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)   When it comes to the gay marriage debate, the real bigots are the bigots who call bigots bigots. Bigots   (theweek.com) divider line 315
    More: Unlikely, Conor Friedersdorf, Ross Douthat, democratic government, fashion trends  
•       •       •

1360 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:40 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-07 09:28:13 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Marcus Aurelius: ManateeGag: mrshowrules: I don't have an issue with people being bigots, I have an issue with them acting on their bigotry and institutionalizing it.

i can agree with this.  you are free to be all the asshole you want to be, just don't try to force your assholery to be the the law of the land.

So it doesn't bother you even a little bit that God is going to smite us for our wicked ways?

God has to exist in order to smite anything. Evidence for such a being is sorely lacking. So, no. It doesn't bother me.


His smiter isn't as precise as the movies make out, you know.  You see John Travolta as an archangel smiting a bank, and sure, that looks cute.  But in reality, getting smited might well mean getting hit by a Manhattan sized rock.  A Manhattan sized rock that was drawn here by gaydar.
 
2014-03-07 09:47:17 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: And on that note. if the Devil spends all his time in Hell punishing sinners, why is he considered evil or the antithesis of God, it seems like he's doing half of God's job for him. God rewarding the good and the devil punishing the bad. Hell, he's probably doing 98% of God's job and God only has to deal with a few percentage of those who die.


I've read that some of the early Gnostic Christian cults believed that God and the Devil were one and neither were the supreme being /force /power. The god that is known is the god of the cave. They believed in an allegorical bible and the allegories had been passed from countless other religions. Basically "the cave" could be Hades but it was the physical world. Being trapped in the Karmic Circle so to speak, without enlightenment.

Granted it all got hijacked and taken to the lowest common denominator. The book "Stranger in a Strange Land" actually deals a bit with the inner and outer circles of gnostic traditions.

Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians a very interesting book if you've never read it.
 
2014-03-07 10:11:32 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Uchiha_Cycliste: And on that note. if the Devil spends all his time in Hell punishing sinners, why is he considered evil or the antithesis of God, it seems like he's doing half of God's job for him. God rewarding the good and the devil punishing the bad. Hell, he's probably doing 98% of God's job and God only has to deal with a few percentage of those who die.

I've read that some of the early Gnostic Christian cults believed that God and the Devil were one and neither were the supreme being /force /power. The god that is known is the god of the cave. They believed in an allegorical bible and the allegories had been passed from countless other religions. Basically "the cave" could be Hades but it was the physical world. Being trapped in the Karmic Circle so to speak, without enlightenment.

Granted it all got hijacked and taken to the lowest common denominator. The book "Stranger in a Strange Land" actually deals a bit with the inner and outer circles of gnostic traditions.

Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians a very interesting book if you've never read it.


I'll look for it, thanks. I know we have dante and the Renaissance to thank for many of our thoughts on Satan but that's about it.
 
2014-03-07 10:16:04 PM  

jpbreon: What's so amusing about this 'marriage' debate is that one side deserves what it is getting, while the other is getting what it doesn't deserve.

The Christians who invited the State into the marriage arena in an attempt to socially engineer opened the door to this. Rule #1 is simple. Never, ever, invite the State to regulate, encourage, discourage, or otherwise involve itself in anything. You will invite destruction to the institution. Marriage was fine before the religious people attempted to coerce people into religious life by offering State-given benefits. They initiated a process that sullied marriage by making it a business transaction rather than a promise made before the Creator to conduct one's spiritual and reproductive life in a manner consistent with teachings.

The proponents of gay favoritism under the so-called 'marriage' law are not for equality, but they wish to be granted the same favorable status. Imagine if Martin Luther King led marches for civil rights to make blacks equal under the law to whites, but not for Latino or Asian people. The underlying inequality still exists: why are people who choose to enter in a 'marriage' given preferential treatment over people who stay single? Why can't two single people, best friends, enter into a contract that allows for visitation at the hospital, power of attorney, etc.?

There's not a single reason for the State to grant favorable status to people who enter into a specific type of contract over those who do not. End all 'marriage' benefits from the State so the institution can heal.


Umm...
 
2014-03-07 10:48:39 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: tinfoil-hat maggie: Uchiha_Cycliste: And on that note. if the Devil spends all his time in Hell punishing sinners, why is he considered evil or the antithesis of God, it seems like he's doing half of God's job for him. God rewarding the good and the devil punishing the bad. Hell, he's probably doing 98% of God's job and God only has to deal with a few percentage of those who die.

I've read that some of the early Gnostic Christian cults believed that God and the Devil were one and neither were the supreme being /force /power. The god that is known is the god of the cave. They believed in an allegorical bible and the allegories had been passed from countless other religions. Basically "the cave" could be Hades but it was the physical world. Being trapped in the Karmic Circle so to speak, without enlightenment.

Granted it all got hijacked and taken to the lowest common denominator. The book "Stranger in a Strange Land" actually deals a bit with the inner and outer circles of gnostic traditions.

Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians a very interesting book if you've never read it.

I'll look for it, thanks. I know we have dante and the Renaissance to thank for many of our thoughts on Satan but that's about it.


Uchiha_Cycliste: tinfoil-hat maggie: Uchiha_Cycliste: And on that note. if the Devil spends all his time in Hell punishing sinners, why is he considered evil or the antithesis of God, it seems like he's doing half of God's job for him. God rewarding the good and the devil punishing the bad. Hell, he's probably doing 98% of God's job and God only has to deal with a few percentage of those who die.

I've read that some of the early Gnostic Christian cults believed that God and the Devil were one and neither were the supreme being /force /power. The god that is known is the god of the cave. They believed in an allegorical bible and the allegories had been passed from countless other religions. Basically "the cave" could be Hades but it was the physical world. Being trapped in the Karmic Circle so to speak, without enlightenment.

Granted it all got hijacked and taken to the lowest common denominator. The book "Stranger in a Strange Land" actually deals a bit with the inner and outer circles of gnostic traditions.

Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians a very interesting book if you've never read it.

I'll look for it, thanks. I know we have dante and the Renaissance to thank for many of our thoughts on Satan but that's about it.


Do, Jesus leaving the cave after being on a cross is an allegory for enlightenment basically.I've yet to read The Gospel of Thomas but I hear it features a lot of that near Buddhist thinking. Fun stuff really.
 
2014-03-07 11:53:10 PM  

cchris_39: menschenfresser: Also notice how this guy never responded to me with whatever part of the Bible he's basing that nonsense on - precisely because it isn't there.

Romans 1:24-27 (Deceived into sin by the creature)

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Cor 6:9-10 (Condemned)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality

1 Cor 6:11 (Redemption and forgiveness )

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


guycodeblog.mtv.com

Dude are you for real quoting the bible?
 
2014-03-07 11:58:23 PM  

ScaryBottles: cchris_39: menschenfresser: Also notice how this guy never responded to me with whatever part of the Bible he's basing that nonsense on - precisely because it isn't there.

Romans 1:24-27 (Deceived into sin by the creature)

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Cor 6:9-10 (Condemned)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality

1 Cor 6:11 (Redemption and forgiveness )

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[guycodeblog.mtv.com image 450x253]

Dude are you for real quoting the bible?


In his defense I believe people my have been asking for passages that demonstrate how gay rights would be an infringement on one's religious freedom. I could be wrong there have been so many of these threads.
 
2014-03-08 12:05:14 AM  

Fafai: ScaryBottles: cchris_39: menschenfresser: Also notice how this guy never responded to me with whatever part of the Bible he's basing that nonsense on - precisely because it isn't there.

Romans 1:24-27 (Deceived into sin by the creature)

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Cor 6:9-10 (Condemned)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality

1 Cor 6:11 (Redemption and forgiveness )

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[guycodeblog.mtv.com image 450x253]

Dude are you for real quoting the bible?

In his defense I believe people my have been asking for passages that demonstrate how gay rights would be an infringement on one's religious freedom. I could be wrong there have been so many of these threads.


That doesn't strike you as kind of a trick to make him look stupid? Because it worked. The barfing gif is just the beginning.
 
2014-03-08 12:14:47 AM  

ScaryBottles: That doesn't strike you as kind of a trick to make him look stupid?


Oh yeah of course he's going to look stupid. I don't really think it's a trick to make anyone look stupid. I think it's someone naturally looking stupid on their own. Providing someone a chance to support their claims isn't much of a trap. The ball was in his court and he blew it because he can't even be honest with himself about why he feels the way he feels.
 
2014-03-08 03:04:36 AM  
It amazes me there are still people who think "you're intolerant of my intolerance!" is a an argument that should be taken seriously.
 
2014-03-08 05:27:08 AM  

jpbreon: What's so amusing about this 'marriage' debate is that one side deserves what it is getting, while the other is getting what it doesn't deserve.

The Christians who invited the State into the marriage arena in an attempt to socially engineer opened the door to this. Rule #1 is simple. Never, ever, invite the State to regulate, encourage, discourage, or otherwise involve itself in anything. You will invite destruction to the institution. Marriage was fine before the religious people attempted to coerce people into religious life by offering State-given benefits. They initiated a process that sullied marriage by making it a business transaction rather than a promise made before the Creator to conduct one's spiritual and reproductive life in a manner consistent with teachings.

The proponents of gay favoritism under the so-called 'marriage' law are not for equality, but they wish to be granted the same favorable status. Imagine if Martin Luther King led marches for civil rights to make blacks equal under the law to whites, but not for Latino or Asian people. The underlying inequality still exists: why are people who choose to enter in a 'marriage' given preferential treatment over people who stay single? Why can't two single people, best friends, enter into a contract that allows for visitation at the hospital, power of attorney, etc.?

There's not a single reason for the State to grant favorable status to people who enter into a specific type of contract over those who do not. End all 'marriage' benefits from the State so the institution can heal.


I hate to puncture your Libertarian fantasy world, but marriage has carried legal implications in almost every society for the past 3000 years.  Inheritance, line of secession, household decisions making, these were standard since ancient Rome and probably earlier. Acting like state regulation of marriage is a new thing or that "religion ruined marriage" presupposes a time when marriage was an unregulated legal contract.  That time never existed.
 
2014-03-08 10:58:38 AM  

amiable: for the past 3000 years


What are you, a creationist?
 
2014-03-08 11:10:49 AM  

Aaron Haynes: It amazes me there are still people who think "you're intolerant of my intolerance!" is a an argument that should be taken seriously.


Not just taken seriously, it's practically a core political principle for them.  I have seen people make the excuse that BECAUSE gays/minorities/women are so "in your face" it gives them the right to keep discriminating.  If everyone weren't so "uppity" then all kinds of tolerance would break out!
 
2014-03-08 11:58:33 AM  

what_now: SkinnyHead: Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

If your region interferes with your job, get a new religion or a new job.  This isn't hard.


Gay marriage may be a relatively new thing - but "sinful/wrong marriage" is not.

From a hardcore fundagelical Christian point of view, Hindu weddings, Muslim weddings, Catholic weddings, Mormon weddings, weddings between atheists (etc.etc.etc.) are evil... [this isn't a post about how stupid they are for thinking they're evil...  they do. many of them. 'tis fact]

My question is this: How did those companies (which are now complaining about not being able to discriminate against gays) handle working/not working all these evil wedding ceremonies?


This is a legitimate question, because in a broader sense this is not at all a new issue - religious folk who run businesses that have to do with weddings have a whole plethora of 'wedding types' that would make them uncomfortable / that they think are of the devil... Anybody know that side of the issue has been dealth with in the past?
 
2014-03-08 12:27:59 PM  

SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?


OK - I'll bite.  No -provided that their religious beliefs consist SOLELY of the one rule that they can't be involved in same-sex weddings in any way.  As that religion has never existed, then your questions is moot.

But what about religious sects that INCLUDE such a rule amongst other rules?   Then the wedding photographer has to apply ALL of the rules in the same manner.

SO for Christians, that means they would have to refuse ANY wedding where one of the participants is a) not heterosexual; b) divorced; c) not Christian (and strictly speaking not of the same Christian sect as the photographer), etc.   If your beliefs include Levitican law then all those apply too.

The photographer would have to require that ANY POTENTIAL CLIENT fill out a questionnaire, and possibly get it notarized BEFORE any business could take place, up to and including and consultations ABOUT what that business might entail.

They'd also have to show that they ALSO run their business based on their religious beliefs with NON-CUSTOMER interactions as well:  choice of suppliers, equipment, B2B retailers, etc.  (Good luck getting a computer, and hooking it up to the Internet, but hey - computers aren't in the Bible anyway.)

At that point they MIGHT be able to successfully argue that their business decisions are based completely on their religious beliefs to the degree where it would be absolutely necessary to continue to do so.
 
Displayed 15 of 315 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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