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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Vitriol should be the response to the oppressor. It should be the response to those who would restrict other's freedoms based on the opinion of a god they're incapable of showing exists to even have him one of 'em there in the first place, and don't it beat all, he agrees.

Vitriol should be the natural response to those who seek to deny you what they hold for themselves.

Render you down some vitriol. Cook it out 'til only the lean remains. Notice you're still left with vitriol. Of course you can add you some butter to it, but you're still left with butter'd up vitriol. Ever ordered you up a vitriol biscuit? Who orders them a biscuit with vitriol, when it says right there on the menu, you can get you one with bacon?


Christians have them this book there, and we're proud they can read, a good many of 'em, but dangitall, that book tells of all kinds of horrifications and dangedblamedanations against anyone who ain't him a Christian.

Vitriol is the product of a society that spews it. Vitriol is what you get, when all you can do is spew your own vitriol into the wind.

Vitriol is the logical consequence of declaring you know the mind of god - while right there and then when you say it, you show yourself incapable of showing you do.


Don't like you no sausage biscuit? Then don't ask the pretty girl down there at the Awful Waffle to cook you one right on up. And for all that's good, don't expect the sausage lovers to give them up them a sausage biscuit. They like 'em, there's profit in 'em, and ain't conservatives all 'bout the prophet? Are you so dang proud, you'd deny someone them a biscuit, just 'cause you don't like what they put on it, even if you ain't the one that's gotta eat it?

How'd you feel if you go down there, and you can't even get you a fish biscuit?

How's that gonna look? You was so proud you had the money for you a store-bought fish biscuit, fixed up right there as you wait. Let's say it's likely the first'n it was that you could pay for all your own, with the money you made from work, but here it is, they's only selling sausage biscuits?

We gotta ask here, and we love ya, but are you so dad-blamed adamant in your love of a good, first run fish biscuit, that you couldn't eat you no sausage biscuit while ya wait?

Options are for those who've run out of 'em. Them that love them a sausage biscuit, they don't so much hate you for your love of a fish biscuit, they just don't quite understand why ya do. So the same should be afforded the sausage biscuit lovers - Don't quite get it, but you go on and get you a belly full if that'll get you to work in the morning.

Vitriol is the result of vitriol. It's the result of sanctimonious busy-bodies trying to impose their unsupportable beliefs onto an entire population of folks who don't cotton them too much to the sanctimonious, holier'n thou attitudes of a population incapable of showing they speak truth.

Show you speak truth. Show your own vitriol regarding homosexuals is truth. Show you know the mind of god. Show you know that oppressing, suppressing, and downright depressing your fellow humans is pleasing to God.

Show you ain't the biggest lying liar that ever told him one great big gob of a big ol' whopping lying lie.

Show you speak truth.

Show your own vitriol ain't just that.

Your vitriol should come back to you in spades.

Ten-fold. A hundred-fold. A hundred-fold and a dollar and a half more of it.

It should come back to you every time you open your book, or your mouth.

It should come back to you each and every time you seek to condem those who disagree.

It should come back to you like a boomerang.

[Goat]

Who gave homosexuals the right to redefine marriage? Can a man be another man's wife? OR husband?

Who gave you the right to define marriage for others?

Can a woman be another woman's wife? OR husband?

They can call themselves whatever they wish. It doesn't matter.

The intolerance didn't start with the "protect marriage crowd."

I never said it did. Try sticking to arguing what I actually say, please.

Liberals, progressives, atheoists yada, yada, yada, are imposing their views on others. knocking over the apple cart and then blaming the apple cart's owner for being intolerant and in the way of the disrutive action.

You seem to be confused about what "imposing" means. Existing, and being tolerated and accepted, isn't imposing. Imposing is when you try forcing others to conform to your personal moral code for no good defensible reason. You have no right to dictate how people live when 1) that's the way they were born, and 2) they're consenting adults, and 3) they aren't hurting anything.

Get over it.

I don't know. Asking 'if a woman can be another woman's wife' is sort of like asking which of the two chop sticks is the fork.

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

Who gave homosexuals the right to redefine marriage? Can a man be another man's wife? OR husband?

Can a woman be another woman's wife? OR husband?

The intolerance didn't start with the "protect marriage crowd."

There is no intolerance in the pro-gay agenda. We have no problem with heterosexuals continuing to get married. In fact, in Canada, where same sex marriage has been legal for about ten years, men and women do continue to get married to each other just like before. My own heterosexual marriage of over thirty years has in no way been threatened by the legalization of gay marriages.

Asking, which woman in a lesbian marriage is the wife is kind of like asking which chopstick is the fork. Not all spouses are necessarily husbands or wives.

"...[W]hich chopstick is the fork?"
As you say, gay marriage does not threaten marriage. It simply is an idea that annoys or offends some people.

I have never stood in the way of homosexuals and their legion of supporters from doing as they wilteth.

But the chopstick analogy says more than meets the eye. A chopstick is actually NOT a fork and never will be. It is a quasi fork I guess, a kind of fumbling around thing that is sort of a kind of replacement for a fork, but it is not a fork. Neither is a rectum a vagina nor a strap on dildo a penis. But making a joke of gay people and their replacement tools would be considered very unfunny huh? But actually just as applicable in all reality.

Not such a comedic little analogy when maturity and reality is employed to sexual behaviors. The same can be used when a child says they have two mommies. Actually, it is not a Christian's fault that little Billy is believing something that is utterly absurd. Far more than likely, little Billy IS the product of a man and a woman. And of course turnming the joke of the chopstick towards Billy would be called bullying and hate crime huh? But you both seem to think it's quite OK to force this view on a Christian?

have twice asked 99% how he has personally been 'oppressed' by this secular culture. He has yet to answer, yet call of 'oppression' continues.

I don't run a private business anymore. And my views are oppressed here often when I am referred to as hateful etc., etc.. Even the common cliche waving atheit knows that to assert that a Christian is hateful is a dire insult towards them.

I ask again, of anyone who proclaims 'oppression' because he is a Christian, to tell us his or her personal story of the 'oppression' he or she has suffered solely because of Christian beliefs.

Our inability to assert the nature of homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. Not to mention, that Pastor's have been arrested (and in dear ol' Canada) for preaching that it is a sin to engage in gay sex acts per scripture.

My experience with marriage is that the threat to it is purely personal and has nothing to do with same sex marriage. I would be interested to hear exactly how same sex marriage has had any impact on the marriage of any member of this forum.

I for one have shown quite the tolerant and diversity viewpoint towards homosexuals and their legion of supporters. That pagans and atheists and liberals and progressives can do as they witleth. All I ask is the same in return for Christians that have solid religious grounds for the opposition to encouraging same gender sex acts. I have never stood elsewhere. Why would I care what pagans do? Jesus laid out the actions to implement and I believe that is sound advice.

"Gay marriage" is also about the promotion of homosexual sex as well. I make that assertion solidly. That is also, why we see gay activists plying their wares in Christian Churches. This is about the validation of gay behavior in all of the defintions "LGBT" come in. Otherwise, we Christians would hear sermons about how gay sex, or rather homosexuality, is wrong for people that are not "born gay." But the dearth of those sermons is defeaning. This has always been a Christian issue to me. As it was for the early church as well. And it is laughable the machinations that some people go through to try to insert gay liberation in the New Testament. And of course, whyen that is soundly defeated, the cultural aspect of the times are brought into question. I am compiling all this. These internet chats produce material that is valuable for real life work.

It is far past time that Christians realize that the only thing that is happening is that the mask is off of our adversaries. Finally. Or rather, the sheeps clothing is moth eaten and shining through to the wolf's shape clearly seen.

And why should we not expect that?

Too many post are directed at me and to me in directly and insulting and threatening ways. That's not something I welcome. I realize that it is goading most often. It's just that I have never cowered to bullies and thsi reactionary property to my personality gets me targeted for violations here. Oh well.

This is a website for debating Christianity. And that I do. I have always maintained the position that I do not care what non and anti Christians and atheists and materialists and naturalists and pagans do. Why would a Christian do that? I see that there is a contentiousness and very negative attitude towards Christains and Christianity by people here and that is something unimportant to me. This is a faceless internet environment. It is something I must endure but little else. Christian truth is not eliminated because some people don't agree with scripture and Bible-affirming Christians. But enough about me.

But answer me this please? Why is it wrong to oppose homosexuality?

[KCKID]

Who gave homosexuals the right to redefine marriage? Can a man be another man's wife? OR husband?

Who gave you the right to define marriage for others?

Can a woman be another woman's wife? OR husband?

They can call themselves whatever they wish. It doesn't matter.

The intolerance didn't start with the "protect marriage crowd."

I never said it did. Try sticking to arguing what I actually say, please.

Liberals, progressives, atheoists yada, yada, yada, are imposing their views on others. knocking over the apple cart and then blaming the apple cart's owner for being intolerant and in the way of the disrutive action.

You seem to be confused about what "imposing" means. Existing, and being tolerated and accepted, isn't imposing. Imposing is when you try forcing others to conform to your personal moral code for no good defensible reason. You have no right to dictate how people live when 1) that's the way they were born, and 2) they're consenting adults, and 3) they aren't hurting anything.

Get over it.

I don't know. Asking 'if a woman can be another woman's wife' is sort of like asking which of the two chop sticks is the fork.

I know that we're not supposed to respond to posts with such as this but I like that! Sounds like something that Sheldon Cooper from TV's The Big Bang Theory might say!

Thanks for the Phil Everly contribution by the way . . .

[99percentatheism]

Who gave homosexuals the right to redefine marriage? Can a man be another man's wife? OR husband?

Who gave you the right to define marriage for others?

Can a woman be another woman's wife? OR husband?

They can call themselves whatever they wish. It doesn't matter.

The intolerance didn't start with the "protect marriage crowd."

I never said it did. Try sticking to arguing what I actually say, please.

Liberals, progressives, atheoists yada, yada, yada, are imposing their views on others. knocking over the apple cart and then blaming the apple cart's owner for being intolerant and in the way of the disrutive action.

You seem to be confused about what "imposing" means. Existing, and being tolerated and accepted, isn't imposing. Imposing is when you try forcing others to conform to your personal moral code for no good defensible reason. You have no right to dictate how people live when 1) that's the way they were born, and 2) they're consenting adults, and 3) they aren't hurting anything.

Get over it.

I don't know. Asking 'if a woman can be another woman's wife' is sort of like asking which of the two chop sticks is the fork.

Is a chopstick a fork? No it is not. It's academically absurd to make the comparison. But I like the anaolgy when applied to gay behavior and logic. it shows it for the unreasonable nature that it truly is.

Can a woman become pregnant from a rubber replica of a penis inserted into her? Now be careful, dildo's are not just a tool used in lesbian sex acts. And of course, sperm in rectum needs no logical treatment, humorous or scientific.

My, my how analogies aren't asd funny when seen in the light of maturity. Well, maybe not funny all the time, but quite the use of rationalism in a highly emotionally charged envirnonment can make truth look quite non-insulting.

[99percentatheism]

Who gave homosexuals the right to redefine marriage? Can a man be another man's wife? OR husband?

Who gave you the right to define marriage for others?

Can a woman be another woman's wife? OR husband?

They can call themselves whatever they wish. It doesn't matter.

The intolerance didn't start with the "protect marriage crowd."

I never said it did. Try sticking to arguing what I actually say, please.

Liberals, progressives, atheoists yada, yada, yada, are imposing their views on others. knocking over the apple cart and then blaming the apple cart's owner for being intolerant and in the way of the disrutive action.

You seem to be confused about what "imposing" means. Existing, and being tolerated and accepted, isn't imposing. Imposing is when you try forcing others to conform to your personal moral code for no good defensible reason. You have no right to dictate how people live when 1) that's the way they were born, and 2) they're consenting adults, and 3) they aren't hurting anything.

Get over it.

I don't know. Asking 'if a woman can be another woman's wife' is sort of like asking which of the two chop sticks is the fork.

I know that we're not supposed to respond to posts with such as this but I like that! Sounds like something that Sheldon Cooper from TV's The Big Bang Theory might say!

Thanks for the Phil Everly contribution by the way . . .

If a Mom, in this case let's assume it is a female, during a Thanksgiving Dinner asks form someone to pass "her" a fork, and they pass her a chopstick, is a hate crime if "she" says that what was just offered to "her" is wrong?

Or is "she" a utensilaphobe?

[Danmark]

Danmark
I don't run a private business anymore. And my views are oppressed here often when I am referred to as hateful etc., etc.. Even the common cliche waving atheit knows that to assert that a Christian is hateful is a dire insult towards them. . . .

I understand you to say that the 'oppression' you are faced with is in the form of disagreement with your views. Are you claiming that it is 'oppression' for someone to disagree with you?

I have asked you several times, in different subtopics, to support your claim that you and your brethren are 'oppressed.' You have failed to list a single instance of true 'oppression,' other than your claim that simple intellectual disagreement is somehow 'oppression.' Do you have any other examples?

[KCKID]

Who gave homosexuals the right to redefine marriage? Can a man be another man's wife? OR husband?

Who gave you the right to define marriage for others?

Can a woman be another woman's wife? OR husband?

They can call themselves whatever they wish. It doesn't matter.

The intolerance didn't start with the "protect marriage crowd."

I never said it did. Try sticking to arguing what I actually say, please.

Liberals, progressives, atheoists yada, yada, yada, are imposing their views on others. knocking over the apple cart and then blaming the apple cart's owner for being intolerant and in the way of the disrutive action.

You seem to be confused about what "imposing" means. Existing, and being tolerated and accepted, isn't imposing. Imposing is when you try forcing others to conform to your personal moral code for no good defensible reason. You have no right to dictate how people live when 1) that's the way they were born, and 2) they're consenting adults, and 3) they aren't hurting anything.

Get over it.

I don't know. Asking 'if a woman can be another woman's wife' is sort of like asking which of the two chop sticks is the fork.

I know that we're not supposed to respond to posts with such as this but I like that! Sounds like something that Sheldon Cooper from TV's The Big Bang Theory might say!

Thanks for the Phil Everly contribution by the way . . .

If a Mom, in this case let's assume it is a female, during a Thanksgiving Dinner asks form someone to pass "her" a fork, and they pass her a chopstick, is a hate crime if "she" says that what was just offered to "her" is wrong?

Or is "she" a utensilaphobe?

Hey, I like that too! Keep 'em coming, guys, as I could do with some humor in my life today.

[Danmark]

If a Mom, in this case let's assume it is a female, during a Thanksgiving Dinner asks form someone to pass "her" a fork, and they pass her a chopstick, is a hate crime if "she" says that what was just offered to "her" is wrong?,,,,

This is incomprehensible. Please restate.

[99percentatheism]

If a Mom, in this case let's assume it is a female, during a Thanksgiving Dinner asks form someone to pass "her" a fork, and they pass her a chopstick, is a hate crime if "she" says that what was just offered to "her" is wrong?,,,,

This is incomprehensible. Please restate.

I have no doubt that you found that incomprehensible. Cognitive dissonance does produce confusion. You thought you had a zinger until it was turned into mush.

Telling of course that you left off "utensilaphobe."

Is a chopstick a fork? If your life depended on it? Your soul? You would fail even a first grade test if you answer question about what a fork is and you provided: A Chopstick.

Try real hard to comprehend. If you notice, KCKID even got it.