[2012-Jun-23] God Hates Figs.

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :?: :idea: :| (o~o) :geek: :[] :geek2: :][>:=~+:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: [2012-Jun-23] God Hates Figs.

Re: [2012 June 23] God Hates Figs.

by ReasonablyDoubtful » Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:07 pm

smiley_cow wrote:
Jest wrote: That's what you're calling secular, really? NOM has as it's leadership a whos-who of the Christian Right, AFTAH talks about "God Ordained sexuality" on it's About page. I mean really now. We've seen plenty of Christians try to hide in secular clothes before, using pseudo-science to do it ("Intelligent Design" for example). These guys are paper thin obviously doing the same thing.

If we removed everyone who had an objection to homosexuality that had at it's core a religious motivation, the anti-homosexual crowd would be roughly the size of the flat-earthers and faked moon landing conspiracy theorists, rather than a major constituency.

To act like anti-homosexual activism isn't primarily and almost exclusively a religiously motivated problem is flatly wrong.
All I'm saying is that not everyone who campaigns against gay rights is religious. I gave one very prominent example. I'm not saying that most of it isn't religiously based, even among secular groups, in fact I mentioned a large amount of overlap. I think the issue people took with the comic was that it seemed to imply that homophobia was only religiously motivated. And that's what I was trying to back up. Telling me that in fact, yes, most of it is religiously based, after I said exactly that, doesn't actually disagree with anything I said.
Actually, I don't think this is true. Given how much more common atheist and agnostic homophobia is to what one might think (12% of those with "no religious identity" oppose gay marriage, which is not exactly a majority, but certainly much higher than anti-religious individuals would have us believe), I think that it might be more along the lines of this: People use religion to justify their homophobia.

It isn't uncommon for people to take religion and twist the meaning (or throw out other aspects of it) to justify beliefs with which their culture (culture being everything from parental interaction to events occuring on the world stage) endowed them. Heck, this is how Christian stances on monogamy happened.

So there you go.

Edit: Oh. Right. Source for opposition of gay marriage: http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half- ... riage.aspx

Re: [2012 June 23] God Hates Figs.

by DonRetrasado » Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:01 am

yeah but he said it much more rudely

Re: [2012 June 23] God Hates Figs.

by smiley_cow » Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:01 pm

Jest wrote: That's what you're calling secular, really? NOM has as it's leadership a whos-who of the Christian Right, AFTAH talks about "God Ordained sexuality" on it's About page. I mean really now. We've seen plenty of Christians try to hide in secular clothes before, using pseudo-science to do it ("Intelligent Design" for example). These guys are paper thin obviously doing the same thing.

If we removed everyone who had an objection to homosexuality that had at it's core a religious motivation, the anti-homosexual crowd would be roughly the size of the flat-earthers and faked moon landing conspiracy theorists, rather than a major constituency.

To act like anti-homosexual activism isn't primarily and almost exclusively a religiously motivated problem is flatly wrong.
All I'm saying is that not everyone who campaigns against gay rights is religious. I gave one very prominent example. I'm not saying that most of it isn't religiously based, even among secular groups, in fact I mentioned a large amount of overlap. I think the issue people took with the comic was that it seemed to imply that homophobia was only religiously motivated. And that's what I was trying to back up. Telling me that in fact, yes, most of it is religiously based, after I said exactly that, doesn't actually disagree with anything I said.

Re: [2012 June 23] God Hates Figs.

by sotic » Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:57 pm

Jest wrote:
smiley_cow wrote:
Salacious Schoolmate wrote:Hahahaha, yes that must be it. I certainly didn't ask that because I couldn't think of any secular anti-homosexual groups. No, I can think of thousands.
NOM, AFTAH, and the FRI come to mind.*
That's what you're calling secular, really? NOM has as it's leadership a whos-who of the Christian Right, AFTAH talks about "God Ordained sexuality" on it's About page. I mean really now. We've seen plenty of Christians try to hide in secular clothes before, using pseudo-science to do it ("Intelligent Design" for example). These guys are paper thin obviously doing the same thing.

If we removed everyone who had an objection to homosexuality that had at it's core a religious motivation, the anti-homosexual crowd would be roughly the size of the flat-earthers and faked moon landing conspiracy theorists, rather than a major constituency.

To act like anti-homosexual activism isn't primarily and almost exclusively a religiously motivated problem is flatly wrong.
Your selective quoting skill will serve you well in life.

Re: [2012 June 23] God Hates Figs.

by Jest » Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:53 pm

smiley_cow wrote:
Salacious Schoolmate wrote:Hahahaha, yes that must be it. I certainly didn't ask that because I couldn't think of any secular anti-homosexual groups. No, I can think of thousands.
NOM, AFTAH, and the FRI come to mind.*
That's what you're calling secular, really? NOM has as it's leadership a whos-who of the Christian Right, AFTAH talks about "God Ordained sexuality" on it's About page. I mean really now. We've seen plenty of Christians try to hide in secular clothes before, using pseudo-science to do it ("Intelligent Design" for example). These guys are paper thin obviously doing the same thing.

If we removed everyone who had an objection to homosexuality that had at it's core a religious motivation, the anti-homosexual crowd would be roughly the size of the flat-earthers and faked moon landing conspiracy theorists, rather than a major constituency.

To act like anti-homosexual activism isn't primarily and almost exclusively a religiously motivated problem is flatly wrong.

Re: [2012 June 23] God Hates Figs.

by smiley_cow » Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:00 pm

Salacious Schoolmate wrote:Hahahaha, yes that must be it. I certainly didn't ask that because I couldn't think of any secular anti-homosexual groups. No, I can think of thousands.
NOM, AFTAH, and the FRI come to mind.* And I know for a fact that Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment is run by an agnostic. There's also a lot of large secular companies that support openly to anti-gay groups like Staples and Dell. I realise even in the groups I mentioned, there's a lot of overlap between people who are religious and people who fight against equal rights for gay people but correlation is not causation. And I'd be careful about making the mistake of thinking that only very religious people are capable of being bigots.

*At least as far as I could tell. I'm going by the criteria that they don't make reference to any religious affiliations, and their talking points aren't based in religious arguments.

Re: [2012 June 23] God Hates Figs.

by Salacious Schoolmate » Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:08 am

Hahahaha, yes that must be it. I certainly didn't ask that because I couldn't think of any secular anti-homosexual groups. No, I can think of thousands.

Re: [2012 June 23] God Hates Figs.

by Kaharz » Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:15 am

Salacious Schoolmate wrote:enlighten me bro
Of the two readable signs and the votey, all refer to religion in some way. One specifically to Christianity. So clearly Zach intended the message that anti-homosexuality was solely the realm of religion. If he hadn't intended that, then he would have definitely put a sign in there that read something like, "Homosexuality is wrong for completely secular reasons!"

Otherwise you would have to conclude that people were criticizing the comic based on inferences they made to fit their own preconceived notions.

Re: [2012 June 23] God Hates Figs.

by Salacious Schoolmate » Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:03 pm

That There Lazy Guy wrote:Spreading the misconception that anti-homosexuality is solely in the realm of religion?
enlighten me bro

Re: [2012 June 23] God Hates Figs.

by That There Lazy Guy » Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:02 pm

Spreading the misconception that anti-homosexuality is solely in the realm of religion? Check.
Soapboxing about his anti-religious views? Check.
Complete lack of anything actually funny? Check.

Re: [2012 June 23] God Hates Figs.

by Salacious Schoolmate » Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:59 pm

anus mcgee AKA POPE BENEDICT THE 16TH

Re: [2012 June 23] God Hates Figs.

by Oldrac the Chitinous » Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:36 pm

I think you've made your point, Mister Anus.

Re: [2012 June 23] God Hates Figs.

by anus mcgee » Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:23 pm

HAHA, EVERY TIME ZACH TALKS ABOUT HOW MUCH HE HATES CHRISTIANS IT GETS FUNNIER. ALL THESE JOKES ARE SO FRESH AND ORIGINAL

Re: [2012 June 23] God Hates Figs.

by CrimsonMagic » Sun Jun 24, 2012 5:18 am

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:
The sign on the actual comic isn't funny and doesn't make sense.
No? I thought it was a clever turn on the anti-gay mantra.
Seconded. I thought it was pretty clever, and rather obvious.

Re: [2012 June 23] God Hates Figs.

by Salacious Schoolmate » Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:05 pm

I don't see a lot of placards in my day to day life. Probably because I'm so wise.

Top