The Vitriol of the Pro-Gay Agenda

[dbohm]

In a debate currently occurring under the title of "Can you choose what gender you are attracted to?", I have been called a homophobe, ignorant and bigot by people who I otherwise have a high regard for in this forum.

Nowhere did I even say that homosexuality was even so much as immoral in my posts. Yet because I was putting forward a secular argument against gay marriage that is opposed to the current pro-gay agenda, I'm called any number of names.

Is this really the way to debate what is currently a very controversial and significant issue for everyone? Is it a legitimate tactic to shout down your opponents by calling them ignorant bigots because they have reasoned concerns?

[Boosh]

[Replying to post 47 by dbohm]

It's too late; they're all dead now. Gone.

Name calling may be uncivil, but torturing the innocent to death or into suicide is evil.

Possibly just as great an evil is refusal to learn from past mistakes, and continuing to support a doctrine of intolerance as many Christians still do.

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat]

There is absolutely no place for that sort of behaviour and mainstream Christianity totally rejects such programs. Even the founder of out-of-exodus has pulled the plug on his program.

Yet, someone just pushed another 'ex-gay' site that promotes it. Pfox promotes it.

They have an article about it on the site that even the author of it retracted, saying it was wrong .

[Star]

And many people calling Christians bigots don't realize that in attacking Christians, they are bigots, too. They seem to think it's all right for them to be bigots, but people who disagree with them must keep quiet. What happened to free speech?

No, it's not bigoted to label someone who is bigoted a "bigot".

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

People can and are bigoted towards Christians for being Christian, but recognizing your unfair dislike of others isn't quite the same, even if there is a label ascribed to it.

I also think you should quit throwing all your fellow Christians under the bus. Not all Christians have something against gays. You're trying to make this look like an attack on Christians themselves. Is this some kind of rally cry?

[Star]

If nothing else, that post hits on one of the great tragedies of homosexuality -- the high number of suicides in that group. It's just so tremendously sad and I am appalled by it, too.

Stop helping making society so inhospitable for them if it's so tragic.

Depressed gay teens, who obviously aren't of the right minds, kill themselves because it's not a choice, there's seemingly no way out, and then they face people like you, who make them feel like garbage further still, as if being a depressed self-hating teenager isn't bad enough.

They need help accepting themselves. What you propose is in direct contravention of nearly every mental health organization in the developed world, including the American Psychological Association.

[otseng]

No, it's not bigoted to label someone who is bigoted a "bigot".

On this forum, name calling is not allowed, including calling someone else a bigot. And even if you can prove someone is a bigot, it is still not allowed. The only circumstance I can think of where I would allow it is if someone called himself a bigot, then you are free to call him one.

[WinePusher]

No, it's not bigoted to label someone who is bigoted a "bigot".

Way to point out the obvious.

It obviously isn't bigoted to call someone else a bigot. But, it is juvenille, unintelligable, immature, closeminded, presumptioious, and an ad hominem. It's also very intolerant so it's incredibly ironic that liberals, who claim to have a monopoly on tolerance, always engage in namecalling of this sort.

[Star]

No, it's not bigoted to label someone who is bigoted a "bigot".

Way to point out the obvious.

It obviously isn't bigoted to call someone else a bigot. But, it is juvenille, unintelligable, immature, closeminded, presumptioious, and an ad hominem. It's also very intolerant so it's incredibly ironic that liberals, who claim to have a monopoly on tolerance, always engage in namecalling of this sort.

I was responding to someone who said it was. His post was quoted correctly and fully visible. If it's so obvious why didn't you say anything to him? Is it because I'm the liberal atheist, and he isn't? Clearly, you have an ax to grind.

You still seem to think it's intolerant. I've heard this silly "it's intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance" argument before. Obviously there is a distinction between unfair intolerance and fair intolerance, and obviously, what is considered "fair" is subjective. We're intolerant of murder, but that obviously doesn't make us "intolerant" in the context we mean. All arguments I've seen in favor of intolerance towards homosexuals (particularly males) are invalid. All concerns are unjustified. Mental health professionals feel very strongly it's something that isn't going away and must be accepted for the best mental health of all, from suicidal gay teens to the most rabid of homophobes, and the evidence supports this.

[Star]

No, it's not bigoted to label someone who is bigoted a "bigot".

On this forum, name calling is not allowed, including calling someone else a bigot. And even if you can prove someone is a bigot, it is still not allowed. The only circumstance I can think of where I would allow it is if someone called himself a bigot, then you are free to call him one.

I understand, I won't call anyone here a bigot, but it's still not bigoted to correctly label someone a bigot, maybe not unless they're over-zealously anti-bigot, becoming themselves just as bad or worse than those they criticize, then I could see the irony.

[99percentatheism]

Darias


Paul claimed that Christ spake through him. Paul approved of slavery.

Are cliaming that scripture represents actual historical events?

Of course you are. I just love dealing with atheists like you.

So let's see Pauline slavery from Paul's own words written to a rich Roman (Christian) shall we?

Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,

To Philemon, our beloved brother and fellow worker, 2 and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I thank my God always, making mention of you in my prayers, 5 because I hear of your love and of the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints; 6 and I pray that the fellowship of your faith may become effective through the knowledge of every good thing which is in you for Christ’s sake. For I have come to have much joy and comfort in your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you, brother.

8 Therefore, though I have enough confidence in Christ to order you to do what is proper, 9 yet for love’s sake I rather appeal to you—since I am such a person as Paul, the aged, and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus—

10 I appeal to you for my child Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment, 11 who formerly was useless to you, but now is useful both to you and to me. 12 I have sent him back to you in person, that is, sending my very heart, 13 whom I wished to keep with me, so that on your behalf he might minister to me in my imprisonment for the gospel; 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will.

15 For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever,

16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave,

a beloved brother,

especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

17 If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me. 18 But if he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge that to my account; 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand, I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self as well). 20 Yes, brother, let me benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ.

21 Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, since I know that you will do even more than what I say.

22 At the same time also prepare me a lodging, for I hope that through your prayers I will be given to you.

23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, 24 as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow workers.

The Christianity history has witnessed isn't all golden as you describe it. Did you not learn about the conquest of the New World?

By who? Spain, England, France, Holland, Portugal, Morocco, Persia? They are all countries not denominations

You know that right?

The wars between Protestants and Catholics in Europe?

And how many Japanese Buddhists were affected? How many Vikings for that matter?

They all thought they were following Christ's teachings. Are you really going to go with the no true Scotsman fallacy here?

JESUS DID!!!

Following Christ's teaching every single death caused by "Christian" war is against what a Christian should do.

You are implementimg the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy.

Just because you managed to cherry pick a handful of decent human beings who called themselves Christian doesn't mean Christianity is a net plus for the world.

yet people are still becoming Christians in countries all over the word. As in today January 4th 2014. Even in Islamic lands.

Just because you didn't educate yourself on the horror that Christian dogma has wrought, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Um er, you may want to watch out how you judge people with the yardstick of a historian's measuring stick. Pot? Kettle?

[Joab]

Darias


Paul claimed that Christ spake through him. Paul approved of slavery.

Are cliaming that scripture represents actual historical events?

Of course you are. I just love dealing with atheists like you.

So let's see Pauline slavery from Paul's own words written to a rich Roman (Christian) shall we?

Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,

To Philemon, our beloved brother and fellow worker, 2 and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I thank my God always, making mention of you in my prayers, 5 because I hear of your love and of the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints; 6 and I pray that the fellowship of your faith may become effective through the knowledge of every good thing which is in you for Christ’s sake. For I have come to have much joy and comfort in your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you, brother.

8 Therefore, though I have enough confidence in Christ to order you to do what is proper, 9 yet for love’s sake I rather appeal to you—since I am such a person as Paul, the aged, and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus—

10 I appeal to you for my child Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment, 11 who formerly was useless to you, but now is useful both to you and to me. 12 I have sent him back to you in person, that is, sending my very heart, 13 whom I wished to keep with me, so that on your behalf he might minister to me in my imprisonment for the gospel; 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will.

15 For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever,

16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave,

a beloved brother,

especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

17 If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me. 18 But if he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge that to my account; 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand, I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self as well). 20 Yes, brother, let me benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ.

21 Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, since I know that you will do even more than what I say.

22 At the same time also prepare me a lodging, for I hope that through your prayers I will be given to you.

23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, 24 as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow workers.

The Christianity history has witnessed isn't all golden as you describe it. Did you not learn about the conquest of the New World?

By who? Spain, England, France, Holland, Portugal, Morocco, Persia? They are all countries not denominations

You know that right?

The wars between Protestants and Catholics in Europe?

And how many Japanese Buddhists were affected? How many Vikings for that matter?

They all thought they were following Christ's teachings. Are you really going to go with the no true Scotsman fallacy here?

JESUS DID!!!

Following Christ's teaching every single death caused by "Christian" war is against what a Christian should do.

You are implementimg the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy.

Just because you managed to cherry pick a handful of decent human beings who called themselves Christian doesn't mean Christianity is a net plus for the world.

yet people are still becoming Christians in countries all over the word. As in today January 4th 2014. Even in Islamic lands.

Just because you didn't educate yourself on the horror that Christian dogma has wrought, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Um er, you may want to watch out how you judge people with the yardstick of a historian's measuring stick. Pot? Kettle?

Did the dude ever write back and say yeah did what you asked?

Did the slave ever write to saul and say thanks?

Did the rich man beat the slave to death for his impertinance?

Or doesn't the wonderful book of fables say?