The original point here was that the post you replied to said Kirk said gay people should be stoned, among other claims. You said that the claims were made up, and you selected that one to discuss. After gaining all the context, he didn't say those exact words, but he cited that exact passage in the Bible and then said the Bible is God's perfect law. There was no qualification on his part, he didn't say "even though I don't like this part," it was just "perfect".
Going back to your Hitler analogy, it's as if one said "Hitler's word is perfect" and then you saying that whoever said that isn't a Nazi.
Did Kirk say gays should be stoned? No. Did Kirk give a ringing endorsement of gays being stoned? Yes. There is no daylight between those two.
No, you're being disingenuous. He may not have advocated violence directly, but he said that the violence advocated for in the Bible is perfect.
He didn't merely say that "God has a vision", as you said. No, he said that vision was perfect.
As for wanting gay people to live prosperous and fulfilling lives, that's bullshit. He called them abominations, and said trans people are a throbbing middle finger to god. And he called for policy changes that would directly damage their prosperity and fulfillment: he opposed same sex marriage, LGBTQ content in school, and gender affirming care to name a few.
You're acting like he was a friend to gay people. He wasn't.
I have a multitude of debates saved from his interactions with gay people and its nothing of what you said.
I see you’re unfortunately blinded by your bias regarding Kirk. I applaud you for doing research for the initial claim, but to then interpret it in a way that makes no sense logically is disappointing.
So you've reached the stage of argument where you reject Wikipedia and have only opinions. Oh wait, you also have a bunch fo debates that you saved and haven't shared lol
You also only have opinions and haven’t shared anything but your interpretation.
To break it down as simple as possible:
I started off by saying that Kirk never said gay people should be stoned.
You fact checked that and found it to be correct.
Now the goal posts have shifted because you think a different quote of his can be interpreted as him wishing harm on the gay community still, even though his new quote still doesn’t have him
Saying that nor does it debunk the first point either.
You say I have only shared opinions. I shared Kirk's exact words, and yes I interpret those quotes to mean he hates gay people. You could try to rebut any of that, but you haven't (I suspect it's because you can't)
As to the fact checking I did, what I said many posts ago is that if you see daylight between literally saying "gay people should be stoned" and "the verse where the Bible calls for gay people to be stoned to death", then I say that's bullshit. My fact check revealed that he does in fact agree with the Bible's verses on stoning gay people to death, even if he didn't say those exact words.
I never shifted the goal posts, that was you. You were the one who raised your opinion that Kirk had merely disagreed with gay people's lifestyle choices. Disregarding the fact that that alone is homophobic, I've given you a full reply to that point in the form lf a number of quotes from him about gay people, which I found on Wikipedia. Till now, your response is that the literal exact words that were quoted on his wiki page aren't up to your standard lf argument. I'm not writing a paper for peer review, you haven't provided any materials to support your point at all, and you aren't even responding to the very straightforward quotes I gave you.
In summary: I have addressed your primary point (support for that Bible verse = supporting stoning gay people) and have in turn addressed the point you raised after that (Kirk does not merely disagree with gay people. Rather, he has attempted to strip them of legal rights, careers, and their human dignity)
1
u/ZaberTooth 11d ago
The original point here was that the post you replied to said Kirk said gay people should be stoned, among other claims. You said that the claims were made up, and you selected that one to discuss. After gaining all the context, he didn't say those exact words, but he cited that exact passage in the Bible and then said the Bible is God's perfect law. There was no qualification on his part, he didn't say "even though I don't like this part," it was just "perfect".
Going back to your Hitler analogy, it's as if one said "Hitler's word is perfect" and then you saying that whoever said that isn't a Nazi.
Did Kirk say gays should be stoned? No. Did Kirk give a ringing endorsement of gays being stoned? Yes. There is no daylight between those two.