HOME | DD

Published: 2013-08-20 07:32:43 +0000 UTC; Views: 3284; Favourites: 179; Downloads: 4
Redirect to original
Description
You cannot use the bible as an excuse for being a homophobe if you're not actually a Christian. If you're not, why do you care what the bible says? Just admit it, you find them disgusting and are a sorry excuse for a human being.Template: `AssClownFish
Related content
Comments: 306
MonocerosArts In reply to ??? [2014-02-19 01:43:20 +0000 UTC]
Haha, you're hilarious! You get so mad about this!
I agree that banning gay marraige is unconstitutional. Oh my gosh were you expecting that?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i-stamp In reply to MonocerosArts [2014-02-19 01:56:33 +0000 UTC]
Going back on what they've said minutes previously is never something I don't expect in politics. But I'm relieved to know there's one less person who will be voting against gay marriage in the future.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MonocerosArts In reply to i-stamp [2014-02-19 02:01:44 +0000 UTC]
Actually, I never said that I believe we should ban gay marraige. Go ahead and read my posts. I'm actually very careful about what I say.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i-stamp In reply to MonocerosArts [2014-02-19 02:04:22 +0000 UTC]
But you did say that keeping Christians from banning it is unconstitutional. Are you now aware that's bullshit?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MonocerosArts In reply to i-stamp [2014-02-19 02:16:57 +0000 UTC]
If there's the option to vote, it's only constituional to allow people to vote. It's unconstitutional to prevent people from voting, whether or not what they're voting for is good in your opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i-stamp In reply to MonocerosArts [2014-02-19 02:26:35 +0000 UTC]
That's not what I'm contesting and you know it. The bill itself, DOMA, is unconstitutional and should never have gone to a general vote whether Christians want it to or not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MonocerosArts In reply to i-stamp [2014-02-19 02:55:13 +0000 UTC]
The Constitution never mentioned gay marriage. DOMA represented the nation’s opinion at the time, and that’s what the Constitution protects. It would have been unconstitutional to prevent it from going to the vote, especially looking at it in retrospect, seeing as it was voted in. Preventing it from being voted on would have been blocking people from their right to free speech/free opinions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
MonocerosArts In reply to ??? [2014-02-17 14:52:20 +0000 UTC]
If you're a homosexual who believes that acting upon homosexuality is wrong, then no one is hurt if he chooses to supress his desires. Forcing him to "come out" would be hurting him and possibly others around him, however.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i-stamp In reply to MonocerosArts [2014-02-17 15:42:20 +0000 UTC]
Except all the homosexuals who HAVE been hurt by it, despite that belief. See: gay conversion camps (which don't claim to actually change your sexuality, just repress it) which has caused so much psychological damage that even some of then have noticed and closed their doors.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MonocerosArts In reply to i-stamp [2014-02-17 22:16:09 +0000 UTC]
Agreed. Some people are homosexual and no amount of therapy will change that, especially not the typical bad "therapy" of conversion camps. However, you fail to realize that self-control is not harmful. If a person chooses to control themselves, straight or gay, that's their decision, not yours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i-stamp In reply to MonocerosArts [2014-02-17 23:29:59 +0000 UTC]
People in Scientology have chosen to 'self control' their taking of psychoactive drugs. Doesn't change that they were coerced with bad reasoning for doing so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MonocerosArts In reply to i-stamp [2014-02-18 17:45:32 +0000 UTC]
Scientology is not homosexuality, and it's their descision nonetheless, not yours. Many people will argue that encouraging homosexuality is very harmful to individuals, families, and society, and yet you encourage it. How is destroying all traditional ideas of marraige and family and shutting up those who object less harmful than allowing a Christian homosexual to make their own descisions about their sexuality? One affects everyone while the other affects only one person.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i-stamp In reply to MonocerosArts [2014-02-18 19:19:41 +0000 UTC]
It's a analogy, maybe you've heard of them. Scientology has directly lead to deaths of individuals based on its religious credo and should not be ignored.
Evidence on the harm of homosexuality does not reflect what they're arguing. Nor does it reflect that 'traditional' ideas of family are superior in any way, shape or form. None of us should take on their word something which is objectively not true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MonocerosArts In reply to i-stamp [2014-02-19 00:31:54 +0000 UTC]
I'm not sure who the "they" is in this argument.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i-stamp In reply to MonocerosArts [2014-02-19 00:40:40 +0000 UTC]
"They" are 'traditional family groups' like FRC, NARTH and other Christian-centric anti-homosexual groups. Which are in contrast to the findings by APA (all three, psychological, psychiatric and pediatric, as well as their UK and Canadian counterparts) and WHO.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MonocerosArts In reply to i-stamp [2014-02-19 01:12:17 +0000 UTC]
I don't know what FRC and NARTH are. Forcing anyone to undergo a change is going to be tramatic for them. If parents believe that homosexuality is wrong, instead of sending their kid off to a "conversion camp" which probably would do more harm than good, it would be better to keep the kid at home and safe from bullies or people who will try to convince him to do things that they don't approve of. When the kid has grown and is no longer theirs to protect, then his descisions are no longer theirs. Kids will do dumb things, however, so you can't just send a kid away and hope he'll change. His sexuality might have a physical reason, not a mental one, and a camp would not help that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i-stamp In reply to MonocerosArts [2014-02-19 01:28:13 +0000 UTC]
"I don't know what FRC and NARTH are."
"it would be better to keep the kid at home and safe from bullies or people who will try to convince him to do things that they don't approve of."
Yeah, because lack of socialization tends to make kids very well adjusted.
"When the kid has grown and is no longer theirs to protect, then his descisions are no longer theirs."
Within reason I agree with this. Within reason. But preventing exposure to the outside world for religious beliefs to me is silly, from EITHER side. It would be just as silly for me for an atheist parent to prohibit their kid from going out to keep them from being exposed to religious people who do things they don't like.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MonocerosArts In reply to i-stamp [2014-02-19 01:45:06 +0000 UTC]
Okay, it may seem silly to you, but that's the parents' descision again, not yours. You can't force them to send their kid to school. If you want homosexual children to be bullied, that's your problem, not mine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i-stamp In reply to MonocerosArts [2014-02-19 01:53:51 +0000 UTC]
See other post. Tired of repeating myself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Potato4Life2 In reply to ??? [2014-01-31 21:42:03 +0000 UTC]
i like gays, but not homosexuality :/ LOVE FOR EVRYONE! (O W O>) (< -_-)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Potato4Life2 In reply to Potato4Life2 [2014-01-31 21:43:53 +0000 UTC]
man this comment is childish -_-
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
TheAwkwardFangirl In reply to ??? [2014-01-28 00:10:41 +0000 UTC]
I am not a homophobe, but I am a Christian. I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I don't support gay hate either. It's not my place to persecute against people, even if I disagree with them. I also believe in being kind to everyone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
MonocerosArts In reply to TheAwkwardFangirl [2014-02-19 23:03:28 +0000 UTC]
Amen to that!
Try telling that to i-stamp. Almost as if they want Christians to hate homosexuals. Logic? I see none. lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TheAwkwardFangirl In reply to MonocerosArts [2014-02-19 23:45:49 +0000 UTC]
Of course. I would never attend a homosexual wedding, but I would never hurl rocks at then and condemn them to hell either. I maintain a neutral, polite attitude to people. (Until they wrong me. Then I ice them until they apologize)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
hitaa In reply to ??? [2014-01-26 04:30:29 +0000 UTC]
I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I also don't agree with women fucking random men all the time either. But that doesn't mean I don't treat them like any other human beings. No one should be treated differently because of their sexuality, only their personality should be something we judge.
Yes, I am a Christian. No, that is not why I don't agree with their lifestyle. The Bible says to love everyone, and homosexuality isn't one of the seven deadly sins. I'm quite disappointed with some of the ignorance in the comments.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
MonocerosArts In reply to hitaa [2014-02-19 23:06:22 +0000 UTC]
Exactly. Just because a person disagrees with a lifestyle does not mean that they hate the person. In fact, by trying to “convert” homosexuals, which gay-rights activists call hating, although it’s usually done badly, is a sign of love. If Christians truly wanted homosexuals to burn forever, wouldn’t it be easier to just let them continue what they’re doing?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hitaa In reply to MonocerosArts [2014-02-20 02:24:59 +0000 UTC]
EXACTLY THANK YOU! Someone with a brain on this site praise the lord.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Tae-Rai In reply to hitaa [2014-01-26 09:08:56 +0000 UTC]
It's nice to finally meet someone who isn't a bible-throwing jerk (seriously, that has happened!)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hitaa In reply to Tae-Rai [2014-01-26 14:09:53 +0000 UTC]
Oh trust me, I know how stupid other "Christians" can be. They're very good at making the rest of us seem like assholes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tae-Rai In reply to hitaa [2014-01-26 21:52:31 +0000 UTC]
*Coughwestbaptistchurch*
I watched a documented on them recently and I could not believe that these people actually existed. They were so horrible ._.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hitaa In reply to Tae-Rai [2014-01-26 21:54:31 +0000 UTC]
Oh God, they shouldn't even be considered Christians. They're merely a hate group.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hitaa In reply to Tae-Rai [2014-01-26 22:25:01 +0000 UTC]
I hope someone takes them down one day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
AquaKawwi In reply to ??? [2014-01-24 02:00:33 +0000 UTC]
I'm pretty sure God is supposed to be all loving anyway?
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
MonocerosArts In reply to AquaKawwi [2014-02-19 23:25:37 +0000 UTC]
God punishes sin, and to Christianity and Islam, homosexuality is a sin just like any other. Thus, as a righteous god, God must punish it. However, unlike Allah, God gives homosexuals the entire earthly life to come to Him. That’s the difference between the two religions, and it’s kind of hilarious that Christianity is bashed while Islam, which executes homosexuals, is supported by liberals.
However, while I haven’t seen anything like this in the Koran or other Muslim religious books, the Bible condemns the action, not the person. In Timothy, it says “those who practice homosexuality,” not “homosexuals.” It is consistent throughout the rest of the Bible. That’s because it’s not a sin to simply be a homosexual and feel those desires. Temptation is not a sin. Jesus was tempted. How a person responds to temptation might be a sin, however. Thus, it would be wrong for Christians to shun, bully, or do anything of the like to a homosexual. Are they commanded to help those in sin or temptation? Oh yes! But never does the New Testament command the execution of homosexuals by Man. Condemnation is God’s place, not Man’s. (The Old Testament has very different laws regarding homosexuality, but then Jesus came.)
Kind of a long answer to a simple question, but the question of homosexuality and Christianity isn’t as cut-and-dried as people think it is.
Cool Dax avatar, by the way!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
AquaKawwi In reply to MonocerosArts [2014-02-20 20:43:26 +0000 UTC]
Well it seems people seem to pick and choose which parts of the bible to apply.
Thanks for the compliment, by the way. The image is from TrekCore.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MonocerosArts In reply to AquaKawwi [2014-02-20 23:53:23 +0000 UTC]
They do, which is wrong. The Bible clearly states its stance on homosexuality, but people are afraid of hate, so they just reject that portion out of hand.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
hitaa In reply to AquaKawwi [2014-01-26 04:30:47 +0000 UTC]
He is. Humans are the shitty beings that judge when they have no right to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Tae-Rai In reply to AquaKawwi [2014-01-24 04:16:24 +0000 UTC]
'Supposed to be' is the key phrase
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
MLPFiMRox In reply to ??? [2014-01-11 12:05:30 +0000 UTC]
I'm not using religion as an excuse.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tae-Rai In reply to MLPFiMRox [2014-01-11 22:30:25 +0000 UTC]
Please elaborate? I have never met someone who didn't use religion as a excuse for homophobia and I'am curious to here why.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MonocerosArts In reply to Tae-Rai [2014-02-19 23:26:46 +0000 UTC]
Maybe he just disagrees with the lifestyle and doesn’t hate the person? But then, that wouldn’t be homophobia, so whatever.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Toxicpineapples In reply to ??? [2014-01-08 15:44:41 +0000 UTC]
The bible seems to be everyone's excuse for everything; Homosexuality, Pro Choicers, etc.
Its getting annoying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MonocerosArts In reply to Toxicpineapples [2014-02-23 20:24:30 +0000 UTC]
Anti-abortion beliefs come from the belief that a fetus is a person and therefore it would be murder to kill it. Yes, the Bible supports that belief, but the Bible isn’t the place that that belief comes from.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>