By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
marley on 22 December 2013
Edit Thread
scat398 said:
marley said:
scat398 said:
Well the title of this article is completely misleading, His comments were not racist or anti-gay.


They most certainly were. 

If he just said: 'I believe homosexuality is a sin' and left it at that no one would care. 

If he just said: 'I don't think welfare is good for the black community' and left it at that no one would care. 

Instead he went on a rant likening homosexuality to bestiality, he referred to women AS their sexual organs (as if that's the defining part of love or a relationship), and he acted as if the Jim Crow days were a happier better time for black people.  What he said was racist, homophobic and sexist. 

he most certainley did not link homo-sexuality and beasitiallity and that is a complete lie. He listed various biblical sins.  If i write a grocery list and list apples and eggs am I linking them to anyhting other than the fact they are both food?

He talked about a vagina, he didn't refer to women as a vagina...if you are going to make a point at least try and keep it to the comments and not distort something, what purpose do you achieve by lying to yourself about what he said?


He did not 'link' them...?  Are you being serious right now?   "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."  You do know that 'morph' means 'change into' right?  So, start with homosexuality and 'change into' sleeping with everything (including animals).  Yep no link there.....

He chose to rant about the 'sins' of homosexuality and beastiality.  He didn't just add them to a list of random sins.  He chose to group homosexuality and beastiality together.  He created a list of equivalence.  He linked them and hid behind religion to do it.

He most certainly did refer to women as vaginas.  Maybe not in the explicit way of 'women are vaginas', but that's what the context of his discourse amounted to.  His only reason for why we should form relationships with women: 'vaginas'.  That's their only redeemable value in his eyes.  It's what they are.  We should choose women on the basis of 'where to put penis'.  Reducing a woman's value to nothing more than a body part is sexist as hell, and you're out of your mind if you don't think so. 

 

Using inferential comprehension is not a distortion.  Your effort to use literal translation as a means to refute clear inferential meaning is the only distortion that is happening.  You are ignoring all meaning behind what he said to further your own viewpoint.  Inferring is considered to be one of the most complex cognitive activities and maybe you're just not up to the feat.   Either way, the fact that you're an apologist for his remarks makes me sad for you and anyone that you have in your life.