Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 1,199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Had to share. Hope you enjoy reading.

Andoran

Meh, just another guy saying "I'm doing it right, everyone else is doing it wrong" while saying "People who say other people are doing it wrong are doing it wrong."

Don't get me wrong, I've grown up seeing what he's seen, I live in a small town in Oklahoma, Churches here out number pretty much every other type of structure / business / what have you save houses. I've seen it and to be honest, I've been part of it, on both sides. So here's my 2 cents.

First, people have a right to discriminate. Make no mistake, it sucks and it hurts, but that's their right and its your right as well and sometimes it needs to be done.

Connected to that first point, be careful who you let "inside." Take control and responsibility for your own emotions and who you give the power to hurt you. Make people earn your respect, trust, and love (non-romantic as far as this topic goes).

On that topic, if you let someone in, and you know they feel some way about something that will hurt you if it comes out, consider flat out not telling them. Its probably not any of their business anyway. You'd be amazed at how much people over look if you don't flat out tell them. (Note: There's a difference between actively hiding something and announcing it.)

If you're going to be on the side of tollerance, that means you should also tollerate those who disagree with you, even if they disagree with the very tollerance you're giving them. (I've never understood the people who are like "We accept everybody, so long as you're willing to accept everybody." If you're putting conditions on acceptance, what differentiates you from the people you're complaining about not accepting you?)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Shadowcat, are you actually defending and condoning hating people because they're gay?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Judging from that wall of text, I guess you didn't enjoy it.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Shadowcat, are you actually defending and condoning hating people because they're gay?

Yep.

Goes back to the whole idea of not liking what people say but respecting their right to say it.

TOZ wrote:
Judging from that wall of text, I guess you didn't enjoy it.

Its not necessarilly that I didn't enjoy it, its that its nothing new. I'm pagan and for years I was part of a pagan forum. If you want to see people gripe about Christians and discrimination a pagan forum is the place to see it.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

What was that song we learned as children in Sunday School:

And they'll know we are christians by our love
By our love,
Yes they'll know we are christians by our love.

We will walk with our brother
We will walk hand in hand,
We will walk with our brother
Unless he is a homo.

And they'll know we are christians by our love
By our love,
Yes they'll know we are christians by our love.

. . . .

Actually, I'm not sure I got the lyrics right in some spots.
But, hey, I'm Not christian anymore!
(Thank God!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ShadowcatX wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Shadowcat, are you actually defending and condoning hating people because they're gay?

Yep.

Goes back to the whole idea of not liking what people say but respecting their right to say it.

If it were only words it would be one thing.

The problem with intolerance is that it's usually accompanied by acts of disrespect (at best) or violence. (Or acts of disrespect that lead to violence, etc.)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Thanks for the link, TOZ. I liked the article. I thought he seemed reasonably balanced, too. It wasn't the "Christians are hating, so we should hate them right back" tone that goes around so much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Shadowcat, are you actually defending and condoning hating people because they're gay?

Yep.

Goes back to the whole idea of not liking what people say but respecting their right to say it.

wut

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone (you're gay and I don't like it) and DEHUMANIZING them (you're gay and so no one cares what you think/feel). I'm trying to interpret your statement in a way that isn't ignorant and vile, but I'm coming up empty.

Andoran

DaveMage wrote:

If it were only words it would be one thing.

The problem with intolerance is that it's usually accompanied by acts of disrespect (at best) or violence. (Or acts of disrespect that lead to violence, etc.)

Violence is another thing entirely and in no way do I support violence against people because they are different.

Perhaps I'm fortunate, none of my friends have ever been assaulted for being different, rather gay, pagan, or any of the others.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

meatrace wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Shadowcat, are you actually defending and condoning hating people because they're gay?

Yep.

Goes back to the whole idea of not liking what people say but respecting their right to say it.

wut

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone (you're gay and I don't like it) and DEHUMANIZING them (you're gay and so no one cares what you think/feel). I'm trying to interpret your statement in a way that isn't ignorant and vile, but I'm coming up empty.

Probably best to just leave it at that. He brought the wood and gasoline, let's make sure none of us make a spark.


As to the actual article, the only thing I take issue with is the idea that it's some sort of revelation. I guess maybe in his community, hating people for something they can't help (race, sex, orientation, physical deformity, etc.) might be accepted and disagreeing with that position might out him as a reasonable, compassionate person. But for me it's intuitively obvious.

However I will point out that I condone hating people for things they can help about themselves (political beliefs, religion, hobbies, fashion sense). Although I don't generally condone that hate leading to physical violence or ostracism.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
I'm trying to interpret your statement in a way that isn't ignorant and vile, but I'm coming up empty.

Statements like this add nothing to the discussion and have no place in this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:

Meh, just another guy saying "I'm doing it right, everyone else is doing it wrong" while saying "People who say other people are doing it wrong are doing it wrong."

Don't get me wrong, I've grown up seeing what he's seen, I live in a small town in Oklahoma, Churches here out number pretty much every other type of structure / business / what have you save houses. I've seen it and to be honest, I've been part of it, on both sides. So here's my 2 cents.

First, people have a right to discriminate. Make no mistake, it sucks and it hurts, but that's their right and its your right as well and sometimes it needs to be done.

Connected to that first point, be careful who you let "inside." Take control and responsibility for your own emotions and who you give the power to hurt you. Make people earn your respect, trust, and love (non-romantic as far as this topic goes).

On that topic, if you let someone in, and you know they feel some way about something that will hurt you if it comes out, consider flat out not telling them. Its probably not any of their business anyway. You'd be amazed at how much people over look if you don't flat out tell them. (Note: There's a difference between actively hiding something and announcing it.)

If you're going to be on the side of tollerance, that means you should also tollerate those who disagree with you, even if they disagree with the very tollerance you're giving them. (I've never understood the people who are like "We accept everybody, so long as you're willing to accept everybody." If you're putting conditions on acceptance, what differentiates you from the people you're complaining about not accepting you?)

Do you respect people's right to talk about the tit for tat strategy even though you do not undestand it?

At least you won't try to stop me from talking about game theory.


TOZ wrote:
Had to share. Hope you enjoy reading.

I highly recommend everyone read the article before you comment based solely on the title. Being gay and from Mississippi I assure you it's an accurate representation of what I and others like me have experienced.

Andoran

doctor_wu wrote:

Do you respect people's right to talk about the tit for tat strategy even though you do not undestand it?

At least you won't try to stop me from talking about game theory.

I'm not entirely sure I get what you're asking. If you mean "Do I think it is acceptable to turn the cold shoulder to people who have disrespected you in the past?" Certainly.

Make no mistake, I do not believe ignorance and bigotry is a good thing. I just do not believe that we have the right, or the ability to force people to be accepting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:


TOZ wrote:
Judging from that wall of text, I guess you didn't enjoy it.
Its not necessarilly that I didn't enjoy it, its that its nothing new. I'm pagan and for years I was part of a pagan forum. If you want to see people gripe about Christians and discrimination a pagan forum is the place to see it.

Is the highly christian organizations trying to take away Pagan's right ot marry? I would assume yes, but they're busy right now with the gay's. They'll get to the Pagan's when they have the gay thing snuffed out.

Edit: and by "right to marry" I really mean any and all civil rights.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Had to share. Hope you enjoy reading.
I highly recommend everyone read the article before you comment based solely on the title. Being gay and from Mississippi I assure you it's an accurate representation of what I and others like me have experienced.

*hugs*

I wonder if it could be cathartic for people if we had a thread purely for the listing of things we've felt the need to hide from others at some point in our lives? And then we can hug each other. Anyone interested?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Arguably one of the best articles on the topic of institutionalized hypocrisy I've ever read. If I could get an explanation from the various hypocrites of the type he is addressing as to why they do what they do that was half as insightful and thoughtful as this, I think perhaps I'd be better able to understand them.

As it is right now, when asked to explain their positions, most of the ones I speak to merely sputter and blurt out things that are the intellectual equivalent of "Well... BECAUSE!"

Thank you for sharing it. :)

Grand Lodge

meatrace wrote:
hating people for things they (can't) help about themselves....

I'm sure you didn't mean this, and I'll give the benefit of doubt that it wasn't a subconscious prejudice showing itself -- but I did want to point this out:

There is nothing wrong with homsexuality. It is not unnatural. It is not wrong. And it irkes me to see the qualifier: Something he can't help. If a person is completely heterosexual but decides to try homosexuality (something they can help), there's, duh, nothing wrong with that. I dislike your qualifier, the way it comes across, that's all.

Again, I'm sure that's not what you were saying, it just, well, it does accidently imply that.

EDIT:
Oops, I did it, too.
And.... if a homosexual person who is completely homosexual decides to try heterosexuality, there's nothing wrong with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:

Meh, just another guy saying "I'm doing it right, everyone else is doing it wrong" while saying "People who say other people are doing it wrong are doing it wrong."

Don't get me wrong, I've grown up seeing what he's seen, I live in a small town in Oklahoma, Churches here out number pretty much every other type of structure / business / what have you save houses. I've seen it and to be honest, I've been part of it, on both sides. So here's my 2 cents.

First, people have a right to discriminate. Make no mistake, it sucks and it hurts, but that's their right and its your right as well and sometimes it needs to be done.

Connected to that first point, be careful who you let "inside." Take control and responsibility for your own emotions and who you give the power to hurt you. Make people earn your respect, trust, and love (non-romantic as far as this topic goes).

On that topic, if you let someone in, and you know they feel some way about something that will hurt you if it comes out, consider flat out not telling them. Its probably not any of their business anyway. You'd be amazed at how much people over look if you don't flat out tell them. (Note: There's a difference between actively hiding something and announcing it.)

If you're going to be on the side of tollerance, that means you should also tollerate those who disagree with you, even if they disagree with the very tollerance you're giving them. (I've never understood the people who are like "We accept everybody, so long as you're willing to accept everybody." If you're putting conditions on acceptance, what differentiates you from the people you're complaining about not accepting you?)

From the top:

People have a right to discriminate. People also have a right to call them out for it. All the "right" means is that the government shouldn't prevent them from not liking gays. It doesn't mean we can't call them jerks for doing so.

Ah yes, if you're hurt by a friend who turns out to be a bigot, it's you're fault for being friends with him. If you live in a place that's largely bigoted as the friend in question did, you should just avoid having friends at all to avoid being hurt by them. That's a healthy way to live.

And "a difference between actively hiding something and announcing it"?
When you're gay, that difference involves never discussing your personal life with anyone, not being seen in public with your partner, no PDA if you are together in public. All of the things heterosexuals do without even noticing it. How is that not actively hiding it? And they'll think you're weird anyway, just for not showing interest in the opposite sex, especially if you're young and male as it appears the friend in this story is.

As for tolerating intolerance, you're saying if a church has a sign outside saying "Everyone welcome", it's hypocritical for it to complain about the people just inside with the "F+%& go away" signs?
If I have a policy of accepting everyone and some of those people are actively working against that, I don't have a problem stopping them. If they want to be bigoted on their own and not interfere with my group's tolerance, then I don't care.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

jemstone wrote:
If I could get an explanation from the various hypocrites of the type he is addressing as to why they do what they do that was half as insightful and thoughtful as this, I think perhaps I'd be better able to understand them.

Just look around the forums; every "ROLEplay vs ROLLplay" debate is exactly what the article is talking about. It's of less consequence, of course, but the same dynamics are at work: someone claims that a member of the opposite camp is bad and wrong, and in so doing makes themselves feel superior.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thank you for sharing TOZ, that was a fair, understandable way of explaining deficiencies with actions taken by groups against homosexuals.

I think we should consistently challenge peoples thinking while still giving them the right to their thoughts. Homophobia and general hatred of others can be combated with polite, reasonable discourse

Grand Lodge

Jiggy wrote:
Just look around the forums; every "ROLEplay vs ROLLplay" debate is exactly what the article is talking about...

I disagree because one is an Issue and one is not. One is real life; one is entertainment. One can not compare conversations about sports & movies & gaming & music with conversations about issues such as prejudices, hatemongering, bullying, etc.

It's like, when I say I hate the Cowboys and Yankees and Manchester United -- that's A HUGE DIFFERENCE from me saying I hate christianity or I hate prejudice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
W E Ray wrote:
meatrace wrote:
hating people for things they (can't) help about themselves....

I'm sure you didn't mean this, and I'll give the benefit of doubt that it wasn't a subconscious prejudice showing itself -- but I did want to point this out:

There is nothing wrong with homsexuality. It is not unnatural. It is not wrong. And it irkes me to see the qualifier: Something he can't help. If a person is completely heterosexual but decides to try homosexuality (something they can help), there's, duh, nothing wrong with that. I dislike your qualifier, the way it comes across, that's all.

Again, I'm sure that's not what you were saying, it just, well, it does accidently imply that.

I didn't say or imply anything of the sort. Really, genuinely baffled that you would even think that from what I said. I can't see the implication you're seeing. Homosexuality isn't unnatural, in that it occurs in nature, sure. All I'm saying is that there are legitimate reasons to hate. I'm not a Christian and I'm not about loving everyone. If someone inflicts harm on you purposely, feel free to hate them in my book. If someone hates you, go right ahead and hate them back. Just make sure you hate an individual, not a group. Hate them because they're an irredeemable douchebag, not because they were born a woman/gay/black/with asthma/near-sighted/etc.

I find it useful to go through life assuming you will hate everyone you meet. Then when you meet cool people you're surprised and elated.

Andoran

thejeff wrote:

From the top:

People have a right to discriminate. People also have a right to call them out for it. All the "right" means is that the government shouldn't prevent them from not liking gays. It doesn't mean we can't call them jerks for doing so.

I agree here actually and have done so on more than one occassion. Its something I take pleasure in actually.

Quote:
Ah yes, if you're hurt by a friend who turns out to be a bigot, it's you're fault for being friends with him. If you live in a place that's largely bigoted as the friend in question did, you should just avoid having friends at all to avoid being hurt by them. That's a healthy way to live.

This is a false dilema. I live in Oklahoma. That's the buckle of the bible belt and yet, there's no shortage of accepting people here if you take a minute and look for them. I would recommend not starting looking at the local *insert very conservative religious institution here*.

Quote:
And "a difference between actively hiding something and announcing it"? When you're gay, that difference involves never discussing your personal life with anyone, not being seen in public with your partner, no PDA if you are together in public. All of the things heterosexuals do without even noticing it. How is that not actively hiding it? And they'll think you're weird anyway, just for not showing interest in the opposite sex, especially if you're young and male as it appears the friend in this story is.

Okay, here, you're right. Its different with religion, I can just keep my pentacle under my shirt when I wear it out in public.

Quote:
As for tolerating intolerance, you're saying if a church has a sign outside saying "Everyone welcome", it's hypocritical for it to complain about the people just inside with the "F$$& go away" signs? If I have a policy of accepting everyone and some of those people are actively working against that, I don't have a problem stopping them. If they want to be bigoted on their own and not interfere with my group's tolerance, then I don't care.

Somewhat close. If you're going to call for tollerance, you should also be tollerant of others.

Modera wrote:
I think we should consistently challenge peoples thinking while still giving them the right to their thoughts. Homophobia and general hatred of others can be combated with polite, reasonable discourse

This I agree with on an idealized level, but really hatred is very hard to combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My problem with the article is that, if everything is tolerated and love-worthy, it quickly becomes a race to the bottom. Am I supposed to tolerate Jerry Sandusky's "hobby"? Sure, if we could perform neurosurgery on him to shift his sexual interests to something more approprate, and to make him no longer think it's okay to victimize others, he might be a likeable guy... but at what point does that alter him to the point where he's no longer Jerry Sandusky, and we're really saying "love him if he were someone else"? Someone always mouths some platitude like "love the sinner, hate the sin," which is usually merely codespeak for "claim you love them but oppress the hell out of them." And, remember, there's a fine line as to how much of the "sinner" is the "sin."
So "Love everyone" sounds great, but is ultimately meaningless.

More pressing -- should I tolerate the efforts and honor the credo of an organized bloc of people who attempt to strip away the rights of all other groups? "Tolerate everything but a lack of tolerance" is part hypocrisy, part needed defense of a free society.

I don't think these are issues that any cute catch-phrase can solve. And I think it does everyone a disservice to pretend like they are.

Grand Lodge

@ Meatrace

Sorry mate,

No anger intended, honest. I was just pointing out that your post comes across to me (I'm sure unintentially) as a bit prejudiced, because of the qualifier. Again, I'm sure it was accidental, especially considering your reply. But here's how I read it: "Don't hate them because of something they can't help" -- in other words -- "He can't help being gay, can't help being *what-he-is*; don't hate him for that horrible disease, he can't help it, the poor bastid."

Again, I'm sure you weren't saying that, it just accidently sounded like that.

(It's along the same lines as "I'm not racist: Not ALL blacks are bad.")

Andoran

Kirth Gersen wrote:

My problem with the article is that, if everything is tolerated and love-worthy, it quickly becomes a race to the bottom. Am I supposed to tolerate Jerry Sandusky's "hobby"? Sure, if we could perform neurosurgery on him to shift his sexual interests to something more approprate, and to make him no longer think it's okay to victimize others, he might be a likeable guy... but at what point does that alter him to the point where he's no longer Jerry Sandusky, and we're really saying "love him if he were someone else"?

More pressing -- should I tolerate the efforts and honor the credo of an organized bloc of people who attempt to strip away the rights of all other groups? "Tolerate everything but a lack of tolerance" is part hypocrisy, part needed defense of a free society.

At this point, someone always mouths some platitude like "love the sinner, hate the sin," which is merely codespeak for "claim you love them but oppress the hell out of them." And, remember, there's a fine line as to how much of the "sinner" is the "sin."
"Love everyone" sounds great, but is ultimately meaningless.

I don't think these are issues that any cute catch-phrase can solve. And I think it does everyone a disservice to pretend like they are.

These things have nothing to do with one another. Even I with all my arguements about how if people are going to preach tollerance they should practice it first, have no tollerance for people who harm children and only slightly more for people who would compare the harmless acts of consenting adults to violent acts of a sexual nature against children.


ShadowcatX wrote:
These things have nothing to do with one another.

These things shouldn't have anything to do with each other, but when someone says "love and tolerate everything," that opens the door for all sorts of totally unrelated stuff. That's the nature of absolutes like "everyone" and "everything" and "no matter what." And that's one reason why I like to steer away from those sorts of absolutes.

ShadowcatX wrote:
Even I with all my arguements about how if people are going to preach tolerance they should practice it first, have no tolerance for people who harm children

So there's a line you won't cross, which is EXACTLY my point. The article calls for universal tolerance, but thinking people are forced to add exceptions.

ShadowcatX wrote:
...and only slightly more for people who would compare the harmless acts of consenting adults to violent acts of a sexual nature against children.

And I as well, because the two are NOT in any way equivalent, and should not be treated with equal tolerance.

Arguments for universal tolerance always fail, when faced with examples like these, and that's something the originally-posted article blithely glosses over.

So I don't say "I believe in universal tolerance!" I say "I advocate the tolerance of most things that can't be proven harmful, and there may well be other exceptions I'm not be thinking of right now."


W E Ray wrote:

@ Meatrace

Sorry mate,

No anger intended, honest. I was just pointing out that your post comes across to me (I'm sure unintentially) as a bit prejudiced, because of the qualifier. Again, I'm sure it was accidental, especially considering your reply. But here's how I read it: "Don't hate them because of something they can't help" -- in other words -- "He can't help being gay, can't help being *what-he-is*; don't hate him for that horrible disease, he can't help it, the poor bastid."

Again, I'm sure you weren't saying that, it just accidently sounded like that.

(It's along the same lines as "I'm not racist: Not ALL blacks are bad.")

I see what you're saying now. But I think you get what I meant. I would never say someone is a bad person for being gay, even if I find it...icky. As a rule I don't let my personal feelings for something inform whether I feel they should be allowed in society. Mainly because I think apathy is the best policy. If you're not actively harming me I don't give a crap what you do. Except Nascar, it's a blight on our culture.

Andoran

Kirth Gersen wrote:
These things shouldn't have anything to do with each other, but when someone says "love and tolerate everything," that opens the door for all sorts of totally unrelated stuff. That's the nature of absolutes like "everyone" and "everything" and "no matter what." And that's one reason why I like to steer away from those sorts of absolutes.

How about this, if you can show where I, or anyone in this thread used that phrase then we'll talk about this. if you can not, then you appologize for the VERY bad comparison.

I'll give you a hint, the only one who has even used the word "everything" in this thread is you. I checked.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Kirth,

Man, sorry but how can such a good guy get something so wrong?

Tolerance isn't about rape or violence. It's about people who don't fit in the norm. There's nothing wrong with a person, Jerry Sandusky for example, having consentual sex in the shower with another man. It is slightly less common than the norm of heterosexual behavior, so what? It is not permissible, however, to rape or commit other acts of violence.

It is permissible for me to dislike christianity.
It is not permissible for me to take a violent action against a christian or a church.

It is permissible for you to dislike abortion.
It is not permissible for you to take a violent action against a prochoice doctor or mother.

It is permissible for Jerry Sandusky to have sexual attraction for adolescent boys.
It is not permissible for Jerry Sandusky to commit any acts of violence on adolescent boys.

Being tolerant of others has NOTHING to do with violence.


ShadowcatX wrote:
How about this, if you can show where I, or anyone in this thread used that phrase then we'll talk about this. I'll give you a hint, the only one who has even used the word "everything" in this thread is you. I checked.

Did you read the linked article, or just start commenting blind? Did you read my posts which frequesntly reference the article, not the commenters here?


W E Ray wrote:

@ Kirth,

Man, sorry but how can such a good guy get something so wrong?

Tolerance isn't about rape or violence. It's about people who don't fit in the norm. There's nothing wrong with a person, Jerry Sandusky for example, having consentual sex in the shower with another man. It is slightly less common than the norm of heterosexual behavior, so what? It is not permissible, however, to rape or commit other acts of violence.

It is permissible for me to dislike christianity.
It is not permissible for me to take a violent action against a christian or a church.

It is permissible for you to dislike abortion.
It is not permissible for you to take a violent action against a prochoice doctor or mother.

It is permissible for Jerry Sandusky to have sexual attraction for adolescent boys.
It is not permissible for Jerry Sandusky to commit any acts of violence on adolescent boys.

Being tolerant of others has NOTHING to do with violence.

+1


W E Ray wrote:
Being tolerant of others has NOTHING to do with violence.

Again, I agree that it should not. But when you separate "violence," you add a distinction (one that I also find to be meaningful, if not critical) that is too often glossed over in the rush to advocate kumbayah.


Kirth Gersen wrote:


So I don't say "I believe in universal tolerance!" I say "I advocate the tolerance of most things that can't be proven harmful, and there may well be other exceptions I'm not be thinking of right now."

This sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I'd like to also point out that tolerance=/=acceptance or liking something. You don't have to like gay sex to tolerate gay people, and I think that to a lot of people there's this weird connection. Like, if I don't make it known that I hate gay people, people will think I'm gay. It's really backwards logic.

I guess it comes down to (for me) all beliefs, thoughts, and opinions should be tolerated, harmful acts should not. You can hate all you like, but the moment it crosses over into violence or verbal harassment or discriminatory public policy, it's no longer okay.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

That was a very moving essay. Thank you for the link.


doctor_wu wrote:


At least you won't try to stop me from talking about game theory.

OOH! That's what I'm studying at the moment. There's a great class by Ben Polak (Yale) up free online that I'm watching through.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Just wanted to say: Nice article, TOZ. Now I'm hiding this thread.

1 to 50 of 1,199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.