Not exactly shocked at turning them away... I am a little surprised that they would claim outright that Christian and Gay were two mutually exclusive adjectives. Also surprised that the couple didn't receive a refund. That's frustrating.
However, I call the couples' motives into questions a little, also. Hmmm...
In the end, I think I'm angry at all parties involved.
[Edited for excessive elipses]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Why are you angry at the couple?
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I'm unfamiliar with the blogger, and meant to read more, but I wasn't sure if they were only going to the Date Night in order to cause this precise reaction. If that's the case, they haven't exactly endeared themselves to me. I mean, I completely understand going if you legitimately wanted to hear relationship advice from Ken Ham, or, even, if you wanted to poke fun later at hearing relationship advice from Ken Ham. You're paying $71 to do just that.
But, I find the idea of a gay couple going just to make a statement or cause a scene annoying. Certainly well within their rights, especially given the fact they paid, but annoying to me, nonetheless.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Interesting story: I went to the Creation Museum as part of a graduate course on the presentation of evolution/creation in museums. After going through the exhibit, me and my friends were comparing the presentation of material in this museum to that of the Fields in Chicago (more the mode of presentation rather than the actual facts themselves) and one of the museum staff starting stalking us. It was quite creepy. She was barely trying to hide the fact that she was following us and listening in on our conversation. Eventually my friend turned around and asked if he could help her and she scurried off.
I have my own opinion on the Creation Museum, but one way or another, that was pretty unsettling.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If you got them to say "No gays, gtfo" you won.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I think sometimes, you have to do things like this just to show what the reaction will be (if that's what they were doing). It's a peaceful illustration of bigotry - they even paid for the privilege.
I'm totally okay with people making nonviolent statements.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Even if they did go with the intention of provoking this reaction, how is that any different than sit ins at segregated lunch counters in the civil rights era?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:However, I call the couples' motives into questions a little, also. Hmmm....
If their account is honest, then exactly what about their motives is questionable? Why are you angry at them, too, and why are you surprised that they were stolen from?
I mean as to their motives being questionable, homosexuals seeking to expose homophobia doesn't seem very questionable to me (I could throw in the fact that the organization hosting the event receives government funds, and a bunch of other factors). Being angry at homosexuals for exposing the prejudice of people against their particular group, when they are so small and the prejudiced group is so large, seems strange to me.
And being surprised that they were stolen from seems really strange to me. That sort of thing isn't unheard of even when you don't throw in the 'they can't be Christians `cause they're gay' angle in there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Even if they did go with the intention of provoking this reaction, how is that any different than sit ins at segregated lunch counters in the civil rights era?
It's not. It's even worse in this case because you can do any one of a hundred things which are not falling into this obvious protest and basically handing them everything they need for a moral victory.
They could have said "We are exercising the right not to have you at this private event because it is evident to us that you are here with disruptive or malicious intent as anti-creationism bloggers."
Then give them their refund and send them on their merry way.
Oh but nooooooooooo, it's "You can't be here because you're gay and that's disruprive icky and unchristian." Followed by a lie about that being a stated fact on their site.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
quote: Being angry at homosexuals for exposing the prejudice of people against their particular group, when they are so small and the prejudiced group is so large, seems strange to me.
I'm not frustrated at all with homosexuals that expose the prejudice of people against our particular group, when we are so small.
I am, however, frustrated when exposing those prejudices comes along with claiming false ignorance. Especially when I'm sure it was quite clear that we wouldn't be welcome there (My "How should Christians respond to gay marriage" pamphlet that I got as a souvenir illustrates their position quite clearly).
They did manage to expose things that surprised me, however. That they weren't allowed a refund, that the Museum staff would intentionally lie, and that they would take such a large and public (However inadvertently public) stance against the prospect of being "gay" and "Christian".
I just think that their means of doing so is frustrating. I sympathize strongly with Christian gay couples who wish to attend a seminar taught by Ken Ham. But, I think that going there with no other purpose than taking some stand is rather disrespectful to the beliefs of AiG. From a social context, it's worked out. But, from my personal ideas of morality, I find their actions sketchy. That's all. I'd rather they found a much more straightforward way of gathering this information.
And, besides. It remains to be seen what their intentions were. Were they exposing an organization that discriminates hard-core against gays? Or were they merely satirizing it? None of it makes a different in social affect; I wouldn't say that they "shouldn't", but I know that it personally grates with me.
I suppose that I would say that they reached a good end through questionable means.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: But, I think that going there with no other purpose than taking some stand is rather disrespectful to the beliefs of AiG.
Yes it is. Those beliefs ought not be respected. Freedom of religion doesn´t demand that we countenance bigotry with our understanding and patience. We should *allow* it, where it is protected as a right, but we should cast scorn upon it and those who defend it at every advantageous opportunity. The message needs to be clear. You have a right to be a small minded bigot, but you will not escape constant and loud public ridicule.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:I'd rather they found a much more straightforward way of gathering this information.
This was the most straightforward way to find out how this bigoted and worthless group was going to react to finding that gay people were going to attend a function.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Attend a function "openly" Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum:
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: But, I think that going there with no other purpose than taking some stand is rather disrespectful to the beliefs of AiG.
Yes it is. Those beliefs ought not be respected. Freedom of religion doesn´t demand that we countenance bigotry with our understanding and patience. We should *allow* it, where it is protected as a right, but we should cast scorn upon it and those who defend it at every advantageous opportunity. The message needs to be clear. You have a right to be a small minded bigot, but you will not escape constant and loud public ridicule.
I strongly disapprove of this sentiment. While I certainly agree with fighting against intolerance, I do not believe we need to chase all small minded bigots until they can't even leave their homes (not that you said that exactly). Nor do I agree we need to make demonstrations at their places of business until they cease to exist.
Rosa Parks doing what she did was important because she was fighting against a bigotry that extended to a public service. Martin Luther King rightly established that black's were being treated like second class citizens, and fought against institutionalized racism in the form of Jim Crow laws.
These museum people with their particular brand of Christianity believe in a few things I think are just flat out wrong. If that leads them to be rude and unwelcoming to certain people, fine, I won't be visiting their museum, or joining their church. But the idea that we need to keep sending people there so that they can be turned away at the door, which every private institution has the right to do, and try to dry up their business is just ridiculous. It's a waste of time. I wouldn't go to that museum and attempt to subvert their message by gathering a bunch of youngsters around myself and teaching them evolution and the folly of creationism.
If the majority of the people in this country were prejudiced against same sex couples, would you appreciate a bunch of them crashing a beauty pageant where the contestants were all drag queens, by attempting to gain admission into the pageant? Loudly stating, "They have a right to believe as they choose, but *WE* have the right to ridicule and laugh at them for being sexual deviants, and to keep this sort of moral garbage off of the streets, and out of the sight of our sensitive women and children!"
Give me a break. These people at their weird attempt at a museum are misguided sure, but do we really *need* to teach them a lesson by forcing them to turn people away at the door, and thus have more occasions to rail against their "intolerance?" I can think of so many better battlegrounds for people looking to take a moral stand against intolerance. Schools where gay kids are physically and mentally abused, gay reformation programs, (where gay children are sent to "straighten up"), the military (which is on the cusp of major reform, but may have difficulty adjusting to it), politicians who speak out against homosexuals as not deserving of the same basic rights Americans all have.
If I wanted to seek out every single business where the proprietors held negative views about Mormonism, I'd have to spend the rest of my life picketing, and to be honest, it does not sound like a very useful way to spend my time.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If someone tries to get into a private Republican event while wearing a bright Obama T-shirt, and the Republicans refuse to let them in, that doesn't "expose" the Republicans as being anti-Democrat. It merely shows they realize the signs of someone who is only there to disrupt their event.
This seems to be similar.
I'm not sure what this exposes. It seems mainly just designed to annoy the organizers of the event. I don't think annoying people is a particularly good method of getting them to change their mind - although it does work from time to time.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
If they can keep someone out of the museum, and keep their funds, because they are gay, and that is not Christian, could other non-Christians be barred as well? Could they keep their money and still not let them in?
Could they keep Jews out?
Muslims?
Mormons?
Members of each of these groups may believe strongly in a "Creationist" view of how the world was created, so each may buy tickets to attend events there. Would we be any more or less upset if they were then kicked out because they were not Christian enough?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... which every private institution has the right to do, and try to dry up their business is just ridiculous.
Eh?
Don't you guys have the equivalent of one of these?
quote:Ontario adds “sexual orientation” to Human Rights Code Published: Wednesday, January 28, 1987, 7:20 am ... Attorney General Ian Scott, who opened the debate, downplayed the hidden implications of such legislation. “The purpose of this legislation is not to exalt their status,” he said, “…nor to alter any of the fabric of our society…It does not alter the law of marriage. It does not downgrade the family as the central institution of our country. It does not alter or modify individual or societal values.” The purpose of the amendment, he said is to protect homosexuals employment, accommodation and in the provision of services.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If they can keep someone out of the museum, and keep their funds, because they are gay, and that is not Christian, could other non-Christians be barred as well? Could they keep their money and still not let them in?
Could they keep Jews out?
Muslims?
Mormons?
Members of each of these groups may believe strongly in a "Creationist" view of how the world was created, so each may buy tickets to attend events there. Would we be any more or less upset if they were then kicked out because they were not Christian enough?
The fairness of not allowing a person into an event for those reasons depends on the nature of the event. Am I correct in believing there are religious events that Mormons have which I could not attend because I am not Mormon?
Truthfully, if we are talking about an event that is intended to be a Christian event about relationships, I think they probably could choose not to include non-Christians. (Although ironically, that seems like a very un-Christian thing to do.)
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: But the idea that we need to keep sending people there so that they can be turned away at the door, which every private institution has the right to do...
So if I have a restaurant, I'm allowed to turn away black people?
I thought we struck that sort of thing down in the 50s.
[ February 14, 2011, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum:
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: But, I think that going there with no other purpose than taking some stand is rather disrespectful to the beliefs of AiG.
Yes it is. Those beliefs ought not be respected. Freedom of religion doesn´t demand that we countenance bigotry with our understanding and patience. We should *allow* it, where it is protected as a right, but we should cast scorn upon it and those who defend it at every advantageous opportunity. The message needs to be clear. You have a right to be a small minded bigot, but you will not escape constant and loud public ridicule.
I strongly disapprove of this sentiment. While I certainly agree with fighting against intolerance, I do not believe we need to chase all small minded bigots until they can't even leave their homes (not that you said that exactly). Nor do I agree we need to make demonstrations at their places of business until they cease to exist.
Until they cease to spew bigotry. That you tie their existence into their bigoted "belief system" is interesting.
And no, we don't *need* to. We should. Honestly, BB, I don't want to play the racecard here because it's not exactly fair, but, well, you know what I'm going to say. If this were about race you wouldn't stand up for these creeps.
quote: If I wanted to seek out every single business where the proprietors held negative views about Mormonism, I'd have to spend the rest of my life picketing, and to be honest, it does not sound like a very useful way to spend my time.
You need to be honest here. We're talking about demonstrating against open and clear discrimination against gays. If there were businesses that didn't allow Mormons as customers, I would be right there with you for the protest, because that'd be bull****.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote: But the idea that we need to keep sending people there so that they can be turned away at the door, which every private institution has the right to do...
So if I have a restaurant, I'm allowed to turn away black people?
I thought we stuck that sort of thing down in the 50s.
Yes, you're allowed to. Probably it would be bad for business.
quote: If someone tries to get into a private Republican event while wearing a bright Obama T-shirt, and the Republicans refuse to let them in, that doesn't "expose" the Republicans as being anti-Democrat. It merely shows they realize the signs of someone who is only there to disrupt their event.
This seems to be similar.
Uh, no, it's not similar. A private Republican event is well justified in denying people entry who are obviously there to disrupt the goings on, and aren't part of the cause. Nobody cries foul at that because it's reasonable. Museums are not justified in denying entry to people who are openly gay, because discriminating against gays is wrong.
So, discriminating against your political opposition in this scenario = okay.
Discriminating against gays in most if not all* situations = not okay.
(*I qualify this because I can imagine scenarios such as, say, hetero speed dating events, in which having gays participate would foul up the works unfairly for paying customers- which applies equally in the inverse to heterosexuals in the same situations).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: I'm not "sticking up for them." I don't need to prove my credentials by meeting some sort of quota for vitriolic rhetoric against the museum. I think what they are doing is stupid.
If these bloggers are really concerned with civil rights, I've already outlined off the cuff places that would be *much* better served. This museum since its inception has been controversial and the butt of jokes on many TV shows and publications I've read.
I seriously doubt if the museum was like, "Sure gay people can come to our date night, we hope they'll see the light and repent!" that suddenly everything would be hunky dory.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Blackblade, do you know if public funding went towards the building or continued maintenance of this creation museum?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Blackblade, do you know if public funding went towards the building or continued maintenance of this creation museum?
No, but that would certainly be an important thing to know. I'd thought about it, but I haven't looked into it. If you did I'd appreciate it, I'll try to look into it while I'm at work, but no guarantees.
Posted by hef (Member # 12497) on :
Reference Supreme Court case Katzenbach v. McClung for turning away people on the basis of race at restaurants. The Court held it an impermissible restriction of interstate commerce. The restaurant in question (an Ollie's barbeque, I believe) was privately owned. I think this case is still good law.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by hef: Reference Supreme Court case Katzenbach v. McClung for turning away people on the basis of race at restaurants. The Court held it an impermissible restriction of interstate commerce. The restaurant in question (an Ollie's barbeque, I believe) was privately owned. I think this case is still good law.
Good to know, was it because the restaurant was serving customers from out of state, or obtaining supplies for its business from out of state?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
My cursory search netted that the "Museum" is privately funded, and seems to be proud of it.
Edited for spelling.
(Post spelled correctly, and punctuated by Janitor Blade. Don't worry, I won't be making a habit of this.)
[ February 14, 2011, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Try again...
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Janitor Blade swoops in to save the day!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:My cursory search netted that the, "Museum" is privately funded, and seems to be proud of it.
Janitor Blade has left a stray comma before 'Museum'.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Now I'm curious how the post was originally written.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Nope, my English teacher, (who is better than yours of course) said that one must always put a comma before quotation marks, brackets, and parentheses.
[ February 14, 2011, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Blackblade, will you accept my authority in this matter and accede to my judgement that this "rule" does not apply to scare quotes?
See what I did there? Hehe.
Oh and incidentally, you either misremember or are dead wrong according to any decent style guide I have ever read. Parentheses are not ordinarily preceded by commas. You are mistaken.The commas come after the end-parenthesis. Just look at your sentence for the reason why: the comma breaks the clauses in entirely the wrong place, attaching the parenthetical to the second clause, rather than the first. No sense in that. I wish we had had this discussion a week ago, because you may have lost points on this on the FSOT. I did presentations on abstract writing when I was in college, and I scored a 5 on AP Language, so I should know what I'm talking about.
Check into it if you don't believe me.
quote: Nope, my English teacher, (who is better than yours of course) said that one must always put a comma before quotation marks, brackets, and parantheses.
So, look, just for everybody out there who may be reading this, and not to be a dick, but this is just wrong- at least as far as it goes. I am actually surprised that BB is saying it, and I suspect he may be having a brain fart.
[ February 14, 2011, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't have time to address your points Orincoro, but simply put, commas before parentheses make sense to me, as we often pause before saying scare quotes, as well as quoting. When I use brackets a comma makes sense because we pause before saying the sentence within a sentence.
I don't disbelieve that you have style guides that say otherwise, I'm just certain I had a teacher that taught me to write that way. I remember asking about it, and am unclear what Jon Boy told me. I need to look that up, so as to clarify because if he did agree with you, it's simply a case of old habits dying hard. In any case, I've been using commas in that way ever since I started posting here on Hatrack.
[ February 14, 2011, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by hef: Reference Supreme Court case Katzenbach v. McClung for turning away people on the basis of race at restaurants. The Court held it an impermissible restriction of interstate commerce. The restaurant in question (an Ollie's barbeque, I believe) was privately owned. I think this case is still good law.
Good to know, was it because the restaurant was serving customers from out of state, or obtaining supplies for its business from out of state?
Both, as it happens. The restaurant was getting a little less than half it's supplies from out of state, and it was only a few miles from the interstate, so, half their customers were from out of state as well.
Been awhile since I've read the decision, but the impression I got was that no matter who had brought the suit, SCOTUS was waiting and ready to use the Commerce Clause as a reason to uphold the Civil Rights Act. Just interesting that the suit was actually brought by the restaurant owner rather than a customer.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
BB, Orincoro is right on this according to every style guide I've ever read, grammar/punctuation book I've taught from, grammar/punctuation book I've been taught from, and English teacher who I've had that covered this sort of material. To the extent that proscriptive punctuation rules are valid, any teacher who taught you the punctuation rules you're talking about here was simply wrong.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Regardless of what the style guides say, 'the, "museum"' is jarring. That can't possibly right.
In any case the Wikipedia article on scare quotes shows an example from the Chicago Manual of Style that disagrees with BB's usage.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Nope, my English teacher, (who is better than yours of course) said that one must always put a comma before quotation marks, brackets, and parantheses.
Nope. Both Orincoro and Noemon are right about this; there is no comma needed before a scare-quoted "Museum."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Speaking as an occasional copy-editor, you use a comma before dialogue in quotes, but you shouldn't use a comma before single words or phrases that are in quotes.
He leaned over and said, "Do you believe this 'museum' is for real?"
He leaned over and asked me if I thought this "museum" was for real.
The scare quotes imply the emphasis, no additional pause is needed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'll be sure to let Janitor Blade know your feelings on the matter! Since, you know, he lets me photograph him for the paper.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
:: laugh ::
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
lol
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
My only question is if the museum receives any federal money.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From what I can tell, the museum does not, but the people behind it are trying to open a Noah's Ark theme park that currently is being supported by state money.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's what I've heard as well, that there's indirect government money behind the organization.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't have time to address your points Orincoro, but simply put, commas before parentheses make sense to me, as we often pause before saying scare quotes, as well as quoting. When I use brackets a comma makes sense because we pause before saying the sentence within a sentence.
The problem is that commas don't always indicate pauses, and pauses aren't always indicated by commas. You could say that a pause before a parenthesis or a bracket is indicated by the parenthesis or bracket itself. And if there is a pause before scare quoted material, it's probably rather small. And I think a verbal scare quote is signaled more by stress, pitch, and volume than by a preceding pause.
quote:I don't disbelieve that you have style guides that say otherwise, I'm just certain I had a teacher that taught me to write that way. I remember asking about it, and am unclear what Jon Boy told me. I need to look that up, so as to clarify because if he did agree with you, it's simply a case of old habits dying hard. In any case, I've been using commas in that way ever since I started posting here on Hatrack.
I'm not at all surprised that a teacher taught you that. Heck, I heard it on an episode of Word Girl that my boys were watching the other day. I wanted to throw something at the TV.
I don't remember if we discussed this before, but the general rule is that you use commas before quotations that are syntactically removed from the rest of the sentence and not before quotations or material in quotation marks that are part of the syntax of the sentence.
Examples:
quote:He said, "This is the worst pizza ever." He said that "this is the worst pizza ever." He said that this is the worst "pizza" ever.
In the first sentence, the quotation doesn't really have any connection to the rest of the sentence, but in the second, it's run in to the sentence and is an integral part of its syntax.
[/deadhorsebeating]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:He said that "this is the worst pizza ever."
Since this is an indirect statement, the quotations shouldn't be in there at all. If you are going to quote a full sentence, then set it up as a quote, but if you are going to use an indirect statement, don't use quotation marks.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The word "bigotry" keeps being tossed around here, as if Christian fundamentalists could not have arrived at an intelligent, well-considered decision not to approve of homosexual behavior, since it is explicitly condemned in the Bible. This is not bigotry, it is belief. Saying they are bigoted is judgmental and intolerant in itself. It is like a Democrat being said to be "bigoted" because he is opposed to the views of Republicans, and vice-versa.
Personally, I don't see why they had to be refused admittance. Just admitting them would not endorse their lifestyle. And of course their admission fee should have been refunded.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Isn't bigotry simply a subset of belief?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Even if we take an explicit condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible as a given (although I expect kmboots or someone similar to dispute this), but if we take this as a given for the sake of argument, this is still no defence against a charge of bigotry.
Bigotry explicitly recorded in text and then transmitted to other people is still bigotry. It is not like the written word has a special cleansing power to neutralize bigotry.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What separates bigotry from other strong beliefs? For instance, is someone who is unbendingly intolerant of cocaine use a bigot?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:He said that "this is the worst pizza ever."
Since this is an indirect statement, the quotations shouldn't be in there at all. If you are going to quote a full sentence, then set it up as a quote, but if you are going to use an indirect statement, don't use quotation marks.
It's not an indirect statement. Perhaps it wasn't the best example, but that doesn't mean that you can't run a quote in to the sentence.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Perhaps you have a different definition of an indirect statement.
It isn't bad grammar. It is bad style.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I pretty much shared Black Blade's opinion about the blogger for most of the blog. I just couldn't figure out exactly why a gay couple would bother trying to prove that the people at the creation museum were bigots who would treat a homosexual couple unfairly. I mean, isn't that pretty much a "duh!" sort of thing? Why would anyone feel the need to prove it again and again? Is it some sort of sport to go poke at the fundamentalists? Sure, I think the fundamentalist discrimination is wrong, but since everyone already KNOWS about it, and a homosexual couple will get no real benefit from attending the event, what the heck was the point? It just seemed stupid and immature to me.
UNTIL... he got the the part about the same company trying to obtain public funding for an amusement park by claiming they would not discriminate in their hiring. I think that was really the point of the evening. They do have a purpose for exposing just how intolerant this particular company is, and it's to stop future injustices for people hired with public funds. (At least that's my take on it. If they were merely there to poke fun at the creationists, they need to grow up.)
And Ron... Alot of people used to believe the Bible gave men the right to enslave others. I mean, it's pretty much right there in the text that that sort of thing is ok. It's also routinely given men the impression that it's ok for them to beat their wives, since that is also written into the bible. Does that make any of those things ok? Just because someone holds a belief system that tells them that it's ok to be mean to someone else, doesn't mean that person isn't a bigot. Skinheads all have their "reasons" for believing they're better than their darker skinned neighbors.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
P.S. I thought this blog comment was really funny, "I'm sorry but the Creation Museum is completely correct in their stand. Fred had Wilma and Barney had Betty - so there were no gays when man lived with dinosaurs back in the good old days. Sheesh, what's wrong with people??????", but not as funny as later people telling him he's an idiot for referencing a cartoon.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I thought that was satire.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I thought that was satire.
creationists.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
Actually, I've flip-flopped.
I was frustrated with them for what I thought was a pointless ridiculing of AiG's beliefs, but after poking around I found more about Noah's Park. Incidentally, I knew only of the jobs it created, and it was marketed towards me as an over-blown "petting zoo". So, I thought it would be a cash cow, it's being built 10 minutes from my parents house, and I thought, "How great, that all these people can have jobs!", because that's a rather impoverished part of Kentucky. And didn't have any problem with our state allowing sales tax exemption. However, now I know about their statement of faith in their hiring, and I've changed my mind.
This also made me change my mind about the effectiveness of this gay couple's "stand." If their goal was to raise awareness about what I learned, then more power to 'em.
That said, I will point out a slight problem with the color/sexuality card. In many Christian circles, being "gay" isn't an issue... Pursuing the "homosexual lifestyle" is. (I'm gay and Christian and totally disagree with this viewpoint, just for the record)
They are not identical, discriminating against people taking certain actions (Dating, partnering, having sex) and discriminating against a physical attribute (Who can stop being black?).
This irks me. It's a fuzzy distinction, and, in my mind, does not change my personal views (That I won't knowledgeably profit an organization that discriminates against homosexuals), but I think it definitely makes discussing things about discrimination a great deal more tricky and complex. Perhaps more than some of you are giving them credit for.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: They are not identical, discriminating against people taking certain actions (Dating, partnering, having sex) and discriminating against a physical attribute (Who can stop being black?).
A common rejoinder to my equivocation of black and gay, but one I´ve adressed before and will be glad to address again.
The failure in this argument rests in a misunderstanding of the nature of prejudice. Prejudice against other races is made rather convenient by skin color, however, the source of racial emnity is not in physical apearance, but in basic cultural conflicts played out over multiple generations. The reason that some races in America have had an easier and shorter period of acceptance in mainstream culture, eg, the Irish, Germans, Eastern Europeans, is that their cultural seperatude is not reinforced by well recognized physical features that ´trap´ them within a social understanding of their ´race,´ from which their choice is either to be deviant, ie, act white, or be cooperative and act black. Either is transgressive of one or another cultural value set.. Whereas white foreigners assume places in mainstream culture unnoticed, colored people cannot do so, and are expected therefore to own or reject their racial heritage.
A great deal of prejudice therefore is in a socially maintained cultural divide, responsibility for which the minority race is often given, while all of society, white and colored, contribute to its maintainence. Transgression is rewarded by the mainstream, and reviled by those who adhere to their racial identity as a source of strength. Likewise, mainstream transgression into minority culture is derided when it is individual, while minority culture presents appealing mythoes to the mainstream for entertainment.
In this context, homosexuality fits the same profile of a minority culture with its behavior reinforced by genetic predispositions. If you are gay, but not flamboyantly demonstrative, you may be seen by gay *and* straight culture as an abherration. If flamboyant or outspoken, you gain solidarity with the entrenched culture, and if not, you are a pervert and a closet case, a transgressive secret gay. The elements of bigotry against gays are all there, and what´s more, the genetic differences that reinforce gay seperateness from society is much *more* relevant than skin color. Were humanity to suddenly have all culture wiped out in an instant, and everybody start out on an equal footing again, races would cease to matter, but sexuality would.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In many Christian circles, being "gay" isn't an issue..
This is true only insofar as the official stance is presented, when pressured. The number of christian circles where being gay isn't really an issue is still quite minimal (but growing).
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I've heard the argument that being gay is not the problem, but acting on that belief is. Its the consummation of the act which is adultery and which is specifically singled out in the Bible as a sin.
I then ask if two chaste and pure men who fell in love could hold hands at church. That is all. The two do not have sex, but they love each other.
The answer I get usually involves "appearances" and "bad examples" and "leads to confusion among children." In other words--being gay is no problem as long as you are properly closeted, hidden, and don't say anything to anyone--ever.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:This is true only insofar as the official stance is presented, when pressured. The number of christian circles where being gay isn't really an issue is still quite minimal (but growing).
I think its a bit better than minimal. The sermon two weeks ago at our church was about how Christians should approach homosexuality. The message was that Christ did not shun people who society considered deviant; to the contrary he made a consistent habit of reaching out especially to the groups that were traditionally shunned. Or in other words, if Christians want to be like Christ then they should not judge people who are gay. That was an unusually political sermon for our church, but the message wasn't particularly controversial and I think its a fairly common view among Christians.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: That said, I will point out a slight problem with the color/sexuality card. In many Christian circles, being "gay" isn't an issue... Pursuing the "homosexual lifestyle" is.
It doesn't really do anything for me either. If some Civil War-era Southerner said something like "We're ok with black people, as long as they paint their faces white, and don't do anything that could possibly inform us that they're black, except for possibly run as a politician making a big deal about oppressing black people" that doesn't really score any points over them saying "I don't like black people."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:This is true only insofar as the official stance is presented, when pressured. The number of christian circles where being gay isn't really an issue is still quite minimal (but growing).
I think its a bit better than minimal. The sermon two weeks ago at our church was about how Christians should approach homosexuality. The message was that Christ did not shun people who society considered deviant; to the contrary he made a consistent habit of reaching out especially to the groups that were traditionally shunned. Or in other words, if Christians want to be like Christ then they should not judge people who are gay. That was an unusually political sermon for our church, but the message wasn't particularly controversial and I think its a fairly common view among Christians.
Take note of mauve's hand-holding example. You could use this as a test to see how many churches of this presumed subset are telling the truth if they say that being gay really isn't an issue with them.
Most of them aren't going to be ones where homosexuality really isn't an issue. Speaking to the issue of tolerance and inclusiveness is nice, but it is a slim minority of churches who are actually tolerant and inclusive.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I can't speak with certainty for other congregations, but I'm certain hand-holding would not be an issue in our congregation.
And my impression is that would be the norm for similar Christian congregations - I'm Methodist, so other denominations could certainly operate differently.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
On the hand holding issue, while dating, my then boyfriend and I at church shared scriptures, so we sat close, our cheeks occassionally touched and once or twice, we kissed each other on the cheek. No mouth kissing, nothing beyond handholding. I got lectured by a little old lady for my completely inappropriate behaviour. I was an unmarried girl and I should be chaste. She would never tolerate that behaviour in her children and grandchildren. That behaviour should be reserved until marriage. So, you would need to first determine baseline reaction to PDAs before asking the gay men holding hand question. And while the anti-same sex marriage group may be made up of more than just the crazy old lady at my church, just give it time and that will be the only holdout group.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
None of the "reserved until marriage" thing, but kissing in sacrament meeting is such a BYU freshman thing. I'm not surprised you got called on it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The lecture was not about being lame or kissing in church, but that I wasn't married. If I had been married, she would have been fine with my behavior. Also, the kiss was a peck on the cheek. I have greeted my European friends with just as much intimacy.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
My big problem with church stands on Homosexuality is that there are two different Christian Church stands.
One is a true Christian stand--that sinners should not be attacked, and not be turned away, but should be brought into the church so that they can find salvation.
The other claims to be the true Christian stand--Homosexuality is a sin, and we must fight sin as Christ fought Satan. Homosexuals are our enemies and to safe guard the church, we must destroy our enemies.
The first one is trying to live a Christ-like life. The second one is trying to earn the gates of heaven by defeating Satan. Fighting Satan--easy. Living a Christ-like life--very hard.
In the name of Christ, someone attacks homosexuals--not physically, much anymore, but attacks their existence. When homosexuals and their friends rally to their defense, and claim, "you Christians shouldn't do that" the other group of Christians come out and say--"Don't blame Christ or the church for this." Then the first group says, "yeah, see--they are attacking the church. They are evil. We must attack them."
Circle continues.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I would buy the "homosexual lifestyle" card alot more if they were similarly disgusted with other blatantly sinful behavior. However, pastors are routinely found to have had extra-marital affairs, divorces are common, and single parents abound, and none of these behaviors causes much more than a clucking of the tongue - but they go WAY overboard with "homosexual behavior".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There are more than two Christian stands on homosexuality. One being that there is nothing particularly sinful about it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:None of the "reserved until marriage" thing, but kissing in sacrament meeting is such a BYU freshman thing. I'm not surprised you got called on it.
Lecturing consenting adult strangers on their behavior in a public setting, whose 'thing' is that? Now that we've established that pecks on the cheek are the province of libertine BYU freshmen, that is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I would buy the "homosexual lifestyle" card alot more if they were similarly disgusted with other blatantly sinful behavior. However, pastors are routinely found to have had extra-marital affairs, divorces are common, and single parents abound, and none of these behaviors causes much more than a clucking of the tongue - but they go WAY overboard with "homosexual behavior".
I think that's a bit of an exageration. Many pastors who were enormously successful have been caught having affairs, doing drugs, soliciting sex with another man, and have been run out of their parishes.
I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I don't think pastors are noteable for getting away with adultery.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I thought that was satire.
I know it was satire, but it was FUNNY satire.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I would buy the "homosexual lifestyle" card alot more if they were similarly disgusted with other blatantly sinful behavior. However, pastors are routinely found to have had extra-marital affairs, divorces are common, and single parents abound, and none of these behaviors causes much more than a clucking of the tongue - but they go WAY overboard with "homosexual behavior".
I think that's a bit of an exageration. Many pastors who were enormously successful have been caught having affairs, doing drugs, soliciting sex with another man, and have been run out of their parishes.
I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I don't think pastors are noteable for getting away with adultery.
I can't actually think of any who have actually be run out of preaching altogether, but I can't really say I know the life story of a ton of big name pastors.
I'm talking more about what I've seen with people in real life. I can think of three off the top of my head that had such a scandal break out, and two of them are still in their old churches. One of them did leave his church, and his wife divorced him, but he got a new job as a pastor after he moved. Those are the ones that I know of who got caught... Maybe my use of the word "routinely" was a bit much, but it happens often enough that it's only scandal, and not really shocking.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Pastors certainly find religious related work later, but what would you expect? Should Christians who are required to forgive everyone make sure that pastors who commit adultery never find work ever again?
I mean Peter denied even knowing Jesus three times in an evening, and that was after he lopped off some guys ear. He still went on to lead the church later, should the other 11 apostles have shunned him forever?
Paul was murdering Christians, but later converted and became an apostle because he changed.
I'm not saying all pastors change, some of them are genuine scum bags feeding off the naive and foolish. But if say my bishop had an affair outside of marriage and was repentant, I'd expect him to be released from his position, and I'd be OK with him continuing to attend church. If down the road he had shown a renewed willingness to remain faithful to his vows, I would be OK with seeing him back in leadership one day.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:I would buy the "homosexual lifestyle" card alot more if they were similarly disgusted with other blatantly sinful behavior. However, pastors are routinely found to have had extra-marital affairs, divorces are common, and single parents abound, and none of these behaviors causes much more than a clucking of the tongue - but they go WAY overboard with "homosexual behavior".
This is far too common in my experience.
To be fair, you can't join a social circle, make your own rules, and expect to be embraced. This really applies to those who claim to be "part of the club", and NOT those who are interested/curious/seeking. Those not "in the club" should not be held to the rules of the club, as long as they are honestly seeking. I think anyone should have to tolerate a rabble-rouser.
Note that this doesn't appear to apply to the OP.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I thought that was satire.
I know it was satire, but it was FUNNY satire.
Ah then. Indeed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:None of the "reserved until marriage" thing, but kissing in sacrament meeting is such a BYU freshman thing. I'm not surprised you got called on it.
Lecturing consenting adult strangers on their behavior in a public setting, whose 'thing' is that? Now that we've established that pecks on the cheek are the province of libertine BYU freshmen, that is.
Come on - there are definitely times and places where even mild exhibitionism - which nuzzling and kissing is, I don't believe you that you would act the same with friends - is more selfish than charming. Before the trapped audience in church counts. It's associated with BYU freshman because being that self-centered is par for the course with teenagers, but you hope people grow out of it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:None of the "reserved until marriage" thing, but kissing in sacrament meeting is such a BYU freshman thing. I'm not surprised you got called on it.
Lecturing consenting adult strangers on their behavior in a public setting, whose 'thing' is that? Now that we've established that pecks on the cheek are the province of libertine BYU freshmen, that is.
Come on - there are definitely times and places where even mild exhibitionism - which nuzzling and kissing is, I don't believe you that you would act the same with friends - is more selfish than charming. Before the trapped audience in church counts. It's associated with BYU freshman because being that self-centered is par for the course with teenagers, but you hope people grow out of it.
My point was that in order to use the gays holding hands at church question to show that people really aren't ok with gays as long as they aren't having gay sex, you need a baseline about what they find acceptable in general. If you object to chaste heterosexual displays, it would only make since you would also object to homosexuals displaying the same behavior and would therefore not work as a "gotcha" question.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Come on - there are definitely times and places where even mild exhibitionism - which nuzzling and kissing is, I don't believe you that you would act the same with friends - is more selfish than charming. Before the trapped audience in church counts. It's associated with BYU freshman because being that self-centered is par for the course with teenagers, but you hope people grow out of it.
There's a couple of things I think it might be helpful to consider for this discussion, katharina.
First, several of the terms you're using are pretty subjective. Perhaps not to you, but certainly to many other people-even within a group that might be more homogenous such as a sacrament meeting. For example, a peck on the cheek wouldn't rise to the level of 'mild exhibitionism' for many people even within that group. (I don't say 'most'.)
Then there's 'selfish' and 'charming'. Those are very much in the eye of the beholder, not to be determined by you, little old lecturing ladies, or BYU libertine teenagers for that matter. One could just as easily say that it's self-centered to presume it's one's place to lecture a stranger on the appropriateness of a consenting peck on the cheek, after all. It's not as though there's a rulebook somewhere where 'selfish' is defined. Who wrote the rulebook? The freshmen? The little old lady? Did the ward get together as a group one meeting and write it up? Perhaps the person pecking the other person on the cheek hasn't seen `em in a week. Perhaps they're European and that's a standard greeting amongst close friends, not considered either selfish or charming (I don't know), but rather socially neutral.
And then there's the concept of a trapped audience. Yes, the audience is trapped. Is their self-restraint afterward likewise trapped? Their 'mind my own business' trapped, or was she called to busybody? That little old lady, she can't even invoke the feeble excuse of children to protect against the shameful influence of one adult pecking another on the cheek and the horrors that would wreak. Did she bother to learn if any of the distinct possibilities outlined above were in place before lecturing?
I don't know, only scholarette can tell us, but it doesn't seem likely. What would be nice to have people grow out of would be the presumption that they have the right to, as grown adults, tell other grown adults what their business is, at least before they have the facts.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I've certainly given my wife a peck on the cheek in sacrament meeting as well as other similarly mild forms of affection. There's nothing indulgent or selfish about it - it's just how we are together. I've never heard any complaints but then we're usually sitting close to the back of the chapel. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I absolutely refute the validity of the "homosexual lifestyle" as anything besides an excuse for bigotry.
Christians don't condemn people for living a "lying lifestyle" although certainly most people lie on a regular basis (How do you like my haircut? "It makes you look like a homeless junkie" vs "it's nice").
The rule of Christianity is that everyone is a sinner, so singling out someone else's sin as a "lifestyle" while your sin is constantly being forgiven is the height of hipocracy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I absolutely refute the validity of the "homosexual lifestyle" as anything besides an excuse for bigotry.
Christians don't condemn people for living a "lying lifestyle" although certainly most people lie on a regular basis (How do you like my haircut? "It makes you look like a homeless junkie" vs "it's nice").
The rule of Christianity is that everyone is a sinner, so singling out someone else's sin as a "lifestyle" while your sin is constantly being forgiven is the height of hipocracy.
It's admirable you seem to be espousing Jesus', "mote and beam" philosophy. And I agree hypocrisy is pretty unbearable. But Christians do not promote a culture of dishonesty. The fact that many Christians lie is not a failing on the part of the religion, it's a failing on the part of those pretending to be Christians. The New Testement is quite clear on the issue of honesty, it even comes down on those who feel like they should swear impressive oaths when they say something they want believed.
In general I agree with you that there isn't anything in the gay lifestyle I'd object to. I've been with gay friends when they were kissing or holding hands and it certainly didn't bother me in the least. But I have read accounts of gay pride parades where participants were stripping each other's clothes off, and engaging in oral sex on the street, in front of bystanders. I've read of that sort of thing happening several times, and seen pictures taken by others who were there. I can't say I've personally witnessed it myself, so I cannot be certain that falls under the "gay lifestyle" but that sort of flamboyant sexuality isn't something I'd come close to condoning if it was heterosexuals doing it.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
Ever been to MARDI GRAS? straight people having sex in public. Stripping naked in public. Urinating in public. Drinking and drugging in public.....
Is that a fair example of the "straight lifestyle" ?
For that matter. What about spring break?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Ever been to MARDI GRAS? straight people having sex in public. Stripping naked in public. Urinating in public. Drinking and drugging in public.....
Is that a fair example of the "straight lifestyle" ?
For that matter. What about spring break?
"...that sort of flamboyant sexuality isn't something I'd come close to condoning if it was heterosexuals doing it."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think you've answered your own question BlackBlade. That isn't a "gay lifestyle" any more than a white man robbing a bank makes bank robbery a "white lifestyle."
One of the aspects of most Christians' view on gay people that I object to is that they claim that it is the specific act of sex (or marriage) between two same-sex partners that they object to, but often they bring up "gay lifestyle" or public displays of affection, or any other activity.
Ultimately, the Christians act as though the gay person is choosing to live a life of total perversion, unrepentant, and are thus much different from a straight person.
In fact, when you bring up the fact that Christians do not promote a "culture of dishonesty", you are talking about the very subject.
Has every Christian sinned last week? Have they all sinned this week? Will they all sin next week? I think the answer is yes to all three.
So clearly, Christians are habitual sinners, who promote a lifestyle of sin, as they can't manage to stop, no matter how hard they try. Christians ALL engage in a "lifestyle of sin."
It isn't really fair to single out the gays then, is it?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MightyCow: Except the behavior I am objecting to is found at "gay pride parades". If you want to argue that most gay people abhore that behavior, I'm listening. I've just never heard a gay person say so. It's entirely possible, even probable.
As for Christians sinning and therefore promoting a sinful lifestyle. No, you can't define an ideology by the actions of people who claim to adhere to it. But lets grant you that Christianity allows for sin, since it certainly has rituals and teachings regarding how sin ought to be responded to, and even guarantees that all of us will sin at some point. That does not mean they espouse sin, or celebrate it. Further, you can't act like only perfect people can condemn anything, the reasons why that wouldn't work are fairly obvious.
Look, we don't even disagree on much. I agree that some Christians criticize same sex PDA, when really their issue is they just don't like gay people. Just like I am sure there are people who would do as these bloggers did and gleefully go to a creationist museum to stir up trouble, while hiding behind the cloak of fighting against bigotry. Sorta like John Hancock whining about no taxation without representation, when clearly his desire to avoid customs was part of the equation.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
None of the gay people I know condone the public sex that a tiny percentage of the people at a gay pride parade might engage in. That's no more the "gay lifestyle" than adultery is the "Christian lifestyle" because some prominent Christians have been caught cheating.
My point is that while many Christians try to put gay people into a special category of "sinning" that is somehow unrepentant and habitual and promoted, that isn't a relevant distinction. Everybody is a habitual sinner, according to Christian doctrine.
quote:Further, you can't act like only perfect people can condemn anything, the reasons why that wouldn't work are fairly obvious.
And yet, Jesus said that he who is without sin should cast the first stone, that one should not inspect others' eyes without clearing their own, that people should judge not, lest they be judged and condemn not, lets they be condemned, that the blind leading the blind will both fall into a pit.
It amazes me the parts of the Bible people are willing to ignore in their quest to point out someone else sinning.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: MightyCow: Except the behavior I am objecting to is found at "gay pride parades". If you want to argue that most gay people abhore that behavior, I'm listening. I've just never heard a gay person say so. It's entirely possible, even probable. en clearly his desire to avoid customs was part of the equation.
Without also having ever heard a gay person say so, I'm going to guess that the silent majority of gay people are also against oral sex in public, even at a gay pride parade.
I remember being behind two women once in a line who kissed and thinking it was a little weird (having not seen this until college), but then I remembered the last time I was that close to anyone doing something remotely similar, it was two teenagers boy and girl Frenching in the school bus seat in front of me, two seats away while I was captive, and that was something I really didn't ever need to see. Watching people French kiss is really really really gross.
At the same time, half the point of pride parades is to be highly visible. Perhaps the end hope is that appropriate affections between all couples becomes okay, because it's not something no one hasn't seen before.
But public sex is always gross.
[ February 19, 2011, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
BB, I've been digging and am not coming up with anything concrete about public sex acts at gay pride parades. I have seen a few references to the Folsom Street Fair, a BDSM festival(NOT a gay pride event), but even those have been difficult to substantiate. There's definitely nudity, which is not all that different for some factions I suppose.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mighty Cow:
quote:None of the gay people I know condone the public sex that a tiny percentage of the people at a gay pride parade might engage in. That's no more the "gay lifestyle" than adultery is the "Christian lifestyle" because some prominent Christians have been caught cheating.
Are they speaking out against it? I just haven't seen it. And it's still not the same thing as Christians committing adultery. For it to be equivalent, Christians would needs to meet together for some sort of Christian holiday and adultery would have to be a feature of many of those gatherings, then you could say Christians have adultery as part of their lifestyle. The Crusades are laid at Christianity's doorstep because lets face it, the armies marching to Jerusalem were under the banner of the cross, commanded to go by their leaders, and claimed they were a Christian army.
quote:And yet, Jesus said that he who is without sin should cast the first stone, that one should not inspect others' eyes without clearing their own, that people should judge not, lest they be judged and condemn not, lets they be condemned, that the blind leading the blind will both fall into a pit.
It amazes me the parts of the Bible people are willing to ignore in their quest to point out someone else sinning.
Are you saying I'm ignoring passages in the Bible?
Jesus also said after the "let he who is without sin" incident, "Go, and sin no more." His point wasn't that the woman's sin was OK and we should all mind our own business, it was that the people who had brought her before him were not only bloodthirsty, they were trying to trick him into saying something that they could use to accuse him. The greater sin lay with them, they were in no position to pronounce judgment on her.
Further, for Mormons, we believe the "Judge not lest ye be judged" scripture is mistranslated and should be rendered, "Judge not unjustly let ye be judged also, but judge righteous judgment." The idea that human being should never judge for themselves what sorts of behaviors and people are to be admired or abhorred is ridiculous. If we didn't judge things, we couldn't ever make decisions like, "Should I marry this person?" or "Should I take this job?".
You'll note Jesus also said to take the beam out of your own eye *before* helping one's neighbor get the mote out. He didn't say just focus on your own beam and pretend like your friend doesn't have a mote.
It's not just close minded Christians who selectively quote the bible. It always amazes me how much non-Christians love to selectively quote the Bible and then deign to tell Christians what the Bible means.
Look, I don't think we need to argue. I already said I agree that some Christians clearly have a problem with gay people, but rather than say so they hide behind other criticisms like, "Gay people are more promiscuous." I've read Dan Savage's "Savage Love" column, many many times and he certainly seems to indicate that gay people aren't on the closest of terms with monogamy. That sentiment *if* it is widespread is certainly at odds with what many Christians feel is good for society.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
I would point out that Mardi Gras and Carnival are theoretically religious festivals......
The behavior are either of those straight events is a great deal more outrageous than I have ever seen at a gay pride parade and I have been going to those sense I was a teenager 20 years ago.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I've read Dan Savage's "Savage Love" column, many many times and he certainly seems to indicate that gay people aren't on the closest of terms with monogamy. That sentiment *if* it is widespread is certainly at odds with what many Christians feel is good for society.
When there is a widespread campaign trying desperately to "protect" culture's monogamous institution from their ability to participate, and uphold their exclusion via reactive law, what do you expect? It's like going back to the civil rights era and noting that black people don't seem to be "on the closest of terms" with Georgian country clubs.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
BlackBlade: I don't get your "gay people have sex in public and it's gross" argument. It's a red herring. No such thing is going on in any number, which is why the gay population isn't speaking out against it.
Have you seen a lot of gay public orgies? I've been to 5 or 6 Gay Pride parades in SF, and I've seen about as much nudity as I've seen at public beaches, and zero sex.
This is another thing that gets my goat about many Christian anti-gay arguments. They argue against strawmen. There is no gay agenda. There is not rampant gay public sex. Gays aren't trying to ruin the marriages of straight people. It would be funny, if the church were just wrong, not wrong and intent to enact prejudicial laws to support their ignorant position.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: MightyCow: Except the behavior I am objecting to is found at "gay pride parades". If you want to argue that most gay people abhore that behavior, I'm listening. I've just never heard a gay person say so. It's entirely possible, even probable.
Certainly I've met gays who are not approving of some public behavior at such parades. However, you are not being fair in characterizing this as a crucial element of a "gay" lifestyle. A gay lifestyle is no different at its base from a straight one, except you are attracted to people of the same sex. The elements of "perversion" or over the top exhibitionism are largely reactions *against* repression- and they are not overtly aggressive acts.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mighty Cow: It's not a red herring, it does happen, a quick google search seems to indicate there is quite a bit on the subject. But I also found some discussion groups by gays who think it's disgusting and inappropriate, so I suppose I just resolved my own ignorance on the matter.
----
Samp:
quote:When there is a widespread campaign trying desperately to "protect" culture's monogamous institution from their ability to participate, and uphold their exclusion via reactive law, what do you expect? It's like going back to the civil rights era and noting that black people don't seem to be "on the closest of terms" with Georgian country clubs.
In his column when marriage is discussed he often brings up gay friends who say in effect, "We don't want marriage, because then we'll be expected to settle down!"
In any case why are you telling *me* this? Are you really saying gay people are unable to be in committed relationships all because society won't recognize their marriages? That seems to be a pretty insulting thing to say. If I believed in monogamy, I wouldn't let something like legality dictate whether I remained so.
But anyway, I don't support bans on same sex marriages, so...
------ aeolusdallas:
quote:I would point out that Mardi Gras and Carnival are theoretically religious festivals......
And that's a very good point, though I will confess, and this shows my ignorance more than anything else, I had no idea those had their origins in Christianity until literally last year. Though originally both revolved around eating things that you were going to give up during lent. I don't think I've ever heard a person going to Mardi Gras mention Christianity even once. As I said, those events are divorced from their original intent I couldn't even pick up on their Christian origins. But in any case, I don't think anybody thinks about Mardi Gras or Carnival when asked to discuss Christianity. Gay pride parades seem more germane to the question of same sex lifestyles.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Are you really saying gay people are unable to be in committed relationships all because society won't recognize their marriages? That seems to be a pretty insulting thing to say.
I should not have to say that this is not what I'm saying, obviously.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Are you really saying gay people are unable to be in committed relationships all because society won't recognize their marriages? That seems to be a pretty insulting thing to say. If I believed in monogamy, I wouldn't let something like legality dictate whether I remained so.
You need to think about it this way: when the people who want to advance monogamy and marriage as the means by which human sexuality is moral — either by saying monogamy is important and moral for society, or further saying that only having sex while married is moral — then turn around and say 'by the way, gay people, this is not an institution for you' — then these very same people are poisoning the well towards monogamy and really making it seem ultimately unimportant to happiness in human sexuality. Gay people have every right to either not care or be actively dismissive of what things that christians and christian mores would have to say about their decisions to be or not be monogamous, especially considering that the overall christian line about their sexuality is "it's wrong for you to have sex, period. Not until you get straight, marry a member of the opposite sex, and only have sex with them." As far as modern pro-gay society is concerned, this ruins their credibility as a moral authority anyway. For gays and non-gays alike.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Blackblade, I'm pretty sure if you want to discuss something as a lifestyle of a group, than you need to make sure that it is a part of the regular life of most of the people within the group.
As people have said, go to mardi-gras, or carnival. Or go to a nude beach for a while. Or a college dorm on the weekends. It is definitely part of the straight lifestyle to have public sex, at least as much as it is part of the gay lifestyle to have public sex. But there's a reason you might see public sex at a "gay pride," parade without seeing it at a "Straight pride," parade.
Gays are fighting for the right to be able to have sex with who they like without being ridiculed and harassed for it. Of COURSE sometimes some of them are going to push the boundaries of sexuality into the public sphere.
Straights already have that right, so there ARE no straight pride parades, and no need for public sex to occur under the banner of "straight pride."
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: - aeolusdallas:
quote:I would point out that Mardi Gras and Carnival are theoretically religious festivals......
And that's a very good point, though I will confess, and this shows my ignorance more than anything else, I had no idea those had their origins in Christianity until literally last year. Though originally both revolved around eating things that you were going to give up during lent. I don't think I've ever heard a person going to Mardi Gras mention Christianity even once. As I said, those events are divorced from their original intent I couldn't even pick up on their Christian origins. But in any case, I don't think anybody thinks about Mardi Gras or Carnival when asked to discuss Christianity. Gay pride parades seem more germane to the question of same sex lifestyles.
In areas that celebrate Carnival and Mardi Gras, the religious aspects still exist. Sure the tourists just party but for the residents there is more to it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:He said that "this is the worst pizza ever."
Since this is an indirect statement, the quotations shouldn't be in there at all. If you are going to quote a full sentence, then set it up as a quote, but if you are going to use an indirect statement, don't use quotation marks.
It's not an indirect statement. Perhaps it wasn't the best example, but that doesn't mean that you can't run a quote in to the sentence.
Getting back to the important part of this thread ...
I would still use quotes with statements included in a sentence if it was important that the reader knew those words were actually spoken by the person in question.
"Pearson said it was the worst show ever." "Pearson said it was the 'worst show ever.'"
The second one arguably has more emphasis as it makes clear he used those exact words, where the first could have been the speaker's interpretation.
Still no comma, though...
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Totally agree with Chris.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:He said that "this is the worst pizza ever."
That still makes the above sentence bad style, because there is no reason to emphasize that "this is the" is also part of the direct quote. If you want to quote the entire sentence, then don't set up an indirect statement. If you want to set up an indirect statement, then only put quotes around the significant words.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fair enough.
He said that this is the "worst pizza ever."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, I agree with that. It's both grammatical and stylistically sensical.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I'm not familiar with "sensical" as a word. Is it a neologism?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes.
(Buffy changed forever the way I think about vocabulary (I believed in flexible vocabularies already, thanks to Shakespeare, but Buffy set it free). My favorite use of a new word was "sorrowfied" in an email the other day. It rhymes with "horrorified".)
I mean, you knew what I meant, right? Plus it paralleled "grammatical", which made me happy.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I wouldn't have said I didn't grasp your point. I was just curious about the word choice, that's all.
My apologies for giving offense, if the asking did.
My hopes, as well, that apologizing itself doesn't. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm not quite at the point where I'm comfortable making words up, but I have certainly had my brain fire up a neuron for a word that fit exactly with what I wanted to say, only to check a dictionary to find the word doesn't exist.
Maybe, one day, I'll make that leap.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
[continued from above]
That is to say, I have a feeling my interpersonal interaction-o-nometer is off. My intent was just curiosity.
I, too, enjoy what Whedon and the gang did with words.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Having checked the OED, it used to be a word. It just isn't used anymore - OED's last recording is 1839. That makes sense/is sensical.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
So it used to be a word that was used fairly commonly but then fell out of favor, and some 150+ years later you essentially made it up out of whole cloth, as far as you knew until you checked the OED.
That's just crazypants. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
but cool.
I love the OED.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
When you say, "That's just crazypants. " I'm absolutely picturing a pic of your cat right next to it.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Oh, dear! I'd never seen that, CT, and when I watched it just now I was sitting in a restaurant watching on my phone waiting for food. Initially I was embarrassed despite my laughter and then I figured it's funny and put my hands down and enjoyed my strange looks, heh.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)