Homosexual marriage

The only threat I saw was from dixiehunter. And you've bent over backwards to make it sound like he didn't make any kind of threat. If what he said wasn't a threat, then youenjoyme420's post certainly wasn't one either. So, it appears no one made any threats, yet you went on a long rant about violence against others.

Another non sequitur. What is that, like, 10 for 10?

 

Agh yeah it is. Dixie post should, and indeed did, draw an admonition.

It makes little or no sense to advocate a confrontation you have been threatened with by one upping it with a vauge but tough gay guy or a Marine martial arts instructor.

Or DO you advocate that when someone confronts you that the best thing to do is bone up and threaten right back?

Why would you attack Dixie and ignore the others?

I think that reason is fairly self evident.

Hmm ... its not accurate because you say so? Loads of that going around in atheism today.

You explain to us all why you think Dixie desevres to be confronted with an obvious threat of violence (my gay friend will beat you up), but those threatening to beat people up with imaginary gay people ... I mean, that should be tolerated.

In fact, while you are at it, tell me why not one of you sanctimoneous atheists is getting on Bash about dragging in the old Smith and Wesson? Because that is .... obviously not a threat.

And he just happens to be atheist.

Contrast that sharply with the statement that bullying is wrong in any form. If you will.

You guys are great at finding fault in others, even where none exists, but pretty crappy at applying your judgements to yourselves.

 

There's a stark difference between threatening to "confront" two people and suggesting that those two people might be tough enough to defend themselves. I advocate that if someone decides to attack you, you have the right to defend yourself.

Nothing anyone said, in the particular conversation begun by dixiehunter, had anything to do with anyone's faith. So when you decide to infer that atheists are going to any length to disagree with you (implying that they're doing it because they're atheists) and that you're being accused of making something up because you're a Christian, then you're seeing boogeymen.

Dixiehunter's post was a threat of violence against a hypothetical someone who was not physically confronting him. Youenjoyme420's post was a statement that many gays are tougher than DH thinks, and are likely to defend themselves.

I didn't see his post? And I didn't realize that we're supposed to be policing each other. Why don't you admonish every single idiotic post that is made by a Christian on this forum? (BTW, I'm not saying every post made by a Christian is idiotic.) I certainly don't expect that of you, why do you expect it of me or any other atheist here?

Bravo? You want a cookie?

Blanket generalizations tend to be ignorant and unhelpful.

 

So, the ability to defend yourself is best expressed as, "I hope you meet a large gay man when you confront anyone?," or, "I hope that you meet my gat Marine Corps martial instructor!"

The implication there clearly being that YOU can defend yourself, eh?

And the braoder question is about sexuality. People seem to think that homosexuality is a form of deviant sexual behavior. How do you change those conceptions?

Apparently, by referring them to a gay Marine Corps martial arts instructor or other burly large gay man and daring you to ocnfront them about their sexuality. Surely that will convince them that they are engaged in a affection based relationship grounded in mutual respect and admiration.

Nope, just gotta get persickity with the Christian, huh?

I am point in to the fact that you are admonishing two Christians, one of whom is not threatening anyone and asking both sides not to threaten people - its stupid, and ignoring three atheists engaged in the behavior.

You tell me what that means? You tell me why your standard seem to fit atheists one way and Christians the other way?

Now saying, "I will confront you," is a threat of violence.

I hope you meet a large gay man, implication being he can kick your ass, is not.

I hope you meet a gay marine with all kinds of training, the implication being that a kind, reasonable discussion will flow?

I have good old Smith and Wesson to argue you for me - clearly that is hyperbole?

Its amazing at what atheists excuse at the drop of a hate - but when your religion centered on a rebuttal to anything Christian its hardly surprising.

After all, how many times do you think I have seen this play out?

"Neutral, you are a bad person, and even though I have no idea who you are, I think you ara (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up human being!!! Nanner, nanner, nanner!"

"Quit being a jerk, jerk."

"Mods, help, help I am being repressed! Now we see teh violence inherent in the forum!"

Pretty simple standard, bullying is bad. THreatening people with large gay marines (and I am being nice and assuming that B was not threatening H with gay rape) is out of line.

We all step out of line from time to time, but, seriously?, you need to be able to threaten people with large gay men to correct their rejection of homosexuality?

And yet several of me keep referring me back to HB's post, which, as I pointed out, I hadn't read. I saw the first, then the second threat to confront someone with a alrge gay man. I then went back to HB's and pointed out that threats are inapprorpiate, but that a confrontation is pretty vauge.

He could have simple meant, "I will approach him and tell him he is wrong!" (Oh, well, if he is a large, well trained gay man, that undermines his statement how? - it does nothing but threaten him with force).

That stand is stark contrast to someone who states that smith and wesson speak for him.

But he's an atheist :shrug:

I will settle for an atheist admitting he is wrong, crushing to their ego as that might be.

Yep, which is why I repeatedly make contrasts with the modern atheists and real atheists.

Now, amazingly enough, I see atheists generalizing about Christianity everyday. Yet when I correct some of the agregious ones, it usually ends up with:

"Neutral, even though I have no idea who you are, why, you are clearly a bad person and I hate you! (Which apparently means that my faith really does demand that I and my brother rape women)?"

"Stop being a jerk, jerk."

"MODS!!! Help, help, I am being repressed! Now we see the violence inherent in the forum."

Generally speaking, when it hits that stage, I am pretty sure I beat them.

Still not right to threaten people with large gay men as if that is moral suasion.

 

I didn't see anywhere in DH's post or yem420's post where a gay marine corps martial arts instructor was involved, or anything about "meet[ing] a large gay man." Tough =/= large. There were three posts in the line of conversation: DH threatening violence against gays openly expressing affection, yem420 saying that gays are tougher than DH thinks, and then your post. I agreed with yem's sentiment, disagreed with DH's, and disagreed with yours. Can we try to stay within that scope?

I'm ignoring three atheists who had nothing to do with the limited scope of those three posts. And your post only addressed the homosexual side of the argument. You didn't say anything in it about dixiehunter being wrong in his threat.

Outside of the scope of my original post. *shrug*

Okay, if you want to address me and my posts, then you will have to do it referring to my words. I'm not going to sit here and be berated for things other atheists say when their words are not part of the conversation and especially when I don't agree with them.

 

In accordance with Political Forum policy (at the request of the site owner) this thread has exceeded 500 posts and is being closed. If members want to continue the discussion then they are invited to start a Part II thread. If that is done then please provide a link to this thread and notify me by PM and I'll provide a link here to the new thread.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator