[Hyack]

stratos stratos:

I thought I saw an artical saying she, the pole volter, was backing off her comments. Anyone else seen that artical?

Must have been something lost in the translation, or the poor girl was just totally misunderstood......

Anti-gay law remarks by Russian pole vaulter 'misunderstood'

[Brenda]

Teikiatsu Teikiatsu:

Brenda Brenda:

Teikiatsu Teikiatsu:

Depends on what you thinks needs to be accepted. Are there gay people? Duh. Everyone accepts that. But that does not mean people have to accept their lifestyle or behavior. It does mean that they have to tolerate it like they tolerate everyone else, within reason.

Explain to me what there is to 'accept' or 'tolerate' about people of the same sex loving each other?[1]
What is it of your concern who someone loves, has sex with, or shares their life with?[2]
Seriously, it is NONE of your business what someone else does. [3]

1 - Tolerance is not the issue, but forced acceptance of a behavior by force of law certainly is. When I'm legally bullied into saying it is diverse and beautiful on threat of losing my job, I have a problem. When people tell me that my religion's dogma is hate speech, I have a problem. When gay couples sue private businesses and churches for not agreeing with their lifestyle, I have a problem.

Like you did when blacks wanted the same rights as whites? I guess you have a problem with that as well?

$1:

2 - None, until people try to shout over me that it is somehow equivalent (and sometimes superior) to a standard heterosexual coupling, which I am wholly within my rights to believe.

It is completely the same as a heterosexual couple. You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot condemn gay couples for being gay. Sorry.

$1:

3 - Did I ever say it was? My problem is when people *make* it my business.

No one makes anything your business. YOU make it your business.
You want to keep people from having the same rights you do. That is making something that does nothing for or against you your business.

[CanadianJeff]

That's twice in this thread the idea has come up now so I'll take full flak for saying this.

If having someone call your religions dogma hate speech offends you it doesn't mean crap. Hate speech is still hate speech and it doesn't get some free pass simply because it's done in the name of faith.

Freedom of religion doesn't somehow magically start trumping other basic human rights. It's one freedom among many.

[ShepherdsDog]

So how is your constant denunciation of people's faith....not just the parts you find hurtful, but faith in general, any different than the hate speech you claim to oppose?

[stratos]

$1:

Freedom of religion doesn't somehow magically start trumping other basic human rights. It's one freedom among many.

Yet when they are in conflict which one will be considered more important. Not trying to start a shit storm but when two "freedoms" come into conflict what is the defineing factor that resolves the issue?

[stratos]

$1:

If having someone call your religions dogma hate speech offends you it doesn't mean crap. Hate speech is still hate speech and it doesn't get some free pass simply because it's done in the name of faith.

I've scaned the topic and IMO not found someone using religion in a hate type way. Then again I am not you, the offended party, could you show me the two times it was used in a hateful manor?

[Jabberwalker]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Tooo bad. I was looking forward to the Olympics. Now it's just going to be one big Pride Parade.

I doubt that the Chinese and the North Koreans will be getting their gay on for the events.

I don't know ... Kim Jong-un looks like he's trying to tell us something.

[CanadianJeff]

Ok how do I put this nicely. I don't call for people to burn in hell for all eternity because they didn't make the lifestyle choices being dictated to me by a social institution.

I also don't advocate that judging a person for an eternity of punishment or reward based on a finite lifetime is far. So yeah I like to think that maybe I'm not the harsh one here.

Now then Stratos.

I didn't think it needed saying but I'm addressing the idea presented at least twice here that we simply need to back off because the things being said against gay people are backed by dogma. I'm not offended so much as making a stand with a point I think is 100% true.

As for when one right becomes more important then another it's not that hard a question at all:

Violence, Hate speech, Demanding another human being not be given equal rights. Those are the points where your right to say and do what you want break down.

[Teikiatsu]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

If having someone call your religions dogma hate speech offends you it doesn't mean crap. Hate speech is still hate speech and it doesn't get some free pass simply because it's done in the name of faith.

And when it is being misrepresented by people who don't bother to understand what the dogma actually says, I call your speech idiotic and yes, hateful in its own right.

If calling a homosexual a sinner is hate speech, then so is calling myself, or a thief, a murderer, an aldulterer, a blasphemer, a slanderer (ahem), a glutton, and pretty much every human being on the planet a sinner. Alternatively, it's an observation that every human being (including myself) is imperfect and in need of redemption.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin."

I can understand how a person might consider that statement hateful if they can only identify and describe a gay person by their sexual behavior, but I find that scenario extremely shallow and insulting to the gay(s) in question.

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

Ok how do I put this nicely. I don't call for people to burn in hell for all eternity because they didn't make the lifestyle choices being dictated to me by a social institution.

I don't either. I advocate that people find redemption and avoid the fate that awaits sinners who do not seek forgiveness for their sins.

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

I also don't advocate that judging a person for an eternity of punishment or reward based on a finite lifetime is far. So yeah I like to think that maybe I'm not the harsh one here.

Ah, moral relativism. FYI Life is harsh. What defines a human's character is how they deal with their hardships, not how they are coddled or given special privilege.

[Brenda]

So T, gays cannot have the same rights because your religion doesn't 'allow' that?

[Tricks]

This seems appropriate.

[CanadianJeff]

Yep I think T just proved my point.

I think when you fail to understand that calling a condition people are born with the same as an thief a murderer or a pedophile your engaging in hate speech backed by dogma or not. It doesn't get some hate speech free pass because a few people think their god tells them it's icky. Also why is your interpretation on gays the only valid one? Many Christians and churches are openly welcoming of gay people as equal members of their congregation.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with older Mormon doctrine but it used to be taught that being born Black was a sin and you could lighten your skin by being adherent to god. It was in the book of Mormon and thus taken as fact. Your being no different here at all.

Oh so your saying you want me to adhere to your lifestyle to avoid a form of eternal and unethical torture. That's nice. How about you give me some good reasons without engaging in threats. When you put out the whole "penalties of sin" thing out there as a fact it's a threat.

Finally no one is asking to be coddled. That's why the world equal is in the phrase equal rights. The only people asking to be coddled are the Christians when they die. Heaven is pretty much as coddled as your going to get.

Oh and before you claim I have some complete and total ignorance of Christianity let me fill you in on some facts.

I'm dating a very devout Christian guy. I go with him to church as a support thing every Sunday without fail. It's kind of our day.

I'm very very open with the congregation and Reverend about who and what I am. Despite that I'm regularly asked to give readings and occasionally people ask for a secular prospective on the ministry.

I lost my faith simply because I read the bible from cover to cover letting go of all existing preconceptions and just letting the book do the talking. You may have noticed no preacher ever goes through the bible in order. They jump around a lot in what they preach to. There's a very very good reason for that.

So yeah I have no problems saying I likely know more about Christianity then most Christians do considering church attendance nowadays. You can't reject something until you truly know what your rejecting.

[Teikiatsu]

Brenda Brenda:

So T, gays cannot have the same rights because your religion doesn't 'allow' that?

No, I don't believe I said that at all. In fact I recall typing above that gays have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Just because a church apparently stung you as a child, don't let that hatred you carry blur your vision.

[Brenda]

Teikiatsu Teikiatsu:

Brenda Brenda:

So T, gays cannot have the same rights because your religion doesn't 'allow' that?

No, I don't believe I said that at all. In fact I recall typing above that gays have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Just because a church apparently stung you as a child, don't let that hatred you carry blur your vision.

That's funny, because I believe I am not the only one who came to that conclusion.
But whatever floats your goat

Nice assumption, dear Anymore secrets that I apparently have and don't know, that you like to reveal?

(just for your info, sweetheart... I am not the one hating. YOU are.)

[Teikiatsu]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

Yep I think T just proved my point.

I think when you fail to understand that calling a condition people are born with the same as an thief a murderer or a pedophile your engaging in hate speech backed by dogma or not. It doesn't get some hate speech free pass because a few people think their god tells them it's icky. Also why is your interpretation on gays the only valid one? Many Christians and churches are openly welcoming of gay people as equal members of their congregation.

Yes, they are. Because we are welcoming of sinners in all forms. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm perfect. In fact, just the opposite. I'm a Christian *because* I'm a sinner, and imperfect. I know gays in my church as well, and they acknowledge they are sinners. The commit sinful acts like everyone else, and they seek to redeem themselves.

$1:

I'm not sure how familiar you are with older Mormon doctrine but it used to be taught that being born Black was a sin and you could lighten your skin by being adherent to god. It was in the book of Mormon and thus taken as fact. Your being no different here at all.

So? That is their faith, and I don't believe in it.

$1:

Oh so your saying you want me to adhere to your lifestyle to avoid a form of eternal and unethical torture. That's nice. How about you give me some good reasons without engaging in threats. When you put out the whole "penalties of sin" thing out there as a fact it's a threat.

If you consider that a threat then you have very thin skin. If I were to say "Don't hold ice and salt together in your hand, you'll get frostbite," or "Don't sit in a roaring campfire, you'll get burned," or "Don't jump off a mountain cliff onto sharp rocks, you'll die" a threat?

$1:

Finally no one is asking to be coddled. That's why the world equal is in the phrase equal rights. The only people asking to be coddled are the Christians when they die. Heaven is pretty much as coddled as your going to get.

I didn't say peoeple were asking to be coddled. I said that people are coddling them and trying to give them special privilege.

Yes, Heaven is a pretty cushy sounding place, what with that whole utopia thing. It's a reward for living a Christian life in a harsh mortal world filled with threats to body, mind and soul.

$1:

Oh and before you claim I have some complete and total ignorance of Christianity let me fill you in on some facts.

I'm dating a very devout Christian guy. I go with him to church as a support thing every Sunday without fail. It's kind of our day.

I'm very very open with the congregation and Reverend about who and what I am. Despite that I'm regularly asked to give readings and occasionally people ask for a secular prospective on the ministry.

I lost my faith simply because I read the bible from cover to cover letting go of all existing preconceptions and just letting the book do the talking. You may have noticed no preacher ever goes through the bible in order. They jump around a lot in what they preach to. There's a very very good reason for that.

So yeah I have no problems saying I likely know more about Christianity then most Christians do considering church attendance nowadays. You can't reject something until you truly know what your rejecting.

Nice story. The chip on your shoulder detracted from the impact a little bit.

Since we're sharing, I'm a born again Christian with degrees in Biology, Microbiology and emphasis in Engineering and Statistics. I was an Atheist in college. I came back to the faith after coming to my own realization that science and secular philosophy can't fill the void in your soul. I'm fully aware that the Old Testament doesn't make a lick of sense in the literal/scientific realm, that's why I'm not a orthodox literalist. Not to mention Christianity is primarily a New Testament faith.

When I make statments like 'homosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior' I am making a clinical statement of the low percentage of homosexuals correlated to how their prefered method of intercourse is abnormal in relation to sexual instinct to procreate. It's reactionaries like you that think I'm making some ethical judgement about their lifestyle.

You claim to have read the Bible and claim to *know* what Christianity is more than most Christians. Sigh. Knowledge is being aware that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is being aware you should not use a tomato in a fruit salad. You may think you have mastered the first part, but appear woefully ignorant of the latter.