"Those Who Oppose Gay Rights Are Vilified"

sso

sso

Well-Known Member
lol Padawanbater2 , i concur.

yes, i got these boners for pussies, just like everyone.
but im gonna choose to fuck some guys in the ass instead, oh and as a bonus ill get beaten up regularily.

that will be fun.

im gonna ignore what my dick tells me and go for hairy ass and since i only get boners for babes, im gonna picture that to get an erection so i can fuck this guy here.

anyone who says its a choice, hasnt given the matter the slightest thought.
 
GreenGurl

GreenGurl

Well-Known Member
Carne Seca said:
I can't believe I still have to point this shit out. It's just common sense.
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time to type all this out... I'm so over trying to educate these people (people who can't even comprehend their own compulsory heterosexuality).
 
sso

sso

Well-Known Member
it is a bit troublesome, educating retards.

thankfully such retards are becoming a minority. luckily in such a short time. (it just seems slower because its horrible living with unrestrained retards if they are assholes too and these certainly are)

actually monsters, who beats someone up for fucking some willing guy?

they both wanted it, besides, many gays are lookers according to women, and as the retards are such repellent retards, they should be thankful that their competition has lessened.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Do you honestly think your argument is supported by merely declaring 'fallacy'? Fallacies are errors of logic, if they have been made, it should be a simple task of pointing it out. How 'bouts you share with everyone else here exactly what the fallacies are so we can all follow along?

It would be interesting to also find out exactly what the process you went through when you chose to become heterosexual. It is certainly reasonable that if gays 'choose' then everyone does. I would find it quite a statistical anomaly to find out that the only people that actually choose who they are attracted to happen to all be gay.
 
karri0n

karri0n

Well-Known Member
Listen, can anyone on either side of the question discuss it without hate speech, knee-jerk reactions, or personal insults?

The question is, "do you think people are ever ostracized for saying they do not support gay marriage?"

This isn't an "is homosexuality immoral" thread, nor is it a gay bashing thread.




Personally, I'll say yes, I have seen it happen.
 
DelSlow

DelSlow

Well-Known Member
Ostracized? Hmmm...well if you walk around saying "I don't think any of you gays should be able to get married, suck on THAT!" then yeah, people might not want to talk to you. Might I ask why you give a shit what gay people do?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
karri0n said:
The question is, "do you think people are ever ostracized for saying they do not support gay marriage?"
Click to expand...
It was more "is it wrong to make fun of or mock these people -homophobes- (or people who use their religion to justify their opinions about homosexuals)? Would it be wrong to mock a holocaust denier? A flat earther? What's the difference? Should someones homophobia get a free pass simply because someones faith says so?
 
karri0n

karri0n

Well-Known Member
DelSlow said:
Ostracized? Hmmm...well if you walk around saying "I don't think any of you gays should be able to get married, suck on THAT!" then yeah, people might not want to talk to you. Might I ask why you give a shit what gay people do?
Click to expand...
If someone walks around shouting the shit from the rooftops, then they are an asshole. What about when the question is specifiacally asked? Like when Perez Hilton asked Carrie Prejean if she thought all states should legalize gay marriage and she stated she thought that states should be able to legalize it if they choose, and that her personal beliefs were that marriage should be between two people of opposite genders. She was fired for that statement.

I'm not saying she was right, and I can't stand the fact that she used the thing to make more publicity for herself on faux news, but the point is that these types of things do indeed happen.
 
Carne Seca

Carne Seca

Well-Known Member
1) Carrie was unavailable for the pageant organized interviews. She committed to only 1 of the 17 interviews that were scheduled. Sadly, the pageant had pitched 46 different entities for press interviews with Carrie but only 17 agreed. The others refused because of the controversy that Carrie was embroiled in.

2) The main sponsors for Miss California USA sent letters to the organization claiming that they will no longer sponsor the pageant because of the controversy that Carrie had caused. Her statements against gay marriage and rights and the lies regarding images of her had appalled the sponsors and their clients.

3) The costs for the organization to deal with the controversies caused by Carrie far outweighed the revenues they could possibly ever recoup from her representation. These costs were primarily legal fees including notifying Carrie of her multiple contract breaches as well as the public relations costs for the unremitting damage control.

Nice try Karrion.
​
 
Total Head

Total Head

Well-Known Member
so wait...it's ok to get on the pulpit and incite hatred toward an entire group of people, but not ok when they defend themselves from it? imagine civil rights laws violating the church's beliefs. lolwut? anyone remember what the church had to say about slavery not too long ago? where did they get it from? it's that book thing, right? the bible? yeah, that's it. the bible says to own slaves and hate gays and sell your daughter to neighboring nations. FUCKING DUH PEOPLE.
 
karri0n

karri0n

Well-Known Member
Carne Seca said:
1) Carrie was unavailable for the pageant organized interviews. She committed to only 1 of the 17 interviews that were scheduled. Sadly, the pageant had pitched 46 different entities for press interviews with Carrie but only 17 agreed. The others refused because of the controversy that Carrie was embroiled in.

2) The main sponsors for Miss California USA sent letters to the organization claiming that they will no longer sponsor the pageant because of the controversy that Carrie had caused. Her statements against gay marriage and rights and the lies regarding images of her had appalled the sponsors and their clients.

3) The costs for the organization to deal with the controversies caused by Carrie far outweighed the revenues they could possibly ever recoup from her representation. These costs were primarily legal fees including notifying Carrie of her multiple contract breaches as well as the public relations costs for the unremitting damage control.

Nice try Karrion.
​
Click to expand...
So she answered a question on a current hot political topic(a question that was purposely posed to her by a man known for being a gay activist, with the intent of making her lose the competition), and was ostracized by the sponsors, the pageant organization, and the public, causing massive PR and legal damages? How is this not proving my point?
 
Carne Seca

Carne Seca

Well-Known Member
karri0n said:
So she answered a question on a current hot political topic(a question that was purposely posed to her by a man known for being a gay activist, with the intent of making her lose the competition), and was ostracized by the sponsors, the pageant organization, and the public, causing massive PR and legal damages? How is this not proving my point?
Click to expand...
She lied about nude photos and she was in breach of contract. No matter how you try you cannot bend this incident to your agenda. She had 17 damn engagements and only managed to make one of them. Then she lied and said no one told her about them even though it was proved she had received the itinerary and confirmed. Would you also like to talk about her sex tape and asking her boyfriend to lie about it?

Yeah, she's a great upstanding example of goodness and us homos are the evil lying bastards... yep.
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
Total Head said:
so wait...it's ok to get on the pulpit and incite hatred toward an entire group of people, but not ok when they defend themselves from it? imagine civil rights laws violating the church's beliefs. lolwut? anyone remember what the church had to say about slavery not too long ago? where did they get it from? it's that book thing, right? the bible? yeah, that's it. the bible says to own slaves and hate gays and sell your daughter to neighboring nations. FUCKING DUH PEOPLE.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you are talking about. The Bible never once tells you to own slaves or hate anyone. It says that if you have a slave to set them free. The Bible never says anything about hating gays. It says that it is not natural and therefore against Gods will. It says that no unrepentant sinner will enter into his kingdom. Homosexuality is just one of those sins. So before you go around making claims about what the Bible says, you should actually read it first.

As for the original question. I don't really care what your personal preference is. I just don't think that a Church should be forced into marrying gay couples. Other than that, I don't see any problem with giving equal rights to couples. If they want to buy a house together or file joint taxes and all thats cool. Just don't file a law suit when my pastor won't marry you because your gay.
 
Carne Seca

Carne Seca

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
You have no idea what you are talking about. The Bible never once tells you to own slaves or hate anyone. It says that if you have a slave to set them free. The Bible never says anything about hating gays. It says that it is not natural and therefore against Gods will. It says that no unrepentant sinner will enter into his kingdom. Homosexuality is just one of those sins. So before you go around making claims about what the Bible says, you should actually read it first.

As for the original question. I don't really care what your personal preference is. I just don't think that a Church should be forced into marrying gay couples. Other than that, I don't see any problem with giving equal rights to couples. If they want to buy a house together or file joint taxes and all thats cool. Just don't file a law suit when my pastor won't marry you because your gay.
Click to expand...
Leviticus:

44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

47And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family:

48After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him:

49Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself.

50And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubile: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him.

Leviticus (once again):

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Not once has it ever been said by anyone (except the anti-gay rabble) that churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples. The marriage law in California that was repealed because of propaganda and media induced hysteria had a clause that stated no church would HAVE to marry same-sex couples. That is just more fear mongering.

Hey kettle! Meet Pot! Maybe you should be doing a little more reading and little less posting ;)
[/FONT]
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
Carne Seca said:
Leviticus:

44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

47And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family:

48After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him:

49Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself.

50And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubile: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him.

Leviticus (once again):

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Not once has it ever been said by anyone (except the anti-gay rabble) that churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples. The marriage law in California that was repealed because of propaganda and media induced hysteria had a clause that stated no church would HAVE to marry same-sex couples. That is just more fear mongering.

Hey kettle! Meet Pot! Maybe you should be doing a little more reading and little less posting ;)
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

wow Leviticus, how surprising! This old argument has been beat to death. There is a lot of background info on this text. Keep reading through it. Read the preceding and following chapters. When you take that one section and separate it out it looks bad, but when you get into it the Bible is simply telling people how to deal fairly with slaves and property in general. Back then if someone owed you money they effectively became your slave. The Bible goes on to set limits on how long you can force someone to work for you before you must set them free. Which eliminates slavery by only making people work for what is owed.
 
Carne Seca

Carne Seca

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
wow Leviticus, how surprising! This old argument has been beat to death. There is a lot of background info on this text. Keep reading through it. Read the preceding and following chapters. When you take that one section and separate it out it looks bad, but when you get into it the Bible is simply telling people how to deal fairly with slaves and property in general. Back then if someone owed you money they effectively became your slave. The Bible goes on to set limits on how long you can force someone to work for you before you must set them free. Which eliminates slavery by only making people work for what is owed.
Click to expand...
Bondsmen for life is slavery no matter how you cut it up. And if you read the passage it's not about "owing people money" unless you are Israelite. Foreigners were bought and sold at will and kept in slavery indefinitely. How do deal FAIRLY with slaves? I thought you said the bible didn't tell them to own slaves. Yet, clearly it does. It looks bad because it IS bad.
 
karri0n

karri0n

Well-Known Member
Carne Seca said:
Bondsmen for life is slavery no matter how you cut it up. And if you read the passage it's not about "owing people money" unless you are Israelite. Foreigners were bought and sold at will and kept in slavery indefinitely. How do deal FAIRLY with slaves? I thought you said the bible didn't tell them to own slaves. Yet, clearly it does. It looks bad because it IS bad.
Click to expand...
Sorry CB, but this is just one of many instances that shows how terribly outdated the bible is for today's society. The bible to this day remains a piece of political literature, with a few good things left in that were spoken by a positively great man. I truly wish people would actually follow what Jesus said and throw this abomination of his teachings in the trash.
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
karri0n said:
Sorry CB, but this is just one of many instances that shows how terribly outdated the bible is for today's society. The bible to this day remains a piece of political literature, with a few good things left in that were spoken by a positively great man. I truly wish people would actually follow what Jesus said and throw this abomination of his teachings in the trash.
Click to expand...
Actually to anyone who actually studies the Bible and the history of those times, this is simply an example of how the Bible addresses very difficult situations of those times and provides ways of being fair to the people that dwell on your land and that owe you money. This conversation will show to any Bible scholar the outright ignorance concerning the Bible. The fact of the matter is that you both are taking one section of the law out of its historical context and failing to recognize the large picture of the reality that they lived in. Yes at the time slavery was a fact of life to the whole world. At the time this law was very relevant and provided ways to be fair. Now when we look back and read this script we no longer have a need for a law concerning slavery. But this scripture has very important historical facts and lessons for us to use today. You should no more discard this text than you should discard Mein Kampf. Everyone will agree that Mein Kampf is a horrible piece of history but holds some very good insight on the minds of historical dictators.
 
Carne Seca

Carne Seca

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
Actually to anyone who actually studies the Bible and the history of those times, this is simply an example of how the Bible addresses very difficult situations of those times and provides ways of being fair to the people that dwell on your land and that owe you money. This conversation will show to any Bible scholar the outright ignorance concerning the Bible. The fact of the matter is that you both are taking one section of the law out of its historical context and failing to recognize the large picture of the reality that they lived in. Yes at the time slavery was a fact of life to the whole world. At the time this law was very relevant and provided ways to be fair. Now when we look back and read this script we no longer have a need for a law concerning slavery. But this scripture has very important historical facts and lessons for us to use today. You should no more discard this text than you should discard Mein Kampf. Everyone will agree that Mein Kampf is a horrible piece of history but holds some very good insight on the minds of historical dictators.
Click to expand...
So we went from THE BIBLE DOESN'T SAY THAT!!! to oh well, that was then, this is now. You can say the same thing about bigotry against LGBT's. It's archaic and is simply a Semitic tribal taboo that has outlived it's expiration date. The funny thing is the anti-gay folks pick and choose what laws to enforce and which ones to ignore. Like eating shell fish or allowing a child to live that does not honor his parents or stoning to death adulterers (look out Newt Gingrich). The list goes on and on.

It's pile of steaming hypocrisy that is perpetuated throughout our society. Once again, just leave us the fuck alone to live our lives and we'll do the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top