I would first off like to apologize to anyone who may be offended for the terminology I repeat that has been used by this church. Their repeated use of the term "Fag", is not only a slur directed at homosexuals, but as they argue of its etymology, is derived from the concept of one who will burn in hell, and they use it indiscriminately against not only homosexuals, but those who commit adultery, fornication, and other 'sins against God'.


I'm sure lots of us have seen the website- GodHatesFags.com and heard of their protests against Military funerals, claiming that Soldiers dying in Iraq is God's punishment for the fact that the US is tolerant of gays, in the military and in general. They also make claims such as that AIDS is something that God loves.

I think it can be summed up easily as their slogan that, 'If you aren't good enough, God hates you.'

Even networks and individuals widely known for conservatism were enraged and disgusted at the teachings of this church. We see a report here on Fox News?. And it's no wonder. These preachings disgrace all that sane moral conservatives and Christians strive for.


You'll notice this video turns quickly away from any real potential argument, however, and devolves quickly into catfighting and namecalling.



Which brings up more of the core question in debate here.

I have seen so many people who were also disgusted and outraged at these claims, saying that 'They are not real christians because they preach hate!', however that statement is very often followed up with something similar to the reporter's angry rantings, or something along the lines of 'they should die!'

Hypocrisy much?

If so many of those enraged 'christians' take a claim to true christianity because they promote love and tolerance, then why is it any different for these zealots? Hating their actions, yes. Taking legal movement against them, yes. Being hurt and wanting to speak out? Of course!

But responding to their hate and anger with hate and anger? Where is the 'true christianity' in that?

Would it not be the true Christian thing to do, to go on loving these poor misguided souls? Would it not be Godly and righteous to try to understand that these people are ignorant, horribly mislead, and pray for their forgiveness, as you would want done for you should you ever need to be forgiven? Even if they don't want this forgiveness. Even if they never accept love from those who would divulge from their 'true teachings', even if they take it to their graves, would it not make the world a better place, beyond Christian standards and simply in human standards, to defeat their manifesto simply by proving them that love prevails?

If God is Love, then there is nothing that can be done to kill faith more quickly than hate.


Those are my thoughts. Please discuss. (And no; this is not just a 'homosexuality' or 'christianity/faith' thread. This is a complex topic, and I should hope more people have thoughts on this.)

Hate and anger won't make ignorance go away.

There's no way you can force them to change their beliefs...Making laws that limit their annoyingness will work and just ignoring their actions. It's almost a waste of time and energy to try to convince them that their ideals are wrong.

...bad taste has no limits.

They shouldn't die, they should be forced to live in San Fransisco or Las Vegas.
Fred Phelps is just an angry old man with a congragation made of his family and a few nut cases. His sermons are conrodictary and riddled with holes. He's not got long left in him and when he kicks the bucket the church will disolve.

We can only hope that the teachings will eventually die out.


... wouldn't it be such lovely irony if there were 'fags' protesting at his funeral?

(That does go against my arguments, but it's just a rather amusing thought. Hey, I'm human.)

I think he should expand his hate. God hates quite a few things,
http://www.godhatesfigs.com/
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
http://www.godhatesamerica.com/ Winner of worst site design ever.
http://www.finalfrontier.org.uk/abortion.htm [god hates abortion]
www.godhatessweden.com

I wouldn't get my hopes up. Have you seen the guy's daughter? She's just as rabid as he is.

She's passionate but I think her dad is just a fugure head now and shes the brains. Without her puppet she can't do much can she?

Shrimp? So if you eat shrimp you commit a sin?! Why would God hate any little food like shrimp?

It's against the rules of kashrut. Anything that comes from the water needs to have fins and scales. Lobster, shrimp, clams, shark, jellyfish, squid, etc are all 'abominations of the sea' and you're not supposed to eat them. WHY that's so nobody knows, a lot of the rules in the bible are pretty odd.

Where in the bible does it say America is hated? Are they trying to mess up our dear bible? What?

"God" "hates" America because the US harbours homosexuals (read: it's not illegal). God hates every counrty that doesn't persecute homosexuals.
Remember: God is love.

...and this mentality is different from that of al-Qaeda... how?

But doesn't every place harbor homosexual people? And what's so bad about homosexuals?

I do not like the sites that Popogeejo put up. Frigging site making idiots

If they don't like having gays around, they should move to a place that better suits them... like Saudi Arabia.

Less facial hair.



No. Some countries do outlaw homosexuality.



Religions tend to frown upon homosexuality because it's non productive. Some countries take this into the laws.



The God hate Figs one cracks me up.

The only countries who outlaw homosexuality are those with extremely repressive, dictatorial regimes. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, China, North Korea, etc. No civilized western country would ever do this.

Cameroon isn't extremely repressive, and Homosexuality is outlawed there.

(China? Then what's up with all the Chinese yaoi artists I'm seeing?)

Most of those are based out of Hong Kong, I would think... and places other than mainland China. Porn is also outlawed in China.

It used to be illegal in the UK but then again this is the country that banned Nung-chucks from appearing in any films atall.

Still, I'm upset that people frown upon gay men. Heck, I have a gay uncle and a gay cousin in my family! I met my gay uncle and his partner and they're so nice, my cousin I haven't met before. It sucks that people will not let people choose who they prefer, everyone should have the right to marry who they want to!

Outlawing gay people? Heck, even Bush from what I heard it trying to outlaw homosexuality. But who does not think against Bush? He started a war, caused poverty in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is outlawing all the poor gay men.

Even the gay-outlawing areas will have gays, no matter what laws they set up. Heck, America has gays, and you see all of the people against homosexuality who whine about homosexuals being here and how homosexual people sin and everything. I'll bet even Saudi Arabia has them, they can't fully stop gays from entering those countries.

Just because somebody is gay doesn't mean that you're going to die.

You're lucky you're young. Otherwise, I'd be shocked at your ignorance.

I don't think there's much to discuss there. Let them create stupid sites like these, since they're frustrated and want others to 'hear them out'. It's not like we can do something to change their opinions anyway.

A sad little note within this subject.

As much as we like to reassure ourselves that this church is predominantly Phelps' family, and is only a small congregation of un-educated hillbillies, this is only a comforting little hope.

Oddly enough, a small forum I frequent, which harbors more RL debates than anything else at the moment, has recently been joined by a young religious teenager, who also happens to support this church, wrote a report about them for school, claims to follow only the King James bible, and literally at that.

You might just think that, eh, there will always be extremist on debate-based boards.

It's an anime site. He's an average guy, gamer, speaks coherently, is a very big FMA fan. These 'crazies' aren't as alien and far removed from us as we like to think.

Man, I'd wish we had one like that here...who wasn't twelve....and retarded.

Love them? I don't THINK so! But I certainly pity their poor shriveled little hearts. How a human being, or a group of them can be so deluded as to think God is punishing America on their behalf makes me wonder if I can get some of the drugs they are on. Then again, maybe not. You know why Phelps has his own church? Because no credible Baptist church in America wants him as it's pastor.

They came to my town almost a year ago to "protest" at the funeral of a local soldier. The county sheriff kept them on a tight leash - and he also kept the media away. I think it's pissed off that glory hound Phelps and months later, the Fond du lac paper posted a letter from (I think) his son which alleged the sheriff had "battered" a female protestor.

It's all bogus of course, no one around here believes it. The church didn't get ANY publicity at all and I think this was an attempt to get some column inches. If you ever chance to visit their site (for some laughs) and you see an attack on Sheriff Todd Nehls, that is the guy who made them move another 300 feet away because they were trying to incite the mourners by throwing an American flag on the ground and stomping on it.



As I understand it, a county in Tennesee HAS passed a law outlawing homosexuality. Good luck enforcing that mongrel.

A lot of soulders are christian.

All the gay guys and gals I know are christian.

They don't act like their commiting a sin.

Because there are so many humans, maybe some humans have evolved to respond differently to hormones the same sex releases.

These hormones are like pick-up lines.

Only less lame.

'Cuz their all sciencey.

And stuff...

Anyways, what I am saying is,

GAY PEOPLE ARE AN ADVANCEMENT IN EVOLUTION!!!

*rawrs*

That makes me concerned about someone I know...

Can you cite a source on that claim?




While I understand where you are coming from here, there is a primary flaw in that statement. To be an advancement in evolution, a certain trait must be a reproductional advantage. Homosexuality is obviously, not. Unless you were to assume that heterosexual parents who produce gay offspring are really repressed homosexuals in denial and their guilt of homosexuality is what pressed them to reproduce. Which I highly doubt.

(This same argument came up in a discussion about Aspergers autism, in which it was suggested that because these people have certain intellectual advantages and can fill important roles in society, that perhaps they are a new and crucial mutation in human evolution. The flaw in that well meaning and hopeful theory, was that Aspergers provides no reproductional advantage. It is just becoming more commonplace for reasons that are not known.)


Stupidity, on the other hand, seems to be a major reproductional advantage in society these days. Which spells out a rather sad outcome for the human race.

Ohh, okies.

You see, my theries are not completely correct(okay, not correct at all) because, although I am clever </boast> I'm still a blonde twelve year old who doesn't even do her homework.

Homework is nothing. I hate homework. It is only worthwhile to breed conformist drones and to keep them busy and away from more meaningful activities. (Like interpretive dance.)

Blonde means nothing. I am a blonde eighteen year old (who looks twelve), if that says anything.

No need to feel apologetic. It's an honest point of discussion that most adults tend to overlook (and in the afformentioned case, it was several adults who overlooked it), and what are the forums for but debate?


And like I said, your point was generally a positive and right one. While not always 100% of the case, there is significant scientific reasoning that homosexuality is a naturally occuring biological urge.

What this means in the debate of whether it is moral or not is dubious at best (as mentioned before).


Seriously, though, if there are more non-reproducing couples in our society who are eager to become good parents and adopt, I say that's a godsend.

About the 'god hates america thing'...what if somebody they loved a lot was killed? Would they see it differently? Because I am afraid I might loose my dad...he's over in Iraq, waiting to come back for two effing weeks, only to be shipped off for another year.

God doesn't hate gays. God doesn't hate anyone. But he did clearly state that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I'm not telling any gay they're wrong, because that's their call, but I don't agree with them.

Well, I don't believe the bible is the literal truth. So I take anything someone claims "God said" with a very large grain of salt. Other than what the bible supposedly says, there is NO evidence allowing gays to marry would hurt society. Even the inability of gays to produce biological children isn't a reason because there are hetero couples who are unable to have biological children. Two thousand year since "be fruitful and multiply" was written, procreation isn't the biological imperative it once was. People have successfully built families via adoption alone.

OTOH: I have heard (on alternet.org) about a so-callled Defense of Marriage Act in Washington state which would forbid marriage by ANYONE who could not prove they are capable of producing biological children. And then the couple MUST produce a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled.

Oh yeah, about the Tennesee statute, sorry for taking so long to reply. This is the first time I've visited this topic since I originally posted. I believe I saw it mentioned in a blog peek on alternet. I haven't heard anything more about it, so I'm not sure of the status. But I feel it's probably unenforceable. Unless the gay person in question is "out", how will authorities know?

Mandatory birth is certainly enforceable, but it's also ridiculous. No one would ever seriously support such a thing.

It is good for a man not to be effeminate. That is what I read in the bible. It also touches on gays. It is not natural it says. So god does not hate gay, just what they do. And also the fact that god does not think it good for people to be perverse which is what that would be considered as homosexuality goes against natural reproduction. But it may in fact be a good population control.

If it wasn't natural, animals wouldn't do it.

Bottom line is, you're dumb.

@Neph- The whole point behind the act meant to enforce birth within marriage is meant to be ridiculous. The point is that those who opposed gay marriage had some of the most stock in their arguments of marriage being a family-building institute between a man and a woman, and as such, if they wind up refusing a ridiculous bill legally reinforcing this supposedly fundamental purpose behind marriage, their arguments are visibly weakened.

It's basically a roundabout motion in an attempt to tell lawmakers to practice what they preach. "Okay, you say it's between a man and a woman. For what purpose? Oh. To have children. Well in that case, if that's how you're legally defining it, go all the way and legally enforce it."

Clearly, they can't go ahead and pass such a motion; they'll have lots of angry voters after them. Being unable to support it proves how weak their attempt to put a blanket legal definition on the agenda of all marriages is.

Travis

One's opinion of gays all hinges on what the bible says about sodomy. The bible says sodomy is a perversion. But, why? My theory is because sodomy (like masturbation, and oral sex) is considered a "sin against procreation." You have to consider the time in which the gospels which were assembled into the the bible were written. Because of lifespans shorter than they are now, and the high rate of infant mortality, having lots of kids was a biological imperative.

Sodomy seems to scare the hell out of some people, and I don't understand why. It's not my cup of tea, but I'm not being forced to take part in it, nor watch it. No one is. Which is why "anti sodomy" laws make absolutely no sense. The cops won't know who is having anal sex unless they put cameras in the bedrooms of every American adult.

On a side note: In the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas expanded the definition of sodomy to include ALL non vaginal sex, also beastility, and any sexual position with the woman on top. Sounds like someone felt really threatened by the latter.

I think the problem was that back then men were frustrated when their wives wouldn't consend to buttsex. So they wrote down a rule in the Bible that basically said it wasn't allowed, because they were bitter about it. It was one of those 'if I can't have it, noone can!' deals.

That's my take on it, anyway.

By the way:

I did something I should have done earlier. Went to dogpile and tried to find out more about the story of the Tennessee county trying to ban homosexuals. The news of the proposed ban in Rhea County, TN caused such an excrement storm the county commissioners voted to overturn the ban. The whole story can be found here:
gay ban overturned
I'm amazed this ban happened back in 2004, it seems much more current.

Ironically, this is the same county which banned the teaching of evolution in the early 1920s, which led to the famous Scopes "Monkey Trial."

We also published the Protocols of Zion for awhile too. Yeah.

Correct me if I am wrong...
Sodomy differs from masturbation and sodomy differs oral sex... oral sex differs from masturbation too...
Different position, different amount of people and different "stimulant"

I think you missed the point. None of those acts will result in pregnancy. Some people see this as a waste and therefore sinful.

OOh...then he/she should not write it like that...
So protected sex is considered a sin too? Since human did it only for pleasure instead of pregnancy...?

Contraception is banned by the Catholic Church...many Irish families are quite big.

They made it very clear what they meant:

Actually, the Bible doesn't mention masturbation as a sin. I mean, it's more about what's going on up here in your head at the time, but the act in and of itself is just that.

Sex isn't an inherantly bad thing, in fact its designed to be pleasurable ("This way of bringing babies into this world, however did God think it up?" - Winston Churchill). The question is application.

Kenji,
Some people here in the US consider even "recreational sex" to be wrong because conception is not the intention. Although it sometimes happens. I've noticed more and more attacks on contraception, from the claims emergency contraception "promotes" promiscuity to some "abstinence only until marriage" sex ed programs which exaggerate the failure rate of condoms.

Nepharski,
It would be interesting to find out just where the societal frowning upon of masturbation began. I just looked it up on Wikipedia and it says the first mention of masturbation as somehow bad is in <u>Onania</u>, a pamphlet written by the profilic author known as "Anonymous" in 1716. The claim was masturbation caused gonorrhea, impotence, syphillis and "wasting of the faculties". The attitude masturbation was the cause of certain diseases persisted until the early 20th century. The article I read has some charming illustrations of anti masturbation devices.

What I'd always heard as a kid were the dire warnings playing with oneself would result in hairy palms and/or blindness.

Bottom line anything unatral can not be good.

Best not get on any planes then. Might want to get of the internet as well. Both flight and communicating via wires seems pretty unnatural to me.