Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on January 18, 2014, 07:58:31 PM
-
This guy essentially repeated what the Duck guy said, but apparently more succinctly, without getting graphic. Yet, people are offended by it.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/abcs-bachelor-juan-pablo-galavis-672100
Not this stuff again.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRvfqnHm.jpg%3F2&hash=2a36d5fef04fe0ad6d130e04f363f3e90d7c4e80)
-
IDK, I'm kind of offended.
A guy who's on a TV show devoted to having blandly gorgous, shallow idiots compete for "love" as a front for gossip and BS drama and stupid bitching thinking that it would be too perverse to include gays?
Seriously, pot meet the freeking kettle.
(sorry, I hate that stupid francise, so any excuse to hate on it is valid)
-
IDK, I'm kind of offended.
A guy who's on a TV show devoted to having blandly gorgous, shallow idiots compete for "love" as a front for gossip and BS drama and stupid bitching thinking that it would be too perverse to include gays?
Seriously, pot meet the freeking kettle.
(sorry, I hate that stupid francise, so any excuse to hate on it is valid)
I guess he's just not going to hide his homophobia anymore. He's out of the closet, world, get used to it! :P
-
I guess he's just not going to hide his homophobia anymore. He's out of the closet, world, get used to it! :P
Oh, who cares about that!
It's a show devoted to premarital relations, back stabbing, pride and a host of other sins. Anyone who appears on that and then thinks "oh, gays are too perverse!" is an idiot. (and yes, I know, I read the whole "english is a second language bit, still, he apparently doesn't get the nature of the show he's on)
-
Oh, who cares about that!
It's a show devoted to premarital relations, back stabbing, pride and a host of other sins. Anyone who appears on that and then thinks "oh, gays are too perverse!" is an idiot. (and yes, I know, I read the whole "english is a second language bit, still, he apparently doesn't get the nature of the show he's on)
All of this
-
Oh, who cares about that!
It's a show devoted to premarital relations, back stabbing, pride and a host of other sins. Anyone who appears on that and then thinks "oh, gays are too perverse!" is an idiot. (and yes, I know, I read the whole "english is a second language bit, still, he apparently doesn't get the nature of the show he's on)
Which is only as ironic as the gay pride paraders trying to shame people for being offensive. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
You do see the irony, don't you? :lol:
-
I agree with BSL.
and will add...
Its kinda like that beauty pageant contestant a while back, that displays herself in underwear in a contest for who is the sexiest, is then suddenly concerned with what God says about sexuality when she loses. Give me a break. ;/
-
The problem is that, like Phil Robertson, he spoke his beliefs and offended a bunch of pantywaists. The difference is that Phil apologized but didn't back down, whereas this twit apologized and tried to blame it on language.
I call B.S.
My wife is a real, honest-to-God Latina -- from South America. Latin Americans are overwhelmingly (albeit not exclusively) Roman Catholic in religion and more so in religious heritage and outlook. To them, homosexuality IS a perversion. Some of the more liberated ones (such as my wife) tend to tolerate it ... but they don't approve of it, and they do regard it as a perversion.
I don't think the guy "used the wrong word" at all. I think he said exactly what he meant.
-
The problem is that, like Phil Robertson, he spoke his beliefs and offended a bunch of pantywaists. The difference is that Phil apologized but didn't back down, whereas this twit apologized and tried to blame it on language.
I call B.S.
My wife is a real, honest-to-God Latina -- from South America. Latin Americans are overwhelmingly (albeit not exclusively) Roman Catholic in religion and more so in religious heritage and outlook. To them, homosexuality IS a perversion. Some of the more liberated ones (such as my wife) tend to tolerate it ... but they don't approve of it, and they do regard it as a perversion.
I don't think the guy "used the wrong word" at all. I think he said exactly what he meant.
Yeah, the whole "but, i have gay friends!!" defense is the tip off on that one.
-
Its kinda like that beauty pageant contestant a while back, that displays herself in underwear in a contest for who is the sexiest, is then suddenly concerned with what God says about sexuality when she loses. Give me a break. ;/
But you don't see the same hypocrisy at work in the gay lobby? [for lack of a better term] When they offend us with their perversion, they tell us we're at fault for being offended. We should discard our outdated taboos, they claim. But when they are offended, it must be taken seriously.
You don't see how it is exactly the same?
-
So, I'm the "gay lobby" now?
For pointing out this guys hippocracy?
:rollseyes:
-
So, I'm the "gay lobby" now?
For pointing out this guys hippocracy?
:rollseyes:
Hey, who are we to judge your life?
=D
-
So, I'm the "gay lobby" now?
For pointing out this guys hippocracy?
:rollseyes:
You don't see how far out at sea we all are here, in post-modern America. Given current cultural mores, there's no reason why this guy shouldn't indulge in various vices, but draw the line at homosexuality. He would only be doing exactly what the "gay lobby" (for lack of a better term) is doing, when it tells us that their chosen vices are just fine, but they draw the line at calling people "perverts."
The homosexuals aren't hurting anybody, right?
The guy calling them perverts isn't hurting anybody, right?
So how is one better than the other?
And, no, I wasn't calling you the gay lobby. I thought that was obvious.
-
So, I'm the "gay lobby" now?
For pointing out this guys hippocracy?
Not to me ...
-
You don't see how far out at sea we all are here, in post-modern America. Given current cultural mores, there's no reason why this guy shouldn't indulge in various vices, but draw the line at homosexuality. He would only be doing exactly what the "gay lobby" (for lack of a better term) is doing, when it tells us that their chosen vices are just fine, but they draw the line at calling people "perverts."
Ohh, that's RACIST! (Or something.)
According to the LGBT "community," their lifestyle is normal and healthy. We aren't supposed to call homosexuality a "vice." We are supposed to pretend that when the Bible says it's a sin for men to lie with men ... that the Bible doesn't actually say that. (Oh, really? Then what DOES it say?) If we tell them their chosen lifestyle is sinful, or a vice, they get their feelings all hurty and stuff.
But we're not supposed to be offended when they tell us that citing 2000 year old Holy Scripture is just being "bigoted." (Okay, 1900 year old Holy Scripture.)
-
Yeah, the whole "but, i have gay friends!!" defense is the tip off on that one.
Yes it is. Always makes me laugh
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
Ohh, that's RACIST! (Or something.)
According to the LGBT "community," their lifestyle is normal and healthy. We aren't supposed to call homosexuality a "vice." We are supposed to pretend that when the Bible says it's a sin for men to lie with men ... that the Bible doesn't actually say that. (Oh, really? Then what DOES it say?) If we tell them their chosen lifestyle is sinful, or a vice, they get their feelings all hurty and stuff.
But we're not supposed to be offended when they tell us that citing 2000 year old Holy Scripture is just being "bigoted." (Okay, 1900 year old Holy Scripture.)
IIRC, it's more like 1300 to 1500 year old...
-
IIRC, it's more like 1300 to 1500 year old...
It sounds like he's referring to the law of Moses, which would make it over 3000 years old, as opposed to the Christian scriptures, which are a little over 1900 years old. Even the most "liberal" Bible scholars would not suggest a date as recent as 500.
-
It sounds like he's referring to the law of Moses, which would make it over 3000 years old, as opposed to the Christian scriptures, which are a little over 1900 years old. Even the most "liberal" Bible scholars would not suggest a date as recent as 500.
I stand corrected.
-
Oh, who cares about that!
It's a show devoted to premarital relations, back stabbing, pride and a host of other sins. Anyone who appears on that and then thinks "oh, gays are too perverse!" is an idiot. (and yes, I know, I read the whole "english is a second language bit, still, he apparently doesn't get the nature of the show he's on)
yep. Right on the money here
-
But you don't see the same hypocrisy at work in the gay lobby? [for lack of a better term] When they offend us with their perversion, they tell us we're at fault for being offended. We should discard our outdated taboos, they claim. But when they are offended, it must be taken seriously.
You don't see how it is exactly the same?
I see what you're saying, but mutual hypocracy doesn't justify either side.
-
I see what you're saying, but mutual hypocracy doesn't justify either side.
Who says it does? At least this Bachelor guy isn't claiming to be a human rights activist, though. He's just a minor celebrity that was asked for his opinion.
-
I see what you're saying, but mutual hypocracy doesn't justify either side.
I don't understand. What's hypocritical about disagreeing with the gay lifestyle?
-
I don't understand. What's hypocritical about disagreeing with the gay lifestyle?
It is the now fashionable practice of equating promiscuous heterosexual and homosexual sex. Oddly enough there is some validity under the concept of sin for this but those who do the equating are more likely to deny the concept of sin. And they are essentially clueless as to the complexity of the sin model.
In essence it is sloppy and lazy thinking on the part of the accusers of hypocrisy.
In this case the bachelor fellow is presumably heterosexually promiscuous.
I do think there is a bit of a language barrier as he was likely trying to find the english equivalent for the spanish maricon or other colloquial term used by spanish speakers. Pervert is close but does not fully convey the distaste most latins have for homosexuals and homosexuality.
-
I heard an idea for a new reality show a few weeks back. Put 20 gay guys in a house or something, but one guy is straight. The guys have to identify the gay guy and kick him out (no physical activity allowed). The trick is that all 20 guys are actually straight and each thinks they are the one straight guy.
Sounds like fun to me.
-
*YAWN*
Just another group of people laying down a 'victim card.'
People need to put on their big boy pants and quit being such whiny bitches.
-
I don't understand. What's hypocritical about disagreeing with the gay lifestyle?
Apologizing for it afterwards, and trying to claim it was not really a condemnation, but just a poor choice of words due to using a second language.
-
Apologizing for it afterwards, and trying to claim it was not really a condemnation, but just a poor choice of words due to using a second language.
Nah that is backpeddling not hypocrisy.
_Hypocrisy_ is when the network weenies tell him the number two target demographic of the show, he loses his lunch, and then issues his make nice statement.
-
It is the now fashionable practice of equating promiscuous heterosexual and homosexual sex. Oddly enough there is some validity under the concept of sin for this but those who do the equating are more likely to deny the concept of sin. And they are essentially clueless as to the complexity of the sin model.
In essence it is sloppy and lazy thinking on the part of the accusers of hypocrisy.
In this case the bachelor fellow is presumably heterosexually promiscuous.
I do think there is a bit of a language barrier as he was likely trying to find the english equivalent for the spanish maricon or other colloquial term used by spanish speakers. Pervert is close but does not fully convey the distaste most latins have for homosexuals and homosexuality.
Obviously, I disagree. Sexual immorality of many types is very typically condemned in NT scripture in running lists. It is very rare for homosexuality to be singled out. It is the NT scripture that equates many/most kinds of sins with the same expectation of judgement.
-
Obviously, I disagree. Sexual immorality of many types is very typically condemned in NT scripture in running lists. It is very rare for homosexuality to be singled out. It is the NT scripture that equates many/most kinds of sins with the same expectation of judgement.
But it was pretty well covered in the OT, so like several other other points of the law, it only needed a "Bacon is ok now, sodomy is still bad."
-
But it was pretty well covered in the OT, so like several other other points of the law, it only needed a "Bacon is ok now, sodomy is still bad."
No. Bacon is still bad. You christians must stop eating the sin.
and we heathens can stop worrying about the bacon supply shortage. MuWaHahahahaha!
-
But it was pretty well covered in the OT, so like several other other points of the law, it only needed a "Bacon is ok now, sodomy is still bad."
Sure, and I am not trying to say anything changed about that. It was a capital crime then, and it was reiterated as a crime against God in the NT. But so was adultery and lying in court. And the new NT passages that reiterate it continued to list it in the same way...
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you...
I Cor 6
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5
"immorality" is a typical alternate translation of "porniea"(fornication, sexual immorality), which is a very broad term for any kind of sex outside of appropriate marriage (hetero, homo, beast, whatver). Yet in this particular list, homosexual is not listed.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Rom 1
But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
Rev 21
(again, immoral person is referring to "fornication")
But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching
I Tim 1
But notice how drunkness and swindling and cowardice is all considered in the same kinds of context. Which get back to my point, it is very rare for homosexuality to be called out as specially egregious, no more so than a lot of other common practices in human culture.
-
<< snip >>
But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching
I Tim 1
Sounds to me like if one is a "righteous person" the law doesn't apply to them. This could come in handy . . .
:O
What? Like I'm the only one that reads religious text with an eye for loopholes!
-
Sounds to me like if one is a "righteous person" the law doesn't apply to them. This could come in handy . . .
:O
What? Like I'm the only one that reads religious text with an eye for loopholes!
No you're not the only one. The problem is that reading the law for an eye for loopholes while thinking that keeping the exact letter of the law is all that is needed is called "legalism" and is resoundly condemned. In the NT, it was Jesus' pet peeve. :police:
for example...
“Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”
-
But notice how drunkness and swindling and cowardice is all considered in the same kinds of context. Which get back to my point, it is very rare for homosexuality to be called out as specially egregious, no more so than a lot of other common practices in human culture.
Frequency doesn't make an act acceptable. If we all set out to murder each other, will the Lord suddenly grab a bottle of heavenly white-out and rewrite His commandments?
One might also note that it tends to be lumped in with some form of "unloving" or perpetrators of strife and enmity. Since Christ Himself boiled it down to His two simpler rules, I'd tend to take anything found in close proximity to violating those as pretty serious.