Why is homophobia tolerated here?

[Haven]

If a person were to join this forum making racist comments, using and implying racial slurs, and saying that racial minorities were disgusting, evil, and inherently inferior, they would certainly be swiftly banned (and rightly so!). This person could say the same things about women, people from certain countries, people with disabilities, and the reaction would be the same -- a swift ban.

However, on this forum -- which prides itself on civility -- people can make bigoted and untrue comments about lesbians, gays, and bisexuals with absolutely no consequences. Not so much as a warning. Certain members have been making blatantly homophobic statements for years without even a moderator comment.

Why the double standard? Why is racism banned, but homophobia and heterosexual supremacy tolerated? Are LGB people somehow a less-deserving minority?

[Danmark]

That's what happened to the photographer who was sued for refusing to 'do' a gay commitment ceremony....when no such lawsuit has every been filed against a photographer who only DOES gay ceremonies for refusing to 'do' a heterosexual one.

That's what happens to those businesses for whom it is ILLEGAL to advertise that they 'do' heterosexual weddings exclusively,...but it is perfectly legal to advertise that they 'do' gay weddings exclusively.

According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any public business has the obligation to refrain from discriminating against someone for their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The photographer decided to break that law and discriminate based on sexual orientation, so they should have been sued. They're the legal and moral equivalent of a racist in the Jim Crow era who put up "we serve whites only" signs in front of their business. It's illegal to discriminate, and it should remain that way. Don't like it? Don't own a business.

What....no comment about how it is perfectly acceptable to refuse to 'serve' a non-minority? (not that there is such a critter; we are each and every one of us members of a minority of some sort).

It's given that a public accommodation cannot refuse service to anyone without just cause. Certainly the law is more highly attuned to discrimination against groups that have historically suffered discrimination. A Mormon cannot be refused service because she is a Mormon.

Can you cite to any cases where someone who was not a member of a traditionally oppressed group was denied service because she was not a member of a recognized minority group, AND her lawsuit was dismissed because of her lack of such membership? It seems to me you are complaining about a wrong that has not happened. The legal process does not take notice of events that are not brought to its attention.

PS C'mon admit it. Don't we look alike? Aren't we beautiful?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 153 by dianaiad]

This is the only part of your reply that I can think of a thing to add to what's already been posted.

The problem I have is that the 'labels' (0r 'nominatives') preferred keep CHANGING, and if you don't think that there is a 'they' or a 'powers that be,' you never went to high school and dealt with a clique...or were part of one.

Who hasn't been on the wrong end of that stick? Even the men who sit in jail for beating their wives and children whine to the magistrate judge that they wouldn't HAVE to beat them if they'd do what they were told. Everyone's a 'victim' in their own mind, it's an unpleasantly universal bit of human psychology.

The 'powers that be' or 'they' exist in full glory in everyone's mind. The problem is when you buy into it, which folks generally do if buying into it supports their previous notions or presuppositions (about anything).

Even so, they aren't real, or true; the only way to verify a 'powers that be' is to figure out who is making the law. At least in theory, WE are. There is no Big Brother, except in the minds of those who find the concept helpful to reinforce what they already believe.

And what is wrong with 'nominatives' changing? No one is being arrested for refusing to call Caitlyn Jenner 'she'. They are just being criticized (however rudely or civilly) by the public, by those who advocate or defend their positions. Language changes, like Danmark said. And we humans don't realize how we are constrained by language, how WORDS actually shape experience, rather than the other way around. Very interesting stuff.

If recorded history is any indication, preferred 'nominatives' are going to keep changing, along with everything else. There is no such thing as 'the good old days' except in the minds of folks who don't like the new days very much.

.....and frankly, I have found that, in general, the members of that 'powers that be' group are the most likely to be the ones to claim that there is no such group.

I had to laugh out loud at that. No kidding, I agree. But just SAYING 'there's no powers that be' does not INDICATE the presence of a powers that be is at hand saying it. And it doesn't decrease the necessity for us to all get along, get a grip on our inner demons (however grandly we've externalized them) so we don't be projecting our inner demons onto people who threaten our cherished beliefs.

The term 'politically correct,' though it is held up as mockery BY the politically correct, is quite accurate; there is a 'correct' way to be, and to speak, and to think...and those who do not do so are sanctioned, if not legally, then socially.

Agreed. I think what some Christians are feeling, for the first time, is that other end of the stick, the one they've been whacking everyone else with since Rome. It is the same stick, and it hurts to be whacked with it. Perhaps the stick is the problem, not whichever group happens to be wielding it at the time?

....and many people are being sanctioned legally for being 'politically incorrect,' and THAT is the epitome of 'newspeak.'

Newspeak is (in the book) legally sanctioned, and other kinds of speak are punishable by death or 'disappearance'. Nobody is disappearing when they call Caitlyn Jenner 'he'. They are just being called out on their intolerance. There's even relevant terms for people who engage in active intolerance as it applies to the LGBT community. That's just life. A consequence of an action. Making any more out of it than that is SELF PITY, on the part of those trying to wipe the capital H or capital B they deservedly got named FOR their active intolerance.

That said, I know and deeply appreciate those theists who keep their religious opinions but don't feel compelled to disrespect the PERSONHOOD of those who fly in the face of their religious sexual taboos or whatever. Those theists are not who I am criticizing at all, and I'm well aware of their presence.

[otseng]

I have lots to say, but unfortunately, my time is very limited. So, I'll try to get in what I can.

First off, glad to see that this thread recently has eased off from the personal comments. I hope it continues that way.

[Replying to post 137 by otseng]

All I'm asking for is fairness. If homosexuality may be attacked, then religious fundamentalism (and the bigotry it supports) should also be allowed to be attacked. If anti-gay people may call homosexuality "sin," then those who support LGBT rights should be allowed to call religious fundamentalism "delusion" and "inanity" and opposition to gay rights "bigotry" and "hatred." If one is allowed, the other should be as well.

Though fairness is an important aspect to this forum, it's not really part of the rules. It's something that we strive for, but it's not an official policy.

Fairness is also subjective. What's fair to one is not necessarily fair to another. We do strive to maintain fairness by having a balanced moderating team, but decisions will not please everyone.

As all knows, this is a Christian debate forum. The Bible speaks of homosexuality, so it can be debated and attacked here on this forum. If one wants a forum free from attack on homosexuality, a Christian debating forum would definitely not be the place to be.

Saying homosexuality is a sin will be allowed here. That said, many things are described as sinful in the Bible - adultery, lying, fornicating, divorce, gluttony, gossip, etc. People are free to call these sinful too on this forum.

As for describing a belief as "delusion" and "inanity", I'm actually not too opposed to that, as long as one can provide supporting arguments for it. However, if one says another poster is delusional or inane, then it crosses the line. Similarly, if one says another poster is a sinner, then that would also cross the line.

I didn't ask if "race" could be discussed. I asked if 'racism' should be tolerated.

Example:
"Europeans are intellectually inferior to Asians."

We might start with a common question in America these days: Do Asians have higher I.Q.s than whites? The answer is probably yes....

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1208 ... ve-excerpt

Couldn't your example, "Do Asians have higher IQs than whites?" qualify as a racist statement? Couldn't whites be offended by such a statement?

That was the point. Of course it's racist. That's why I put it in quotes. You asked for an example.

But, I would allow your example to be debated. So, though you would consider it racist, I would not consider it to be against the rules. And no, it's not because I'm Asian.

Actually, I'd love to see more debates regarding race. It seems to be such a taboo subject that people are afraid to touch it for fear of being politically incorrect.

'Racism' is not just some academic belief that some races have different characteristics. Racism is the belief in the inferiority of people from a different 'race.'

You keep comparing homosexuality to race. I do not agree that it is comparable. It might be related in that both of civil rights issues, but I do not see much similarity beyond that.

BTW, the religion that believes Africans are animals and should not breed with 'whites' is called Christianity, or rather a variant of it.

Even if this is true, it is such a small minority position that it cannot really be considered what Christianity teaches. One can find almost any weird thing being taught by Christians, but that doesn't mean that it represents Christianity.

Christian abolitionists took a stand against racism.
So should this forum.

This forum doesn't take a stand on any position.

Should this forum take a stand on fundamentalism (which I consider myself to be)? Should I ban everyone who attacks fundamentalism? Should everyone who says fundamentalism is a delusion get a warning?

If I don't even make this forum take a stand on fundamentalism, why should it take a position on homosexuality or any other position?

This forum should take a stand against racism and against homophobia.
That's what I want.

It's not going to happen. Even "racist" remarks are allowed. You agreed that your example above is racist, but I would actually allow that to be debated.

And as I've pointed out, these views directly contradict the rule against blanket statements.

Blanket statements would be those that have no supporting arguments. If one says the Bible says homosexuality is sinful and can provide arguments from the Bible, it would not be a blanket statement.

The forum should also take a stand against dishonest debating.

I'm not opposed to this. But, I do not see an objective way to do this.

And that is exactly how I feel about allowing homophobes to spread their poison here.

I do not consider attacking homosexuality to be spreading poison.

What about just attacking Christianity in general? Isn't that also spreading poison? It gets attacked all the time here. Isn't that causing a great disservice to Christianity also?

I suppose it could be considered a trade off?. Refuse (for no good reason) to refer respectfully, yes even as requested, to avoid using offensive labels in exchange for having an offensive label back at ya (speaking generically). Very simple economics.

Mormon Christians, of all theists, have dealt with this, and suffered from it. Casually insulting Mormons is still common, and Lord knows how many"real Christians" I've pissed off by placing "Mormon" next to "Christian", right ?

I'm confident you get this in a way majority theists do not. Can you see the similarities, though?. LGBT folks feel just the same way.

The problem I have is that the 'labels' (0r 'nominatives') preferred keep CHANGING, and if you don't think that there is a 'they' or a 'powers that be,' you never went to high school and dealt with a clique...or were part of one.

Diana has a point here. Preferred terminology keeps changing faster than I can keep up with. If it's terminology that is accepted in standard textbooks, dictionaries, common language, then it's acceptable here. If terminology is only because of political correctness or language used by a select group of people, there's no need to force posters to use that terminology.

Now, if a particular poster wants to be addressed a certain way, we should comply with that as best we can. For example, if someone says, don't call me gay, but call me a queer, then I'll try to just use the queer label, rather than gay.

[WinePusher]

A lot of different issues have been brought up in this thread so I'll address each one point by point.

1. There is some merit to the assertion that homophobia is equivalent to racism. Many right wing conservatives in real life and on this forum have argued that if private businesses have some sort of religious objection to homosexuality then they should be allowed to refuse service to gay people. How is this any different from when business in the south, during the Jim Crow era, refused to service black people based on nothing more than a personal objection to their skin color? The short answer is that there is no difference. A business owner who refuses to service gays is no different than a business owner who refused to service blacks back in the mid 1900s. So in this context Haven is right, homophobia and racism are absolutely comparable.

Additionally, there is no difference between a real homophobic Christian and a racist KKK member. Imagine if a KKK member said that being black was a sin, is anyone here going to suggest that this isn't racist? So if we agree that this is racist, then how is a Christian calling homosexuality a sin any different?

Now, Haven's assertion begins to lose credibility when he begins to talk about these homophobic and racial slurs. When it comes to race, really only one word is completely prohibited from being used in public discourse, and that word is the N word. And the reason is obvious, the N word was used by slave-owners as an epithet to oppress and dehumanize African Americans. The word has been historically used to degrade black people, but can the same be said about calling people homosexuals? Certainly the F word is a slur and the word should be avoided because it's been used to harass and bully gay people and I'm pretty sure the F word isn't allowed on this forum.

But calling someone a homosexual is a slur? Really? I understand Haven has expressed concern about calling people homosexuals and I've tried to respect this, but please don't make it seem like anybody who uses the term is homophobic and please don't suggest that otseng ban the word. That is beyond ridiculous.
__________
2. The issue with Caitlyn Jenner is perplexing, but I think we can all agree on the following. It's very sad that she had to live most of her life not feeling comfortable in her own skin, no one can even begin to imagine the psychological torment she must have gone through unless they've actually gone through a similar situation, her coming out will have a positive effect on transgender children and we should accept her personal decision rather than mock her. Having said that, she is not a hero, having a sex reassignment surgery is not in anyway heroic or courageous and this type of thing should not be promoted. It's one thing to accept her decision to have a sex change, but it's something completely different to praise her decision as heroic and courageous.
__________

3. It is laughable how pro gay rights advocates on this forum and in real life focus immense amounts of attention on Christians and say virtually nothing about how gay people are being killed by Muslims. While I support gay marriage and have become more and more understanding and compassionate towards gay people, I will never identify with the LGBT movement due to the fact that it's dominated by many insincere liberals who denounce Christians at every possible opportunity but give Muslims a free pass when it comes to brutally killing gays.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 162 by WinePusher]

Just on point 1. I am not aware of any Christian arguing against serving homosexuals and would strongly urge all Christians to do so. If anyone wants a Big Mac ask them if they also want fries with that.

Defending freedom of association should be a good thing. When did it become bad....

The problem is marriage which God and Jesus take very seriously. The solution is to take the state out of marriage.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 162:

Just on point 1. I am not aware of any Christian arguing against serving homosexuals and would strongly urge all Christians to do so. If anyone wants a Big Mac ask them if they also want fries with that.

Defending freedom of association should be a good thing. When did it become bad....

Great notions, though that first bit indicates you don't follow the news.

The problem is marriage which God and Jesus take very seriously. The solution is to take the state out of marriage.

As the state has an interest in stable, loving relationships (per some arguments), and the legally binding contracts associated thereof, I propose a better solution is to take Christians out of deciding who is and who ain't worthy of those legally binding contracts.

...
Court records indicate Davis herself married when she was 18 in 1984, filed for divorce 10 years later, and then filed for divorce again, from another husband, in 2006.

Many Christians believe divorce also is a sin, and an attorney for the same-sex couples repeatedly questioned her about this in court. Asked if she would religiously object to issuing a marriage license to someone who has been divorced, she said "That's between them and God."

"That's between them and God, unless they're big ol' homos, then it's MY business!"

This is the face of Christian hypocritical bigotry. State sanctioned, where she remains in office despite her obvious refusal to perform her legally required duties.


We need to implement a test for public office, thus...

"Are you a big ol' hypocritical bigot?"

"As ordained by God himself, yes I am!"

Then you ought not be allowed to spread your hatred through government decree or inaction!


This bigot should have been removed from office upon her first refusal to carry out her sworn, legal duty. That she's been allowed to prevent the issuance of marriage licenses is clear and unequivocal evidence of her dereliction of duty, her religious based intolerance of the citizens she's sworn to serve, and just her general bag-that-cleans-stuffery.

I'm appalled to think that she'd be a "protected class" simply because she thinks her hypocrisy, her bigotry somehow overrules the very reason her office exists. Alas, when one's told how "special" they are for their "special beliefs", they have no problem whatsoever with attempting to undermine the very laws this society needs to function in a civil, respectful manner.

Shame on her, and shame on any and all that'd defend this deplorable act of religious based hypocritical bigotry!

"But... but... but my beliefs!"

Your beliefs stop meaning a gol-darned thing when you're a proven, self-professed hypocrite, bigot, or both!


This explains well how some, many, all members of the homosexual community might find rather innocuous statements or claims offensive. "I, JoeyKnothead, well I ain't too fond of the kissin' of the men", while offered with absolutely no ill intent, may be perceived, through the lens of history, as my attempting to discredit, stifle, or otherwise injure some gay folks.

No matter I try to speak up for 'em, and fight for 'em, we still have that historical lens. Only when we stop with the shaming, the discriminating and the carrying on about 'em will they, our brothers and sisters, our fellow humans feel they are a respected, loved, and appreciated part of a society that declares itself "With freedom and justice for all".


(a rather late tag edit to correct a link)

[Danmark]

You keep comparing homosexuality to race. I do not agree that it is comparable. It might be related in that both of civil rights issues, but I do not see much similarity beyond that.

Being a Christian is a choice. Being black is not. Having a same sex or attraction or an opposite sex attraction is not a choice. Haven has demonstrated this conclusively with scientific studies. Never once have I heard any heterosexual man claim he "chose" to be attracted to women and he could have just as easily "chosen" to be sexually attracted to other men.

BTW, the religion that believes Africans are animals and should not breed with 'whites' is called Christianity, or rather a variant of it.

Even if this is true, it is such a small minority position that it cannot really be considered what Christianity teaches. One can find almost any weird thing being taught by Christians, but that doesn't mean that it represents Christianity.

Sounds like the "no true Scotsman falacy."

It's not only true, that blacks used to be considered inferior animals by many Christians, it used to be the majority, or near majority, Christian position in order to justify slavery and the Bible was and still is used to call "the negro a beast."
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm
You really should take the time to look at that site. I've posted excerpts from it here many times. I do not recall one debater ever acknowledging the evils done in the name of Christ and the Bible as documented there. You continue to confuse 'race' with 'racism.' I agree that race should be talked about more here and elsewhere. But that is not the issue. The issue is allowing racist remarks here. The reason Christian racism and slavery are no longer majority positions or are now illegal is because many good people took a stand against that lie and public policy. Many were Christians. By taking a stand they changed the law and they changed hearts.

And as I've pointed out, these views directly contradict the rule against blanket statements.

I do not consider attacking homosexuality to be spreading poison.

What about just attacking Christianity in general? Isn't that also spreading poison? It gets attacked all the time here. Isn't that causing a great disservice to Christianity also?

As I have pointed out, being a Christian, even a fundamentalist Christian is a choice, just like being a Nazi or a Muslim or a racist or a Republican. Being black or being gay are not choices. That's the fundamental difference.

Diana has a point here. Preferred terminology keeps changing faster than I can keep up with. If it's terminology that is accepted in standard textbooks, dictionaries, common language, then it's acceptable here.

This is simply not true. Much "common language" that is accepted in certain textbooks and all unabridged dictionaries is not accepted here. The use of certain "common language" that is used in dictionaries has resulted in debaters being banned without consultation with other moderators. * Regarding attacking Christianity and in particular fundamentalism, warnings have been issued for calling others 'delusional' because of their beliefs.

I'm in full agreement that "acceptable" terminology changes quickly and the judgment of 'proper' usage is applied inconsistently depending on which sub culture and which age group is making the judgment. I submit that no one on Earth can get consensus on when to use "Latino, Hispanic, Mexican" in a way that won't offend somebody. But don't we all agree, at least on this forum, it is not civil to use "nigger" or "gook, "beaner" or "wetback?" Accept of course to make this very point.

But the essence of my argument is that it does a disservice to both Christianity and the dignity of individuals to call someone with an unalterable characteristic, whether race, height, gender, or sexual orientation a "sinner." It isn't civil.

Despite my criticism, I agree and have said it here before, that this forum does an excellent job of trying to keep the balance between free expression and civility and probably does a better job than any forum on the internet, particularly when one considers we are debating religion and politics. I just suggest it can be even better.

______________________________
*If you don't agree with me on this, then I've got more than seven dirty words to publish here.

[enviousintheeverafter]

You keep comparing homosexuality to race. I do not agree that it is comparable. It might be related in that both of civil rights issues, but I do not see much similarity beyond that.

Being a Christian is a choice. Being black is not. Having a same sex or attraction or an opposite sex attraction is not a choice. Haven has demonstrated this conclusively with scientific studies. Never once have I heard any heterosexual man claim he "chose" to be attracted to women and he could have just as easily "chosen" to be sexually attracted to other men.

Yeah, this is a curious comment by otseng- obviously race and sexual orientation are both features/traits of a person (not actions) which they have no control over, and in virtue of which they are sometimes judged/labelled inferior/immoral/etc. and often persecuted/oppressed, and so not only are the two comparable in the relevant respect, they are all but identical.

[Danmark]

A lot of different issues have been brought up in this thread so I'll address each one point by point.

1. There is some merit to the assertion that homophobia is equivalent to racism. Many right wing conservatives in real life and on this forum have argued that if private businesses have some sort of religious objection to homosexuality then they should be allowed to refuse service to gay people. How is this any different from when business in the south, during the Jim Crow era, refused to service black people based on nothing more than a personal objection to their skin color? The short answer is that there is no difference. A business owner who refuses to service gays is no different than a business owner who refused to service blacks back in the mid 1900s. So in this context Haven is right, homophobia and racism are absolutely comparable.

Additionally, there is no difference between a real homophobic Christian and a racist KKK member. Imagine if a KKK member said that being black was a sin, is anyone here going to suggest that this isn't racist? So if we agree that this is racist, then how is a Christian calling homosexuality a sin any different?

Now, Haven's assertion begins to lose credibility when he begins to talk about these homophobic and racial slurs. When it comes to race, really only one word is completely prohibited from being used in public discourse, and that word is the N word. And the reason is obvious, the N word was used by slave-owners as an epithet to oppress and dehumanize African Americans. The word has been historically used to degrade black people, but can the same be said about calling people homosexuals? Certainly the F word is a slur and the word should be avoided because it's been used to harass and bully gay people and I'm pretty sure the F word isn't allowed on this forum.

But calling someone a homosexual is a slur? Really? I understand Haven has expressed concern about calling people homosexuals and I've tried to respect this, but please don't make it seem like anybody who uses the term is homophobic and please don't suggest that otseng ban the word. That is beyond ridiculous.
__________
2. The issue with Caitlyn Jenner is perplexing, but I think we can all agree on the following. It's very sad that she had to live most of her life not feeling comfortable in her own skin, no one can even begin to imagine the psychological torment she must have gone through unless they've actually gone through a similar situation, her coming out will have a positive effect on transgender children and we should accept her personal decision rather than mock her. Having said that, she is not a hero, having a sex reassignment surgery is not in anyway heroic or courageous and this type of thing should not be promoted. It's one thing to accept her decision to have a sex change, but it's something completely different to praise her decision as heroic and courageous.
__________

3. It is laughable how pro gay rights advocates on this forum and in real life focus immense amounts of attention on Christians and say virtually nothing about how gay people are being killed by Muslims. While I support gay marriage and have become more and more understanding and compassionate towards gay people, I will never identify with the LGBT movement due to the fact that it's dominated by many insincere liberals who denounce Christians at every possible opportunity but give Muslims a free pass when it comes to brutally killing gays.

Thank you for this excellent and fair minded post. In particular I agree with your paragraph:
Additionally, there is no difference between a real homophobic Christian and a racist KKK member. Imagine if a KKK member said that being black was a sin, is anyone here going to suggest that this isn't racist? So if we agree that this is racist, then how is a Christian calling homosexuality a sin any different?
I'd like to clarify a few things.
I think Haven makes an understandable distinction between use of the word 'homosexual' and calling someone a 'homosexual' because to do so implies his sexuality is who he is. [He makes the argument more clearly than I have]. I don't share his sensitivity to the word, but as a matter of personal courtesy I try to be careful of my usage.

I agree about the Muslim hostility to LGBT issues. Muslims do not get a pass from me. Their hostility, at least in some countries, is much more extreme than fundamentalists here. The disparity of attention comes from the relative paucity of Muslims here debating the issue.
But on the whole, I agree these issues are more about civil rights and human dignity than anything else.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 162:

1.
...

Well said.

But calling someone a homosexual is a slur? Really? I understand Haven has expressed concern about calling people homosexuals and I've tried to respect this, but please don't make it seem like anybody who uses the term is homophobic and please don't suggest that otseng ban the word. That is beyond ridiculous.

Agreed. Some of us are of an age that the term may be used as a slander, or simply as a descriptor. Context should help determine which is which.

Sometimes we use a term in all honesty, with no nefarity, it just happens that we grew up using that term, and find our use of it "now" so innocuous, we don't even think about if it's offensive "today". I'm reminded of the term "retard". I grew up thinking it meant, well, someone whose development had been retarded, and that they're still a human, worthy of love and respect, and all such as that. However, the controversy surrounding that term has been of such volume, and such time, that I have learned to be careful with its use.

I just ain't had me enough time or controversy that when I speak about gay folks, I don't say "homosexual". I don't find the term offensive in the least, especially when I'm not using it to offend. And on that note, how come it is, "gay" is acceptable, but say "angry" ain't, when we refer to gay folks?

I don't mean to be flippant, but who decided singing certain songs now fesses my homosexuality, even as I ain't a homosexual? Who 'ruined' carolling for so many heterosexuals?

Our words should be seen in light of the context in which they're presented, and not just stricken simply 'cause some folks have them a differing definition.

Nigger. Now to some, that's offensive as all get out, and I do my best to not ever say it. I've had that time, that controversy to inform me about it. I've had those history lessons, and I certainly do not say it there just to cause a fuss. But then again, I notice many folks of a certain sort, they call one another that all the time, accents or spelling notwhithstanding.

Absurdely I say it, but this points out the issue of getting upset about calling folks what they call themselves.


So, what if I call someone a "transsexual", through clenched teeth? Ain't I being just a bit insulting to use the term transsexuals want me to use, only my intent is to cause insult?


Words are all we have to communicate, other'n pointing I reckon, and maybe pictures. We shouldn't ban words simply because someone has come along and declared that word offensive. We should ban hatred, insultry, and all such as doesn't provide for civil, respectful discourse.

2. The issue with Caitlyn Jenner is perplexing, but I think we can all agree on the following. It's very sad that she had to live most of her life not feeling comfortable in her own skin, no one can even begin to imagine the psychological torment she must have gone through unless they've actually gone through a similar situation, her coming out will have a positive effect on transgender children and we should accept her personal decision rather than mock her. Having said that, she is not a hero, having a sex reassignment surgery is not in anyway heroic or courageous and this type of thing should not be promoted. It's one thing to accept her decision to have a sex change, but it's something completely different to praise her decision as heroic and courageous.

Considering attempts by Christians here in my state, to have a sex change is akin to being a homosexual. In the state of Georgia, it's legal to terminate, or not hire, anyone based on the mere suspicion of being homosexual.

Considering the many Christians who've disparaged Miss Caitlyn, I find her decision extremely courageous. She's as heroic as the homosexuals who forced the issue of gay marriage onto the Supreme Court. Let's not forget, there are those self-professed Christians who've bombed clinics, murdered doctors, and beat to the death anyone who happened to offend that Christian's "special beliefs".

To consider it otherwise is to stare blankly into the empty space of one's own bubble.

3. It is laughable how pro gay rights advocates on this forum and in real life focus immense amounts of attention on Christians and say virtually nothing about how gay people are being killed by Muslims. While I support gay marriage and have become more and more understanding and compassionate towards gay people, I will never identify with the LGBT movement due to the fact that it's dominated by many insincere liberals who denounce Christians at every possible opportunity but give Muslims a free pass when it comes to brutally killing gays.

I'm just not seeing a lot of Muslims here where I'm at trying to prevent homosexuals from enjoying all the rights and freedoms they hold for themselves.

Perhaps when Christians hop up and set to fussing with the Muslims, they'll have offered an excellent example for others.

Maybe when Christians start moving in great numbers to go fight ISIS and their ilk, Christians'll have an argument about how it is they're being "picked on".


That you'd label folks "insincere liberals", insult and all, is all the evidence I need to conclude you're just another right-wing Christian zealot who has done NOTHING to prevent the spread of ISIS, 'cept to bemoan how it is, folks are a-pickin' on you.


Towels are a great way to sop up tears, water, and all such as that.


(tagularial edit)