logo Sign In

The Controversial Discussions Thread (Was "The Prejudice Discussion Thread" (Was "The Human Sexuality Discussion Thread" (Was "The Homosexuality Discussion Thread"))) — Page 31

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone.  I also would never condone forcing my view of the world on to others for any reason.  

Not even if it's a preference for not having bleach or stones placed where you would rather not?

No, no, and No.  Which part of that is difficult to understand? 

 One small aspect... the words.

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone.  I also would never condone forcing my view of the world on to others for any reason.  

Not even if it's a preference for not having bleach or stones placed where you would rather not?

 

 I think he made it very clear that he does not approve of stoning or throwing bleach on someone.  

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone.  I also would never condone forcing my view of the world on to others for any reason.  

 So you're cool with serial killer views of the world.  Interesting.

And as for you mister .......  easy now.  :)

Author
Time

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone.  I also would never condone forcing my view of the world on to others for any reason.  

Not even if it's a preference for not having bleach or stones placed where you would rather not?

 

 I think he made it very clear that he does not approve of stoning or throwing bleach on someone.  

 But he is also against 'forcing the view' that it is wrong on someone else???

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone.  I also would never condone forcing my view of the world on to others for any reason.  

Not even if it's a preference for not having bleach or stones placed where you would rather not?

No, no, and No.  Which part of that is difficult to understand? 

 One small aspect... the words.

Then either you don't read well or you prefer a caustic atmosphere with regards to discussion.  You ASSUME far too much.

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone.  I also would never condone forcing my view of the world on to others for any reason.  

Not even if it's a preference for not having bleach or stones placed where you would rather not?

 

 I think he made it very clear that he does not approve of stoning or throwing bleach on someone.  

 But he is also against 'forcing the view' that it is wrong on someone else???

Again, you assume and create something different out of what was said.  There are no cryptic meanings to my words ..... I said I would not condone me forcing MY views on anyone else.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I'm genuinely sorry if you feel misrepresented, it's not down to any deliberate assumption on my part but all we have are your words not your feelings or thoughts but the linguistic evidence of what you say when you try to express those thoughts.

Jetrell Fo said: I agree that the physical position is different but the underlying message of both can create the same amount of damage mentally and emotionally to either side. 

Once again forgive me if I'm wrong but here you seem to be saying that though the physical acts of putting bleach in someones eyes and suggesting that a piece of scripture (considered by just about everyone here to have only applied to one group of people at one time which has long past) be removed from the officially sanctioned editions to clarify the modern position that acts of violence against homosexuals is not required by God or desirable within the modern context hold some sort of parity.

That they cause similar degrees of damage to the individuals bleached and edited.

Did I get that right?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

My point is that bigotry lies on both sides of the fence either path you spoke of will provide damage to those related to each that it could bring more pain than healing.

Not everyone I know who believes in God believes in enacting hated acts against homosexuals and not every gay person I know that is happy wants to eradicate the source of people's beliefs.

We can guess how people might react but we cannot predict the actual damage and recourse of such things.  

TheBoost said:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/11/oklahoma_tea_party_candidate_scott_esk_supports_stoning_gay_people_to_death.html

Finally, some honesty from a politician. 

(for the record, not agreeing, but it's nice to hear them come out and say it, not just imply it)

I have implied nothing.  I have said I do NOT condone people stoning people for being gay anymore than I could condone forcing what my view of the world might be on others or changing someone's book of religion just so it reflects what I want it to say.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Suggesting something is probably a good idea isn't forcing anything is it? Your suggesting that I don't suggest doesn't force me to agree with you.

Leaving religion to one side if there was a political pamphlet that compared a minority group to vermin and called for their extermination would you let that pamphlet be freely distributed, would you censor it or would you allow it and it's follows to express themselves as they saw fit, not be critical and just waited to see what happened next?

Is it the religious aspect of the throwing stones bits of the Bible you don't want criticised or even suggested to be toned down or is it opinions in general?

Sure there are homosexual bigots but if their bigotry had a literary source most non-bigoted homosexuals would call for such material to be banned or at least distance themselves from it in some way.

Author
Time

I would allow them to express themselves within the laws that dictate such things.  We are NOT living in Russia,  you cannot just give freedom of speech and practice of religion to a limited few people that you feel deserve it.

As for your running me in circles, I'm done. 

Bigotry is on both sides of the fence.  It may not be you who feels that way but you are not the only gay person in the world.  The planet does not circle the sun just so only you can run people around in endless loops of conversation trying to wear them down for some form of gratification.

I've shared my opinion and I voiced it clearly.  If that is not enough for you, it will have to be, because I've given enough of my time to you on this discussion.

Author
Time

If this conversation is looping it's because you haven't expressed yourself clearly.

Were is the bigotry on the other side of the fence of which you speak?

Where are the texts which say it's okay for a homosexual to put a Christian to death? Please show me so I can personally distance myself from them in the manner I suggest religious people should from texts asking for the opposite.

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:  The planet does not circle the sun just so only you can run people around in endless loops of conversation trying to wear them down for some form of gratification.

 I like this : )

Author
Time

TheBoost said:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/11/oklahoma_tea_party_candidate_scott_esk_supports_stoning_gay_people_to_death.html

Finally, some honesty from a politician. 

(for the record, not agreeing, but it's nice to hear them come out and say it, not just imply it)

        Well, a RADICAL HATE-MONGERING rag says he wants that in spite of his claiming "he doesn't remember" (as the rag put it).

        That's good enough for me. Obviously, homosexuals must do EVEN MORE to destroy everything normal people value in life. Their children must be raped and defiled and have their sexuality destroyed in front of the faces of these evil and vile normies. They must be made to choke and call it wonderfull "progress" as their lives are crushed and they SUFFER AND DIE!!!!!!

       The herd needs it's culling anyway. How will the homosexuals be galvinized to do the job without pretending to believe that there is an epidemic of horrible violence against them?

      Actual severe violence for no other reason than hate for an innocent homosexual is more rare than man-bites-dog. This is why things like the Wyoming attack become national news. It turns out it was about drugs. The normies must NEVER be mindful that TENS OF MILLIONS of children and confused teens(regressed children) are violently crushed while the hate-mongering media desperately scours a nation of 300 million to find just one case that can be twisted into "only because the innocent dear was gay".

     Do you know how many of the rapes of females are commited by males who had their sexuality destroyed by homosexaul predators? There's an epedemic!

     It's the only way. Our elite masters must have their utterly depraved shock troops.

    

Author
Time

Sometimes friends are worse than enemies, either as Oklahoma politicians or as fellow forum posters.

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

In the Old Testament both parties were to put to death and the method of choice was stoning. The act had declared those practising it as dead to the nation. So they were given a violent live burial. The same was true with adultery.

I mentioned this in defense of religion. From my perspective the bigotry is in the text because of the bigotry of it's human authors not because of the a divine bigotry or any institution of bigotry from the religions that maintain the text.

Though removing it from the text would be a step in the right direction if a religious organisation wants to distance itself from the acts violence in the text.

i think there is a mix of the standard disgust response when discovering a group of people indulging a form of sensual pleasure that seems alien, coupled with a scripture led tribalism spread by bigoted clerics (of many religions).

The germ of that clerical led bigotry is the oft misquoted Old Testament prohibitions most of the time. Even the Indian Right Wing take the principle from it's colonial history.

Secular bigots draw from a religious cultural history when they make their proclamations of 'tradition' and 'natural law'. Just as secular charities also pool from a long history of religious good works.

 It must be pointed out that any culture is ultimately derived from a religious cultural history, the good and the bad, the religious and irreligious.  There is good is tradition and natural law, and often "progress" goes backwards or leads to instability.

Honestly, censoring the Bible is a disservice as well.  Did you know that psychologists use data from Nazi experiments on Jews in the present day?  What they did was horrible and wrong, unethical, immoral, purely evil.  But there were things learned that could not be learned through any moral experimentation.  What was done was wrong, but at least we can make positive use of such evil.

To censor the Bible would be trying to eliminate legitimate history.  That was really Mosaic Law, not just the whims of some author.  You can't erase history, even if you don't like it.  It would be like censoring the Code of Hammurabi.  The big difference is that the Bible is used at the present day and is treated as a sacred book.  Better would be education and proper commentary, showing how even the Bible no longer endorses such things, giving historical context, enlightening its readers, and trying to remove fundamentalist extremism.

Author
Time

thejediknighthusezni said:

TheBoost said:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/11/oklahoma_tea_party_candidate_scott_esk_supports_stoning_gay_people_to_death.html

Finally, some honesty from a politician. 

(for the record, not agreeing, but it's nice to hear them come out and say it, not just imply it)

        Well, a RADICAL HATE-MONGERING rag says he wants that in spite of his claiming "he doesn't remember" (as the rag put it).

       

 Your usual insane viewpoints aren't worth responding to, but I would like to highlight his actual words.

That [stoning gay people to death] goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.

I never said I would author legislation to put homosexuals to death, but I didn’t have a problem with it.

I know what was done in the Old Testament and what was done back then was what’s just. … And I do stand for Biblical morality.

So, basically you're being even dumber than usual.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

In the Old Testament both parties were to put to death and the method of choice was stoning. The act had declared those practising it as dead to the nation. So they were given a violent live burial. The same was true with adultery.

I mentioned this in defense of religion. From my perspective the bigotry is in the text because of the bigotry of it's human authors not because of the a divine bigotry or any institution of bigotry from the religions that maintain the text.

Though removing it from the text would be a step in the right direction if a religious organisation wants to distance itself from the acts violence in the text.

i think there is a mix of the standard disgust response when discovering a group of people indulging a form of sensual pleasure that seems alien, coupled with a scripture led tribalism spread by bigoted clerics (of many religions).

The germ of that clerical led bigotry is the oft misquoted Old Testament prohibitions most of the time. Even the Indian Right Wing take the principle from it's colonial history.

Secular bigots draw from a religious cultural history when they make their proclamations of 'tradition' and 'natural law'. Just as secular charities also pool from a long history of religious good works.

 It must be pointed out that any culture is ultimately derived from a religious cultural history, the good and the bad, the religious and irreligious.  There is good is tradition and natural law, and often "progress" goes backwards or leads to instability.

Honestly, censoring the Bible is a disservice as well.  Did you know that psychologists use data from Nazi experiments on Jews in the present day?  What they did was horrible and wrong, unethical, immoral, purely evil.  But there were things learned that could not be learned through any moral experimentation.  What was done was wrong, but at least we can make positive use of such evil.

To censor the Bible would be trying to eliminate legitimate history.  That was really Mosaic Law, not just the whims of some author.  You can't erase history, even if you don't like it.  It would be like censoring the Code of Hammurabi.  The big difference is that the Bible is used at the present day and is treated as a sacred book.  Better would be education and proper commentary, showing how even the Bible no longer endorses such things, giving historical context, enlightening its readers, and trying to remove fundamentalist extremism.

 It is curious that Bingo always talkis about editing the Bible, but never the Koran.   I am willing to bet there is a lot of anti-gay stuff in there too. 

Author
Time

I tried following one once, but it didn't move and I got bored, so I stopped after a while.

;)

On a more serious note, I'm disgusted at the bigotry being displayed towards Trinity Western's law school.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/lawyers+vote+overwhelmingly+against+Trinity+Western+school+amid+claims+discrimination/9926606/story.html#ixzz34NU8NWxh

It's a Christian law school--should they not be allowed to dictate their own rules? They aren't even discriminating against gays like people are claiming because the same rules apply to heterosexuals. I don't know how they enforce their rules which apply to the most private part of people's lives, but they should be allowed to do so. If people have a problem with that, they can go to a different school. I can't believe that people don't recognize that they are opposing freedom of religion when they oppose the rules upheld by the law school, but think they're doing a service to "gay rights" instead.

/rant

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RicOlie_2 said:

On a more serious note, I'm disgusted at the bigotry being displayed towards Trinity Western's law school.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/lawyers+vote+overwhelmingly+against+Trinity+Western+school+amid+claims+discrimination/9926606/story.html#ixzz34NU8NWxh

It's a Christian law school--should they not be allowed to dictate their own rules? They aren't even discriminating against gays like people are claiming because the same rules apply to heterosexuals. I don't know how they enforce their rules which apply to the most private part of people's lives, but they should be allowed to do so. If people have a problem with that, they can go to a different school. I can't believe that people don't recognize that they are opposing freedom of religion when they oppose the rules upheld by the law school, but think they're doing a service to "gay rights" instead.

/rant

 I'm not going to pretend to be an expert. Before clicking that link i didn't even know Canada has laws.

BUT sir, you're being extremely disingenuous if you say

They aren't even discriminating against gays like people are claiming because the same rules apply to heterosexuals.

Because the rule is:

They were particularly concerned about the import of the evangelical covenant that the university insists staff, faculty and students sign, which forbids sex outside of heterosexual marriage.

This is of itself, discriminatory

In the past here in America, we had a law that said only white people could vote. Same rules applied to white and black people. Was that discriminatory?

Author
Time

thejediknighthusezni said:

TheBoost said:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/11/oklahoma_tea_party_candidate_scott_esk_supports_stoning_gay_people_to_death.html

Finally, some honesty from a politician. 

(for the record, not agreeing, but it's nice to hear them come out and say it, not just imply it)

        Well, a RADICAL HATE-MONGERING rag says he wants that in spite of his claiming "he doesn't remember" (as the rag put it).

        That's good enough for me. Obviously, homosexuals must do EVEN MORE to destroy everything normal people value in life. Their children must be raped and defiled and have their sexuality destroyed in front of the faces of these evil and vile normies. They must be made to choke and call it wonderfull "progress" as their lives are crushed and they SUFFER AND DIE!!!!!!

       The herd needs it's culling anyway. How will the homosexuals be galvinized to do the job without pretending to believe that there is an epidemic of horrible violence against them?

      Actual severe violence for no other reason than hate for an innocent homosexual is more rare than man-bites-dog. This is why things like the Wyoming attack become national news. It turns out it was about drugs. The normies must NEVER be mindful that TENS OF MILLIONS of children and confused teens(regressed children) are violently crushed while the hate-mongering media desperately scours a nation of 300 million to find just one case that can be twisted into "only because the innocent dear was gay".

     Do you know how many of the rapes of females are commited by males who had their sexuality destroyed by homosexaul predators? There's an epedemic!

     It's the only way. Our elite masters must have their utterly depraved shock troops.

    

 My personal opinion is that you're a troll who takes this as some kind of performance art. On the small chance I'm wrong, do you intentionally try to come off like some twitching lunatic writing on the wall with your own feces? Because even trying to parse your meaning gives me a headache.

Author
Time

TheBoost said:

RicOlie_2 said:

On a more serious note, I'm disgusted at the bigotry being displayed towards Trinity Western's law school.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/lawyers+vote+overwhelmingly+against+Trinity+Western+school+amid+claims+discrimination/9926606/story.html#ixzz34NU8NWxh

It's a Christian law school--should they not be allowed to dictate their own rules? They aren't even discriminating against gays like people are claiming because the same rules apply to heterosexuals. I don't know how they enforce their rules which apply to the most private part of people's lives, but they should be allowed to do so. If people have a problem with that, they can go to a different school. I can't believe that people don't recognize that they are opposing freedom of religion when they oppose the rules upheld by the law school, but think they're doing a service to "gay rights" instead.

/rant

 I'm not going to pretend to be an expert. Before clicking that link i didn't even know Canada has laws.

BUT sir, you're being extremely disingenuous if you say

They aren't even discriminating against gays like people are claiming because the same rules apply to heterosexuals.

Because the rule is:

They were particularly concerned about the import of the evangelical covenant that the university insists staff, faculty and students sign, which forbids sex outside of heterosexual marriage.

This is of itself, discriminatory

In the past here in America, we had a law that said only white people could vote. Same rules applied to white and black people. Was that discriminatory?

 I understand the reasoning, but I disagree with it. It's a Christian law school, and it prohibits sex outside of marriage. Period. Marriage in the Christian religion (aside from some more liberal denominations) is, by definition, between heterosexuals. It isn't discrimination, it's just what we consider marriage to be. Also, people choose to have sex, they don't choose to be black or white. The rules don't prohibit homosexuals from attending the school--that would indeed be wrongful discrimination--they just prohibit sex outside of marriage for staff/students in attendance.