Comments by "" (@snowcat9308) on "Metatron" channel.

  1.  @FullchanAnon  But you can love a girl instead? The fact that same-sex love is considered "lust" but opposite-sex love isn't seems a little arbitrary. Unless we're reducing the concept of "love" to procreation, which its really just not.
    19
  2.  @jonathanbarkins8480  But non-reproductive sex is considered to be "lust", right? If that sterile family were to engage in sexual intimacy, it's lust?
    8
  3.  @barkleybarkleyy4418  For the longest time I genuinely thought this is what "Toxic Masculinity" was because leftist moral grand-stand-ers constantly used it as a way to describe things like "man-spreading" and "man-splaining", but it actually does have a meaning. Toxic Masculinity refers to the toxic/negative expectations that society has of men. This means things like "emotional men are not masculine" or "men cannot have close male friends because that's gaaaay" and things to that tune. I know the 2010s kinda ruined words like this, but they really do have a legitimate and useful meaning, despite the hard work of the far left.
    6
  4. Did a look at his channel, and he doesn't seem to be as poorly-motivated as some other youtubers (cough cough Leather Apron Club). He's a history channel who makes a living by addressing common historical misconceptions. And frankly, as a gay dude who loves history, I'd really rather have the right picture of the past than lie or be lied to about it. Besides, don't you think falsely calling these ancient civilizations "gay-friendly" kinda takes away from the hard work and progress that liberal thought has made in the west for the past 700 years or so?
    5
  5. The ultimate giga-liberal take is realizing that two men cannot express or experience a deep friendship without being accused of homosexuality by society because of toxic masculinity (the idea that emotional and sincere men are weak, in this case).
    5
  6.  @daywalker2668  Why are you copy/paste-ing this comment under every post, when most people in the comments seem to agree with the subject matter? Unless you're just baiting replies?? Oh wait, you referred to same-sex relationships as "perversion". Cute.
    5
  7.  @jonathanbarkins8480  Let me try to repeat this and tell me if I'm on the mark: Marriage is a ritual undergone by people seeking God's approval for their relationship. By performing a marriage, god sanctions their relationship and considers it "holy". Sexual interactions under a holy relationship are deemed pure because God has sanctioned them, and sexual interactions outside of wedlock are considered "lustful" and "uncontrolled"? Am I right or am I misunderstanding you? Additionally, do you hold to these beliefs, or are you reiterating them as you understand them?
    5
  8. I feel like there might be a lesson to be learned here about how we often project our modern problems onto ancient stories through our interpretations of them. If you were taught, though, that their homosexual relationship is "canon" (so to speak), then your education system failed you there :(
    5
  9. oooo im gonna end the world ooooo
    4
  10.  @jonathanbarkins8480  I would agree, actually. You aren't obligated to continue this conversation, but--as a gay person who is very much harmed by Christian morality--I feel compelled to dig deeper into your belief to hopefully get a better understanding of it. Why do you believe that Christianity is the truth, as opposed to another moral/religious worldview?
    4
  11.  @MythwrightWorkshop  Alright! I have a bit of a hair-trigger because there are bad actors in these comments, so your language confused me a bit. Carry on!
    4
  12.  @daywalker2668  Are you going to engage with me like an adult, or are you just going to sit there with your Straight Mug and dictate to me how offended I am?
    3
  13. ​ @barkleybarkleyy4418  Masculinity is defined by culture and society. There are natural/physical things that inform a society's concept of masculinity, but masculinity is still a social construct. Otherwise, every society at any given point in time could agree--without question--what any other society would consider to be masculine, which doesn't happen. That's why, in the 1920s, pink was a masculine color, even though it isn't today (as a simple example). And by "emotional men", I'm not talking about completely abandoning reason. I'm talking about men being emotionally vulnerable and sincere to their friends. You conflating "being emotional" with "being violent and aggressive" is the exact same line of thought that 2010s "feminists" undergo when they accuse men of being hyper-aggressive sexual animals with no sense of self-determination or self-control. I really don't know how else to help you understand the concept of Toxic Masculinity when you can't understand the fact that "masculinity" as a concept is constructed by society and culture.
    3
  14. ​ @barkleybarkleyy4418  "What gets you laid" depends on what people want. And what people want depends on how they were raised. And how they were raised depends on... that's right, culture! (Nature does have some bearing on how people develop, but human minds are mostly developed by other human minds, which is why people who live in complete isolation in their formative years turn out "feral", so to speak.) It is entirely possible to have a culture where perfectly masculine men can be emotionally sincere with one and other and not feel like less of a man for it. We can have a culture where we don't victim-blame male victims of female domestic abuse. I'm not asking to remove the concept of "masculinity" entirely. I'm telling you that we don't have to have inhuman expectations of men just because they are... men! I am not constructing anything. Society has already built cultural expectations for men and women. I'm saying that some of those expectations make sense, and some don't, and we--as the (descendants of the) minds that created these expectations--have the power to change them. It's not about low-key hatred towards men, and if that's all you're reading from this, then you've mistaken actual leftism with pop-culture moral grandstanding.
    3
  15. How is homosexuality bad though? Unless I'm mistaken and "debauchery" doesn't carry with it a negative connotation?
    3
  16. How is homosexuality "debauchery"? Please give me an answer that doesn't ultimately rely on "well the Bible said it!".
    3
  17. He explicitly said that Rome fell because of immorality AND homosexuality. He thought that homosexuality so was important and impactful on the fall of Rome that he decided to list it apart from the other "moral depravity" he was talking about. Please don't try to dilute his explicit homophobia with the pleasant aroma of Christian morality.
    2
  18.  @daywalker2668  Hmm... I wonder if you'll respond to me within the new few hours--let's say 2:30pm EST to 5:00pm EST (which is actually 9:30pm to 12:00am in Moscow ;3)--and we'll see who is the troll.
    2
  19. (((WELFARE)))
    2
  20.  @jonathanbarkins8480  Can you please cite the version and verse you are referring to, because I can't seem to find a Bible verse explicitly forbidding same-sex marriage. I see a lot of verses that can fairly be interpreted as being against homosexual relationships in general, but nothing about marriage?
    2
  21. ​ @jonathanbarkins8480  Wait no, I believe we may have come to a misunderstanding. Same-sex love is seen, by itself, as a sin in the Bible. The line is not drawn through a nuanced chain of divine laws about marriage, but through explicit prohibition. Which is arbitrary. Which is what I was getting at when we began this conversation. Personally I still find it incredibly fascinating to find vestiges of Roman culture in the Bible (the idea that effeminate men (gay stereotype) are inferior and should be frowned upon), though its a shame that we are still abiding by a 2,000-year-old morality with its roots in classism and sexism. But, I also understand that you believe that morality to be divinely-mandated.
    2
  22. I'm 14 and this is deep
    2
  23. No. Christians were people at the mercy of cultural influence at the time, as much as we are in ours. There were gay Christians, gay Romans, and gay Mongols, because human sexuality is a biological phenomenon that defies whatever linguistic labels a given culture tries to put on it at any given time.
    2
  24.  @flingza1798  your irony sucks and you should feel bad
    2
  25. Y'know it doesn't HAVE to be us vs you. You can just like... get along with people who don't like the same things as you.
    2
  26. Read the pinned comment 🤡🤡
    2
  27.  @vampirecount3880  BRO YOU HAVE FRACTAL CORRUPTION IN YOUR COUNTRY WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT AMERICAN CULTURE WAR BS
    2
  28. (citation needed)
    2
  29. true!
    2
  30. Wait you mean to tell me that Mike Johnson is trying to project his contemporary politics onto a historical period? Whaaaat? I don't think anybody has ever done that ever!
    2
  31. People when old civilizations don't benefit from the hundreds of years of liberal thought that our civilization does: 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
    2
  32. Still no?
    2
  33. Political weaseling. He's dog whistling to the people in his crowd who want to hear his homophobic message, while leaving enough room to wiggle out of accusations of homophobia by making the argument you are. "Oh well I mean it wasn't the ONLY thing he said!"
    2
  34.  @derekpappas1556  I don't have aggression towards Christianity. I have aggression towards homophobia, because it threatens me directly. Johnson felt it necessary to nebulously and vaguely refer to all other immoral behaviors, and then specifically mention homosexuality. His language suggests that homosexuality is the largest (or one of the largest) contributing factors, which is completely ridiculous. How is homosexuality immoral? And even if it is, how does homosexuality destroy society?
    1
  35.  @Makarosc  Yeah, but we also need to stop pretending that ancient societies were bastions of our modern concept of liberal thought. We don't need validation from ancient Greece, Rome, or Egypt to know that we are doing what's right.
    1
  36.  @Makarosc  Yes. Because it's historically accurate. Don't let pop culture journos fire you up over a falsehood.
    1
  37.  @Makarosc  History nerds care, and you should too. Unless you wouldn't prefer to be correct and know the truth?
    1
  38.  No_name860  Please tell me you're joking
    1
  39.  @daywalker2668  Hey comrade did your shift start yet? Are you gonna go copy/pasting the same homophobic trash on more comments to manipulate American conservatives into doing the bidding of their greatest enemy?
    1
  40. Your concern is valid but ultimately misplaced. If you want to see what a real badly-motivated homophobe looks like, I suggest you watch Leather Apron Club's videos on the topic. Unlike Metatron here, he has made his channel explicitly about addressing and admonishing gay rights and LGBT-related things. Metatron is just addressing a popular historical myth that got picked up by journos because they know it will get them clicks. Also since when can you choose what food you like and don't like? I've always found food to be a fantastic metaphor for my sexuality, because I wasn't necessarily born with my tastes, but they are something that's taken me a lifetime to acquire (and something I could hardly change at a moment's notice).
    1
  41.  @Robobotic  honk honk 🤡🤡
    1
  42. A few journos trying desperately for clicks = THE WOKE LEFTIST AGENDA!111!!11111
    1
  43. I care! People spread misinformation (like saying gays destroyed Rome) all the time, so it's nice to see someone pushing back against that stuff. Not that he's the only one, but every little bit helps in the war against misinformation.
    1
  44.  @gabrielethier2046  You probably think more about cross-dressing men than a lot of gay men do lmao; go take a walk and get some fresh air or something
    1
  45. Pinned comment
    1
  46.  @jonathanbarkins8480  Does the Bible explicitly state that same-sex marriage is not divinely-sanctioned?
    1
  47.  @Ιωσήφ-σ2λ  I'm very curious to hear your definition of "natural". Typically people use it to refer to something as being "of nature, apart from humans and man-made things". Of course, I'm sure you know that we've observed plenty of homosexual/bisexual behavior in animals in nature. But we've also observed (non-human) animals in opposite-sex relationships engaging in sexual behavior--not for the sake of procreation--but for the sake of pleasure! Lust, if you will. I don't want to get into too much graphic detail, but you might not be surprised to learn that dolphins and primates are the usual suspects here. It's just weird to me that Christians use the word "natural" to mean "morally good", when this sets people up to lose arguments pretty much right out of the gate, because you guys are the only ones using the word "natural" with this weird double meaning.
    1
  48.  @pablogomesoliveira2677  Not to be rude, but did your response include any kind of demonstrable evidence for his existence? I'm sure your religion has amazing communities and comforting beliefs (I mean this sincerely; I'm not placating you here), but I'm not interested in joining a community. I'm interested in finding the truth about our reality. So, unfortunately, I couldn't care less how much "love" or "truth" the Bible (or Christianity) speaks of. If I claimed to be God, I'm sure you'd want some independent verification for the claim, instead of just taking me for my word. Quite simply, I feel the same way about the Bible (and other religious texts). Also, I'm not sure what "abuse" you're referring to. Did I mention something to make you think I was being abused?
    1
  49. I wanna agree with you so bad, but why the homophobic slur :(
    1
  50. I certainly prefer people taking metaphorical interpretations of the Bible over literal ones (god knows what that's done to the US), but I am also somewhat confused when people do this. If any passage of that book can be interpreted in any number of ways, what's the point? Do you just pick an interpretation and hope for the best? Could a tri-omni (all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving) god allow for his most important communicative text to be manipulated and distorted in such a way? I really mean no offense with these questions, so I apologize if they come across a little strong. Again, I'd gladly take this conversation over one with a biblical literalist any day of the week.
    1