The Vitriol of the Pro-Gay Agenda

[dbohm]

In a debate currently occurring under the title of "Can you choose what gender you are attracted to?", I have been called a homophobe, ignorant and bigot by people who I otherwise have a high regard for in this forum.

Nowhere did I even say that homosexuality was even so much as immoral in my posts. Yet because I was putting forward a secular argument against gay marriage that is opposed to the current pro-gay agenda, I'm called any number of names.

Is this really the way to debate what is currently a very controversial and significant issue for everyone? Is it a legitimate tactic to shout down your opponents by calling them ignorant bigots because they have reasoned concerns?

[WinePusher]

In a debate currently occurring under the title of "Can you choose what gender you are attracted to?", I have been called a homophobe, ignorant and bigot by people who I otherwise have a high regard for in this forum.

Nowhere did I even say that homosexuality was even so much as immoral in my posts. Yet because I was putting forward a secular argument against gay marriage that is opposed to the current pro-gay agenda, I'm called any number of names.

Is this really the way to debate what is currently a very controversial and significant issue for everyone? Is it a legitimate tactic to shout down your opponents by calling them ignorant bigots because they have reasoned concerns?

I read through some of the thread and the reaction you've been getting from some other 'debaters' there seems to be totally unwarrented. But hey, what do you expect? The vitriol and unintelligent namecalling isn't just a problem with the pro gay marriage crowd, it's a problem with liberals in general. In their little fantasyland, you can't oppose gay marriage without being a bigot and a homophobe, you can't oppose affirmative action and food stamps without being a racist, you can't oppose welfare without hating the poor, you can't oppose Obamacare without hating sick people and wanting to kill them, you can't oppose contraception and abortion without hating women and being a misogynist, you can't oppose and condemn radical Islam without being an Islamaphobe, etc. They have no real argument, they have no substance, they have no logic which is why they have to resort to vitrolic namecalling.

Edit:

Actually, I read through it a little more and it seems that many of the 'pro gay marriage' debaters are making some good arguments. There seems to be only one or two users who are throwing out the term 'bigot' and 'homophobia.' The usage of such terms simply indicates closemindeness. In their world, you can't disagree with them without being the worst possible human being on the planet. The point you raised about procreation is a good one, and it's something I tried grappling with myself. I've heard a few other evangelical preachers bring up this same issue and, of course, the pro homosexual crowd does not respond to the substance but simply starts namecalling in order to avoid it.

[tands411]

can i just say right on, winepusher! you summed it up greatly

[Joab]

In a debate currently occurring under the title of "Can you choose what gender you are attracted to?", I have been called a homophobe, ignorant and bigot by people who I otherwise have a high regard for in this forum.

Nowhere did I even say that homosexuality was even so much as immoral in my posts. Yet because I was putting forward a secular argument against gay marriage that is opposed to the current pro-gay agenda, I'm called any number of names.

Is this really the way to debate what is currently a very controversial and significant issue for everyone? Is it a legitimate tactic to shout down your opponents by calling them ignorant bigots because they have reasoned concerns?

I read through some of the thread and the reaction you've been getting from some other 'debaters' there seems to be totally unwarrented. But hey, what do you expect? The vitriol and unintelligent namecalling isn't just a problem with the pro gay marriage crowd, it's a problem with liberals in general. In their little fantasyland, you can't oppose gay marriage without being a bigot and a homophobe, you can't oppose affirmative action and food stamps without being a racist, you can't oppose welfare without hating the poor, you can't oppose Obamacare without hating sick people and wanting to kill them, you can't oppose contraception and abortion without hating women and being a misogynist, you can't oppose and condemn radical Islam without being an Islamaphobe, etc. They have no real argument, they have no substance, they have no logic which is why they have to resort to vitrolic namecalling.

Did you say vitriolic name calling, LOL?

[KCKID]

The problem here is that many homosexuals have had a life-time of being mocked, demeaned or verbally abused by much of society that some react not unlike Pavlova's Dog whenever anyone appears to be against them. Their 'supporters' might also be mocked, demeaned or verbally abused. Despite arguments to the contrary 'being gay' is something that a person IS and they would quite naturally become offended and stirred up if simply 'being who they are' is under question. Try to put yourself (a general 'yourself') in their position for a moment.

[no evidence no belief]

In a debate currently occurring under the title of "Can you choose what gender you are attracted to?", I have been called a homophobe, ignorant and bigot by people who I otherwise have a high regard for in this forum.

Nowhere did I even say that homosexuality was even so much as immoral in my posts. Yet because I was putting forward a secular argument against gay marriage that is opposed to the current pro-gay agenda, I'm called any number of names.

Is this really the way to debate what is currently a very controversial and significant issue for everyone? Is it a legitimate tactic to shout down your opponents by calling them ignorant bigots because they have reasoned concerns?

I read through some of the thread and the reaction you've been getting from some other 'debaters' there seems to be totally unwarrented. But hey, what do you expect? The vitriol and unintelligent namecalling isn't just a problem with the pro gay marriage crowd, it's a problem with liberals in general. In their little fantasyland, you can't oppose gay marriage without being a bigot and a homophobe, you can't oppose affirmative action and food stamps without being a racist, you can't oppose welfare without hating the poor, you can't oppose Obamacare without hating sick people and wanting to kill them, you can't oppose contraception and abortion without hating women and being a misogynist, you can't oppose and condemn radical Islam without being an Islamaphobe, etc. They have no real argument, they have no substance, they have no logic which is why they have to resort to vitrolic namecalling.

Edit:

Actually, I read through it a little more and it seems that many of the 'pro gay marriage' debaters are making some good arguments. There seems to be only one or two users who are throwing out the term 'bigot' and 'homophobia.' The usage of such terms simply indicates closemindeness. In their world, you can't disagree with them without being the worst possible human being on the planet. The point you raised about procreation is a good one, and it's something I tried grappling with myself. I've heard a few other evangelical preachers bring up this same issue and, of course, the pro homosexual crowd does not respond to the substance but simply starts namecalling in order to avoid it.

Hey WP, how you been? Merry (belated) Christmas!

To respond to your post, I agree that vitriol and name calling is not conducive to meaningful exchange of ideas, and I do not condone it.

Even worse than name calling is actual physical violence against people you don't agree with. Which is why I strongly oppose the frequent attacks by pro-gay groups on straight people. Straight-bashing HAS TO STOP, too many straight kids are beaten up by gays in high school, too many straight kids become homeless after they come out straight to their parents and are kicked out, too many straight kids commit suicide because their sexual orientation is rejected by their family and friends. Straight-bashing and violence on straight people by gays HAS TO STOP.

Wait.... I may have turned facts around a little bit right there. Mmm, it may be that it's gays being beaten up, killed and pushed by despair into suicide, not sure.

Sorry for my weak attempt at making a point humorously. I know you don't enjoy it What I am trying to say is that vitriol and anger in the gay community and in the pro-gay community is WRONG, but it's understandable. Again, it's WRONG. I can't stress it enough. But it's not the product of being bad people, it's the product of decades of unfair treatment.

It would be wrong for a Jew to respond with vitriol to a person who is not displaying bigotry but is instead making a calm and speculative argument for depriving Jews of basic human rights. It would be wrong for a Jew to respond with vitriol to that. But you could understand where he was coming from, right?

[dianaiad]

Did you say vitriolic name calling, LOL? icon_blink Rolling Eyes Laughing Laughing Laughing

can i just say right on, winepusher! you summed it up greatly

Moderator Comment

These are exactly the sort of one-line comments that should be avoided here. Neither one advances the conversation: the first is a comment on character without dealing with the content of the post, and the second is an 'attaboy' one liner. Please resist the temptation for the first, and if all you want to do is agree with another poster, please use the token system, or the PM system.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

In a debate currently occurring under the title of "Can you choose what gender you are attracted to?", I have been called a homophobe, ignorant and bigot by people who I otherwise have a high regard for in this forum.

As others have mentioned, it is understandable why those who oppose homosexuality would be called a homophobe, ignorant, and a bigot. If one engages in a gay thread, one should not be surprised at being called names.

Of course, one should not call anyone a name or personally attack anyone on the forum; it is a violation of the rules. So, as a note to all, please do not accuse another, explicitly or implicitly, of being ignorant or a bigot or any other names.

The best response to name calling is to maintain civility (which from what I can tell you are doing a good job). I think (or hope so) that it's possible to discuss controversial issues with civility. We do not all have to agree with another. We can passionately present our own views and arguments. We should have mutual respect for another as human beings. But, we should never resort to name calling under any circumstance.

[99percentatheism]

You are a brave soul dbohm. Chances are you will get chewed up and spit out if you dare buck the paradigm of the gay agenda.

See how I am in (cyber) chains? This is not for my views on evolution and atheism.

Contemplate this. (And remember to test all things including my opinions in the forgoing.)

In Genesis Chapter 19 there is a scene set up where two "Angels" in the form of male humans, visit Abraham's nephew Lot in Sodom City. These Angels were sent into the city by God (that is portrayed as standing outside the city). The "people of Sodom" thought nothing negative about forcing their sexual proclivities on these two strangers and Lot to be affirming of their rights. And Lot, is apalled and even goes as far as offering his own daughters to these citizens of Sodom to appease their sexual desires. But this only enrages them and they say something like: "You are being judgmental? Now we will treat you WORSE then we were fgoing to treat these two men." - Genesis 19: 4-9 (paraphrase mine)

Now for a picture of what kinds of people the Sodom ctizens were, we need to take a step back in time and a few chaptes in Genesis. The Kings of Sodom and Gommorrah were beaten in a war and Abraham took his men and came and rescued these Kings and their people. Sodom's King was Bera. When Bera was relieved that he and his armies were rescued he offered rewards to Abraham (though Abraham was called Abram at this time).

Abraham's (Abram) reply is astonishing and it goes something like this: "I am, dedicated to God Almighty and I won't take anything from you so that no one can say you made me rich."

This is found in Genesis chapter 14

A kind of creepy aspect to this exchange is that King Bera said to Abraham (Abram) that he, Bera, didn't need the riches from the spoils of war, but wanted "the people" instead. (Again in chapter 14.)

And of course, Abraham's disdain for King Bera cannot be disguised. The offer for "the people" didn't seem too noble to Abraham. Thus his reply to Bera, King of Sodom.

Now another intersting, if not most important aspect to the story here is that described in this same chapter, is a "Priest of God Most High" that served God in "Salem." Which I believe is actually know later as Jerusalem. (Jerusalem means "to see the peace of God." Actually the word Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) has "God" in the plural. But all that is just stuff I have come across through my studies and talks with rabbi's and others. That for another time. The King of Sodom portrayed as being close to the Priest of God, Most High. Interesting aspect to the storyline.

What is fascinating to your post is how the Sodom mob acted toward Lot. Even though Lot offered them his own female children, this offer didn't appease the mob and certainly didn't have them showing any appreciation for his willingness to be a good neighbor. Albiet in a rather disgusting fashion. But we're talking about a culture that seemed to believe that forcing everyone to believe as they do wasn't incredibly inhospitable. Or, "intolerant" in today's parlance.

Now in the chapter just before the destruction of Sodom (AND OTHER towns), we saw Abraham (now renamed by God) pleading with God about destroying the numbers of good people in Sodom "if" He (God) destroys the entire city. In the end of this incredible discussion, we see the results in chapter 19. The inhospitable nature of what the Sodomites expressed when they allowed no one to disagree with their beleifs . . . is now of course the stuff of legend. Even if taken as metaphor, Sodom (and Gomorrah et al) speaks just as loud today as it ever has. And, taking the Letter of Jude, a Jewish Christian writing to some Christian congregation in Roman Judea perhaps, we see sexual immorality a theme and especially those that make it a kind of "culture" and affirmed behavior.

Here, from the NIV. Jude 1:

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality . . .

And so that it cannot be mistaken what he is referencing:

And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.

In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. 9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!�

Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.


- Jude 1

In a debate currently occurring under the title of "Can you choose what gender you are attracted to?", I have been called a homophobe, ignorant and bigot by people who I otherwise have a high regard for in this forum.

I have authored a thread that was called "The Gay Denomination" that was the epitome of tolerance and diviersity and it was closed down by a very mean-spirited set of exchanges over and over and over again. (And yes, I did engage in kind sometimes.) The same labels applied to you were ubiquitously thrown aroud there too towards any distincly non-affirming voice. It's as if there is a sprit of animosity for anyone that will not follow the progressive idea of morality. And the attacks are all so similar towards those that will not follow suit.

Nowhere did I even say that homosexuality was even so much as immoral in my posts. Yet because I was putting forward a secular argument against gay marriage that is opposed to the current pro-gay agenda, I'm called any number of names.

By a gathered crowd? By many united voices? I'm betting the answer is yes.

Is this really the way to debate what is currently a very controversial and significant issue for everyone?

It appears that "tolerance and diversity" to some people may mean homogenized beleifs and actions to be displayed when one is outside of their howm or conservative Christian place of worship. That is an opinion and experience I bear with stripes on my back for daring to make that charge. Cyber-persecution metaphorically speaking? Maybe not.

What's the old adage? When you get in bed with dogs you usually wake up with fleas.

Though I might be on probation for good reasons. Though I deny there are enough to warrant my chains. It appears there is no court to argue the case here. Just judgments made from on high as it were.

My point being be very careful how you answer in kind. There seems little equity here for dissenting voices.

Is it a legitimate tactic to shout down your opponents by calling them ignorant bigots because they have reasoned concerns?

Overwhelmingly I have found the answer to your frustrating expereince is YES. It seems that hospitality for those that are different from those that approve of the ruling paradigm of exclusively secular speech and behaviors, does not find a common expression.

But maybe if voices such as yours (and of course mine, I am in this too. Though hanging by a thread.) are not driven away from sites like these -as seems to be the case over and over again - then maybe the pushback and search for actual diveristy can be attained.

But who knows? Maybe we are living in the beginnings of the last days and the internate allows for real souls to be beared as it were. Or we are just witnessing the forgetting of history and the repeat of the same kinds of troubles, trilas and tribulations. Certainly the decadence of Rome as a culture and Atheistic Revolutionary France and the rise of Islamic rule has shown us this all before.

Just stand your ground. All that can really happen in the cyber bullying you'll receive (and a cyber-martyrdom possibly) . . . is being banned form an internet site. (Unles of course you are offered something of a pardon after that happens. It has happened here. Though only once that I have witnessed. (And, to one of the most vitriolic voices I have ever had to deal with.)

But hey, no one can yet sue you (or me of course) from a debate forum.

My advice? Use your report button each and every time you feel attacked. Sooner or later the irritation suffered by the authorities here gets results.

Look at my hands in chains huh?

When in Rome do as the Romans do.

Paul did.

To a point that is.

Enjoy the expereince here. It sharpens your skills for real life. And you are going to need them.

[Joab]

[Replying to post 9 by 99percentatheism]
You know all that stuff you dug up in the "book of the catholics" (bible)?
Well I'm sorry to have to inform you but it's all make believe, you know FICTION, like it never happened.