Anyone who does all that is pretty pleased with himself.
I have yet to create a 20 minute video and post a manifesto about making coffee, but if I thought it was the best coffee the world has ever seen I would.
I would love to hear all the damage homosexuals have done to the world before I can make an informed decision as to which of you is more likely right.
All beliefs don’t deserve respect and abhorrent beliefs don’t get to hide by shrouding themselves in religious dogma.
And it’s hypocritical to complain about such beliefs not being respected, while on the other hand claiming that those same believers don’t have to respect the other side. It seems that respect is only mandatory when the bigots and lunatics are the ones demanding it. Their victims should just suck it up.
Yeah… think you might want to refresh your memory on those 10 Whatchamacallits. Right ballpark, not quite right on the details.
This thread reinforces my belief that the best thing each of us could do is show a couple dozen of our most contentious posts to a friend, or a psychologist, and get some honest, professional feedback. Preferably with someone that we’d see on a regular basis. (I kept asking Starvin’ in the Paterno thread if he’d please get feedback from family or a professional, but he never did).
Hell, maybe we could get a group rate: Dr. HopefullyNotHorrible’s Dopefest Therapy Session.
I just feel bad for people like the OP or Bricker or Starkers… wouldn’t they be a lot happier if they could just let their undies get unbundled?
I keep hoping some OP’s going to post some pet theory that they’re upset about, and when most of a (very intelligent) message board says “You’ve got your head up your ass. Quit worrying about this.”, they might just listen, and quit worrying.
Nah, never happen. Carry on.
Not at all. It used to be that a substantial portion of Americans thought that the Irish were subhuman apes. Now that belief seems laughable.
Homosexual love should become so widely accepted that it doesn’t need to be *tolerated *anymore because the very idea that people used to find it objectionable becomes laughable. That’s the future we should be working for. It probably won’t happen in my lifetime, but, hey, I didn’t think I’d see a black president and here we are.
Religion will cave. It always does. Because in every era people pick and choose which religious beliefs make them feel good about themselves. The biblical justifications for thinking gays are icky will be forgotten, just like no one pays any attention to the biblical justifications for slavery anymore.
You’re just pissed off because you’ve been called out as a bigot. You think being gay is icky and you want to keep thinking being gay is icky. You don’t like the idea that someone might find your personal beliefs offensive. But a polite bigot is still a bigot. If you look at a black man and a white woman holding hands and think “ick!”, you’re a bigot and should be ashamed of yourself. And if you look at a gay man giving his husband a peck on the cheek and think “ick!” you’re a bigot and should be ashamed of yourself.
A polite bigot is better than a rude bigot. If you have nasty anti-gay beliefs its better if you manage to keep them to yourself. But it’s certainly nothing to be proud of. It should bother you that you have such beliefs. You should work to change them. Not wallow in them because you can find some tenuous scriptural justification for them.
I don’t demand everyone like me. Or even love me. I only demand that I be accorded the rights to which I’m entitled as an American citizen.
According me these rights does not require universally liking or even loving me. It only requires tolerating me. While I certainly wouldn’t choose to spend a lot of time with someone who only tolerates me, I can’t see demanding more from someone with whom I’ll probably never interact again in my life.
I think we get into grey areas when we go from demanding our civil rights to demanding goodwill and good opinion from everyone. So what do I think about Christian tolerance that only goes as far as literally tolerating queer folk? I think it’s a heck of a lot better than what we’ve got now.
I must’ve missed where PandaBear77 expressed the “gay is icky” sentiment. Was it in a different thread or something?
But what the hell do I know - I missed where the author of the blog post being ripped in the OP made any personal pronouncement regarding whether homosexuality is wrong or even sinful. That must’ve been in a different essay or in the video. The post I read just said that everybody exhibits some aspect of human behavior that’s judged as sinful by somebody else and that Christians (who, unlike aggrieved atheists, were the actual targets of the rant) should stop looking for sin in others.
I guess if I was able to read between the lines of “love thy neighbor” and perceive that “you’re so icky” sentiment you guys are claiming is there, I could look down on those smug tolerant assholes too
- Because smug tolerance is icky.
Were the command “thou shalt smugly tolerate thy neighbor as thyself,” I don’t think there’d be as much contention. It’s calling it “love” that sets the teeth on edge.
I’m not gay and thus not directly affected, but I think if I were, I’d prefer honest revulsion over a strained, phony affectation of “love.”
I don’t think AIDS would have killed so many people if there were no such thing as homosexuality.
If I were to say I was a pacifist, and I went around beating people up, would you say " Boy, those pacifists sure are violent"?
Or would you say"You are not a pacifist because your actions do not match your stated belief".
This is my trouble with No True Scotsman. I would think a Christian would act like he loves his neighbor as himself. If a person doesn’t act that way, the label of Christian is not accurate.
I saw this post that someone made on Facebook and, while I don’t think it teaches the correct message, I think it still teaches a far less harmful message than what a lot of Christians have heard. We are taught to love sinners, and I’d rather see Christians believing homosexuality is a sin, but loving them, than Christians believing it is a sin, and hating them.
Personally, I’m familiar with the passages that are used to support that homosexuality is a sin, I’m also familiar with interpretations of those passages that say they mean something else. They don’t apply to me, and Jesus did specifically say to remove the plank from our own eyes first, so who am I to judge the behaviors of others as righteous or sinful? In my view, what ultimately makes a sin a sin is that it separates us from God and from eachother. Almost any behavior, particularly sex of any kind, can fall on either side of that divider; in the same sort of way that one person can drink alcohol just fine but another person can’t touch it without drinking too much. It is between only that person and God, and whomever their actions may affect, where their behavior falls relative to that line.
So, personally, I think the whole idea of “gays are sinners but love them anyway” is not only being hypocritical in judging the sins of others, contrary to the teachings of Jesus, but the whole tolerance thing is missing the point that we’re ALL sinners, so it’s not “you’re doing something I think is wrong but I’m tolerant so I love you anyway” it should just be “I love you”.
Is phony affectation what’s being called for by the blogger, by PandaBear77, by Algher or Polycarp? The essay I read specifically calls out that kind of religious concern trolling:
To me, these look a lot like what the critics of the essay are saying. What exactly makes it objectionable when he says it? The fact that organized Christianity has oppressed minorities of all stripes over the last two thousand years? That’s not a uniquely Christian legacy, it’s human history. Does the message become legitimate only if communicated from someone untouched by human frailty? I’m afraid that probably disqualifies anyone you’re likely to interact with on the internet.
Assuming you have a spouse. It has been interpreted to apply to everything else, but it actually says not to cheat on your spouse.
The number of gay westerners killed by AIDS is insignificant compared to the number of straight Africans dying of it. Arguably, the fact that out here, the disease hit the gay community first saved lives - it kept it somewhat quarantined until we could figure out what it was and how it was transmitted.
Certainly, one could just as accurately say that AIDS would never have killed anyone, if there were no such thing as Africans.
“Love the sinner hate the sin.” Is that in the Bible or is it just some slogan someone made up?
I’m almost certain it was my 5th grade homeroom teacher, who also coined the dubious phrase “I didn’t say you were stupid; I said stop acting stupid.”
According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ethnicity is a protected class for employment discrimination. So if someone doesn’t like an individual for their ethnicity and this prevents said individual from sitting at the lunch table (in other words, getting a white collar job), they are contravening the law.
I think sexual orientation should be a protected class too.
You are right. It was my USA-centricicity talking.
“Hate the sin, love the sinner” is a direct quote from Mahatma Ghandi.