergic to shellfish)

 

[btkadams]

I can only hope you saved enough ire for this abomination:

http://i.imgur.com/q3cw1.jpg[IMG]

Gay bathhouses and Red Lobster: equally vile in the eyes of the Lord.[/QUOTE]
does my gay sin get cancelled out because i don't like shellfish? and i think we all know which is the most disgusting between Red Lobster and a gay bathhouse.

 

[besada]

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth.

You really shouldn't lob up softballs like that.

 

[krypt0nian]

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth.

Where's the bible quote? How can you function?

 

[Monocle]

does my gay sin get cancelled out because i don't like shellfish? and i think we all know which is the most disgusting between Red Lobster and a gay bathhouse.

Back, foul heathen! You seem to me like a man who wears garments of MIXED FABRIC.

 

[Koodo]

I wonder if he has upgraded to a horse-size dildo yet.

 

[WanderingWind]

does my gay sin get cancelled out because i don't like shellfish? and i think we all know which is the most disgusting between Red Lobster and a gay bathhouse.

...you can't hate the cheesy biscuits. They're the great unifier.

 

[mclaren777]

I can only hope you saved enough ire for this abomination:

Gay bathhouses and Red Lobster: equally vile in the eyes of the Lord.

I'm always perplexed by posts like this. What exactly were you trying to achieve with it?

My guess is that you were trying to show a problem with the Bible. I suspect that you (and others) find passages like Deuteronomy 14 & 22 objectionable because you don't understand their intended purpose, which is to make the Israelites culturally different from surrounding nations.

 

[Monocle]

I'm always perplexed by posts like this. What exactly were you trying to achieve with it?

My guess is that you were trying to show a problem with the Bible. I suspect that you (and others) find passages like Deuteronomy 14 & 22 objectionable because you don't understand their intended purpose, which is to make the Israelites culturally different from surrounding nations.

What's the cultural function of stoning disobedient children?

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I'm always perplexed by posts like this. What exactly were you trying to achieve with it?

My guess is that you were trying to show a problem with the Bible. I suspect that you (and others) find passages like Deuteronomy 14 & 22 objectionable because you don't understand their intended purpose, which is to make the Israelites culturally different from surrounding nations.

The intended purpose would actually be to demonstrate your hypocritical stance. If you are going to take the bible literally (as you seem to do), then you better damn well stick to a literal interpretation.

 

[ZephyrFate]

No, I was suggesting that the opposite of "laying it on thick" would be "laying it on weakly" (not an actual idiom, but you get the point), the opposite of "positive" would be negative, etc.

I know you're a conservative (which is why I posted the "which is hilarious considering who you're talking about, by the way" comment) but your views on homosexual rights certainly aren't. They're liberal as hugging trees and eating granola, I'm afraid.

Newsflash: Demanding equal rights isn't really just a liberal thing.

 

[Hours Left]

Back, foul heathen! You seem to me like a man who wears garments of MIXED FABRIC.

Man, if loving a poly cotton blend is wrong, I don't want to be right.

 

[Crisis]

So would the ultimate sin be to have sex with a male dog while wearing a poly-cotton blend shirt at a Red Lobster restaurant?

 

[btkadams]

So would the ultimate sin be to have sex with a male dog while wearing a poly-cotton blend shirt at a Red Lobster restaurant?

ultimate sin

 

[Neckbeard]

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.

I don't see why you're so troubled unless you're so ignorant your only source of news is the off-topic side of a gaming forum, in which case... meh.

 

[Huevos de Oro]

So would the ultimate sin be to have sex with a male dog while wearing a poly-cotton blend shirt at a Red Lobster restaurant?

Only if you enjoy it.

 

[jaxword]

The intended purpose would actually be to demonstrate your hypocritical stance. If you are going to take the bible literally (as you seem to do), then you better damn well stick to a literal interpretation.

I already called him out on blatantly lying. You really think he's going to admit to literal interpretations when it detracts from his stance?

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Why do people keep humoring that annoying guy with the car avatar

 

[Hydranockz]

Great story. One Americans need to hear more often. Over here i seems that a lot of the younger priests (as few as they are) are pretty much of the same mindset as that Mr. Rogers fellow.

 

[Dude Abides]

Why do people keep humoring that annoying guy with the car avatar

Folks like to argue, and he is one of the few willing to champion the notion that there is something wrong with gay people.

 

[krypt0nian]

Folks like to argue, and he is one of the few willing to champion the notion that there is something wrong with gay people.

It's like arguing with a living museum piece. LOL

 

[Zionyx]

I'm always perplexed by posts like this. What exactly were you trying to achieve with it?

My guess is that you were trying to show a problem with the Bible. I suspect that you (and others) find passages like Deuteronomy 14 & 22 objectionable because you don't understand their intended purpose, which is to make the Israelites culturally different from surrounding nations.

His point? You're throwing Leviticus at us. You can't just throw Leviticus into a gay argument.

Disclaimer: 21/male/christian/mostly straight/queer friendly.

 

[Gaborn]

Folks like to argue, and he is one of the few willing to champion the notion that there is something wrong with gay people.

over. And over. And over. We're still waiting for him to bother promiscuous GAF though. Maybe one day.

 

[speculawyer]

but I did not believe one could be a practicing homosexual and a Christian. The Bible was straightforward on this issue. It all seemed incredibly obvious to me.

I never understood how it was so black & white. Yeah, I know the Bible says it is wrong. But the Bible also says "Shellfish is an abomination" yet the Red Lobster was filled with Christians. There are ton of random rules that are not followed.

It always struck me that they picked homosexuality as being a 'real sin' only because they had no interest in violating it.

 

[speculawyer]

Man, that is just shocking. I can't understand how anyone can sign up to that right-most column.


"Ive got a one word question for you . . . . Dinosaurs?"
-Bill Hicks.

 

[BowieZ]

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men"

Well... That pretty much covers everyone. We're all screwed.

This is a flawed translation.

"men who have sex with men" lol


I wonder how many Christians think the Bible was originally written in English, or indeed who presume every word or phrase was translated accurately...

 

[SmokyDave]

This guy sounds like a terrible pastor. I'm disgusted that he seems to be putting his feelings above biblical teaching and he seems too worried about church attendance to speak the truth in peoples' lives.

I'm glad that he has left the ministry.

I'm just letting you know what the Bible says. Perversion is perversion no matter what form it takes.

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion." -- Leviticus 18:22-23

I liked you when I'd only read your posts about racing games

And using Leviticus? Pretty much guaranteed your own damnation there.

Oh well, the chap in the OP seems very nice and his point about reflecting sins was very interesting.

 

[jaxword]

over. And over. And over. We're still waiting for him to bother promiscuous GAF though. Maybe one day.

People like that are not interested in actual debate.

They are bullies.

They are bullies because they pick on those smaller than them. For example, take any thread remotely involving atheists. You'll find people like that looking for any excuse to label atheists the biggest threat to Christianity...despite atheists being obviously a minority in the world and completely ineffective politically.

But you don't see those same people going on the offensive in, say, a thread about Islam and letting people know Islam is wrong and sinful.

Why not?

Because it's harder to take on someone as big as you.

A lot of religious arguing comes down to that. Intellectual bullying of a group smaller and weaker than you. Homosexuals are just another small group that's easy to publicly insult without fear of reprisal.