Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
Agnostic_god_
1868 Followers
EnlightenedDiMeSFeb 3, 2012
Once the generation that grew up in the 50s and 60s grip on the government is lost, younger generations who don't give nearly as much of a s**t about creed, race, and sexuality will level this s**t out. Too bad it may take a decade or two.
gt777Feb 3, 2012
How I wished the good of days of the 50s, where you can leave your doors unlock for the whole day without getting anything stolen! What has happen to the world?
austinjameshereFeb 2, 2012
I tend to think this is because the religious right in America isn't a religious organization - it's a political one. They long ago sold out Jesus for slogans and the chance to push their own personal political agenda. It's a real shame.
clitniblr036Feb 3, 2012
Agee 100% with you on this one.
nmw6Feb 2, 2012
My sister happens to be gay and works in marketing in NYC. She has been dating the same woman since college and has been wanting to have children of her own. This summer she gave birth to twins that were biologically hers (she used a sperm donor).
It has always deeply offended me when people think gay people shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Health insurance has been a hassle because her partners employer does not consider them married. Pensions and other work benefits always create added stress for them because the government won't recognize their relationship legally. Hopefully the prejudice will end soon!
stevanoskiFeb 2, 2012
Lesbian relationships tend to be 7 years and up.
cybersaurFeb 2, 2012
50% of all marriages end in divorce.
stevanoskiFeb 2, 2012
yawn, please do some accurate research and stop memeing your handlers propaganda.
jefffurryFeb 3, 2012
Right. It's probably more than 50%.
jefffurryFeb 3, 2012
Right. It's probably more than 50%. :-)
glassagateFeb 3, 2012
So, they last at least 7 years, but can last
longer?
How long did Newt Gingrich's 2nd marriage last?
How long until he ditches #3 for the eventual #4?
bluto36Feb 2, 2012
you let how other think deeply affect you?
i wonder how that adds to your sisters stress
lenbabyluvFeb 3, 2012
She should adopt her partner.
nmw6Feb 3, 2012
Or maybe the US should have laws that are fair to all people?
gt777Feb 3, 2012
Illegal immigrants don't get health insurance too! Are they any less human? A law is a law, should they also bent the laws and allow illegal immigrants to have health insurance too?
nmw6Feb 3, 2012
I don't think we should offer healthcare to noncitizens. America has enough problems, it doesn't need to worry about people who aren't citizens. My sister, however, is a hardworking American and has been all her life. As a matter of fact our family has lived here since the 1700's before the United States was even a country. I find it disgusting that the government still refuses equal protection to all its citizens.
gt777Feb 3, 2012
If you work you get insurance why can't your sister's partner get one too?
analogkid1Feb 2, 2012
The "religious right" are being renamed. They now prefer to be called the "religious wrong".
gt777Feb 3, 2012
I agree! even Jesus hates religions!
glassagateFeb 3, 2012
Conservatives don't care if your in the military and gay, just as
long as you keep it secret.
Heaven forbid you risk your life, and be openly gay at the same time.
What I love is that before the repeal of DADT, conservatives warned of
a mass exodus of Christian soldiers, from the military.
200K or so.
After that, a draft would be needed, to fill in the ranks, which was
nothing more than a scare tactic to get parents of draftable children
to frantically contact their representatives, and plead for them to do what
they could so their children wouldn't be drafted.
One little problem with that claim: those who left the military, those
cowardly Christian soldiers, don't have enough of a claim to
avoid being drafted, and they should be the first ones to be
drafted. That, or go to jail.
In that case, I would gladly enlist, to take the spot of a cowardly Christian.
The Bible is very clear about murder, and doesn't give circumstances
where the rule can be broken. How can one serve in the military, and
not violate that rule, or aid someone else who does?
Why bring this up? They pull, out of their ass, that they can't serve
with gay people, which is nowhere in the Bible, but they have to
problem following orders, that may result in them taking a life.
Enemy or civilian, it's still a life. When Jesus was being lead to
be crossed, he instructed his followers to not fight back.
Even with the secular interpretation of Jesus, there is still
a person who died for a cause, and whose death would
lead to a revolt.
Just like Gandhi. Just like MLK.
cyberdactylFeb 2, 2012
What a joke of insight. If there's any hate and angst baiting being spewed, it's Mr. Phillips.
arpadFeb 2, 2012
And it's wonderful, isn't it?
Nothing will turn off the folks stuck in the middle better then over the top rhetoric like this and drawn-out temper tantrums like the "Occupy" crowd's efforts.
So, go forth and explore the outer boundaries of hysteria and invective oh noble lefties. You have nothing to lose because you're so noble and caring.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
Umm... Yea, claiming that tax levels should be more progressive and that "god hates fags" is bad is not over the top. Or hysterical.
Claiming that AIDS does not come from the HIV virus is on the other hand rather extreme and hysterical, and is much more likely to turn off the "middle". Especially considering that 45% of people in US are for gay marriage. And another 20-25% are in favor of civil unions.
FrankLuskaFeb 2, 2012
Well if only 45% are in favor, and only 20-25% are in favor of civil unions. then by Liberal thinking, you know the ones that keep thing America is a Democracy and not a Republic, it would seem the people have spoken and you have lost.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 3, 2012
You are dumb. The point is not about democracy vs. republic - it is about "middle" vs. "fringe". You are on the fringe these days.
FrankLuskaFeb 3, 2012
I am so dumb?, your the one who said the minority is in favor of gay marriage, and even less for civil unions. Aren't you liberal's the ones that keep telling everyone this is a Democracy? But then cry when it does not go your way?
But it's people like you who keep voting in extremist fringe politicians, i don't.
You people should do some serious soul searching.
elimgarakFeb 3, 2012
"I am so dumb?, your the one who said the minority is in favor of gay marriage, and even less for civil unions. "
Jeebus H Motherf**king Christ! Can't you do simple math? What is 25+45? That's AT LEAST how many percent of people don't think that being gay is part of being normal. I suspect that probably another 10-15% think that gay OK and is not a crime against god. Are you retarded or something?
"But it's people like you who keep voting in extremist fringe politicians, i don't."
... Again, if it is supported by 70%, it is not "extremist".
"You people should do some serious soul searching."
You people should do some serious studying, if you can't add two double-digit numbers.
FrankLuskaFeb 3, 2012
Why yes i can, these are two different polls that can not be added together to suit you needs.
45% approve gay marriage
25% approve civil unions
Your trying to tell everyone that 70% of the population agree with two different things, sorry, don't work that way.
45% approve of marriage without benefits
25% approve of civil unions with benefits
Benefits being, allowing some to put the other on their insurance plan, file taxes together, etc.
That's like saying 45% approve of a car with a certain accessory, and 25% approve of a car with a different accessory, That does not mean 70% approve of both cars.
Now, since you had to resort to childish name calling, a clear sign of inadequacy, ignorance, and bulling, did you you really go to school? And why did they not teach you problem solving.
elimgarakFeb 3, 2012
"Why yes i can, these are two different polls that can not be added together to suit you needs."
No, they are the same poll.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
CBS poll in August 2010. 40% for marriage, 30% for civil union, 25% against marriage, 5% unsure.
Also, ABC poll, 66% for civil unions, period.
This number has probably grown by now, since a more recent poll says that 51% are in favor of gay marriage. I suspect the number for civil unions has grown as well.
Next?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaFeb 3, 2012
First, i used your figures, Second, Please learn how to comprehend statics.
""Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR, There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship.""
What part of "OR" do you not understand. Can't add "or's" together. don't work that way.
I did have civil unions / marriage, reversed in my previous comment.
next?
elimgarakFeb 4, 2012
"What part of "OR" do you not understand. Can't add "or's" together. don't work that way.
I did have civil unions / marriage, reversed in my previous comment."
WOW. You INSIST on being an idiot. Is that a compulsion?
Yes, you can in fact add "or's" together to get the number of people who think that gay people are not abominations. People who are for gay marriage are not going to be against civil unions. People who are for civil unions are not going to be for forcing gay people to undergo forced conversions to straight in prayer camps.
FrankLuskaFeb 4, 2012
Do you prefer Chili, or Hamburger or Pizza? I don't think gays are an abomination. If this is the lifestyle they prefer, so be it. I would not vote for or against marriage or civil unions for gays. Constitutionally, there is nothing preventing it. State constitutions are another story and like Ron Paul, each state should decide. If a state allows this, in any matter, they should be afforded all protections under the US constitution.
Assuming the poll was multiple choice, correct me if i am wrong, then you only can make one choice. Different choices can't be added together. Your for one or the other.
Ah, ok, i think i see what your saying now. but i think you would have to ask whither those for gay marriage / civil unions as a whole, compared to those against both, to get an accurate determination. The results may well turn out differently. Maybe not a drastic difference, but i would bet it would be.
elimgarakFeb 4, 2012
Oh, hey, sorry for being so harsh without provocation. This is a bit of a touchy subject for me because I perceive it as a civil right. And because I think that these types of beliefs are extremely counter-productive and dangerous.
FrankLuskaFeb 4, 2012
No problem, we all get worked up over something were are passionate about. I am all for civil rights, lord knows they have been eroded by anyone who can, and especially those who like to throw religion in with it.
As before, i have no problem with Gay marriage or civil unions. I have relatives in this situation, although the state we live in does not recognize it. This has traditionally been decided by states, and since the US constitution does not specifically deal with marriage, they must have felt it was better left up to the states, as they though most things were.
Graf_OrlockFeb 3, 2012
Claiming that anyone that's a socially conservative Christian is in lockstep with Westboro is over the top, though. There are always going to be people who aren't as "progressive" - yet at least on digg, that means they must be mentally deficient, hateful, corporate stooges.
Surprise! They probably have some beliefs that are right of center, but are genuinely decent people. This brand of progressiveness has shut down the discussion and turned it into name calling. Oh, and it's bigoted and hateful, just like the behavior you guys are complaining about.
elimgarakFeb 3, 2012
"Claiming that anyone that's a socially conservative Christian is in lockstep with Westboro is over the top, though."
Agreed.
"They probably have some beliefs that are right of center, but are genuinely decent people."
Some are. Some aren't. The fact that many believe that gay people are evil, and that AIDS is not caused by HIV (although that's probably far rarer) makes them not decent in my book. Obviously that does not mean that they are as bad as the Westboro church, but it's a step in that direction.
"This brand of progressiveness has shut down the discussion and turned it into name calling."
Our position is that if somebody believes that gay people are evil or sin, and that AIDS is not caused by HIV, then there can be no discussion. Such people are beyond reaching, and can only be ridiculed and despised. I don't think that's an unreasonable or bigoted position.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Graf_OrlockFeb 3, 2012
Yet how many of those who believe that "gays are evil" would continue to believe that if someone close to them came out of the closet?
This is anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt. The woman I'm currently dating has a sister who just came out. Their family ranges from SF liberal to Orange County deeply religious Republican. Her closest surviving relatives (father, aunt) being the latter. And very much let loose with some of those common epithets on gays being a corrosive influence on society, having evil lifestyles, etc.
While it took them a few weeks to sink in, they both came to an understanding. One's more of the "hate the sin, love the sinner," the other has started doubting her past position.
Personally I don't think there are many people who are so beyond reaching that engagement is a waste of time. Phelps maybe (probably - I doubt he even believes the bile he spews, but it gives him a measure of power).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 3, 2012
"Personally I don't think there are many people who are so beyond reaching that engagement is a waste of time."
That's true but only if you have a lever like a close relative. Without that I would expect the family to still hate gay people, no matter how much you engaged them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gt777Feb 3, 2012
Sexual cleanliness is very important, since homosexuals activities are highly unhygienic, do you suppose they are in higher risks of AIDs or STDs?
elimgarakFeb 4, 2012
AIDS is the result of the HIV virus. If one uses a condom, then it's not any more unhygienic than straight sex.
arpadFeb 4, 2012
Imputing "god hates fags" to the religious right is certainly hysterical. And over the top.
Kind of like the continuous replay of the race card. After a while, and contrary to conventional wisdom, constant repetition doesn't result in greater credibility but less. Sell an idea too hard and the reflex is to come to believe that the idea *needs* the hard-sell because at heart it's bullshyt. The more extreme the rhetoric, and the harder the sell, the more the suspicion's fostered that the idea can't stand on its merits and requires the hard sell. And the hysteria.
elimgarakFeb 4, 2012
True, but it is undeniable that some religious extremists believe that. Most are not nearly as crazy as the Westboro church, but the underlying idea is the same. That is the source of all the gay prayer camps and anti-gay statements by everyone from Santorum to Bachman.
They are not ready to start marching on military funerals but the basic belief is the same.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 4, 2012
"I don't think gays are an abomination. If this is the lifestyle they prefer, so be it."
Ah, sorry, your initial message seemed to imply that to me - which is why I replied so caustically.
"Assuming the poll was multiple choice, correct me if i am wrong, then you only can make one choice. Different choices can't be added together. Your for one or the other."
I think it was multiple choice. As to whether the choices could be added together or not, it depends on the actual question. People that are for civil unions and marriage are not going to believe that gay people are an abomination before god - that's my main point. And therefore are not going to start blaming gay people for AIDS.
"Ah, ok, i think i see what your saying now. but i think you would have to ask whither those for gay marriage / civil unions as a whole, compared to those against both, to get an accurate determination. The results may well turn out differently. Maybe not a drastic difference, but i would bet it would be."
I am sure there will be - I suspect there are plenty of people that are against civil unions and gay marriage, but are still willing to live and let live. And that do not ascribe AIDS to gays.
"No problem, we all get worked up over something were are passionate about."
Yes, I've been stuck at home with a cold this past week and went into a feedback loop of sorts. To compound my problem, I have a horrible memory for names - so I often don't remember who has been reasonable and nice in the past, and who has been a dick. Which is why I tend to respond to many people as if this is the first time I talked to them on-line.
Sorry again for getting pissed off.
"I am all for civil rights, lord knows they have been eroded by anyone who can, and especially those who like to throw religion in with it."
Absolutely. agreed.
"As before, i have no problem with Gay marriage or civil unions. I have relatives in this situation, although the state we live in does not recognize it. This has traditionally been decided by states, and since the US constitution does not specifically deal with marriage, they must have felt it was better left up to the states, as they though most things were."
Hmm... One solution would be to take marriage completely out of the domain of government. Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage IMHO. They should provide civil unions to everyone, but marriage should be up to other organizations - churches and maybe some sort of secular registration/marriage system that's not connected to the government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaFeb 2, 2012
"oh noble lefties"
again with the generalization to accommodate your simple "black/white" world you would like to occupy.
With that statement, are you in support of Phelps and the false claims that AIDS does not come from HIV? Sure sounds like it.
"So, go forth and explore the outer boundaries of hysteria and invective oh noble lefties"
Kind of like the "righties" creating hysteria about all Muslims......
Graf_OrlockFeb 3, 2012
Dear noble lefty,
Black and white world? The article equates anyone with a socially conservative Christian view as being the equivalent of Fred Phelps. Maybe its because I am not one of you "progressives" but I'm not seeing any shades of grey there. You're either 100% in favor of gay marriage and do not question "established" truths, or you are some backwaters minister of hate. Was there some middle ground there that I missed?
"With that statement, are you in support of Phelps and the false claims that AIDS does not come from HIV? Sure sounds like it." Bigoted much? You really are not much better than those hateful conservatives you keep running down.
You're still entitled to your personal beliefs in this country. I believe the Occupiers are for the most part worthless, ungrateful fools who have jumped the shark and lost the only real value they had - to focus attention on the impact of crony capitalism and uncontrolled money in politics.
You probably hold them up as heroes of the proletariat who's ends justify any means - even if that includes violence and harming 3rd parties.
You're entitled to your belief, no matter how misguided, foolish, bigoted, or hateful it is. Don't like what someone else believes? Either try to change their perspective by respectfully engaging with them, or shut the f**k up and sulk in the park with the rest of your little prole heroes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
EnlightenedDiMeSFeb 3, 2012
No, it equates what is the norm for many VOCAL Conservatives spout off. Listen to daytime talk radio. They fill the minds of people less prepared to disseminate information and research issues themselves with falsehoods that they generally accept. The Conservatives who aren't so maligned are rarely as vocal as the hatemongers. Look at Santorum, or that hippocritical toad Gingrich. I am registered as a Repub, but the majority of the interviews I see with members of the party disgust me. A lot of these old tards say things that are offensive as hell to most people, but unfortunately the level of apathy in this country keeps a lot of people too quiet about how screwed up all of these politicians really are.
gt777Feb 3, 2012
And I suppose they are not voted in by the general public?
EnlightenedDiMeSFeb 4, 2012
Umm... The only officials in the Federal government appointed thru general election are the House, So, some are.
And then, only the people who actually show up and votes opinions are counted. Thus the apathy comment.
bossm4nFeb 2, 2012
I can see the far left extremists are getting so desperate now they have to misuse the phrase made popular by Democrat Fred Phelps and his Westboro crew of hate on order to throw a blanket over the entire GOP. Since so much of the article focused on AIDS, I'll just leave this here. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/01/379549/bush-calls-for-increase-in-hivaids-funding-even-in-tight-budget-times/?mobile=ncComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 2, 2012
Newsflash - not everyone in the GOP believes that Jesus died for our sins.
novenatorFeb 2, 2012Submitter
The Bush regime actually did do a lot to fund fighting aids. It was one of the few things that he did that I really respected (Africa aid was another).
That being said, that doesn't mean Fred Phelps represents the Democratic Party any more than David Duke did before he switched to the GOP in 1988. They are exceptions to the rule.
There is a reason why most minority groups (including non-religious folks, lgbt folks, etc.) vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party in every election.
FrankLuskaFeb 2, 2012
You are referring to the "Pavlov's Conditioning" by the Democrats? The ones who say, "If we say it enough, people will believe it". Don't get me wrong, Republicans seem to be the worst overall about supporting the poor or minorities, but the Democrats are not much better.
The destruction of America so far, was not done single handily by the right, the left has played a major part.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorFeb 2, 2012Submitter
Well, that's where you and I differ Frank. Liberals are responsible for every single piece of national progression over the last 70+ years, including the interstate system (even though Eisenhower signed it, it was a liberal proposal), civil rights, voting rights, FOIA, all labor protection laws, social security, the peace corps, rural electricity, pell grants, safety laws, environmental protection, etc.
We on the left stand virtually united in supporting equal rights for not just LGBT folks, but all minorities. The right wing keeps trying to deny rights to different groups that are not in the majority, including our gay and lesbian neighbors, relatives, coworkers, and friends.
FrankLuskaFeb 2, 2012
Done by both parties,
Free trade agreements which hurt the middle and lower classes (especially minorities).
NDAA 2012, destruction of rights
Reauth: Patriot Act, destruction of rights
Nixon health care, destroyed by Ted Kennedy.
the list are pretty much endless from both sides, the sooner people realize these are just two wings of the same party, the party of big government, the better off America will be.
Partisan politics are just a game played by the oligarchy to further their agenda. And Yes, Liberal politicians of old were for the people, but very few hold these values today.
gt777Feb 3, 2012
Did change came to America? Or it is just same old same old?
EnlightenedDiMeSFeb 3, 2012
Fred Phelps ran as a Democrat. That does not mean all or any of his views are in line with the rest of that party at all, or even the GOP for that matter. Just more proof that our two party system is a farse.
glassagateFeb 3, 2012
He is democrat in name only.
If you want to play that game, those who bomb
Planned Parenthood clinics are deep conservatives.
thetwintowersFeb 2, 2012
He, and the rest of the world.
barackalypseFeb 2, 2012
His next article will be a scathing criticism of Islam and how suicide bombing is at the heart of it. /s Thought I must say I find an anti-religion bigot discussing a religious bigot to be amusing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluto36Feb 2, 2012
ha
no the cowards will sit back and stay comfortable...
they dont want to do anything crazy like that
heretolove3Feb 2, 2012
Jesus is the only cure for homosexuals
kochevnik2001Feb 2, 2012
He popped your cherry in prison?
EnlightenedDiMeSFeb 3, 2012
Shut up.
glassagateFeb 3, 2012
The whole "pray away the gay" is pure bunk.
Simple explanation: those who are "cured" were bisexual,
and didn't know it.
publiclurkerFeb 3, 2012
Or they've learned to lie to everyone until eventually the stress gets to them. check out the follow-ups of supposedly "cured" homosexuals. you won't know whether to be mad or sad.
spc4Feb 3, 2012
God hates the sin not the sinner. This type of speech from both sides is meant to polarise hate against one another.
davidnivenFeb 2, 2012
A few notes:
1) When the Bible talks about love and hate, it means far more than mere emotions which is usually what the leftist atheists are referring to. They are about total relationships or the absence of them, not feelings and emotions. When you read the Bible and understand as much, your eyes are opened to the complexities of God's relationships towards humanity, and not as the shallowness of leftist thought processes.
2) Way to summarily define all religious folk and religions based on your narrow-thinking, close-minded, bigoted interpretation of the totality of reality.
3) Do try to separate right-leaning economic strategies from right-leaning social policies from right-leaning religious and from right-leaning philosophies of life. They are different and frequently do not go hand-in-hand.
4) I know that force-fitting all religious right types into one little shoebox to make your intellectual endeavors easier is a comfortable, albeit shallow and cowardly, way of doing business. It is equivalent of declaring that all leftist types are atheist, shower-avoiding, unemployed, drug-using, communist-loving Occupy hippies. It makes you feel good to say such, but is wildly inaccurate...and makes you look stupid.
5) I think that the heart of this hate stems from the fact that some homosexuals and homosexual activists simply don't like being told that they can't have anal sex with whomever they want. This is not just about legalities. This is about morality. And it makes them feel bad that there might just be a God who is concerned that their lifestyle is not conforming to what is best. These homosexuals activists simply don't like it when someone points out that they are NOT the gods of their own existence.
6) While tolerance for others' existence is a good thing, tolerance for behavior is not automatically so. And acceptance of such is definitely not demanded in a free society. I'm not advocating that homosexual intimacy should be outlawed. I'm quite libertarian in that aspect. Government should stay out of everyone's bedrooms. However, in a free society, you must tolerate every else's opinions on the matter. Don't demand tolerance for YOUR beliefs and even demand public acceptance of such while, in your next breath, telling those with countering ideologies to shut up.
7) Buried.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaFeb 2, 2012
I'm not advocating that religious activity should be outlawed. I'm quite libertarian in that aspect. Government should stay out of everyone's church. However, in a free society, you must tolerate every else's opinions on the matter. Don't demand tolerance for YOUR religious beliefs and even demand public acceptance of such while, in your next breath, telling those with countering ideologies to shut up or that they will go to hell.
Look how easily your statements can be turned ...........
Funny how you, as a christian, can so easily generalize and demonize the "left". Again, life is not as black and white as you would like to think. I know both religious "liberals" and atheist conservatives.
davidnivenFeb 2, 2012
"Don't demand tolerance for YOUR religious beliefs and even demand public acceptance of such while, in your next breath, telling those with countering ideologies to shut up or that they will go to hell."
I am not the one sending those people to Hell. I am not the one forcing those people to be quiet. But, I have the right to tell them anything I want. And they have the right to tell me anything they want. That is tolerance. That is America. That is the 1st Amendment.
And I never said that life is black and white. It's mostly shades of gray. But, as opposed to many here on Digg, I acknowledge that sometimes life can be black and white with moral absolutes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaFeb 2, 2012
"I am not the one sending those people to Hell."
You are telling people they are going to hell, or at least advocating based on your beliefs.
I will use the "black and white" analogy every time someone tries to generalize and group someone as "left" or "A liberal". You seem to hold this idea that if someone does not agree with you political or spiritually, they are an evil liberal or left.
How so with the moral absolutes? Are you saying that the non-religious are morally corrupt and automatically on the left? I am far from religious but would bet that I do more for my fellow man and the planet than most of the self-righteous religious folks in here combined.
bluto36Feb 2, 2012
why though?
if they believe you and i are going to hell then so be it
i do not believe it and i hope the people that do believe it find some kind of happiness believing i am going to hell...
i have my beliefs and they have theirs... civilized people should be able to discuss these beliefs in any manner without getting their panty's all bunched up.
dont you think?
congrats on the work that you do
savetheseaFeb 2, 2012
"dont you think?"
I absolutely do. I have a friend that is very religious and we have great conversations. The reason is that he never proselytizes and he takes time to think about my questions before answering. He was raised Catholic, became disillusioned, then re-found his faith through his own research and learning. I look forward to conversations with him. Wish more were like that.
novenatorFeb 2, 2012Submitter
You're arguing with a table. DavidNiven (aka alanocu) is pretty much the biggest loudmouth right wing troll on Digg.
inajeepFeb 2, 2012
Wait wait wait. David is alan? Alan is david? Please tell me how you know this? Both are trolls but have different writing styles. Granted both normally offer drive by turds occasionally they bait someone enough to engaging in a pointless conversation.
novenatorFeb 2, 2012Submitter
I'm just spitballing based on the degree of their lunacy and the utter ridiculousness of their claims. Don't take this speculation as fact, hehe, but trust me, it's fun to say it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gt777Feb 3, 2012
Why people starts to call one another names, you know the discussion is going down the drain!
gt777Feb 3, 2012
I disagree with you on point 5. The reasons why homosexuals wants the laws to change so that they could have legal justification for their behaviors. They don't believe in God, why would they care about morality?
promusicApr 7, 2012
Rick Santorum Stars in an 80's New Wave Video :http://digg.com/news/politics/rick_santorum_stars_in_an_80_s_new_wave_video
computerczarFeb 3, 2012
This is not how a true christian should believe. Rule #1 God loves all his children.
JonFerguson777Feb 3, 2012
God loves us all. Nobody is without sin.
cawpinFeb 3, 2012
Whoever wrote this "article" is the hateful one. There is ONE so-called church that preaches this "God hates fags" montra and everyone knows they are nothing but a cult.
Get off your f**king high horse and stop being a hypocrite.
/an actual Christian
gt777Feb 3, 2012
Generally, normal sane people would try their very best to avoid crazies fringe groups like West Borough Church. There are all kinds of crazies people on earth, it doesn't help to make peace with fellow humans with new libertarians.com article like this to encourage people to point fingers at one another? This is no more a religious agenda than a non religious agenda. Have you woken up yet?
rudegarFeb 3, 2012
he hate fang bangers too
he sure is a hateful god and as are his followers
geogeerFeb 1, 2012
God hates sin. Learn the difference if you expect anybody to take your arguments seriously.
cybersaurFeb 1, 2012
How can your "all loving" god have such hate in his heart?
kjeffvFeb 1, 2012
Dont' have any concept of a holy & pure God, do you? The answer is easily available, but I guarantee you're not gonna find it on Digg . . . unless you were asking rhetorically, in which case what I wrote still stands.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
geogeerFeb 1, 2012
Welcome to the not being taken seriously crowd.
ocendotFeb 2, 2012
If you're going to argue theology, you had best study up. Otherwise it only makes you look like an uninformed knee-jerk liberal, which, actually, I suppose you are.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
We are not arguing theology - we are questioning it. There is a distinct difference. We wish to acquire a coherent and logically consistent view of religion. That is the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM prerequisite for belief in your particular flavor of god.
Of course for most of us a logically consistent description is just the first step. Then you must provide testable, verifiable proof that your beliefs are more valid than something like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Until you provide a consistent logical explanation of your stances we will continue to question them.
ocendotFeb 2, 2012
You assume an equality between faith and science that isn't there- faith isn't testable or verifiable in the sense that observational science is- that's why it is called faith, and not science, unless of course you are a scientologist. You cannot compare apples to oranges. I think that's where most atheists fault Christians and others of faith in error. You cannot fit any faith in to the neat scientific world view, which is why today's culture tends to discount it.If anything , you are forcing US to adhere to YOUR worldview, and not the other way around. Talk about intolerance...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
"You assume an equality between faith and science that isn't there"
I don't assume that equality - I require it as a prerequisite of me following a religion.
"You cannot fit any faith in to the neat scientific world view, which is why today's culture tends to discount it.If anything , you are forcing US to adhere to YOUR worldview, and not the other way around. Talk about intolerance."
I am not forcing you to do anything. I am questioning, which is required by all rational beings before accepting a faith, a belief, or a scientific principle. If you can't tolerate questioning and yet keep preaching your worldview, then how am I the intolerant one?
You can keep believing whatever you want to - just don't force me and mine to blindly accept your faith or follow its rather random rules.
ocendotFeb 2, 2012
But you are questioning in terms which are intrinsically incompatible with the concept being questioned. You need to ask different questions. "Can you prove it?" is not an option. That's about as plain as it gets...if you can't think outside your scientific box any more than this, you will most likely never understand faith. It's kind of like Star Wars. Luke got it when Obi Wan told him to let go and use the Force. Han did not.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 2, 2012
star wars was fiction too.
bluto36Feb 2, 2012
"star wars was fiction too."
reported
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
"You need to ask different questions. "Can you prove it?" is not an option."
Then it is not an option for me to believe in this god, or act on his wishes/commands.
"That's about as plain as it gets...if you can't think outside your scientific box any more than this, you will most likely never understand faith."
I think I understand faith - within my worldview it is quite simple. I just refuse to share it.
"It's kind of like Star Wars. Luke got it when Obi Wan told him to let go and use the Force."
Luke "got it" only after feeling the actual Force powers. And he got it even more after he figured out telekinesis - something that could be seen, measured and demonstrated to anybody.
Also, my personal theory is that the Force is some sort of energy field that is artificially created & generated. I suspect that the Force is the data bus of a galaxy-wide supercomputer that is calculating something (similar to how the planet Earth was calculating the meaning of life, universe, and everything in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).
The Force is an energy field that ties a bunch of computing clusters - people's bodies and minds - into a galaxy-sized Beowulf cluster. This is the only explanation I can think of as to why everybody in the SW universe is so uncreative and dumb. The entire galaxy has been at a technological and scientific stand-still for at least 4000 years - virtually nothing has changed between Knights of the Old Republic and Return of the Jedi. To make an entire galaxy that uncreative requires serious and deliberate effort.
"Han did not."
Because Han was a realist. He didn't feel anything, didn't see anything, which is why he didn't believe it. If I told you that the FSM is moving things deftly behind the scenes of reality, would you believe it without proof?
ocendotFeb 2, 2012
I disagree...Han didn't believe it not because he didn't see it- the end result of the whole saga kind of forces him to see the force in action. He didn't believe it because he CHOSE not to. Kind of like how people see the personal result of faith in other's lives and see that as a negative rather than a positive. As for postulating theories about the Force...don't you have to believe in the Force to begin with in order to theorize about it, particularly when the Force itself is open to such speculation? Isn't that FAITH?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
"I disagree...Han didn't believe it not because he didn't see it- the end result of the whole saga kind of forces him to see the force in action."
Wait, by the end of the saga? What do you consider to be the end of the saga? Which scene are you referring to? I am talking about this scene in ANH:
"Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other. I've
seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful force controlling everything."
He wanted actual evidence. He has encountered various strange things - such as the glitterstim spice drug that gives temporary telepathic effects. However he has not seen any evidence of the force - not at that point in the trilogy.
"As for postulating theories about the Force...don't you have to believe in the Force to begin with in order to theorize about it, particularly when the Force itself is open to such speculation? Isn't that FAITH?"
Nope.
First of all, this is a fictional universe. They have a lot of stuff that I would have to believe within confines of that universe. There are fantasy universes with magic and unicorns - doesn't mean I believe in them in real life.
Second, there is plenty of evidence that the force is real within the SW universe. Real, empirical evidence. Telekinesis, precognition, energy absorption and generation, enhanced strength and speed, etc. All of them are obvious on film, and are even measurable within certain limits - there is no need to have faith in anything there. No faith required.
ocendotFeb 2, 2012
Then why does Han say, and I quote, "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Doesn't sound like he's seen the empirical evidence...and " Luke, Luke's crazy, he can't even take care of himself, much less rescue anybody. A Jedi Knight?" Keep digging- your hole's getting pretty deep.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
"Then why does Han say, and I quote, "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Doesn't sound like he's seen the empirical evidence..."
Exactly. That statement came right before the one I quoted earlier. You need to rewatch the movie. Han doesn't have any reason to believe in the force until maybe the second half of ROTJ, after he is rescued. Even then we don't know if Luke has demonstrated his powers to Solo, except maybe for C3P0 levitating in his chair.
Well, by then Solo also saw Vader take away his blaster on Bespin, but he has not had any time to think about it, what with being tortured, without any explanation.
"Luke, Luke's crazy, he can't even take care of himself, much less rescue anybody. A Jedi Knight?""
What exactly is this quote supposed to prove?
This quote is from the first half part of ROTJ, from right after Solo is defrosted. At that point he has not seen Luke after his training on Dagoba. Luke could do only a few simple tricks - limited telekinesis, enhanced reflexes - that's probably it. We don't know what he showed Solo, if anything, while they were last together on Hoth.
takamalakFeb 2, 2012
Still, the question remains unanswered. That's because it's a contradiction. An all loving god can't have so much hate in his/her heart. but we know from reading his manual written by his minions that there is such hate. So it's not all loving, quite the contrary, it's all-hating.
Haters gonna hater, players gonna play.
ocendotFeb 2, 2012
"but we know from reading his manual written by his minions"...obviously, you haven't, unless just in a cursory, cherry-picking fashion- just enough to back up your talking points. It's not about hating people, as I'm sure you would like to believe. It's about sin, which we all have, by the way. God loves all, but hates all sin. Also, by the way, if you read "the manual" further you will find that no one sin is any more or less grave than any other, so singling out Christians (true followers of Christ) for supposedly singling out homosexuality is absolutely erroneous. We are all in the same boat, sin-wise. If all Christians approach this properly, then the only one pointing fingers will be you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
I don't know. I think the Westboro Baptist church is quite a bit ahead of most of us in the sinning department.
leonard2Feb 2, 2012
The douche who wrote this article is evey bit the hate filled scumbag as the Phelps are.
savetheseaFeb 2, 2012
leonard2 - how so?
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
@savethesea
I tried to get him to expand on his hatred of the guy who wrote the article, and provide justification for his claims. The request is below on this thread. Leonard2 basically ignored my requests for elucidation, and proceeded straight to thinly veiled insults.
inajeepFeb 2, 2012
nard2 doesn't thinly veil anything. If he isn't a troll he is a very troubled individual.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
@inajeep
LOL, true story. :-)
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
I imagine you know quite alot about being a disturbed individual troll.
takamalakFeb 2, 2012
That is pretty convenient for you Christians. No one sin is greater than the other. So stealing bread to feed your family is equal to stealing money from thousands of people via scams. Eating port is equal to killing an innocent person for fun. using a bible as toilet paper is on par with punching a hooker after having sex with her and skipping out on payment.
Now I see why you guys like your little religion so much.
ocendotFeb 2, 2012
Wait, wasn't it you complaining a few minutes ago about Christians supposedly HATING sin? And now you arguer against us NOT singling out sin? You can't have it both ways... I think you are just angry and like to argue and bash Christians.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nickymouseFeb 2, 2012
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
stevanoskiFeb 2, 2012
You got it.
rogue100Feb 2, 2012
copout
stevanoskiFeb 2, 2012
How so?
nickymouseFeb 2, 2012
Can you not hate a persons action, but still love them? I may hate the things that my daughter does, but I will always and unconditionally love her.
stevanoskiFeb 2, 2012
God "hates" no person. Sex outside of marriage is harmful to the individuals involved. It is sin that God hates.
cybersaurFeb 2, 2012
Sex outside of marriage is not at all harmful in and of itself. Just stating that it is does not make it so.
stevanoskiFeb 2, 2012
As you just stating it is not does not make it less so.
cybersaurFeb 2, 2012
ok, what harms can individuals expect when they have sex outside of marriage that those who are married are impervious too?
There are none.
stevanoskiFeb 2, 2012
For the man he does not get to practice responsibility he requires to become a man. The woman does not get the security she needs that develops her into womanhood.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drunkclamFeb 2, 2012
You are a f**king delusional moron. assh**es like you are using centuries old superstition to ruin the lives of innocent people.
leonard2Feb 2, 2012
No, delusional morons like you are using hatred and bigotry to ruin the lives of everyone you disagree with.
stevanoskiFeb 2, 2012
I will bow to your expertise on being both a delusional moron and an assh**e.
jrstinkfishFeb 2, 2012
I've had my fair share of sex outside marriage, and for the past 10 years exclusively with the same woman who I am not married to, and I feel just fine!
Hehe ... "God" ...
stevanoskiFeb 2, 2012
There is no telling the damage you have done to others. Good job.
jrstinkfishFeb 2, 2012
They do tend to walk funny for a while, but I wouldn't consider that permanent damage.
Big dick joke FTW!
stevanoskiFeb 2, 2012
Yeah, with that attitude I'm pretty sure you injured quite a few. Oh, well, you have their trophies of ruined lives on your mantle, with your 'what me worry' outlook I'm sure you are quite proud.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Feb 1, 2012
Being gay is not a sin, except in the eyes of the religious right. That is what this article is about.
geogeerFeb 1, 2012
From the CCC:
1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers.
Thus by definition sin requires assent of the will of the person. So a person who is gay is not sinning if this is their natural inclination. To partake in gay "activities" is where sin comes into being.
One is inclination one is action. Big difference.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Feb 2, 2012
Being gay is not a choice so your point is lost on me. Why shouldn't I approve of them? I don't know what the hell you're talking about - but your quotes are not from God.
geogeerFeb 2, 2012
I'll dumb it down a bit more. It is your willed thoughts and actions that are sins not your proclivities and weaknesses. Thus being gay in and of itself is like (as a random example) having an arrogant personality. They both have proclivities to certain sins. If you act on that weakness it is a sin if you feel the urge to act on it, but don't - it is not a sin.
CCC - Catechism of the Catholic Church. It provided a neat summary of what is classified as a sin.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CaptainobliviousFeb 2, 2012
the only thing more disgusting than the bigotry spewed by so called "religious people" is the hypocrisy of the catholic church. Would child molestation and the silent screams of 200 deaf alter boys fall under "acting on that weakness"?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/vatican-defends-decision-not-to-punish-us-priest/
Please. just stop. The world is moving on, away from guilt and hate, you will be left behind. But dont pretend like the catholic church is anything but a cult.
leonard2Feb 2, 2012
The most disgusting bigotry of all is the hate spewed bigotry against Christians by the left.
bluto36Feb 2, 2012
why is it wrong for someone to believe you are going to hell?
why cant a person or group believe this?
does it hurt your feelings or something
why cant they have these beliefs?
i think they are wrong but they can think and say what the want
gt777Feb 3, 2012
Leviticus 20:13
New International Version (NIV)
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
murrayc1968Feb 2, 2012
"God hates sin"
Ok, so let's say I DON'T hate gays even though they allegedly "sin", does that make ME a sinner? And what of the parents of said gay sinners who accept them, are they sinners through osmosis? And what of the school teachers, doctors, nurses, co-workers, employers, EVERYONE who interacts with said sinner but does NOT consider that person to be a sinner, is EVERYBODY going to hell?
On top of that, which is the greater sin... a gay person who has a monogamous relationship with another gay person, or the religious conservative redneck who goes out of his way physically assault a gay person to the point where his face is no longer recognizable or even dead?
geogeerFeb 2, 2012
If you had to hate everyone who sins, you'd be forced to hate everyone. If you do not hate the sin then you are not living in line with God's will as it is God's nature that determines what is and is not a sin.
Nobody knows who is in hell. What is known is that those in a state of unrepentant mortal sin at the time of death go to hell. What did Jesus say? Matthew 7:13-14
"Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!"
Continuing on with the CCC as I did earlier:
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
Under your list of two choices they are likely both mortal sins, and endanger the mortal souls of both people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
murrayc1968Feb 2, 2012
Oh.... well then... thank you for clearing that up...
But you are mistaken on one tiny little thing - THERE IS NO f**kING GOD!!!
ieatskunkFeb 2, 2012
Wow, bravo, what a compelling, um, argument....
drunkclamFeb 2, 2012
The truth hurts don't it?
particleman420Feb 2, 2012
it's no less compelling than "Yes there is!" particularly since the first claim fits in with reality and the second one doesnt, at all.
ieatskunkFeb 2, 2012
particleman: Many people would argue that life must exist on other worlds in our universe. The universe being so vast with so many worlds and all...but by your logic we can officially say there is no life outside of Earth. Obviously that is stupid.
Religious people, in a similar regard, argue that a higher being or order must exist that gives purpose to our existence. The universe and life itself being so complex and all...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaFeb 2, 2012
@drunkclam, still abusing clams with alcohol eh?
stevanoskiFeb 2, 2012
I don't know, does it?
FrankLuskaFeb 2, 2012
Which is correct,
Atoms have always existed, if not, where did they come from?
God has always existed, if not, where did it come from?
The fact is you don't know and can't say for sure where "ANYTHING" came from. Who made the atoms necessary for the "Big Bang", or just they just appear one day from nowhere?
Believe what you want, but don't try to force your beliefs on others. For all you know, your a slave in the Matrix.
cybersaurFeb 2, 2012
We have observable evidence that atoms at least exist. We have decades of science that demonstrate that most atoms are forged in the hearts of stars.
We have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any gods, nor does anything in the universe require that we posit the existence of any gods.
FrankLuskaFeb 2, 2012
The point is, anything that we know of had to come from somewhere, something had to happen to create it, whether natural or supernatural. The great unknown, no one can say for sure. I tend to agree the universe, earth, etc is older than the bible says, but how the universe came about, or the materials to do so, are what is in question. Seems unlikely a being of some sort may have done this, but strange things do happen.
gt777Feb 3, 2012
Why not?
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
OK, and what if somebody hates their parents for molesting them and kicks their asses? Does that mean they go to hell?
ieatskunkFeb 2, 2012
seriously? you want to ask questions like this on digg? If you really want to debate this you should go to your local church. They would actually enjoy the chance to explain some things.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
Yup, I enjoy pointing out plot holes in sci-fi movies and other pieces of fiction. This seems like an excellent place for that.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
According to him, yes. Everybody is going to hell. Mormons were the one true religion:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152270/abandon-all-hope
Population of heaven is roughly 1656.
takamalakFeb 2, 2012
The concept of "sin" is absurd.
raiderduckFeb 2, 2012
It's all about control. The people who run religions want you to give them money and power over you, so they need something to control you with. "Sin" and "Hell" are perfect concepts for this.
gt777Feb 4, 2012
Well at least you know it's voluntary you don't have to go to church if you don't feel like it! but can you stop all the craps (gays being the victims, adultery, sex and violence, drugs, consumerism, liberal values) spewing on your local TV channels? You can't!! They are controlling you subliminally once you turn it on! Even after you turn it off and read a book, you get the same craps in the book!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
raiderduckFeb 4, 2012
I think your hat needs some more tinfoil. The chemtrails must have dissolved it...
takamalakFeb 2, 2012
Here is why sin is absurd. Slavery is not a sin according to the Bible. But you would be a monster today if you advocated for it. So what's the deal? The Bible can conveniently evolve to fit modern standards? What in the bible can we ignore and what can't we? What's going to change in 20 years time and what stays the same?
gt777Feb 4, 2012
The slaves in the bible are treated better than the workers for corporate America. Look at Foxconn. There are rules of conducts for employers employees relationships!
inajeepFeb 2, 2012
Original sin is more absurd.
gt777Feb 3, 2012
Observe a baby or toddler, they take anything without reservations. They have no concept of law like stealing. Same for violence, a baby or toddler will hit anyone when he or she is angry, they have no concept of controlling their angers. Your original primeval desire is your inheritence from the original sin, when Adam and Eve ate the fruit tree of knowledge. The outcome of their sin is Cain killed Abel due to Cain jealousy, which is another sin. Sins do exists and imagine how long humans have evolved, we have accumulated uncountable sinful desires. I am surprised God still let us live seeing we are so filthy and unworthy because it's so easy to commit sins! must be His Grace at works! He must loved us since we send His only Son for us so that we may have eternal life! So will you accept His unconditional love for us even before we were born!!!!
inajeepFeb 4, 2012
Fatal flaw. Using the bible to prove itself is like referring to a definition of a word with the same word. I am not even bringing that into play.
The concept of original sin is easily one of the worst logical concepts a religion has come up with. Here is a very good explanation of exactly why it is.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/original-sin.htm
inajeepFeb 2, 2012
Original sin is more absurd.
inajeepFeb 2, 2012
I swear I only hit Post Comment once. Damn double post.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
absurd
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
"If you act on that weakness it is a sin if you feel the urge to act on it, but don't - it is not a sin."
OK, so why exactly would acting gay be a sin? Who said that it is a sin and why? Quote?
Furthermore, does it mean that people who aren't gay and don't feel any weaknesses but still have gay sex sinning? There are plenty of tribes (not to mention ancient Greeks) that have something we would interpret as gay in their traditions - are they sinning? They are not acting on weaknesses, after all.
Also, is keeping slaves a sin? If not, then why not - what kind of crazy god allows slavery? If yes, then why are there so many slaves in the bible?
gt777Feb 3, 2012
When you read in the bible that a hedonistic place where people got engaged in all kinds of debauchery and gay sexs, got destroyed completely with brimstones of fire from heaven, you better sit up and ponder that is not just a petty crime.
elimgarakFeb 4, 2012
That only underscores how much of a dick god is in the bible. Think about it - how many infants and kids did he murder with that act? How many women forced into prostitution? All because god is apparently a prude.
Yea, I am going to pass on worshiping a god like that.
inajeepFeb 2, 2012
Isn't it amazing that your god's views are the same as yours?
leonard2Feb 2, 2012
The blogger of this hate and bigotry is living proof that hippies inbreed.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
"The douche who wrote this article is evey bit the hate filled scumbag as the Phelps are."
How so? First of all, do you have evidence that he hates the "god hates fags" people enough to go to their (and to military) funerals and disrupt them with hate speech?
Second, unless he acts on his beliefs (which you have yet to prove) I am not going to blame him for hating the haters. Those people are scum. I really, really don't like them either.
leonard2Feb 2, 2012
This hate filled article is proof. The fact that you would defend this hate filled blogger speaks volumes about you
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
ROFL! If so, I am in very good company!
Furthermore, FAIL. You failed to provide the evidence required to support your conclusion. Therefore, complete and utter failure. It's just you being bigoted yet again.
leonard2Feb 2, 2012
Didn't read the article did you. Either that or you lack reading comprehension.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
Yes, I did read the article, and yes, I did understand it, and yes you did FAIL. I feel embarrassed for you now. You are not even trying to defend your position any more - you have given up and surrendered.
leonard2Feb 2, 2012
You're embarrassed for me. Bwaaaaahahahaha.
Idiot. You should be embarrassed for yourself.
savetheseaFeb 2, 2012
Vote # 2 for being embarrassed for you......
leonard2Feb 2, 2012
@savethesea. No problem savethesea. Digg is full of you lib idiots.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
@leonard2
Yes, of course - everybody else around you is stupid. You are the only smart one - everybody else is just too dumb to see your brilliance. </s>
savetheseaFeb 2, 2012
lib idiot? That is how you counter our asking for clarification on your weak, unsubstantiated comments? At least you are consistent.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
"The most disgusting bigotry of all is the hate spewed bigotry against Christians by the left."
Yes, it is indeed far more disgusting to despise people who protect child molesters than it is to despise the child molesters themselves. Of course, why didn't I think of that - dislike of people who do evil is much more horrible than child molestation and protecting of child molesters.
</s>
leonard2Feb 2, 2012
"Yes, it is indeed far more disgusting to despise people who protect child molesters than it is to despise the child molesters themselves. Of course, why didn't I think of that - dislike of people who do evil is much more horrible than child molestation and protecting of child molesters."
You mean like the Occupy protesters do?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
Yet again, you FAIL, utterly and completely. The weakness of your attempts at arguments only underscores the lack of logic in your position.
1. This has nothing to do with OWS. So basically you are trying to change the subject.
2. OWS does not protect child molesters. Nor do they molest children. While they may have individual criminals among them - at about the same probability/frequency as other movements - OWS does not represent or protect child molesters. Soooo much fail!
leonard2Feb 2, 2012
No fail here . You are in a state of denial.
So much hate by people like you, so little understanding.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
Yawn. You bore me, little fail person. Go away until you learn the basic rules of discourse. The rules being that you provide evidence and reasoning to your statements.
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
"You're embarrassed for me. Bwaaaaahahahaha.
Idiot. You should be embarrassed for yourself."
What a fantastic comeback! The total absence of meaning, logic, or arguments in you statements is simply staggering!
leonard2Feb 2, 2012
Poor little guy went and got himself all butthurt.
http://i.imgur.com/44aXp.jpg
Btw, Thank you for proving my point. =))
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
OK, that's just a complete non-sequitor. Now you are proposing anal sex to me?
I am sorry, but I am not gay. And I don't even like Star Wars, so you can stop trying to interest me in gay sex with references to it.
leonard2Feb 2, 2012
Lol...So desperate to prove how witty and intelligent you are when all you do is prove how gullible you are. =))
elimgarakFeb 2, 2012
<yawn>. You have now completely left the reservation and are approaching the Mariana Trench of illogical insanity.
williamsonaccFeb 3, 2012
Sexual sickness needs to end. It is leading to deprave behavour and child pornography! It is classified as obomination.
kochevnik2001Feb 2, 2012
No Moloch, god of child molestation, is the heart of the religious right. He adorns the US dollar bill and the streets of the White House. The elite join at Bohemian Grove every year to give him respects and offer him another sacrifice.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jaketyson85Feb 2, 2012
look all this "god hates gays" stuff is blown out of proportion. yes, god in the bible asked the israelites to not have homosexual relations. this is because they were supposed to be reproducing to build a nation for god. it didnt say "dont have bathouse buddies" or anything like that. when jesus came to earth it was a more modern time and he opened salvation to everyone in the gentile world so that we can all be in his grace.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.