Support NeoGAF

[jaxword]

Religion is not that black and white. In Christianity one large part of the teaching is coming to terms with the fact that everyone, christians and non-christians included, are "sinners".

If you "lost your membership" if you didn't adhere to the "fundemental beliefs" (I'll just go along with this for now), then nobody could call themselves a Christian.

but then again what is wrong with that? I personally find no problem with not having to associate myself with a group of people. That's just me though

And It is obvious what kind of image the fundemental christian provides. America has lots of examples. Once again though, GAF should know better than to judge an entire group by the actions of some. As far as I'm concerned, taking the "90% of people who identify by religion are just ignorant cave-dwellers" stance is the easy thing to do. The harder thing to do is to try to figure out why so many people choose to follow religion. Not everyone is an idiot. People can think for themselves and it's insulting to them to say they don't because of a simple religious belief.

Choosing to be part of a group, in this case religion, does not grant that choice immunity from insult or ridicule. Why should it? Why should religion get protection when other choices are equally up for criticism?

What people seem to really want is they get to call themselves a member of a group and that membership to be defined by themselves, not the group. In other words, I represent the entirety of the religion, and those bad ones, well, they don't count and therefore you cannot criticize the religion.

Here's another way to illustrate this. If you think religious choice should be protected, then atheism is also a religious choice. As such you should be defending atheists from insult and ridicule as well. Have you ever done this?

 

[Threi]

Indeed!

My (non-trolling) theory with only 24 years of limited experience with people is the fact that a lot of people find it hard to cope with death. Your life ends, that's it, its done. The thought that there is an afterlife is much more comforting to people. And...i find nothing wrong with that.

Or they are just dumb helpless sheep i dunno

Choosing to be part of a group, in this case religion, does not grant that choice immunity from insult or ridicule.

I don't get this...intolerance is not acceptable, whether or not its a choice. Should i just go around calling gaffers "fat, sweaty nerds"?

As such you should be defending atheists from insult and ridicule as well. Have you ever done this?

Yes, many times. Actually one of my clearest memories from high school. The religious guy was my friend too, his face when i defended the athiest was pretty priceless :lol

Aside from that though I don't participate in religious debate for the most part. I "believe" in letting people believe in whatever they want, no matter how outlandish. PonyGAF and FurryGAF included.

 

[Dr. Malik]

There's a decent amount of bigots in the SF thread.

whats the story behind this?

 

[notworksafe]

whats the story behind this?

We use words in an IRC channel that offend his delicate sensibilities and he tries to get people banned on GAF for doing so.

That's about it

 

[wolfmat]

My (non-trolling) theory with only 24 years of limited experience with people is the fact that a lot of people find it hard to cope with death. Your life ends, that's it, its done. The thought that there is an afterlife is much more comforting to people. And...i find nothing wrong with that.

Or they are just dumb helpless sheep i dunno

My theory is that it's a mechanism to get rid of doubts and fears in general.

And although I'm a flaming atheist, I think that we are rigged to be religious because of the implications of that theory. You might laugh, but for example, I'm pretty sure dogs are deeply religious.

 

[black_vegeta]

whats the story behind this?

Short story

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=33272072&postcount=150

 

[Shanadeus]

.

 

[computers putin']

I like his jacket.

 

[Robobandit]

Did anyone else flag his video as hate speech? I know I did

 

[Timedog]

Religion is a choice. Sexual orientation is not a choice.

This is why we get to make fun of religious people, and why it is not hypocritical.

If someone believes chooses to believe something that is stupid, then I am okay with calling them out for believing something stupid.

Until you can prove that all these gay people are lying and it actually is just a choice, and I can choose to stop being attracted to girls tomorrow and become gay, then religion and sexual orientation cannot be considered comparable.

Of course, if I made a thread about this woman's beliefs(she made up her own religion of this bullshit and has a website/following), I guarantee that no Christians would get all up in arms about GAF making fun of it and get into multiquote word wars saying we need to be tolerant of people believing in stupid things. It's never happened in the past 10 years that I've been here when stuff like that has been posted.

 

[Threi]

Religion is a choice. Sexual orientation is not a choice.

This is why we get to make fun of religious people, and why it is not hypocritical.

I'm black, and i didn't choose to be black. I've gotten made fun of for being black.

Therefore I am allowed to make fun of fat people, and I am not a hypocrite for doing so.

 

[Timedog]

We use words in an IRC channel that offend his delicate sensibilities and he tries to get people banned on GAF for doing so.

That's about it

Never tried to get anyone in that thread banned.

I'm black, and i didn't choose to be black. I've gotten made fun of for being black.

Therefore I am allowed to make fun of fat people, and I am not a hypocrite for doing so.

Edit: wait, read that wrong.

You'll have to explain how that would be hypocritical. Not sure what you're getting at.

 

[AZ Greg]

Religion is a choice. Sexual orientation is not a choice.

This is why we get to make fun of religious people, and why it is not hypocritical.

GAF should install one of these while we're at it...

 

[Axis]

Religion is a choice. Sexual orientation is not a choice.

This is why we get to make fun of religious people, and why it is not hypocritical.

If someone believes chooses to believe something that is stupid, then I am okay with calling them out for believing something stupid.

Until you can prove that all these gay people are lying and it actually is just a choice, and I can choose to stop being attracted to girls tomorrow and become gay, then religion and sexual orientation cannot be considered comparable.

Of course, if I made a thread about this woman's beliefs(she made up her own religion of this bullshit and has a website/following), I guarantee that no Christians would get all up in arms about GAF making fun of it and get into multiquote word wars saying we need to be tolerant of people believing in stupid things. It's never happened in the past 10 years that I've been here when stuff like that has been posted.

lol this is dumb as fuck.

i'll keep it real short to avoid baiting. as someone who believes...what's the difference? if someone's born gay then so be it but for gaf to preach acceptability of all people(gays, furrys, transexuals, whatever) it sure lets people get away with shit-talking and completely trashing other peoples religious beliefs. i'm not saying what i believe is right and what you believe is wrong...neither of these things can be proven so just let it fucking ride and stop talking out of your ass.

 

[whitehawk]

My comment on the whole 'being gay is/isn't a choice' topic.

Being gay is not a choice. However I wish that one of the main arguments for pro-gay marriage didn't have to be 'it's not a choice'. Thing is, even if it was a choice, it shouldn't matter. If it was a choice, gay people should still be able to get married. I don't understand the debate at all.

And just to be clear incase my post is mis-read, I believe and know that ones sexuality is not a choice.

 

[Timedog]

lol this is dumb as fuck.

i'll keep it real short to avoid baiting. as someone who believes...what's the difference? if someone's born gay then so be it but for gaf to preach acceptability of all people(gays, furrys, transexuals, whatever) it sure lets people get away with shit-talking and completely trashing other peoples religious beliefs. i'm not saying what i believe is right and what you believe is wrong...neither of these things can be proven so just let it fucking ride and stop talking out of your ass.

You refuted exactly nothing that I said. If you're going to claim that I'm talking out of my ass, you're going to have to give a better argument than that.

 

[Threi]

You refuted exactly nothing that I said. If you're going to claim that I'm talking out of my ass, you're going to have to give a better argument than that.

You didn't actually provide any argument either, you just claimed that "religion is a choice, and sexual orientation is not".

But that is not the issue though, it is about the standard of tolerance GAF tries to uphold, whether it be something like ethnicity or sexual preference, or something small and almost trivial like your gaming console of choice or whether or not you like cartoon ponies. In all of these cases, it is unacceptable to make inflammatory comments towards any of these. Religion should not be an exception, whether or not it is by choice. People get banned for calling reviewers they don't like fat. People get banned because they don't like certain games or consoles. People get banned for their political views. It is not because either of these is a "protected class". It is not the subject matter, but rather the content.

The issue is religion, however, is free reign. It's as if people can get away with completely inflammatory comments towards religion as long as there isn't porn in the post. That is the problem, that needs to be addressed.

I don't feel that because I am black I'm given a free pass to bash anything. That is first and foremost rude, and a sign of a douchebag.

 

[Axis]

You refuted exactly nothing that I said. If you're going to claim that I'm talking out of my ass, you're going to have to give a better argument than that.

LOL, come on, timedog


the only argument is this: what someone believes in could be just as central to WHO THEY ARE AS A PERSON as being gay is to someone else. why should this be fair game to bash a person as if they're some sort of fucking outcast? nobody can prove 100% that they're wrong for believing what they do and vice-versa. it's hypocritical as fuck for countless people to talk shit about someones beliefs then preach acceptance of all people here on gaf...that doesn't make sense to me at all.

there's such a short leash around threads such as this because of the content but a lot of the same people who will reprimand/criticize rick perry(with good reason, he's a fucking moron, obviously) will be/have been the same people who will go no holds barred in talking shit to someone in a religious thread simply for what they believe in or how they were raised. that shit is disgusting

 

[DownLikeBCPowder]

My comment on the whole 'being gay is/isn't a choice' topic.

Being gay is not a choice. However I wish that one of the main arguments for pro-gay marriage didn't have to be 'it's not a choice'. Thing is, even if it was a choice, it shouldn't matter. If it was a choice, gay people should still be able to get married. I don't understand the debate at all.

And just to be clear incase my post is mis-read, I believe and know that ones sexuality is not a choice.

I pretty much agree with you. Whether it's a choice or not (personally, just based on how my own internal thinking goes and nothing else, I feel it to be a combination of nature, nurture, and else as with many other aspects of life. I know I don't "choose" who I'm attracted to.), I don't see how that is relevant to the question as to whether they should be divided from one another. People (homosexual, heterosexual, nonsexual, etc) should simply be able to join in union. Though I consider the core problem to be associated with the requirement of a government blessing (though this is a rather complicated issue, being that the government utilizes this classification for our complicated tax system - and despite my personal feelings about this I find it to be even more reason they should not be restricting a certain portion of the population from acquiring the same benefits available to others as a basic standard).

However, once again, I find some of the vitriol to be just as sour as Rick Perry.

 

[krypt0nian]

Religion is based on nothing. It's fine to choose to believe in it, but don't assume anyone has to respect that. It's no different from believing in a mouse made of cheese on the other side of the moon that controls the weather.

And then someone who subscribes to these beliefs challenges me for evidence in this thread about choice and sexual orientation. Hahaha

If you believe in something that has zero evidence supporting it to the point where you base your life on it, you lose the ability to call others on their posts.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

You refuted exactly nothing that I said. If you're going to claim that I'm talking out of my ass, you're going to have to give a better argument than that.

C'mon man. That's some bigoted thinking there. Grouping and classifying people and making fun of them because of their beliefs is hurtful and it's beneath you. You're better than that.
Many people are religious because they are born into religious families or deeply religous societies. They don't know another way. It's ingrained in them. Yet, because of this, you look down upon them? Others look for god in hopes of straightening out their lives or finding their way in life. It's wrong to think you are free to openly abuse or mock them. It's simple minded. It's cruel.

 

[Threi]

You lose the ability to call others on their posts.

they don't lose a damn thing. Whether or not you want to hear it is up to you though. With that kind of mindset though I'm sure nobody will be affected in the end.

C'mon man. That's some bigoted thinking there. Grouping and classifying people and making fun of them because of their beliefs is hurtful and it's beneath you. You're better than that.
Many people are religious because they are born into religious families or deeply religous societies. They don't know another way. It's ingrained in them. Yet, because of this, you look down upon them? Others look for god in hopes of straightening out their lives or finding their way in life. It's wrong to think you are free to openly abuse or mock them. It's simple minded. It's cruel.

That is how I feel about it. It's sad because I know so many people who are completely tolerant and accepting of gays (and pretty much anything else), they are not trying to be malicious towards anything or anyone, just good people. And everyone should just mock them.

I'm fine with being mocked for some of the stupid crap i believe in. But others don't even get the chance to defend themselves or clarify their viewpoints on this forum. That is why it buggs me to see this kind of vitriol against them.

 

[Appleman]

My comment on the whole 'being gay is/isn't a choice' topic.

Being gay is not a choice. However I wish that one of the main arguments for pro-gay marriage didn't have to be 'it's not a choice'. Thing is, even if it was a choice, it shouldn't matter. If it was a choice, gay people should still be able to get married. I don't understand the debate at all.

And just to be clear incase my post is mis-read, I believe and know that ones sexuality is not a choice.

Thank you.

/thread

Also, this little gem is pure irony:

The burden of proof is currently with the scientific community on that one

 

[krypt0nian]

they don't lose a damn thing. Whether or not you want to hear it is up to you though.

Oh I believe that people can be hypocrites. They can still type the post, but it holds no weight. They gave that up.

Yes, the mindset that requires evidence. Terrible.

 

[Timedog]

You didn't actually provide any argument either, you just claimed that "religion is a choice, and sexual orientation is not".

But that is not the issue though, it is about the standard of tolerance GAF tries to uphold, whether it be something like ethnicity or sexual preference, or something small and almost trivial like your gaming console of choice or whether or not you like cartoon ponies. In all of these cases, it is unacceptable to make inflammatory comments towards any of these. Religion should not be an exception, whether or not it is by choice. People get banned for calling reviewers they don't like fat. People get banned because they don't like certain games or consoles. People get banned for their political views. It is not because either of these is a "protected class".

The issue is religion, however, is free reign. It's as if people can get away with completely inflammatory comments towards religion as long as there isn't porn in the post. That is the problem, that needs to be addressed.

I don't feel that because I am black I'm given a free pass to bash anything. That is first and foremost rude, and a sign of a douchebag.

Gaming forum is run differently than OT. No one is banned for their political views. People make fun of Pony-GAF all the time. Making fun of a reviewer because they're fat is a complete non-sequitor. Making fun of someone for being religious in the multitude of threads where religious people do/say stupid things when these stupid things are informed by their religious views is not the same thing.

Again, i point the the video I posted above of the lady who's religion revolves around her list or husbands and terrorists cloning her mother at a compound with forcefields made of water that we need to detonate nuclear bombs on...I'm not free to bash those beliefs? If PonyGAF comprised the predominant political party in the US (i know you're Canadian, but that's kind of besides the point) and made policy decisions informed by some make believe unicorn bullshit--policy decisions that have a lasting effect on my country and on the entire fucking world--should I just respect that? Not say anything bad about it, even if it's fucking up the entire world?

Sorry, bro.

 

[computers putin']

My comment on the whole 'being gay is/isn't a choice' topic.

Being gay is not a choice. However I wish that one of the main arguments for pro-gay marriage didn't have to be 'it's not a choice'. Thing is, even if it was a choice, it shouldn't matter. If it was a choice, gay people should still be able to get married. I don't understand the debate at all.

And just to be clear incase my post is mis-read, I believe and know that ones sexuality is not a choice.

Wholeheartedly agreed

 

[Asuma01]

how can it have 69k dislikes and only around 5k views???

 

[totowhoa]

how can it have 69k dislikes and only around 5k views???

Youtube update issue, this is normal. Views will catch up.

 

[Tristam]

I like this ad because it displaces the smallest smidgen of pity I felt for Perry in the debates. Now I only feel sheer disgust. The world is right again!

 

[Threi]

Again, i point the the video I posted above of the lady who's religion revolves around her list or husbands and terrorists cloning her mother at a compound with forcefields made of water that we need to detonate nuclear bombs on...I'm not free to bash those beliefs? If PonyGAF comprised the predominant political party in the US (i know you're Canadian, but that's kind of besides the point) and made policy decisions informed by some make believe unicorn bullshit--policy decisions that have a lasting effect on my country and on the entire fucking world--should I just respect that? Not say anything bad about it, even if it's fucking up the entire world right now?

Sorry, bro.

Not agreeing with it and thinking it's laughable is fine. Implying that they are beneath you as a human being is not. I am not going to speak on the agendas of political parties aside from the fact that it is pretty obvious that religion is not the motivating factor in some of the decisions they make (over things like money and power), and that situations in the world are not primarily caused by religion (but are used as a means to relate with the people with).
So no, you should say whatever you want. Believe in it with all your heart. But if it's inflammatory, you should be banned for it. Simple as that.

They gave that up.

once again, they did not. They may have to you. Speak for yourself.

 

[krypt0nian]

You obviously support hypocrites, Threi.

They gave up any hope of their words holding meaning. You cannot expect any other conclusion except from apologists and other hypocrites. If you surrender logic, you don't get it back when it's conveient.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Religion is a choice. Sexual orientation is not a choice.

This is why we get to make fun of religious people, and why it is not hypocritical.

If someone believes chooses to believe something that is stupid, then I am okay with calling them out for believing something stupid.

Until you can prove that all these gay people are lying and it actually is just a choice, and I can choose to stop being attracted to girls tomorrow and become gay, then religion and sexual orientation cannot be considered comparable.

Of course, if I made a thread about this woman's beliefs(she made up her own religion of this bullshit and has a website/following), I guarantee that no Christians would get all up in arms about GAF making fun of it and get into multiquote word wars saying we need to be tolerant of people believing in stupid things. It's never happened in the past 10 years that I've been here when stuff like that has been posted.

This is far too sensible. I hope you are prepared to be called "bitter" and "mad."

 

[Timedog]

Not agreeing with it and thinking it's laughable is fine. Implying that they are beneath you as a human being is not. I am not going to speak on the agendas of political parties aside from the fact that it is pretty obvious that religion is not the motivating factor in some of the decisions they make (over things like money and power), and that situations in the world are not primarily caused by religion (but are used as a means to relate with the people to).
So no, you should say whatever you want. But if it's inflammatory, you should be banned for it. Simple as that.


once again, they did not. They may have to you. Speak for yourself.

If no one was allowed to say anything inflammatory about the beliefs of someone who thinks we need to bomb an imaginary compound with forcefields made of water where terrorists kidnapped and made clones of her mother, than nothing inflammatory about anything should be allowed.

 

[AZ Greg]

Religion is based on nothing. It's fine to choose to believe in it, but don't assume anyone has to respect that.

Well we don't have to respect anything. But in some cases it's the smart thing to do or the mature and respectful thing to do. Too often GAF shows it's incapable of the latter. I mean, if we throw religion out, and look at humanity strictly from a scientific perspective, all we really have is that species on this planet only really have one purpose. Reproduce themselves. Which technically means homosexuals would be genetic aberrations. But I like to think most of us have the tact and maturity to not go around calling homosexuals that as it sounds a bit insulting, like painting all people who are religious as being an "enlarged foreheaded cave dweller".

 

[Threi]

You obviously support hypocrites, Threi.

They gave up any hope of their words holding meaning. You cannot expect any other conclusion except from apologists and other hypocrites. If you surrender logic, you don't get it back when it's conveient.

I don't pretend to know why people believe the things they do, whether or not they align with what I believe is logical. I would rather take what people say at face value, not colour it with what they may believe in other subjects.

I think ipods are a poor usage of money. I am not going to proceed and say that "anyone who swears by ipods has officially lost any credibility they have had to speak to ME about money."

Frankly that line of thinking is almost as illogical and intolerant as those who have issues with gays (or even other ethnicities) in the first place.

 

[krypt0nian]

Well we don't have to respect anything. But in some cases it's the smart thing to do or the mature and respectful thing to do. Too often GAF shows it's incapable of the latter. I mean, if we throw religion out, and look at humanity strictly from a scientific perspective, all we really have is that species on this planet only really have one purpose. Reproduce themselves. Which technically means homosexuals would be genetic abberations. But I like to think most of us have the tact and maturity to not go around calling homosexuals that as it sounds a bit insulting, like painting all people who are religious as being an "enlarged foreheaded cave dweller".

You think that without religion there is only biological imperatives? Hahahahahahahaha

Please don't pretend that any baseless idea demands respect.

I don't pretend to know why people believe the things they do, whether or not they align with what I believe is logical. I would rather take what people say at face value, not colour it with what they may believe in other subjects.

Frankly that line of thinking is almost as illogical and intolerant as those who have issues with gays (or even other ethnicities) in the first place.

That's your choice. I prefer to base my opinions on prior contact. And if that contact included baseless views then asking for proof of another's views, they are without regard. They surrendered that willingly.

 

[Dark Octave]

I cannot believe you are using this as an example.

People enter into straight relationships due to societal pressures. Then some cannot take it anymore due to withholding their true selves for years and end it. Many many others just fuck around on their wives because they were never straight and were "forced" into straight marriages by bigoted society.

They were always gay. They didn't choose to be so.

I dated girls all through high school because that's how I fit in. I was never straight.

That I had to explain that to you should suggest you gain more knowledge before ever posting on this topic again. There are many books out there so as not to look so misinformed.

Maybe that's how it was for you, but how can you speak for every gay person in the world? The fact that you are trying to attempt that, based on your own life sounds pretty ridiculous. You act as if people don't have the ability to choose. How can you be aroused and have a child by something you are not attracted to? I'm not saying everyone who is gay chooses that life style, but you are saying everyone in the world, every single person in the world who is gay, is that way because something they were born with in their brain is different from straight people. All the books in the world prove nothing. It's all theory. Maybe not for your personal life but I'm sure it is for someone's. We humans have too much range in thinking to be pegged into one mode and that's it.

It's a shame. I love this board but it's like nobody can ever have a different opinion or approach anything from a different angle and have a nice debate about it without being marked and executed.

 

[Ydahs]

If no one was allowed to say anything inflammatory about the beliefs of someone who thinks we need to bomb an imaginary compound with forcefields made of water where terrorists are that kidnapped and made clones of her mother, than nothing inflammatory about anything should be allowed.

I dunno, there's a difference between saying 'religion is stupid' and

Only a fucking enlarged foreheaded cave dweller would say that shit in the 21st century. But I forgot that's essentially what 90% of religious folk are.

I've seen many GAFers banned for entering an Islamic topic and saying something along the lines of '**** Muslims'. I don't see how the above statement is any better.

 

[krypt0nian]

Maybe that's how it was for you, but how can you speak for every gay person in the world? The fact that you are trying to attempt that, based on you're own life sounds pretty ridiculous. You act as if people don't have the ability to choose. How can you be aroused and have a child by something you are not attracted to? I'm not saying everyone who is gay chooses that life style, but you are saying everyone in the world, every single person in the world who is gay, is that way because something they were born with in their brain is different from straight people. All the books in the world prove nothing. It's all theory. Maybe not for your personal life but I'm sure it is for someone's. We humans have too much range in thinking to be pegged into one mode and that's it.

It's a shame. I love this board but it's like nobody can ever have a different opinion or approach anything from a different angle and have a nice debate about it without being marked and excecuted.

How much reading have you done on this topic? Do you think this is based soleley on my experiences? Read the post you quoted again. If your response is what you've arrived at again, I have no words.

How can you be aroused? The same way guys fuck ugly girls. Picture something else. Tons of gay men who have married women just don't have sex. All of this is easily found out if you would just read a bit. Its no secret knowledge.

You thought that the married man suddenly chose to be gay, rather than decided to finally live as an honest person. Not sure what to say to that.

"All the books in the world prove nothing." - yeah, I'm done responding to that.

 

[HallucinatingElvis]

Hey Gaf,
I consider myself a Christian and a Republican, I am married to a woman with 2 children but I have always been open about my attraction to men and I carry no guilt about it...does this make me a bad Christian? I voted for Obama so I already know im a bad Republican

 

[Threi]

Hey Gaf,
I consider myself a Christian and a Republican, I am married to a woman with 2 children but I have always been open about my attraction to men and I carry no guilt about it...does this make me a bad Christian? I voted for Obama so I already know im a bad Republican

I have no problem with it

I know nobody (Christians included) who have a problem with it.

If you aren't leaving your wife and kids then you are a good Christian in my book


...but then again you might be a total dbag in real life though...


i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[X26]

pretty disturbing and disingenuous

 

[HallucinatingElvis]

I have no problem with it

I know nobody (Christians included) who have a problem with it.

If you aren't leaving your wife and kids then you are a good Christian in my book

to me, my attraction to men is no different then say a straight married mans attraction to other women, it's there but you dont act upon it.

*fake edit*
For the record it's not just men I find attractive but women also.

 

[Mechazawa]

Rick Perry just insinuated that America isn't strong.

 

[MattKeil]

Maybe that's how it was for you, but how can you speak for every gay person in the world? The fact that you are trying to attempt that, based on your own life sounds pretty ridiculous. You act as if people don't have the ability to choose. How can you be aroused and have a child by something you are not attracted to?

Because people like you have created such a societal atmosphere of shame and hate surrounding homosexuality that many gay people attempt to force themselves to be "normal" in order to not be the freak or a target of hatred/violence. They see it as better to live a lie than to be this horrible thing that others say they shouldn't be. It leads to such results as abuse, divorce, depression and suicide.

It is only just recently that Western society has started to claw its way out of the mindset you're actively promoting in this thread. It should not be much of a mystery why those less ignorant of the matter are reacting negatively toward you.

 

[Dark Octave]

How much reading have you done on this topic? Do you think this is based soleley on my experiences? Read the post you quoted again. If your response is what you've arrived at again, I have no words.

How can you be aroused? The same way guys fuck ugly girls. Picture something else. Tons of gay men who have married women just don't have sex. All of this is easily found out if you would just read a bit. Its no secret knowledge.

You thought that the married man suddenly chose to be gay, rather than decided to finally live as an honest person. Not sure what to say to that.

"All the books in the world prove nothing." - yeah, I'm done responding to that.

There are books that cover both sides of the argument. I've read a few articles on the subject, but I try to be objective and it's impossible to know who is right or wrong. All I know for sure is that someone that I know, loved someone enough to marry, had a child with them, then divorced and married someone of the same sex.

I do believe that a lot of people who are gay are born that way. Maybe even the majority of them, but I cannot bring myself to believe that with all the different variations of people, cultures, and mindsets out there that 100% of every gay person in the world is born that way.

And my original argument that got everyone so riled up was why is it such a big deal anyway? What does it matter if it's a choice or not? What I get from that argument is a way to justify (to people who don't deserve justification) that you are forced to be gay and would choose differently if you could. That's what I was saying in the post that got everyone acting stupid towards me. Do I not express myself well enough or do people overreact? Maybe that's something that I need to work on.

 

[Dark Octave]

Because people like you have created such a societal atmosphere of shame and hate surrounding homosexuality that many gay people attempt to force themselves to be "normal" in order to not be the freak or a target of hatred/violence. They see it as better to live a lie than to be this horrible thing that others say they shouldn't be. It leads to such results as abuse, divorce, depression and suicide.

It is only just recently that Western society has started to claw its way out of the mindset you're actively promoting in this thread. It should not be much of a mystery why those less ignorant of the matter are reacting negatively toward you.

Dude straight up, fuck you.

 

[WillyFive]

Dude straight up, fuck you.

Hey, be nice. People read this.

 

[Dark Octave]

Hey, be nice. People read this.

Are you serious? Like how he was being nice to me? It's impossible to have a fair crossing of thoughts, debates or opinions here without someone either insulting or yelling biggot. This guy knows nothing about me, yet he's saying "people like you" and you know what, fuck that.

 

[Roto13]

It is possible as a Christian to love and tolerate everybody without claiming homosexuality is ok. The Bible teaches you should love everybody and not judge others.

If I feel homosexuality is a sin as it claims in the Bible then that is not in any way judging others or not tolerating them. That would be like saying because I feel like stealing is a sin then I am judging people who steal.

I feel that it is wrong just as many things everybody does are wrong (including me). Everybody sins on a daily basis and are not worthy of the grace we are offered.

For the record I am against what Perry said in this clip as we should not discriminate against those that choose a homosexual lifestyle. It does not harm society at large and they should have all of the same rights as others do.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Compare my love for my husband to stealing again and I'll shove my fist down your throat.