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?

[Clownboat]

From Post 87:

In future I shall try to be more hospitable. Just because I prefer to eat salad with chopsticks, doesn't mean I should force my choice on others.

No wonder you didn't know what a fork was. Didn't get you no proper fork 'preciation coming up. I still say that's forgivable, and don't you bear you no shame, for your never having you the luxury of a fork.

I'll keep a big box of plastic forks on hand from now on.
Maybe that's not being generous enough. I'll get some made of paper as well.
Just so I can say, "Paper? Or Plastic?"

No, dangit. Paper is made of wood, and wood is made of sticks, and that we don't want nobody having to eat with him no dang stick if he don't wanna. Get with the program. You're the reigning champion of the debater of the year, for the year it matters if ya are, and we expect more out of ya.


I gotta tell it, and I'm sorry for those of y'all who hafta sit through it...

So I was this outfit, and we got a contract to build us this big ol' project. Millions of dollars worth of work was mentioned, of which, I'd get me a good dollar and half of it, but I didn't set out to brag about that. So they set to it, that we'd all of us break bread at this fancy eating place, and ya had to go to it, 'cause it wouldn't come to you. Had blankets on the table to keep 'em warm and everything, all the trappings of high society. Didn't matter if a hunderd head needed them a milkin' right then and there, you was expected to show up, and the assumption that you'd show up hungry, 'cause here it was, we was all fixing to eat. I went to wash up first, 'cause the old lady came too, and you don't want that grief, and they even had vacuum cleaners mounted on the wall. Only they was broke and didn't suck up the wash water near as much as to spread it out evenly across ya. And sure enough, we'd done run into the great, great grandmomma's house of the stick loving to eat with people. That right there is where I learned that sometimes it ain't near as fun to eat, as it is to watch grown men try to get food to their mouths with sticks.

So now the old lady and me, neither one gets too upset if we ask you for dinner, and find you a-whittlin' away while she gets it ready. Watching folks try to pick up gravy with a stick is about the funniest thing we know.


So then, on the issue of the "gay agenda", it ought'n matter if you're a-spoonin, a-forkin', a-chop-stickin', or a-scissorin' for that matter. It shouldn't matter if you like to lick the plate, or have someone else lick your plate for ya. Steak, fish, or surf 'n turf - doesn't matter except to hope you can find you someone with a plate of it.

What matters is if you can find you someone to love, who they don't laugh at your utensil.

Beautifully said.
The problem is that many people think homosexuality is only about the sex.

This would be like thinking that eating is all about the utensil you use. I feel bad for those people, because there is so much more to eating than the utensil you use, just like there is more to a loving relationship than just the sex.

I don't understand the obsession with the sex part of homosexuality, yet some people just can't get past it. It's like not feeding a starving Asian man because he only has chopsticks and no fork.
(Person A) "You don't deserve to eat like I do, because you use chopsticks when you should be using a fork. You can starve for all I care!"
(Reality) "Chopsticks or fork, the man still needs a meal". Sadly, this is lost on many religious folks. They can't even see that the man is starving because they are too focused on the utensil the guy eats with.

Now suggest that person A should just feed the guy and not worry about the utensil the guy eats with, and ironically, you get accused of oppression. I don't know if I should laugh or cry about this...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 91:

Beautifully said.
The problem is that many people think homosexuality is only about the sex.

I 'preciate the kind words. I do wish I could have made my referenced comments more related to the person, and not the act, but then again, I don't much care the person does the act.

This would be like thinking that eating is all about the utensil you use. I feel bad for those people, because there is so much more to eating than the utensil you use, just like there is more to a loving relationship than just the sex.

I don't understand the obsession with the sex part of homosexuality, yet some people just can't get past it. It's like not feeding a starving Asian man because he only has chopsticks and no fork.
(Person A) "You don't deserve to eat like I do, because you use chopsticks when you should be using a fork. You can starve for all I care!"
(Reality) "Chopsticks or fork, the man still needs a meal". Sadly, this is lost on many religious folks. They can't even see that the man is starving because they are too focused on the utensil the guy eats with.

Now suggest that person A should just feed the guy and not worry about the utensil the guy eats with, and ironically, you get accused of oppression. I don't know if I should laugh or cry about this...

Very well said. If you cut someone - anyone - do they not bleed? Do they not feel the sting of the knife on their flesh?

It just always seemed so strange to me that folks carrying on about a "loving" god, would then concentrate so much time and energy on the things that "loving" god hates. If that ain't the best example of people projecting there own prejudices onto their god, I don't know what is.

[Danmark]

From Post 91:

Beautifully said.
The problem is that many people think homosexuality is only about the sex.

I 'preciate the kind words. I do wish I could have made my referenced comments more related to the person, and not the act, but then again, I don't much care the person does the act.

This would be like thinking that eating is all about the utensil you use. I feel bad for those people, because there is so much more to eating than the utensil you use, just like there is more to a loving relationship than just the sex.

I don't understand the obsession with the sex part of homosexuality, yet some people just can't get past it. It's like not feeding a starving Asian man because he only has chopsticks and no fork.
(Person A) "You don't deserve to eat like I do, because you use chopsticks when you should be using a fork. You can starve for all I care!"
(Reality) "Chopsticks or fork, the man still needs a meal". Sadly, this is lost on many religious folks. They can't even see that the man is starving because they are too focused on the utensil the guy eats with.

Now suggest that person A should just feed the guy and not worry about the utensil the guy eats with, and ironically, you get accused of oppression. I don't know if I should laugh or cry about this...

Very well said. If you cut someone - anyone - do they not bleed? Do they not feel the sting of the knife on their flesh?

It just always seemed so strange to me that folks carrying on about a "loving" god, would then concentrate so much time and energy on the things that "loving" god hates. If that ain't the best example of people projecting there own prejudices onto their god, I don't know what is.

Well put Joey, and Clownboat. If Christians could concentrate more on what Jesus said, about love and acceptance, about the two men who went down to pray, on the prodigal son instead of adopting the view of the jealous brother, they would represent their cause so much better, and have a better chance of 'winning souls to Christ.'

I've felt from the get go that this subtopic would have been better named " The Vitriol of the Anti-Gay Agenda.
Perhaps I am in violation of the "anti preaching" rule, but it would truly advance the interests of Christianity if its adherents would focus on the love of Christ rather than the condemnation of he who is different.

Based on my own personal experience, I am confident that anyone who feels burdened by anger at homosexuals or the homosexual 'agenda' were to truly pray earnestly to be relieved of this burden, they would receive an answer to their prayer and learn to love and appreciate those who are different than them.

[shnarkle]

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.

shnarkle: This same phenomenon happens with regards to alcoholics and drug addicts as well, but some of them get help. They get into recovery. They admit that they were probably born that way as well, but some see that it is ruining their lives, and that there is nothing that they can do about it and must turn to God for help. Some choose to figure out ways to live with it and even justify their behavior. The same phenomenon seems to be happening with the issue of homosexual behavior. Some see it as a problem and get help while others don't. Those that don't tend to be quite angry and easily offended and anyone that disagrees with them.

[Danmark]

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.

shnarkle: This same phenomenon happens with regards to alcoholics and drug addicts as well, but some of them get help. They get into recovery. They admit that they were probably born that way as well, but some see that it is ruining their lives, and that there is nothing that they can do about it and must turn to God for help. Some choose to figure out ways to live with it and even justify their behavior. The same phenomenon seems to be happening with the issue of homosexual behavior. Some see it as a problem and get help while others don't. Those that don't tend to be quite angry and easily offended and anyone that disagrees with them.

[font=Comic Sans MS]Your comparison of homosexuality with dysfunctional health problems like alcoholism and drug addiction is both inapt and demeaning to homosexuals. Homosexuality is not listed as disorder in the DSM. The only problem homosexuals necessarily face that is different from the heterosexual population comes from the prejudice and discrimination from people who make statements comparing homosexuality to disease and drug addiction, or worse.[/font]

[Strider324]

I'm having trouble imagining any action more 'vitriolic' than the murder of Matthew Shepard for the 'sin' of being Gay or the screeching of the Westboro Baptist Church in telling the mothers of dead servicemen and women that their children were killed because god hates fags.....

Perhaps I'm just not empathetic enough to the tender sensitivities of the oppressed Christian majority.....

[shnarkle]

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.

shnarkle: This same phenomenon happens with regards to alcoholics and drug addicts as well, but some of them get help. They get into recovery. They admit that they were probably born that way as well, but some see that it is ruining their lives, and that there is nothing that they can do about it and must turn to God for help. Some choose to figure out ways to live with it and even justify their behavior. The same phenomenon seems to be happening with the issue of homosexual behavior. Some see it as a problem and get help while others don't. Those that don't tend to be quite angry and easily offended and anyone that disagrees with them.

[font=Comic Sans MS]Your comparison of homosexuality with dysfunctional health problems like alcoholism and drug addiction is both inapt and demeaning to homosexuals. Homosexuality is not listed as disorder in the DSM.

shnarkle: Not anymore at least.
------------------------------
The only problem homosexuals necessarily face that is different from the heterosexual population comes from the prejudice and discrimination from people who make statements comparing homosexuality to disease and drug addiction, or worse.[/font]

shnarkle: What you're essentially saying is that I am prejudiced and practice discrimination against homosexuals. It's a baseless assertion and has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

The comparison is apt in that they both speak to the problem of ignorance or disregard of purpose as well as the fact that they both speak to the problem of inability to change vs. those who seek to change their situation. I wasn't stating that homosexuality is a disease or an addiction. I was comparing it to them because the effects are similar as well as their reactions to their behavior.

Practicing Homosexuals necessarily face far more problems than heterosexuals, simply by the fact that they're outnumbered, and there is so much opposition to their lifestyle. They necessarily face problems of shorter lifespan, drug addiction, alcoholism , not to mention physical damage and disease from their behavior. Pretending that everything is just peachy being a homosexual ignores the reality of their situation. Hardly what I'd call a better position than that of the homophobe.

One could just as easily classify alcoholism or drug addiction as a "lifestyle". I"ve watched friends and family die from drinking and drug addiction. I"ve watched friends die from their homosexual lifestyle as well, and it is no less traumatic nor tragic. You'll have to excuse me if I didn't feel like rooting them on as they destroyed themselves as a direct result of their behavior.

[Ooberman]

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?

What possible reasonable concern could you have? Accepting a natural phenomena as normal is harmful to society?

[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.

shnarkle: This same phenomenon happens with regards to alcoholics and drug addicts as well, but some of them get help. They get into recovery. They admit that they were probably born that way as well, but some see that it is ruining their lives, and that there is nothing that they can do about it and must turn to God for help. Some choose to figure out ways to live with it and even justify their behavior. The same phenomenon seems to be happening with the issue of homosexual behavior. Some see it as a problem and get help while others don't. Those that don't tend to be quite angry and easily offended and anyone that disagrees with them.

While you equate homosexuality with other forms of 'dysfunctional behavior' that may or may not be perceived as being a specific trait that one is born with, it must be said that, unlike alcoholism and drug addiction, homosexuality has taken on a life of its own within the realms of Christianity. Any number of Christians believe that homosexuality is ''the sin of sins' and they persistently attempt to use the Bible to back this up. We are told time and time again by anti-gay Christian leaders that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the 'grave sin' of homosexuality even though this probable fable says nothing of the sort. We are told time and time again by anti-gay Christian leaders that Paul, Jude and company condemn homosexuality in certain ambiguous letters to a particular Church that were addressing specific issues within that Church that we are not clearly privy to. These anti-gay Christian leaders have been preaching the message to their flocks that homosexuality is evil and must be condemned for ...well, I don't know how long.

Do you, shnarkle, really believe that people who are preached against by Christianity in general as being 'evil', or, at best, told that God frowns upon them are being 'easily offended'?

[Joab]

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

It's only significant to fundamentalist christians and muslims as far as I can tell.