Church creates stir with gay exorcism video

[Celeste]

I need to sign up for one of these exorcisms. Post-haste.

[Blarg]

I wonder if he ate pea soup beforehand

[Zosi]

I'm actually pretty positive that is not the reason. The fact is when people hear of a crazy anti-gay story, they think of western/southern white christian americans. In order for you to comprehend this, I will present to you the stereotype in another quote, one by the lovely Megan Fox.

If that's you being "pretty positive", I hate to see how completely fucktardedly wrong you are when you're not sure. Give it up, the existence of a stereotype does not mean that every single person you discuss with applies it to every situation they run into.

[Aristio]

The demon had a zoning permit to be in the boys body so those folks had no right to make him leave.

/thread. I literally laughed out loud.

[Lee]

If that's you being "pretty positive", I hate to see how completely fucktardedly wrong you are when you're not sure. Give it up, the existence of a stereotype does not mean that every single person you discuss with applies it to every situation they run into.

The person I quoted on my first post on this thread was clearly applying it, and it's not due to the fact that it's in CT, it's the stereotype. Your response had an undertone of disbelief in the stereotype, but now it looks like you acknowledge it. Are you trying to defend your previous post by still disagreeing that what I quoted was not based on the stereotype?

[Kohan]

Hey, Lee is posting in a thread about gays. Let's sit and wait until he gets into another argument he clearly loses, and then never resurfaces again till it's time to attack a newer, similar discussion, where there's green participants who aren't keen to his tricks. He's got a history of this, and I'd hate to see him ruining his reputation.

You don't have to hold your breath, everybody -- it'll probably happen before you even draw one in.

[Howard Roark]

I saw this video on redtube except it was called something else

[Zosi]

The person I quoted on my first post on this thread was clearly applying it, and it's not due to the fact that it's in CT, it's the stereotype. Your response had an undertone of disbelief in the stereotype, but now it looks like you acknowledge it. Are you trying to defend your previous post by still disagreeing that what I quoted was not based on the stereotype?

My point (which you still haven't even come close to refuting) was that someone doesn't have to be a stereotype-worshiping bigot to assume that a person involved in these events was white. It's a fairly safe guess, given all the variables. You don't have to invoke stereotypes, it's simple statistics.

[Lee]

Hey, Lee is posting in a thread about gays. Let's sit and wait until he gets into another argument he clearly loses, and then never resurfaces again till it's time to attack a newer, similar discussion, where there's green participants who aren't keen to his tricks. He's got a history of this, and I'd hate to see him ruining his reputation.

You don't have to hold your breath, everybody -- it'll probably happen before you even draw one in.

I'll give you a point for being correct on one thing, I have been posting in a lot of 'gay' threads these past few months. However, I don't disappear because according to your arrogance, I 'lost' an argument. I leave simply because I go to sleep or the counter responses to my post become so overwhelming in number that really I'd be wasting my time. This thread looks like it's heading in that direction now.

What is humorous is the fact that I'm not even stating my beliefs on whether being gay is acceptable or not, just was trying to correct someone who said something retarded on a completely different issue.

Also, your haughtiness (Kohan) looks stupid on forums. You should lose it before you trip over it. Your responses are pretty much the same to my arguments, you like to declare victory for instance in your posts.

[Lee]

My point (which you still haven't even come close to refuting) was that someone doesn't have to be a stereotype-worshiping bigot to assume that a person involved in these events was white. It's a fairly safe guess, given all the variables. You don't have to invoke stereotypes, it's simple statistics.

And you still haven't given me concrete proof why he wasn't invoking the stereotype. You know what, I could be wrong, but you aren't proving to me that I am certainly wrong. The only way to really know this is to ask the original poster to reply truthfully, however this is the internet so it would be hard to measure.

[Null]

I don't think anybody but you saw something negative out of his post, which is why you've just become such an annoyance to this thread. He even corrected himself after. God I can't even find a nice way to end this, just stfu.

[Zosi]

And you still haven't given me concrete proof why he wasn't invoking the stereotype. You know what, I could be wrong, but you aren't proving to me that I am certainly wrong. The only way to really know this is to ask the original poster to reply truthfully, however this is the internet so it would be hard to measure.

You're the one crying "BIGOT! BIGOT!". The burden of proof is on you. Of course, you have none, so just scamper away and hide in the corner until a fresh thread pops up for you to textually defecate on.

[Beckwin]

"We have nothing against homosexuals. I just don't agree with their lifestyle."

lovin' the doublespeak here.

[Lee]

I gave you my proof that has substance. While the proof isn't completely concrete, I backed it up with some sources. You are openly declaring that my assumption is wrong however.

[Lee]

lovin' the doublespeak here.

How is that double-speak? Are you saying that people who are straight (don't agree with a gay lifestyle) are bigoted?

I think you're taking it out of context.

[Qalbert]

lovin' the doublespeak here.

Clearly he meant that they didn't hate them etc, while still disagreeing with their perceived 'choice'. Love the sinner hate the sin kind of thing.

[Correction]

Leave it to Lee to turn a thread about the relentless persecution of young gays in religious societies to 'Stop stereotyping white christians!'

[Beckwin]

How is that double-speak? Are you saying that people who are straight (don't agree with a gay lifestyle) are bigoted?

I think you're taking it out of context.

It's convincing yourself to believe that you really don't have anything against gays because you are required to believe that in order to be able to carry out your real agenda- in this case, changing all the gays to straights. Then immediately after, you state that you obviously do have something against gays- their lifestyle. If you didn't really have a problem with gay people, you wouldn't be on a crusade to psychologically fuck with gay people in efforts to make them straight.

[Lee]

I have nothing against smokers. I just don't agree with their lifestyle.

You see what I did there? Granted, in this situation, it's different because I am not actively exorcising smokers from their puff demons. But there is nothing wrong with the statement itself and it's not really doublespeak.

[Beckwin]

No, with that second statement, you definitely admit to having something against smokers. "Against" doesn't automatically mean "hate" or "want to eliminate" but it does mean that you do not agree with them.

I mean c'mon, when someone, particularly from a religious sect like that, says "I don't have anything against gays, I just don't agree with their lifestyle"... doesn't it just reek of bullshit?