Fuck You, Agape Press

[Polycarp]

I'd intended to do a GD story based on the fact that the Diocese of New Hampshire of my church, the Episcopal Church, has just elected a gay man as their Bishop. And I went looking for a news story to hang the OP on.

This (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/92003a.asp) is what I found.

Herewith, the first three paragraphs:

"Open rebellion against God." That's how the head of a conservative Episcopal group is reacting to the election this weekend of an open homosexual as the denomination's next bishop in New Hampshire.

The Episcopal Church USA is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, whose bishops five years ago approved a resolution calling homosexual behavior "incompatible with scripture." [see note -- Poly] But on Saturday, Episcopal clergy and laymen gathered in Concord, New Hampshire, and chose V. Gene Robinson to be their new bishop.

Robinson has been an open homosexual since 1986, when he divorced his wife with whom he had two daughters. He and his "partner," Mark Andrew, have been together for 13 years.

The Lambeth Conference of 1998, whose decisions are not binding on our church, but which is listened to with respect, did not adopt such a resolution. Details are in John Shelby Spong's autobiography, Here I Stand -- and I'm too irritated to get the exact story and quote it.

David Moyer is president of the group Forward in Faith, an association of Anglicans with conservative views. He calls Robinson's election "an open rebellion against God's created order and the teachings of the church."

David Moyer is also a deposed priest who was in open rebellion against his bishop and was thrown out of the church he was rector of. What he is, is a self-promoting rabble-rouser.

I have to give them credit -- in a nine paragraph article, they managed to do objective reporting in one paragraph. And note that there is not a single word that might suggest that the man is any good at what he does, nor that there are strong supporters of him and of the ministry of gay men and women in our church.

Assmunches.

[kung fu lola]

Man, where's the agape?

I am agape with outrage!

;)

[andros]

:eek:



Don't hold back, Manyfishes. Tell us how you really feel.

I agree, though.

[Elza B]

I became a member of the Episcopal Church *because* of their liberal views on homosexuality and women in the church. This stupid article is doing a huge disservice as I hope this man does NOT speak for the majority of Episcopalians. He certainly does NOT speak for me and never will.

Ava

[lel]

Polycarp, did you expect any better from Agape Press? That is pretty typical Agape Press tripe, after all. (The above is IMO. YMMV, etc.)

[dropzone]

I'm still in shock over that thread title. Poly, don'tcha think you've been hanging around with the rest of us a little too long? :eek:

I'll third the "Whad'ya expect from Agape Press?" responses. I'm real interested that your diocese elected Robinson. I'd've put money on it not happening.

[Nomadic_One]

wow.

[BadBaby]

Yeah really, Polycarp-- you used a dirty word! Of course they deserved it, but still... I need a moment to assimilate this cursing Polycarp.

[manhattan]

Ugh. It's no secret that I have no horse in the religion race, but I feel for you, Poly, and for the battles you wage every day (as an atheist, pro-gay Republican, I think I might have a small sense of your task. :) ).

And yeah, what kung fu lola said. What a waste of a great name for a press outlet. Can someone who actually understands agape sue them to get it back or something?

[Polycarp]

It wasn't my diocese -- mine's North Carolina (which covers the central part of the state). However, he's a bishop of my church; my diocese's Standing Committee will have to approve or reject his election (along with 80 or so others; he needs confirmation of his election by a majority of dioceses to take office).

And yeah, realizing now that it's Wildmon's house organ, I could expect nothing but. However, it is so #$%#%$ annoying that they misrepresent everything, always pick up on the same few naysayers....

Manny, you're a NYC Republican; that absolves you from the national Grumpy Old Party's bizarreries. I'd probably shock the Jefferson County NY Republican Party by letting them know I'm a registered Democrat down here -- but it would be an insult to a progressive group of Ice Age hominids to refer to the N.C. Republicans as Neanderthals -- they're stuck somewhere around Kenyapithecus IMHO!

Dropzone, I use profanity sparingly, and only when it's the sole method of adequately expressing my emotions.

This is one of those times.

[Monty]

Poly: I'm curious about something, though. What's Reverend Robinson's prospects of being sustained by the church's delegates?

[3trew]

"Fuck You", "Agape" and "Polycarp" all in that order.

I thought I was in heaven last week when I saw Polycarp's name being associated with hatred, violence, and knives.

Thanks for being you, [B]Polycarp[B]. I sometimes miss being able to stereotype Christians, but your posts more than make up for it.

I reserve the right to change my mind if I wind up re-reading "The Screwtape Letters" over the weekend.

[gobear]

I second the motion, Ppolycarp. Agape Press, you might want to rename your enterprise to something more in keeping with your views. . . Phobia Press, perhaps?

[robertliguori]

Wow. Polycarp swore. I'm kind of expecting Agape press to be demolished by enraged she-bears now.

[Steve Wright]

Oh, Lord ... "Forward in Faith" crawling out of the woodwork again? (Better known to UK Anglicans as "Backwards in Bigotry".)

My sister and her husband are members. It's really embarrassing.

And that article is despicable.

[grimpixie]

Originally posted by Polycarp
David Moyer is also a deposed priest who was in open rebellion against his bishop and was thrown out of the church he was rector of. Any more info on this point? What was the rebellion about?

Grim

[IzzyR]

Looks like a perfectly reasonable and balanced article to me. If this is indeed published by an organization that opposes this type of thing, you have to give them a lot of credit.

It seems like you are looking for any article about an issue that you feel strongly about to also include special praise for your chosen Good Guy and condemnation for your chosen Bogeyman. I think you may have to start your own press for that.

[gobear]

It seems like you are looking for any article about an issue that you feel strongly about to also include special praise for your chosen Good Guy and condemnation for your chosen Bogeyman. I think you may have to start your own press for that.

Wow, Izzy. Respect for human dignity is now a "chosen Good Guy"? Antigay hatred is merely a Bogeyman?

Go intercourse yourself, buster. Putting quotation marks around partner is insulting. The article was leaking at the seams with bigotry aimed squarely at people just like me, and I'm here to tell you that I don't like bigots or their sympathizers.


Say hi to your "wife".

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by grimpixie
Any more info on this point? What was the rebellion about?

Fr. Moyer was/is pretty outspokenly opposed to the ordination of gay and female priests, and was openly critical of his bishop, Bishop Bennison, and then finally said he wouldn't allow Bishop Bennison to preach at his church, because Bennison had ordained gay and female priests, and also because Bennison has some kind of unorthodox beliefs about the incarnation and the bible. So, Bennison banned Moyer from serving in Bennison's diocese. This actually got worldwide attention, with the Archbishop of Canterbury stepping in. I think Moyer then went on to take his followers into this traditionalist Episcopalian splinter church.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by gobear
Respect for human dignity is now a "chosen Good Guy"? Antigay hatred is merely a Bogeyman?The problem with you, and people like you, is that in your narrow-minded intolerance, you are simply incapable of recognizing another viewpoint. I did not see anything in this article about "Antigay hatred" or "Respect for human dignity". The article brought up matters like "incompatible with scripture" and "Open rebellion against God." It is your position - adopted in the interest of making your enemies look bad - that such positions directly equate to anti-gay hatred and lack of respect for human dignity. But you lightly pass over the intervening steps as if they amount to the same thing. They don't.Putting quotation marks around partner is insultingSilly silly. The article was full of quotes around all sorts of terms, like "good", "gay" and "commitment ceremonies". Presumably, these are how others used the terms. I'm surprised that an editor like yourself is unfamiliar with what is a widespread practice. (Out of curiosity, just what nature of insult do you think they were trying to convey with the quotes?)I'm here to tell you that I don't like bigots or their sympathizersWell now that you came, I'll inform you that I am not in the least concerned with who you like or don't like. So I guess you can go back to wherever it is you came from.

[Steve Wright]

"Openly critical", according to an online article I found (Googling "David Moyer", "forward in faith") to the point of accusing Bishop Bennison of heresy ... not a situation where the Bishop could really be comfortable working with him, methinks.

And the "stepping in" was done by the previous Archbishop of Canterbury (George Carey), not the current one.

The fact that this article treats the opinion of an extremist would-be rabble-rouser like Moyer seriously speaks volumes for the intent behind it. I stand by my opinion of it: that article is despicable.

[Polycarp]

That's pretty close to the facts -- when you consider that a Bishop is automatically the chief pastor of every church in his/her diocese, and required to make regular visitations, for Moyer to (attempt to) bar Bennison was very much a slap in his face. JFTR, from what I've seen, Bennison is advocating intelligent debate on the traditional doctrines, to make them comprehensible to modern people without advanced courses in Greek philosophy and theology -- and Moyer "required" of Bennison that he subscribe to a statement of faith propounded by Moyer (and not only affirming traditional Anglican doctrine but also denouncing Moyer's pet betes noires) before he'd let him in the door. Intervention by the Presiding Bishop to attempt to achieve a reconciliation was rejected -- by Moyer. Afterwards, and "regretfully," Bennison went through the canonical deposition of Moyer.

Izzy, I can see an attempt to be "balanced" -- but that story is so strongly slanted against Robinson that it'd be next door to impossible to call it "objective journalism" -- though you're welcome to try.

JFTR, for those who care, Robinson's ex-wife and daughters were at the ordination, and she supported him in his decisions and stands by him, much like Mel White's ex-wife has done for him.

[tomndebb]

From the Episcopal News Service (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ens/2003-127.html) at the Episcopal Church USA website: a broader spectrum of reaction that does not slant the news to only one splinter group's viewpoint.

[andros]

The problem with you, and people like you, is that in your narrow-minded intolerance, you are simply incapable of recognizing another viewpoint.

Call for Izzy on the white irony phone.

[gobear]

It is your position - adopted in the interest of making your enemies look bad - that such positions directly equate to anti-gay hatred and lack of respect for human dignity. But you lightly pass over the intervening steps as if they amount to the same thing. They don't

Calling homosexuality "open rebellion against God" does not show a lack of respect for human dignity? You really are blind, aren't you?


Silly silly. The article was full of quotes around all sorts of terms, like "good", "gay" and "commitment ceremonies". Presumably, these are how others used the terms. I'm surprised that an editor like yourself is unfamiliar with what is a widespread practice.

OK, now here you're just being dishonest. Quotation marks can be used to indicate that the writer is borrowing a phrase form another source, as I did with "open rebellion against God." They can also be used to indicate that a term is inaccurate or being used falsely, which is exactly what was meant by putting quotation marks around the word partner. That you don't see that shows you are either ignorant or dishonest.

Well now that you came, I'll inform you that I am not in the least concerned with who you like or don't like. So I guess you can go back to wherever it is you came from.

Never.

You and your kind will never shut me up. You won't put me in the closet, and you won't stop me from getting the equality I and my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters demand. It is bigots like you who are headed for the garbage heap of history.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Steve Wright
And the "stepping in" was done by the previous Archbishop of Canterbury (George Carey), not the current one.


Well, right, but he was A of C at the time he did the stepping in, I mean.

Interestingly, the current A of C has himself ordained openly gay priests, so Moyer probably doesn't like him either.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Polycarp
I can see an attempt to be "balanced" -- but that story is so strongly slanted against Robinson that it'd be next door to impossible to call it "objective journalism" -- though you're welcome to try.I think the opposite - you are to show that it is not balanced. All can see in your OP is that the article failed to also state that Robinson is a great guy loved by the masses, or that Moyer is a "self-promoting rabble-rouser". Doesn't cut it, IMHO.Originally posted by gobear
Calling homosexuality "open rebellion against God" does not show a lack of respect for human dignity?I don't know - there are a lot of ways to parse that phrase. But it's no matter - nobody called homosexuality an open rebellion against God. The quote was in reference to choosing an open homosexual as bishop. Not the same thing.

Again, you need to be more careful in jumping from Point A to Point ZOK, now here you're just being dishonest. Quotation marks can be used to indicate that the writer is borrowing a phrase form another source, as I did with "open rebellion against God." They can also be used to indicate that a term is inaccurate or being used falsely, which is exactly what was meant by putting quotation marks around the word partner. That you don't see that shows you are either ignorant or dishonest.Nonsense. The quotes are used because it is an indication that this is someone else's term. Same as the other examples I cited. The term partner, unlike spouse, has a wider meaning - it is generally used to mean something other than homosexual living partner. In this case, someone, presumably Robinson, used it to describe his living partner, and the article picked up the term from him.

Again, what do you think they are trying to imply? That the guy is not in fact his partner?You and your kind will never shut me up.Hey, it was only a suggestion - you can keep on shouting, if you insist.It is bigots like you who are headed for the garbage heap of history.Time will tell.

[gobear]

Again, what do you think they are trying to imply? That the guy is not in fact his partner?

That "partner" is a respectable term being used to cover an unholy relationship. That is their implication.

The rest oy your post is just more of the same, and I'm tired of playing with your mock-ingenuous posting style.

[Governor Quinn]

Strange.

I'm an Anglican in order to stay away from the likes of Moyer.

[Polycarp]

I think the opposite - you are to show that it is not balanced. All can see in your OP is that the article failed to also state that Robinson is a great guy loved by the masses, or that Moyer is a "self-promoting rabble-rouser". Doesn't cut it, IMHO.

Your opinion is noted. Just for the record, if you look up at the top of the page you're looking at, you'll note that we're in "The BBQ Pit."

I am expressing my outrage that a news story about a man chosen bishop by a diocese of the church to which I belong (and AFAIK you do not) is vilified by a heinously slanted story which is highly selective in whose opinions it quotes (see the article found by Tom~ for a more balanced article), and that it picks up on one man in particular who has done nothing but attempt to thwart the attitudes of the overwhelming majority of Episcopalians by actions contrary to church law, and about whom you never hear a word except when he's denouncing someone else. I am married to a former Moyer and one of my best friends online is a Lesbian woman whose surname is Moyer (a member here) -- we are incensed at what he's doing to the name.

In short, I am using the Pit for what it was designed for -- if you are convinced of how wonderful this story is, the onus is on you to make the case.

I admit that the election is controversial. But the essence of controversy is that there are people on both sides of the question. Selective quotation of people on only one side does not accomplish balance.

No bird or plane can fly with only a right wing.

[Skammer]

Originally posted by avabeth
I became a member of the Episcopal Church *because* of their liberal views on homosexuality ... This stupid article is doing a huge disservice as I hope this man does NOT speak for the majority of Episcopalians. He certainly does NOT speak for me and never will.

Ava

That's funny, I became a member of the Episcopal Church *despite* the widespread liberal views on homosexuality. And I don't really have any problems with the article Poly quoted, either.

What makes me sad is not that so many are rejecting traditional church teaching and biblical interpretation -- the Anglican church can handle a diversity of views, and God is bigger than these squabbles -- but that so many Episcopalians with contrary views are going to either leave angrily, or be shouted out of, communion with our more ... 'progressive' ... brothers and sisters.

You know what? I believe homosexuality is wrong. I also admit that I could be mistaken about that. But either way, it's not an essential matter of faith. Jesus Christ is the name by which we must be saved, and bringing glory to him is our purpose -- these are things we can agree on.

I don't have an answer. It just makes me sad. But I was in a meeting with our Bishop last night, and regarding this issue he said "Jesus has already won the victory. We have to do our best to be faithful to him, but the pressure is not on us. He is bigger than this controversy and his Church will go on." So I just have to trust that "all things work together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose."

[NoClueBoy]

The artical does seem to editorialise the subject. And I would wager that they didn't actaually interview anyone. It looks like they picked out what they wanted from other news sources.

But, one thing bugs me. If the Episcopal Church USA five years ago approved a resolution calling homosexual behavior "incompatible with scripture" wouldn't that have affected the ministry of Robinson? The mere fact that he remained in his position seems to show Church acceptance. Right?

He came out in 1986. The resolution was <<five years ago>>, 1997/8? Should be enough time to sort things out, churchwise.

But then, David Moyer has to jump up and say, "Look at me! Look at me!" IMO, he's an opportunist. Why didn't he say anything five years ago? Or 17 years ago?

What someone personally wants to believe in regards to homosexuality and scripture is not my concern (in this thread). Basically, I feel the words used by the original writers seem open to interpretation.

What does bug me is editorials being passed off as hard news.

[NoClueBoy]

I'm recuperating and on meds right now, so I'm sorry I said "one thing bugs me" twice. :D

Continue...

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by gobear
That "partner" is a respectable term being used to cover an unholy relationship. That is their implication.Seem like a stretch to me. I don't think there is anything respectable about the term "partner" - it is a pretty utilitarian word in this context, and doesn't cover anything.The rest oy your post is just more of the same, and I'm tired of playing with your mock-ingenuous posting style.Oh, IOW, "it's so obvious that you're wrong that I am not going to bother saying why". I think I remember using that line when I was a little kid. Or maybe it was some other guy.Originally posted by Polycarp
Your opinion is noted. Just for the record, if you look up at the top of the page you're looking at, you'll note that we're in "The BBQ Pit.".........In short, I am using the Pit for what it was designed for -- if you are convinced of how wonderful this story is, the onus is on you to make the case.Also for the record, if you look at that exact location, just to the left of the words "The BBQ Pit", you'll note that we are on a "Message Board". You got your opinion, I got mine. There is no onus on me to prove anything merely because you've asserted otherwise.see the article found by Tom~ for a more balanced article.........I admit that the election is controversial. But the essence of controversy is that there are people on both sides of the question. Selective quotation of people on only one side does not accomplish balance.I agree that tom's source is more balanced. It is in general a much longer article, with more on both sides. Your article only quotes snippets. But the article that you cite saysRobinson tells Associated Press that he plans to be a "good" bishop, not a "gay" bishop. And he urges his supporters to be gentle with those who disagree with his election, and in doing so "show the world how to be a Christian community."

Reports say Robinson's homosexuality has not been a problem for the current Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire. The New York Times says Douglas Theuner has championed homosexual causes in the church and approves of "commitment ceremonies" for same-sex couples.AndThe Times also quotes the denomination's press officer, James Solheim, as saying the reaction coming in via e-mail is mixed -- but that "some people are already announcing that this is the last straw [and] they're leaving the Episcopal Church."So the article makes clear that there are people on both sides of the issue. It just didn't present your side forcefully enough for you. (A common lament - hey, talk to me about the liberal media sometime ;) ).

[iampunha]

I was under the impression, Poly, that your point in the OP was not that the article was based on a respectful presentation of facts lined up in a proper row but that it was a careful selection of misrepresented "facts" and opinions of those who are already against anything they don't understand. Sort of like how an article about Al Gore would start "Would you elect someone to office who failed out of divinity school?" and attribute lots of quotes previously attributed (correctly or not) to Dan Quayle to Gore. And then it might try to tie in Clinton's sex life and make a point about Gore's. And who can forget the oft-misquoted "I invented the internet"? It would be as factually well-represented, thought-out and balanced as this article is.

As such, the notion that it is a "perfectly reasonable and balanced article" is utter horseshit, but of course, considering the source, this isn't even a surprise to the illiterate.

On a related note (sort of), Poly, you and others might be interested to know that my biology teacher, who last year was teaching creationism and The Bible in biology, was able to explain to our class (with me helping him, because he got kinda nervous) that evolution and creationism do not contradict each other and that it is not necessary to utterly abandon your faith to accept the Theory of Evolution. He got *very* close to saying "you don't need to take every word fo the bible totally literally", but as he said, he wasn't up there to preach, just teach science.

For those wondering what in the world makes this related to the OP, it has been my (and I am not alone here) experience that those who are anti-gay are also usually anti-science/treat the Bible as a science book instead of a religious one. Thus what may turn out to be a monumental hijack, but one meant to show that, fortunately, not all conservative religious people are utterly opposed to anything their preacher didn't tell them. Poly, if you believe this hijack warrants a thread somewhere else, please do let me know and I'll give it a shot:)

[gobear]

Oh, IOW, "it's so obvious that you're wrong that I am not going to bother saying why". I think I remember using that line when I was a little kid. Or maybe it was some other guy

I already said why, and you chose to ignore it. Not that I expect any honest response from someone who labels protest against bigotry "intolerance".

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by gobear
I already said why, and you chose to ignore it.I don't see where I've ignored anything you've said here. Unless you mean your brilliant witticisms like "Go intercourse yourself, buster". Yeah, I've ignored these.

So it's you who are failing to respond. Apparently because you dislike my "mock-ingenuous posting style". Yep, that's the ticket.Not that I expect any honest response from someone who labels protest against bigotry "intolerance".Well this would depend on how you define bigotry. But in general, someone who deals with opposing viewpoints by distorting and caricaturing them to the point that he feels safer in attacking them is intolerant, yes.

[Little Plastic Ninja]

The parishoners at my local Episcopal church (no, I'm not Episcopal, but I'm a very fine receptionist at the front desk) aren't exactly frothing about this. They're mostly shaking their heads in dismay -- probably because they're excited about the new rector we just got. :)

Personally, I'm sad that the "gay Bishop" issue is an issue. It worries me that people will be driven away from the Church because of it...whether the Council ratifies the vote or not. If they allow him to become a Bishop, then I think the Church will become known primarily for that act, and the right wing will be driven away. (JFTR, I understand why they would have a problem, in a purely clinical sense. Someone pursuing a lifestyle that may or may not be at odds with Biblical mandate becoming a very powerful symbol of that Church...) If they don't let it go through, then the Church may ruin its reputation of tolerance.

That article didn't help. I think Agape was TRYING to be unbiased, if that's any help. :)

Incidentally, Polycarp, on a rather off-topic question, do you have any suggestions for helping a person who's lost a lot of his faith? I'd make a note about it in GD or something but I'd be swarmed with people saying "Hey, atheism is nice" or "Stupid Christian shouldn't believe in the nasty patriarchy" or somesuch. :rolleyes: I may not be a Christian, but I find that talk a little tiresome.

And I'm incidentally finding it kind of funny that I keep having slight differences of opinion with my workplace. This time last year I was working at Apple, and Mac-Worship there is very much like a religion...but I've never bought a Mac in my life. And now I work at an Episcopal church on the weekends, and I haven't been a Christian since I was 11...:D

[gobear]

I'll explain it to you one more time, so pay attention. The linked article was offensive because it demeaned gay people and their relationships.

Robinson has been an open homosexual since 1986, when he divorced his wife with whom he had two daughters. He and his "partner," Mark Andrew, have been together for 13 years.

The article refers to Robinson's "partner" but not his "wife"--she's just his wife, no quotes. You want to know why? Because they are denigrating his gay relationship, implying that it is inferior and false. You'll also note that the AFA refers to Robinson as an open homosexual, a coldly sterile phrase that is also meant to be a subtle attack. What would you make of a description that read "Robinson, a Negro. . " or "Robinson, a member of the Hebrew race"? It is possible to be strictly accurate and grossly insulting at the same time.

I am not distorting and caricaturing the AFA's viewpoint--I am stating it clearly and accurately.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by gobear
The article refers to Robinson's "partner" but not his "wife"--she's just his wife, no quotes. You want to know why? Because they are denigrating his gay relationship, implying that it is inferior and false.Actually I already addressed this distinction in my third post to this thread. Funny that you missed it.

The term wife has no quotes because they are using the word in its standard meaning. By contrast, partner generally does not mean what it means here - they are using a meaning assigned to it in this case by others.You'll also note that the AFA refers to Robinson as an open homosexual, a coldly sterile phrase that is also meant to be a subtle attack. What would you make of a description that read "Robinson, a Negro. . " or "Robinson, a member of the Hebrew race"? It is possible to be strictly accurate and grossly insulting at the same time.Of course it is possible. But it is also possible to see insulting meanings where there are none. Someone who has a passionate interest in an issue would be wise to consider the possibility that he is doing this.

In this case, the fact that he is a homosexual is the entire point of the matter, so pointing it out is quite legitimate. (It's amazing that you don't recognize this). If being a "Negro" presented a theological issue, I would find that description apt as well, but Christianity has no theological issues involving Negroes, AFAIK. But certainly if an openly Jewish person was about to be appointed an Episcopalian bishop it would be appropriate to point this out.

As for the term "openly", I think it's obvious that openly living a lifestyle is more of a statement than hiding it. If Robinson was a closeted gay since 1986, one might have wondered for much of this time if his homosexual activity was an expression of theology or merely a weakness. But by living an openly homosexual lifestyle, Robinson made a theological statement, which many take exception to. This is very much a part of the current brouhaha.I am not distorting and caricaturing the AFA's viewpoint--I am stating it clearly and accurately.Well it's not so shocking that you would make this claim - one would hardly expect otherwise.

BTW, I cannot say for certain that you are distorting the views of the AFA - I am not much familiar with their views (other than a vague knowledge that Wildmon has been on a family values campaign for some time). But I do say that you have distorted the views expressed in this particular article.

[Polycarp]

Also for the record, if you look at that exact location, just to the left of the words "The BBQ Pit", you'll note that we are on a "Message Board". You got your opinion, I got mine. There is no onus on me to prove anything merely because you've asserted otherwise.

I suppose. I don't think either of us is under an obligation to prove the rightness of their perspective to the other one, merely for saying it -- it was my point that I quoted an article I found horribly biased in an OP in the Pit -- if you have a problem with my opinion (which seems to be shared by a lot of other people, BTW, not that that proves anything), the work of writing a post or posts to refute it would rest on you.

And yes, I could say that IzzyR claims that the article is "balanced" without being insulting -- I'd be attributing a claim to you. But, lest you've missed the point, it has become an (annoying) trend in the field of polemic journalism, particularly by those supposed conservatives attacking what they see as PC liberalism, to mock the use of a term by putting it in quotes. It originated with the 1960s articles about protests by "students" overseas, the very broad-brush implication being that they were doing far more protesting than studying, if they did any of the latter at all. In a genuinely balanced article that said, "Bishop-elect Robinson's "partner" (as gay people customarily refer to the person who fills the role of husband or wife for them)....," I'd take no offense, and I doubt that gobear et al. would either. But Wildmon and his cronies have mastered the use of the pejorative quoted word and have it down pat. I recall an article about a woman being ordained to the presbyteriate in which some snide writer said something to the effect that she was made a "priestess" -- well, no, jerk, she was ordained a priest of the church, and your little quotation marks have no impact on the validity of her ministry. Nor do the Agape Press "partner" quotes affect the commitment Fr. (or Bp.) Robinson and Mr. Andrew have made to each other.

And in case anyone is interested, the Episcopal Church has never passed such a resolution. The resolution in question was the product of a massive campaign at the Lambeth Conference, a decennial meeting of Anglican bishops whose only role is advisory -- no Lambeth proposal is ever binding on a member church except by its overt adoption. Contrary to my previous post, the resolution with those words did in fact pass -- it was a butchering of a carefully worded proposal prepared after two years of study. But it has only slightly more influence on the Episcopal Church than what John Paul II might have to say.

And in case it was not clear, I stand fully by gobear in his interpretation of this story as very much insulting to him, his partner, and their commitment to each other. And if somebody referred to Barb as "your 'wife'" and to our relationship for the past 28 years as "their so-called 'marriage'" I think I'd be equally insulted.

[gobear]

Actually I already addressed this distinction in my third post to this thread. Funny that you missed it.

No, I told you were wrong. You are still wrong.

The term wife has no quotes because they are using the word in its standard meaning. By contrast, partner generally does not mean what it means here - they are using a meaning assigned to it in this case by others.

Wrong. "Partner" is the standard term used to describe gay spouses.

In this case, the fact that he is a homosexual is the entire point of the matter, so pointing it out is quite legitimate. (It's amazing that you don't recognize this). If being a "Negro" presented a theological issue, I would find that description apt as well, but Christianity has no theological issues involving Negroes, AFAIK. But certainly if an openly Jewish person was about to be appointed an Episcopalian bishop it would be appropriate to point this out.

And, unsurprisingly, you miss the point again. The theological significance doesn't matter--using the term "homosexual" instead of the standard term "gay" is meant to be insulting, just as referring to an African American as a "Negro" would be. It's the same distinction as referring to Saul Bellow as "a Jew writer" and "a Jewish writer"--and don't say the only difference is using a noun and an adjective.


As for the term "openly", I think it's obvious that openly living a lifestyle is more of a statement than hiding it.
Well apart from the "it's not a lifestyle" point, I see no no more reason to refer to him as an open homosexual as I would to refer to a straight person as an open heterosexual.


BTW, I cannot say for certain that you are distorting the views of the AFA - I am not much familiar with their views (other than a vague knowledge that Wildmon has been on a family values campaign for some time). But I do say that you have distorted the views expressed in this particular article.


Educate (http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/childrena.asp) yourself. (http://www.afa.net/activism/update061802.html)

Putz.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by Little Plastic Ninja
Incidentally, Polycarp, on a rather off-topic question, do you have any suggestions for helping a person who's lost a lot of his faith? Sounds like you taken the first step, hanging out with Polycarp.

[greyseal]

Originally posted by gobear

Wrong. "Partner" is the standard term used to describe gay spouses.


from webster.com:

Main Entry: part·ner
...
2 a : one associated with another especially in an action : ASSOCIATE, COLLEAGUE b : either of two persons who dance together c : one of two or more persons who play together in a game against an opposing side d : either of two people living together; especially : SPOUSE


Perhaps it's not universally accepted yet, but I think that anyone who would be confused about that usage of the term partner is hiding their head in the sand.

[Polycarp]

Little Plastic Ninja, I neglected your question, and I do apologize:

My own faith is grounded in the idea that God, though He allows a great deal of human-generated evil and natural events that we consider evil as they affect us (cancer, for example), generally works in our lives for good, loves us and ultimately wants to reshape us into people who find greater fulfillment and happiness in our lives in a relationship with Him and with our fellow men according to his teachings.

A lot of people found their faiths in other things -- their family tradition, Scripture, a logical system of thinking that incorporates Him as a necessity.

Anything that "pulls the rug out from under one" can be a faith damager. Often a third party, sympathetic but not directly involved in the events that damaged or destroyed one's faith, can be a good source of emotional and spiritual support.

I personally would not be so interested in rebuilding someone's shattered faith as in helping them rebuild from the life traumas that shattered it, knowing that the faith will rebuild in time as the traumas are healed, and that God, who loves that person (and everybody), is both patient and compassionate and will not hold that loss of faith against them.

Faith is, after all, His gift. He doesn't require that we generate faith on our own parts (an impossibility), only that we be open in mind and heart to receive His gifts, which will include faith.

[Apos]

Hey Izzy. You are a really "great" "guy." You're so "smart" and definately "not a fucktard that would probably deny that David Duke is a racist if it served your politics" like gobear is suggesting. "Shame" on you gobear.

[Siege]

I'll read this thing in full tomorrow morning when I need the adrenaline to wake me up. Tonight, I'll just comment that isn't it curious how people get so het up about other people breaking what they see as God's commandments while appearing to conveniently overlook the commandment Christ gave them? Also, how many people are willing to tell other people they must live a celibate and loveless life while not doing so themselves. Yes, in my opinion, someone who says that it is a sin for homosexuals to act on their homosexuality by loving someone or by wishing to spend the rest of their lives with someone is doing just that.

Good night,
CJ

[Steve Wright]

As far as I am concerned, anyone who pontificates about how homosexuals are in "open rebellion against God" is in serious danger of rebelling against God him/herself. Perhaps we should remember that we are all sinners, one way or another.

I don't really know who it was who first uttered the rule given in Leviticus 18:22. But I do know Who it was Who gave us Matthew 22:39, and, IMHO, what He says goes.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by gobear
No, I told you were wrong. You are still wrong.Actually what you did was decline to respond to that post because you were tired of my "mock-ingenuous posting style".Wrong. "Partner" is the standard term used to describe gay spouses.(note also to greyseal).

Perhaps, but conversely, most usages of the word partner do not refer to gay spouses. Hence the assignation of that specific meaning to it here. By contrast, most uses of the word wife do refer to a heterosexual spouse.And, unsurprisingly, you miss the point again. The theological significance doesn't matter--using the term "homosexual" instead of the standard term "gay" is meant to be insulting, just as referring to an African American as a "Negro" would be. It's the same distinction as referring to Saul Bellow as "a Jew writer" and "a Jewish writer"--and don't say the only difference is using a noun and an adjective.Actually you're right here - I did miss your point. I thought you were complaining about the fact that the article referred to his sexual orientation - it never occurred to me that "homosexual" was to be considered a pejorative term. I think you're really reaching here. Even if in fact the term homosexual is now considered insulting in certain circles, this has not permeated the larger society. You can't interpret other people's usage as being insulting because you and some other fellow thin-skinned whiners have decided that henceforth this word is off limits.Well apart from the "it's not a lifestyle" point, I see no more reason to refer to him as an open homosexual as I would to refer to a straight person as an open heterosexual.The reason is because there are many homosexuals (or gays, if you prefer) who are in fact closeted. Particularly if a gay person happens to be a clergyman there might be reason to wonder if he was openly gay or not. By contrast, all or almost all heterosexuals are openly heterosexual - the term open heterosexual is redundant.Educate (http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/childrena.asp) yourself. (http://www.afa.net/activism/update061802.html)Not interested. Let's stick to the subject here.Originally posted by Polycarp
I suppose. I don't think either of us is under an obligation to prove the rightness of their perspective to the other one, merely for saying it -- it was my point that I quoted an article I found horribly biased in an OP in the Pit -- if you have a problem with my opinion (which seems to be shared by a lot of other people, BTW, not that that proves anything), the work of writing a post or posts to refute it would rest on you.Not how it works. You gave your reasons for finding the article biased. I commented on those reasons. Done my job. Afterwards you just made a general comment that you found the article "strongly slanted against Robinson" and invited me to prove otherwise. Not going to try. (I think we're at an impasse here).But Wildmon and his cronies have mastered the use of the pejorative quoted word and have it down pat.I see that both you and gobear have decided to fall back on a good old general attack on Wildmon and his "cronies". Hey, they're such bad bad guys that everything they say must be interpreted in the worst possible light. As I said, I know little of these guys, so I won't be drawn into an argument about them. I only go by what I see in this article.

BTW, I notice that you yourself made liberal use of quote marks in your second post to this thread. "required", "regretfully", "balanced", & "objective journalism", to be specific. No doubt all of these quote marks were meant to be pejorative, to show that the terms are inaccurate or being used falsely. Got it.

[gobear]

Originally posted by gobear
No, I told you were wrong. You are still wrong.
Originally posted by IzzyR
Actually what you did was decline to respond to that post because you were tired of my "mock-ingenuous posting style".

Again you are wrong. From my first response to you:

Putting quotation marks around partner is insulting.

Accuracy is not your strong point, is it?

Perhaps, but conversely, most usages of the word partner do not refer to gay spouses. Hence the assignation of that specific meaning to it here. By contrast, most uses of the word wife do refer to a heterosexual spouse.

C'mon you've had the bloody dictionary contradict you , and still you persist in your error?

Actually you're right here - I did miss your point. I thought you were complaining about the fact that the article referred to his sexual orientation - it never occurred to me that "homosexual" was to be considered a pejorative term. I think you're really reaching here. Even if in fact the term homosexual is now considered insulting in certain circles, this has not permeated the larger society. You can't interpret other people's usage as being insulting because you and some other fellow thin-skinned whiners have decided that henceforth this word is off limits.

It's called "context", putz! "Homosexual" is obviously not offensive in itself, as I already pointed out. The offense comes when it is used as a substitution for the more commonly accepted term in a sort of clinical and coldly polite manner that indicates frosty disapproval. The word itself is not off limits, you dolt; one has to read it in the context in which it is being used in order to get the meaning.

One thing for sure is that you can't read a piece of text for irony. I'll bet you think that Antony was praising Brutus when he called him "an honorable man."

And I love the term "thin-skinned whiner" applied to anyone who speaks up against bigotry. Do you honestly expect gay people to take abuse and bigotry passively and never to respond, never to speak up?

By contrast, all or almost all heterosexuals are openly heterosexual - the term open heterosexual is redundant.
And so is "openly" gay. Gay people live and work visibly every day, and we should be treated exactly the same as heterosexuals.
Originally posted by Gobear

Educate yourself.
Originally posted by IzzyR
Not interested.

Pretty much says it all.

[Little Plastic Ninja]

Polycarp, thanks muchly. That's mostly what I'm trying to do.

Backstory to the question, dropzone: someone I love infinitely has been rather kicked in the teeth by fate and finances over the past few years. Trouble has been piling up on his shoulders daily, and he piles more responsibilities and stress on himself because he is a fine, kind, upstanding individual who would give his life and his sanity for his friends and family. But he's starting to crack, and the solace he once took in God is gone...he is having a hard time reconciling the state of the world and the lives of those he loves with a loving God. He is very angry and sad and upset, and I'm doing my best to help him out, but a lot of his sadness comes from this recent crisis of faith. He...blocks me out, and spends most of his time with himself, trying to sort things out. He doesn't want help...rather, he doesn't think anyone can.

I'll say this, though: people like Polycarp really help restore my faith in the capacity of human beings to be truly fine and wonderful individuals. :)

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by gobear
Again you are wrong. From my first response to you:Putting quotation marks around partner is insulting.Accuracy is not your strong point, is it?Following an argument does not seem to be yours. Try reading slower, making a mental note of who is saying what, and what points are being made or responded to. It might make your posts into something more than blatantly false statements interspersed with childish insults. Or it might not. But it would be worth a shot.

I'll help you in this case. The distinction made in my third post to this thread was in response to a comparison that you had made, in your typically infantile way, in your previous post. That being the comparison between the terms wife and partner. So I alluded to this comparison and made a distinction. You ignored it, and when you brought up the comparison again, I made the distinction again, and referred to my previous post on the subject.

So now what? That you said in your first post that quote marks are insulting? Yeah, I figured that out already. We are long passed that. Do try to keep up.C'mon you've had the bloody dictionary contradict you , and still you persist in your error?No the dictionary does not contradict me. My point - again - is that the most common usage of the word partner is not as homosexual living partner. Can you not grasp this elementary point? There is nothing in the dictionary that suggests a contradiction, nor would there be one, as it is a blatantly obvious fact.It's called "context", putz! "Homosexual" is obviously not offensive in itself, as I already pointed out. The offense comes when it is used as a substitution for the more commonly accepted term in a sort of clinical and coldly polite manner that indicates frosty disapproval. The word itself is not off limits, you dolt; one has to read it in the context in which it is being used in order to get the meaning.Well I'm all for context, but in this case you are using it in such a nebulous way that it is useless. This is more like an analysis of gobear's psyche than an analysis of that article.And I love the term "thin-skinned whiner" applied to anyone who speaks up against bigotry.Hey, don't try to extend this to anyone who speaks up against bigotry. I'm talking about you.Do you honestly expect gay people to take abuse and bigotry passively and never to respond, never to speak up?No.And so is "openly" gay. Gay people live and work visibly every day, and we should be treated exactly the same as heterosexuals.Sorry, treated like heterosexuals does not include pretending that the concept of closeted homosexuals does not exist. It does, and "openly homosexual" is not redundant in the same manner that "openly heterosexual" is.Pretty much says it all.OK

[Apos]

My point - again - is that the most common usage of the word partner is not as homosexual living partner. Can you not grasp this elementary point? There is nothing in the dictionary that suggests a contradiction, nor would there be one, as it is a blatantly obvious fact.

Another blatantly obvious fact is that no one puts partner in quotes anymore EXCEPT those trying to cast the very idea in a negative or questionable light.

Or maybe those clowns at CNN just have a broken stylebook, I dunno.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/10/cnna.bishop/index.html

Does it make you HOooooorny baby? To be such a pedantic pain in the ass and deny such obvious points?

[Polycarp]

Originally posted by Polycarp
That's pretty close to the facts -- when you consider that a Bishop is automatically the chief pastor of every church in his/her diocese, and required to make regular visitations, for Moyer to (attempt to) bar Bennison was very much a slap in his face. JFTR, from what I've seen, Bennison is advocating intelligent debate on the traditional doctrines, to make them comprehensible to modern people without advanced courses in Greek philosophy and theology -- and Moyer "required" of Bennison that he subscribe to a statement of faith propounded by Moyer (and not only affirming traditional Anglican doctrine but also denouncing Moyer's pet betes noires) before he'd let him in the door. Intervention by the Presiding Bishop to attempt to achieve a reconciliation was rejected -- by Moyer. Afterwards, and "regretfully," Bennison went through the canonical deposition of Moyer.

Izzy, I can see an attempt to be "balanced" -- but that story is so strongly slanted against Robinson that it'd be next door to impossible to call it "objective journalism" -- though you're welcome to try.

JFTR, for those who care, Robinson's ex-wife and daughters were at the ordination, and she supported him in his decisions and stands by him, much like Mel White's ex-wife has done for him.

Originally posted by IzzyR
BTW, I notice that you yourself made liberal use of quote marks in your second post to this thread. "required", "regretfully", "balanced", & "objective journalism", to be specific. No doubt all of these quote marks were meant to be pejorative, to show that the terms are inaccurate or being used falsely. Got it.

Just for the record, because Izzy questioned my use of quotes here:

My definition of when one quotes single words is when one chooses to distance oneself from the use of terms by another, indicating that he, not I, said it that way, and did so for a purpose. At times, this is done pejoratively, as in "partner" being put in quotes as if to say, "that's what this gay man calls his live-in lover, not the term I'd use for it."

In the first paragraph above, "required" was the term Moyer used. A priest who is rector of a church is not entitled to "require" the bishop of the diocese that that church is in to affirm a statement of doctrine that he, the rector, has written. And Bennison said "regretfully" in describing his personal feelings with regard to his deposition of Moyer, and I felt that quoting that term might give a little perspective on his feelings regarding his action.

By the second sentence, I meant that I saw Agape Press making an effort to write a story that they (not I) considered "balanced" -- the term they, not I, would use to describe their story, and hence in quotes. And again "objective journalism" is a term attributed to a generic other person, whether Izzy or another, as describing that story, and not a term I'd use in describing it.

There are legitimate reasons why a writer might want to set off a word as the term used by another, with which he himself does not agree, to give clarity to a position he is describing but himself does not concur in. And likewise there are cases where placing a term in quotation marks is simply giving offense.

In a post by, say, Joe Cool (not to pick on someone banned, but to take a person whose stance I know well enough to speak for), he could say to gobear something like the following (a manufactured quote, which I think accurately represents his views):
I think that you gay men and women are perfectly entitled to form "civil unions" with the people you fall in love with, and to have them recognized by the courts. But I'll stand firmly against your calling them "marriages" because I believe that a marriage is something that must be between a man and a woman pledging their lifelong commitment before God, and a gay "marriage" does not meet that definition.

There's no difference between the use of quotes there and in the OP article. But the intent is quite different -- he acknowledges gay men and women's intent to have the same marital rights as do straight folks, but explains why he feels the term marriage is invalid as applied to such unions, and in doing so quotes the terms, using quotation marks to distance himself from their use. And I believe that gobear, understanding his intent to make clear what his objections are, would not be insulted by the use of the quotes there.

The situation is different in the OP -- masquerading as a news story, the use of quotes is to denigrate the reality of the commitment made by Robinson and Arthur and by other gay couples by putting "partner" in quotes and by putting gay "commitment ceremonies" in quotes, by leading the story with the David Moyer quote, and by giving reaction from only one side of the controversy.

I see that both you and gobear have decided to fall back on a good old general attack on Wildmon and his "cronies". Hey, they're such bad bad guys that everything they say must be interpreted in the worst possible light. As I said, I know little of these guys, so I won't be drawn into an argument about them. I only go by what I see in this article.

If you want the truth about my opinions, I see people like Moyer, Wildmon, and our own former Dr Chuckie as engaged in a small-minded, bigoted effort to destroy the efforts of my church to reach out to and include a group of people who have been badly mistreated by churches generally. And I have seen a great deal of their efforts, and did not form this opinion lightly.

You gave your reasons for finding the article biased. I commented on those reasons. Done my job. Afterwards you just made a general comment that you found the article "strongly slanted against Robinson" and invited me to prove otherwise. Not going to try. (I think we're at an impasse here).

Yep. My last post on the subject was intended, not to provoke further argument, but to agree with what you say here. You're under no obligation from me to react to my views -- other than whatever may motivate you personally, which would be internal to yourself. I regret that the phrasing about "onus" that I used (quotes to pick up on my own phrasing this time!) implied otherwise. I made an OP, you questioned my opinions about the objectivity of the article cited, we discussed, and the subject can be dropped. What I was saying is, if you wish to pursue discussion about its objectivity, the burden is on you to make your case that it is; I've given my reasons to think that it is not (though I could expand on them at more length) -- not that you were somehow "obliged to" (quotes to distance myself from a term describing a position that I've just demonstrated I don't hold, but which the poor wording of an earlier post implied I did).

Peace.

[Little Plastic Ninja]

I think that you gay men and women are perfectly entitled to form "civil unions" with the people you fall in love with, and to have them recognized by the courts. But I'll stand firmly against your calling them "marriages" because I believe that a marriage is something that must be between a man and a woman pledging their lifelong commitment before God, and a gay "marriage" does not meet that definition.

Then do you believe that members of a religion that does not venerate the Christian God (or, let's be fair, the same God venerated by Christians, Jews, and Muslims) are not truly married?

Can a Buddhist man marry a Buddhist woman? Can Hindus marry? Because they are not coming together in the sight of the Christian God, their religion does not venerate (H)him or their covenant with (H)him. Under American marriage law, a man and a woman who wed under any religion can be married.

It doesn't even take a religious wedding. I could be considered the common-law wife of multiple guys because we've shared the same address. I wasn't their live-in sex slave, sure, but according to Texas law, we just have to cohabitate for a given length of time. Or we have to share a hotel room (under the same name, so we'd have to be listed as Mr. and Mrs. Ninja, but even so).

But this ONLY WORKS with opposite genders. Yet a legal marriage as far as the gov't is concerned has less to do with procreation than it has to do with legal standards -- who has the rights to what, basically. What does that have to do with gender?

More to the point, how does the legal wedded status of any other person on the planet affect YOU, personally? How does it invalidate your own marriage or those your children may have? If Bob and Steve love each other very, very much and decide to get married, how does that affect YOU? Their personal lives are just that, personal. Why does the fact that they'd be married scare you so much when their status would be just the same unmarried?

And don't say "Well, if their status would be the same, why bother getting married?" They want to get married for the same reason a man and woman might -- because they love each other very much and want an everlasting symbol of their love.

[Apos]

We may not have to wait too long, LPN. The first Western state to legalize complete and equal marriage is already upon us. And, of course, that state is in Canada. Ontario.
http://365gay.com/NewsContent/061003MarriageLegal.htm

As Andrew Sullivan states: from now on, traditionalists against gay marriage will now be on the side of trying to BREAK UP already existing marriages. That, I think, is going to give a lot of people cause to pause and think about what they're doing.

[Apos]

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=140-06102003
Traditionalist opinion.

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/halpernC39172.pdf
Court's opinion.

[Monty]

Here's a solution to the partner/wife/husband/spouse dilemma: require the laws regarding marriages be changed to those being civil unions. Let's get the government out of the marriage business.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Apos
Another blatantly obvious fact is that no one puts partner in quotes anymore EXCEPT those trying to cast the very idea in a negative or questionable light.I would question whether this is true, let alone blatantly obvious. (I tried a search, but can't get the search engine to recognize "" as part of the quote itself.)Or maybe those clowns at CNN just have a broken stylebook, I dunno.You are being silly here. No one is saying that partner has to be put in quotes. Only that it might be. I observed earlier that the authors of this article tended to use a lot of quotes. Everyone has their own style.

Polycarp,

If you want the truth about my opinions, I see people like Moyer, Wildmon, and our own former Dr Chuckie as engaged in a small-minded, bigoted effort to destroy the efforts of my church to reach out to and include a group of people who have been badly mistreated by churches generally. And I have seen a great deal of their efforts, and did not form this opinion lightly.OK, but you should try to judge each person and statement and article individually. It seems that having formed your opinion, you are now going to judge everything connected to these people in the worst possible way.

[Apos]

I would question whether this is true, let alone blatantly obvious. (I tried a search, but can't get the search engine to recognize "" as part of the quote itself.)

Trying to find exactly the ratio of how little I can believe your bullshit to how little you probably even believe it, I broke out my calculator and tried to divide 0 by 0...

Hey, I think my calculator is broken!

I observed earlier that the authors of this article tended to use a lot of quotes.

Your observation might as well been made by gobear: they used quotes both extensively AND selectively, to demean certain things but not others.

[Siege]

Please excuse the hijack. Little Plastic Ninja, I was in a similar position to your friend's about a decade ago. In my case, things got nasty enough that I was hospitalized close to catatonic with depression. I survived, as did my faith. If you'd like to take this off line, my e-mail address is in my profile. Please feel free to use it.

Getting back to the OP, here's what bothers me about anti-homosexual attitudes. When I was a teenager, I was told I was ugly, unacceptable, unlovable. If I smiled at a fellow (I think most of you know I'm a straight woman), that was an insult. The culture I lived in wasn't big on the concept of sin, but certainly I was treated like it was wrong for me to like someone or for me to want someone to like me. Can those of you who are heterosexual imagine what it's like to live like that? To know that if anyone did have the courage to ask you out, they'd be subjected to ridicule? When I was 25, I finally realized the fellow who was my best friend was in love with me. He'd been telling me that for three years, but it took that long to sink in. When I realized he was, it took a few days for my mind to be able to process that information. The concept that someone might voluntarily love me was simply not in my mental vocabulary.

My point is this. When I read that homosexuality is a sin, or worse, an abomination, I see people doing to others what was done to me. When I was in my 20's, I thought I could live without love. I thought I had to. When I was in my 30's, I finally realized that humans weren't meant to do so. "It is not good for man to be alone," God says way back in Genesis 2. Why then, is it good for a man to be alone if he is a homosexual? I have never met Gobear or Matt McL, or Priam, but I hope to some day. Even now, knowing them as only words on my monitor, there is nothing anyone can say which can convince me that they are unworthy of the same love Polycarp receives from Skulldigger or which I hope to experience myself, some day. If I am sinning for believing that, and moreso for not repenting of it, so be it. I accept the consequences.

Sorry if I've followed a short hijack with a long one, but I have said what I think must be said. If I'm wrong, well, I'd calculate how many times I've been wrong, but I think I'd break Apos's calculator again! :o

CJ

[Homebrew]

Originally posted by Little Plastic Ninja
Then do you believe that members of a religion that does not venerate the Christian God (or, let's be fair, the same God venerated by Christians, Jews, and Muslims) are not truly married? I don't think that is Polycarp's statement of belief, Little Plastic Ninja. He was attempting to illustrate a point about the use of quote marks and how they affect the meaning of a sentence. His manufactured statement was as an example, but I'm confident that is not his personal opinion. He seems frighteningly competent at channeling a certain now Banned poster, though.

[Polycarp]

Correctomundo, Homebrew. Sorry, LPNinja, I thought it was clear from the way I put that post together that I was manufacturing a quote (and made sure to say I was) that exemplified a former poster here -- who is not around to respond to your analysis of "his" post.

Homebrew, I disagree strongly with a number of stances taken by that poster and his wife, but they and we nonetheless regard each other as good friends, and they have proven their goodwill and friendship to me time and again, even as we were in the process of disagreeing vehemently. While I don't agree with much of what he says, I can understand his thinking, respect the integrity with which he posts (if not, sometimes, the tone! ;)), and am quite positive that hatred is not among his motivations in holding the stances he does. I wish I could say that for a lot of the folks who hold similar stances! :(

[iampunha]

Originally posted by Polycarp
Homebrew, I disagree strongly with a number of stances taken by that poster and his wife, but they and we nonetheless regard each other as good friends, and they have proven their goodwill and friendship to me time and again, even as we were in the process of disagreeing vehemently.

I've been wondering about this for a while, Poly, and perhaps you will be able to answer this here (or, if you prefer email, that's fine too. Or neither. I'm just damn curious).

Given how many members of this board you are friends with/regard in very high esteem (or however that phrase goes;)), and given the extreme lack of regard for those people that those two displayed (the most recent threads that contributed in no small part to the poster's banning, and I doubt his wife will come back again), how do you reconcile this friendship with their treatment of your GLBT friends here? I would think it a sign of their goodwill if, for one, they had been willing *not* to spew their crap wherever they went, as they were wont to do without cessation or even regard for any feeling but their own.

While I don't agree with much of what he says, I can understand his thinking, respect the integrity with which he posts (if not, sometimes, the tone! ;)), and am quite positive that hatred is not among his motivations in holding the stances he does.

I don't think it was his personal hatred of non-hets so much as a perceived (on his part) attack by them on "God's law", including but not limited to "special rights", marriage, non-discrimination policies etc. That, along with a steadfast refusal to examine as possibly valid any viewpoint that might differ with his at all, made debating with him (assuming that he was debating and not merely witnessing in threads about GLBT issues) rather less than enjoyable/fruitful.

And it doesn't hurt, of course, that they carried the "This is a Christian nation founded by fundamentalist christians who didn't intend for anyone to choose homosexuality" banner like they got paid for it more than professional athletes.

I will leave the matter of the integrity of his posts to someone (meaning to cast no aspersions on you here ... I have a very difficult time thinking about either of them objectively) who is able to examine them with more a loving heart than, at this point, I am able to muster.

[Polycarp]

My impression is that, founding their belief system on "Bible-believing Christianity," they're convinced that God loves all people who turn to Him, regardless of race, creed, color, or sexual orientation, but that He hates sin in all forms, including, according to their understanding, the violation of His commands against sexual relations between two men or two women.

And they themselves, trying to follow His example, are not (AFAIK) opposed to anti-discrimination laws for gay people -- there is a Pit thread in which he came out explicitly in favor of civil unions for gay couples who wish to enter into them -- but that he believes that gay people pursuing their "lifestyle" (for lack of a better word) are engaging in sin, and it's his Christian duty to encourage them away from it. Add to this the fact that both he and his wife are blunt in saying what it is that they believe (not necessarily a bad trait) and that he feels strongly that it's his duty to defend his wife whenever she gets into an argument (often, due to that bluntnss) and that he has a quick temper, and you have the mix that's led to a number of our past trainwrecks.

But yes, I'd like to see Scotticher or Siege or Triskadecamus critique my POV here -- I'm convinced that they're decent people with loving hearts and a staunch stance that is not motivated by hatred in any way, but a lot of that is based on personal, off-board relations.

[Bippy the Beardless]

From the article
"some people are already announcing that this is the last straw [and] they're leaving the Episcopal Church."
Good riddence!