Is being against gay marriage homophobic?

[Torie]

As far as civil marriage is concerned, being against gay marriage is being homophobic. As far as religious marriage is concerned, not necessarily. As I read the Bible, it defines marriage primarily in terms of procreation, not mutual association.

The odd thing about this, is so much of the sound and fury remaining on this issue is about capturing the word "marriage." Fuzzy seems OK with civil unions (I think), even if the civil unions entail exactly the same basket of rights and duties as marriage. Supporters of SSM understandably believe that denying them the term marriage, is a form of societal degradation and consigning gays/Lesbians to second class status. For team Fuzzy, the term marriage is owned by God, and one must use it as God dictates, and for those who don't think the term is owned by God (to the extent that God's opinion is even relevant), and/or that God does not have hostility to the use of the word for same sex couples, it confers a legitimacy and status that is an essential element of ending indefensible discrimination when it comes to homosexuals.

Who knew that just one little word would carry so much emotional freight on both sides?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Absolutely not.

I honestly don't care about the legal status of same-sex marriage.  What bothers me is that it's been elevated to the level of the black civil rights movement.  As a history buff who spends much of my free time reading (and someone with a history degree) I can't fathom why anyone would make that comparison.  The treatment of African-Americans was even worse than what you hear about in history class.  This is also before taking into account the fact that the black civil rights movement (as well as its forerunner, the abolitionist movement) was highly religious.  I don't think any group of people in North America, with the possible exception of Native Americans, was as unjustly treated as African-Americans.  I'm not denying that bigotry against homosexuals exists, or that those who commit violence against LGBT people shouldn't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  I've called people out for hating homosexuals on right-wing forums.

Of course, comparing one's movement to the 1960s black civil rights struggle is good politics.  But what it means is that your opponents have to be the equivalent of the KKK.  This was actually a documented strategy:

http://zoompad.blogspot.com/2011/01/?m=1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One problem with comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage is that it leaves no defense against polygamy, which is something that absolutely needs to remain illegal.  Obergefell v. Hodges was essentially an emotional decision.  It declared that the definition of marriage as one man and one woman was bigoted against people who are attracted to the same sex.  By the exact same logic the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act is discriminatory against men who are attracted to more than one woman.  Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down because they perpetuated white supremacy.  White people passed laws against interracial marriage because they hated black people and wanted to keep them away from white society.  Do men hate men?  Do women hate women?  Think about it, the comparison doesn't make sense.  If gay marriage had been legalized by the states on personal liberty rather than civil rights grounds, we wouldn't be having any of these issues.

As for the discussion of religion, Fuzzy Bear explained it well with this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering that this is a forum that is mostly about Democrats and Republicans, this is important.  The Republicans and Democrats have been around since 1854 and 1828 respectively.  And over the years the parties have changed positions on countless issues.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to pick and choose which parts of the party platforms you agree with, they are the results of fallible humans.  In contrast the Bible has stayed the same for nearly two thousand years.  It is divinely inspired.  This is something that Christians universally agreed upon until the modern era when it became unfashionable to continue doing so.

A plain reading of scripture suggests that homosexual relationships are wrong and that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.  People might argue over the meaning of the Greek, but the fact is that the early Christians (who understood Koine Greek better than we can) condemned same-sex relationships.  Some have argued that they were bringing their own cultural biases to the text, but this is complete nonsense.  Greco-Roman culture celebrated gay love and the early Christians rebelled against the dominant culture.  When Christians came to power they would ban same-sex marriages.  SSM was only able to make a comeback when the power of Christianity over society was weakened.  The Greek and Roman converts would have found Biblical support for continuing their lifestyle, if there was any support to be found.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The God that spoke all of Creation into existence ordained marriage, and He ordained it as being a union of a man and a woman.

As a Christian, I say this with all the respect you have never given me: "Citation needed, please." I am completely serious. Unless your Bible has an extra, hidden chapter, the only dictate on marriage I am aware of is that deacons should be the husband of only one wife.

There is no Biblical basis to believe that a "wife" can mean anything but a woman and a "husband" can mean anything but a man

https://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/man-and-woman-or-husband-and-wife-1-timothy-28-15

The Greek word for "wife" in this passage clearly refers to a female, although there is a certain amount of debate as to whether or not it means a "woman" or a "wife".

God ordained marriage in Genesis 2:22-24

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Hebrew word for "wife" clearly imply a female.

I really wonder what you mean when you say you're a "Christian".  I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way, but that word means something specific.  Lots of people call themselves Christians because they attend Church, think Jesus's teachings were really cool, or out of habit and culture, but being a Christian is not like being a Democrat or a Republican.

Being a Christian (Biblically Speaking) means believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord.  It means that you believe that he is who He says He is.  It means faith in his deity, in his being the second person of the Godhead, who became human, lived a sinless life, and died as a sacrifice for OUR sins, then rose from the dead after winning victory over death, hell, and the grave; that he currently sits at the right hand of God the Father, and that He shall return as promised to rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  That's the belief that Scripture says is required in order to receive remission of sin and eternal life.  

And it also means believing the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.  For the purpose of this discussion, I would point out that there is no passage of Scripture that refers to a married couple as anything BUT a male and a female.  Not one.  If you can find one, have at it.  

One's belief on Obamacare, the 2nd Amendment, military spending, Donald Trump's latest tweet, the Alt Right and Antifa, either way, likely don't have any Eternal Significance as to where you or I will spend Eternity.  Your belief in Jesus Christ, in who He explicitly says he is, in His Exclusivity as the only means by which one can be Saved, in the belief that His Sacrifice is all that is needed for the forgiveness of sin, and that he is, indeed, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and that He is fully Man and Fully God; THAT is what has ETERNAL significance.  Eternity is a long time.  I know lifelong HPs who had deathbed conversions that were (I believe) legitimate; they're with Him Eternally.  I know FFs who rejected Christ's Lordship to the end.  Scripture tells me that absent something that may have transpired in the last tick of their life, they're apart from God, Eternally.  Whatever you may think of me or any of my political writings, THIS IS THE ONLY DEAL GOD OFFERS.  There's nothing else.  I could care less who you vote for, but I don't want you, or the worst HPs on this site for that matter, to be in Hell.  I stand on His Word that He is, indeed, The Way, and The Only Way.

I've seen you do this multiple times now.  Someone else disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, and so you just call them a "fake Christian" followed by an enormous amount of you citing yourself (your interpretation) as proof.

When I look for comfort from God, I turn to God.  It seems you turn to words on paper written by men.  A poor substitute.  Don't make the Bible your idol.

Then just what is the Bible?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God[/u] (emphasis added), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.]2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God (emphasis added), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Is it a comic book?  Fairy Tales?  An extension of Aesop's Fables?  Or is it the inspired Word of God?

I'm trying not to be judgmental, but I have found that those who treat the Bible as less than authoritative are folks that are following their own morality.  Letting your conscience be your guide would be great if people's consciences weren't so easily seared.

My own morality and my conscience don’t fail me.  Were I to act 100% within the bounds of my own conscience, I would never sin.  But my actions do not line up perfectly because of greed, lust, pride, envy, jealousy, hatred, anger, apathy etc etc etc.  Perhaps you must read your conscience from an instruction manual.  That’s fine.  But I can guarantee that were you to follow the Bible as your true authority, you would be a wicked and conflicted man hurting others at every turn with the self righteousness of words on paper.  

[Torie]

Now we have a post above (I decline to quote it) that it is worse to discriminate against blacks than gays implying that that somehow mitigates the evil of discriminating against gays, and then the slippery slope argument, that somehow due to whatever, the public square cannot appreciate the policy differences between SSM and polygamy, so legalized polygamy is right around the corner. At least the post above did not go all the way down the slope, i.e., that SSM will lead to the legalization of a human marrying a dog.

God damn it folks, we of the LGBTQ community are human beings too, with real human feelings and emotions. We are not space aliens. Why or why cannot some appreciate that?

[Ban my account ffs!]

There is a seething hatred coming out of Celticempire.  Short of the 'drag the f****t behind the pick-up truck' types, he's the most dangerous of homophobes.

He engages in sophistry... the veiling of something simple, visceral, and this case, evil and wrong, in terms of obfuscation, arrogance, and appeals to authority.

The road to hell is paved with the faith of people like you, Celticempire.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Who knew that just one little word would carry so much emotional freight on both sides?

Marriage in general has a lot of emotional freight. For most people, entering into a marriage will be one of the most portentous decisions they'll make in their lives, if not the most portentous one, period.  That said, the battle to have civil marriage be identical to religious marriage was lost long before SSM became an issue, so I see no reason to limit its civil use to only opposite-sex unions.

[cvparty]

Absolutely not.

I honestly don't care about the legal status of same-sex marriage.  What bothers me is that it's been elevated to the level of the black civil rights movement.  As a history buff who spends much of my free time reading (and someone with a history degree) I can't fathom why anyone would make that comparison.  The treatment of African-Americans was even worse than what you hear about in history class.  This is also before taking into account the fact that the black civil rights movement (as well as its forerunner, the abolitionist movement) was highly religious.  I don't think any group of people in North America, with the possible exception of Native Americans, was as unjustly treated as African-Americans.  I'm not denying that bigotry against homosexuals exists, or that those who commit violence against LGBT people shouldn't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  I've called people out for hating homosexuals on right-wing forums.

Of course, comparing one's movement to the 1960s black civil rights struggle is good politics.  But what it means is that your opponents have to be the equivalent of the KKK.  This was actually a documented strategy:

http://zoompad.blogspot.com/2011/01/?m=1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One problem with comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage is that it leaves no defense against polygamy, which is something that absolutely needs to remain illegal.  Obergefell v. Hodges was essentially an emotional decision.  It declared that the definition of marriage as one man and one woman was bigoted against people who are attracted to the same sex.  By the exact same logic the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act is discriminatory against men who are attracted to more than one woman.  Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down because they perpetuated white supremacy.  White people passed laws against interracial marriage because they hated black people and wanted to keep them away from white society.  Do men hate men?  Do women hate women?  Think about it, the comparison doesn't make sense.  If gay marriage had been legalized by the states on personal liberty rather than civil rights grounds, we wouldn't be having any of these issues.

As for the discussion of religion, Fuzzy Bear explained it well with this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering that this is a forum that is mostly about Democrats and Republicans, this is important.  The Republicans and Democrats have been around since 1854 and 1828 respectively.  And over the years the parties have changed positions on countless issues.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to pick and choose which parts of the party platforms you agree with, they are the results of fallible humans.  In contrast the Bible has stayed the same for nearly two thousand years.  It is divinely inspired.  This is something that Christians universally agreed upon until the modern era when it became unfashionable to continue doing so.

A plain reading of scripture suggests that homosexual relationships are wrong and that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.  People might argue over the meaning of the Greek, but the fact is that the early Christians (who understood Koine Greek better than we can) condemned same-sex relationships.  Some have argued that they were bringing their own cultural biases to the text, but this is complete nonsense.  Greco-Roman culture celebrated gay love and the early Christians rebelled against the dominant culture.  When Christians came to power they would ban same-sex marriages.  SSM was only able to make a comeback when the power of Christianity over society was weakened.  The Greek and Roman converts would have found Biblical support for continuing their lifestyle, if there was any support to be found.

WHAT IS THIS OMG
anyway...polygamy isn't immoral per se but go off

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

The God that spoke all of Creation into existence ordained marriage, and He ordained it as being a union of a man and a woman.

As a Christian, I say this with all the respect you have never given me: "Citation needed, please." I am completely serious. Unless your Bible has an extra, hidden chapter, the only dictate on marriage I am aware of is that deacons should be the husband of only one wife.

There is no Biblical basis to believe that a "wife" can mean anything but a woman and a "husband" can mean anything but a man

https://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/man-and-woman-or-husband-and-wife-1-timothy-28-15

The Greek word for "wife" in this passage clearly refers to a female, although there is a certain amount of debate as to whether or not it means a "woman" or a "wife".

God ordained marriage in Genesis 2:22-24

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Hebrew word for "wife" clearly imply a female.

I really wonder what you mean when you say you're a "Christian".  I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way, but that word means something specific.  Lots of people call themselves Christians because they attend Church, think Jesus's teachings were really cool, or out of habit and culture, but being a Christian is not like being a Democrat or a Republican.

Being a Christian (Biblically Speaking) means believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord.  It means that you believe that he is who He says He is.  It means faith in his deity, in his being the second person of the Godhead, who became human, lived a sinless life, and died as a sacrifice for OUR sins, then rose from the dead after winning victory over death, hell, and the grave; that he currently sits at the right hand of God the Father, and that He shall return as promised to rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  That's the belief that Scripture says is required in order to receive remission of sin and eternal life.  

And it also means believing the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.  For the purpose of this discussion, I would point out that there is no passage of Scripture that refers to a married couple as anything BUT a male and a female.  Not one.  If you can find one, have at it.  

One's belief on Obamacare, the 2nd Amendment, military spending, Donald Trump's latest tweet, the Alt Right and Antifa, either way, likely don't have any Eternal Significance as to where you or I will spend Eternity.  Your belief in Jesus Christ, in who He explicitly says he is, in His Exclusivity as the only means by which one can be Saved, in the belief that His Sacrifice is all that is needed for the forgiveness of sin, and that he is, indeed, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and that He is fully Man and Fully God; THAT is what has ETERNAL significance.  Eternity is a long time.  I know lifelong HPs who had deathbed conversions that were (I believe) legitimate; they're with Him Eternally.  I know FFs who rejected Christ's Lordship to the end.  Scripture tells me that absent something that may have transpired in the last tick of their life, they're apart from God, Eternally.  Whatever you may think of me or any of my political writings, THIS IS THE ONLY DEAL GOD OFFERS.  There's nothing else.  I could care less who you vote for, but I don't want you, or the worst HPs on this site for that matter, to be in Hell.  I stand on His Word that He is, indeed, The Way, and The Only Way.

I've seen you do this multiple times now.  Someone else disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, and so you just call them a "fake Christian" followed by an enormous amount of you citing yourself (your interpretation) as proof.

When I look for comfort from God, I turn to God.  It seems you turn to words on paper written by men.  A poor substitute.  Don't make the Bible your idol.

Then just what is the Bible?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God[/u] (emphasis added), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.]2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God (emphasis added), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Is it a comic book?  Fairy Tales?  An extension of Aesop's Fables?  Or is it the inspired Word of God?

I'm trying not to be judgmental, but I have found that those who treat the Bible as less than authoritative are folks that are following their own morality.  Letting your conscience be your guide would be great if people's consciences weren't so easily seared.

My own morality and my conscience don’t fail me.  Were I to act 100% within the bounds of my own conscience, I would never sin.  But my actions do not line up perfectly because of greed, lust, pride, envy, jealousy, hatred, anger, apathy etc etc etc.  Perhaps you must read your conscience from an instruction manual.  That’s fine.  But I can guarantee that were you to follow the Bible as your true authority, you would be a wicked and conflicted man hurting others at every turn with the self righteousness of words on paper.  

I'm really not writing this for you, because you (and probably Koharu as well) had your own agendas.  That doesn't make anyone an HP, but let's be real; the both of you, and PM2 (Doesn't he sound more athletic in the RG3 sense of things when I describe him that way?) and the Badger amongst Buckeyes all want me to admit that I'm a cross between Elmer Gantry and the Westboro Baptist folks and repent and join the Church Of Humanistic Christianity where I'm OK, Your OK, and all FFs are going to Heaven.  How God actually came up with the criteria for being an FF for this purpose is kind of foggy, but I'm sure that the Run PM2 team (I'm so 1980s, I couldn't resist!) will explain the plan of psuedo-salvation in detail in Monday School Class.  (That's so avant garde, and the Muslims have taken Friday, the Jews and Sabbatarian demoninations have taken Saturday, while the bulk of Western Christianity claims Sunday, so they've got a day for themselves, lol.)

I've laid out the plan of Salvation; it is what it is.  It's included in this thread, and it really is that simple.  But I assert, unequivocallly, that there is no other way to Heaven, but that path outlined in Scripture.  If you don't accept it, that's on you, the reader.

Why are their Books of the Law in Scripture when no one can live up to them?  Because the Law's purpose is to tell man what Sin is.  It cannot save man from Sin, but it can tell man what Sin is.  It is the Gospel that empowers Man to live a Godly (not perfect, but Godly) life through the Spirit of God.  And the books of the Law say what they say about a number of topics, including sexuality.  To say Scripture condones homosexual activity, or says that marriage is something other than a union between a man and a woman is false, and has been proven false beyond a reasonable doubt (a high standard).  Those who say otherwise have to grasp at straws or rely on somebody else's idiosyncratic interpretation of Scripture that, likely, would not stand up to cursory inspection.  

I would suggest that the problem with mankind is that they don't read their Bibles enough, and don't pray enough in terms of asking God what His verses mean.

If more people had done that, the Civil Rights Revolution would have been less bloody.  If more people had done that, abortion clinics would not have been bombed.  If more people had done that, the Holocaust would not have gone on as long as it did, and quite possibly wouldn't have happened at all.  I can go on and on and list events where people had some cultural religiosity and their own consciences, but were not reading the Word, were not praying and searching its meaning, and, in failing to do so, allowed their consciences to be seared by the public opinion of the day.  

Of myself, I am nothing, and without the Power of the Holy Spirit, I would fail far more than I do.  I know that in my own life, my conscience hasn't been enough to keep me doing the right thing on more than one occasion.  If people want to "Let Their Conscience Be Their Guide", I suppose they can run with that.  Personally, I've seen enough to not place my faith in the consciences of men.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Absolutely not.

I honestly don't care about the legal status of same-sex marriage.  What bothers me is that it's been elevated to the level of the black civil rights movement.  As a history buff who spends much of my free time reading (and someone with a history degree) I can't fathom why anyone would make that comparison.  The treatment of African-Americans was even worse than what you hear about in history class.  This is also before taking into account the fact that the black civil rights movement (as well as its forerunner, the abolitionist movement) was highly religious.  I don't think any group of people in North America, with the possible exception of Native Americans, was as unjustly treated as African-Americans.  I'm not denying that bigotry against homosexuals exists, or that those who commit violence against LGBT people shouldn't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  I've called people out for hating homosexuals on right-wing forums.

Of course, comparing one's movement to the 1960s black civil rights struggle is good politics.  But what it means is that your opponents have to be the equivalent of the KKK.  This was actually a documented strategy:

http://zoompad.blogspot.com/2011/01/?m=1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One problem with comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage is that it leaves no defense against polygamy, which is something that absolutely needs to remain illegal.  Obergefell v. Hodges was essentially an emotional decision.  It declared that the definition of marriage as one man and one woman was bigoted against people who are attracted to the same sex.  By the exact same logic the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act is discriminatory against men who are attracted to more than one woman.  Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down because they perpetuated white supremacy.  White people passed laws against interracial marriage because they hated black people and wanted to keep them away from white society.  Do men hate men?  Do women hate women?  Think about it, the comparison doesn't make sense.  If gay marriage had been legalized by the states on personal liberty rather than civil rights grounds, we wouldn't be having any of these issues.

As for the discussion of religion, Fuzzy Bear explained it well with this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering that this is a forum that is mostly about Democrats and Republicans, this is important.  The Republicans and Democrats have been around since 1854 and 1828 respectively.  And over the years the parties have changed positions on countless issues.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to pick and choose which parts of the party platforms you agree with, they are the results of fallible humans.  In contrast the Bible has stayed the same for nearly two thousand years.  It is divinely inspired.  This is something that Christians universally agreed upon until the modern era when it became unfashionable to continue doing so.

A plain reading of scripture suggests that homosexual relationships are wrong and that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.  People might argue over the meaning of the Greek, but the fact is that the early Christians (who understood Koine Greek better than we can) condemned same-sex relationships.  Some have argued that they were bringing their own cultural biases to the text, but this is complete nonsense.  Greco-Roman culture celebrated gay love and the early Christians rebelled against the dominant culture.  When Christians came to power they would ban same-sex marriages.  SSM was only able to make a comeback when the power of Christianity over society was weakened.  The Greek and Roman converts would have found Biblical support for continuing their lifestyle, if there was any support to be found.

Truly an FF post.

It's AWESOME when Game Recognizes Game.  And calls it out, to boot!

If this is what the "Progressive Movement" signs off on, I may never vote for a Democrat again.  After reading things like this, I understand why Evangelical Christians who aren't rolling in money don't see the 1% getting richer as the biggest problem they have to face.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Now we have a post above (I decline to quote it) that it is worse to discriminate against blacks than gays implying that that somehow mitigates the evil of discriminating against gays, and then the slippery slope argument, that somehow due to whatever, the public square cannot appreciate the policy differences between SSM and polygamy, so legalized polygamy is right around the corner. At least the post above did not go all the way down the slope, i.e., that SSM will lead to the legalization of a human marrying a dog.

God damn it folks, we of the LGBTQ community are human beings too, with real human feelings and emotions. We are not space aliens. Why or why cannot some appreciate that?

I appreciate your humanity.  Truly, I do.

But what is really happening is activists on this issue attempting to use whatever force they can, including organized attempts to render us pariahs, if we don't repudiate Scripture.  That's what it comes down to for me; asking me to deny the Lordship of God.  That's what it comes down to for millions of decent Americans, including the Christian brother I sat next to this morning whose adult lesbian daughter is going blind. 

The politics of this situation can play out as they will.  I will tell you that the quote of the organized strategy to discredit Christians who won't deny Scripture on this issue is something that shook me.  I wonder how many Democrats I have thought of voting for this fall actually sign off on this, and I'm certain many of the supporters of all of them do.  So now, I can vote for someone who wishes to slander my whole family and persecute them for remaining true to Scripture, or vote for someone who wants more wealth to go to the upper 1%.  When faced with an organized attack by this unrelenting movement aimed at me and my family (because I"m not saying "uncle" on the issue), the 1% seem to be a nicer bunch of folks.

On a personal level, I have said that I recognize SSM as a fait acompli as a natter of law.  Why, after reading about the "campaign" that activists will launch against folks like myself, should I think that anything, short of capitulation, is enough for these folks?  These folks don't want tolerance; they want vengeance, and they wish to take int out on Evangelical Christians. 

Torie, you're a reasonable man, and a grownup (rare on Atlas, but appreciated), so tell me why I should not come to the conclusion I have come to as to the intent of my organized opponents on this issue?  I'm serious; this isn't a "gotcha" game.  I'm too old to play games, but it seems that I'm living in a "Geme On!" world.

[DC Al Fine]

Now we have a post above (I decline to quote it) that it is worse to discriminate against blacks than gays implying that that somehow mitigates the evil of discriminating against gays, and then the slippery slope argument, that somehow due to whatever, the public square cannot appreciate the policy differences between SSM and polygamy, so legalized polygamy is right around the corner. At least the post above did not go all the way down the slope, i.e., that SSM will lead to the legalization of a human marrying a dog.

Given how the pro-gay marriage side has typically presented their case, this smacks of a double standard. "Love is love" seems to apply just as equally to a man and two women as it does to two men. If "love is love" is accepted as a premise, then surely we can make some adjustments to family law to accommodate it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Celticempire cited a homophobic blog that conflates homosexuality with pedophilia and uses the same tactic that anti-semites use to demonize Jews (cite a printed article that outlines a nefarious agenda by the Jews/gays to corrupt the coomon decent people of this nation)

Then goes on about how gays should just shut the f**k up cuz blacks had it worse and how dare we want equal rights... and that’s the post that got you all fired up, fuzzybear?  The best part is Im pretty sure he reported my response, too.  Pathetic little snowflake.

You are both toxic and you contribute directly to the suffering of others and yet you claim not only is it okay, but absolutely necessary as your ETERNAL SALVATION hangs in the balance.  Disgraceful.

[Ban my account ffs!]

This thread just attracts homophobes like flies to sh**t!

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Celticempire cited a homophobic blog that conflates homosexuality with pedophilia and uses the same tactic that anti-semites use to demonize Jews (cite a printed article that outlines a nefarious agenda by the Jews/gays to corrupt the coomon decent people of this nation)

Then goes on about how gays should just shut the f**k up cuz blacks had it worse and how dare we want equal rights... and that’s the post that got you all fired up, fuzzybear?  The best part is Im pretty sure he reported my response, too.  Pathetic little snowflake.

You are both toxic and you contribute directly to the suffering of others and yet you claim not only is it okay, but absolutely necessary as your ETERNAL SALVATION hangs in the balance.  Disgraceful.

You said "Disgraceful" in that special way that makes me think of ProudModerate2.   8]

Oh, and no, I didn't report your response.  Perhaps your conscience works better than I gave it credit for.  

No one likes to be "outed".  Mitt Romney didn't like being "outed" about his real feelings about those less fortunate than himself, but the 47% video came along.  Inconvenient for Romney, but it gave a window into his soul.  Hillary Clinton and her Clintonistas didn't like being "outed" when Wikileaks brought to light the plans of John Podesta and Jen Palmieri to actually get liberals to infiltrate the Catholic Church in America, but America got to hear this prior to voting.  And the LGBTQ movement doesn't want it's activists' strategies revealed, but it happened.  

I won't go on that blogspot; who knows what viruses my computer would incur.  I have no idea what it's about.  But I'll ask here and now:  Is what was quoted from that blogspot the PR/propaganda plan of the LGBTQ movement going forward?  That's a "yes" or a "no".  From this end, silence will be interpreted as a "yes" answer.

More importantly, I'll ask here and now:  Are you OK with that strategy quoted below?  Or do you repudiate the strategy of organized plans to actively vility those who will not be down with your cause?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a question:  Are you down with this or not?

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

This thread just attracts homophobes like flies to sh**t!

I didn't see this at the beginning, but I do now. The real question on this thread is whether or not the posters here are OK with organized trashing of those who disagree with aspects of the LGBTQ agenda; trashing their reputations, their good names, intimidating them into silence.  That's what this thread is about.

I'm not a crusader on this cause.  Not at all.  But I know when someone or some persons wish to intimidate me into silence.  I'll call that every time for what it is.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The only thing being exposed here is the homophobia of several posters and their true colors.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

The only thing being exposed here is the homophobia of several posters and their true colors.

I'll take that as a "yes", you do approve of the strategy.

[ProudModerate2]

This thread just attracts homophobes like flies to sh**t!

And FuzzyBear's limbs have the most sh*t on them (by the number of posts in this thread).
The man has an enormous amount of hate in his heart, and yet he calls himself a Christian.
He spews so much "disguised" bigotry against others who are different than him.
Disgusting!

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

This thread just attracts homophobes like flies to sh**t!

And FuzzyBear's limbs have the most sh*t on them (by the number of posts in this thread).
The man has an enormous amount of hate in his heart, and yet he calls himself a Christian.
He spews so much "disguised" bigotry against others who are different than him.
Disgusting!

You just have that special way in which you post "Disgusting!", PM2.

1969 Democratic Nominee for NYC Mayor Mario Procaccino said of a rival that ended up on his ticket:  "He kinda grows on you like a cancer!'    What made this suddenly come to mind?

[ProudModerate2]

This thread just attracts homophobes like flies to sh**t!

And FuzzyBear's limbs have the most sh*t on them (by the number of posts in this thread).
The man has an enormous amount of hate in his heart, and yet he calls himself a Christian.
He spews so much "disguised" bigotry against others who are different than him.
Disgusting!

You just have that special way in which you post "Disgusting!", PM2.
1969 Democratic Nominee for NYC Mayor Mario Procaccino said of a rival that ended up on his ticket:  "He kinda grows on you like a cancer!'    What made this suddenly come to mind?

Keep posting Fuzzy.
Every post just proves more and more (for other Atlas members to see and understand) how much hate you have in your heart.
Sad really.

[Wells]

I don't know why I clicked this thread. I usually try to avoid homophobic content, considering I decided that it wasn't good for my mental state a while back. But this thread is something else. Posts like the ones that blue avatars have made in this thread always manage to strike me in a unique way. Making yourself sound nuanced and writing a bunch of paragraphs does not make you any less homophobic.

Growing up in a religious family (and still believing in God currently myself), I've been to a variety of churches in my life. In two of them I remember discussions about homosexuality. The first one was one of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" types. The sermon about homosexuality came at a time when I was old enough to have an inkling that maybe I was one of those people (or at that point more of a sinking feeling). I sat through all of it, but I zoned out because even that was troubling. Being exposed to certain mindsets can be very harmful. They are things that "grow on you like a cancer" (that is a good quote FB, but I think it's more apt here). Accepting yourself is difficult if outside influences keep telling you an unchangeable part of yourself is unnatural or an "affront to God" (I liked that statement by FB a lot less). Though, as I've said before, all this is a walk in the park compared to what friends of mine have experienced.

I really wish no LGBT youth was subjected to another hateful sermon at any point in the future, or that their parents don't repeat those talking points, whether they sound like the one I heard or worse. People who should be trusted have no business leading them to believing that they are morally bankrupt for something completely outside of their control. I can't do sh**t to stop it though, no matter how much I wish I could. I just hope that if Fuzzy and people like him have any children, then they're straight. I'd worry about them if it was any other way.

Then there's this idea of a gay agenda that exists, that we're trying to do something that scares homophobes (I didn't read the blog post celticempire linked, but it sounds like something along those lines). This is false. It's scaremongering to try to justify hate. "Look what THEY'RE trying to do and tell us we're the ones in the wrong!" Well, they aren't and you are wrong.

I'll admit that we wish everyone believed that homosexual attraction is equal to heterosexual attraction. Until that happens, there will still be countless LGBT youth who have mental health issues, cut off from their families, without any support because God wants it to be that way apparently. Please, stop acting sanctimonious that someone dared to compare one fight for equal rights to another historical fight for equal rights. Or that some gay people may harbor resentment towards people who are obviously deeply uncomfortable that they exist, no matter how they try to disguise it. It would be really helpful if some people accepted that they have certain beliefs which are just hateful and harmful and either changed it or shut up about it.

[Wells]

Also an fyi, if every single gay person in a thread is telling you that you're wrong, then maybe you should rethink things.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Not inherently, no.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I don't know why I clicked this thread. I usually try to avoid homophobic content, considering I decided that it wasn't good for my mental state a while back. But this thread is something else. Posts like the ones that blue avatars have made in this thread always manage to strike me in a unique way. Making yourself sound nuanced and writing a bunch of paragraphs does not make you any less homophobic.

Growing up in a religious family (and still believing in God currently myself), I've been to a variety of churches in my life. In two of them I remember discussions about homosexuality. The first one was one of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" types. The sermon about homosexuality came at a time when I was old enough to have an inkling that maybe I was one of those people (or at that point more of a sinking feeling). I sat through all of it, but I zoned out because even that was troubling. Being exposed to certain mindsets can be very harmful. They are things that "grow on you like a cancer" (that is a good quote FB, but I think it's more apt here). Accepting yourself is difficult if outside influences keep telling you an unchangeable part of yourself is unnatural or an "affront to God" (I liked that statement by FB a lot less). Though, as I've said before, all this is a walk in the park compared to what friends of mine have experienced.

I really wish no LGBT youth was subjected to another hateful sermon at any point in the future, or that their parents don't repeat those talking points, whether they sound like the one I heard or worse. People who should be trusted have no business leading them to believing that they are morally bankrupt for something completely outside of their control. I can't do sh**t to stop it though, no matter how much I wish I could. I just hope that if Fuzzy and people like him have any children, then they're straight. I'd worry about them if it was any other way.

Then there's this idea of a gay agenda that exists, that we're trying to do something that scares homophobes (I didn't read the blog post celticempire linked, but it sounds like something along those lines). This is false. It's scaremongering to try to justify hate. "Look what THEY'RE trying to do and tell us we're the ones in the wrong!" Well, they aren't and you are wrong.

I'll admit that we wish everyone believed that homosexual attraction is equal to heterosexual attraction. Until that happens, there will still be countless LGBT youth who have mental health issues, cut off from their families, without any support because God wants it to be that way apparently. Please, stop acting sanctimonious that someone dared to compare one fight for equal rights to another historical fight for equal rights. Or that some gay people may harbor resentment towards people who are obviously deeply uncomfortable that they exist, no matter how they try to disguise it. It would be really helpful if some people accepted that they have certain beliefs which are just hateful and harmful and either changed it or shut up about it.

To the good post thread this goes.  I’m glad you are able to begin to accept yourself.

[afleitch]

FWIW, the author of the original article has changed his stance a great deal since 2013.