The homophobic thread :>

[Seth Milner]

Here I go again!

And that's the core of the issue. "The Bible says it" really isn't relevant to anyone who is not a Bible believer.
Whether they believe it or not is irrelevant, and that's the point I'm making. The Bible has been around much longer than any of us or our ancestors that settled in this part of the world. The faithful believe in it, and our forefathers relied on it's words as comfort and hope to deliver them to a new world. So, my point is, the faithful still believe it, and the non-believers have chosen to not believe in it; but the non-believers ridicule believers because they choose to follow what they believe to be the Word of God, and what God has deemed to be sin.

But if someone wants to take that as their argument, then it's certainly fair game to beat them over the head with what else "the Bible says."
What I said.

[O Really]

There are many other documents that have been around for thousands of years also, and many religions older than Christianity or Judaism. To me, they all have equal weight, and that is the same weight as other documents or evidence that might come along after the Bible, et. al. were written. For some reason, our society finds it reasonable to accept a belief the earth is 6,000 years old when offered as an interpretation of Biblical text, even though that belief is ridiculous on its face. It's the same as saying the sound of thunder is Thor swinging his hammer. We know it's not Thor,now, and we know the earth is way older than 6,000 years. Why are both of those sincerely held beliefs not equally subject to ridicule?

Look, I'm not talking about conceptual beliefs that have rituals or create a sense of knowing the unknowable. I don't know or care if Christians taking communion really believe the wine becomes blood or if the original disciples thought they were actually eating Jesus (Luke 22:19) "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." A person who chooses a religion and follows its rituals is fine with me, and I won't ridicule him/her for it per se. But when s/he wants to change public school books to conform with their religion, wants to make others follow their rituals in public areas, or wants laws passed based on their religious doctrine, then yeah - I have a problem with that.

[Vrede too]

Saying something is sinful is not being anti? Wow, that's really dumb.

Oh quit whining so. If all of a sudden people in WTFistan started beating and denying jobs and equal rights to others that wear mixed fabric clothes - one of the prohibitions given equal weight in the Bible to homophobia - you would have no problem decrying it as cherry picked bigotry.

"ostracizing"? LOL. I'm fine with Christians like Mr.B and idiots like you marrying any consenting adult that will have you. It's the bigots you defend and probably are one of that do the ostracizing.

"Four-Way Test"? Another LOL! It's the Christian homophobes you stand up for that fail it, utterly. Hypocrisy much?

[O Really]

I like the Four Way Test. I've never been a Rotarian, but my Dad was for a while. Generally good bunch.

So let's see, if I advocate discrimination under the law, based on a person's sexual orientation because I believe being gay is a "lifestyle choice," I would fail all four. If I gave up on the "choice" part, I'd still fail 2-4.

[Vrede too]

The Bible fails all four.

[O Really]

The Bible fails all four.

I'm not sure you can apply principles intended for individuals' words and actions to a document, but let's say you can.

1. Is it true? Not entirely; maybe not very. But we could let that one go for sake of discussion.
2. Is it fair to all concerned? No, in part because much of the Bible focuses on the "chosen" and those who opt in.
3. Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Obviously hasn't. There's a reason people are hesitant to bring up religion or politics in casual conversation. There's also a reason there are a gazillion different Protestant church flavors all who believe they're the ones with the one true answer.
4. Will it be beneficial to all concerned? Not to the ones rejected, shunned, cast out as sinners, or castigated for violations real or imagined.

On the other hand, could we come up with some way to make politicians follow the Four Way Test? Particularly the part about "fair to all" and "beneficial to all concerned"?

[Seth Milner]

Saying something is sinful is not being anti? Wow, that's really dumb.
Saying something that is deemed sinful is anti? Wow, that's really dumb.

Oh quit whining so.
Your standard reply when someone calls you out for the asshole you can be.

If all of a sudden people in WTFistan started beating and denying jobs and equal rights to others that wear mixed fabric clothes - one of the prohibitions given equal weight in the Bible to homophobia - you would have no problem decrying it as cherry picked bigotry.
I'm not qualified to debate piss in the same pot with you on that.

"ostracizing"? LOL. I'm fine with Christians like Mr.B and idiots like you marrying any consenting adult that will have you. It's the bigots you defend and probably are one of that do the ostracizing.
Ostracizing was the mildest term I could come up with. Why am I an idiot; I don't give a damn what consenting adults do in their private moments; and I have defended no one nor have I ostracized anyone. I have merely posted comments that I professed to not being qualified to speak on.

It's the Christian homophobes you stand up for that fail it, utterly. Hypocrisy much?
I have done nor said no such a thing. Read my signature, idiot. You're attempting to impress again, aren't you?

"Four-Way Test"? Another LOL!
It got your attention anyway. People who LOL! at accusations actually see themselves as presented. (see 4th. paragraph)
You should LOL! , you fail miserably.

[Seth Milner]

The Bible fails all four.

I'm not sure you can apply principles intended for individuals' words and actions to a document, but let's say you can.

1. Is it true? Not entirely; maybe not very. But we could let that one go for sake of discussion.
2. Is it fair to all concerned? No, in part because much of the Bible focuses on the "chosen" and those who opt in.
3. Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Obviously hasn't. There's a reason people are hesitant to bring up religion or politics in casual conversation. There's also a reason there are a gazillion different Protestant church flavors all who believe they're the ones with the one true answer.
4. Will it be beneficial to all concerned? Not to the ones rejected, shunned, cast out as sinners, or castigated for violations real or imagined.

On the other hand, could we come up with some way to make politicians follow the Four Way Test? Particularly the part about "fair to all" and "beneficial to all concerned"?

I first learned the Four Way Test in the 4th. grade; it's good thoughts to carry with you if it's applied to every day relations with others; not what you believe in or don't believe in.

[O Really]

I first learned the Four Way Test in the 4th. grade; it's good thoughts to carry with you if it's applied to every day relations with others; not what you believe in or don't believe in.

Agreed, but unfortunately the result is often derided as "political correctness."

[Vrede too]

Saying something is sinful is not being anti? Wow, that's really dumb.

Saying something that is deemed sinful is anti? Wow, that's really dumb.

I see. On your planet condemning something as being sinful can be read as being pro that thing. Does that even make sense to you?

Oh quit whining so.

Your standard reply when someone calls you out for the asshole you can be.

More whining, of course.

If all of a sudden people in WTFistan started beating and denying jobs and equal rights to others that wear mixed fabric clothes - one of the prohibitions given equal weight in the Bible to homophobia - you would have no problem decrying it as cherry picked bigotry.

I'm not qualified to debate piss in the same pot with you on that.

Point ducked, of course.

"ostracizing"? LOL. I'm fine with Christians like Mr.B and idiots like you marrying any consenting adult that will have you. It's the bigots you defend and probably are one of that do the ostracizing.

Ostracizing was the mildest term I could come up with. Why am I an idiot;

How would I know?

I don't give a damn what consenting adults do in their private moments;

But you're just fine with Christian bigots advocating discrimination in law and policy.

and I have defended no one nor have I ostracized anyone. I have merely posted comments that I professed to not being qualified to speak on.

Your standard asshole reply when someone calls you out on your hypocrisy, failed logic and illiteracy - You take a side then pretend to be neutral.

"Four-Way Test"? Another LOL!

It got your attention anyway. People who LOL! at accusations actually see themselves as presented. (see 4th. paragraph)

Wow, that's really dumb.

You should LOL! , you fail miserably.

LOL. I'm fine with Christians like Mr.B and idiots like you marrying any consenting adult that will have you. It's the bigots you defend and probably are one of that do the ostracizing.

It's the Christian homophobes you stand up for that fail it, utterly. Hypocrisy much?

I have done nor said no such a thing. Read my signature, idiot. You're attempting to impress again, aren't you?

Busted lying, again

What does it mean then, when it says man shall not lie with a man as he would a woman? How is that to be taken out of context when it's been there for centuries in black and white regardless how anyone feels about it? I'm not a Bible toting person, but I can read, and how is quoting a verse cherry-picking? :-0?>

... yet you trash Mr.B for his religious beliefs.

And you're idiotic enough to think you can get away with it.

[Seth Milner]

It's the bigots you defend and probably are one of that do the ostracizing.

Bigot? You're calling ME a bigot? Oh wait. . . I'm a bigot because I said "I neither condone or support homosexuality; homosexual relations is something I want no part of; physically or politically." So as not to hurt your delicate feelings over a subject that's apparently dear to your heart, I'll add that I do not condemn homosexuality either. What two people do to each other is their business, not mine. I neither support or condemn SSM either; that's their fight, not mine. I care less whether they won or lost; they get no help, support, or condemnation from me.
Bigot? No. Apathetic? Yes How's that for pretending to be neutral?
Wanna go fishing?

[Vrede too]

My feelings aren't hurt. The bigots and their apologists have lost.

[homerfobe]

My feelings aren't hurt. The bigots and their apologists have lost.

You won! hooray for your side! You gonna grow tits on your back and get married now?

[homerfobe]

Why am I an idiot;

Because fagmaster said so, that's why. How dare you dispute the greatest asshole that ever lived. I told you your ass was grass if you crossed that bastard.

[Seth Milner]

Why am I an idiot;

Because fagmaster said so, that's why. How dare you dispute the greatest asshole that ever lived. I told you your ass was grass if you crossed that bastard.

I was asking why am I being called an idiot. You fail English, Vrede too.

[Vrede too]

It's been explained to you several times. No one is denying that there are 5 or 6 anti-gay verses in the entirety of the Bible. The issue is when Mr.B or anyone else obsesses about them because they fit their modern bigotry while entirely ignoring mandates from the very same books that are given the very same weight because they don't fit their modern bigotry. Of course that's cherry picking.

Saying something is sinful is not being anti? Wow, that's really dumb.

Oh quit whining so. If all of a sudden people in WTFistan started beating and denying jobs and equal rights to others that wear mixed fabric clothes - one of the prohibitions given equal weight in the Bible to homophobia - you would have no problem decrying it as cherry picked bigotry.

"ostracizing"? LOL. I'm fine with Christians like Mr.B and idiots like you marrying any consenting adult that will have you. It's the bigots you defend and probably are one of that do the ostracizing.

"Four-Way Test"? Another LOL! It's the Christian homophobes you stand up for that fail it, utterly. Hypocrisy much?

Get someone smarter than you to explain it.

[Seth Milner]

Get someone smarter than you to explain it.

I thought I did!
Maybe I'll turn to Sometime Lefty or billy.pilgrim; either of those . . . never mind, my mind was wandering for a moment.

[Vrede too]

It's been explained to you several times (1). No one is denying (2) that there are 5 or 6 anti-gay verses in the entirety of the Bible. The issue is (3) when Mr.B or anyone else obsesses about them because they fit their modern bigotry while entirely ignoring mandates from the very same books that are given the very same weight because they don't fit their modern bigotry. Of course that's cherry picking (4).

Saying something is sinful is not being anti? Wow, that's really dumb. (5)

Oh quit whining so. If all of a sudden people in WTFistan started beating and denying jobs and equal rights to others that wear mixed fabric clothes - one of the prohibitions given equal weight in the Bible to homophobia - you would have no problem decrying it as cherry picked bigotry. (6, and still ducked)

"ostracizing"? LOL (7). I'm fine with Christians like Mr.B and idiots like you marrying any consenting adult that will have you. It's the bigots you defend (8) and probably are one of that do the ostracizing.

"Four-Way Test"? Another LOL! It's the Christian homophobes you stand up for that fail it, utterly. Hypocrisy much? (9)

Get someone smarter than you to explain it. (now 10)

Explained.

[Seth Milner]

And you've still ducked my question.

"What does it (the Bible) mean then, when it says man shall not lie with a man as he would a woman?
If that were written in any venue, what, specifically does or would that mean?

[Vrede too]

... Oh quit whining so. If all of a sudden people in WTFistan started beating and denying jobs and equal rights to others that wear mixed fabric clothes - one of the prohibitions given equal weight in the Bible to homophobia - you would have no problem decrying it as cherry picked bigotry. (6, and still ducked) ...

And you've still ducked my question....

Lie, or you're just failing English, again - 11.

It's been explained to you several times (1). No one is denying (2) that there are 5 or 6 anti-gay verses in the entirety of the Bible. The issue is (3) when Mr.B or anyone else obsesses about them because they fit their modern bigotry while entirely ignoring mandates from the very same books that are given the very same weight because they don't fit their modern bigotry. Of course that's cherry picking (4).

Those 5 or 6 anti-gay verses in the entirety of the Bible mean exactly as much or as little as:

The prohibition against wearing mixed fabric clothes.
The prohibition against women speaking in church.
The prohibition against working on the sabbath.
The prohibition against eating shellfish.
The prohibition against those with vision defects attending church.
The prohibition against trimming the hair around one's temples.
The prohibition against touching the skin of a dead pig.
The prohibition against planting two different crops in the same field.
The prohibition against marrying non-virgins.
The prohibitions against female teachers and bosses.
The prohibition against women with "hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes".
The mandate to burn bulls on the altar as a sacrifice.
The support for slavery, slave murder, forcing an unengaged virgin to marry her rapist, polygamy, and for executing unwed non-virgins, blasphemers, parent-cursers and adulterers.

The cherry picking modern bigot decides what to obsess about or not.