So you are probably thinking, maybe this kid is racist and drew something racist or maybe he is homophobic or something like that, but no, this kid drew a mural that was offensive because it depicts a traditional marriage. C'mon America, why do you have to try and drown everyone in your ignorance?!
The image:
The story:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/school-backtracks-after-banning-students-mural-depiting-traditional-marriage/ Lets get everyone's opinions, personally, this is almost as dumb as Michael Bay deciding the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are now to be aliens.
Does this site just subsist on producing articles about injusticies against christians? It seems there's been a few threads of late with similar backgrounds popping up with that site being the source.
Meh, its obviously pretty silly, ridiculously so and I find it a questionable why people would even bother giving it their notice (like the kid in the corner that acts out to gain attention). I mean the kids who made it presumably grew up being exposed to hetrosexual relationships, thus that's how they'd display a family. Hey, if it were two guys and a kid then you'd have the religious right in uproar about a school depicting a homosexual relationship. Its just sensationalists trying to gain a bit of attention, and theblaze does nothing but aid them in it. Honestly I don't see the point in creating threads based on their articles as their so petty that it really does just come across as trolling at times. =/
Look at it this way, heterosexual relationships are becomeing, sadly, only on par with homosexual relationships when it comes to reputation, rather than above them. A glance at britan will do this thread good. In England the terms "Husband and wife" are being banned state marriages because the term is "Insensitive" The term is now "Spouse and spouse" (Or will be soon) This is a good example of how our world is changing, in myopinion for the worse. This thread will only come across as a troll thread if you cannot discuss things like this calmly. Honestly there is no reason why mature people shouldnt be able to discuss things like this wherever they want. Regardless in realtion to the OP te picture the kid drew has nothing offensive on it, lets face it you pick 4 out of 5 kids these days and ask them to draw themselves with their perants and you will get a similar picture, the school is being a group of idiots.
I read a bit in the comments section of this article and really liked the comment about the burgers, pizza and guitar perhaps offending those who are vegans or not musically inclined.
The guy had a point in that nothing can be depicted without offending someone.
Lucian Greymark wrote:Look at it this way, heterosexual relationships are becomeing, sadly, only on par with homosexual relationships when it comes to reputation, rather than above them.
Oh no! A traditionally oppressed minority group is making strides towards achieving equality. So sad, so very sad. What is the world coming to?
Alright, I'll be blunt-anyone actually offended by that mural is an idiot and needs to be taken out into a field and shot. There is nothing offensive about it. In fact, I doubt anyone did actually get offended-it's probably propaganda. Nobody is stupid enough (then again, according to South Park at least 25% of America is stupid-only they used the R-word that dakka bans, which doesn't really fit into their statement anyway) to be offended by a mural depicting the above image. As stated, if anyone truly was offended, they need to be shot. Or at least neutered without any anesthetic. There, I said it. Stupid people piss me off. First person offended by this should stick a shotgun in their mouth and pull the trigger-do the entire world a favor.
timetowaste85 wrote:Alright, I'll be blunt-anyone actually offended by that mural is an idiot and needs to be taken out into a field and shot. There is nothing offensive about it. In fact, I doubt anyone did actually get offended-it's probably propaganda. Nobody is stupid enough (then again, according to South Park at least 25% of America is stupid-only they used the R-word that dakka bans, which doesn't really fit into their statement anyway) to be offended by a mural depicting the above image. As stated, if anyone truly was offended, they need to be shot. Or at least neutered without any anesthetic. There, I said it. Stupid people piss me off. First person offended by this should stick a shotgun in their mouth and pull the trigger-do the entire world a favor.
*claps*
perfect
and as for my previous comment being bs, I have a friend who works in british law... try again sorry
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote:
Lucian Greymark wrote:Look at it this way, heterosexual relationships are becomeing, sadly, only on par with homosexual relationships when it comes to reputation, rather than above them.
Oh no! A traditionally oppressed minority group is making strides towards achieving equality. So sad, so very sad. What is the world coming to?
Sorry but homosexuality is wrong, there look its out. Sorry if I offended you. But lets face it. We wernt designed to be gay
timetowaste85 wrote:Alright, I'll be blunt-anyone actually offended by that mural is an idiot and needs to be taken out into a field and shot. There is nothing offensive about it. In fact, I doubt anyone did actually get offended-it's probably propaganda. Nobody is stupid enough (then again, according to South Park at least 25% of America is stupid-only they used the R-word that dakka bans, which doesn't really fit into their statement anyway) to be offended by a mural depicting the above image. As stated, if anyone truly was offended, they need to be shot. Or at least neutered without any anesthetic. There, I said it. Stupid people piss me off. First person offended by this should stick a shotgun in their mouth and pull the trigger-do the entire world a favor.
*claps*
perfect
and as for my previous comment being bs, I have a friend who works in british law... try again sorry
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote:
Lucian Greymark wrote:Look at it this way, heterosexual relationships are becomeing, sadly, only on par with homosexual relationships when it comes to reputation, rather than above them.
Oh no! A traditionally oppressed minority group is making strides towards achieving equality. So sad, so very sad. What is the world coming to?
Sorry but homosexuality is wrong, there look its out. Sorry if I offended you. But lets face it. We wernt designed to be gay
We have been in space...
Were we designed to do that?
Incidentally, i haven't even heard of the term husband and wife being banned...
My mum was married last October and they still had it then...
timetowaste85 wrote:Alright, I'll be blunt-anyone actually offended by that mural is an idiot and needs to be taken out into a field and shot. There is nothing offensive about it. In fact, I doubt anyone did actually get offended-it's probably propaganda. Nobody is stupid enough (then again, according to South Park at least 25% of America is stupid-only they used the R-word that dakka bans, which doesn't really fit into their statement anyway) to be offended by a mural depicting the above image. As stated, if anyone truly was offended, they need to be shot. Or at least neutered without any anesthetic. There, I said it. Stupid people piss me off. First person offended by this should stick a shotgun in their mouth and pull the trigger-do the entire world a favor.
*claps*
perfect
and as for my previous comment being bs, I have a friend who works in british law... try again sorry
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote:
Lucian Greymark wrote:Look at it this way, heterosexual relationships are becomeing, sadly, only on par with homosexual relationships when it comes to reputation, rather than above them.
Oh no! A traditionally oppressed minority group is making strides towards achieving equality. So sad, so very sad. What is the world coming to?
Sorry but homosexuality is wrong, there look its out. Sorry if I offended you. But lets face it. We wernt designed to be gay
just because homosexuality isn't right for you, doesn't make it wrong. What gives you the right to label something right or wrong anyways. Seeing as how 1500 different species have been documented having homosexual relationships, obviously its perfectly natural. If its natural its either part of some evolutionary mechanism, or god made them that way.
but back on topic, the artists father probably made the complaint to begin with. he complains about his daughter mural, all the christians quickly get offended and now she's on the news.
timetowaste85 wrote:Alright, I'll be blunt-anyone actually offended by that mural is an idiot and needs to be taken out into a field and shot. There is nothing offensive about it. In fact, I doubt anyone did actually get offended-it's probably propaganda. Nobody is stupid enough (then again, according to South Park at least 25% of America is stupid-only they used the R-word that dakka bans, which doesn't really fit into their statement anyway) to be offended by a mural depicting the above image. As stated, if anyone truly was offended, they need to be shot. Or at least neutered without any anesthetic. There, I said it. Stupid people piss me off. First person offended by this should stick a shotgun in their mouth and pull the trigger-do the entire world a favor.
*claps*
perfect
and as for my previous comment being bs, I have a friend who works in british law... try again sorry
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote:
Lucian Greymark wrote:Look at it this way, heterosexual relationships are becomeing, sadly, only on par with homosexual relationships when it comes to reputation, rather than above them.
Oh no! A traditionally oppressed minority group is making strides towards achieving equality. So sad, so very sad. What is the world coming to?
Sorry but homosexuality is wrong, there look its out. Sorry if I offended you. But lets face it. We wernt designed to be gay
What do you mean humans weren't designed to be gay? The penis is perfectly shaped for anal sex.
If you think there's something wrong with that, then yer wrong. Dude, we have real video tapes of male Lions having hot sex, it's pretty clear that being gay is just as natural (but quite less common) then being straight.
The Buzz, the source of the OP, is a right-wing propaganda product. I would not be surprised if the article in question is not, in fact, partly or entirely fabricated. It's a product of Glenn Beck, Inc, a right-wing pundit and spin-doctor here in the US. Visiting the site prompts you to pay for a subscription to this and other Glenn Beck services..
Interesting thing, though, the siblings of gay individuals tend to exhibit heightened fecundity when having children, having higher instances of multiple births and the like. Almost as if our genetic code was designed to accommodate a "non-breeding" portion of the populace. Hmm...
Wyrmalla wrote:Does this site just subsist on producing articles about injusticies against christians? It seems there's been a few threads of late with similar backgrounds popping up with that site being the source.
Glenn Beck launched it. Take from that what you will.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lucian Greymark wrote:
Sorry but homosexuality is wrong, there look its out. Sorry if I offended you. But lets face it. We wernt designed to be gay
And yet here are all these people, being gay.
If we weren't designed to be gay, what were we designed to do, and why are some people gay?
You're confusing "basic moral values" with "the moral values I want everyone to have because I have them".
Who cares about what two consenting adults decide to do with their lives? You're not getting hurt by them being gay. Society isn't burning down around them while they enjoy each others' company in a non-platonic sense.
Society isn't burning down around them while they enjoy each others' company in a non-platonic sense.
Assuming that anything is possible, then theoretically someplace somewhere, the world is burning because people are gay. Obviously, we must support this someplace by refusing to support homosexuality, less it theoretically burn. Maybe.
Society isn't burning down around them while they enjoy each others' company in a non-platonic sense.
Assuming that anything is possible, then theoretically someplace somewhere, the world is burning because people are gay. Obviously, we must support this someplace by refusing to support homosexuality, less it theoretically burn. Maybe.
For a start not posting pictures that anyone can see, including those who are offended by them and not to mention children, I suggest a mod removes those pictures.
There are also no people of colour in the mural *insert being offended here*
Too many people get offended about too many things. Our society is falling apart with devisiveness, and everyone getting worked up about nothing. In the past few years politicians have been "demanding" apologies for nonsense from things political opposition says.
The USA is turning into a nation of footy players, whining about thier skinned knees and bruised egos.
Lucian Greymark wrote:For a start not posting pictures that anyone can see, including those who are offended by them and not to mention children, I suggest a mod removes those pictures.
Wait, you're complaining about seeing seemingly offensive, but not obscene, images in a thread about people getting needlessly butt hurt about seeing an apparently offensive, but not obscene, image?
Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:
So you concede that this is hot?
Lucian Greymark wrote:
Sorry but homosexuality is wrong, there look its out. Sorry if I offended you. But lets face it. We wernt designed to be gay
Male Bottlenose Dolphins often form lifelong pair-bonds with each other. Adolescent and younger males typically live in all-male groups in which homosexual activity is common; within these groups, a male begins to develop a strong bond with a particular partner (usually of the same age) with whom he will spend the rest of his life.
Clearly God created Dolphin to violate the sanctity of marriage.
The offence was caused by the school not automatically considering the traditional Christian concept of life progress to be the only one worthy of depiction in a public forum.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:There are also no people of colour in the mural *insert being offended here*
That is what I first thought it could be about when I saw the picture in the OP (before I looked at it closely and realised it was one person going through the stages of their life)
Also shocked to see that the only homosexual pictures to have been posted so far have been white males. Come on people, this is not really helping the cause! Get some diversity in there!
Lucian Greymark wrote:For a start not posting pictures that anyone can see, including those who are offended by them and not to mention children, I suggest a mod removes those pictures.
I am strongly opposed to animal cruelty and your avatar depicting a wolfs skull offends me. I demand the mods remove it.
Since a number of people were offended by the pictures on this page I have replaced them with a gay man kissing a lesbian woman who are both extreme furries.
Kilkrazy wrote:Since a number of people were offended by the pictures on this page I have replaced them with a gay man kissing a lesbian woman who are both extreme furries.
Lucian Greymark wrote:
Sorry but homosexuality is wrong, there look its out. Sorry if I offended you. But lets face it. We wernt designed to be gay
Well first thing we weren't designed to do anything, check out any biology textbook for details.
Secondly even if we were designed I'd say there is pretty strong arguments that "the gay" is intended functionality. Why else would the male anus be so tight, warm perfect for providing pleasure to the penetrating penis and located to nerve endings that would make things pleasurable for the penetrated. Women have been shown to on average, have higher manual dexterity and attention to body language, very important for doing business down there. Couple this with an widespread inability for the male of the species to find and/or care about the clitoris, it makes a pretty strong that case that either any supposed designer either wanted some homosexuals or was woefully incompetent at QAing their product.
Sorry but homosexuality is wrong, there look its out. Sorry if I offended you. But lets face it. We wernt designed to be gay
You are implying that it is immoral to fly in planes because we weren't designed to do so... Or that it is immoral to deviate the nature of wheat into bread, or that it is immoral to have no children.
And while sexuality does have the purpose of procreation, it isn't it's only purpose.
Also, strictly speaking, according to Natural Law philosophy, homosexuality is a frustration of one's nature, not an exacerbation or a corruption. It isn't considered immoral, more like a tensed state where one ignores the request of his intrinsic nature.
Lucian Greymark wrote:
Sorry but homosexuality is wrong, there look its out. Sorry if I offended you. But lets face it. We wernt designed to be gay
And yet here are all these people, being gay.
If we weren't designed to be gay, what were we designed to do, and why are some people gay?
This thread is making my brain hurt as well as question my sexual orientation, thank you Dakkadakka!
Anyways Dogma proposed a question about the origin of homosexuality in humans and the answer has been given, homosexual aliens. If you want proof then check out the history channel.
Now to be serious, there are actually biological differences in homosexuals and heterosexuals, or at least differences that occur more often in homosexual individuals. For example a homosexual males have a higher chance of having the ear canal design of a female, and for some reason there is a higher percentage of left handed homosexuals than left handed heterosexuals. It may all just come down to genetics and neurobiology and if it does won't that be truly something.
Only if you shift the semantics of 'natural' a little bit.
Naturally (in the sense of according to our physical and intellectual definition), then no, ignorance is as natural as any sickness, which isn't. This is the type of 'Nature' the critics of homosexuality most often refer to
Naturally (in the sense of 'as a part of causal nature'), then yes, ignorance is natural because it's an unavoidable state.
Both acceptations of the term have a 'moral' aspect to it which should prevent its use to justify hatred and ignorance.
I honestly don't see why people hate or dislike the notion of gay people as long they leave me alone and not harass me them about being gay and or trying to "turn" me, I'm completely alright with their existence. Honestly if we can't live in a world where we can all get along then we're screwed.
Is it natural for humans to have sex with animals? Just wondering..because some of the descriptions I have seen in this thread make me think so, since it could be a pleasurable experience. I mean if animals were designed with tight little orifices that are pleasurable to the human male, why not start dating sheep. Or let me flip it and say maybe women having sex with horses or donkeys because they have long penis' so hey why not?
generalgrog wrote:Is it natural for humans to have sex with animals? Just wondering..because some of the descriptions I have seen in this thread make me think so, since it could be a pleasurable experience. I mean if animals were designed with tight little orifices that are pleasurable to the human male, why not start dating sheep. Or let me flip it and say maybe women having sex with horses or donkeys because they have long penis' so hey why not?
GG
This is extremely homophobic and horrible. Furthermore, this stance is just wrong for two reasons.
1. Homosexuality occurs in nature. Sex with animals does not.
2. Humans are smart enough to be consensual with other humans. Animals are not smart enough to be consensual with humans.
GG, people like you are relics of an old, horrible age where rape victims were forced to marry their rapists, women who had lost their virginity before their wedding day were stoned and gays were beaten to death. Thankfully, every day less and less people agree with stances like yours.
Sorry if I'm getting emotional, but homophobia really bothers me, man.
Monster Rain wrote:This thread is about to get so wonderful.
This post contributes nothing to the thread. And, if you're trying to be witty, you failed.
generalgrog wrote:Is it natural for humans to have sex with animals? Just wondering..because some of the descriptions I have seen in this thread make me think so, since it could be a pleasurable experience. I mean if animals were designed with tight little orifices that are pleasurable to the human male, why not start dating sheep. Or let me flip it and say maybe women having sex with horses or donkeys because they have long penis' so hey why not?
GG
I can't say I'm surprised that it's you who makes the jump from "homosexual activity is acceptable and most likely natural, given that pretty much every species on Earth has been documented to engage in it" to "well if homosexuality is okay, then maybe we should all start copulating with animals!".
For the record? Bestiality is a fairly wide practice, and has been for a long time.
Is it kinda out there? Sure.
But equating homosexuality with bestiality is like equating pedophilia with Catholicism.
generalgrog wrote:Is it natural for humans to have sex with animals? Just wondering..because some of the descriptions I have seen in this thread make me think so, since it could be a pleasurable experience. I mean if animals were designed with tight little orifices that are pleasurable to the human male, why not start dating sheep. Or let me flip it and say maybe women having sex with horses or donkeys because they have long penis' so hey why not?
but really who cares what someone does in their own house. my philosophy is "don't ask, don't tell" I won't ask you or what you are sleeping with, please don't tell me who or what you are sleeping with.
Monster Rain wrote:This thread is about to get so wonderful.
This post contributes nothing to the thread. And, if you're trying to be witty, you failed.
If it helps, your post is exactly the kind of thing that I was referring to when I said that. By which I mean GG's post was a timebomb, and it was only a matter of time until the flame war was joined in full.
Spoiler:
I don't equate homosexuality with beastiality, in case you were jumping to conclusions.
LoneLictor wrote:1. Homosexuality occurs in nature. Sex with animals does not.
generalgrog wrote:Is it natural for humans to have sex with animals? Just wondering..because some of the descriptions I have seen in this thread make me think so, since it could be a pleasurable experience. I mean if animals were designed with tight little orifices that are pleasurable to the human male, why not start dating sheep. Or let me flip it and say maybe women having sex with horses or donkeys because they have long penis' so hey why not?
generalgrog wrote:Is it natural for humans to have sex with animals? Just wondering..because some of the descriptions I have seen in this thread make me think so, since it could be a pleasurable experience. I mean if animals were designed with tight little orifices that are pleasurable to the human male, why not start dating sheep. Or let me flip it and say maybe women having sex with horses or donkeys because they have long penis' so hey why not?
generalgrog wrote:Is it natural for humans to have sex with animals? Just wondering..because some of the descriptions I have seen in this thread make me think so, since it could be a pleasurable experience. I mean if animals were designed with tight little orifices that are pleasurable to the human male, why not start dating sheep. Or let me flip it and say maybe women having sex with horses or donkeys because they have long penis' so hey why not?
GG
Yeah. Nobody is actually arguing "It's right because it feels good" that's silly reasoning for anything. It's just a way of mocking a stupid stance taken by horrible people.
"Homophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires, a series of psychology studies demonstrates."
generalgrog wrote:Is it natural for humans to have sex with animals?
If people do it, then yes. The use of "natural" in this sense is just a euphemism for "Things I'm comfortable with."
generalgrog wrote:
Just wondering..because some of the descriptions I have seen in this thread make me think so, since it could be a pleasurable experience. I mean if animals were designed with tight little orifices that are pleasurable to the human male, why not start dating sheep. Or let me flip it and say maybe women having sex with horses or donkeys because they have long penis' so hey why not?
If you're attracted to the concept, go nuts. Though there's a decent argument that its abusive to the animal, as it cannot consent, and therefore reprehensible; basically the same argument by which pedophilia and rape are rendered reprehensible.
LordofHats wrote:This raises an important philosophical question. When Captain Kirk set forth into the stars to nail green space babes, was it sex or beastiality?
Xenosiality.
Space Babes aren't animals. (well they might be, we'd have to ask Kirk about that )
Actually given his hand position I believe he may be bragging.
The correct caption for this picture is:
Rectum! Damn near killed him.
The origial name for the race was "Throbbit".
True story...
Laughed so hard I nearly died.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:This raises an important philosophical question. When Captain Kirk set forth into the stars to nail green space babes, was it sex or beastiality?
There is interspecies sex in nature, but the issue of consent makes human/animal sex categorically different.
It's difficult for me to imagine how a person could liken bestiality to homosexuality. Maybe it's a failure of empathy on my part. Maybe it's something wrong with them.
Mannahnin wrote:It's difficult for me to imagine how a person could liken bestiality to homosexuality. Maybe it's a failure of empathy on my part. Maybe it's something wrong with them.
I think GG is getting undeserved gak for his reply. His answer was a proper question, to the person who claimed homosexuality was natural because the anus is capable of providing pleasure, because it was tight. However ridiculous it may be to actually link homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality when discussing what they really are, if your reasoning for saying it's natural is that it's a tight enough hole, then yes, horribly, homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality become equivalent, because ALL sexualities becomes devoid of moral implications.
Cherry-picking one dubious answer, apparently offered with salacious and humorous intent from amongst multiple more reasonable and obvious ones? You think he's getting undeserved gak? Welcome to the forum. You may want to check out his posting history.
Meh, it's a fair enough question, since it was framed as a question. We are more or less discussing banging at this point, so it is in the overall sphere - even if it is found distasteful. Personally I think animals are the moral equivalent of fuzzy robots, if you want to bang an animal go for it. As long as you keep it where I can't see it. I mean, we've clearly decided on a societal level that "freedom" is to be valued more than "morality" (or at least the illusion thereof) so might as well go for it with gusto.
I don't think that freedom is a higher priority than morality. Freedom is one thing I value, but other things are more important. Societally I think most of us feel that way.
'course they aren't actually robots, I just think they are the moral equivalent thereof - lacking higher thought or "soulless" if you want to come at it from that angle. gak, I like animals (well, mammals and a couple of the more badass birds), but I like robots too. A bit off topic, but there it is. And I have to respectfully disagree that we value morality over freedom societaly - we may value the idea of morality, but on a large scale we don't seem capable of living to that standard. I personally blame walkmans. Ruined kids forever.
Beh no. Animals are simply not a proper outlet for sexual urges. I mean, I wouldn't throw the guy in prison for years, but definitely charge him with animal abuse and put him in a ward for a while.
And animals are definitely not comparable to robots. God, if I have to make it my only goal throughout my career as a philo teacher, it's going to be to convert the greatest amount of young, fragile minds away from that Cartesian point of view.
Hold on.....we had someone post about how dolphins enjoyed homosexual bonding in nature and lions had homosexual urges in nature. I know of quite a few lapdogs that like to get it on with peoples legs...and believe me....they initiated the leg sex. So this proves that animals do like to engage in sex with humans...so what if it starts with leg sex... if it moves on to other more intimate pleasures who are we to be bigoted about it.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Wasn't his answer directed toward that particular post? That was what I was getting.
Anyhow, if he is a known homophobic, then by all means, proceed with the well-deserved derision.
Kovnik...you are new here, and yes I have been accused of homophobia by some of the posters on here. In their minds any type of oposition to homosexuality on moral grounds = homophobe. The point of my post was to poke a little fun at the idea that homosexual stuff that we see in nature somehow "proves" that it is acceptable for humans. It really sheds light on the different world view that people have.
So if, as a society we decide to make homosexuality equivalent to heterosexuality...why stop there? I think that is the basis of my satirical posts.
generalgrog wrote:So if, as a society we decide to make homosexuality equivalent to heterosexuality...why stop there? I think that is the basis of my satirical posts.
It comes down to two things: Love and Tolerance. If you can't do the first, then achieving the second, one day at a time, will improve everyones' lives.
From such innocent beginnings this very quickly became an awesome thread
I was going to chime in on the original topic (you know, the mural that everyone seems to have forgotten about ) but I don't see much point in that anymore. I will say it anyway though; it seems to me that noone was offended by the painting, they simply got offended on the off chance that someone else might have got offended, and so got offended on their behalf. This, I think is something that seems to happen alot now; and is why so many stupid and petty things are deemed as "offensive"; not because people are offended, but because people are offended on behalf of other people who might, potentially be offended.
As to homosexuality, which seems to be the topic at hand now; as other posters have said, there's nothing wrong with it. I don't want to have anything to do with it, but what happens behind closed doors is other peoples business. And if that extends to animals? Well then I definitely don't want anything to do with it; but again, it is not my business to know.
As an aside, I live fairly close to Wales, which has something of a reputation
Kovnik...you are new here, and yes I have been accused of homophobia by some of the posters on here. In their minds any type of oposition to homosexuality on moral grounds = homophobe.
Yes. That's pretty much the definition of homophobia.
Kovnik...you are new here, and yes I have been accused of homophobia by some of the posters on here. In their minds any type of oposition to homosexuality on moral grounds = homophobe.
Yes. That's pretty much the definition of homophobia.
Whats awesome is how you can be so consistently wrong. Your statement blows chunks in comparison to actual definitions.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Discrimination portal
v · t · e
Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people who are identified as or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions[1][2][3] refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear. Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination[1][2] and violence on the basis of a non-heterosexual orientation. In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."[4]
Homophobia is the hatred or fear of homosexuals - that is, lesbians and gay men - sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility. Homophobia is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life. Organized hate groups have viciously attacked homosexuals and have used especially violent language in attempting to persecute and intimidate them.
Further, you can be opposed to homosexuality without being discriminatory towards it. I'm opposed to vegetables but I'm not discriminatory to them. Vegetarians on the other hand...
generalgrog wrote:So if, as a society we decide to make homosexuality equivalent to heterosexuality...why stop there? I think that is the basis of my satirical posts.
You really love your slippery slopes, don't you?
They all do, and it literally is the worst argument ever.
If we start letting consenting adults marry each other... the next thing you know were raping babies!
Frazzled wrote:
Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people who are identified as or perceived as being homosexual.
I'm pretty sure "Your mere existence is immoral" counts as a negative attitude. It also easily counts as "Contempt" per the second sentence or at the very least "Aversion". There is no way you can "Object to homosexuality on moral grounds" and not be a homophone would probably have been a better way to phrase what I said.
Frazzled wrote: Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people who are identified as or perceived as being homosexual.
I'm pretty sure "Your mere existence is immoral" counts as a negative attitude. It also easily counts as "Contempt" per the second sentence or at the very least "Aversion".
He didn't cite a negative attitude or feeling. He said he was opposed to it on moral grounds.
Again, I don't have negative feelings towards vegetables. I'm opposed to them on moral grounds and common math. Thats calories better spent on cake.
If negative feeling constitutes the minimum low bar for discrimination then we're literally walking bigots committing hated bigotry every hour, even homosexuals. After all, becuase they prefer same sex relationships they, by nature, have negative feelings towards heterosexuals.
In fact, your argument only proves the Cannarus is the only non bigoted hatemonger amongst all of us. Of course, if Cannarus has a preference for blue instead of mocha he's just a color bigot. Cannerus don't be a color hata!
Frazzled wrote:
He didn't cite a negative attitude or feeling. He said he was opposed to it on moral grounds.
Well if thinking something is inherently wrong doesn't count as a negative attitude or feeling towards that something, I really have no idea what it is.
If negative feeling constitutes the minimum low bar for discrimination then we're literally walking bigots committing hated bigotry every hour, even homosexuals. After all, becuase they prefer same sex relationships they, by nature, have negative feelings towards heterosexuals.
You're the one who supplied the definition that set the bar at "Negative Feelings". That was the standard you provided, I assume to prove that saying "Your very existence [being a homosexual] is immoral" isn't homophobic.
"Homophobia is defined as having negative feelings about homosexuals " is your argument. It came from a post of yours I quoted, where you provided the definition of homophobia and that was it.
Well if thinking something is inherently wrong doesn't count as a negative attitude or feeling towards that something, I really have no idea what it is.
Albatross wrote:Haven't you heard, Chongara? Being opposed to something is a positive reaction towards it.
Frazzled, I think you've mixed up your ulcer medication with the crazy pills again. Go lie down, it'll soon blow over.
Thats a common misnomer. One type is red, the other is blue. You take the red pills in the morning and the blue pills in the evening.
OTT but if anyone saw some crazy homeless looking guy running down the street sunday morning in the rain being dragged by two dogs (one of which appeared to be yodelling) and carrying an ancient wiener dog in his arm like a football shouting "the Old Man is Too Slow! The Old Man is Too Slow!" at you, you weren't hallucinating. *
*The Old Man was too slow, so I had to pick him up as we trotted back to the house. Rodney freaked when lightning hit nearby and started yodelling, and I didn't want Tbone to get sick. Even in the rain Rusty was still hot and the Old Man was baring his teeth and growling all the way back. he does not suffer indignity lightly.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Beh no. Animals are simply not a proper outlet for sexual urges. I mean, I wouldn't throw the guy in prison for years, but definitely charge him with animal abuse and put him in a ward for a while.
And animals are definitely not comparable to robots. God, if I have to make it my only goal throughout my career as a philo teacher, it's going to be to convert the greatest amount of young, fragile minds away from that Cartesian point of view.
Isn't it funny though that sex with animals is considered animal abuse, but everyone seems to be fine with animals being kept in cages and slaughtered for food. Crabs boiled alive. Testing drugs and cosmetics on animals. They're worn as clothing. Baby eggs killed for flue shots.
Don't you think, given the choice, A dog would rather live in your house licking up peanut butter, then getting murdered in a humane society?
for the record again: don't ask, don't tell. I just don't think its any of my business what you do with your animals.
I object to thinly veiled hated and paranoia that tries to hide behind a shield of "moral superiority"
Many peoples morals are ill-conceived, illogical, and dangerous.
So yes you can be as crazy as you wanna be, but expect to be called on it when you make unfounded statements in line with the typical homophobe agenda and talking points..
generalgrog wrote:Hold on.....we had someone post about how dolphins enjoyed homosexual bonding in nature and lions had homosexual urges in nature. I know of quite a few lapdogs that like to get it on with peoples legs...and believe me....they initiated the leg sex. So this proves that animals do like to engage in sex with humans...so what if it starts with leg sex... if it moves on to other more intimate pleasures who are we to be bigoted about it.
GG
That's not a dog trying to have sex with your leg, that's a dog attempting to dominate you as a lower member of the pack.
Lucian Greymark wrote:Look at it this way, heterosexual relationships are becomeing, sadly, only on par with homosexual relationships when it comes to reputation, rather than above them. A glance at britan will do this thread good. In England the terms "Husband and wife" are being banned state marriages because the term is "Insensitive" The term is now "Spouse and spouse" (Or will be soon) This is a good example of how our world is changing, in myopinion for the worse. This thread will only come across as a troll thread if you cannot discuss things like this calmly. Honestly there is no reason why mature people shouldnt be able to discuss things like this wherever they want. Regardless in realtion to the OP te picture the kid drew has nothing offensive on it, lets face it you pick 4 out of 5 kids these days and ask them to draw themselves with their perants and you will get a similar picture, the school is being a group of idiots.
That's a rather fiery statement there; are you implying that it's an outrage that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are 'on par'? They should be unequal?
generalgrog wrote:Hold on.....we had someone post about how dolphins enjoyed homosexual bonding in nature and lions had homosexual urges in nature. I know of quite a few lapdogs that like to get it on with peoples legs...and believe me....they initiated the leg sex. So this proves that animals do like to engage in sex with humans...so what if it starts with leg sex... if it moves on to other more intimate pleasures who are we to be bigoted about it.
GG
That's not a dog trying to have sex with your leg, that's a dog attempting to dominate you as a lower member of the pack.
He humps you, you hump him twice as hard
He sends your trousers to the dry cleaners, you send that to the maternity ward!
It is obvious you have never caught a Lobster before.
Those fethers have claws the size of an adult man's hand, and can tear flesh and even break bones if they are large enough.
I have the scars to show that Lobsters get what they deserve. fething sea bugs...
You can't help but see them anytime you walk into a red lobster. but no I've never personally caught one, I've ate one, didn't care for the taste. But just because I choose not to eat them, doesn't mean I have the right tell anyone else not to. I just find it odd what some people consider animal abuse and what they're ok with when it comes to the treatment of animals.
It is obvious you have never caught a Lobster before.
Those fethers have claws the size of an adult man's hand, and can tear flesh and even break bones if they are large enough.
I have the scars to show that Lobsters get what they deserve. fething delicious sea bugs...
Fixed that for you.
My dislike of arthropods makes me totally ok with boiling them alive, the only kinds I don't actively try to kill are house spiders (they eat flies, I hate flying insects even more than the other kinds) and ladybirds (because I was trained from a young age that they are good for the garden).
It is obvious you have never caught a Lobster before.
Those fethers have claws the size of an adult man's hand, and can tear flesh and even break bones if they are large enough.
I have the scars to show that Lobsters get what they deserve. fething sea bugs...
You can't help but see them anytime you walk into a red lobster. but no I've never personally caught one, I've ate one, didn't care for the taste. But just because I choose not to eat them, doesn't mean I have the right tell anyone else not to. I just find it odd what some people consider animal abuse and what they're ok with when it comes to the treatment of animals.
I am fine with your opinion to not eat them. I can understand the reasons, and I can sympathize with the cause, seeing some of the animals that I used to see on family vacations to a friends farm in a fridge.
However, I feel little sympathy for lobsters. It's hard to go swimming with the crabs and lobbies in the ocean trying to cut your toes off. They also eat all the muscles and oysters the men of my town try to grow, depriving them of an income.
So I do feel sorry for killing them. They have lives and families. We only kill the adults and throw back the children and pregnant women. It is, however, a great menace to our community,
That and the sharks in the harbor who have poisonous spines and eat the fish. donkey-caves.
It is obvious you have never caught a Lobster before.
Those fethers have claws the size of an adult man's hand, and can tear flesh and even break bones if they are large enough.
I have the scars to show that Lobsters get what they deserve. fething sea bugs...
You can't help but see them anytime you walk into a red lobster. but no I've never personally caught one, I've ate one, didn't care for the taste. But just because I choose not to eat them, doesn't mean I have the right tell anyone else not to. I just find it odd what some people consider animal abuse and what they're ok with when it comes to the treatment of animals.
I am fine with your opinion to not eat them. I can understand the reasons, and I can sympathize with the cause, seeing some of the animals that I used to see on family vacations to a friends farm in a fridge.
However, I feel little sympathy for lobsters. It's hard to go swimming with the crabs and lobbies in the ocean trying to cut your toes off. They also eat all the muscles and oysters the men of my town try to grow, depriving them of an income.
So I do feel sorry for killing them. They have lives and families. We only kill the adults and throw back the children and pregnant women. It is, however, a great menace to our community,
That and the sharks in the harbor who have poisonous spines and eat the fish. donkey-caves.
Hey look at that, we agree to live and let live. I have no problems with you doing any of the stuff you listed or your reasons for it, because it in no way affects me.
Some people on this forum achieve the affect of making me feel dirty I share the hobby with them. Which has never been done on any other forum I've been on, from Doctor WHo, Blake's 7 and other modelling sites. As someone who has long associated with people in SF and fantasy fandom, I've found it to be one of the most open and accepting groups of people in which people of all sorts could mix and were largely free of judgement. To me there is a strong crossover in the nerdy hobbies and interests with a free and accepting attitude towards sexuality and people of all backgrounds.
Yet I don't find that to be the case within wargaming even of the SF and Fantasy variety, if Dakka is a fair reflection of that, and I find that really really sad. People like GG and Lucian Greymark utterly disgust me with their vile, judgemental views on things like homosexuality of which they seem particularly preoccupied with saying the most unpleasant things time and again.
Homosexuality cannot be equivalenced to bestiality or, as I recall in the past, paedophilia. I find people expressing such views are repellent. It's horrible.
I simply can't see a moral aspect to homosexuality.
The value of reproduction is only absolute when not reproducing would endanger the specie (if one puts value on the existence of humanity as a whole) or when it hurt others (if one puts value to the individual first).
At this point in time, choosing not to reproduce (which is what homosexuals tend to do, because, really, homosexuality is only a minor obstacle to reproduction) no longer endanger anyone. It's a personal liberty.
AustonT wrote:I aspire to reproduce as often as possible.
Is that a higher purpose?
I'd say no. A higher purpose would be to produce the greatest quality of offspring, not the greatest number. Cause there, the rat got us beat no matter what.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Some people on this forum achieve the affect of making me feel dirty I share the hobby with them. Which has never been done on any other forum I've been on, from Doctor WHo, Blake's 7 and other modelling sites. As someone who has long associated with people in SF and fantasy fandom, I've found it to be one of the most open and accepting groups of people in which people of all sorts could mix and were largely free of judgement. To me there is a strong crossover in the nerdy hobbies and interests with a free and accepting attitude towards sexuality and people of all backgrounds.
Yet I don't find that to be the case within wargaming even of the SF and Fantasy variety, if Dakka is a fair reflection of that, and I find that really really sad. People like GG and Lucian Greymark utterly disgust me with their vile, judgemental views on things like homosexuality of which they seem particularly preoccupied with saying the most unpleasant things time and again.
Homosexuality cannot be equivalenced to bestiality or, as I recall in the past, paedophilia. I find people expressing such views are repellent. It's horrible.
Dont blame hobbyists or Sci Fi enthusiasts! Thats terribly unfair, don't even blame people!
I like to copy Prof Dawkins and Hitch and go to the root of the problem.
Why ponder the hows and the whys when you can just blame Religion? It makes sense to do so, the least complex answer is the most likely one. Without it, bigotry against gay people would be much much rarer and that's an indisputable fact. Sure SOME people hate gays because of their own bizarre reasons, but when I hear an American doing it, 90% of the time, its because they are parroting what their preachers have said, and needless to say, GG and his chums are young earthers. They can dispute it all they want, but if 99% of the members of their church think like they do, how does it make sense to put this reprehensible behaviour down to individuals or even more stupidly, people that like Doctor Who or Warhammer?!
Its not, its their Religion that causes this hatred, they are following what they perceive to be the rules of their precious faith, and its one of the great many reasons I have such loathing for organised Religion.
Why do they care so much about what other people get up to?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote:Don't dictate to me what my ultimate purpose is.
My ultimate purpose is to not catch any STDs.
My other ultimate purpose is to finish painting my Black Templars.
Exactly, we don't HAVE a purpose! There is no "grand plan" your purpose is whatever you decide you want it to be.
And its not like our species is rare.. gak, there are so many people now that you could argue that our numbers will result in our near demise and cause the starvation and suffering of billions, at which point, surely the purpose is to NOT have any more kids?
Ok, but you cannot deny that from an evolutionary viewpoint, a living being's primary goal is to reproduce and carry on the species. Not from you as an individual's goal, but as a whole species.
TheRobotLol wrote:Ok, but you cannot deny that from an evolutionary viewpoint, a living being's primary goal is to reproduce and carry on the species. Not from you as an individual's goal, but as a whole species.
From an evolutionary standpoint, yes, but from that standpoint, the individual is meaningless. As long as enough members of the specie carry on the reproductive role, evolutionary values won't be negated.
Also, we've stopped being subject to normal evolutionary vectors a long time ago. There is almost no longer any moral value to the simple fact of reproducing oneself.
generalgrog wrote:Is it natural for humans to have sex with animals? Just wondering..because some of the descriptions I have seen in this thread make me think so, since it could be a pleasurable experience. I mean if animals were designed with tight little orifices that are pleasurable to the human male, why not start dating sheep. Or let me flip it and say maybe women having sex with horses or donkeys because they have long penis' so hey why not?
GG
Does anybody else feel the need to take a shower whenever GG posts something about homosexuals? His comments are so full of hate they make Hitler wince-and he's spent the last decade and a half with either a pineapple or a flask shoved up his crapper (Adam Sandler's: Little Nicky, for those too young to get the reference). Grog, quit tearing down an entire group of people with lifestyles different from yours-it's disgusting Am I asking you to like it? No, just accept it. It's their lives, not yours, you have no control over it and your hate-speech against those different from you is one of the big reasons people dislike all Christians: because the extremists like you give the rest of us a bad name. You may not be able to follow God's commandment of "love thy neighbor," but at least try to accept him.
And Lucien, you're setting yourself up in the same camp as Grog. It's not somewhere you want to be.
Yet I don't find that to be the case within wargaming even of the SF and Fantasy variety, if Dakka is a fair reflection of that, and I find that really really sad. People like GG and Lucian Greymark utterly disgust me with their vile, judgemental views on things like homosexuality of which they seem particularly preoccupied with saying the most unpleasant things time and again.
Homosexuality cannot be equivalenced to bestiality or, as I recall in the past, paedophilia. I find people expressing such views are repellent. It's horrible.
People who share hobbies with you have no relation to you as a person so you shouldn't feel dirty or blame the hobby. You will find people with views like this all over the world. It would be the equivalent of vegetarians or painters feeling dirty because Hitler was both.
mattyrm wrote:Its not, its their Religion that causes this hatred, they are following what they perceive to be the rules of their precious faith, and its one of the great many reasons I have such loathing for organised Religion.
I know of no religion that explictly tells its followers to hate people due to their sexual tendancies. You are completely right when you use the word 'percieve'. It is not the religion telling people to be homophobic, it is down to those who read it who take it to mean that they should be homophobic, and therefore you could argue that they would be a homophobe anyway if that is the first thing that springs to their minds. So why loath religion if it is the fault of those who misinterpret what it is saying that are causing the problem?
mattyrm wrote:Its not, its their Religion that causes this hatred, they are following what they perceive to be the rules of their precious faith, and its one of the great many reasons I have such loathing for organised Religion.
I know of no religion that explictly tells its followers to hate people due to their sexual tendancies. You are completely right when you use the word 'percieve'. It is not the religion telling people to be homophobic, it is down to those who read it who take it to mean that they should be homophobic, and therefore you could argue that they would be a homophobe anyway if that is the first thing that springs to their minds. So why loath religion if it is the fault of those who misinterpret what it is saying that are causing the problem?
The bible says homosexuality is wrong quite a few times, it even has the whole "sodom" thing that gave us the word sodomite.
mattyrm wrote:Its not, its their Religion that causes this hatred, they are following what they perceive to be the rules of their precious faith, and its one of the great many reasons I have such loathing for organised Religion.
I know of no religion that explictly tells its followers to hate people due to their sexual tendancies. You are completely right when you use the word 'percieve'. It is not the religion telling people to be homophobic, it is down to those who read it who take it to mean that they should be homophobic, and therefore you could argue that they would be a homophobe anyway if that is the first thing that springs to their minds. So why loath religion if it is the fault of those who misinterpret what it is saying that are causing the problem?
Well of course its their perception, there are loads of nice Christians, the homophobic thing seems to be a uniquely American Christian thing, namely Southern Baptists. I know there is a little from some Catholics, and plenty from Muslims, but in the States it seems to be that sort of 20-30 million strong, Tea Party/guns are great/climate change is lies/young earth/hate fags (they all believe the exact same thing) crowd.
mattyrm wrote:Its not, its their Religion that causes this hatred, they are following what they perceive to be the rules of their precious faith, and its one of the great many reasons I have such loathing for organised Religion.
I know of no religion that explictly tells its followers to hate people due to their sexual tendancies. You are completely right when you use the word 'percieve'. It is not the religion telling people to be homophobic, it is down to those who read it who take it to mean that they should be homophobic, and therefore you could argue that they would be a homophobe anyway if that is the first thing that springs to their minds. So why loath religion if it is the fault of those who misinterpret what it is saying that are causing the problem?
The bible says homosexuality is wrong quite a few times, it even has the whole "sodom" thing that gave us the word sodomite.
The Bible was written by man-I'd take it with a grain of salt. I'd put more stock in it if things like 'The Book of Judas' made it in, rather than be ignored because we needed a scapegoat for Jesus' death. I wouldn't be surprised if a neighboring state of Sodom and Gamora came in, destroyed both places, killed everyone and warned other people to stay away, saying God smited it and wanted nobody to enter the area, thus bringing about the 'fire and brimstone' story in the Bible. People DID accept anything "done by God" as fact, regardless of evidence or lack there-of.
mattyrm wrote:Its not, its their Religion that causes this hatred, they are following what they perceive to be the rules of their precious faith, and its one of the great many reasons I have such loathing for organised Religion.
I know of no religion that explictly tells its followers to hate people due to their sexual tendancies. You are completely right when you use the word 'percieve'. It is not the religion telling people to be homophobic, it is down to those who read it who take it to mean that they should be homophobic, and therefore you could argue that they would be a homophobe anyway if that is the first thing that springs to their minds. So why loath religion if it is the fault of those who misinterpret what it is saying that are causing the problem?
The bible says homosexuality is wrong quite a few times, it even has the whole "sodom" thing that gave us the word sodomite.
This is true, but Christians should not hate everyone that does wrong. It even says to love your neighbour as yourself. This applying to everyone, it gives no excuse for people to be homophobic and yet claim that they are so because their religion says so, because it doesn't.
Yet I don't find that to be the case within wargaming even of the SF and Fantasy variety, if Dakka is a fair reflection of that, and I find that really really sad. People like GG and Lucian Greymark utterly disgust me with their vile, judgemental views on things like homosexuality of which they seem particularly preoccupied with saying the most unpleasant things time and again.
Homosexuality cannot be equivalenced to bestiality or, as I recall in the past, paedophilia. I find people expressing such views are repellent. It's horrible.
People who share hobbies with you have no relation to you as a person so you shouldn't feel dirty or blame the hobby. You will find people with views like this all over the world. It would be the equivalent of vegetarians or painters feeling dirty because Hitler was both.
Common misconception: Hitler wasn't vegetarian, although his doctors recommended him a vegetarian diet as a cure for his chronic flatulence.
The bible says homosexuality is wrong quite a few times, it even has the whole "sodom" thing that gave us the word sodomite.
I'm going to pont out to the MODS that if people insist on bringing religion into discussions like this, then it is fair game to be refuted and attacked in kind.
You can't use religion as a basis for one's argument and then hide behind it and expect some exception to rebuttal.
So with that being said:
The bible says a lot of things.
The bible is also a work of dubious origin and validity that very well might be fiction. Not everyone accepts it as anything but such (a ficticious work), nor bases their lives off of it.
If you place some special significance on it good for you, but to be honest I see it as little more then an ancient fairy tale.
I don't believe in ghosts or magical powers or any other such things. Your mileage may vary...
Corpsesarefun wrote:I didn't bring religion into it, I'm just refuting the "no religion says homosexuality is wrong" statement.
Maybe all the people so worked up about what the bible says about homosexuality could spend that energy more productively railing against phedophiles in the priesthood...
Corpsesarefun wrote:I didn't bring religion into it, I'm just refuting the "no religion says homosexuality is wrong" statement.
These guys not only say their religion says its wrong, but god hates them for it.
Oh, PLEASE tell me they're going to be protesting in Michigan on the 23rd. It means they'll probably be there a few days earlier. I have a big truck and can...persuade them not to make it to the rally. I'll do the world a favor. Fellow Christians, you're welcome-I'll get rid of a portion of the people giving us a bad name.
All jokes aside, these people are disgusting. I hate hate-mongers. Ironic statement, no?
Corpsesarefun wrote:I didn't bring religion into it, I'm just refuting the "no religion says homosexuality is wrong" statement.
I never said that, I said that no religion tells people to hate homosexuals.
sirlynchmob wrote:
Corpsesarefun wrote:I didn't bring religion into it, I'm just refuting the "no religion says homosexuality is wrong" statement.
These guys not only say their religion says its wrong, but god hates them for it.
What these guys say is wrong.
I agree, but christians agree that these guys are also christians.
I'm a Christian, and although I don't know these guys well enough to decide whether they are Christians or not what they are doing is un-Chrisitian like behaviour.
TheRobotLol wrote:Ok, but you cannot deny that from an evolutionary viewpoint, a living being's primary goal is to reproduce and carry on the species. Not from you as an individual's goal, but as a whole species.
That doesn't require every individual to reproduce.
Corpsesarefun wrote:I didn't bring religion into it, I'm just refuting the "no religion says homosexuality is wrong" statement.
I never said that, I said that no religion tells people to hate homosexuals.
sirlynchmob wrote:
Corpsesarefun wrote:I didn't bring religion into it, I'm just refuting the "no religion says homosexuality is wrong" statement.
These guys not only say their religion says its wrong, but god hates them for it.
What these guys say is wrong.
I agree, but christians agree that these guys are also christians.
I'm a Christian, and although I don't know these guys well enough to decide whether they are Christians or not what they are doing is un-Chrisitian like behaviour.
I'm a Christian from the states, and I have plenty of friends who are Christian. We all agree that these people are not Christians. Calling them 'Christians' is like calling the KKK 'equal rights supporters'. Oddly enough, this is one time when I don't have a quip to throw in-I'm being dead serious (it doesn't happen often, so take it in stride).
Rampage wrote:
I'm a Christian, and although I don't know these guys well enough to decide whether they are Christians or not what they are doing is un-Chrisitian like behaviour.
Those are the westboro baptists church.
one of my favorite quote from them, "adam and eve where christians"
Mr Hyena wrote:The idea that any sexual orientation or fetish is morally right or wrong is quite laughable really as well as hypocritical.
I would argue that someone who has a sexual harassment fetish is immoral because it harms others.
Then we're discriminating based on sexual orientation/fetish and thats a bigger evil. I really don't care what people fap to in their own homes. Of course, laws apply so harassment law would cover this. Then again...that could be discrimination to.
In general, if someone is campaigning for more equality then to turn around and deal the exact same treatment to another orientation just reeks of hypocrisy.
mattyrm wrote:Its not, its their Religion that causes this hatred, they are following what they perceive to be the rules of their precious faith, and its one of the great many reasons I have such loathing for organised Religion.
I know of no religion that explictly tells its followers to hate people due to their sexual tendancies. You are completely right when you use the word 'percieve'. It is not the religion telling people to be homophobic, it is down to those who read it who take it to mean that they should be homophobic, and therefore you could argue that they would be a homophobe anyway if that is the first thing that springs to their minds. So why loath religion if it is the fault of those who misinterpret what it is saying that are causing the problem?
Well of course its their perception, there are loads of nice Christians, the homophobic thing seems to be a uniquely American Christian thing, namely Southern Baptists. I know there is a little from some Catholics, and plenty from Muslims, but in the States it seems to be that sort of 20-30 million strong, Tea Party/guns are great/climate change is lies/young earth/hate fags (they all believe the exact same thing) crowd.
It is probably true that Christians in the US are "unique." Especially the part where they look over the part where Judas kissed Jesus with passion and fire and Jebus didn't punch him in the face and call him a cigarette. Wierd. That silly bible.
Get some Jesus:for tomorrow you may die.
TheRobotLol wrote:
AustonT wrote:
TheRobotLol wrote:Oh well i'm very sorry for your lack of speed.
don't be a ...jerk.
Why talk like ...this?
Because I use jerk in place of a rather more apt description somewhat frowned upon in polite discussion. Although in retrospect "pedantic" is apt.
carlos13th wrote:People who share hobbies with you have no relation to you as a person so you shouldn't feel dirty or blame the hobby. You will find people with views like this all over the world. It would be the equivalent of vegetarians or painters feeling dirty because Hitler was both.
I absolutely don't 'blame' the hobby, I don't don't understand why it's shared with such people. I think it's sad this corner of it, it marred by it. As I said, I've been involved with so many forms of SF and fantasy fandom and it's almost always so accepting and liberal. To see this really frustrates and baffles me. I've come across one such person in Doctor Who fandom, just the one that stands out, and I have to ask... do you even understand Doctor Who? How do you enjoy a series centred around a person fighting for fairness and ending oppression, putting science over superstition, and then without irony they justify oppressing gay people, denying them any equality and taking away their rights based on a fantastical piece of fiction, the bible?
Kovnik Obama wrote:
At this point in time, choosing not to reproduce (which is what homosexuals tend to do, because, really, homosexuality is only a minor obstacle to reproduction) no longer endanger anyone. It's a personal liberty.
In fact, as many homosexuals seem to want children, and there seems to be a surplus of them at the moment (and artificial insemination is possible), its arguable that homosexuality is a net good even given the only circumstances in which reproduction is valuable.
carlos13th wrote:People who share hobbies with you have no relation to you as a person so you shouldn't feel dirty or blame the hobby. You will find people with views like this all over the world. It would be the equivalent of vegetarians or painters feeling dirty because Hitler was both.
I absolutely don't 'blame' the hobby, I don't don't understand why it's shared with such people. I think it's sad this corner of it, it marred by it. As I said, I've been involved with so many forms of SF and fantasy fandom and it's almost always so accepting and liberal. To see this really frustrates and baffles me. I've come across one such person in Doctor Who fandom, just the one that stands out, and I have to ask... do you even understand Doctor Who? How do you enjoy a series centred around a person fighting for fairness and ending oppression, putting science over superstition, and then without irony they justify oppressing gay people, denying them any equality and taking away their rights based on a fantastical piece of fiction, the bible?
I really like your avatar, where did you find it? Doctor who is great, I'm glad the brits got it back from fox.
Plus with the new episodes it really calls into question the doctors sexuality. so its easy to see how that demographic would be more accepting seeing how the lead character is BI.
Why must people always attempt to counter asshat statements made by supposedly religious people with equally asshat statements or expressions of their own? Any 'point' that puts you on the same level of ignorance and douchebaggery as your opponent is the wrong kind of point to be making.
As far 'design' goes, there's no argument against the fact that sexual reproduction can only occur with a male and female...that's pretty basic.
That said, however, I don't see why people shouldn't be free to live as they please in that regard. If you can find someone you're happy with and have a relationship with that person, that's great.
Ronin-Sage wrote:Why must people always attempt to counter asshat statements made by supposedly religious people with equally asshat statements or expressions of their own? Any 'point' that puts you on the same level of ignorance and douchebaggery as your opponent is the wrong kind of point to be making.
As far 'design' goes, there's no argument against the fact that sexual reproduction can only occur with a male and female...that's pretty basic.
That said, however, I don't see why people shouldn't be free to live as they please in that regard. If you can find someone you're happy with and have a relationship with that person, that's great.
That's bs, I combined homosexuality, guns, and what could possibly be North Korea in the most unlikely of found photos and you give it away to uninspired sex robot...lame.
Lucian Greymark wrote:
Sorry but homosexuality is wrong, there look its out. Sorry if I offended you. But lets face it. We wernt designed to be gay
Technically, we weren't designed to wipe our behinds, traditionally as a species, we have spent FAR longer not doing it. Should we go back to it Or are we capable of using intelligence and judgement to go beyond 'nature' and base thoughts and actions?
Frankly, your holding a monopoly on all the (non joke) morally ambiguous stuff I have seen in this thread so far.
CT GAMER wrote:Yes, humans fear the unknown.
However there is no excuse for embracing ignorance, nor in using one's own as an excuse for hatred.
As a species we should strive for enlightened and civilized behavior, not knowingly act like ass-hats and then blame it on "human nature"
I like that!! (serious)
CT GAMER wrote:I object to thinly veiled hated and paranoia that tries to hide behind a shield of "moral superiority"
Many peoples morals are ill-conceived, illogical, and dangerous.
So yes you can be as crazy as you wanna be, but expect to be called on it when you make unfounded statements in line with the typical homophobe agenda and talking points..
Exactly, it is debatable at best if there is any moral grounds for objection. That being said I think some people genuinly BELIEVE they are doing it on those grounds.
Rampage wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Its not, its their Religion that causes this hatred, they are following what they perceive to be the rules of their precious faith, and its one of the great many reasons I have such loathing for organised Religion.
I know of no religion that explictly tells its followers to hate people due to their sexual tendancies. You are completely right when you use the word 'percieve'. It is not the religion telling people to be homophobic, it is down to those who read it who take it to mean that they should be homophobic, and therefore you could argue that they would be a homophobe anyway if that is the first thing that springs to their minds. So why loath religion if it is the fault of those who misinterpret what it is saying that are causing the problem?
The bible specifically states that homosexuals will not get into heaven. Denying a group of people an eternal afterlife of peace, love, harmony and fluffy white clouds, actually, that seems pretty gay to me.. Anyway, how is that not hateful? It does not explictly state as you said, but it does tell people that homosexuals are not worthy of the 'greatest' reward of heaven. Besides, I am reasonably confident someone more learned in the bible and church policies would find those explicit statements. Fred Phelps maybe, was that his name?
Btw, slippery slopes ftw..
Clara from Drawn Together wrote:"If gays get married, the institution of marriage will be destroyed! Societies will crumble! Rivers will run with blood! Nazis will once again ride dinosaurs!"
mattyrm wrote:Its not, its their Religion that causes this hatred, they are following what they perceive to be the rules of their precious faith, and its one of the great many reasons I have such loathing for organised Religion.
I know of no religion that explictly tells its followers to hate people due to their sexual tendancies. You are completely right when you use the word 'percieve'. It is not the religion telling people to be homophobic, it is down to those who read it who take it to mean that they should be homophobic, and therefore you could argue that they would be a homophobe anyway if that is the first thing that springs to their minds. So why loath religion if it is the fault of those who misinterpret what it is saying that are causing the problem?
The bible specifically states that homosexuals will not get into heaven. Denying a group of people an eternal afterlife of peace, love, harmony and fluffy white clouds, actually, that seems pretty gay to me.. Anyway, how is that not hateful? It does not explictly state as you said, but it does tell people that homosexuals are not worthy of the 'greatest' reward of heaven. Besides, I am reasonably confident someone more learned in the bible and church policies would find those explicit statements. Fred Phelps maybe, was that his name?
Btw, slippery slopes ftw.
Do not lecture me on my own beliefs, especially when half of your post is incorrect.
Angelic_Scars wrote:but it does tell people that homosexuals are not worthy of the 'greatest' reward of heaven
It says nothing of the sort. Everyone is worthy of heaven, all we need to do is ask for forgiveness. How is this hateful in any way? The door is always open but we also have the choice to ignore it if we want to. Nobody is being denied anything.
Also, if Fred Phelps was so learned of the Bible he wouldn't be doing half of the things that he does.
Corpsesarefun wrote:Having to ask forgiveness for being gay pretty strongly implies it's a bad thing.
But it doesn't mean that we should hate people, which is my point. I personally have no issue with others choosing to be gay. It's not a choice that I would make myself, but if others want to, that's fine.
But anyway, that's where I stand. I'm going to leave this thread now.
Most of us don't think it's a choice. I certainly didn't choose to be attracted to girls.
Alan Turing didn't choose to be gay. If it was something you could choose, I think he would certainly chosen to be straight, and avoided criminal prosecution, chemical castration, and death.
Condemning (or even judging with compassion) people as immoral for loving/lusting after the people they are naturally attracted to, presuming those people are other consenting adults, does not make sense, IMO.
If a religion teaches that they are to be condemned, as parts of Christianity do, then those are bad teachings. Thankfully the negative comments about homosexuality in Christianity are fairly few, and mostly come from Leviticus and one gospel, written by a guy who seems to have hated all sex in general. Modern, tolerant Christians mostly seem to recognize that and realize that a lot of other things Jesus said were a lot more important.
Mannahnin wrote:Most of us don't think it's a choice. I certainly didn't choose to be attracted to girls.
Alan Turing didn't choose to be gay. If it was something you could choose, I think he would certainly chosen to be straight, and avoided criminal prosecution, chemical castration, and death.
Condemning (or even judging with compassion) people as immoral for loving/lusting after the people they are naturally attracted to, presuming those people are other consenting adults, does not make sense, IMO.
If a religion teaches that they are to be condemned, as parts of Christianity do, then those are bad teachings. Thankfully the negative comments about homosexuality in Christianity are fairly few, and mostly come from Leviticus and one gospel, written by a guy who seems to have hated all sex in general. Modern, tolerant Christians mostly seem to recognize that and realize that a lot of other things Jesus said were a lot more important.
Actually, find me a quote from Baby Jebus on it. I dare's ya.
In the words of the immortal bard: if Baby Jebus didn't say it, it aint - Frazzled Sunday school lesson #2.
People be crazy. This be very crazy. I am confused as to how there can actually be a problem with this, but not surprised. People just can't live and let live, its quite sad really.
Mannahnin wrote:Most of us don't think it's a choice. I certainly didn't choose to be attracted to girls.
Alan Turing didn't choose to be gay. If it was something you could choose, I think he would certainly chosen to be straight, and avoided criminal prosecution, chemical castration, and death.
Condemning (or even judging with compassion) people as immoral for loving/lusting after the people they are naturally attracted to, presuming those people are other consenting adults, does not make sense, IMO.
If a religion teaches that they are to be condemned, as parts of Christianity do, then those are bad teachings. Thankfully the negative comments about homosexuality in Christianity are fairly few, and mostly come from Leviticus and one gospel, written by a guy who seems to have hated all sex in general. Modern, tolerant Christians mostly seem to recognize that and realize that a lot of other things Jesus said were a lot more important.
Actually, find me a quote from Baby Jebus on it. I dare's ya.
In the words of the immortal bard: if Baby Jebus didn't say it, it aint - Frazzled Sunday school lesson #2.
So did Baby Jebus ever say we needed to punish criminals?
And there's a fair bit in Timothy that directly condemns homosexuals (or at the very least male homosexuals).
mattyrm wrote:Its not, its their Religion that causes this hatred, they are following what they perceive to be the rules of their precious faith, and its one of the great many reasons I have such loathing for organised Religion.
I know of no religion that explictly tells its followers to hate people due to their sexual tendancies. You are completely right when you use the word 'percieve'. It is not the religion telling people to be homophobic, it is down to those who read it who take it to mean that they should be homophobic, and therefore you could argue that they would be a homophobe anyway if that is the first thing that springs to their minds. So why loath religion if it is the fault of those who misinterpret what it is saying that are causing the problem?
The bible specifically states that homosexuals will not get into heaven. Denying a group of people an eternal afterlife of peace, love, harmony and fluffy white clouds, actually, that seems pretty gay to me.. Anyway, how is that not hateful? It does not explictly state as you said, but it does tell people that homosexuals are not worthy of the 'greatest' reward of heaven. Besides, I am reasonably confident someone more learned in the bible and church policies would find those explicit statements. Fred Phelps maybe, was that his name?
Btw, slippery slopes ftw.
Do not lecture me on my own beliefs, especially when half of your post is incorrect.
Angelic_Scars wrote:but it does tell people that homosexuals are not worthy of the 'greatest' reward of heaven
It says nothing of the sort. Everyone is worthy of heaven, all we need to do is ask for forgiveness. How is this hateful in any way? The door is always open but we also have the choice to ignore it if we want to. Nobody is being denied anything.
Also, if Fred Phelps was so learned of the Bible he wouldn't be doing half of the things that he does.
Well it is hard to keep track of all the christian beliefs. there are 38,000 to 42,000 different christian churches and none of them seem to agree with each other. Some christians are ok with recognizing gay marriages, others like phelps are not. both claim their beliefs are supported by the bible, and the teachings of jesus. Then people like phelps(not necessarily him in particular) create bigoted organizations like NOM (national organization for marriage) and terrorists groups like pro lifers.
NOM is backed by many churches including catholic churches, maybe even yours, and their goal is to play race games and put Blacks and Hispanics against people wanting equal rights to marry.
Pro life groups are terrorists, If your group blows up buildings and kill innocent people trying to get a policy changed, then you are a terrorist.
While you might not agree with Phelps and say he's not acting like a christian, He would probably say the same thing about your beliefs. If you have two people claiming to be christians and both saying completely opposite things based on the same book, which one is right? Who can really say what jesus meant other than jesus himself, or god, and neither of them have had much to say about anything in 2000 years.
I am one religous thread away from packing my things, claiming a small island, living alone or with people who actually make sense, and not have to worry about society's petty, insignificant little problems. Anyone care to join me?
Private_Joker wrote:I am one religous thread away from packing my things, claiming a small island, living alone or with people who actually make sense, and not have to worry about society's petty, insignificant little problems. Anyone care to join me?
Private_Joker wrote:I am one religous thread away from packing my things, claiming a small island, living alone or with people who actually make sense, and not have to worry about society's petty, insignificant little problems. Anyone care to join me?
Private_Joker wrote:I am one religous thread away from packing my things, claiming a small island, living alone or with people who actually make sense, and not have to worry about society's petty, insignificant little problems. Anyone care to join me?
I shall sit on my island spending the days playing x-box, browsing the interweb and watchin' TV. Like a baws. With the occasional nap. No trespassers allowed
Private_Joker wrote:I am one religous thread away from packing my things, claiming a small island, living alone or with people who actually make sense, and not have to worry about society's petty, insignificant little problems. Anyone care to join me?
Will there be "gay sex" on the island?
What about pie?
Sure.... their are probably dolphins swimming around having gay sex all the time.
The penis is perfectly shaped for anal sex. 
to the maternity ward!
