Christian: Gays should be marked

[thaiboxerken]

t's sort of like saying "Gays should not live in the USA, but I don't advocate deporting them."

No it's not--that's not an analogy. If he said, "Gays should be marked, but I don't advocate marking them", THEN I'd agree with you.

Clearly, in this case, his mention of "marking cigarette packs" is merely another way of saying, "we disapprove of smoking because of the health risk".

My analogy is accurate, the "analogy" you've provided is more or less a summary of what that christer actually said. Clearly, in this case, it's obvious that this guy hates homosexuals and would like to see them marked, but doesn't have the gonads to actually say it.

 

[Skeptic]

Clearly, in this case, it's obvious that this guy hates homosexuals and would like to see them marked, but doesn't have the gonads to actually say it.

But what is your evidence for that? To repeat my question: had he used the "car airbag" analogy, would you think his choice of that analogy means he "really" wants gays to carry airbags around but was just afraid to say so?

 

[Leif Roar]

My analogy is accurate, the "analogy" you've provided is more or less a summary of what that christer actually said.

How novel -- discussing what someone actually said rather than what you personally think they meant with what they said.

It's a very interesting concept, but of course it has no practical value. After all, who would want to talk about facts when they instead could talk about their own convictions?

 

[thaiboxerken]

But what is your evidence for that? To repeat my question: had he used the "car airbag" analogy, would you think his choice of that analogy means he "really" wants gays to carry airbags around but was just afraid to say so?

He didn't use a car airbag analogy, so your question is irrelevant. He used a warning label analogy.

 

[Skeptic]

He didn't use a car airbag analogy, so your question is irrelevant. He used a warning label analogy.

(sigh)

Yesterday I told my wife that the children are running around "like animals".

Did this mean:

1). I meant that they were making noise, or

2). I REALLY think that they inhuman beasts, but don't have the balls to actually SAY it?

 

[thaiboxerken]

(sigh)

Yesterday I told my wife that the children are running around "like animals".

Did this mean:

1). I meant that they were making noise, or

2). I REALLY think that they inhuman beasts, but don't have the balls to actually SAY it?

Irrelevant to the topic.

There is a reason that warning labels were used as an analogy, and it has to do with hate and ignorance.

 

[AWPrime]

I am sure gays won't mind to wear a mark, if christians wear one of their own such as 666 (in hellfire red) on their foreheads.

 

[Skeptic]

Irrelevant to the topic.

There is a reason that warning labels were used as an analogy,

And there is a reason I called the children "animals" as an analogy. After all, I COULD have called them something else, couldn't I?

Is it because I hate them but am afraid to say so?

Why don't you read my mind and see--you seem to be able to do so easily.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Humans are animals. What's your point?

 

[Mycroft]

(sigh)

Yesterday I told my wife that the children are running around "like animals".

Did this mean:

1). I meant that they were making noise, or

2). I REALLY think that they inhuman beasts, but don't have the balls to actually SAY it?

It's obviously because you think they should be on leashes, but it's okay to let them poop in the yard.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Try using a different analogy to describe your children's behavior. Tell your wife that they were running around like a "bunch of stupid, f---ing a-holes that should be beat". Then tell her that it's just an analogy.

 

[merphie]

Twice that I know of, both in Leviticus, and none at all in the New Testament. Leviticus 18:22 says "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." 20:13 says "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death."

Of course, this is right beside other interesting "thou shalt nots."

19:19, "...you shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff."

19:27-28 "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh ... or tattoo any marks upon you."

20:10 "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death."

Try reading all the way through Leviticus sometime; a sure cure for insomnia. I'm not sure why they fixate on these two sentences and ignore the other 27 chapters.

BZ MD

Another good question is if I don't believe in the bible why should I have to follow the religion anyway?

It seems like they are afriad that if it is legal their fellow brothers and sisters will all turn gay.

 

[Skeptic]

The main problem with this accusation of him "wanting to mark gays" is that it is of the "have you stopped beating your wife" type: it is conceded even by the accusers that he didn't actually SAY he wanted gay marked, and that he was using an obvious ANALOGY, but that just "proves" he is a "coward" who is "hiding what he really thinks".

So saying "I think gays should be marked" means you want gays to be marked, buy NOT saying "I think gays should be marked" STILL MEANS you want gays to be marked, only you won't admit it.

 

[Skeptic]

Try using a different analogy to describe your children's behavior. Tell your wife that they were running around like a "bunch of stupid, f---ing a-holes that should be beat". Then tell her that it's just an analogy.

Nah, that won't work because it would make it OBVIOUS I really hate them. If he said, "gays are sinning, just like mutliple murderers who eat children", them, again, you'd have a point--despite being technically an analogy, it would probably mean he wants gays in prison.

But your argument is that he is trying to HIDE the fact that he "really" wants gay marked by using an analogy where he could reasonably deny he wants them marked--such as me calling the children "animals" and then saying I didn't really mean it in THAT way.

So the obvious question is: if the analogy is vague enough to ensure that he is seen as not actually wanting gays marked (not to mention the fact that the subject of the analogy was not gay people but the "gay lifestyle", which isn't something you could mark), how do you know he really WANTS them marked in the first place?

Isn't the simpler explanation--he isn't super-cleverly hiding his deep desire to mark gays, but rather simply doesn't want to do mark them--much more reasonable?

 

[Art Vandelay]

We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one to two years off the average life span, yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle

In his thinking, cigarette packs are to smoking as the gay lifestyle is to
A) Cigarettes
B) Homosexuals
C) Gay pride parades

I think the answer is obviously C. We don't put warning labels on smokers, we put them where smokers are likely to see them.

I wouldn't call this an isolated case of looney tunes, after all, the majority of americans voted against equality for homosexuals in the last election.

No, Americans voted against equivalence. There is a difference.

Gee, I'm sorry, the I should've qualified my statement with "wherever there was a vote.."

Or even more precisely "Wherever there was enough support to get initiatives onto the ballot, there was enough support to pass them".

e based on ignorant hate, they only differ in severity of action.

Seems to me that you're the bigot, seeing as how intolerant you are of people you disagree with you.

The Christian majority are the opposition.

So every Christian is ignorant and hateful?

He didn't use a car airbag analogy, so your question is irrelevant. He used a warning label analogy.

He also didn't use the deportation "analogy", either. Why are you allowed to make stuff up, but others aren't?

I am relatively certain TBK is talking about all they anti-gay marraige initiatives on the ballot across the country, every single one of which passed, IIRC.

[nitpick]Anti-same-sex marriage initiatives, actually. Marriages don't have sexual orientations.[/nitpick]

The reason that this passage is so important is not because Jesus did something clever, but because he basically said "don't take that stuff in Leviticus to seriously".

I hardly think that it's reasonable to conclude from that that adultery is not a big deal.

These "being gay spreads disease" stuff is almost certainly nonsense,

It is stated in a prejudicial manner, but it is true that homosexuality is a large risk factor for many STD.

The science is undoubtedly bollocks and the rethoric "spreads every kind of STD" is evil-minded (as if "the hetrosexual lifestyle" doesn't spread all the STDs as well,) I'd say that the mental leap from "warning labels on cigarette packs" to "warning labels on gays" must be attributed to the reader's imagination.

The numbers for cigarettes seem low, and the numbers for homosexuality seem high, but it is true that homosexuality is correlated to higher death rates. I think it would be a good idea to issue warnings to homosexuals. My proposal for what this man should tell gays:
Warning: the Surgeon General has found that homosexuality may lead us to mercilessly hound you about your "sinful lifestyle", leading to severe mental stress, and, in extreme cases, outright murder at the hands of bigots.

 

[Art Vandelay]

BTW, I am a bit surprised no one has posted a joke involving the double meaning of "fag" yet.

 

[AWPrime]

Skeptic, what that guy said sounded too much like:



Cartman - "We all know what needs to be done..."

 

[CFLarsen]

280 mm people
.001% lunacy rate
280,000 certified, grade A, loons

Pretty damn close to 397,265!

 

[Random]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
I hardly think that it's reasonable to conclude from that that adultery is not a big deal.

True, he doesn't say "Adultuery is A-Ok!", but he does make it clear that the teachings of Leviticus are not an absolute. And once you say that, you actully have to start thinking about them, something which is quite alien to the Christian Taliban.

It is stated in a prejudicial manner, but it is true that homosexuality is a large risk factor for many STD.

Well, male homosexuality is a risk factor for many STDs due to it's, um, mechanics. But female homosexuality actually has lower rates of STD transmission. Maybe that's what that Leviticus stuff was about, trying to stop STDs. Like eating pork spread trichinosis, so they banned it. No need to mention female homosexuality then.

Bah, it's too early in the morning for rational thought.

 

[Zep]

It's all still just a load of hooey anyway. As I said before, even if he WAS serious, how do you accurately pick the homeosexuals out of a line-up of any collection of people you care to assemble? What about the bisexuals - are they any easier to identify by sight? Are they to be included too? What if they lie when they do the survey? How would you know?

Peh.

Really, this is just an idiot running off hot air at the mouth, and is instantly dismissable as such.