How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 It's that time again   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

It's that time again

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


75 posted 03-04-2007 09:51 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

people (like me, it seems) who believe words have power and shouldn't be used to denigrate whole groups of people. Not directly and especially not indirectly.

That's true, Ron, that words have power but giving them too much power can be as bad a giving them too little. Thanks to people who agree with your comment strongly, Mister McGoo is gone, Speedy Gonzales is gone, no reruns of Amos 'n Andy are allowed, Little Black Sambo is out of schools, All in the Family would have never been aired, Porky Pig would have been a no-no, and the list can go on and on. Is that a good thing? Who can say? Maybe if I were a Mexican with an inferiority complex, I would have wanted Speedy gone, too. Interestingly enough, though, when he WAS pulled, the Latin community was infuriated by the decision. Words only have the power we give them and should never replace actions in importance. When dad says "This hurts me more than you" while beating your butt with a hairbrush, do you  symphathize with the pain he must be feeling? I doubt it. What was the phrase we learned in grade school? "Sticks and stones....etc"? So where did that go? Now it seems people are ready to pounce on anything they want to label discrimination or denigration of a group...you call that healthy? You want to call a joke like mine (which I have told to gay customers of mine with laughs received) insidious? Be my guest. Words are not the issue as much as how people take them, interpret them and use them to promote whatever point they want to make. THAT'S what causes Danish cartoons to be rallying points for demonstrations, murders and declarations of war. I say lighten up a little. Call me anything you want. I'm Irish. Hit me with the Micks. If you do it in an offensive way, I'll ignore you. If it's funny, I'll return the favor with some attribute or heritage of yours and we'll both have a chuckle. Speeches about words having power and insidious behavior are not necessary. People are the final censors and artibrators. So either do that or else we can continue down the path to a humorless, vanilla world where absolutely nothing can be said or written that could be deemed offensive or insulting to any one person or group and pure political correctness will be the law of the land. Fortunately I'm old enough that I won't be around to see it....  

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


76 posted 03-04-2007 10:49 AM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

"He clearly doesn't like it much when I point out his mistakes to him."

Ditto. We're two sides of the same coin brother.


Iliana,

No this is not about gay bashing nor was it ever, I don't know who came up with that ridiculous thought.

"namely that this was a post to bash gays or to discuss the rights and wrongs of being gay."

No.

"I guess I was really off and his post was really about gay bashing"

Please point out where I bashed gay people.

"almost everyone is still on a completely different kind of topic."

True.

"Ron was addressing people who use words in a powerful manner"

[sighs] I know what his previous post meant, I'm not an idiot. I was being sarcastic.

Ess, I realize that but they are saying I'm "bashing" homosexuals which is absolute BS. I don't know where everyone is getting that... It's startin to set me off.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


77 posted 03-04-2007 04:00 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Ed, with your sense of humor, I thought you would catch my sarcasm....I even noted "(sarcasm added)" in one spot.  Sorry if you misinterpreted me.  I was taking your side on this and I do know what you meant in your original post.  My last remark was cynicism mostly.  (Read it again, Ed, with sarcasm this time.   )  
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


78 posted 03-04-2007 04:30 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Ed,

Um, I keep going through the early part of the thread and can't find anybody saying that you were gay bashing (People have taken you to task for what you said, not what you didn't say.). The latter parts are just the natural evolution of any thread so I don't know what you're complaining about.

People did complain about your writing and you said your writing's not going to change. Others then went on to complain about the complaining. That, to me, is pretty much what you guys are complaining about.

The question, however, still revolves around gay civil rights. A gay advocacy group is committed to this agenda and uses what power they have to advance that agenda.

Why is that wrong?

Because it makes you feel uncomfortable? Because you don't want to hear it?
Because it makes you feel left out?

If any of the above strike a chord, it's because I can back all of it up from your original post. You are whining and moaning about whining and moaning.

You then went on to attack liberalism in general, but you don't seem to understand the historical roots of liberalism (This happens a lot.).

Without liberalism, you do not have the right to say what you want. You do not have the right to be a 'lazy' writer, and you're identity is subject to modification by those in power. The problem with liberalism is that while it allows all of those freedoms to exist, it still allows people to disagree with you.

And this, at times, gets too extreme. Yes, people can be too sensitive, but it's not just on the 'liberal' side of things, it's anybody who seems to think that 'freedom to' and 'freedom from' are the same thing.

Freedom fries, anyone?

PS On the sensitive issue, I was watching Tom and Jerry with my daughter yesterday and Tom used ash to put Jerry in blackface and then forced him to dance. I wonder if this particular show would even be allowed in the US.
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


79 posted 03-04-2007 09:31 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

lol, I'm sorry Iliana, I'm edgy with this thread. When you have angry monkeys clawing at your back it's hard to determine which ones want to give you a massage. This is bad that I, the monarch of sarcasm, can't even recognize wit anymore. I need to quit posting things on here. Thanks & Peace

Brad,

"You are whining and moaning about whining and moaning."

[The Alley
This forum is for flaming, complainin', and screaming your head off.]

You're right, I shouldn't be complaining on this forum.   And "whining and moaning" isn't the best description of what I was doing.

"A gay advocacy group is committed to this agenda and uses what power they have to advance that agenda."

They can still act like tyrants, can they not? I don't agree with extremists. And GLAAD can make their point without all the radical tactics; they just don't want to.

And yeah I know they weren't implying that I was "gay bashing" in the beginning. They completely ignored my post and decided to attack me and my language. I've been reviewing the posts as well and it's Ron that began distorting my post. Honestly, I don't know what the hell is wrong with him. In my opinion, he has a superiority complex and an ego the size of Michigan.

I speak with a laid-back tone and style. I'm not a lawyer and I don't intend to speak like one. I've had enough of that BS. If Ron and Karen have a problem with the way I talk then that's fine by me. They can be judgmental if they desire.

Like I said earlier, this forum has become petty. Not many people seem to stick to the topic without resulting to character assassination and others just veer off into something totally different. I've been so bloody uptight here. I mean damn, I took Iliana's sarcasm seriously! What the hell?! I need to loosen up and start having fun again.  

Komapsumnida


Head Cheese & Chicken Feet
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


80 posted 03-04-2007 10:31 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually, Ed, I find a discrepancy in your description of what happened with this thread and Ron's part in sabotaging it. God knows that Ron and I have tangled enough times - even in this thread - and there's no butt-kissing involved here but Ron had little to do with the tone of this thread. You set the tone from the beginning, even with the title.

It's that time again

Then you prefaced with conversation with comments like these...

I know all you happy people love my topics
I will probably go down in the books as the guy who spewed alphabet soup on this website.
I don't hold back and I won't apologize for how my "discussing" affects people.


All of that in the first paragraph! This thread was created to be nothing more than a chip on your shoulder with a dare to knock it off.  The topic of the thread? Not gays or gay bashing, of course. You give your opinion on that clearly..

See I almost just don't care one way or the other. I'm not really for it or avidly against it; I just don't give a horse's heart.

Then, after declaring your disinterest in the subject, you go on about how groups referring to it bother you, how groups trying to sway opinions frost your cookies. Well, why use only gays? There are many topics where that same tactic is used. If you are a smoker you are evil. If you drive an SUV, you don't give a darn about the environment. If you are against illegal immigration, you hate foreigners. If you are pro-choice, you condone murder. Man, pro and anti gay advocates don't even scratch the surface....but, gay, well, there's a subject that can push buttons and get you the kind of reactions you wanted from the beginning.

If you had simply wanted a rant about groups using shoddy techniques to instill guilt in those with opposite opinions, there was no need to throw down those gauntlets in the first paragraph. You would have gotten a ton of replies agreeing completely with you, as mine was. Don't blame Ron or anyone else. The thread progressed exactly the way you had originally planned for it to, with controversy and sarcasm. Congrats.........
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


81 posted 03-04-2007 10:39 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
They can still act like tyrants, can they not? I don't agree with extremists. And GLAAD can make their point without all the radical tactics; they just don't want to.


One of my earlier points is that anyone that somebody disagrees with automatically becomes an extremist. What have they done that you so characterize them as tyrants?

Bombed Disneyland?

Believe me, if they were committing violent acts, everybody would be on your side. But that's not what you said. You said that they've responded to anti-homosexual or perceived anti-homosexual remarks.

Every advocacy group, on the Right, on the Left, in the Center, does that. You've made much of your religion and that's fine. There are groups that fight for Catholic civil rights in much the same way, there are scholarships for Catholics. If you don't believe me, look.

Why single out homosexuals if that is your real beef?

Of course, anti-homosexual bigotry is in the papers right now, anti-Catholic bigotry is not. It's all over the wing nut blogosphere (Yeah, I look.) so it makes sense that you would key on that, but precisely because of that, you must have known, you should have known, that this thread would eventually gravitate in that direction.

It seems fairly obvious that you knew this stuff was coming -- so what's the big deal?

I'm not going to defend Ron here except perhaps to recycle an argument that I've made many times. When someone spends as much time as he has on this thread and on your concerns specifically, that is a form of respect even if it doesn't quite feel like that at the time.

Hankookmal hal-su-issoyo?

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


82 posted 03-05-2007 09:24 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Ron:

quote:
Jim and Stephen say homosexuality is bad, and that can be countered with contentions that it's not.


I agree with you that I find some of the other posts offensive and without reasonable, redeeming value.  I just had a conversation with my wife about this the other day and we both agree that homosexuals have been unfairly targeted by many conservative groups and there have been efforts to exclude them from the civic community.

Like you, I've written much in this thread and it is possible that I am contradicting myself right now, but I believe the thrust of my posts was to hash out a common ground ... a foundation for later discourse that Hush and Brad recognize as being the weightier issues.  I've been an active civil rights advocate for several years now, and one thing I've learned is that you need to bring opposing forces together and find common ground in order for dialogue (usually the most important dialogue) to be fruitful.  If it is alway "us" and "them," there will be no progress ... only pyric victories that leave one side or the other alienated.  Under such circumstances, the result lacks stability and great gains won one season can be reversed in another.

You've characterized my position as "Jim ... say[s] homosexuality is bad."
This might seem difficult for some to understand, but it does require some clarification.  I believe homosexuality is "bad" primarily insomuch as its practice is deemed sin in Scripture.  With that said, I've heard the passage in Romans improperly quoted very often as singling out certain practices as being particularly vile, when the whole point of the passage at large is to demonstrate how NOT ONE PERSON ... ANY PERSON ... is without blame and deserving of judgement when the divine, moral standard is a perfect standard.  

By quoting this passage from Romans without considering the rest, Evangelical Christians often fall into the trap of believing and pronouncing their moral superiority over homosexual people and they use this moral self-importance to excuse unspeakable behavior toward homosexuals.  In a nutshell, Paul's message in Romans is that we are ALL sinners, we have ALL offended God, we ALL deserve the most severe judgement, and ALL of us have access to redemption through Christ's vicarious assumption of our guilt and punishment.  In short, setting aside homosexual behavior prior to receiving God's gift of grace is not a prerequisite to receiving that gift, any more than any other action or activity that runs contrary to God's moral law is a prerequisite to grace.  Grace isn't grace if you have to do anything to earn it, and for an Evangelical to say otherwise is an obvious indication that the Evangelical doesn't understand what the Gospel is and what it is not.  That, in and of itself, is a sin more egregious than homosexuality, in my opinion (but I realize that Christians are not generally as particular about sound doctrine as they are about moral pet pieves).  Will a Christian who is a homosexual change his or her behavior after becoming a Christian?  Maybe or maybe not.  It might be immediate, it might not occur for many years, it might not even occur during that person's lifetime.  I simply believe it is a struggle within a person that ought to happen, but a failure on the part of the person to lay aside homosexual practices is in no way (in my opinion) a damning offense.

I think the legal issues are much more clear cut, and, like you Ron, I don't believe that homosexuality is, in and of itself, harmful in the civic sense.  I also believe those who violate existing laws prohibiting harassment and battery should be punished accordingly for targeting homosexuals.  No winks and nods ... lock up people who harm other people without justification.  Sexual orientation of the victim is not and should never be considered a mitigating circumstance.

Jim
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


83 posted 03-05-2007 10:46 AM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

Balladeer,

Actually, Ron did start distorting my post with statements like:

"If you disapprove of gay rights"
"when you use the podium here to attack other people"
"And I'm sure, Stephen, that the leaders of the KKK say pretty much the same thing about terms like "racist."
And he brought up the gay man that was killed because of hate and intolerance.

See, he turned it into a topic about hating gay people and not approving of them. Then hush and Jim added gasoline to the fire. So there ya go.

"You set the tone from the beginning, even with the title."

I see where you would think that. And as I've already said, my first paragraph was meant as humor and sarcasm and no I'm not just saying that to "get" myself out of the heat. Another reason I posted that first bit is because I had just finished a tough thread where the crap was really flyin', so I felt like warning people. Warning them that my topics tend to get heated (this one did) and whoever didn't want that shouldn't participate. That's all.

"Well, why use only gays? There are many topics where that same tactic is used."

Ok, I see what you're saying.

"If you are a smoker you are evil. If you drive an SUV, you don't give a darn about the environment. If you are against illegal immigration, you hate foreigners. If you are pro-choice, you condone murder."

I'm not so sure about the evil smoker one, lol but I've already had heated discussions about gas guzzlers and the oil company on another site (didn't feel like going through it again.) I already jumped into the abortion topic and that didn't move well (I ended up dealing with a little girl who doesn't listen to people). See the reason I chose GLAAD and only GLAAD is because I've been hearing unsettling things in the news about actors being harassed and "abused" by the organization. I gave my examples; I thought that was a reasonable topic to put in the Alley.

"gay, well, there's a subject that can push buttons and get you the kind of reactions you wanted from the beginning."

I wasn't looking for people to agree or disagree with me. Originally there was nothing in my topic to really agree or disagree with. I just wanted to discuss it. And if you think these are the reactions I wanted then you need your head examined, lol . You can't possibly believe I wanted my character and style attacked. Why can't I ever simply discuss things here? It's nuts.

"If you had simply wanted a rant about groups using shoddy techniques to instill guilt in those with opposite opinions."

I agree with you. My sarcasm and humor backfired on this one and this is the price.

"Don't blame Ron or anyone else."

Ron thinks of himself as an elitist and felt that I would be a good punching bag to boost his ego. There is a right way and a wrong way for doing things and I went about this post in the wrong way; I can admit it. Ron replied in the wrong way as well.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


84 posted 03-05-2007 12:04 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Brad-

"Yes, people can be too sensitive, but it's not just on the 'liberal' side of things, it's anybody who seems to think that 'freedom to' and 'freedom from' are the same thing."

Yes! Exactly.

I personally don't see a problem with the jokes posted... if you take them with the tongue-in-cheek humor I think was intended. The problem is people don't see that side of it... anyone seen Borat? Extremely offensive... yes. But... that was the point.
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


85 posted 03-05-2007 12:28 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

Brad

"One of my earlier points is that anyone that somebody disagrees with automatically becomes an extremist. What have they done that you so characterize them as tyrants?"

Mmm, I don't believe so Brad. That is not why I called GLAAD extremists. Like I originally said, I am not against what they're trying to do. I just believe the way they're dealing with people is wrong. I gave my examples, you can research them. And I meant tyrant in reference to what they do to someone who doesn't agree with them. It's interesting that you said "anyone that somebody disagrees with automatically becomes an extremist" because in my opinion they think that anybody who disagrees with them is "wrong" and homophobic.

I know they haven't taken any violent acts but abuse is not just physical, my childhood is a shining example of that. The fact is that anyone who doesn't agree with their views is supposedly homophobic and needs rehab.

Here's a clip. This clip is of Anne Coulter. Now I'm not posting this because of what she's saying about Edwards nor do I agree with the term she uses. It's just an example:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sx9Bi3C4rs8

And take a look at this:
http://www.petitiononline.com/at343sh7/

They started a petition to ruin this dude's life! It's amazing.

"anti-homosexual bigotry is in the papers right now, anti-Catholic bigotry is not"

Catholics have already had their fair share of persecution. Ever hear of martyrs? What about people killing Catholics for their faith? So don't try to use that.

"When someone spends as much time as he has on this thread and on your concerns specifically, that is a form of respect even if it doesn't quite feel like that at the time."

So if you just shoot someone killing them instantly, that's disresptful. But if you take the time to torture him, you're showing respect? Lol, I don't know about that.

Hankookmal hal-su-issoyo?

No, I only know "thanks". lol, I know how to say "thank you" in many  languages. It's just something I like to know.

Hush,

"the tongue-in-cheek humor I think was intended"

We're not allowed to be humorous here hush.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


86 posted 03-05-2007 01:52 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Perhaps the discussion about (homo/hetero) sexuality would be better to be continued in this thread

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


87 posted 03-05-2007 03:29 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

This has nothing to do with "(homo/hetero) sexuality."
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


88 posted 03-05-2007 04:27 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thank you, Ed, for taking the time to respond to my comments.

I can understand sarcasm backfiring, believe me!!!
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


89 posted 03-05-2007 04:41 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Alright, I want to be real here. And no Iím not saying that peopleís opinions up to this point arenít heartfelt and genuine. Iím saying I want to directly address Ed in the way (I) probably should have addressed him and failed to do so.

Iíve NO experience with Gay Rights Activists: Only some of the gay people they represent. NOT ALL, because some homosexuals have expressed their own displeasure with their methodology. Iím aware of the GLAAD existence, but I still have yet to run into one that I know of and Iíve not had the opportunity to converse with a member. Therefore, I cannot support your ďbeefĒ, but I can empathize with you on the account that I have run into other types of activists and have had plenty of conversations with them. They were all human, though many were driven in a way that made them forget they didnít have to scream out who they were. That just made me feel they werenít convinced themselves and therefore turned me off to their plights. Okay? Thereís where I stand. They can still be gun control, feminist, MADD, SADD, Pro-Life, Green Peace and Gay or all the above, but I donít have to buy into them at all. I just have to respect their rights to engage in activism. Perhaps their misgivings will be the very thing that will hurt their cause. Live and Learn.

I did not take offense to your post, Ed, because you can dislike whoever you want. You can dislike me, but Iím here, and Iím appealing to you as a person with no labels. Call me generic if you like.

I also did not take offense to your post because there are plenty of people I donít like! Mostly liars, thieves and cheats. So it would be hypocritical of me to scold you for disliking someone (or their ways) for your own reasons. Thereís where I stand on the issues of offense with regards to most people. Iím not a member of TCOA (the chronically offended association) because Iíve known for years that Iím not the center of the universe and neither is anyone else.

Iíve acted out a few times that got me in trouble. People might have listened to me if Iíd handled myself a little better. Again, live and learn. People say you have to earn respect. Itís not a given. Well, I disagree. Iíve not received it even when Iíve deserved it, so by that example I tend to freely give it to those I come into contact with who prove no harm to me or others. I didnít come by that reasoning, easily.

Iíve been tossed out of school. Iíve been thrown into a holding tank. Iíve been tossed out of church! The details arenít pretty, and I was defending myself, but the way I did it, well it wasnít all that ďconventional.Ē

Now, Iím very selective with whom I surround myself with, spend my time with, invest my interest in, involve myself with around my children, etc.  I make distinctions, with regard to who people are on the inside, and Iím very careful. Social magic-marker-labels mean nothing to me. Slurs demean the persons who use them. I think weíre all guilty of saying things we shouldnít say.

My advice to you is to practice your own rights. Converge with others who feel as you do and form your own group. Meet with GLAAD and hash it out with them, converse, debate, whatever groups do. Pose your questions to them. Expect an answer. Worst case scenario? Things could get ugly and youíll end up in a holding tank, together. Who knows, underneath all the hoopla may be someone you can really respect or befriend.

Otherwise, you might want to turn off your TV. Stop reading and buying into it all. Find some place quiet like the mountains for a hike. Film some nature, read some real literature, listen to some great music, or do what a young man might do with your health and ability, you know?

Again, I'm happy to see you are communicating and not lashing out with hate.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


90 posted 03-05-2007 05:08 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Hush:
quote:
Say what you want, but to me, all this commotion has fear on the backburner, the same kind of fear that kept blacks out of white institutions and women out of the boys' clubs is now keeping gays away from the rights straight people enjoy.


Amy,

Again, I only want to point out that no one deems fear as unhealthy or inappropriate in itself.  Depending upon whether there is anything to be feared, it is sometimes called "prudence".  

Secondly, for it to be the same kind of "fear" that is involved with racism, you should demonstrate with more detail why we should view a phenomenon like homosexuality as something like "race".  The connection has not been established, to me, except that it is almost always presumed in these kinds of debates (usually to make those who disagree with you appear to be cruel).  


Lastly, I don't have the right to marry another man.  We're talking about preserving a foundational aspect of marriage, (it must be defined, or it will die from a lack of borders- from literally becoming everything to everyone) not denying rights.  


Jim:
quote:
By quoting this passage from Romans without considering the rest, Evangelical Christians often fall into the trap of believing and pronouncing their moral superiority over homosexual people and they use this moral self-importance to excuse unspeakable behavior toward homosexuals.



I agree with you here Jim.  It just so happens that now, to disagree with allowing homosexual marriage is considered by many as "unspeakable behavior".


quote:
Will a Christian who is a homosexual change his or her behavior after becoming a Christian?  Maybe or maybe not.  It might be immediate, it might not occur for many years, it might not even occur during that person's lifetime.


Jim, if you want to question how sharp "evangelicals" are on their doctrine, I think you might ought to reconsider that last phrase.  I agree with you, until you make repentance sound seperable from grace (and no, I don't mean that works are prerequisite).  And by "repentance" I don't mean an ethereal post-mortem perfection, but something that imperfectly happens on this side of the grave.  Of course, I'm open to scriptural examples of exceptions.  


And by the way, this is not central to the subject at hand, as far as I'm concerned, seeing that it applies to much more than homosexuality.  I'm in agreement with you about the monomania in the church about homosexuality.  Though I don't fault firm preaching against it, I think neglecting to address other (pet) sins is telling.  To me, it demonstrates more of a sin of omission than anything else.  


quote:
I think the legal issues are much more clear cut, and, like you Ron, I don't believe that homosexuality is, in and of itself, harmful in the civic sense.


But some are not so "clear cut".  Though I agree that homosexuality in and of itself, may not be harmful in a civic sense ... that is a separate issue from the marriage question entirely.


And by the way, I know that not everyone is wanting to talk about the same exact issues here (though they are somewhat intertwined).  But if you all will put up with hearing my concerns, I'll put up with your endless arguments with Ed.  (Who, by the way, if you haven't figured out, quite ENJOYS it).  

Stephen
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


91 posted 03-06-2007 03:18 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

'Secondly, for it to be the same kind of "fear" that is involved with racism, you should demonstrate with more detail why we should view a phenomenon like homosexuality as something like "race". '

Because, Stephen... it's an aspect of that person's identity that has nothing to do with others' lives... a black person never hurt anyone just by being black, and a gay person never hurt another person just by being gay... or by loving another of the same gender. That is not harmful... yopu might argue that it is harmful to your soul, and against the rules of God... but that presumes a faith in God which I don't think should have any bearing on the laws of our country.

What's wrong with marriage being "everything to everyone?" in other parts of the world, polygamy is accepted, arranged marriages are common, etc. What impact does two gay people being legally married ahve on your marriage? Does it corrupt yoour marriage? Does it insidiously make you cheat on your wife, or disregard her, or your vows? Or course not, the same way your neighbor's divorce doesn't cause you to get a divorce, and the same way a recent patient of mine's marriage to her first cousin (it was also a polygamist situation) doesn't make me dump my boyfriend and get hitch with my family members. But it is a fear of these things, or simply a fear of acceptance, that keeps people on non judeo-Christian sanctioned unions from enjoying that right, and it's wrong.
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


92 posted 03-06-2007 06:10 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

"but that presumes a faith in God which I don't think should have any bearing on the laws of our country."


Seen the back of a dollar bill lately?

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


93 posted 03-06-2007 06:45 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Hush, I'm interested. What do you feel about two gays or lesbians adopting babies and raising them? Do you feel that the child would be no different than one raised by the traditional mother-father scenario? However you feel about it is fine with me....just curious.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


94 posted 03-06-2007 09:31 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Can you define a traditional mother-father scenario for me, Mike? I'm not sure I've seen one in a while. Are we talking Ozzie and Harriet or Ozzie and Sharon?

Mmm. Would I rather be raised by Ozzie and Sharon or by TWO Ozzie Nelsons?  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


95 posted 03-07-2007 01:07 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I don't think that there is anything that any of us can do that doesn't impact upon society and consequently on all of us individually. It's all intertwined, I believe.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


96 posted 03-07-2007 12:53 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You haven't seen a traditional mother/father relationship in a while, Ron? Where do you live - Michigan!?!?!

No need wasting one of your incomparable comparisons this time, Ron. I say mother/father and you bring up the Nelsons and Ozzie Osbourne. Believe it or not, neither one represents the hundreds of thousands of male/female couples that marry and raise children. Next time I'll mention the pleasure of having pets and you can bring up gila monsters and tarantulas.  

At any rate, my question was not meant to be argumentative. Perhaps two gay partners can raise a child as well as a male/female couple. I have no idea. The only reason why I posed the question was that Hush mentioned situations that involved no one else and I wondered if a child being raised by gays WOULD be afected in some way by not having the mother/father figures as parents and, if there were some effect, would that have an effect on how they lived their lives and treated others.....simply a philosophical point.

I don't really think that we are immune or unaffected by actions of others, even when we are far removed from it. You may feel that marijuana use should not be illegal and a car driven by someone high on grass runs into you and paralyzes you for life. (yes, they could do the same high on booze...no need to bring up that comparison   )

You may feel that a parent spanking his child as punishment is his own business but little Billy, upset at the spanking, throws a rock through the general store's window across town. The store owner, outraged, drives to the hardware store to get boards to patch it up and cuts off another driver in traffic and gives her the finger. The female driver, burning with rage, gets home and screams at her husband to get the frustration out of her system and a big fight ensues. The husband leaves for work, mad as hell at the unfairness of it all, gets to the office where he puts on his dental gown, hands still  shaking with anger....and you are the waiting patient.  

Sure, silly examples, but I believe none of us are immune to the actions of others....for the want of a nail, etc.

Would a child raised by gays or lesbians grow up on a different level that would affect his/her life in such a way it would affect their actions toward others or society? Beats me...I just think it makes for an interesting question, since Hush mentioned that it's nobody's business....and she may be right in saying that.
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


97 posted 03-07-2007 02:09 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

ďtraditional mother-father scenario?Ē

It's sad, you know. I just shake my head sometimes at society. Mom and dad can beat the living daylights out of a child and still be considered a better parenting nucleus than one or two people that love, guide, and encourage the child without the use of any kind of abusive tactics. What's that say about our priorities?

This I know. Children can tell you who they love and who takes care of them. Adults can twist their love into anything they want, so yes, parenthood isn't corruption-immune, but if we look into every single household with a child, we'll find mistakes. There is no perfect parent, and children unfortunately have to endure and overcome, just like we did.  


"I don't think that there is anything that any of us can do that doesn't impact upon society and consequently on all of us individually. It's all intertwined, I believe."

"I don't really think that we are immune or unaffected by actions of others, even when we are far removed from it."

True. Without the actions of others, nothing changes. We wouldn't be a free country. We are a direct reflection of how issues can and do stimulate change. The thing is: most people want change that only benefits themselves. That's regression, not progression.

I feel the examples you gave, Mike, are examples of how people let their attitudes control them, instead of them controlling their attitudes.

This thread is an example of how attitude can turn anything into a hairy issue.

But, I'd like for y'all to tell me how what I do in private affects you. I'll stop doing it. I promise. Cross my heart and hope to die a free woman.

and with that I must ask everyone to submit a detailed statement of what they've been doing in private because I've been feeling a little under the weather and I think one of you might be the cause. Own up to it, now. I won't be mad. I'm cheeky and a little deranged, but I'm forgiving.

Hey! I just had an epiphany. Let's all plead the 5th on this one, or stop believing we're the center of the universe

Besides, the average human only gets about 5 minutes worth of fame.

What would you do with your 5? Put it in another thread. I don't care.

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


98 posted 03-07-2007 03:54 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

I'm curious as to a trend I'm seeing in this thread as well as others:

Why is tradition important? Why is maintaining a tradition important?

If maintaining traditions were so important, then we'd probably still have slaves, women wouldn't be allowed to vote, children could still work at young ages in unsafe conditions. Farther back, we could eliminate freedom, having maintained the "tradition" of a monarchy.

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


99 posted 03-07-2007 04:01 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

ed-

'Seen the back of a dollar bill lately?'

Yup. I don't think 'In God we trust' belongs on our money- it makes a liar out of me  on the few and far between occasions I have to pay cash for anything.

Mike... c'mon now, you even have to ask me? Of course parents' relationships affect children... whether they were never married and separated (like my parents), remarried several times to different men (a friend's mom), with one or both parents dead (my boyfriend, and the aforementioned frined, both have a dead father), or are happily married... swingers (like another friends' parents). The 'traditional' male-female relationship is just fine... but it's not always ideal (seriously, my parents would have killed each other and I'm very thankful they didn't even try a failed marriage). What about step-families, and kids living with grandparents or aunts and uncles? Also, a high school firend of mine was raised by her lesbian mother and her lover, who were in a stable relationship throughout my friend's childhood. Last I heard, my friend, and her husband and daughter, are doing fine.

Should military personnel not be allowed to adopt because it's cruel to uproot children all the time? Should workaholic parents not be allowed children because their kids are neglected? Should Angelina not have been allowed to adopt a kid because she was single at the time? If I were to try and adopt, should I be denied because my liberal views might affect my child? Come on, now... It is entirely possible (and in fact, very common considering the high divorce rate) for "non-traditional" parents to be very good parents, and to raise very good kids.

Do you disagree?
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> It's that time again   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors