It's about goddamn time we get our meaningless UN "we promise not to hit you anymore" letter.

Still, one step at a time, I guess.

The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign.

Jesus, despite the fact that this will have little to no real-world impact, what a farking embarassment that our country, when controlled by ex-president Fundy Chucklenuts, refused to sign on to this concept. This should be a no-brainer in any civilized society. fark you Dubya, you disgusting piece of shiat.

Fabulous!

Cyberluddite: The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign.

Jesus, despite the fact that this will have little to no real-world impact, what a farking embarassment that our country, when controlled by ex-president Fundy Chucklenuts, refused to sign on to this concept. This should be a no-brainer in any civilized society. fark you Dubya, you disgusting piece of shiat.

Indeed. Any member of government who refuses basic human rights to any group is lower than whale shiat, in my opinion. And I don't give a Fark if your invisible friend told you he hates us, to be perfectly frank.

For those of you who don't understand why this is a big deal - bear in mind that homosexual sex was still criminal in several US states as recently as 6 years ago. You could literally be arrested and jailed for having sex with your life partner in the privacy of your own home, doing things the rest of the country thinks is American as apple pie.

So yes - this is good. Not as good as full civil rights, but one step at a time, I suppose.

Not a problem for Iran, because they don't have gay people.

/Approves
//So Super to see you too!

Benevolent Misanthrope: And I don't give a Fark if your invisible friend told you he hates us, to be perfectly frank.

And another cretin that doesn't know Christian scripture. The bible clearly states the God hates sin, not the people committing the sin. Unfortunately, people like you keep telling others like yourself that the Christian God himself hates you and/or commands his followers to hate you. You are absolutely incorrect. The other side of the coin is, there are Christians who think God has commanded them to hate and/or attack homosexuals. They are just as incorrect as you are. Anyone, on either side, who follow those beliefs are guilty of spreading hate and intolerance.

PacManDreaming: And another cretin that doesn't know Christian scripture. The bible clearly states the God hates sin, not the people committing the sin.

Yeah, making that distinction is beyond stupid.

"I don't hate gay/black/jewish people. I just hate what they do because it is a sin."

That's infinitely better.

bulldg4life: Yeah, making that distinction is beyond stupid.

"I don't hate gay/black/jewish people. I just hate what they do because it is a sin."

That's infinitely better.

I hate a lot of what Liberals do, but I don't hate Liberals.

There is a distinction.

Awesome.

Glad our country is finally at odds with the Catholic Church on this issue.

PacManDreaming: I hate a lot of what Liberals do, but I don't hate Liberals.

There is a distinction.

And it's beyond a ridiculous distinction.

A) Saying that you hate a lot of what liberals do implies that all liberals act the same way. That's demonstrably wrong and quite stupid to assume. Random general assumptions about an entire group of people is quite silly. In fact, it's what you just seemed to rail about in your early post...but you're using it as validation for the view of not hating a person just hating what they do.

B) A gay person doesn't do anything WRONG in the sense that they are actively doing something negative. But, viewing it as a sin implies that you feel they are doing something wrong and you hate what they are doing.

You don't "hate" the person. You just happen to "hate" what they do because you view it as a sin.

It doesn't matter if you can say "I'm not homophobic. I don't hate the person. I just hate what they do in their normal life even though there is nothing demonstrably wrong with it outside of my imposing my religious beliefs on their activities."

Hell, you might as well go ahead and inform us that you're not racist because you have a black friend.

I'd like to add, the simple idea that you are trying to validate the idea of hating the sin of homosexual sex while trying to be open enough to not hate the homosexual person is quite possibly one of the stupidest line of arguments I've ever seen on this site.

bulldg4life: And it's beyond a ridiculous distinction.

A) Saying that you hate a lot of what liberals do implies that all liberals act the same way. That's demonstrably wrong and quite stupid to assume. Random general assumptions about an entire group of people is quite silly. In fact, it's what you just seemed to rail about in your early post...but you're using it as validation for the view of not hating a person just hating what they do.

B) A gay person doesn't do anything WRONG in the sense that they are actively doing something negative. But, viewing it as a sin implies that you feel they are doing something wrong and you hate what they are doing.

You don't "hate" the person. You just happen to "hate" what they do because you view it as a sin.

It doesn't matter if you can say "I'm not homophobic. I don't hate the person. I just hate what they do in their normal life even though there is nothing demonstrably wrong with it outside of my imposing my religious beliefs on their activities."

Hell, you might as well go ahead and inform us that you're not racist because you have a black friend.

Do any of your family members or friends have beliefs that differ from your own? Do you hate them for it? Maybe if you'd quit trying to be so stupid and obtuse, you could see that there is definitely a difference in hating what someone does and hating the person.

Balloon. Knot.

I think Ted Bundy and Hitler were GREAT guys... but it's totally not cool that they killed people.

Tsk tsk!

PacManDreaming: Do any of your family members or friends have beliefs that differ from your own? Do you hate them for it? Maybe if you'd quit trying to be so stupid and obtuse, you could see that there is definitely a difference in hating what someone does and hating the person.

I don't hate their differing beliefs. I don't feel they are sinning. I don't feel they are engaging in an activity that will doom them to eternal damnation. I don't feel any emotion towards their differing beliefs.

But hey, you keep working on that "I don't hate gay people. I just hate what they do in their normal life that doesn't affect me in any way."

PacManDreaming: Benevolent Misanthrope: And I don't give a Fark if your invisible friend told you he hates us, to be perfectly frank.

And another cretin that doesn't know Christian scripture. The bible clearly states the God hates sin, not the people committing the sin. Unfortunately, people like you keep telling others like yourself that the Christian God himself hates you and/or commands his followers to hate you. You are absolutely incorrect. The other side of the coin is, there are Christians who think God has commanded them to hate and/or attack homosexuals. They are just as incorrect as you are. Anyone, on either side, who follow those beliefs are guilty of spreading hate and intolerance.

Here's what it boils down to: at no point should the US government use your scripture to dictate who should and should not have rights.

That is why we have separation of church and state.

Your morality is NOT guiding principle for law in this country. Nor should it dictate public policy. The sad fact is, that if you use scripture to dictate who should and should not be married or who should get stoned, or shunned, there are a few other scriptures that say the opposite, or contradictory things, and as soon as our government endorses that particular viewpoint, we have de facto endorsed your denomination, and that means that we've put violated the principle of the freedom to practice religion freely.

In order to protect religion from government, churches and temples need to keep the heck out of issues of public policy, and certainly to keep their monies out of such things. Because it boils down to these churches and temples or mosques trying to dictate then what OTHER churches and religious organizations do.

Don't want a gay marriage? Don't have one. Don't perform them. Preach your hate the sin, not the sinner all you want in the confines of your church to your own congregation, but keep that out of public policy.

Because MY faith may not include such teachings, and in trying to enforce your morality by confusing it with law, you then impugn MY faith.

That is what freedom of religion is about. Freedom to practice without other faiths up in your grill and keeping you from practicing in your own fashion--so long as folks aren't injured or harmed without consent.

What boggles my mind, is that the good Conservative position should be to look to the Constitution for guidance in this. This push to restrict rights and to deny folks recognition is in direct violation of the principles that used to guide the party, but have fallen to the side, since the Social Conservatives started giving cash to candidates.

And that is the sad thing, because "Social Conservatives" are rarely social--in that they seem bound and determined to tell folks how much they don't like what they do, and how they live their lives, and their agenda is radical and rejects the principles that our nation was founded upon.

I'm sorry if you don't like gay and lesbian, or transgendered folks. I'm sorry if they make you feel uncomfortable--but freedom in this country is about being uncomfortable. Freedom of speech is about speech that isn't popular. Freedom of religion is about religions that aren't popular or well liked. Freedom of assembly is to associate with people who aren't well liked either.

If there is anything that I cannot stand, is the Precious Snowflakes that cannot seem to get it through their thick skulls that there is no guarantee in the Constitution that you will have a community that you like. In fact, we have strong protections in the Constitution to make sure that people WILL piss you off, and that dissent from the majority is protected from the tyranny of the majority.

That we would like to spread this idea that people should enjoy the same rights and responsibilities, no matter who they happen to fall in love with--sex, religion, or race--one would think would be embraced by those who love this nation, and the ideals that it was based upon.

In the end, oh great "Social Conservatives": why do you hate America so much, and all our freedoms?

bulldg4life: I don't feel any emotion towards their differing beliefs.

Which is why you've singled me out because I don't share the same beliefs as you.

But hey, you keep working on that "I don't hate gay religious people. I just hate what they do in their normal life that doesn't affect me in any way."

hubiestubert: Here's what it boils down to: at no point should the US government use your scripture to dictate who should and should not have rights.

That is why we have separation of church and state.

Your morality is NOT guiding principle for law in this country.

And where did I say that was what I believed? I just pointed out to someone that their belief in what the Christian Bible says is wrong.

I'll all for separation of church and State, even though it isn't in the Constitution or any other founding legal document. I don't want to be forced to partake in a Muslim, Church of Satan or any other religions prayers or services any more than you do.

Wow, a meaningless gesture is about to be endorsed.
How exciting.

PacManDreaming: Which is why you've singled me out because I don't share the same beliefs as you.

No, I singled you out because you are making a stupid argument that tries to validate the idea of hating what a group of people does while not hating the person.

It's a ridiculously stupid argument that completely misses the idea that someone can do something without it being labeled a sin capable of you hating.

PacManDreaming: But hey, you keep working on that "I don't hate gay religious people. I just hate what they do in their normal life that doesn't affect me in any way."

But other people's religious views DO impact my life. Someone's religious views impacted how the US acted in its policy decisions (something that Obama is now changing).

hubiestubert: That is why we have separation of church and state.

To echo another Farker in a previous thread -- thanks, hubie, for consistently increasing the quality of Fark threads.

PacManDreaming: I'll all for separation of church and State, even though it isn't in the Constitution or any other founding legal document. I don't want to be forced to partake in a Muslim, Church of Satan or any other religions prayers or services any more than you do.

How about dictated about having your children circumcised? Confirmation ceremonies?

If you don't want other churches dictating what ceremonies your church performs, or what scriptures you can and cannot use, then how in the heck can you expect other churches to conform to your teachings?

If the Unitarians want to marry gay and lesbian couples, then how does it affect you and yours? Is a Unitarian ceremony less binding, and thus inferior? Are synagogues that want to marry gay and lesbian couples likewise "misguided" in their interpretations of their own scriptures, and should thus be brought back to the fold by Christians? And what happens if someone decides that YOUR church is suddenly on the outre of belief? Should then your church be brought in line?

I hope you see where this is going, because this is the problem with trying to restrict rights and using religious texts as the basis.

It isn't just to protect the rights of gay and lesbians, but to protect your own rights as well.

bulldg4life: No, I singled you out because you are making a stupid argument that tries to validate the idea of hating what a group of people does while not hating the person.

It's a ridiculously stupid argument that completely misses the idea that someone can do something without it being labeled a sin capable of you hating.

Do you hate what OJ Simpson did? Then you hate black people. Do you hate what Bernie Madoff did? Then you hate Jewish people. Do you hate what Pol Pot did? Then you hate all Asians. That's stupid isn't it? Well, that's your line of thinking. As a Christian, I'm not allowed to disagree with others because if I do I instantly and unquestionably hate them? Just because you're prejudiced and intolerant of Christians doesn't mean they all think the same way you do.

hubiestubert: If you don't want other churches dictating what ceremonies your church performs, or what scriptures you can and cannot use, then how in the heck can you expect other churches to conform to your teachings?

If the Unitarians want to marry gay and lesbian couples, then how does it affect you and yours? Is a Unitarian ceremony less binding, and thus inferior? Are synagogues that want to marry gay and lesbian couples likewise "misguided" in their interpretations of their own scriptures, and should thus be brought back to the fold by Christians? And what happens if someone decides that YOUR church is suddenly on the outre of belief? Should then your church be brought in line?

I hope you see where this is going, because this is the problem with trying to restrict rights and using religious texts as the basis.

It isn't just to protect the rights of gay and lesbians, but to protect your own rights as well.

You don't do too well on reading comprehension, do you? I said I'm all for separation of church and state. I was just pointing out that IT ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION.

PacManDreaming: And where did I say that was what I believed? I just pointed out to someone that their belief in what the Christian Bible says is wrong.

PacManDreaming: Which is why you've singled me out because I don't share the same beliefs as you.

Perhaps you can see where the confusion lies. You seem to have a lot invested in the argument, considering how far you've gone insulting others and their views.

PacManDreaming: And another cretin that doesn't know Christian scripture.

PacManDreaming: Maybe if you'd quit trying to be so stupid and obtuse, you could see that there is definitely a difference in hating what someone does and hating the person.

I guess what I'm trying to say is...your argument isn't benefiting from your words, and you definitely don't seem like you're trying to inform others with all the wisdom of a sage.

hubiestubert: ...Your morality is NOT guiding principle for law in this country. Nor should it dictate public policy. The sad fact is, that if you use scripture to dictate who should and should not be married or who should get stoned, or shunned, there are a few other scriptures that say the opposite, or contradictory things, and as soon as our government endorses that particular viewpoint, we have de facto endorsed your denomination, and that means that we've put violated the principle of the freedom to practice religion freely....

Isn't ANY law just a measure of the overall social acceptance and morality of the day. Laws eventually change as morality and the social make up of the day change.

Murder is that.
Rape is that.
Robbery is that.
Human rights is that.
Homosexual rights is that.

But we all know that just because something is a law doesn't mean that ALL people will obey and/or believe in that law.

PacManDreaming: As a Christian, I'm not allowed to disagree with others because if I do I instantly and unquestionably hate them?

um...what?

There's quite a sea of difference between disagreeing with someone and feeling their very actions in their day to day life are a sin resulting in eternal damnation.

PacManDreaming: Do you hate what OJ Simpson did? Then you hate black people. Do you hate what Bernie Madoff did? Then you hate Jewish people. Do you hate what Pol Pot did? Then you hate all Asians. That's stupid isn't it? Well, that's your line of thinking

If that's what you got out of my posts than I can only assume that you have a reading disability.

PacManDreaming: Just because you're prejudiced and intolerant of Christians doesn't mean they all think the same way you do.

I'm not sure where you got this sentence, but ok. If that's how you read my posts, I don't really know where to go.

I've got to assume that you are trolling to try and equate the idea of not liking someone that has done something that is universally agreed upon as cruel or illegal with the idea of hating an entire section of people because of a personal decision such as sexual orientation.

Again, since you seem to be having trouble with it, the idea of saying "I hate what gay people do because it is a sin, but I don't hate gay people" is a stupid statement.

It's logically impossible to have such a disconnect if you feel so strongly about someone's actions that you feel they are living in sin and engaging in an immoral act so far beyond your comprehension that they are doomed to an eternity of damnation.

The statement "I don't hate gay people, I just hate what they do" is an inherently idiotic statement.

PacManDreaming: You don't do too well on reading comprehension, do you? I said I'm all for separation of church and state. I was just pointing out that IT ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Not real familiar with the use of "wall of separation" concept, or its use by the Supreme Court then? Or how the policy has come about, as interpretation of that pesky 1st Amendment.

Or are you going to argue that "free expression of religion" isn't in the Constitution as well? And that by arguing public policy from a position of scripture, that folks are looking to impose their beliefs and morality based on their own scripture is an abrogation of the freedom to interpret morality from one's own religious base?

You are essentially saying, that those who oppose the position from one set of scriptures, from the strength of their own, then the state has to choose which is correct. Which means that ONE of them is going to come out with the state interfering with the freedom to exercise their religion, based on another's.

You just sort of read that "It's not in the Constitution" without actually understanding the concept, and the basis for Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, who likewise liked the idea of a separation of church and state, as a protection for churches.

...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Cyberluddite: The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign.

Jesus, despite the fact that this will have little to no real-world impact, what a farking embarassment that our country, when controlled by ex-president Fundy Chucklenuts, refused to sign on to this concept. This should be a no-brainer in any civilized society. fark you Dubya, you disgusting piece of shiat.

Thank you for putting it better than I ever could. The fact that he joined us with the likes of China and Iran in that regard is simply terrifying. Coincidentally, "Fundy Chucklenuts" is my new favorite nickname.

PacManDreaming: And another cretin that doesn't know Christian scripture. The bible clearly states the God hates sin, not the people committing the sin. Unfortunately, people like you keep telling others like yourself that the Christian God himself hates you and/or commands his followers to hate you. You are absolutely incorrect. The other side of the coin is, there are Christians who think God has commanded them to hate and/or attack homosexuals. They are just as incorrect as you are. Anyone, on either side, who follow those beliefs are guilty of spreading hate and intolerance.

The problem, of course, is that there is nothing immoral about a consensual adult relationship. "Hate the sin" assumes there's a crime in the first place.

PacManDreaming: As a Christian, I'm not allowed to disagree with others because if I do I instantly and unquestionably hate them?

Homosexuality isn't crop dusting. It's not chewing your fingernails. It's not murder. It isn't a behavior or a habit. It's a person's sexuality. It's a part of who they are, and a rather large part. "I don't hate you, I hate a large part of what makes you who you are, which wasn't a choice you've made or something you can change" doesn't gel well with most of the populace. Plus, it could be a run-on sentence. It's basically admitting that the person will always be looked upon with a disapproving eye, no matter what they do. "Love the sinner, hate the sin." A person who believes that is giving themselves the peace of mind to openly judge others and hide behind their faith when questioned on it, followed by quickly copping out and saying that they "still love the person."

Jesus = silent on gheyness

Paul = condemns male temple prostitutes, not gheyness

PacManDreaming = "another cretin that doesn't know Christian scripture"

PacManDreaming: ...You don't do too well on reading comprehension, do you? I said I'm all for separation of church and state. I was just pointing out that IT ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Seems pretty clear to me.

WFern: The problem, of course, is that there is nothing immoral about a consensual adult relationship. "Hate the sin" assumes there's a crime in the first place.

I was going to bring this up, but I have a feeling it would evoke nothing more than a "but the Bible says so" answer.

bulldg4life: Again, since you seem to be having trouble with it, the idea of saying "I hate what gay people do because it is a sin, but I don't hate gay people" is a stupid statement.

It's logically impossible to have such a disconnect if you feel so strongly about someone's actions that you feel they are living in sin and engaging in an immoral act so far beyond your comprehension that they are doomed to an eternity of damnation.

If you weren't so busy being offended by the thought, perhaps you'd consider that there are people who

1. love their fellow man and wish for them to be attain salvation,
2. believe that homosexuality is a choice,
3. believe that homosexuality is sufficient to prevent salvation, and
therefore
4. hate the notion of their fellow man voluntarily choosing damnation.

It's not an inherently logical position. (1) is beyond the bounds of science and (2) is inconsistent with prevailing scientific opinion, but there are people that agree with all four.

PacManDreaming: Benevolent Misanthrope: And I don't give a Fark if your invisible friend told you he hates us, to be perfectly frank.

And another cretin that doesn't know Christian scripture. The bible clearly states the God hates sin, not the people committing the sin. Unfortunately, people like you keep telling others like yourself that the Christian God himself hates you and/or commands his followers to hate you. You are absolutely incorrect. The other side of the coin is, there are Christians who think God has commanded them to hate and/or attack homosexuals. They are just as incorrect as you are. Anyone, on either side, who follow those beliefs are guilty of spreading hate and intolerance.

So you're arguing that Christian scripture does not preach hatred toward homosexuals? How about preaching murder? Is that more accurate?

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

I'm with PacManDreaming here. (as far as the argument goes)

Korovyov: If you weren't so busy being offended by the thought

I'm not offended by it at all. I just think it is a stupid argument to make.

I'm not resentful nor do I feel vexed. It has not caused me difficulty or discomfort in the slightest.

Korovyov: It's not an inherently logical position. (1) is beyond the bounds of science and (2) is inconsistent with prevailing scientific opinion,

Thanks for pointing out what I've been saying for more than an hour.

Cool.

I hope ending government discrimination in employment (specifically, the military) is next. I'm not optimistic enough to think that ending discrimination in marriage will happen soon.

But then again... two years ago I sure didn't think America would elect a black guy, so hopefully Americans will keep surprising me.

bulldg4life: There's quite a sea of difference between disagreeing with someone and feeling their very actions in their day to day life are a sin resulting in eternal damnation.

So...no one should be allowed to form beliefs that are different from yours or other like minded people?

As a Christian, I believe a lot of what other people do are sins. I also know that a lot of the things I do are sins, too, according to my beliefs. All I've been trying to say is that, yes, you can believe what people do is wrong and not hate them for it. Nowhere in the New Testament does it tell Christians to hate others. In fact, it tells us just the opposite. If you'll notice, my original post was pointing out an error in belief that someone else had(yeah, I know, I shouldn't have called them a cretin).

Ablejack: I'm with PacManDreaming here. (as far as the argument goes)

Translation: I'm a tard.

whizbang: Jesus = silent on gheyness

Paul = condemns male temple prostitutes, not gheyness

PacManDreaming = "another cretin that doesn't know Christian scripture"

What stuns me, and perhaps it's because I was raised Buddhist, and not Christian, is how many Christians ignore the teachings of their own Messiah, and ignore his message.

The New Testament is supposed to be the foundation of the real difference between Christianity and Judaism. Those texts are the basis of a new ministry.

The Sermon on the Mount is one of the most powerful statements to the power of self determination and responsibility drafted, but too often, it gets ignored. Instead, folks trot out the Old Testament and Leviticus to justify hating homosexuals. Of course, a lot of Leviticus is then ignored selectively as well.

Which is why there are plenty of Christians who don't give a rat's butt about homosexuals. Because the message of love and personal responsibility were the hallmarks of Christ's ministry, not the old skoolio hate on and pattern of violence that the Old Testament was based on--and that God apparently felt so strongly about addressing that he sent his only Son to bring the message.

If Christ died to bring that message, then how can folks justify ignoring it?

Now I ask: why do so many Christians hate the message of Christ, while they hate America and our freedoms?

PacManDreaming: So...no one should be allowed to form beliefs that are different from yours or other like minded people?

I know of nowhere where I said that wasn't possible.

Again, since you continually seem to miss what I'm saying, trying to validate the idea of hating someone else's choices because you view them as a sin by saying that you don't hate the actual person is an idiotic argument to make.

You "hate" their very actions because of your predetermined religious views. Do you understand how serious the idea of hating someone or feeling they are engaging in a sin fit for eternal damnation or murder is and then you're saying "but I don't hate the person."

I've got to assume you see how stupid the statement "I don't hate gay people. I just hate everything they do because I feel they are engaging in a sin that should be punishable by murder" is.

The phrase "to be attain" is not part of any language.

Starting to type "to be saved" and changing halfway to "attain" is pretentious.

The word "attain" is ghey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/world/19nations.html -- contemporary article. Also does not give text, although it mentioned that it's a 'declaration' and not a 'resolution'.

Haven't yet found a number or a link. Might be interesting to know the exact text -- if it's 'decriminalization' and not an endorsement of full equality it'd basically be a NOP within the US.

GoHomeAndGetYourShinebox: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

That fun blurb mentions a man laying with a man as he would with a woman. A lot of gay men never lay with a woman. So, so much for that. Nevermind back then they didn't have our concepts of sexuality. But that clause about "as with a woman" does matter.

whizbang: Jesus = silent on gheyness

Paul = condemns male temple prostitutes, not gheyness

PacManDreaming = "another cretin that doesn't know Christian scripture"

We all know that Jesus was just a commie fag.

Actually -- NOP regardless of text. Non-binding on member states regardless of ratification.

ckccfa: We all know that Jesus was just a commie fag.

I guess that explains the long hair and Castro beard.