ps:

http://www.marriedtothesea.com/090507/homophobic-senator.gif

And Gary bans Christians but lets the ramblings and cussings that guy stay on the board..  Looks like Gary and his thinking is a little warped.  So much for tolerance..ban other Christians but keep this idiot on..and Gary you said you used to be a Christian?  According to the bible you never were..

@fjblau - 

Honest question. Do you define "hate" as someone who believes that homosexuality is not the ideal sexual lifestyle from a moral standpoint? Or do you define "hate" as when people actually hate gays?

If you are this up in arms about people who simply have a moral problem with homosexual activity, and deem them "christian bigot hypocrites", then you, ironically, are a tad bigoted, in my view. If you are reserving such judgments for those who would seek to punish people for being gay, treat them negatively on a personal basis, or publicly state they hate gay people, then I'm on board with you.

My hunch is that you lump every christian into the label "christian bigot hypocrites." If not, please correct me. If so, I just don't see how that's progressive, open-minded, or tolerant.


p.s. it is interesting who Gary does and doesn't censor...

@itistim - 

"Do you define "hate" as someone who believes that homosexuality is not the ideal sexual lifestyle from a moral standpoint? Or do you define "hate" as when people actually hate gays?"

I see no difference between "hate" and "not the ideal lifestyle from a moral standpoint".

"If you are reserving such judgments for those who would seek to punish people for being gay, treat them negatively on a personal basis, or publicly state they hate gay people, then I'm on board with you."

And yes, I am reserving that judgment for those hateful, bigoted people. Which also includes people who preach that you can "pray away the gay" or those that think that gay people don't deserve the same legal and human rights as other people. Or those that hide behind doublespeak like "It is a huge mistake to finally go down that path and accept behaviour that is wrong and say it is right" or "Knowone is ever born gay" [sic] as they do so. That is utter and complete bullshit of the lowest order.

And no, I don't lump ALL christians into that label. My brother is a christian minister, and he shares none of those traits with the bigots. Episcopalian Bishop Eugene Robinson is also a christian and um, also gay, and not someone I would call a bigot.

If that Jesus Christ character were incarnated today, he'd be appalled at the things being done "in his name".

And really, I don't think Gary censors much.

You're right, Gary never seems to sensor you :P JK

I don't know man, I think you're a bit too intolerant. It just seems a bit scary to hear someone say "if you disagree with me and think this way about homosexuality - which I judge as wrong - no matter if you ACT kindly towards gay people - you are a hateful bigot who shouldn't be tolerated."

Too judgmental for me.

@itistim - 

That's a bit of a straw man argument.

Telling someone publicly (like on a message board, or from a pulpit) that you think that WHO they are is morally wrong is not exactly what I call "acting kindly" towards someone.

And yeah, I am intolerant of that, and judgmental too. Guilty as charged. :)

I'm not seeing the straw man. I am, however, seeing a false dichotomy in acting like you have to think that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality in any way, shape, or form, OR you actively hate homosexuals.

I think you're too black and white. It seems insane for me to say that someone who thinks that homosexuality is not the optimal sexual lifestyle is the same as being a hateful bigot who doesn't deserve tolerance.

The problem with your assessment is that it goes too far when you take it to its logical end.

A more rational approach would be to take christians with couples who live together but won't marry. That's not morally sound according to christian doctrine. No normal person thinks that your typical christian (who generally thinks it's better [morally speaking] for a couple to marry and live together than to live together and never marry) is "anti-people-living-together-but-never-marrying" and therefore is a hateful bigot undeserving of tolerance.

Thinking the way you speak here does not create a world where people can think adversely but still coexist in a friendly way. It's too easy to demonize people and get stuck in your ways when you think the way you are talking here (note - I am making the distinction of how you are here and how you are in real life as you might not act out in real life as strongly as you speak here).

That's my take on it.

The straw man was in putting YOUR words in quotes as if they were MINE, and then arguing against it.

Your analogy fails because LIVING TOGETHER without being married, is a choice. Being gay is not.

But to use your analogy, I would never even KNOW if that person was a hateful bigot unless they opened up their mouth and started telling people living together that they were doomed to eternal suffering in a flaming pit of fire for living together.

I don't think Christianity is the optimum lifestyle either, but you don't see me legislating against it or condemning the practitioners to some mythical "Saw 5" torture chamber for it.

But I think those that know me personally would agree with you... I can be a pretty argumentative prick online sometimes. Don't even get me started on the creationist thread :) But in person, I'm mostly sane.

Saw 5 torture chamber? A little hyperbolic there Frank? You seem to to blow a fuse over this issue - when people express a reason for the thought that homosexuality is immoral. Why do you care - you don't have any reason for the Bible or garner it any credibility. But homosexuality, along with hundreds of other sins that can be attributed to all of us in one way or another, are the reason Jesus died on the cross. Christians believe it - non-Christians don't.

My closest friend in High School came out after High School - became a leading activist in the country and all the while marching against the "hate" of "intolerant" people and demanding that the govornment do more to cure aids - ended up dying of aids at 27 years old along with a few of his partners. Sad and pretty obvious - demonize those who disagree...demand that the govornmnet find a cure for a BEHAVIORLY spread disease yet never consider the behavior itself. The same for other STD's and abortions...just let me do what I want!

(Frank - insert obscenity laced tyrade at me here....)

Now everyone back to work!

I'm surprised none of us learned by now that if we just agree with Frank's view on everything he'll be nice to everybody and not try to cram his views and rants down our throats.
I really don't care who sleeps with who. As Pres. Clinton said "don't ask don't tell"
Unless you're screwing sheep! That's a little too much.

" demonize those who disagree...demand that the govornmnet find a cure for a BEHAVIORLY spread disease "

No obscenity. Just astounded at your ignorance of who this disease affects around the globe.

You've disarmed your entire argument for neutrality by spewing something that is just so wrong in the face of facts.

You DO know that AIDS is passed from to women via heterosexual contact, right? And then to their offspring? Then again I wouldn't put it past christians to accuse innocent children of having a "behaviorly spread disease"... Since you clearly suffer from one yourself: ignorance.

"I'm surprised none of us learned by now that if we just agree with Frank's view on everything he'll be nice to everybody and not try to cram his views and rants down our throats."

Don't bet on it.

"Unless you're screwing sheep! "

And keep your preferences for sexual partners to yourself.

@fjblau - 

The straw man was in putting YOUR words in quotes as if they were MINE, and then arguing against it.

The straw man would have been there had I misrepresented you. I believe the content of my quote is completely in line with everything you've said here.

Your analogy fails because LIVING TOGETHER without being married, is a choice. Being gay is not.

I don't think the analogy necessarily fails - you just threw in a difference between the two. I never said it was a flawless analogy. Differences tend to exist between apt analogies - if they didn't they wouldn't be analogies... they'd just be the same thing. The main point is that you think christians are hateful bigots because of their belief that homosexuality is immoral when acted upon - not because they are judging something that is genetic. I don't care if it's genetic, by the way - but remember, you aren't stating science when you imply that homosexuality is 100% predetermined. But like I said, I don't care either way. Whether gays are born gay or become gay through childhood - they are still VALUABLE human beings who deserve to be treated as such. So again, christians think a lot of people are wrong (as a lot of people - such as yourself - think christians are wrong) - but I don't think it's good, fair, reasonable, rational, open-minded, tolerant, or progressive to say that if you disagree with certain actions you are the same as someone who actively hates people who do those actions. And to add to that, those people are undeserving of tolerance? That sounds like fundamentalist extremism to me.

Come to think of it, the analogy does not fail. Christianity doesn't say that gay people are any more worse off than hetero people. If, for example, the gay person chooses to have sex with a person of the same sex - he is in the same boat as the hetero person who chooses to have sex outside of marriage. Many christians don't believe gay people are immoral just for existing (anymore than hetero people are). It's when they act on their impulses outside of the requirements of christianity that they begin sinning. But again, the hetero person who sleeps with someone outside of marriage is in the same boat as the gay person who has sex with someone of the same sex. Analogy sound. Now, obviously you can say that there is at least a way for hetero people to have sex in christianity - and therein lies the hatred/bigotry. That's fine. However, taking your comments shown here, I have no reason to think that you shouldn't think that christians are hate filled bigots against every one who isn't a christian. That seems to be the logical end to your comments - which is why I think your stance here is very wrong (and, quite honestly, bigoted).

But to use your analogy, I would never even KNOW if that person was a hateful bigot unless they opened up their mouth and started telling people living together that they were doomed to eternal suffering in a flaming pit of fire for living together.

It's ironic that you say this. Nearly every post you put up is quite seriously (and often emotionally) negative against christians in general. You don't ever seem to make exceptions - just total blanket statements across the board. You know what? I'm fine with that. Couldn't care less. But guess what, it's okay for people who disagree with you to do the same. The manner in which you speak here makes you sound like the vile anti-gay people - just the other extreme (think the "god hates fags" idiots). I believe you when you say you're different in real life. However, on here you don't sound any different than them to me. Just on the opposite side.

I don't think Christianity is the optimum lifestyle either, but you don't see me legislating against it or condemning the practitioners to some mythical "Saw 5" torture chamber for it.

Most people who think that men and women were created for the opposite sex don't legislate anything either. Fact is, most americans are not comfortable with changing the definition of marriage. Of course, religious people are going to be more prone to not change and secular will be more prone to change - since marriage is religious by origin - but you don't get same sex marriage voted down in California, for example, solely by right wing, christian bigots.

But I think those that know me personally would agree with you... I can be a pretty argumentative prick online sometimes. Don't even get me started on the creationist thread :) But in person, I'm mostly sane.

I believe you. I think we'd get along just fine ;)

Every gay person who has left that lifestyle to choose to be born again by the Spirit of God is proof it is a choice..If it were not a choice then EVERY gay person would be gay the rest of their life..by your ideas a person is born gay..if that is true then they could not leave it.  But every gay person who has chosen to go to Christ for deliverance and has been delivered proves it is a choice..they made a choice to go to Christ and He delivers.  So your immoral logic is seriously flawed.  But you have never been born again so you cannot see that side of the coin. You cannot understand it..because it is soooooo simple God uses the simple many times to confound the wise.  Heck, I know a man who is not saved and used to be gay because he did not like being gay and he made the choice to stop and he did.  The only so called medical evidence comes from men who are already gay.  Where is the research of 1 man who decides to turn gay and then document the medical tests...there is none, thus even the research is flawed.  Plus those studies are funded by gay organizations so of course the findings would be in their favor.  And if the bible says that some used to be in that lifestyle, that shows also it is a choice...

Aw, c'mon now, peoples ...

We all know the Catholic church is the perfect cover-up and hiding place for a whole slug of gay men AND women. *insert the atrocities against Native children here for further consideration* Hell's bells, for that matter, it's the perfect reason why the church doesn't let their priests and nuns marry - they are gay!!! House the men with the men and the women with the women and let them have all the gay sex they want under wraps!!! Yeehawww!!!! And when they get tired of each other - move them out into the public so they can play with the kids in their care. It still happens today and sure makes me curious how many of those Residential School kids ended up gay because of it??? Anybody know???

And we all know the majority of the organized religions world-wide frown on homosexuality because they figure if gay folks get together, there won't be any new little brainwashed people created, so the churches lose out on new indoctrinates (is that a word?).

Organized religions,in my view, are all about power and money. The last thing their leaders, popes, priests, etc are concerned about is you and me and how many starving people with AIDS there are in the world.

In fact, the starving people with AIDS are sitting ducks for them. Organized religions thrive on poverty, sickness, disasters and trauma. It's just plain old good for business - their business! (which isn't healing, clothing, housing and feeding) They know if they are there with all their volunteers and staff to "do the lord's work", people can be swayed from their own religious beliefs to follow the newly taught one. First in the door wins the most! Come get a meal but listen to the word of god first. Follow jesus and you will be cured. Send your kids to our schools to get educated (and abused).

They offer hope, education and sustainance (sp?) - but ya gotta get god and jesus first. If ya don't get god and jesus, you are gonna rot in fiery hell, kid! Way to go - scare the lord into the kid!!!

In my experience, people who are BornAgains and uber-religious are the worst ones for intolerance, theft, snide remarks, and failing to pay their bills. When I was in business, I learned in a hurry not to extend credit to any of them. They did not pay. They still owe me money. They were the first to criticize anyone who was not like them, who dressed funny, who did not go to THEIR church, who lived a different lifestyle than what they lived. They go to funerals (anyone's in any church or funeral home) not to pay their final respects but to eat the food, see what someone else is wearing, compare the food, see who cries the hardest - or if the bereaved cried at all, and to brag about how many funerals they went to that week. They sow their wild oats all week - then go to church on Sunday to pray for a crop failure.

And there's no point in jumping all over my frame for my views, either. The best have tried. Guess I'll burn in hell (IYO) - but at least I lived an honest, considerate and compassionate life - which is a lot more than I can say for all the church-oriented religious brainwashed folks out there.

Mother Nature makes a much better God.

@Wildflower_Sue - 

loved your post

@Wildflower_Sue - 

Why so extreme? Like Frank, you don't sound any different than the people you can't stand - just on the opposite side is all.

I'll never understand people who hate extremism with extremism. I personally don't like either. I don't like the Christian weirdo who can't find it in himself/herself to see that homosexuals are equally valuable human beings just like I don't like the secular extremist who can't stomach Christians just the same - so much that they have to go on constant tirades about Christians' beliefs. Too self-righteous for my tastes.

Look, I don't care that atheists are atheists or that christians are christians. I'll debate my points with both of them if they ask me - obviously those that don't think what I think, I think are wrong - but that's where it stops. I don't blacklist all of those who believe a certain way and I don't go on tirades belittling people that have firm beliefs in the unknowable (and both atheism AND theism are unknowable from an epistemological sense, I believe.)

You need to distinguish between being gay and homosexual sex. Nobody cares if anybody is gay. We accept everyone who is gay. We just think homosexual sex is wrong. That's it. You can continue to be gay and it really doesn't matter. Can we legislate against homosexual sex? Probably not... but it doesn't mean we HAVE to believe it's morally good otherwise we're hateful.

We have nothing against the people. I do have something against the action.

@Heather_Woods - 

Thanks!

@itistim - 

That wasn't extreme. That was just facts as I see them from the fence I sit on.

I don't hate religious people and I also don't hate people who partake in gay sex.

But when it is cloaked under the guise of religion, I have a problem with the liars who want us all to believe they are so holy and do such good works for the poor, starving and destitute.

Y'know .. it's kinda like the Hell's Angels doing a Toy Run for Kids. And we all know how holy THEY are!

@itistim - 

That wasn't extreme. That was just facts as I see them from the fence I sit on.

I don't hate religious people and I also don't hate people who partake in gay sex.

But when it is cloaked under the guise of religion, I have a problem with the liars who want us all to believe they are so holy and do such good works for the poor, starving and destitute.

Y'know .. it's kinda like the Hell's Angels doing a Toy Run for Kids. And we all know how holy THEY are!

@randplaty - 

Gosh, and here I was thinking they were the same thing. I mean, what's the point in being gay if you don't have sex with a member of your own gender???

Soooo ... is this religious person's way of accepting that some people are gay? It's okay to be gay as long as you don't have gay sex? It's okay to love your fellow gay man as long as you don't make love with him???

Golly gee whiz ... get real, peoples. Some people just got mixed up in the chemistry lesson before they arrived in this world. They ARE. They DO. It's called life. Sometimes for some people, it sucks. And sometimes, for some people, religious views create a life of hell for these people.

Somebody earlier posted that if a gay person accepted god in their life, they could change and become un-gay. I do not believe this to be true. I don't think you can become un-gay no matter how hard you wish it. I think that people who appear to become un-gay just get tired of a life full of crap handed to them, the ridicule, the unacceptance, the snide remarks, the ostracism ... and they appear to accept the ways of the heterosexual. But underneath it all, they are still gay and feel like they have betrayed themselves - and many of them finally commit suicide.

And no, I am not gay.

@Wildflower_Sue - 

So is life made hell for people who live together without being married? Because there's no difference between thinking that that is immoral and thinking that gay sex is immoral. It's just one group of people thinking another group of people are partaking in immoral action (based on their worldview). I have a hard time seeing where you are above that...

Gay people are being viewed the same by christians as straight people who live together without marrying. Neither of those are hated just because the act is viewed as immoral.

Why is it that when christians think that certain things people do are wrong they're hateful bigots? But you're allowed to think that what these christians are doing is so terrible that you can namecall them as hateful bigots, and it's totally fine?

It's just insane to me that some people see no difference between having a moral opinion about a certain action and actively hating a person that does that certain action. Irrationality is a trait emotional extremism - and this is a perfect example.