Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're both really paranoid. The original post said nothing about conservatives or Christians.
Ummmm... The OP specifically stated the assumption that the "anti-gay crowd" would be thrilled. That alone makes it pretty obvious. Then you add the fact that the person who started this thread has a HUGE chip on her shoulder about Christians, and, well...
Fortunately, most people are smarter than that (though not everyone here). And unless I'm mistaken, there hasn't been anybody - Christian, anti-gay, or otherwise - who has celebrated the rape of this lesbian girl, as though she somehow deserved it.
You're both really paranoid. The original post said nothing about conservatives or Christians.
Yup... it only mentioned "anti-gay-marriage folks," who come from all walks of life. Sorry, but it seems to me the Christians are making it their issue here.
Yup... it only mentioned "anti-gay-marriage folks," who come from all walks of life. Sorry, but it seems to me the Christians are making it their issue here.
Yup... it only mentioned "anti-gay-marriage folks," who come from all walks of life. Sorry, but it seems to me the Christians are making it their issue here.
It's true, there is nothing in the OP that explicitly states that these "anti-gays" are Christians. Therefore, it may very well be true that this thread was not directed at Christians. However, there are a lot of anti-Christians on this site, so naturally, those of us who are Christians prick our ears up when we hear such rhetoric. (Additionally, others on this thread have already pointed a finger at Christianity.)
You're both really paranoid. The original post said nothing about conservatives or Christians.
connie did not say conservative in the part you quoted, she said political.
She was correct, it was meant to be political. Otherwise the fact that the woman being a lesbian would have been left out and not reported at all.
Last edited by monkeywrenching; 12-28-2008 at 05:54 AM..
Ummmm... The OP specifically stated the assumption that the "anti-gay crowd" would be thrilled. That alone makes it pretty obvious. Then you add the fact that the person who started this thread has a HUGE chip on her shoulder about Christians, and, well...
Fortunately, most people are smarter than that (though not everyone here). And unless I'm mistaken, there hasn't been anybody - Christian, anti-gay, or otherwise - who has celebrated the rape of this lesbian girl, as though she somehow deserved it.
I just read the post as it was written without making inferences.
I've never equated the phrase "anti-gay crowd" with Christians or conservatives. Not all of you think alike, right?
It's actually pretty funny to me - it's like you're seeing words that aren't even there.
If you go around making assumptions about everybody and everything that's written, you're going to drive yourself crazy. I'm glad I don't live that way.
connie did not say conservative in the part you quoted, she said political.
She was correct, it was meant to be political. Otherwise the fact that the woman being a lesbian would have been left out and not reported at all.
You obviously didn't follow the conversation. If you had, you would have understood the sequence of comments.
And you're saying that the news story shouldn't have mentioned that the woman was a lesbian, and that mentioning it makes it political? How?
You obviously didn't follow the conversation. If you had, you would have understood the sequence of comments.
And you're saying that the news story shouldn't have mentioned that the woman was a lesbian, and that mentioning it makes it political? How?
look, the complete story was meant to be political in nature. if it was not meant to be policial, then all reference to the victim being a lesbian would have not been told. the report would have just said that a female viictim was gangraped by a group of men.
look, the complete story was meant to be political in nature. if it was not meant to be policial, then all reference to the victim being a lesbian would have not been told. the report would have just said that a female viictim was gangraped by a group of men.
For that matter, maybe it's political if they even mention that it's a woman, right? I mean - why do they have to do that? Couldn't they just say "a person"?
Whenever a serious crime story is reported in the news, details about the victim are reported, especially details which may explain how or why the crime occurred.
If an abortion doctor is shot while leaving his office, should the media just say "a doctor was shot" without mentioning that he was leaving his abortion clinic?
If a Republican campaign office is bombed, should the media just report that "a campaign office was bombed" without mentioning that it was a Republican campaign office?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
