Day of Silence

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:35 pm

And a breif comment on the Creig's list example,

Both straight males and gay males are more comfortable with casual sex then females.

Since gay relationships are the only type that can contain two said parties, you will be able to find more graphic solicitations if they are sought out.

Do you think that if posting, \"Straight male, looking for straight female to swap blow-jobs,\" actually worked, that you would still see less of them?

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:43 pm

Gooberman wrote:Do you think that if posting, "Straight male, looking for straight female to swap blow-jobs," actually worked, that you would still see less of them?

LOL

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:47 pm

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:42 pm

Spidey wrote:This is a thread about what society is doing to combat bigotry (right or wrong) when someone goes to great length to point out the problems associated with the people feeling the bigotry, then I can draw only one conclusion.

You think I'm condoning bigotry? Rather, I realize that you can't just choose to believe that we can still get something good out of this by all agreeing on the bigotry part. Sorry, but if you want to deal with genuine bigotry then you've got to go back to the drawing-board, because this whole thing is already wrong. There's a lot of things kids today could stand to learn, but it is a grave mistake to ignore the aspect of this that condones homosexuality in the interest of teaching just one of those things.

Will, I'm not talking about controlling anyone's actions. I'm talking about accurate perception of right and wrong.

Will Robinson wrote:Why would anyone want to assume the moral authority on this issue unless God himself spoke to them about it?

I've got news for you, you can't have everything your way, and neither can I. The Bible is the word of God given to men. What excuse could I give for waiting for a personal message on something that is already so very clear in scripture?

Will Robinson wrote:Heterosexuality, homosexuality, asexuality. Harmless to society.

I'm no expert on the subject, but even I know you're wrong there. Homosexuality is not harmless, despite the fact that certain groups have been working hard to portray it that way... that's an old song (self-justification) played on a new and terribly effective instrument.

Will Robinson wrote:Who do you want to pick on and why?

Not the worst thing I've been accused of. But I don't pick on anyone. I stand with the word of God in a day when everyone else is running to either destroy it, reinterpret it, abandon/supersede it, or ignore it. But it's not aim to be special, I'm just trying to survive in a wicked world, by the grace of God. God created us. The word of God is true, and it's worth holding to. There was a time when more people knew that, and they were better off for it.

Finally, in this world men need to be men, and not many are anymore, but homosexual men certainly aren't.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:46 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Will, I'm not talking about controlling anyone's actions. I'm talking about accurate perception of right and wrong.

I think this is an important point. For both sides.

One the one side I see that a "Bullying homosexuals is wrong" thread immediately turns into a "homosexuality is wrong" thread. I think we often respond with our gut reactions and it makes our positions misunderstood.

For example: Suppose a few Wiccan families had moved into town, and their kids were getting beat up at school. I would be more than happy to support efforts to stop that, and I think we ought to be able to do it with a simple, "I disagree with Wicca, but I'll gladly stand up and fight for their right to attend school without being bullied".

But if every debate on stopping the bullying turned into a debate on how wrong Wicca is, the whole point about bulying will get lost and derailed.

On the other side, The right to live your life without interference does NOT include the right for everyone to APPROVE of you. Note that not a soul on this thread has said they approve of the bullying, and yet there have been several accusations that if you think Homosexuality is wrong, you must approve of mistreating them.

<sigh>

I'm NOT abusing you by saying you are wrong. You aren't abusing me by saying I'm wrong. Richard Dawkins has every RIGHT to go about campaigning against religion. I will gladly defend his right to try and convince people religion is wrong, just so long as he sticks with convincing and doesn't move towards legislating. And, of course, he must grant ME the same right.

The Catholics think I'm wrong because I don't acknowledge the Pope. The Church of Christ thinks I'm wrong because I use musical instruments during worship. The Muslims think I'm wrong because I say Christ is divine. Vegans think I'm wrong because I eat cheese. Carnivores think I'm wrong because I don't feed my child meat. I've been told I was wrong because I won't drink Alcoholic beverages, because I read fiction, because I teach my child to save sex for marriage, because I play Fantasy RPG's, because I program in Java, because my kid goes to private school, and for countless thousands of other things.

So?

Someone telling me I'm wrong, even someone telling me I'm going to go to hell, is NOT infringing on ANY of my rights, and does not harm me in any way. They have a right to believe as they wish, just so long as they don't interfere with MY right to live and believe as *I* wish.

Homosexuals have the right to live lives free from interference, harassment, and abuse. They have every right to ignore my opinions. But it is NOT infringing on their rights for me to disagree with them, even publicly. They are free to disagree right back.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:18 pm

Maybe you don’t understand the unintentional consequents of your words. Its been my experience that most bigotry starts at home, and children hear what their parents say at home, and act on it in public.

So make sure you also include all that context, when you tell someone that you think their lifestyle is evil.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:22 pm

It wasn't my intention to mock her position with that comment, I meant it seriously.

But, even if I accepted that first principles should be ignored, I was a bit offended at her choice of Creigs list, even as one of the last cards played. It would be like me arguing against heterosexual couples via the Jerry Springer show. However I don't think her intent was at all malicious.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:01 pm

Drakona wrote: On the one hand, relationships are very individual things. Some marriages are destructive, some non-marriages are uplifting. You judge them individually. But at the same time, different classes of relationships behave in different ways; when you say, "I have a boyfriend" and "I have a husband", your intent is different, what you're committing to and trying to achieve is different, and what type of relationship you're going to have is different.

This struck me as rather porfound. Not because it's original, but because everytime talk about my wife a little ..oh what to call it.. "warm fuzzy" goes off inside that says "wow, I have a wife". I've been married for 20 years.

"what you're committing to and trying to achieve is different, and what type of relationship you're going to have is different."

Right on the money.

Great post Drakona.

btw Goob, I wouldn't call anything in Drakona's post "gay bashing".

If you read the bible, you'll find that God has pretty explicitly forbiden same sex relations numerous times. The same goes with dunkeness, lieing, slander, gossip, and murder, etc. As someone who follows Jesus, neither I nor her or any who do say that being gay is "ok". We may not be able to judge, but we can differenciate between right and wrong. And that as Drak says is wisdom.

Kilarin wrote: Someone telling me I'm wrong, even someone telling me I'm going to go to hell, is NOT infringing on ANY of my rights, and does not harm me in any way. They have a right to believe as they wish, just so long as they don't interfere with MY right to live and believe as *I* wish.

Homosexuals have the right to live lives free from interference, harassment, and abuse. They have every right to ignore my opinions. But it is NOT infringing on their rights for me to disagree with them, even publicly. They are free to disagree right back.

Excellent point Kilarin. Unfortunately, this is contrary to the newer version of "Hate language". which is just sad. It's becoming a case of "you can have free speech as long as you don't hurt someone's feelings."

..but that's another thread .. sort of..

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:41 pm

Drakona wrote:Men are complex,

No we're not. If you can't understand us you're thinking too much.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:39 am

Kilarin wrote:Someone telling me I'm wrong, even someone telling me I'm going to go to hell, is NOT infringing on ANY of my rights, and does not harm me in any way.

That's because you're an emotionally mature individual who already adamently believes that he is going to heaven and has a large community supporting you in this regard.

I don't think that analyzing this from the perspective of what you do and do not have the right to do is the right approach, since people have the right to be major ★■◆●'s. Telling someone who has not fully come to terms with being gay and who is insecure about what happens to them after their death and who lacks any community support that they are going to hell and that they cannot do anything about it (or worse, that they can) is being a major ★■◆●. I'm certain that everyone at the DBB is mature enough to be able to handle threats of eternal damnation, but, since the original topic involved what happens inside of schools, I would be very careful about how you approve of people threatening each other with eternal hellfire.

I don't think that anyone threatening eternal damnation to others can really deny how traumatizing or hurtful it can be without taking a good examination of their motives for making such threats to begin with.

Kilarin wrote:because I program in Java

That's because you *are* evil for programming in Java. See the light before it's too late!

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:39 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...

Will Robinson wrote:Why would anyone want to assume the moral authority on this issue unless God himself spoke to them about it?
...What excuse could I give for waiting for a personal message on something that is already so very clear in scripture?...

Because in terms of being able to prove it is Gods word and not just the writing of some guy with an agenda, what is written in scripture is no more believable than what is written in the Koran! Something makes you believe in the Bible, it is good idea to honestly examine that influence on your life before you use it to mess with someone elses.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:26 am

The Bible contains prophecy as a proof. Some of it has been fulfilled (what hasn't been fulfilled has yet to be fulfilled). As far as I know the Koran does not.

I don't know why you've assumed that I haven't \"honestly examined\" the Bible's influence on my life. I'm in the 27th year of my life, and I've examined my life in many ways. I have been up and down (and very down), but I have maintained a level of integrity that allows me to see that my life--my failures, my successes, and my encounters with the lives of others are a testament to the truth of the Bible in every way. It hasn't spoken well of me. I think oftentimes people in churches are optimistic to the point of being self-deceived (and this is encouraged by their leaders), instead of believing everything that the Bible says about them that is true (which is everything)--the \"if, then\"s of scripture that give us a clue as to just where we are. Only just recently I was convicted by God, through various circumstances, that I have been in rebellion against God. I had maintained a degree of integrity, and truth (My attitude may have been wrong in some of the things I posted on here, but I don't know of any inaccuracies), but I was not walking with God. I had gotten a-hold of some subtly unBiblical ideas and was being self-willed, wanting to perfect salvation through my own accumulated, Biblical, understanding, and was relying on my own discernment and judgment. I acknowledged my evident failure, according to scripture, to some degree (you may remember me referring to myself as a terrible Christian, on a few occasions), but I only recently really had my eyes opened (so to speak) to my fault. What it boils down to is that I have not been following the Lord for many years, though at one time I did. I repented, and I'm seeing that changed.

One of the great things about God is that he likes to provide proof--you can see that throughout the Bible. One of the things that many people misunderstand about God is that he demands a degree of integrity--he won't pursue someone with more proof if they reject the proof he has provided. \"God is not mocked\" I have come to understand that a rejection of the truth will always be found to come from unrighteous motives. And that is really something if you think about it--what that could mean; especially in a society that, by-and-large, considers truth to be so nebulous.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:07 am

I'm not sure that I have a ton to say, but I'll say something:

I don't think that bullying is the right way to go about things, ever. So, I think it's good to bring attention to bullying, and protest it. Could this be a day of silence against bullying in general? Why does it need to specifically be about LGBT people?

When it comes to expressing our opinions, there's a fine line to be walked, especially with Christians.

1. You can be ultra-PC, and just not say anything. This is essentially giving up your right to free speech, for fear of offending someone. If you're going to start down that line, eventually anything you say, at all, could be construed as offensive.

2. You can be quite PC, and state everything as your opinion. For a Christian this is untrue, because we believe that matters of right and wrong are not a matter of opinion, but that they are authoritatively defined by God for all people.

3. You can be precise, and state things with the technical source of the statement. This is becoming something that's considered offensive- even though it's technically the most correct way to handle things. To use this example, Christians believe that homosexual acts are sinful, according to the law defined by God in the Bible.

4. You can be overtly offensive, and tell people that they're wrong, without citing a source, and usually with a tone that communicates that the statement is so universally true that no source is needed.

Also of consideration is the tone, and motive, of the communication. You can say the exact same thing, in different tones, and communicate two very different messages. Many times Christians will state things in an insulting of demeaning tone, even though the words used are technically correct. On the other hand, it seems like more and more these days people are choosing to be offended by religious statement, regardless of the tone used to communicate them.

Why does the ability to procreate matter? Evolution. Survival of the fittest. Homosexual relationships are naturally unfit to survive, because they can't reproduce, on a simple level. If you want to get really complex, I guess you could argue that they have adapted by waging a PR war to enlist the assistance of those that can procreate.

Why does this matter to Christians so much? Why don't they just mind their own business? Well, for one, we're human, and we want to (wrongfully) try to force people to conform to our opinions. Secondly, we believe that it really stinks (in the long run) for people who aren't Christians, and are concerned for other's well-being, by wanting them to convert. (These first two end up really blurred, even in our own minds.) Finally, history and the Bible have shown a pattern of whole nations and cities ultimately being destroyed over particularly sexual sin. Sodom & Gomorrah are the primary example in the Bible. Rome is also called out on this issue in Romans. Thus, we're further vested in this particular issue because there's a perception of endangerment to the whole nation as a result of this sort of sin.

Finally, we're all sinners. We seem to all want to identify ourselves based on what we feel & do, and then feel personally attacked when people condemn our actions. I'm not all that much of a fan of the title like \"alcoholic\" \"homosexual\" \"pedophile\" because it define us by what we do. We all do crappy stuff that we should feel terrible about. None of us should be defined by that.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:09 am

Jeff250 wrote:That's because you're an emotionally mature individual

Thats the FIRST time I've EVER been accused of being mature!

Jeff250 wrote:who already adamently believes that he is going to heaven and has a large community supporting you in this regard.

Actually, I belong to one of the smaller Christian congregations. (Seventh Day Adventist). We are often called a cult, although less so now than, say, 50 years ago. There are fewer than 50,000 Adventist in Texas. Estimates of the Catholic population in Texas are around 4 million. And they are a MINORITY religion in this state. So, you can see, I'm rather outnumbered by people who think I'm wrong.

Texas has a total population of close to 24 million. If homosexuals comprise only 2% of the population (and that's the lowest official estimation I've found) and if only one third of homosexuals are "out of the closet" (I couldn't find an estimate, so thats just a wild guess). That would STILL leave open homosexuals outnumbering Seventh Day Adventist in Texas by more than three to one. Seems they should have a more than adequate support structure.

Now, of course, you'll say that I'm still "generally" supported by the Christian population. Well, yes and no. A significant percentage of that Catholic population believes I'm going to hell for not being a member of the Catholic Church. But I've yet to run into a single Catholic who made it a point to tell me so in person. The Baptist FAR outnumber the Catholics, and THEY think I'm wrong too. BUT, I usually get along with Baptists just fine. I have more points in common with Catholics or Baptists then we have different. So, as an adult, I'll grant the point, with some strong reservations. But as a kid, believe me, it was not always easy being the kid who went to church on a different day, didn't go to school dances, didn't eat meat, didn't go to movies, didn't do a LOT of the things that other kids did.

Again, So what? Teasing and bullying are certainly wrong. But if what you believe in won't stand up to teasing, it wasn't worth believing in. And disagreeing is not teasing. I experienced both, I know the difference.

When I was at public school, I used to meet with a group of other kids, mostly Baptists, who would discuss and study the Bible over lunch. (Yeah, I TOLD you I was a weird kid.

) They disagreed with me, I disagreed with them. And not on minor stuff, we are talking about major doctrinal issues. I was not OFFENDED that they disagreed with me. We were all friends. There is a big difference between teasing and someone saying, "Look, I think your wrong, I'm willing to show you from the Bible WHY I think you are wrong" We would discuss it, if neither one of us changed out minds, we just went on with life. No compromise necessary on either side.

I wish Christians could approach Homosexuality this way a little better. There is no reason for Christians to have to pretend they don't think Homosexual behavior is wrong (for those who DO believe that). There is also no reason to be treating it any differently than casual fornication. Sex outside of marriage is wrong, but Christians seem to be able to preach on that topic without making people feel like they are being personally hated and ostracized. (Now, anyway, a hundred years ago that was different)

Jeff250 wrote:Telling someone who has not fully come to terms with being gay and who is insecure about what happens to them after their death and who lacks any community support that they are going to hell and that they cannot do anything about it (or worse, that they can) is being a major *****.

This assumes that the person telling them this is wrong. And, of course, the person telling them this THINKS they are right.

I agree with you to the extent that I see no purpose in nagging someone on an issue they are not interested in. It doesn't do anyone any good, and it closes doors that might open in the future.

But really, I think there is a fundamental flaw in the mirror here. Rights MUST be reciprocal. If they do not extend both ways, they are always in danger and always at risk of falling. Most conservative Christians are OFFENDED by open homosexuality. So? They don't have the right, or even the need, to live life unoffended.

The SAME right that allows (or at least SHOULD allow) a homosexual to openly wear a "Rainbow Pride" shirt, or to appear in public with their same sex partner, or to open a "gay bar", that SAME right is what allows a Christian to preach a sermon saying that homosexual behavior is a sin, or to wear a "Jesus Loves You" pin in public, or to carry their Bible openly.

You are absolutely correct that the issue of common courtesy should apply. But thin skins on BOTH sides are the major cause of conflict here. Christians need to be able to see a pair of guys walking down the street holding hands without having a conniption fit, and practicing homosexuals need to be able to handle the fact that many people disapprove of their lifestyle. We HAVE to learn to be less sensitive, on both sides. We can learn to get along WITHOUT compromising what we believe in, on either side.

Jeff250 wrote:That's because you *are* evil for programming in Java. See the light before it's too late!

I USED to program in COBOL. Now THAT was EVIL!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:One of the great things about God is that he likes to provide proof

VERY true.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Only just recently I was convicted by God, through various circumstances, that I have been in rebellion against God.

I go through this experience on a regular basis.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:in this world men need to be men, and not many are anymore, but homosexual men certainly aren't.

But I'm a bit uncomfortable with the way this is phrased. It SEEMS to be making sexuality the primary and defining characteristic of manhood. It's certainly one of the attributes, but I don't feel it is the primary or most important one.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:15 pm

If you want to tell people that homosexuality is wrong, from a personal perspective, that’s freedom of speech, once you frame it in the context of a religious belief, you are now stepping on my right to freedom “from” religion. (yes, it goes both ways)

We live is a country with a secular law system, as long as homosexuality is legal, you don’t have the right to tell someone it’s wrong. Or at the very least, have the right to impose that belief on others.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:38 pm

There seems to be bits and pieces of valid, coherent thought in there, anyway. Overall I give it a 3.

Freedom \"from\" religion is freedom to have (theist) religion muzzled. Not unheard of, but I'm pretty sure that's not in our Bill of Rights.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:15 pm

Spidey wrote:as long as homosexuality is legal, you don’t have the right to tell someone it’s wrong.

That's, SCARY Spidey. I mean, think about it. I couldn't tell anyone that I thought something that was legal was wrong? Under your system, it would have been illegal for someone living in the 1800's to say that Slavery was wrong, since after all, it was legal. It would have been illegal to even argue that the laws should be changed, since that would involve telling people that something that was legal was wrong.

Such a law would make a complete tyrant out of the government. What ever was law, would be law forever, no discussion allowed.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:18 pm

Judge not…

Freedom from religious persecution is one of the fundamental principals of this country. And also try to remember the constitution lists a bill of rights, but also clearly states that they are “not limited to”. (the list)

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:23 pm

No Kilarin…Read it again, and be sure to take in the context next time…

CLUE: How you frame it.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:28 pm

First let me preface this post with a clarification regarding the things I say here.
I often post in reply to something specific someone posted, even quote that comment to respond to it so people will know what I'm going on about, but my response is often aimed at a broader point that your specific comments may have merely touched on and you yourself may not share in toto.

In this case my suggestion that "Something makes you believe in the Bible, it is good idea to honestly examine that influence on your life before you use it to mess with someone elses."
Was not to suggest Seargent Thorne personally hasn't thought it through. It was really aimed at all of us because it is quite harmful the way we ostracize gays so an examination of why we do this is in order.
I was trying to point out that of all the reasons given the only ones that are logical, on their face anyway, are those that believe God wants them to do it because other than that there is no science that supports the crap we have put them through.

So considering we have heard scripture quoted that condemns prostitution yet Jesus scolded those around him for the way they treated a prostitute makes me think the "God condemns it" excuse is a selective interpretation of ancient writings used to justify cruelty over what should be none of our business. I find that line of reasoning to be no stronger than bin Laddins excuse that Allah condemns the infidel and rewards Muslims for terrorizing them. Thus my challenge to all of us to first get God in person to tell you to persecute the homosexualls otherwise the default position should be treat them the way you treat yourself. They are you and I, your brothers and sisters, nieghbors and friends.

The point raised about the political correctness behind this Day of Silence being just about gays instead of all victims of bullying is spot on and reminds me of the whole gay militant faction component to many of their protests. They don't win any points that way in my mind.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The Bible contains prophecy as a proof. Some of it has been fulfilled (what hasn't been fulfilled has yet to be fulfilled). As far as I know the Koran does not.
...

I'm sure I can find some Muslims who would tell me the polar opposite about the Koran vs. the Bible and what has been "proven" to be true.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:One of the great things about God is that he likes to provide proof--you can see that throughout the Bible.

I read all about parting the waters and water into wine and burning bushes and miracle after miracle etc. etc. then along come modern times and nothing. So God either changed up his presentation of proof or I'm missing something here!

One of the things that many people misunderstand about God is that he demands a degree of integrity--he won't pursue someone with more proof if they reject the proof he has provided. "God is not mocked" I have come to understand that a rejection of the truth will always be found to come from unrighteous motives. And that is really something if you think about it--what that could mean; especially in a society that, by-and-large, considers truth to be so nebulous.

I have tried to get him to show me. How the heck could I not jump in with both feet if I believed?!?
But I have to caution myself that you can wish for it so badly that you start to live out a fantasy that you create out of whole cloth and that would be a terrible waste of a life, a big escape from reality that lets down my family etc. So before I start accepting the Preachers word on everything I'll need a little old school sign. I find my own philosophy on life to run paralell with christianity for the most part....simple really, I was brought up as a christian but I have two eyes and a brain and refuse to ignore them so when the scripture doesn't mesh with what I find to be fundamentally important or true then I guess I am the guy mocking him. If he's really there he knows me well, he hears from me daily and knows I'm sincerely grateful for all that is in my life good and bad. But if he wants me to just let my eyes glaze over and march to his fan club's drummer they need to learn a more inspirational tune.
Hell, maybe it's all a test to weed out the weak among us....'you didn't even question it you just went along?!?'

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:41 pm

Spidey wrote:No Kilarin…Read it again, and be sure to take in the context next time…

CLUE: How you frame it.

He's right Spidey. There was nothing out of context within his reply. The first amendment has nothing to do with what you just implied.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

These are freedoms we are guaranteed from our OWN government; what our government can and can NOT make laws about ... which they seem to overstepping on a regular basis. Not in relation to each other.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:01 pm

Duper wrote:There was nothing out of context within his reply

Ah, good. So I'm not alone in being confused.

Spidey wrote:Read it again, and be sure to take in the context next time…

Perhaps we are misunderstanding you, because it certainly sounded like an odd thing for you to say.

It SOUNDED like you said three things

1: Its ok to say that something was wrong, if you clarify that it's only your opinion. If you say that your religion says something is wrong, well, that's just wrong! This would seem to outlaw almost all religions, since it would be illegal to pass on their tenets. So I REALLY think we are misunderstanding you here.

2: You have to right to never be exposed to anyone else's religion. France has rules similar to this, for example they outlawed wearing a cross (or star of david, any religious symbol) in public. Again, I think (and hope) we are misunderstanding you here.

3: "as long as homosexuality is legal, you don’t have the right to tell someone it’s wrong."

This one I'm REALLY thinking we must have misunderstood.

So give us the "for dummies" version. please!

<edit>

Spidey wrote:Or at the very least, have the right to impose that belief on others.

On this point, assuming I understand you, we are in absolute agreement. I have every right to preach, or publish books saying that it's wrong to have sex outside of marriage. You don't have to listen, and I do NOT have the right to enforce that rule on consenting adults.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:40 pm

Great…I had this long post ready, because it seemed you missed that most important of points…oh well…just text on a screen right.

I find it funny that you took offense when I said something you were doing was wrong…how did it feel?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:08 pm

Spidey wrote:I had this long post ready,

Ugh, I hate it when that happens.

Spidey wrote:because it seemed you missed that most important of points

Yes, that does seem to be the case.

Spidey wrote:I find it funny that you took offense when I said something you were doing was wrong…how did it feel?

Actually, I didn't take offense. Or at least, I didn't take offense in the sense that I didn't feel insulted. My strongest objection is to the idea that we should stop (by legal force I assume) anyone telling someone that something that is legal is wrong. I object to the idea, even if you don't want to enforce it by law.

But I support your right to tell me I'm wrong about that.

I don't call that "offended". I call that an open field of discussion.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:19 pm

Will, I can appreciate that. Every man must be fully convinced in his own mind.

I try to stand up for the truth, on here, but I think maybe sometimes I overstep my bounds.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:39 pm

Fair enuf, Kilarin

And although I don’t wish to enforce by force, or law…(sheesh) I do believe that if someone tells you they don’t wish to hear what you have to say, then you should respect their wishes, and stop, continuing to press the issue at that point would indeed be wrong. In other words it’s now outside the context of a discussion, and constitutes badgering.

The Gays have told you they don’t want to hear it…but you and others continue to press the issue.

And yes, sometimes people have no choice but to listen.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:25 pm

Spidey wrote:I do believe that if someone tells you they don\\u2019t wish to hear what you have to say, then you should respect their wishes, and stop, continuing to press the issue at that point would indeed be wrong.

So, do you object to people protesting legal toxic waste dumping? Even after the dumpers have said they don't want to listen any more?

BUT, I concede in advance that there IS a difference. This is an issue that infringes on OTHERS rights.

Spidey wrote:The Gays have told you they don't want to hear it but you and others continue to press the issue.

Actually, *I* don't. My cousin-in-law is gay. I've never given her a speach about the evils of homosexuality. She's heard it before from lots of other people, and she's tired of it. If she ever asks me, I'll tell her the truth. I'll tell her I disagree with her on this point, and I love her anyway. Just like I do with my relatives who are Republicans.

I don't mind discussing the topic here, because that's what we are HERE for. To discuss things. But again, you'll note, I didn't direct this topic towards the evils of homosexuality. I came into in support of stopping bullying, and then got sidetracked into the whole thing about people on both sides being too sensitive.

Spidey wrote:And yes, sometimes people have no choice but to listen.

Yep, I get stuck in situations like that. Certainly annoying, frequently rude, not the end of the world.

Will Robinson wrote:"Something makes you believe in the Bible, it is good idea to honestly examine that influence on your life before you use it to mess with someone elses."

Darn tootin. I agree 100%

Will Robinson wrote:the "God condemns it" excuse is a selective interpretation of ancient writings used to justify cruelty over what should be none of our business.

And I agree again, the cruelty shouldn't be there. But you'll note that even Christ said, "Go and sin no more". We don't need to be busybodies, we CERTAINLY don't need the bullies, but I'm also not going to lie about what I think is right and wrong when someone asks. And, if I think the situation is right, I'll volunteer and opinion. If it's not wanted, I won't nag.

Will Robinson wrote:So before I start accepting the Preachers word on everything I'll need a little old school sign.

I wouldn't suggest accepting a preachers word without confirming things for yourself.

BUT, why would a voice from heaven convince you? Seriously, if you heard a voice from heaven telling you "God created the earth in 7 days 6998 years ago", would you suddenly become a believer? Or would you start checking for hidden microphones? Or perhaps even see a psychiatrist? Crazy people hear voices all the time. They even see miracles.

My point is that I think Sergeant Thorne is right here and you are setting up an arbitrarily high standard for belief. I'm not saying you should believe without proof, far from it. But I believe all KINDS of things, including things that I've read in books, with far less proof than a direct visitation from God.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:27 pm

Kilarin wrote:So, do you object to people protesting legal toxic waste dumping? Even after the dumpers have said they don't want to listen any more?

BUT, I concede in advance that there IS a difference. This is an issue that infringes on OTHERS rights.

Well, you said it yourself, and that seems like a significant enough of a disanalogy to me.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:59 pm

This thread is moving fast, and I missed this on my first scan...

snoopy wrote:Why does the ability to procreate matter? Evolution. Survival of the fittest. Homosexual relationships are naturally unfit to survive, because they can't reproduce, on a simple level. If you want to get really complex, I guess you could argue that they have adapted by waging a PR war to enlist the assistance of those that can procreate.

Tell me if I'm misunderstanding the context here, because I'm rather surprised to hear you arguing this.

I think that it is interesting that you are arguing that homosexuality is at odds with the idea of survival of the fittest, especially when the evidence from nature would seem to indicate otherwise, simply by there still existing gay people.

A lot of traits are disadvantageous to an individual but advantageous to the group. For example, consider a good sense of ethics. If it weren't for our pesky consciences, there would be more of us doing things like stealing things when no one is looking, and this would be beneficial to our survival because we'd have more stuff that would help us survive. But the problem is that, even though this might benefit an individual's survival to take stuff when no one is looking, societies where everyone did this aren't viable.

For example, Goob points out that gay couples are in a position to adopt children when straight couples are not capable of raising their children. A society where there are more children capable of being raised by parents is more viable.

Besides, "what is useful for passing on one's genes" is a dubitable basis for what's good. I know Christians don't use this as a basis, and virtually no nonreligious people do.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:00 pm

Spidey wrote:The Gays have told you they don’t want to hear it…but you and others continue to press the issue.

But they've gone as far as teaching children that it's an acceptable life-style. That's evil, and as far as I'm concerned it's war. I'm not the kind of person to continue to offer personal advice or correction when it's not wanted. But when it comes to public discussion I don't care what you or anyone else don't want to hear about the issue at hand.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:22 pm

See, here we go again…I hope your eyeballs fall out the next time you skim.

In the context of a “discussion“ anything goes. And I happen to agree that gays have no right teaching anybodys children about sexuality. (or Christians for that matter) Parents should choose what their children learn about sexuality. Yea, I know that will upset the Public School Liberals, but I don’t really care, because I believe courses like that should be approved by parents.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:44 pm

Spidey wrote:See, here we go again…I hope your eyeballs fall out the next time you skim.

LOL! Apologies.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:18 pm

Remember last year we had this exact same thread topic. If you recall I was the one that made it quite clear that this kind of thing does not belong in public school in the first place.

Just wanted to remind you that we agree on most things concerning this issue. And quite possible the only thing we disagree on is whether homosexuality in and of itself is wrong/sinful or not. And possibly some other not as important aspects.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:57 am

It threw me, what you said about \"you guys continue to press the issue.\" I don't get that, because I dis-remember reading about anyone taking the argument to homos on an individual level when they had already rejected it.

I think there is a time and a place for telling someone that is involved in homosexuality that what they're doing is wrong, and harmful to themselves. I know that's not popular thought anymore, but for a long time back there everyone knew it was so. The facts haven't changed, they've been distorted and dressed up, and it seems like there has even been attempts to civilize it (make it more acceptable to society by trying to have a homosexual family unit). Maybe that last part is where a lot of the confusion comes from. But it's perverted, and it needs to be dropped altogether, not house-broken. You can try to clean up any kind of perversion, but you're just fooling yourself (and maybe a few others who are gullible), and there are people who will know it.

But I consider it counter-productive to take the same rebuke/argument continually to someone that refuses to hear it.

And just because I don't think it can be said enough, regarding the subject, and that people start to let things slip sometimes in the interest of getting along, or not hurting feelings, or not going against the flow: Homosexuality is wrong. It's not a right, it's not a freedom, it's a perverted, harmful, and even destructive activity/life-style. People who are involved in homosexuality are already granted the same rights by our founding documents as any other individuals, they do not have the right to have exceptions or concessions made for their perversions.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:29 am

First of all, the type of 'bullying' that goes on against gay people is based on 'homophobia' and it's far more likely to progress to assault or even the actual murder of the bullied individual. Since it's typically a far more violent and emotional or 'disgust' reaction in the person doing the bullying to the victim, it tends to escalate quickly to extreme violence. With our society's attitudes towards homosexuals, it's more likely to not get prosecuted as harshly as a murder committed for another reason. Just look at the reasons the murderers of Matthew Shepard gave for their actions, that 'he came on to me' as one of them claimed in court. A lot of people, especially men, view that as a justifiable reason to beat up or murder a homosexual. That's why bullying against gays or perceived gays should be dealt with early on, the cruelty factor is much higher and it's more likely to progress to full blown murder.

As for homosexuals not be able to procreate, which would have the 'benefit' of cutting down on their numbers, that's not going to happen. Research is finding that what makes someone homosexual or have a sexuality that doesn't match their physical sex is not genetic, but a result of hormone conditions in the womb. It's starting to like whatever hormones the fetus is exposed to in it's first three months of gestation to will shape how it's sexuality forms in life, no matter what gonads it has. In fact, if a male child with the same mother has brothers that proceed him, the more likely he will display feminine or even homosexual traits. The more brothers you have before you, the greater the effect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5120004.stm

Unless you Christians want to start regulating and monitoring the chemical conditions in the mother's womb, there are always going to be new homosexuals born.

Here's a little check you can take to see if you have been masculinized or feminized in your mother's womb. Read here and check your finger lengths:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles ... 00004.html

I looked at my fingers and have found myself to be slightly masculized. I already new this was the case since I tend to like male pursuits in life. But my mother took a drug in the 1950's to prevent miscarriages (she'd had one before she had me). But this drug was stopped being used for that purpose in the 1960's when the medical system found a correlation between the use of this drug and the high number of female children that came out as lesbians later in life. The drug mimicked testosterone in the womb and was masculinizing female children.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:40 am

Funny how religous people can't accept gods creation as-is, always trying to \"improve\" it in the name of him, thinking they know better than himself..

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:41 am

Well I don't buy the idea that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition. A spiritual predisposition, maybe. I think that research is being shaped or stretched to say something that it's not really saying.

(funny how folks like Grendel feel the need to generalize religion in order to condemn all of it)

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:56 am

tunnelcat wrote:the type of 'bullying' that goes on against gay people is based on 'homophobia' and it's far more likely to progress to assault or even the actual murder of the bullied individual. Since it's typically a far more violent and emotional or 'disgust' reaction in the person doing the bullying to the victim, it tends to escalate quickly to extreme violence.

I'm not certain that there aren't other kinds of bullying that lead in the same direction. Extreme religious persecution in some places comes to mind. But there is no denying that homosexuals have been at extreme physical risk. It's a fact that should make us all ashamed.

tunnelcat wrote: 'he came on to me' as one of them claimed in court. A lot of people, especially men, view that as a justifiable reason to beat up or murder a homosexual.

incredibly hypocritical, of course, since the men who feel this way are often the same kind of men who expect women to put up with their unwanted advances without complaint.

I've got a friend who is an amateur poet and musician. He has long hair, is a black belt, and apparently attracts the occasional attention from homosexuals when he's at a reading/musical venue. He's straight and conservative Christian. He told me that his response when propositioned was always, "I'm flattered, but I'm straight". If they were interested in talking further on the topic, he was willing to do so. Otherwise, that was the end of it.

Now *I* don't attract attention from women, let alone men. But in the unlikely occurrence that I ever WAS politely propositioned, I think my response would be a slightly modified version of my friends. "I'm flattered, but I'm straight, and I'm a Christian so I don't believe in sex outside of the bonds of marriage in any case"

And this is a key point that I think many Christians miss. Why on earth try to preach on the side issue of homosexuality to someone who doesn't believe in confining sex to within marriage? We blow up homosexuality because of the "ick" factor, But Homosexuality gets a sideline in the Bible behind fornication.

tunnelcat wrote:Unless you Christians want to start regulating and monitoring the chemical conditions in the mother's womb, there are always going to be new homosexuals born.

I agree with you. Or at least, I agree with you that this may be ONE of the causes of homosexuality. But whether or not homosexuality is a "choice" or not has nothing whatsoever to do with whether homosexual behavior is moral or not. This is something that both sides of the debate seem to miss continually. I simply do not understand why everyone seems to think it is important.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Well I don't buy the idea that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition.

Why? And why should it matter? Men with a double Y chromosome have a genetic predisposition toward violence. That doesn't mean it's ok for them to be violent. Some people have a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism. That just means that have a harder fight against that temptation. Having a genetic predisposition towards a certain behavior has nothing whatsoever to say about whether that behavior is moral or not from a Christian perspective. We ALL have a genetic predisposition towards sin.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:46 pm

Kilarin wrote:Why? And why should it matter?

I don't believe it. That's it. I find the idea very questionable, because I know it's a moral issue, and on top of that I find the "research" language to be a stretch. Like they're taking something that could be 60% supportive of a notion they've preconceived and helped us out by bumping it up to 100% because they're so sure that it's right. You know, maybe some men inherently aren't men to the same degree as others (I've always been bigger and strong than my brothers, for instance), and I could see that possibly being genetic, but that doesn't make them homos. That's a poisonous twist of reality. I'm no scientist/biologist, but I know that that sort of thing has been and can be done with "research"--which is subject the interpretation of the researchers, who can push some facts to the fore-front and fail to mention others. It does matter.

Some people might not have a problem accepting this, but that doesn't make them more scientifically minded than I am, it just makes them more willing to accept something along those lines from people they don't know about a subject they don't understand.

Poor Christians and their destructive anti-scientific ideologies, huh?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:27 pm

ST wrote:You know, maybe some men inherently aren't men to the same degree as others (I've always been bigger and strong than my brothers, for instance), and I could see that possibly being genetic, but that doesn't make them homos.

Queue in "The more you know" rainbow.

Day of Silence

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: