Not at all. The way to get the bad blood flowing is to accuse someone of being a troll, who clearly isn’t, instead of going to the Moderators, as you show capably show us.
That’s twice this week you’ve accused me of being a Troll, something I’m sure you understand the Mods frown upon. Are you angling for ‘suicide by moderator?’
As I warned you numerous times in the other threads, I think it’s a pretty disgusting tactic to try to get someone banned by shouting “Troll.” Perhaps you didn’t read those, as you appear to not read my other posts.
I can assure you that I’ve brought this repeat performance to the moderators attention. Please do not do it again.
A warning – portions of this post do not reflect my personal views but my understanding of others’ views. I have no intention of trolling in doing so.
Mumpf. I ain’t imposing them and I won’t, and I’ll stand beside you fighting anybody who tries to.
What I’m saying is that I can, with some difficulty, grasp the logical progression from belief in God to belief in His law to belief that you are doing something He doesn’t like – and the fair treatment to give one’s fellow man is to warn him about the possible danger.
You can’t fly by flapping your arms. Neither can I. (At least in a one-atmosphere ecosystem at one gravity; free fall and such are a whole 'nother case.) To alert you to that fact if you seem to be claiming that it’s unfair that you can’t is not trespassing on your rights. It’s bringing home to you a fact based on the nature of the universe we live in. (Obviously a bad example with reference to you – but one of my closest friends is six and fond of the Power Rangers, and very offended that he cannot do the stuff they do in the cartoon when he grows up.)
From the point of view of the fundamentalists, the idea that God imposed rules that prohibit you from enjoying sex with those you are attracted to without sinning in the process is a part and parcel of their worldview. They can and do see the situation as one where they are called to care about you personally, and as such try to get the idea across to you and the other gay people around here, who in their estimation seem to be obstinately rejecting that caring and calling them all manner of vile names for doing so.
Now, I would not worship a god who created people (or allowed them to develop) with a sexual orientation that meant anything they chose to do other than strict celibacy was sinful. But based on the premise that the Bible reflects accurately the ukases of an actual god with power over your destiny, which is one of their principles, yes, I can and do understand what they’re saying.
I don’t agree with it.
I think that the Biblical prohibitions are against lust – the perversion of sexual gratification for strictly personal satisfaction without thought for partner’s needs and wants. And that that applies to both homosexual and heterosexual Biblical laws.
And that it’s none of my business what anybody else does for their sex life, except that I’m supposed to care about them and try to show the love of the God who was manifest in Christ to them.
Which means that I can offer my interpretation of those passages to anybody who will listen to it. Because the facts include an effectively non-changeable sexual orientation for everyone. And IMHO a God who loves all the people He created. And therefore the understanding of Leviticus and the Pauline stuff as a strict prohibition on you guys having sex at all with people you love must be an invalid POV, much like the Pharisees’ stance on “doing work on the Sabbath” was.
Anyway, the bottom line is – I don’t agree with the fundamentalist stance. But I can see the reasoning behind arguing it, and that it is not, as it must appear to any gay man, necessarily motivated by hate – it can, instead, be motivated by compassion.
And while I cannot read behind Ace’s posted words well enough to ascertain his motivations – I feel pleased with myself that I targeted him on the one point I made above – I am confident that what he is trying to do is to make clear that saying “I believe that God says XX is evil” does not automatically mean “I myself feel that you are evil for doing XX.” I think you misinterpret his motives – though I’d welcome his spelling out what they are, for the sake of clarity and ending of this hostility.
And let me close by reiterating that I am not only opposed to Christians condemning gay people – it’s contrary to what they themselves have committed to do, in my reading of what our Lord had to say about how to treat other people – but I am dedicated to seeing the removal of discrimination against gay people’s civil rights. Because, sir, I believe God wants it that way. I’ve made this post because I think that being the object of hatred and discrimination has blinded many gays to the possibility that some of the people who find their sex lives sinful may not actually be motivated by hate. But I am well aware that there are those who are.
Now can we get back to the subject of in what manner Rhapsody’s posts are most offensive?
In this thread, Gobear? “I think you just like to stir up trouble, arguing on different sides just to get the bad blood flowing.” That’s calling me a Troll, and it’s not the only time.
I’d be unhappy if I had to demonstrate all the times you’ve used this technique, which appears not merely restricted to me. I respect you as an individual, and your posts are quite cogent outside of gay/conservative threads.
I’d be much happier if you merely apologized and agreed not to do it again, ever.
Feel free to e-mail me, instead us hijacking my own thread, if you can be civil.
Polycarp, the post you quoted was not directed at you, but at the fundie POV. I apologize for being unclear. I would not wish to offend you.
You see it as compassion; I see it as fundie condescension.
In any event, I’m walking away from this thread, and just giving up. Ace can win; he’s right, the fundies are right. I’m going to hell.
This thread, and the other threads on this topic, have gotten me very depressed. Anything I say to express the depth of that despair would just be seen as self-serving and “being a martyr.”
Gobear, coming from someone who almost never apologizes, I appreciate even this truncated version of one.
As an aside, may I suggest a perspective break? When you appear more strident than the Fundamentalists, this may be a sign that your viewpoint is skewed.
I hope you stick around and return to the more nuanced viewpoints that you had several months back. As you might recall, I don’t consider withdrawal a win for anybody.
Do you equate “rational” and “religiously-based” standards of belief?
Do you assert that, in a formal debate (or GD, which you wish to address) that religious beliefs are to be given the same credence as rational deductions?
Would you really prefer a Theocracy? (if so, please take a number - we have several folks in that line already)
Polycarp, do those Christians think that gays have never heard of the idea that the bible says they’re sinning? Is this supposed to be breaking news that must be spread immediately because if its not gay people might accidentally go to hell without ever dreaming that anyone might think were doing anything wrong?
Ace, I wholeheartedly disagree that gobear is appearing “more strident” than the Fundamentalist Christians to whom he is responding. (Kirkland was, to be sure, but I do not see the same vehemence in gobear.) What I do see is someone empassionately defending themself (and how sad it is to defend one’s own humanity in such a way) against those who would, and do, rally against him.
And in that aspect, I’m fully in his corner on this one. I daresay it might be you who needs a break to get some fresh perspective.
Once again, Captain Bigot Defender (since you liked the moniker the first time), if you honestly review the threads that lead to the Pitting of Uncle Toby and His4ever, you’ll find that I and other posters tried to deal with them with logic and references. They both proved themselves impervious to reason and instead intensified their offensiveness, eventually leading to Pit threads. Ironically, His4ever started her own roasting. And Uncle Toby began his offensive interjections in a MPSIMS thread, completely ignoring the decorum of the forum.
BTW, Ace defended 'Uigi, so you’re little diatribe is flawed.
It was only after their unrelenting ignorance that they ended up in the Pit, where you and Ace jumped to their defense.
Let me break it down for you. Calling gay folks “an abomination” is the same as calling us “a perversion” is the same as calling us “unnatural” is the same as calling us “aberrant”. It is offensive, and particularly so after the claims have been rebutted. Once someone has proven that they are intent on insulting us and ignoring our reason, they deserve the flames they get. Those who continue to defend them once the flames begin, deserve the scorn they receive.
Huh? If you get offended at the connotations of a word choice, when expressly denied, and then fail to rebut the other rational points, (are you saying that you never do this? Please.) move on to troll-baiting, and then pile-on, then ban-begging, I fail to see what, if anything, you’ve accomplished at the end of the day to feel so proud about.
Case in point, the Gay v Christian debate, where I don’t have a dog in the fight, but I felt that the tactics used by Gobear were again disreputable, and that, Gobear should be more worried about defending his posts in that thread than a defending his humanity from imaginary attacks by the unfailingly polite Jersey Diamond and UncleToby. He came off as arrogant, paranoid, delusional, and more than a little rabid, from a poster who I know can do better.
I’ve been catching up on his writings. I think the perspective break is in order, or it’s the meltdown countdown, and I think Gobear has contributed quite a bit – I’d hate to see him go out in flames, which is where he seems to be heading.
Or, alternatively, it’s a sign that the Fundamentalists have proved themselves utterly impervious to logic and good sense and it’s necessary to scream in their face just to get their attention.
These people are bigots, Ace, pure and simple. Do yourself a favor and get out of their camp.
No. Hence the conjunction “or” (for which you substituted “and” in your question) in my statement. I’m saying that “religiously based” data is legitimate support for an assertion as regards a topic related to those data. E.g., His4Ever might assert that (a) it’s an article of faith in her denomination that God verbally inspired the Bible (cite to a denominational website), (b) Leviticus 18:22 says thus and so, so therefore it is reasonable for a person who believes according to that denomination’s standards to believe thus and so.
This does not mean that it is a rationally deduced conclusion, nor a properly tested inductive conclusion. It means that it is a conclusion arrived at as a matter of one’s faith in a deity who, it is claimed, said thus and so. As a response to a GQ on what do “His4Everists” believe, it is a factual answer. As a contribution to a GD on a religiously oriented topic, it’s a supported opinion, as opposed to the typical troll dumping of undocumented hatefulness.
This does not necessarily make it valid in some objective truth standard – it merely makes it a view supported by some sort of evidence. It’s up to the reader to decide how much weight to give that evidence.
Nope. But, when demonstrable as deriving from a theological premise held by a group and presumably with some thought behind it, a bit more credence than a sheer pouring out of unsupported and apparently unthought-out opinion would. See above.
I could handle a theocracy run by the God I believe in. Unfortunately, most theocracies are run by people who believe they have the Truth of God as a private resource, and need to control the behavior of the Teeming Millions who don’t adhere to that Truth. So in the sense you probably meant when you asked the question, absolutely not, and I’ll be ready to fight against anybody trying to set one up.
Yeah. It can be hate, it can be condescension from somebody with the attitude “I’m Saved™ and you’re not, so nyah, nyah,”* and it can be a lot of other things, including the fun of arguing a contrarian position. It can also be done in love.
A close online friend at the Pizza Parlor told me of an instance where a friend of his came out, left his wife, and moved in with another man. He spent a weekend camping with the friend while he was making his decision to do so – not lecturing him on his sinfulness but being there while the man worked through some emotionally wrenching issues. And his main complaint about the man’s new gay relationship is not that they’re gay, but rather that the man’s partner is (by his description) an abusive control freak, and he doesn’t want to see his friend hurt by the friend’s partner. To me, that’s Christian love to a gay man, from someone who believes the Biblical standard.
As for me, my own views are on record, and they do not include castigating you or your brothers and sisters for something you did not choose and about which I think the traditional interpretation of Scripture is hogwash.
I believe people with that attitude have a surprise in store for them, BTW.
I disagree. Gobear came off as angry, and I’m sure that’s exactly what he is. Being angry does not mean that you are wrong, nor does emotion mean that your opponents are more credible. While it is, perhaps, not the best means to garner constructive debate, it is very human. This issue is far closer to Gobear than it is to you. It is not just a topic for discussion; it is also a painful reminder of how hostile our society can be against gay people, and I’m sure Gobear has had many people hurt him because of this hostility. I find it perfectly understandable that he would be insulted by some of the language that is used by some posters in reference to gay folks, and to be upset by the attitude of said posters.
I agree with Fenris and Esprix. You are resorting to low tactics to try to ‘win’ the unwinnable. Gobear has an understandable dislike towards fundamentalists and homophobes who insult him. I imagine I would feel the same way.
I’d like to give the clues, Dick.
“yeah it couldn’t be the simple fact that it is unnatural, disgusting, non-beneficial to a species, and smacks of mental illness…”
"if you are homosexual then I pity you your shortcomings, and I don’t hold it against you, but don’t expect me or most other heterosexual males (and females) to ever consider it as a normal or acceptable alternative. "
“It may not be something you have any control over or way to change and again I offer my pity for your infirmity, but in no way is it “natural”.”
{ding}
What are things a deeply repressed latent homosexual might say to make himself sound like a “real man”?
That’s right! Johnny, tell 'em what they’ve won!
