So let me ask you: Does it matter? Is there any reason to treat the 45% of people who think homosexuality is a sin different from the Phelps family who hate gays?
Should we just treat them all the same? In for a penny, in for a pound? Are both deserving of equal scorn?
My point is that rather than talking past each other I wish both sides would listen to each other and maybe just maybe learn something. Those 45%? They’re not going anywhere. Not for a long time, anyway. Rather than shouting them down every time they voice their opinion and accusing them of bigotry and hatred for their beliefs maybe you should try talking to them.
Look at it this way: Are Phil Robertson’s kids and their religious friends in Louisiana more or less likely to share his beliefs after the way he’s been treated recently? What might be a better way to get them to open their minds?
I honestly think you’d have gay marriage in every state already if you were pushing for it the right way: With a plea for tolerance and acceptance rather than an accusation of bigotry against all those who disagree with the gay rights movement to any degree.
Please quote to me the part of the bible that says homosexuals are murderers.
Please quote to me the part of the bible that says homosexuals are full of envy.
Please quote to me the party of the bible that says homosexuals cause strife.
Please quote to me the part of the bible that says homosexuals are full of hatred.
Please quote to me the part of the bible that says homosexuals are arrogant.
Please quote to me the part of the bible that says homosexuals are heartless.
Please quote to me the part of the bible that says homosexuals are ruthless.
Please quote to me the part of the bible that says homosexuals “invent ways of doing evil”.
If you can’t do that, it isn’t a matter of his religious beliefs. It’s a matter of his bigotry and hatred. This is stuff he came up with. You’re just making excuses for bigotry, trying to accuse it as being “OK”, because a hate filled religion claims a book says something it doesn’t even say. You don’t get to hide behind your holy book, especially when we’re able to read it and see that you’re lying about what it says.
You are aware that you’re not in the pit, right? And you realize that accusing someone of lying is not allowed in Great Debates. I eagerly await your apologies.
Yeah. Watching the video he starts off with atheists and goes on to list lots of things he thinks are immoral about people. Homosexuality is prominent, but not the only thing he’s talking about there. It’s much the same as the GQ quote. People here a list that has a bunch of items on it and fixate on the gay part and make a bunch of inferences. People are definitely looking to be offended.
An atheist could feel just as attacked watching that as a gay person could.
I’m not accusing you of lying so no rule has been broken.
The statement that you posted, or quoted, is false. For me to make that statement of fact is allowed under the board rules. The “no lying” rule isn’t meant to allow incorrect statements to go unchallenged.
The “you” is anyone who claims that it’s “just religious belief”, but it was more specifically aimed at Magiver, who claimed that Robertson doesn’t hate anyone, because he religion tells him not to!
Mind you, Magiver’s arguments are already obviously full of holes and make no logical sense with even a passing look (“lesbians are evil because of anal sex!”), so it’s really just pissing in the wind.
I can be offended if someone attacks gay people AND offended if that same person attacks atheists.
You know, like you could be offended if someone said “Conservatives, Republicans, Conservative Independents, Tea Partiers, gun owners, people who drive pickups, white men, straight men, and people who use George Foreman grills are all losers and should be punched in the face.”
You don’t have to be every single one of these things to think someone just suggested you be punched in the face. The black, gay, liberal woman who drives a Prius but uses a Foreman grill has just as much right to take offense at this as the person who is the conservative Republican Tea Party gun owning pickup driving straight white guy.
You also seem to think it’s ok to think lesbians are sinners because they have anal sex. Why exactly should I care what your interpretation is again, when it seems to contradict how everyone else is reading it?
I never said anybody was evil because of anal sex. In fact, I was quiet specific when I said people should stick whatever they want wherever they want.
Sure. I get what you are saying. But for this analogy to work all of those people would have to say “Meh” and not be offended by the comments. All except for one group, let’s say straight men, who are only a few % of the population, yet get so worked up about it and have so much clout that the person who made the statement gets fired. It would be valid in that case to point out that other groups were included as well and they didn’t seem to react the same way.
I’m an atheist and I wasn’t offended by his comments. He’s a bit nutty, sure, but harmless. I’ll still watch the show.
I guess as a conservative I’m used to it. If I stopped watching media every time a person said something I disagreed with I’d have nothing left. I can enjoy the Shawshank Redemption even though Tim Robbins is a pinko.
Not in this interview. The problem is, he’s given other interviews previously, and now those are being brought to light:
[Quote=King of DD in 2010]
“Women with women, men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions,” Robertson said. “They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”
[/quote]
Phil Robertson was apparently a guy who, after getting a public education and a free ride to a public university because he could throw a football, became an alcoholic and a criminal. He’s a guy who should have been convicted of a felony, who used to hide in the woods to avoid the law. He was abusive to his family, maybe not physically but he apparently used to kick them out of his house. He was, by his own account, an awful human being.
And then he found Jesus and straightened his life out. Good for him, but now he thinks that anyone who hasn’t accepted Jesus as their savior will naturally behave just like *he *did before he’d found Jesus. That’s the gist of everything he says; if we tolerate gays and atheists and adulterers and other sinners, god will punish America. As an atheist, you may not find this attitude offensive, but it’s not harmless. Not only is he a voter, but he’s a public figure. This is a backwards, incorrect idea and it has no place in modern society.
You are only quoting part of it. In the clip I saw he clearly started with Atheists. I think he said “non-believers” or something. Then he goes on to that list.
Of course, most news sources are snipping that off since it doesn’t fit into what they are looking for.
