Bible Sued For Homophobia

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In the statement, "[Homosexuality is] almost as disgusting as pedophilia," homosexuality is the subject, disgusting is a modifier, and pedophilia is the object. In a comparison, the subject is examined in contrast to the object. For the statement to compare disgust for one state of being to disgust for another state of being as you purport, disgust must be used as a noun instead of adjective, e.g. "My disgust of homosexuality is almost equal to my disgust of pedophilia." How does it feel to be only functionally literate?

That doesn't work at all.

disgusting is functioning as an adjective in that sentence. Disgusting, in this sentence, is what is called a deverbal adjective.

He's describing how each affect him. Both almost affect him equally...as he finds both disgusting, almost equally, in fact. (Hence, the point of calling it a comparison.)

Edit - And, in each case, the subject and object are no people, but states of being or actions.

Are you trying to claim that he made a statement against people instead of acts?

If you want to get down to it, it's all about context. Contextually, we know clearly that he's referring to the acts.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In the statement, "[Homosexuality is] almost as disgusting as pedophilia," homosexuality is the subject, disgusting is a modifier, and pedophilia is the object. In a comparison, the subject is examined in contrast to the object. For the statement to compare disgust for one state of being to disgust for another state of being as you purport, disgust must be used as a noun instead of adjective, e.g. "My disgust of homosexuality is almost equal to my disgust of pedophilia." How does it feel to be only functionally literate?

Because you completely ignored the modifier. And not only did you ignore the modifier, but you also ignored the post which was 15 posts above your own which said:

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
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.

So how's that for selective reading? 😐

Originally posted by Robtard
Now you're dancing; it gets old.

Your anger, insults and fits empower me, yes. *that emote of Goku powering up here*

Repeat: You're still ignoring the clear implication of his original post. Do you find pedophilia to be disgusting, but see nothing wrong with it? <--- that's a question

I sorta answered that. Even if I wasn't the one you were talking to.

I pointed out that if I'm correct, tats and scars said in another post trying to clear up his original post that he viewed homosexuality wrong, but has nothing against homosexual people. he also stated that he thought that sins don't have levels, so stealing = homosexuality and so on. Also, he viewed both as equally disgusting. he never said anything about pedophilia not being wrong.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How about saying bestiality is nearly as disgusting as pedophilia?

Would it be worse or better if he said he was disgusted (if he is, at all) with ephebophilia as he is with homosexuality?

No, because it could be argued that bestiality is not consensual, while the stuff they did in that video was consensual (unless there was a shotgun pointed at the two chicks off-screen).

Originally posted by Robtard
Now you're dancing[again]; it gets old.

Your anger, insults and fits empower me, yes. *that emote of Goku powering up here*

Repeat: You're still ignoring the clear implication of his original post. Do you find pedophilia to be disgusting, but see nothing wrong with it? <--- that's a question

Funny how I combat your sad misreading and pathetic attempts at making a point where there is none to be made and the best you can come up with as a retort is "no no, you're wrong!!!".

Personally? I find homosexual acts disgusting, and they gross me out, and I find pedophilia acts disgusting and they gross me out. Those were the only implications of his initial post. Anything else is trolling.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
Personally? I find homosexual acts disgusting, and they gross me out, and I find pedophilia acts disgusting and they gross me out. Those were the only implications of his initial post. Anything else is trolling.

this.

Originally posted by Jaeh.is.Awesome
I sorta answered that. Even if I wasn't the one you were talking to.

I pointed out that if I'm correct, tats and scars said in another post trying to clear up his original post that he viewed homosexuality wrong, but has nothing against homosexual people. he also stated that he thought that sins don't have levels, so stealing = homosexuality and so on. Also, he viewed both as equally disgusting. he never said anything about pedophilia not being wrong.

Well then, let's hope so. It could also be backpedaling.

Exactly, which implicates homosexuality as being wrong too. Which is fine, he can have that opinion, I also support him in his right to have it. But other people are allowed to give their opinion of his views, without the dramatics that ensued from others in people voicing their opinions of his statement.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well then, let's hope so. It could also be backpedaling.

Exactly, which implicates homosexuality as being wrong too. Which is fine, he can have that opinion, I also support him in his right to have it. But other people are allowed to give their opinion of his views, without the dramatics that ensued other him saying his and other being chastised for theirs.

as for me, I wasn't chastising, I was just trying to clear things up. *shrug*

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Would it be worse or better if he said he was disgusted (if he is, at all) with ephebophilia as he is with homosexuality?

Nah. I find nothing wrong with that(ephebophilia). If the person is pubescent, then I don't consider it a problem. It's just a preference on age, at that point. Yes, I'm serious.

Edit - I need to make a clarification, lol. I prefer Women. Adult...full grown, junk in the trunk, women. 😆

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~

Funny how I combat your sad misreading and pathetic attempts at making a point where there is none to be made and the best you can come up with as a retort is "no no, you're wrong!!!".

Personally? I find homosexual acts disgusting, and they gross me out, and I find pedophilia acts disgusting and they gross me out. Those were the only implications of his initial post. Anything else is trolling.

Pat yourself on the back some more, it's awesome. Yes, those insults and butt-hurt give me strength, sir.

No, do you find it to be wrong? For example, you may find the act of eating raw beef disgusting, but you may find nothing wrong with it. So, do you?

Gays gross you out and that is fine. You still chastised others for voicing their opinion of his opinion, which is hypocritical. His initial post implicated more than just a like/dislike.

I know gays don't like homophobes but still, this is going way too far. Suing Bible publishers? Why don't homoes just sue all the churches in the world while they're at it because they too dislike gays. Also, they should sue God since the first Bible also said being gay is a sin.

This is just retarded and I think that gay man just wants to get attention.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
I know gays don't like homophobes but still, this is going way too far. Suing Bible publishers? Why don't homoes just sue all the churches in the world while they're at it because they too dislike gays. Also, they should sue God since the first Bible also said being gay is a sin.

This is just retarded and I think that gay man just wants to get attention.

The gay is suing for a specific translation that included the word "homosexuality". The official stance of most churches is "God hates the sin; not the sinner."

Probably, and some money.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, but you would find any Nazi who stood by those policies and enforced them to be, right?

some maybe, but not because of the policies themselves. there were many nazis who had families and were generally very nice people who only did what they did either because they were blinded by their nationalism or they did it out of fear. so i criticize the nazi concept not the individual man.

You still chastised others for voicing their opinion of his opinion, which is hypocritical. His initial post implicated more than just a like/dislike.

the responses that wickerman is voicing his opinions on 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 Nemesis X
I know gays don't like homophobes but still, this is going way too far. Suing Bible publishers? Why don't homoes just sue all the churches in the world while they're at it because they too dislike gays. Also, they should sue God since the first Bible also said being gay is a sin.

This is just retarded and I think that gay man just wants to get attention.

YES someone back on topic.

and I agree. I just couldn't put it in words earlier.

although, maybe his family did something bad to him (as pointed out by a friend of mine) that's why he's suing the publishers. he's transferring the hurt he may have felt (idk, maybe they did something bad to him because he's a homosexual like shun him or something, and he didn't want to sue them for abuse for they're family) to the publishers and is suing them...

but, your post is possible, too.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
some maybe, but not because of the policies themselves. there were many nazis who had families and were generally very nice people who only did what they did either because they were blinded by their nationalism or they did it out of fear. so i criticize the nazi concept not the individual man.

the responses that wickerman is voicing his opinions on 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.

That's retarded, sorry. You might have a point with the "fear" issue, but nationalism as an excuse for crimes, come on. More to the point, would you ever say "I think homosexuality is wrong, but not homosexuals?"

I've responded to that, it sounds like backpedaling, but okay.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's retarded, sorry. You might have a point with the "fear" issue, but nationalism as an excuse for crimes, come on.

neither is religion anger fear etc when it comes down to it. 😬

"excuse" is an entirely subjective term.

I've responded to that, it sounds like backpedaling, but okay. [/B]

it doesnt sound like back peddling to me, though the majority of criticisms directed toward scars seem like illogical PC knee jerking.

More to the point, would you ever say "I think homosexuality is wrong, but not homosexuals?"

i would say "i feel that homosexuality is wrong, but if homosexuals are happy with thier choice more power to them. no one is harmed by it."

Originally posted by dadudemon

Are you trying to claim that he made a statement against people instead of acts?

If you want to get down to it, it's all about context. Contextually, we know clearly that he's referring to the acts.

I do like that religious stance, 'we hate/dislike homosexuality, not the homosexual' to be funny. Complete cop-out.

We hate murder, not the murderer

We hate child-rape, not the child-rapist

We hate thievery, not the thieves.

Cop-out, cop-out, cop-out.

how are those cop-outs? those make sense imo...

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
how are those cop-outs? those make sense imo...

You hate the act of raping a child, but not the person who raped the child? Really?

Originally posted by Robtard
You hate the act of raping a child, but not the person who raped the child? Really?

its possible.

for example (and I hope i don't completely miss), I hate that my brother lied to me, but I don't hate my brother himself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That doesn't work at all.

disgusting is functioning as an adjective in that sentence. Disgusting, in this sentence, is what is called a deverbal adjective.

He's describing how each affect him. Both almost affect him equally...as he finds both disgusting, almost equally, in fact. (Hence, the point of calling it a comparison.)

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
Because you completely ignored the modifier.

A deverbal adjective is simply an adjective derived from a noun. It is still an adjective, and still functions a modifier. In the statement in question, it is neither the subject nor the object of the sentence, and is not the thing being compared.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - And, in each case, the subject and object are no people, but states of being or actions.

Are you trying to claim that he made a statement against people instead of acts?

If you want to get down to it, it's all about context. Contextually, we know clearly that he's referring to the acts.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
And not only did you ignore the modifier, but you also ignored the post which was 15 posts above your own which said:

So how's that for selective reading? 😐

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If he holds that homosexuality is “almost as disgusting as pedophilia,” then by extension, he holds the homosexuals are “almost as disgusting as pedophiles.”

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

Would you still like to argue that he is only disgusted by homosexuality, and not homosexuals?