Will be about gay homos and the ‘phobes that hate them! That’s right. Homophobia and the anti-gay Christian right movement might be the topic of his next documentary!
I cannot wait!
I think it’s a very ripe subject for someone like me to make a movie about. Simply because we are not there yet and it remains one of the last open wounds on our soul that we are not willing to fix yet,” Moore told The Advocate. “There is nowhere in the four Gospels where Jesus uses the word homosexual.’ The right wing has appropriated this guy, and they have used him to attack gays and lesbians, when he never said a single word against people who are homosexual. Anyone who professes to be a Christian and does that is certainly not following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
/moorgasm!
Someone who will always remind me of comic book guy will never be taken seriously…by me.
#1 | Comment by UnshadedMonk — July 12, 2007 @ 1:07 am
by anyone…
#2 | Comment by Coolstream — July 12, 2007 @ 2:30 am
What a pussy– he definitely doesn’t have the balls to criticize the people who STONE homosexuals to DEATH though. Christians don’t kill you normally for disagreeing– get some nuts and take on ‘honor killings’ and such if you’re so cutting edge.
#3 | Comment by Kewtr — July 12, 2007 @ 3:44 am
Apparently it’s cool now to bash Michael Moore.
…I can see why people dislike/hate him, but he’s not nearly as bad as Ann Coulter
#4 | Comment by MyDogFap — July 12, 2007 @ 5:08 am
There’s a lot more to the Bible than the 4 gospels. And these are verses that don’t need to use the word homosexual to get the point across.
“And they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.’ But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, ‘Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'”
Gen 19:5-8
“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.”
Lev 20:13
However, these verses are no doctrine of hate against homosexuals. And any Christian who treats a homosexual as a lesser person should remember that according to the Bible they are just as much a sinner as the homosexual they are mistreating.
#5 | Comment by Kito — July 12, 2007 @ 5:30 am
#4 – yes, Coulter is a grade-A beeotch, but at least she doesn’t make movies laden with subterfuge to push her brand of fringe politics and have the nerve to call them documentaries.
hopefully, there’s a special level of hell for both of them.
#6 | Comment by AngelBaby — July 12, 2007 @ 8:01 am
#5, don’t come discussing Leviticus, that’s gotta be the most fucked up book of the entire Bible. If we’re going to follow Leviticus we have to stop shaving our beards (19:27), you shouldn’t get tattoos (19:28), we should kill people who curse their parents (20:8) and kill people who perform bestiality (20:15), to mention a few things, I could go on (and on, and on). I don’t really understand why so many christians pick only one part and discard the rest. I mean, either you believe in it whole heartedly and believe everything or you don’t, the middle ground where you pick and choose what to believe from a religious book makes you more of a hypocrite than a believer. “Yeah, I’ll believe this part because it backs up my arguments, but I don’t believe this because I really want an ass antler tattoo!” Meh.
Further, it depends on what christian denomination you belong to whether the evidence against homosexuality exists in the Bible or not. In the new testament, which most of USA follows since most are protestants, there aren’t much in the way of combating homosexuality (not that it needs combating) with the help of scripture. However, if you’re a catolic however the old testament (particularly Leviticus), which they follow definitely more to the letter than most protestants, has some mentions about homosexualty (you should not lie with men like with women, or somesuch). Though, if you follow Leviticus you should (as mentioned) stop shaving your beard as well, among other things. Though, I’ve yet to see any catholic follow Leviticus to the letter, so the question is why they should follow this small bit but not the rest?
I forgot what those were called now again…oh yeah, hypocrites!
#7 | Comment by BongoClown — July 12, 2007 @ 8:55 am
If homosexuality is a sin, it’s a sin in the same way divorce is a sin, which is to say, not specifically listed as one, but a sin by implication. Yet Christians don’t seem to treat divorce with the same animosity–and there is general agreement that we need a legal mechanism to recognize it.
#8 | Comment by The Good Reverend — July 12, 2007 @ 9:40 am
#6 – No, she writes books instead, and calls them nonfiction. It’s totally different.
#9 | Comment by seraphonica — July 12, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
#7
“If we’re going to follow Leviticus we have to stop shaving our beards (19:27),”
That’s a lame point
“you shouldn’t get tattoos (19:28),”
Well… you shouldn’t. People who get tattoos are pathetic needy people who are screaming for attention. The more tats they have, the more pathetic and needy they are… You people may disagree… but for those of you with tats… deep inside, you know I’m right
“we should kill people who curse their parents (20:8)”
Fine with me… but we couldn’t do that because then we’d be killing sooooooo many black people that it would apear to be racially motivated.
and kill people who perform bestiality (20:15)
We absolutely 100% should kill people who perform beastiality.
The fact is, I don’t care if a dude wants to fuck another dude… and I don’t care if a chick wants to much some rug… The problem is when they want to shove it in everyone’s face. For example… I like big breasts and little asses… but you wouldn’t know it if you saw me in public because I’m not going out of my way to act like a guy that likes big breasts and little asses. A lot of these fags want to shove it in your face (no pun intended) Be who you want to be… just don’t be so combative about it… and if youre gay, stop acting like a stereotype. That hurts your cause.
#10 | Comment by StrongBad — July 12, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Still demanding the extensive SacrJo topic!
#11 | Comment by Tim — July 12, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
“That’s a lame point”
And your rebuttal isn’t? But I guess it’s easier to dismiss an argument than actually meeting it with rational and logical arguments, no?
“People who get tattoos are pathetic needy people who are screaming for attention. ”
And people who come to conclusions like the one above doesn’t know the first thing about humans, tattooed or not. However, they do know a thing or two about making baseless generalizations without any tie-in to the real world. Good going there, why don’t you make the generalization that all men with nipple piercings are homosexuals as well, that should be a bit further down the same line of reasoning as you exhibit.
“we’d be killing sooooooo many black people”
Because white, asian or otherwise colored people has never spoken a single ill word about their parents, either in public or in private. I challenge you to find anyone who’s never spoken badly about their parents, even if it was in a fit of anger and spite.
“The problem is when they want to shove it in everyone’s face.”
If a guy and a girl finds it fit to shove their attraction to eachother in my face in various ways I see no issues with two people of the same gender doing the same. Either you attempt to ban public signs of affection regardless gender or you’re making discriminatory laws. Being able to choose your sexuality and live your life as such is a basic human right, regardless if you’re homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual…or even asexual.
Perhaps some flamboyant gays should tone it down, I do agree that it somewhat hurts their cause as a whole. However, stereotyping homosexuals despite you showing that you realize that you are stereotyping doesn’t do your cause any good either. It just shows that the floatation device that your arguments are bobbing around on sprung yet another leak, and that you seem to be unable to perform self-criticism.
#12 | Comment by BongoClown — July 12, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
less punditry
more fapping
#13 | Comment by johnny5 — July 12, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
I’ll bet your nipples are pierced… fag.
#14 | Comment by StrongBad — July 12, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
wait… I get it now… BongoClown is a black fag with pierced nipples.
#15 | Comment by StrongBad — July 12, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Even if that was true I’d rather take that before being a narrowminded, racist bigot such as yourself.
…but hey, it’s good to see that you go directly for the derogatory remarks instead of actually meeting any of my arguments rationally, or even irrationally. You fail at life, kthxbye!
#16 | Comment by BongoClown — July 12, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
“kthxbye”… That proves my point.
The reason I won’t argue with you is simple. People like you get soooo swept up in the communistic propoganda spewed by the liberal media that to accept an alternative point of view is just not a possibility for you. It would be easier for you to tear off a limb than it would be to accept that SOMETIMES you people are wrong.
I have gay friends. I have gay relatives. I know the issue well… and this is what I’m saying to you… The gays act like they are a race of people being persecuted when that is simply not the case. They want special treatment because of their sexual preference. That’s not right. What if I’m a dog fucker… should I and my dog both be covered in my insurance plan? What if I’m a shit eater? Do I get shit eater’s day at the baseball game?
They have a sexual preference… and like it or not… that is NOT the definition of a lifestyle.
Let’s say that someone has sex 3 times a week… and that sex takes 30 minutes. That’s probably an average moderate amount of sex… but let’s double that… sex 6 times a week at an hour per sexual session…
That’s equal to 312 hours of sex a year… Which is equal to 13 days of sex… Now I ask you: Does something someone does 13 days out of 365 days a year dictate a “lifestyle?” I don’t thinks so. Why does what someone does in the bedroom 13 days a year make them suddenly stand differently, talk differently, and generally carry themselves differently?
The problem is that most gay are on the defensive. YOU CAN’T DENY THAT! They know that a lot of people are disgusted by their preference SO THEY DO SHOVE IT IN EVERYONE’S FACES! If you disagree with that you are fucking delusional.
I don’t feel the need to stick my tongue in my wife’s mouth everytime there are small children around, but every time I go with my son to a public place, the fags have to start putting on a fag show. FUCK THAT!!!
You seem to be intelligent enough… so SURELY you can admit that a percentage of fucking fags are SHOVING IT IN PEOPLE’S FACES!!! And if you can’t admit that… I’m done with this.
#17 | Comment by StrongBad — July 12, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
oh… wait… I forgot to be racist… since that is what I apparently am… ummmmmm…. Nigger!
How was that?
#18 | Comment by StrongBad — July 12, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
“”kthxbye”… That proves my point.”
Proves what point, that I’m making a sarcastic remark? Wow, good going there, point proven.
“People like you get soooo swept up in the communistic propoganda…”
And people like you get swept up in the conservative propaganda that anything that differs is liberal, communistic or both. So you’re different than the people you lump me with…how?
“The gays act like they are a race of people being persecuted when that is simply not the case.”
I agree, however the way they’re being persecuted by some people they may as well be a race since the similarities are in places uncanny. They are being persecuted because of their sexual orientation however. How about turning it around, walking a mile in their shoes, imagine if heterosexuals would be persecuted in the same way, how would that make you react?
“What if I’m a dog fucker… should I and my dog both be covered in my insurance plan? What if I’m a shit eater? Do I get shit eater’s day at the baseball game?”
Putting homosexuality in the same box as bestiality shows just how close minded you are, despite having homosexual friends. If we’re talking about the homosexual sex-act (which is ONE part of homosexuality, there’s much more to both homo- and heterosexuality than just the sex) there’s a world of difference between two consenting adults having sex (regardless of sex) and a person having sex with a dog, since consent is beyond fuzzy in such a situation.
Should you get a shit eater’s day at the baseball game? Sure, if the team or owners want it, but that’s beside the point. The point is that you shouldn’t be discriminated on just because you get sexually aroused by eating feces. However, as mentioned, there’s quite some difference. Bestiality and coprophagia are fetishes, homosexuality is not. Homosexuality, just like heterosexuality, is much more than just sexual preference, it entails things like what gender you’re comfortable living it, fall in love with (love is also much more than just sex, I hope you realize that), and so forth. If, as you say, homosexuality isn’t defining of a lifestyle then heterosexuality isn’t either. So why should we then discriminate homosexuals if they’re equal to heterosexuals?
You argue that homosexuals are defensive but shove it in people’s faces? That’s a bit of an oxymoron, the way you argue it sounds like you mean that they’re on the offensive. I don’t have a problem with that, I support equal rights, whether it’s between men and women or between homosexuals and heterosexuals. If I was in a minority which has faced much oppression over the years you could bet your ass I would be on the offensive too to fight for my rights and to change laws and rules that discriminate me.
“I don’t feel the need to stick my tongue in my wife’s mouth…”
I can’t quite agree with there being homosexuals everywhere making out (though I don’t know where you socialize I must admit, perhaps stop going to gay clubs? :P), however there are by far more heterosexual couples trying to eat each other’s faces than there are homosexuals where I usually go and I live in a place where there are a fair amount of homosexuals (student towns tend to have a percent above the average).
“so SURELY you can admit that a percentage”
Oh definitely, I admit that there are homosexuals who are flamboyantly gay and are definitely deriving some sort of perverted pleasure from agitating people, especially homophobes, because of the way they act and what they stand for. There’s no denying that. However, I think the important question to ask then is if they’re doing it only because they’re homosexual or if they’re doing it because of the kind of person they are? There are heterosexual jackasses who act similarly with other things, such as, but not limited to, hunting, motorsports, nazism, political views, wrestling (and other “manly” sports) and so on. It’s by far nothing unique about homosexuals, and I think you can see that as well.
#19 | Comment by BongoClown — July 12, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
You have NOT changed my mind about any of this, but I know that I’m not gonna beat you.
Bottom line. There are “gays” and there are “fucking faggots.” The “fucking faggots” are ruining it for everybody.
Same with the blacks (since I’m a racist) There are “black” and there are “niggers” and the “niggers” are ruining it for everyone.
The same can be applied to every “group.” on the planet, but the difference is, YOU CAN’T SAY ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT A PROTECTED MINORITY IN THIS COUNTRY!
That is what I have a problem with. All these groups want equal treatment, but if blacks can say whatever they want and whites get fired for saying “nappy headed hos,” then there is something decidedly UN-equal about that… same with the gays… Rosie O’Donnel can say that shit about her coworkers on “the view” referring to them as “heterosexuals” as if that is a bad thing… but Isaih (sp?) Washington gets fired for saying “I did NOT call TR a faggot.”
EQUAL IS EQUAL… but they don’t want equal… they want special… say what you want about white people… say what you want about straight people… say what you want about Christians… but if you say one bad thing about Blacks, Gays, or Jews… YOU ARE LABELED A BIGOT AND YOU LOSE YOUR FUCKING JOB.
IF I CAN’T SLAP MY WIFE’S ASS WITH A DILDO IN A PARADE, THEN THEY SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO EITHER… BUT THEY DO!!!
(
#20 | Comment by StrongBad — July 12, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
it would figure you’re anti-Christian, pro-immorality, but then, you’re a citizen of the people’s republic of california
#21 | Comment by Taco — July 12, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
I can’t believe someone said Ann Coulter is worse than Michael Moore. Does Michael Moore actually breast feed you or something? Are his bullshit “documentaries” not enough? Do you actually have to feed from his lactating teat?
#22 | Comment by Tony — July 12, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
#7 BongoClown: There are many more passages in the Bible that can be interpreted as considering homosexuality a sin. Look not further than the book of Genesis. God commands Adam and Eve to be fruitful and populate the earth. Obviously, only a man and a woman can yield children, so any same-sex relationships are therefore a sin against creation. BUT, this also cover heterosexual sex using contraceptives. So basically fucking your girlfriend whose on the pill is just as bad as Adam and Steve doing the nasty.
Other passages can be considered as well, for instance defining marriage as between a man and a women (Genesis also, in regards to Adam and Eve) and sex before marriage as a sin (don’t know it off the top of my head). Therefore, homosexuals can’t be married, therefore if they do the hokey-pokey they’re sinning. Of course, this covers heterosexual sex before marriage and poligamy amongst other things. Oh, and dog fucking.
#23 | Comment by Tony — July 12, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Wow, who knew this would happen on DLT, but BongoClown, you have made me totally reconsider my position. I’ll admit to being a lazy Christian who has never read the Bible all the way through. Those verses I quoted were spoon fed to me by my parents and other Christians around me. However, after reading your comments I decided to actually look into it for myself, and I can’t believe what a hypocrite I am. You’ve prompted me to actually read my Bible and look for my own answers, rather than listen to the fallacies of Christian culture, so thank you.
#24 | Comment by Kito — July 13, 2007 @ 5:12 am
Gay homos? As opposed to Straight homos or Gay Straight guys?
#25 | Comment by Miku — July 13, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
I can’t believe someone said Ann Coulter isn’t worse than Micheal Moore. Does she give you anal fistings or something? Are here bullshit books not enough? Do you actually have to suckle from her smegma encrustulated vulva?
Everyone who doesn’t agree with Ann should be “hanged for treason,” right? We should go around and “invade their countries, killing their leaders and converting them to christianity,” right?
Coulter makes Moore look like an angle.
And strongbad, you’re an ignorant bafoon.
#26 | Comment by d00d — July 13, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Michael Moore is just an angry bully. Did you see him on CNN attacking Wolf Blitzer for having the audacity to run a piece somewhat critical of Moore. He even said that he wouldn’t consent to being taped off camera because he thinks they would edit the piece to be unfavorable to him–something he is of course well aware of.
It was pretty funny to see Moore as he really is. Even the people who work with him hate him.
What does this matter? It matters because Moore doesn’t care about truth. He just wants to attack.
This documentary will surely do much worse at the box-office than even “Sicko,” which is ironic, since liberals are his audience and they will stay away from this gay documentary. Fahrenheit 9/11 was centered around the pre-eminent topic of the day and Sicko, at least, has a topic relevant to most people. The gay film won’t, so watch it do even more poorly than Sicko.
As I said though, Moore isn’t interested in truth, just attacking. This is why if they make this film there will be no footage of the “religious left” which is really just Black America. There will be no footage of a black preacher talking about homosexuality as a sin. There will be no footage of a black grandmother from Atlanta saying that she thinks it’s a choice and the Good Lord can help.
Nope, it will all just be footage of whitey.
And there won’t be any footage of other religions, just the major one here.
And I am not a religious person, but even I can see that just because something is mentioned by name doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. I’m not sure if Jesus mentioned anything about robbery, but I am sure he thought it was a sin.
And I do know that he said that he came to uphold the law and one doesn’t have to cite every law to uphold it.
If one disagrees with Leviticus, fine, but don’t act like it doesn’t exist. Moore is going to act like it doesn’t exist.
If you think it’s ridiculous, don’t practice it, but it is a logical falsehood to say that there is no basis for the prohibition on homosexuality any more than to say that there is no basis for the prohibition on adultery.
#27 | Comment by nyc10014 — July 13, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
wow.
#28 | Comment by d00d — July 13, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
you guys make my penis sad…
#29 | Comment by xxcanuckxx — July 13, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
Like d00d said…wow. :\
Ann Coulter’s existence is *the* leading argument for allowing time travel to enforce birth control in Republican families before 1970. How anyone can even lump that disgusting cunt with Michael Moore is beyond me. At least he attempts to out the assholes of the world. You can disagree with the means, but the good intent is still there. All that I can see with that skank crack-whore Coulter is blind biased hate, without thought. Ann Cunter, Bill O’Dumbass, Fucker Carlson, BItch Limbaugh, and all the rest of those asshats can all fall into a vast pit of 10 year old shit for all I care.
But anyway, thanks for ruining dontlinkthis, you tight-assed right wing fags…
Justin, you still rule. 🙂
#30 | Comment by Dingleberry — July 14, 2007 @ 3:10 am
im surprised he can rant with a heart attack
#31 | Comment by TadOptomistic — July 18, 2007 @ 9:42 am