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.

(The Week UK)   Minister suggests raping schoolgirls is preferable to consensual gay relationships. Which minister? The Minister for Ethics and Integrity, of course   (theweek.co.uk) divider line 344
    More: Ironic, morals, interpersonal relationship, David Furnish, ministers  
•       •       •

12633 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2013 at 8:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-15 08:58:00 PM  

Zik-Zak: 2wolves: Some folks want to make this sort of thing the future of the U.S..

Like in NW Missouri?

/you know what, forget the consensual gay relationships!
//ah, screw the whole thing


Anywhere there are groups of people that need to look down on someone else to make themselves feel superior.
 
2013-10-15 08:58:31 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.


It was Lot. Later his daughters got him drunk and raped him so they could get pregnant, so I guess it balanced out.
 
2013-10-15 08:58:32 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.


Lot.
 
2013-10-15 09:00:25 PM  

Felgraf: These people, and their supporters, aren't at all hateful though, nope! I was repeatedly told this in the previous thread.


Who are you to tell them their beliefs are wrong?

/hello again, I feel like I just saw you
 
2013-10-15 09:00:48 PM  

Chinchillazilla: aagrajag: Rambino: aagrajag:

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D? I don't like cauliflower; I'm reasonably certain that I will like it even less if someone were to hold me down and literally cram it down my throat.

I think you are missing the point of corrective rape.  You are overthinking it--a lot.

That's my point: no one with an IQ greater than that of an bruised eggplant could actually claim to truly believe that violent rape would effect an attraction to the rapist's gender.

I think it's typically more for punishment. Like, a woman turns you down and says she prefers girls? BETTER TEACH THAT BIATCH A LESSON!


I'm sure there's a healthly helping of that shiat too. It's both a salve to one's ego and a service to better society.

It costs only a complete devalueing of another person's bodily autonomy, and a violent assault.

Loathsome swine.

Wait; scratch that; bacon comes from swine; things things serve no purpose.
 
2013-10-15 09:00:48 PM  
Hassa deega ebowei indeed.
 
2013-10-15 09:03:20 PM  

aagrajag: Rambino: aagrajag:

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D? I don't like cauliflower; I'm reasonably certain that I will like it even less if someone were to hold me down and literally cram it down my throat.

I think you are missing the point of corrective rape.  You are overthinking it--a lot.

That's my point: no one with an IQ greater than that of an bruised eggplant could actually claim to truly believe that violent rape would effect an attraction to the rapist's gender.


Still overthinking.

Corrective rape == Woohoo!  Free rape!
 
2013-10-15 09:03:49 PM  

spamdog: PsiChick: I really, really hope those assholes got slammed in jail.

Phrasing!


...Wow, that is  not what I meant, and yet it totally works.
 
2013-10-15 09:04:11 PM  

Chinchillazilla: It was Lot. Later his daughters got him drunk and raped him so they could get pregnant, so I guess it balanced out.


Peki: Lot.


Thanks, yea the bible is full of moral authority.
 
2013-10-15 09:04:43 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: aagrajag: EvilEgg: aagrajag: Benevolent Misanthrope: Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".

There's a reason gays and lesbians are distrustful.  It's not such a long step from "OMGWTFBBQ, look at those ignorant Africans" to "All Hail Saint Reagan, let's go back to the 50s!*"

*50s as defined by TV shows and nostalgia

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D? I don't like cauliflower; I'm reasonably certain that I will like it even less if someone were to hold me down and literally cram it down my throat.

No one believes this; it's a socially acceptable excuse to rape a persecuted minority.

Quasi-mammalian filth.

I think it's more of "How can you say you don't like it until you've tried it" thing.  Like how I force my kids to eat cauliflower when they declare their hate for it without even trying it.  Of course, I don't cram it down their throats either.  Still doesn't work however.

I think you need to hold them down and threaten to cut their throats if they do not pretend to like it. These mammals seem to think that a more effective approach.

It's not so much "how can you say you don't want a man unless you've had sex with one?" as it is, "being queer is a sin and it's abnormal and deviant, and you need to be taught a lesson about acceptable behaviour." It's the same mentality as parents who beat their kids. The only difference is that the "crime" is sexual, so the punishment is as well. Then there's the whole daddy/daughter thing.

And of course, it's rape. A powerless ...


There is the punitive aspect, of course.

The daddy-daughter thing... I'm unsure what you're referring to there.

As for suggesting that rape is necessarily the act of a powerless man, I disagree; many powerful men feel perfectly entitled to sexually take what they wish, as in other aspects of their lives.
 
2013-10-15 09:05:09 PM  

Chinchillazilla: tinfoil-hat maggie: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

It was Lot. Later his daughters got him drunk and raped him so they could get pregnant, so I guess it balanced out.


If I remember correctly, neither of the two daughters had ever traveled outside of Sodom or had any contact with people from other cities, so as far as they knew the three of them were the last humans on Earth.  Which makes their actions more understandable, albeit no less icky.
 
2013-10-15 09:06:15 PM  

Peki: tinfoil-hat maggie: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

Lot.


So Neil Gaiman once wrote a portion of a graphic novel that was very dirty and sexually explicit. I have a copy of it in my office.  The book was almost banned in England and the publisher was being charged with a prison sentence over it. It violated decency laws or something.  It was overturned in the courts when they realized that despite the lewd nature of the book and the sexually explicit graphics, it was word-for-word right out of the King James Bible.

Here's Gaiman talking about it: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-spee c h.html

/Very good read. I strongly recommend it
//I may have some details off because I haven't read that article in a few years and I'm posting on limited time; didn't have time to reread the article before posting
 
2013-10-15 09:06:40 PM  

Rambino: aagrajag: Rambino: aagrajag:

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D? I don't like cauliflower; I'm reasonably certain that I will like it even less if someone were to hold me down and literally cram it down my throat.

I think you are missing the point of corrective rape.  You are overthinking it--a lot.

That's my point: no one with an IQ greater than that of an bruised eggplant could actually claim to truly believe that violent rape would effect an attraction to the rapist's gender.

Still overthinking.

Corrective rape == Woohoo!  Free rape!


You seem to still be missing this last line of my primary post:

No one believes this; it's a socially acceptable excuse to rape a persecuted minority.
 
2013-10-15 09:08:03 PM  

anfrind: Chinchillazilla: tinfoil-hat maggie: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

It was Lot. Later his daughters got him drunk and raped him so they could get pregnant, so I guess it balanced out.

If I remember correctly, neither of the two daughters had ever traveled outside of Sodom or had any contact with people from other cities, so as far as they knew the three of them were the last humans on Earth.  Which makes their actions more understandable, albeit no less icky.


Yes, you do.
 
2013-10-15 09:09:02 PM  
I learned in a thread over the weekend that straight men looking at photos of shirtless men, even if you clicked it accidentally expecting nude women, it makes you gay.  Maybe we should just post a bunch of photos of shirtless men in this thread and share the link with lesbians to turn them straight.
 
2013-10-15 09:11:19 PM  

grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.


But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.
 
2013-10-15 09:11:42 PM  
Africa?  Yep, not really relevant to most countries.  Sorry feminists if you thought you'd see Europe or North America.  Concentrate your efforts there, oh wait...you won't...because you actually believe you're oppressed in the first world.
 
2013-10-15 09:11:51 PM  
Africa, the birthplace of humanity, now the shiarthole of humanity.
/What the hell is neo-colonialism?
 
2013-10-15 09:16:09 PM  
So instead of "Gee I thought she was 18"
Now it will be "Gee I thought she was a lesbian"
 
2013-10-15 09:17:12 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.


No, that interpretation is pretty much universally agreed on by every serious scholar who's ever examined the story, going back to the earliest Jewish commentaries on it. You can thank Augustine for muddying the waters on it by bringing alternate interpretations.
 
2013-10-15 09:18:45 PM  

grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.

No, that interpretation is pretty much universally agreed on by every serious scholar who's ever examined the story, going back to the earliest Jewish commentaries on it. You can thank Augustine for muddying the waters on it by bringing alternate interpretations.


Err, to elaborate, I don't consider Augustine as a serious scholar. I consider him to have interpreted the story in a way most beneficial to the message he wanted to portray.
 
2013-10-15 09:18:58 PM  
1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-10-15 09:20:42 PM  

grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.


The Sodomites originally wanted to have sex with the angels, who were disguised in human form.

Lot did indeed say something like (not quoting, feel free to look it up yourself) "what you want is an abomination. Here: I have two virgin daughters. Do with them as you will, but leave these men alone, for they are my guests."

But the Sodomites didn't want that, so the angels struck them blind and Lot's family fled Sodom before Jehovah destroyed it.

Later on Lot's wife died mysteriously, and Lot and his two daughters holed up in a cave.

His daughters were apparently concerned that he had no male heir and no wife. So, instead of taking him to the next village to find a nice young widow to marry, his daughters SUPPOSEDLY decided to get him stoned drunk and have sex with him.

At this point, I realized what really happened:

On the way out of Sodom, Lot's wife must have been giving him grief about offering her two daughters to get raped to death by the Sodomites. Lot probably killed her.

Then he probably raped his daughters.

All in all, Lot in Sodom is a very nasty story and not one that portrays religion in a good light.
 
2013-10-15 09:20:44 PM  

grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.

No, that interpretation is pretty much universally agreed on by every serious scholar who's ever examined the story, going back to the earliest Jewish commentaries on it. You can thank Augustine for muddying the waters on it by bringing alternate interpretations.


Even if it not was intended to be in support of rape, the lesson is still: throw your property (daughters) out to be abused, rather than allow strangers to be so treated.

Still not gettin' the warm fuzzies, here.
 
2013-10-15 09:20:48 PM  

Felgraf: These people, and their supporters, aren't at all hateful though, nope! I was repeatedly told this in the previous thread.


If you condemn them then you're the real bigot.
 
2013-10-15 09:21:17 PM  
Politician, rope, tree, some assembly required.
 
2013-10-15 09:22:20 PM  

Peki: Oh ffs, really? I just posted a big long spiel about this in other thread. Do not make me get out my Bible again.


Are you going to cherry pick some verses from it to justify the bigotry christians are rightfully associated with?
 
2013-10-15 09:23:51 PM  
Man... I was having a pretty good day. Daughter was relatively mellow, (6 months old), and I got a good walk in.

Now I am trying to filter all of this anger out. WTF Uganda? Seriously? No cognitive dissonance going on with something like 'corrective rape'?

I'm off to donate some money. There's gotta be someone out there fighting the good fight.

..... Just went for a looksee. It's really hard to do anything.

I'm just so mad right now.
 
2013-10-15 09:24:22 PM  

anfrind: Chinchillazilla: tinfoil-hat maggie: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

It was Lot. Later his daughters got him drunk and raped him so they could get pregnant, so I guess it balanced out.

If I remember correctly, neither of the two daughters had ever traveled outside of Sodom or had any contact with people from other cities, so as far as they knew the three of them were the last humans on Earth.  Which makes their actions more understandable, albeit no less icky.


Ya and Sodom never saw any visitors and their dad never disabused them of this idea.

Riiiight.
 
2013-10-15 09:24:36 PM  

grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.


Why should we? Christians read the story as being a condemnation of homosexuality. If they can't be bothered to figure out their own fairy tales why should I be expected to?
 
2013-10-15 09:24:40 PM  

Richard C Stanford: Africa, the birthplace of humanity, now the shiarthole of humanity.
/What the hell is neo-colonialism?


I've always interpreted it as post-colonial influence over developing nations.

I never thought of it as being quite as kinky as the pic here, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism
 
2013-10-15 09:25:00 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: <snip>


Oh, you were there? You might want to go talk to Guinness about being the world's oldest person.

/thinks the story didn't happen at all, and was used to explain the destruction by volcano of two ancient cities


aagrajag: grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.

No, that interpretation is pretty much universally agreed on by every serious scholar who's ever examined the story, going back to the earliest Jewish commentaries on it. You can thank Augustine for muddying the waters on it by bringing alternate interpretations.

Even if it not was intended to be in support of rape, the lesson is still: throw your property (daughters) out to be abused, rather than allow strangers to be so treated.

Still not gettin' the warm fuzzies, here.


I'm not excusing the story. I'm saying interpret it properly before criticizing it.
 
2013-10-15 09:25:14 PM  
Is there an elected position for this kind of thing?  I can only imagine the contested election campaign for County Corrective Rapist.
 
2013-10-15 09:25:21 PM  

Kali-Yuga: Peki: Oh ffs, really? I just posted a big long spiel about this in other thread. Do not make me get out my Bible again.

Are you going to cherry pick some verses from it to justify the bigotry christians are rightfully associated with?


Assume much? I'm an atheist UU. I use Bible verses to beat Christians upside the head, not justify bigotry.

There are no verses that justify the bigotry. There are plenty of verses against bigotry.
 
2013-10-15 09:25:33 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.

The Sodomites originally wanted to have sex with the angels, who were disguised in human form.

Lot did indeed say something like (not quoting, feel free to look it up yourself) "what you want is an abomination. Here: I have two virgin daughters. Do with them as you will, but leave these men alone, for they are my guests."

But the Sodomites didn't want that, so the angels struck them blind and Lot's family fled Sodom before Jehovah destroyed it.

Later on Lot's wife died mysteriously, and Lot and his two daughters holed up in a cave.

His daughters were apparently concerned that he had no male heir and no wife. So, instead of taking him to the next village to find a nice young widow to marry, his daughters SUPPOSEDLY decided to get him stoned drunk and have sex with him.

At this point, I realized what really happened:

On the way out of Sodom, Lot's wife must have been giving him grief about offering her two daughters to get raped to death by the Sodomites. Lot probably killed her.

Then he probably raped his daughters.

All in all, Lot in Sodom is a very nasty story and not one that portrays religion in a good light.


Yep.

Considering that the hagiography (yes, I know the root of the word; it seems somehow appropriate, though) of the revolting god of the Christians paints it as the most viscious, petty, cruel, genocidal monster to ever exist, one has to wonder:

This is his own *promotional literature*; imagine what the muckracking looks like.
 
2013-10-15 09:26:36 PM  

theotherles: Politician, rope, tree, some assembly required.


If you can't find any rope, I've heard the entrails of a priest make a good substitute...

/better not be obscure
 
2013-10-15 09:27:25 PM  

Kali-Yuga: Peki: Oh ffs, really? I just posted a big long spiel about this in other thread. Do not make me get out my Bible again.

Are you going to cherry pick some verses from it to justify the bigotry christians are rightfully associated with?


Heh, you don't know Peki very well do you : )
 
2013-10-15 09:27:30 PM  
iamkio.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-10-15 09:28:02 PM  

grumpfuff: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: <snip>

Oh, you were there? You might want to go talk to Guinness about being the world's oldest person.

/thinks the story didn't happen at all, and was used to explain the destruction by volcano of two ancient cities


aagrajag: grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.

No, that interpretation is pretty much universally agreed on by every serious scholar who's ever examined the story, going back to the earliest Jewish commentaries on it. You can thank Augustine for muddying the waters on it by bringing alternate interpretations.

Even if it not was intended to be in support of rape, the lesson is still: throw your property (daughters) out to be abused, rather than allow strangers to be so treated.

Still not gettin' the warm fuzzies, here.

I'm not excusing the story. I'm saying interpret it properly before criticizing it.


I know; I'm not attacking you, here.

There *is* no flattering interpretation.
 
2013-10-15 09:28:13 PM  

grumpfuff: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: <snip>

Oh, you were there? You might want to go talk to Guinness about being the world's oldest person.

/thinks the story didn't happen at all, and was used to explain the destruction by volcano of two ancient cities


aagrajag: grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.

No, that interpretation is pretty much universally agreed on by every serious scholar who's ever examined the story, going back to the earliest Jewish commentaries on it. You can thank Augustine for muddying the waters on it by bringing alternate interpretations.

Even if it not was intended to be in support of rape, the lesson is still: throw your property (daughters) out to be abused, rather than allow strangers to be so treated.

Still not gettin' the warm fuzzies, here.

I'm not excusing the story. I'm saying interpret it properly before criticizing it.


Why not post the verses in question?

I'm on the cellphone so I can't. But I used the audio book reading of it for my radio show so I remember it.
 
2013-10-15 09:28:20 PM  

The Why Not Guy: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

It's cool to mock religion, but please make sure you get your story right.

Why should we? Christians read the story as being a condemnation of homosexuality. If they can't be bothered to figure out their own fairy tales why should I be expected to?


For the same reason you mock Christians who say "evolution is just a theory." If you want to point out the error or problem with a particular stance, make sure you're getting the right stance.

And I'm just as quick to point out their interpretation is wrong. Also, it's not their fairy tale. It's a Jewish fairy tale.
 
2013-10-15 09:28:30 PM  

ramblinwreck: Africa?  Yep, not really relevant to most countries.  Sorry feminists if you thought you'd see Europe or North America.  Concentrate your efforts there, oh wait...you won't...because you actually believe you're oppressed in the first world.


WTF does feminism have to do with this story?
 
2013-10-15 09:28:44 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.


Though we've seen softer, fuzzier versions of Christianity reinterpret the idea of the cities' primary sin as being generally about treating neighbours poorly rather than having gay sex (a somewhat recent development, it would seem), that particular part of the story is nonetheless very specifically about gay sex. The argument there being that raping young girls isn't as bad as consensual gay sex, of course.
 
2013-10-15 09:29:08 PM  

PunGent: theotherles: Politician, rope, tree, some assembly required.

If you can't find any rope, I've heard the entrails of a priest make a good substitute...

/better not be obscure


I'm afraid it is; but it shall become known soon.
 
2013-10-15 09:30:25 PM  
Wait, by this logic a straight who is raped by a homo becomes homo. But that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't getting raped by a homo make you desire women more? So, wait, the cure for the gay is for a homo to be raped by a homo so he or she becomes streight... Holy crap, I've discovered the cure for the gay! And I'm patenting this! I'm gonna make a fortune!
 
2013-10-15 09:30:36 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: grumpfuff: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: <snip>

Oh, you were there? You might want to go talk to Guinness about being the world's oldest person.

/thinks the story didn't happen at all, and was used to explain the destruction by volcano of two ancient cities


aagrajag: grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: grumpfuff: That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.

But, like everything in the bible, it's open to interpretation. The priesthood and vatican itself are based on interpretations much less clear than that.

No, that interpretation is pretty much universally agreed on by every serious scholar who's ever examined the story, going back to the earliest Jewish commentaries on it. You can thank Augustine for muddying the waters on it by bringing alternate interpretations.

Even if it not was intended to be in support of rape, the lesson is still: throw your property (daughters) out to be abused, rather than allow strangers to be so treated.

Still not gettin' the warm fuzzies, here.

I'm not excusing the story. I'm saying interpret it properly before criticizing it.

Why not post the verses in question?

I'm on the cellphone so I can't. But I used the audio book reading of it for my radio show so I remember it.


genesis 19-21 (roughly
judges 19-21 is also relevant
Anyone know the Ezekiel verses that say "This is what the sin of sister Sodom was..."???

Those are the only ones I don't have memorized.
 
2013-10-15 09:32:01 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: anfrind: Chinchillazilla: tinfoil-hat maggie: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

It was Lot. Later his daughters got him drunk and raped him so they could get pregnant, so I guess it balanced out.

If I remember correctly, neither of the two daughters had ever traveled outside of Sodom or had any contact with people from other cities, so as far as they knew the three of them were the last humans on Earth.  Which makes their actions more understandable, albeit no less icky.

Ya and Sodom never saw any visitors and their dad never disabused them of this idea.

Riiiight.


Well, women weren't exactly thought of as people during that time period, so it's not inconceivable that they might have grown up with little or no knowledge of life outside Lot's home, even with the occasional visitor.

In any case, it's a weird story no matter how you look at it.
 
2013-10-15 09:32:18 PM  
Suckmaster Burstingfoam:

Why not post the verses in question?

I'm on the cellphone so I can't. But I used the audio book reading of it for my radio show so I remember it.


For what purpose? So you can tell me your interpretation and we can argue about it? To be blunt, I don't care what your interpretation is. When dealing with the interpretation of a religious book, I generally look to the scholars/leaders of that religion. Hence why I do not accept the Christian interpretation of Old Testament stories - it's not their book.
 
2013-10-15 09:33:36 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: jaytkay: grumpfuff: And people were just defending Uganda's laws as "not so bad or violent." Farking scum.

"An early draft of the [2012] Republican platform published by Politico accuses the Obama administration of "attempting to impose" on the "peoples of Africa...legalized abortion and the homosexual rights agenda." Since 2006, with the urging and influence of US conservative Christian groups, several African countries have considered or passed laws outlawing homosexuality. The most infamous of them, proposed in Uganda, would impose the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality."

WOW
I was not aware of that.

History will be very harsh indeed.


That presumes policies which reflect your opinion and not theirs win.
 
2013-10-15 09:34:49 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: I can't imagine why anyone would actually believe that having a man rape a lesbian would make the woman want future sexual contact with males.

So I tend to think "corrective rape" supporters just like raping people.

[s.mcstatic.com image 640x360]


Give anyone any amount of power and they will think their penis is magic.
 
Displayed 50 of 344 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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