http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_...sexuality_Bill

...and by the way, what did I do to get off your ignore list?

Uke-master took your place.

I can tolerate immaturity to a point, but I cannot tolerate people whose fall-back position in every argument is "you are sounding racist."

Don't get me started.

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. That ad is a hack job, and here you are regurgitating it and soiling these people unfairly.

All of the signals are there on first glance. First, the quotations around the "kill the gays" bill. The more sensationalistic the better.

Secondly, that it is a guilt-by-donation association. Therefore, 'CHICK FILAS WANTS TO KILL DEM GAYS."

C'mon man. I found the source of the gif, and it details a long chain of donations from a donation to the winsome foundation, which "anually" makes a donation to the family research council, which certainly never lobbied to kill gay people.

That too is bs. http://www.frcblog.com/2010/06/frc-s...on-h-res-1064/

But this is what happens when you demonize and dehumanize people-- you believe any ole crap that they serve you about them.

See my post four up.

By the "long chain" beginning with the "winsome foundation[sic]" I assume you mean the Winshape Foundation founded by, er, the owners of Chik-Fil-A? So let's not be coy here. The charitable foundation owned by Chik-Fil-A donate money to several anti-gay charities, including FRC.

It's true that FRC did not "lobby to kill gay people" but it did lobby against the resolution "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the `Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009' under consideration by the Parliament of Uganda, that would impose long-term imprisonment and the death penalty for certain acts, threatens the protection of fundamental human rights, and for other purposes." .

Notice that the Ugandan bill would, quite literally, "kill the gays". Pretending that anyone is using hyperbole when describing the bill as such is just dishonest. The FRC does assert that it objected to the wording, rather than the entire bill, though I'm sure this is of little comfort to LGBT in Uganda

A charming video of a FRC representative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xEJPvQr9Bc#t=8m35s

My issue is that the ad is deceptive. It is.

As for the FRC, I never heard of them before 20 minutes ago. The ad is a hack job and any idiot can see it.

The fact that you are doing these kinds of gymnastic contortions is only proof of your own malady.

"CHICK FILA WANTS TO KILL GAY PEOPLE OMG"

Seriously, dude?

Really?

Just the fact that we are having this conversation proves every single thing I said in my first post in this thread.

This is an anti-christian movement.

If you buy a chicken sandwich at chick-fila, you support the murder of gay people.

All of that because they said they support biblical marriage. Well, we can't have that, can we? Let's get them. Let's embarrass them. Let's impute sinister motives to them. Demonize. Harass.

Where are the logicians?

Where are the freethinkers who believe that reason and logic trump?

I don't see you calmly using reason and logic. I see disturbing assaults on character instead. Insuation. Guilt by association. Guilt by association to association. Hack jobs.

At some point you just wake up. You wake up and realize that if reason and logic are the twin towers of my ideological foundation, then why am I spending all of my time looking to gird up a strawman version of my opp?

Is there really a boogie man?

Why does my opp look like the devil I don't believe in?

Or...

Do I?

Settle down, Beavis.

All I've done is point out your (probably unintentional) misrepresentation of the connection between Chik-Fil-A and the FRC and clarify what the ad is referencing.

Now, on to your typically foam-flecked ranting about "the devil". There is no evidence that your god, your devil or any other persons imaginary friends exist. I have no problem with good, normal Christians like the kind I grew with and make up the majority of the Christians in my country, but when your gun-toting hillbilly version of Jesus is inspiring evil in the world, I do start having a problem with it.

The Jesus I believed in was a kind, compassionate and non-judgmental man. Maybe you and your ilk could try acting more like him?

Did I rant about the devil?

Or did someone just scan my post and miss the point entirely?

There was a point?

Oh right, something about slandering Chik-Fil-A.

To be honest, I cringed so hard on your behalf at the "Or.... Do I?" bit that the rest of your monologue kinda passed me by. I'm sure you meant it to come off as a bit M. Night Shyamalan but it came off more like the ending to a story written by a ten year old. Embarrassing.

The FRC supports criminalisation of gay "behaviour". Perhaps you feel the same way, but just in case you are not bigoted like they are, you do not have to automatically align yourself with a Christian organisation just because they [claim to be] Christian, do you?

I don't know. It seems like the majority of your posts involve some variation of you insulting (some) atheists because they insult Christians. If your problem was just about how we shouldn't be insulting others, presumably you wouldn't try so hard to be witty at doing it yourself. Mostly it makes you seem like a hypocrite.

As to the more substantive content of your post--do you think it was some hidden feature of the views of Richard Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others that they are anti-Christian? Do you think that many of the atheists on this forum try to hide the fact that they are anti-Christian? On the contrary, I regard this aspect of their approach to practically be a defining feature of the so-called new Atheism and their followers. It is their rejection of "accommodationism" that seems to most strikingly set them apart from other atheists.

Finally, I'll just point out that if you think the language or agenda of the anti-Christian atheists you refer to is somehow different in kind from the language or agenda of those who fought previous civil rights battles, then I would suggest you go back and look a bit more closely at what was actually going on in those battles. Remember, not everyone was a pacifist like MLK.

Mostly agree with you that the ad is a hack job, however, the FRC is a major player mediating between politics and evangelical Christians. For those who don't know, the Family Research Council was originally formed by James Dobson as the more explicitly political wing of Focus on the Family.

So in denying same sex marriage and civil rights to homosexuales Christians are the ones suffering?

Gotcha.

I still couldn't find it on their website or official policy statement where they support jailing gay people, besides one "fellow" making a one-off statement in an interview. I have no dog in the fight. Convince me. Prove it.

The standard of evidence seems to be extremely low when it comes to categorizing christian and/or conservative organizations. It is because you have a rigid, narrow and shallow underlying bias that you are working off of and interpret all evidence through.

Secondly, I find it curious that you quote-block the word behavior. From a Christian perspective there are LOTS of behaviors that I am naturally inclined to, but do not act upon. I am married. And seperated from my wife for months at a clip.

Are my biological triggers firing full blast when I am at a function late at night and talking to a beautiful woman after not having sex for three months? You are damn right they are. If I CHOOSE to take off my ring and woo said woman and bed her, would it not qualify as bad "behavior?"

I just quit smoking. I LOVE to smoke. I have cravings over my morning coffee and every time I have a beer or take a break.

If I walk to the store and buy a pack, is it not my choice? Am I not making decisions?

Idk. Maybe liberalism IS a mental disease.

Knew a friend who used to say it a lot. Thought it was bunk.

But starting to see how irrational and slippery it really is.

What?? Are you saying homosexuals could 'choose' not to be gay?

No, that's not true. I'm not anti-Christian. But I am against those that are anti-gay rights. I am very happy for people being Christian, so long as they avoid the anti-gay part.

It is amazing how you would make yourself out to be the victim here, though, when it's pretty clear that's not the case.

As for the FRC, they would not deny their anti-gay agenda given what they've done so far. Contact them and see what they say if you don't believe us.

Doggg, You are equating gay behaviour with bad behaviour.

In what way is gay behaviour bad? What makes it bad behaviour?

Now you're just deliberately looking to be argumentative. The question put forward was whether homosexual behaviour should be criminalised, as opposed to simply being homosexual. While some Christians even believe the latter (remember that pastor who recently spoke about rounding up all the gays and putting them in a fenced-off area?), this question was limited to their behaviour (context was sodomy laws).

Anyway, gl kicking your smoking habit!

Sure. I'll say that. Some can, I know some that have. Fact.

Clue: There is no gay gene, AND, The APA states the following:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...al_Association

Oh, wait, dang-it.

I forgot how it works:

Rule 1: If you were gay and went straight, well you're still gay

Rule 2: If you were straight and went gay, well, you were
really gay all along.

Funny how that works.

False. If we're citing psych organizations, The Royal College of Psychiatrists says in the wiki article on homosexuality (emphasis mine):

"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."

People can choose to engage in homosexual behaviors, but they can not choose to feel attraction to members of a certain gender. The attraction happens on its own.

You made this post some time in the past, right? I recognize it. I don't see why you brought it up here, though. You're getting ahead of yourself, and it doesn't speak to choice really.

1) If you are gay and undergo some sort of sexual orientation change effort and come out 'straight,' you are still gay. These things have been shown not to work. They can help you not engage in homosexual activity, but it doesn't change who you are attracted to, as the studies have shown.

2) Many gay people pretend to be straight because of people like you. That they later come out as gay doesn't mean they changed sexual orientations, only that they changed their public behaviors.

Nice little fairy tale you tell. Too bad it's 100% bull****.

I know you want to believe it really bad, but it's just not true.

For example: Anne Heche said she never had a gay feeling in her life
until she met Ellen on the Oprah show. Then when she was done with
her gay phase, she decided to go straight again.