Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Mormons are homophobes?


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#91 soulvengeance

soulvengeance

    Beating dead horses

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2009 - 11:53 PM

Does *your* religion of humanistic thought allow you to change your mind? What will you do if it turns out that there is actually a God, and that He actually did forbid homosexuality? Would you be willing to change your mind and try to understand why He forbid it, and why/how it was detrimental? Or would you believe that you know better than an omniscient being and choose to hate Him?

My right to change my mind about ANYTHING is not granted by, nor repealed by, my religion. That right is given me of God, and is inherent to all people. And likewise, no human mind can be changed by force - only by persuasion, discussion, and experience.


Wouldn't your "God" just strike me down for not believing him? I have nothing against religion, I just believe your interpretation of your religion is wrong. I actually have had fairly in depth discussion about homosexuality with religious folk, and surprise, they're okay with homosexuality. So either your interpretation is wrong, or their interpretation is wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're going to say they're wrong.:)

That's kind of harsh, isn't it? Faith is belief without evidence. This holds true for every defined system of belief. Even those who aren't religious have something that they place their faith in. Due to the limits of human perception and experience, it is impossible for any one person to know and understand everything. At some point, everyone has to place their faith in something. Without this, the world becomes a rather bleak place.

Is it really all right for the mind to be mutable on any subject? Is there no merit for making a stand on a decision you have already made? If a person chooses to adopt a defined belief system, you would expect him/her to turn against his/her own faith just so that they can agree with your position?

The scientific method would have us question and test everything. But humans can't actually live that way. That is the path of madness. We are built to believe.


I place my faith in here and now. My life isn't looking to be filled up by something. I don't expect them to turn against their faith, I'm just saying the tenants of their religion don't allow them to question anything within it. Well, his/her religion anyway. I stand by my opinion of him/her being nuts.:)
mytradelist:
http://www.cheapassg...864#post2614864

Calls this what you may, but I would say that Blacks actually benefited from the slavery. Comparing the current lives of many African Americans to Africans, one can see that the former live in much better conditions with greater freedoms and opportunities.


#92 rcpettit

rcpettit

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 September 2009 - 12:01 AM

At least homosexuals don't come knocking on my door at 8am on a Saturday. Plus, they help keep the world population under control. Can others say the same?
...rectum, damn near killed him!

#93 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 September 2009 - 12:05 AM

Apparently your religion of humanism allows you to discriminate on the basis on opposing views.

My religion allows me to hear you out, give you a chance to speak, and asks that I treat you with respect, now matter how abhorrent I believe your statements to be.

Your religion tells you that since I disagree in a way that is abhorrent to you, you should alienate me with statements like "you don't belong here" and telling me that it's worthless to listen to what I have to say, because you already have all of the answers.

Your approach assumes your own omniscience, to such a degree that all points of view that differ from your own are completely shut out.

I'm willing to hear what you have to say and consider it thoughtfully.

Which of these approaches is more open minded?

The desire and attempt to silence your opposition is not the way of democracy. It is the way of dictatorship.


Two things:

1) I did consider your arguments, and I did point out multiple fatal flaws in them. I don't have to do it politely. You choose to ignore that I pointed out the folly in all of your claims, instead cherry picking the last line of my post to attack that, as if it is the only thing I said to you. Should I assume you have nothing to say in response to my retort of your original claims?

2) I just noticed your telling me to go back and take statistics classes above. You have yet again misread something to make an argumentative point. What I said was that lazy people "instinctively distrust statistics." I am referring, of course, to people who are not capable of thoughtful refutation or deep questioning of theory, of methodology, or of statistics; I am referring to people who offer no deeper a refutation of data than "I don't believe that." There is a huge difference between that and informed skepticism, that considers the study and argues against it. But a flippant disregard of data is a vote in favor of anti-intellectualism and a vote in support of uninformed ideology. Given the religious foundation of your belief system, I'm not at all surprised that you are afraid of empiricism. But being religious is not something that goes hand in hand with illiteracy. If you are going to continue to respond to my posts, please have a grasp of what I'm saying first. I'm a bit tired of responding to refutations of things I did not say, and refutations of cherry-picked and misinterpreted statements in my posts.

It's particularly insidious when you opt to not include the parts of my posts where you are disarmed of the "logic" of your argument.
Posted Image

#94 sanderdaniels81

sanderdaniels81

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 September 2009 - 12:50 AM

Two things:

1) You're talking about something that is as unlikely to occur as...well, as unlikely as the second coming of Christ. Or, if you take offense to that metaphor, as unlikely as a Chicago Cubs World Series. So what's the point of saying something is bad given everyone does it, if, in fact, everyone does not do it?
2) You're also assuming that a population of 6 close to 7 Billion people, who've been ****ing and reproducing as long as we've been here, will suddenly stop ****ing and reproducing. Homosexual relationships, pregnancies, and parenthood are independent events, by and large. If nothing else, the modern era has shown just how detached the idea of "marriage" can be from "parenthood." This all more or less renders your point moot.

But I'm not done yet.

3) If you choose to ignore #1, let us entertain the inverse of your universal homosexuality means we'll all die out after one generation oversimiplified nonsensical juvenile theory. Why is this relevant if, given the institution we have globally now (let's call it the ****" and have as many kids as possible") lead to extinction on a mass level when we reach a population threshold where we can no longer maintain a balance between the planet's resources and providing persons with adequate resources to survive? In short, I'm pointing out that exponential population growth is a path to environmental disaster, and disaster for the human race as well.

So your argument fell apart quite a while back.


You choose to ignore that I pointed out the folly in all of your claims, instead cherry picking the last line of my post to attack that, as if it is the only thing I said to you. Should I assume you have nothing to say in response to my retort of your original claims?



There was nothing to refute. I already stated in my initial post that it would never be universally practiced, but that the fact that it would be cataclysmic if it were should act as an indicator that it isn't good. You really didn't pick ANYTHING apart here. All you did was say "this will never happen, so it isn't bad."

The claim that I made is a fact. If it were universally practiced it would be the end of man. That part is simple fact, so there's nothing to refute. Your argument was based on the premise that since it will never happen, my conclusion was false. If you understand the mechanics of implication, you understand that when A implies B, ~A does NOT imply ~B. Therefore the logic upon which your assertion is based is flawed.

Your accusations against overpopulation came completely out of left field, since I never advocated unrestrained, unplanned pregnancy, to the point of overpopulation. In the world of logical fallacies, this is what is known as a straw-man argument. You've attributed an assertion to me which I never made, and then attacked this assertion in an attempt to discredit me. Unfortunately for you, I never made any such assertion.


Irrelevant. When my will is "hey, let those people do what they want," and your will is "**** those queers, they can't have what I have," then our wills aren't parallel. They aren't equal. My will is more righteous than yours. You suffer the folly of pride by thinking your life choices are superior to others. Sinner.



For starters, you put words in my mouth here. Secondly, this entire statement is essentially you professing that your beliefs are better than mine. You aren't making any points to refute here other than attempting to say that what you have to say is more correct than anything I have to say.

"You suffer the folly of pride by thinking your life choices are superior to others." <-- This statement is so dripping with irony that it's hard to see how you let this escape your mouth (or fingers, in this case) without recognizing it. You clearly believe that your life choices and points of view are superior to mine.


The final piece of your comment was already addressed by my previous comments, which you referred to as "cherry picking". I had to admit that I find it funny that you accuse me of "cherry picking" and immediately introduce some misdirection by addressing a post I made several pages back, with the intention of defending someone that you launched a personal attack at - on the basis that you are smarter than him, and that his distrust of statistics is ignorantly unfounded (which it is not, as I have previously pointed out in plenty of detail).

But back to the point at hand - you have continued to make accusations that essentially say "i'm better than you, and my point of view is more valid."

Perhaps you would be more comfortable in the company of dictators who share your disdain for people who speak their mind when it conflicts with their position, such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

#95 dubbfoolio

dubbfoolio

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 September 2009 - 02:45 AM

I recognize that not everyone shares these beliefs. But the law entitles EVERYONE to vote according to *their own* beliefs.


This is where you're wrong. I think as an American it's you responsibility to vote for what's best for the country and your countrymen. And while gay marriage in no way benefits you or your beliefs, it certainly does not stand in your way. How would you feel if laws were put in place that limited the legal privileges of mormons?

#96 sanderdaniels81

sanderdaniels81

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 September 2009 - 03:27 AM

This is where you're wrong. I think as an American it's you responsibility to vote for what's best for the country and your countrymen. And while gay marriage in no way benefits you or your beliefs, it certainly does not stand in your way.



I think it's safe to say that you don't understand democracy. Under a democracy, people are entitled to vote according to their conscience and beliefs, and are not bound by any external forces or regulations to vote in any specific way. The fact that you used the words "I think" qualify your statement as your opinion. You are perfectly entitled to vote according to that opinion, but no one else is required to do so. They are entitled to vote according to THEIR opinion.


How would you feel if laws were put in place that limited the legal privileges of mormons?



Firstly, I find it odd that you seem to be making the assumption that I'm a Mormon, since I never identified myself as such, and since there are numerous other religions that openly and vocally oppose gay marriage, including Catholics, Muslims, and MANY others.

Regarding the "limited legal privileges" - I think it's safe to say that Mormons know something about this, since they are one of only THREE groups of people in the USA whose wholesale murder was sanctioned by governmental authority.

Africans were brought to the USA as slaves, and were often killed by those who had enslaved them, with the governmental approval to do so. Native Americans also had MANY orders issued by the government for their slaughter. In the 1800's, there was an extermination order issued in the state of Missouri for the legal murder of Mormons. A possible fourth group could be Japanese Americans, who while there was never an explicit order for their murder, were placed in internment camps during World War II, and many of them died.

And what was the cause for the issuing of this extermination order against Mormons? Sadly, it was because of differing political views. See, Mormons didn't believe that slavery was acceptable, and they voted accordingly. The residents of Missouri didn't like that so much, and they convinced the governor to sign an extermination order against Mormons.

They essentially threw democracy to the wind, and decided that what THEY wanted was more important than democracy, to the extent that they sought the MURDER of their political opponents. This is what I like to refer to as pure evil, and the antithesis of democracy.

There's pretty much no way to deprive someone of more rights than by murdering them.

The constitution requires that ALL people be guaranteed the right to LIFE. There's really no debating that one, since the word "life" is mentioned SPECIFICALLY by name.

There is no such mention of "marriage" as a right.

#97 soulvengeance

soulvengeance

    Beating dead horses

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 September 2009 - 03:40 AM

Well, we can agree on that. The government shouldn't recognize any type of marriages at all, they should only be recognizing civil unions for legal reasons. I have no idea how this evolved into a talk about dictatorship.
mytradelist:
http://www.cheapassg...864#post2614864

Calls this what you may, but I would say that Blacks actually benefited from the slavery. Comparing the current lives of many African Americans to Africans, one can see that the former live in much better conditions with greater freedoms and opportunities.


#98 soulvengeance

soulvengeance

    Beating dead horses

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 September 2009 - 03:46 AM

But back to the point at hand - you have continued to make accusations that essentially say "i'm better than you, and my point of view is more valid."

Perhaps you would be more comfortable in the company of dictators who share your disdain for people who speak their mind when it conflicts with their position, such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.


Wait, what? He spoke his mind, he thought your opinion was stupid. Isn't he allowed to think his opinion is superior, I mean you certainly think your opinion is correct, right? I'm confused at what you're trying to say here.
mytradelist:
http://www.cheapassg...864#post2614864

Calls this what you may, but I would say that Blacks actually benefited from the slavery. Comparing the current lives of many African Americans to Africans, one can see that the former live in much better conditions with greater freedoms and opportunities.


#99 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 September 2009 - 04:12 AM

Perhaps you would be more comfortable in the company of dictators who share your disdain for people who speak their mind when it conflicts with their position, such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.


I get it now.

1) You're intolerant of homosexuals sharing the same rights as heterosexuals. This is ok.
2) I'm intolerant of your intolerance. That's not ok.
3) You're intolerant of my intolerance of your intolerance. This is ok.

And yet somehow you think you're above value judgments.

Christ. :roll:
Posted Image

#100 fullmetalfan720

fullmetalfan720

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 September 2009 - 04:24 AM

I think it's safe to say that you don't understand democracy.

I think you don't understand this country.

Under a democracy, people are entitled to vote according to their conscience and beliefs, and are not bound by any external forces or regulations to vote in any specific way. The fact that you used the words "I think" qualify your statement as your opinion. You are perfectly entitled to vote according to that opinion, but no one else is required to do so. They are entitled to vote according to THEIR opinion.

Let me make this clear for you and all you other idiots out there. This country is not a Democracy, has never been a Democracy, and hopefully will never be a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic so that idiots like you cannot infringe upon the rights of others because you don't like them.

Firstly, I find it odd that you seem to be making the assumption that I'm a Mormon, since I never identified myself as such, and since there are numerous other religions that openly and vocally oppose gay marriage, including Catholics, Muslims, and MANY others.

Regarding the "limited legal privileges" - I think it's safe to say that Mormons know something about this, since they are one of only THREE groups of people in the USA whose wholesale murder was sanctioned by governmental authority.

Africans were brought to the USA as slaves, and were often killed by those who had enslaved them, with the governmental approval to do so. Native Americans also had MANY orders issued by the government for their slaughter. In the 1800's, there was an extermination order issued in the state of Missouri for the legal murder of Mormons. A possible fourth group could be Japanese Americans, who while there was never an explicit order for their murder, were placed in internment camps during World War II, and many of them died.

And what was the cause for the issuing of this extermination order against Mormons? Sadly, it was because of differing political views. See, Mormons didn't believe that slavery was acceptable, and they voted accordingly. The residents of Missouri didn't like that so much, and they convinced the governor to sign an extermination order against Mormons.

They essentially threw democracy to the wind, and decided that what THEY wanted was more important than democracy, to the extent that they sought the MURDER of their political opponents. This is what I like to refer to as pure evil, and the antithesis of democracy.

You don't know what Democracy means. Democracy is mob rule. Exactly what you described. The majority makes the rules. Republic is the antithesis of Democracy, because in a Republic people have unalienable rights.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.
-Ben Franklin
The humblest citizen in all the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error. - William Jennings Bryan

#101 sanderdaniels81

sanderdaniels81

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 September 2009 - 07:24 AM

Firstly, I need to correct something. I made the comment that the constitution mentions life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when in fact it is mentioned in the declaration of independence. I am aware of this fact, and mistakenly mentioned it as being in the constitution. However, both of these documents are essential to the foundation of our government, and reflect the will of the founding fathers who established this nation.

Let me make this clear for you and all you other idiots out there. This country is not a Democracy, has never been a Democracy, and hopefully will never be a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic so that idiots like you cannot infringe upon the rights of others because you don't like them.



The United states is indeed a constitutional republic - but a constitutional republic is a form of liberal democracy (and in our case we can also be described as a representative democracy). I never said that we were a PURE democracy, but we are indeed a form of democracy.

http://en.wikipedia....beral_democracy

So no - Republic is *not* the antithesis of Democracy.

Make no mistake, the government derives its power from the PEOPLE, not inherently from itself.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This is essentially the ultimate statement of democracy - that our government only even EXISTS by the will of the people. I'm pretty sure the words of the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence are a legitimate source of information on the subject.

Where you ARE correct is in the fact that a liberal democracy provides protections for minority rights. However, I see no indication anywhere that marriage was considered a "right" by our founding fathers.

There ARE rights that need to be provided to gay couples, such as hospital visitation of partners, property rights, and health insurance benefits. I believe that a civil union should provide these benefits, and other similar rights. But gay couples with civil unions should be the exception - not the foundation for society.

When the family unit (a father, mother, and children if possible) breaks down, society is headed for calamity. This ALSO applies to heterosexual couples. The mounting numbers of divorces and single parents are of great concern. These are signs of a breakdown of the ability of individuals to compromise, treat each other with respect, and accept individual responsibility.

It may or may not interest you to know that I'm also opposed to heterosexual couples having sex outside of marriage, and I believe it is just as much a sin as homosexual sex.

Anyhow, for those of you who disagree with me, I respect your right to do so. I apologize for any comments I made that were presented in a curt or rude manner, but I do not apologize for my point of view or my beliefs. I sincerely believe that if the traditional family unit continues to disintegrate, our nation, and even our world is headed for calamity.

I don't harbor any ill will towards any of you, whether or not you harbor it towards me. I don't believe that gay people are going to hell, and I don't believe that God hates them, and neither do I. I try to be kind to everyone, but like most people, I fail at that at times. And I act according to what I believe is right, which is the most I can expect from anyone else, regardless of whether their views align with mine.

While there are some serious issues that divide us, I think it's pretty obvious that we're all here because we share a mutual interest in gaming. No votes are going to take place on CAG that determine whether gays can marry. Perhaps it would be best to move on since we appear to be at an impasse.

mykevermin - We may vehemently disagree on this issue, but I respect your willingness to defend your views. While I stand by the content of my views, I apologize for the abrasive way I delivered some of those views.

#102 dubbfoolio

dubbfoolio

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 September 2009 - 12:35 AM

It's not your views that I find offensive, it's your willingness to vote for legal enforcement of your views onto others. As you stated before, our democratic country has a very regretful history of the majority persecuting minorities. This is what you are proposing to continue with homosexuals.

#103 CheapyD

CheapyD

    Head Cheap Ass

  • Administrators

Posted 15 September 2009 - 05:48 AM

If someone could point out where exactly I said anything about Mormons, that would be greatly appreciated. I just went back and listened to the Shadow Complex segment and didn't hear anything.

#104 MrNEWZ

MrNEWZ

    Newzbytes~!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 September 2009 - 06:53 AM

If someone could point out where exactly I said anything about Mormons, that would be greatly appreciated. I just went back and listened to the Shadow Complex segment and didn't hear anything.


Oh wait, this was a thread about Cheapy calling Orson Scott Card and all Morons homophobes, right?

6 pages in and I forgot. ;-)

On the other side I want to mention one thing. "Marriage" existed in various forms across various cultures long before the creations of the religions that are defending it as an institution.

In the past (and some current cultures) to constitute a marriage, men (or women) would trade the marriage for monetary gain.

Some institution worth protecting.
-Michael

Posted Image

#105 tweetjj

tweetjj

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 September 2009 - 06:55 PM

Hello Cheapy,

I began this thread because of what was said in the podcast about Orson Scott Card and his link to the Mormon Church (actually the name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but we don't mind being called the Mormon Church.)

I re-listened to the podcast. At 1:18 Wombat called Orson Scott Card a gigantic douchebag and a homophobe. Then you called OSC an a**hole and a homophobe. Then Wombat linked OSC with the Mormon church.

I just read the article in Gay Gamer. I can respect the tone used by the author of the article. OSC does have some extreme views of gays, but these views do not coincide with the tenets of our church. We do however agree that marriages are a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God.

Just to let you know I am using most of my lunch hour to compose this post. I am not hateful, bigoted, biased, or homophobic. And to call members of the Mormon church such, is proof that the accusers are the ones guilty of being hateful.

Simply put, I believe that all members of our society must have the same rights and equality. I do not want the definition of marriage to be changed. And I deny your accusations of homophobic because of what I believe in and stand for.

Hope this can settle the argument so I can spend the rest of my lunch hour enjoying the CAG cast and getting higher that 52 flags on Plant vs. Zombies survival mode.

Tom in Vegas

#106 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 September 2009 - 07:02 PM

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

With regards to homosexuality, "hate the sinner, love the sin" is indeed a homophobic standpoint.

Unless you want to follow all the tenets of Leviticus. And you assuredly are not, since you aren't in prison.
Posted Image

#107 Wombat

Wombat

    CAGcast or nothin

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 September 2009 - 07:04 PM

Hello Cheapy,

I began this thread because of what was said in the podcast about Orson Scott Card and his link to the Mormon Church (actually the name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but we don't mind being called the Mormon Church.)

I re-listened to the podcast. At 1:18 Wombat called Orson Scott Card a gigantic douchebag and a homophobe. Then you called OSC an a**hole and a homophobe. Then Wombat linked OSC with the Mormon church.

I just read the article in Gay Gamer. I can respect the tone used by the author of the article. OSC does have some extreme views of gays, but these views do not coincide with the tenets of our church. We do however agree that marriages are a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God.

Just to let you know I am using most of my lunch hour to compose this post. I am not hateful, bigoted, biased, or homophobic. And to call members of the Mormon church such, is proof that the accusers are the ones guilty of being hateful.

Simply put, I believe that all members of our society must have the same rights and equality. I do not want the definition of marriage to be changed. And I deny your accusations of homophobic because of what I believe in and stand for.

Hope this can settle the argument so I can spend the rest of my lunch hour enjoying the CAG cast and getting higher that 52 flags on Plant vs. Zombies survival mode.

Tom in Vegas


But your definition of Marriage is different then my definition, I am not saying that you have to change your definition, but why is mine less valid?

We all know that marriage is contract bewteen two families where one family offers a child to another family in return for monetary gain or livestock.

#108 tweetjj

tweetjj

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 September 2009 - 09:03 PM

Yes Wombat. I totally agree that your definition of marriage is different than my definition of marriage. I do not, in any way, think your definition is less valid than mine. I totally expect that you to believe, think, and vote according to your beliefs, as will I.

What I don't understand is why people who happen to believe the same as I do are called hateful things like homophobe and bigot. In your own podcast you called OSC a gigantic douchebag and then said he is a member of the Mormon Church. It would never, ever enter into my mind the thought that I should slander, harass, or ridicule someone just because they have a differing opinion.

Listen, I love the podcast. I totally appreciate what you and Cheapy do everyweek producing this podcast. It is obviously a labor of love and it shows in the quality of your podcast. But when I heard what you both said about OSC and Mormons it surprised and shocked me. I felt I should say something. I had no intention of it turning into a 6 page forum battle. I totally respect your right to say anything you want on your show. I even think the episodes of South Park that make fun of Mormons are some of the funniest of the series. I get jokes, even if they are about my religion.

I just didn't like what was said and thought I should say something.

Tom in Vegas

#109 donkeydrop

donkeydrop

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 September 2009 - 11:19 PM

We all know that marriage is contract bewteen two families where one family offers a child to another family in return for monetary gain or livestock.


In Talmudic law there are three ways to get married, a contract, money, or sex; if the woman accepts any of these you're hooked lol.

Seriously though, every religion defines marriage as between a man and a woman so there's no reason to start selectively insulting Mormons. Given that a large majority of the US population shares that opinion it doesn't seem like calling them all homophobes is the best way to get them to change that opinion, or to to ensure that gay couples are treated equally.

Intelligent people can still have extreme political disagreements without the need to believe that one or the other is immoral. Jew, Muslim, Christian, Black, White, Hispanic, Gay, Straight, whatever you are going to have some opinion on which you are are 100% sure you are morally right and that only a racist homophobe anti-semite could disagree with you. And just as surely someone else has the opposite opinion. Your choice is to show some respect and maybe work out the points on which you can agree; or do the rhetorical equivalent of pulling a .45 and blowing his head off. The second might make you feel better temporarily, but the first is the only way to make progress.

#110 Thekrakrabbit

Thekrakrabbit

    Is Making A Comeback!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 September 2009 - 12:41 AM

Frankly I was offended that Cheapy in the most recent podcast labeled Mormons, specifically Orson Scott Card, as homophobes. I would like to know if Cheapy has such stereotypical opinions toward all religions. I would also like to know if Cheapy bases this negative opinion on an actual conversation with a real life Mormon.

I think that we should all be entitled to have any opinion we want without fear of being labeled homophobic because our opinions differ. But according to Cheapy, since I am against gay marriage, but in support of partner rights I must be a homophobe as well. This hateful speech toward me and the religion I cherish really turned my stomach.



I consider the CAG cast to be one of my top three favorite podcasts. In spite of my disagreement of Cheapy's opinion of Mormons I will continue to download and listen because I can respect that his opinions differ from mine. I just hope that Cheapy will agree that all groups, religions and people should be allowed to live, think, act and vote as their conscience dictates.

Tom in Vegas


I am pretty sure most are really homophobes. Nost are only open to the Adam & Eve idea, not the Adam & Steve idea. I'm not gay, but I am pretty sure most religions are "homophobes".

Check out @RealKrakrabbit - Twitter Page Full of News, Tidbits, etc., etc.

 

Also looking to make trades/sells to anyone who is interested. Check out my tradelist! :grouphug:


#111 wageslave

wageslave

Posted 19 September 2009 - 06:50 PM

If someone could point out where exactly I said anything about Mormons, that would be greatly appreciated. I just went back and listened to the Shadow Complex segment and didn't hear anything.


What I recall hearing cheapy say is that OSC is a Mormon and OSC is a homophobe in separate statements. He didn't come out and say that Mormons are Homophobes.
Tier Pargon Pargon Redgormor Pargon Pargon Mantorok

#112 TheToiletDuck

TheToiletDuck

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 October 2009 - 10:11 AM

What I don't understand is why people who happen to believe the same as I do are called hateful things like homophobe and bigot. In your own podcast you called OSC a gigantic douchebag and then said he is a member of the Mormon Church. It would never, ever enter into my mind the thought that I should slander, harass, or ridicule someone just because they have a differing opinion.


So what you're saying is that you don't like the fact that someone said something hurtful or slanderous about something you believe in, or as i suspect from your posting something that plays a significant part of your life and in some ways defines the person you have become (much the same way that some people feel about their sexuality).

The comments that CheapyD and Wombat said were directed to someone that did exactly that. OSC just happens to slander a group that you are not part of.

You cannot have a belief that is in direct conflict with someones way of life, be vocal about it and not expect some sort of backlash. I respect religions and peoples rights to a belief providing they do not have a negative impact on other people. I would however, consider promoting hatred towards homosexuals, or if you want a less inflated example impeding their legal rights as couples, a negative impact.

It's all fun and games until you're the one thats getting shot with the bb gun.

To be fair to your points though, it doesn't look like you share the extremist views of Orson Scott Card and don't believe in preaching hate, and that's totally cool :). It may be unfortunate then that he is such a vocal representative of your church. I do think however you are being a little naive to why people may be a little angry towards your religion and/or beliefs and frankly a little sheltered if you think you can claim "no backs'ees" .

P.s. Also, as a gay man i would like formally acknowledge on behalf of 'my people' that yes we are all out to get you, and one false turn = butt sex.

Edited by TheToiletDuck, 27 October 2009 - 03:16 PM.


#113 NazgulAuk

NazgulAuk

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 October 2009 - 11:55 AM

Sorry, I know this has topic has been beaten to death, but I have to get in my 2 cents.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Catholic who has gay friends, so I don't really agree with my church's view on the subject.

Yes, the bible has passages that would condemn homosexuals, however it also has passages about not eating shrimp(Leviticus 11:9-12), selling daughters into slavery(Exodus 21:7), and stoning people who sleep with a menstruating women(Leviticus 20:18). If you are going to literally follow the old testament, do you really get to chose which parts?

Christianity is belief in Jesus Christ. He said the commandments could be summarized as follows: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." [Matt22:37-40] It irritates me all the hateful "Christians" who ignore the second part. Unfortunately, Catholicism itself has a long history of not loving thy brothers.(Crusades, Inquisition) (An interesting side note. My mother was a littler shocked to learn that my family was originally Jewish, and was forcibly converted by the Spanish Inquisition.)

Bottom line, in the Catholic Church marriage is one of the seven sacraments. My marriage is a religious institution, but it was also a civil one too. People need to stop confusing the two. I had a church wedding, based on church law, and was then married as far as my church was concerned. Then I turned in my wedding license, and was legally married. While there was admittedly some overlap, that is done more as a convenience by goverment. They were two separate acts.

If the Mormon church doe not want to marry gay people fine. Personally, I think they are wrong, but that is their right. My church is still struggling over this matter too. However, they have no right to keep the government from performing a civil marriage between a gay couple. If this is truly just about the religious function of marriage what is the problem? It is hard to not think it isn't homophobia.
Posted Image

#114 CoffeeEdge

CoffeeEdge

    Resident Communaut

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 October 2009 - 11:27 PM

Nice post, greatAuk, but it's sort of a waste of time to try to explain that state marriage and religious marriage are separate things. Most people cannot understand that same-sex state marriage would not mean that their churches would suddenly be forces to do wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, because people are retarded.
Hi...

DID SOMEBODY SAY "TOOT"?!?
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image I WILL MOTHERF--KING BAN THE F--KING SHIT OUT OF YOU Posted Image

Posted Image


#115 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 October 2009 - 11:49 PM

Nice post, greatAuk, but it's sort of a waste of time to try to explain that state marriage and religious marriage are separate things. Most people cannot understand that same-sex state marriage would not mean that their churches would suddenly be forces to do wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, because people are retarded.


So true. Sorry I don't have anything to contribute but your post made me laugh.

PaulManda.png


#116 Magus8472

Magus8472

    The Sudden Stop

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 28 October 2009 - 01:48 AM

Nice post, greatAuk, but it's sort of a waste of time to try to explain that state marriage and religious marriage are separate things. Most people cannot understand that same-sex state marriage would not mean that their churches would suddenly be forces to do wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, because people are retarded.


I think people are opposed to gay marriages regardless of whether or not they occur in churches. Religious and civil marriages are certainly conflated, but if anything that just provides for more religious overtones in what should be a secular institution.

If it were so easy to differentiate the two, all these problems could be easily solved by just abolishing civil "marriage" entirely and just having people enter into contractual partnerships to gain "marriage" benefits. But I doubt anybody would be satisfied with that.
Posted Image