Attacks Chris Pratt for attending anti-LGBT church.
Here we go.share
I agree with her. I just think she's going about it the wrong way.
She'd be more likely to influence Pratt positively if she had a word in private with him, instead of shaming him over his religious beliefs and associations via social media.
Homophobia should be tackled, not least because there are many Christian churches that are much more welcoming and accepting of the LGBTQ community. One doesn't have to be homophobic to be a Christian, despite what some of the haters might say.
However, shaming someone in public is rarely a successful strategy for winning them over.
No need to "influence Pratt" ...since he is in the majority; as most don't really support the ultra-facist you must be okay with LGBTQ or you are a bad person clique.share
I'm not sure what is so 'fascist' about trying to accept, or at least tolerate, everyone on the basis of the identity they were born with. Admittedly, there may be some on the far left who are no longer interested in equal rights, but are in fact looking for exceptional rights, but as a bare minimum we should all be striving for a society in which everyone is entitled to the same rights, irrespective of gender, race, sexuality, sexual identity, disability and nationality. I'd even add 'religion' to that list, with the caveat that unlike those other identities, religion is still, mostly, a matter of choice (albeit a choice everyone is entitled to make for themselves), and with the further caveat that one's right to be treated fairly should not impinge on another person's right to the same.share
Live and let live ...but it only goes one-way if you're a liberal, leftist, fascist.
Simply be who you are, don't feel the need to go after the beliefs of others and change others views, especially when they really don't effect you.
Her side wants to publicly shame him for his religious views because, well, you know, Christianity is bad. However, you won't hear Ellen and her side trying to shame Muslims...who's view on the LGBTQ agenda is far more critical and violent I might add.
He's entitled to his beliefs and if she doesn't like it than unfriend him on Facebook, end of story.
Are there any famous Muslim movie stars who harbour particularly homophobic beliefs?
One of the few famous Hollywood Muslims I know of is Mahershala Ali, and he has expressed very progressive and tolerant views on the LGBTQ community; he even plays a gay man in one of his latest films, Green Book.
Clearly, there are many militant homophobes within Islam, but I know of no famous ones. Do you?
By contrast, Chris Pratt, an otherwise affable and decent chap, is a mega-movie star connected to a few of the biggest box-office franchises of all time, who also, alas, happens to belong to a particularly homophobic church (and as I say, there are many alternative Christian denominations and churches that do display a much more tolerant attitude towards the LGBTQ community).
LOL ...oh, so her agenda is actually only to shame famous actors into conforming to the ultra-leftist/liberal Hollywood agenda. Whatever.
Chris is allowed his beliefs and in no way should feel compelled to bend to her or the LGBTQ clique.
As far as 'famous' Muslim actors ...if there are any you can be assured that behind closed mosque doors they most definitely believe LGBTQ is wrong and should be eradicated.
if there are any you can be assured that behind closed mosque doors they most definitely believe LGBTQ is wrong and should be eradicated.Why? Have you visited these mosques yourself? share
Yes ...and I doubt that you have.
What else you got Christian-hater?
Funny. I doubt you have.
And why would I hate Christians? Many members of my family are Christians. And I love them.
I doubt you as well.share
I believe Kingswood. You are a typical lefty who denies the truth.
There are some "reformed" mosques in the west. If you follow the Koran then LGBTQ is not acceptable. See my link below for what happens in Sharia nations to gay men.
STFU you lying terrorist supporter.share
Exactly ...but the beta males on the left like Frogarama wouldn't dare attack Muslims, for obvious reasons.share
He's not a 'true' follower then as the book specifically states to punish gays. Only about 40% of Muslims in the US even support LGBT/Q, still a long ways to go.share
You're right. Still a long way to go, but it goes to show that there is already a significant proportion of open-minded Muslims.share
Why I think religion is BS. People just start interpreting any way they see fit or nitpick the parts that fit their needs to feel better in life besides their own self-worth.share
Religion is as flawed as the people in it. This problem needs to be talked about so that community can come together and not splinter over trifles in the grand scheme of things.
For a lot of people, religion is the only way they have access to education, medicine, and social services outside the scope of the state, especially in rural places that lack the robust infrastructure that cities provide.
While religion has been the source of many problems, it also has its share in helping people overcome serious challenges.
Well said twinA.
Religion, and certainly spirituality, gives many people hope and a sense of purpose to their lives, and, as you say, various charitable and humanitarian movements have been initiated by faith groups.
Does that remotely justify any of the bigotry, division and oppression that has often arisen from religious tyranny? No, of course not. But to say that religion is a de facto 'bad' is also misguided, and historically and socially ignorant.
Like you say, religion is only as flawed as the people who preside over it, and if it wasn't for religion, tyrants and bigots would find other means of exploiting the masses to oppress the vulnerable, whether it is secular political movements (like the Nationalist Socialists and Communists), nationalistic pride, racial supremacy, and even sport.
40% of US Muslims support LGBTQ? That sounds like a completely invented stat.share
If you actually read the church's statement, and not Page's invective, they're not "particularly homophobic." They've said that all are welcome, they just don't provide their official support for homosexual relationships or put gays and lesbians in leadership positions.
If that is what qualifies as "particularly homophobic" then go check out the Westboro Baptist Church.
The LGBTQ community is not considered equal by Pratt's church, nor is their lifestyle approved of.share
I'm sure they're viewed as equal, as human beings, in the eyes of God. But they are seen as wrapped up in a lifestyle that is contrary to God's wishes, according to the Bible.
I think it's hard to get too mad at a Christian church for actually believing things that Christians have traditionally believed for 2000 years. They are not the radicals in this scenario.
There are lots of things that people do regularly, that are considered sins, that don't prevent them from participating in church leadership, or any other activity. It is very telling that people focus so much on homosexuality. Taking God's name in vain, violating the Sabbath, not honoring your parents, wearing mixed fibers, and adultery (if you're a woman) all are considered capital crimes by God.share
You have to remember that Christianity is not the same religion as Judaism. There are several passages in the New Testament that make it clear that Christians are no longer under the Judaic law, which is most of what you're referencing there.
However, there are passages in the New Testament which make it clear that homosexual acts are a perversion of natural sexuality.
I think that the main reason that homosexual activity is looked at differently is because, when someone embraces it as a lifestyle, then it is exactly that: a lifestyle. Those who are doing it are saying, "Yes, I'm going to do this, and I have no intention to stop." It's not a singular act that someone once engaged in in the past, but rather a pattern of behavior that the person usually intends to perpetuate.
To be clear, most churches also say that it's not the orientation that is sinful but rather the actual engagement in sexual activity.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” -- Jesus
Sounds a lot like he is saying that not a single Mosaic Law is to be altered.
Jesus on several occasions acted in ways that seemed to go againt letter of the law, and was rebuked by the Pharisees for doing so. See passages like Luke 6:1-4 and John 5:8-11. The point was that one should be in accordance with the spirit of the law, rather than merely obeying tradition.
But I think a more telling thing is to just see how early Christians lived. One thing to keep in mind is that the Judaic law was meant for Jews. Did Gentile Christians in the early church feel compelled to obey the Judaic law? Did the early Church leaders tell them that they SHOULD obey the Judaic law?
As it sounds like you probably know, the Old Testament separates foods out into those that are clean, and suitable for human consumption, and those that are unclean, and not suitable. However, in Romans Paul says, "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." He then goes on later to say that "all food is clean," and that one must only restrict themselves if their conscience--presumably because of the Jewish upbringing--convicts them to do so.
You can't look at one passage of the Bible and try to redefine Christianity. Christianity is already defined, both by the entirety of the Bible and by its history. And the reality is that Christians have never felt that they were incumbent to follow the Judaic law. It was, as many would say, "nailed to the cross" with Christ, because Christians do not live under law but under grace.
The very early Christians did follow Mosaic law. It was only when Christianity adopted a Greek/Latin focus did they move away from such practices. This makes sense, as the culture of the Greco-Roman world was different from those in the Levant. This process repeated many times throughout history as Christianity spread throughout the world.
The same is true today. Culture changes, and religious practices and interpretation are often altered to address modern audiences. This seems natural, as we know far more about the world than we did in the past, including the intricacies of human behavior.
We now understand that homosexuality is an entirely natural phenomenon. It's not a choice, it's not a "lifestyle" - some people are just born attracted to the same gender. (Although it can be much more complicated than just a binary option.) There is no reason to wallow in ignorance and perpetuate bigotry against people who are just the way they are because God made them that way.
It's clear from the New Testament itself that Greek Christians at the very least were not worrying about mixed fibers and wave offerings and the like. It was a new religion and they treated it as such.
Re: homosexuality, the desire for people of the same sex may occur without one's consent--hence what I said earlier about most churches saying the orientation itself is not sinful--but that doesn't mean the practice of homosexual acts is in accordance with Christian teaching.
Many gay Christians choose to live celibate lifestyles because, while they recognize that they're gay, they also take to heart biblical passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom."
Under this way of thinking, the homosexual orientation is just another perversion of God's natural order that occurred during the fall of man.
I know many Christians today try to reinterpret, or explain away, hard passages like this one and many others when it comes to homosexuality, but I just don't see how you can do it in a way that's intellectually honest.
The honest reading is that Christianity has changed, and will change, to suit the needs of its adherents. It never had to be consistent before, so I see no need for it to be consistent in the future.share
Well I think you ARE seeing a lot of that, people shaping Christianity to be what they want it to be and what works for them.
But I have always felt like the goal of the Christian--or really, anyone who follows any religion--should be to attempt to understand what God's teaching/plan/design/will actually is and to live in accordance with it. It's supposed to be about becoming a servant and surrendering your own will to something greater than yourself.
But many just treat it as some kind of self-help program.
What is people's beef with homosexuality anyway (other than its Biblical proscription)? I have known many moral, upstanding, generous and kind people who happened to be homosexual. There seems to be no rational reason for it.
My suspicious is that bigotry of homosexuality is deeply rooted in psychology. Men often have insecurities about their masculinity, and homosexuals are a convenient external target for such. This would also explain why male homosexuality is much more reviled than female homosexuality.
Definitely a complicated subject. I mostly will say that procreation is usually the #1 driver for a species, and any that aren't going forward aren't carrying their weight. Homos ain't gettin' it dun. There's more to it, but like I said, it's complicated, and I don't want to get that far into it.share
Not every member of a family needs to procreate in order to pass on your genes. Your siblings would also share DNA with you. And that doesn't even get into the fact the homosexuals can, and do, procreate. I also don't think humanity is in any danger of extinction from lack of procreation.share
Wow, this is a crazy response I didn't expect !
I have a friend who once said, my Son has my last name, I did my job.
His son won't likely have a Son at this point, so the Patriarchal name will snuff out, but not his DNA.
Whatever floats your boat !
It would be interesting to know how many people would care if the Bible had never condemned the practice. The pagan mainstream society of ancient Greece and Rome certainly didn't seem to care much, so it doesn't seem like every society is destined to look down upon gayness.
Regarding masculinity, particularly effeminate men, as gay men sometimes tend to be, are probably going to freak some people out regardless of anyone's religious beliefs.
Honestly, I think a lot of people just like to judge others, especially when they have some kind of justification for it.
Tends to make people feel better about themselves. I do the same thing to online trolls, I judge them harshly and condemn the person behind the facade, saying they troll because they lack the intelligence and social skills needed to make actual conversation.
It is quite cathartic.
Chris pratt doesn't harbour any homophobic beliefs either. Her issue is with the church he attended. Because guilt by association is the only way forward in this progressive liberal dystopia.share
Ah yes, the liberal fascist, up is down, black is white. Hope you are paying George Orwell's estate royalties.share
Like "gay" no longer means happy, "liberal" no longer means the classical liberalism of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, etc. It has evolved into an authoritarian philosophy.
Yeah, meanings evolve, that's true. But they don't evolve to just whatever nonsense you want them to.share
Certainly not but the term “liberal fascist” is certainly an acceptable and accurate term.
Because the first thing you think of when you think of liberal is authoritarian ultranationalist. Give me a break!share
No, people think of suppression of freedom of expression and speech and religion and ultra hostility to the first and second amendments and hostility to deplorables and a culture of death that they embrace regarding our most vulnerable. One would be a fool to think otherwise.
Welcome to my ignore list.
Because you really need to be in an echo chamber to support those views.share
Lol gotta call out this nugget of dumb:
Live and let live ...but it only goes one-way if you're a liberal, leftist, fascist....don't feel the need to go after the beliefs of others and change others views, especially when they really don't effect you.
It's difficult to read the Bible and somehow come away with the idea that homosexuality is actually part of God's plan after all. Trust me, I've tried. But the text just doesn't seem to support this viewpoint if you're reading it honestly and without a preconceived agenda.
Okay, so the church Pratt attends believes that God's plan is that men and women were made for each other. Not men for men and women for women.
I don't even see anything too radical about this. And it's not like Chris Pratt is out in the streets trying to hunt down gays and kill them.
Ellen Page is the intolerant one here.
"Ellen Page is the intolerant one here."
Yes, she is. And I find it maddening that the once "marginalized" groups are becoming the very things that they were supposedly fighting against..I was once a "classic liberal" when we were suppose to preach open mindedness, non judgement and tolerance. Now the left is becoming the very thing they hated and it ain't pretty.
Only believing in your own point of view is easy. You have to be able to support views that may be different than your own.
Evidently Chris Pratt does not represent every aspect of his religion. Few people I know are in tune with every part of their religion, their political party or their gender. They are individuals.
People are much more likely these days to be ostracized for being religious than for being gay. I'm not religious but I support the right of those that can do so as long as it's without violence or subjugation or shaming..
Who's doing the shaming here?
Ellen Page would do better to practice what she preaches and understand that everyone in the world is not obliged to 100% agree with every opinion she has...nor should she completely define herself solely based on her sexual preference.
And a rush to judgement on Chris Pratt's character is more a mark against her own character.
100%. I agree with everything you said.
The days of the old "classic liberal" are over in terms of it being accepted in the modern world of liberalism. The classic liberalism of yesterday is essentially moderate conservatism today, or perhaps libertarian conservatism.
Like I mentioned earlier, you don't see Chris Pratt marching in the streets and trying to subjugate gays to his will or even making statements against gay people. Apparently all he's done here is belong to a church that thinks the Bible says homosexuality is not part of God's plan.
Whether you agree with that or disagree with it, as long as he's not out actively harming people then his right to believe what he wants should be respected.
But Hillside has a history of endorsing conversion therapy, which is harmful.share
"Whether you agree with that or disagree with it, as long as he's not out actively harming people then his right to believe what he wants should be respected. "
In general terms, respecting a person's right to believe what they wish does not mean that their beliefs are exempt from disagreement or criticism. For instance, I consider everyone else perfectly free to believe that the Earth is flat. Yet if the subject of whether the Earth is flat or round comes up, I feel free to disagree with Flat-Earthers and say that I've seen islands and other things vanish below the horizon in ways that are only possible if the surface of the Earth is curved. Respecting someone's right to hold a harmless belief does not mean that I have any obligation to refrain from saying that I do not share the belief, nor an obligation to refrain from stating my own belief in a opposite belief, such as a round Earth.
And that's a totally harmless belief, used as a general example! If a person feels that another person's beliefs are in any way injurious to the welfare or themselves or others, most people really do feel morally obligated to make their objections to that belief heard, and to inform the person who holds the belief of harm or potential harm their belief may cause.
I think that a person's belief is not in and of itself harmful, except maybe to that person's psyche.
As a white person, if a black person that I deal with hates white people, then I consider that unfortunate. But as long he is respectful and civil in his dealings with me, his belief about white people has little practical effect on my life or anyone else's life.
Regarding the flat earth, as I see it, you are free to voice your disagreement about the flat earth theory. But if you start hunting flat earthers down and putting your finger in their face, then now you're just an asshole.
It's a similar situation with Page and Pratt. Pratt wasn't bothering her or even engaging her in any way. All he did was attend a church, which is his business. She is the one who decided to interject herself in his life and air all these unsolicited thoughts publicly. So she became the asshole.
"Regarding the flat earth, as I see it, you are free to voice your disagreement about the flat earth theory. But if you start hunting flat earthers down and putting your finger in their face, then now you're just an asshole."
Yes. But if the Flat Earthers organized and started campaigning for the schools to stop teaching geography classes and for all Mercator maps to be destroyed, I would feel morally obligated to oppose them. And I would feel free to call out anyone I knew who supported the Flat Earth cause, and tell them that their beliefs were making the world a stupider place.
Page things that Pratt's church is carrying out anti-gay policies, and harming LBGT people like herself. Not having done any research on the church in question I can't say if she's right about that, but if it's true she has every right to attack that church and to call out members for supporting discrimination. I bet you'd do the same, if there was a big organization in your area that openly discriminated against white people.
A lot of gay people think churches are harming them simply by teaching that being gay is a perversion of God's design. I'm not even a Christian, but I can still look at the way men and women are designed and see that the design clearly seems to say that man and woman go together like a lock and key. So I don't think it's unreasonable to voice the argument that there's something off kilter about queerness, even if I don't personally give a shit if people want to sleep with their own kind or get married or whatever it is they want to do.
I don't think most churches are really doing anything to harm gay people or take away their rights. Maybe in the past some of that went on, but not now. I never see church-led efforts to ban gay people from being served at restaurants or get drivers licenses or being able to buy a ticket to the movies. Of course you have the occasional fringe group, like Westboro Baptist Church, but they are literally the only church that I know of who does anything like they do.
If you want to see REAL persecution of gay people from a religious group, then look to Islam. Fundamentalist Muslims will literally kill gay people and have on many occasions, even recently.
Honey, what would you think of an organization that teaches that white people (or people with some other quality that you possess) are a perversion of God's design? What would you think of anyone who joined that church? What would you think of a particularly popular and influential member of that church, who was bringing them plenty of new members?
Let's get real, you'd be scandalized, hurt, and angry, and you'd want to do something about that organization, warn people away at the very least.
There is actually an organization like that: The Nation of Islam. They teach--no joke, this is some real shit--that white people were created by an evil ancient scientist called Yakub and that the white race is inherently evil.
Read this if you want to know more. It's hilarious.
There have been a lot of high-profile people associated with the NOI over the years, including Malcolm X, so they're not a totally fringe organization.
I don't pay them much mind. I obviously think their teachings are nonsense, but until the NOI has some real, practical negative effect on my life I'm not going to worry about them.
But to get to the heart of your question, sure, I can understand why gay people would feel uncomfortable by churches who take a traditional Christian view of homosexuality. But it's worth pointing out that nearly every church I know of that condemns the practice of homosexuality doesn't condemn the homosexual person, the human being. Most of them don't even say the ORIENTATION is even sinful. They just say that the practice of gay sex is.
For gay people who take issue with this, they really should level their criticism at Christianity itself and the Bible, because all these churches are doing is interpreting the Bible in the most straightforward way and espousing the same belief about homosexuality that Christians have traditionally held for the religion's 2000 year history.
"Honey, what would you think of an organization that teaches that white people (or people with some other quality that you possess) are a perversion of God's design?"
Well, that would be the belief of former president Obama's friend Louis Farrakhan and the co-chair of the Democrat party Keith Ellison. I think that belief is becoming more mainstream in their communities. And I doubt you regularly condemn their views.
What about the scenario in which those knowing the earth is round try to put flat earthers out of business or suing them when said Flat Earther won't bake a Round Earth cake? Is that respecting their rights?share
My take is Pratt isn't the target for "Juno," but that such a church exists and is attended is the problem. Pointing it out shames the whole population of homophobes which unfortunately it seems Chris is a member of. But I won't take this as fact until I hear it well-established by other sources.share
But in that case couldn't Ellen Page could have called out the church without specifically targeting Chris?share
Yes, I suppose so. Including Pratt kind of puts an exclamation point on it, and again, I'm not even sure of the veracity of all this. Maybe she feels strongly enough about the acting community and figures he's an outlier in an otherwise liberal environment. Idk. It's like this Liam Neeson business. Some people want to get whipped up and outraged on both sides, and maybe it's the old axiom, any buzz is good buzz.share
You shouldn't be forced to accept something you don't believe in or like. As long as you're not hurting anyone physically or advocating violence, you should be free not to like LGBT/Q or whatnot. It's like she's demanding you accept the way she is or she will call you out so other people like her fanbase or other LGBT/Q can attack him for not treating them special.share
I don't understand this way of thinking. You don't have to partake in activities that you don't like or believe in, but accepting people...yeah totally different. Sexuality isn't a choice, just like the colour of your skin, eyes, or how tall you are, aren't a choice. Does it make sense that you would not believe in tall people? Should tall be have to fight for the right to be treated like everyone else?
I you don't want to hear people demanding that you accept them and allow them the same rights as you have, perhaps the answer is to no longer marginalize them? Seems like common sense to me.
Sexuality may or may not be a choice.
Sexual behavior is a choice.
There's a difference.
I'm sorry, I don't agree. I don't know anything about you, but do you strongly consider every time you have sex with your significant other? Is the sex that you have with that person the business of anyone else? Are you sure that the sex that you have has never broken the laws of where ever you are located?
I will never agree that to have sex with someone you love is a behavioural choice that applies to a certain group of people and not another.
Of course I think about it. It’s what separates people from animals. If I didn’t think about it and acted on my desires alone I would be mounting everything in front of me! It’s sad that this actually has to be said. I know there are deviants that do operate that way and it’s why plenty of people choose to disassociate themselves from said deviants.share
I guess that's where we differ. I don't consider having intercourse with my S.O. every time I have sex with them. Spontaneity is not the same as depravity. I am also referring to places where consensual oral sex, or sex out of wedlock, or even possession of a vibrator is illegal. Homosexuality is no more deviant than heterosexuality, so I'm not sure what your argument is?share
Homophobia is just a made up thing to make marginalized people feel better. Feeling scary is better than feeling weak. Most straight people aren't afraid of homosexuals, they are disgusted or indifferent. Personally I believe that all people should have the same rights regardless of religion, race, body shape, or sexual orientation; but that doesn't mean everyone has to like or agree with you. For example there are a lot of disgusting churches that preach hateful things -- I disagree with the message but I want them to have the right to say it. I want nothing to do with homosexuality but I want them to have the same rights as heterosexuals. I dislike abortion but I want people to have the right to choose, I don't want the government/churches/SJW telling us what we can and can't do (or think).share
'Homophobia' is not simply about literal 'fear'. Yes, from a medical and psychological perspective, the word 'phobia' relates specifically to 'fear', but from a social perspective, 'homophobia' and 'xenophobia', and indeed any other type of term that uses the suffix 'phobia', can simply refer to an irrational hatred or, to use your own word, disgust, of another group based on their identity. And let's be clear, fear or not, the aversion expressed by bigots towards the LGBTQ community is clearly irrational.share
Nothing irrational about it, makes sense from biological and social perspective, also some people find homosexuality revolting in the same way I find foot worship, or scat play revolting. To each their own. People want their kids to grow up and make more kids, that's biology and evolution. Is it irrational to eat a sandwich when you're hungry? We can't flip switch and turn off instincts that have been cultured over millions of years. Expecting everyone to like an alternative lifestyle is irrational.share
I agree, nothing irrational about it at all. What is irrational is the amount of time and hatred they direct towards people outside their influence. They really are modern day fascists that want to control the thoughts of others.
Got to love how gays think the world revolves around them and churches should revolve around them too.share
Chris isn't quite out-spoken enough about his political views that the progressive bunch have to attack him to get a reaction out of him. Don't give in to pressure Chris.share
Her career is flagging, she can't accuse Pratt of rape because no one would believe it so she needed something else.share
She came off opportunistic, which doesn't help any genuine effort she meant by her words.
Well yeah, if she were sincere she would criticize religions generally since many are anti gay rather than pick on one person who seems to be a genuinely nice guy but also happens to be getting a lot of roles.share
Her feelings got the best of her. Maybe she didn't want to upset her gay religious fans by going after an institution in particular.
While I believe her intentions are good, she is being dishonest about it. It's almost as if she's trying to score brownie points by trying show how enlightened she is in her attitude towards social causes without having to actually lift a finger.
She does represent the LBGTQ community and has been active on their behalf, but this time, it looks like she is trying to steal the spotlight for herself to stay within the public eye.
In doing this, nothing is getting accomplished, preaching to the choir, and anyone who would benefit from listening, now has more ammunition to double-down on homophobic beliefs due to how holier-than-thou she comes off. It is patronizing.
I have a bit more sympathy for Page, in terms of her intentions, because she is a member of the LGBTQ community and, thus, perhaps she, understandably, feels threatened by this church.
It's not as if it's merely an exercise in trying to demonstrate how woke she is by taking up someone else's cause, so to speak. This is an issue that directly affects her (of course, one should probably argue that human rights, including LGBTQ rights, affects us all, but it's quite clear to me that some people merely take up certain causes simply to bolster their image, and don't genuinely care about the matter at hand).
So, like I say, I sympathise with Page here. However, if Page's intent is to reason with Pratt and get him to recognise how homophobic his church is, I feel that she could easily go about it in a much better way by communicating to him in private, as opposed to publicly shaming him. If her intent is to call out the entire church, she didn't need to specifically cite Pratt's name.
It is hard to empathize someone's situation if one doesn't know the struggles they've been through and experienced. I figured if she really felt so strongly to speak her mind, being a lesbian and a target of contempt due to her sexual orientation, she shouldn't show potential critics that they can get under her skin.
I feel bad about ugly feedback she is likely receiving over her statement about Chris that has nothing to do with her personal character. Thanks for filling me in. Feel free to share more and I'll listen to what you have to say.
While I'm not a fan of Ted Cruz, he made her look stupid when she one time put on a disguise, came up to him during some political event, and attacked him on his views of the gay community. He then told her what ISIS was doing to gays, by throwing them head-first off of roofs and how anything the Republican party does is minor compared to that, and she's like
I haven't liked her since they tried using her to steal Bobby from Rogue in that lousy "X-men X3" movie. Her only good moment was when she called the Juggernaut a dickhead, because he was one.
And yet the gay community says nothing about them.share
"yet the gay community says nothing about them"
Yet another shameless lying Reich-Winger. That's all you people have: Racism, homophobia, whataboutism, and blatant lies.
But she has influence on what happens here in the US way more than she does on isis and the middle east. It makes more sense to complain about things right in front of you than things that are thousands of miles away across the ocean.
That is of course only if the person making the complaint actually wants things to change. People like Ted Cruz have no interest in protecting US children from being raped in US churches which is why he'll happily deflect to atrocities committed overseas where we have almost no control.
So her solution is to pick a political position that includes importing even more anti-gay Muslim fanatics from the Middle East? Is she retarded? Or is she simply anti-Christian in general?
Your second paragraph is as stupid as a gay person wanting to import more fanatical anti-gays. It’s just a brain dump devoid of serious thought.
You are deflecting. The claim is that she criticized Ted Cruz on his anti-gay beliefs and that he diverted the conversation to Isis's anti-gay beliefs. No Hollywood actor or actress supports the importation of isis.
Syrian refugees are a whole other matter. They are people stuck in a conflict that we are responsible for. Not Obama but George W. Bush when he created a mess with his attempt at regime change in Iraq. But I'm sure this is all going over your stupid little head.
Your claim is that Cruz doesn’t care about children being raped and you talk about deflecting? Dear heavens you are stupid. I am going to need a citation for Ted Cruz (or any other American politician) not caring about children being raped.
And by the way, you are the only one who brought up ISIS (it’s capitalized, while you’re calling other people stupid). I mentioned Muslims, I said not one word about ISIS. Lots of Hollywood actors supported bringing in Antigay fanatical Muslims and oppose doing anything to keep them out.
I suppose you think I’m some sort of Republican, lol. Sugar, I was against that war and posting on antiwar.com back when Hilary Clinton and John Kerry were supporting that war and John McCain was pledging to be there for fifty years. I was against the Patriot Act while Bush and Cheney were passing it and Obama was codifying it and demonizing Edward Snowden. You silly partisans think there are just your two evil political parties and no other viewpoints out there in the big world. Not surprising that a snowflake would be so small minded.
Isn't that all churches?share
No, there are many pro-LBGTQ Christian churches (that I know off the top of my head, feel free to add what's not listed):
Church of Christ
Episcopalian Church (also Anglican Church of England)
Some Roman Catholic churches (even if it goes against doctrine and dogma)
Some Lutheran churches (same as Catholics above)
Old Catholic Church (not Roman)
Religious Society of Liberal Quakers
Many of those are modern-day Gnostic churches. If you don't know what that is, look up "Gnostic Churches." It's not pretty.share
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am in the process of improving my religious scholarship. Seems Gnosticism has been a long-standing issue with many faiths, and with great dispute about the core priciples behind the teachings of Jesus Christ in relation to Christianity. The only religion I am aware of at this time that openly considers itself part of Gnosticism is Christian Science.
You're welcome. Our pastor held a sermon last year, explaining what Gnostic churches were in Biblical times, and what they actually taught, vs. the real teachings of God. It made me realize, as he spoke, that we have churches like that now, it's just, almost nobody knows about their historical predecessors or that what they are teaching is a modified and incorrect version of God's Word.
Now some of them are legitimate sects of Christianity, but they have lost their way over the years. Others were invented in America in just the last century. You'd have to study each and every one to see if they qualify as a Gnostic church or not.
yeah most churches are about being good and stuff. buttfucking is pretty frowned upon my most mainstream ideologies. idk why all these libtards be putting homos on some pedestal. anal sex sprends buncha stuff like hiv real fast. i have nothing against homos but being a gay isnt something that should be advocated in church...share
People have been forgiven in the church for detestable actions that go beyond anything one's sexual preferences would ever warrant.
It has nothing to do with spreading anything. Religious people oppose it because they either feel its icky or they want to hide the fact they secretly enjoy watching or practicing it.
If it had anything to do with diseases then religion would praise lesbian couples for spreading less diseases than heterosexual couples. But you never hear about any of that. Because religion is a sham.
It's got nothing to do with disease. The AIDS epidemic didn't arise until the late 70s, and although it was exploited by many on the religious right who proclaimed it to be a 'punishment from God', it has nothing to do with their underlying objection to homosexuality.
The religious homophobic 'logic' comes down to the idea that sex, for anything other than procreation, is a 'sin', and thus sex outside the marriage of a man and a woman is 'sinful'. It is why extramarital sex, adultery, and masturbation are also considered 'sinful', even if those acts do not tend to catch the hateful imagination and condemnation as such an easily stigmatised community as the LGBTQ one.
Lesbians don't tend to be condemned to nearly the same degree as gay men by the Church however, they are still clearly frowned upon because they are acting outside the desired 'norm' of a married heterosexual relationship, and in this instance, there is some logic to this, otherwise twisted, agenda. Which is to say, if there are more women living in lesbian relationships, it stands to reason that there will be fewer of them in straight married ones, and thus, more single, unmarried men, or more men turning to homosexuality themselves (the religious right still tend to view homosexuality as a 'choice' rather than an orientation one is born with).
dude its science blood makes aids spread. buttsex is with homos is risky behaviour. i have nothing against gay people i wish em best but it is pretty well documented that aids spreads faster with homo gay sex than normal sex
And lesbianism spreads less disease than heterosexual behavior, which your dumb ass conveniently ignored to talk about butt sex again, like you're some kind of child.share
i got nothing against lesbians. very sexy stuff! nothing against gay dudes either just saying its dangerous to be a homo dudeshare
Chris kinda turned into a religious nut when his kid was born. Thats what pushed Anna away. If it was enough to push the mother of his child away then its probably enough to put him at odds with the lgbt community as well.share
Has she ever made any comments on the average muslim and mosque views on homosexuality? Oh wait we all know the answer to that one.share
Does expressing a belief that certain practices are sinful make one a hater?share
I do not believe so. In fact I would tend to view such an expression as a form of charity or love.
If it came from a christian, sure. I'm an atheist, so I would never say such a thing. Most muslims thinks homosexuality should be punishable by death. Is that the same?share
muslims in middle east hate homos. they throw em right off the rooftops and what not. libtards seem to ignore thatshare
Thats not exactly true though. Most middle eastern muslims believe that but not most muslims on earth. The middle east only contains about 20% of the world's muslim population. Most muslims live in the Asia Pacific region. Outside the middle east the punishment becomes far more lax. They don't approve of it but they don't punish it by death unless its a fundamentalist country and those pretty much only exist in the middle east.
Even in Iran the punishment for homosexuality is rarely death as they are becoming less extremist year after year.
The saudis are a whole other animal though. Basically as bad as isis.
“Most middle eastern muslims believe that but not most muslims on earth.”