Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wisconsin Gazette)   Who looks more like a real woman? The drag queen on the left or the anti-gay Christian-right leader on the right?   (wisconsingazette.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, sexual immorality, homophobias, drag queens, Wisconsin Constitution, certification mark, RuPaul  
•       •       •

24319 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Mar 2013 at 4:04 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-09 05:50:01 AM  

whyaduck: $3 to see Shangela? Oh honey I would so be there if I lived closer. I loves me some RPDR.




And I'd drive us there.
 
2013-03-09 10:16:01 AM  
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-03-09 11:00:16 AM  

ciberido: Cyberluddite: Chinchillazilla: I just don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality from fundies. They ignore almost everything else in Leviticus.

Jesus died for our sins so that we would be able to get into heaven without worrying about following all the crazy Old Testament rules, right? Is Jesus's sacrifice not good enough for you, fundies?

I've never understood this either.  Seriously, can someone with a better understanding of Christian theology explain this one for us?  I mean, if Jesus died for our sins and this means that as long as we accept Jebus as our savior we can now eat bacon for breakfast or have lobster for dinner or do a bunch of the other list of things that Leviticus says is a no-no if you want to get into heaven, then why is a guy sucking another guy's dick is still considered the equivalent of a "Go directly to Hell, do not meet Jesus, do not collect 200 sheckels" card?

I really do wish someone could explain this.  I'm sure there's gotta be some sort of theological justification for it--what is it?


The short answer is that both the Old Testament and the New Testament  supposedly condemn homosexuality (obviously the point is debated, but many Christians believe so.)  Thus being allowed to ignore the Old Testament's rules, which most Christians do, permits them to eat shellfish, for example, but homosexuality is still a sin because of the New Testament.

We have Paul (who wrote much of the New Testament) to thank for that.


I realize this thread is finished, but for reference in future 'they eat shrimp, why can't I suck dick threads",  Christians aren't ignoring the Old Testament's rules when it comes to dietary restrictions. In my youth, I was taught that the rules changed when Peter had a revelation in the book of Acts, chapter 10. This interpretation  of his vision of the "vessel" and the formerly forbidden foods is supposedly bolstered by Christ's " Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." in Matthew.
 
2013-03-09 11:00:41 AM  
I wonder why she picked this one drag show to get up in arms about. Last I checked, most of the UW campuses put on a drag show at some point during the year.

/been to the drag shows at UW Oshkosh and UW Whitewater
//hoping to see how fabulous the one at UW Madison is this year
 
2013-03-09 11:33:45 AM  

Mija: I don't know but I can tell you who will be going to hell.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Romans 1:18, 26, 27, 32


These passages don't mean what you think they mean...

Corinthians
Romans
 
2013-03-09 12:11:06 PM  

LavenderWolf: ciberido: LavenderWolf:Insulting "You're ugly" is just an insult. "You're ugly and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" is an ad hominem.

Yes, but if the " and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" part is implied, then it IS an ad hominem.

Also, you're ugly.

But it was never implied in this case.



Perhaps not.  Rather than argue that question, could we not perhaps agree that, in general, sometimes when a person says "X" what they're really saying is "Y because of X" and we should concern ourselves with that logic (or lack thereof)?
 
2013-03-09 12:16:27 PM  

wellreadneck: ciberido: Cyberluddite: Chinchillazilla: I just don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality from fundies. They ignore almost everything else in Leviticus.

Jesus died for our sins so that we would be able to get into heaven without worrying about following all the crazy Old Testament rules, right? Is Jesus's sacrifice not good enough for you, fundies?

I've never understood this either.  Seriously, can someone with a better understanding of Christian theology explain this one for us?  I mean, if Jesus died for our sins and this means that as long as we accept Jebus as our savior we can now eat bacon for breakfast or have lobster for dinner or do a bunch of the other list of things that Leviticus says is a no-no if you want to get into heaven, then why is a guy sucking another guy's dick is still considered the equivalent of a "Go directly to Hell, do not meet Jesus, do not collect 200 sheckels" card?

I really do wish someone could explain this.  I'm sure there's gotta be some sort of theological justification for it--what is it?


The short answer is that both the Old Testament and the New Testament  supposedly condemn homosexuality (obviously the point is debated, but many Christians believe so.)  Thus being allowed to ignore the Old Testament's rules, which most Christians do, permits them to eat shellfish, for example, but homosexuality is still a sin because of the New Testament.

We have Paul (who wrote much of the New Testament) to thank for that.

I realize this thread is finished, but for reference in future 'they eat shrimp, why can't I suck dick threads",  Christians aren't ignoring the Old Testament's rules when it comes to dietary restrictions. In my youth, I was taught that the rules changed when Peter had a revelation in the book of Acts, chapter 10. This interpretation  of his vision of the "vessel" and the formerly forbidden foods is supposedly bolstered by Christ's " Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man; but that which come ...


Yes, some Christians would argue that.  Not all Christians would agree with, or even be familiar with, that argument.  I was trying to give the "short" answer and so therefore of necessity oversimplifying a bit.

I still think it's fair to say that, in general, most Christians frequently ignore the rules laid out in the Old Testament, even when they don't admit to doing so.   Yes, it's a generalization, perhaps an over-generalization, but it serves as a reasonable "first answer" to anyone who genuinely has no idea, and there are a wealth of books, websites, and other resources if someone wants to explore the issue in depth.

I would also argue that it is not hypocrisy if the Christian in question can give an answer in good faith as to how they reconcile their "deviation" from the Bible, even if you think their answer is illogical or a bit self-serving.
 
2013-03-09 01:16:11 PM  

Arumat: LavenderWolf: ciberido: LavenderWolf:Insulting someone you disagree with isn't an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is when you insult someone, then use that insult to dismiss the argument without actually refuting it.


"You're ugly" is just an insult. "You're ugly and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" is an ad hominem.

Yes, but if the " and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" part is implied, then it IS an ad hominem.

Also, you're ugly.

But it was never implied in this case.

Her argument doesn't need to be refuted because it's based entirely on bigotry and therefor deserves mocking rather than debate.  The fact that she's fugly (especially compared to the drag queen she's protesting against), possibly a closeted self-hating "deviant" herself just adds a big helping of delicious irony to the pie.


Exactly. Insulting? Yeah, to the scoont who deserves it. Ad hominem (as the poster I was referring to stated)? Not a chance.
 
2013-03-09 01:17:12 PM  

ciberido: LavenderWolf: ciberido: LavenderWolf:Insulting "You're ugly" is just an insult. "You're ugly and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" is an ad hominem.

Yes, but if the " and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" part is implied, then it IS an ad hominem.

Also, you're ugly.

But it was never implied in this case.


Perhaps not.  Rather than argue that question, could we not perhaps agree that, in general, sometimes when a person says "X" what they're really saying is "Y because of X" and we should concern ourselves with that logic (or lack thereof)?


Sorry, you've gone too general for me, heh.
 
2013-03-09 02:23:12 PM  

LavenderWolf: ciberido: LavenderWolf: ciberido: LavenderWolf:Insulting "You're ugly" is just an insult. "You're ugly and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" is an ad hominem.

Yes, but if the " and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" part is implied, then it IS an ad hominem.

Also, you're ugly.

But it was never implied in this case.


Perhaps not.  Rather than argue that question, could we not perhaps agree that, in general, sometimes when a person says "X" what they're really saying is "Y because of X" and we should concern ourselves with that logic (or lack thereof)?

Sorry, you've gone too general for me, heh.


Fair enough.  If it helps any, I think what I was originally trying to say was that, while I didn't think you were wrong, I also thought the guy you were arguing with wasn't exactly wrong, either.  It doesn't really matter now.
 
2013-03-09 05:27:59 PM  
This appling coont is a closeted dyke spinster
 
2013-03-09 08:25:43 PM  

Arumat: LavenderWolf: ciberido: LavenderWolf:Insulting someone you disagree with isn't an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is when you insult someone, then use that insult to dismiss the argument without actually refuting it.


"You're ugly" is just an insult. "You're ugly and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" is an ad hominem.

Yes, but if the " and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" part is implied, then it IS an ad hominem.

Also, you're ugly.

But it was never implied in this case.

Her argument doesn't need to be refuted because it's based entirely on bigotry and therefor deserves mocking rather than debate.  The fact that she's fugly (especially compared to the drag queen she's protesting against), possibly a closeted self-hating "deviant" herself just adds a big helping of delicious irony to the pie.


How long does one wait before you ad hominem to menudo?
 
Displayed 12 of 162 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report