How so?
I’ve been trying to explain. Maybe you should ask someone in that 45% and they’d do a better job of it. (Good luck finding one on this board, though.)
The gist of it is: If you attack those 45% and call them homophobic and bigots just for their religious beliefs it causes them to react defensively. It causes them to flood the phones at companies like Under Armor and Cracker Barrel to get them to sponsor the show. It makes enemies of them.
Weren’t they already “enemies”? What does their enmity mean? Is it different than not allowing gays to marry or not allowing gays to be protected at work or not allowing gays to be recognized or respected?
Some, most of them, yes. Others, it will cause them to look inward and ask themselves, “Is this how Jesus thought when he said ‘Love thy neighbor’?”
Thus the 45% become 44%, then 43%… etc. That’s how the number got down to 45% in the first place, remember? People started saying “this is wrong” in the face of an overwhelming majority?
Yes. How dare those gays, not thinking nothing but positive thoughts to people who claim they cause hurricanes, are murderous and ruthless, deserve to die, should be locked into concentration camps, deserve to be beaten to death, don’t deserve equal rights and protections, etc.
Why, if they could just be polite and refrain from acting like they had feelings and were real human beings, this would be settled so quickly.
as do all the other sins such as adultery. Again I ask you, do you think he’s saying homosexuals cause people to murder?
AIUI, “the company” was just Phil in a shed until Willie started running things.
What do you expect GLAAD and company to do? Not call his beliefs homophobic and bigoted? I don’t think A & E would have taken much note of a protest about “a good faith disagreement over the Biblical position on homosexuality.”
That is both wrong and an example of moving the goalposts.
What I originally quoted you as saying was that he was correctly insisting it was wrong because of biology. Now you seem to be saying it’s not biology so much as being unsanitary.
I trust I do not need to point how many vile and nasty diseases there are that can be transmitted by good ol’ fashioned missionary-position penis to vagina contact?
And saying that “licking and sucking of sexual organs has always been considered a normal biological function of sexual acts” is just plain ignorant of history. Especially American History.
Do I need to cite the number of states where a consensual BJ could get you arrested in the not too distant past? Hell, Lenny Bruce was arrested in San Francisco for saying the word ‘cocksucker’ on stage.
Emphasis mine.
This does not sound like the powers that be thought of oral sex as ‘normal biological function’.
Undoubtedly it hardens the opinions of others, but it also will make some reevaluate their opinions. Different approaches can work for different people. Some people who were virulent racists in the 60s were swayed by watching the civil rights movement on TV – others were swayed when they were called hateful by their children.
It’s the same thing for any movement – such as the atheist movement. The aggressive “New Atheist” style angers many, but it actually moves many minds as well. Some people are so surprised that their beliefs can be ridiculed that they actually reexamine them! Imagine that! Others are only moved by a kinder, gentler tone – perhaps the slow realization that atheists are moral and decent people, and that religious belief is not required to be a good person.
Tone trolling is really silly – different tones really do work with different people. I like all approaches. Some people are really skilled at calm, patient, and gentle reasoning – and I want them to do that. Others are great at mockery and ridiculing the ridiculous – and I want them to do that too. I know some will be angered, and many will be offended. That’s just fine with me.
Wait, really?
How would that have worked? Start with the passage of DOMA. Are you saying DOMA was passed because gays accused people of bigotry?
Absolutely, I do. He was talking about gay people, and he said “they’re full of murder…”. Absolutely I believe he thinks homosexuals cause people to murder, as well as thinking that homosexuals are murderers themselves. This isn’t really that uncommon a belief – I’ve heard many anti-homosexual crusaders equate gay sex with attempted murder (because of HIV).
I think he’s saying homosexuals are murderers. Remember that “homosexuals destroy society and cause other behavior” and even things like “homosexuals cause hurricanes” are not unheard of beliefs among christians, and probably pretty decently common.
People think traditional Christians have no problem with blow jobs?
That’s certainly not historically accurate.
The 45% number comes from a cite earlier in the thread. It is the number who believe homosexual behavior is a sin. That doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to conclude automatically that those 45% also believe that gays shouldn’t be recognized or respected or any thing else.
This is the problem I’m trying to point out. By having this “with us or against us” attitude you are alienating people that might otherwise be on your side.
Yes, really.
No. I’m not saying that.
Okay, what is the makeup of the 45%? Do you think lots of people who think homosexual behavior is a sin are voting to allow SSM and lots of people who DON’T think it’s a sin are voting against it?
And do you think there are a lot of people who are going to say, “Well, I think homosexual behavior is a sin, but I was all for SSM until they said I was bigoted, but now I’m against it!”
Okay, so DOMA was passed for another reason?
But you think DOMA would have been rescinded and would not now exist except for gays accusing people of bigotry?
Debaser, by taking the time up of people who could be educating others, and also by not using the time to educate others yourself, you are doubly holding back gay rights. How do you feel about that?
BTW, some homework for the posters, if they choose to accept it:
Who said, referring to same-sex marriage:
"At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.
Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”
biology isn’t a function of borders. What I described goes back as far as written history as does homosexuality.