THE SHOT — Stand 4 Marriage Maine delivers some 100,000 signatures to halt Maine’s same-sex marriage law and take it to a people’s vote in November. To put the issue on the ballot, they needed just 55,087 signatures.
the shot
The 100,000 Signatures Threatening Maine’s Marriage Equality
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
Andrew
Six cardboard boxes chock full of “fuck yous.” Maybe the queers of this backward country should start withholding property taxes that (largely) pay for educating the children of straight people — including those with signatures in the boxes. They’ll gladly take our money… but give us a big “fuck you” in return.
edgyguy1426
Cue: SM…
D-Sun
Now, let’s find out who those 100,000 signatures belong to.
Robert, NYC
Sounds like another Prop. H8 heading for success! The entire way the political process is set up in each state is fucked up. Why should right wing religious cultists get to say who gets what rights and who doesn’t? Tax the cults to the hilt, they’re not above the law nor should they be. They don’t even pay property taxes. Time we put a stop to that.
Andrew
ATTENTION QTY… trolls abound… don’t pet them!
Remember, every time you respond to them they masturbate furiously in a fit of writhing sinful self-abuse.
terrwill
YOUCANTHANDLETHETRUTH….SPEAKING ABOUT DEVIANT LIFESTYLES..HOW MANY OTHER GAY WEBSITES DO YOU TROLL??? I AM SURE YOUR WIFE AND KIDS WOULD NOT KNOW ABOUT THOSE……….HOW MANY OLD TROLLS HAVE YOU SUCKED IN PARKED CARS OR BEHIND BUILDINGS BECAUSE “YOU’RE NOT GAY” SOMETIMES YOU JUST LIKE TO HAVE SEX WITH MEN………..FUCK YOU FUCK YOU AND ONCE MORE FUCK YOU!
Gerard Priori
@youcanthandlethetruth: Let me guess: your imaginary boyfriend, Jesus, doesn’t like me. Well, fuck you and the imaginary Jesus you rode in on.
youcanthandlethetruth
Some very hateful, bigoted, intolerant christiophobic comments in here.
Terrwill do you believe “gay websites” should not tolerate any othe rpoints of view?
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Don’t forget, being intolerant of bigotry is bigotry according to this genius.
schlukitz
Obviously, homophobia and bigotry is alive and well in Maine too!
TANK
@schlukitz:
was there ever any doubt?
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: So you expect me to tolerate your bigotry?
TANK
It’s the same tactic that muslims in europe use to silence criticism of honor killings–they just label those who criticize the practices as bigots. Radical muslims and christian fascists like youcan have a lot in common–they both affirm that to be intolerant of bigotry is bigoted. It’s a laughably absurd belief, but they cling to it to deflect genuine criticism of their hate.
Pop Snap
Notice what color the guys’ hair is?
Why don’t you take a look at the average ages of people from anti-gay groups. The old geezers are dying off, and good riddance. Our society will be a hell of a lot better without them.
Oh and btw before that stupid ass truth dude say something, yes I do not tolerate you. And will do everything in my power to resist you. Sorry, go pray to your invisible sky wizard and his jewish zombie son that is really himself about it. Then you can go read your 2000 year old desert nomad myths and deny scientific facts while you’re at it.
Just keep it away from me and my loved ones, thank you.
reluctant commenter
When Massachusetts starting allowing equal marriage, due to a state supreme court ruling, it was said to be a misuse of judicial powers. Now, in Maine, the democratically elected legislature legalized equal marriage, yet certain people still insist it’s some sort of tyranny. What IS an acceptable legal avenue for LGBT’s to pursue equal rights?
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK:
Oxford English Dictionary
bigot • noun a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
Why is that not a good description of you?
youcanthandlethetruth
@Pop Snap: Thanks for showing what a hate-filled, intolerant, christiophobic bigot sounds like.
TANK
You should be on the streets calling out people who condemn the KKK as bigots, youcan. Hit the pavement, and bring your message that anyone who is intolerant of and opposed to pedophilia, murder, rape, racism, and sexism is a bigot. I don’t think you know how to use words very well.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
So this means that anyone who is intolerant of bigotry is a bigot? LOL! Once again, you don’t understand language very well.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: I happen to agree that all those behaviours are bigoted. But then some KKK members may consider me bigoted because of that.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: I understand the word “bigot” better than most people on here it sems.
I even gave you the definition from the Oxford dictionary, which doesn’t say anything about homosexuals having a monopoly on accusing others of bigotry.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
lol. And we all know that if a bigot believes that people intolerant of his bigoted opinions are themselves bigots, it’s automatically true. Why? Because a bigot is anyone who disagrees with you, and is intolerant of your bigoted opinions.
This is the logic of the stupid.
SM
@edgyguy1426:
Bitter, party of one…
Place your bets now on if the millions of LGBT in America will blow off their civil rights battles in another state while blaming and attacking everyone else!
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
No, I don’t think you can understand it…I really question your ability to understand simple sentences and other rudimentary grammatical constructions.
Once again, nowhere in that definition does it imply that to be intolerant of bigotry is itself bigoted. This is your belief.
TomEM
@youcanthandlethetruth: When people look up things in dictionaries they sometimes forget that it is people who write dictionaries; and as such the definitions contained therein do not constitute ahistorical facts about language.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK:
Again, you seem incapable of stepping aside from your own views on what you consider to be bigotry.
The whole point is that bigotry is often a subjective assessment. Most people use it as an inflammatory way to describe people who happen to disagree with their own strongly-held views.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TomEM: So the Oxford Dictionary is wrong, but somehow you have it right?
Now there’s a bigoted assertion!
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
No, I don’t think it’s about what I consider bigotry. Bigotry isn’t dependent on things like that. LOL! Intolerance of bigotry isn’t bigotry, contrary to your assertion.
terrwill
To the Ass hat who thinks he is so clever by taking a line from a movie starring one his idols, another self hating gay (Tom ya hear that???)as his screen name would you please do us all a great big ‘ol favor and so somewhere else??? Oh Oh I hear you son calling for his gay Dad. U better go, hurry up and minimize the screen so he can’t see the gay porn you are lookin at………
sweetdog
@TANK: Now that your scurvy self is in here, tell us all why DO YOU come on gay websites? Hiding something maybe? …
sweetdog
@sweetdog: Sorry TANK, that was directed at youcanthandlethetruth
petted
@terrwill: I’m betting he’s not married – he’s too belligerent to be able to have a willing partner of any sex.
youcanthandlethetruth
@sweetdog: Is this a “gay website” or a website that focuses on gay issues?
Why are you so afraid of opinions that may be counter to your own?
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: So who decides which forms of bigotry it’s ok to be intolerant of?
youcanthandlethetruth
@petted: If you want to see belligerence and hatefulness check out terrwill #7 and #30.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Well, it has a meaning, and it’s not subjective and meaningless. Hurrrr durrrrrrrr…LOL! You should have someone who’s not as retarded as you are explain what that word means, because it doesn’t mean intolerance of bigotry is bigoted.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: Tank you can twist and turn and pout and shrug all you want.
I gave you the definition of bigot from the Oxford Dictionary and it doesn’t mention anything about homosexuals having a monopoly on that word.
To quote one of your heroes, the determination of what is bigotry is largely subjective “whether you like it or not”.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
LOL! Yeah, you did, and you’ll notice that it does not mean that the intolerance of bigotry is bigoted. I don’t speak retard, so I can’t communicate to you the difference in meaning you’re advocating for “bigot” and what’s in the dictionary in a series of grunts and clicks.
TANK
ANd it also doesn’t say that the term is subjective in the dictionary definition, either. SO this is what you’re saying, not the dictionary.
TANK
I shouldn’t use the term retard, as it’s bigoted against retards. Christ, you take midgets and I’ve got nothing left.
youcanthandlethetruth
Here it is again:
Oxford English Dictionary
bigot • noun a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
No exceptions.
So a bigot could be intolerant of the opinions of either Christians or homosexual activists.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
LOL! It doesn’t mean nor imply that the intolerance of bigotry is bigoted, which is your assertion. And no, not everyone intolerant of the opinions and beliefs of others is a bigot (you hypocrite), contrary to your assertion–it doesn’t say that in the definition. SO no, intolerance of the opinions of christians don’t make one a bigot–intolerance of christians because they’re christian, and for no other reason, does. Read it carefully, and then look up prejudice. I hope retard isn’t contagious.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: You said “not everyone intolerant of the opinions and beliefs of others is a bigot”.
Which means you are directly contradicting the Oxford Dictionary definition of the word “bigot” which says:
bigot • noun a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
Again, who should decide which views or opinions it’s ok to be bigoted against?
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
No, I’m not. Read the definition again. What becomes before the conjunct? Total definition is important in understanding the meaning of a term, not a clause…the whole sentence.
Chitown Kev
@youcanthandlethetruth:
But you and thos eof your ilk have the power to enforce your bigotry. Personally, I could care less what you think nor am I trying to govern your life.
The power differential makes all the difference in the world, bigot.
SM
@youcanthandlethetruth:
You are entitled to your beliefs. You are not entitled to use your religion to discriminate against other Americans or deny them the protections you have for your family.
Hate LGBT people all you want. That’s your problem to work out with your God. Good Luck.
People came to America in the first place to escape religious tyranny.
People have a right to live in the United States without fear of opression.
Grow up.
youcanthandlethetruth
@Chitown Kev: What did you mean by those of my ilk?
That sounds like a bigoted statement based on your personal prejudice and your intolerance of the opinions of others.
youcanthandlethetruth
@SM: I agree you have the right to live here without fear of oppression.
That applies to all of us.
And far from being denied protections, homosexuals get extra legal protections because they are deemed to be a “protected class”.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Bigots, douchewad. And just repeating that intolerance of bigotry is bigoted doesn’t make it true. And it’s not even in the definition of bigotry you have provided.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Right, well you’re wrong again. Acknowledging the rights of gays and lesbians to marry is at the expense of your rights. Nothing is being taken from you by treating citizens in this country equally. Douchetard.
TANK
It’s like arguing with the squidbillies.
Chitown Kev
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Religious ilk, I mean. I didn’t studder.
But you see, I am not infringing on your rights in any way shape or form. You and those of your ilk do infringe on my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness based on your religious beliefs and in a country founded on the idea (not always perfectly practiced) of seperation of church and state.
And gay people have very, very, few legal protections at a federal level, unlike religious people (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act od 1964, I believe).
InExile
@youcanthandlethetruth: We are not deemed a protected class so haters like you can call us fagots, pedophiles, and plenty of other defamatory names. You use this all to your advantage to deny LGBT citizens equal rights. We are used to being attacked so drop your tolerance crap about us, we have been walk on long enough. We are not going to put up with it any longer!
Chitown Kev
@Chitown Kev:
“stutter”
Pop Snap
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Maybe you didn’t notice the past several hundred years, but glbt people have historically been discriminated against. Bright young people in the 50’s and 60’s saw their dreams collapse before their very eyes, their families abandon them, and have gotten harrased and attacked for no reason other than the fact that they were different. That they were a bit strange, that they had sex with & loved people of the same gender as them. They harmed nobody, but were harmed and attacked by hateful, cruel people that didn’t understand them.
Being a white male christian used to be the test to get into office. Christians have DOMINATED this nation for many years, and you know what? Thats ok. I’ve known alot of christians who were kind to me, and nice and treated me with respect. My uncle is a fundamentalist Pentacostal preacher, and he openly disagrees with me and my life, but he has never once not treated me with respect, dignity, and cordialness. He actually sat down with me after I came out and told me that God still loves me and that he does, too.
Therefore, although he disagrees with me, he is most certainly NOT a bigot. And I respect his views and his life just as he respects mine.
Trolling GLBT websites and posting hateful comments about our now about 40-50% accepted “deviant lifestyle” is bigotry. Standing outside our parades with signs saying we are fags destined for a pit of flames is bigotry.
Being downright nasty to your human brothers and sisters is bigotry.
And I do NOT tolerate bigotry.
How did it feel when I insulted your lifestyle and your beliefs? When I insulted something you respect? didn’t feel good, huh?
InExile
@Chitown Kev: You better believe we are not infringing on his rights, we do not have any! Without equal rights we cannot infringe on anyone. They use this to their advantage as another excuse to separate our families, deny our partner’s health insurance and inheritance rights. I will not try to make nice with them, I will spit in their face!
youcanthandlethetruth
@Chitown Kev: Are you prejudiced against what you think is my “religious ilk”?
TANK
@TANK:
not, rather, not at the expense of your rights. Type too fast. And you’re a douchenozzle.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
bigots.
TANK
And no, not prejudiced–intolerant.
youcanthandlethetruth
@Pop Snap: The past several hundred years have passed. Time to start living in the present.
You have every advantage and protection available to US citizens, and more than many because of your protected class status.
Stop being so negative and wallowing in your self-imposed victimhood.
And stop being an intolerant bigot.
Chitown Kev
@InExile:
Well, I was a little more specific, in some states we do. Some (very few) fedferal workers have some rights. But the first amendment allows them to say just about anything they damn well please and their tax exempt status + their civil rights protections give these people the right to say whatever they damn well please. I will not walk on eggshells around them.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
THat’s not true. We aren’t allowed to get married to our partners. That is not marriage equality. So no, we don’t have the right of every other u.s. citizen–who does have the option to marry a person of their choosing. Also, we aren’t protected by discrimination in the workplace like most every other american is. THe rights that we lack go on and on.
Chitown Kev
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Damn right. Do I have any power to enforce my prejudice? No, nor do I care to have that power.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: Being able to marry your “partner” is not an automatic right for anybody.
Particularly if your partner is a minor, close relative, already married, an animal, etc
SM
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Stop acting like the Bible is the Law of the Land.
People are supposed to be able to live in the United States without fear of oppression by their government or by any one group.
youcanthandlethetruth
There is very little employment protection in the US workplace.
Almost everyone works “at will’ so can be fired at any time without any explanation.
Employers should be able to choose who they hire and who will represent their organisation in the right way.
I doubt whether GLAAD would hire me for example but I wouldn’t call that prejudice or discrimination.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
So what? Everyone who is heterosexual has the right to marry a person of their choosing who is eligible. That makes it discriminatory because gay people can’t marry their partners, whereas many heterosexuals can. We aren’t allowed to marry our same sex partners who aren’t animals or already married, clos relatives or minors….so that the attempted parallel is invalid.
youcanthandlethetruth
@SM: When did I say the Bible is the law of the land?
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
And far from being denied protections, homosexuals get extra legal protections because they are deemed to be a “protected class”.
And what is the source of that erroneous information?
Facts, man. We demand facts.
If you can’t dazzle us with your brilliance, stop trying to baffle us with your bullshit!
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
That’s not true. Anyone who is terminated because of bitory such as yours–only directed against protected classes, is wrongfully terminated, and the employer has broken the law.
Chitown Kev
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Let’s see, pedophilia, incest, bigamy, or bestiality?
Even the DOJ brief didn’t go that far, bitch.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: Nope, it’s entirely valid.
We The People have decided that they want marriage to be and everyone has to conform.
No doubt there are many would-be polygamists who feel they are victims of discrimination too.
The difference is you have civil unions, a special arrangement designed specifically to meet the needs of homosexuals who will never have children.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
But homosexuals can and do have children. So your rage is really punishing children by denying parents tax benefits and the other thousand rights that come with marriage. Why do you hate children? Why do you want harm them?
It is invalid to compare same sex marriage to polygamous marriage. Polygamous marriage is marrying more than one person; same sex marriage is marrying a person of the same sex. DO you not see how those words, when put together, mean different things?
You the people have decided a lot of ethically wrong things throughout the history of this country–including that people could own other people. ANd that simply doesn’t matter–your statement that we have all of the same rights is false.
SM
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Since when can you go around constantly trying to oppress other Americans and strip them of rights in this country or tell them they are in a seperate category of everyone else.
Do you respect the Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, or ANYTHING this country was founded on?
Last time I checked, All men are created equal in the United States…not just all straight men.
M Shane
@No. 5 · youcanthandlethetruth You are far less educated than I gave you credit for .
Any American who has finishesh High School Civics class knows that we do not just livbe in a “participatory democracy” , we live in a “Democratic Republic” that is to say, and if you read a little bit, the Founders had a great fear of a dictatorship of the masses. That is why the Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution and why there is a balance of powers, so that a stupid and fanatic majority would not take away the rights of people.
If you want to say something, at least sound like you know something.
I have run into people of your mentality grabing all the attention on gay sites and come to find that they are always closet queers. My guess is that your homophobia comes from that which you most fear in yourself .. I pity you.
schlukitz
@TANK:
YCHTT fancies himself to be a wordsmith.
In reality, however, he only succeeds in butchering the English language and making himself look like a clown.
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
This is rich. The Master bigot himself, explaining bigotry to those he is bigoted against.
TANK
@schlukitz:
That’s the goal. I have no interest in changing his mind or persuading him. This is a diversion.
M Shane
On the other hand , you are getting all the masochistic fun the crew will give you. I’m sure you’re trying to prove to someone that you’re not really gay , right !
Masochists like you generally enjoy being fist fucked. I won’t train you in but i’m sure you’ve done it or want the joy of rough contact. Right?
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
You have every advantage and protection available to US citizens, and more than many because of your protected class status.
Like all the fundamentalists, you keep repeating this lie over and over and over, despite being challenged on it repeatedly, as if your just saying makes it gospel truth.
YOU ARE A FUCKING LIAR.
You are not even cool enough to be a disingenuous one.
You are just a common, flat-out, lying bastard.
And when you keep lying, you lose any shred of credibility you ever might have had…if any, because it means that your word isn’t worth shit!
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
We The People have decided that they want marriage to be and everyone has to conform.
SACRAMENTO – A new poll finds that for the first time in the state’s history, a slim majority of voters supports same-sex marriage, which the state Supreme Court declared legal this month.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080528-9999-1n28field.html
Sorry. Big over-reach on your behalf. That is out and out tyranny.
Furthermore, you Christers, relious fanatics, bigots and homophobes do not represent 100% of the population, ergo, you do NOT represent “We The People”.
Just one more example of the lies you spew like an open water faucet.
If the KKK becomes the majority, will you happily conform to their rules and regulations as to how you must live?
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
@SM: When did I say the Bible is the law of the land?
She didn’t! You are attempting to put words into her mouth.
Here is what she did say.
Stop acting like the Bible is the Law of the Land.
“stop acting like” is the comparative here.
Do you see the difference, or is lack of comprehension of the printed word another one of your many weaknesses?
youcanthandlethetruth
@schlukitz: Clearly YOU are the one who is bigoted, and christiophobic too.
You really need to try and practice some of the tolerance you demand from others.
Pop Snap
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Matt 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.”
Matt 23:27-29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
Luke 11:43 Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets.
Jesus certainly was an intolerant bigot, wasn’t He? He critized the bigoted Pharisees, who only loved the uppermost seats, who appeared righteous and crtizied the outcasts, the prostitutes, the homeless. He loved those who were oppressed and cast out, but hated those who condemned their fellow brothers and sisters.
He didn’t tolerate bigotry.
Before I go, let me leave you this passage.
Matthew 8:5-13
Jesus Heals a Centurion’s Servant5 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him 6and saying, ‘Lord, my servant is lying at home paralysed, in terrible distress.’ 7And he said to him, ‘I will come and cure him.’ 8The centurion answered, ‘Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, “Go”, and he goes, and to another, “Come”, and he comes, and to my slave, “Do this”, and the slave does it.’ 10When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, ‘Truly I tell you, in no one* in Israel have I found such faith. 11I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 13And to the centurion Jesus said, ‘Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.’ And the servant was healed in that hour.
The word “servant” was mistranslated. You know what servant he was talking about? A pais.
A word for the bottom of a gay relationship at the time. Don’t beleive me? look it up.
Jesus healed Him of his paralysis, and even praised his faith. He healed his lover, and preserved their same-sex union.
You are an anti-Christ and a usurpher of the faith.
youcanthandlethetruth
@schlukitz: Why should I@M Shane: Wrong.
You sound like a frustrated 13-yer old pre-adolescent.
Perhaps it’s time you started to grow up.
TANK
My favorite bible quote’s ezekiel 21:20
“There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of horses.”
Now wear a shirt that sez that to a church picnic.
TANK
23:20 even
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
There there, retard. There there. When you can’t argue, just repeat yourself.
Kid A
Successful troll is successful.
Pop Snap
I can’t wait till he/she/it ignores my comment!
youcanthandlethetruth
@Pop Snap: You’re the one who suddenly reverses millenia of human knowledge to tell is that the Bible is full of homosexual code and Jesus actually condones homosexual marriage!!
Even though He defined marriage as one man one woman in Matt 19
Thanks for the laughs.
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
@TANK: I understand the word “bigot” better than most people on here it sems.
A veritible paragon of knowledge, our youcanthandlethetruth!
YCHTT graced us with but one interpretation of the word “bigot”, from just one dictionary, until he found the concise one to make his point. Had he searched a little further, he might have come across this one as well.
From: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot
big·ot (b?g’?t)
n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
[French, from Old French.]
Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”
Fits our knight in shining armour like a chain maille glove, does it not”
schlukitz
@TANK:
Where can I get my hands on one of those T-Shirts? LOL
schlukitz
@TANK:
Yes, YCHTT is rather like a bad case of indigestion, isn’t she? LOL
youcanthandlethetruth
@schlukitz: The Oxford Dictionary is the oracle of the English language, but even if we use your American pop dictionary definition the truth remains the same.
Homosexuals don’t have a monopoly on accusing others of bigotry and are perfectly capable of being bigots themselves.
If you don’t believe me just look at the reaction to my comments on this thread and elsewhere on this site.
TANK
@schlukitz:
I dunno, cafepress maybe. I did see that shirt.
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Particularly if your partner is a minor, close relative, already married, an animal, etc.
No gay person in his right mind would advocate marrying a minor, a close relative or someone who is already married. On those points, both homosexuals and heterosexuals agree fully.
But, why the constant, incessant need to thrown in bestiality which no one is advocating…or asking for?
Some deeply repressed sexual fantasies surfacing here, perhaps?
youcanthandlethetruth
@schlukitz: Nope, no deeply repressed sexual fantasies, and no points to you for originality in your personal attacks.
The fact is that homosexuality is a form of deviant sexual behaviour and so are pedophilia and bestiality.
All the same arguments you use for redefining marriage for homsexuals could be used by your deviant bedfellows.
edgyguy1426
@youcanthandlethetruth: This is disconcerting because my goat has not yet learned how to SIGN an application for a marriage license no matter how hard I’ve tried to get the pen into his little cloven (uh oh, could this be another religious no-no?) hoof.
But as soon as he learns,we’ll be the first ones at the courthouse!
Doncha love it when these christians bring up the animal thing but ignore all the other no-nos in their sacred book? It’s like a pick ‘n’ choose religion.
The catholics especially seem to be jettisoning their rules in order not to lose members; the infallibility thing fell by the wayside, then meatless fridays, then limbo, next it will be birth prevention and celibacy and women priests..
Yes when it comes to the RULES, it’s all a matter of what will keep the most members from falling away and not adhering to any particular tenets set up for people a long time ago in a land far far away.
Pop Snap
@youcanthandlethetruth:
When did I say He promoted homosexual marriage?
What I was saying was that he preached against bigotry. And how he blessed a homosexual union, or at least never condemned it. You never adressed either points, and instead made a sweeping generalization about what I was trying to say.
Google “pais greek” and tell me what comes up.
Pop Snap
Oh and check out this article
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html
if your too lazy to google it. Are you or are you not condeming gays? Yes or no?
schlukitz
Yet once again, our veritible paragon of knowledge has decided for us, which dictionary we must abide by for the correct definition of a word he has garnered unto himself and claims that he has the “best” understanding of.
They do that with the bible too, don’t they?
He immediately sought to discredit the dictionary from which I gleaned this definition of the world “bigotry”, by lying about what was clearly stated as The American Heritage Dictionary, not “Your American pop dictionary”, as he deprecatingly called it.
That is the M.O. of charlatans like this. If they can’t come up with a reasonable argument against empirical evidence, they resort to their 10-step Program:
1) Deny it
2) Pretend it does not exist
3) Attempt to discredit it
4) Claim that they never heard of it
5) Quote scripture and verse to “prove” their point
6) Condemn the person they disagree with to hellfire and brimstone.
7) Derail the topic
8) Wear their opposition down by repeating themselves ad nauseum.
9) Reverse the facts
10) And, if all else fails, start hurling names, insults and epithets.
A sure-fire, no fail strategy.
edgyguy1426
Marriage is constantly being redefined from allowing mixed races to marry etc. Now we’re talking civilly here, not religiously. Because I hear (shockingly) that atheists get married all the time! As well as older men and women who can no longer bear children. No argument you are making is standing up. And as to the deviant sexual behaviour argument ,it’s just a judgement on your part. As far as our side not winning, look at all the countries, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and South Africa and coming to you in 2009, Norway!- that have actual marriage, where many others, Denmark, New Zealand, great britain and Uruguay allow civil unions..and this in a historically relative short period of time.
So I think you’re wrong about our civil rights, they’re happening at a break neck speed over which you have no control.
Thankfully
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
The fact is that homosexuality is a form of deviant sexual behaviour.
An opinion held and expressed only by Christo-fascists like yourself.
Likening homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality in the same breath, is disingenuous and non-factual.
As is your M.O., you have made what you consider to be a definitive statement with absolutely no empirical evidence to back it up with.
Liar. Liar. Pants on fire!
schlukitz
@edgyguy1426:
Now watch how YCHTT will sweep your carefully thought-out, logical and factual reply to one side by ignoring every fact you stated and come-back with a response to derail your commentary.
I lay you odds on it.
edgyguy1426
It’s ok, I can handle the TRUTH. The argument against same-sex marriage is falling faster than Communist countries; the dominoes are topling faster than they can prop them up and time is certainly on our side. It’s so sad that so much money is being funneled into their cause when it would do so much good for people that are dying of disease, hunger, etc. If every dollar the christians gave to the Prop8 movement instead gave it to some needy organization to help people or children in real need, look at how many lives thay could have saved. sad sad sad…
youcanthandlethetruth
@schlukitz: Nope. It’s truthful and factual.
And I already gave the reasons why. Whereas you merely asserted your opinion as a self-identified homosexual.
And in your previous post #104 was just a diatribe of bigoted, hate-filled rhetoric that highlights your rampant christiophobia – very common among homosexuals.
youcanthandlethetruth
@Pop Snap: I explained Jesus’ definition of marriage because that’s what this thread is about – remember?
God’s Word makes it clear that homosexuality is a sin, and that we have all sinned and have to repent our sins.
Not redefine marriage to accommodate those sins.
And despite your attempts to distract from my earlier point, I was prepared to accept the definition of “bigot” you gave from the America Heritage dictionary, whatever that may be.
And their definition could easily apply to you, as could the real definition from the Oxford.
schlukitz
@edgyguy1426:
@youcanthandlethetruth: This is disconcerting because my goat has not yet learned how to SIGN an application for a marriage license no matter how hard I’ve tried to get the pen into his little cloven (uh oh, could this be another religious no-no?) hoof.
I truly hope your efforts are successful.
I sure hate to see youcanttakethetruth “get” your goat! ;O)
Pop Snap
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Jesus never said it was a sin. He mentioned about man leaving his mother to cling to his wife, sure, but in that whole passage he never said “Oh and gays should never get married!” It was very situational and it was rare for men NOT to get married at the time.
Again: Jesus Himself never once condemned homosexuality. He bashed the pharisees for asking why He sat at the table with hookers and homeless and other outcasts, but never once condemned anybody other than the bigoted, high strung pharisees. Do you disagree? Do you not see the parallels between what you’re doing and what the pharisees did?
strumpetwindsock
@Pop Snap:
And Jesus never defined marriage either. There is no definition of it in the entire bible, and there is certainly nothing saying it was any kind of sacrament.
In fact, if you really want to get biblical about the tradition you should probably start taking three or four spouses, as a lot of people did back then. Hey, you can even screw your slaves too if your partner doesn’t conceive.
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Perhaps you should actually read that bible before claiming to understand what is in there.
edgyguy1426
YouCanthandlethetruth: I’d bet you’d defend my right to eat pork wear rayon (ewww) though not (I hope) to own slaves or barter my daughter for a goat (sigh) even though those are forbidden things biblically and say: “well you see those were different times and those laws were set for a different group of people”
Welcome to the 21st century where I can’t get stoned for eating a BLT, or for making a poor fashion choice by wearing a ‘Brady Bunch’ shirt. You see, times change, people change, the laws and rules change and if the catholic church as an example can change that many things in their belief system in that short a timespan, it tells you that nothing is permanent, except change.
Maybe this is one truth you can’t handle. You see you can’t ‘get’ my goat with all this bible stuff, cuz I’m a buddhist, and I don’t think you can lay any blame on my belief system for the systematic torture,death, and misery of any other people. See: Crusades,Spanish Inquisition,Irish troubles et. al. Nothing to be proud of, huh?
You see no matter what authority you submit to: Jesus, your government, or even buddha-that authority is wrong. It’s wrong because the very concept of authority is already a mistake. Deferring to authority is nothing more than a shirking of personal responsibility. The more power you grant an authority figure, the WORSE YOU CAN BEHAVE IN HIS NAME. That’s why people who take God as their ultimate authority are always capable of the WORST HUMANITY HAS TO OFFER.
A lot of religious explanations remind me of the old joke about the guy who believes the world is flat and rests on the back of a giant turtle. When someone questions him about what’s under the turtle, he confidently answers “another turtle.” When asked what’s under *that* turtle, he smirks and says “You can’t trip me u with that question, it’s turtles all the way down!” Pretty much every religious explanation I’ve run into seems to end up with variations on “It’s turtles all the way down”
-Brad Warner
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Actually, in the bible
“if a man rapes a virgin and gets caught, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father and marry her.”
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
So, if you get caught raping a woman, you gots to pay her papa about fifteen hundred bucks and marry her. That’s marriage according to the bible for ya.
TANK
Don’t get caught!
Pop Snap
He left rather quickly.
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
And in your previous post #104 was just a diatribe of bigoted, hate-filled rhetoric that highlights your rampant christiophobia – very common among homosexuals.
The pot calling the kettle black.
Julian Edward Domain
@M Shane: And yechtt is purposely diverting us from exploring pertinent issues. Probably getting an internship at the theo-u of choice too keep us from becoming a cohesive group to combat the rr. I’m willing to bet lds because I can’t figure background from this and other posts/ sites. Can this behavior be stopped?
Chitown Kev
@youcanthandlethetruth:
I may be wrong about this, but your syntax and subject matter are remarkably like renowned homophobic troll “tr24″/”California Love” from Huffington Post.
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
And despite your attempts to distract from my earlier point, I was prepared to accept the definition of “bigot” you gave from the America Heritage dictionary, whatever that may be.
Umm, it was me, not PopSnap, who gave you the definition of “bigot” from “whatever that might be”. And how “big” of you to accept anything from a member of the LGBT community without it making you feel dirty and despoiled.
No amount of mirrors being held up for you to look into, is ever going to get you to take a real hard look at yourself and the hateful image that you project everywhere you go. It must be a terribly lonely existence for you. Quite frankly, I would not want to walk a mile in your moccasins.
Not to fret, however, I can sympathize with just how difficult it must be to deflect the flood of rebuttals you have brought onto yourself by your hateful diatribes and outright lies and misstatements. Did you really think that you could waltz onto this site, make everyone don hairshirts, start snapping your fingers and have everyone fall onto their knees in abject worship, adoration and eat up your pearls of wisdom as you flagelate them without encountering any resistance?
How little you know of human nature and the way things are. Tsk. Tsk.
As usual, we sinful, abominations unto the Lord need to do all the work for you, know-it-all Christers who believe that the bibie is the innerrent word of god and that it is the only reference book you will ever need to check-out of the library in your lifetime. And living under a pile of rocks, as you obviously do, probably does make it hard keeping up with the world around you.
However, had you deigned to do a simple Google or Bing, you would have discovered that there are copious references to the American Heritage Dictionary. Here are two links to check out for yourself, if it not too much trouble for you.
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/ahd/
http://www.amazon.com/American-Heritage-Dictionary-English-Language/dp/0395825172
I hope that you are taking notice that we homosexuals are always ready and able to back up what we say with facts and credible sources of information that are respected and accepted by intelligent, sane, rational and logical people who are not into witchcraft, sorcery, booga-booga and silly superstitions,the world around.
You see, YCHTT, it really isn’t the fact that you are heterosexual that we don’t like you. In fact, we welcome heterosexual men and women to this site and many have joined us in respectful, courteous and well-informed dialogue in the past and the present.
These are straight people who are educated, well-traveled folks who have seen a bit of the world and who realize that all people have different backgrounds, speak different languages, have different opinions and ideas about life and have learned not to be judgemental about how others live their lives and can enrich our by sharing with us what they have seen and learned on their journey through life. Straight people like that, are a pure joy to be around, YCHTT.
Notice that I purposely avoided saying that they were tolerant of us, as it is my personal feeling that tolerance sucks! Being tolerated simply means that the person is still homophobic or anti-gay, but will not utter anything to my face, that they will continue to say behind my back or when I am not listening. To my way of thinking, that’s just plain, old-fashioned hypocricy.
If you are merely seeking tolerance or a site where you play Mother Superior, you’ve obviously come to the wrong place. if on the other hand, you are really seeking to enrich your experience with open, honest, unbiased dialogue and an open heart, then you might just find that there are many among us who can and will respond to that in a very positive way.
The choice is yours. We are all obliged to live with what we create for ourselves. And no one is telling us to do anything, unless we are simply seeking an excuse to do harm to others.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Yup, there is plenty of family law, but no definition of marriage, and no declaration that is a sacrament (because it was not one).
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
I think one can infer a host of different arrangements in terms of what the bible endorses as legitimate marriage. Old men and prepubescent girls–and many, many, many wives…
Lloyd B.
The question is…
What will the Gays and Lesbians of Maine do to prevent the Ban on Gay marriage if it comes to that? Whether those signatures are genuine or not, they have 100,000 and need 55k more to go. Something obviously needs to be done!
Julian Edward Domain
Ha ha now I’m getting beastality spam. I must have touched a nerve.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Yup, I agree (though the key word there is “infer”).
What I am saying in correcting whatshisname’s false claim about Jesus’s definition of marriage is that there are all sorts of OT rules about how to treat your partners, and even a few rules about when to divorce or marry. There are also stories from which you can infer that polygamous relationships were acceptable (and that one could bend the rules and have children with slaves).
But nowhere is there any requirement of a ceremony or that clergy be present (that didn’t happen until the 1600s in Europe), nor any declaration whatsoever that marriage is a sacred institution given by god.
Some believers seem to forget that even though the bible is scripture there are parts of it that are simply laws, faux history and genaeology. There are rules in there about tying knots and working with your animals too, but no one assumes you have to do that in church or have it blessed by a priest.
All that holy marriage shit was added millennia later by the Catholic Church.
youcanthandlethetruth
@Chitown Kev: That’s not me
duttybarb
Go Maine…
U can rant, whine, moan and tantrum all you want the numbers speak for themselves.
Pple do not support gay marriage. It is as simple as that.
Why should my taxes pay for benefits of a perverted class of people when there are many homeless kids who need help out there?
You gays need to be grateful we dont take care of your disgusting lifestyle choices in the good old U.S.A like in Iraq…be grateful
youcanthandlethetruth
@Pop Snap: So you think that when Jesus defined marriage in Matt 19 somehow He just forgot to mention anything about homosexual marriage, bestial marriage, etc??
Ergo because Jesus never said anything about pedophilia you would consider it’s not a Biblical sin?
The lengths you will go to and the loops of logic you jump through in order to create your own little cocoon of delusion and denial is amazing.
youcanthandlethetruth
@schlukitz: These are straight people who are educated, well-traveled folks who have seen a bit of the world and who realize that all people have different backgrounds, speak different languages, have different opinions and ideas about life and have learned not to be judgemental about how others live their lives and can enrich our by sharing with us what they have seen and learned on their journey through life. Straight people like that, are a pure joy to be around, YCHTT.
___________________________________________________
Hate to burst your bubble but that describes me very accurately.
youcanthandlethetruth
@duttybarb: Thanks for adding a voice of sanity to this discussion.
Andrew
@duttybarb:
#127: Fuck off Dutty. My taxes for the past thirty years have paid for educating “your” children, paving our roads, running our government, and funding our military. You can make your argument based on morals or ethics or religion, but don’t you dare make your argument based on “taxes” or money. You accept gay money to pay for educating your kids, etc. You’re a fucking hypocrite.
youcanthandlethetruth
@Andrew: Everybody’s taxes are partially spent on programs they might disagree with. You might disagree with the Iraq War but they still use your money to fight it.
In the case of education it’s a great investment, because his kids are your future customers or clients and will need to pay your Social Security when you retire.
We can’t rely on homosexual couples to guarantee our future because you can never have children, your couplings are barren and infertile and merely for sexual gratuitousness.
Andrew
Hmmm… a slight breeze of stupidity just blew threw… I wonder what that was?
ettubrute84
And not a single person had some gas and a match????
strumpetwindsock
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Jesus made mention of “two”, yet that somehow wasn’t a problem for Abraham, Jacob, Noah, and many of the other prophets and servants of God who had more than one wife without incurring divine wrath.
Polygamy was completely normal in those days. If your saviour had a problem with it why did he give no specific condemnation of it? He had no problem giving his message straight to a rich man.
And presumably it also was not a problem for your saviour when he blessed a gay union (already mentioned in this thread).
He used that as the most common example, but obviously not the only kind of marriage that was recognized… then or now.
And not to sidestep your argument, but the Bible is not the constitution of your country (Jesus was pretty clear on that in Matthew 22) nor is it the constitution of ours, where we have marriage equality and churches have not been shuttered,, nor have they been forced to perform same-sex marriages – though Canada’s largest Protestant Church completely recognizes same sex unions.
youcanthandlethetruth
@strumpetwindsock: Jesus never blessed any homosexual union, that was trumped up by same fallacious misinterpretation by a homosexual!
Jesus was the Son of God and would not bless any sin, rather He would forgive homosexuals their sin and tell them to “go and sin no more”. That’s what happened when He spoke to the prostitute.
And whilst the US Constitution may not be The Bible, it certainly isn’t based on the Homosexual Agenda either.
I know it’s more convenient for homosexuals to twist the Word of God to try and support their insupportable case, but to do so belies Truth and righteousness.
strumpetwindsock
@duttybarb:
I think I have asked you already what you think the man you worship would have done in your stead. Perhaps you should go re-read John Chapter 8 and think about what he was trying to teach you.
We should be grateful that you don’t deal with us like they do in Iraq? I’m not some anti-muslim freak, but are you really saying you support the theocratic rule of the mullahs, the Taliban and Al Quaeda?
strumpetwindsock
@youcanthandlethetruth:
No… your constitution is based on equal access and protection under the law – and that means for all people.
If equality is an agenda, then you can consider me biased in support of it.
youcanthandlethetruth
@strumpetwindsock: Homosexuals already have equal access to marriage, subject to the same conditions as everyone else. That’s equality.
And homosexuals are now considered a “protected class” under the law so you get extra protections compared to many of your fellow Americans. In other words you are already more equal than most others.
No wonder you are biased in support of it.
edgyguy1426
you see, when you take away the religious argument, which is shaky and based on law around the year 3o, when people invoke His name (god,yaweh, allah, what have you) and then point out all the horrible, viscious, and inhumane things done in His name, it make you see people give up all common sense and they fail to think for themselves..
Yes Dutty, the things done in Iran and Iraq to gays is religious based. The shameful things done in this country are no different (Matthew Shephard comes to mind). So keep the religious invective going, because people such as yourself and those persecutors in the Middle East all have the same blood on your hands..you’re not as different as you might think.
youcanthandlethetruth
Blaming people of faith for wars is like blaming homosexuals for AIDS or pedophilia.
TANK
What about wars based on faith? LOL!
youcanthandlethetruth
You mean like the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, that were based on faith in democracy?
Of the two World Wars and the War of Independence that were based on faith in national sovereignty?
Come to think of it when was the last “religious” war?
edgyguy1426
dunno the Palestinians/Israelis come to mind the Irish Protestant/Catholics come to mind maybe not an official war, but how much of a body count do you need for it to be official?
alan
@youcanthandlethetruth: Maybe homosexuals wouldn’t need to be a “protected class” if homophobes didn’t use violence to speak for their hate. It happens everywhere and you know it.
youcanthandlethetruth
@edgyguy1426: Israel/Palestine and the Irish “troubles” were both motivated by territorial disputes and the pursuit of self-government.
The IRA didn’t set off bombs in pubs and butchers shops to try and convert people to Catholicism.
youcanthandlethetruth
@alan: The problem with establishing “protected classes” is that it implicitly makes any non-members legally subordinate.
Should people be denied employment or access to a rental property just because they have purple hair and nose piercings or is that kind of “discrimination” ok?
edgyguy1426
@youcanthandlethetruth: it was pretty clear the catholics weren’t blowing up the catholics and the protestants other protestants , and the Israel/Palestine territorial is just a cover for religious based hate. You give your government/religion that much power, then they’ll take it and do unspeakable things with it. Viscious cycle of hate. It breeds itself.
youcanthandlethetruth
@edgyguy1426: Nonetheless the motivation for both those conflicts was not religious.
In fact many Catholics were killed by IRA bombs and Muslims by PLO suicide bombers etc
TANK
arab israeli war, sikh uprising, persecution in bosnia of muslims by serbians, africa’s full of religious wars and rebellions explicitly because of religious faith. French wars of religion, thirty years war, crusades, taiping rebellion, sri lankan civil war, indo pakistani partition…the list goes on and on of people killed in the millions in the past fifteen years on this planet for no other reason than that they didn’t believe in the right fairytale.
TANK
Oh, right, the centuries conflict in northern ireland and british imperialism is religion based, too.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: How about the American massacre of the Indian nations, was that religious based?
TANK
No, the northern ireland dispute really does come down to religion and entitlement to land because of religion. And the palestinian israeli conflict is unresolvable because of religion, and it’s about religion at this point as solutions are on the table, and have been for a long time.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
That’s a great example. Their lack of christian faith was used to subjugate and massacre them. Because everyone knows, it’s okay to kill them if the person isn’t a christer. And then they were brutally taught about jesus as a large part of their reeducation to western ways.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: Why were the Northern Ireland troubles caused by “religion”?
It was all about land and self-determination. The majority of people in NI wanted to remain part of the UK and still do.
It wasn’t about imposing Catholicism on Protestants in the north.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
From 1608, British settlers, known as planters, were given land confiscated from the native Irish in the Plantation of Ulster.[26] Coupled with Protestant immigration to “unplanted” areas of Ulster, particularly Antrim and Down, conflict arose between the native Catholics and the “planters”. This would lead to two bloody ethno-religious conflicts in 1641-1653 and 1689-1691, each resulting in Protestant victories.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, nope I think that you’re clearly wrong about northern ireland. it originated as a religious conflict and remained one right up until ’98–and still tensions persist.
youcanthandlethetruth
You’re going back a long way and even then it wasn’t about religion but about land ownership.
I’m not saying there have never been any wars motivated only on religion, clearly there have. Just nor for a few centuries.
We have yet to have our first “homosexual” war, apart from on here.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
It certianly was about religion. I think you minimize the suffering of those victimized with this idiotic statement. It was clearly about both. There’s no one or the other here. Without one, the other wouldn’t have happened.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Tell that to Wolfe Tone, Stewart Parnell, and the many other protestant Irish who supported home rule and opposed British imperialism.
And if it is all just religion how does one explain a similar policy in protestant Scotland?
The lunatics on both side would like us to think it is a religious spat, but that is only a secondary part of the story. As you like to point out the same thing would have happened had religion been in the mix or not.
TANK
And it is a lie to say that there aren’t wars motivated by religion right to this very day (the iran/iraq war and the what happened to the kurds was largely religion based). How dare you ignore the millions of people who have lost their lives in the past fifteen years explicitly because of religion all over those planet…it’s reprehensible, and irrefutable. Once again, you’re a flat earther, and there’s no reason to talk with someone like you who denies things like evolution.
youcanthandlethetruth
Why is it when the Brits are involved it’s “British Imperialism” but when the Americans are involved it’s preserving democracy and “fighting to protect your freedom”??
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
This speaks past the issue. Are you that ignorant? This was based upon a very old conflict between the roman catholic church and protestantism. I just don’t think you have a leg to stand on here in absolving religion of its responsibility in playing an extremely large role in this issue. It’s embarrassing and dreadfully ignorant.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: Explain why you think the Iran/Iraq War was about religion when both sides are predominantly Muslim?
You’re such an awkward bugger!
TANK
@TANK:
It’s actually more than embarrassing, strumpet–it’s shameful. You ought to be ashamed of yourself like holocaust denialists ought to be ashamed of themselves, too.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: Clearly you have a very superficial, americanised view of history.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
LOL! You are a very stupid man. You have no education. First, there are different sects of muslims which disagree strongly with each other…we’re done. You’re as dull as dishwater–and similarly ignorant, racist and full of hate.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: So you think the Iran?Iraq war was fought to convince the other side to switch to their flavour of Islam?
I repeat, you have a very shallow view of the world. i recommend you travel a lot more.
TANK
THe iran-iraq war was fought because of border disputes between iran and iraq that were based on religious rights, and also iraq’s fear that the shia insurgency. If I have a shallow view of the world, you have no view at all of it.
edgyguy1426
you can nitpick all you want about a muslim or catholic that got in the way of a bomb, but to these religious extremists, the tenets of their religion flies out the window and other human beings are considered ‘expendable collateral’ -that’s religion for you- you might want to brush it off as politics but you’re getting off track. You don’t mind affording atheists the right to marry despite their godless ways,or people past child bearing age if procreation is a concern- let the gays marry and let your god deal with it as He sees fit. I’m sure you’ve got better things to do with your time.
Didn’t the Catholics yet again revise their rules last month and deem it ok for married couples to have sex ‘for pleasure’?
You see, the church is so fearful of losing members, it’s selling out it’s beliefs one by one. Everything has it’s price.
TANK
I can tell you right now that without religion, the iran iraq war would not have happened, and similarly, the kurds would not have been decimated as they were by hussein. So, no more chicken before the egg nonsense…and making excuses for human rights atrocities (something the religions are particularly skilled at doing).
youcanthandlethetruth
@edgyguy1426: The Episcopalians are losing members fast because they lost their way, capitulated to homosexuals and ignored the Word of God.
I don’t deny some people are motivated to do wrong based on their religious faith.
But to characterise religion as a cause of war is like saying all homosexuals are pedophiles or have caused AIDS.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
No, it’s not like that at all. Once again, you are extremely stupid and ignorant.
Religion is a cause of war (this is irrefutable), whereas homosexuality is not pedophilia and homosexuals didn’t cause aids.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: For a minute I thought my tolerance and open-mindedness was rubbing off on you.
strumpetwindsock
@youcanthandlethetruth:
No, it’s American Imperialism, and most people call it that. Do you have a point?
@TANK:
Actually if you read your British history the central issue was absolutism. Catholicism was no more the central issue than it was for the Klan, or for the Orange Order. They didn’t give a shit about religion except as a tool to whip up discrimination. The real issue was control and political power.
@TANK:
No my dear, it is shameful of you to use the memory of the suffering of your people to try and derail an argument that has nothing to do with the holocaust.
A first-class Godwinism.
youcanthandlethetruth
@strumpetwindsock: Wait a minute, I think I agree with strumpetwindsock on something.
This is a major breakthrough.
TANK
Actually if you read your British history the central issue was absolutism. Catholicism was no more the central issue than it was for the Klan, or for the Orange Order.
This is recontexted by religious apologists who do “history”. No, I’m afraid that religion did play heavily into the conflicts that have occurred throughout the centuries in northern ireland, and it was a very important component to the ethnic composition of the parties involved. No amount of apologism and lies coming from you is going to change that fact.
They didn’t give a shit about religion except as a tool to whip up discrimination. The real issue was control and political power.
You need to stop giving religion a pass. I know it’s hard, because you fervently wish that your religious beliefs were true, but it’s just embarrassingly bad apologetics that cause you to abuse history in this way.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Ah ,but I said “like”, douchebag.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Really? That’s Why Henry VIII continued to appeal to the Vatican until he exhausted his options and THEN decided to take control of his own country?
That’s why James I ran a Protestant nation and yet allowed Catholic worship in his own family?
That’s why the Brits had to introduce the Penal laws to stop ethnic English, Welsh and Scots from joining the cause of Irish Home Rule?
Religion was always used as an excuse, but really it was as much of a real issue as Joe McCarthy’s Communists.
Again, the lunatics and fanatics would like us to think that that is all there is to it.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Backtracking on your comments again?
Sorry man, you don’t get to trot out your Jewish heritage anytime an argument doesn’t go the way you want it to. It’s despicable, and an insult to the memory of the people you are exploiting.
TANK
Really? That’s Why Henry VIII continued to appeal to the Vatican until he exhausted his options and THEN decided to take control of his own country?
This talks beyond the point that religion did play heavily into the ethnic identity of the protestants and catholics in northern ireland.
That’s why James I ran a Protestant nation and yet allowed Catholic worship in his own family?
Talking right past the point again, I see. This is simply irrelevant.
That’s why the Brits had to introduce the Penal laws to stop ethnic English, Welsh and Scots from joining the cause of Irish Home Rule?
Very good. There are people who disagree with the partyline of the parties they belong to, as well. There are gay friendly christians, you know. But that doesn’t mean that religion doesn’t cause people to be antigay. Another fascinating attempt to defend your vacuous faith. I’m afraid beliefs do have consequences and cause behaviors. The belief that your home is on fire would cause a great deal of different behaviors in your right now from the behaviors you’re exhibiting. And religious beliefs do cause and have caused behaviors, and many of those behaviors are inexcusably horrendous. One of the problems that religious extremism has contributed to are the conflicts in the northern ireland. I suggest you read up on that.
Religion was always used as an excuse, but really it was as much of a real issue as Joe McCarthy’s Communists.
No, that’s not true. In fact, religion is never used as an excuse. It has always been the opposite is the united states–a radically christian nation–where religion is always the last to be blamed. It is, rather, the faithful who have contrived a built in meme in assessing history that has given religion a pass in causing human suffering until very recently. This is another manifestation of your faith, which you are trying really hard and yet failingly miserably to defend.
Again, the lunatics and fanatics would like us to think that that is all there is to it.
It’s not all there is to it, but religion does cause war–not just as an excuse, but as a direct cause–the benefits coming later.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
LOL! There’s no convincing turnips like you. You’re a religious zealot. I’m not trying to convince you…you’re well beyond that point.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
And you still have not addressed the fact that the English applied exactly the same imperialist policy in Scotland where religion was not part of the equation at all.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
First, that’s not entirely true that religion was never a part of the issue. Second, just because religion wasn’t a part of the issue in america’s involvement in world war II entails that it’s not a part of the issue in the state sponsored genocide of homosexuals in Iran? Do you see yet where your reasoning breaks down?
TANK
Do you think that religion didn’t play a key role in the exploitation of idigeneous peoples throughout the world in british colonialism? Do you deny this?
TANK
@TANK:
You’d think that you couldn’t keep a straight face if you’d deny this and yet endorse that religion played a central role in the british abolitionist movement (which I deny–yes, of course religious people were involved in it, but not for religious reasons). Only the good, never the bad for you and your fundamentalist ilk.
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Hate to burst your bubble but that describes me very accurately.
Yes. In your delusional world, I have no doubt that you would believe that of yourself.
schlukitz
@duttybarb:
You gays need to be grateful we dont take care of your disgusting lifestyle choices in the good old U.S.A like in Iraq…be grateful
I think that we have good reason to take that as a threat. Your comment has been flagged and [email protected] has received an email copy of your threatening comment.
schlukitz
To the Editor:
The following is a copy and post of an extremely homophobic post that not only clearly violates your TOS, but also makes a thinly veiled threat to the LGBT community in the very last sentence, a copy and paste of which follows.
“You gays need to be grateful we dont take care of your disgusting lifestyle choices in the good old U.S.A like in Iraq…be grateful”
I believe in free speech and the right of all Americans to express their opinions. I do not, however, believe that anyone has the right to threaten others for any reason, especially when those threats are based upon religious beliefs which the offending poster has made abundantly clear on this site over the past few months since she began her ongoing, bigoted, hateful and homophobic diatribe against the L:GBT community.
Here is the copy and paste of the full post.
No. 127 · duttybarb
Go Maine…
U can rant, whine, moan and tantrum all you want the numbers speak for themselves.
Pple do not support gay marriage. It is as simple as that.
Why should my taxes pay for benefits of a perverted class of people when there are many homeless kids who need help out there?
You gays need to be grateful we dont take care of your disgusting lifestyle choices in the good old U.S.A like in Iraq…be grateful
Posted: Aug 1, 2009 at 12:18 pm · @Reply · [Comment already flagged. Email [email protected] for help.]
Sincerely,
schlukitz
InExile
@schlukitz: This same poster was making jokes about people dying from AIDS, I did not find it funny at all. Many of my friends are gone, dead, and I do not appreciate people like this making fun of their deaths.
QUEERTY, PLEASE BAN THIS HATEFUL POSTER (Duttybarb) FROM POSTING HERE ANYMORE.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Well I see that you’re resorting to bait-and-switch like you usually do when you don’t have an argument.
As with most Imperialist endeavours, the Brits were a bit more interested in things like tea, sugar, spices, oil (whale and coal), furs and strategic territory than they were in the beliefs of the people who lived in the territories they conquered. And in Ireland, Scotland and Wales that Imperialism translated into securing land for the gentry, and controlling territory where they thought there might be insurrection.
The fact is that in my country the Brits were happy to let the Roman Catholics continue to do the mind control work for them – at least in Quebec. Once they had political control they weren’t too particular what religion people followed.
edgyguy1426
and then they like to start with the pedophile, beastiality, and polygamy argument. I hate these slippery slopers because they always fail to prove that one will lead to another. Yeesh.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
But I do have an argument. I’ve never denied that there were other factors at play in imperialism (e.g., economic), but the mechanism by which idigeneous people were dehumanized and acted upon as non-persons is religious based. And that was christian, and a lot of those atrocities committed against those idigeneous people were carried out in the name of christianity. They were explicitly religious values.
For you to deny that religion didn’t foment hostilities and was a part of the ethnic identity of the relevant parties involved in northern ireland is laughably absurd. There’s a wealth of actual data that supports that it was.
TANK
Are you going to say that religion doesn’t play a role in the palestinian/israeli conflict, or the conflicts between iraq and the kurds and iranians, too? That suicice bombing, for example, isn’t based on the religious beliefs of those who do it and encourage it? How about the ethnic cleansing that occurred in bosnia, or those that occur in Africa to this day? How about the strife between pakistan and india? Not religion? I think you’re a joke. ANd harmful, because that’s exactly what it is. Religion in these cases licenses atrocity and human rights violations.
youcanthandlethetruth
I see some of the resident homosexuals are expressing their tolerance on here.
Should we flag posts that include hateful slurs like “breeder”, “christer” or “homophobe”?
Or do homosexuals still have a monopoly on being offended?
TikiHead
@youcanthandlethetruth: We admit it. We have zero tolerance for you, you piece of intolerant bigoted Christian shit. You win. We’re the intolerant ones. You have the high ground (in your fevered fecal brain matter). Please fuck off and leave. You win!
Oh, and by the way? YAWWWWN.
TikiHead
@duttybarb: Goodness, you are a piece of shit.
TikiHead
@DuttyKunt and Youcan’thandletikihead’scock: I am going to open a standing offer to ass-fuck either or both of you with my chainsaw.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TikiHead: Flagged for making threats.
Don’t you know this is supposed to be a safe haven?
TikiHead
@youcanthandlethetruth: LOL! Dipshit.
TikiHead
@youcanthandlethetruth: I must congratulate you, and humble myself most abjectly.
You went out of your way to condemn Duttybarb’s comments #127 wishing Iraqi-type justice on — what’s that? You didn’t? — never mind.
TikiHead
@youcanthandlethetruth: Oh! Almost forgot — YAWWWN!
duttybarb
@schlukitz
Oh im sorry is my truth a problem now??? Really??? I m just saying what many Americans are thinking, man. Many people i know believe our US tax dollars should be put to better use than to cater to the perverts in society. I mean, why should my money and others who think like me be forced to deal with this? I have better projects to spend it on.
As for thanking God we dont deal with your problem…yes you should thank God every day. We pray for God to free you from this disgusting lifestyle you are determined to stay in. We do not round you up in your gay bars and arrest you for buggery anymore and we certainly do not execute you for it like all Islamic states…so i say have a party. Hell, we are even letting you deceive us that you deserve the right to marry.
What i thank God for is that Obama administration debunked that stupid idea that your fight was similar to Interracial rights to marry and the Black civil rights movement because that argument is no longer seen anymore.
Dont hate me, hate the fact that everything moral stands against you.
TADPOLICUS WEX
@duttybarb: Bitch, isn’t there a perfectly good abortion clinic you could be praying outside of right now instead of harassing us queers…
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Really? That’s why the British government let their religious enemies – Puritans – colonize New England, and didn’t interfere with catholicism in french-speaking regions of north America?
And that’s why the Brits never started a religious war in India?
When their missionary efforts fell flat they didn’t start a war over it. They focused on what mattered to them – goods, money and territory. Even the religious dimension of the sepoy rebellion – rumours of animal fat in bullet cartridges – came about because of their stupidity.
If you think the Irish conflict is about religion I suggest you crack a history book rather than just listening to propaganda.
@TANK:
And that’s very nice, but we were discussing British Imperialism.
strumpetwindsock
@TADPOLICUS WEX:
No… don’t send her over there. Those clinics have enough trouble as it is.
Forrest
For as much as Duttybarb and YCT hate us they sure love spending time on a gay site. None of us are going to be magically become straight. So just move on to Free Republic.
The fight over gay marriage aside, it’s undeniable that we have won the war over acceptance of homosexuality in the broader culture. Off the record even the most phobic pols admit this. We are never going to be closeted again.
TANK
Really? That’s why the British government let their religious enemies – Puritans – colonize New England, and didn’t interfere with catholicism in french-speaking regions of north America?
They certainly didn’t did harass them in England. This is a nonsequitur, though. A total scattershot claim. Do you deny that religion played a central role in dehumanizing indigenous peoples during british imperlialism? Yes or no.
And that’s why the Brits never started a religious war in India?
When their missionary efforts fell flat they didn’t start a war over it. They focused on what mattered to them – goods, money and territory. Even the religious dimension of the sepoy rebellion – rumours of animal fat in bullet cartridges – came about because of their stupidity.
DO you deny the above? Do you deny that one of the central reasons why indigenous people in india were treated less than human, had christian justification from christians?
If you think the Irish conflict is about religion I suggest you crack a history book rather than just listening to propaganda.
This is just bare religious apologism. DO you deny that reigion played a large role in the ethnic identities of parties to the conflict in northern ireland, and that for the most part, you could identify said parties by religious affiliation? That religion was used initially to justify, and later to foment hostilities? Do you deny this? No one’s saying religion was the only cause of violence in NI, but it was a big one. IF so, I will bury you wil sources.
Next you’ll be saying that the 700 in nigeria murdered by a muslim sect weren’t killed because of religion, either. Go fuck yourself with a broken bottle, you christer crazy.
TANK
Because there’s facts, and then there’s your religious faith, strumpet. The second you deny that religion didn’t play a big role in justifying british imperialism IS the second you lose.
schlukitz
@duttybarb:
Oh im sorry is my truth a problem now??? Really???
Whose truth? Your bible? Jesus, Your imaginary friend in the sky?
Sorry. That’s not truth. That’s just plain old bullshit! Fail.
I m just saying what many Americans are thinking, man.
Many Americans (like you) were thinking that slavery was ok. Y’all failed on that one too. In fact, before the onset of women’s suffrage, loud-mouthed homophobes and bald-faced liars like you wouldn’t even have been allowed to vote YesonProp8, eh?
You can thank your lucky stars that “traditions” do change or you would still be just chattel.
Many people i know believe our US tax dollars should be put to better use than to cater to the perverts in society.
I can relate to that. Why should my US tax dollars support the fat asses of religious, anti-homosexual bigots like you?
I mean, why should my money and others who think like me be forced to deal with this? I have better projects to spend it on.
Well, a good suggestion might be to help starving and homeless children, instead of throwing it at things like YesonProp8 and now the upcoming campaign of hatred in Maine? You do have choices, dear.
We pray for God to free you from this disgusting lifestyle you are determined to stay in.
Yeah. Sure you do. And you also have a bridge in Brookly that you’ll sell us real chap too! Phony baloney. How can you have any time to pray, when you spend it all on these threads?
We do not round you up in your gay bars and arrest you for buggery anymore and we certainly do not execute you for it like all Islamic states
No thanks to any efforts to crazed, religious zealots like you. We pulled ourselves up by our own bootstraps with zero help from the religious right, thank you very much! You and others like you are probably still gnashing your teeth that you cannot legally do things like that to us anymore. Times change, like it or not. Get used to it.
Hell, we are even letting you deceive us that you deserve the right to marry.
Letting??? Given the advances the LGBT community has made since Stonewall, I’d say you are fighting a loosing battle. Trying to save face, are we?
What i thank God for is that Obama administration debunked that stupid idea that your fight was similar to Interracial rights to marry and the Black civil rights movement because that argument is no longer seen anymore.
I must have missed that one. Could you copy and paste it for me, please? I’m a doubting Thomas who likes proof rather than just empty claims bases on nothing but the word of liars like you.
Dont hate me, hate the fact that everything moral stands against you.
Oh, but I DO hate you…and everyone of your ilk, in addition to hating your unfounded notions about morality. That makes you doubly hated.
I believe that I have good justification to hare you…and I refuse to be a hypocrite like you by saying that I don’t.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
I’m not a Christian TANK, nor do I follow any religion. I just recognize that not all of them are our enemies, and that many gay people are also Christians.
And yes, I do think you are wrong in believing religion was the main motivation in Imperialism. It was all about the money and the power. Even the biggest craziest zealots of the lot – the Spanish – were in it for the gold.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
I didn’t say it was the main motivation for imperialism. Instead, it was used to dehumanize the indigenous peoples, and was used to justify violence toward them. And further, millions of people across the globe have died in the past fifteen years because of religion–and many wars and still waged because of religious faith. This is undeniable.
While not all muslims are my enemy, any one of them who believes honor killings, execution of gays, arranged marriages, and spousal abuse is okay explicitly because of their religion (and there are very many of them. Middle east isn’t really a good place to exist if you’re a woman) is not only my enemy, but humanity’s.
Unfortunately, religious moderates don’t help matters. They are useless. THey don’t convince radicals, and they sustain the meme that it’s okay to believe in groundless fairytales, and help the radicals by appealing to the same texts.
TANK
and for someone who isn’t a christian, you use a lot of bad christian apologetics to defend them. I don’t think you’re being honest… You defend christianity, for example, passionately against the fact that it is directly implicated in horrendous human rights violations.
TANK
That kind of passion, and the poverty of ideas that you bring to the table in defense of christianity (literally, no better than rick warren or the rest of the idiots) indicates to me that you’re a christian. WHether you admit it or not is irrelevant.
SM
@TANK:
You sure do piant the religious world using a broad brush with your haterade.
Oh lookie…..
http://www.iucc.org/index.htm
TANK
@SM:
And you sure are ignorant about religion.
One of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the 21st century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns–about ethics, spiritual experience and the inevitability of human suffering–in ways that are not flagrantly irrational. Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith. Incompatible religious doctrines have balkanized our world into separate moral communities–Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.–and these divisions have become a continuous source of human conflict. Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it was at any time in the past. The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews versus Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians versus Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians versus Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants versus Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims versus Hindus), Sudan (Muslims versus Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims versus Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims versus Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists versus Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims versus Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite versus Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians versus Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis versus Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. In these places religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last 10 years.
TANK
ANd further, you haven’t a single good reason to believe any of it…Religion is irrational and unsupportable on epistemic grounds.
TANK
ohhh lookie!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090802/ap_on_re_af/af_nigeria_violence
youcanthandlethetruth
@strumpetwindsock: You’ll never convince an intolerant, closed-minded christiophobic bigot like Tank.
Should I report him for making hateful, offensive comments about Christians and other people of faith?
Oh but wait he’s a homosexual so it’s ok he’s allowed to do that!
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Strumpet should apologize to you for me (because he’s a masochistic religionist), because I’d not so much as piss on you if you were on fire.
You’re a bigot. A terrible bigot. Close minded? How am I closed minded?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
lol… be open minded!
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: How are you closed minded?? Here’s just a few examples from your recent comments:
“Religion is irrational and unsupportable on epistemic grounds.”
“You defend christianity, for example, passionately against the fact that it is directly implicated in horrendous human rights violations.”
“Because there’s facts, and then there’s your religious faith”
“The second you deny that religion didn’t play a big role in justifying british imperialism IS the second you lose.”
It’s not the fact that you hold those opinions, it’s that you won’t even entertain the possibility of a counter-opinion
TANK
Religion is, in fact, irrational…religious belief is the definition of irrationality (not according belief to the evidence; basing belief on a lack of evidence). It is not supportable on epistemic grounds. That’s a fact…LOL!
CHristianity has and IS implicated in horrendous human rights violations. Another fact. Facts make one close minded?
Yes, facts aren’t religious faith…
Religion did play a big role in british imperialism. LOL!
So reciting facts makes me closed minded? Sometimes you’re kind of funny, serial public masturbator.
duttybarb
@Tank..
Wow, the only reason u are so against religion is becos ur lifestyle is attacked in it.
Understandable..i guess.
But kindly shut up about something u can never understand…its like hearing a pedophile rant about why he likes doing kids and is hurt because religion..hell anything moral thinks it is immoral.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: You may think they are facts but the reality is they are merely your opinions.
But your closed-mindedness prevents you from considering other opinions.
Like when you say :
“The second you deny that religion didn’t play a big role in justifying british imperialism IS the second you lose.”
That and your ad hominem attacks make you appear highly insecure and vulnerable.
Forrest
Born Jewish here but I am a spiritual agnostic. The existence or not of God can’t be proven either way. The natural world speaks to me.
Just wanted to say that those who are opposed to us need to acknowledge that they don’t speak for all Christians.
And since we are a minority most pedophiles and those who committ other crimes are heterosexual. But that does not mean ALL straight people are pedophiles. Would be nice if the opposition on here could give us the same respect.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
SO facts are what people say they are (according to you), and irrationality isn’t basing belief on an absence of evidence–that there isn’t sufficient evidence to support a claim, for you means that they claim should be believed and that that’s rational…
I don’t think you know what the word rationality means. LOL!
And apparently facts make peope seem highly insecure and vulernable.
Once again, religious faith and dogma of any kind are irrational because it amounts to beliefs held in the absence of evidence. Evidence isn’t subjective, either. There’s a reason why an educated european christian in the fifteenth century would be an ignoramus compared to even an eight year old today in all matters scientific factual EXCEPT for his knowledge of god…that hasn’t changed.
TANK
@TANK:
And by “knowledge of god,” I clearly mean knowledge of the fairytales that are spun by christians. In fact, it’s logically impossible that the christian god exists.
TANK
@Forrest:
If the natural world literally speaks to you, forrest, then it’s not religion you have…it’s schizophrenia.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: Basing belief on a lack of evidence is not necessarily irrational.
You might believe in an intangible concept, like democracy or love or capitalism, without any rational basis to support that belief. In fact some of the most strongly held beliefs are based on a lack of evidence. And very few things are black and white.
That’s why there’s a difference between empirical and a priori truths.
According to the Bible “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”. But that doesn’t mean it’s irrational.
Again this might be further evidence of your reluctance to take a step of faith, born out of your insecurity.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: it’s logically impossible that the christian god exists.
_______________________________
Again the closed-mindedness!
I think what you mean is that it’s impossible for human logic to understand God.
duttybarb
Oh and Tank..
You are RANTING TOO MUCH…GIVE IT A REST
Forrest
@TANK:
Being a bit too literal there, Tank. Enjoying nature and believing it has equal standing and something to teach us does not seem crazy to me.
I freely admit to being somewhat of a hippie homosexual. Two groups that are used to being derided, but we have fun anyway.
( And I am not spelling Forrest wrong, it’s my middle name 🙂
TANK
Basing belief on a lack of evidence is not necessarily irrational.
Oh? LOL! A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. I think instead, that is what to be rational means…and there’s really no one but you disagreeing with that. From Aristotle to Hume, and Hume to Darwin and Darwin to Einstein…it’s not really up for discussion.
You might believe in an intangible concept, like democracy or love or capitalism, without any rational basis to support that belief.
And that would be irrational. It would be thinking capitalism is the best economic arrangement without any evidence to suggest it. Well, there is evidence that distinguishes between economic schools, and also different political arrangements. Lots of it. To believe in love is to believe that things like gravity exist. Love is a physical phenomenon that can be measured and studied…LOL! It’s not intangible. Neither’s democracy or capitalism. But if one were to think that capitalism was the best economic arrangement or that democracy was the best political arrangement without any evidence for believing in either, that would be irrational. LUckily, there is evidence, and ways of testing hypotheses about them.
In fact some of the most strongly held beliefs are based on a lack of evidence. And very few things are black and white.
Yes, many strongly held beliefs are irrational. All religious beliefs and all dogmatic beliefs (beliefs held in spite of evidence) are irrational.
That’s why there’s a difference between empirical and a priori truths.
No, there’s a difference between empirical and a priori truths NOT because many strongly held beliefs are based on a lack of evidence, but because some truths (mathematical and tautological) are arrived at independently of experience. None of these are religious claims, however, because religious claims explicitly make claims about the world we live in (they make hypotheses about the way things are)–and they’re unfalsifiable…and have no evidence to support them, or the possibility of evidence to support them. Any substantive truth about SOMETHING, however, is one where you need to actually investigate the world in which you inhabit to find a truth value. This has been philosophy 101. I don’t think it’s reached someone who is as willfully ignorant as you are, though.
And it’s not relectance to take a leap of faith because of insecurity. It’s rationality. People need to base their beliefs on evidence to believe them…to justify believing that these things are the case. That isn’t the case with religion, which has no evidence to support the claims it makes, and no possibility for evidence for those claims. They are vacuous, and epistemically unjustifiable.
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
No, it’s not closed minded. It’s called the logical problem of evil. It’s an argument that establishes that the abrahamic 3-O (that oh, not zero) world creator is logically impossible.
TANK
@Forrest:
Yes. A hippie homosexual. Isn’t that a bit redundant? Just kidding, I’m gay and yet I hate hippies. They smell bad and smoke pot.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: I assume TANK is short for
CON-TANK-EROUS
TANK
@youcanthandlethetruth:
That’s a thoughtful response, isn’t it? That really does address every single refutation of your idiotic opinions about believing in love being on a par with belief in zeus.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: I’ll respond to your thoughtful comment when I have more time.
schlukitz
@TANK:
Bravo to your post no. 232.
Let YCHTT in his pipe and smoke it! ;o)
youcanthandlethetruth said:
@TANK: I’ll respond to your thoughtful comment when I have more time.
Loosely translated, that means YCHTT has to consult with the oracle of the English language, The Oxford Dictionary, to glean the meaning of “priori”, “tautological”, “unfalsifiable”, “relectance” and “epistemically”.
It appears that you’ve blown him out of the water. LOL
TANK
@schlukitz:
Yeah, that’s really not a good thing, though. Not a compliment, anyway. He’s a complete moron. It’s like slapping a retarded child for using the ‘n’ word–well, it’s not that bad.
schlukitz
@TANK:
I agree. It blew me out of the water when he said…
Basing belief on a lack of evidence is not necessarily irrational.
Only a totally irrational person, lacking evidence of their claims, could make such a statement. Obviously, their goal is transform as many people as they can to complete morons like themselves. I guess misery truly does love company.
What drives people like that to make such total assholes of themselves I wonder?
They will keep right on arguing, lying if necessary, even when they have run out of sane, logical and rational arguments.
Haggard, like DutyBarb and YCHTT condemned homosexuality as passionately as they do. He even pointed a finger at Dawkins nd acccused him of being arrogant, just before he was exposed with meth up his nose and a dick up his ass.
I wonder what self-righteous, DuttyBarb’s and YCHTT’s still unexposed sins are? Probably wouldn’t matter anyway.
Their god would simply forgive them for it and they would pick up the hatred and bigotry right where they left off because in spite of their sin, they would still believe that they are superior beings to us homos.
It’s very clear to me that religion is nothing more than a license to practice evil and do harm with impunity.
schlukitz
@Forrest:
And since we are a minority most pedophiles and those who committ other crimes are heterosexual. But that does not mean ALL straight people are pedophiles. Would be nice if the opposition on here could give us the same respect.
It’s a lovely thought and bless you for expressing it, but it ain’t gonna happen anytime soon, unfortunately.
The “opposition” knows what they know!
Their “God” told them so!
schlukitz
@duttybarb:
You do spend an awful lot of time thinking and talking about pedophilia, don’t you?
Very interesting.
You know, Reverend Haggard used to spend a lot of time thinking and talking about homosexuality from his pulpit.
And we all know how that turned out,don’t we?
TANK
@schlukitz:
They’ll never stop. That’s a part of the sickness. Even when they’ve been completely refuted, they’ll just repeat themselves–going into a fugue state of mumbling incoherent gibberish.
TANK
@TANK:
Mental illness is the only explanation for places like the creation museum, which depicts humans living with dinosaurs…and the flat earthers, and those who get extremely offended when you say that the moon reflects sunlight (“but in the bible, the earth is in the center!!!! And it’s flat, goddamnit!”) Real sick people…
youcanthandlethetruth
Let’s see, and I like flowers and puppy dogs and Pepsi and Cheney.
Washington
So glad we’re actually talking about the issue at hand.
Way to hijack the thread. Some of us actually want to know what is happening SPECIFICALLY in Maine.
TANK
@Washington:
LOL! Why would anyone want to know what’s happening on in Maine? A first for everything.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: So many exaggerations and insubstantiable statements it’s hard to know where to begin.
Start with this one:
“Love is a physical phenomenon that can be measured and studied…LOL! It’s not intangible. ”
So how do you measure and study love? How do you rationalise if somebody loves you, and how much?
It’s based on having a trust and belief and faith in something called love.
You and your ilk are very quick to try and dismiss not just Christianity but all religion as “irrational” yet you have no explanation to put in its place. You can’t explain about Creation, about nature or the Universe, but you never consider your own lack of explanation as “irrational”.
As the Bible says “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Certainly the Bible leaves many questions open, but that’s where the faith part comes in.
So many homosexuals are bound to try and dismiss religion, because to accept it means they have to accept their behaviour as wrong and immoral.
Then again homosexual behaviour itself cannot be rationalised. It serves no purpose and it runs counter to the purpose of human sexuality.
TANK
So how do you measure and study love? How do you rationalise if somebody loves you, and how much?
Well, neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists can and would do that.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/report.cfm?id=love-science
I know science probably angers you, but it’s the best way we have for figuring out why things are the way they are, and what things exist.
It’s based on having a trust and belief and faith in something called love.
No, not really. It’s an emotion–doesn’t depend on trust. Trust can be associated with the emotion, and other emotions, too. But emotions are physical phenomena which occur in your wee little brain. I don’t trust happiness, do you? LOL! It doesn’t even make sense to say. “I trust ‘anger’.” LMAO! You are one dumb dude. But you’re funny.
You and your ilk are very quick to try and dismiss not just Christianity but all religion as “irrational” yet you have no explanation to put in its place.
Well, not really. If you look at the track record, religion explains less and less and less of the world around us as science replaces it with facts… The explanations of religion will only get smaller as science progresses. No more world center of the solar system…We have evolution to explain the many forms most beautiful which populate the planet, yet originated from a common ancestor. Evolution probably really annoys you and your overall wearing kinfolk…but it’s the case.
You can’t explain about Creation, about nature or the Universe, but you never consider your own lack of explanation as “irrational”.
Here we go! LOL! It’s time for antievolution flat earther screed from you. I think you’ve lost credibility at this point. It’s simple, your explanations (religion’s explanations) are not based upon evidence. Beliefs that have no good reason to recommend them for belief aren’t rational. When someone believes something in the absence of ANY POSSIBLE reason to believe it, they are irrational.
As the Bible says
The bible says a lot of things, but none of them are going to help you understand the way the world is. It has no more purchase on reality than any book of fiction including the works of charles dickens. I think dickens wrote better, though.
So many homosexuals are bound to try and dismiss religion, because to accept it means they have to accept their behaviour as wrong and immoral.
Well, anyone who talks about right and wrong needs to have an understanding of the way the world is. The bible contains none of that. There needs to be some kind of factual foundation to practical ethics, and there just isn’t for religion (there isn’t a single fact it deals in)–therefore, it can’t determine right from wrong…as there’s no good reason to believe in any of it…it’s unfalsifiable (it has evolved over the centuries to evade empirical investigation)…I mean, it’s skirting on being meaningless at this point. Once science explains a few more things including why people like you are irrational…and comes up with a few solutions for it, you’ll be an unfortuante blip on the map in human history.
Then again homosexual behaviour itself cannot be rationalised. It serves no purpose and it runs counter to the purpose of human sexuality.
There is no purpose to human sexuality. Masturbation runs counter to human sexuality by your pseudo scientific vacuous “NORMATIVE” standard. Go away, you flat earther creationist…don’t you have a jug of alkyhaul to blow into?
TANK
ANd the beauty of science is that it never pretends to have an explanation for everything. This isn’t so with religion, which treats not having an explanation, however poor, as a cardinal sin to be abolished at any cost (especially credibility). But the absence of a complete scientific explanation doesn’t thereby legitimate a religious one–it just means that the scientific explanation has yet to be estalished (that it’s an open question), or that there is no consensus amongst who actually do the work in inevistigating the truth empirically. Merely slapping together some ad hoc and unfalsifiable mystical explanation invoking skydaddy or some other piece of mythology doesn’t change the fact that it’s still an open question, for that has no bearing on the truth.
What makes science a rational enterprise is the fact that everything it explains is falsifiable (is capable of being proven false). There’s nothing safe from that possibility. There is nothing in relgion which is capable of being proven false because there isn’t even the possibility of providing evidence for or against the existence of god or gods, or the truth of any religious claim; and it is thereby irrational.
schlukitz
@youcanthandlethetruth:
As the Bible says “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Certainly the Bible leaves many questions open, but that’s where the faith part comes in.
It’s all you’ve got, baby…blind faith. Not a thing more.
Faith didn’t get us to the moon.
Science did! Fact.
Oh, and BTW, how can things not seen, be evidence? Can I have some of that stuff you’re smoking?
ev?i?dence
??/??v?d?ns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc?ing.
Use evidence in a Sentence
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
SM
@schlukitz:
You reallllllllly need a good shrink to help you out with your anger issues. You are everything you claim to be against.
Bitter, hate filled fool.
Washington
@TANK
That’s condescending. We’re a community. If you think the small battles for marriage equality aren’t of concern, then why are you even arguing in this thread?
Some of us want to make the entire country a better place for queer people and not just big cities in New York and California, where, last I checked, aren’t very far in this battle anyway.
TikiHead
@youcanthandlethetruth: So are you preaching on Jewish forums with the same passion as you do here? The reason I ask is, they are, as you believe us to be, on the road to Hell.
John 14:6 ‘Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.’
They are in need o your compassionate and loving ministry, just as much as we are!
We’re not asking you to spread yourself too thin, just to spread it some.
schlukitz
@SM:
Can’t you come up with something more original than the same tired old comments? You are becoming as boring as your admirer, YCHTT.
1EqualityUSA
Regarding #92’s youcanthandlethetruth who said, “Even though He defined marriage as one man one woman in Matt 19
Thanks for the laughs.” This section of Matthew refers to divorce, not whether or not gays are banished from love by Jesus. For your reference, please see below. Please stop using the Bible to serve your innate hatred towards brothers and sisters unlike you. (?)
1. Marriage (Matthew 19:3-1 2) Matthew has already discussed divorce in 5:31-32; cf: notes on that passage. He draws this section from Mark 10:2-12, which consists of two parts; (a) Mark 10:2-9, a little ” ;paradigm” or “pronouncement story,” which culminates in the saying, “Therefore what God has yoked together, let not man separate”; and (b) Mark 10:11-12, a sayings group from a separate source, which resembles the Q logion in Luke 16:18. Mark links the two together with vs. 10. Matthew, wishing to construct a smoother story, transposes the substance of Mark 10:3-5 to follow Mark 10:9, and makes other changes to accord with his own point of view.
3. Matthew writes for Christians who probably know that the rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai debate the legal grounds for divorce (cf. on 5:31); hence he adds the phrase( for any cause )
4-6. Almost the same argument is given in the “Fragments of a Zadokite Work” 7:1-3 “The builders of the wall (the Pharisees?) are caught by fornication in taking two wives during their lifetime.But the fundamental principle of the creation is “Male a nd Female created He them.’ And they who went into the Ark, “Two and two went into the Ark.'” (R. H. Charles, Ap ocrypha and Pseudpigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clar endon Press, 1913), II, 810.) Like the principle in Luke 16: 18, this teaching, if taken by itself, would seem to rule ou t divorce entirely. In any case, Jesus goes beyond the Pharisees in emphasizing the permanence of marriage. God’s purpose is a stable family life, and divorce is no part of that purpose.
Here the Savior answered that because there were infidelities in some marriages. As Freedom4All so eloquently posted, “Nowhere in Scripture (translated properly) states that a homosexual is a sinner based on their sexual orientation. There are practices the Scripture condemns: temple prostitution, using sex for religious worship, and rape. These “lifestyles” are condemned to all people.
Christ welcomed all to him, and rejected no one. If the person changes, it is they who change NOT the congregation towards them. Christ’s commandment is TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER, not, “love them only if they conform to your understanding of my message. ”
When you can show your love for your neighbor without any strings, that is when you will know that Christ is in you and you in him.” (Thanks Freedom4All, Texas)
It is not right to take a statement such as, “let no man put asunder” and apply it to fit your own needs, in this case, your need to judge, slander, and create rancor.
1EqualityUSA
“You can thank your lucky stars that “traditions” do change or you would still be just chattel.”
Schlukitz, I love you. Your words are hilarious. “Chattel”. Priceless!
1EqualityUSA
Dear Tank, This was a good one…”They’ll never stop. That’s a part of the sickness. Even when they’ve been completely refuted, they’ll just repeat themselves–going into a fugue state of mumbling incoherent gibberish.”
schlukitz
@1EqualityUSA:
Thanks for the kind words. I fear that Tank is no longer posting on these threads. ;(
1EqualityUSA
because you’ve been so fun, I’m giving you a gift! Just pretend that the flies you are swatting are NOM-skulls, ok?
http://www.majman.net/fly_loader.html
schlukitz
@1EqualityUSA:
Cute! 🙂
1EqualityUSA
The best “time” (on the fly clock) that I ever made was after reading how Maggie Gallagher likes reading gay web sites. I slammed those flies! Don’t you like how the little fly wings twitch after they’ve been annihilated? Hint, Mags would be hovering near the French fries. Sugar is too uncomplicated; simple, I might add. Don’t forget that the real Lord of the Flies is Robert P. George of Princeton. You won’t see him, but he’s there, buzzing. I’m going to the mountains next week, where computers are slow and DSL, non-existent, so fill in and bash a few NOM-skulls for me, ok? Their latest ploy has been to come off sounding like non-Christian, really progressive, incestuous polygamists that “wonder” why their “love” can’t be “honored” too, (when gays are legally recognized.) They say things like, “No really, I’m for gay marriage, I just want to know why….” Dale Carpenter has a good article about that slippery slope maneuver. Bidstrup and Jon W. Davidson from lambda legal have good replies, that is, if NOM-skulls try to back you into their slippery slope lair. “The sun will shine into our yard too.” I found a post from January that kicks ass, as I’m no expert in the slippery slope stuff:From Box-Turtle—
Tim
January 29th, 2009 | LINK
I think it is important to look to what society defines marriage as, in contrast to what individuals or institutions consider as marriage for themselves. Society does not require married couples to procreate, nor does it require couples to have the capacity to procreate. Soceity appears to qualify marriage as the affirmation of a relationship of two persons, nothing more, nothing less. Should individuals or institions wish to apply a different definition or different requirements to marriage, they are free to do so for themselves. The fact of the matter is that society does not require anything more.
In regards to the polygamy/incest/animal arguments, they are fairly simple to distinguish:
1) Polygamy: without discussing the moral or social implications of permitting polygamy, this extension would create a whole new set of rights which no one in society currently enjoys, homosexual and heterosexual alike. The extension of marriage to homosexuals is based upon granting an existing right to a group in society who has been excluded on the basis of an immutable charactersitic – the right exists, but it is being denied to certain persons. Regardless of whether polygamy is right or wrong, that issue is completely separate from the same-sex marriage issue.
2) Incest: this has been prohibited in many societies for various reasons, one of the more prominent of which is the preservation of familial relations and prevention of abuse. Due to the importance that family plays throughout one’s life, it is wise to prohibit the development of sexual relationships, which can often result in the abuse of power differentials and the breakdown of essential, life-long family relationships. As well, by preventing homosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex, you are preventing them from marrying anyone of the gender to which they are attracted. By prohibiting incest, you are merely removing a handful of people from the 3 billion persons of the gender to which you are attracted – hardly an equivalent restriction.
3) Animals: this argument angers me, because it is the most irrational and desperate of them all. Animals cannot give legal consent, end of argument. Marriage is a contract, in the eyes of the state, and thus animals are completely out of the question. With same-sex marriage, we are talking about consenting adults. There is absolutely no logical way to think that same-sex marriage somehow leads to human-animal marriages. This argument, in my opinion, automatically identifies the speaker as someone incapable of rational thought on the subject.
I currently live in a jurisdiction that permits same-sex marriages, and am extremely thankful for that right. If society wishes to take that right away, then I will respect that decision. So long as you also take away that right from barren women, impotent men and senior citizens, in addition to dissolving all childless marriages.
schlukitz
@1EqualityUSA:
Excellent post. Your points are well made and irrefutable.
Bravo!
1EqualityUSA
None of them are mine, I just culled the net looking for gems. I wish I could think like that. It’s a stunner when these slick, possibly trained, debaters start working the polygamy angle. The latest trick of the anti-gay factions is to muddy up the water with non-issues that scare the pie out of people. I have no knowledge of polygamy and all, but I’m learning.
Vo Dong Cung
To people around the world,
From now on, any time US Goverment talking about democracy and freedom of religion, please show them the democracy and religion raping the constitution in California and Maine. This is the time to shut US Goverment mouth off.