It pisses me off that this is even an issue.
Unless they are trying to fvck you or in front of you, who someone wants to be intimate with is nobody else's business.
As long as both parties are consenting adults.
That's the only thing that matters.
It's pure arrogance to believe otherwise.
If there really is a god, and he really does have an issue with homosexuality, let him handle it. It's not your place to do so.
@I Are Lebo, i always thought that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody...so i dont quite understand why other people care what others do when it doesnt effect (affect?) Them :P
@PotatoOnion, 'Affect' was the one, yeah :)
@Handless Juggler , oh ok...i cant really remember the difference between the two...it just doesnt stick lol
@I Are Lebo, this post is a lie the supreme court are the ones that legalize gay marriage in the US.
@mercdragon, lie or not, it's a non issue.
The fact that people ignore the crisis with ISIS (rhyme unintentional) and go on about how gay marriage is going to destroy society is just plain ridiculous.
@I Are Lebo, but the picture is the supreme court is against it. Not the crazy Christians who are against it. And just as much as gays have the right to marry the Christians have the right to oppose it. We all have the right to voice our opinion. I dont care gay or strait dont hurt my life. See im even allowed my opinion under the constitution.
@mercdragon, opposing something from a legal standpoint to enforce a law against something is not the same thing as voicing your opinion.
This is a fact that seems to go over a lot of people's heads.
You are free to dislike gay people.
You are free to dislike gay people getting married.
You are even free to voice that you are offended by gay people being happy.
You are not free to try to stop gay people from getting married, or being happy, or being gay.
Prohibiting others is not freedom of speech, it's oppression.
You are not free to revoke other people's freedoms.
@I Are Lebo, it seriously pisses me off how many people don't get that.
"I don't believe you should be allowed to get married, so I'm going to stop you from getting married!"
"But I want to have equal rights."
"You're saying I can't oppress you! You're infringing upon my freedoms!"
For fvcks sake, people. That's not how freedom works! If you are only free to do what someone else says you can do, then you are not free!
@I Are Lebo, This is the REAL reason people don't like homosexuality:
It encourages their children to be homosexual. Not saying the U.S. is waving it in their face, but if it is an acceptable practice, they a conservative or homophobes children can marry to that of the same sex. Now why does this matter? If you are a homophone, whether it be for scientific, religious, or other reasons, if your child comes home and says he wants to do one of the only things you absolutely disagree with, it hurts the parent. Just as it hurts the child to be denied a parent's acceptance, it hurts the parent to have the child be such a way. I personally believe parents should have more of a right on who their children may marry. Not complete control, but they should be able to decide whether they will allow their child to marry a drug addict or not.
@PotatoOnion, because they're busy body know it alls. And we keep electing them thinking that because they are on "our team" (either democrat or republican) that their ideas of control are ok. But the other side... They have it wrong!
@I Are Lebo, are you for or against gun rights?
@Lt Dubble Bubble, makes sense...but it doesn't really encourage it...more like its just there...another way to better take care of that is...be a parent :P
@Lt Dubble Bubble, you have shown yourself to be extremely ignorant. I'm not saying this to be insulting, it simply happens to be true.
Firstly, you do not choose your sexual preferences. Seeing a gay man doesn't make you gay any more than seeing a black man makes you black. It's a bullshìt excuse born out of ignorance. The only thing seeing homosexuals encourages is to be open about who you are instead of keeping secrets and being ashamed.
Secondly, children doing things theirs parents don't like is a fact of life. Rebelling against your parents during childhood and teenage years is as natural a part of growing up as pimples.
And your attitude of parents having a say in who you marry is an archaic one. We did away with arranged marriages for a reason. Being told who you can and can not marry is not freedom, regardless of whether it is a parent or a government saying it.
You can't have freedom in half measures. That's simply being a control freak.
@I Are Lebo, also, being a parent is not a privilege to control someone else's life, it is a responsibility to raise a responsible and reasonable member of society.
It isn't a child's responsibility to make choices you agree with, it is your responsibility to be open minded and accepting, ESPECIALLY if you happen to disagree with them.
@mercdragon, it's a bit of a hard question for me.
I'm Canadian, so I already don't have the right to own a gun (since I have no interest in going through the extremely harsh gun control laws here)
Personally, I believe most people don't need a gun. I know that in places where the majority of people own guns, violent situations tend to be fatal more often.
On the flip side, not having guns does not stop violence. In the last month in Toronto there have been like half a dozen stabbings.
So the end result is, I'm not touching that one with a ten foot pole.
@big freedom, im talking about people in general not the people we elect
@PotatoOnion, I think he was, too.
@Lt Dubble Bubble, are you a crazy dude? My parents are religious and are extremely disgusted with homosexuality, but they have NEVER once talked to me about it. I knew gay people existed. Even tho my parents never said I can't be gay, and seeing that you're allowed to be gay, I still didn't end up being gay because it's NOT something you CHOOSE. I can't choose to be gay because I'm already straight. It works the SAME way. It doesn't matter if your parents say stuff or society says stuff, that's not going to change the number of gay people. One day science will find the exact genes that make people gay and then we can have an ethical discussion but until then stop blaming gay people for being gay.
@I Are Lebo, oh...then whyd he bring up elections?
@PotatoOnion, it's possible I misread his comment.
@BunnyGruff, hear hear.
@PotatoOnion, why distinguish. If normal people shouldn't be able to tell us what to do (as long as we're not hurting them) why should we elect people to tell us what to do - other than not hurt others?
@big freedom, hmm im guessing i phrased it wrong...what i tried to say is no one should be able to say what you can and cant do when it doesnt even hurt you and other people
@PotatoOnion, I'm agreeing with you! That's why I hate busy body politicians that do exactly that
@big freedom, hmm then maybe we should stop electing them...but then again they could easily lie until they get elected
@I Are Lebo, First off, ignorance is a word meaning no understanding what so ever, or very little. I understand this topic extremely well, but from a social and scientific view, I don't support it. Just because someone doesn't support everything you do doesn't make them ignorant or unknowing
Next, I never said they did choose their preference. I think you misunderstood me here. I said that it is encouraged, but not encouraged as in choice, I meant encouraged in a different way, but I don't personally want to start a whole new flame war, so I'm not gonna get into that.
Thirdly, rebellion isn't good. Just because it is natural doesn't make it good. And I never specified an age group. I never said if this was happening among teenagers or adults.
Also how is giving a person who raised, fed, and taught you a little bit of influence over an extremely important decision which time and time again has proven to be extremely difficult to succeed archaic? I never said to give parents
@I Are Lebo, complete control over marriage. Divorce. Many people do that. Divorce. That is because most people make a rash decision without opinions from others. Most of the time, a parent can tell whether or not it is a good idea to marry this person or a different person. Granted, they shouldn't be given all the power, but if your son or daughter is about to marry someone you can tell will leave them, hurt them, or not be able to support them, will you really let them do that? I definitely wouldn't (and I say this in general, I am not saying a homosexual would do these things). Also, if you noticed when I typed my original comment I never said I supported or disagreed with gay marriage. I just decided to explain the other side. I did, now, say my position, but unlike most people it doesn't affect my entire mind on the issue. I am rarely one sided on these things, but I usually label myself as either or because all in all it would be too complicated to explain my complete view on it.
@big freedom, because anarchy does not work in practice.
@I Are Lebo, I hope I haven't offended you, and I apologize if I have.
But it's an argument that really cannot be won.
Homosexuality is a part of humanity. Even if some horrible group of people were to catalogue every homosexual person on the planet and kill them all, the next generation of humans would still have homosexuals among them. As would the next. And the next. And the next.
It's a fight that cannot be won, and shouldn't even be fought.
@Lt Dubble Bubble, this is somewhat amusing. You are actually ignorant about ignorance.
Ignorance means lack of knowledge.
Ignorance is curable. Stupidity isn't. Note that I never called you stupid.
To encourage something is to promote doing something. The only thing that can be encouraged is a choice.
Your counter arguments are as vague as you can make them, because deep down, you know you are arguing a losing point.
Socially, homosexuality is frowned upon solely because of ignorance and/or bigotry. Scientifically, homosexuality is prevalent in every single other mammal, and even some reptiles.
Homosexuality exists regardless of support. Not supporting homosexuality is like not supporting the theory of gravity. That's not an opinion, it's embracing ignorance.
I do agree with you about parents trying to influence their children to make smarter decisions than being in a relationship with an unstable or irresponsible partner. Oftentimes, young adults think they know better.
@I Are Lebo, why are my comments being inter swapped in order? 😓
@I Are Lebo, where did I say anarchy? The constitution allows for plenty of regulation without the all powerful incredibly nannyish government we have today.
@I Are Lebo, you. I like you. Keep that shjt up. *thumbs up, ding sound*
@BunnyGruff, I never said it was a choice...
@Ser Waffle Knight, 😎
@Lt Dubble Bubble, it honestly will really only effect people if you draw a ton of attention to it. If a parent is constantly making such a huge deal over homosexuality then that child is constantly exposed to it.
@Lt Dubble Bubble, actually, you did.
"It encourages their children to be homosexual".
You said that. That's what sparked a majority of this debate.
"If it is an acceptable practice, then a conservative or homophobe's children can marry to that of the same sex"
@big freedom, you implied that things would be better if there was no one telling us what to do.
The system of society that lacks an actual organized government is called an Anarchy. Unlike what a lot of teenagers seem to think, it does not mean chaos.
Utopia would be an Anarchy. Unfortunately, a successful Anarchist society would require all of its citizens to be perfect people, and as we all know, that ain't gonna happen.
@I Are Lebo, Okay, as I have said about three times now, I meant encouraged in a different way. I don't remember saying the second quote, and I don't see it in my previous replies, but I assume (if I did that is) I meant that if the parent is okay with it, I am not sure though, being I don't remember the source.
@Lt Dubble Bubble, the second quote was from the same comment as the first one. Two lines down.
Please define what you mean by encourage.
@I Are Lebo, Apparently it's people like you that give us the government we have today. Take one simple phrase and insert straw-man fallacy to extrapolate it to the maximum possibility. No one telling us what to do i.e who can marry whom or do what we want with our bodies. The libertarian platform would try to pass laws that only restrict a citizen from hurting others rather than the over aggressive... Never mind it's like arguing with a wall.
@I Are Lebo, very well said. I highly agree with pretty much everything you said.
@I Are Lebo, I don't want to, because as I explained it would lead to another argument which I really don't want to get into, but I definitely didn't mean that homosexuality was a choice. I don't believe that.
@big freedom, I can't tell if you're being serious or not.
On the off chance you are, really? I am an adult. I expect to be treated like one. I pay my taxes, I pay my debts. If I want to get an abortion because a condom broke, I'm goddamn well going to. That's between me and the father. If I want to get married to my same sex lover, I'm goddamn well going to. That's between me and my lover (and whoever I can hire to do the legal aspect)
Truth be told, I'm not really clear on what 'straw-man fallacy' is, but to anyone who tells me how I can live my own life, I have two things to say:
Who do you think you are?
Nevermind, I don't care. Go fvck yourself.
If if you were joking and it went over my head, then lol jk 😘😝.
@Lt Dubble Bubble, ok. This is not about arguing.
You used a word out of context in a way that does not make sense. You refusing to elaborate is not going to prevent an argument, it's going to cause one.
I'm trying quite hard to keep this civil and polite. Not 100% sure if I'm succeeding, tbh.
To encourage something is to promote a choice. If that's not what you meant, then you used the wrong word. In which case I don't know what you meant, because you won't clarify yourself.
The o my alternative that I see is that you meant that seeing homosexuals encourages the idea that it is okay to be gay.
If this is what you mean, than you are stating that it is not okay to be gay. You are stating that you would prefer someone who is homosexual to hide it, from themselves and from the world. Whether this is out of some personal discomfort, or from the religious standpoint that homosexuality is sinful, it doesn't matter.
@I Are Lebo, I want to be perfectly clear here. I am NOT stating that this is what you meant.
I am ASKING if this is what you meant.
I also want to be perfectly clear here. If that IS what you meant, if you meant that it is preferable for a homosexual to silently suffer rather than to hale he your beliefs or preconceptions, that it is better for a homosexual individual to pretend that they are heterosexual, solely because it fits better into your world view, than you are EVIL.
People who act like that (once again, not stating you are), are the scum of the Earth. I have zero tolerance for someone who would rather allow suffering to happen to someone else merely to prevent mild discomfort on their own part.
That's the Klu Klux Klan, that's the Bloods and Crips, that's the Westborough Baptist Church, and that's the Nazis. That's every hate group out there. I don't tolerate that attitude one bit.
@I Are Lebo, f***img autocorrect.
'O my' is supposed to be 'only'
'Hale he' is supposed to be 'challenge'
Sorry for the confusion.
@Lt Dubble Bubble, I honestly have no idea what your point is. I'm not trying to poke holes in it I am just honestly confused. I Read it a couple times in a row and I still am not sure if your point is gay marriage is right or wrong or parents should be allowed to tell their children who to marry.
@I Are Lebo, you did an amazing job handling this and laying out your arguments out in a civil nature, my hat is off to you friend
@big freedom, if you look up the webcomic "City of Reality", you'll see what I mean about Anarchy. They do a better job of explaining it. The comic is quite good, and takes place in a veritable Utopia, which after a while is revealed to be an Anarchist state (the government really only exists to set up parties and stuff. Just read it, it'll make more sense)
@George Feeny, I'm a bit lost too. He keeps saying he doesn't mean encourage in that way but refuses to clarify what way he means.
I hope he will. Otherwise it seems like trolling. Or worse, cop out defences.
"Of course I know what I'm talking about, but you wouldn't understand so I'm not going to explain it."
That type of thing.
No offence, Dubble bubble
@I Are Lebo, haha I am just curious as to why parents opinion should impact their kids futures to such an extent. I mean I'm pretty sure my mom wanted me to be a doctor or the president at one point.
@I Are Lebo, I was not joking but you are arguing against yourself. I believe that there is a role for government but it is a very limited capacity, that does not include what convening adults can do with or to each other.
@Captain Charles Vane, I appreciate that.
I'm trying to understand and spread understanding, and that cannot happen if you start hurling insults. It can be hard not to at times, though.
My dad is trying to get me to start a blog, and I might. But of course the last thing I want is to host a blog about controversial topics for the point of them being controversial.
@George Feeny, the only example I can think of is that my parents want me to marry a Jew. I'm Jewish, my whole family is Jewish, I get why they feel that way.
I mean, we make up less than a tenth of the population. It's about keeping the culture alive.
But if I fall in love with a non Jew, I'm not dumping them if they don't want to convert. I'd raise the kids in both cultures if I had to.
There's a middle ground.
@I Are Lebo, that's what I've always liked about the discussions on this community, we're all here for the funny first but we still engage in intellectual discussions (for the most part) I feel like since no one's first priority in the community is political discussions it helps keep the tone of conversation more civil for the most part, not always though.
@Captain Charles Vane, a good way of putting it.
Unfortunately, there's assholes in every group.
And also, sometimes, it's a good person having a shìtty day.
@I Are Lebo, we all have em without a doubt
@I Are Lebo, "Garçon, garçon!" "Yes, Monsieur." "Zere is politics in mine funny pics!" "I'm terribly sorry Monsieur, if you would just scroll to ze next picture I shall take care of zis for you." *violently snaps fingers*
@I Are Lebo, Damn you, I spent the last half hour upvoting all your shjt. You're keeping me from sleeping. :(
@BunnyGruff, Your statement is wrong my friend. There is no, and can't be a gene for homosexuality. Yes, homosexuality isn't a choice, but there is no gene. By using simple science, we know there isn't a gene. Homosexuals can't produce life with each other, genes are only passed on through reproduction, if there was a gay gene, it would have died out a long time ago when the gay people died. Homosexuality is actually influxes by the environment in which one is raised, either through traumatic experiences, seeing it as the "normal way it should be", or other ways. So while it isn't a choice, there is no gene, at all.
@George Feeny, I didn't say either, I just explained why people don't agree with gay marriage, as many people believe it shouldn't matter as long as it isn't happening to you. My point was that the reason many people do not support it is that it allows children of religious, conservative, or for other reasons just homophobic parents to go against their teachings and marry homosexual. I explain it better above, they way I said it here is oversimplified.
@VaporStrike, my bad. 😅
@JonCanFly, your ignorance is surpassed only by your rudimentary knowledge of genetics.
There is such a thing as an inactive gene being passed on to future generations. In addition, your genetics is not a series of yes/no combinations. Genetics is determined by a set number of patterns combining in different ways.
If it was all about individual genetics, then no one would be capable of passing on Sickle cell anemia, or early onset Alzheimer's, or child leukaemia, or Down syndrome, or any other disease that prevented you from having children.
ALS can make you sterile.
People with extreme Autism are unlikely to reproduce.
Some people with advanced Aspergers Syndrome are nonsexual.
You get my point.
Also, for the longest time, the social stigma of being homosexual was such that people who were gay would pretend to be straight. You don't have to enjoy the sex for it to lead to conception. Many gay people have kids without the aid of artificial fertilization.
@big freedom, oh. In that case I agree with you.
Sorry, I was a little high and didn't understand.
@I Are Lebo, to go back to strawman, it refers to when you use someone's words out if context or over exaggerate to try to discredit someone's point. You actually did not at any point strawman a statement, they just don't know science, law, or language.
@The Megaton Bomb, true that
@I Are Lebo, I'm surprised at your patience with replying to the repeated inane or ignorant arguments, 10/10 dude
I don't usually come on this app to find political stuff, I come here to forget/get away from that.
@archiethesailor, I love the fact that you are so insecure, so homophobic, that you actually went and down voted every single comment I made on this picture.
I don't care about rankings. I'm not going for a top comment.
But you've really shown your true colours.
Fvck you, buddy.
@I Are Lebo, I'm pretty sure stuckpixel would allow you to actually cuss in this instance.
@George Feeny, nah, I got a better revenge. I went through his uploads and downvoted a bunch of them.
Although, loathe as I am to admit it, some of them were actually pretty funny, so I skipped downvoting those ones.
@I Are Lebo, There's a downvote button for a reason, not only were your comments not funny, they were simply wrong. So of course I downvoted them.
@The Megaton Bomb, There is no hate here, not from me at least. And anything that defends gay acts is wrong.
@ archiethesailor, care to defend you statement of how they were wrong; passive hate is still hate.
@The Megaton Bomb, What do you want me to say? My reasoning should be obvious. Bible says no to gay acts, therefore they should not be allowed.
@ archiethesailor, hate was in not as strong of a context as you may have perceived, but I will ask again, care to defend your claim? Or will you continue to promote ignorance by expressing disapproval without support to a thesis?
@ archiethesailor, maybe to discredit his scientific basis or support your thesis with a basis that isn't faulty, 2000 years old, incorrect to the origin of the religion (or would you rather we point out religious dignitaries going as far back as the Holy Roman Empire who were known to hold gay orgies). So you believe we should also murder anyone homosexual as well because the bible also says the Canaanites deserved to be destroyed for their nature and unholiness (etcetera etcetera), so why should it not extend to gays? Would you like to explain how animals, "creatures devoid of sin", have homosexual tendencies? Or would you rather continue to not give an argument just an assertion?
@The Megaton Bomb, You're calling the bible faulty and incorrect? Might want to provide evidence for that if you're going to be spouting that kind of nonsense. And it doesn't matter if people have or had gay orgies, that doesn't make it right. You'll need to give me the part of the bible that says that animals do nothing wrong. And no, the new testament doesn't call for old testament punishments. Have I missed anything? Do you want to keep giving misunderstandings of the bible as arguments?
@I Are Lebo, Oh look, evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about. You have had issues with me respectfully following the bible and speaking out against sin. If following the bible makes me a bigot, then a bigot I am and don't try to make it a bad thing.
@ archiethesailor, you had an issue with me respectfully agreeing with another commenter?
No. You didn't. You are a bigot who has issues with other people having differences.
Eat crap or go light a cross on fire or something. I don't care about your BS.
@ archiethesailor, "if a man should lie with another man as he would a woman, he shall be stoned."
"If a woman is to be married and has been with another man, she shall be stoned, and out to death."
We don't have to defend what makes something okay. What makes it acceptable is that IT DOES NOT AFFECT YOU IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM AND THEREFORE IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
Saying that the Bible says it isn't okay and therefore it isn't okay is ignorance to a level I can't even imagine. Think for yourself instead of being a brainless sheep. Logic is a necessary part of life.
Anyone that says you should lot think for yourself is someone that is trying to control you!
That includes the Catholic Church. They are notorious for being control freaks throughout the centuries.
So yes. The Bible is faulty and incorrect. The bible is VERY faulty and VERY incorrect.
And FYI, being judgemental is supposed to be a bad thing. That's ALL you are doing when you say "supporting gay acts is wrong".
@I Are Lebo, And again, I have to say it, with the coming of Jesus, only the moral laws from the OT are still in effect, not the civil or ceremonial. And what you said about the bible having no say on what is and isn't ok is like saying congress and the supreme court has no say on what is and isn't legal. You're claiming that I'm ignorant and then making statements like that. I can say that you're following leftist and atheistic ideologies instead of thinking for yourself. And I'm not catholic, just wanted to put that out there. Now, give one of your misunderstandings on how the bible works to "prove" that it's faulty and incorrect.
@ archiethesailor, challenge accepted.
The bible makes a lot of vague and metaphorical statements, most of which are very good lessons.
However, I am not out to defy specific lessons given. This is an issue about homosexuality.
Homosexuality is natural, and not a choice. Therefore, God made us this way. (I am a lesbian). You stating that homosexuality is wrong, is WRONG.
Here is my evidence.
I did not choose to be gay. I am not attracted to men. I never have been.
Neither of my parents are gay. None of their parents were.
Defend the statement "homosexuality is sinful."
What makes it sinful? And "the bible says so" is NOT an answer. I'm asking WHY.
Because it interferes with reproduction?
I can have kids through a donor. Even if I didn't, we are vastly overpopulated.
There is no justification for your stance. It is a stance borne out of intolerance and ignorance.
For the record, being a bigot is a VERY BAD THING. The fact that you
@I Are Lebo, can say "don't make it a bad thing", is mind boggling. That makes you EVIL. And hypocritical.
Bigots are the people discriminating against Christians in the Middle East solely because they're Christian.
Are you saying bigotry is okay as long as it is for me and not others? Because then holy crap. You are fvcking evil. You and people like you are the cause of everything wrong in the world.
I'm not even trying to change your mind. In order to not be a discriminating douchebag, you need to have a soul.
And it really seems like you don't have one.
@I Are Lebo, Have a look through my comments and point out where I said that being gay was a choice. You'll be spending a while doing it because I haven't thought that way in years. It's a mental illness, a problem with the brain, just like schizophrenia is. Or, if you want a comparison to other natural, non choice sexualities, look at pedophilia, zoophilia, and necrophilia. I seriously doubt anyone chose those sexualities, but that doesn't make them any less wrong. If God made people gay, then it's a way to test them, to get them to choose between Him and sin. Also, saying that the bible says so not being an answer goes back to one of my previous statements. That's like saying that our government isn't what makes things illegal.
@ archiethesailor, *ignores empirical evidence, proceeds to cite the bible as evidence.* "hi my name is intolerant and menace." Now that I'm back you will have your evidence: the fact you are even typing on a phone proves that your religion is false; the central processor in your phone is based off of technology we have thanks to our understanding of quantum physics, something that directly contradicts principles of your religion. Now if you want to argue further you can adopt the only two valid stances that remain for religion: 1) "God controls what we cannot account for" also known as "God of the Gaps" or 2) "everything is an illusion, a trial put in place by God to test our faith" but either way, you are still wrong and a closed minded bigot (by definition) and your opinion is irrelevant in a government not based off of religion (with regards to gay marriage).
@The Megaton Bomb, Whelp, there's the stupidest thing I've read all day. The idea that science and quantum physics can even come close to disproving God is ridiculous. And no, you have yet to give ANY evidence against Christianity. Try again, let's see if you can do any better than that.
@ archiethesailor, wow. Just wow. You're actually comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or necrophilia.
You are comparing desecrating a corpse or taking sexual advantage of a child to two consenting adults who happen to be the same gender.
I'm speechless. I have no counter arguments to that.
You're a fūcking moron.
@I Are Lebo, Because there are no counter arguments to it. The comparison can and should be made. Also, insulting me without giving facts only weakens your argument.
@ archiethesailor, I was going to reply to your ridiculous statement about science being unable to disprove religion, or your equally stupid statement that we haven't given any evidence against Christianity, but it is clear that it is pointless.
You will ignore anything and everything that contradicts your world view. You are the absolute worst kind of human being.
Your complete lack of empathy is as impressive as it is sickening.
I am done responding to you. The only thing arguing with you will ever accomplish is to lower myself to your level.
You unbelievable, fûcking moron.
@I Are Lebo, Calling my statements stupid without disproving them. Claiming you've given evidence against Christianity when you haven't. And somehow I'm the moron? Do you pay attention to the things you say, or are you just stringing random letters together hoping that you'll make sentences.
@ archiethesailor, I did give you facts. You ignored them. Now fück off. I'm done.
@I Are Lebo, Really now? Repeat them. If I'm such a moron, you'll have to be patient.
@ archiethesailor, not interested. You can re read comments. Fùck off. I'm done.
@I Are Lebo, Let's see, you called me a bigot a couple of times, that's not evidence. You downvoted a bunch of my pictures to get revenge against me for downvoting a couple of your comments, petty, but not evidence. You called me a bigot again and told me to "eat crap". That's also not evidence. You quoted the bible a little, showing that you misunderstand the rules given to us by God, that's close but still not evidence. Called me a brainless sheep, oh look, more non evidence. Called the bible faulty and incorrect, there's a statement you never backed up. Said gayness is natural and not a choice ,true, but not evidence supporting any argument. You said I'm evil and that people like me are the cause of everything wrong in the world, that's another untrue statement. The other guy said that quantum physics disproves God, that was actually pretty funny, I'll admit, but still not proof. Looks like I've covered everything. No evidence to be found.
@ archiethesailor, I think there is a fundamental lack of understanding here.
I know I said I'd stop responding to you, but it occurred to me that we may actually be arguing different arguments.
I'm not trying to disprove Christianity.
I'm disproving that homosexuality is a sin.
The only evidence of homosexuality being sinful is the Bible saying it is.
The evidence against it is its prevalence in nature, the lack of choice in the matter, and the basic logic of it not being harmful to ANYBODY.
What is a sin?
I've always been under the impression that a sin is an act that causes harm. 'A bad thing'. Homosexuality does not cause harm. It is love. Who someone else loves is nobody else's business, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults.
I'm not even opposed to polygamy. I'm not personally interested in it, and it likely leads to a lot of problems socially, but there is nothing ethically wrong with it as long as everyone involved is on the same page.
@I Are Lebo, Wow, I didn't see a big part of this comment. And I guess I did compare it to dolphin rape, forgot about that. I was taking an extreme example to show that not all natural things are ok. Let me see if I can phrase what sin is a bit better. Sin is hurtful to people, yes, but it's not always that. Like worshiping something other than God. Does it hurt anyone? No, but it's still sin. There, a counterargument.
@The Megaton Bomb, You basically tell me that I'm an idiot, then you say that? Do you understand what you're saying? I'll give you a chance, give one example of how science contradicts God.
@ archiethesailor, do you read everything before you reply to it, because it doesn't seem that you did. So you think that because you believe "it" you get to determine what other people that don't believe "it" can do in a non-theistic government? Disregarding anything that actually contradicts with your beliefs (because they exist, we have observed them, we have empirical evidence of it and we know for a fact that it is more correct than your book, but if you don't believe me I encourage you to actually open your mind to new ideas and just watch some lectures by renowned physicists, biologists, or astronomers as to why it conflicts), why do you assume that you have the right or authority to make a decision like that just because your book says gays are bad?
@ archiethesailor, the universe is not created through intelligent design, not only can we prove this specific one is by chance, but that this one is imperfect: our universe has a dark energy strength of
.00000000027%; if we were able to lower that number by even a .00000000001%ile life would be significantly more viable than it is now. (I have more individual evidences if that one doesn't suit you.) If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the worlds leading theoretical physicists and biologists instead. (Are you seeing the replies out if order as well?)
@The Megaton Bomb, Yes, I'm seeing things out of order, but the newest response always seems to be at the bottom of the thread. Your claim of the viability of life seems to be assuming that it happens randomly and not through God's will, with which, odds and likelihood aren't really factors. Go ahead and try again though, I'll see if I can explain how they don't disprove God as well.
@ archiethesailor, the argument was that it (the universe) was not perfect of something "created perfectly" through intelligent design, if that clarifies my point.
@The Megaton Bomb, Does the bible say that it was created to be perfect? If so, where at?
@ archiethesailor, that is what I've have always seen argued "intelligent design" as, so you tell me.
@The Megaton Bomb, how I've always... design" argued as,...* brain fart there.
@The Megaton Bomb, I checked to make sure, I'm pretty sure the bible doesn't say that the universe is meant to be perfect.
@ archiethesailor, as I said, just what I've heard. It does (or did according to 16th century popes) that is the center of the universe, although that's not the next point. However we can show how the universe, our solar system, and other planets still break the mold of the bible. The universe is randomly placed but within constraints that don't match what was known by actual astronomers during the time of the bible, and in many ways contradict the old constraints (as in how things move across the sky). Our own solar system has a magnetic field that is generated by the sun and makes it so the "spinning top" that is our planet's axis wobbles (it takes about 3650 years for the spin to reach a degree in difference) which means that the season cycles would not have always lined up as the bible depicts and since the bible includes nothing to account for this, it is either incomplete or wrong....
@The Megaton Bomb, Lastly, we aren't the only forms of life as the bible indirectly claims, we have already found organic molecules on Saturn's moon Titan; this is further proof of how (assuming there is a god) he had no further hand than starting the Big Bang (or the creation of the multiverse, for their supporters). From here the story does not line up for an all powerful, all knowing god to exist unless we are arguing he did start whatever started the creation of the universe ("god of the gaps" argument) or that it's all an illusion anyway, and I'm not going to go into that more unless you specifically ask because I have 2+ posts.
Back to the original subject, ignoring everything above, the argument "homosexuality isn't natural" as justification for the removing of right from people in a non-theocracy does not hold up as Lebo and I have already stated that it exists plain as day in nature....
@The Megaton Bomb, Regardless of the fact that (your) religion is flawed, and that you can't dictate your religion on a non-theocratic government, your claim does not hold up to the world you live in.
@The Megaton Bomb, I'd like you to point out which, if any parts of the bible say that the earth is the literal center of the universe and where it says that there is no life outside of the earth. After a bit of research, the bible does not support geocentricism. Also, I never said that being gay is unnatural, I said that the acts are sinful. Big difference. But I'd like to stay on topic.
@The Megaton Bomb, A couple more things. You have yet to give an actual example of a flaw in the bible, only misinformed ideas that I've taken apart. So I'll ask nicely that you avoid saying that it's flawed until you actually prove it. Second, I'm not catholic, what the popes throughout history have thought or said have no impact on me.
@The Megaton Bomb, And if our government is one that would ignore the laws stated by God, then it needs to be changed.
@ archiethesailor, so my phone hit the pool and the insurance companies sent me 2 bad phones before I got one that worked, so sorry for the 2 week late reply. Unfortunately I also lost about 10 full character limits worth of reply. Instead if spending another two days typing that back up (because I have stuff to do otherwise that makes it take so long) I will leave you with this link: http://youtu.be/9o9UXjpT8ig
Ignore the name because we all know youtube can be misleading; however, it is what I based most of my points on as Krauss does it better than me (because he has been at it longer) and it seems most of your points are in line with William Craig's. There are some things that are "argued wrong on both sides,...
@The Megaton Bomb, for example Craig states that religion is a moral guideline necessary for science and uses the experiments of nazi scientists as proof but nazi science was just people following what their religious beliefs at the time told them "they were superior" and neither Krauss nor Craig knew this because neither studied that part if history. Craig earlier is also presenting the question to Krauss of what keeps science on a moral guideline and Krauss misses the questions intention and answers something that inadvertently shifts the focus off the question for a good 10 minutes while Craig tries to reexplain the question.
My view is simple I don't care one bit what you do, who to marry or what you're into, excluding animals or children, and am more than willing to support you. However I don't want to hear or see a couple, homosexual or heterosexual, heavily making out in public. I mean come on people it's not cool to make everyone else leave a room just because you're too horny to wait five minutes while you go somewhere less public.
@George Feeny, Ina little uncomfortable seeing ANYBODY making out in public, homosexual or heterosexual. PDAs are a little selfish.
Of course, for me it makes me uncomfortable because I want in on that.
People chill you can be a Christian and not hate on homosexual marriage. Before you freak out and tell people they're going to hell just remember that Jesus said in a parable not to tell someone about the speck in their eyes when you have a log in your own. Which essentially means don't tell other people what they are doing wrong because you have just as much if not more wrong in your own life. Worry about yourself don't try to point out the flaws you think others have.
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals can do the same, but the terminology should be different. Marriage is a term for a holy god given union between a man and a woman, it has religious significance and should be respected.
@the Sycamore Sage, Perfectly said. You can have whatever legal union between two genders but really, let's not call it marriage. It isn't.
@the Sycamore Sage, exactly. They should have civil unions.
@the Sycamore Sage, I don't necessarily agree, but thank you for respectfully presenting your opinion. :)
@the Sycamore Sage, Couldn't have said it better myself.
@the Sycamore Sage, While this kind of thinking seems rational, it is VERY reminiscent of "separate but equal" laws, and we know how those worked out.
@the Sycamore Sage, exactly.
@Can yew knot, exactly marriage is a religious sacrament between a man and a woman
@the Sycamore Sage, I disagree, I'm an atheist and yet I can get married.
@the Sycamore Sage, it has religious significance to you. Demanding that other people (with differing beliefs) kowtow to your beliefs is literally the cause of most of the things that are wrong in this world.
@the Sycamore Sage, I just find it funny that the word is off of "Mary" a person who was never married. Also, if we accept it as a usable term for two non-Christians getting married, why not for Homosexuals? I'm not pro-gay marriage, I honestly don't care about it. I'm just against hypocrisy. If it is a term for two people under the union of God, why accept it for those who don't follow God and deny it for Homosexuals who are under God.
@the Sycamore Sage, marriage is also between a man and his rape victim and A man and his concubines. According to your fake book
@the Sycamore Sage, bible says marriage is also between a man and his rape victim. And a man and his concubine. Just saying, read the bible first.
@the Sycamore Sage, Historically, marriage wasn't religious at all. Marriage started as simply a contract between two people. Also, men marrying men and women marrying women has been going on for thousands of years. Emperor Nero was the first emperor to marry a man during his 37-69 CE time. It wasn't until 1215 the church started slowly becoming involved, when in the 13th century priests started to take charge of the proceedings. In the 16th century during the Protestant reformation it was actually declared that marriage was a worldly thing belonging to the realm if government, leading to 1753 when licensing and dated registration became required. Marriage may hold religious meaning for you, but it isn't religious for everyone, or it may not hold the same religion or religious meaning for everyone. Due to the history of a lack of religion in marriage- perhaps religious marriage should have the different terminology if it means so much for it to be called something different.
@the Sycamore Sage, There are a couple things though that sort of don't run true with that statement. You see you're only classifying marriage for Christians, but there are other religious and social groups which marry their own people with their own guidelines. Now for the homosexual part. They shouldn't marry because it is a sin to practice homosexuality correct? Then why isn't there a big fuss about divorce courts since a marriage is a union meant to last forever. All sin is weighed equally so why bother the homosexuals and not those which get divorced? If people which are Christians allow divorce to slide then they should allow homosexuality do the same
@I Are Lebo, I'm not demanding, I'm saying a word can be created to fit that; not saying they can't be wed in a cathedral by a priest, just the word itself.
@hollow114, the bible is actually a real thing. Second, I don't read the bible nor am I even religious. Plus, the bible is heavily outdated and biased, this is a matter of present day interests not what a scribe wrote in a cave millennia ago.
@MayITakeYourHatSir, that's not really the same for arguments sake. They get to do everything the same way, form, or factor, it's the term that's it. They have the right to join together however they please. The term has been held for what, 2000+ years? I just think it should be respected, as would the new term.
@the Sycamore Sage, That was the reasoning behind "separate but equal" laws.
@CaitiieBuggs, trust me, I understand the concept of marriage in the past and its uses for power gain and personal interest. But, Nero is a terrible example of gay marriage being a normal thing. I've taken Latin for four years in high school, and boy did we learn about Nero. He castrated that dude, he killed his wife and his best friend to marry his wife, he kicked that new wife to death when she was pregnant, and he "fiddled while Rome burned". He is by far the worst example you could have used to support the idea that it was anything more than a word at that point in time. Currently, it is more than just a word.
@MayITakeYourHatSir, This is a word. Those were physical separations that literally defined where a person can get water and use a bathroom. What I am getting at is that there is not difference, literally no difference besides a word.
@the Sycamore Sage, and I'm saying that the word doesn't belong to you so you have no right to deny it to anyone else.
If you don't have an issue with 'literally' being used to mean the exact opposite, and you don't have an issue with the words 'they're there and their' being interchanged, then get off your high horse and stop bothering people.
@Hermaeus Mora, yes, but it doesn't change the definition of marriage.
@I Are Lebo, I'm not on a high horse, I'm just discussing an opinion that I've kept to myself for years. God forbid I come to the community I've silently seen as accepting towards all viewpoints and issues. Attack the argument, not the person.
@the Sycamore Sage, Other emperors had husbands or significant male lovers in their lives (except Claudius). I was just using Nero for reference years of documented homosexuality and same sex marriage because he was the first to do so- simply time stamping for the sake of this conversation. Just because he did terrible things doesn't mean same sex marriages should be considered abnormal or that is was. There have always been plenty of horrible people in heterosexual marriages as well. Regardless of good or bad people in whatever marriage, the bottom line is marriage isn't a religious thing (or Christian religious thing) for many people, and it didn't start as such. It's more than a word- it's a promise to dedicate their lives with each other. If a couple wants to welcome religion into their promise, congratutions, but others would rather not and don't live by those standards or beliefs. They still deserve to make that same promise and be recognized as doing so.
@the Sycamore Sage, you're right. It was a knee jerk reaction, and for that, I apologize.
Having said that, you are operating off of a core belief that is not accurate. That is that "marriage is a God given Union of man and woman."
That is not the origin of marriage. The origin of marriage comes substantially earlier than the formation of Christianity. Humans naturally mate for life. While some of us do not follow this urge, or follow it unsuccessfully, it is the natural order of humanity. During the medieval era, marriages began to be performed by Lords as a means of managing joint owned property.
Further research is required for specifics, but my point is, the argument that Christians created marriage and so their definition of marriage should be respected is invalid. You didn't create it, and you haven't the right to dictate how it is used or done.
@I Are Lebo, it's just an opinion, and I totally abide by what the Supreme Court has decided. I'm not going to take it away, nor do I even have the power (or desire) to do so. I've seen how it has made so many people happy. It's just an irk I've had and wanted to express it since many people feel the same way. If there's no one to bring up personal ideologies and beliefs how would a nation claimed to be run by the people be dictated when no one felt safe in their own expression.
@the Sycamore Sage, very well put. I agree completely.
While I may not agree with your opinion, I quite thoroughly respect your right to share it.
If nothing else, I quite enjoyed this debate. Thank you.
@the Sycamore Sage, if you've never read it how do you know it's outdated? Seriously though, the bible isn't out dated, the problem is context. Some people think each sentence is 100% literal and is meant to apply to everything. It's not. Jesus spoke in parables, which are literally metaphors. Most of the books are letters written and so contain things context defendant. Like in one of Peter's letters (I'm having a brain fart and can't remember which book it is...) he was talking about how ladies shouldn't dress a certain way and do certain things, some which are totally normal today. He was writing about it because in that time, the Jewish were ruled by the Romans, and there was a movement among Roman women where they'd worship a false god by dressing a certain way and having sex with multiple men and women and doing kinda bad things in service of the fake god. So Peter was warning women not to join society in that way and keep true to themselves. Not saying they were less like ...
@the Sycamore Sage, some say it does. So it's context dependent, but the core ideas and intent is still viable today. Also, the bible was written as a historical document mostly, and as a guide to people to live life to the fullest. Written by multiple people, on scrolls yes, but not in a cave. Well... One or two old testimate books maybe have been written in a cave, because the Israelites were stuck in the wilderness for 40 years... But you should actually read it like a book. Even if you don't believe in any of it. There's some pretty cool stories, especially about King David. He was a kickass dude - and generally accepted as a real figure by most of the scientific and historical world. ^_^
@the Sycamore Sage, then wtf are you even talking about? Troll
@The Elucidator, I've read it. And yes it is
@hollow114, from beginning to end? With full historical context? Understanding the themes and ideas they're trying to convey accuracy? Once you do that then you can tell me it's not applicable today and I'll listen. But until then, you can believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.
@The Elucidator, I've read it. It's fvcking outdated.
If you have to pick and choose which passages are 'literal' and which are 'metaphorical' than you are making a mockery out of the faith, or you are simply a hypocrite.
The very same damn book that says "a man may not lie with a man as he would a woman" says "if a woman is to be married, and she has lain with another man, she shall be stoned, and put to death".
So can the bullcrap. I'm sorry to immediately lose my temper like this, but this is the biggest thing about religious people that pisses me right the fvck off. If you can choose to ignore parts of it, than the rest of us can choose to ignore all of it.
And if you have to ignore parts of it in order to live in modern society, than by definition, it is outdated.
@The Elucidator, yes. Whole thing. It's very dated. Much of it can be explained by science. It's morals are explained elsewhere and better
@I Are Lebo, I'm sorry you feel that way. But you gotta understand - it's a book. A holy book yes, but a book nonetheless. More accurately, a collection of books. It's written by multiple people, and, naturally, multiple people have different writing styles. Luke, for example, was a doctor and wrote Luke (obviously) as a historical story, to his friend, using interviews he had with others, much like most historians in history have done. Some of the older books were written by King David as a personal letter to God in a way. Psalms for example. Most New Testament books were written as letters to young churches by the apostles. So yeah, there's outdated stuff in it, like some of the parables - because parables were meant to be heard by an audience of that time, so they'd understand it. They were spoken by Jesus that way and written by the apostles to save it for others to hear. Some old traditions are mentioned, again as a historical document and to be understood by people of the time.
@I Are Lebo, but the book itself is still very viable today. 10 commandments for example. Rules like do not murder, love others, don't be a dick - in not so many words... So no, it's not outdated. Just uses some stuff from older times to be understood- most of which are still totally understood, if not as common, today. Farming, animals, criminals, government, all stuff we have today.
@The Elucidator, and to that end, I have nothing but respect.
I'm Jewish. I've read the Torah. I've read the Old Testament bible. I've read some of the New Testament (couldn't really get into it). I even tried reading the Quran (could not struggle through that)
While I personally do not believe, I respect those people for their faith.
But whenever someone holds up a book that was written millennia ago and goes "you can't do that because this book says so", I lose my patience.
If God has a problem with anything I do or anything I say he can stop me himself. If he is really as powerful as religious people say, it would be a non issue. I would have died a long time ago
It's not even like I'm trying to convert anyone else to my way of thinking. I just want to be left alone. I want the people I care about to be left alone.
Hell, "do unto others" is like the main staple of every religion, and so many religious people won't get their noses out of other people's business.
@I Are Lebo, and as to the supposed contradictions or seemingly harsh stuff we ignore today, the simple answer is - Jesus came and rewrote the rules. To something pretty simple really - Love God, Love people. Now the issue of homosexuality... Well that's a bit difficult, and why it's so hard for people to agree. I believe that it's between each person and God what their stance is on it. I personally don't think the act of sex between the same people is... Right for lack of a better word, but I respect and understand those who disagree and I don't push my views onto them.
@I Are Lebo, so, I'm sorry for ranting and for losing my temper and for takin it out on others, but it's so frustrating for me.
@I Are Lebo, same sex people I should say, ha. Typo.
@I Are Lebo, We ignore none of it. We read and understand the context of what happened and what Jesus' sacrifice stood for.
@I Are Lebo, or that's what we're supposed to do. Some kinda miss the point and go off on a "Christian rampage" or something. Not all Christians are like that.
@I Are Lebo, yeah it's cool. I get it. I'm kinda the same. No one likes being told what to do. I'm just saying that just cause a book is old and uses old examples, doesn't necessarily make it outdated if the meaning and intent are there. That's all. And aren't the Torah and old testaments the same? I know there's different versions of the bible (King James, NIV, The Message) but aren't they the same? Jesus was Jewish and studied the Torah I believe.
@The Elucidator, indeed, he was and did. Regardless of the whole divinity argument (which I won't touch) he was real, and he did do good.
My basic point was simply "the bible says so" is not an answer. For anything. And some people try to use it as THE answer. For everything.
I have little patience for these types.
@The Elucidator, also, the Torah is very similar to the Old Testament, but not identical. There are some inconsistencies, especially depending on the edition.
@I Are Lebo, yeah. It's always better to have an actual argument for or against it.
@CaitiieBuggs, I wish I could upvote this more than once
@the Sycamore Sage, if it's just a word why does it mean so much to you? When's the last time you alienated an entire group of people because of your definition of a word? Why don't they have just as much right to use it the way they like as you do? You say it's just the word but there's obviously an underlying issue otherwise it wouldn't be such a big deal. Make an argument against homosexuality if you like but don't say you're just against the word because that would be ridiculous.
@Quantum Physicist , I respect and appreciate that you validated their opinion, even though you don't agree with it. :)
@MayITakeYourHatSir, very well said sir.
This picture is a lie the supreme court are the ones that legalize gay marriage.
This seems dated now
They got the good and bad news mixed up with each other.
@ archiethesailor, *takes out label maker* *types "nasty homophobe" and prints* *places on your forehead* There, now everyone knows to avoid you.
@MayITakeYourHatSir, for a moment I thought you said 'homophone'.
@MayITakeYourHatSir, You say homophobe like it's a bad thing. Also, if it keeps away the crazy gay supporters, I'm fine with that.
@ archiethesailor, "you say homophobe like it's a bad thing" Welp, here it is, the worst thing I've ever read.
@ archiethesailor, but wouldn't being homophobic attract crazy gay supporters?
@PotatoOnion, Not according to the other guy
@ archiethesailor, oh true lol
@ archiethesailor, I don't get it, there's better things to hate out there. Why waste your time hating people just for liking something you don't. I mean isn't it easier to just not care? You spend your time feeling bitter about something that really doesn't affect you.
@George Feeny, First, I've said it before, I don't hate gay people. Second, it's all about trying to keep morality in the equitation. I don't focus on only the gays, it's just what I have to talk about most because there are actually people supporting it. Third, I only talk about it when it's relevant. I'm never the one to bring it up.
@ archiethesailor, that's not the point I'm just saying let people do their thing why waste your own time and energy complaining about how things are or what other people are doing.
Like I said, I want to keep morality in the equation. (No, I'm not implying that gay people can't do good things)
@ archiethesailor, like Jesus said don't point out the speck in someone's eye when you got a log in yours. Get it? Don't try to correct others correct yourself.
@George Feeny, Galatians 6:1. I think you might have misunderstood the part of the bible that you're quoting. It means not to judge and condemn others because that's God's job, but it doesn't say not to correct someone and to recognize that we are all sinners and that I could be more of one than the gays. I accept that. The passage I mentioned first says to correct the sinful.
@ archiethesailor, do you even listen to yourself?
The whole argument is that you claim homosexuality is wrong, and we reply that it is not only natural, but none of your business.
Therefore 'correcting' people for being gay is judging them.
Which you literally just said, is a bad thing.
@I Are Lebo, And you don't understand what judging is either. Pointing out what a person is doing wrong in hopes that they'll correct themselves is not only not judging, it's encouraged by the bible. And natural doesn't mean right. Look at dolphins for example, they're rapists. Does that mean you'd defend rape? Or would you speak out against it, even with other people calling you a bigot for it?
@MayITakeYourHatSir, *tattoos homophobe on archiethesailor's face*
@ archiethesailor, rape and homosexuality are not the same thing. You may as well be comparing blowing your nose to stabbing someone in the face
@ archiethesailor, you fail to see the point again and again and again.
Homosexuality isn't wrong.
Only bigots like you think otherwise.
@I Are Lebo, You're not trying to disprove Christianity? You're trying to say that it's not a sin? Ok then. Let me put it this way. The bible is a general rule book for Christianity. If it says that something is a sin, then it is. That's not arguable. What is arguable is whether or not it's wrong. My argument is that it's wrong because it's a sin, that can't really be argued with without arguing against Christianity. Calling me a bigot REALLY serves no purpose here, I already understand that that's what you think I am. And I never compared being gay to rape. I compared it to necrophilia (penetration of what used to be a person, but is now little more than an object that we still hold to be important), zoophilia (rape is, by definition, only possible with a person), and pedophilia (while children can't legally give consent, in reality, it is possible. At later ages, kids understand sex and what comes with it).
@ archiethesailor, that is the most illogical, ridiculous thing I have ever read. Re read your comment.
By what you said, it is impossible for you to be wrong or even argued against.
"The bible is never wrong, it says it's a sin, sin is bad, therefore gay is bad."
That isn't an argument. There is no defence there.
Also, you called it a general rule book for Christianity. Firstly a rule book is not a book of law. Something being in a rule book doesn't make it unarguable truth. It makes it a rule.
Either you don't understand basic logic, or you're simply the stubborn idiot you appear to be.
I hate that you make me lose my temper this easily, but you are exactly the type of hypocritical moron I've been raving about.
One moment you're all "It's true because the bible says it is", and any time anyone contradicts you, you're like "you need to prove your statement with facts and research."
@ archiethesailor, nothing is unarguable. Nothing.
To think otherwise is blindness. Blind obedience is a BAD thing. That's capitol B A D bad. Blind obedience leads to Jihad, Inquisition, and Holocaust.
Anyone who has spent any time studying history can tell you this. It's a very clear repeating pattern.
Treating people like they're perverse, evil, or wrong, simply because they are different inevitably leads to killing people simply because they are different.
That's why bigotry is a bad thing. Bigotry leads to atrocities.
@I Are Lebo, you have only two courses of action in this world. You can accept that your way is not the only way, and join the rest of us mature, responsible adults, or you can stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la la."
I suspect I already know the answer, but I'm still curious to see which path you will choose.
@I Are Lebo, More name calling, let's get past that. Any rule given by God is law and unarguable ( or at least it should be, arguing against it is like arguing against math, it just doesn't make sense). You've yet to use the bible to contradict me, if you have then repeat it so I can either be proven wrong or show that you misunderstood it. And instead of calling me a hypocrite, show how I have been one. I see that you've given another comment, give Mt a couple minutes to read and respond to it before replying to this one. We don't want two different conversations about the same thing, do we?
@ archiethesailor, oh, and FYI, comparing me (as a homosexual) to someone who fvcks corpses, or animals, or children, is offensive as hell.
I may as well compare you as a Christian to a cultist in a cave sacrificing animals to drink their blood.
@I Are Lebo, I'll make this one quick. Let's see here; jihad, the Holocaust, and the inquisition were caused by blind obedience to a fallible person, God is infallible, therefore, as long as we have a proper understanding of what He wants, nothing bad will come out of obedience. I've never said that being different is bad, I said that going against the bible is bad. I've never called for the killing of the gays, and the bible stopped doing so after the coming of Jesus. The comparison between Christianity and the disgusting cult you mentioned can be made. Both the Christian and the cultist are practicing their religion, we just need to recognize the similarities and differences.
@ archiethesailor, you're still not getting it.
Listening to the bible is not listening to God.
It is listening to man's interpretation of God.
Just as the Old Testament had fallacies that need to be corrected (such as non virginal brides being put to death) so does the New Testament (such cases as homosexuals being sinful)
The expectation that you have that one can only disprove the bible using the bible is illogical.
You are using circular arguments. "The bible is always right because it is the bible"
Once again, you've proved nothing. You quote an unverified book - yes, the bible is unverified. There's no proof to back it up. The only two ways for it to be verified would be for God himself to come out of the heavens and confirm it, or for anyone who denounces it to be smited.
I denounce the Bible.
I do not accept that it is Holy Writ.
I do not accept its rules and laws.
I accept the rules and laws of society. Of governments and police and social etiquette.
@I Are Lebo, I believe that as adults, we should think for ourselves and make decisions based on information, not faith.
I have seen too many people killed over faith to put any stock in it.
And I don't think we will ever be able to see eye to eye on this.
But know this, what makes you a bigot is your judgement of an entire group based solely on the word of another. In this case that other is the bible. It doesn't make it any less offensive when you compare two consenting adults having sex to someone taking sexual advantage of a child. When you say that what homosexuals do is wrong without any idea what it feels like to be constantly ostracized because of something completely out of your control.
You even have the audacity to admit that being gay is not a choice without seeing what that means when combined with your stout belief that it is still sinful.
By your own beliefs, God made us all as we are. Homosexuality is not something that 'goes away', therefore, if you are gay,
@I Are Lebo, You say it's not His word, I'm saying it is. It's the way God let His will be known. How else are we meant to understand what He wants? Sure it was written by man, but the men who wrote it, in most cases, were eye witnesses like Moses. These are people that God confirmed His will to.And expecting God to bend to your will and show everyone, again, what He wants is unrealistic.
@I Are Lebo, you are gay for your whole life.
Someone who is gay has two choices. Live as the person you are, and chase happiness like everyone else. Or hide your true nature and be miserable.
Do you have any idea how many times I've heard people come out of the closet and describe the experience as having a crushing weight lifted off of them? Do you know how many closeted homosexuals commit suicide every years because they cannot handle the strain anymore of living a lie?
So the idea that being gay is a test by God is laughable. A test has to be passable. If the 'test' of homosexuality is passed by pretending to be straight and living a miserable lie, then that test isn't a test. It's torture.
A + B + C = D
You can't argue against math.
This means there are only two possible answers.
Either being gay is not a sin.
Or God is evil.
@ archiethesailor, oh, and one other thing. When you can tell me WHY God thinks homosexuality is a sin, then you can tell me you have a proper understanding of what He wants.
And FYI, the Jihadists don't follow a man, they pray to Allah. Who they also claim is infallible.
@I Are Lebo, Jihadists follow the teachings of Muhammad, and just because I can't explain the reasoning behind God's laws doesn't mean he that didn't make them laws.
@I Are Lebo, It's not torture and God is not evil. Your concept of math is faulty. Again, I'll go back to pedophiles having to control themselves too. If it's torture for the gays to deny their urges, then it's torture for pedophiles to do the same. And we as a people can make the test easier for the gays by chemically suppressing their desires.
@ archiethesailor, this is the first time that I can think of where I have been driven to this level of anger. If I knew you in real life I would seriously want to kill you. People like you need to be slew.
You have NO idea what it feels like to be gay in a society filled with bigots like you. For fücks sake.
DO NOT COMPARE HOMOSEXUALITY TO PEDOPHILA!
@ archiethesailor, You are now advocating the oppression of homosexuality through chemical castration! That's what suppressing desires is you ignorant POS! You have gone from spreading ignorance and bigotry to actually advocating sex crimes!
Die in a fire.
@I Are Lebo, You're funny, you know that? Telling me you want to kill me and make my death painful, while apparently thinking that you have the moral high ground. Couple that up with the fact that you called me a hypocrite earlier, and it's funnier than quite a lot of pictures on here. You call taking away a person's sinful desires a sex crime, but I doubt you'd be complaining if I suggested that for pedophiles and rapists. If that's oppression, then oppression isn't always a bad thing. And I care less about what you consider a sex crime than you do about following God's will.
@I Are Lebo, What's wrong, are you done already, or are you sleeping? I'd have that my working a long shift would give you enough time to do either one. I think I know why you're so angry, I think it's because you know I'm right. I think you know that gay acts are sins and I think you know that suppressing their desires is the best way to go about preventing them from doing something they'll regret later.
@ archiethesailor, Die. In. A. Fire.
Suffer, and die.
@I Are Lebo, If only you could see me laughing. What you're saying isn't very nice, but it really is funny. Now then, do you want to try and give a real argument against the bible? Something other than "I don't want it to be true, therefore it isn't"?
@ archiethesailor, there is something fundamentally broken inside of you. There is no point in wasting my energy arguing the merits of your evil.
Do humanity a favour, and go die.
@I Are Lebo, Arguing against the bible and God
Calling me evil
Something's not right here.
@I Are Lebo, my only response to you from here on will be silence. Take it as you will. The opinions of a bigoted zealot are irrelevant.
You make me angry, and I don't need the stress in my life. There is no positive outcome to carrying on any further.
@I Are Lebo, ad hominem. I saw a lot from you. You want tolerance, you need to practice it as well even to though who don't support your believes or understand that tolerance is a fantasy. I'm for gay marriage but if evan, i mean archie the sailor isn't that's fine. The only one that is getting angry is you and that's not a good way to argue. You sound like an sjw progressive. You're also using a quite a number of fallacies such as the natural fallacy. Using buzzwords like homophobe is pretty low and also a sjw tactic to silence. To say the opinions of bigoted zealots are irrelevant makes you a bigoted zealot to your ideology. Just here seeing your argumentative flaws. We could discuss why the government shouldn't allow gay marriage that doesn't involve god if you wish. Although it's not my stance since I'm for gay marriage. Just no ad hominem or your arguments will never and i mean never be taken serious
@I Are Lebo, There could be a positive outcome, you could learn right from wrong.
@Master Alucard, I'm not usually like that. He made me lose my temper.
FYI, being intolerant of intolerance isn't hypocrisy.
And lastly, the guy is comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality. All of which involve rape, because there can not be consent in those cases.
He also is openly supporting the chemical castration of human beings simply to fit his ideology.
Either he is the maximum level troll, or he legitimately has no real concept of right and wrong. I will not tolerate that.
His reasons are religious, and that makes him a zealot. He does not defend his arguments with any facts, but expects others to do so, and that makes him a hypocrite.
I won't be responding to him, because he makes me lose my temper, and I don't like losing my temper. It's not a nice feeling.
@I Are Lebo, Consent is a legal concept, I told you that alway. In reality, most kids and animals can desire and consent to sex. And I also told you that necrophilia can't be rape due to the fact that it's not a person anymore, it's the object a person left behind.
I told you the bible was infallible and you gave nothing to discredit the claim. I gave basic facts and that was all that was needed.
@I Are Lebo, losing your temper is your own fault. In an argument you must always remain calm and put your emotions aside and let your logic and evidence stand on it's merit. Being intolerant of intolerance isn't hypocrisy? My, how convenient for you, but unfortunately, no, you must be tolerant on ALL viewpoints. That's tolerance, like it or not. I believe he is saying how homosexuality is now being used as a gateway for other acts to be accepted such as pedophilia and whatnot, to which, it kinda is, don't believe me? Check the mary sue and gawker. One could argue that churches should not be forced by the government to marry gays on religious ground as well as how church can not interfere with the government and the government can not interfere with church since it violates their beliefs and no lives are being harmed physically. Castrating gays is a little too far, I will agree, however i am not opposed to castrating pedophiles and the sort since that is inexcusable.
@I Are Lebo, he isn't a massive troll he actually believes strongly in the bible. He has been using bible verses to defend his believes and i learned long ago just to get along with since all he uses is religion to argue his point and well it's not something you can always argue about in todays society. If what he says makes you lose your temper than you're just arguing from emotion and not logic. Calling someone buzzwords will not make you right, only annoying and toxic as well.
@Master Alucard, when I call him a zealot, I'm not insulting him. I'm defining him. I asked him again and again to explain why homosexuality is a bad thing. What I should have asked is why the bible says it is a bad thing.
There are dozens of arguments, many of which I already made. But I am a human being, and therefore do not have infinite patience. I'm done arguing with someone who ignores any evidence that disagrees with his world view.
There's only so many times my argument can be dismissed without merit before I say "fvck it, I'm done."
And no. We do NOT have to be tolerant of all viewpoints. Tolerance only goes so far. The Nazis had a pretty clear viewpoint. Are you saying that if someone makes the claim that Jews should be exterminated, we should respect their viewpoint?
No! As human beings we have the responsibility to speak out against hatred and intolerance.
"All that is needed to evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
@I Are Lebo, I am not a violent person. I've never had trouble with the law.
But if someone walked up to me and told me that the Holocaust never happened, it was made up, I would punch them in the mouth and knock their goddamn teeth out.
@I Are Lebo, You never gave any facts. I can't ignore something that you never gave
@ archiethesailor, I don't mind if people are gay, as long as they don't masturbate.
@Who ate my pig, HI BUDDHIST PIGGY
@ archiethesailor, Karma will strike them for disrespecting our Lord, Jesus. They will be reborn as maggots by the wrath of the Holy spirit! RA RA RA
@I Are Lebo, yes. Why? Because freedom of speech. However when they actually start trying to kill anyone then that's when we step in. And no you either tolerate all viewpoints or you tolerate none. You really are an sjw and that makes me quite disappointed. It also seems you would shut down any discussion you would not want to hear as with the holocaust or gay rights. So what are you to do? Censor and go after people who don't agree with gay marriage and become a fascist thought police, or learn to accept and tolerate those people as they would soon do to you as well? If you truly hate nazis and oppression, then don't do what the nazis do and don't be oppressive. When you start saying what you can and can not do, you're no better than them. Also the holocaust did happen, but 6 million jews werent killed because there were no 6 million jews in europe at the time. (Im not denying the holocaust, i just don't trust the figured spouted out)
@Who ate my pig, Ok then
@I Are Lebo, You attacked Archie for his beliefs, calling him a bigot makes you a bigot as well. What we've come to in a society is that we're becoming a single thinking society. We are being indoctrinated to fight contrary beliefs with intolerance. He stated his belief and he was attacked and he responded with as much tolerance as possible. Now that's not to say his views aren't radical, but they are his beliefs. Your challenging won't change it. I don't agree with homisexuality either, but I don't care if they get married, you won't see me with a sign on the street, but I don't agree with it, for religious reasons as well. You can respond to my comment with said intolerance which would show what you really are, or you could just be an adult and accept that not all people should think the same way.
@I Are Lebo, Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity. But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free! One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own (adoptive) land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. THAT is all I'll say about this matter and it is my true and honest opinion. I bid you GOOD DAY SIR
@Master Alucard, I'm shutting down arguments? How many replies are on this topic and others that I have argued?
The world is not black and white. Tolerance is not an all or nothing equation. I tolerate thins that are tolerable, I don't tolerate things that are intolerable. I rely on my own sense of right and wrong, plus logic, to differentiate between the two. As do we all.
And to be honest, I'm still not 100% clear what a social justice warrior is (I'm not on Tumbler or Facebook or Reddit or whatever), but if speaking out against intolerance and ignorance is being one, I fail to see why it's a bad thing (seriously stating. If there is, I would love to hear it. Seriously)
And no, I would not want to censor differing viewpoints. As I said in an earlier post, you are free to not like gay people. Spewing hatred is not the same thing as sharing an opinion. You share an opinion so other people know what you think. You spew hatred to denigrate others.
@I Are Lebo, I am not oppressing him by telling to not compare me to the worst percent of our species, the sick perverts who take advantage of those that can't fight back.
He insulted me and the group I belong to in an extremely offensive way, multiple times. Does that excuse me cussing at him? Of course not. But I do not apologize for it.
@Pikachu Fetus, I completely accept that you have a differing viewpoint. I do. I have no intention of attacking you in any way shape or form.
I didn't lose my temper with him for him disagreeing with me. I lost my temper after he compared me and my kind to child rapists.
That's not a viewpoint. That's hatred spewing.
@I Are Lebo, Nope, no hate actually came from me. Only from you.
@ archiethesailor, you know what? I am going to respond to that, because you're actually right. You have not at all been spouting messages of hatred.
Just ignorance, barbarism and intolerance. That's all.
@I Are Lebo, ig·no·rance
lack of knowledge or information.
absence of culture and civilization.
"the collapse of civilization and the return to barbarism"
extreme cruelty or brutality.
"she called the execution an act of barbarism"
Nope and nope.I'll grant you intolerance though. But it some cases, it's a good thing. Such as: intolerance of rape, murder, incest, pedophilia (which Is legal rape, not actual rape by the way),and genocide.
@I Are Lebo, you're calling him a homophobe, a zealot and other names. He hasn't called you one thing. No, you don't want to be a sjw unless you want to be a hated person. I'm not kidding, false misinformation, and bully tactics, doxxing, getting people fired. You want to be that? A bully under the guise of fighting for social justice but ruining the image of equality and making of fool of yourself? Look up internet aristocrats youtube videos of them. No the world isn't black and white but tolerance. I tolerate must cultures but islamic culture. I know tolerance doesn't work, so i don't lie to myself and say that. Right and wrong are relative. If you want there to be tolerance you either be tolerant of his views as well. And you did told him to die in a fire a and a POS, either accept his views or accept tolerance is bs. Your choice
@Master Alucard, you are correct, by that definition, I have no interested in being an sjw, but I would argue that other than the comments I posted after I lost my temper, none of my posts have been that.
And of those two choices: tolerance is bs. The truth is, I'm going to be who I am regardless of who tolerates me or not, and Archie is going to be who he is regardless of whether I, or anyone else tolerates him or not.
In a situation online, like this, whether or not one of us tolerates something or not is irrelevant. We don't have the power to do anything about it one way or the other.
@Master Alucard, I think we could all look past this and just have an orgy.
Less than a tenth of a percent of the population.
There's something like 10 million Jews worldwide.
@I Are Lebo, ugh. Replies not being replies. 😑
It should be a crime to not let females marry each other.
*Yuri is great*
I'm following God's law, you are breaking it. Not only by calling good evil and evil good, but also by wishing a painful death on someone. Do humanity a favor and learn right from wrong.
@ archiethesailor, Whoops, that was meant to be a reply.