Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

mattyrm wrote:
As i have said, any fair minded reader is aware that i am not tarring all Religious believers with the same brush,

I disagree with that statement.

And who the cares about Oral Roberts? There are 18 gazillion priests, ministers, fathers, padres, great speghetti overlords here. We're free enterprise here, Roberts' rantings only matter to Roberts and his church. Big deal. There are literally 3 completely different churches within walking distance of my house and none of them give a about wo Roberts is or what he says. You haven't the knowledge or won't admit what a fragmented situation Christianity is.

...."walking distance"... ?! ha!

And you call yourself an American.

We're onto you now buster !

Wait, I thought that pointing out that people disagree about things sometimes is a No True Scotsman Fallacy?

Huuuuurggghhhhh!

I'm sorry to have brought up haggis.

reds8n wrote:...."walking distance"... ?! ha!

And you call yourself an American.

We're onto you now buster !

Well my driving distance is 210 miles. I shudder to think how many churches and mosques that is (there's a mosque by our pool within 5 miles of my pistol range). Life's a many colored world.

Wow, I go away for a few hours and I see my name dragged through the mud.

Anyway, my comment was intended as a light joke with a bit of social commentary thrown in. Most of you know that I am a social conservative. My comment was based on the fact that I am a trekkie and I remember watching Kirk fight the Gorn, and Sulu fencing in the Alice in wonderland episode. Sulu was one of my favorite Star Trek characters and now that I know that the guy playing him was gay all along...my child hood view of Sulu is forever changed. He is no longer just sulu the cool asian guy, but now he is Sulu the guy played by a gay actor.

I had always admired George Takei as an actor and that won't change. I am just a bit disappointed that my child hood memory is now changed forever, that's all. The same can be said for my view of Michael Jackson or OJ Simpson. (NOTE: Do not freak out and say that I am comparing the things MJ and OJ did to George). I am just comparing celebrity disappointment.

Kind of like when I found out Gandalf and Magneto were gay.(Notice another LIGHT joke about Ian Mckellen)

GG

edit....just in case some of you don't get it...the joke is that I am calling the fictional characters gay, when in their fictional universe they aren't(In fact Gandalf was Asexual), but the fact that they are played by a gay actor makes a connection between gay reality and fictional universes. That's the joke.

@my child hood view of Sulu is forever changed

would you mind telling us why that is the case?
i frankly don´t understand that, cuase the acting is still done by him, the words spoken by him weren´t changed and so on so why isn´t it the same anymore?

sorry had to ask.

vik

Yeah, what Vik said.

Indeed, I think there is a major problem in the world, and the media in general that people have to 'out' themselves. As I've said many times before, I couldn't give a monkies who you wish to share your life with. Doesn't effect me one iota as long as it's all consensual.

So where's the problem matey?

Mr Mystery wrote:Doesn't effect me one iota as long as it's all consensual.

Does it even affect you if it's non-consensual?

In directly yes, as it means there's a predator out there in need of a kicking. As you know, non-consenual being rape and everything, and that effects society as a whole.

Yes, that "affects the while of a society" line is exactly what many who oppose acceptance of homosexuality claim. I'm not trying to equate consensual homosexual acts with rape; but I don't think the the "it's between two people so it doesn't concern me" argument holds any water.

Viktor von Domm wrote:

@my child hood view of Sulu is forever changed

would you mind telling us why that is the case?
i frankly don´t understand that, cuase the acting is still done by him, the words spoken by him weren´t changed and so on so why isn´t it the same anymore?

sorry had to ask.

vik

Thought I made it clear..but I'll try again. I had a childhood "image" of George Takei as sulu. Now, due to my view of homsexuality as being a sin against God and thus a character flaw.. now that is what I will think of, when I watch classic trek.

Let me give an analogy. Lindsy Lohan was this "idealic" cute little child actor. Now she is turned into a drug abuser. I can't watch Herbie reloaded or the parent trap remake without saying to myself, "such a shame". You could also place Mel Gibson in that position. I had a huge admiration for the man Mel Gibson(Road Warrior,Brave heart..etc) until the alcoholism/Jew Hate started coming out. I pity him now, more than Admire him.

Also take note that I believe saying things that homosexuals should catch AIDS and die is VERY wrong, and is in my opinion quite a sick thing to say.

GG

In directly yes, as it means there's a predator out there in need of a kicking. As you know, non-consenual being rape and everything, and that effects society as a whole.

i second that stazement to the letter...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as for ms lohan, all i can say just don´t watch her at all and all ends well...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
my view of homsexuality as being a sin against God and thus a character flaw..

is that your kind of humor again or do you really think that way?

generalgrog wrote:

Viktor von Domm wrote:

@my child hood view of Sulu is forever changed

would you mind telling us why that is the case?
i frankly don´t understand that, cuase the acting is still done by him, the words spoken by him weren´t changed and so on so why isn´t it the same anymore?

sorry had to ask.

vik

Thought I made it clear..but I'll try again. I had a childhood "image" of George Takei as sulu. Now, due to my view of homsexuality as being a sin against God and thus a character flaw.. now that is what I will think of, when I watch classic trek.

Let me give an analogy. Lindsy Lohan was this "idealic" cute little child actor. Now she is turned into a drug abuser. I can't watch Herbie reloaded or the parent trap remake without saying to myself, "such a shame". You could also place Mel Gibson in that position. I had a huge admiration for the man Mel Gibson(Road Warrior,Brave heart..etc) until the alcoholism/Jew Hate started coming out. I pity him now, more than Admire him.

Also take note that I believe saying things that homosexuals should catch AIDS and die is VERY wrong, and is in my opinion quite a sick thing to say.

GG

I totally see your point there. I personally dont find homosexuality wrong or immoral, but everyone is totally allowed to have their own opinion on things. I completely agree on the rest though. Good god, Mel Gibson, such a wasted talent that guy. His movies were epic, hell he was epic, but I too watch his films and I cant help but think a few times during each, about how much an Ahole he is now. HE WAS THE PATRIOT DAMMIT!

generalgrog wrote:Thought I made it clear..but I'll try again. I had a childhood "image" of George Takei as sulu. Now, due to my view of homsexuality as being a sin against God and thus a character flaw.. now that is what I will think of, when I watch classic trek.

Sigh!

Manchu wrote:Yes, that "affects the while of a society" line is exactly what many who oppose acceptance of homosexuality claim. I'm not trying to equate consensual homosexual acts with rape; but I don't think the the "it's between two people so it doesn't concern me" argument holds any water.

I very much beg to differ. Sorry if it seems like I'm having a pop at him, but GG is a good example here.

Due to his own predlictions (which he is entitled to) he has allowed his view of someone to be coloured because of who they are. Yet the fact that George Takei is attracted to men has absolutely no impact on society at all. On GG perhaps, but that's something he has decided for himself, rightly or wrongly.

I really don't get the fear of homosexuals, I really don't. (addendum...not saying GG is scared of them or owt. Was a reference to the guy named in the video)

Manchu wrote:So post it on your light-hearted blog, MGS. Dakka is a forum and a forum means there will be dialog. I don't think OPs get to post rules for the threads they start (at least not mandatory ones) and there are no Dakka rules violations so far. (This probably goes back to our diagreement that discussion of religion and politics inevitably leads to thread locks.)

Yep.

Here's the equation for the new folks.

1. Non Religious Post is made in OT.
2. By page 2, religious connotation is insinuated.
3. Thread now becomes religious.
4. 'Those People' say something sarcastic, offensive, humorous, off-hand or dismissive towards religion.
5. This causes insult to someone somewhere.
6. Retaliatory strikes occur.
7. Flamefest, where certain of the usual suspects lay traps for the easily angered.
8. Traps are sprung.
9. After several derailed pages of people being unpleasant, the lock occurs.
10. Another thread goes the way of a cankerous tree.
11. A new thread appears, refer to step 1.

Ad nauseum.

Yeah, I am quite happy with Takei throwing his weight around if it leads to the betterment of a group of people. I mean, fair's fair, people don't have to believe that Homosexuality is natural or whatever (though I personally frown upon such a view as somewhat bigoted, but again that's just an opinion) but even so, what this guy said was so out of order it hurt.
He reaped what he sowed, in my opinion.

generalgrog wrote:

Viktor von Domm wrote:

@my child hood view of Sulu is forever changed

would you mind telling us why that is the case?
i frankly don´t understand that, cuase the acting is still done by him, the words spoken by him weren´t changed and so on so why isn´t it the same anymore?

sorry had to ask.

vik

Thought I made it clear..but I'll try again. I had a childhood "image" of George Takei as sulu. Now, due to my view of homsexuality as being a sin against God and thus a character flaw.. now that is what I will think of, when I watch classic trek.

Let me give an analogy. Lindsy Lohan was this "idealic" cute little child actor. Now she is turned into a drug abuser. I can't watch Herbie reloaded or the parent trap remake without saying to myself, "such a shame". You could also place Mel Gibson in that position. I had a huge admiration for the man Mel Gibson(Road Warrior,Brave heart..etc) until the alcoholism/Jew Hate started coming out. I pity him now, more than Admire him.

Also take note that I believe saying things that homosexuals should catch AIDS and die is VERY wrong, and is in my opinion quite a sick thing to say.

GG

I am saddened that you think that way about homosexuality, and consider those who are homosexual (a trait that they have no control over) sinners.

Mr Mystery wrote:Sorry if it seems like I'm having a pop at him, but GG is a good example here.

Due to his own predlictions (which he is entitled to) he has allowed his view of someone to be coloured because of who they are.

Judging people based on who they are doesn't seem that bad of an idea, really. I understand the reference that you are making but I'm just suggesting that a more critical approach could be useful.

@MGS: This thread has a good example of the problem having to do with the users rather than the topics, IMO. I wholeheartedly agree with your metaphor of laying traps, by the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:and consider those who are homosexual (a trait that they have no control over) sinners.

Framing a debatable point as a foregone conclusion, eh? In any case, the stock response is "if the type of urge is beyond your control, resisting it is not."

I'm really doing some thinking based on MGS's post, actually.

He speaks the truth.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:I am saddened that you think that way about homosexuality, and consider those who are homosexual (a trait that they have no control over) sinners.

If my understanding of Christian theology is correct: since everyone is considered a sinner it's really not as big of a condemnation as you're making it seem. The fact that some people practice demagoguery based on sexuality is kind of a separate issue in my opinion.

Manchu wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Sorry if it seems like I'm having a pop at him, but GG is a good example here.

Due to his own predlictions (which he is entitled to) he has allowed his view of someone to be coloured because of who they are.

Judging people based on who they are doesn't seem that bad of an idea, really. I understand the reference that you are making but I'm just suggesting that a more critical approach could be useful.

@MGS: This thread has a good example of the problem having to do with the users rather than the topics, IMO. I wholeheartedly agree with your metaphor of laying traps, by the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:and consider those who are homosexual (a trait that they have no control over) sinners.

Framing a debatable point as a foregone conclusion, eh? In any case, the stock response is "if the type of urge is beyond your control, resisting it is not."

Your stock response does nothing to repudiate my claim that homosexuality is not a choice.

You have merely stated that refraining from sleeping with a member of one’s own gender is a choice, which I can agree with.

Your statement even seems to agree with my position that lusts of the heart cannot be controlled.

I'll just quote the PM I just sent:

Manchu wrote:There is no conclusive evidence that homosexual orientation is either the product of nature or nuture. To my mind, the whole debate is pointless. Human beings are attracted--among other ways, sexually--to other human beings: their specific features, personalities, mannerisms, etc. To the extent that people are more attracted to one gender (not sex) or the other, I'd say the matter is about aesthetic preference: that is to say, it comes down to whether you find masculine or feminine traits more appealing. And, of course, reality is not even as simple as that. The terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" seem more the product of political rather than scientific or psychological analysis. I don't believe that either term meaningfully describes any facet of human experience other than the political.

But the phrase that I mentioned is often used to address the point that "homosexuality is not a choice." Namely, something you cannot control cannot be a sin. If you cannot control the urge to commit sexual acts with a person of your same gender then those urges cannot be sinful, right? Okay, but you can control whether or not you give into those urges. Some people consider acting on homosexual urges to be sinful. A homosexual person that never engages in homosexual acts, therefore, is not being sinful (all else being equal).

Quick, this thread is getting too serious! TAKE IT AWAY TAKEI!




Also, I am a christian. That is how I identify myself. But I helped me friend get through finding out he was gay. He hatted himself because of the few pastors out there that hate gays, and get the megaphone. He thought he was going to hell. I talked to him through the process, sent him as much help as I could, and he got through it. But dose that not make me a christian? I helped and am close friends with an openly gay person?

And if we are going on religious rants here, I bring you one of the core beliefs of Christianity. "Love thy neighbor as thy self". Dose it say "Love they neighbor, but only if they are heterosexual"? Nope. What if your neighbor was black? A woman? Asian? Would you care? No, but suddenly its a MASSIVE issue if they are gay. Who cares? I sure as feth dont.

Happygrunt: You're way off point here. No one participating in this thread has claimed to hate a person because they are gay, certainly not for religious reasons.

Manchu wrote:Happygrunt: You're way off point here. No one who participating in this thread has claimed to hate a person because they are gay.

Sorry, I thought that the martyrdom guy was saying Christians hate gays. Was just defending Christianity. But then again, am I still high off of the "I ACED A TEST" feeling, so I probably misread it. Carry on then.

Happygrunt wrote:

Manchu wrote:Happygrunt: You're way off point here. No one who participating in this thread has claimed to hate a person because they are gay.

Sorry, I thought that the martyrdom guy was saying Christians hate gays.

Nah, you read it right.

I'd just throw in a quote next time so people know what you're on about. That was a while ago!

Alrighty then, I just saw this thread, and I didnt check the time stamps, so I thought this was all within the hour kinda stuff.

Unfortunately, this sad debacle has been going on for longer than I'd care to admit.

Curse having to work at the computer!

Happygrunt wrote:

Manchu wrote:Happygrunt: You're way off point here. No one who participating in this thread has claimed to hate a person because they are gay.

Sorry, I thought that the martyrdom guy was saying Christians hate gays. Was just defending Christianity. But then again, am I still high off of the "I ACED A TEST" feeling, so I probably misread it. Carry on then.

Yeah, I misread your post. Sorry about that!

Honestly, I don't think mattyrm thinks all Christians hate gays. It was more about him thinking that Christians are more offended by a nice guy like Takei being gay than a douchebag like McCance being a douchebag.