yeah this is fucked

apparently I should have been beaten to death as a child because while I'm not homosexual, I don't know that I've ever exhibited overtly 'female' behavior.

and I certainly don't smell like a girl.

Too bad he wasn't a Mormon. It'd be great ammo against Romney.

they might grow up to be commies, though!

Seems that the douche has apologized. I've got to believe that more than a few of his parishioners are pretty disgusted.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/pastor-retract ... d=16273874

Yeah. What a disgusting, homophobic, misogynist prick.

I doubt he's really sorry; there's just too much political pressure these days to get away with this kind of thing so if he wants anyone to attend church, he has to be seen to have apologised publically.

These anti-gay people are so ridiculous and cartoon-like, I'm pretty positive that the tides are turning and soon it'll be as normal to accept sexual diversity in a church environment as racial. Not soon enough though, and not until we flush these stupid misogynists out.

Terroristic Threats.

Pastor's a douche for sure.
I'd put your PC douchery in about the same category, though.

gawd almighty...

If religion isn't able to declare homosexuality a sin, what does it have left? Would you have us all be Unitarians?

Let's not have a pointless argument about this. You'd put my desire for no hate speech and manipulative bullying in the same category as this guy's desire for Christians to punch the gay out of their children?

If this is all that Christianity has left, it should throw in the towel now. Thankfully it isn't. I'd suggest you start looking at some of the theological debate around this issue before you, or anyone else, starts just dismissing my words as 'PC'.

Edit: also, what's any of what I said got to do with Unitarianism?

To be honest I'm surprised that all Christians, pro-gay or not, can't join together in condemnation of hate speech like this. But that's part of the problem. Guys like this get too much of an easy ride. He espouses child abuse, I speak against it, and then I'm told I'm just as bad for not believing a moderate version of the same thing. Who's being PC?

Pretty sure you missed schoolboy's sarcasm.

Maybe I did, in which case I'm sorry guys. This stuff just really fucks me off.

I understand where you're coming from.

My thoughts are that this guy is just a human being that believes his mission on the planet is to teach people the word of god. That is what he is doing. He is doing his job as he is animating for his congregation an ideal that has been around for centuries. His god sent angels to destroy a lascivious town. His god punched that town.

If he's not interpreting his god's word correctly please stop me from any further comment.





Please don't misunderstand because I don't mean to offend you by saying so, but you most certainly exhibit overtly female behavior.

I can't attest to your smell. What kind of soap do you use?

Personally I think any good interpretation of the Bible will not end up in hatred and abuse of minorities. This hatred of the gay has gone on for long enough, and there is a debate to be had about whether we've interpreted those passages right, or if we can't be sure, whether we've interpreted them in the right spirit. And I'm fairly sure that the answer is no on both accounts. When people are being treated like this instead of with love, we know that we've reduced what used to be a matter of holiness down to a witch hunt. That's wrong and I've bowed out, whether I go to hell for it or not.

Oh I think you've got the right idea personally. Jesus essentially lays the groundwork for nonviolent protest in the new testament and the way he treats societies outcasts is supposed to be the way we treat "the least of our brothers" as well. I can see if Jesus spent the bulk of his life railing against gentiles and gays that this would be a focus, but generally I think that hatred is the refuge of the weak minded and or those people or groups that would seek control over others. Zero context = zero thought. I don't see how anyone can read through the text and expect to take it literally word for word.

Absolutely. I'm constantly astounded that people can make every excuse for Paul saying 'The women are to keep silent in the churches...' while not being able to do the same thing for Paul's apparent prohibition against 'homosexuality'. In the former case, we make every effort to look into every possible theological and historical context as to why he might have advised this to *one particular group of people* on one particular occasion. But nothing like the same amount of attention is being given to passages involving sex. I have to believe that even Christians who don't 'hate gays' are still far too reluctant to really delve into the subject of sexuality and patriarchy.