Reading an article about whining in Utah over same-sex marriage.

[conuly]

Why, exactly, do certain parties insist on referring to the mere existence of gays as having been "shoved down their throats"? There are so many different ways to say "I think gay people are icky and have cooties" without actually using those words, so why do they invariably choose the one phrase that is full of entendre? I would say that the punchlines write themselves, but it's so predictable that its not even that funny anymore.

Comments

[siderea]

This is what happens when people who don't know big words like "imposed" get whopping senses of entitlement not to have to tolerate people different from themselves.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Why? Because they're hypocrites, which Jesus specifically said not to be. If and when gay people start an international movement devoted to going around knocking on the doors of strangers to 'share' with them the wonder and satisfaction of homosexuality, the Mormons might have some room to talk about gayness being 'shoved down their throats.' Until that day, maybe they'd best shut their pie-holes about other peoples' marriages and take the logs out of their own eyes re adultery and abuse in their so-sanctimonious congregations.

Jesus said, he who is without sin may cast stones at others. Paul said, better to marry than to burn. I think the TRUE objection to gay marriage is because gay people wanting to vow their love and commitment to each other shoots a hole in the 'sin and depravity' argument. All very well to have the gays doing their sordid thing in those funky bath-houses, or having secret pornographic orgies and trysts, but if they just fall in love and get married like ordinary people, where's the sinful spice in THAT? it takes away all the usefulness of railing against homosexuality as a means of distracting people from scrutinizing their own sex and family lives.

As Jesus said, the tree is known by its fruit. So hilarious to hear all the whining about the "war on Christianity", when it's the alleged Christians themselves who've been waging it on themselves by their own unChristian (https://www.google.com/#q=unchristian+david+kinnaman&revid=273176456) behavior and attitudes.

[conuly]

It's not the hypocrisy that bugs me (well, I mean, it is, but) or the stupidity (ditto) but the fact that every time they say that the picture that builds in my mind is undoubtedly not g-rated.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

I suppose that's done intentionally, to squick people with a metaphor of violation.

The truth is, what's being 'shoved down their throats' is the fact that they are not more equal than others. and have no right under the law to inflict their religious beliefs on people who don't share them. My point is that they obviously don't believe in their own alleged 'beliefs' anyway, or they'd devote their energy to following Christ, not to persecuting oythers.

I think it's important to be clear about that, whether or not one identifies as a Christian. Jesus stated in no uncertain terms what he expected of his followers; how they were to live in the world, and that pious words and public displays would not fool God about what was in their hearts. He didn't allow for any 'lukewarm' either; what we call 'half-assed' these days, and he had a LOT to say on the subject of 'whited sepulchres'.

What do the Christians say, every time some perverse Bible-thumper gets caught in a heinous crime? "He wasn't a Real Christian!" Okay then, fine, let's separate the sheep from the goats: everybody who's living by the word of Christ on one side, and everybody who's just paying it lip service on the other. I don't see any reason why either Christians or non-Christians should give any 'benefit of the doubt' to fake Christians, when Jesus himself said that he sure wasn't going to.

[conuly]

"I suppose that's done intentionally, to squick people with a metaphor of violation"

I guess, but the only violation here is their refusal to keep their obsession with other people's sex acts to themselves. Hell, I don't think most people think about their own sex lives as much as these people think about what other people are doing!

"I don't see any reason why either Christians or non-Christians should give any 'benefit of the doubt' to fake Christians, when Jesus himself said that he sure wasn't going to."

I guess it comes under "judge not", but then so does "stop obsessing over the gays!", so I don't know how they rationalize it to themselves. It's not very likely that there is an afterlife (or that if there is, that any one of us is right about what it entails), but if there was such a thing it would certainly be funny, in a schadenfreudy way, to listen to them all get chewed up and spewed out for being raging hypocrites and jerks.

*thinks* of course, that only applies to those Christians who are hypocrites and/or jerks, which ought to go without saying, but just in case.