Politcal-Correctness At It's Finest

[TwistofRKO]

Uhhh there is one unforgivable sin for those who follw and believe in Christianity... it's blashphemy against the holy spirit. However while some people so get offended by hearing others take the lord's name in vain, it not a direct insult to those people, it is a exclamation. I admit I say "Jesus Christ" all the time when I am frustrated, pissed off or injure myself. I do not use it as a insult because it can't be. You don't go up to someone and say... "you are a Jesus Christ, you are." So your point about it usage being equal to another person calling someone gay or a ****** is a moot point and can be discarded.

It can be ofensive to hear that, but those who take offense to it, do not do so because it was said in front of them and their feelings are hurt. People take offense to people taking the lord's name in vain, because they feel it is an insult to the one they worship. BIG difference. Find another arguement my good man, because you are beating a dead horse with those discardable rebuttal.

For the love of sweet mothers everywhere reading comprehension would be nice.

You complain i re-state myself, I re-state myself for a reason. It's not an insult in the way that you call someone a moron, it's an insult that you are blaspheming something that someone may hold very sacred.

This isn't rocket science. I said the effect was equatable, not the audibility of the actual wording.

And there are no unforgivable sins, Jesus said He can forgive anything.

 

[Spaceman Spif]

For the love of sweet mothers everywhere reading comprehension would be nice.

You complain i re-state myself, I re-state myself for a reason. It's not an insult in the way that you call someone a moron, it's an insult that you are blaspheming something that someone may hold very sacred.

This isn't rocket science. I said the effect was equatable, not the audibility of the actual wording.

And there are no unforgivable sins, Jesus said He can forgive anything.

Hmmm read the bible much then?

Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31)


Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin[/b." (Mark 3:28-30)


Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven. (Luke 12:10)

So there goes that, right in the bible, the word of God, it says there is in fact an unforgivable sin, but I digress, the lack of intelligence you have shown in your repeatitive arguement is just showing that you really do not know what you talking about and will continue to spout the same thing over and over, and thus it is pointless to debate you on this matter any farther as it will make no difference in your thick skull, because you really don't seem to be able to see past the tip of your nose.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Let me start out by saying this. Vince was wrong in saying "Thats kinda gay". No matter the situation, you have to be very touchy about how you say shit nowadays.

That's the point, if one phrase that offends people is basically unspeakable, then correlate it to more figures of speech.

People say "JC" all the time, and there's no backlash, I'm pretty sure if you say that in your class room and call someone a ****** in your class room, the uproar would be for the latter. Everyone is self-righteous, and feel better about themselves if they take the popular side. Kind of like the white people who feel they owe something to black people because of the acts of their ancestors. People are very emotionally driven, and usually religion doesn't evoke religion in popular media or culture to the heights of other subjects.

Okay, so you admit that you have never sat down and spoken to a Gay or Bisexual person to allow them to tell you how they feel they came to be ... not to mention the 99% of Gays and Lesbians that are adamant about not choosing their Orientation, and given all of that, you turn your back on these people and dismiss them without not even talking to one Gay or Lesbian, and yet you feel you are more of an expert on their kind then they are?

Let me ask you something. If you are a scientist and your job is to work towards uncovering the cause of Homosexuality, do you feel you could do so without even talking to one Homosexual?

You simply are admitting you cannot answer my question. Until you do, go sit in the corner and twiddle your thumbs until you are ready to sit at the adult's table.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

You simply are admitting you cannot answer my question. Until you do, go sit in the corner and twiddle your thumbs until you are ready to sit at the adult's table.

You are going to have to be more specific. I have no problems answering questions and if there is one I can't answer, I will say so.

What specifically is your question, because I have pretty much seen nothing but statements from you thus far to me.

So go on ... shoot with your question, and then I would like a reply to my last post.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Hmmm read the bible much then?

Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31)


Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin[/b." (Mark 3:28-30)


Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven. (Luke 12:10)

So there goes that, right in the bible, the word of God, it says there is in fact an unforgivable sin, but I digress, the lack of intelligence you have shown in your repeatitive arguement is just showing that you really do not know what you talking about and will continue to spout the same thing over and over, and thus it is pointless to debate you on this matter any farther as it will make no difference in your thick skull, because you really don't seem to be able to see past the tip of your nose.

You can't pick and choose, it's all held in context. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is choosing to permanently resist the Holy Spirit's mission, which is convicting you into repentance. The key word, permanently, means forever, in case you didn't know. So if you make the decision, to reject Jesus' gift of eternal life to you, then you will not have the chance to be forgiven after death. Obviously if you go the distance in your life and don't accept the Holy Spirit, then the choice has permanently been made.

 

[Spaceman Spif]

You can't pick and choose, it's all held in context. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is choosing to permanently resist the Holy Spirit's mission, which is convicting you into repentance. The key word, permanently, means forever, in case you didn't know. So if you make the decision, to reject Jesus' gift of eternal life to you, then you will not have the chance to be forgiven after death. Obviously if you go the distance in your life and don't accept the Holy Spirit, then the choice has permanently been made.

Which if you do that, is a sin against the Holy Spirit, so thus it is a unforgivable sin. Thank you for contradicting yourself. It amazes me how stuck on yourself you are to see that you argument has been completely baseless. This isn't a debate, this is you sputtering out the same thing over and over, because when you are showed many many differing arguements that prove you wrong, you still won't admit it, so all you can do is repeat yourself. You need to realize, there is a major difference in the way "Oh My God" and "Jesus Christ" are viewed compared to "Gay", "******", and whatever racial or ethnic slur you can think of. Again though I digress I feel as if I am .

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

All I wanted was him to re-iterate what his question was so that I could answer it for him. Obviously, the only reason he said that was apparently to use it as an excuse to dodge my last questions to him.

Unbelievable.

Using words written in a book well over a millennium ago, which has yet to be proven as authentic, as a reason to hate people who are of a different sexual orientation than him .... without even taking the time to talk to one Gay or Lesbian, before forming his opinion. Interesting.

BTW, Vintage, I am trying to discover which question it was that you were possibly looking for me to answer, as I only discovered a bunch of jumbled statements from you ... however if you were looking for me to answer your comments about why "humans have an instinct to reproduce and why homosexuals don't have this need" ... your argument is flawed.

Reproduction is simply the outcome of sexual intercourse. Not everyone ... Gay or Straight, necessarily has a desire to have children, now do they? No. Lots of Straight people do not have children, because they do not want to have children. However, they do practice sexual intercourse ... as human beings do have an instinct to do so. And Straight people and Gay people have this instinct. So you stating that Reproduction is an Instinct of all Heterosexuals is not an accurate statement whatsoever. Sexual Intercourse is the need, not the concept necessarily of Reproduction.

I said this to another poster, but you really come off more so as a Homophobe who is simply trying to use Religion as a justification to not approve of Homosexuality, more so than someone who truly and honestly believes that people are going to Hell because you truly think Homosexuality is a sin worthy of Hell.

There are two realistic viewpoints that people who do not approve of Homosexuality have:

1) I am Religious, and my religion says that Homosexuality is a sin, so I have to condemn Gay people (even though this contradicts the passage "Judge not, lest ye be judged")

or

2) I don't like Gay people (more so Gay Men ... because that does not fit my image of what Real Men should be .... although I don't have a problem seeing 2 Women make out, because that's actually a sexual fantasy) ..... so because I don't like Gay people and I don't want to be called out in being a Homophobe, I am going to use Religion as my reason for not liking Gay people.


The more I listen to you, the more I think you are really of the mindset of Philosophy #2. You were raised to be homophobic within your Household, most likely because of your parents also do not like Gay people, and as a result, you grow up the exact same way.

If your faith was so important to you, then I encourage you to take the challenge and seek out a Gay community group, such as the LGBT Alliance at the location nearest to you and ask to speak to them about their lives and how they grew up to be that way. Something tells me, however, that you will not accept the challenge, because as I stated, you really aren't of the Mindset of Philosophy #1, but rather you truly are of the Mindset of Philosophy #2.

Your family has taught you to be bigoted. And like a zombie, instead of thinking for yourself, you lazily followed the exact same path, without using your brain. It's easier just to listen to Mom and Dad as opposed to using critical thinking skills, right?

 

[CH David]

That's the point, if one phrase that offends people is basically unspeakable, then correlate it to more figures of speech.

People say "JC" all the time, and there's no backlash, I'm pretty sure if you say that in your class room and call someone a ****** in your class room, the uproar would be for the latter. Everyone is self-righteous, and feel better about themselves if they take the popular side. Kind of like the white people who feel they owe something to black people because of the acts of their ancestors. People are very emotionally driven, and usually religion doesn't evoke religion in popular media or culture to the heights of other subjects.

Actually I retract that if I said Jesus Christ is would cause an uproar. It wouldn't, a few people out of a class of 100 would ask why I said Jesus Christ in vain. Jesus Christ is a figure of higher power in Christianity. Everyone knows that. But it isn't a derogatory statement. I only say Jesus F'ing Christ when I am extremely angry. Not many people pick up on it because the only time it usually happens is during an argument or when someone is extremely angry. If I were to call a black person (I'm not PC) a "******" I would be saying a derogatory remark. More people are offended by racial and derogatory slurs than someone saying Jesus Christ, because it is an actual name meant to be offensive. Hell when I hear someone say Jesus Christ, I ask where. Why? Because religion is taken too seriously. We are debating over taking the Son of God's name in vain for fucks sake. That is no where near as harmful to anyone as saying something is gay or any other slur.

That bolded part I'm confused on a bit. Yes I know people are emotionally driven. Why the fuck do you think half of the things in this country happen? Crimes of passion, they are driven to it emotionally. I'm not saying they are innocent, but something happened where they snap and so something. And religion doesn't evoke religion in popular media? I don't understand what that means. (Not being an ass about it) Please explain that part so I can understand it.

I am not turning this into a religion discussion. I am just saying that people take the Bible too fucking seriously. It is meant as a way to better your life through examples of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If you actually believe that you have to live vicariously according to an unproven document, that has been translated hundres if not thousands of times, then you will not be understanding of other religions or sexual orientations.

I will say this again, I am Catholic. I was raised to live my life, doing good deeds, and to help people and what not. I was Confirmed through relgious education. But what I learned was to be tolerant of other orientations and religions. I was raised that God was almighty and powerful, but yet tolerant and forgiving. God will forgive people for saying "Oh my God" or "Jesus Christ". Christianity is too hypocritical, and I will admit that. Preaching tolerance and understanding is what I grew up with going to religious education and church. Those are what are taught by Christianity. But to turn around and say being gay is wrong and an abomination, you are turning away from what has been taught as the way of the Lord, which is tolerance and understanding.

Okay I turned it into a religious discussion. Fuck. I made my point. God is understanding to those who make mistakes. If people see that saying "Oh my God" or "Jesus Christ" as horrible, God will forgive them. And God shouldn't have to forgive gay people for being gay. It is how they are. You can't change it, nor should you. God accepts people who lead good lives, and don't make too many of the horrible mistakes in life. I don't even get why being gay is a mistake. Mistakes are made by choice, and you can't choose to be gay.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Which if you do that, is a sin against the Holy Spirit, so thus it is a unforgivable sin. Thank you for contradicting yourself. It amazes me how stuck on yourself you are to see that you argument has been completely baseless. This isn't a debate, this is you sputtering out the same thing over and over, because when you are showed many many differing arguements that prove you wrong, you still won't admit it, so all you can do is repeat yourself. You need to realize, there is a major difference in the way "Oh My God" and "Jesus Christ" are viewed compared to "Gay", "******", and whatever racial or ethnic slur you can think of. Again though I digress I feel as if I am .

The sin itself is completely rejecting the Holy Spirit, which can only be accomplished through dying without accepting Christ. If you really think I'm making this up, look it up. I'm definitely the one talking down in the discussion.

Wrap your brain around the key concept *-This sin is only accomplished when you die without accepting Jesus as your personal Saviour-*, so if you reject him you are committing the following sin _________

1) Murder
2) Theft
3) Blaspheming the Holy Spirit
4) Fornication

Let me know when you get the answer.

All I wanted was him to re-iterate what his question was so that I could answer it for him. Obviously, the only reason he said that was apparently to use it as an excuse to dodge my last questions to him.

Unbelievable.

I'm the one who isn't drawing from the brainwashed theory, so I'm talking to more than one person. If you want a personal interview, you're out of luck.

Using words written in a book well over a millennium ago, which has yet to be proven as authentic, as a reason to hate people who are of a different sexual orientation than him .... without even taking the time to talk to one Gay or Lesbian, before forming his opinion. Interesting.

Numerous problems here:

1- The Bible is dated back to roughly 6,000-8,000 years, so it's roughly how many millenniums old? That's right, roughly 6-8.

2- How many books have lasted as long? None. Even a skeptic has to admit that's uncommon. For there to be copies to survive the destruction of Bibles, the burning of Bibles, language transfers, and attacks upon religion it's amazing something has stood so strong through it all. You are asking for a documented proof on wikipedia that I cannot give you. You're saved through grace and faith, so if you don't understand, which many don't, you aren't in the correct mind-set to assess the situation.

3- Don't be hypocritical. Have you spent time in a (rather than "religion") personal relationship with God? Have you spent time around those people? Most likely not.

4- If you require hard-copy proof for one thing, keep it consistent.

BTW, Vintage, I am trying to discover which question it was that you were possibly looking for me to answer, as I only discovered a bunch of jumbled statements from you ... however if you were looking for me to answer your comments about why "humans have an instinct to reproduce and why homosexuals don't have this need" ... your argument is flawed.

You can say it's jumbled, but I've re-worded it numerous times for you to complete ignore it, even quoting it above the last post of mine you quoted.

That's not my question, here's my question..
-Why would nature (I believe in a Creator, at any rate we'll use) or Natural Selection allow a trait in a human being to naturally occur against necessary voluntary acts? If it's never been proven that eating disorders occur naturally, but rather from variables, why would homosexuality be allowed to occur? Has it just not been long enough in the evolutionary cycle?

If I'm wrong, show me. I don't want a half-jack answer with you answering with questions.

Reproduction is simply the outcome of sexual intercourse. Not everyone ... Gay or Straight, necessarily has a desire to have children, now do they? No. Lots of Straight people do not have children, because they do not want to have children. However, they do practice sexual intercourse ... as human beings do have an instinct to do so. And Straight people and Gay people have this instinct. So you stating that Reproduction is an Instinct of all Heterosexuals is not an accurate statement whatsoever. Sexual Intercourse is the need, not the concept necessarily of Reproduction.

Didn't say everyone needs to reproduce, however nature wouldn't work against itself, and if it did it wouldn't naturally occur repetitively.

The reason people have a strong sexual inclination or desire is because it is absolutely necessary for the human race to reproduce in order to survive. You aren't dealing with my question, you're beating around the bush.

I said this to another poster, but you really come off more so as a Homophobe who is simply trying to use Religion as a justification to not approve of Homosexuality, more so than someone who truly and honestly believes that people are going to Hell because you truly think Homosexuality is a sin worthy of Hell.

How am I a homophobe?

Any sin is a sin worthy of Hell. I'm sorry to let everyone down, but usually the creation doesn't dictate how the universe rolls. It will govern on it's own whether you ever lived or not. You can't save yourself, and with my belief that homosexuality is a sin, like any other sin, it's condemnable with Hell.

There are two realistic viewpoints that people who do not approve of Homosexuality have:

1) I am Religious, and my religion says that Homosexuality is a sin, so I have to condemn Gay people (even though this contradicts the passage "Judge not, lest ye be judged")

Don't use scripture just to fit what you are trying to say. Jesus was teaching not to cast the first stone, as if to say don't condemn others when you still have issues to take care of. Read the rest of the chapter. You can take a single passage from any sort of article and manipulate it to support your idea, but you aren't proving anything.

What Jesus is teaching doesn't neglect the idea of observation. If you are looking for a sitter for your 6 year old daughter you aren't hiring a former pedophile (at least I hope not), and when you make this decision you are.... making a JUDGEMENT!!! Yay!!!

or

2) I don't like Gay people (more so Gay Men ... because that does not fit my image of what Real Men should be .... although I don't have a problem seeing 2 Women make out, because that's actually a sexual fantasy) ..... so because I don't like Gay people and I don't want to be called out in being a Homophobe, I am going to use Religion as my reason for not liking Gay people.

I don't have a problem with the sinner, much rather the sin. You may need to add a third option, because I also don't support lesbians. I've tried to consistently use "homosexual" through the entire thread to avoid that, so use a better effort to stick in unfounded ideas.

The more I listen to you, the more I think you are really of the mindset of Philosophy #2. You were raised to be homophobic within your Household, most likely because of your parents also do not like Gay people, and as a result, you grow up the exact same way.

If your faith was so important to you, then I encourage you to take the challenge and seek out a Gay community group, such as the LGBT Alliance at the location nearest to you and ask to speak to them about their lives and how they grew up to be that way. Something tells me, however, that you will not accept the challenge, because as I stated, you really aren't of the Mindset of Philosophy #1, but rather you truly are of the Mindset of Philosophy #2.

What are they going to tell me? The same thing that is regurgitated through popular culture. If you want to through out challenges, meet them with your own. You have a very ignorant view, as demonstrated in your only two "believable" ideas, on those who don't believe homosexual behavior is natural. If you want me to add your challenge to my docket, then you go out and actively search out psychology and psychologists who hold the position that it isn't naturally occuring. They study the exact same thing, and have MORE proof on their side. So instead of holding your ignorant, brainwashed views you will at least see the other side of it, which you clearly know nothin about.

Your family has taught you to be bigoted. And like a zombie, instead of thinking for yourself, you lazily followed the exact same path, without using your brain. It's easier just to listen to Mom and Dad as opposed to using critical thinking skills, right?

I'm not reciting the popular tag-lines off of a homo web-site. I'm thinking for myself, completely. I've given more than enough evidence of what I believe, and that certainly hasn't been rehearsed. You can disagree with my opinion, but you are lying out of your filthy mouth if you say I can't form my own opinion.

Actually I retract that if I said Jesus Christ is would cause an uproar. It wouldn't, a few people out of a class of 100 would ask why I said Jesus Christ in vain. Jesus Christ is a figure of higher power in Christianity. Everyone knows that. But it isn't a derogatory statement. I only say Jesus F'ing Christ when I am extremely angry. Not many people pick up on it because the only time it usually happens is during an argument or when someone is extremely angry. If I were to call a black person (I'm not PC) a "******" I would be saying a derogatory remark. More people are offended by racial and derogatory slurs than someone saying Jesus Christ, because it is an actual name meant to be offensive. Hell when I hear someone say Jesus Christ, I ask where. Why? Because religion is taken too seriously. We are debating over taking the Son of God's name in vain for fucks sake. That is no where near as harmful to anyone as saying something is gay or any other slur.

That bolded part I'm confused on a bit. Yes I know people are emotionally driven. Why the fuck do you think half of the things in this country happen? Crimes of passion, they are driven to it emotionally. I'm not saying they are innocent, but something happened where they snap and so something. And religion doesn't evoke religion in popular media? I don't understand what that means. (Not being an ass about it) Please explain that part so I can understand it.

I am not turning this into a religion discussion. I am just saying that people take the Bible too fucking seriously. It is meant as a way to better your life through examples of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If you actually believe that you have to live vicariously according to an unproven document, that has been translated hundres if not thousands of times, then you will not be understanding of other religions or sexual orientations.

I will say this again, I am Catholic. I was raised to live my life, doing good deeds, and to help people and what not. I was Confirmed through relgious education. But what I learned was to be tolerant of other orientations and religions. I was raised that God was almighty and powerful, but yet tolerant and forgiving. God will forgive people for saying "Oh my God" or "Jesus Christ". Christianity is too hypocritical, and I will admit that. Preaching tolerance and understanding is what I grew up with going to religious education and church. Those are what are taught by Christianity. But to turn around and say being gay is wrong and an abomination, you are turning away from what has been taught as the way of the Lord, which is tolerance and understanding.

Okay I turned it into a religious discussion. Fuck. I made my point. God is understanding to those who make mistakes. If people see that saying "Oh my God" or "Jesus Christ" as horrible, God will forgive them. And God shouldn't have to forgive gay people for being gay. It is how they are. You can't change it, nor should you. God accepts people who lead good lives, and don't make too many of the horrible mistakes in life. I don't even get why being gay is a mistake. Mistakes are made by choice, and you can't choose to be gay.

There isn't a point in here. You are saying you don't take religion seriously, that it's taken to seriously itself, and it doesn't offend you. That doesn't mean anything. It offends plenty of other people, most of which are silent on the issue.

X, a few posts back you said I confused offensive language with hate speech. Not correct on your part.

You admit you understand how certain language may be offensive (not looking at the post at the moment) but would include "JC" in that, but it wasn't hate speech.

Okay, great. What's this topic about? And why did you chalk something up on the list of things to hate Vince McMahon for? Because he used a slang vocabulary, containing a word that offended somebody. Spin it any way you want,, but even if it's "offensive" it's not a personal attack.

 

[JenovasWitness]

If I may...

What I THINK V-TORKO is trying to get across is that Homosexuals and Christians would equally be offended by the terms "Gay", "******", "Oh my God" and "Jesus Christ" (when used as exclamation of frustration or as a curse) respectively. The same would be for an African-American individual with reference to the slur "******".

Yes, they are used in different contexts. "Gay", "******" and "******" are used in reference to people, circumstances and objects whereas "Oh my God" and "Jesus Christ" are commonly used as curses or exclamations. But the emotional response created by these terms can be identical to the respective parties.

When someone refers to someone or something as "Gay", Homosexuals take offense as this term was used to negatively refer to homosexuality in past. That is fair.

When someone says "Oh my God" or "Jesus Christ", Christians would have the same response. The reason "Oh my God" would be construed as offensive to Christians goes back to the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not have any other gods before Me" and "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God" (or take the Lord's name in vain). I know that the term "God" is not exclusive to Christianity as X pointed out, but the first commandment that I highlighted means that when the term "God" is used, Christians only think of one "God" and His name is not to be used wrongfully or in vain, thus creating a negative emotional response.

That doesn't mean that all Christians will be offended by these terms. A lot of them use them on a daily basis. Not all Homosexuals I know are offended by the term "Gay" either and use it to describe a set of circumstances all the time and laugh about it.

But in all honesty...tolerance goes both ways. Yes, we should be tolerant of people's religious beliefs, sexual orientation, race and personal beliefs. But the world is overrun with incredibly stupid and ignorant people who say things that are either a result of poor education, upbringing or out and out hatred that is completely unfounded. Sometimes we just need to ignore these people or properly educate them. I think Mysterio_Fan said it best when the idea of picking battles was raised.

 

[X]

This argument has REALLY gotten off track thanks to RKO's ridiculous nonsense. Who gives a shit about religious tolerance vs. homosexual tolerance? Is that what this thread is about? No. This thread is about something offensive that Vince McMahon said on national television. So unless you want to explain to me how what he said wasn't offensive RKO, I really don't know what you're doing. Besides purposely sending the argument off-topic to try and save face that is.

And yes buddy, there is a huge difference between something being offensive, and something being hate speech.

Hate speech is a term for speech that attacks or disparages a person group of people based on their social or ethnic group[1], such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or lack there of, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability.

So, when someone says the words "Jesus Christ", is that a personal attack on Christians for their belief in Christianity? No, it isn't. At all. It's offensive to some Christians, sure, but it's not fucking hate speech. And if you really can't understand that, even after I've just provided you with a definition to the words "hate speech", than this argument has truly run it's course, because nothing anyone says will get through that sad little homophobic head of yours.

Continue your hateful bullshit. I'll be preparing myself to burn in hell eternally, because your magic fairy tale book says so.

 

[Lee]

Greetings right wing evangelicas, how are things going? Pat Robertson and Jerry Fullwell keeping you entertained? How's Benny Hinn? How about you look at what the Bible says on Homosexuality before you leap out at it?

What about the bit where Jesus says that some people are born homosexual (Matthew 19:12) or the part where God says he welcomes them (Is 57). Seriously get off your hate mobile and love people. The number one thing that puts people off religion and god and everything is people like you who have just listened to what their preacher has said and put that across as hatred. Complete opposite to what it's all about.

 

[Slyfox696]

There seems to be some drifting off-topic going in this thread. So, let me lay this on everyone.

1. Using gay to describe something as bad, is COMPLETELY different than someone saying "Jesus Christ" to express surprise. No one takes someone they don't like, and say "Jesus Christ", to insinuate negative feelings towards that person.


2. The discussion about religion is at ended. There's really no more discussion that needs to be had about religion. Save that for the religious threads.


This thread is for discussion of whether or not what McMahon said was inappropriate. Anyone who does not directly address this topic, will from here on be infracted for spam. You may discuss what McMahon said, and whether or not it was offensive. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Razor]

My question is this. Does the use of the word "gay" really matter? Is this such a huge issue to be commenting? There are things a lot more worse than the word "gay" being thrown around, a few that I can point out from that shows Monday Night RAW. Big "Dick" Johnson's is a prime example as well as Mickie James' boxing outfit that revealed her wearing a thong. It just seems stupid to me that people are being over the top politcally-correct.

Any thoughts?

It's insulting to gays when the word used to describe their sexual orientation is synonymous with stupid, ******ed, gawdy, or any other word that has a negative connotation. I think it's put best by the Facebook group "Gay isn't a synonym for stupid. So stop using it that way."

Now, one could argue that the flamboyant gays of the annual California Gay Pride parade would wear a mask just like the ones Vince said was "gay." However, the way he used it could be ascertained as an insult. And for that, he should be wary. He has a rather large and varied fan base.

One could argue that this is no different than when a black comedian does a uptight white impression or a white man talks about your stereotypical black street thing. To that I would argue...well, no. It's not. But those comedians get the laugh from the side of us that understand that the stereotype is true for a shade of that group, and that it's just plain hilarious. a show with a PG rating shouldn't be making those types of jokes.