Dan Savage

[chang50]

It was Christianity that led the first people to come over to the US and then to ultimately establish the new nation with religious freedom. It is all these other groups that want to replace Christianity with hate and oppression.


??????.The first people to settle the land now known as the US,did so thousands of years before Christianity,what you are referring to,I think,is the invasion by European settlers in the post Columbus era,and subsequent genocide of the indigineous peoples.If you are admitting that it was Christianity that led to this,I would have to say you are being too harsh,but I won't argue too hard..

[BigBallinStalin]

I take it you coordinated your trolling efforts with PS?


0/10

Why would I?

Because you and PS find it enjoyable; otherwise, you two wouldn't act like idiots so often.

[Night Strike]

Pretty blatant bullying by an anti-bully speaker. And even more bullying and near bigotry in this thread. It's amazing how much hate and vitriol there is in this forum and in the world for Christians and the Bible.

What's amazing is the persecution complex of some christians.

What's perhaps even more amazing is the hypocricy of a certain christian who believes in fairy tales about a 6000 year old earth, who frequently calls people sinners who are definitely going to hell, who is a racist and homophobe, and is accusing others of "bigotry"...

Yep, because wanting equal treatment for all races and being against same-sex marriage makes me a racist and a homophobe.

Hmm, I was about to ask you the same question. Why do all communist haters have to bring up the past? See, this is where I'm getting you two on being hypocrites. You can judge ones past, but you can't stand your beliefs past being judged.

There's a difference between comparing something that happened hundreds of years ago and something that has happened in the last century (and is still happening today).

You're just being angry because a religion that you like is MENTIONED in the speech and you've read negative comments on it, how about you go LISTEN to the video or read what maugena quoted (someone wrote it down what he said word for word). I'm getting tired of assumptions, and you're assuming what the video is about by what others have said. He doesn't even put down the bible, he puts down certain parts that ARE really just bs.

No, I listened to the video before I posted. (How else would I recognize the context that it wasn't the start of the speech?) If you believe in the Bible, you don't get to just pick and choose which portions you do or do not like, so him saying parts of it were BS was putting down the entire thing. The Bible is either all true or is false. Just because HE doesn't like the fact that the Bible talks about how any form of sex outside of marriage (both gay or straight) doesn't make the Bible BS. That doesn't mean we have to revise the Bible to conform to what people today think Christianity should be. Too many today, both inside and outside Christianity, want to change the religion to their views instead of changing their views to align with Christianity.

[Neoteny]

In case anyone is interested in his apology/clarification, it's here.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archiv ... ansy-assed

I would like to apologize for describing that walk out as a pansy-assed move. I wasn't calling the handful of students who left pansies (2800+ students, most of them Christian, stayed and listened), just the walk-out itself. But that's a distinction without a difference—kinda like when religious conservatives tells their gay friends that they "love the sinner, hate the sin." They're often shocked when their gay friends get upset because, hey, they were making a distinction between the person (lovable!) and the person's actions (not so much!). But gay people feel insulted by "love the sinner, hate the sin" because it is insulting. Likewise, my use of "pansy-assed" was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

As for what I said about the Bible...

A smart Christian friend involved politics writes: "In America today you just can't refer, even tangentially, to someone's religion as 'bullshit.' You should apologize for using that word."

I didn't call anyone's religion bullshit. I did say that there is bullshit—"untrue words or ideas"—in the Bible. That is being spun as an attack on Christianity. Which is bullshhh… which is untrue. I was not attacking the faith in which I was raised. I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against—and anti-bullying programs that address anti-gay bullying should be blocked (or exceptions should be made for bullying "motivated by faith")—because it says right there in the Bible that being gay is wrong. Yet the same people who make that claim choose to ignore what the Bible has to say about a great deal else. I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy. My remarks can only be read as an attack on all Christians if you believe that all Christians are hypocrites. Which I don't believe.

On other occasions I've made the same point without using the word bullshit...

We can learn to ignore what the bible says about gay people the same way we have learned to ignore what the Bible says about clams and figs and farming and personal grooming and menstruation and masturbation and divorce and virginity and adultery and slavery. Let's take slavery. We ignore what the Bible says about slavery in both the Old and New Testaments. And the authors of the Bible didn't just fail to condemn slavery. They endorsed slavery: "Slaves obey your masters." In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris writes that the Bible got the easiest moral question humanity has ever faced wrong. The Bible got slavery wrong. What are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? I'd put those odds at about 100%. It shouldn't be hard for modern Christians to ignore what the bible says about gay people because modern Christians—be they conservative fundamentalists or liberal progressives—already ignore most of what the Bible says about sex and relationships. Divorce is condemned in the Old and New Testaments. Jesus Christ condemned divorce. Yet divorce is legal and there is no movement to amend state constitutions to ban divorce. Deuteronomy says that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she shall be dragged to her father's doorstep and stoned to death. Callista Gingrich lives. And there is no effort to amend state constitutions to make it legal to stone the third Mrs. Gingrich to death.

...and maybe I shouldn't have used the word bullshit in this instance. But while it may have been a regrettable word choice, my larger point stands: If believers can ignore what the Bible says about slavery, they can ignore what the Bible says about homosexuality. (The Bible also says some beautiful things that are widely ignored: "Sell what you possess and give to the poor... and come, follow me.” You better get right on that, Joel.)

Finally, here's Mark Twain on the Bible:

It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.

I'm not guilty of saying anything that hasn't been said before and—yes—said much better. What is "bullshit" in this context but "upwards of a thousand lies" in modern American English? And while those slamming me most loudly for "pansy-assed" may be on the right, they are also in the right. I see their point and, again, I apologize for describing the walk-out as "pansy-assed." But they are wrong when they claim that I "attacked Christianity." There are untrue things in the Bible—and the Koran and the Book of Mormon and every other "sacred" text—and you don't have to take my word for it: just look at all the biblical "shoulds," "shall nots," and "abominations" that religious conservatives already choose to ignore. They know that not everything in the Bible is true.

All Christians read the Bible selectively. Some read it hypocritically—and the hypocrites react very angrily when anyone has the nerve to point that out.

[natty dread]

Yep, because wanting equal treatment for all races and being against same-sex marriage makes me a racist and a homophobe.

Yes, the fact that you think straight people should have more rights than gay people makes you a homophobe.

The only time you cry "equal treatment for all races" is when people are talking about affirmative action. Whenever there's news of minorities being oppressed, you're making excuses, and explaining how white people are the real oppressed ones. And that makes you a racist.

[patches70]

For you who have said ITT "The guy didn't say anything wrong!", look to Savage's own words-

Likewise, my use of "pansy-assed" was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

Yes, bullies insult, name call and are wrong. To Savage's credit he admits it, when will the rest of you?

I challenge anyone to quote any of Jesus' teachings that show him advocating-enslaving people, harming people for any reason, stoning homosexuals, bullying, or otherwise acting like a douche.


Or the book of Timothy (written by Paul).
Or the book of Romans (also, written by Paul).

I have a problem with the apostle Paul, obviously, and I do not subscribe to him as being the greatest of the apostles.
But of Jesus, there is no ambiguity, no misdeeds of action or word.

You would all do well to remember that.

[Baron Von PWN]

For you who have said ITT "The guy didn't say anything wrong!", look to Savage's own words-

Likewise, my use of "pansy-assed" was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

Yes, bullies insult, name call and are wrong. To Savage's credit he admits it, when will the rest of you?

I challenge anyone to quote any of Jesus' teachings that show him advocating-enslaving people, harming people for any reason, stoning homosexuals, bullying, or otherwise acting like a douche.

Sure, you'll point to Paul, who three times denied Christ.
Or the book of Timothy (written by Paul).
Or the book of Romans (also, written by Paul).

I have a problem with the apostle Paul, obviously, and I do not subscribe to him as being the greatest of the apostles.
But of Jesus, there is no ambiguity, no misdeeds of action or word.

You would all do well to remember that.

So you ingore those parts of the bible. Just as Savage was suggesting people do...

[Symmetry]

For you who have said ITT "The guy didn't say anything wrong!", look to Savage's own words-

Likewise, my use of "pansy-assed" was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

Yes, bullies insult, name call and are wrong. To Savage's credit he admits it, when will the rest of you?

I challenge anyone to quote any of Jesus' teachings that show him advocating-enslaving people, harming people for any reason, stoning homosexuals, bullying, or otherwise acting like a douche.

Sure, you'll point to Paul, who three times denied Christ.
Or the book of Timothy (written by Paul).
Or the book of Romans (also, written by Paul).

I have a problem with the apostle Paul, obviously, and I do not subscribe to him as being the greatest of the apostles.
But of Jesus, there is no ambiguity, no misdeeds of action or word.

You would all do well to remember that.

Idiocy, even as an atheist I know that Peter, not Paul denied Christ three times.

[patches70]

For you who have said ITT "The guy didn't say anything wrong!", look to Savage's own words-

Likewise, my use of "pansy-assed" was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

Yes, bullies insult, name call and are wrong. To Savage's credit he admits it, when will the rest of you?

I challenge anyone to quote any of Jesus' teachings that show him advocating-enslaving people, harming people for any reason, stoning homosexuals, bullying, or otherwise acting like a douche.

Sure, you'll point to Paul, who three times denied Christ.
Or the book of Timothy (written by Paul).
Or the book of Romans (also, written by Paul).

I have a problem with the apostle Paul, obviously, and I do not subscribe to him as being the greatest of the apostles.
But of Jesus, there is no ambiguity, no misdeeds of action or word.

You would all do well to remember that.

Idiocy, even as an atheist I know that Peter, not Paul denied Christ three times.

Oh my, you are right, I confused the two. I'll remove it from my post. The rest still stands though.

[nagerous]

Yep, because wanting equal treatment for all races and being against same-sex marriage makes me a racist and a homophobe.

Yes, the fact that you think straight people should have more rights than gay people makes you a homophobe.

I agree with natty. Discriminating against gay people in being anti-same sex marriage does in fact make you a homophobe. As said several times in this thread Savage was highlighting that many passages from the Bible are ignored such as its comments on shellfish, menstruation, slavery and farming for being outmoded and outdated so what makes those passages against same-sex relationships so special? It is bigotry pure and simple. Counter-calling out people as bigots against Christians who hold intolerant views like the above literally makes no sense.

[2dimes]

Is Paul and apostle? He kind of showed up later and didn't really run with the 11 guys and the one replacement "Matthias" who I'd say were Apostles.

[Symmetry]

Is Paul and apostle? He kind of showed up later and didn't really run with the 11 guys and the one replacement "Matthias" who I'd say were Apostles.

You're confusing apostles with the Disciples.

[2dimes]

Is Paul and apostle? He kind of showed up later and didn't really run with the 11 guys and the one replacement "Matthias" who I'd say were Apostles.

You're confusing apostles with the Disciples.

Ah, thanks.

[Night Strike]

Yep, because wanting equal treatment for all races and being against same-sex marriage makes me a racist and a homophobe.

Yes, the fact that you think straight people should have more rights than gay people makes you a homophobe.

The only time you cry "equal treatment for all races" is when people are talking about affirmative action. Whenever there's news of minorities being oppressed, you're making excuses, and explaining how white people are the real oppressed ones. And that makes you a racist.

Straight people don't get more rights than gay people. Marriage is not a right. And oppression of any race is wrong, and I don't make excuses when that happens. Most of the time all I say is that something is not actually oppression even though you and others try to claim it as such (voter IDs is one issue).

I agree with natty. Discriminating against gay people in being anti-same sex marriage does in fact make you a homophobe.

How does being against same-sex marriage make me a homophobe? Homophobia is a fear of gay people. I am not afraid of gay people and have no reason to fear gay people. Just because I disagree with a lifestyle doesn't mean that I'm afraid of it. I also disagree with drinking, sex outside of marriage, etc.

[everywhere116]

How does being against same-sex marriage make me a homophobe? Homophobia is a fear of gay people. I am not afraid of gay people and have no reason to fear gay people. Just because I disagree with a lifestyle doesn't mean that I'm afraid of it. I also disagree with drinking, sex outside of marriage, etc.

Can you provide any logical reasons why being against gay marriage is justified?

[nagerous]

Yep, because wanting equal treatment for all races and being against same-sex marriage makes me a racist and a homophobe.

Yes, the fact that you think straight people should have more rights than gay people makes you a homophobe.

The only time you cry "equal treatment for all races" is when people are talking about affirmative action. Whenever there's news of minorities being oppressed, you're making excuses, and explaining how white people are the real oppressed ones. And that makes you a racist.

Straight people don't get more rights than gay people. Marriage is not a right. And oppression of any race is wrong, and I don't make excuses when that happens. Most of the time all I say is that something is not actually oppression even though you and others try to claim it as such (voter IDs is one issue).

I agree with natty. Discriminating against gay people in being anti-same sex marriage does in fact make you a homophobe.

How does being against same-sex marriage make me a homophobe? Homophobia is a fear of gay people. I am not afraid of gay people and have no reason to fear gay people. Just because I disagree with a lifestyle doesn't mean that I'm afraid of it. I also disagree with drinking, sex outside of marriage, etc.

You're taking the literal meaning of homophobia thus trying to dilute its meaning. As quoted from wikipedia 'Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality or people who are identified as or perceived as being homosexual.' Your attitude towards homosexuality is a negative one and thus is a homophobic one. Also, way to cut my quote in order to avoid my reasonable questions.

[Night Strike]

You're taking the literal meaning of homophobia thus trying to dilute its meaning. As quoted from wikipedia 'Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality or people who are identified as or perceived as being homosexual.' Your attitude towards homosexuality is a negative one and thus is a homophobic one. Also, way to cut my quote in order to avoid my reasonable questions.

I have a "negative attitude" to alcohol, tattoos, sex outside of marriage, same-sex marriage, divorce, big government, entitlement-mentality, etc. So that automatically makes me a homophobe and that my views are bigoted? Why isn't someone allowed to disagree with a different lifestyle?

I cut out those other things because they were irrelevant to your claiming that I'm a homophobe.

[BigBallinStalin]

How does being against same-sex marriage make me a homophobe? Homophobia is a fear of gay people. I am not afraid of gay people and have no reason to fear gay people. Just because I disagree with a lifestyle doesn't mean that I'm afraid of it. I also disagree with drinking, sex outside of marriage, etc.

Can you provide any logical reasons why being against gay marriage is justified?

This.

[Phatscotty]

Yep, because wanting equal treatment for all races and being against same-sex marriage makes me a racist and a homophobe.

Yes, the fact that you think straight people should have more rights than gay people makes you a homophobe.

I agree with natty. Discriminating against gay people in being anti-same sex marriage does in fact make you a homophobe.

your post does not say much for Democratic principles either. You want to deny people the right to govern themselves with their own laws, and if they disagree, you will call the homophobes.

Sounds like Bully tactics 101

[Frigidus]

For you who have said ITT "The guy didn't say anything wrong!", look to Savage's own words-

Likewise, my use of "pansy-assed" was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

Yes, bullies insult, name call and are wrong. To Savage's credit he admits it, when will the rest of you?

I challenge anyone to quote any of Jesus' teachings that show him advocating-enslaving people, harming people for any reason, stoning homosexuals, bullying, or otherwise acting like a douche.


Or the book of Timothy (written by Paul).
Or the book of Romans (also, written by Paul).

I have a problem with the apostle Paul, obviously, and I do not subscribe to him as being the greatest of the apostles.
But of Jesus, there is no ambiguity, no misdeeds of action or word.

You would all do well to remember that.

But, see, this was Savage's point. There are vast portions of the Bible that people will individually choose to ignore or focus on. How can you cite the Bible as the ultimate moral authority when you disagree with what it says in several ways? By citing your interpretation of the Bible as an ultimate moral authority you are essentially citing yourself as the ultimate moral authority. This can easily lead to Bad Things, such as the bigotry that makes life hard for homosexuals.

[Symmetry]

How does being against same-sex marriage make me a homophobe? Homophobia is a fear of gay people. I am not afraid of gay people and have no reason to fear gay people. Just because I disagree with a lifestyle doesn't mean that I'm afraid of it. I also disagree with drinking, sex outside of marriage, etc.

Can you provide any logical reasons why being against gay marriage is justified?

This.

Yup, that. Or +1, or whatever the kids are using nowadays.

[patches70]

You're taking the literal meaning of homophobia thus trying to dilute its meaning. As quoted from wikipedia 'Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality or people who are identified as or perceived as being homosexual.' Your attitude towards homosexuality is a negative one and thus is a homophobic one. Also, way to cut my quote in order to avoid my reasonable questions.

So being a homophobe = bigot?

If so, then apply that same definition to other things, such as Christianity. "Negative attitudes and feelings towards Christianity or people who are identified as or perceived as being Christian".

If having negative attitudes toward homosexuality makes a person a bigot, then having negative attitudes toward Christianity also makes one a bigot.

[Symmetry]

You're taking the literal meaning of homophobia thus trying to dilute its meaning. As quoted from wikipedia 'Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality or people who are identified as or perceived as being homosexual.' Your attitude towards homosexuality is a negative one and thus is a homophobic one. Also, way to cut my quote in order to avoid my reasonable questions.

So being a homophobe = bigot?

If so, then apply that same definition to other things, such as Christianity. "Negative attitudes and feelings towards Christianity or people who are identified as or perceived as being Christian".

If having negative attitudes toward homosexuality makes a person a bigot, then having negative attitudes toward Christianity also makes one a bigot.

Not really, but I suspect that even you don't believe that argument.

[Army of GOD]

People have negative attitudes towards Christianity BECAUSE Christians have a negative attitude towards gays.

[Frigidus]

You're taking the literal meaning of homophobia thus trying to dilute its meaning. As quoted from wikipedia 'Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality or people who are identified as or perceived as being homosexual.' Your attitude towards homosexuality is a negative one and thus is a homophobic one. Also, way to cut my quote in order to avoid my reasonable questions.

So being a homophobe = bigot?

If so, then apply that same definition to other things, such as Christianity. "Negative attitudes and feelings towards Christianity or people who are identified as or perceived as being Christian".

If having negative attitudes toward homosexuality makes a person a bigot, then having negative attitudes toward Christianity also makes one a bigot.

Except Christianity, unlike homosexuality, is a set of ideas regarding the origin of the universe, morality, and divine figures. Statements with a truth value can be disputed without making one a bigot. Now, if someone dislikes Christians in general then you would have an argument. It would be similar to the way that a lot of people dislike Muslims in general. But everyone, literally everyone, is going to disagree with some aspect of every religion that is not there own. That is not bigotry, and simply stating these disagreements in public is not bigotry.