Quote from: juliekins on September 05, 2009, 06:42:03 AM
But once same sex marriage is legalized in a state, there are certain rights (privileges) that go with being married.  And once that legal status is taken away, as what happened with Prop 8 in CA, you lose those rights.  And now Maine is the focus of anti-gay marriage campaigning in hopes of achieving what they did in CA.

Agreed. But that's a slippery thing because before it was legal anywhere, the rhetoric was STILL "they are trying to take away our rights" even when "they" were arguing for the status-quo.

Even now, the argument usually centers around whether or not the expansion of privileges was wise.

Quote
I'm not sure what you mean by "get married". If the state does not recognize your marriage, you aren't legally married.

Marriage is something more than a legal state, at least as far as the religious are concerned.

and if that "extra-legal" definition of marriage is a legal irrelevancy, then gays would be content to accept "civil unions" as a valid equivilant and not make such an issue out of being called "married"

the fact that civil unions with all the same legal privlidges did not settle and satisfy the issue (from the POV of gay rights activists) indicates that one of two things is true:
a. the word "marriage" means something to them beyond the legal status, as it does to religious people; or
b. there is a political agenda to "screw with" the legal concept of marriage beyond the effort to just gain the same privileges.

I chose to believe the less sinister ofthose two choices.

Quote
There has not been a true "separate but equal" across the board status for same sex marriage in all the states that have approved it.  And, once you cross the state lines, your marriage might not be recognized.

And that, too, is a factor in why the opponents would still argue that they advocate not for "taking away" privileges but for maintaining the previous arrangement.

they recognize that gay marriage in California inevitably leads, at some point, to gay marriage in Alabama.

Quote
I don't think people are thinking of it that way.  The concept of "right" is based in the belief that if an opposite sex couple can get married and enjoy thousands of privileges, then same sex couples should too.  The right we're fighting for is to be treated fairly under law and not allow majority rule to deny the rights of the minority. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

To be clear, I do not disagree with the concept of the minority having been denied by the majority in this case.

I am simply pointing out that the legal privileges associated with marriage are NOT an example of unconstitutional inequality before the law.

If they were, they could not exist because then the married person, of whatever gender, would be unequal before the law with the single person. if we consider a visitation right or an estate right or a taxation right to be an example of inequality before the law, then we must also consider that ANY tax policy which treats people unequally is too.

that is NOT me arguing against gay marriage, just clarifying the terms of the discussion. Just because a thing is not a "right" doesn't mean that it isn't still unjust to deny it without good cause.

Quote
We have certain rights granted to us by the Constitution.  Some of these rights are being denied.  All we want is fair and equitable treatment.

I respectfully disagree that this is a Constitutional rights issue - but I do agree that fair and equitable treatment should exist.

Laura,

Civil Unions are not the same as marriage because of DOMA.  These couples are denied all 1400 plus federal benefits afforded to married couples.  This is well known and in the LBGT media again and again.  It is one of the central reasons for legalization of same sex marriage and to strike down DOMA. 

Yes, same sex couples want to be married for reasons beyond legal ones.  Half of the same sex marriages in Iowa are performed with couples from neighboring states  where their marriages will not be recognized at all.  They do it because they want to have the social bond called marriage.  There is nothing wrong with that. They form bonds as strong as hetero marriages and many have children. 

Your argument here seems to be pointing to a position that you are against same sex marriage. Is that so?

Maggie

Quote
Actually, I don't really know what your point is in participating in this thread. 

Frankly, I don't either.

The irony is that I recall over the years many times when I saw a gay poster try to convince hetro posters that they had a false perception of all gays based on a tiny minority of that community.

they didn't listen either. People do love their stereotypes.

Quote
That gay adoption is banned in two states now is an indicator of what is going on. 

Only two?

Given the general perception about homosexuality even 20 years ago, it's stunningly GOOD news that it's ONLY two...and the day isn't far off when it will be zero.

the thing neither side of this national discussion seems to acknowledge is that we live in a POST-Christian culture. The societal habits of thought are still there but they weaken steadily every day and every year and will continue to. the reason the church is so noisy in some quarters is that they are desperately trying to hold back a tide they cannot stop.

god knows why the gays are so paranoid. The long list of progress and victories in the last 40 years is breathtaking and yet they still rage about the oppression.

Keep working? Hell yeah. but stop being so paranoid - there will be no concentration camps and no death squads.

Quote
What is being set up here in the US is a climate where the conservatives are being whipped up into thinking we are evil sinners who are endangering everyone.

Paranoia. Fewer and fewer and fewer people believe negative things about LGBT people every year. Generating a lot of noise is one thing but those days are past.

Quote
We need to know what is being said and try to expose it not minimize it like you seem to want.

I have no problem with it being exposed - it should be. I started a thread about this a--hole myself on the general board I frequent. But exposing one moron when he says something stupid is an entirely different thing that painting millions of sympathetic believers with his stupidity.

you won't find ONE thing I've ever said minimizing the stupidity of this guy or the fact he needs to be reamed for it.

all I have EVER said in this thread is that it is beneath us to stereotype EVERY believer, or even most of them, as sympathetic to his views.

You have CONSTANTLY and consistently ducked and dodged that point to put words in my mouth I have neither said nor implied and you have not yet, in all your replies, had the fortitude to agree with me or concede the point that not all believers - not MOST believers - agree with this moron.

Do you REALLY want to display the exact same sort of broad brush assumptions about your opponents that they display about us? Beyond being unhelpful to your cause, it's intellectually dishonest.

What is my point in participating in this thread?

i'll tell you what my point is - my point is I don't like seeing people who I agree with in this debate, people on the side I want to win, people who's cause i support - acting with the same sort of intellectual sloppiness as the people I want to lose.

I want to see US be the people who DON'T broad brush the enemy with one simplistic stereotype.

I want to be proud of the arguments my side puts forth and all too often I'm not.

Quote
Someday, even you may be one of the victims.

May be.

Maybe already have been for all I know. The world is an imperfect place. I'm pretty sure I've been a "victim" of preferential treatment in other, non-trans-related ways in the past.

which sucks. But that doesn't mean I'm going to trade in weak arguments and sloppy thinking in response.

I think that the issue of the pastor being a tiny minority is way off base.   If you keep current with the LBGT news you would see that I am not being unfair. I say this because you make references to not knowing things that are common knowledge to most of us.

Here are more references to religious bigotry.

This is a Evangelical Christian and rabid homophobe:
Read some excerpts of Heath's "gay-marriage potato blight" column below:
"Our crops are faring like our moods. The potato crop is blighted, and corn and fruit fields wither. In one historic building in Augusta, rain flooded the basement, as water from another source poured down through the ceiling and extinguished a century-old chandelier.
Few people would be bold enough to suggest the cause of the endless rain and gloom, that the moral climate in Maine has caused the sun to hide its face in shame.
Worse than the rain is the fact, that Maine voted in homosexual "marriage."
http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/08/11/maine-anti-gay-activist-blames-bad-weather-potato-blight-on-gay-marriage/

It is well known that the Nazi's persecuted the homosexuals and were swept to power on moralistic grounds supported buy the church.

The Pictures Accuse:
The Vatican and Nazism in Germany and Croatia

"The evidence shows that:

A) The Catholic church hierarchy, acting under Vatican orders, played the decisive role in making Hitler the dictator of Germany.

B) Subsequently, the Catholic hierarchy was active in Nazi movements outside Germany, for example in the Balkans, where the church was the institutional base of the Nazi puppet State of Croatia.

C) Although at Yad Vashem, in the year 2000, Pope John Paul II described the Nazis as having "a Godless ideology," in 1933, when it mattered, the Vatican ordered German Catholics to love, honor, obey and protect the Nazis."

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm

I bring these news stories to the attention of all at Susan's because there are signs that we again are facing a similar face as 1930's Germany.
America is descending into fascism.

"Paxton (who presciently warned that "An authentic popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black") agrees that if a corporate/brownshirt alliance gets a toehold -- as ours is now scrambling to do -- it can very quickly rise to power and destroy the last vestiges of democratic government."
http://www.alternet.org/politics/141819/fascist_america:_we%27re_almost_there?page=4

If you didn't think the church was militaristic, you will after seeing this documentary.

Constantine's Sword
"Constantine's Sword is the story of James Carroll; a former Catholic priest on a journey to confront his past and uncover the roots of religiously inspired violence and war. His search also reveals a growing scandal involving religious infiltration of the U.S. military and the terrible consequences of religion's influence on America's foreign policy."
http://constantinessword.com/

I included this because it is an example of the hypocrisy of the church and it's activities in modern life. 

So we have a reason to be worried and that is certainly not PARANOID.  BTW, your comment about why gays are so paranoid is strange.  It is your community too and one way or another, you'll be considered gay too.  I know that you have not had personal experience with being hated for this because you are not out but it will come someday and maybe then you will have a different opinion.   People who say they are fine with you being trans now often will change radically once you actually take steps to transition.  That is when it gets real.

Maggie

Quote from: Maggie Kay on September 05, 2009, 03:42:24 PM
Laura,

Civil Unions are not the same as marriage because of DOMA.  These couples are denied all 1400 plus federal benefits afforded to married couples.  This is well known and in the LBGT media again and again.  It is one of the central reasons for legalization of same sex marriage and to strike down DOMA. 

Well, as a rule I seldom read, and then with considerable skepticism, the media propagated by either side.

In any case, since I have said nothing in opposition to either gay marriage or the granting of those various legal privileges, this isn't relevant to my point. Any of those "1400" (a number I greet with considerable skepticism but am not prepared to debate) can and I suspect in every or almost every case should be granted.

which doesn't change the fact that there are probably 100 mines that number other ways in which the feds do not treat all people equal in terms of some legal status.

I'm not saying that there is a justification for DOMA or the implications you describe - just saying it's a matter of changing legal privileges, not "civil rights"

Quote
Yes, same sex couples want to be married for reasons beyond legal ones.  Half of the same sex marriages in Iowa are performed with couples from neighboring states  where their marriages will not be recognized at all.  They do it because they want to have the social bond called marriage.

BINGO.

and for those people, that always have and alwayswill be able to have that sort of marriage because there's always someone willing to marry them on those terms. so the discussion isn't about "can I get married?" but "can I get the legal and financial stuff that comes with being married?"

Let me just point out that I didn't marry my wife for "goodies" from the government and have little interest either way in whether those are granted or withheld in terms of whether or not I should be married and i think most everyone thinks that way - so lets be honest and admit this is not a debate about whether people are denied the "civil right to get married"

what they are being denied is legal and financial benefits commonly associated with being married. which I agree is generally if not always unjust...but a different thing nonetheless.

Quote
  There is nothing wrong with that. They form bonds as strong as hetero marriages and many have children. 

Not sure why you think I would say there is something wrong with it.

Quote
Your argument here seems to be pointing to a position that you are against same sex marriage. Is that so?

Maggie

I might as well just stop replying to you if THAT is what you got out of my remarks.

Sometimes you can't stop people seeing what they want to see I guess.

*sigh*

I am not against same sex marriage and have said nothing that should remotely make you think so.

My original post in this thread and almost the only one I have returned to consistently is that you shouldn't broad-brush Christians based on a small percentage of noisy nuts.

All this other stuff is DD&B.

My only opinion that you would disapprove of concerning gay marriage is that NO marriage - mine or yours or my fundy preacher friend's - is a constitutional right.

Something doesn't HAVE to be a constitutional right to be the right thing to do, legally.

---

Post Merge: September 05, 2009, 04:53:29 PM

---

Maggie,

If I did the leg work and cited you 50, or 100 web site references in which a gay or trans person expressed outright hatred of Christians, would you take that as proof positive that ALL LGBT people hate all Christians?

I will not get into the Nazi thing, because the whole story shows that many Christians were martyred alongside the Jews, homosexuals, those who had physical deformities, and others.  The Nazis were equal opportunity butchers.  It was also a branch of the church called the Confessing Church who stood most in opposition to Hitler, and most of them paid with their lives. 

What you need to know is that there are many millions of mainline Christians across America and across the world who have never cared what Rome has said, and have never been part of the fundamentalist movement.  This is my background, though every time you go off on your quoting spree, you refuse to acknowledge the mainline church.   No, we don't consider the pronouncements of the pope, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Wiley Drake, John Hagee, and all of their ilk to be in any way authoritative, or even to really be part of the same religion we practice.  We see these statements and scratch our heads in bewilderment  We also continue to be totally confounded by why you hate us so very much. 

Kristi

QuoteThat is some pretty powerful stuff.  And if we ever expect things to change for the better for us, we need to educate the Catholic church, and other organized religions, that we are not who they portray us to be.  That is if we don't want their continued opposition to denying us the same rights and privileges they have.

Amen and hallelujah

I absolutely agree. The only point I've been trying to make here is that you can't do that if you have a false impression of who the people you are trying to educate are, and if you stereotype them in exactly the same way they do you.

I absolutely agree that the VAST majority of mainstream Christians have been conditioned - not just by their faith system but by the culture - to have at a minimum at considerable degree of uncomfortableness with gay and trans people. I further agree that politically active Christian groups play too and count on that feeling in order to maximize their support.

But conditioning CAN be changed. Most of all by personal experiences with gay and trans people who defy the stereotype image that they have always had imprinted upon them of such people. but we don't present a sympathetic profile to these people when we go about assuming they are all hateful bigots.

They are not, mostly they are just uninformed and sheltered.

Maggie keeps citing me these lists of examples of people saying foolish things. I'm not sure why that is supposed to prove the point - I can find hundreds of examples of racist material online but it doesn't prove all whites are racist, I can find thousands of examples of Republicans speaking hatefully of Democrats and vice versa but that doesn't prove either bunch is made up only of narrow-minded hateful people.

I am sure the day will come when people I once considered friends reject me - the man who preformed my wedding is likely already on that list. And maybe I'm just a cold-hearted bastard that I don't care in the LEAST that he has done so. But i also know another Christian Pastor who is most loving and welcoming to people like me - should I assume the former trumps the latter? Or should I reject assumptions and stereotypes altogether as i am asking them to do?

Hell, the very fact that I AM a Christian and a - in most regards - politically conservative person, raised in the SBC and living my whole life in the Bible belt and yet I am STILL trans and not afraid for them to know it already screws their conventional stereotypes all to pieces.

If I'm not the stereotypical left-wing activist gay rights marcher (to say nothing of a lot of other less flattering assumptions connected to words like "pervert") then maybe that in itself is "educational" - and If I'm not the stereotypical gay/trans person, then just maybe they are not the stereotypical bigoted hate-filled oppressive narrow-minded backward redneck person  that it would be easy for me to assume either?

Just maybe?

Quote
Or maybe we should just say if a tax exempt organization becomes involved in the political process, they lose their tax exempt status.  Separation of church and state.

I wonder what the impact of a law like that would be?

I'd be all for that.

In fact, I think the church would be far better off to NOT hold a "special status" that makes them even more of a target. I like level playing fields.

The broad brush thing is not relevant.  If there are significant numbers of hateful Christians, my points are valid.

I'll even grant that millions of fair minded Christians exist. However, it is undeniable that these men that I have mentioned are in positions to say those things because of the donations of millions more.  As I asked before, if the majority of the Christian population sees these hateful comments and actions, why are they silent?  Where is their leader?  Don't say it is the liberal media squelching it because there are plenty of non mainstream ways to get the word out and it isn't there.  Silence is tacit agreement.   

There is a little known but very powerful movement in the Christian right called the New Apostolic Reformation and also the Seven Mountains movement.   Just because it has not been in the major media doesn't mean we should dismiss it.  Their goal is to take over all world governments and enforce Christian morals and biblical principles with emphasis on the OLD testament.  They embrace military action.  Now before you go and say oh just another back woods militia, check it out.  They have significant backing by many of the conservatives in the US.  Sarah Palin is among them.   

Here is a link to one source describing them .
http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/examining-the-seven-mountains-movement/

We cannot just sit back and assume that most of the Christians are with us.  I was once in that group of non Catholics and said the very same things as Kristi.  But I was wrong.   It is frightening to consider that if Obama is somehow derailed, that the wingnuts will take over and then strip all of us of the rights we do have. I'm not going to be so complacent to believe that America can remain the bastion of freedom anymore.   

Not even trying to get informed and sift through the information for the truth is putting your head in the sand.   

Maggie

I can't argue paranoia.

I withdraw from the discussion.

Quote from: Laura Hope on September 05, 2009, 05:24:27 PM
I can't argue paranoia.

I withdraw from the discussion.

Accuse me of being mentally ill because you won't admit your position is not defensible?  You admitted that you speak from ignorance and do not want to be informed.  I used references and sources that are legitimate.  That is somehow paranoia?   A wise person once said "You can't have an argument with an ignorant man"  well in this case, woman...

Quote from: Maggie Kay on September 05, 2009, 04:07:32 PM
If you didn't think the church was militaristic, you will after seeing this documentary.

Constantine's Sword
"Constantine's Sword is the story of James Carroll; a former Catholic priest on a journey to confront his past and uncover the roots of religiously inspired violence and war. His search also reveals a growing scandal involving religious infiltration of the U.S. military and the terrible consequences of religion's influence on America's foreign policy."
http://constantinessword.com/

I included this because it is an example of the hypocrisy of the church and it's activities in modern life. 

Excellent movie Maggie! James Carroll also wrote a book, which goes more in depth than a 2 hour movie can.

Quote from: Kristi on September 05, 2009, 04:55:44 PM
What you need to know is that there are many millions of mainline Christians across America and across the world who have never cared what Rome has said, and have never been part of the fundamentalist movement.  This is my background, though every time you go off on your quoting spree, you refuse to acknowledge the mainline church.   No, we don't consider the pronouncements of the pope, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Wiley Drake, John Hagee, and all of their ilk to be in any way authoritative, or even to really be part of the same religion we practice.  We see these statements and scratch our heads in bewilderment  We also continue to be totally confounded by why you hate us so very much. 

Kristi

Thanks for stating this Kristi! I've always believed it is important to not simply believe stereotypes, and go beyond them to looking at the individual person. There are many people, of all religions and atheists too, whose lives exemplify the teachings they believe in.

The above are my own opinions, now wearing my admin hat (trust me it's stylish), let me remind folks (no one in particular) to discuss the idea, no personal attacks.

Z

Quote from: Maggie Kay on September 05, 2009, 05:38:45 PM
Accuse me of being mentally ill because you won't admit your position is not defensible?  You admitted that you speak from ignorance and do not want to be informed.  I used references and sources that are legitimate.  That is somehow paranoia?   A wise person once said "You can't have an argument with an ignorant man"  well in this case, woman...

I would not classify paranoia as mental illness.

YMMV.

if you prefer then, I'll rephrase it to say you worry too much.

Vigilance is proper, but if you insist on the tinfoil hat, there's nothing I can do to change that.

Let me just conclude by saying this. I've been reading that 7 Mountains" link and the thing that most jumps out at me is that Rushdooney and the others of his ilk were prominent voices (among those who didn't think he was a nutter) in the early-mid-70's.

And since his voice gained notice, on EVERY frot he would have been concerned about, his views have lost ground and ever-decreasing currency with the majority of Americans and with those in power.

On every hand, we have moved further and further from his vision and goals.

Yet I'm supposed to be worried about him succeeding?

Meh. i'll look you up in the death camps and admit I was wrong when the time comes.

Quote from: Laura Hope on September 05, 2009, 06:49:31 PM
I would not classify paranoia as mental illness.

The APA does.

Quote from: Laura Hope on September 05, 2009, 06:49:31 PM
Vigilance is proper, but if you insist on the tinfoil hat, there's nothing I can do to change that.

Ths is an insulting and disrespectful comment.  I never thought I would have to argue for LBGT rights at Susan's.

I'm done responding to you.

topic locked for 24 hours.

Z

This will be my last post in this thread regardless of reply but I didn't want to leave this hanging:

Quote from: Maggie Kay on September 05, 2009, 07:24:31 PM
The APA does.

Well yes, if you think Alien Zombies in Plaid Flying Saucers are coming tonight to suck your liver out through your nose....you probably have a mental condition.

If you think the two people whispering at the end of the hall are talking about YOU....you don't.

For the record - in my intended usage, I was making no implications concerning your mental health. If you choose to be insulted by it, I can't help it.

Until you took offense, it never occurred to me - in my entire life - that someone called paranoid would believed that they had been accused of having a mental illness.

So I guess I did learn something, as it were, in this thread.

Quote
Ths is an insulting and disrespectful comment.  I never thought I would have to argue for LBGT rights at Susan's.

I'm done responding to you.

You wouldn't be arguing for LBGT rights at Susan's if you were actually discussing the point I made instead of ascribing to me the views you seem to want to see.

It probably comes as a shock to you, or an insult to your worldview, that a person can possibly be trans and NOT be a flaming left-wing radical at the same time.

At least, that's the reaction I seem to be getting around the net since I came out.

In any case, you insist on approaching the conversation as if I am attacking or arguing against LBGT rights in this thread and that couldn't be further from reality.

I argued one point and one point only - that you do not show the wide diversity of Christian opinion the same respect you ask Christians to show towards us.

It's not my fault you persist in arguing against a point no one is making.

/fins

There is a point at which you have to dance with those what brung ya.  To be a Catholic is to be Catholic, with all the good (and it's in no means small, and in many ways huge) and the bad (and it's in no means small, and in many ways huge) that all of that experience has to offer. 

You can't pick and choose.

It's the whole, not part, or this bit, or that part, but all of it that informs your existence. 

It must be nice, convenient even, to take what you want, and leave the rest.  But its always disingenuous to do so. 

Tekla,
Superb point.   
Laura,
Characterizing my views as a "flaming left wing radical" is meant to demean.  You do know that the vast majority of LBGT people are supporting the democratic party don't you?  That surely isn't a secret or that I am wearing a tin foil hat to post it.  In so doing, you now have insulted most of the people here. 

Oh, I'll give you your point as I had earlier as well but you ignored it.  Not all Christians are against transgender people.   However, I won't respect a group who supports and allows their spokes people to spread anti LBGT views. 

Please stop this.  I don't want to be insulted again and again.  I didn't post these things because as an academic argument. They are deeply upsetting to me as a person once was proud to call herself a conservative Christian.  I don't want to be hurt again by another Christian.  I don't know if you are trolling or what but I have had enough. 

The Flaming Left-Wing Radical
Maggie

It's okay to discuss points but not okay to demean or name call members here.  Attack the points, not the members.  Please re-read the rules if necessary.

On to the discussion...

It's pretty obvious those who have participated in this discussion have stood their ground.  And that's fine, unless you sell religion door to door.  And it's fairly well known the LGBT community (and other groups as well) are not too happy with what they see and hear coming from religious organizations.  And that's a generalization, and does not apply to EVERY religious organization.  And I think we can all agree not every LGBT person is upset with every Christian.

While I can certainly understand why our community isn't too happy with the things we see coming from the world of Christianity, what I don't understand is why all those Christians who see the fear and hate mongering aren't calling those who are doing it out onto the carpet.

I know devout Christians who hate hearing some of the fear and hate mongering but I've never heard them say they have stood up to their Christian community members and expressed their disgust to them.  Aren't we all responsible for keeping our houses clean?  If we don't want people to walk away in disgust, we'd better.

For those who want to change the prevailing attitude the LGBT community has toward Christians, you have to start with changing what we see coming from outspoken Christian organizations.  You're not going to win any cases with our community if we keep seeing Christian organizations pouring money into anti-gay marriage, making claims trans people have a mental disorder and perpetuating outdated beliefs that paint us in a bad light.  Tell your pastor or minister to read what Steven Anderson or Fred Phelps says and use it to make the point that there are people calling themselves christian who are preaching hatred and it has to be stopped.

If there are so many Christians out there who disagree with the fear mongering types, why aren't they doing anything about it?  Why aren't they more vocal?  Why aren't they encouraging others to stop sending them money?  Until the attacks stop, you can expect the members of our community to fight back.

Julie

Quote from: Maggie Kay on September 08, 2009, 10:26:38 AM
Tekla,
Superb point.   
Laura,
Characterizing my views as a "flaming left wing radical" is meant to demean.  You do know that the vast majority of LBGT people are supporting the democratic party don't you?  That surely isn't a secret or that I am wearing a tin foil hat to post it.  In so doing, you now have insulted most of the people here. 

Oh, I'll give you your point as I had earlier as well but you ignored it.  Not all Christians are against transgender people.   However, I won't respect a group who supports and allows their spokes people to spread anti LBGT views. 

Please stop this.  I don't want to be insulted again and again.  I didn't post these things because as an academic argument. They are deeply upsetting to me as a person once was proud to call herself a conservative Christian.  I don't want to be hurt again by another Christian.  I don't know if you are trolling or what but I have had enough. 

The Flaming Left-Wing Radical
Maggie

Ok, fine.

You win.

I dare not open my mouth unless I am being insulting and hurtful.

nothing is "meant to demean" - nothing was a purposeful insult. In fact, if I were being as sensitive as you have been I could have easily been insulted by your characterization of Christians in this very thread.

I would greatly prefer to discuss things with those who SON'T assume an insult or an attempt to hurt in every sentence BUT, such is apparently not the world I live in so

Let me be very plain spoken for once:

NOTHING I have said to you is mean to insult or demean you. In point of fact, I LIKE you a great deal and only entered this discussion (and no leave it) with no animosity or ill-feelings whatsoever. If you have felt any they were entirely unintentional and a result of me underestimating just how easy it was to hurt your feelings.

I have discussions like this all the time all over the net and have had FAR worse said to me without blinking, I was and apparently am unprepared for just how easy it is to hurt your feelings but nevertheless, I didn't and don't want to so I apologize.

Quote
You do know that the vast majority of LBGT people are supporting the democratic party don't you?

Indeed I do. But were I to offer a reaction to that reality, I'd create another firestorm so I will censor myself.

---

Post Merge: September 08, 2009, 03:07:04 PM

---

Quotewhat I don't understand is why all those Christians who see the fear and hate mongering aren't calling those who are doing it out onto the carpet.

Two things-

a. they are out there but they get virtually no attention because they don't fit into the popular motif that Christians are "teh evil". That's not just on this subject but across the board. Read Bernie Goldberg's "Bias" for an example of how those with the microphone tend to care more about the meme than the reality.

b. every group has a problem with the "herd mentality" - that's why being a Gay Republican is such a rare thing and why a lot of Gays consider such people almost traitors to the cause.
In the same way that a LGBT person knows they should keep there head down and not sound like they are "right wing" (a lesson that's been pounded into my brain with great regularity in the last year - I speak from experience when I say i'm learning that the LGBT community expects me to keep my mouth shut about my conservative views) - even so a Christian who has sympathies with the LGBT cause realizes it's a minority view and learns it's best to keep his mouth shut about it.

It ain't right, but it happens, in every sphere of life.

Quote from: Laura Hope on September 08, 2009, 02:59:43 PM
even so a Christian who has sympathies with the LGBT cause realizes it's a minority view and learns it's best to keep his mouth shut about it.

But we all know keeping your mouth shut never advances any cause.

I realize the active Christians here and within the LGBT community elsewhere are hurt, offended or upset with what is coming from our community regarding christians.  And just as much as I can't blame our community members for being upset, I can't blame our Christian members for being upset.  They know they are being lumped in with the majority and labeled haters when they are anything but.  And that's just as sad as members of our community being labeled pedophiles and such.

How do we change this?  Well, speaking out is a good start.  Creating social groups that invite people with opposing views to get to know each other can help.  I'm sure the people here can come up with lots of other ways too.  But keeping quiet accomplishes nothing.

I realize there are risks to speaking out when it's contrary to commonly held beliefs.  It's a lot like coming out as being TG.  You could suffer some losses.  But there's always a price to pay when you are trying to make the world a better place to live by challenging the status quo.

Julie