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 65
    More: Ironic, morals, interpersonal relationship, David Furnish, ministers  
•       •       •

12573 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2013 at 8:12 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-15 07:47:05 PM
10 votes:
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
2013-10-15 08:14:16 PM
9 votes:
Some folks want to make this sort of thing the future of the U.S..
2013-10-15 08:31:53 PM
7 votes:
2013-10-15 08:30:00 PM
5 votes:
2013-10-15 08:18:52 PM
5 votes:
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
2013-10-15 08:29:20 PM
4 votes:

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.
2013-10-15 08:19:10 PM
4 votes:
And people were just defending Uganda's laws as "not so bad or violent." Farking scum.
2013-10-15 09:28:30 PM
3 votes:

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 09:28:02 PM
3 votes:

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 08:52:54 PM
3 votes:

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 don't think anyone who engages in "corrective rape" actually cares if it works.  They just want to punish a perceived deviant.
2013-10-15 08:39:30 PM
3 votes:

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.
2013-10-15 08:34:55 PM
3 votes:
2013-10-15 08:24:13 PM
3 votes:
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier:  The general consensus was I'm a pig, but an adorable one.

Usually that means "loser".
2013-10-15 07:34:27 PM
3 votes:
Forget it Steve, it's Africa.
2013-10-16 01:19:50 AM
2 votes:
I love it when assorted yokels argue about what the Bible "means".
A Sears catalogue has more real meaning.
The Bible means, kiddies, whatever the lying, scumsucking con artist trying to rape you with it at the moment wants it to mean.
It's never "meant" anything else.
2013-10-16 12:40:31 AM
2 votes:
Couldn't get past post 150 or so.

It doesn't matter what you, me, or your scholar of choice thinks passage x is about.

What matters is what the people who are followers of religion believe it is about, and how their beliefs are acted on. They ARE christians and they ARE honestly acting on what they believe the bible says.

To view it any other way is to go hiking into a morass of circular reasoning and arguing with different assumptions then wondering why a different conclusion is reached.

If you want an objective view: there is no evidence of a god. Everyone picking up the writings of man and declaring them divine truths, laws, etc is equally silly and merely using their interpretations as a means to their end.
2013-10-16 12:01:32 AM
2 votes:
This thread has somehow devolved degenerated into a discussion about whether the horns of the unicorns are black or white.
2013-10-15 09:48:49 PM
2 votes:

jaytkay: KAMPALA, Uganda - Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about "curing" homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda's capital to give a series of talks...
 ...For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight


Thanks for the links and for pointing this out. Disgusting excuses for humans. Slime of the earth. 'I can't hurt people in my own country, so I'm going to go live out my fantasies where no one will question me. They might even let me kill a bunch of people! This is gonna be awesome!'
2013-10-15 09:24:36 PM
2 votes:

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 09:20:44 PM
2 votes:

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 09:18:45 PM
2 votes:

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 09:06:15 PM
2 votes:

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 09:03:20 PM
2 votes:

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 08:58:00 PM
2 votes:

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 08:57:00 PM
2 votes:

anfrind: 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 don't think anyone who engages in "corrective rape" actually cares if it works.  They just want to punish a perceived deviant.


I agree; this was the last line in my Boobies:

No one believes this; it's a socially acceptable excuse to rape a persecuted minority.
2013-10-15 08:49:17 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-10-15 08:29:09 PM
2 votes:
Why not corrective slow romancing with dinner and a movie?
2013-10-15 08:17:30 PM
2 votes:
I didnt think it was possible.
This guy tied hitler.
I hate them equally.

/this is not to say that one is more evil than the other, nor to minimize the holocaust. Just that .... I cant think of a higher level of hate.
2013-10-16 02:43:21 PM
1 votes:

RobSeace: BojanglesPaladin: Homosexuality is not specifically called out, though it is implied in the general "sins of strange flesh" category

I always took that "strange flesh" bit to be a reference to wanting to fark the non-human angels... I'm not sure what's so "strange" about the flesh of another human who happens to have the same sexual organs as you do...


I've heard that as well, but there are a couple issues with that. First, in every version of the story that I've come across, the townspeople have no idea the two men are angels. While the Abrahamic god certainly is a capricious psychopath, punishing people for a sin they don't even know they're committing would be a bit silly even by his standards.

Second, I believe the "strange flesh" thing is referenced as a sin that the people of the towns had been engaging in on an ongoing basis prior to their destruction, so the implication of this version would be that those people had been routinely having sex with angels - again, that seems exceedingly silly even within the context of this already silly story.
2013-10-16 05:49:04 AM
1 votes:
This is the worst thread.
2013-10-16 01:38:06 AM
1 votes:

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.


"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

So, no, not really.
2013-10-16 12:42:54 AM
1 votes:

grumpfuff: That really doesn't change the original story, or it's interpretation.


Sure, and this is the original Batman:

upload.wikimedia.org

But that doesn't mean that the Dark Knight movies are "wrong". They're different stories and the only thing they have in common is that they trace back to the same inspiration.

"They're interpreting our book. And they're doing it wrong! But it's not their fault. It's not their book."

I've seen that Lewis Black bit. It's funny, but he misses the point - they're not "interpreting" somebody else's stories. The term is "co-opted". They've co-opted these stories, which means they now have their own versions, just like the Jews (before they became Jews) would've co-opted elements from various proto-Judaic cults/mythologies on the way to creating Judaism.
2013-10-16 12:42:37 AM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Heya grumpfuff. (I'm just popping in ferra sec.)

I think we can all agree that this Ugandan "minister" is an unchristian dangerous whackjob and is not representative of the typical American Christian.

Also, let's not forget that this is the continent that still does genital mutilation of young women and is riddled with rampant rape with or without some back bush preacher condoning it. I don't know where they get their violent and extreme sexual handgups, but it ain't from the good book.


4.bp.blogspot.com
2013-10-16 12:15:23 AM
1 votes:

grumpfuff: You're absolutely right. The only problem with this analogy is that the Christians did not re-write the story of Sodom(or any of the Old Testament for that matter). They kept it the same as it was. They even kept the same interpretation until Augustine came around.


I posted a link earlier to a verse from a Christian text, which said plainly that the primary sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual immorality. This, roughly, is what most Christians believe (especially those in the parts of the world TFA talks about).

Now, I don't know if you're trying to question the authenticity of that text or what, but it doesn't look like this conversation's going anywhere. I've gotten into similar arguments with people who argue that the death penalty for apostates isn't a part of "true" Islam, and it always ends with me pointing out that the way they personally choose to interpret that particular hadith doesn't have any bearing on what the plurality of Muslims actually believe, and it's the latter which presents a more meaningful of what "Islam" stands for.
2013-10-15 11:48:35 PM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: My position is that the idea of a "proper interpretation" is incoherent when talking about poorly written fiction; the most I'll do is note what the prevailing view is based on what the majority or plurality of actual adherents to that particular religious tradition believe.


Religious scholars(even atheist ones) would disagree with you. No one cares if the story actually happened, what is important is the message the story is trying to convey. Think of it like a morality fable. Let's use Aesop as an example.

We can all agree the story of the tortoise and the hare never happened. But we can still read the story, and agree that the moral of the story is that "Slow and steady wins the race."
2013-10-15 11:10:35 PM
1 votes:

pueblonative: grumpfuff: Biological Ali: Peki: This is why education is important. Knowing the difference between "prevailing opinion" and "extremist wing that gets a lot of press."

We're not talking about the US, or other small pockets of the civilized world.

This is an article about a country where I would wager my life's savings that the percentage of people who hold the soft "hospitality" interpretation over the "sexual immorality" interpretation doesn't go beyond single digits. Similar strands of social conservatism and hard stances against what is perceived to be deviant sexual behaviour run through places like Russia, Eastern Europe, much of Latin America, Christian communities in countries like India, and (obviously) the remainder of Africa's Christians.

Even in America, I'm not sure whether people who interpret Sodom and Gomorrah as being about hospitality actually outnumber the people who interpret it as being about sexual immorality. I've tried to find poll numbers but can't seem to locate any for this specific issue. I'll tell you right now that I would very much want all of the world's Christians to interpret their religion in the most humane manner possible, no matter how many mental gymnastics they have to go through in order to get there. However, what I want and what actually is look to be two very different things.

Congrats. You pointed out a lot of people are wrong. That still doesn't change the actual interpretation.

Uh, exactly why do I give a shiat about the interpretation of a mythical tale in a book full of contradictions as an excuse to rape people into being straight?


I don't know about you, but I'm a fan of intellectual honesty. If you want to criticize something, criticize it for what it actually it, not what you think it is.

Also, one of my degrees is in comparative religion, so at least in my case, it's a pet peeve.
2013-10-15 10:38:38 PM
1 votes:

flondrix: grumpfuff: Here ya go, for the curious.

Ezekial 49-50(NIV)

49"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Hmmm, nothing here that unambiguously identifies the sin of Sodom as mistreatment of guests.  "Did detestable things" is pretty broad.  Can anyone comment on the Hebrew text of this verse?


There are other more direct ones, but I don't remember the exact ones, and to be blunt, am too lazy to go looking. Like someone else said, there are people who are *much* more fluent in Jewish interpretations than I am(probably because they're Jewish and I'm not), but I do know they say the same thing I've been saying.

Much of the commentary on the story is from the Midrash, which I admit, I am not very familiar with.

Here's what Wiki has to say on it, but it is Wiki, so I don't blame you if you don't take it for granted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Jewish
2013-10-15 10:36:43 PM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: Except no mater how much you wanna say it's about sexual indecency it's not. It's in the bible.

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Look, I'm glad that you've had the opportunity to people who've interpreted these passages the way you say. Certainly, they're better people than those who hold the interpretation I'm talking about. What I'm talking about, however, is the mainstream interpretation of these things among global Christianity.

When I'm talking about what a particular passage "means" to a particular religion, I'll go with the prevailing opinion over the minority opinion.


This is why education is important. Knowing the difference between "prevailing opinion" and "extremist wing that gets a lot of press."
2013-10-15 10:13:47 PM
1 votes:

aagrajag: brandent: 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.

Have you not noticed the trend? They're losing. Rapidly. shiatholes like Uganda are their last refuge. They are already an embarrassed minority in every first-world country. In the United States, too.


You underestimate evangelicals in the US
2013-10-15 09:44:32 PM
1 votes:

menschenfresser: Is this the bit where Lot's wife turns around and looks back, and is transformed into a pillar of salt?


Yes, that's part of the same story.  And that part is a blatant ripoff of the Greek myth about the bard who made a deal where he could enter the underworld to bring back his dead lover, as long as he didn't look back.
2013-10-15 09:36:36 PM
1 votes:
Huh, I was half-expecting it to be this minister:

www.islamophobiatoday.com
2013-10-15 09:33:36 PM
1 votes:

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 09:28:20 PM
1 votes:

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 09:26:36 PM
1 votes:

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 09:25:21 PM
1 votes:

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 09:25:00 PM
1 votes:

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 09:23:51 PM
1 votes:
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 09:20:42 PM
1 votes:

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 09:17:12 PM
1 votes:

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 09:08:03 PM
1 votes:

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 09:06:40 PM
1 votes:

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 09:05:09 PM
1 votes:

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 09:00:48 PM
1 votes:
Hassa deega ebowei indeed.
2013-10-15 09:00:48 PM
1 votes:

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 08:57:28 PM
1 votes:

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 and sexually inadequate man exercising physical power over a woman who rejects him.
2013-10-15 08:55:55 PM
1 votes:

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!
2013-10-15 08:55:49 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-10-15 08:53:05 PM
1 votes:

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.


Could you read the comments at least if you aren't going to read the full article, the rape of school girls isn't to keep guys from turning gay, it is to force lesbians to become straight.
2013-10-15 08:45:28 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-10-15 08:40:41 PM
1 votes:

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".


...holy fark. I really, really hope those assholes got slammed in jail.

/they didn't, I know, but I can dream...
2013-10-15 08:39:03 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-10-15 08:34:35 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-10-15 08:33:39 PM
1 votes:

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: 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

To be fair, I've told a couple of lesbian friends that the option was available. The general consensus was I'm a pig, but an adorable one.


The difference is that in your case, it would be consensual.
2013-10-15 08:28:26 PM
1 votes:
Is the Sick tag out raping schoolgirls?
2013-10-15 08:22:17 PM
1 votes:
Both sides are bad so vote Ugandan
 
Displayed 65 of 65 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report