Christians Attack "Gay Agenda" in PC Game

[Flying-Emu]

Kind of ironic what with the whole 'Preists boning choirboys' thing, but hey...

It doesn't say that she's a Catholic, just that she's a "Conservative Christian." There are other conservative Christian sects, you know.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

If she's Christian, she is also, by default, Catholic.

Nonsense. Utter and complete poppycock. Are you just uninformed, or do you honestly believe that after years of studying the different sects of both the Christian and Catholic faith? Either way, you are 100% wrong.

 

[Aerodyamic]

Paul talked about men "not ought to lie with men as a man does with a woman" or some such. Technically, I don't remember Jesus ever mentioning it. It was Paul, if I'm not mistaken.

Either way, though, this whole issue isn't even ABOUT homosexuality... It's about perceived homosexuality in an old board game. No need to start up a religious debate off of this one, just write it off to the stupidity of one moron parent.

Don't judge me based on the actions of somebody I've never met who claims to represent my faith. If there's one thing we don't need another of here, it's a religious flaming thread. I'm going to laugh at her idiocy and move on.

Paul said "And Man shall not lay with Man, as he would lay with a woman...", which, to my eyes, leaves a variety of other positions available. Doggy, spooning, Jackhammer, whatever turns your crank, I suppose. As far as the 'no sex without intention of procreation', I'm struggling to recall if it was considered a cardinal sin to have sex for fun, since it could be construed as either Lust or Gluttony, depending on your point of view. It's also potentially be a venal sin, under the pretense of Fornication, but I think that specifically requires that you NOT be married at all.

Other than that, God did wipe Sodom off the map, like a unwanted booger, for the 'wanton, sinful lives that they permitted within the town' (not a direct quote), so I suppose most Christians use that as evidence that God hates Fags. Let's remember, though, than God killed Onan for pulling out and busting his nut on the ground, rather than succesfully impregnating this widow of his recently deceased brother. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

I still wonder about this whole 'Homosexual Agenda' thing that the right-wing fundamentalist Christian groups keep yammering about. What exactly does it entail? Are they trying to make men wear pastels, talk with a breathy lisp, and watch HGTV? Will women have to wear checkered chambray shirts, ride Harleys and stop shaving their legs? If it's just a matter of wanting to prevent gay marriage, I'm really confused, because I'd have thought they'd want EVERYONE to be miserable (married).

It'd even help the tax base, since child-less couples pay more in taxes than those with children, right?

I think the "Gay Agenda" that's mentioned is supposed to be some kind of movement to make being gay something people *have* to agree with or be publicly shamed, rather than letting people form their own opinions on the subject. That's my perception of that.

And your comments about "not laying with man" constitutes mere semantics. It's pretty obvious it refers to any form of sex. The issue of the Seven Deadly Sins or "types" of sin is a Catholic thing. It has no basis in Christianity. In Christianity, every sin is equally as bad, since they all land you in Hell. Some are more socially acceptable (even to Christians), but religiously-speaking, they're all at the same level of severity.

But really, you're giving this WAY too much thought. None of this is relevant to the actual issue of one lady misinterpreting choice in a game as some kind of social commentary, which it was not. She needs to shut up and go play a different game if her kid can't handle that one.

Actually, depending on which sect of Christianity, some sins are more 'sinful' than others; Catholiscm, at least, holds that some sins are venal, and some cardinal, with the cardinal ones being the '7 Deadly Sins'. That said, I'm sure that the woman in question isn't Catholic.

As far as my semantics go, does frottage count as fornication, or is it closer to the sin of Onan? Only one of those 2 sins lead to God DIRECTLY killing someone, biblically.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Paul talked about men "not ought to lie with men as a man does with a woman" or some such. Technically, I don't remember Jesus ever mentioning it. It was Paul, if I'm not mistaken.

Either way, though, this whole issue isn't even ABOUT homosexuality... It's about perceived homosexuality in an old board game. No need to start up a religious debate off of this one, just write it off to the stupidity of one moron parent.

Don't judge me based on the actions of somebody I've never met who claims to represent my faith. If there's one thing we don't need another of here, it's a religious flaming thread. I'm going to laugh at her idiocy and move on.

Paul said "And Man shall not lay with Man, as he would lay with a woman...", which, to my eyes, leaves a variety of other positions available. Doggy, spooning, Jackhammer, whatever turns your crank, I suppose. As far as the 'no sex without intention of procreation', I'm struggling to recall if it was considered a cardinal sin to have sex for fun, since it could be construed as either Lust or Gluttony, depending on your point of view. It's also potentially be a venal sin, under the pretense of Fornication, but I think that specifically requires that you NOT be married at all.

Other than that, God did wipe Sodom off the map, like a unwanted booger, for the 'wanton, sinful lives that they permitted within the town' (not a direct quote), so I suppose most Christians use that as evidence that God hates Fags. Let's remember, though, than God killed Onan for pulling out and busting his nut on the ground, rather than succesfully impregnating this widow of his recently deceased brother. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

I still wonder about this whole 'Homosexual Agenda' thing that the right-wing fundamentalist Christian groups keep yammering about. What exactly does it entail? Are they trying to make men wear pastels, talk with a breathy lisp, and watch HGTV? Will women have to wear checkered chambray shirts, ride Harleys and stop shaving their legs? If it's just a matter of wanting to prevent gay marriage, I'm really confused, because I'd have thought they'd want EVERYONE to be miserable (married).

It'd even help the tax base, since child-less couples pay more in taxes than those with children, right?

I think the "Gay Agenda" that's mentioned is supposed to be some kind of movement to make being gay something people *have* to agree with or be publicly shamed, rather than letting people form their own opinions on the subject. That's my perception of that.

And your comments about "not laying with man" constitutes mere semantics. It's pretty obvious it refers to any form of sex. The issue of the Seven Deadly Sins or "types" of sin is a Catholic thing. It has no basis in Christianity. In Christianity, every sin is equally as bad, since they all land you in Hell. Some are more socially acceptable (even to Christians), but religiously-speaking, they're all at the same level of severity.

But really, you're giving this WAY too much thought. None of this is relevant to the actual issue of one lady misinterpreting choice in a game as some kind of social commentary, which it was not. She needs to shut up and go play a different game if her kid can't handle that one.

Actually, depending on which sect of Christianity, some sins are more 'sinful' than others; Catholiscm, at least, holds that some sins are venal, and some cardinal, with the cardinal ones being the '7 Deadly Sins'. That said, I'm sure that the woman in question isn't Catholic.

As far as my semantics go, does frottage count as fornication, or is it closer to the sin of Onan? Only one of those 2 sins lead to God DIRECTLY killing someone, biblically.

I mentioned Catholics as the exception. Not all Christians are Catholics. In fact, many are not. Rules that apply only to Catholics have no relevance for other sects of Christianity.

Um... I had to look that one up. In normal Christianity, "frottage" is probably something along the lines of fornication. Maybe borderline, but still. Since it's mainly Catholics who are against masturbation (and some sects of Christianity, but if they are they're not too outspoken about it), again I don't think this would really apply to most Christians (assuming they're married or whatever). I'm not really sure why God killed Onan, I suspect maybe it was because God told Onan to do something and he openly defied God? I've always assumed that people in the Bible had recreational sex. There are a number of instances where people had intimate relations with no intention of creating a child. See also: David and Bath-Sheba, Amnon and whoever that chick was, etc. Also, maybe at the time of writing, childbirth and carrying on lineage was very culturally important (not to mention important for mankind).

As a general rule, however, many of the parts of the Old Testament are no longer applicable to Christians today. Jesus himself said so.

And really, what does ANY of this have to do with one old bat misinterpreting choice as a political commentary and going off her rocker about it? She obviously hasn't thought about this half as much as we have, she just wants to find some nice blame figure.

 

[Aerodyamic]

As a general rule, however, many of the parts of the Old Testament are no longer applicable to Christians today. Jesus himself said so.

I wish more Christians would take that to heart.

And really, what does ANY of this have to do with one old bat misinterpreting choice as a political commentary and going off her rocker about it? She obviously hasn't thought about this half as much as we have, she just wants to find some nice blame figure.

Well, some of it has to do with clarifying the horrendous hypocrisy of some of the groups commenting on this (outside of these boards), both Christian and non-Christian. But largely, I think we all diverted ourselves from the fact that this woman is apparently caterwauling about the fact that a manufacturer left a sex-related marital choice in a game about life[b/]. Obviously, either the manufacturer was ignorant of that particular bit of code being left in, or they had it intentionally inserted to preemptively circumvent accusations of anti-gay/lesbian sentiment.

Either way, I still fail to be surprised when the Religious Right in America finds something totally insignificant to freak out over. I still remember the Westboro Baptist Church burning Canadian flags on Parliament Hill when Canada amended our Constitution to allow for gay marriage. Fact is, those that WANT to be insulted will find a way to BE insulted.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

As a general rule, however, many of the parts of the Old Testament are no longer applicable to Christians today. Jesus himself said so.

I wish more Christians would take that to heart.

And really, what does ANY of this have to do with one old bat misinterpreting choice as a political commentary and going off her rocker about it? She obviously hasn't thought about this half as much as we have, she just wants to find some nice blame figure.

Well, some of it has to do with clarifying the horrendous hypocrisy of some of the groups commenting on this (outside of these boards), both Christian and non-Christian. But largely, I think we all diverted ourselves from the fact that this woman is apparently caterwauling about the fact that a manufacturer left a sex-related marital choice in a game about life[b/]. Obviously, either the manufacturer was ignorant of that particular bit of code being left in, or they had it intentionally inserted to preemptively circumvent accusations of anti-gay/lesbian sentiment.

Either way, I still fail to be surprised when the Religious Right in America finds something totally insignificant to freak out over. I still remember the Westboro Baptist Church burning Canadian flags on Parliament Hill when Canada amended our Constitution to allow for gay marriage. Fact is, those that WANT to be insulted will find a way to BE insulted.

To be fair, people who want to be "offended" exist on every side of the political and religious spectrum. Because so do stupids. There will always be stupids in everything, and they're usually the most vocal group, too.

I'm a member of the "Religious Right," at least technically (I'm religious and "right"). But I try not to be an unreasonable jerk who goes looking for trouble. Westboro Baptist Church is less a legitimate church and more a family of mental institution escapees hopped up on caffeine. Also, if you look deep into their eyes, you can see they have no souls.

And I'm not saying nothing in the Old Testament is valuable (certainly very interesting reading), but Jesus himself said that Christians were not required to obey the "old law." So obviously, things regarding the sacrifice of animals and obscure rules about custom which have not been renewed for the New Testament are no longer binding. I don't recall anything in the New Testament speaking against recreational sex. The phrase "it is better to marry than to burn" (Paul said that, I think) seems to imply that sex purely for enjoyment within marriage is totally fine.

But yeah, the lady is dumb. It's a game about life. Some people who are alive are gay. Ergo, the game includes a option. It's just an option. And if she doesn't want to talk about it with her kid yet, she DOESN'T HAVE TO. When I was little and asked questions like that, my parents just said, "I'll tell you when you're older." I got sick of hearing that, but it's not like it damaged my psyche to not know right away.

 

[Haydyn]

Don't view the mother as a homophobe. I'm not againt gay marriges, but I believe there are a million things that can be added to Life before gay marriage. I know it goes against her religious beliefs, but think of it this way: Life isn't appropriate for Muslims to play, as the women on the board (or box art) are exposing their bodies. But if they want to play, they have to suck it up and just roll with it. The same should apply to Christians. Explain to your kids about homosexuality. Or if you want to shelter them, look into the games they play; scan over every single thing your child sees if you are THAT paranoid. The option to have a homosexual relationship is just a feature that can be used if wanted. I can think of atleast 2 other series of games that allow homosexuality.

To be fair, if the child already knows that a man and a woman can get married, you can take a little step farther and say "Sometimes men marry other men, and women marry other women, isn't that silly?"

 

[Aerodyamic]

Don't view the mother as a homophobe. I'm not againt gay marriges, but I believe there are a million things that can be added to Life before gay marriage. I know it goes against her religious beliefs, but think of it this way: Life isn't appropriate for Muslims to play, as the women on the board (or box art) are exposing their bodies. But if they want to play, they have to suck it up and just roll with it. The same should apply to Christians. Explain to your kids about homosexuality. Or if you want to shelter them, look into the games they play; scan over every single thing your child sees if you are THAT paranoid. The option to have a homosexual relationship is just a feature that can be used if wanted. I can think of atleast 2 other series of games that allow homosexuality.

To be fair, if the child already knows that a man and a woman can get married, you can take a little step farther and say "Sometimes men marry other men, and women marry other women, isn't that silly?"

The other reason that Muslims aren't supposed to play it is because the games' images display accurate images of people. Conservative interpretations of Islamic law forbid drawn/painted images of people (and possible photos), which is why miniatures (small painted potraits) and illustrations in the Qu'Ran (found in archaelogical sites from the Ottoman Empire) leave out the pupils in the eyes.

But I like the explanation, at least, until the kid gets older. Mind you, I doubt most kids that are old enough to ask about 'the birds and the bees' remember to ask about things that they learned/saw when they were 6 years old. That would probably have saved the mother grief later, though.

To be fair, people who want to be "offended" exist on every side of the political and religious spectrum. Because so do stupids. There will always be stupids in everything, and they're usually the most vocal group, too.

I'm a member of the "Religious Right," at least technically (I'm religious and "right"). But I try not to be an unreasonable jerk who goes looking for trouble. Westboro Baptist Church is less a legitimate church and more a family of mental institution escapees hopped up on caffeine. Also, if you look deep into their eyes, you can see they have no souls.

You're also far more reasonable than at one of my guildmates, who describes himself in EXACTLY the same way; he just tells everyone they're wrong and refuses to allow anyone to explain otherwise. He'll also shout people down in vent, if they attempt to have a rational discussion, when he's already attempted to 'enlighten' us. I know that not all commentators in this issue are hypocrites, but it's such a charged subject, that few seem to remember to discuss it rationally. I just wish the people that consider themselves a religious/political/social minority didn't have to be so bloody loud when they have to be stupid.

I'd probably end up talking a lot less if I thought first more, though...

And I'm not saying nothing in the Old Testament is valuable (certainly very interesting reading), but Jesus himself said that Christians were not required to obey the "old law." So obviously, things regarding the sacrifice of animals and obscure rules about custom which have not been renewed for the New Testament are no longer binding. I don't recall anything in the New Testament speaking against recreational sex. The phrase "it is better to marry than to burn" (Paul said that, I think) seems to imply that sex purely for enjoyment within marriage is totally fine.

But yeah, the lady is dumb. It's a game about life. Some people who are alive are gay. Ergo, the game includes a option. It's just an option. And if she doesn't want to talk about it with her kid yet, she DOESN'T HAVE TO. When I was little and asked questions like that, my parents just said, "I'll tell you when you're older." I got sick of hearing that, but it's not like it damaged my psyche to not know right away.

That line from Paul must not be in the King James bible, which is the version I'm most familiar with, which is funny, since I was raised Catholic, and the King James is the Anglican bible. Regardless, I agree; I'm not gay, but people out there are, and provided I don't have to be forced to watch homosexual intercourse, OR have religion shoved down my throat, I'm a pretty happy camper.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Don't view the mother as a homophobe. I'm not againt gay marriges, but I believe there are a million things that can be added to Life before gay marriage. I know it goes against her religious beliefs, but think of it this way: Life isn't appropriate for Muslims to play, as the women on the board (or box art) are exposing their bodies. But if they want to play, they have to suck it up and just roll with it. The same should apply to Christians. Explain to your kids about homosexuality. Or if you want to shelter them, look into the games they play; scan over every single thing your child sees if you are THAT paranoid. The option to have a homosexual relationship is just a feature that can be used if wanted. I can think of atleast 2 other series of games that allow homosexuality.

To be fair, if the child already knows that a man and a woman can get married, you can take a little step farther and say "Sometimes men marry other men, and women marry other women, isn't that silly?"

The other reason that Muslims aren't supposed to play it is because the games' images display accurate images of people. Conservative interpretations of Islamic law forbid drawn/painted images of people (and possible photos), which is why miniatures (small painted potraits) and illustrations in the Qu'Ran (found in archaelogical sites from the Ottoman Empire) leave out the pupils in the eyes.

But I like the explanation, at least, until the kid gets older. Mind you, I doubt most kids that are old enough to ask about 'the birds and the bees' remember to ask about things that they learned/saw when they were 6 years old. That would probably have saved the mother grief later, though.

To be fair, people who want to be "offended" exist on every side of the political and religious spectrum. Because so do stupids. There will always be stupids in everything, and they're usually the most vocal group, too.

I'm a member of the "Religious Right," at least technically (I'm religious and "right"). But I try not to be an unreasonable jerk who goes looking for trouble. Westboro Baptist Church is less a legitimate church and more a family of mental institution escapees hopped up on caffeine. Also, if you look deep into their eyes, you can see they have no souls.

You're also far more reasonable than at one of my guildmates, who describes himself in EXACTLY the same way; he just tells everyone they're wrong and refuses to allow anyone to explain otherwise. He'll also shout people down in vent, if they attempt to have a rational discussion, when he's already attempted to 'enlighten' us. I know that not all commentators in this issue are hypocrites, but it's such a charged subject, that few seem to remember to discuss it rationally. I just wish the people that consider themselves a religious/political/social minority didn't have to be so bloody loud when they have to be stupid.

I'd probably end up talking a lot less if I thought first more, though...

And I'm not saying nothing in the Old Testament is valuable (certainly very interesting reading), but Jesus himself said that Christians were not required to obey the "old law." So obviously, things regarding the sacrifice of animals and obscure rules about custom which have not been renewed for the New Testament are no longer binding. I don't recall anything in the New Testament speaking against recreational sex. The phrase "it is better to marry than to burn" (Paul said that, I think) seems to imply that sex purely for enjoyment within marriage is totally fine.

But yeah, the lady is dumb. It's a game about life. Some people who are alive are gay. Ergo, the game includes a option. It's just an option. And if she doesn't want to talk about it with her kid yet, she DOESN'T HAVE TO. When I was little and asked questions like that, my parents just said, "I'll tell you when you're older." I got sick of hearing that, but it's not like it damaged my psyche to not know right away.

That line from Paul must not be in the King James bible, which is the version I'm most familiar with, which is funny, since I was raised Catholic, and the King James is the Anglican bible. Regardless, I agree; I'm not gay, but people out there are, and provided I don't have to be forced to watch homosexual intercourse, OR have religion shoved down my throat, I'm a pretty happy camper.

I don't really have much to add to that, except I'm pretty sure that line from Paul is in the KJ Bible somewhere. I might be paraphrasing or something, though.

Here it is.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Now I'm usually sympathetic to these issues (well, I don't place a curse on both their houses, but I don't Fellate them either), but that is one of the most ridiculous stories I've ever heard.

 

[Aerodyamic]

I don't really have much to add to that, except I'm pretty sure that line from Paul is in the KJ Bible somewhere. I might be paraphrasing or something, though.

Here it is.

I certainly didn't remember that one, but you're right. What worries me is that's also the Apostolic Letter where some Christians get the idea that men are supposed to treat women like property. Verse 4 is just wrong, so it casts a shadow of much of that letter, for me. I certainly understand if others believe it contains valuable advice, though.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I don't really have much to add to that, except I'm pretty sure that line from Paul is in the KJ Bible somewhere. I might be paraphrasing or something, though.

Here it is.

I certainly didn't remember that one, but you're right. What worries me is that's also the Apostolic Letter where some Christians get the idea that men are supposed to treat women like property. Verse 4 is just wrong, so it casts a shadow of much of that letter, for me. I certainly understand if others believe it contains valuable advice, though.

It's my understanding that verses about women being submissive to their husbands are balanced by verses telling husbands to love their wives more than their own flesh. If you love somebody like that, you'll automatically put their needs first. So it's supposed to be balanced out.

Obviously, morons read the verses and take something completely different out of it. I.e, justification for treating their wives horribly. A lot of the family "rules" defined in the Bible are contracts between various members of the family. Like, the kids are supposed to act like this, but the father needs to have this attitude and behavior. Things just don't work if everybody isn't doing what they should be with regard to how they treat each other. Hopefully that explanation makes sense.

And then some people come along and say, "Well, I'm not gonna hold up my end of the deal, but you're my wife and still have to submit to everything I say." A lot of people misread sections of the Bible, and then they act like jerks and other people think that's how Christians are supposed to behave. Sigh.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

"You know how kids are," said the unnamed mother. "My daughter noticed right away (even before I did) and clicked on one of the girls instead of one of the men and then asked, 'Mom, how come I can marry a woman?' And then that led into a lot more questions that, quite frankly, I was not ready to talk to my 6-year-old about."

My exact thoughts were "Fucking DIDDUMS, *****.".

 

[Kinguendo]

Either everyone should be allowed the option of being married or no one should!

Someone should just tell her to shut her intolerant trap and express the amount of anger needed for this.

 

[Aerodyamic]

And then some people come along and say, "Well, I'm not gonna hold up my end of the deal, but you're my wife and still have to submit to everything I say." A lot of people misread sections of the Bible, and then they act like jerks and other people think that's how Christians are supposed to behave. Sigh.

Unfortunately, some Christians come along and claim that because I don't share their faith, I'm a devil-worshiper. I wish people would just accept that their faith makes' them happy, and then automatically assume that the same holds true for most everyone else.

 

[Jacobistheshiz]

People who believe that is a problem should get shot at. So they can have something meaningful to complain about.

 

[Eatbrainz]

I love how the title says 'Christians ATTACK Gay Agenda' it just makes hissy fits sound so dramatic!