Is this the PERFECT way to prove to homophobes just how LUDICROUS they are being?

Question

Except for a smaller percentage of people who are so bone-ignorant that they discriminate against people just for being "different," MOST of the hateful people who oppose the according of EQUAL rights to gays (including the right to marry their partner of choice, regardless of gender), claim to be doing so on "religious" grounds.

Now -- when it comes to the RRR Cult ("Religious" Radical Right), they almost always cite the Bible as the reason for their voicing their opposition. And THAT is very interesting, for two reasons ---

(1) NOwhere does the Bible *ever* authorize or appoint any person or group to act as **enforcers** of its precepts against society in general. (Much less its MISperceived precepts). That makes the RRR cultists some of the most colossal BUSYBODIES that the world has ever seen. The **only** passages that advocate enforcement are those dealing with CHURCH discipline. Vis-a-vis fellow *Christians*. ONLY. The Bible authorizes NO Gestapo.

(2) The Bible’s strongest and most absolute directives are the Ten Commandments. One of which prohibits LYING. Ever met a person who has never lied? Neither have the RRR Cultists. Sooner or later, **everyone** lies, and ALL people *have* lied, during their lifetimes. Countless thousands of times. “White” lies are still just that: lies.

So next time you run across a homophobe, ask him THIS –

“Have you ever told a lie? Guess what – when you did that, you broke one of the Ten Commandments. One of God’s most IMPORTANT directives. But there is nothing in the Ten Commandments prohibiting homosexuality.

“SO – tell me why I wouldn’t be at least as justified trying to deny liberties to YOU, as you think you are for trying to deny them to ME? If you can’t answer that, then you need to GET OVER being a bigot.”

To "invincible" -- Sorry, but this IS a question. Notice the larger type at the top, with the question mark after it. That which followed was the information one needs in order to be able to answer that question.

To "Parallax" -- See my comment to "Invincible," above... and the answer that "Horrible Hobbits," gave, right beneath yours.

To "Mandio" -- You said I don't believe in the Bible. Wrong. As a normal, sensible, tolerant, and fair-minded Christian (not to be confused with the RRR's pseudo-Christians), I do believe in the Bible, so was happy to allude to what it says... and does NOT say. Suggest you re-read the question.

To "Elijah" -- Congratulations on making such a fool of yourself. (50 years ago, people like you would have "reported" me for being a Civil Rights worker in Mississippi. You can be so PROUD of yourself.)

To "Foamy4President" -- Good response! But please realize that those whom you believe are hypocritical, hateful, and bigoted "Christians" aren't really Christians at all, in most cases. The RRR cultists, who comprise only a mere 6% of those who **profess** Christianity in America lyingly pretend to be Christians -- doing grave damage to actual Christianity in the process. We who comprise the other 94% are your normal, sensible, usually tolerant, fairly intelligent, work-a-day next-door-neighbors. We do NOT seek to destroy or deny personal liberties of tens of millions of people. Believe me -- since NORMAL (actual) Christians number about 250 million of America's 300 million people... if we WERE like the RRR cultists, America would be a tyrannical theocracy that would make Orwell's nightmarish society in "1984" look benign by comparison. We do NOT deserve to be compared to the RRR. And MOST of us *support* personal liberties, for everyone.

To "St. Preachy" -- The Bible regards fortune-telling to be an "abomination," too. So shall we round up all the folks who play with Ouija Boards and Tarot Cards (tens of MILLIONS of them!) and deny personal liberties to them? THAT is how ludicrous it would be to deny same-sex marriage (SSM). And it would be hard to imagine anything more HARMLESS than SSM. "Defense of marriage?" Against WHAT?!? There is NO way that any gay couple's getting married would harm ANY opposite-sex couple's marriage. The RRR cultists are one very sick JOKE. Today's equivalent of the segregationists of 50 years ago. SAME abject ignorance.

To "St Preachy" -- The gays aren't asking for any new oe special rights. They are asking for nothing more than an END to the unfair EXCLUSIONS that have been imposed upon them. For example, *you* tell *me* where the Constitution says that marriage is restricted to opposit-gender matings? It doesn't. So they seek nothing but an end to being **excluded** from the SAME rights that everyone else enjoys.

And -- I can't even imagine anything being more HARMLESS than same-sex marriage -- or why **anyone** would be hateful, ignorant, and busybodyish enough to oppose it. Since it would have NO effect on them. Or anyone else. Any more than iterracial marriage, which ALSO was unfairly banned in many states, ever did anyone any harm.

Answer 1

invin- yes it is a question, it starts out Is this the perfect way to prove to homophobes just how ludicrous they are being? Thats a question, the rest is the proof of how ludicrous they are being. maybe you just arent intelligent enough to understand what a question is.

To answer the question: Its great proof, however, you can show these people millions upon millions of examples of proof that their religion is false, that their actions are hateful, and that they are hypocrites, but you will never sway their minds, because they have decided to follow this path, and nothing short of a miracle will change it. its sad that bigotry based upon religious biases still exists, but hey, they seem to think its ok, so long as christianity exists in our government, this too will exist.

Answer 2

I don't wanna read all that but my favorite is to make them realize that by them being homophobic comes from their own fear of their own sexuality. That's the way it works. When you are judging someone else, it says nothing about that person and multitudes about the person doing the judging. So if you're making fun of someone for being gay, you're basically admitting to having sexual attraction towards the opposite sex. It's also important to realize that everyone falls on a spectrum. Most people are not 100% gay or 100% straight. Most people live in fear of their sexuality because the judgments they will receive from the people around them. Society and the media perpetuate this a lot with movies and tv shows where people get made fun of for being homosexual. When people realize that pretty much everyone is a little gay, it makes it less of a big deal.

Answer 3

1) You may be right on point number 1. The Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter both acknowledged that the government has the right to enforce justice and maintain order, but they seem to give no specific command that the state must enforce morality. The idea that the state has the right to regulate public morality seems to come from the old English common law, not the Bible -- a right that has been continuingly affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

2) As for point number 2, there is a difference between someone who occasionally sins and feels regret for it afterward -- "lies" in your example --- and someone who sins as a habitual lifestyle with no remorse. Your analogy is not a good one, since most people are not professional sinners.

3) Even if the government has no right to declare homosexuality as being against the public morality -- and thus illegal --- there is no reason that the state should turn around and subsidize the homosexual lifestyle by giving gay couples the same tax breaks and inheritance privileges that heterosexual couples get. See the article at the link below that argues against state recognition of gay marriage on economic grounds. It is NOT written by a Christian.

Answer 4

"St. Preachy" --> He has "nothing" by way of valid points on this?? If you really think that, I invite you to see his Oct. 1 post at a link he provided in a newer question he asked yesterday. Makes it quite clear that it is people like YOU who don't have valid arguments and facts to work with on this.

His article, posted on Oct. 1, was still at the top of the page when I visited the site a few minutes ago. It's called, "Have You Ever Told a Lie? ---

http://www.apifar.blogspot.com

Answer 5

A "phobe" is a person that has an unreasonable fear of something. I don't think a fear of homosexuality is unreasonable. If you're religious, homosexuality is wrong, because all religions say so. If you're an evolutionist, homosexuality is wrong because it can't produce offspring and it prevents the person from producing offspring.

It provides a mechanism for the spread of aids, which endangers everyone. Its just wrong. The primary purpose of sexuality is to produce offspring. It also keeps couples together so they can rear that offspring.

Its not a civil rights issue. No matter what they do, two homosexuals can't produce a family. Its unnatural. Marriage is an institution that predates all governments. Laws were made to regulate it. Marriage is between a man and woman, it has been for thousands of years. For homosexuals to come along and say its the governments fault they can't get married is absurd. Two homosexuals getting married is a mockery. Maybe they're pretending they're normal, but they aren't.

I think the reason homosexuals want to get married is to be able to adopt children for sexual purposes, and to try to convince themselves and others that in spite of the fact they're homosexuals, they're normal. Well, they're not normal, and saying that obvious fact does not make me a bad person.

Answer 6

Well said, well thought out. The only unfortunate side is that those people, the RRR as you call them like to pick and choose what they follow. Still, a very nice argument.

Answer 7

I think the term homophobe is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard. I am absolutely against the normalzing/endorsing of gay "marriage" but have never once felt a fealing of fear when near a homosexual. In fact, I have gotten along swimmingly with most of the gay people that I have met. The only homosexual that I haven't actually liked as a person is a co-worker, and he's just unpleasant. As to your question (I use the term loosley) I think you could use some perspective. We live in a constitutional republic (not a democracy) and it is a representative form of government. That means we get to try and get people who agree with us elected to office so that we can have the kind of country we want. Let me turn this around on you. Why do you get to try and change things to the way you want them and imagine that we don't have the right to do the same? Since our religious manual (the bible) does in fact call homosexuality an abomination we want to keep our country from openly endorsing it or legitimizing it by letting gays get "married". We have the right to do so. If your side wins, then fine, you win. We will lament the direction that the nation chose to take, but we will never try and claim that you did not have the right to try and change things within the context of a representative government. Your screed, er um, question, is rank with hypocrisy, the same hypocrisy that you folks tend to see only in those who oppose you (which is also hypocritical). To summerize, we do it because that's how our government works, citizen participation. Stop crying just because people who disagree with you are participating too. Who is trying to assemble a gestapo here anyway?

Edit: Miss the point much? There is no push to grant fortune tellers and Quija board users some new, here to fore unheard of right to something. If there was and I thought it was wrong I would fight it. There is however a push to grant a new right to people who have no real claim to it other than "we want to". You did not address my answer at all. Just more name calling and vitriol. The same things you guys accuse us of. That's more hypocrisy from you. Aren't you tired of that yet?

Edit #2: Let's assume for the sake of argument that gay people have been unfairly exluded from marriage. That cuts down your argument that they aren't asking for anything new. They are asking for something new and it is new according to your own statement. As far as the constitution is concerned I think some historical context would help your understanding considerably. It would stretch credulity to the breaking point for you to suggest that the framers had the "right" of homosexuals to marry one another in mind when they set down the declaration, the constitution, the bill of rights, or anything else they wrote. It is new and comparing it to interracial marriage in just plain dishonest since the color of your skin doesn't determine your gender. Again, what I see when I consider the arguments coming from the pro-gay"marriage" crowd, all I see is "you should let us because we want to". That isn't good enough. It is clear from your frequent resorting to name calling, misrepresnting, and ad hominem arguments that you are aware of the fact that in reality you have nothing. If you can discuss this issue without trying to label people like me "hateful" or "ignorant" in order to poison the well and make it look like you've won without an argument, let me know and I would be happy to hear any actual reasons that this should be allowed. Until you can argue with reason and without bashing those who disagree I am uninterested in continuing. Remember, you guys are the ones who want to change things. The burden is on you to demonstrate why we should. Just because some people want to is no reason at all.

Answer 8

I do not care what you do. Obey the law of the land and do as you please. There are a lot of groups that I have no desire to associate with. So leave me alone and I will leave you alone. It has worked for me all these years. Why won't it work for you? I don't care if you marry your cat.

An atheist

Answer 9

it could be. i dont see why people dont follow there own religion. to all those who see homosexuality as wrong.
Live And Let Live

Answer 10

Very well put - star for you :)
My ex is a christian and I used to ask him, "Why is it ok for you to have premarital sex with me, but it wouldn't be ok for two men to get married? Doesn't that mean you are going to hell?"
He would just get mad and not answer the question.