**
Advice unnecessary, but appropriate, and I asked for it with my inflammatory tone. One may find my “A” game elsewhere throughout the SDMB.
**
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and of course not. 
…and I wasn’t trying to win over any moderates, I was trying to piss off conservatives, but your point is well taken. As mad as I am, it does my cause no good to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Originally posted by MGibson
quote:
Originally posted by W. Panic Snopes
I didn’t say it was a simple one.
It seems to have been an impromptu decision to get him away from the bar, mug him, and leave him stranded. After the mugging started, McKinney wouldn’t stop beating him, probably the result of a borderline psychosis mixed with drugs and alcohol. The purpose of the entire incident was more money than fagbashing (they paid for their beer with loose coins), though they did evidently use the fact he was gay to get him to leave the bar with them.
Do you have any cites for this? I’m only asking because I’ve always heard that he was specifically targetted because he was gay. That’s why MS become the poster boy for hate crime legislation, isn’t it?
Marc
Of course we will never be certain of the truth, but I saw all the local newspaper and TV coverage. W. Panic Snopes has got it right enough. I’d say Shepard’s gayness did have something to do with why he was beaten so severely, along with alcohol, drugs and borderline psychosis. The incident definitely started because of money.
Yes, I’ve also heard that money had something to do with it. Shepard was supposedly flashing around large wads of cash and making it sort of obvious that he was fairly well off. He just happened to be doing so in the presence of two heavy meth users who had reached the state where they become almost permanently psychotic and extremely paranoid.
He was targetted for money, but beaten because of his homosexuality.
Struct, I’m just a devout Christian checking in, but I do speak out against prejudice in all forms within my (Episcopalian) church. The head of the Boy Scout troop in my town knows that I am and will continue to boycott them because of their policy of discriminating against homosexuals because they’re “not morally straight,” and I have no hesitation about voicing that opinion. I’m also, FWIW, a member of the Diocesan Commission on Racism. I’ve also been known to do my imitation of the Wrath of God when I hear the kids in the church indulging in any form of racism. Since they know I fence and occaisionally have swords in the trunk of my car, this is pretty good.
Yes, what happened to Matthew Shephard is a horror. That kids should tease each other by referring to them as homosexuals [grammar?] is a smaller, related horror. I am not a bystander; I am a fighter. I will not stand to have a person condemned because of one aspect of his or her social/sexual life. Please do not condemn me or whitewash (power wash? ) me because of one aspect of mine.
CJ
Fighting Prejudice Since 1968 (I started young)
Were you equally as mad when James Baird was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck because he was black?
I don’t want to speak for struct, but as someone who agrees (more or less) with him in this thread, I can say I was absolutely mortified at the James Byrd murder (it’s Byrd, not Baird)-- every bit as much as the Shephard murder, and the Gaither murder, now that I’ve been made aware of it.
I’m curious as to why that question would even pop up.
YES! :mad:
If there is a Higher Power or Powers, then Praise Be to Her/Him/It/Them. Thanks for the reminder that not all Christians are the enemy. I wholeheartedly urge you to keep up the good work: we need at least ten voices like yours for every one voice like the Immoral Minority’s.
**
You’re bragging about using intimidation to make a point to children instead of a reasoned arguement?
Marc
hyperbole
\Hyper"bole, n. [L., fr. Gr?, prop., an overshooting, excess, fr. Gr. ? to throw over or beyond; "ype`r over + ? to throw. See Hyper-, Parable, and cf. Hyperbola.] (Rhet.) A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect.
Besides, since when do children listen to reasoned arguments (or even reasoned arguements)?
I’m afraid I have to qualify my emphatic affirmative. Although I was equally as mad about the incident itself, I can’t say I was as mad about the aftermath, given that no one showed up carrying picket signs that said “God hates niggers”. No one would dare. Whoever showed up with a sign with such a horrible message on it probably would have been beaten to death on the spot if he/she/they weren’t arrested for inciting to riot first. Abstract hatred of a minority is simply no longer acceptable in civilized society and is reviled by every established institution… with one notable, and already noted, exception.
mgibson
Sorry, my statement should have been followed by a . The kids and I get on well – the fact that I fence and otherwise refuse to act like a conventional adult (I’m in my mid 30’s) makes me qualify as coolest adult in church, I think. They know I won’t get mad at them without reason, and I’ll tell them what that reason is. I’ll also give them every break I can, because I remember what it’s like to be a kid.
As an example, a few weeks after our current minister joined the church, his absolutely angelic-looking daughter (she was about 7) came into coffee hour on the brink of tears saying her big brother had thrown a rock at her. I went out to find out to ask her 10 year old brother what happened (he could pass for Harry Potter, except for the scar, since I’m indulging in descriptions). It turned out he had thrown a small (less than 1/2 inch / 1 cm) rock at her which had caught her on the elbow after she had thrown one at him. He also said he’d intended to miss. Basically, they were horsing around, being brother and sister. I sighed and told him he’d better get in and defend himself before he got convicted in absentia. Both kids are good friends, as are their parents.
CJ
Another one busted by not using the preview button.:o
Y’know, struct, insofar as I have a problem with your central argument, it’s that you seem to be asking me to be as bad as the people you (and, to an extent, I) despise… to treat, for example, Fred Phelps the same way he would treat Matthew Shephard. This is kind of where I disagree; intolerance and hatred of homophobes isn’t any better than intolerance and hatred of homosexuals - intolerance and hatred are bad things per se, no matter who they’re directed at. I’m quite sure that Phelps and his ilk are totally wrong in their behaviour, but I think the, er, Christian, thing to do is to try to convince them of their errors, accept Christ’s redeeming love and forgiveness, and go on from there. Which, I concede, may look like spineless toleration of their activities, from those who demand a more visible kind of action… but I still think it’s the right way to go.
If I may fall back on a relevant quotation from Nietzsche: “Whomever goes to fight monsters should take care not to become a monster himself.” (Or Tom Lehrer: “I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that.”)
So much for your central thesis; if I may return to Scriptural quibbling for a moment… The verse you quoted about the disciple whom Jesus loved is actually John 13:23, “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved” (KJV translation). This site will get you to a Greek/English interlinear version, where you will notice that the word translated as “loved” is egapa (transliterating here), a form of agapao, related noun agape - love in the sense of “caring about”, as distinct from eros, sexual love. So, if you genuinely want to convince me Jesus was gay, you’ll need something better than that, or I will raise my stonily sceptical eyebrow at you.
(Yes, I realise this is irrelevant to the main course of this discussion, but I worked on this, it’s years since I last read any Greek, I’ve suffered for my art and now it’s your turn… )
By the way, struct, I just wanted to send you a belated Thanks for both your compliments and your defence of de fencer:) .
CJ
**
I respectfully disagree. If I were to crucify Phelps & company upon a wooden fence, or set fire to their houses, or shoot them in cold blood, or even commit lesser offenses against them like vandalizing their homes or businesses, or firing them without cause, or just not hiring them in the first place, or causing laws to be passed and court cases to be decided which kept them from getting married and adopting children, then I would truly be reciprocating towards them in monstrous fashion. However, inasmuch as Christian believers have an obligation to turn the other cheek, you also have an obligation to be good Samaritans and relieve the suffering of your fellow men and women. Since you do have an obligation to love the sinner, I won’t expect you to echo my hatred of the bigot, but you also have an obligation to hate the sin, therefore I do expect you to not keep silent in the face of bigotry. (That is, assuming the “central argument” with which you disagree isn’t that all human beings, G/L/B/T included, deserve to be treated with decency and respect.)
The only thing I’m out to convince any Christian of is that the true meaning of Scripture is all in the interpretation. I’ll grant that the interpretive hypothesis I put forward is a stretch, but one can’t entirely discount it, either, and therefore one can’t entirely ignore it. What if it were true? Not that the immoral minority needs to be proven any wronger, but how much more evil and hypocritical would it make them if indeed their God Himself were gay?
This reminds me of my “Tolerance for intolerance?” thread of a while ago. Bottom line is, I, like struct, have none. Do I wish to see Phelps, Helms and Robertson strung up like Mussolini? Of course not. But I won’t shed any tears if they get back what they’ve dished out tenfold, and I will drink a toast to their overdue departure when they finally kick the bucket - and happily, at that.
Esprix
The war on terror will not be over until we bring our planes back home and destroy every Southern Baptist and fundamentalist “Christian church” in our country. if we’re going to wipe out Fundamentalism, lets wipe out all of them.
Fundamentalists and decent people can never co-exist. They are bigotry incarnate, and a cancer on any society they infest.
According to a 1998 poll by the H(uman) R(ights) C(ampaign), {not to be confused with Hillary Rodham-Clinton} there alot more than just termites who are appalled by the recent anti-gay crusade waged by the Right. 75% of Americans believe job discrimination against gay people should be illegal. The poll also shows that there are political consequences for gay bashing with 48 percent of likely voters saying that they would be “less likely” to vote for a Congressperson who voted to overturn President Clinton’s ban barring job discrimination against gays. Only 17% of respondents said overturning the discrimination ban would make them “more likely” to vote for their Congressperson.
My advice, sit down & talk to one of the oft avoided ‘trolls’ that frequent GLBT bars and let him tell you what it used to be like. Odds are, He’ll quote the old Virginia Slims buyline…“You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby!”
The way I see it, Stonewall was only about 30 years ago and from my perspective, The GLBT has come along way toward being accepted. Take a deep breath, stop playing the role of the angry young man and take pleasure in the fact the glass is 75% full as opposed to 17% empty.
When I used the Jesse Dirkhising story, I purposely avoided incendiary language or painting the homosexual community with a broad brush. To clarify, I honestly don’t believe “nobody wants to say anything negative about homosexuals”, I know there are a plurality of people that do. But on the other side of the coin, I find it disturbing that you’d even imply by your 3 examples that Jesse Dirkhising was himself gay. I don’t think any (pre)pubescent boy has the ability to completely decide his sexuality.
As was pointed out by MGibson and others, and taking into account your acknowledgement of inflammatory and “non-A-game” tone, your original point and subsequent posts border on extremist and militant. IMHO, there’d probably be alot more Catholic acceptance of the GLBT community if Act-Up ceased their quasi-militant protests of running naked through St. Patrick’s Cathedral throwing condoms at the congregation.
Sorry, but I’ll never in my heart of hearts accept hate-crimes legislation for anything other than garbage. All crime is based in hate. Trying to have government or the judiciary dole out punishment based on what’s going on in a perpetrator’s mind borders on the insane. If a criminal was to get the best of me in an alleyway, I couldn’t care less if he did it for my wallet or my race or my sexual preferences.
People will never stop hating and killing, but we’ll be one small step closer toward the goal of ending evil when people stop banding together as groups with a “circle the wagons” mentality in an unfactionalized, individualist-based society.