Some people need clarification

Some people need clarification  | JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE TRANSVESTITES OR GAYS ECT.. DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE A PHOBIA A PHOBIA IS AN INTENSE OR IRRATIONAL FEAR OF OR AVERS | image tagged in captain obvious,memes | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
1,105 views, 40 upvotes, Made by DayRick 14 months ago captain obviousmemes
Captain Obvious memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
7 ups, 4 replies
Leonardo Dicaprio Cheers Meme | AGREED | image tagged in memes,leonardo dicaprio cheers | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
One time at a bar, I saw a gay guy making advances to a straight guy who kept telling him he wasn't interested and to please just leave him alone...the other guy was persistent enough that he eventually got hit...and he immediately started trying to play the "HATE" card...fortunately enough people saw what happened, so the police didn't buy that bullshit...I personally don't have anything against the gay community...to each his own in my opinion, but I'll knock a motherf**ker out in a heartbeat if he starts touching me the wrong way.
reply
4 ups
Hiding behind the hate claim grinds my gears!
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Third World Skeptical Kid Meme | IS RANDOM GAY GUYS TRYING TO GROPE YOU A COMMON OCCURRENCE? | image tagged in memes,third world skeptical kid | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Not at all...to my knowledge, most gay people don't go around hitting on people they know to be straight...at least that's been my experience.
reply
4 ups
I would just think there would have been a few options remaining before the guy got physical and hit the gay guy. Not that I'm defending either one. The gay guy should've stopped when he was told, but physical violence wasn't right, either.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
I think some do it on purpose just to try to play the hate card. On different social media sites I have posted that I am straight, interested in women, and flat out say I don't appreciate gay men hitting on me. What happens, gay men start flirting with me and they get mad at me because I am not willing to experiment. Sorry, don't needs something shoved up my butt to know I am not going to like it.
reply
1 up
In some cases, I would have to agree with that as well!!!
reply
0 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I like that guy, he deserves a free beer
reply
2 ups
the strait guy, obviously
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
"Just because you don't like transvestites or gays etc.. doesn't mean you have a phobia"
"a phobia is an intense or irrational fear of or AVERSION to something"

Aversion: (noun) ''a demonstrated or established dislike for something"
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Doesn't mean that what someone is feeling is intense or irrational
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Well, another definition of "aversion" is "a strong feeling of dislike or repugnance toward something," so there's that. but even that aside, what's would you consider a rational reason to dislike all homosexuals?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Read the comments. I said i dont like trans not gays although a ver disrespectful dance party protest bs outside of the vp elects house definately made me have some harsh feelings
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
How is it rational to dislike all trans people?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Jesus refer to the previous comments
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
So you dislike all trans people because some of them are outspoken about their desire to break a social norm? I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your previous statements, but I still fail to see how this is rational.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
This is pointless think what you want. Thanks for commenting
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Think what I want? About what? That it's irrational to dislike the entirety of the trans population? Do you disagree? If so, you'd have more to explain than what you already have in previous comments.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I think you're trying to make me out to be something I'm not and i don't really care to continue it.
2 ups
You have said multiple times that you, "don't like trans." What am I supposed to take that to mean?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
Agreed!
reply
2 ups
Great comments and upvotes for all.
reply
4 ups, 4 replies
I see your point, but there are people out there whose dislike of LGBT people crosses the line into the realm of irrational. Extremely irrational.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
And i agree with that octavia im just a bit fed up with the overuse and abuse of the term
reply
3 ups
And don't get me wrong i believe if you chop offf your pecker or sew one on then you can use the corresponding bathroom. But not if you're just playing dress up
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I like how I make a factual, indisputable comment, and it gets downvoted to the bottom of the page :) some people don't like facts very much, it seems
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I upvoted all your comments out of good meme etiquette although idk if you did mine. Either way it wasnt me and i appreciate your interaction on my meme
reply
2 ups
I upvoted some of your comments, but I didn't downvote any.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Google Scott Lively. This guy literally blames gays for Nazism, the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, the slave trade and the Rwandan genocide. Literally.

When you have (Christian) politicians in Uganda pushing a bill that would allow for the death penalty for homosexuality...yeah, I would call that irrational.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
And some people deserve the title undoubtedly. But those of us who just dont like trans like me are not phobic. I have no problem with gays just trans pushing their made up rights down our throats
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
"Made up rights" such as...?
reply
5 ups
Rights such as if you decide you're a woman one day you can use the woman's bathroom and vice versa
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
You always have to try and throw a shot against Christianity. Tell me, how are those Ugandan politicians acting like Christians?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
The fact that Uganda is over 80% Christian might be a clue. Christianity is the religion I have the most interaction with, so therefore it's the one I talk about the most.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
You didn't answer the question. I'll ask again. You referred to Christian politicians in Uganda that are pushing for a bill that will allow the death penalty for homosexuality. So again, I ask, how are those Ugandan politicians acting like Christians?
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
They're doing what God tells them, which is putting homosexuals to death (Lev 20:13). Christians have a very long history of persecuting and even killing gays. And they use the Bible as justification.

Inb4: but that's the Old Testament! Yes, but Jesus never said that those laws don't apply any longer. When the woman was caught in adultery and Jesus basically said "don't stone her" (in so many words), he was actually in conflict with what the OT said.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
I've explained this before but I'll be more direct this time: There was a reason for the laws in the OT. That REASON no longer exists for Christians since Christ fulfilled that reason.

You've probably read the Bible before but please go back and re-read Romans, or at least Romans 8. What is explained there is explained consistently in many different ways throughout the NT. This will help explain what I am trying to convey.

In summary, Christ is our savior, the perfect sacrifice. Atonement by the law is no longer necessary or effective for salvation. Only our faith in Christ will lead to salvation. Being a Christian means we accept Christ as our savior and not us following laws for salvation.

If you want to understand this further (about the purpose of the laws in the OT and the fulfillment by Christ) look into the terms of Old Covenant vs. New Covenant or look into dispensationalism.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I'm upvoting your comment because it was respectful, not rude, and I appreciate that.

The OT law served two purposes, as I understand it. The first purpose was to show the Israelites that they can't follow it perfectly and thus need a savior who could (hence Jesus). The second purpose was general social order. When Jesus came, he did away with the first purpose. Since he fulfilled the law perfectly (I'm not really sure what that means; if you could explain, I would appreciate it), we don't need to hold to it any longer. But wouldn't the second purpose still apply? Things like murder and theft were prohibited in the old covenant, and they still are. Wouldn't those rules (including the prohibition against homosexuality--and by extension the death penalty as punishment) still apply to us today?
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
Thanks Octavia, I admire that you posted that. So I think you're right about what you first stated as one of the reasons for the law. As for the second, I could be wrong, but I see your second reason as a natural outcome rather than an initial reason (but that's splitting hairs and doesn't really matter).

Here's how I understand it, the laws in OT were meant as instructions on how to worship and how to provide atonement for sins. So in OT times, they sacrificed innocent animals to "cover" their sins. (I don't know why God accepted animal sacrifices, but then again, if I assume the possibility of an all knowing creator then who am I to question why an animal sacrifice was atonement for sin).

Okay back on subject, this leads to your question about what it means that "Jesus filled the law perfectly". Without going too deep, the Bible explains how Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, a sacrifice to cover man's sins (as well as bridge the chasm between man and God but that's another explanation). Now that Christ sacrificed himself, man no longer needs the law for the atonement of sins. In very short summary, the purpose of the OT law was a way for worship and atonement; the work of Christ now provides that thus fulfilling the law. Man's worship and atonement is now based on our faith in Christ's work.

A final note, I know how this all can sound... ridiculous. All this stuff about sacrifice sounds crazy, I understand. I'll admit that I don't understand God's logic behind it at this point. I have different reasons for my faith (that can be another discussion) even if I don't understand all of it.

One final, final note, thank you for asking the questions you did. Answering them made me really think and check my understanding. As a result, I feel I have a better understanding, so thank you. As the Bible says, "steel sharpens steel." Take care Octavia.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
There were Christians in the OT? WTH
reply
1 up, 1 reply
?
reply
0 ups, 5 replies
Good. Jews may have stoned gay's, but where is the long history of Christians killing homos?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
1. Calling them "homos" is supposed to help your argument how?

2. You expect me to believe that all throughout the Middle Ages, Puritan America, colonial America and for centuries prior, there were no gay people killed by Christians? Christians have a long history of killing other Christians for heresy. I refuse to believe they would leave gay people alone, especially in more barbaric times.
0 ups
Oh, so you have a phobia about words. You should see someone about that. Homosexual is a long word that is easier to text as homo. I am okay if you label me hetero since I am also proud of my S.O..

You said that Christians had a "very long history of persecuting and killing gays". That is a blatantly false statement. You may have meant Socialists or Muslims, but not Christians. Get your facts straight before you blather on about history you don't know.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"Oh, so you have a phobia about words."

I don't have a phobia about words. I just make a habit of avoiding offensive slurs.

"You said that Christians had a "very long history of persecuting and killing gays". That is a blatantly false statement. You may have meant Socialists or Muslims, but not Christians. Get your facts straight before you blather on about history you don't know."

Actually, no, I meant Christians. I know what I said because I was there when I said it. Other groups have persecuted gays as well, I don't deny that. But I was talking about Christians specifically and their history of killing gay people.
0 ups
F*ggots is a slur. Homo is not unless you have butthurt and feel defensive. Euphemisms like Gay, G, ALS, are all just meant to gain acceptance for what is deviant. Homo is just what it is.

Still no evidence to support your point. That makes mine.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
"Those are the acts of organized religion, not true believers. True believers hate the sin but love the sinner as Christ did" The acts of loving a human being and killing them were not seen as mutually exclusive. The very act of burning someone at the stake was supposed to guarantee that someone would genuinely confess their sins to God and beg for forgiveness, hence increasing their chances of salvation. And homosexuality, thought to be a heinous transgression of God's natural order, was considered a crime against society, just like murder (which was also considered a sin,) and punished accordingly. Their punishment was seen as a practical and necessary practice for the good of society. They were afraid that sodomy would spread and corrupt the populace with sinful behavior, thus dooming more souls. There was also the fear that God would punish an entire city or community for allowing homosexuals to exist within them, and their expulsion or extermination was thus necessary to avoid God's wrath. As for "true believers," if you are to claim that any Christian who believed that homosexuals should be severely punished was not truly a Christian, then you are basically excluding a vary large historical majority. In the Middle ages, legal punishment for homosexual acts was considered not only appropriate but necessary by the vast majority of any major Christian denomination, who gleefully dragged people suspected of sodomy before the law to have them punished. To say that this majority, who have shaped the religion and religious culture that you practice today, are not true Christians is essentially a huge No-True-Scotsman Fallacy.
2 ups
Excellent points
0 ups
Narrow is the way and few there are that find it, my friend. There are few True believers according to God himself. I suggest that he knows better than you.
reply
0 ups
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_medieval_Europe#Punishment_in_medieval_times

Read this section of the article. It proves my point. From the early days of Christianity through the Middle Ages and beyond, homosexuality was condemned by Christians, up to and including the death penalty. Christians burned people accused of homosexuality at the stake, mutilated them, etc. What I said is true, and the history and facts support it.

As for your claim that homosexuality is "deviant," I don't care. I really don't. If you condemn something that I support, why should I care about your disapproval? If you do something and I disapprove of it, why should you care about my disapproval? Your disapproval means nothing to me, and your god's condemnation of it also means nothing to me.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The early Byzantine Christian emperors Constans and Constantius II decreed that homosexuality be punished with the death penalty, and the emperors Arcadius, Valentinian II, and Theodosius decreed that male homosexuals shall be burned alive. The emperor Justinian went so far as to pass laws that call for brutal genital mutilations, followed by public humiliation, then burning at the stake. In seventh century Gothic Spain's Christian law, homosexuals would be tortured, castrated, then driven into exile. During the Crusades (especially the Cathar Crusade) people suspected of sodomy were killed regardless of their religious background, and the Catholic Inquisitions took a similar approach. Most of Christian Europe did these sorts of thing with varying intensity throughout the entire Middle Ages and much of the Renaissance, and homosexuals came to be considered heretical and deserving of severe (most often fatal) punishments. Such punishments were frequently brought to the New World by it's Christian settlers, primarily due to Henry VIII "buggery laws", which punished homosexuals with death by hanging. Politicians in Uganda who profess the death penalty (with the support of several Americans and Europeans as well) for homosexual acts are but a small part of Christianity's long and brutal history of torturing and killing people for sodomy, which stretches back nearly two thousand years.
1 up
Those are the acts of organized religion, not true believers. True believers hate the sin but love the sinner as Christ did - thus the term Christian (little Christ). When you paint with a broad brush, you paint the walls and windows and cannot see out. The purpose of any law against homosexual acts would be to reform, restore and regenerate the person. Everyone needs that, even us heteros.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The "may he who is without sin cast the first stone" story was actually not in the original gospel. Not only is it absent from all complete early gospels that survive to date, but it is even written in a different dialect of Greek from the rest of said gospel. The story was slipped into the canon later, (likely at some point in the early Middle Ages) and continues to be absent from many Bibles for several hundred years.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I agree that it was not in the earliest texts, but I don't think it appears as late as the Middle Ages. I'm sure it was long before that.
reply
1 up
I'm talking about the early middle ages, like, the 400s A.D., which was still long before all the books (and only the books) of today's bible were considered by any religious group to be the correct canon.
reply
1 up
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
:D
Flip Settings
Captain Obvious memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE TRANSVESTITES OR GAYS ECT.. DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE A PHOBIA; A PHOBIA IS AN INTENSE OR IRRATIONAL FEAR OF OR AVERSION TO SOMETHING
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback