Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haggard thread #2
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 168 (364571)
11-18-2006 2:36 PM


I just hate to see a good thread die.
This is a bit late (and not one of Rubin Bolling's best), but here is the latest Tom the Dancing Bug.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 168 (364572)
11-18-2006 3:05 PM


I was going to put this in "Humor II", but since Haggard is topping the charts right now:
Super Televangelistic Sex And Drugs Psychosis
MP3 version

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 168 (364677)
11-19-2006 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
11-07-2006 2:55 PM


stupid or less than stupid?
gasby wrote:
quote:
The way I see it, this could lead to 2 reactions among the fundies: (1) it looks like homosexuality couldn't be cured and (2) homosexuality is sinful and destroys marriage.
to which PaulK replied:
quote:
If you've noticed anything about fundamentalists it's that they often assume that if they like an idea then it's true. Since they mostly won't like 1) and will like 2) it's pretty obvious which way the majority would go.
Exactly. I can't see how anyone who isn't stupid could look at the Haggard scandal and believe it demonstrates gasby's (2). And really, when you think about it you realize that 'stupid' is too kind a word, since it means 'slow to learn or understand'. The problem with these morons is not that they're slow on the uptake; it's that there IS no uptake, slow or otherwise. Any fact which gets in the way of their beliefs is simply disregarded.
But I think most decent people are beginning to catch on to the sophistry and double standards these religious dolts use to condemn anyone they don't like. Even stupid people are "wising up" so to speak, because like I said earlier, stupids are simply slow to learn. Even they, when repeatedly presented with the specious nonsense of (2), will eventually begin to wonder why it is that we don't blame heterosexuality when a married man or woman has an affair with a member of the opposite sex.
I've come to realize that the stupids are not the problem. The problem is those who've willfully made themselves incapable of even the simplist critical thinking.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 11-07-2006 2:55 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2006 8:09 AM berberry has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 34 of 168 (364692)
11-19-2006 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by berberry
11-19-2006 3:53 AM


Re: stupid or less than stupid? (neither?)
I can't see how anyone who isn't stupid could look at the Haggard scandal and believe it demonstrates gasby's (2). {homosexuality is sinful and destroys marriage.}
This isn't about studity, it is about a totally different worldview or value system. Thus your overall argument seems to be a strawman.
You are correct that homosexuality does not destroy marriage any more or less than heterosexuality... when the underlying issue is adultery. But you seem to miss the point. The people that don't like homosexuality also don't like adultery, and many are even against heterosexual sex if it is outside of marriage. They use the EXACT same argument above against sexually graphic materials, even if they are straight. Thus homosexuality is not, and never has been, the sole focus of their wrath... even if you may feel like that since that is where they hit you.
In their worldview sex itself is sinful unless contained within a specific type of relationship, preferably sanctioned in marriage. SIN is more important than "destroys marriage". The latter result is simply evidence for the effects of sin. It would be bad regardless.
Homosexuality is certainly considered more sinful than most sexual activities, but not necessarily all sexual activities. And the activity is more important than the inclination, which is why people like Haggard can get away by blaming the "sin" and their weakness.
If they had their preference many more things would be against the law, including for straights. They simply have been fighting a losing battle over time on those laws, and homosexuality is one of the latest fronts, but not the only one regarding sex.
With regard to marriage they believe that it is (or should only be) about a single man and woman, preferably leading toward a family. That does make homosexuality an issue for any person trying to "live right" as it offers an added temptation. Just like an interest in hookers or porn.
The problem is those who've willfully made themselves incapable of even the simplist critical thinking.
Right and wrong cannot be derived from simple facts and logic. It takes a moral sentiment, which is ALWAYS irrational. Once one starts with their basic moral sentiment as an assumed truth, critical thinking would arguably result in the same conclusions they make. That's the underlying problem.
And it should be noted Abrahamic code beliefs are not the only moral sentiments which find homosexuality repulsive or "detrimental" in some vaguely indeterminate way. There are other religious types and even atheists who don't like gays. Starting with those same feelings, they generate the same conclusions... quite logically.
I think most decent people are beginning to catch on to the sophistry and double standards these religious dolts use to condemn anyone they don't like.
Ahem... who is decent? Them? You? Who makes that call?
Everyone who condemns another for feeling and acting "wrongly", while maintaining their feelings and actions are "right", are generally engaged in some level of sophistry and double standards. Make sure you understand that that isn't just a slap at you.
Different systems of belief generally have no ultimate (objective) criteria for truth. And they will generally deliver conflicting results with another system. It is inaccurate to condemn the followers of another system with stupidity just because they view the world differently.
Oh it makes you antagonists, but does not mark anyone as inherently less intelligent, or decent. And anyway name-calling of this kind isn't going to solve the problem.
Have gay organizations tried to reach out to Haggard to see if he can come to grips with his homosexuality from a different perspective. To see it as less a "curse" than a simple fact of his nature, which need not be harmful? It might be interesting if he was able to switch sides and then perhaps help other evangelists look at it differently (especially all the OTHER closet cases).
Edited by holmes, : clarity

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 3:53 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 9:22 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 42 by Taz, posted 11-19-2006 1:19 PM Silent H has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 168 (364696)
11-19-2006 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Silent H
11-19-2006 8:09 AM


Re: stupid or less than stupid? (neither?)
holmes writes me:
quote:
...you seem to miss the point. The people that don't like homosexuality also don't like adultery.
So they claim, but they deliberately avoid blaming adultery when there's another "sin" involved, one that is much less frequently an issue in the breakup of heterosexual marriages but one which religous bigots enjoy condemning much much more. No no, that IS the point, holmes, I just didn't think it needed to be made so explicitly. Blaming homosexuality for the breakup of some marriages where a gay affair was involved but not blaming heterosexuality for the breakup of others where a straight affair was involved when in both types of cases adultery is the real problem is what misses the point.
quote:
Thus homosexuality is not, and never has been, the sole focus of their wrath... even if you may feel like that since that is where they hit you.
Can you cite any post where I've said any such thing? Stop patronizing me, holmes. I know that the vast majority of religious dolts are not crazy about either pornography or pre-marital sex, but my post wasn't about porn or pre-marital sex. It was about a particular bit of anti-gay sophistry that is almost the founding credo of some fundie christian organizations like CWA.
I'm gay, holmes. The activism of these people against gays is my prmiary concern. Once that's been dealt with in our favor I will more often speak about their other bullshit beliefs. As it is at this precise moment in time, a statemnet saying that homosexuality is sinful and destroys marriage is not likely to launch me into a tirade about anti-porn politics. That's just the way it is.
It's not that I don't care about freedom of the press or about, for instance, young girls who've gotten themselves into trouble and who are grossly and callously ill-served by the religious idiots and their policies on not only pre-marital sex but also birth control, abortion and sex education. I'm a more-than-just-the-minimum dues-paying member of the ACLU for crying out loud. I just don't see the need to bring all that up when I'm making a brief comment about one particular specious statement.
quote:
Everyone who condemns another for feeling and acting "wrongly", while maintaining their feelings and actions are "right", are generally engaged in some level of sophistry and double standards. Make sure you understand that that isn't just a slap at you.
You have a firm grasp of the obvious, holmes. Once again, when I'm arguing against one particular bit of sophistry, I don't generally feel the need to drag in every other example of sophistry I can think of. Sorry, but I'm not likely to change on that.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2006 8:09 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 10:40 AM berberry has replied
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2006 10:46 AM berberry has replied
 Message 55 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 8:47 AM berberry has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 36 of 168 (364709)
11-19-2006 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taz
11-08-2006 1:07 PM


Re: The Latest
Check out this link, Gasby! The best (or worst) part of the article is:
RMN writes:
Haggard's scandal may be the best known but is hardly the only one. Consider what happened just a week before, at a church Arterburn declines to name:
During the Sunday sermon, the pastor turned on his PowerPoint screen to highlight scripture notes for his congregation.
"But the PowerPoint notes didn't come up - it was the most disgusting picture from his pornography collection," Arterburn said.
Elders removed the pastor immediately, and he is being counseled now by Arterburn's ministry.
Here is another related story as well.
Edited by Phat, : add

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 11-08-2006 1:07 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Taz, posted 11-19-2006 1:32 PM Phat has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 168 (364710)
11-19-2006 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by berberry
11-19-2006 9:22 AM


Re: stupid or less than stupid? (neither?)
they deliberately avoid blaming adultery when there's another "sin" involved, one that is much less frequently an issue in the breakup of heterosexual marriages but one which religous bigots enjoy condemning much much more.
I agree with your sentiments. The maltreatment of homosexuals is simply unacceptable from a Christian standpoint. Many Christians have singled out homosexuality with ferocity and has either intentionally or inadvertently deemed it as a "worse sin" than others have. When dealing with God’s Law, this just isn’t so. Homosexuality is no worse, or better, than any sexual immorality. ALL sin is alike to God. From a Christian point of view, while never placating or condoning homosexual behavior, it is important not to harbor a spirit of condemnation. I think the problem does not believe themselves to be violating any law of God or nature, while the Christian views the homosexual to be just like any one else trapped in a certain kind of sin. The response to them with the same amount of love and compassion as anyone else struggling in a sin would obviously be optimal.
No no, that IS the point, holmes, I just didn't think it needed to be made so explicitly. Blaming homosexuality for the breakup of some marriages where a gay affair was involved but not blaming heterosexuality for the breakup of others where a straight affair was involved when in both types of cases adultery is the real problem is what misses the point.
I think the greater point is that Ted Haggard, alone, is to blame.
I'm gay, holmes. The activism of these people against gays is my prmiary concern. Once that's been dealt with in our favor I will more often speak about their other bullshit beliefs... religious idiots
You can start by not condemning everyone by virtue of association.

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 9:22 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 12:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 38 of 168 (364714)
11-19-2006 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by berberry
11-19-2006 9:22 AM


Re: stupid or less than stupid? (neither?)
but they deliberately avoid blaming adultery when there's another "sin" involved
First of all they don't let adultery off the hook. I'm not sure where you see that happening. Second, that they mention homosexuality more than heterosexuality when the adultery is of a homosexual nature sort of makes sense. If the person had not had inclinations toward someone of the same sex they would have been less likely to have strayed from their partner.
not blaming heterosexuality for the breakup of others where a straight affair was involved when in both types of cases adultery is the real problem is what misses the point.
Well they do blame heterosexuality that leads to affairs, it is called lust, as defined separately from love which is proper heterosexuality.
Stop patronizing me, holmes.
I like you berb and I am not trying to patronize you, and I am sorry for saying something that could be taken that way. I was trying to make an argument which I appear not to have made clearly enough. As I didn't know exactly what you know or feel I stated "IF you may feel like that since that is where they hit you". IF YOU DIDN'T then it shouldn't matter.
The main point I was trying to make (in that part of my post) is that they use that form of argument against anything sexual that they do not like. The key is not what it actually does to a marriage, but rather the SIN of doing it at all. They use how any particular sin has effected a specific relationship as the sign of the "wages of sin."
I'm gay, holmes. The activism of these people against gays is my prmiary concern. Once that's been dealt with in our favor I will more often speak about their other bullshit beliefs.
I was trying to drive at the idea that what you are is irrelevant. Dealing with their comments/position in a piecemeal fashion (as it effects you) is both inaccurate as well as not very useful.
I just don't see the need to bring all that up when I'm making a brief comment about one particular specious statement.
Right, I'm not asking you to include everything in any specific case. But what you did was make an inaccurate statement about their position. They do blame heterosexuality as much as homosexuality in as much as both involve lust. The only thing they do not attack is appropriate sexual activity which is devoid of lust.
Heterosexuality is thought to be capable of being more than lust, when it is confined to a specific arena. Specifically within marriage it is capable of being love. Homosexuality is thought incapable of being more than just lustful... namely because it has no chance to do anything beyond supply physical gratification.
Of course I could add that for some ascetics heterosexual sex is thought lustful even within marriage and so to be avoided except only for procreation, and even then not often.
In this case homosexuality was involved. Adultery is a given, since he was married, and he mentioned it. Obviously for him, his homosexual desires would have been a cause for straying. If it had been with a woman then it would have been hetero lust.
You have a firm grasp of the obvious, holmes. I'm arguing against one particular bit of sophistry, I don't generally feel the need to drag in every other example of sophistry I can think of. Sorry, but I'm not likely to change on that.
You claimed that decent people as well as people that are not stupid could see through their sophistry and double standards. I don't see why you would make that statement if you felt that pretty much everyone engaging in moral statements are engaged in sophistry and double standards.
In any case, you do not seem to have addressed my overall argument which is that it is not stupidity which leads to their conclusion, but rather a wholly different set of values.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 9:22 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 11:38 AM Silent H has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 168 (364728)
11-19-2006 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Silent H
11-19-2006 10:46 AM


Re: stupid or less than stupid? (neither?)
holmes writes:
quote:
First of all they don't let adultery off the hook. I'm not sure where you see that happening.
Did you not notice the statement I was responding to: "homosexuality is sinful and destroys marriage"? I've tried, but I can't find even so much as a nebulus adumbration mildly intimating a vague hint that adultery is sinful in that. Rather, I regard it as a condemnation of homosexuality. You?
If you're thinking about saying that the statement was incomplete and simply recited as hearsay or speculation by gasby, please don't. I promise you that although you might be technically correct, gasby is essentially correct. If you need, I can pull you a few examples of the exact same stand-alone sentiment, quite possibly but not necessarily in the exact same words, from online publications of groups like Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association.
It was that bigoted sentiment and only that bigoted sentiment that I was responding to. Although some of the words I used might have seemed too broad and might not have worked in certain more-or-less parallel civil rights debates when transposed to the relevant arguments, I had my mind on only that one thing.
As for my use of the word 'decent' to describe certain 'people', I defer to your excellent point. Please consider the value-judging adjective withdrawn. The rest of the sentence stands.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2006 10:46 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2006 4:46 PM berberry has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 168 (364734)
11-19-2006 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 10:40 AM


the condesending nature of christian "concern"
nemesis_juggernaut writes me:
quote:
I agree with your sentiments.
That's not easy to believe in light of some other things you have to say. I think it's possible that you might to some small extent understand my sentiments, but if you insist that my sexuality and/or any consentual sexual activity in which I might engage is automatically a sin, no matter how pure of heart and full of love the prelude to the act and the execution of the act might have been, then I maintain that your word 'agree' can't possibly be taken seriously.
Your worldview appears to offer us gays little or no possibility of love, happiness and contentment in life. Unlike you heterosexuals, we gays and lesbians are inherently sinful because of our sexuality. Do you feel that this is a message that needs to be drilled into the heads of children at every possible turn? Is it advisable that gay teenagers be allowed to get to adulthood without receiving messages of hatred and intolerance from those bigots who would tell them that, unlike the straight kids all gay kids are sinful by nature and have only a life of "struggling with sin" to look forward to?
Do you realize that your suggestion that we gays are "trapped" in the "sin" of "sexual immorality" is extremely insulting? How dare you make such judgements about people you neither know nor have ever heard of? Apparently, the fact that they're homosexual is all you need to know. If you can't honor me with even the most basic of human decencies - like that of not making unfounded, bigoted value judgements about me before you've even communicated with me in any way - then I'm sorry but I regard your condesending and clueless attempt to put a happy face on your bigotry as precisely that.
Edited by berberry, : fleshed out the final paragraph a bit to eliminate a potential unintended inference.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 10:40 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 1:02 PM berberry has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 168 (364741)
11-19-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by berberry
11-19-2006 12:15 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
That's not easy to believe in light of some other things you have to say. I think it's possible that you might to some small extent understand my sentiments, but if you insist that my sexuality and/or any consentual sexual activity in which I might engage is automatically a sin, no matter how pure of heart and full of love the prelude to the act and the execution of the act might have been, then I maintain that your word 'agree' can't possibly be taken seriously.
I don't believe homosexuality is natural. I believe it is an aberration, and I make no apology for that belief. However, treating homosexuals poorly is completely unproductive and counter intuitive. Its also unfair to stigmatize homosexuality as being worse than any other type of sin. That's what I was speaking out against.
I realize that you believe otherwise and I don't doubt your sincerity. You are certainly entitled to those beliefs.
Your worldview appears to offer us gays little or no possibility of love, happiness and contentment in life.
I want to you to have all the happiness in the world. I just believe that trying to find love down this avenue is misguided and ultimately speaks more loudly of a love that most homosexuals long for. I want all the happiness for you. I just don't believe that you will find it on your current path.
Unlike you heterosexuals, we gays and lesbians are inherently sinful because of our sexuality.
That's not true. Homosexuality is just one facet of sexual immorality. You are no more a sinner than I am. There may be one central difference. I can admit my sins. I don't know if you even believe in the concept of sins, so I can't say for sure whether you admit yours or not.
Do you feel that this is a message that needs to be drilled into the heads of children at every possible turn?
Children? No. Are you a child? What did you mean by that statement?
Is it advisable that gay teenagers be allowed to get to adulthood without receiving messages of hatred and intolerance from those bigots who would tell them that, unlike the straight kids all gay kids are sinful by nature and have only a life of "struggling with sin" to look forward to?
I believe we all struggle with sin. Naming the particular sin is irrespective of that. I don't believe there is really something as a gay teenager. I see a confused teenager, which is common among those of that age bracket.
Do you realize that your suggestion that we gays are "trapped" in the "sin" of "sexual immorality" is extremely insulting?
Yes, I understand that.
How dare you make such judgements about people you neither know nor have ever heard of?
I'm not. I'm simply telling you that I don't believe homosexuality is natural and that I believe it to be a sin.
Apparently, the fact that they're homosexual is all you need to know.
If you're a murderer, isn't that all the information I need to know that you're a murderer?
If you can't honor me with even the most basic of human decencies
I do grant with basic human decencies. If you want human indecencies, that's on you.
like that of not making unfounded, bigoted value judgements about me before you've even communicated with me in any way - then I'm sorry but I regard your condesending and clueless attempt to put a happy face on your bigotry as precisely that.
The irony is that you call me a bigot, all the while espousing your own bigotry against my beliefs. Why don't you go on believing your beliefs and I'll go about believing in mine? This is the intolerant face of 'tolerance' Berb. So if you want me to remove the speck of sawdust out of my eye, take the plank out off yours first so that you can see clearly.

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 12:15 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Taz, posted 11-19-2006 2:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 49 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 7:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 42 of 168 (364744)
11-19-2006 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Silent H
11-19-2006 8:09 AM


Re: stupid or less than stupid? (neither?)
holmes writes:
Have gay organizations tried to reach out to Haggard to see if he can come to grips with his homosexuality from a different perspective.
This is a sensitive situation. Any outreach from the gay community would definitely be viewed as invasive and further proof of the so-called homosexual agenda.
It might be interesting if he was able to switch sides and then perhaps help other evangelists look at it differently (especially all the OTHER closet cases).
Honestly, what are the chances of that happening?
I know what you're trying to say. When I was only a few years younger, I used to condemn gays and all other sinfuls. I have a friend who in high school was bullied by a macho biggot who kept saying "I hate you cuz you're a fag". The biggot now wears pink clothings and is as effeminate gay as one can be. He even apologized to my friend a couple of times. Both my friend and I are now very gay friendly.
However, I simply don't see people like Haggard switching sides. He might come out and say "I'm gay" but he'll just become another self-hating gay person out there.
Whatever Haggard turns out to be, he will not help our cause at all. This Haggard event is at best a temporary comedy to relieve stress, nothing more.
Added by edit.
Thus homosexuality is not, and never has been, the sole focus of their wrath... even if you may feel like that since that is where they hit you.
While I agree with you that fundies have been having a campaign against sex for as long as anyone can remember, the current apparent injustice is undoubtedly one committed against gay people. Besides, having grown up in a fundy environment and having spent most of my life being a fundy biggot, I must admit that some of it still exists in me. In other words, I'm not too fond of sex, although I let you (or anyone else) do whatever you want.
Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc
The thread about this map can be found here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2006 8:09 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2006 5:01 PM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 43 of 168 (364749)
11-19-2006 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
11-19-2006 10:38 AM


Re: The Latest
Another example of why according to the fundy standards I am morally superior to a lot of the actual fundies out there. I don't have any porn on my computer. I don't watch porn. I don't get off when I see porn. Heck, I don't even like porn. I personally think it's derogatory to human dignity. The difference between me and the fundies is I let people have it because it's only my personal opinion and I don't require that my personal opinion be made into the law.
But yes, that is very funny!

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc
The thread about this map can be found here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 11-19-2006 10:38 AM Phat has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 44 of 168 (364761)
11-19-2006 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 1:02 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
nemesis writes:
Why don't you go on believing your beliefs and I'll go about believing in mine? This is the intolerant face of 'tolerance' Berb. So if you want me to remove the speck of sawdust out of my eye, take the plank out off yours first so that you can see clearly.
People like me might believe you when you say this if you people would leave gay people well alone... but obviously you haven't left them alone and there's no indication that you'll be leaving them alone in the near future.
I just don't believe that you will find it on your current path.
I always love self-fulfilling prophecies. I don't believe you're going to find happiness down the path you are taking, but hey, I'm going to push and vote for legislations that will make sure you won't find happiness down your path.

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc
The thread about this map can be found here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 1:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 5:18 PM Taz has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 45 of 168 (364776)
11-19-2006 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by berberry
11-19-2006 11:38 AM


Re: stupid or less than stupid? (neither?)
...I was responding to: "homosexuality is sinful and destroys marriage"?... I regard it as a condemnation of homosexuality. You?
Okay I see that I misread the extent of what you were discussing.
That particular statement by Gasby is a condemnation of homosexuality to be sure, but I'm not certain I see it as the same kind of condemnation you are suggesting. I take it as a lesson derived from this particular instance about homosexuality as it causes more problems.
And that does seem coherent given their worldview. Here's a guy that was married and trying to live right, but all along he was consumed with sin... in this case homosexuality... which drove him to commit adultery... in this case homosexual adultery.
Adultery itself being a sin is a given, the lesson is about the more fundamental sin which drove him to it. After all adultery is rarely engaged in just for its own sake, there is usually another sinful urge which causes it. Do you see what I am driving at?
If it had been hetero adultery they'd likely have looked for other possible sins that drove him to it (porn, intoxication, etc). In the absence of anything else they'd simply say unbridled lust.
So yeah this one is being used to learn the lessons of homosexuality, but not at the expense of learning a lesson regarding adultery.
Along the lines I think you are driving at, I see more evident duplicity when they suggest gay marriage must be disallowed because it will destroy marriage, yet allow divorce, and do not argue for punishments for (at least not as vigorously) for adultery in general. Clearly as you have suggested heterosexual urges have had much greater effect in ending marriages than homosexuality ever could. Why not chase them first, rather than worrying about the effects of homosexuality at all?
Edited by holmes, : quote fix

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 11:38 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 7:31 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024