The homophobic thread :>

[GoCubsGo]

I don't even have to look.

... (Mr.B), who claims having been in the navy, claims to have never crossed the international date line

Now we know, Mr.B in drag.

"Becky" is nice, but "Rommel" was not the smartest choice for a bigot's pseudonym.

Whoa Becky, stay away from martinis and prescription drugs.

[Vrede too]

Mr.Becky.

Bigots Tear Up in Anti-Gay Marriage Video

In a video released the day before the landmark marriage equality decision by SCOTUS, CatholicVote.org has marriage equality opponents say something they're been "afraid" to speak out about. They confess that they are against marriage equality. The emotional video features several marriage equality opponents explaining why they don't want gay people to get married. Several of them even tear up towards the end of the video and talk about their "gay friends." It's hard to believe this video is even serious.

Check it out here:



There's also an awesome alternate version:

[Vrede too]

rstrong has been saying that the GOP would soon be claiming to have supported equality all along.

GOP Played Critical Role in Ushering LGBT Votes

Nice spin.

"The first step came from New York, the first Republican-led legislature to pass marriage equality in June 2011.... In New Hampshire, 119 Republicans joined with Democrats to fend off a right-wing attempt to repeal marriage equality....

More than 232 Republican state legislators have voted for marriage equality."

Out of at least 5000. In other words, nearly zero other than in New York and New Hampshire.

"GOP majorities in Indiana rewrote that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act to include LGBT civil rights protections."

AFTER a national outcry and corporate boycott.

"... 10 GOP senators helped break a 10-year deadlock to pass LGBT employment non-discrimination legislation in 2013."

It died in the GOP House.

"According to the Public Religion Research Institute ..."

Her figures are strangely off by a bit, are incomplete when it comes to con believers, and she conveniently neglects entirely:

Republicans stand apart from Democrats and independents on this issue. Two-thirds (67%) of Democrats and nearly six in ten (59%) independents favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally. Fewer than four in ten (37%) Republicans support legalizing same-sex marriage, while nearly six in ten (57%) oppose.

http://publicreligion.org/research/2015 ... ZSBIKbOvDk

"Without Republican support, we wouldn’t be addressing the issue nationwide."

Bull.

Margaret Hoover (great-granddaughter of former U.S. President Herbert Hoover)

... In January 2013, she helped found American Unity Fund,[16] a non-profit organization to dedicated to advancing the cause of freedom for gay and lesbian Americans by making the conservative case that freedom truly means freedom for everyone. American Unity fund works in partnership with other national LGBT organizations to help mobilize Republican support for marriage and non-discrimination, and other LGBT issues at the state and federal level....

Ah, she's trying to convert Republicans, not persuade thinking people. Cool.

[bannination]

Captive virgins, polygamy and sex slaves: What marriage would look like if we actually followed the Bible

So....what? Is there a point here?

Not one that you would understand.

Cognitive bias is a helluva drug.

[bannination]

Christians have been disputing and disagreeing about various subjects
for two thousand years. Let them continue with their arguments about
gay marriage. It doesn't really matter. It is legal matter, not a theological
one, and the legality has been settled.

There is still controversy about whether King James I was gay or not. I
really don't care one way or the other. Since it is likely that no definite
proof will ever be available, I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

It's printed in a book, so it should be good enough evidence/proof for Christians.

[O Really]

Episcopalians vote to endorse marriage equality. But I'm sure they aren't "real" Christians.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/episco ... ar-AAcpfmR

[Seth Milner]

Episcopalians vote to endorse marriage equality. But I'm sure they aren't "real" Christians.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/episco ... ar-AAcpfmR

You may be right. An interesting choice of words: "Real Christians". I've read some of the posts wherein Mr.B has expressed this terminology. In some other cities I've lived in, I've seen the term True Christian™ used by some who doubted the realness of some who professed Christianity. I believe there are some who are not "real" Christians and there are those who are "real" Christians, or "True Christians™ ".

If what the Bible says is Gospel for those who profess to be True Christians™ , then a Christian church that performs a wedding between two of the same gender is not a "real" or "True" Christian church; at least not in the way I've read and understood it. That's just my opinion, because we all understand and interpret differently.

[Seth Milner]

Christians have been disputing and disagreeing about various subjects
for two thousand years. Let them continue with their arguments about
gay marriage. It doesn't really matter. It is legal matter, not a theological
one, and the legality has been settled.

There is still controversy about whether King James I was gay or not. I
really don't care one way or the other. Since it is likely that no definite
proof will ever be available, I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

It's printed in a book, so it should be good enough evidence/proof for Christians.

Evidently you didn't read Mr.B's reply to Bungalow Bill. I think he summed it up pretty well.

"Christians have been disputing and disagreeing about various subjects for two thousand years..... There is still controversy about whether King James I was gay or not. I really don't care one way or the other. Since it is likely that no definite proof will ever be available, I doubt we'll ever know for sure."

You wrote pretty much what I was going to say. I did a search and found all kind of "facts" and links about King James. Nothing I found could be considered credible enough to determine his orientation one way or the other. I did find one account that debunks any notion that KJ was "gay" and it seems to be a rumor started by a vengeful individual after KJ's death. Again, we don't know if that's the truth.

To me, it doesn't matter, and like you said, without definite proof, I doubt we'll (n)ever know for sure.

[O Really]

If what the Bible says is Gospel for those who profess to be True Christians™ , then a Christian church that performs a wedding between two of the same gender is not a "real" or "True" Christian church; at least not in the way I've read and understood it. That's just my opinion, because we all understand and interpret differently.

Not necessarily. As you said, we all understand and interpret differently. One could ask "what would Jesus do" as an independent question from whatever Matthew though he meant and get a different answer. Usually people seem to think of only themselves and those who agree with them as "real" or "true."

[GoCubsGo]

I knew a woman who became "born again" ten or so years ago.....she was adamant that anyone not accepting her version of saved was going to hell, no ifs ands or buts. I asked what about the billion Indian people, the two billion Chinese etc.

All going to hell.

Ok, whatever.

[Bungalow Bill]

"Christians have been disputing and disagreeing about various subjects for two thousand years..... There is still controversy about whether King James I was gay or not. I really don't care one way or the other. Since it is likely that no definite proof will ever be available, I doubt we'll ever know for sure."
You wrote pretty much what I was going to say. I did a search and found all kind of "facts" and links about King James. Nothing I found could be considered credible enough to determine his orientation one way or the other. I did find one account that debunks any notion that KJ was "gay" and it seems to be a rumor started by a vengeful individual after KJ's death. Again, we don't know if that's the truth.

To me, it doesn't matter, and like you said, without definite proof, I doubt we'll (n)ever know for sure.

No, we never will know for certain, and now the suspense is killing me.

[Bungalow Bill]

It's printed in a book, so it should be good enough evidence/proof for Christians.

Plus, it's on the net too. The old one two punch.

[Bungalow Bill]

And who appointed the fifth vote, Kennedy? The old
Gipper. Ronnie planned it this way from the get go.

[Vrede too]

... If what the Bible says is Gospel for those who profess to be True Christians™ , then a Christian church that performs a wedding between two of the same gender is not a "real" or "True" Christian church; at least not in the way I've read and understood it. That's just my opinion, because we all understand and interpret differently.

Why don't you feel the same about churches that allow women to speak, serve shellfish at dinners, have pastors that cut their hair, let parishioners wear blended cloth, etc.?

[Mr.B]

“No, we never will know for certain, and now the suspense is killing me.”

[Mr.B]

Episcopalians vote to endorse marriage equality. But I'm sure they aren't "real" Christians.

“If what the Bible says is Gospel for those who profess to be True Christians™ , then a Christian church that performs a wedding between two of the same gender is not a "real" or "True" Christian church; at least not in the way I've read and understood it. That's just my opinion, because we all understand and interpret differently.”

I believe this sums it up ...

Romans 1:18-32

“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations,
and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts,
and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto (their) vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

Considering the definition of "Christian", I have to agree with you, they're not "real" Christians. They are supporting the abomination of sin, and shaming that which God has sanctified as Holy.

[Mr.B]

“I knew a woman who became "born again" ten or so years ago.....she was adamant that anyone not accepting her version of saved was going to hell, no ifs ands or buts. I asked what about the billion Indian people, the two billion Chinese etc.

All going to hell....Ok, whatever.”

I've met a few like that; over the top.

She's no different in her die-hard opinions than those of you here who are adamant that Christians are believing in an invisible sky fairy; no ifs ands or buts.

(Oops ... my bad! I'm not supposed to be quoting you! Oh well, maybe there's still a few grown-ups still reading this forum.)

[Seth Milner]

... If what the Bible says is Gospel for those who profess to be True Christians™ , then a Christian church that performs a wedding between two of the same gender is not a "real" or "True" Christian church; at least not in the way I've read and understood it. That's just my opinion, because we all understand and interpret differently.

Why don't you feel the same about churches that allow women to speak, serve shellfish at dinners, have pastors that cut their hair, let parishioners wear blended cloth, etc.?

My bad. I'm not getting into Biblical pissing contests; nor a homosexual pissing contests; I have no opinions to be expressed on either.

[Vrede too]

:?: :?: :?: You stated your opinion - that tolerant Christians aren't "real Christians". When confronted with other Christian beliefs that are given the same biblical weight that would then also make people be not "real Christians", a responsible person would either back up his unequivocal opinion or retract it.

[bannination]

:?: :?: :?: You stated your opinion - that tolerant Christians aren't "real Christians". When confronted with other Christian beliefs that are given the same biblical weight that would then also make people be not "real Christians", a responsible person would either back up his unequivocal opinion or retract it.

However, the expected course of action is to insert fingers into ears, and go LALALALLALALLALALLALALALLALA.

What if there is really only one "True Christian". It could be like highlander, whenever there is a challenger.... "There can be only one."