Haggard thread #2

gasby wrote:

quote:

---

The way I see it, this could lead to 2 reactions among the fundies: (1) it looks like homosexuality couldn't be cured and (2) homosexuality is sinful and destroys marriage.

---

to which PaulK replied:

quote:

---

If you've noticed anything about fundamentalists it's that they often assume that if they like an idea then it's true. Since they mostly won't like 1) and will like 2) it's pretty obvious which way the majority would go.

---

Exactly. I can't see how anyone who isn't stupid could look at the Haggard scandal and believe it demonstrates gasby's (2). And really, when you think about it you realize that 'stupid' is too kind a word, since it means 'slow to learn or understand'. The problem with these morons is not that they're slow on the uptake; it's that there IS no uptake, slow or otherwise. Any fact which gets in the way of their beliefs is simply disregarded.But I think most decent people are beginning to catch on to the sophistry and double standards these religious dolts use to condemn anyone they don't like. Even stupid people are "wising up" so to speak, because like I said earlier, stupids are simply slow to learn. Even they, when repeatedly presented with the specious nonsense of (2), will eventually begin to wonder why it is that we don't blame heterosexuality when a married man or woman has an affair with a member of the opposite sex.I've come to realize that the stupids are not the problem. The problem is those who've willfully made themselves incapable of even the simplist critical thinking.

---

W.W.E.D.?

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

...you seem to miss the point. The people that don't like homosexuality also don't like adultery.

---

So they claim, but they deliberately avoid blaming adultery when there's another "sin" involved, one that is much less frequently an issue in the breakup of heterosexual marriages but one which religous bigots enjoy condemning much much more. No no, that IS the point, holmes, I just didn't think it needed to be made so explicitly. Blaming homosexuality for the breakup of some marriages where a gay affair was involved but not blaming heterosexuality for the breakup of others where a straight affair was involved when in both types of cases adultery is the real problem is what misses the point.

quote:

---

Thus homosexuality is not, and never has been, the sole focus of their wrath... even if you may feel like that since that is where they hit you.

---

Can you cite any post where I've said any such thing? Stop patronizing me, holmes. I know that the vast majority of religious dolts are not crazy about either pornography or pre-marital sex, but my post wasn't about porn or pre-marital sex. It was about a particular bit of anti-gay sophistry that is almost the founding credo of some fundie christian organizations like CWA.I'm gay, holmes. The activism of these people against gays is my prmiary concern. Once that's been dealt with in our favor I will more often speak about their other bullshit beliefs. As it is at this precise moment in time, a statemnet saying that homosexuality is sinful and destroys marriage is not likely to launch me into a tirade about anti-porn politics. That's just the way it is.It's not that I don't care about freedom of the press or about, for instance, young girls who've gotten themselves into trouble and who are grossly and callously ill-served by the religious idiots and their policies on not only pre-marital sex but also birth control, abortion and sex education. I'm a more-than-just-the-minimum dues-paying member of the ACLU for crying out loud. I just don't see the need to bring all that up when I'm making a brief comment about one particular specious statement.

quote:

---

Everyone who condemns another for feeling and acting "wrongly", while maintaining their feelings and actions are "right", are generally engaged in some level of sophistry and double standards. Make sure you understand that that isn't just a slap at you.

---

You have a firm grasp of the obvious, holmes. Once again, when I'm arguing against one particular bit of sophistry, I don't generally feel the need to drag in every other example of sophistry I can think of. Sorry, but I'm not likely to change on that.

---

W.W.E.D.?

holmes writes:

quote:

---

First of all they don't let adultery off the hook. I'm not sure where you see that happening.

---

Did you not notice the statement I was responding to: "homosexuality is sinful and destroys marriage"? I've tried, but I can't find even so much as a nebulus adumbration mildly intimating a vague hint that adultery is sinful in that. Rather, I regard it as a condemnation of homosexuality. You?If you're thinking about saying that the statement was incomplete and simply recited as hearsay or speculation by gasby, please don't. I promise you that although you might be technically correct, gasby is essentially correct. If you need, I can pull you a few examples of the exact same stand-alone sentiment, quite possibly but not necessarily in the exact same words, from online publications of groups like Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association.It was that bigoted sentiment and only that bigoted sentiment that I was responding to. Although some of the words I used might have seemed too broad and might not have worked in certain more-or-less parallel civil rights debates when transposed to the relevant arguments, I had my mind on only that one thing.As for my use of the word 'decent' to describe certain 'people', I defer to your excellent point. Please consider the value-judging adjective withdrawn. The rest of the sentence stands.

---

W.W.E.D.?

nemesis_juggernaut writes me:

quote:

---

I agree with your sentiments.

---

That's not easy to believe in light of some other things you have to say. I think it's possible that you might to some small extent understand my sentiments, but if you insist that my sexuality and/or any consentual sexual activity in which I might engage is automatically a sin, no matter how pure of heart and full of love the prelude to the act and the execution of the act might have been, then I maintain that your word 'agree' can't possibly be taken seriously.Your worldview appears to offer us gays little or no possibility of love, happiness and contentment in life. Unlike you heterosexuals, we gays and lesbians are inherently sinful because of our sexuality. Do you feel that this is a message that needs to be drilled into the heads of children at every possible turn? Is it advisable that gay teenagers be allowed to get to adulthood without receiving messages of hatred and intolerance from those bigots who would tell them that, unlike the straight kids all gay kids are sinful by nature and have only a life of "struggling with sin" to look forward to?Do you realize that your suggestion that we gays are "trapped" in the "sin" of "sexual immorality" is extremely insulting? How dare you make such judgements about people you neither know nor have ever heard of? Apparently, the fact that they're homosexual is all you need to know. If you can't honor me with even the most basic of human decencies - like that of not making unfounded, bigoted value judgements about me before you've even communicated with me in any way - then I'm sorry but I regard your condesending and clueless attempt to put a happy face on your bigotry as precisely that.Edited by berberry, : fleshed out the final paragraph a bit to eliminate a potential unintended inference.

---

W.W.E.D.?

nemesis_juggernaut writes me:

quote:

---

I don't believe homosexuality is natural. I believe it is an aberration, and I make no apology for that belief.

---

I would never ask you to apologize for it. It's your belief and you should live by it. Here's a thought: how 'bout let's allow me and all other law-abiding gays and lesbians to live our lives in peace, with all the same rights, priviliges and responsibilities that are available to you and any other law-abiding straight person?That way you truly get to hold to and abide by your beliefs, and I get to do the same with mine. Fair enough?

quote:

---

Its also unfair to stigmatize homosexuality as being worse than any other type of sin.

---

Just as it's unfair to stigmatize christianity as being worse than any other type of mental incapacity. Yeah, I hear ya!

quote:

---

I want to you to have all the happiness in the world. I just believe that trying to find love down this avenue is misguided and ultimately speaks more loudly of a love that most homosexuals long for. I want all the happiness for you. I just don't believe that you will find it on your current path.

---

Ah, so I'm perfectly free to pursue love and happiness so long as it's on your terms? By what christian principle do you feel justified in dictating to me the acceptable forms of happiness which I am allowed to pursue?Since you seem to be at such great pains to present yourself as fair-minded (and I can see why that would be such an important thing to do since you're passing judgement on people you've never heard of and making important decisions about what will constitute happiness for them) are you thus willing to live your life according to the whims and dictates of some arbitrary, judgemental moron who might feel that he or she knows what's best for you and what forms of happiness you will be allowed to pursue? I mean, since you're being so fair and all.If not, why not?

quote:

---

Homosexuality is just one facet of sexual immorality.

---

Passing judgement on the lives of perfect strangers and forcing them to live according to your dictates isn't sufficiently intoxicating for you? You just can't resist the urge to hurl baseless insults as well?My, what lovely people you christians are!

quote:

---

Children? No. Are you a child? What did you mean by that statement?

---

I'm afraid you might've closed your mind too long ago to understand this, but I'll give it a try. It's pretty widely known that homosexual kids are about four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers. But since, in the wonderful world of your small mind, homosexual kids don't exist, this obviously won't concern you. Why, you don't even need to feign fair-mindedness when it comes to gay kids. After all, there's no need to worry about treating gnomes and elves in fairness - and gay kids go in that same catagory, huh? Why should you worry your strained little mind about something so absurd as gay, suicidal children? And even if you're wrong and they do exist, they were sinful anyway, and chances are they'd never find true happiness since that would only be possible on the unrealistic, ignorant terms you insist on imposing upon them.I don't see any need in carrying this charade of a debate any further. According to your beliefs, I'm hopelessly lost somewhere and doomed to a dreary life of sin. According to my assessments, you're a narrow-minded, ignorant dolt on a power trip. You can scarcely string two sentences together without including an insult. I'd just as soon have nothing to do with you because you disgust me.

---

W.W.E.D.?

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

Okay I see that I misread the extent of what you were discussing.

---

Well thank goodness for that! I knew this was one possibility but I was very unsure about where our discussion was headed. I'm glad to see we're back on the same page.

quote:

---

I take it as a lesson derived from this particular instance about homosexuality as it causes more problems.

---

It might have been, if gasby intended to strictly limit the context of the statement to the Haggard case. But the broader sentiment he expressed - whether inadvertant or intended - is quite alive and well, and as I said before I'll be glad to provide examples for you. Anyone else reading this can take the keywords from gasby's sentence, google them and find plenty of examples for themselves in very short order.I pretty much concur with the rest of your post, but I'd like to comment on a couple of your points:

quote:

---

Adultery itself being a sin is a given...

---

I see where you're going and can find little to quibble with, except for the fact that you're attempting to use logic to understand illogical and capricious notions of sin. I've been there and done that. Please allow me save you some trouble: STOP!Your welcome. Like mama used to say, you'll put your eye out doing that. Or at least run the risk of developing scary myopic visions of moral and upright lifestyles. Heady stuff, that!

quote:

---

Why not chase them (problems of heterosexual adultery and divorce) first, rather than worrying about the effects of homosexuality at all?

---

Great question; the one at the very heart of the matter.Edited by berberry, : Final sentence seemed to convey an unintended mood, so I changed it.

---

W.W.E.D.?

I never try to hide the rage I feel toward christians who can't discuss any aspect of homosexuality without quick recourse to insults and lies, but sometimes I feel a bit of guilt for not often enough pointing out those people of faith who I believe are working for positive change and who choose to celebrate our common humanity rather than to promote hatred and mistrust toward anyone who doesn't share that certain narrow-minded worldview which confronts us hour by hour on this very forum, among so many other places.Such a one would be Oliver "Buzz" Thomas, a Tennessee Baptist minister and writer who's columns appear from time to time in the USA Today newspaper. His featured column this morning is quite relevant to the discussions underway in this thread. This sentence mildly angered me at first read: When I reached that point in the article I thought to myself "why is it always about them? I mean, it's great that a Baptist minister seems to feel our pain, but why - for once - can't someone like this man talk about the effects of all this on us for a change?"Later in the piece he does precisely that, but the overall thrust of it has more to do with the potential for the church to be discredited to entire generations of people once it's proved beyond reasonable doubt that we don't choose our sexuality, which proof the pastor obviously feels is coming soon.This put me in mind of another discussion I had with holmes a year or so ago. He commented that it's rare to find an individual who will take up the cause of a minority or any other legitimately aggreived party unless he or she has some personal stake in it. The discussion, as I recall, was about Nancy Reagan and her fight for stem cell research funding. She's regarded as a near saint in many quarters for what she's put into the effort, but most likely she never would have become involved at all had Ronald Reagan not suffered so terribly through the last decade of his life.I think holmes' observation was accurate, and in considering it I realized that - sad but true - if Rev. Thomas had concentrated more on the effects of anti-gay bigotry on gays he might have bought himself some love from the gay community but he would have done little or nothing to change anyone's mind.So I've learned something from this column that can't be gleaned directly from its words: if we're ever to win any converts from among the anti-gay bigots then we're going to have to show them what they could lose in this fight.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Phat writes:

quote:

---

...many of the men involved in the gay pride movements are emotionally immature.

---

Oh yeah, just like many of the men involved in the leadership of christian churches. Consider the eponym of this thread, for instance.I love it when people choose to express our common humanity rather than highlight our differences. Thank you for that, Phat. ;D

---

W.W.E.D.?

Phat asks me:

quote:

---

By the way, what does WWED mean?

---

What would Eddie do?(That's the head of the beast he's holding.)

---

W.W.E.D.?

nemesis_juggernaut lies to me:

quote:

---

You can. There is nothing stopping from doing everything the same. I;m going to go out on a limb and assume you are referring to marriage...

---

Of course I'm talking about marriage, you congenital dolt. A typical pre-schooler would have been able to figure that out. But you? You have to "go out on a limb"!Narcissistic nitwit.

quote:

---

If you want something along those lines, try a civil union.

---

Why not let me decide for myself what I want? Why the fuck am I expected to clear my wants, dreams and desires with some cretin deluded with visions of paternal granduer such as yourself?

quote:

---

You're doing no favors for your cause by demonizing Christians.

---

Then why would you think that you're doing any favors for yourself by demonizing gays?

quote:

---

If you're interested in hearing why I think homosexuality is not in your best interests, I'd be happy to share that with you.

---

If I had a question about aircraft engineering, I wouldn't go to the produce man at Kroger for the answer. So why on earth would I come to you with questions about homosexuality?Besides, there's yet another inherent lie here. What the hell is the word 'if' doing there? There's no 'if'. You don't care whether I'm "interested" in hearing what you think. I made it quite clear in my last post to you that I'm not at all interested, yet here you are, telling me all over again. Just what part of "I'd just as soon have nothing to do with you because you disgust me" are you having difficulty understanding?

quote:

---

I feel that homosexuality is wrong.

---

Gee, who'da thought? So why don't you refrain from it?

quote:

---

And going by inference from what I've seen, living in sin does not produce happiness. It produces moments of fleeting joy, as does all sin, but I don't believe that a long, lasting peace can be found in it. You can call that me "judging you," or you can look at it realistically as me simply not agreeing with your lifestyle.

---

Let me try this once again: I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHETHER YOU "AGREE" WITH MY "LIFESTYLE!" The ONLY thing I want to hear from you is an explanation of why you think you should be able to make my "lifestyle" choices for me? Who gets to make your "lifesyle" choices for you?Again, I don't see any point in reading further in your post because you're never going to do anything but dance around the real question. You've well established that you don't approve of homosexuality. What you haven't done is explain why you feel that I should have to seek approval from you. Try doing that and we may get somewhere. And if you're not going to do that then as far as I'm concerned you can go to hell.

---

W.W.E.D.?

crashfrog writes nemjug:

quote:

---

I don't believe that a reasonable person can be a Christian.

---

I disagree with that, but I don't care to take the issue up just now. But did it occur to you that, by nemjug's narcissistic standards, you should be able to decide whether or not he's allowed to become a christian?

---

W.W.E.D.?