The people stand with Planned Parenthood and Scarlett Johansson. Trans-vaginal probing republicans, LOL. That will certainly be a winner for them amongst female voters, as it has been in Virginia.
No, I did read the letter. No, it is NOT out of context. Lastly, no I did not read what any "hate" group says. As far as helping the poor, she may very well have. But here is what she thought of them, "Organized charity itself is the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing number os defectives, delinquents and dependents(The Pivot of Civilization)." Anyway, nice talking to you, I wish you well. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I am all for planned parenthood.. the less destructive niggers in the future, the better. Can't take any chances. I am for a small amount of blacks to have life if they are the better of their race.. in small amounts they are better though and some negros would even agree with this.
Everyone seen the vid where Bill says of vaccines: "The benefits there in terms of reducing sickness, reducing population growth, it really allows the society (in Africa) a chance to take care of itself once you've made that intervention"?
It's right here -
watch?v=_GztDgpDy6k
He also talks about how Dr Andrew Wakefield has been proven as a fraud, but you probably don't know about this:
naturalnews com 031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal html
You fucking morons! The government money given to pp does NOT fund abortions. That money is used to give women free birth control. If I hadn't gotten it from planned parenthood for 3yrs, I would have had an abortion!
Well, I've got a mixed response. Scarlett and her generation probably believe they are doing the right thing. When the government tries to shut down PP etc. it usually just provides fuel to the fire of Margaret Sanger's lineage. I wish sometime though instead of making videos about these ignorant young people someone would turn out so flashy video showing how George Bush, Sr. was such a popular proponent of Planned Parenthood that Senator Strom Thurmond used to call him "Rubbers" Bush.
@solly7 bad news, I'm not only a student of history and quite familiar with Planned Parenthood, but I'm also a student of how the hard right uses this kind of vile lie to smear anyone not in lockstep with their radical agenda. The right hates women controlling their own sexuality, especially black women. This is a truly sinister lie, slandering women who fought and fight for equality for women and African-Americans.
@PrisonerNumber9653 If you are a student of these things, then in what is your degree? Anyone can claim to be an expert, but usually that means that we start with a presupposition and we find all of the arguments that support it. I am currently reading "Pivot of Civilization" by Margaret Sanger. It's fascinating. She's obviously very intelligent, but I'm not finding anything that doesn't support the claims that she was a racist, a proponent of Negative Eugenics and all thats claimed in this vid.
@chuckster4300 The claim that she was a "racist" or supported "eugenics" is vile, racist historical revisionism. The fact that her early work was supported by W.E.B. DuBois and she was later befriended and strongly supported by Martin Luther King ought to blow up the whole "Sanger was a racist" meme.
She DID encourage more focus on African-Americans in birth control, knowing that the poor, regardless of race, had more need, wanting the children to be wanted and well cared for.
@PrisonerNumber9653 "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble
Edgar J Hoover was the 1st director of the FBI. He was also a cross-dresser. So by Pro-life logic (whoever starts an organization means all people who will ever belong to the organization will have the exact same views) it implies that the whole FBI promotes cross-dressing. BRILLIANT!
Does the FBI have anything to do with cross-dressing? You're confusing two completely separate things. The point is not that the followers of an organization will have the same preferences as the founder, but will share the same principles upon which the organization was founded. The organization was founded on racism. Now do you get it?
Hoover cross-dressed in private, and did not make the promotion of cross-dressing his life's work. The FBI was created to stop organized crime, not promote perversion, like ACT UP or GLBT groups.
Sanger's lifelong goal was the eradication of non-whites through her promotion and introduction of birth control into non-white communities. Her ideas on eugenics ere lauded and adopted by the Nazis in the 1930s.
@pjb1983 A vile pack of lies. Hoover didn't promote cross-dressing, he promoted far worse things. He was corrupt and nasty, part of a campaign of lies and personal destruction towards those he viewed as enemies that would have made Nixon blush. His attacks on Martin Luther King, Jr. alone show what a truly rotten person Hoover was.
Homosexuality is NOT a "perversion" and nobody "promotes" it, it would be idiotic. Sexual orientation isn't chosen, "promoting" it would be like promoting tallness.
@pjb1983 I'm neither delusional nor ignorant. Yes, I'm perfectly aware of "what they do to each other", and it's not "perverted" in the slightest. Your obsessive interest in their PRIVATE sexual life ignores several points, including the FACT that very few gays "eat fecal matter" or "fist", and that just as many straights as gays have, um, lively and creative, let's say, sex lives.
Being gay is not a lifestyle, and this bullshit of "reduced life span" is a flat out lie. more
@pjb1983 You have proven that you are, indeed, willfully ignorant. Rather than listening to reliable, credible sources of information--EVERY SINGLE ONE of which has said being gay is perfectly natural and normal--you're listening to hate groups. Their vile lies about how "unhealthy" and "dangerous" homosexuality is are intentional lies. It is, in fact, your hate and homophobia which is unhealthy and dangerous. It destroys lives and kills people. It causes tremendous suffering and ruins families.
@pjb1983 You've shown yourself to be the one who is willfully ignorant, ignoring proven FACT about homosexuality to instead believe the vulgar lies of hate groups. Not only do most gay people NOT "eat fecal matter" or "fist", there are plenty of straight people who ALSO have a sex life with creativity and apart from what you would think is "normal". It's truly none of your damn business.
It's not "behavior", is not a "lifestyle", does NOT reduce life span. Hate and lies are dangerous and sick.
@pjb1983 I really would be curious as to where, exactly, you're getting your, ahem, "information". Because I've spent much of my life studying these issues and specifically the hard right hate groups so obsessed with the subject and your lies come straight from their song book, word for word. Where DO you "learn" about this supposed 20 year reduction in lifespan? Focus? AFA?
Like your falsehoods about Sanger, you're choosing to believe people with no credibility, and making a fool of yourself.
Why are you so willing to "bend over backwards (or forwards)" to defend homosexual practices?
I think you're either rationalizing your own deviant behaviors or those of a friend or family member...
Sanger was a racist pig and the mother of the eugenics movement in the U.S. Read her "Birth Control Review" article from the 1930s - the Nazis loved 'em!!...she was a sick, hateful pig!
@pjb1983 First off, I'm not gay, and if you think I'll fly into some rage because you called me gay, you're badly mistaken. I'd rather be gay than a bigot any day. I defend equality, I defend justice, and I speak against hate and bigotry. I'm not defending any practices, I'm defending human beings against hate and discrimination and lies.
And their "behavior" is NOT deviant at all.
Sanger wasn't racist AT ALL, not even a little, calling her "mother of eugenics" is a flat out lie.
@pjb1983 Really are a vile little weasel, aren't you? Instead of ANSWERING THE QUESTION, you try to "attack" me, thinking that implying I'm gay will throw me into a rage. I'm not gay, but I'd rather be gay than a bigot any day. I'm not defending a "practice" I'm defending human beings against hate and lies. Their "behaviors" aren't deviant, yours are.
Sanger was not a racist at all. Not even a little. Calling her "mother of eugenics" is bald-faced lie. I've read her articles, YOU HAVE NOT.
@pjb1983 I want to know the website where you got your trash, because your ignorance on homosexuality speaks for itself. Your lies about Sanger make it extremely clear that you did NOT actually read her papers, but instead found some website for an anti-choice hate group, and THEY said "this is what Sanger said in this article", when in fact it is NOT what she said at all. She never said anything remotely racist, did NOT promote eugenics, LOATHED Nazis, and supported what was best for families.
@pjb1983 and by the way, it's not "too much", or "bending over backwards". I'd be just as strong in defending any victim of injustice, whether it's poor people being trampled by the hard right's sick greed, women being denied equality by anti-choice sexists, blacks facing racism, immigrants under attack from hate groups and nationalist bigots, Muslims facing mountains of hate, or just kids who don't have decent schools thanks to GOP cutbacks in the legislature. I'll do so until the day I die.
She didn't want the word to get out that they want to "exterminate the Negro population" BECAUSE IT WASN'T TRUE. Even THEN racist scum on the right were perverting what she said and believed to slander Sanger.
You've obviously got the same long collection of "quotes" that hate groups have smeared all over the net. Some, like this, are taken totally out of context and their meaning perverted. Others are flat out lies.
Do you deny that after hearing Sanger speak at one KKK rally she was invited to speak at many more. Makes you think, huh? Good thing about the internet, the facts our out there for everyone to discover for themselves.
@wconquest She spoke ANYWHERE she was invited to, and she HARSHLY criticized the KKK and everything they stood for.
The bad thing about the internet is there are a lot of LIES out there, and a lot of people too ignorant to know the difference. Margaret Sanger was NOT a racist in any way, shape, manner or form.
@PrisonerNumber9653 Not a racist in any way, shape, manner or form, huh? You are dead wrong, my friend. She said plainly that she wanted to "exterminate the negro population.' (letter to Dr.Clarence Gamble dated 12-19-39). Do you have proof that she sharply criticized the KKK? I'd like to read it.
@ghhtdesfh And this remains a vile lie. She did NOT state this. I've read the letter to Dr. Gamble, you obviously have not. You have read hate group literature QUOTING this letter...incorrectly, and out of context. She said she did NOT want that to be their message, she did not ever, EVER, EVER say she wanted to do that.
Sanger spent a great deal of time working to help poor women, in particular African-Americans, and her work was supported by WEB Dubois and Martin Luther King.
Do you deny that after hearing Sanger speak at one KKK rally she was invited to speak at many more? Makes you think, huh? Good thing about the internet, the facts our out there for everyone to discover for themselves.
She didn't want the word to get out that they want to "exterminate the Negro population" BECAUSE IT WASN'T TRUE. Even THEN racist scum on the right were perverting what she said and believed to slander Sanger.
You've obviously got the same long collection of "quotes" that hate groups have smeared all over the net. Some, like this, are taken totally out of context and their meaning perverted. Others are flat out lies.
@pjb1983 Now, as for the rest of your crapola, it's also just nasty lies. Sanger's goal was NEVER "eradication of non-whites". It was the RIGHTS of ALL women, including African-Americans. For families who could barely afford to feed the children they had, having more was not good news at all. She was not a supporter of eugenics, the claim her ideas were "adopted by the Nazis" is flat out bullshit, a horrible lie.
There is nothing REMOTELY "racist" about Planned Parenthood. Nothing at all.
I sincerely apologize if I put words in your mouth. However, you stated that you never heard of PP until watching this video. And this video clearly explained the roots of PP, so the assumption was that you're a supporter of the KKK.
@ClockworkOrangeABC You are so ignorant. The founder of planned parenthood gave ONE speech to a KKK womens group and afterwards she said that she had to use words only children would understand and that it was the "weirdest" experience she had in lecturing. In any case, even if it were founded by a KKK member (which is wasn't), what difference does that make now in 2011?
Wow! That didn't take long. You went from victim to calling me names. If you really believe that the "founder" just gave one weird speech, then I highly urge you to do some serious research. You called me "ignorant", yet you admitted to never hearing about Planned Parenthood until watching this video. Oh, the sweet irony. LOL!
@ClockworkOrangeABC I wasn't using "ignorant" as a name calling device, I meant it in the way when a person doesn't really know anything about what they are talking about, uninformed rather than stupid. And actually, after I saw this video, I have done some research, and all I've found about the KKK is sensationalist writers stretching the truth. I'd also like to ask you again, what difference does it make in 2011?
@mckaysam1 Wait. You claimed to have not known about PP before this, and now you're coming off like an expert, lecturing on what Margaret Sanger did at KKK meetings. So either you knew stuff before and are lying, or you've had 15 minutes of google search under your belt and your lecturing the "ignorant". Your either a liar or arrogant, or both.
@mckaysam1 Ha, well done. Through this debate, I am struck with the power of presupposition. We come at it with our convictions already in place and so our research seems to always lead us to find information that supports our views. I can read too and have read a lot, even one of Margaret Sanger's own books and still I am compelled to the same view I had before I started, albeit with more and better information.
@ajax515 1. Scarlett decided to throw her hat in the ring on a controversial debate, and therefore leaves herself open for criticism. 2. Nobody put words in her mouth. Everything she says in the video is her own words (or those from the script she chose to read). 3. Maybe Conan Obrien or every other late night comedian should be sued for defamation of character for they myriad of defaming parodies they've made of public figures.
@chuckster4300 That's BULL. If there was legit criticism, fine, saying she's in the KKK for supporting family planning is a sick slanderous LIE. She did NOT "open herself up" to THAT.
It's not putting words in her mouth to put her in a KLAN ROBE?? Are you KIDDING???
This isn't a light hearted parody, it's a despicable slur, based in the most vicious of LIES. Planned Parenthood isn't racist, and Margaret Sanger was not racist.
@chuckster4300 1.You're an idiot.2. The way that people decided to interpret her opinion is their own. There is nothing in this video that gives people the right to slander her in this way.3. Conan Obrien would have better sense than to do such a piece on something that requires free choice. The fact is that you are an idiot and there is a line that has been crossed here. Which is exactly why the chicken shit that made this video put the disclaimer at the end. Please go fuck yourself.
OMFG!!!! You guys did such amazing special effects! You're soo freaking talented! Just do us all a favor and don't reproduce - the world can't handle such genius.....
Aren't the people who are against Planned Parenthood the same idiots who support the NRA, death penalty, and the drug war that has failed miserably. Same people who don't want to offer support to the Kansas tornado victims, but at the same time give away billions to banks & oil companies.
Not necessarily. I'm against abortion (Planned Parenthood) and am against the NRA, death penalty, etc. But I fail to see your point, if you were making one?
...and the Church used to kill innocent people in the Inquisition, yet I don't see many of these Pro-Lifers saying that it should be destroyed because it may have taken some terrible and stupid stances in the past.
I love the smug little holier-than-thou smirk on her face before playing the commercial, which just screams, "Aren't I just a clever self-righteous little whack-job?"
"This video is political satire and we do not believe that Scarlett Johansson is a KKK supporter or member." BULLSHIT. It is not political satire, it is a lame attempt by overzealous lame jackasses to make themselves feel good in their own little private hell.
Love the bullshit at the end about not believing that Johanssen is a KKK member or supporter. Because, yeah, superimposing a KKK robe onto Scarlett Johanssen's body shouldn't be misconstrued in any way. I mean, just because they are explicitly depicting Scarlett Johanssen as a robe-wearing member of the KKK doesn't mean that they want to insinuate that Scarlett Johanssen is a robe-wearing member of the KKK. K?
maybe the KKK do support planned parenthood, however theyre also against gay marriage and Im guessing you're not going to support that just because Klan doesnt?
"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)
Sanger - "Eugenists demonstrate that two-thirds of our manhood of military age are physically too unfit to shoulder a rifle; that the feeble-minded, the syphilitic, the irresponsible and the defective breed unhindered; ...that the vicious circle of mental and physical defect, delinquency and beggary is encouraged, by the unseeing and unthinking sentimentality of our age, to populate asylum, hospital and prison. ... Eugenist see and points out with a courage entirely admirable"
"We should not minimize the great outstanding service of Eugenics for critical and diagnostic investigations. It demonstrates...that uncontrolled fertility is universally correlated with disease, poverty, overcrowding and the transmission of hereditable traits" (Sanger - Civilization, p. 174).
It's far past time to flush this good nation of these Christian Tali-born-again anti-American assholes like "Operation Rescue". They are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of this nation and it's Constitution.
Their ranks are filled with convicted domestic terrorists like bomber Cheryl Sullenger, co-conspirator Troy Newman and assassin Scott Roeder.
What's that? America's founders were slave owners and misogynists? Does that mean that I"M ALSO a slave owner and a misogynist because I'm American???
Margaret Sanger's views on race and eugenics have been horribly skewed by those most determined to discredit here. Frequently her quotes are taken out of context, so that it seems she was saying something racist when in fact it was the opposite.
Unfortunately, eugenics was regarded as a progressive and scientific solution to societal problems - by many prominent americans. There was a lively debate surrounding it, and it has a very complicated and diverse theoretical history. Educate yourselves
As a pro-life advocate, I hate this video. You've distracted from the REAL issue we should be talking. Not that Planned Parenthood kills black babies, BUT THAT THEY KILL BABIES. That is an uncontested fact. Instead, you've painted a KKK robe on an actress. You didn't just make yourself look stupid and mean, you made all pro-lifers and Christians look stupid and mean. Every pro-choice person that watches this video will be less likely to have a good dialogue with a pro-lifer in the future.
I never saw the Scarlet Johanson video until you made it into a racist and bigoted joke. I am not a fan of abortions, but I believe in women's rights and am ashamed at this outright war on women. Your video is pathetic and polarizing. As a result I will be making a donation to planned parenthood in your name. Thank you. Have a good day.
I hope the girl introducing the doctored video in this clip never has to face a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy or even the lesser trauma of an unplanned pregnancy or even an STD scare. It's so sad... to not be able to step out of your own shoes and see what the services of Planned Parenthood mean to those less economically fortunate than yourself.. to not see how LUCKY you are that you've never needed Planned Parenthood. You should be ashamed of yourselves, everyone of you behind "defundpp".
@marleysoluna I would love planned parenthood if they just didn't do those pesky abortions. That's what this debate is about. Those other service are helpful, but PP doesn't make any money at those, the real money is in the abortion arena.
@chuckster4300 Abortions are part of comprehensive women's health. They are a God-given, constitutional RIGHT for women, and part of equality for women. Their other services are not "helpful", taking someone's groceries to the car is helpful, these services are LIFE-SAVING. Planned Parenthood doesn't make money on ANYTHING, they are a NON-PROFIT, they don't do abortions to "make money" but to protect women.
And the idea that you not liking abortion makes slander and lies OK is preposterous.
@PrisonerNumber9653 Abortion, in the vast majority of cases, is an elective surgery that is not critical to the physical health of the patient. Surgery of any kind involves risk and should be considered carefully and undertaken with great care. PP is outspoken about their willingness to perform abortions on underage girls without parental consent, going out of their way to hide it from parents. That's just wrong.
@chuckster4300 Look, what you're missing here is that NOBODY *WANTS* AN ABORTION. NOBODY loves that choice - not the people who perform the abortions, not the women who choose to have one. Unfortunately, it is sometimes the least crappy of several crappy courses of action. And again, I hope you're never, ever in that position. It's easy to talk big about what's right and wrong from the sidelines. When you're actually in the position of being a broke-ass pregnant student, it's not so cut and dry.
@marleysoluna Thank you for your reply, You sound like a nice person. I do so sincerely understand what you're saying. the whole issue is a heartbreak from every angle. I also agree with almost all of what you're saying. It is indeed a terrible choice to ever make. The only sliver of disagreement is that there is a lot of money in the abortion industry and there are those who are making it. Please don't be fooled into believing that PP is not profiting heavily from abortions as are others.
@marleysoluna So as in any industry, there are those who are corrupt and greedy. Abortion is no exception. To follow the money trail, you first need to take an honest look at who spends the most money marketing and PP will come out on top of that list every time. It doesn't mean that every PP worker is motivated that way, but just like any business, those at the top reap the rewards.
@marleysoluna As far as my own experience with Abortion. It has touched my family and its effects are profound. As far as it being a "crappy option" I think you're understating it. It is a devastating option. Like I've said before, We have gotten the cart before the horse in this issue and that abortion is even an option at all is grievous. At what point in history did the ending of a human life become such a readily available and justifiable means to avoid hardship.
@marleysoluna As a society we tried for a while to define the fetus as not human, but science has taken that argument away. And for those of us who still respect the scriptures, we must believe that all life is sacred and that even in the womb, we are fearfully and wonderfully made, known and loved by God who has already set a course for our lives. Perhaps the problem with those who are in the position to have to choose an abortion are there because they have drifted from God in the first place.
@chuckster4300 I think it's a mistake to bring your religious views into the debate; if you want to win hearts and minds to change the legal atmosphere, you're better off not alienating the non-religious. That said, I would like to know your source for the statistics backing up the idea that PP is profiting from abortions? I'd be interested in reading that info, if it's true. It seems unlikely to me, though - if abortions are so lucrative, then why don't ALL PP offices perform abortions?
@marleysoluna Sure, if you google "abortion industry revenue" you will find a myriad of articles and studies on the topic. I don't think this forum lets me post a link other wise I'd give you a couple.
@marleysoluna Regarding my religious beliefs on the subject, I fully know that people disagree on this, and that some will default to "alienated by it." It can't be ignored in this debate because it is the basis for most of those who are pro life. In order to convince a pro life person that they are wrong, you will first have to convince them that their morality based on their faith is wrong. Short of that you won't be able to quiet them. Shouldn't "why we believe" be part of the discussion?
@marleysoluna Many feel that the goal of talking religion in the debate is to introduce guilt, but thats not it. It is very simply the notion that there is a morality that comes from a place that has a higher perspective than our human experience. If you remove this kind of perspective, then it becomes a free for all of humanist opinions and then who can say who's opinion counts more? I'd rather convince a person that God loves them, than that abortion is wrong.
@chuckster4300 It's wrong to pretend that those who don't believe in God have no morals, most of the truly immoral ideas in our society today came from people carrying a Bible and proclaiming God's backing, including those who think it's "Christian" to oppose women's rights, those claiming homophobia is "Godly", and other absurd falsehoods.
@PrisonerNumber9653 I never said that they don't have morals. What I'm implying is that without a singular point of morality, that the plumb line will constantly move with the ebb and flow of society and the majority will determine the morality. This is dangerous because the majority can be manipulated and we end up with things like gladiators and concentration camps.
@chuckster4300 Or the Crusades, Columbus' gang committing mass genocide in the name of making Christians out of the "savages" of the "New World", when not robbing them blind.
We're into dangerous territory to pretend religious people are any more "moral" than non-religious. I'm a Christian and it's the baseline for what I'd call my "morals," but I see so very many Christians who don't have any of them, who think supporting capitalist greed is "Christian" or discrimination, or all sorts of bad..
@PrisonerNumber9653 sure, many mistakes and bad things have been done in the name of religion. It usually involves killing innocents which is what we're talking about in the abortion debate, however you seem to have flipped to the other side on this issue. And don't forget that in the Crusades, Islam was not innocent. They were in the midst of a conquest. Europe was justified in defending against it. It sure got twisted though when the Church got involved and declared it a holy war.
@chuckster4300 No, we're talking in the abortion debate about whether a WOMAN decides what happens with her body, or the GOVERNMENT decides.
I didn't say Islam was "innocent" but if you're trying to defend the crusades, you're out to lunch on that one.
And since you bring up Islam, the sick Islamaphobia and hate going on in this nation now is another good example, as are those who try to defend our war-making because we're "A Christian Nation" (which we are NOT)
@PrisonerNumber9653 I don't oppose women's rights (plural). I am opposed to this one perceived right that we created in 1973 which is for people to kill other innocent people for their own convenience. Otherwise I fully support women's rights. And I see my anti abortion stance as a kindness to women knowing that having an abortion is a sad mistake that many women are deceived into making.
@PrisonerNumber9653 As for "homophobia" that is an entirely different topic. I am not homophobic just because I think that homosexuality is a sin. To imply that I am is a simplistic "straw man" argument that doesn't appreciate the complex nature of the issue.
@chuckster4300 Well, yeah, you are. It IS homophobic to think a trait that is not chosen, cannot be changed, and which harms NOBODY is a "sin". It's not only a hateful lie, but it's blasphemous to use God as a weapon of hate. God created those gay people, if it's a "sin", GOD Is the sinner.
@PrisonerNumber9653 You keep using the word "blasphemous" which is a Biblical word. And yet I'm quite sure that you don't share a Biblical world view. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems disingenuous to to do so. I do not "use" God. And by way of refuting your argument. If what you say is true, then I should hate everyone who has told a lie, or who has dishonored their parents. Surely I'd have to even hate myself at that point. Pointing to a sin and encouraging others to avoid it is not hatred.
@PrisonerNumber9653 I admit that there are "hateful" groups out there like the Westboro Baptist group, but they don't represent my views at all. When ever it does turn to hate, then it is a distortion. In the end, God and only God will judge each person as an individual, not as groups. This is something that no one can avoid and it takes a lot of pressure off of us since we don't have to be the judge.
@PrisonerNumber9653 You're making a theological statement when you say that God created gay people. When it comes to religion, we often sentimentalize our feelings about God and tend to recreate Him in our own image. I would always caution against this because, as in morals, the plumb line will always move based on our own opinions rather than on a central tenant like the Bible. You would have a difficult time making that argument from scriptures, though it fits well with pop psychology.
@chuckster4300 Fine, God or nature or whoever created us all created gay people.
Actually it's a load of crap to call "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" pop psychology, and it's dead wrong to claim ANY backing for bigotry and homophobia in scripture. People perverting a few obscure verses and IGNORING Christ's basic law for mankind isn't what Christianity's about.
@PrisonerNumber9653 Christ made us all. He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. You can't undo verses you don't like. A sinful and broken society created gay people. But there is forgiveness, reconciliation, healing, and restorative work done at the cross. When we redefine sin as not sin, we negate the purpose of the Cross and Christ's sacrifice for us. Its all good news to those who choose to believe it, but it becomes a stench to those who reject it.
@chuckster4300 Hogwash. Christ did NOT "fulfill" the nonsense "laws" of the Old Testament, He said so himself. The Priest and Levite who ignored the man the Samaritan saved were following the same pack of nonsense "laws" people use to bash gays (falsely, the laws NEVER mention homosexuality)
Being gay is NOT a sin, never has been
And Christ's sacrifice is good news for ALL people, not just those who believe it.
@PrisonerNumber9653 What is Christ's basic law for mankind? Is it the golden rule, "do unto others"? If that is what you're referring to then no, that is not what Christianity is all about. Christianity is all about reconciling a sinful and fallen world to its creator. This is done through Christ as the propitiation for our sins, not through following a law. Christ himself is our redeemer, not our adherence to the rules. In becoming redeemed, our sin becomes less to us. This is good news.
@chuckster4300 Yes, it IS what I'm referring to, and yes it IS what Christianity is all about. Calling it a "sinful and fallen world" is nonsense, yes, Christ's forgiveness IS what saves us, but Christ said ONE LAW I GIVE YOU.
Not to be saved, but to follow Jesus Christ, that IS the rule. I don't believe in hell, following the rule to avoid "Punishment" isn't the point. Doing it because it's what God WANTS and we love God is.
@PrisonerNumber9653 Well, then we agree on something. I believe in the notion of overcoming sin because of my love and devotion to God, not just from a sense "avoiding punishment". And that is why Paul includes homosexuality among a list of other blasphemous attributes of society in Romans 1; because it defies God's nature in that he created us male and female to function according to his design for creation and to drift from that is indicative of our fallen nature. Loving God means obeying God.
@chuckster4300 WRONG!!! Paul does NOT include homosexuality in ANYTHING. Earlier, less reliable translations use the word in Corinthians, for instance. Newer ones don't, because the word didn't EXIST in Paul's time.
It's a PROVEN lie to claim that being gay "defies God's nature" it does NOT. It's perfectly natural for some people to be homosexual.
There is no "fallen nature", and you don't want people to follow God, you want them to follow mis-written notions of what PAUL said.
@PrisonerNumber9653 Well, we obviously disagree on our perceptions of scripture and it's authority, but you are factually wrong, or at least putting up a straw man argument to say that Paul was not referring to homosexuality. He did not use the word, but he described it in detail. Romans 1:26 & 27. You are stripping the entirety of the Bible of its context and creating a new Gospel based on your personal bias. The church has always historically affirmed its authenticy and authority.
@chuckster4300 Absolutely WRONG. He did NOT describe it in detail, NONE of the "details" describes homosexuality. People do NOT leave heterosexuality to become homosexual, it's not "against nature", it's not an "error". Paul wouldn't have known homosexuality existed.
I am NOT calling for a new Gospel, and it is based on JESUS CHRIST, not my "personal bias". It's not my "personal bias" that hating people and discrimination is wrong, it's God's.
@PrisonerNumber9653 Romans 1:26-27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Hello?
@chuckster4300 And AGAIN this is NOT about homosexuality. Homosexuality is no more a "lust" than heterosexuality. There's nothing shameful about it. There's nothing unnatural about it. NOBODY "abandons" women to take up with men, they're BORN homosexual. There's nothing 'indecent' about being gay, and it's bigoted garbage to call it "perversion". Bible scholars almost across the board agree Paul is referring to prostition at the temple in Rome.
@PrisonerNumber9653 "Across the board"? Funny, I'm having this same discussion with a pastor friend of mine who is a universalist. He prides himself on his multiple degrees and understanding of ancient society. His rationalization on this verse has nothing to do with prostitution. You're throwing out rationalizations that don't fit the text. If you read it carefully, there's really no other way to read it.
@chuckster4300 Ah, so you found ONE PERSON who disagrees and you say that throws it out?
Paul didn't know what homosexuality was, he COULDN'T have said it was a sin. And if he DID, I'd point out again that Paul is not God. We don't worship at the church of Paul, which is a good thing because Paul was dead wrong on a lot of things...most having to do with sex and sexuality. He had a big problem with them, didn't get women, and is thought by some scholars (not me, neccessarily) to be gay.
@PrisonerNumber9653 I'm just saying that this other guy is an expert, and apparently, you are an expert, and both of you claim that your expert opinions are obviously the correct ones, held by anyone who knows "across the board", and yet your two views couldn't be farther apart in justifying your same conclusions. It goes to show that "expert" is in the eye of the beholder, usually ourselves. BTW, Jesus doesn't shy away from talking about sin and lust, etc. He has high standards in this regard.
@chuckster4300 I'm not saying mine is the correct one, I'm saying that MOST experts take that opinion. I wouldn't pretend to be more of an expert than someone I never met or talked to, God knows I'm as capable of being wrong as anyone.
Jesus has high standards of SIN, as in treating others with love even when it's a sacrifice. MAN has invented this silly idea that human sexuality is "sinful" or that it's a "sin" for a loving, committed gay couple or unmarried couple to have sex.
@chuckster4300 I've read the text, carefully, more times than you could begin to count. Yes, there are problems with the idea of it being prostitution. There are far MORE and BIGGER problems with it being homosexuality, the description is not CLOSE to accurate. If he was talking about homosexuality he obviously had no CLUE how or why it occured or that it was a natural varience in human sexuality, NOT people choosing to do something he personally and the culture found weird.
@chuckster4300 Paul orders women to "submit" to their husbands, a line that sadly a few people still include in marriage vows (I used to work for a church helping with weddings, and the first thing I'd do is look over the vows with couples, occassionally one would come in with the old traditional cookie-cutter vows that included the words and we'd discuss it. I NEVER had a groom who really wanted it in there) and said women couldn't speak in the church.
@PrisonerNumber9653 It only reflects a shallow view of that verse and takes it out of context. Marriage is a beautiful allegory of Christ's relationship with the Church (His bride) When Paul talks about the submission of a wife to her husband, he is pointing to a higher truth of the church in submission to Christ. After all Jesus said. If you love me, obey my commands. Paul also immediately says for the husband to lay down his life for his wife just as Christ loved the church. It's beautiful.
@chuckster4300 There's NOTHING "beautiful" about a marriage where the husband demands his wife "submit". There's been a lot of injustice with scripture misused to defend it, perhaps none as long-lasting as sexism, from this crapola that a man is the "head of the household" to churches which to this very day don't have women in minister or elder or priest positions. This is NOT a command from Jesus, it's more of Paul's weird views about women. Sexism isn't beautiful, equality IS.
@PrisonerNumber9653 I agree that some have used that as an excuse for misogyny, but those are weak men who have shallow views of themselves and of the gospel. Believe me, I would never dream of lording over my wife and she has equal footing with me in every area of our lives. Her submission to me is not based on my desire to be her boss, but in a mutual understanding of our rolls. If I have not lain down my life for her, she has no course to submit.
@chuckster4300 And the BEST way to avoid that is to NOT have in the vows that a woman will "submit" to her husband, that has no more place than Old Testament "laws" that should her husband die she will marry his brother. One person being "head of the household" is NOT "equal footing". Why shouldn't the wife lay her life down for the husband? He submit to HER?
Respond to this video...And if my first priority is to lay my life down for her, love her and honor her, then she is in no danger of abuse from me. Unfortunately, our broken society tends to leap to the conclusion that that verse implies abusiveness when it doesn't in any fashion what so ever.
@chuckster4300 Hogwash, it absolutely implies abuse. A man expecting his wife to "submit", thinking he is the "head of the household" IS abusive. The idea that Sarah Palin thought she needed her husband's PERMISSION to run for president made me ill. This isn't a good rule that a few people have abused, it's a bad idea, and bad description of how marriage should work (from a guy who NEVER married, and had truly awful ideas on women and sex) There are a hundred verses BETTER.
@PrisonerNumber9653 And if my first priority is to lay my life down for her, love her and honor her, then she is in no danger of abuse from me. Unfortunately, our broken society tends to leap to the conclusion that that verse implies abusiveness when it doesn't in any fashion what so ever.
@PrisonerNumber9653 I don't understand how you can make such blatantly false statements and keep a straight face. How could Paul have not know that homosexuality existed? as a student of the scriptures, he would have been very familiar with (among many other things) the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Your making stuff up now. "Hating people and discrimination" is different than holding a conviction that certain behavior is sin as taught in the scriptures.
@chuckster4300 NOBODY knew homosexuality existed then, it was many HUNDREDS of years later before there was knowledge of sexual orientation. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has NOTHING AT ALL to do with homosexuality. There's NOTHING to indicate anyone in the story is homosexuality, and Christ and OT verses confirm the sin of S&G was NOT being gay.
I'm NOT making anything up. You need to get away from whatever fundementalist is filling you with these bigoted falsehoods.
@PrisonerNumber9653 You're doing the same thing with Sodom and Gomorrah that you tried to do with Romans 1; make it not say something that it clearly does. Lot was showing hospitality to two angles when all the men of the city, young and old, came to his house and demanded that Lot throw them out of his house so that they could have sex with them (not knowing that they were angles). Even if you don't believe it literally, it still clearly portrays homosexual orientation. Genesis 19: 1-5
@chuckster4300 Now you're just TRYING to avoid reality. It's downright dumb to claim S&G is about homosexuality, even most of the most bigoted and hateful people using scripture as a weapon of hate acknowledge that is NOT one of the verses one can use. There is NOBODY in the story we know to be gay, it's not even a MINOR part of it, and Jesus says CLEARLY the sin is the refusal to help the strangers, THAT was a great sin in the desert, a traveler with no place to stay could die.
@chuckster4300 Yes, there were soldiers calling to "know" the strangers. It was NOT because they were in love with them, or sexually attracted to them. It was common in that place and time for soldiers to sexually molest captured "enemies" because it made them into women, a far less important part of society, it was the ultimate humilitation. It had NOTHING to do with homosexuality.
And this story is crap. It NEVER HAPPENED. You're not troubled by the notion of God as mass murderer?
@PrisonerNumber9653 I'm way to independent to allow a fundamentalist fill my brain with falsehoods. What I believe in this specific regard may align itself with fundamentalism, but in my mind, it's not fundamentalist, its orthodox and it is you who is in the minority. It may feel like a majority in your circle of influence, but world wide orthodoxy wins the majority vote by a long shot. Not that majority matters.
@chuckster4300 You've let SOMEONE fill it with falsehoods. I hope you're "way independent", we ALL should be, and that you'll take a look at the destruction these lies are causing in the lives of people who've done NOTHING wrong.
It's a lie to claim I'm in the minority. NOBODY believed this malarky of every word of the Bible being literal truth until recent times, and it's still an opinion held by a great MINORITY of Christians. IN THE WORLD. Not my "circle", I've done more research than that.
The people stand with Planned Parenthood and Scarlett Johansson. Trans-vaginal probing republicans, LOL. That will certainly be a winner for them amongst female voters, as it has been in Virginia.
MrHaggis03 1 week ago
Comment removed
Liliumforsth 1 month ago
@MrDoubtfulguest Yeah I know, alot of strange ideas thats for sure.
Well goodnight and good luck to you as well
Liliumforsth 1 month ago
No, I did read the letter. No, it is NOT out of context. Lastly, no I did not read what any "hate" group says. As far as helping the poor, she may very well have. But here is what she thought of them, "Organized charity itself is the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing number os defectives, delinquents and dependents(The Pivot of Civilization)." Anyway, nice talking to you, I wish you well. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
ghhtdesfh 2 months ago
I am all for planned parenthood.. the less destructive niggers in the future, the better. Can't take any chances. I am for a small amount of blacks to have life if they are the better of their race.. in small amounts they are better though and some negros would even agree with this.
Gi0vanniTheGreat 2 months ago
Conservatives...always using the race card.
Beardmania 4 months ago
Maafa 21 YouTube that shit. Nuff said.
TheSoundcradle 4 months ago
Everyone seen the vid where Bill says of vaccines: "The benefits there in terms of reducing sickness, reducing population growth, it really allows the society (in Africa) a chance to take care of itself once you've made that intervention"?
It's right here -
watch?v=_GztDgpDy6k
He also talks about how Dr Andrew Wakefield has been proven as a fraud, but you probably don't know about this:
naturalnews com 031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal html
partsofone 5 months ago
Comment removed
partsofone 5 months ago
LOL this is stupid but made me laugh xD
olg06 5 months ago
You fucking morons! The government money given to pp does NOT fund abortions. That money is used to give women free birth control. If I hadn't gotten it from planned parenthood for 3yrs, I would have had an abortion!
LSKEJ88 6 months ago
Did u know that in order for a young unwed mother to get welfare they had to be sterilized..sad
MrGIMMEMOOR 6 months ago
Big ass racist
MrGIMMEMOOR 6 months ago
Margaret Sanger was not a racist or KKK supporter. Get your facts straight.
TheBass2themax 7 months ago
Well, I've got a mixed response. Scarlett and her generation probably believe they are doing the right thing. When the government tries to shut down PP etc. it usually just provides fuel to the fire of Margaret Sanger's lineage. I wish sometime though instead of making videos about these ignorant young people someone would turn out so flashy video showing how George Bush, Sr. was such a popular proponent of Planned Parenthood that Senator Strom Thurmond used to call him "Rubbers" Bush.
dav8d777 7 months ago
Klanned Parenthood! coming to a minority center near you!
kevinjjfr 7 months ago
you guys read into stuff way to much. They just give out condoms and they clean out your girlfriends uterus when you fail to use said condoms.
riso11234 7 months ago
The greatest beneficiaries of the "Sexual Revolution" were/are promiscuous, irresponsible males.
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
-- Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control . New York: New
York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
"[Slavs, Latin, and Hebrew immigrants are] human weeds ... a
deadweight of human waste ... [Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a] menace to
the race."
-- Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review .
pjb1983 8 months ago
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with
social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most
successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.
We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro
population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if
it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
- Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble
RACIST PIG!!
pjb1983 8 months ago
@solly7 bad news, I'm not only a student of history and quite familiar with Planned Parenthood, but I'm also a student of how the hard right uses this kind of vile lie to smear anyone not in lockstep with their radical agenda. The right hates women controlling their own sexuality, especially black women. This is a truly sinister lie, slandering women who fought and fight for equality for women and African-Americans.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 If you are a student of these things, then in what is your degree? Anyone can claim to be an expert, but usually that means that we start with a presupposition and we find all of the arguments that support it. I am currently reading "Pivot of Civilization" by Margaret Sanger. It's fascinating. She's obviously very intelligent, but I'm not finding anything that doesn't support the claims that she was a racist, a proponent of Negative Eugenics and all thats claimed in this vid.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 The claim that she was a "racist" or supported "eugenics" is vile, racist historical revisionism. The fact that her early work was supported by W.E.B. DuBois and she was later befriended and strongly supported by Martin Luther King ought to blow up the whole "Sanger was a racist" meme.
She DID encourage more focus on African-Americans in birth control, knowing that the poor, regardless of race, had more need, wanting the children to be wanted and well cared for.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble
chuckster4300 8 months ago
So stupid.
chaosvii 9 months ago
@chaosvii
This video is silly. But Planned Parenthood is stupid.
ClockworkOrangeABC 9 months ago
Edgar J Hoover was the 1st director of the FBI. He was also a cross-dresser. So by Pro-life logic (whoever starts an organization means all people who will ever belong to the organization will have the exact same views) it implies that the whole FBI promotes cross-dressing. BRILLIANT!
nerdyexploration 9 months ago
@nerdyexploration
Does the FBI have anything to do with cross-dressing? You're confusing two completely separate things. The point is not that the followers of an organization will have the same preferences as the founder, but will share the same principles upon which the organization was founded. The organization was founded on racism. Now do you get it?
ClockworkOrangeABC 9 months ago
@nerdyexploration - your logic is entirely convoluted.
Hoover cross-dressed in private, and did not make the promotion of cross-dressing his life's work. The FBI was created to stop organized crime, not promote perversion, like ACT UP or GLBT groups.
Sanger's lifelong goal was the eradication of non-whites through her promotion and introduction of birth control into non-white communities. Her ideas on eugenics ere lauded and adopted by the Nazis in the 1930s.
PP was & still is RACIST!
pjb1983 8 months ago
@pjb1983 A vile pack of lies. Hoover didn't promote cross-dressing, he promoted far worse things. He was corrupt and nasty, part of a campaign of lies and personal destruction towards those he viewed as enemies that would have made Nixon blush. His attacks on Martin Luther King, Jr. alone show what a truly rotten person Hoover was.
Homosexuality is NOT a "perversion" and nobody "promotes" it, it would be idiotic. Sexual orientation isn't chosen, "promoting" it would be like promoting tallness.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 - You are either willfully ignorant or sadly delusional concerning the truths of my statement.
"Homosexuality is NOT a "perversion"
Are you SERIOUS?!? Do you know what homosexuals DO to each other?!?
Sodomy, "golden showers," eating fecal matter, "anal fisting" to name a few...THAT'S NOT PERVERSE?!?!?
The result of the "gay" lifestyle is a 20+ year reduction in the life span of homosexual males.
Homosexual behavior is DEVIANT, SICK, UNHEALTHY and DANGEROUS.
pjb1983 6 months ago
@pjb1983 I'm neither delusional nor ignorant. Yes, I'm perfectly aware of "what they do to each other", and it's not "perverted" in the slightest. Your obsessive interest in their PRIVATE sexual life ignores several points, including the FACT that very few gays "eat fecal matter" or "fist", and that just as many straights as gays have, um, lively and creative, let's say, sex lives.
Being gay is not a lifestyle, and this bullshit of "reduced life span" is a flat out lie. more
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
@pjb1983 You have proven that you are, indeed, willfully ignorant. Rather than listening to reliable, credible sources of information--EVERY SINGLE ONE of which has said being gay is perfectly natural and normal--you're listening to hate groups. Their vile lies about how "unhealthy" and "dangerous" homosexuality is are intentional lies. It is, in fact, your hate and homophobia which is unhealthy and dangerous. It destroys lives and kills people. It causes tremendous suffering and ruins families.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
@pjb1983 You've shown yourself to be the one who is willfully ignorant, ignoring proven FACT about homosexuality to instead believe the vulgar lies of hate groups. Not only do most gay people NOT "eat fecal matter" or "fist", there are plenty of straight people who ALSO have a sex life with creativity and apart from what you would think is "normal". It's truly none of your damn business.
It's not "behavior", is not a "lifestyle", does NOT reduce life span. Hate and lies are dangerous and sick.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
@pjb1983 I really would be curious as to where, exactly, you're getting your, ahem, "information". Because I've spent much of my life studying these issues and specifically the hard right hate groups so obsessed with the subject and your lies come straight from their song book, word for word. Where DO you "learn" about this supposed 20 year reduction in lifespan? Focus? AFA?
Like your falsehoods about Sanger, you're choosing to believe people with no credibility, and making a fool of yourself.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 - Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
Why are you so willing to "bend over backwards (or forwards)" to defend homosexual practices?
I think you're either rationalizing your own deviant behaviors or those of a friend or family member...
Sanger was a racist pig and the mother of the eugenics movement in the U.S. Read her "Birth Control Review" article from the 1930s - the Nazis loved 'em!!...she was a sick, hateful pig!
pjb1983 6 months ago
@pjb1983 First off, I'm not gay, and if you think I'll fly into some rage because you called me gay, you're badly mistaken. I'd rather be gay than a bigot any day. I defend equality, I defend justice, and I speak against hate and bigotry. I'm not defending any practices, I'm defending human beings against hate and discrimination and lies.
And their "behavior" is NOT deviant at all.
Sanger wasn't racist AT ALL, not even a little, calling her "mother of eugenics" is a flat out lie.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
@pjb1983 Really are a vile little weasel, aren't you? Instead of ANSWERING THE QUESTION, you try to "attack" me, thinking that implying I'm gay will throw me into a rage. I'm not gay, but I'd rather be gay than a bigot any day. I'm not defending a "practice" I'm defending human beings against hate and lies. Their "behaviors" aren't deviant, yours are.
Sanger was not a racist at all. Not even a little. Calling her "mother of eugenics" is bald-faced lie. I've read her articles, YOU HAVE NOT.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
@pjb1983 I want to know the website where you got your trash, because your ignorance on homosexuality speaks for itself. Your lies about Sanger make it extremely clear that you did NOT actually read her papers, but instead found some website for an anti-choice hate group, and THEY said "this is what Sanger said in this article", when in fact it is NOT what she said at all. She never said anything remotely racist, did NOT promote eugenics, LOATHED Nazis, and supported what was best for families.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
@pjb1983 and by the way, it's not "too much", or "bending over backwards". I'd be just as strong in defending any victim of injustice, whether it's poor people being trampled by the hard right's sick greed, women being denied equality by anti-choice sexists, blacks facing racism, immigrants under attack from hate groups and nationalist bigots, Muslims facing mountains of hate, or just kids who don't have decent schools thanks to GOP cutbacks in the legislature. I'll do so until the day I die.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 - The greatest beneficiaries of the "Sexual Revolution" were/are promiscuous, irresponsible males.
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
-- Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control . New York: New
York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
"[Slavs, Latin, and Hebrew immigrants are] human weeds ... a
deadweight of human waste ... [Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a] menace to
the race."
-- Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review . more
pjb1983 6 months ago
Prisoner - "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with
social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most
successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.
We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro
population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if
it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
- Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble
pjb1983 6 months ago
@pjb1983 Yes, and???
She didn't want the word to get out that they want to "exterminate the Negro population" BECAUSE IT WASN'T TRUE. Even THEN racist scum on the right were perverting what she said and believed to slander Sanger.
You've obviously got the same long collection of "quotes" that hate groups have smeared all over the net. Some, like this, are taken totally out of context and their meaning perverted. Others are flat out lies.
You gotta face facts, Sanger was NOT a racist.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
Do you deny that after hearing Sanger speak at one KKK rally she was invited to speak at many more. Makes you think, huh? Good thing about the internet, the facts our out there for everyone to discover for themselves.
wconquest 4 months ago 2
@wconquest She spoke ANYWHERE she was invited to, and she HARSHLY criticized the KKK and everything they stood for.
The bad thing about the internet is there are a lot of LIES out there, and a lot of people too ignorant to know the difference. Margaret Sanger was NOT a racist in any way, shape, manner or form.
PrisonerNumber9653 3 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 Not a racist in any way, shape, manner or form, huh? You are dead wrong, my friend. She said plainly that she wanted to "exterminate the negro population.' (letter to Dr.Clarence Gamble dated 12-19-39). Do you have proof that she sharply criticized the KKK? I'd like to read it.
ghhtdesfh 2 months ago
@ghhtdesfh And this remains a vile lie. She did NOT state this. I've read the letter to Dr. Gamble, you obviously have not. You have read hate group literature QUOTING this letter...incorrectly, and out of context. She said she did NOT want that to be their message, she did not ever, EVER, EVER say she wanted to do that.
Sanger spent a great deal of time working to help poor women, in particular African-Americans, and her work was supported by WEB Dubois and Martin Luther King.
PrisonerNumber9653 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrisonerNumber9653
Do you deny that after hearing Sanger speak at one KKK rally she was invited to speak at many more? Makes you think, huh? Good thing about the internet, the facts our out there for everyone to discover for themselves.
wconquest 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pjb1983 Yes, and???
She didn't want the word to get out that they want to "exterminate the Negro population" BECAUSE IT WASN'T TRUE. Even THEN racist scum on the right were perverting what she said and believed to slander Sanger.
You've obviously got the same long collection of "quotes" that hate groups have smeared all over the net. Some, like this, are taken totally out of context and their meaning perverted. Others are flat out lies.
You gotta face facts, Sanger was NOT a racist.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pjb1983 Now, as for the rest of your crapola, it's also just nasty lies. Sanger's goal was NEVER "eradication of non-whites". It was the RIGHTS of ALL women, including African-Americans. For families who could barely afford to feed the children they had, having more was not good news at all. She was not a supporter of eugenics, the claim her ideas were "adopted by the Nazis" is flat out bullshit, a horrible lie.
There is nothing REMOTELY "racist" about Planned Parenthood. Nothing at all.
PrisonerNumber9653 6 months ago
I hadn't heard of planned parenthood until this, now, I'm all for it.
mckaysam1 9 months ago
@mckaysam1
At least you're open with your support of the KKK.
ClockworkOrangeABC 9 months ago
@ClockworkOrangeABC I said I'm all for planned parenthood, not the KKK, please don't put words like that into someone else's mouth.
mckaysam1 9 months ago
@mckaysam1
I sincerely apologize if I put words in your mouth. However, you stated that you never heard of PP until watching this video. And this video clearly explained the roots of PP, so the assumption was that you're a supporter of the KKK.
ClockworkOrangeABC 9 months ago
@ClockworkOrangeABC You are so ignorant. The founder of planned parenthood gave ONE speech to a KKK womens group and afterwards she said that she had to use words only children would understand and that it was the "weirdest" experience she had in lecturing. In any case, even if it were founded by a KKK member (which is wasn't), what difference does that make now in 2011?
mckaysam1 9 months ago
@mckaysam1
Wow! That didn't take long. You went from victim to calling me names. If you really believe that the "founder" just gave one weird speech, then I highly urge you to do some serious research. You called me "ignorant", yet you admitted to never hearing about Planned Parenthood until watching this video. Oh, the sweet irony. LOL!
ClockworkOrangeABC 9 months ago
@ClockworkOrangeABC I wasn't using "ignorant" as a name calling device, I meant it in the way when a person doesn't really know anything about what they are talking about, uninformed rather than stupid. And actually, after I saw this video, I have done some research, and all I've found about the KKK is sensationalist writers stretching the truth. I'd also like to ask you again, what difference does it make in 2011?
mckaysam1 9 months ago
@mckaysam1 Wait. You claimed to have not known about PP before this, and now you're coming off like an expert, lecturing on what Margaret Sanger did at KKK meetings. So either you knew stuff before and are lying, or you've had 15 minutes of google search under your belt and your lecturing the "ignorant". Your either a liar or arrogant, or both.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 Nah I did a good few hours reading up on the subject. I'm not a liar, or arrogant, I just know how to read.
mckaysam1 8 months ago
@mckaysam1 Ha, well done. Through this debate, I am struck with the power of presupposition. We come at it with our convictions already in place and so our research seems to always lead us to find information that supports our views. I can read too and have read a lot, even one of Margaret Sanger's own books and still I am compelled to the same view I had before I started, albeit with more and better information.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
I would love to see Scarlett Johanson sue this bitch for defamation of character.
ajax515 9 months ago
@ajax515 1. Scarlett decided to throw her hat in the ring on a controversial debate, and therefore leaves herself open for criticism. 2. Nobody put words in her mouth. Everything she says in the video is her own words (or those from the script she chose to read). 3. Maybe Conan Obrien or every other late night comedian should be sued for defamation of character for they myriad of defaming parodies they've made of public figures.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 That's BULL. If there was legit criticism, fine, saying she's in the KKK for supporting family planning is a sick slanderous LIE. She did NOT "open herself up" to THAT.
It's not putting words in her mouth to put her in a KLAN ROBE?? Are you KIDDING???
This isn't a light hearted parody, it's a despicable slur, based in the most vicious of LIES. Planned Parenthood isn't racist, and Margaret Sanger was not racist.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 1.You're an idiot.2. The way that people decided to interpret her opinion is their own. There is nothing in this video that gives people the right to slander her in this way.3. Conan Obrien would have better sense than to do such a piece on something that requires free choice. The fact is that you are an idiot and there is a line that has been crossed here. Which is exactly why the chicken shit that made this video put the disclaimer at the end. Please go fuck yourself.
ajax515 8 months ago
Man, I wanna rape the shit outta the chick at the beginning. What a babe.
JohnnyJohnnyJohnny 9 months ago
@JohnnyJohnnyJohnny I wonder if she would get an abortion if you got her pregnant...?
FluffyFeralMarmot 9 months ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot
That's an easy answer. ;)
ClockworkOrangeABC 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OMFG!!!! You guys did such amazing special effects! You're soo freaking talented! Just do us all a favor and don't reproduce - the world can't handle such genius.....
Freaking morons.
bk2kcom 9 months ago
Comment removed
bk2kcom 9 months ago
This is awesome. You guys have just shot your cause in the foot with this vid. This is a great boost for Planned Parenthood.
CrispyPork 9 months ago 5
I look forward to Ms. Johansen taking every dime Troy Newman and "Operation Rescue" have swindled from naive dupes across the country.
doctorpsycho1960 9 months ago
Aren't the people who are against Planned Parenthood the same idiots who support the NRA, death penalty, and the drug war that has failed miserably. Same people who don't want to offer support to the Kansas tornado victims, but at the same time give away billions to banks & oil companies.
ScytheNoire 9 months ago 7
@ScytheNoire
Not necessarily. I'm against abortion (Planned Parenthood) and am against the NRA, death penalty, etc. But I fail to see your point, if you were making one?
FYI, generalizations are fallacious.
ClockworkOrangeABC 9 months ago
Clearly you are no different from those PETA groups.
yahooman2009 9 months ago
This is literally the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Bravo!
Idiot.
FuriosoDrummer 9 months ago 2
...and the Church used to kill innocent people in the Inquisition, yet I don't see many of these Pro-Lifers saying that it should be destroyed because it may have taken some terrible and stupid stances in the past.
seiferganon 9 months ago 4
I love the smug little holier-than-thou smirk on her face before playing the commercial, which just screams, "Aren't I just a clever self-righteous little whack-job?"
TlalocW 9 months ago 3
Comment removed
alwaysyoung90 9 months ago
Wait... what the fuck?
BonBon3589 9 months ago
AND BTW I hope she sues your ass for libel. AND she will win.
SymbolicFlame 9 months ago 4
"This video is political satire and we do not believe that Scarlett Johansson is a KKK supporter or member." BULLSHIT. It is not political satire, it is a lame attempt by overzealous lame jackasses to make themselves feel good in their own little private hell.
SymbolicFlame 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the bullshit at the end about not believing that Johanssen is a KKK member or supporter. Because, yeah, superimposing a KKK robe onto Scarlett Johanssen's body shouldn't be misconstrued in any way. I mean, just because they are explicitly depicting Scarlett Johanssen as a robe-wearing member of the KKK doesn't mean that they want to insinuate that Scarlett Johanssen is a robe-wearing member of the KKK. K?
FlowersInHisHair 9 months ago
Comment removed
FlowersInHisHair 9 months ago
Dont tell people that George Washington was a slaveowner (along with most of the
Founding Fathers ) -- they might think HE should live in infamy, too, and want his
name taken off the schools, Washington State, the capitol, and the dollar bill!
Hexl702 9 months ago 2
Klanned Barrenhood is more appropriate.
KingdomtHarmonic 9 months ago
maybe the KKK do support planned parenthood, however theyre also against gay marriage and Im guessing you're not going to support that just because Klan doesnt?
MamaMario13 9 months ago
Wow. To the ones that produced this dumb shite vid, you need to do humanity a favor and abort yourselves.
Bjorkee101 9 months ago 4
"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)
DefundAbortionGuy 9 months ago
Doesn't it undercut your argument to have a Christian logo on the klan robe?
DystopianFuture2day 9 months ago 4
@DystopianFuture2day ""Doesnt it undercut your argument to have a christian logo?"
LOL she looks more like a bishop than a Klansman!
Hexl702 9 months ago
Sanger - "Eugenists demonstrate that two-thirds of our manhood of military age are physically too unfit to shoulder a rifle; that the feeble-minded, the syphilitic, the irresponsible and the defective breed unhindered; ...that the vicious circle of mental and physical defect, delinquency and beggary is encouraged, by the unseeing and unthinking sentimentality of our age, to populate asylum, hospital and prison. ... Eugenist see and points out with a courage entirely admirable"
Leefstrong 9 months ago
@Leefstrong idiot. Sanger was speaking AGAINST eugenics. Either you don't know this and are stupid, or know it and are a right-wing liar.
provis99 9 months ago
"We should not minimize the great outstanding service of Eugenics for critical and diagnostic investigations. It demonstrates...that uncontrolled fertility is universally correlated with disease, poverty, overcrowding and the transmission of hereditable traits" (Sanger - Civilization, p. 174).
Leefstrong 9 months ago
It's far past time to flush this good nation of these Christian Tali-born-again anti-American assholes like "Operation Rescue". They are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of this nation and it's Constitution.
Their ranks are filled with convicted domestic terrorists like bomber Cheryl Sullenger, co-conspirator Troy Newman and assassin Scott Roeder.
bperci 9 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a documentary out with a lot of information on this. You can view a trailer.
maafa21.com
1996dvm 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a documentary out with a lot of information on this. You can view a trailer.
maafa21.com
1996dvm 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no such thing as pro-life. There is only pro-choice and anti-choice.
mon666ster 9 months ago
Comment removed
mon666ster 9 months ago
What's that? America's founders were slave owners and misogynists? Does that mean that I"M ALSO a slave owner and a misogynist because I'm American???
yankeejk2 9 months ago 6
This is ridiculous. I almost didn't even dignify this with a response, but I had to. Ridiculous.
crane383019 9 months ago
Margaret Sanger's views on race and eugenics have been horribly skewed by those most determined to discredit here. Frequently her quotes are taken out of context, so that it seems she was saying something racist when in fact it was the opposite.
Unfortunately, eugenics was regarded as a progressive and scientific solution to societal problems - by many prominent americans. There was a lively debate surrounding it, and it has a very complicated and diverse theoretical history. Educate yourselves
emphster 9 months ago
As a pro-life advocate, I hate this video. You've distracted from the REAL issue we should be talking. Not that Planned Parenthood kills black babies, BUT THAT THEY KILL BABIES. That is an uncontested fact. Instead, you've painted a KKK robe on an actress. You didn't just make yourself look stupid and mean, you made all pro-lifers and Christians look stupid and mean. Every pro-choice person that watches this video will be less likely to have a good dialogue with a pro-lifer in the future.
LifeReport 9 months ago
I never saw the Scarlet Johanson video until you made it into a racist and bigoted joke. I am not a fan of abortions, but I believe in women's rights and am ashamed at this outright war on women. Your video is pathetic and polarizing. As a result I will be making a donation to planned parenthood in your name. Thank you. Have a good day.
Rihavens 9 months ago 3
This is idiotic . And SLANDEROUS !
Hemulen40 9 months ago
This isn't satire, this is just stupid.
lucybravener 9 months ago 3
I hope the girl introducing the doctored video in this clip never has to face a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy or even the lesser trauma of an unplanned pregnancy or even an STD scare. It's so sad... to not be able to step out of your own shoes and see what the services of Planned Parenthood mean to those less economically fortunate than yourself.. to not see how LUCKY you are that you've never needed Planned Parenthood. You should be ashamed of yourselves, everyone of you behind "defundpp".
marleysoluna 9 months ago
@marleysoluna I would love planned parenthood if they just didn't do those pesky abortions. That's what this debate is about. Those other service are helpful, but PP doesn't make any money at those, the real money is in the abortion arena.
chuckster4300 9 months ago
@chuckster4300 Abortions are part of comprehensive women's health. They are a God-given, constitutional RIGHT for women, and part of equality for women. Their other services are not "helpful", taking someone's groceries to the car is helpful, these services are LIFE-SAVING. Planned Parenthood doesn't make money on ANYTHING, they are a NON-PROFIT, they don't do abortions to "make money" but to protect women.
And the idea that you not liking abortion makes slander and lies OK is preposterous.
PrisonerNumber9653 9 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 Abortion, in the vast majority of cases, is an elective surgery that is not critical to the physical health of the patient. Surgery of any kind involves risk and should be considered carefully and undertaken with great care. PP is outspoken about their willingness to perform abortions on underage girls without parental consent, going out of their way to hide it from parents. That's just wrong.
chuckster4300 9 months ago
@chuckster4300 Look, what you're missing here is that NOBODY *WANTS* AN ABORTION. NOBODY loves that choice - not the people who perform the abortions, not the women who choose to have one. Unfortunately, it is sometimes the least crappy of several crappy courses of action. And again, I hope you're never, ever in that position. It's easy to talk big about what's right and wrong from the sidelines. When you're actually in the position of being a broke-ass pregnant student, it's not so cut and dry.
marleysoluna 9 months ago
@marleysoluna Thank you for your reply, You sound like a nice person. I do so sincerely understand what you're saying. the whole issue is a heartbreak from every angle. I also agree with almost all of what you're saying. It is indeed a terrible choice to ever make. The only sliver of disagreement is that there is a lot of money in the abortion industry and there are those who are making it. Please don't be fooled into believing that PP is not profiting heavily from abortions as are others.
chuckster4300 9 months ago
@marleysoluna So as in any industry, there are those who are corrupt and greedy. Abortion is no exception. To follow the money trail, you first need to take an honest look at who spends the most money marketing and PP will come out on top of that list every time. It doesn't mean that every PP worker is motivated that way, but just like any business, those at the top reap the rewards.
chuckster4300 9 months ago
@marleysoluna As far as my own experience with Abortion. It has touched my family and its effects are profound. As far as it being a "crappy option" I think you're understating it. It is a devastating option. Like I've said before, We have gotten the cart before the horse in this issue and that abortion is even an option at all is grievous. At what point in history did the ending of a human life become such a readily available and justifiable means to avoid hardship.
chuckster4300 9 months ago
@marleysoluna As a society we tried for a while to define the fetus as not human, but science has taken that argument away. And for those of us who still respect the scriptures, we must believe that all life is sacred and that even in the womb, we are fearfully and wonderfully made, known and loved by God who has already set a course for our lives. Perhaps the problem with those who are in the position to have to choose an abortion are there because they have drifted from God in the first place.
chuckster4300 9 months ago
@chuckster4300 I think it's a mistake to bring your religious views into the debate; if you want to win hearts and minds to change the legal atmosphere, you're better off not alienating the non-religious. That said, I would like to know your source for the statistics backing up the idea that PP is profiting from abortions? I'd be interested in reading that info, if it's true. It seems unlikely to me, though - if abortions are so lucrative, then why don't ALL PP offices perform abortions?
marleysoluna 9 months ago
@marleysoluna Sure, if you google "abortion industry revenue" you will find a myriad of articles and studies on the topic. I don't think this forum lets me post a link other wise I'd give you a couple.
chuckster4300 9 months ago
@marleysoluna Regarding my religious beliefs on the subject, I fully know that people disagree on this, and that some will default to "alienated by it." It can't be ignored in this debate because it is the basis for most of those who are pro life. In order to convince a pro life person that they are wrong, you will first have to convince them that their morality based on their faith is wrong. Short of that you won't be able to quiet them. Shouldn't "why we believe" be part of the discussion?
chuckster4300 9 months ago
@marleysoluna Many feel that the goal of talking religion in the debate is to introduce guilt, but thats not it. It is very simply the notion that there is a morality that comes from a place that has a higher perspective than our human experience. If you remove this kind of perspective, then it becomes a free for all of humanist opinions and then who can say who's opinion counts more? I'd rather convince a person that God loves them, than that abortion is wrong.
chuckster4300 9 months ago
@chuckster4300 It's wrong to pretend that those who don't believe in God have no morals, most of the truly immoral ideas in our society today came from people carrying a Bible and proclaiming God's backing, including those who think it's "Christian" to oppose women's rights, those claiming homophobia is "Godly", and other absurd falsehoods.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 I never said that they don't have morals. What I'm implying is that without a singular point of morality, that the plumb line will constantly move with the ebb and flow of society and the majority will determine the morality. This is dangerous because the majority can be manipulated and we end up with things like gladiators and concentration camps.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 Or the Crusades, Columbus' gang committing mass genocide in the name of making Christians out of the "savages" of the "New World", when not robbing them blind.
We're into dangerous territory to pretend religious people are any more "moral" than non-religious. I'm a Christian and it's the baseline for what I'd call my "morals," but I see so very many Christians who don't have any of them, who think supporting capitalist greed is "Christian" or discrimination, or all sorts of bad..
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 sure, many mistakes and bad things have been done in the name of religion. It usually involves killing innocents which is what we're talking about in the abortion debate, however you seem to have flipped to the other side on this issue. And don't forget that in the Crusades, Islam was not innocent. They were in the midst of a conquest. Europe was justified in defending against it. It sure got twisted though when the Church got involved and declared it a holy war.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 No, we're talking in the abortion debate about whether a WOMAN decides what happens with her body, or the GOVERNMENT decides.
I didn't say Islam was "innocent" but if you're trying to defend the crusades, you're out to lunch on that one.
And since you bring up Islam, the sick Islamaphobia and hate going on in this nation now is another good example, as are those who try to defend our war-making because we're "A Christian Nation" (which we are NOT)
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 I don't oppose women's rights (plural). I am opposed to this one perceived right that we created in 1973 which is for people to kill other innocent people for their own convenience. Otherwise I fully support women's rights. And I see my anti abortion stance as a kindness to women knowing that having an abortion is a sad mistake that many women are deceived into making.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 As for "homophobia" that is an entirely different topic. I am not homophobic just because I think that homosexuality is a sin. To imply that I am is a simplistic "straw man" argument that doesn't appreciate the complex nature of the issue.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 Well, yeah, you are. It IS homophobic to think a trait that is not chosen, cannot be changed, and which harms NOBODY is a "sin". It's not only a hateful lie, but it's blasphemous to use God as a weapon of hate. God created those gay people, if it's a "sin", GOD Is the sinner.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 You keep using the word "blasphemous" which is a Biblical word. And yet I'm quite sure that you don't share a Biblical world view. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems disingenuous to to do so. I do not "use" God. And by way of refuting your argument. If what you say is true, then I should hate everyone who has told a lie, or who has dishonored their parents. Surely I'd have to even hate myself at that point. Pointing to a sin and encouraging others to avoid it is not hatred.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 I admit that there are "hateful" groups out there like the Westboro Baptist group, but they don't represent my views at all. When ever it does turn to hate, then it is a distortion. In the end, God and only God will judge each person as an individual, not as groups. This is something that no one can avoid and it takes a lot of pressure off of us since we don't have to be the judge.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 You're making a theological statement when you say that God created gay people. When it comes to religion, we often sentimentalize our feelings about God and tend to recreate Him in our own image. I would always caution against this because, as in morals, the plumb line will always move based on our own opinions rather than on a central tenant like the Bible. You would have a difficult time making that argument from scriptures, though it fits well with pop psychology.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 Fine, God or nature or whoever created us all created gay people.
Actually it's a load of crap to call "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" pop psychology, and it's dead wrong to claim ANY backing for bigotry and homophobia in scripture. People perverting a few obscure verses and IGNORING Christ's basic law for mankind isn't what Christianity's about.
Who do YOU think created us all?
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 Christ made us all. He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. You can't undo verses you don't like. A sinful and broken society created gay people. But there is forgiveness, reconciliation, healing, and restorative work done at the cross. When we redefine sin as not sin, we negate the purpose of the Cross and Christ's sacrifice for us. Its all good news to those who choose to believe it, but it becomes a stench to those who reject it.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 Hogwash. Christ did NOT "fulfill" the nonsense "laws" of the Old Testament, He said so himself. The Priest and Levite who ignored the man the Samaritan saved were following the same pack of nonsense "laws" people use to bash gays (falsely, the laws NEVER mention homosexuality)
Being gay is NOT a sin, never has been
And Christ's sacrifice is good news for ALL people, not just those who believe it.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 What is Christ's basic law for mankind? Is it the golden rule, "do unto others"? If that is what you're referring to then no, that is not what Christianity is all about. Christianity is all about reconciling a sinful and fallen world to its creator. This is done through Christ as the propitiation for our sins, not through following a law. Christ himself is our redeemer, not our adherence to the rules. In becoming redeemed, our sin becomes less to us. This is good news.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 Yes, it IS what I'm referring to, and yes it IS what Christianity is all about. Calling it a "sinful and fallen world" is nonsense, yes, Christ's forgiveness IS what saves us, but Christ said ONE LAW I GIVE YOU.
Not to be saved, but to follow Jesus Christ, that IS the rule. I don't believe in hell, following the rule to avoid "Punishment" isn't the point. Doing it because it's what God WANTS and we love God is.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 Well, then we agree on something. I believe in the notion of overcoming sin because of my love and devotion to God, not just from a sense "avoiding punishment". And that is why Paul includes homosexuality among a list of other blasphemous attributes of society in Romans 1; because it defies God's nature in that he created us male and female to function according to his design for creation and to drift from that is indicative of our fallen nature. Loving God means obeying God.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 WRONG!!! Paul does NOT include homosexuality in ANYTHING. Earlier, less reliable translations use the word in Corinthians, for instance. Newer ones don't, because the word didn't EXIST in Paul's time.
It's a PROVEN lie to claim that being gay "defies God's nature" it does NOT. It's perfectly natural for some people to be homosexual.
There is no "fallen nature", and you don't want people to follow God, you want them to follow mis-written notions of what PAUL said.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 Well, we obviously disagree on our perceptions of scripture and it's authority, but you are factually wrong, or at least putting up a straw man argument to say that Paul was not referring to homosexuality. He did not use the word, but he described it in detail. Romans 1:26 & 27. You are stripping the entirety of the Bible of its context and creating a new Gospel based on your personal bias. The church has always historically affirmed its authenticy and authority.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 Absolutely WRONG. He did NOT describe it in detail, NONE of the "details" describes homosexuality. People do NOT leave heterosexuality to become homosexual, it's not "against nature", it's not an "error". Paul wouldn't have known homosexuality existed.
I am NOT calling for a new Gospel, and it is based on JESUS CHRIST, not my "personal bias". It's not my "personal bias" that hating people and discrimination is wrong, it's God's.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 Romans 1:26-27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Hello?
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 And AGAIN this is NOT about homosexuality. Homosexuality is no more a "lust" than heterosexuality. There's nothing shameful about it. There's nothing unnatural about it. NOBODY "abandons" women to take up with men, they're BORN homosexual. There's nothing 'indecent' about being gay, and it's bigoted garbage to call it "perversion". Bible scholars almost across the board agree Paul is referring to prostition at the temple in Rome.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 "Across the board"? Funny, I'm having this same discussion with a pastor friend of mine who is a universalist. He prides himself on his multiple degrees and understanding of ancient society. His rationalization on this verse has nothing to do with prostitution. You're throwing out rationalizations that don't fit the text. If you read it carefully, there's really no other way to read it.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 Ah, so you found ONE PERSON who disagrees and you say that throws it out?
Paul didn't know what homosexuality was, he COULDN'T have said it was a sin. And if he DID, I'd point out again that Paul is not God. We don't worship at the church of Paul, which is a good thing because Paul was dead wrong on a lot of things...most having to do with sex and sexuality. He had a big problem with them, didn't get women, and is thought by some scholars (not me, neccessarily) to be gay.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 I'm just saying that this other guy is an expert, and apparently, you are an expert, and both of you claim that your expert opinions are obviously the correct ones, held by anyone who knows "across the board", and yet your two views couldn't be farther apart in justifying your same conclusions. It goes to show that "expert" is in the eye of the beholder, usually ourselves. BTW, Jesus doesn't shy away from talking about sin and lust, etc. He has high standards in this regard.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 I'm not saying mine is the correct one, I'm saying that MOST experts take that opinion. I wouldn't pretend to be more of an expert than someone I never met or talked to, God knows I'm as capable of being wrong as anyone.
Jesus has high standards of SIN, as in treating others with love even when it's a sacrifice. MAN has invented this silly idea that human sexuality is "sinful" or that it's a "sin" for a loving, committed gay couple or unmarried couple to have sex.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 I've read the text, carefully, more times than you could begin to count. Yes, there are problems with the idea of it being prostitution. There are far MORE and BIGGER problems with it being homosexuality, the description is not CLOSE to accurate. If he was talking about homosexuality he obviously had no CLUE how or why it occured or that it was a natural varience in human sexuality, NOT people choosing to do something he personally and the culture found weird.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 Paul orders women to "submit" to their husbands, a line that sadly a few people still include in marriage vows (I used to work for a church helping with weddings, and the first thing I'd do is look over the vows with couples, occassionally one would come in with the old traditional cookie-cutter vows that included the words and we'd discuss it. I NEVER had a groom who really wanted it in there) and said women couldn't speak in the church.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 It only reflects a shallow view of that verse and takes it out of context. Marriage is a beautiful allegory of Christ's relationship with the Church (His bride) When Paul talks about the submission of a wife to her husband, he is pointing to a higher truth of the church in submission to Christ. After all Jesus said. If you love me, obey my commands. Paul also immediately says for the husband to lay down his life for his wife just as Christ loved the church. It's beautiful.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 There's NOTHING "beautiful" about a marriage where the husband demands his wife "submit". There's been a lot of injustice with scripture misused to defend it, perhaps none as long-lasting as sexism, from this crapola that a man is the "head of the household" to churches which to this very day don't have women in minister or elder or priest positions. This is NOT a command from Jesus, it's more of Paul's weird views about women. Sexism isn't beautiful, equality IS.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 I agree that some have used that as an excuse for misogyny, but those are weak men who have shallow views of themselves and of the gospel. Believe me, I would never dream of lording over my wife and she has equal footing with me in every area of our lives. Her submission to me is not based on my desire to be her boss, but in a mutual understanding of our rolls. If I have not lain down my life for her, she has no course to submit.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 And the BEST way to avoid that is to NOT have in the vows that a woman will "submit" to her husband, that has no more place than Old Testament "laws" that should her husband die she will marry his brother. One person being "head of the household" is NOT "equal footing". Why shouldn't the wife lay her life down for the husband? He submit to HER?
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
Respond to this video...And if my first priority is to lay my life down for her, love her and honor her, then she is in no danger of abuse from me. Unfortunately, our broken society tends to leap to the conclusion that that verse implies abusiveness when it doesn't in any fashion what so ever.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 Hogwash, it absolutely implies abuse. A man expecting his wife to "submit", thinking he is the "head of the household" IS abusive. The idea that Sarah Palin thought she needed her husband's PERMISSION to run for president made me ill. This isn't a good rule that a few people have abused, it's a bad idea, and bad description of how marriage should work (from a guy who NEVER married, and had truly awful ideas on women and sex) There are a hundred verses BETTER.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 And if my first priority is to lay my life down for her, love her and honor her, then she is in no danger of abuse from me. Unfortunately, our broken society tends to leap to the conclusion that that verse implies abusiveness when it doesn't in any fashion what so ever.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 I don't understand how you can make such blatantly false statements and keep a straight face. How could Paul have not know that homosexuality existed? as a student of the scriptures, he would have been very familiar with (among many other things) the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Your making stuff up now. "Hating people and discrimination" is different than holding a conviction that certain behavior is sin as taught in the scriptures.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 NOBODY knew homosexuality existed then, it was many HUNDREDS of years later before there was knowledge of sexual orientation. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has NOTHING AT ALL to do with homosexuality. There's NOTHING to indicate anyone in the story is homosexuality, and Christ and OT verses confirm the sin of S&G was NOT being gay.
I'm NOT making anything up. You need to get away from whatever fundementalist is filling you with these bigoted falsehoods.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 You're doing the same thing with Sodom and Gomorrah that you tried to do with Romans 1; make it not say something that it clearly does. Lot was showing hospitality to two angles when all the men of the city, young and old, came to his house and demanded that Lot throw them out of his house so that they could have sex with them (not knowing that they were angles). Even if you don't believe it literally, it still clearly portrays homosexual orientation. Genesis 19: 1-5
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 Now you're just TRYING to avoid reality. It's downright dumb to claim S&G is about homosexuality, even most of the most bigoted and hateful people using scripture as a weapon of hate acknowledge that is NOT one of the verses one can use. There is NOBODY in the story we know to be gay, it's not even a MINOR part of it, and Jesus says CLEARLY the sin is the refusal to help the strangers, THAT was a great sin in the desert, a traveler with no place to stay could die.
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 Yes, there were soldiers calling to "know" the strangers. It was NOT because they were in love with them, or sexually attracted to them. It was common in that place and time for soldiers to sexually molest captured "enemies" because it made them into women, a far less important part of society, it was the ultimate humilitation. It had NOTHING to do with homosexuality.
And this story is crap. It NEVER HAPPENED. You're not troubled by the notion of God as mass murderer?
PrisonerNumber9653 8 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 I'm way to independent to allow a fundamentalist fill my brain with falsehoods. What I believe in this specific regard may align itself with fundamentalism, but in my mind, it's not fundamentalist, its orthodox and it is you who is in the minority. It may feel like a majority in your circle of influence, but world wide orthodoxy wins the majority vote by a long shot. Not that majority matters.
chuckster4300 8 months ago
@chuckster4300 You've let SOMEONE fill it with falsehoods. I hope you're "way independent", we ALL should be, and that you'll take a look at the destruction these lies are causing in the lives of people who've done NOTHING wrong.
It's a lie to claim I'm in the minority. NOBODY believed this malarky of every word of the Bible being literal truth until recent times, and it's still an opinion held by a great MINORITY of Christians. IN THE WORLD. Not my "circle", I've done more research than that.