patrick.net

simchaland says

I am a flaming Liberal. I kind of like Jesus, the historical one and not the inflated idol that whacko right-wing Christian Fundamentalists have invented.

YOUR Jesus is a false jesus. Jesus was not pro-gay or pro-abortion. Jesus said that :But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

FaithInHim says

YOUR Jesus is a false jesus.

No, yours is.

FaithInHim says

Jesus was not pro-gay

If Jesus was a homophobe, which he probably was given the time in which he lived, then he was an asshole and no god. Why would you worship a bigot?

FaithInHim says

leoj707 says

FaithInHim says

YOUR Jesus is a false jesus.

No, yours is.

Sorry, mines is correct. Your's is wrong.

Who said that I had a jesus, but regardless yours is wrong...

...sorry.

who says a man is a bigot if he is not in favor of sexually deviant male sodomites?

FaithInHim says

Define the word racist.

Bigotry based on race.

FaithInHim says

Then tell me if it is possible to be racist towards gays.

Logically no. Such a person would simply be a bigot, but not of the racist variety as homosexuality is not a race.

Bigotry is bad. It makes people act mean towards others, hurt others, and infringe upon the rights of others.

From your username and icon, I presume you are a devote Christian. You do remember that Jesus said "love your neighbor as yourself" and "that which you do unto the least of my people, you do unto me", right? How do you rectify hatred of homosexuals with that philosophy? It seems to me that you are holding two contradictory beliefs at one time.

Bap33 says

who says a man is a bigot if he is not in favor of sexually deviant male sodomites?

I'm not in favor of man on man ass sex. But I think that homosexual men are equal under the law, and that they are not an abomination. To treat them as second class citizens is Unamerican. To treat them as subhuman is Unchristian.

Really, do you have to be reminded by the atheist of the tenants of your own faith? How about the golden rule? Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

How can anyone rectify the golden rule with holding up a sign at a funeral saying "your fag son now burns in hell"?

FaithInHim says

Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

The effeminate? That's harsh. Poor Lyle.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xl9otu_saturday-night-live-lyle-the-effeminate-heterosexual_fun

Bap33 says

who says a man is a bigot if he is not in favor of sexually deviant male sodomites?

still waiting for this answer. Dan said he is not in favor of sexually deviant male sodomites, but I do not feel Dan is a bigot.

Bap33 says

Dan said he is not in favor of sexually deviant male sodomites, but I do not feel Dan is a bigot.

"Not in favor" (i.e. neutral) is different than treating someone like a second class citizen. Trying to create a different set of "rights" and using pejorative terms to describe someone is not remaining "neutral" towards them.

thanks for sharing your personal opinions.
The question stands unanswered.

Bap33 says

thanks for sharing your personal opinions.

You are welcome.

Bap33 says

The question stands unanswered.

To use Dan's definition.
Dan8267 says

[Bigotry] makes people act mean towards others, hurt others, and infringe upon the rights of others.

"Not in favor" can be neutral or against. Based on his comments Dan is neutral towards the idea of non-heterosexuals. He does not disparage or seek to create a different set of rights for them. So you are correct Dan is not a bigot.

However, another person could be "not in favor" of non-heterosexuals and at the same time, "act mean towards [non-heterosexuals], hurt [them], and infringe upon [their] rights." This second hypothetical person would be a bigot.

That make sense? I hope it helps clear things up for you.

Bap33 says

Dan said he is not in favor of sexually deviant male sodomites,

Just to clarify, Bap. Although I do not engage in anal sex with other men and find the idea repulsive, that does not mean I think that men who do are morally or legally inferior. Consenting men have every right to have anal sex. It's none of yours, mine, or the government's business.

I find old people having sex to be repulsive. That doesn't mean it is immoral or should be illegal. And there are more old people have sex in Florida -- shudder -- than there are gay people having sex here.

Just because you or I find something icky, doesn't make it despicable. I wouldn't even use the term deviation as that term implies derogation.

Now, I have yet to hear one sensible reason whatsoever from anyone in all of history as to why homosexual anal sex should in any way be immoral.

Some things make sense to call immoral: rape, murder, physically harming a person or animal in any way. Other things don't make sense to call immoral and are arbitrary cultural rules like: not eating meat on Friday, not eating pork, do not wear mixed fabrics.

So tell me why homosexuality should be considered immoral. And don't bother using Bible quotes. The Bible is OK with slavery; it's not a moral authority.

leoj707 says

Based on his comments Dan is neutral towards the idea of non-heterosexuals.

Actually I wish a higher percentage of men were gay. Less competition.

It's all about supply and demand. If only I had access to the army's gay bomb, I'd have detonated it in college. Then I would have gotten a lot more action. ...from women that is.

leoj707 says

He does not disparage or seek to create a different set of rights for them.

Correct. I believe in equality under law. No exceptions.

I don't get how anyone can call themselves American and not believe in that idea. It's the very foundation of our country. Granted, the founding fathers certainly fucked up in implementing that principle with the 80 years of slavery after the revolution, but the principle is still the very reason we sought independence in the first place.

Bap33 says

thanks for sharing your personal opinions.
The question stands unanswered.

I think you're not understanding our answer. A person who thinks that homosexuals should be prosecuted for sodomy is a bigot because he is treating homosexuals as subhuman and it's an arbitrary prejudice.

From Merriam-Webster

bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Anti-gay laws are wrong for the same reason that race-based or class-based laws are wrong. They unjustly turn one group of people into second-class citizens or worse.

A hundred years from now, people are going to look back at the anti-gay laws in the same way we look back at the Jim Crow laws. You don't want to be on the side of bigotry when all the Internet chats and TV videos from our time are accessible on a single holochip. You'd be viewed by the 22nd century people the same way that slave owners are viewed by us today.

Dan8267 says

Correct. I believe in equality under law. No exceptions.

agree 100%. Lets start there.

Hate Crime. There should be no such thing. right?

Bap33 says

Hate Crime. There should be no such thing. right?

In my opinion, no. But let me explain why hate crime legislation exists.

The justification for hate crime legislation is that a person who commits a hate crime is not only attacking the victim, but is also attacking everyone in the area of the same race, orientation, etc. As such, hate crime is a form of terrorism as it terrorizes an entire community, not just the victim.

For example, when the KKK burns a cross on a black man's yard, they aren't just attacking that one man, but all blacks in the area.

Personally, I think the intent of hate crime legislation is already dealt with through conspiracy laws. As such I think it's not necessary. I also agree that a person's reasons for committing first degree murder don't matter other than to prove that it was first degree (premeditated) rather than second degree (a crime of passion).

However, if your goal is to prevent future murders, it may be useful to understand what motivates people to commit murder in order to address the problem.

I agree, no need for an extra lable.

Hate Crime = AWW - Angry While White.

For everyone else it's called Assault and Battery.