FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Gay Couple Denied Admission to Creation Museum's Date Night (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Gay Couple Denied Admission to Creation Museum's Date Night
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What separates bigotry from other strong beliefs? For instance, is someone who is unbendingly intolerant of cocaine use a bigot?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 9944 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps you have a different definition of an indirect statement.

It isn't bad grammar. It is bad style.

Posts: 26076 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DDDaysh
Member
Member # 9499

 - posted      Profile for DDDaysh   Email DDDaysh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DDDaysh
Member
Member # 9499

 - posted      Profile for DDDaysh   Email DDDaysh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought that was satire.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
I thought that was satire.

creationists.
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Emreecheek
Member
Member # 12082

 - posted      Profile for Emreecheek           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Week-Dead Possum
Member
Member # 11917

 - posted      Profile for Week-Dead Possum           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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).
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With 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.
Posts: 26076 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DDDaysh
Member
Member # 9499

 - posted      Profile for DDDaysh   Email DDDaysh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With 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".
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are more than two Christian stands on homosexuality. One being that there is nothing particularly sinful about it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DDDaysh
Member
Member # 9499

 - posted      Profile for DDDaysh   Email DDDaysh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
I thought that was satire.

I know it was satire, but it was FUNNY satire.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DDDaysh
Member
Member # 9499

 - posted      Profile for DDDaysh   Email DDDaysh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swampjedi
Member
Member # 7374

 - posted      Profile for Swampjedi   Email Swampjedi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 26076 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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. [Smile]
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aeolusdallas
Member
Member # 11455

 - posted      Profile for aeolusdallas   Email aeolusdallas         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?

Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With 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.

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.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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. [Angst]

[ February 19, 2011, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aeolusdallas
Member
Member # 11455

 - posted      Profile for aeolusdallas   Email aeolusdallas         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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."

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aeolusdallas
Member
Member # 11455

 - posted      Profile for aeolusdallas   Email aeolusdallas         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2