Bible Thumpers Fight For Right To Discriminate

Bunkle's "philosophy" (if that's what his ignorant and somehow dangerous ranting can be called) can be summed up in one infamous sentence: Jedem das Seine.

Here's what people with a similar thinking did:

​

:angry:
 
Bunkle said:
I agree homosexual people don't harm anyone but Christians are Christians and they do what is said in the Bible and if the Bible says homosexuals are sinners then we can't do anything about it.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, some Christian people are becoming a little bit more open minded nowadays, in respect that other people have different beliefs, ideas, etc..

Not strictly true for a lot of them as they still have this prejudice attitude to what is right or wrong in their eyes.
 
Albie said:
...prejudice attitude to what is right or wrong in their eyes.
Click to expand...
Everyone has their own measurements as to what is right and what it wrong. Even in the most extreme cases such as killing or rape, that are generally known to be wrong, there are subtleties based on opinion. Even in saying that someone is prejudiced, we are being judgemental. And it's a normal human trait to want to imprint one's opinions on others. It's better to do it in a straightforward way, and respect the other opinion, rather than being manipulative and closed-minded.
 
Mentioning the Bible -- provided you've read it, and most people who "quote" it haven't -- isn't expressing an opinion. It's simply avoiding to critically think for yourself.

So now, I'll go for a shave with a Gilette razor because it's "the best a man can get", have a shower with my L'Oréal shampoo "because I'm worth it," then I'll go for a drive in my Toyota, because I'm "Moving forward."  ^_^
 
Maverick said:
So now...
Click to expand...
Not to mention cleaning my teeth with Colgate, that "my dentist recommends me".
Come to think of it, I'm not always "smiling next to you" either. :p
 
SilentLucidity said:
In what way?
I'm sure most homosexuals harm someone at one point or another, just as I do and you too, Bunkle. But not *because* we are homosexuals (or straight). If someone thinks some people harm him with their sole existence, he reminds me of a certain Austrian born German politician...
Click to expand...

At first I meant that homosexuals don't harm anyone by being homosexual. And I may make a something a little more clear:

I agree homosexual people don't harm anyone (by being homosexual)(,) but Christians (etc.)
Click to expand...

The sentence didn't end there. You might read it through again as I'm not here to spread extreme racist thoughts.

What truth do you mean?
Click to expand...

With the truth I mean the following.
People assume things right when it will be most likely correct. People can lie and tell the truth, but they can also try to hide the truth, which is lying most of the time. If someone lies to you you get your head filled up with things that aren't true, the same thing is it if someone didn't tell you the whole story and you make the blank space up yourself.
If we can only say something is good while not saying you think it isn't then you're doing the same thing as lying, hiding the truth. Because you don't say what is.
 
Bunkle, you're really not doing yourself any favour by making yourself look not only dangerously narrow-minded, but also too dumb to hold a decent discussion.

Your argumentation lacks substance as well as structure and the technical term for this is 'bullshit'. You did well to choose the alchemical symbol for air as your avatar: it highlights what your posts already confirmed -- that you're a complete air-head!  :angry:
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
All right folks, here it is once and for all.

The vast preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that sexual preference is a trait we're born with. To claim that one particular preference makes a person a "sinner" is akin to saying that someone with green eyes or someone who grows up to be taller than average could be a "sinner".
Click to expand...

  Ok, I agree that people aren't sinners for having a different sexual prefrence (orientation/taste/whatever). At the same time it bothers me when people say "it is something we're born with" to make it "normal" and "acceptable." As Mav said, there isn't evidence either way and frankly it should stay that way. If they do find a "gay gene" what will stop fanatical religious groups to start a "Destroy the gay gene" movement? making thousands of babies undergo medical procedure to make them "straight"? Now that is a very extreme view, but something simillar could happen.

Not to mention since when is being born with something normal or that in itself make it acceptable? Is it normall for people to be born blind, deaf, with AIDS, with a cleft palate, with mental retardation or with missing limbs? No. They are all defects, and while I don't care who people want to sleep with I will never see it as "normal". Acceptable yes, that's their business, normal.. never.
 
Onhell, cleft lips and blindness affect under 1% of the population.  Between 10 and 20% of people identify as homo- or bisexual.  Between 10 and 20% of people are white, or have blond hair (actually, there's probably a much lower percentage of the population with blond hair).  Whether or not homosexuality is biological or sociological is irrelevant.  It's still something that one in every five or ten people you see is.  Besides, I find the assumption you make in lumping homosexuality in with deafness and AIDS to be mildly insulting.  It's not a debilitating disease or a genetic defect.  It's a simple fact of existence.
 
LooseCannon said:
Onhell, cleft lips and blindness affect under 1% of the population.  Between 10 and 20% of people identify as homo- or bisexual.  Between 10 and 20% of people are white, or have blond hair (actually, there's probably a much lower percentage of the population with blond hair).  Whether or not homosexuality is biological or sociological is irrelevant.  It's still something that one in every five or ten people you see is.  Besides, I find the assumption you make in lumping homosexuality in with deafness and AIDS to be mildly insulting.  It's not a debilitating disease or a genetic defect.  It's a simple fact of existence.
Click to expand...

But the fact is, he sees it as not being normal, due to the fact that he is heterosexual.  Because he views it as an unnatural condition (although he stresses that it is acceptable), he views it as a weakness of character...to him.  To the homosexual, it is presumably not a defect at all.  Perhaps the blind man does not view himself as disabled, if he has never known anything else?  However, I'm sure Onhell didn't mean that comment to be insulting; he was simply stating his view that homsexuality is (to him) a deviation from normal biological activity, albeit one he can accept in society.  What he was probably trying to say is that he might find homosexuality distasteful and unnatural, but he can still live with it and get along fine with homosexuals.  I would agree that that was a sweeping statement and a generalisation (such as the ones I am accustomed to making all the time  ;)), but I don't think it was written to be directly insulting to homosexuals.
 
Onhell is correct; it is reasonable to describe homosexuality as "abnormal" in the sense that most people are heterosexual. Personally, I didn't read anything into his statement beyond that.

And to LC - 20%??? I've always read that the percentage of gay people is around 5%, maybe as high as 10% in some areas.
Seriously, are 1 out of 5 people you know gay? Or even 1 out of 10? I doubt it.
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
And to LC - 20%??? I've always read that the percentage of gay people is around 5%, maybe as high as 10% in some areas.
Seriously, are 1 out of 5 people you know gay? Or even 1 out of 10? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
I did think that stat was quite high even if it is, as LC stated, people who identify as been homosexual or bi-sexual.
 
Well, I'd say that more people are actually bi-sexual or willing to experiment in that area. Freud would even claim that the majority of people are bi. But is it really the point? Is statistics the only means of establishing normality?
 
If my memory serves me right, the term 'homosexual' dates from the 19th century and was made 'unnatural' at that time too. Before, people didn't care who you loved/had sex with, as long as the partner was consenting. I should also dig out a few papers stating that homosexuality is actually beneficial to the survival and evolution of higher mammal species, mostly the great apes like humans and chimpanzees.

Remember that Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great and a few other great figures of History 'swung both ways'. Who cares? It's all about fun, and sometimes even love. Let just people be and live our lives in peace and tolerance.
 
SilentLucidity said:
Well, I'd say that more people are actually bi-sexual or willing to experiment in that area.
Click to expand...
I think there's a difference between experimentation vs. identifying oneself as bisexual. The latter implies having an interest in relations with both sexes full-time. Most experimenters try it out for a bit then give it up and restrict themselves to homo or hetero. And I don't think such experimenters should be counted in the % of gay/bi people.
 
Hmmm... Are all heterosexual people interested in full time relationships with the opposite sex?
 
SilentLucidity said:
Hmmm... Are all heterosexual people interested in full time relationships with the opposite sex?
Click to expand...

Theoretically, yes.
 
SilentLucidity said:
I simply believe that sexual preference has nothing to do with full-time relationships.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm in a full-time relationship with the Commentary, but I still prefer women!  ^_^
 
SilentLucidity said:
Freud would even claim that the majority of people are bi.
Click to expand...

Freud also happens to be the most debunked scientist in history so....

I didn't mean to insult anybody with my prior statement, silky and smx surmized it perfectly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top