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.
Clue to kooks...........non christians make fun of gays too. They make fun of nerds and jocks and dorks and on and on. The world goes on.
Not always.
There were once a couple of kids in Columbine,Colorado who were were bullied because of who they were. For some of their bullies (and for others), the world did not go on.
Not necessarily. A lot of people use this excuse while they personally kick out people (rather than banning actions) from their churches. I know several LGBTQ people that were kicked out of their churches when people found out they're LGBT. Sorry but no matter which way you slice it, that is hating the sinner, not the sin.
I do believe some Christians do make a sincere attempt to hate the sin and not the sinner, but a lot of people do hate people, rather than actions. Not to mention, you can't take the gayness out of a person, just like you can't take the blackness out of a person.
For people who are still convinced homosexuality is a matter of behavior--so too is being a follower of Christ--can you take the Christian out of a person? If you are a Christian, how would you feel if someone said "you can be who you are and God loves you...as long as you stop going to church and believing in Christ." Isn't that a part of who you are? Can you really separate that out and still be who you are?
I've seen it plenty of times:
Fundie: "Gays are sick, unnatural, subhuman perverts! God hates them! All gays are pedophiles! All gays have AIDS! It is my Christian duty to prevent them from having rights, getting married, sitting in the front of the bus, and being able to show their faces in public! I'm boycotting Xcel Energy and Comcast because they inevitably provide services to gays! DIRTY F@GGOTS BURN IN HELL! DIRTY F@GGOTS BURN IN HELL! F@GS DIE GOD LAUGHS!"
(or the more sugarcoated, but equally nasty version)
Conservative Christian with simpering smile: "I don't hate you, I just disagree with everything about you. Love the sinner, hate the sin! I'm a loving Christian, and that's why I'm lovingly warning you that if you don't stop loving who you want and being true to yourself, God will have no choice but to torture you for eternity. Sorry, my religious beliefs forbid me from treating you like an equal human being, but I still love you!"
Gay person: "Will you please leave me alone?"
Fundie: "ZOMG I'm being persecuted! All I was trying to do is tell you what a wretched sinner you are! When will the oppression of us Christians ever end?
That's just silly. You repeatedly condemn ALL anti-bullying campaigns, and yet when asked to name one MAJOR campaign that is currently in public schools, you link to one being run as a test in 3 schools. What do you know of the major anti-bullying campaigns, and why are you so against them?
Please name a major anti-bullying campaign currently in public schools, and why you are against it?
Well, since I recognize the loaded nature of such questions as "Why do you think it's okay to beat your wife" ... the answer is not so clear cut. But I'll endeavor to explain ....
First, I think it's tragic for kids to be bullied to the extent some of the more extreme cases which have been publicized, reveal. No kid, or any person for that matter, should be subjected to such treatment, and it sickens me that we've allowed such an environment to manifest. But this is just a symptom of a much greater problem that such "programs" will do nothing to correct, but in fact, redirects resources and actions in the wrong direction. YOU CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE TO BE COMPASSIONATE, any more than you can force someone to love. It's liberal foolishness run a muck.
Personally, I never witnessed such extremes in school early on ... that is, until another "well meaning" NEW liberal program was instituted ... school busing. That was my first taste of pure racial hatred which was directed at me and my other classmates who were the unfortunate victims of that ill conceived social experiment that transported us miles across town and dropped us off at a all black school, with halls filled with portraits of prominent black figures in history covering every square inch of walls of that place. And the welcome we "whities" received was not exactly "red carpet" from either the black students or the mostly black teachers who were ill equipped to deal with the extreme tensions this created, and particularly given some of the teachers own racial prejudices as well. To them, we were interlopers and a source of more problems, and treated as such, in spite of the fact that we were not there by our own choosing. I'll leave the story at that, and you can imagine the rest ... but you'll probably never picture in your mind the sensations and anxieties and the fear we felt. So yes ... I can personally relate to kids that have been victims of bullies ... but I was a tough kid, and eventually realized that the best way to ensure my safety was not to expect it from the school staff, but to pop a couple of the biggest aggressors in the pie hole, which garnered a little respect that was lacking. Today, such actions would have likely resulted in me hauled away in handcuffs just for defending myself. But I digress ...
To your question .... I'm against ALL of the "campaigns" for which you inquire, because I understand the nature of them all. Pure propagandist social engineering exercises that may appear as beneficial on the surface, but is steeped in agenda.
I cite one example for illustrative purposes ... New York's "Dignity in All Schools Act". Here's a snipit of the goal of this fine program ....
"Among the most important provisions ignored by the mayor but required by the Dignity in All Schools Act are mandatory anti-harassment trainings for school staff and monitoring, reporting and tracking of bias-based harassment, including a complaint process mechanism for parents and students."
Well now ... perhaps someone can explain to me what is meant by "Biased-Based" harassment, and how that is so much more important to address than the "un-biased based" versions? Wait .. let me help you with that ... "biased-based" harassment includes any form that is directed at a minority .. be it racial or ethnic or cultural or sexual orientation type ... while I guess the red headed kid with a face full of freckles is just SOL. That kid is fair game ... and he or she can be ridiculed until they climb up to the roof and jump off .... well, we can't save them all, I suppose. No big deal, as that red headed kid is probably an Irish Catholic, so C'est la vie! We've got too many of those anyways ...
Of course, "Sally four eyes", she's out of luck too ... unless her name is "Shanequa four eyes", then we've got a good, racially motivated hate crime case that we can take immediate action on!! Fat arse Mary ... she get's no protection either ... unless she's dating Josephine the transgender ... then we've got a major problem on our hands that require the assistance of our "Federal Assigned Rescue Team" (Fart) Team for short.
Now, if you are intellectually ill equipped to read between the lines ... no worries ... as that is not necessary ... you can just read ON the lines, and try to get those neurons firing to the point that you can comprehend the true nature (if understated) of specifying a specific class of harassment to be combated ... the "biased-based" type of bullying which is so much worse than the un-biased type ... except for the bullied kid who doesn't see the difference that you enlightened liberals see.
Then, you might have an epiphany about the true nature of this institutionalized categorization of who deserves protection and who is up the creek without a paddle, and how that might create it's own layers of biased discrimination under the guise of combating bias and discrimination? Oh you intellectual liberal elitists have some really distorted world views, dontcha?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick
That's the best personal attack you could come up with? Ironically the construct for my user name is the same as yours, so.....
Hahaha ... everything is a personal attack with you all ... I was simply prospering a guess that "zimbo" was a reference to a cartoon character in the "real monsters" cartoon, and how that might indicate your age as being a little younger than me ... but it was just a guess, and not a "personal attack" unless of course one can actually attack a fictitious handle used by an unknown person on a message board?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick
His delivery was unfortunate, I have never contested that. The message that some Christians are hypocrites for cherry-picking certain parts of the Bible to support their bigotry is spot-on.
Unfortunate to the extent that his crudeness, vulgarity and inappropriate attack on those kids is indefensible, no doubt. But that really doesn't stop you from supporting the real message, now does it? Nosiree ... let's not shoot the messenger ... unless he's a Christian ... then fire away ... Hahaha!!
Nevertheless, the "message" itself is a fraud, and assumes an iota of legitimacy in the extremely exaggerated claim of this masterfully coordinated Christian crusade against homosexuals, when the reality is, the Christians are just tired of the endless bashing by leftist, atheist morons such as Savage who think decorum is simply defined as pretty curtains on windows, and leopard skin sofas.
Everyone reaches a breaking point, and society is getting real tired of this "woe is us, gay pity party" constantly jammed down our collective throats, and the underlying agenda of indoctrinating children with these leftist lies and distortions. Truthfully, that's the real deal.
Of course, failing to maintain the patience of Job, is another sign of Christian hypocrisy, no doubt ... bunch of pansies.
There were once a couple of kids in Columbine,Colorado who were were bullied because of who they were. For some of their bullies (and for others), the world did not go on.
And there will always be kids with mental problems but really what does it have to do with the topic of this thread LOL
I truly can't speak to his intelligence or lack thereof, although I will agree that it was foolish to use the words he did to make his point because it gave ammunition to people who want to misconstrue the spirit of what he said. Saying anything to give the appearance of attacking someone else's beliefs when an anti-bullying advocate is problematic. However, I do agree with the spirit of what he said (not how he said it), which is that a subset of (not all, not most) people do cherry-pick Bible verses and use them as a weapon against LGBT people via action (not just personally held belief). Had he chosen a different way to express that sentiment, I wonder if this thread would even exist. If I believed he was attacking faith in general or Christians in particular, rather than attacking the specific behavior I just referred to, I would have a problem with that. And as I've said a multitude of times across this thread, I do have a problem with how he chose to express himself to a teen audience, given his role as an anti-bullying advocate.
I can't address your second paragraph without taking this thread way OT, but truthfully, I do not see a systematic marginalization or persecution of Christians in this country. I suspect we could have a very interesting debate about that, which I'm happy to do on another thread. I also wanted to thank you for the interesting discussion with both of us being civil even where we disagree.
Thank you... and likewise! I m happy to move on from this topic, for now. And looking forward to debating with you on another thread!
First, I think it's tragic for kids to be bullied to the extent some of the more extreme cases which have been publicized, reveal. No kid, or any person for that matter, should be subjected to such treatment, and it sickens me that we've allowed such an environment to manifest. But this is just a symptom of a much greater problem that such "programs" will do nothing to correct, but in fact, redirects resources and actions in the wrong direction. YOU CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE TO BE COMPASSIONATE, any more than you can force someone to love. It's liberal foolishness run a muck.
To your question .... I'm against ALL of the "campaigns" for which you inquire, because I understand the nature of them all. Pure propagandist social engineering exercises that may appear as beneficial on the surface, but is steeped in agenda.
I cite one example for illustrative purposes ... New York's "Dignity in All Schools Act". Here's a snipit of the goal of this fine program ....
"Among the most important provisions ignored by the mayor but required by the Dignity in All Schools Act are mandatory anti-harassment trainings for school staff and monitoring, reporting and tracking of bias-based harassment, including a complaint process mechanism for parents and students."
Well now ... perhaps someone can explain to me what is meant by "Biased-Based" harassment, and how that is so much more important to address than the "un-biased based" versions? Wait .. let me help you with that ... "biased-based" harassment includes any form that is directed at a minority .. be it racial or ethnic or cultural or sexual orientation type ... while I guess the red headed kid with a face full of freckles is just SOL. That kid is fair game ... and he or she can be ridiculed until they climb up to the roof and jump off .... well, we can't save them all, I suppose. No big deal, as that red headed kid is probably an Irish Catholic, so C'est la vie! We've got too many of those anyways ...
Of course, "Sally four eyes", she's out of luck too ... unless her name is "Shanequa four eyes", then we've got a good, racially motivated hate crime case that we can take immediate action on!! Fat arse Mary ... she get's no protection either ... unless she's dating Josephine the transgender ... then we've got a major problem on our hands that require the assistance of our "Federal Assigned Rescue Team" (Fart) Team for short.
Now, if you are intellectually ill equipped to read between the lines ... no worries ... as that is not necessary ... you can just read ON the lines, and try to get those neurons firing to the point that you can comprehend the true nature (if understated) of specifying a specific class of harassment to be combated ... the "biased-based" type of bullying which is so much worse than the un-biased type ... except for the bullied kid who doesn't see the difference that you enlightened liberals see.
Then, you might have an epiphany about the true nature of this institutionalized categorization of who deserves protection and who is up the creek without a paddle, and how that might create it's own layers of biased discrimination under the guise of combating bias and discrimination? Oh you intellectual liberal elitists have some really distorted world views, dontcha?
Everyone reaches a breaking point, and society is getting real tired of this "woe is us, gay pity party" constantly jammed down our collective throats, and the underlying agenda of indoctrinating children with these leftist lies and distortions. Truthfully, that's the real deal.
I truly can't speak to his intelligence or lack thereof, although I will agree that it was foolish to use the words he did to make his point because it gave ammunition to people who want to misconstrue the spirit of what he said. Saying anything to give the appearance of attacking someone else's beliefs when an anti-bullying advocate is problematic.
Foolish ... i.e counterproductive, that's what you really mean. isn't it? Counterproductive in terms of "giving ammunition to people who want to misconstrue the spirit of what he said". Problematic ... unfortunate ... counterproductive .... ANYTHING BUT a direct repudiation of his bigoted behavior toward those kids and the attack on their beliefs. Hell, you can't even acknowledge the blatant hypocrisy without a qualifying explanation of the "spirit" of the message. No ... everyone is just overreacting and misconstruing what he said?
You see ... this really is a major problem and a consistent theme from you leftist liberals ... always at the ready to mercilessly crucify anyone for even the slightest perception of an offense ... yet you will NEVER admit fault on your side EVER. Always an excuse and an apologist attitude.
It would kill you to say .. "the guy acted like a total jerk, and I denounce such poor behavior" without qualifying remarks and caveats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain
However, I do agree with the spirit of what he said (not how he said it), which is that a subset of (not all, not most) people do cherry-pick Bible verses and use them as a weapon against LGBT people via action (not just personally held belief). Had he chosen a different way to express that sentiment, I wonder if this thread would even exist. If I believed he was attacking faith in general or Christians in particular, rather than attacking the specific behavior I just referred to, I would have a problem with that. And as I've said a multitude of times across this thread, I do have a problem with how he chose to express himself to a teen audience, given his role as an anti-bullying advocate.
Let me explain something that you seem to be confused about. The "spirit" of what someone says is directly reflected in HOW they say it. And the mean spirited nature of the message was clearly evident from the choice use of vulgarity ... and if one didn't gather enough from that ... the mean spirited nature of heckling those that simply decided to quietly exit, rather than continue to listen to his vitriolic insults should be evidence enough ... but apparently not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain
I can't address your second paragraph without taking this thread way OT, but truthfully, I do not see a systematic marginalization or persecution of Christians in this country. I suspect we could have a very interesting debate about that, which I'm happy to do on another thread. I also wanted to thank you for the interesting discussion with both of us being civil even where we disagree.
I think civility is a good thing .. so long as one doesn't use it to hide behind distortions, or consider it un-civil when one points out such distortions
But I have to say that this entire post I'm responding to is one gigantic distortion of reality.
The attack on God and particularly Christianity is so blatant and widespread that it's mind boggling for someone to claim "I just don't see it". The loathing of Christianity by the left appears in EVERY SINGLE DEBATE about every imaginable topic of controversy ...from abortion to evolution to politics to science.
And it most certainly is "systematic", from the removal of God in the "pledge of allegiance" to the inane demands that it be removed from the counterfeit currency that has been foisted on us by the banker gangsters. Not a peep from the left about the real problem with our monetary system ... just get rid of that "In God We Trust" nonsense, and everything will be fine.
For example, if you dare question any aspect of Darwinian Evolution, you're automatically labeled a religious nut ... even if you're a freaking atheist! No way could such a challenge be born from the fact that the theory itself is preposterous nonsense, and the Christian bashing commences. And if you are against terminating the lives of a Million plus babies annually ... again, you're a religious fanatic rather than just being a person who is morally opposed to infanticide, and the bashing commences. You name the topic, and I can show you right here on CD the pages upon pages of Christian bashing and all of the juvenile comments about fairytale Gods and so forth .... and RARELY have I seen any such displays of pure vitriol from the other side.
Legislation over the past 20-30 years pertaining to social matters have been almost exclusively left leaning, particularly the attack on God and Christianity under the totally twisted and distorted arguments of constitutional separation of church and state, with an unceasing effort to exercise society of anything remotely connected to religious faith or God. And these efforts are taken to such irrational extremes as considering the long standing tradition of the kind spirited nature of wishing someone a "Merry-Freaking-Christmas being an intolerable insult that must be replaced with "Happy Holidays". And I could go on for pages and pages listing the multitude of examples of such well coordinated and systematic attacks from the left .... so I don't know who you think you are BS'ing here with this "I don't see it happening" stuff. Stevie Wonder could "see" it.
Vulgarity doesn't always imply mean-spiritedness. Sometimes it can imply passion and fervor. A statement like "I f***ing love you so much" uses vulgarity to convey intensity without being mean-spirited. "People like you should die" conveys mean-spiritedness without the need for vulgarity. In any case, I also don't think that it is fair to use the fact you are older, GuyNTexas, to somehow certify that your opinion is more important, because regardless of your age, being gay is something you will never understand personally. Your whole understanding of homosexuality is from a very heterosexual point of view. Nothing wrong with that, but calling on personal experience to give ammunition to your opinion on a topic you've had no personal experience with makes no sense.
That said, I do maintain that this speaker should have thought more about how the message would land on the audience's ears. As a speaker, that is something you need to know all about--your audience. I am simply pointing out, though, that vulgarity in and of itself isn't proof that this speaker was mean-spirited, because it's possible he was just thoughtless.
Vulgarity doesn't always imply mean-spiritedness. Sometimes it can imply passion and fervor. A statement like "I f***ing love you so much" uses vulgarity to convey intensity without being mean-spirited. "People like you should die" conveys mean-spiritedness without the need for vulgarity. In any case, I also don't think that it is fair to use the fact you are older, GuyNTexas, to somehow certify that your opinion is more important, because regardless of your age, being gay is something you will never understand personally. Your whole understanding of homosexuality is from a very heterosexual point of view. Nothing wrong with that, but calling on personal experience to give ammunition to your opinion on a topic you've had no personal experience with makes no sense.
That said, I do maintain that this speaker should have thought more about how the message would land on the audience's ears. As a speaker, that is something you need to know all about--your audience. I am simply pointing out, though, that vulgarity in and of itself isn't proof that this speaker was mean-spirited, because it's possible he was just thoughtless.
His history tells us it wasn't just "thoughtless."
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.
