(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Comments

[dianavilliers.livejournal.com]

I note he's not offering to set her free.

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

Had a bit of an argument with a man about whether that sign on the right constitutes "gay-bashing". Which, how the fuck could it possibly not?

[sanityimpaired.livejournal.com]

I don't think I can call this gay-bashing. Stating an opinion I don't like and don't agree with, but not gay-bashing.

Gay-bashing would be an attack on the people, rather than on the practice. It's like saying that drinking coffee is wrong as opposed to saying that coffee drinkers are idiots - the former is talking about coffee, the latter is talking about coffee drinkers.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Homosexuality is not what you do

Even if I was a virgin, I would still be homosexual.

[sanityimpaired.livejournal.com]

That's a medical definition. From the viewpoint taken by religion, it's a practice, and that's how it's being used in the sign.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Som the religious believers don't think they're being hateful... but they never do.

Doesn't change that it's still gay bashing.

[sanityimpaired.livejournal.com]

The motive of the person holding the sign is a completely separate thing. The action determines whether or not it's gay bashing, and I maintain that it's an attack against a practice rather than against the individuals practicing it.

If you disagree, that's fine. I doubt we're going to convince one another regardless.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I dare say that the same can be said of anti-religious bigotry - I mean, if they demand muslims just stop praying to and believing in Allah then it's a matter of action?

And homosexuality is far less changeable than religion

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

This is claiming homosexuality to be evil on an ineffable cosmic scale, that homosexuals commit a crime against God simply by existing. It's denigrating and dehumanizing homosexuals on a personal and fundamental level.

Homosexuality is no more a practice than "being black" is. Would a sign saying that being black was a crime against God not be an attack on that race?

[sanityimpaired.livejournal.com]

See above.

[snakey.livejournal.com]

"Would a sign saying that being black was a crime against God not be an attack on that race?"

[sanityimpaired.livejournal.com]

Of course it would be. Which brings up the first point Spark and I discussed about how religion view homosexuality as an act rather than an innate part of self.

They're wrong, but that's the definition the writer of the sign is using.

[faeriemuriel.livejournal.com]

I don't think that it's the same as saying "I don't like homosexuality." It's saying that homosexuality is a sin--something that makes your soul, which is supposed to exist for eternity, to spend that eternity in torture. While what they're saying, rather peacefully, isn't meant to harm anyone now, they obviously believe that it is something so hateful as to condemn someone for eternity--not a few years, not even life--in total and complete agony.

Now, again with the "being black" part above. I don't need to restate their stuff. = P

[sanityimpaired.livejournal.com]

Were they to carry a sign stating that pre-marital sex is a sin, all the same arguements you make would apply.

However, the majority of us would recognize that they're stating an opinion that we don't agree with, and that we don't care about. We certainly wouldn't be having a discussion about it being a hate crime against the unwed.

[snakey.livejournal.com]

Why are you unable to separate sex acts (such as pre-marital sex) from the state of being gay?

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

Speaking of making up sins

(doclawless brought it to my attention.)

This is the perfect storm of nutcases: Phyllis Schlafly's kid is involved, they're questioning the veracity of the "Forgive them father..." line, they're claiming the Bible has liberal bias aaaaand (wait for it...) "non-experts collaborate Wiki-style on the Internet to produce their version."

I don't think I could make that up.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the Conservapedia Bible Project is a special kind of stupid.

[aeduna.livejournal.com]

It might be a reference to Lev 19:19 "Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you." rather than entirely made up... but that would only work if they assumed all corduroy is made of multiple types of fibre....

[aeduna.livejournal.com]

(given that Lev18 is one of the passages used to justify the scared of homosexuality stuff)

[sanityimpaired.livejournal.com]

Randon instance of people failing to understand the Bible:

When the old testament was translated to English, all instances of YHWH were changed to "the LORD." The third commandment is the reason for this: it was considered vulgar to use Yahweh's name outside of specific situations.

So when people say, "do not take the Lord's name in vain," they're getting it wrong. It should be "do not take Yahweh's name in vain." Which is pretty easy, really. When was the last time you heard somebody yell "Yahweh damn it!"

[faeriemuriel.livejournal.com]

Oh! I got into a lovely argument with someone on how "god damn you" was in any way different from "god bless you". My argument is that it's a supplication, not a command, in either case--either both are in vain or neither are.

[sanityimpaired.livejournal.com]

I hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense. There are as many miracles in the Bible that destroy things as there are creating things, so why would we not ask God to do negative things for us?

[fridgepunk.livejournal.com]

Actually "yahweh" and "jehovah" are the mis-translations and "THE LORD" is blasphemy - basically YHWH is a tretragrammaton used to avoid blasphemy in the tanakh, but to remind people reading it that you were in fact supposed to say "adonai" during prayers and other formal ceremonies, they stuck the vowel symbols for Adonai onto the tetragrammaton YHWH.

The gentiles who formed the christian church didn't know that and just read Y(a)H(o)W(a)H(i) because that's what it said and they didn't feel like asking any jewish person to explain it to them, despite neither Yahweh or jehovah being any sort of word in hebrew.

The only reason the KJV got the translations right in the end is because it intentionally mistranslated the Yahweh/Jahovah misspellings to avoid blasphemy... and thereby made every english bible since a vile blaspheming text where the original poorly researched one wasn't.

biblical inerrancy is an idea that does not make a great deal of sense.

[sanityimpaired.livejournal.com]

Ha! That's fabulously funny, and further demonstrates how important it is the study the Bible rather than just reading it if you intend to make it an important part of your life.

[faeriemuriel.livejournal.com]

I've known someone named Adonai. Are they, like....super-blaspheming?