Even tho my Christian Church- which holds pretty much only those teachings of JC himself- has no problem with Gays, and will even perform a marriage ceremony for them- i do understand that the Pauline Churches must condemn gay sex as a sin. Well, that is OK, but, if they are following the Pauline list of NO-NOs, they must include “drunkeness, debaters, fornicators, the covetuous, revilers, theives, and especially those who judge one another”. So, it is pretty hard to point that finger of judgement, without pointing it right back at yourself. I find it odd that a Mission that caters to their flock of “drunkards” would despise homosexuals, when one is as bad as the other- according to Paul.
Those damn homosexuals, constantly flaunting Biblical priciples! Man, if I had a nickel for every faggot I’ve seen wearing the Ten Commandments. And always in such garish colors!
Esprix
Neither and both. I don’t think that they ever really believed in their heart that this was the right thing to do. Who, being convinced that he is doing the right thing, changes his course due to public opinion? Did MLK Jr. give up the civil rights struggle when segregationists spoke against him? Did Ghandhi give up the ideal of nonviolence when people demanded that he take more direct action for independence? Clearly, deep down they knew that this was wrong. Yet they did it anyway. That is what I find the really galling part of this. And I think that, despite all of this, that they still are fooling themselves into thinking that this was the right thing to do, that their initial response was the correct one, and they were “forced” to bow to public pressure. And I think that if a similar situation ever comes up again, they will act in exactly the same way unless the have fear of the public finding out. I think they are bullies that have found that telling other people that they’re going to hell makes them feel good.
beakerxf
But you see, the problem is that most people don’t believe that has happened. I certainly don’t. I don’t think that any minds have been changed. I don’t think that society has been reshaped in any but a superficial manner.
Maybe they didn’t want to take a chance on him buggering the turkey!
Seriously, Esprix, you start with a faulty, bigoted premise, proceed to demonize those for whom you have no tolerance, and continue under the guise of innocence.
Your disingenuousness is not to be taken seriously.
What is this, National Rag On Esprix Week?
I wouldn’t pretend that PlanetOut isn’t biased, but my question is legit - did they sincerely change their view and realize their intolerance, or did they cave in to public pressure and do the PC thing? Why does asking this question make me disingenious?
Sheesh. Next thing you know I’ll be hung on a cross for asking people questions when they invite me to ask them questions. :rolleyes:
Esprix
I’ll try to answer this question on a couple of levels.
- I personally believe they made a knee jerk reaction, and realized they were wrong. To some people, certainly myself included at times, some people tend to be overly in your face with gay issues. While one may have no natural aversion to gays, can acquire an Aversion. This can happen in much the same way that you have nothing against Sprint, the telephone company. Than they call you and ask you to change. Day after day. It goes on and on. One day the phone rings, it’s Sprint, and you automatically hate the guy on the other end of the phone telling you about long-distance service. I’m not saying it’s right or justifiable. It certainly speaks poorly of the person it happens to, but it happens. Take you, for example. As active as you have been on gay topics, now when you post sometimes people see what you write through a “gay filter,” and respond as if you were writing from a gay perspective, even when you are not. Hence, the one trick pony fallacy.
I’d like to think the same occured in Arizona. The mission saw Kolbe’s request, as an opportunistic request to get publicity for his gay activism, instead of the legitimate and helpful contribution that it was. Thusly, they snubbed him in the worst way possible.
With his truly gracious and thoughtful reply Kolbe showed them how wrong they were (and I am in astounded admiration at his dignity in this.) When the mission was so clearly shown how very wrong they were, they made amends.
-
Whether or not you beleive it’s sincere, you have to extend the benefit of the doubt. If you accept the apology graciously, at worst you’ve attained a grudging neutral. If you reject it with hostility, you create a lasting and profound emnity. The next gay guy that walks in there is gonna pay for it, and the intolerance goes on.
-
If one can’t beleive that people can admit it, and learn when they are wrong, and if one can’t forgive, than that means the bastards have gotten to you. You might as well give up all hope, and resign yourself to a sad and bitter life full of resentment.
-
These guys are feeding the poor. If they got a little self righteous and acted like pricks, just maybe they get a second chance, because of it,.
The problem with this argument is that he’d apparently volunteered at this place before (see Esprix’s article). It therefore seems less likely that it was an “opportunistic request” if he’d customarily volunteered at this place.
Personally, I think they were forced to back down due to popular pressure. While I admire strong-willed adherence to what you think is right, if I think that belief is wrong-headed I’ll praise extravagantly any move towards what I consider “right”. If their convictions were all that strong, they’d not have waffled; while their initial impulse was petty and offensive, perhaps praising a move towards “love thy neighbor” may result in actual changing of minds. Honestly, I don’t believe that their motivations for their second statment were an honest admittance of their poor judgment, yet I am bound to ostentationably honor and respect what they declare their motivations to be. I do admit that there may be a difference bewteen what I think may be someone’s motivation, what they claim is their motivation, and what their motivation actually is. 
If I must make a public declaration of what my opinion is about what is going on, I tend to err on the side of accepting people’s actual statements about their reasons. Sure, sometimes they lie; but accusing someone of lying is a serious matter and should not be done without equally serious consideration.
In plain english? I have severe doubts, but I’ll accept what they say for now, and base my judgment on a broader sample of their actions from now on. I’m no fool, though, and will view any statements by them that may imply intolerance towards gays with an extremely jaundiced eye since they’ve acted like such asses previously. OTOH, if they seem to be embracing their gay brethren, I will see their statement here as a first step toward genuine tolerance and love. I hope that it was a genuine outreach towards homosexuals, but, eh…my hopes aren’t terribly high. Call me cynical; or perhaps realistic. <g> We’ll see which I am once we see how they behave. I’d honestly be happy to be proven wrong.
Gaudere:
From Esprix’s article:
I didn’t catch that the first time through. That is unfortunate. And sad.
Damn. Guess now’s the time to show off my new sig.
Love the new sig, Scylla. Hee hee… 
I agree, Scylla - Kolbe’s response was dead-on. Not bad for a Republican…
I’m only sorry the article didn’t mention whether or not he did work for another organization, or decided to go back to this one when they re-invited him.
Esprix