Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://carnalnation.com/content/27776/10/gay-man-discovers-homophobia-bible-files-lawsuit




Somehow I don't see this going very far.

It would have been a much more powerful statement if he'd gone after a mainstream translation for leviticus.

That is just retarded.

...just... wow. this is... um... yeah.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That is just retarded.

lol...I guess that he will sue hollywood next. I've seen many films with derogatory comments aganist homosexuals..lol. Those people need to get a life.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
lol...I guess that he will sue hollywood next. I've seen many films with derogatory comments aganist homosexuals..lol. Those people need to get a life.

"Those people"?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That is just retarded.
No, that is just awesome.

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/facepalm.jpg

I personally take offense to being labeled negatively for being a fornicator, **** it, I'm suing too.

The gay is smart though, seeking that much money will probably net him a very much smaller, but profitable out of court settlement.

Tort law is becoming more and more asinine by the day.

Originally posted by Robtard
I personally take offense to being labeled negatively for being a fornicator, **** it, I'm suing too.

The gay is smart though, seeking that much money will probably net him a very much smaller, but profitable out of court settlement.


I'm sure he isn't offended. He's just looking for a way to get money handed to him. Besides, the people he is suing are only translators. They're just translating ancient texts into English...and the ancient texts do label homosexuality as a sin...so, the guy would have to sue some long dead Biblical writers..lol...it was their own words, not the translators.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Those people"?





I knew I'd get called out on that...so, I added those words accordingly.

I do not agree with homosexuality, and will not be convinced otherwise.

In my opinion, it's almost as disgusting as pedophilia. But, this is not

topic of this thread, so I'll say no more about it.

did you know male dolphins screw other male dolphins?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
did you know male dolphins screw other male dolphins?





I'm aware dogs do the same thing.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars



I knew I'd get called out on that...so, I added those words accordingly.

I do not agree with homosexuality, and will not be convinced otherwise.

In my opinion, it's almost as disgusting as pedophilia. But, this is not

topic of this thread, so I'll say no more about it.

http://maaadddog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/ignorance.jpg

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
lol...I guess that he will sue hollywood next. I've seen many films with derogatory comments aganist homosexuals..lol. Those people need to get a life.

Who needs to get a life?

People who sue others?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars



I knew I'd get called out on that...so, I added those words accordingly.

I do not agree with homosexuality, and will not be convinced otherwise.

In my opinion, it's almost as disgusting as pedophilia. But, this is not

topic of this thread, so I'll say no more about it.

1) Fitting your location is the Deep South.

2) You have a gay cowboy for your sig.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://carnalnation.com/content/27776/10/gay-man-discovers-homophobia-bible-files-lawsuit




Somehow I don't see this going very far.

...Is he really that stupid? This is something that people have known since the Bible first came out.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
http://maaadddog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/ignorance.jpg

Nice job flaming the heterosexual for stating a personal opinion.

Hypocritical much?

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
Nice job flaming the heterosexual for stating a personal opinion.

Hypocritical much?



Since when was a man dressed in cowboy boots and hat heterosexual?

um... those publishers are just reprinting copies of one of the most popular books in the world they're doing it because making/selling bibles is incredibly popular

this guy, has no legal grounding and would not succeed in any kind of suit. There are many books that express many different types of opinions about homosexuals. if this guy isn't christian, then he must think the bible is a very complex and very convincing way to be a part of something that isn't so.... and so the bible wouldn't be true, correct? and since the authors are all dead and even if they were alive they were just publishing their opinions.

if he's saying the bible inspires hate crimes toward homosexuals, then he needs to sue the people who take action and perform the hate crimes. if law were completely objective, and people did exclude church from state, this would be like blaming violent actions of teenagers on the video games they play.

am i totally off here? if so, please explain.

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Since when was a man dressed in cowboy boots and hat heterosexual?


are you a f@ggot?


You must be...you sure are getting offended about my opinion!!

The news causes me emotional distress. Can i sue CNN for broadcasting news?

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Since when was a man dressed in cowboy boots and hat heterosexual?

up until brokeback mountain

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
The news causes me emotional distress. Can i sue CNN for broadcasting news?

so the conclusion, then, is that the purveyors of religion and religious texts are not responsible for the content therein, or for the people who do illegal things based on the content of their work?

I don't agree with the personal stress issue of this case, but there is certainly something to be said for interpersonal stress. Bigger picture, there are cases of extreme violence.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
are you a f@ggot?


You must be...you sure are getting offended about my opinion!! That's uncalled for, man.

lol, he is baiting dude, don't give him the pleasure

Originally posted by inimalist
so the conclusion, then, is that the purveyors of religion and religious texts are not responsible for the content therein, or for the people who do illegal things based on the content of their work?

I don't agree with the personal stress issue of this case, but there is certainly something to be said for interpersonal stress. Bigger picture, there are cases of extreme violence.

I thought you were all about the personal freedom?

And in this case they're not responsible for the content, the publishers say they do not own the translations.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I thought you were all about the personal freedom?

indeed. and when we live in my anarchist Utopia, people can peddle all the hate they want. Until then, big brother says you can't publish hate speech.

I'm not saying I think that particular part of the Bible is hate speech, but most responses have been pretty dismissive of the concept, which is, that the people who run a religion might be responsible for the content of their faith, and actions such content produces.

Nazi speech which promotes people killing Jews is illegal. People kill gays based, by their own admissions, on what the bible says.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And in this case they're not responsible for the content, the publishers say they do not own the translations.

fair enough, if thats how the law works.

He's suing for the translation. It said one thing, they changed it to something else, the change is what he's offended by.It's a stupid lawsuit overall, but the gay-guy is correct in this manner.

Other bibles editions have changed Leviticus from 'man shall not lie with another man as he would a woman' to the blanket term 'homosexuality is a sin', which is completely different, as it includes lesbians, which where not initially condemned in Leviticus.

On a side note, since when are publishers not responsible for what they publish?

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
Nice job flaming the heterosexual for stating a personal opinion.

Hypocritical much?



How is it hypocritical?

Originally posted by Robtard
Other bibles editions have changed Leviticus from 'man shall not lie with another man as he would a woman' to the blanket term 'homosexuality is a sin', which is completely different, as it includes lesbians, which where not initially condemned in Leviticus.

Which I find awesome. I always wondered why God doesn't make a stipulation on teh weeemonz, but only on the men. hmm

All newer translations include women, but, from KJV on back, it doesn't mention women. This further proves the point that the Mormons are right about religions doing what they want with the bible. It's NOT to be interpretted directly, especially when you have idiots who keep changing meanings.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
are you a f@ggot?


You must be...you sure are getting offended about my opinion!!

We aren't going to have that in this thread.

Do that again and you're banned.

So why doesn't the guy learn hebrew/greek/latin, then suggest a translation?

Is he going to sue publishers who publish Mein Kampf as well? Money making scheme.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
are you a f@ggot?


You must be...you sure are getting offended about my opinion!!

Have sex with me.

I am very attracted to you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Which I find awesome. I always wondered why God doesn't make a stipulation on teh weeemonz, but only on the men. hmm


Because it was written by man and men love them some girl-on-girl action.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How is it hypocritical?

Because you consider his opinion that homosexuality is disgusting to be "ignorant", when in fact, you are ignorant for accusing his personal point of view.

Many points of view are open to be attacked without any ignorance involved in that attack.

so attacking a pro-homosexual view shouldnt be considered ignorant.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars



I knew I'd get called out on that...so, I added those words accordingly.

I do not agree with homosexuality, and will not be convinced otherwise.

In my opinion, it's almost as disgusting as pedophilia. But, this is not

topic of this thread, so I'll say no more about it. I can understand putting non-biological sexual acts together as a group.

But when you say ****ing children is about as bad as screwing a consenting adult of the same sex, that is some major ****ed up shit there.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
so attacking a pro-homosexual view shouldnt be considered ignorant.

Views based on prejudice, bigotry and intolerance are the ones that are going to be reasonably considered ignorant ones.

Attacking those who seek equality seems to qualify.

so you dont think a homosexual could be prejudiced against heterosexuals and intolerant of their views?

imo a gay basher isnt any worse than a gay who bashes a hetero stance. just like i feel "defensive racism" is just as bad as...ya know... regular racism.

im not accusing anyone here of being attributed to either party, but in general if someone says "i think homosexuality is disgusting" and someone replies "youre an ignorant idiot for thinking that", i consider the latter poster to be just as much in the wrong.

Another useless "Gays vs Religion" discussion that does nothing but to get people angry on both sides.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
imo a gay basher isnt any worse than a gay who bashes a hetero stance.

There's the difference right there: a "gay basher" is bashing the homosexual person and their sexual preference, where as a "gay who bashes a hetero stance" is, you know, bashing that person's stance.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
Because you consider his opinion that homosexuality is disgusting to be "ignorant", when in fact, you are ignorant for accusing his personal point of view.

It is the view of Tattoos N Scars that homosexuality is "almost as disgusting as pedophilia."

It is my view that one who equates homosexuality with pedophilia is ignorant.

If his view should be tolerated simply because he is "expressing a personal opinion," then my view should be tolerated because I'm "expressing a personal opinion."

Originally posted by Robtard
Because it was written by man and men love them some girl-on-girl action.



I hate to be blasphemous..and I feel ashamed...but....I'd like to point out that God is also male.


Edit- And my opinion: Consent between two adults is far and away to being even close to pedophilia. From a religious perspective, I put homosexual acts on the same page as bates and premarital relations. They are the same sort of sin to me. It's not extremely serious of a sin, like murder is. It's just breaking the law of chastity...which everyone does all the time.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is the view of Tattoos N Scars that homosexuality is "almost as disgusting as pedophilia."

It is my view that one who equates homosexuality with pedophilia is ignorant.

If his view should be tolerated simply because he is "expressing a personal opinion," then my view should be tolerated because I'm "expressing a personal opinion."

but he didnt equate homosexuality with pedophilia. at least not in the way youre thinking.

and regardless there's a difference between attacking a concept, which is what he did, and attacking a person, which is what you did.



that was poor wording on my part.

by "gay basher" i was referring to someone who bashes a pro-gay stance.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is the view of Tattoos N Scars that homosexuality is "almost as disgusting as pedophilia."

It is my view that one who equates homosexuality with pedophilia is ignorant.

If his view should be tolerated simply because he is "expressing a personal opinion," then my view should be tolerated because I'm "expressing a personal opinion."

You need to learn to read. He didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia, he compared the disgust he gets from those two.

Let me give you an example that will hopefully bypass your biased view:

"In my opinion, spaghetti are almost as disgusting as lasagna".

This does not equate spaghetti with lasagna. It equates the level of disgust induced by the two.

To answer the last part of your post, he didn't accuse YOU of being wrong, or ignorant, he said homosexuality disgusts him. You instead called HIM wrong and ignorant.

The end.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is the view of Tattoos N Scars that homosexuality is "almost as disgusting as pedophilia."

It is my view that one who equates homosexuality with pedophilia is ignorant.

If his view should be tolerated simply because he is "expressing a personal opinion," then my view should be tolerated because I'm "expressing a personal opinion."


So, my opinion of homosexuality is considered ignorant because it doesn't conform to your idea of what should be right or wrong in this society?

I'm not out there trying to lobby against gay rights and to discredit them on a public stage. I could care less. However, I have the right to my own opinion..and for someone(not just you) to label me as being ignorant, is the pot calling the kettle black, my friend.

If you think it is acceptable, then more power to you, but you do not have the right to commit several pages of thread as a soapbox to bash someone's opinion.

For the record, as far as this country has fallen into moral decay...homosexuality is STILL viewed unfavorably. Gay marriage is still NOT RECOGNIZED as a legal union in what...47 states. With that said, your acceptance of homosexuality is in a minority.

On a side note, what if the gay/lesbian movement led to people seeking legalization for incest to start their own national movement. Should incest be viewed favorably in this society? If a brother and sister want to get married, then who are we(an all accepting society) to stand in their way? Why should government, or society in general, discriminate against kinfolk getting married? Most say it would water down the gene pool. Who cares about the gene pool? Nothing should stand in the way of the happiness of two people in love, huh? On the other hand, I can say homosexuality is a primary way to perpetuate HIV in society, but who cares about that if two people are in love, right?

For the record, shouldn't we just abolish the statuatory rape laws? If a 15 or16 year old girl wants to have sex with an adult man, who are we to get in the way of that. She's consenting...so, is it discrimination that the law condemns an underage girl to have a sexual relationship with an adult male, or vice versa?

The point is, society is hypocritical in making and enforcing laws. I'm sure you would condemn Incest and pedophilia, but you openly embrace homosexuality as NATURAL. If you have that view, wouldn't you be labeled as hypocritical...or IGNORANT by the people who practice such unions?

People on ths forum can condemn me all they want, but I know when I go to sleep at night, I can rest easy in what I BELIEVE to be right and wrong in this society. If you still want to condemn me, then you all know what to kiss!!!

He is wrong and ignorant. It's a hateful and shameful analogy to compare homosexuality and pedophilia in any way, shape or form, and it ignores facts differentiating one from the other. There is no logic in the comparison, it is hyperbolic and reeks of prejudice and a lack of common sense and understanding - hence: Ignorant.

Two consenting adults doing anything with one another is no where near someone raping a child. It's foolish to even imply it. And it speaks volumes of him as a person for comparing consensual adult sex to such evils.

Also this idea that someone's opinion should be inherently respected simply because it's an opinion is total shit. If said opinion is filled with stupidity then there is nothing wrong with pointing it out.

When someone says "I think your lifestyle is just as bad as raping a child", without providing any logic to back up such an idea, it is a perfectly reasonable response to say "Well you're ignorant for thinking that." Because he would be.

Originally posted by BackFire
He is wrong and ignorant. It's a hateful and shameful analogy to compare homosexuality and pedophilia in any way, shape or form, and it ignores facts differentiating one from the other. There is no logic in the comparison, it is hyperbolic and reeks of prejudice and a lack of common sense and understanding - hence: Ignorant.

Two consenting adults doing anything with one another is no where near someone raping a child. It's foolish to even imply it. And it speaks volumes of him as a person to comparing consensual adult sex to such evils.

Also this idea that someone's opinion should be inherently respected simply because it's an opinion is total shit. If said opinion is filled with stupidity then there is nothing wrong with pointing it out.

When someone says "I think your lifestyle is just as bad as raping a child", without providing any logic to back up such an idea, it is a perfectly reasonable response to say "Well you're ignorant for thinking that." Because he would be.


I could say the same for your opinion. You are not even grasping what I mean. For example, let's say that I like sushi, and you do not. You equate eating sushi as the same as eating an actual turd, meaning both items disgust you. There is no logical way to compare the two. Sushi is an actual delicacy, and shit(turd) is not. However, the point is...both items disgust you.

I find homosexuality repulsive...just as I find pedophilia respulsive. In no way did I compare the nature of those acts as being the same....I just said that both were disgusting in my view. Why are you not comprehending that? Nevermind, I know. You're letting DISCRIMINATION cloud your view because you do not agree with my assessment of homosexuality. Bashing and condemning someone's view, which is contrary to your own is discrimination. With that said, isn't is logical to assume that you calling me ignorant and a bigot is HYPOCRITICAL? What are the definitions of bigotry and discrimination? Who are you to say that what I believe is wrong, and what you believe is right? That's discrimination, pal.

Am I upset, no



I don't care what you believe. I have a discriminatory view of homosexuality, and you have a discriminatory view of people like me...so, isn't this debate meaningless???

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I could say the same for your opinion. You are not even grasping what I mean. For example, let's say that I like sushi, and you do not. You equate eating sushi as the same as eating an actual turd, meaning both items disgust you. There is no logical way to compare the two. Sushi is an actual delicacy, and shit(turd) is not. However, the point is...both items disgust you.

I find homosexuality repulsive...just as I find pedophilia respulsive. In no way did I compare the nature of those acts as being the same....I just said that both were disgusting in my view. Why are you not comprehending that? Nevermind, I know. You're letting DISCRIMINATION cloud your view because you do not agree with my assessment of homosexuality. Bashing and condemning someone's view, which is contrary to your own is discrimination. With that said, isn't is logical to assume that you calling me ignorant and a bigot is HYPOCRITICAL? What are the definitions of bigotry and discrimination? Who are you to say that what I believe is wrong, and what you believe is right? That's discrimination, pal.

Am I upset, no



I don't care what you believe. I have a discriminatory view of homosexuality, and you have a discriminatory view of people like me...so, isn't this debate meaningless???

You compared homosexuality to pedophilia and said that they are both almost equally as disgusting, thus putting them on a similar moral ground. This is the problem. Using any reasonable standard pedophilia is clearly infinitely worse.

And once more, the idea that attacking someone for being prejudice against a group of people is somehow the same as attacking said person for being prejudice is just silly. No one with any semblance of a brain will take such a comparison seriously. There is no valid analogy to be had between the two. Thinking poorly of someone for saying something hateful and thinking poorly of someone because they belong to a certain group is not the same at all. It's not discrimination, it is disliking prejudice and intolerance and rejecting stupid ideas.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
are you a f@ggot?


You must be...you sure are getting offended about my opinion!!

Wow. That was so ridiculously uncalled for.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
Because you consider his opinion that homosexuality is disgusting to be "ignorant", when in fact, you are ignorant for accusing his personal point of view.

Putting it in the same category as real crimes that actually hurt victims involved IS ignorant.

Originally posted by BackFire
You compared homosexuality to pedophilia and said that they are both almost equally as disgusting, thus putting them on a similar moral ground. This is the problem. Using any reasonable standard pedophilia is clearly infinitely worse.

And once more, the idea that attacking someone for being prejudice against a group of people is somehow the same as attacking said person for being prejudice is just silly. No one with any semblance of a brain will take such a comparison seriously. There is no valid analogy to be had between the two. Thinking poorly of someone for saying something hateful and thinking poorly of someone because they belong to a certain group is not the same at all. It's not discrimination, it is disliking prejudice and intolerance and rejecting stupid ideas.


Negative, an attack on anyone's belief system is DISCRIMINATION..just by the very definition of the word. Because you view me as a bigot, does not mean other people do. Many people believe as I do...and many people believe as you do. What makes your opinion any more valid than mine? You consider me closeminded for not embracing homosexuality...and I consider you closeminded for not realizing the TABOO(un-naturalness) of it.

If I'm a Christian, would you consider it DISCRIMINATION if I view other religions negatively...believing that my personal FAITH is the best?? Of course not, if I didn't believe my FAITH was true, I wouldn't be part of the religion...same with any other religion. I wouldn't accept it, because I wouldn't agree with the basic ideology.

If I'm an advocate of DEMOCRACY, should I openly embrace COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, AND FASCISM too...as acceptable alternate forms of government? Of course not, I would't agree with its basic ideology.

If I'm an advocate of traditional marriage and family values in this country..should I also advocate gay marriage? Why would I...it's not a traditional union in society...so, accepting it would be contrary to what I believe to be the acceptable form of marriage in society.

The point is...all BELIEFS are SUBJECTIVE. I have the right to speak out against homosexuality, if I consider it to be wrong. You have the right to be its advocate, if you cosider it to be acceptable. Who are you to put people people down if they do not agree with it? I find it personally disgusting...and in my view...it is near the same level as pedophilia, in MY book of what is disgusting. Who are you to say what my views should be? Are you BIG BROTHER...trying to brainwash me into accepting something that has been TABOO for thousands of yea

People on these forums put down evangelical Christians because they speak out against such things in society. They say Christians publicly bash homosexuality and other forms of evil in society...and humanists/atheists bash them in return. It's an endless cycle.

In sum,

Just drop it. I'm not continuing this debate any further.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Negative, an attack on anyone's belief system is DISCRIMINATION..just by the very definition of the word. Because you view me as a bigot, does not mean other people do.

Ok, not only are you using the word wrong, but that's just ridiculous.

A bigot is something that only other bigots don't see as bigotry, and considering you attacked someone's lifestyle, put every single gay person in one point of that that they all need to 'get lives', and said that they are as bad as life ruining criminals, you are a hypocrite.

The rest of that post doesn't need an answer. If you are sane, you will see what's wrong with it.

Yay hypocrisy!




You have now set up an ideology in which you consider any active or vocal disagreement with any ideology discrimination. You go on to say: ideology

You forgot to exempt your own belief. So you have no excuse for attacking anyone else.

If you want to use pluralism or subjectivism or relativism etc. to defend your own freedom then you give up your freedom to hate. Because- hey, the opposition is just as 'valid' as your own. So bellyaching about them discriminating against you (which is laughable in this context) suspends your right to "discriminate."

Thus your post fails, and with it any hope of rationalizing your dissemination of hatred.

This is why I hate reading Christian vs. atheist debates. They both just twist each others' words into utter crap and both sides end up looking retarded...

I'm Christian, and I have no shame in admitting that. Though I don't bash homosexuals. It's none of my business what others do with their free will. Don't force me to wave the homosexual banner, and I won't force my opinions about God and religion on you.

That's something that annoys me about the world. If you aren't marching in the streets for the cause of same-sex marriage, some people like to make you out to be "close-minded" or homophobic or whatever...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
This is why I hate reading Christian vs. atheist debates. They both just twist each others' words into utter crap and both sides end up looking retarded...

I'm Christian, and I have no shame in admitting that. Though I don't bash homosexuals. It's none of my business what others do with their free will. Don't force me to wave the homosexual banner, and I won't force my opinions about God and religion on you.

That's something that annoys me about the world. If you aren't marching in the streets for the cause of same-sex marriage, some people like to make you out to be "close-minded" or homophobic or whatever...

But no one is asking you to wave the banner of homosexuality so I don't really see how that's relevant. All people really care about is that you ultimately support their side, and it sounds like you do so there's no reason to complain.

I think most people would be happy if idiots didn't make comparisons between child rape and homosexuality.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But no one is asking you to wave the banner of homosexuality so I don't really see how that's relevant. All people really care about is that you ultimately support their side, and it sounds like you do so there's no reason to complain.

I was just referring to the unofficial agreement between myself and the homosexual movement.

wow. you guys got from someone simply suing some bible publishers to a debate between someone who... um, disagrees about homosexuality and... yeah.

I guess it's bound to come up some time. haha.

The problem is the paedophile comment, as I understand.

Other than that, I think people would agree that if one disagrees with homosexuality, they have the right to their opinion.

These types of opinions are difficult to change, if at all.

i dont really understand where ignorance comes into play when saying that homosexuality is as disgusting as pedophilia.

can someone explain it to me? if possible via pm would be nice. i dont want to start any great disruptions in the thread y'know?

wait?

since when did conservative Christians start using Post-Modernism to dodge?

I wonder if Tattoos and Scars or Ms. Marvel would think it discrimination if one took a stance against, oh, slavery, radical Islam or, genocide, as each of those are positions and opinions. One can't discriminate against the fascists.

/lol

im not quite sure what discrimination has to do with anything ive said in this thread. out of curiosity... why are you curious? D:

its like an infinite regression

I think I used your name hastily, as you are more asking why hating gays is bad but hating bigots isn't, which, well, cool...

its the issue of saying it is discrimination to attack hateful opinions. If it is discrimination to say that comparing-homosexuality-to-pedophilia is ignorant, simply because a person has the right to hold opinions, it is also then discrimination to say that being against fascism is ignorant, because that is a person's right, apparently, to believe whatever they want and have nobody question or challenge or put down that belief.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
im not quite sure what discrimination has to do with anything ive said in this thread. out of curiosity... why are you curious? D:

ya, I skimmed the thread, put your name in the wrong place

I'm pretty sure I said that already.

Only I took a lot longer to say it and never actually said it (but I did imply it!) and I didn't say it as well.

so... yeah

Originally posted by inimalist
wait?

since when did conservative Christians start using Post-Modernism to dodge?

I wonder if Tattoos and Scars or Ms. Marvel would think it discrimination if one took a stance against, oh, slavery, radical Islam or, genocide, as each of those are positions and opinions. One can't discriminate against the fascists.

/lol

I must say, I don't get what you're saying, either. It would make more sense if you said, "I wonder if Tattoos and Scars or Ms. Marvel would think it discrimination if one took a stance , oh, slavery, radical Islam or, genocide, as each of those are positions and opinions."

or

"I wonder if Tattoos and Scars or Ms. Marvel would think it opinion if one took a stance in favor of, oh, slavery, radical Islam or, genocide, as each of those are positions and opinions."

or

"I wonder if Tattoos and Scars or Ms. Marvel would think it opinion if one took a stance against, oh, slavery, radical Islam or, genocide, as each of those are positions and opinions."


Scars opinion is that homosexuality is disgusting. No doubt, though, that he would have voted for Prop 8, so his opinion would lead to discrimination. I, on the other hand, find it also gross, but I would fight against B.S. like Prop 8. So I'm not too sure what your point is up there. Their points were that one can have an opinion on something. My point is that opinions can and do lead to discrimination. Your point is also correct in that, if someone did discriminate against someone else who thought slavery should be allowed, it would require some sort of discriminatory action against the pro-slaver. (I think...that's your point, right?)




I think the word "discriminate" is not being used correctly (you are using it correctly, though) That implies action. It is needed in order for it to be discrimination. I think what they are looking for is prejudice. That would make sense if the word "discrimination" was replaced by "prejudice."

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm pretty sure I said that already.

Only I took a lot longer to say it and never actually said it (but I did imply it!) and I didn't say it as well.

so... yeah

its weird, it comes up every now and then and always surprises me

Christians probably shouldn't be using such appeals to relativism, as it might make their hatred less... hateful? (maybe in their own eyes I guess?...) but totally undermines a lot of the other things they hold fairly strongly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I must say, I don't get what you're saying, either.

Originally posted by inimalist
its like an infinite regression

...

its the issue of saying it is discrimination to attack hateful opinions. If it is discrimination to say that comparing-homosexuality-to-pedophilia is ignorant, simply because a person has the right to hold opinions, it is also then discrimination to say that being against fascism is ignorant, because that is a person's right, apparently, to believe whatever they want and have nobody question or challenge or put down that belief.

I'm more questioning the logic, not the conclusions.

Their point is entirely valid, were they post-moderists and believed that there is no real or absolute truth and all things were a matter of perspective, which undermines positions their faith is, assumedly, built on. I guess I have met nihilistic christians before, so maybe I'm jumping the gun.

If they can both say they wouldn't discriminate against a radical muslims right to preach suicide bombings, hey, then I'm mistaken and have a bunch of other questions...

Originally posted by inimalist
its like an infinite regression

I think I used your name hastily, as you are more asking why hating gays is bad but hating bigots isn't, which, well, cool...

well i just feel it works both ways. i grew up in a house hold where black people (my family) openly detest white people and feel that theyre an inferior race. AKA theyre racist. they get away with being racist because of that whole slavery and racial movement thing in the 50's... which i feel is not okay.




but i never mentioned discrimination. in fact that doesnt really have anything to do with my posts in this thread. maybe scars did i wouldnt know because i havent read a lot of his posts because i dont think theyre rational.

as for my question, i dont understand how what he said has anything to do with ignorance. thats pretty much the entire intent of that question.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
well i just feel it works both ways. i grew up in a house hold where black people (my family) openly detest white people and feel that theyre an inferior race. AKA theyre racist. they get away with being racist because of that whole slavery and racial movement thing in the 50's... which i feel is not okay.

cool, though you said that you didn't think anyone in this thread was guilty of that on page 3

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
but i never mentioned discrimination. in fact that doesnt really have anything to do with my posts in this thread. maybe scars did i wouldnt know because i havent read a lot of his posts because i dont think theyre rational.

indeed, my previous post mentioned that I used your name incorrectly twice... I now formally apologize. these things happen

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
as for my question, i dont understand how what he said has anything to do with ignorance. thats pretty much the entire intent of that question.

fair enough, you have a different definition of ignorance than others. I'm not really interested in pointing fingers, more in the logic that leads christians to relativism

my feelings mirror yours in that i dont want to point fingers and cause any potential ill will.

things happen its all good.

my definition for ignorance is very similar to these, and going by those definitions nothing he said in the post that sparked this discussion shows any ignorance that i can see, hence my confusion.

Originally posted by inimalist
its weird, it comes up every now and then and always surprises me

Christians probably shouldn't be using such appeals to relativism, as it might make their hatred less... hateful? (maybe in their own eyes I guess?...) but totally undermines a lot of the other things they hold fairly strongly.





I'm more questioning the logic, not the conclusions.

Their point is entirely valid, were they post-moderists and believed that there is no real or absolute truth and all things were a matter of perspective, which undermines positions their faith is, assumedly, built on. I guess I have met nihilistic christians before, so maybe I'm jumping the gun.

If they can both say they wouldn't discriminate against a radical muslims right to preach suicide bombings, hey, then I'm mistaken and have a bunch of other questions...

An argument of unintentional hypocrisy or rather, that they are being illogical and subjective. GASPITY! NO WAY! Double standards exist all the time for the religious.

However, Christianity has it covered: they are not supposed to judge others. A common way of that is "hate the sin, not the sinner." I think this is why a Mormon can think homosexuality is a sin, but fully believe in and vote for gay rights. (I.e. yours truly.)

I may be taking our conversation off track, but it is more on subject.




Opinions on anything are fine, as long as those opinions don't lead to unreasonable discrimination. (Discrminate against rapists and pedophiles. That's cool. But not against two men who want to share their lives together, legeally, and emotionally....unless they are both pedophile rapists. AHA! )

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
so you dont think a homosexual could be prejudiced against heterosexuals and intolerant of their views?

imo a gay basher isnt any worse than a gay who bashes a hetero stance. just like i feel "defensive racism" is just as bad as...ya know... regular racism.

im not accusing anyone here of being attributed to either party, but in general if someone says "i think homosexuality is disgusting" and someone replies "youre an ignorant idiot for thinking that", i consider the latter poster to be just as much in the wrong.

Of course I think that is possible. Homosexuals are just as likely as anyone to show traits such as bigotry; maybe an argument can be made that as a minority group they are more likely in society to be victim than offender but people are still people. But that's massively irrelevant- homosexuals showing anger at intolerance against them is NOT in turn intolerant; it is a reasonable response. The actual other way around would be if homosexuals said that being straight was wrong, which you sure as hell don't see much. The intolerance is coming from the heterosexual side.

The 'ignorance' comment comes from the idea of explaining that someone holds offensive views because they do not know of what they are talking about (and presumably are just parroting what they have been told instead of actually thinking about the subject), as opposed to them being actively vile people.

And if that geuinely is your opinion then I am afraid that puts you in an unpleasant group. Intolerance against someone's private sexual practices that bring no harm to anyone is a worthy subject of attack. Such intolerance (which breeds hatred) should be pointed out as being wrong. If you equate those who dislike such intolerance with those who attack people's private lives, you are doing a very silly thing.


The fact of the matter is that the Bible IS Homophobic; everyone knows it. The idea behind this claim that this was somehow altered my messing around with one passage is very odd.

thats a pretty hefty assumption dont you think? nothing in that one specific post points to him not understanding the concept hes talking about, or having very little knowledge about it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Of course I think that is possible. Homosexuals are just as likely as anyone to show traits such as bigotry; maybe an argument can be made that as a minority group they are more likely in society to be victim than offender but people are still people. But that's massively irrelevant- homosexuals showing anger at intolerance against them is NOT in turn intolerant; it is a reasonable response. The actual other way around would be if homosexuals said that being straight was wrong, which you sure as hell don't see much. The intolerance is coming from the heterosexual side.


And if that geuinely is your opinion then I am afraid that puts you in an unpleasant group. Intolerance against someone's private sexual practices that bring no harm to anyone is a worthy subject of attack. Such intolerance (which breeds hatred) should be pointed out as being wrong. If you equate those who dislike such intolerance with those who attack people's private lives, you are doing a very silly thing.


im not talking about intolerance though. saying that something disgusts you isnt necessarily intolerant its just your feelings on the matter. when all youre doing is just tossing out your personal opinion i dont see it as being intolerant or discriminatory. those two things are only results of actions imo. i dont approve of homosexuality and the thought of performing homosexual acts disturbs me a bit but i have zero problem with people who are homosexual and choose that lifestyle... if it makes them happy then more power to them. so yes the concept of loving another woman somewhat disgusts me. do you think that i am intolerant or that im showing intolerance by feeling that way and voicing that opinion?

and by the way im only going off of how im interpreting what youre saying. if im off the mark i apologize in advance and feel free to correct me.

The ignorance accusation may well be a hefty assumption. It is simply more pleasant than the alternative.

I would actually certainly challenge the view that disgust of homosexuality is not rooted in intolerance, and nor would I give any weight to yuor opinion on the matter. Nearly all intolerant people justify their behaviour in such a way.

But that is all by the by- the original comment in this thread that it was almost as digusting as pedophilia is, in any reasonable terms (by linking a private and hamrless sexual behaviour with the principle of child abuse), an outright bigoted and intolerant attack, and the criticism of it is highly justified. Saying the criticism of such an attack could be in any way itself intolerant is simply wrong. His comment goes way beyond mere disapproval- so whether you are talking about intolerance or not doesn't matter. Everyone else is, and his comment was intolerant.

I'm making no direct accusations at you about homophobia. But I do criticise you for trying to defend the indefensible, and for your ill-thought equating of attacks on intolerance with intolerance itself.

well, i disagree. but hey. shrug

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The fact of the matter is that the Bible IS Homophobic




I said I wouldn't interject again, but I must in this case. The Bible is not HOMOPHOBIC. Homophobic means "fear of homosexuals". The Bible does not fear homosexuality, it just condemns it as SIN. It condemns it as against God's Law.


Another point that I would like to clear up is the misunderstanding most posters have with a comment I made: homosexuality is almost as disgusting as pedophilia. That statement is a PERSONAL point of view. In no way was I comparing the two as being the same. Pedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is not illegal. I was comparing two ACTS that disgust me in a nearly equal way. It is my opinion, a SUBJECTIVE statement. I find homosexuality disturbing and offensive to the natural order of things. Would I stand in the way of two homosexuals being together? No. Why? It is what they choose to do, and they have every right to love whom they choose to love. I am not disputing that point. Am I against it? Yes, as stated earlier, I view it to be unnatural. It is one thing in this world that makes me nausious to even contemplate in my mind. Ultimately, my view comes from a Biblical perspective. God condemns it, and as a Christian, I choose to believe God's Word and condemn homosexuality as a sin. In truth, all SIN is evil in God's eyes. To God, homosexuality is no greater a sin than stealing, or telling a lie. God separates Himself from all sin, equally. However, humans create varying levels of sin, or magnitudes of sin. According to the law, murder requires a much stiffer penalty than shoplifting. However, both of those sins are condemned equally when viewing the Ten Commandments.

Furthermore, I need to dispel the notion that I hate homosexuals. I do not. I have known homosexuals in the past and befriended them. Their lifestyle sickens me...and I do mean physically. If someone even shows me a homosexual porn flick as a joke, I literally dry heave. Pedophilia sickens me in the same way though...physically sickens me. That is what I meant with the comparison.

Should a homosexual couple be persecuted? No. Do I have a right to my opinion, and do they have a right to their opinion? Yes. Do I discriminate against them, or show prejudice against them? No. I simply belive a union of the same sex is contrary to God's Law. I will not advocate for it, nor will I march against it. It is not a Christian's place to judge a sinner. However, it is a Christian's duty to preach against SIN. Telling someone that their lifestyle is ungodly is not the same thing as being self-righteous, or close-minded. Every one has a belief system of some kind. I happen to believe that the Christian faith is true. I will not tell a homosexual that he/she is going to hell because of their lifestyle because that wouldn't be true. As I mentioned earlier, sin is sin in God's eyes. The thief or liar is no better than the murderer/rapist. What sends a person to Hell is not the particular sin that has been commited, it is because that person has chosen to deny God and not accept Christ as his/her Saviour. God paid for the sins of man on the Cross of Calvary. Everyone has an equal opportunity to accept that sacrifice, and claim forgiveness of sin. Does that mean that a person will stop sinning? No. The flesh will sin, as our flesh is corruptible according to Scripture. However, our souls have been bought and paid for with the Blood of Jesus. The catch is...to turn away from sin and commit your life to the God who cared enough to save you. The homosexual, pedophile, murderer, thief, liar...all have the same opportunity to choose. Many non-Christians today bash Christians because they see us as self-righteous and ignorant people. They argue that evangelicals are intolerant rednecks that are close-minded to the ways of the world. In truth, many "Christians" are like that. Does that make it right? No. The Bible says that you can know a Christian by his or her "fruits". That means that Christians really living the way Christ had intended will show love and compassion for believers and non-believers alike. Christ taught us many examples of this...when He intervened with the stoning of a woman, accused of sexual immorality. Christ said.."Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". No one cast a stone because, in truth, no one is without sin. Christ told her to "go and sin no more". What Christ meant is..to go and practice that lifestyle no more. We continue to sin as Christians. I lose my temper and say hateful things in response to being ridiculed. I called another poster on here a "***"...out of frustration and anger. Was that right? No. I apologize for that. I'm not perfect by any means, and I still do things that I ought not do...but, I try my best not to..and that is all Christ asks..to do your best to live according to His Will.

I'm sure many will disparage the mini "sermon" above..and if you do...that is your right. However, my faith restrains me from accepting and endorsing an act which is condemned by the Creator Himself. I realize there are many in this forum that do not believe in God, and will say my entire "rambling" is inconsequential, based on the lack of evidence that God even exists. Well, that is another debate that I will not get into at the moment.

In sum, condemn me if you want. But, I did not mean for that comparison to be taken out of context the way that it has been. Sure, I may have posted such a comparison in bad taste, but I was merely trying to indicate how such an act makes me feel.

First, you make a fool of yourself by resorting to arguing semantics. Sure, you can argue about a literal and pedantic meaning of homophobia, but the way the word is used today is simply with the meaning of prejudice against homosexuals. You therefore waste everyone's time by trying to reduce the argument to the meaning of the word when everyone knows what is being talked about.

Meanwhile, it doesn't matter a damn how subjective your opinion is (not that subjectivity is an excuse for intolerant behaviour). You should have thought much more carefully abut your statement because if you cannot see how that is an intolerant attack... well, that would only confirm inbuilt prejudice.

You are also being self-delusional if you do not think that equating homosexuality to child abuse is derogatory and insulting to homosexuals. Sorry, but that is an offensive statement and, your opinion or otherwise, is not welcome here. Someone feeling distaste at pedophilia is reasonable because of the child abuse implications. To say you feel the exact same way about homosexuals is revealing an inner prejudice, and is exceptionally offensive. Being a Christian is no excuse for such behaviour. We will not accept such broad and direct attacks- it is simple flaming based on nothing but your own distaste (the source of your distaste is irrelevant). Don't do it again.

Meanwhile, do not proselytise in threads either, thankyou. You will be warned if you do it again, too.

This thread has devolved into something insane.

My bottom line is: Anyone who twisted this:

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
In my opinion, it's almost as disgusting as pedophilia. But, this is not

into:

"homosexuality = pedophilia" is retarded, and should be castrated so as to ensure that their stupidity does not make it into the next generation.

Leave your PC biased glasses at home and learn how to read.

...it seems to happen a lot.

While comparing pedophilia to gay-sex and pedophiles to gays is a level of ignorance that could likely only come from living in a sheltered world where a bible is lodged deep in ones ass. I don't understand the censorship in what Tattoo said.

IMO, he should be allowed to state his opinion, as long as he doesn't flame a poster directly (eg calling someone a "f@ggot".) In the end, he's only showing his ass and making himself to be the chimp.

That is funny, because you just went on a rant about how he should not attack posters, but you went to call him a chimp.

laugh1

Originally posted by dadudemon
An argument of unintentional hypocrisy or rather, that they are being illogical and subjective. GASPITY! NO WAY! Double standards exist all the time for the religious.

fair enough, a lot of it is my personal vendetta against post-modernism I'm sure, but ya, all I'm saying is this particular hypocrisy made me lol especially

Originally posted by dadudemon
However, Christianity has it covered: they are not supposed to judge others. A common way of that is "hate the sin, not the sinner." I think this is why a Mormon can think homosexuality is a sin, but fully believe in and vote for gay rights. (I.e. yours truly.)

"judge not lest ye be judged"
"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
and so forth, no?

I don't see religion, obviously, as being against gays, however, they make gay rights an issue because it is easy to use to control people and gain more of a share of power. More people in church where they are told to vote religiously, giving the church more political power, etc.

Its why institutions play so often to the "us"/"them", it is so salient to our minds

Originally posted by dadudemon
I may be taking our conversation off track, but it is more on subject.

lol, off track from whether or not it is ignorant to compare homosexuality and pedophilia (which was obviously just bait, as was the f@g remark.... le sigh)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Opinions on anything are fine, as long as those opinions don't lead to unreasonable discrimination. (Discrminate against rapists and pedophiles. That's cool. But not against two men who want to share their lives together, legeally, and emotionally....unless they are both pedophile rapists. AHA! )

thats exactly my point though

most reasonable people understand that there are things which should not be tolerated. This assumes that we, as people, are able to come to some conclusions about right and wrong. Academics will argue this is impossible (post-modernism) and that all positions and truths are relative.

The argument that 'tattoos and scars' was discriminated against because someone called him ignorant for his view, at its base, is an argument from relativity. His view isn't ignorant because all things are relative, therefore, you cannot impose the idea that his truth isn't the actual ideal.

I'm not a post modernist, but there is some academic validity to the argument, and it is largely unfalsifiable. So, in some sense, it is correct. Because we cannot say with any absolute certainty that homophobia is ignorant, it is discrimination to call such ideas ignorant.

For a Christian to appeal to this logic, however, is absurd. The idea that there is no absolute truth is, imho, incompatible with any, if not all, religious doctrine.

Like I said, I'm not interested in whether or not this specific instance is ignorant or whatever, I'm just curious about the logic. To repeat, it was obvious that both of Tat's-and-scars (ha, sounds like failed breast augmentation surgery) offending posts were done with the specific intent to offend and stir up the sensibilities of people who would obviously object to homosexual and pedophile in the same sentence.

Originally posted by inimalist
To repeat, it was obvious that both of Tat's-and-scars (ha, sounds like failed breast augmentation surgery) offending posts were done with the specific intent to offend and stir up the sensibilities of people who would obviously object to homosexual and pedophile in the same sentence.

i disagree. i think he was just stating his feelings on the matter nothing more nothing less.

i think youre right about the second comment though. completely unnecessary.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That is funny, because you just went on a rant about how he should not attack posters, but you went to call him a chimp.

laugh1

That wasn't a rant, if you want a rant, I can rant. I said his actions are like that of a chimp; not "he's a chimp."

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i disagree. i think he was just stating his feelings on the matter nothing more nothing less.

lol

alright...

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough, a lot of it is my personal vendetta against post-modernism I'm sure, but ya, all I'm saying is this particular hypocrisy made me lol especially

Indeed. Sometimes....Christians warrant facepalms.



Originally posted by inimalist
"judge not lest ye be judged"
"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
and so forth, no?

Correct.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see religion, obviously, as being against gays, however, they make gay rights an issue because it is easy to use to control people and gain more of a share of power. More people in church where they are told to vote religiously, giving the church more political power, etc.

I see religion as being against gays, however. Islam and Christianity, in general, are very anti-gay.

Not to ignore your point about money and political clout, though.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, off track from whether or not it is ignorant to compare homosexuality and pedophilia (which was obviously just bait, as was the f@g remark.... le sigh)

Yeah. I was taking it off track from the discussion....but oddly back on track with the thread.


Originally posted by inimalist
thats exactly my point though

Figures.

Originally posted by inimalist
most reasonable people understand that there are things which should not be tolerated. This assumes that we, as people, are able to come to some conclusions about right and wrong. Academics will argue this is impossible (post-modernism) and that all positions and truths are relative.

The argument that 'tattoos and scars' was discriminated against because someone called him ignorant for his view, at its base, is an argument from relativity. His view isn't ignorant because all things are relative, therefore, you cannot impose the idea that his truth isn't the actual ideal.

I'm not a post modernist, but there is some academic validity to the argument, and it is largely unfalsifiable. So, in some sense, it is correct. Because we cannot say with any absolute certainty that homophobia is ignorant, it is discrimination to call such ideas ignorant.

For a Christian to appeal to this logic, however, is absurd. The idea that there is no absolute truth is, imho, incompatible with any, if not all, religious doctrine.

Like I said, I'm not interested in whether or not this specific instance is ignorant or whatever, I'm just curious about the logic. To repeat, it was obvious that both of Tat's-and-scars (ha, sounds like failed breast augmentation surgery) offending posts were done with the specific intent to offend and stir up the sensibilities of people who would obviously object to homosexual and pedophile in the same sentence.

1. I agree. There is not such thing as moral relativism in Diety-like religions. It's moral absolutism probably close to 100% of the time.

2. lol @ your bewbz joke.

3. I think you give him too much credit. I don't think he really meant to stir the pot with his gay-pedo comment. It's more like, he finds them both disgusting. Nothing against Tats and Scars, but I don't think he's got the brain to be GDF troll. (As if whirly does, as well.)

Originally posted by Jaeh.is.Awesome
wow. you guys got from someone simply suing some bible publishers to a debate between someone who... um, disagrees about homosexuality and... yeah.

I guess it's bound to come up some time. haha.

I don't understand that phrase. Though quite common it seems to make no sense to me. It's like saying "I disagree with table"

Reminds me of the poll in the abortion thread.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't understand that phrase. Though quite common it seems to make no sense to me. It's like saying "I disagree with table"

Reminds me of the poll in the abortion thread.

Here's a reword:

"wow. The conversation went from a person suing a bible publisher to a debate about Tats and Scars comments on homosexuality.

I guess religion and homosexuality debates are bound to come up some time. haha. "



Capisce?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
The Bible is not HOMOPHOBIC. Homophobic means "fear of homosexuals". The Bible does not fear homosexuality, it just condemns it as SIN.

And Sins, not to mention God's Law, are made to be feared. Period.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
This thread has devolved into something insane.

My bottom line is: Anyone who twisted this:



into:

"homosexuality = pedophilia" is retarded, and should be castrated so as to ensure that their stupidity does not make it into the next generation.

Leave your PC biased glasses at home and learn how to read.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

but he is right, to an extent.

Not really. His post (deliberately or not) has severely offensive connotations.

They discussed those connotations.

That isn't crazy at all (and the case could be made that the suggestion of forced castration is even more reprehensible, but lets not go there, k?) nor is it off topic.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I'm not being obtuse in any way.

Are you being deliberately illiterate ?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis


Not really. His post (deliberately or not) has severely offensive connotations.

They discussed those connotations.

That isn't crazy at all (and the case could be made that the suggestion of forced castration is even more reprehensible, but lets not go there, k?) nor is it off topic.

It's been mentioned...what...7 times now that he didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia ?

There are no connotations to be discussed. The guy made a post that stated a clear sentence. Someone saw it and went "oh noes, he didn't have the words "homosexuality" and "awesome" in the same sentence!!!!!!! AND HE THINKS IT'S BAD!!!! hateeeer!!! stone hiiiiim!!!!!"

All of you get off your goddamn high horses, and stop being such imbeciles. If he said he finds 2 girls 1 cup as disgusting as pedophilia, no one would've said one single word.

The state of message boards these days is pathetic. If the word "homosexuality" and ANYTHING negative are ever together in a sentence, it's time to put your brain down and pick up a torch.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
It's been mentioned...what...7 times now that he didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia ?

clearly 7 is well above the reasonable amount of times something must be repeated before everyone agrees upon it

you tell them!

do you go to hell if you throw a bible in the trash ?

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
It's been mentioned...what...7 times now that he didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia ?

There are no connotations to be discussed. The guy made a post that stated a clear sentence. Someone saw it and went "oh noes, he didn't have the words "homosexuality" and "awesome" in the same sentence!!!!!!! AND HE THINKS IT'S BAD!!!! hateeeer!!! stone hiiiiim!!!!!"

All of you get off your goddamn high horses, and stop being such imbeciles. If he said he finds 2 girls 1 cup as disgusting as pedophilia, no one would've said one single word.

The state of message boards these days is pathetic. If the word "homosexuality" and ANYTHING negative are ever together in a sentence, it's time to put your brain down and pick up a torch.

lol

FTW.


On another note, if he DID compare homosexuality to 2 girls 1 cup as both being disgusting, that would have been a MUCH better comparison: neither is his fetish cup o'tea....so it works well. That could have avoided much debate.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
It's been mentioned...what...7 times now that he didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia ?

There are no connotations to be discussed. The guy made a post that stated a clear sentence. Someone saw it and went "oh noes, he didn't have the words "homosexuality" and "awesome" in the same sentence!!!!!!! AND HE THINKS IT'S BAD!!!! hateeeer!!! stone hiiiiim!!!!!"

All of you get off your goddamn high horses, and stop being such imbeciles. If he said he finds 2 girls 1 cup as disgusting as pedophilia, no one would've said one single word.

The state of message boards these days is pathetic. If the word "homosexuality" and ANYTHING negative are ever together in a sentence, it's time to put your brain down and pick up a torch.

*salute*

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~


It's been mentioned...what...7 times now that he didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia ?

There are no connotations to be discussed. The guy made a post that stated a clear sentence. Someone saw it and went "oh noes, he didn't have the words "homosexuality" and "awesome" in the same sentence!!!!!!! AND HE THINKS IT'S BAD!!!! hateeeer!!! stone hiiiiim!!!!!"


You're playing the silly semantics game. If I say "blacks are almost as stupid as retards", it's offensive and I clearly have a very negative view of black-people.

Now I could rant and stamp my little feet (as you are doing) and say, "I said almost, ALMOST!", yet my bigotry is crystal clear.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're playing the silly semantics game. If I say "blacks are almost as stupid as retards", it's offensive and I clearly have a very negative view of black-people.

Now I could rant and stamp my little feet (as you are doing) and say, "I said almost, ALMOST!", yet my bigotry is crystal clear.

That's not a logical/parallel comparison. It misrepresents what was actually said.


My comparison is better.

Originally posted by chomperx9
do you go to hell if you throw a bible in the trash ?

Do it and let us know.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Do it and let us know. what if i dont have a bible

Originally posted by chomperx9
what if i dont have a bible

Find someone who has and ask them to check.

Originally posted by chomperx9
what if i dont have a bible

Then you're already going to Hell, which skews the results of the test.

...I don't think that's written in the bible... >>.

I don't own a Bible and I'm not going to Hell.

Originally posted by Jaeh.is.Awesome
...I don't think that's written in the bible... >>.

Find me one religion that can be understood simply by reading it's primary text.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Find me one religion that can be understood simply by reading it's primary text.

don't ask me, I don't know a lot! panic

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not a logical/parallel comparison. It misrepresents what was actually said.


My comparison is better.

It's the same. We're both taking a group of people and saying they're almost as *insert negative* as *insert negative*. His statement tells us that that homosexuals are disgusting; almost to a level of pedophilia, in his opinion. Mine states that black-people are stupid; almost on a retarded level.

I didn't read it.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's the same. We're both taking a group of people and saying they're almost as *insert negative* as *insert negative*.

No.

But he said: I dislike *negative* as much as *negative*. Which inn that case meant he was either a homophobe or a gay pedophile.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're playing the silly semantics game. If I say "blacks are almost as stupid as retards", it's offensive and I clearly have a very negative view of black-people.

Now I could rant and stamp my little feet (as you are doing) and say, "I said almost, ALMOST!", yet my bigotry is crystal clear.

Here's a more accurate metaphor for what's going on here: "I personally find 2 girls 1 cup to be as disgusting as pedophilia".

Yours is apples and oranges.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Find me one religion that can be understood simply by reading it's primary text.

Jedism.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
Here's a more accurate metaphor for what's going on here: "I personally find 2 girls 1 cup to be as disgusting as pedophilia".

Well now the key question is: how disgusting is that exactly?

Originally posted by Robtard
Jedism.

Nope, you have to watch a movie.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
In my opinion, it's almost as disgusting as pedophilia

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
equates homosexuality with pedophilia

Originally posted by dadudemon
Consent between two adults is far and away to being even close to pedophilia.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
but he didnt equate homosexuality with pedophilia. at least not in the way youre thinking.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
He didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia

Originally posted by BackFire
It's a hateful and shameful analogy to compare homosexuality and pedophilia in any way, shape or form

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
In no way did I compare the nature of those acts as being the same....I just said that both were disgusting in my view.

Originally posted by BackFire
You compared homosexuality to pedophilia.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I find it personally disgusting...and in my view...it is near the same level as pedophilia, in MY book of what is disgusting.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
he holds the homosexuals are “almost as disgusting as pedophiles.”

Originally posted by BackFire
I think most people would be happy if idiots didn't make comparisons between child rape and homosexuality.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
when saying that homosexuality is as disgusting as pedophilia.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
saying that something disgusts you isnt necessarily intolerant its just your feelings on the matter.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
the original comment in this thread that it was almost as digusting as pedophilia is

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Another point that I would like to clear up is the misunderstanding most posters have with a comment I made: homosexuality is almost as disgusting as pedophilia. That statement is a PERSONAL point of view. In no way was I comparing the two as being the same. Pedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is not illegal. I was comparing two ACTS that disgust me in a nearly equal way. It is my opinion, a SUBJECTIVE statement.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
equating homosexuality to child abuse is derogatory and insulting to homosexuals.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
Anyone who twisted this: into: "homosexuality = pedophilia" is retarded

Originally posted by Robtard
comparing pedophilia to gay-sex and pedophiles to gays is a level of ignorance

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
but he is right, to an extent.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Not really.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
It's been mentioned...what...7 times now that he didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia ?

There are no connotations to be discussed. The guy made a post that stated a clear sentence.

Who wants to give the red colored posters a cookie for trying really really hard, but not quite making it to the finish line? duster

Better luck in your future trolling adventures you PC inebriated chumps. (with the exception of dadudemon who came around).

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
Here's a more accurate metaphor for what's going on here: "I personally find 2 girls 1 cup to be as disgusting as pedophilia".

Yours is apples and oranges.

No, not really. He is blanketing homosexuality.

Mine was in-line with his, as I used a group of people. I simply used "black" instead of "homosexuals". "Stupid" instead of "disgusting" and "retarded" instead of "pedophilia".

BTW, having the opinion that coprophagia is almost on the same level of child-rape is fairly ignorant too.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~


Who wants to give the red colored posters a cookie for trying really really hard, but not quite making it to the finish line? duster

Better luck in your future trolling adventures you PC inebriated chumps. (with the exception of dadudemon who came around).

Again, you're deliberately hiding behind the word "almost", when the implication (and bigotry) of what he said is clear.

If I said "you're almost as bad a a child-raping murderer", you'd probably not take it kindly, even if I then tried to backpedal and said "I said almost!"

Don't get me wrong, I stand by my initial account that he should be allowed to express his view without fear of being banned. But people are allowed to point out his ignorance on finding consensual sex and child-rape to be almost equal.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's the same. We're both taking a group of people and saying they're almost as *insert negative* as *insert negative*. His statement tells us that that homosexuals are disgusting; almost to a level of pedophilia, in his opinion. Mine states that black-people are stupid; almost on a retarded level.

I didn't read it.

Wickerman already addressed my response...sort of.


Mine was "2 girls 1 cup is as disgusting as homosexual acts." Apples to apples.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, not really. He is blanketing homosexuality.

So? Mine targets people who jacked off to 2 girls 1 cup, or found the video sexually appealing

Originally posted by Robtard
Mine was in-line with his, as I used a group of people. I simply used "black" instead of "homosexuals". "Stupid" instead of "disgusting" and "retarded" instead of "pedophilia".

Huh. Kinda like saying "An elephant has 4 legs" then using a dog as reference tool. "floppy ears instead of regular ones, a trunk instead of a nose, and about 3 tons between them. But other than that, it's exactly the same". facepalm

Originally posted by Robtard
BTW, having the opinion that coprophagia is almost on the same level of child-rape is fairly ignorant too.

And yet again, you still can't understand the difference between equating two actions and equating the level of disgust you get from thinking of two actions.

Originally posted by Robtard
Again, you're deliberately hiding behind the word "almost", when the implication (and bigotry) of what he said is clear.

If I said "you're almost as bad a a child-raping murderer", you'd probably not take it kindly, even if I then tried to backpedal and said "I said almost!"

Don't get me wrong, I stand by my initial account that he should be allowed to express his view without fear of being banned. But people are allowed to point out his ignorance on finding consensual sex and child-rape to be almost equal.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
And yet again, you still can't understand the difference between equating two actions and equating the level of disgust you get from thinking of two actions.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wickerman already addressed my response...sort of.


Mine was "2 girls 1 cup is as disgusting as homosexual acts." Apples to apples.

And it was flawed.

No, yours is apples to toasters.

I responded two post above.

...I think what the original dude was saying was pedophilia and homosexuality disgusts him in the same way... but he didn't say that homosexuality = pedophilia.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
So? Mine targets people who jacked off to 2 girls 1 cup, or found the video sexually appealing



Huh. Kinda like saying "An elephant has 4 legs" then using a dog as reference tool. "floppy ears instead of regular ones, a trunk instead of a nose, and about 3 tons between them. But other than that, it's exactly the same". facepalm



And yet again, you still can't understand the difference between equating two actions and equating the level of disgust you get from thinking of two actions.

No, yours targets the two shit eating girls.

You failed there.

LoL, epic fail. Let me guess, you find pedohilia(which he specifically used) disgusting, but not bad? His implication/bigotry is clear, you're willfully playing games.

Originally posted by Jaeh.is.Awesome
...I think what the original dude was saying was pedophilia and homosexuality disgusts him in the same way... but he didn't say that homosexuality = pedophilia.

Do you think there's anyone on the planet (besides maybe a pedophile) that finds child-rape disgusting, but doesn't see any wrong in it?

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you think there's anyone on he planet (besides maybe a pedophile) that finds child-rape disgusting, but doesn't see any wrong in it?

I think he also stated that he found the act of homosexuality wrong, but has nothing against homosexuals as people.

he wasn't saying that homosexuals are as bad as pedos. he was saying that the act of pedophelia and homosexuality disgusts him in almost equal ways.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~












































Who wants to give the red colored posters a cookie for trying really really hard, but not quite making it to the finish line? duster

Better luck in your future trolling adventures you PC inebriated chumps. (with the exception of dadudemon who came around).


lol




In my defense, my comment was about the topic being discussed, and not necessarily about Tats comment.










Originally posted by Robtard
And it was flawed.

No, yours is apples to toasters.

I responded two post above.

I think our disconnect is in your interpretation. The key is "disgust."

He is almost equally disgusted by the two. That's perfectly acceptable. Do you find it disgusting to watch two dudes go at? I do. Hell, I don't like to watch a straight couple go at it.

Now, it's not up to me to tell Tats and Scars what to find disgusting...and how equally. However, he finds both to be disgusting, almost equally.

He isn't saying that gays are just as bad as pedos. Not at all.

He's saying his disgust for the the acts/attraction are almost equally disgusting to him.


And, no, my comparison was from red delicious to granny smith.

The problem is that he used both words in the same sentence. Therefore it is interpreted in different ways by different people.

I don't know what he meant to say or whatever, just my observation...

Originally posted by Jaeh.is.Awesome
I think he also stated that he found the act of homosexuality wrong, but has nothing against homosexuals as people.

he wasn't saying that homosexuals are as bad as pedos. he was saying that the act of pedophelia and homosexuality disgusts him in almost equal ways.


Correct. Ding ding ding. We have a winner.




And to equate that with not hating Hitler for his slaughter of jews, but hating the slaughter itself, is, to quote wickerman, "retarded."



Robtard, a much better comparison:


"I find homosxuality and toe licking to be almost equally disgusting."


Capisce? awesome


(That comparison, though, apples to crabapples.)

Originally posted by Robtard
No, yours targets the two shit eating girls.

You failed there.

LoL, epic fail. Let me guess, you find pedohilia(which he specifically used) disgusting, but not bad? His implication/bigotry is clear, you're willfully playing games.

You do realize that's a sex video right?

No, not really, you did with your incredibly dumb comparison.

I'm not playing any games. He has stated that he finds homosexuality disgusting, and that he finds pedophilia disgusting. He has stated he finds them equally disgusting. Is this so beyond your comprehension?

Originally posted by dadudemon
He isn't saying that gays are just as bad as pedos. Not at all.

He's saying his disgust for the the acts/attraction are almost equally disgusting to him.

Not only was that easy to read in Tats' initial post, it was easy to read in my following posts, and then in Tats' long ass posts, where he actually SPECIFICALLY said that. But still, the angry mob needs a frankenstein's monster, so hey....if Dr. Frankenstein isn't around, they'll just build their own.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The problem is that he used both words in the same sentence. Therefore it is interpreted in different ways by different people.

I don't know what he meant to say or whatever, just my observation...

I could see (and saw) how it could get confusing.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The problem is that he used both words in the same sentence.

Exactly. Which was when silence fell, crickets could be heard, and then a thunderous "Cry Havoc and let slip the defenders of causes that don't need defending" was heard.

in short...

Originally posted by Jaeh.is.Awesome
I think he also stated that he found the act of homosexuality wrong, but has nothing against homosexuals as people.

he wasn't saying that homosexuals are as bad as pedos. he was saying that the act of pedophilia and homosexuality disgusts him in almost equal ways.

...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The problem is that he used both words in the same sentence.



I do not find pedophilia at all comparable to homosexuality in terms of personal disgust.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


I do not find pedophilia at all comparable to homosexuality in terms of personal disgust.

you don't. he does.

so... yeah.

Originally posted by Jaeh.is.Awesome
you don't. he does.

She said that using the words in the same sentence was bad. So would that sentence (which uses both homosexuality and pedophilia) a bigoted post?


There is a problem with discussing the two concepts together as it starts put them together in the public mind. However that's a flaw in processing not a result of bigottry.

smart ass.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
She said that using the words in the same sentence was bad. So would that sentence (which uses both homosexuality and pedophilia) a bigoted post?

i never said that it involves bigotry. I don't even know who said that.

I don't even know what bigot means. (yes, I'm that lame. forgive the english-is-not-my-first-language excuse, i'm going to go look it up now.)

edit: oh, so that's what it means... again, i never said its a bigoted post. that was probably another person..

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
You do realize that's a sex video right?

No, not really, you did with your incredibly dumb comparison.

I'm not playing any games. He has stated that he finds homosexuality disgusting, and that he finds pedophilia disgusting. He has stated he finds them equally disgusting. Is this so beyond your comprehension?



I didn't masturbate to it.

another "No, you!" response.

Again, semantics games. Do you think he finds pedophilia disgusting, but not bad? If we're just talking about what he finds disgusting (not to be wrong), then why did you start crying when others posted their opinion on his "disgust" opinion? They're equally entitled to their views as he is; you're defending his right to an opinion, while chastizing them for theirs and being overly dramatic about it.

Originally posted by Robtard
If we're just talking about what he finds disgusting (not to be wrong), then why did you start crying when others posted their opinion on his "disgust" opinion? They're equally entitled to their views as he is.

because the responses that wickerman is "crying" about are responses that are knee jerk reactions that took scars post out of context. if you look at all those posts he quoted the majority have people saying scar is an idiot for comparing a pedophile to a homosexual, which is inaccurate because thats not what scar was doing.

Originally posted by Jaeh.is.Awesome
i never said that it involves bigotry. I don't even know who said that.

I don't even know what bigot means. (yes, I'm that lame. forgive the english-is-not-my-first-language excuse, i'm going to go look it up now.)

edit: oh, so that's what it means... again, i never said its a bigoted post. that was probably another person..

Sigh, language barrier.

I was giving an example to LilB not making a statement.

Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't masturbate to it.

another "No, you!" response.

Again, semantics games. Do you think he finds pedophilia disgusting, but not bad? If we're just talking about what he finds disgusting (not to be wrong), then why did you start crying when others posted their opinion on his "disgust" opinion? They're equally entitled to their views as he is; you're defending his right to an opinion, while chastizing them for theirs and being overly dramatic about it.

inimalist* already covered that.



*I did it right, this time.


And, if you want to be right, Robtard, that's okay. I don't care if you're right or wrong. You can be right this time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sigh, language barrier.

I was giving an example to LilB not making a statement.



so... that post wasn't really directed at me, or... was it...

Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't masturbate to it.

another "No, you!" response.

Again, semantics games. Do you think he finds pedophilia disgusting, but not bad? If we're just talking about what he finds disgusting (not to be wrong), then why did you start crying when others posted their opinion on his "disgust" opinion? They're equally entitled to their views as he is; you're defending his right to an opinion, while chastizing them for theirs and being overly dramatic about it.

Doesn't mean it wasn't a sex video. The point remains, my comparison was valid, yours wasn't, and then you tried to invalidate my comparison, which I reinforced.

....this coming from the man who said "You failed there"? How am I supposed to respond to that? I responded in as eloquent a manner as I could to your "You failed there" comment. Sorry if my response didn't measure up to "You fail there".

Concerning the last part, Ms.Marvel answered perfectly.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
Doesn't mean it wasn't a sex video. The point remains, my comparison was valid, yours wasn't, and then you tried to invalidate my comparison, which I reinforced.

....this coming from the man who said "You failed there"? How am I supposed to respond to that? I responded in as eloquent a manner as I could to your "You failed there" comment. Sorry if my response didn't measure up to "You fail there".

Concerning the last part, Ms.Marvel answered perfectly.

You said "two girls one cup", that doesn't implicate the people masturbating to it. You're trying to now, after the fact.

You did fail there. Your response had no bearing.

You're still ignoring the clear implication of his original post. Do you find pedophilia to be disgusting, but see nothing wrong with it?