posted
For over a decade now, republicans, conservatives and the right-wing religious have been beating up on homosexuals.
It's always left me asking...What about divorce?
How come republicans, conservatives and the right-wing religious don't treat divorce with the same vigor? Or even mention it at all? How come there are no pushes for Amendments to the Constitution saying that you can only legally, lawfully and rightfully in the eyes of God get married ONCE?
Jesus clearly states that if you divorce for any other reason that infidelity, you're in sin, and cannot remarry?
It's issues like this, or totally ignoring the sin of Greed for the last 30 years that makes me believe these people have no clue what they are talking about.
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jesus clearly states that if you divorce for any other reason that infidelity, you're in sin, and cannot remarry?
Does he? I'm not being snarky- while I long ago read the Bible, I'm not religious and don't actively study it. I've never heard this before which makes me question it. Where is it?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. -Matthew 5:31-32
But somewhere else, Jesus says...
quote: Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. - Luke 16:18
... without the "except for infidelity" qualifier.
Posts: 80 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish there was some magical phrase that could prevent threads like this from gaining traction.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm deployed right now and I would go crazy over the bland food if it weren't for the white chocolate macadamia nut cookies. Soooooooo good.
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I wish there was some magical phrase that could prevent threads like this from gaining traction.
Why? Danlo's questions are valid; as far as I can tell he's sincere, and not completely disrespectful.
Of course, his perception of what is being said by the Christian community about divorce is wrong; but I can understand why he feels that way. Most media coverage of marriage and Christianity focuses on the issue of homosexual marriage.
BB, what exactly do you object to in "threads like this?"
EDIT: If your objection is, "We've covered this specific ground a gazillion times over, and SOMEONE should just do a search to review the community's thoughts on the matter..."
Well. I think I can see my way to agreeing with that sentiment.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by happymann: I'm deployed right now and I would go crazy over the bland food if it weren't for the white chocolate macadamia nut cookies. Soooooooo good.
The white chocolate macadamia nut cookies are about the only worthwhile thing they serve in Subway sandwich shops. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: Because I don't think he is sincere?
It's a classic "group A doesn't really believe in X because they constantly bellow about Y at the expense of X."
Somebody chimes in about the importance of X and Y, somebody starts debating about whether Y is even a worthwhile belief, and shazam! we have an angry thread, one I will have to come back to on a different account.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it a tad difficult to buy the idea of Danlo pretending surprise, confusion, or even curiosity at the notion of Christian - or theists - or people - being inconsistent regarding their beliefs about the sins of other people.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was a kid, I thought "adultery" meant "becoming an adult," and wondered why God hated old people so much.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Presumably, you could work around the whole divorce issue with an annulment, so I'm not sure in fairness whether this is actually inconsistent.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Religious annulment is primarily a Catholic concept. The majority of the churches that fit into the category the OP is criticizing don't do annulments.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess that part of the problem that religious people have with the gays is that they can not accept the very small part of themselves which understand, empathizes and shares the attraction. I myself am 0.3% gay, which is far too little to do anything about, but is there none the less.
But, that is just a guess.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw: I know and yet I still don't think it's fair to say that divorce isn't "mention(ed) at all" when the largest single church in the US has this elaborate workaround in place.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I guess that part of the problem that religious people have with the gays is that they can not accept the very small part of themselves which understand, empathizes and shares the attraction. I myself am 0.3% gay, which is far too little to do anything about, but is there none the less.
But, that is just a guess.
It's bad form to guess at others' motives and then talk about them.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: How come republicans, conservatives and the right-wing religious don't treat divorce with the same vigor?
Serious answer:
1. as will happen to the issue of homosexual marriage in the future, we are well past the point where american christianity has largely been forced by modern culture to evolve and unclench over the matter of divorce. the people in this country which still give the same degree of intolerant concern and stigmatization towards divorce as you would normally see religiously appropriated towards homosexual relations (and which might have been common in, say, the 1800's) are now a fringe minority who can be easily and appropriately ignored, and the same is inexorably occurring to those intolerant of homosexual relations.
2. the Culture Destroying Threat of the homogay still gets old conservatives into voting booths, so it will remain prominent as a political tool, and thus much more visible than just kvetching about divorce
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: When I was a kid, I thought "adultery" meant "becoming an adult," and wondered why God hated old people so much.
LOL that has to be the best comment I've read all day. If I ever have kids, I'm telling them that!
As for divorce, personally, I don't see why it's wrong, especially if one of them cheats on the other. My dad cheated on my mom (twice) until she left him, and I think she was completely in the right, and she's a very religious, Christian woman who knows her bible inside and out. Now she's happily remarried to a pretty good guy who doesn't completely treat her like crap (he never even raises his voice).
I'd say God supports that kind of thing. If he didn't, I don't think I'd want to worship him.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It's bad form to guess at others' motives and then talk about them.
I disagree. I think it is bad form to guess at other's motives and and discuss them as if those guesses were fact and not just speculation. But as long as you are clear that you are speaking from a guess and your opinion and that is only a possibility, and only part of the reason, then it doesn't seem rude to me at all.
Had I said, "I know that the only reason people are afraid of gay marriage is they are all gay a little bit...I would be so wrong.
Either way, sorry if your toes got stepped on.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't? You complain about people guessing your motives and talking about them all the time, as if all that it takes to make that polite is to say: just guessing! You called it "assuming" before, as if it was bad, rather than an assumption being nothing but an educated guess.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm getting a bit tired of how often you tell me about what I do "all the time".
I would rather think that as an educator you would know the difference between self labeled speculation and assumption as fact.
Either way, I must ask you to please either address your issues with me directly, or leave me alone as your constant attitude is really rather starting to rankle.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro often speculates about someone's self-understanding and then goes on as if it was not an assumption, but an actual fact. That you find that practice ludicrous and insulting means you don't actually agree with Orincoro as far as I understand his position. He has said that there is nothing wrong with a well informed guess and further if someone becomes upset it is only evidence that the guesser is correct.
Perhaps he and you agree with your last statement Scott...that a mollifier doesn't make it any less insulting, but for you, you mean that it still is, and based on his past statements, he just means it wasn't insulting in the first place.
Again, I am sorry if stepped on your toes. It was not my intent to do so.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I agree with Orincoro.
Argue the topic on its merits; bringing in speculation about someone's self-understanding is ludicrous and insulting.
Attaching a mollifier on the statement doesn't actually make the statement any less insulting.
How many prominent anti-gay politicians and clergy are going to to have to get forcibly and/or accidentally outed before you will just hush, out of shame?
Seriously, methinks the religious folk doth protest too much.
So, yeah, it might be RUDE...but it might also be true.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Where I agree with Orincoro is here:
quote:as if all that it takes to make that polite is to say: just guessing!
My toes are fine-- but the tactic of debate you're espousing is destructive to civil discussion.
Bringing up evolution at a fundamentalist church is also destructive to civil discussion. It's also a lot closer to the truth than creationism.
Truth or politeness...it's a case-by-case choice, one that you make just as often as anyone else. You don't always choose politeness, Scott. Pretty much nobody does.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SW: Extemporizing on an assumption is treating it, within the confines of your extemporization, as actual fact. The only difference is that the standards by which an assumption can be challenged are different. Hint: whining about assumptionsis about as good as whining about facts. Do you see me getting my undies twisted when people make assumptions about me? They're either right, or easily corrected. But in your case, I just get a lot of "how dare you," while you do little to show that any particular conclusion isn't exactly right.
So it's delicious when you then turn around and talk about how it's not fair for me to make conclusions.
Now, guessing at someone's motivations in a particular argument, for the purposes of that argument, is harder. And usually that *is* bad form. And funnily enough, you have done this with me far more than I have with you. you're just usually wrong, so it doesn't bother me.
See, your doing it right now. You assume I'm harping on you to show how smart I am, or something. When in actual fact, it's more like I actually want you to learn something, if only that it might stop you from continuing to pollute the world with ignorant notions. Now, I don't care*that* much- nor would I think sweetness and light is always the best approach. Particularly for someone who comes into discussions less than half cocked, as you tend to do.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is this rephrasing less destructive to civil discussion (I ask in all sincerity)?
By my personal experience, it is very common for people to have an attraction to other people of the same gender, though some have a lot while others have very very little. I can see that if someone believed that homosexuality is a sin against a loving God that if they have that very common, small part of themselves which is attracted to the same gender as their own it might make them more absolute in the belief that gay marriage becoming widely accepted as normal is bad.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bringing up evolution at a fundamentalist church is also destructive to civil discussion. It's also a lot closer to the truth than creationism.
Truth or politeness...it's a case-by-case choice, one that you make just as often as anyone else.
We are not talking about the factual validity of the topics, but the applicability to the discussion of the individuals' self-awareness-- which is disappointing, in my opinion.
If I'm wrong about something, tell me why I'm wrong. Reason is acceptable; logic is welcome; evidence is beautiful.
I disdain pseudo-psychology.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: SW: Extemporizing on an assumption is treating it, within the confines of your extemporization, as actual fact. The only difference is that the standards by which an assumption can be challenged are different. Hint: whining about assumptionsis about as good as whining about facts. Do you see me getting my undies twisted when people make assumptions about me? They're either right, or easily corrected. But in your case, I just get a lot of "how dare you," while you do little to show that any particular conclusion isn't exactly right.
Part of a civil discussion is acknowledging and accepting the boundaries set by any participant when it comes to them. I find your assumptions to be negative, annoying and majoritiativly wrong. I asked you in very polite and clear terms to not assume my motivations, and you have continually ignored me. I could spend my time and energy correcting you constantly about how I am not really an ignorant assbag, who specifically manipulates conversations to get sympathy and self righteous furry, but since I am interested in real discussion and not defending myself from overly aggressive and malignant people who I dislike, it's much easier to simply dismiss you.
quote:...I actually want you to learn something, if only that it might stop you from continuing to pollute the world with ignorant notions.
I find this statement to be self delusional. You enjoy our interactions, you have said so. And even if some small part of you really wants me to grow, you are so caustic and antagonistic that your highly doubtful goal has zero chance of success.
In the end, I would rather you simply left me alone, but I won't ask you to, as with most bullies, that really doesn't work. So, say whatever you like, and continue to show this community the content of your character.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aw shucks pard'nr nobody treats you right. Please, you haven't seen caustic from me. You're *way* too sensitive for that.
ETA: And strictly speaking, I don't think a statement can be "self-delusional." Statements cannot be deluded. But hey... high school level grammar is *useless*. You'll *never* use that in your life.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I've been thinking about asking this for awhile, and I decided to give it a shot: is it acceptable to so frequently assume Orincoro's emotional motives and speak as though they're fact because...he's done it to you?
However much he irritates you, your response appears to illustrate that your policy on guessing motives is that...it's acceptable when you do it, but it's an abrupt conversation-killer when it's done to you.
---
I'm just gonna go ahead and say this, since you're being so aggressive: steven, you believe in some pretty odd things to be so chest-thumping about how stupid fundamentalists are for believing what they do, and crowing about how weird and misguided they are.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assume the first part is to me...and that the second part is to Orincoro...
Where did I assume his emotional motive? I said I doubt him when he says he wants me to learn, I guess that could be considered an assumption...I mean he says it's delicious when in his eyes I was saying something hypocritical, as in, he takes joy from it. In past conversations where he was mocking my ideals, my previous posts and the way I speak he said that he was having fun and glad I knew it. I don't see it as an assumption on my part. Perhaps I missed something...
Despite our history of being at odds with each other Rakeesh, I would hope you recognize that I am making effort to be fair and polite to all, including Orincoro.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't think this is universally true throughout Christian churches. I grew up in a pretty Conservative Christian culture, and still have a lot of contacts from that time. I have a friend who applied to a Christian university and was denied, because she was divorced. It had been a brief, violent, terrible marriage, and the college sympathized with her, but told her if they made an exception for her it'd make it seem like they were condoning divorce.
Likewise, I know some of the same type of people (who are so strict in condemning divorce) who run a ministry where they go to gay bars on Saturday nights and talk to the men and women there, inviting them to come to church the next morning. These people are incredibly polite and gracious when talking to homosexuals: even though they sincerely believe they're guilty of an abominable sin and worthy of death under the old law, they still try their best to show them Christ's love.
Which is why I think speculations like "they hate the gays because they're gay themselves" are oversimplified hogwash. People are people, regardless of religion, and they are all complex and all have their own reasons for what they do. No doubt there are a lot of Christians who oppose gay marriage out of hatred. (Westboro Baptist comes to mind) No doubt some of those people are also gay, and some of their hatred is derived from their own, intense self hatred. But I'm willing to accept that what a person says about their beliefs (i.e, "I believe homosexuality is wrong because my church tells me so") at face value unless something strongly indicates otherwise.
Why is homosexuality such a prominent subject in churches today? Because it's a prominent social issue at the moment. Back in the 20s, the same thing happened with alcohol, and for centuries it happened with witchcraft. Just because one subject inevitably gets talked about more doesn't mean they care any less about other ones, it just doesn't get the same attention.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, specifically, you stated that argument. Or have you completely forgot the last 20 posts in this thread?
quote:I guess that part of the problem that religious people have with the gays is that they can not accept the very small part of themselves which understand, empathizes and shares the attraction.
You can argue the semantics until you're blue in the face, but your argument here runs "they have a problem with gay people because they can't accept that they, themselves, are at least partially gay." I simplified it in my post for effect, but it's the same damn argument, and it's specific enough for there not to be much room for interpretation. So either stand behind your statement, or admit it was incorrect.
I myself am rather interested to hear how you came by the 0.3% figure.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I assume the first part is to me...and that the second part is to Orincoro...
Where did I assume his emotional motive? I said I doubt him when he says he wants me to learn, I guess that could be considered an assumption...I mean he says it's delicious when in his eyes I was saying something hypocritical, as in, he takes joy from it. In past conversations where he was mocking my ideals, my previous posts and the way I speak he said that he was having fun and glad I knew it. I don't see it as an assumption on my part. Perhaps I missed something...
Everything above the --- was addressed to you, regarding your expressed ideas about assuming motives and about Orincoro&you. At several points, including in this thread, you've engaged in some assumptions about his motives: namely, that he's behaving this way towards you because he's an aggressive, malignant bully. Other stuff under that umbrella, but it's a repeated claim.
Is there evidence to support that claim? Well, yes in fact, quite a bit-this being Orincoro, he does behave like quite a schmuck sometimes.
quote:And even if some small part of you really wants me to grow...
That right there. You know better than he does about his own intentions. And, initially in this thread, you know better than people who oppose gay marriage as to one of the reasons they actually do.
When Orincoro does this to you-and you've accused me of it as well-he's making an assumption about your intentions, and it's completely unacceptable, and once it happens you're under no obligation to actually speak about anything else that was said, no matter how relevant it may be. And you can drop the discussion at anytime.
When you do it to Orincoro, asserting he's a bully and doesn't really care, etc., despite his claims to the contrary...well, you're right when you make assumptions about intentions. That's what I was talking about. There's a contradiction there, and I was curious as to whether or not it was justified because Orincoro is so flagrantly rude to you sometimes.
Is that why it's OK for you to assume his intentions in spite of his own words, but it's not OK for him to assume yours-because he's a lot more directly mean about it?
On another note, obviously I can't force you to do anything, but I really think you'd be well-served if you'd stop throwing around the word 'bully'. You're an adult. He's an adult. It's an Internet forum. You have exactly as much ability to have your thoughts heard here as he does. There is nothing he can do to bully you. He can't come through your monitor, he can't edit your posts, he can't post in a larger type size, he can't make his threads appear at the top of the forum, etc.
There is no power disparity. Where there is no difference in power, there cannot be any bullies. When you complain of him or anyone else bullying you, when it is plainly impossible to do so (unless you let him), it comes off quite quickly as an effort to cast him as the villain and you as the victim, and it rings false because there aren't any bullies here. There are people who let themselves be taunted effectively, though-such as you're doing, with this at least third declaration that 'I'm just going to ignore you, you're a bully and everyone will see that' in a month.
---------
On the actual topic of the thread, OK...how on Earth do you know you're 0.3% gay? Clearly that's just a number you made up. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's not: if you actually ask religious people what their problems are with 'the gays', you're probably never going to hear, "There's a part of me that is gay, and I'm deeply ashamed of it, so I reject empathizing with gay people." That's a big...assumption on your part. Could be valid. I know there are certainly people who behave in that way, such as has been discussed politicians who are outed despite past histories of anti-homosexual politics. But the only way you're going to know if the assumption is valid is if you decide you're not going to believe what they say, and decide you know their motives better than they do.
That's not a guess on my part. It all follows very plainly from what you've said. And in any event, there are quite a few people whose problems with homosexual behavior stem from 'God says such behavior is a sin'. And that's quite different than 'they're secretly gay and ashamed'. Personally I think the claim 'God says...' is, by itself, a terrible reason to do just about anything, but especially to make civic policy, but that's a different discussion.
If we're going to believe them when they speak, the root of much opposition to homosexuality on the part of religious people is because they believe it's a sin, and they're against it because they believe it's sinful, and they don't think people should sin. There are...well, an awful lot of problems, really, with applying that reasoning to government decisions, and it's true, there IS a contradiction involved in vehemently opposing SSM but not also wanting to criminalize divorce. But, again, what you said was an assumption of hidden motive.
--------
The second part was to steven, going on about these craaazy ignorant fundamentalists, and being quite holier-than-thou about it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Personally I think the claim 'God says...' is, by itself, a terrible reason to do just about anything, but especially to make civic policy, but that's a different discussion
In this case, it's not even so much "God says" as "a book establishing the laws of a tightly knit group of desert nomads, written some 3400-2700 years ago (depending on which scholar you ask), says..." I find it very troubling when Christians put so much stock in a belief that has it's basis in a one verse drive-by mention in the book of Leviticus, then gets mentioned again, tangentially, in Paul's epistles. The Bible, even if you believe it to be the inspired Word of God, is by no means unambiguous enough to use as a basis for law. The disparity in private, and even denominational, interpretation demonstrate this.
Above is the argument that should be used against fundamentalists who seek to legislate morality, because it is both respectful and direct. And there are many Christians who wholeheartedly agree with this. Trying to find rubbish pseudo-psychological motives for their beliefs and ignoring what they actually say does nothing.
(Shane Claiborne is notable for writing Jesus for President, in which he passionately exhorts fellow Christians to avoid legislating morality - because any attempt to make a religious belief into a secular law, in the end, perverts and distorts that belief)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I assume the first part is to me...and that the second part is to Orincoro...
Where did I assume his emotional motive? I said I doubt him when he says he wants me to learn, I guess that could be considered an assumption...I mean he says it's delicious when in his eyes I was saying something hypocritical, as in, he takes joy from it. In past conversations where he was mocking my ideals, my previous posts and the way I speak he said that he was having fun and glad I knew it. I don't see it as an assumption on my part. Perhaps I missed something...
Despite our history of being at odds with each other Rakeesh, I would hope you recognize that I am making effort to be fair and polite to all, including Orincoro.
People's emotional states change through different situations. Do I enjoy stitching you up and watching you flail about? There is a certain satisfaction in it. Would I like you to change your ideas, and present better ones here? Yeah. I don't go around slobbering over all the great posts I see on this forum. Maybe I should do that. You'll find that the second you stop acting as if everyone around you ought to give you the benefit of the doubt despite your seemingly contributing little thought to what you say, I'll be there not saying nay. But as long as your posts and positions ramble from unclear incomplete and indignant stance to the next, I don't intend to sit around not calling shenanigans.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Um, specifically, you stated that argument. Or have you completely forgot the last 20 posts in this thread?
quote:I guess that part of the problem that religious people have with the gays is that they can not accept the very small part of themselves which understand, empathizes and shares the attraction.
You can argue the semantics until you're blue in the face, but your argument here runs "they have a problem with gay people because they can't accept that they, themselves, are at least partially gay." I simplified it in my post for effect, but it's the same damn argument, and it's specific enough for there not to be much room for interpretation. So either stand behind your statement, or admit it was incorrect.
I myself am rather interested to hear how you came by the 0.3% figure.
With all due respect, I strongly disagree that what you wrote is a simplification of what I wrote. I never mention hate, nor am I saying that these people are gay, nor am I saying that this is the reason they do not accept gay marriage. It would be like if I said "Carbon deposits on fuel injectors are very common and can lead to reduced fuel mileage." and you simplified it and claimed I said, "All cars which don't get good fuel mileage have blocked fuel injectors from carbon deposits." Demanding that I either agree with your interpretation or admit I am wrong doesn't strike me as being very reasonable.
As to the 0.3%, well, that's basically a guesstimate. When I first saw the movie Troy and Brad Pitt stripped off his armor after the beach landing, his abs were killer and I thought, "Nice!"...but I didn't want to touch his penis, or have him touch mine.
Rakeesh: While I don't agree with everything you said, I will keep it in mind and attempt to not assume people's motivations. As to Orincoro being a bully (he is the only person I've called such) it doesn't have anything to do with power. He openly mocks me and is very hostile...that qualifies as a bully in my book. Yes this is the internet, yes we are both adults, but I've rather publicly declared my intent to be friendly and calm after hypocritically ranting about you, so, it is as if someone declared themselves a pacifist and then someone immediately started shoving them. His contention that he is the Batman of the board and my "posts and positions (that) ramble from unclear incomplete and indignant stance to the next" are the true villain from which his aggression is saving Gotham from is utter nonsense. I don't care if he believes it or not.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never mention hate, nor am I saying that these people are gay, nor am I saying that this is the reason they do not accept gay marriage.
Errr...no, you never mention hate, but you say the reason religious people 'have a problem' with gay people is because they're partially gay themselves. Dogbreath's statements aren't unfair-he didn't say that you said all people who hate gays do so because they're secretly partially gay and ashamed themselves. But people who hate gays can certainly be said to 'have a problem' with them, so you are in fact lumping them in with your statement.
quote:As to the 0.3%, well, that's basically a guesstimate. When I first saw the movie Troy and Brad Pitt stripped off his armor after the beach landing, his abs were killer and I thought, "Nice!"...but I didn't want to touch his penis, or have him touch mine.
Did you see his penis? Perhaps you would want to touch it, and have him touch yours, if you did. Since this is what we're going by-you saw a part of the male anatomy and thought it was nice. Anyway, I could think of something less compelling than 'I felt something when I saw a movie once' but it would take some thought. It is-for the purposes of accuracy and conversation, I don't mean this morally or anything-a worthless guess. It has so little substance with regards to your broader claim as to have no value.
quote:As to Orincoro being a bully (he is the only person I've called such) it doesn't have anything to do with power.
You've called me a bully as well.
quote:Yes this is the internet, yes we are both adults, but I've rather publicly declared my intent to be friendly and calm after hypocritically ranting about you, so, it is as if someone declared themselves a pacifist and then someone immediately started shoving them.
In fact the rant came shortly after declaring your intent to be pacifistic towards me. Anyway, it's not like shoving. Words aren't pushes.
quote:His contention that he is the Batman of the board and my "posts and positions (that) ramble from unclear incomplete and indignant stance to the next" are the true villain from which his aggression is saving Gotham from is utter nonsense. I don't care if he believes it or not.
So now he is, in your posts, not just a bully but a Batman villain. That is...well, it strikes me as very unreasonable, making that comparison, and more than a little silly. I mean, has he poisoned Hatrack's water supply with a laughing chemical? Has he staged a bird-themed robbery of Hatrack's zoo? Flipped a scarred coin to determine whether or not Hatrack posters live or die? It's also difficult to believe you when you say you don't care whether he believes it or not, when you by now frequently tell him all about it in detail after saying you've declared you're going to ignore him.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
