Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby yurell » Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:36 am UTC

So because it's 'mainstream' to hate gender & sexual minorities for no reason, we shouldn't group them with 'non-mainstream' hate groups, like racists?

No, I reject the notion — the distinguishing feature is that they're a group that spreads bigoted fear and hatred based on no evidence whatsoever. Saying that they shouldn't be grouped together is like saying that it's ludicrous to class ants and elephants in the same group as 'animals'. We class things by their common features, in this case irrational hatred of other groups.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

Jonesthe Spy
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Jonesthe Spy » Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:55 am UTC

Well, not that I have any sympathy for the FRC, but I think one can distinguish between them and the KKK because the KKK actually engage in acts of violence and terrorism while the FRC use legal methods to advocate for their hate and bigotry.

Bassoon
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:58 pm UTC
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Bassoon » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:44 am UTC

Jonesthe Spy wrote:Well, not that I have any sympathy for the FRC, but I think one can distinguish between them and the KKK because the KKK actually engage in acts of violence and terrorism while the FRC use legal methods to advocate for their hate and bigotry.


There are legal ways to commit acts of violence and terrorism, such as funding anti-gay bills in other nations.

Mad Mike
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:18 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Mad Mike » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:51 am UTC

This is one of those weird cases where, while the shooting is terrible, I have little sympathy for the victim. :roll:

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Tirian » Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:12 am UTC

Mad Mike wrote:This is one of those weird cases where, while the shooting is terrible, I have little sympathy for the victim. :roll:


That's pretty cold. I'm no fan of the jackasses in the board room, but they deserve peace and harmony as much as LGBT folk. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

And, holy crap, the office building security guard who doesn't get the salary or benefits of a cop but has to take a bullet because some lunatic thinks that's taking a stand against jackasses? And then that guy stops the lunatic anyways? Well sir, I've got more than enough sympathy for both of us, and a good helping of respect on top of that.

LtNOWIS
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:21 pm UTC
Location: Fairfax County

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby LtNOWIS » Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:32 am UTC

Yeah, you really can't assume that the guard even supports the organization he was guarding. He probably works for a security company rather than the FRC directly. In any event I'd have no problem guarding an organization I strongly disagree with, because even terrible organizations have a right to protect themselves from violent intruders

In any event there's a vast difference between advocating terrible policy and advocating violence. In 1960, the KKK would've been a hate group, but an entirely peaceful pro-segregation organization would not be, arguably.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby yurell » Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:52 am UTC

And now a peaceful pro-segregation group that advocated repressing black people, and published false articles like “the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay black men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners” and “[g]aining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual anti-segregation movement”, and promoted such things as wanting "to exile homosexuals Blacks from the US" would probably be classified as a hate group.
Just because something wasn't considered hateful and intolerant half a century ago, doesn't mean it isn't now; half a century before then women were being arrested for having the audacity to demonstrate in favour of the universal suffrage.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Steroid » Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

yurell wrote:And now a peaceful pro-segregation group that advocated repressing black people, and published false articles like “the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay black men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners” and “[g]aining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual anti-segregation movement”, and promoted such things as wanting "to exile homosexuals Blacks from the US" would probably be classified as a hate group.
Just because something wasn't considered hateful and intolerant half a century ago, doesn't mean it isn't now; half a century before then women were being arrested for having the audacity to demonstrate in favour of the universal suffrage.

The very fact that groups like this exist means that the change you're talking about hasn't taken root yet. There's still a chance that they won't. If you prefer the way the world is today to the way it was then, that's fine, but just because my preferences are the reverse doesn't make me the hater and you the lover. It doesn't make me the bad guy and you the good guy. We all believe in our own causes. I'm not going to call GLAAD a hate group just because they're working against traditional Christian values. I am going to disagree with them and fight their causes in the political arena. And I'm going to rise or lower myself to my opponents' level of civility. With that in place, is starting gun fights really a good idea?

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby yurell » Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:34 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:just because my preferences are the reverse doesn't make me the hater and you the lover


Ermmm, yes, yes it does. It doesn't make me objectively 'good' and you objectively 'bad', but hating a group simply for being different to you does make you a 'hater' by any reasonable definition of the word.

Steroid wrote:With that in place, is starting gun fights really a good idea?


Even with that not in place, the answer is still no. You already know my opinion on the matter; it came quite quickly after your 'fuck all of you'.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby guenther » Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:56 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:The very fact that groups like this exist means that the change you're talking about hasn't taken root yet. There's still a chance that they won't. If you prefer the way the world is today to the way it was then, that's fine, but just because my preferences are the reverse doesn't make me the hater and you the lover. It doesn't make me the bad guy and you the good guy. We all believe in our own causes. I'm not going to call GLAAD a hate group just because they're working against traditional Christian values. I am going to disagree with them and fight their causes in the political arena. And I'm going to rise or lower myself to my opponents' level of civility. With that in place, is starting gun fights really a good idea?

Are you specifically defending the FRC from being labeled a hate group despite them having said some pretty inflammatory and intolerant things? Or are you more broadly defending the right to oppose same-sex marriage without being labeled hateful (or part of a hate group) for simply holding that position?
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Jonesthe Spy
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Jonesthe Spy » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:14 pm UTC

Getting a bit off topic, but the idea that a group that works for equality and civil rights for a part of the population and a group that actively opposes equality for that group - not to mention frequently demonizes said group and attempts to make the entire population conform with it's own religious beliefs - are somehow morally equivalent is just ludicrous.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3995
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Dauric » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:35 pm UTC

guenther wrote:
Steroid wrote:The very fact that groups like this exist means that the change you're talking about hasn't taken root yet. There's still a chance that they won't. If you prefer the way the world is today to the way it was then, that's fine, but just because my preferences are the reverse doesn't make me the hater and you the lover. It doesn't make me the bad guy and you the good guy. We all believe in our own causes. I'm not going to call GLAAD a hate group just because they're working against traditional Christian values. I am going to disagree with them and fight their causes in the political arena. And I'm going to rise or lower myself to my opponents' level of civility. With that in place, is starting gun fights really a good idea?

Are you specifically defending the FRC from being labeled a hate group despite them having said some pretty inflammatory and intolerant things? Or are you more broadly defending the right to oppose same-sex marriage without being labeled hateful (or part of a hate group) for simply holding that position?


Steroid's a traditionalist. By his argument as long as some aspect of cultre or policy (ie: homosexual marriage) isn't accepted* then it's acceptable to oppose said change in culture or policy without being cast as the bad guy, as someone who "hates" in a vilified sense.

*I'm not entirely certain how this metric is supposed to be measured.

Note: Just because I can parse his argument does not mean I agree with Steroid.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby guenther » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:53 pm UTC

Well, I'll let Steroid confirm whether you've properly captured his argument. But for the example, I definitely think one should be able to oppose homosexual marriage without being cast as the bad guy or vilified as someone who "hates". There's a lot of room to call out someone as wrong without demonizing them. But I don't take this so far as to defend the FRC. They've said some things that I think are indefensible. And I believe it's these things that made the SPLC feel that they deserved the "hate group" label.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Steroid » Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:21 am UTC

There's two aspects to this. The first, which I think I've talked about somewhere before, is based on the idea that inherent versus volitional is continuous as opposed to discrete. It's easy to say that when you judge someone, it should only be on their volitional nature, not their inherent, but I don't believe that that's easy to do, and therefore it's a flawed principle. In other words, even the most ardent prejudice contains a proper way for the object of the prejudice to act. The racist who hates blacks wants them to be subservient and call him master. The people against homosexuals want them to act straight, irrespective of what it does to them. The FRC says on their Web site:

Sympathy must be extended to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions, and every effort should be made to assist such persons to overcome those attractions, as many already have.


They're trying to "cure" gays. If that is sufficient to be a hate group, then so is wanting to convert Christians, or wanting them to abandon their social and political views. Just because there hasn't been a Christian gene discovered doesn't mean that believing in a religion crosses some discrete threshold between "inherent, and therefore sympathetic," and "volitional, and therefore culpable."

The other part is that regardless of their status now, I recognize all the good that traditional values have done for humanity. My reading of history puts Christendom, for lack of a better word, at the vanguard of progress. From Jesuit scholarship to evangelical wanderlust to the political freedoms that arose from Christian sources, much of the best of humanity came about under the banner of the long-haired carpenter. I don't believe in that religion myself, but I can acknowledge its contributions and empathize with those who want to continue using it as the foundation of society to try to get more of those contributions.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby yurell » Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 am UTC

Steroid wrote:They're trying to "cure" gays. If that is sufficient to be a hate group ...


Yeah, and that's all they're doing; trying to change the sexual attraction of consenting adults under no pressure to give said consent, and that's all they want to do too. :roll: Or maybe there's more to being a hate group than that, like the stuff that I said earlier that you apparently completely missed (I'm sure it was an oversight and not blatant willful ignorance on your part).

Also, 'gay' isn't a noun, it's an adjective.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Steroid » Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:09 pm UTC

yurell wrote:
Steroid wrote:They're trying to "cure" gays. If that is sufficient to be a hate group ...


Yeah, and that's all they're doing; trying to change the sexual attraction of consenting adults under no pressure to give said consent, and that's all they want to do too. :roll: Or maybe there's more to being a hate group than that, like the stuff that I said earlier that you apparently completely missed (I'm sure it was an oversight and not blatant willful ignorance on your part).

Again, mirror it. You and LBGT organizations are trying to change the religious and political beliefs of consenting adults, and are putting just as much pressure on them as they are on homosexuals.

Also, 'gay' isn't a noun, it's an adjective.

I accept the correction. But I don't think it's fair that "straight" can be a noun, then. Why should homosexuals have a grammatical casus belli when heterosexuals do not?

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby yurell » Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:19 pm UTC

'Straight' isn't a noun, Steroid, it's an adjective. 'Straight people' is acceptable, 'straights' is not. Just like 'black people' is acceptable, 'blacks' is not; 'gay people' is acceptable, 'gays' is not; 'trans* people' is acceptable etc.

As for the information I gave you earlier, here's some. And your assertion that LGBT groups are putting just as much pressure on heterosexuals as the bigots are putting on LGBT people would be laughable if the reality weren't so cruel.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Steroid » Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:10 pm UTC

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/straight?s=t It's informal, but it's there. I'm not a straight person. I'm a straight. You insult me when you don't call me by my preferred term. :roll:

As to the other, it says right there that FRC is not trying to criminalize homosexual behavior, though some people disagree. In any case, if advocating a position is pressure, then LBGT groups are advocating positions against FRC by calling them a hate group. Thankfully, their speech is still a protected right in the USA, but not everywhere.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby yurell » Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:34 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/straight?s=t It's informal, but it's there. I'm not a straight person. I'm a straight. You insult me when you don't call me by my preferred term. :roll:


Oh, so the complaint about it being a noun, and then complaining when it's not treated as a noun was just trolling then?

The rest of your statement was just false dichotomy & blatant lies.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:42 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Again, mirror it. You and LBGT organizations are trying to change the religious and political beliefs of consenting adults, and are putting just as much pressure on them as they are on homosexuals.


Steroid, this is such unrelenting bullshit; fighting for equal rights is not the same as 'trying to beat the straight out'. This ties so nicely into the 'waaa waaa, my political/religious beliefs are being oppressed because I'm not free to force them on others' litany that you started this thread with.

Because, you know, freeing the slaves was TOTALLY oppressing Southeners freedoms by forcing anti-Slavery rhetoric on them.

You're being intolerant of my intolerance! Fuck. I can't believe someone still tries this horseshit.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby netcrusher88 » Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:37 pm UTC

Jonesthe Spy wrote:I think one can distinguish between them and the KKK because the KKK actually engage in acts of violence and terrorism

Not recently, unless I'm mistaken. And as far as I know Stormfront never has. As a group. The only things distinguishing the FRC from neo-Nazis and Klansmen (as Milbank put it) these days is who they target, and the fact that instead of just (mostly) raging in impotent hatred they can actually affect de jure oppression.
Izawwlgood wrote:Because, you know, freeing the slaves was TOTALLY oppressing Southeners freedoms by forcing anti-Slavery rhetoric on them.
If memory serves, his post history would show Steroid actually explicitly agrees with this assertion.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:00 pm UTC

The notion that ones beliefs can supersede another individuals liberties is exactly the mental gymnastics required of people like Steroid to be total douchefucks.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

engr
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:08 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby engr » Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:37 pm UTC

Роберт wrote: Even if you do think FRC is a hate group, shooting the security guard there is unnacceptable. AND pretty much every LBGT organization has said that! Not sure I've heard the "traditional values" people condemn anti-gay violence nearly as unanimously.


"One of our members tried to kill our opponents, but we are nevertheless condemning what he did, even though we have no sympathy for them! Look how awesome and morally superior to these other guys to we are!"
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby sardia » Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:13 pm UTC

ITs hard to be morally superior when you're dead. Excuse the typos, on the phone.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Garm » Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:30 pm UTC

engr wrote:
Роберт wrote: Even if you do think FRC is a hate group, shooting the security guard there is unnacceptable. AND pretty much every LBGT organization has said that! Not sure I've heard the "traditional values" people condemn anti-gay violence nearly as unanimously.


"One of our members tried to kill our opponents, but we are nevertheless condemning what he did, even though we have no sympathy for them! Look how awesome and morally superior to these other guys to we are!"


I think you're missing the point. The reason that many people in this thread don't feel sympathy for FRC is that they're pushing a hateful agenda which invites violence. I guess it says something about gays or liberals or just people who hate FRC in general, that something like this hasn't happened sooner. On the other hand, people feel a great deal of sympathy for the victims of shooting at the Sikh temple because that was perpetrated by someone from a hate group.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Mad Mike
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:18 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Mad Mike » Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:29 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:
Mad Mike wrote:This is one of those weird cases where, while the shooting is terrible, I have little sympathy for the victim. :roll:


That's pretty cold. I'm no fan of the jackasses in the board room, but they deserve peace and harmony as much as LGBT folk. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

And, holy crap, the office building security guard who doesn't get the salary or benefits of a cop but has to take a bullet because some lunatic thinks that's taking a stand against jackasses? And then that guy stops the lunatic anyways? Well sir, I've got more than enough sympathy for both of us, and a good helping of respect on top of that.

Probably should've read into the article a little closer. I didn't catch that the security guard got shot. :oops:

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:34 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:They're trying to "cure" gays. If that is sufficient to be a hate group, then so is wanting to convert Christians, or wanting them to abandon their social and political views.
Is there, to you, a difference between "everyone must do things my way" and "everyone must stop preventing others from doing things their way"?

No one is arguing that Christians must abandon their personal identities and change their own way of life. No one is trying to prevent them from brazenly displaying their Christian affiliation in public, or prevent them from getting married, or prevent them from professing belief in Jesus and his divinity, or prevent them from living their own lives as Christians
Mirror it. There ARE Christians (not all of them, but there is a large and vocal population of bigots using Christianity as justification for their bigotry) trying to prevent gays from brazenly displaying their sexuality in public, or prevent them from getting married, or prevent them from professing belief in the validity of homosexuality, or prevent them from living their own lives as homosexuals.

One group demands that everyone abide by a specific ruleset. Another group demands that everyone abide by a rule allowing everyone to determine their own ruleset. There is a MASSIVE difference.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Steroid » Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:48 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
Steroid wrote:They're trying to "cure" gays. If that is sufficient to be a hate group, then so is wanting to convert Christians, or wanting them to abandon their social and political views.
Is there, to you, a difference between "everyone must do things my way" and "everyone must stop preventing others from doing things their way"?

No one is arguing that Christians must abandon their personal identities and change their own way of life. No one is trying to prevent them from brazenly displaying their Christian affiliation in public, or prevent them from getting married, or prevent them from professing belief in Jesus and his divinity, or prevent them from living their own lives as Christians
Mirror it. There ARE Christians (not all of them, but there is a large and vocal population of bigots using Christianity as justification for their bigotry) trying to prevent gays from brazenly displaying their sexuality in public, or prevent them from getting married, or prevent them from professing belief in the validity of homosexuality, or prevent them from living their own lives as homosexuals.

One group demands that everyone abide by a specific ruleset. Another group demands that everyone abide by a rule allowing everyone to determine their own ruleset. There is a MASSIVE difference.

I think you're overestimating what the FRC is doing and underestimating what the general aims of LBGT lobbying groups are doing.

For the first part, what has the FRC specifically done--not said, preached, or argued,but done--to prevent homosexuals (you used "gays" as a noun! Don't let yurell know!) from brazenly displaying their sexuality, preventing them from getting married*, etc? If the standard is based in the actions taken, then neither side of the debate is doing much of anything.

For the second, and here I have no specific organization to call out, but of the general homosexual movement, what is the endgame in the social sphere? Is the movement saying in effect, "We want legal rights A, B, and C, and we still want Christian communities around keeping homosexuals in the closet"? As I read it, they are not. They're trying to effect social change. They're trying to convince people to accept them as a different but non-inferior subculture. If the standard is based in what each side wants, and would do theoretically, then both sides are anathema to the other.

What you can't do, but are, is apply the strict standard to Christians and the loose standard to homosexuals and their supporters.



*Keeping in mind that the legal aspects and the social aspects of marriage are separate. I'm only asking about the social aspects.
yurell wrote:
Steroid wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/straight?s=t It's informal, but it's there. I'm not a straight person. I'm a straight. You insult me when you don't call me by my preferred term. :roll:


Oh, so the complaint about it being a noun, and then complaining when it's not treated as a noun was just trolling then?


I'm confused. You brought up the proper-definition concept. I thought that gay could be used as a noun, you said it couldn't, I looked it up, you were right. You said that straight couldn't be used as a noun, I looked it up, I was right. Since, if I use gay as a noun, I'm not being PC, I will stop. But in recompense, I want to be referred to by the noun straight, not the adjective-noun "straight person."

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Belial » Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:00 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:For the second, and here I have no specific organization to call out, but of the general homosexual movement, what is the endgame in the social sphere? Is the movement saying in effect, "We want legal rights A, B, and C, and we still want Christian communities around keeping homosexuals in the closet"? As I read it, they are not. They're trying to effect social change. They're trying to convince people to accept them as a different but non-inferior subculture. If the standard is based in what each side wants, and would do theoretically, then both sides are anathema to the other.


But no one is seriously calling for christians to be stigmatized or oppressed. Which means it's not the symmetrical struggle that you're trying to paint, it's not two groups trying to oppress each other, it's one group saying "we want to be treated equally" and another group saying "well we don't want to treat you equally so nyeah".

Though the right wing is awfully good at pretending the latter is the former. Intolerant of my intolerance indeed. Bear in mind though that when you start delivering "We're not so different, you and I" speeches, especially ones based on thin false equivalencies, that you've basically admitted you're the villain of the piece. And a particularly scenery-chewing, mustache-twirling one at that.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:23 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:For the first part, what has the FRC specifically done--not said, preached, or argued,but done--to prevent homosexuals (you used "gays" as a noun! Don't let yurell know!) from brazenly displaying their sexuality, preventing them from getting married*, etc? If the standard is based in the actions taken, then neither side of the debate is doing much of anything.
I'm not referring above to anything specifically done by the FRC. I am referring to the subset of the population that both hates gays and thinks Christianity is a sufficient justification for that hatred.

Steroid wrote:They're trying to convince people to accept them as a different but non-inferior subculture.
...Yes? Exactly?
I'm not seeing how this is equivalent to trying to convince people that a particular sub-culture is inferior; so inferior that we must deny them the rights necessary to live their own lives as they see fit.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Steroid » Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:35 pm UTC

Belial wrote:But no one is seriously calling for christians to be stigmatized or oppressed. Which means it's not the symmetrical struggle that you're trying to paint, it's not two groups trying to oppress each other, it's one group saying "we want to be treated equally" and another group saying "well we don't want to treat you equally so nyeah".

You can keep repeating this, but it doesn't make it any truer. Vague terms confuse the issue. What you call stigmatizing and oppressing is different for each group. Christians are being called upon to surrender their values in place of multicultural ones that treat anti-Christian concepts as equal. They consider that oppression. It strikes me as rather egotistical to assume that the other side's opposition is done purely out of spite for you, while your opposition to them is done purely out of self-interest and honor.

Though the right wing is awfully good at pretending the latter is the former. Intolerant of my intolerance indeed. Bear in mind though that when you start delivering "We're not so different, you and I" speeches, especially ones based on thin false equivalencies, that you've basically admitted you're the villain of the piece. And a particularly scenery-chewing, mustache-twirling one at that.

Except that real life doesn't fall nicely into dramatic structure. A story about a villain is interesting; a story about two opposing sides that both have legitimate arguments is harder to write and less likely to be enjoyed.

Princess Marzipan wrote:I'm not referring above to anything specifically done by the FRC. I am referring to the subset of the population that both hates gays and thinks Christianity is a sufficient justification for that hatred.

Then I should be able to limit my arguments to the subset of the population that hates Christians and thinks that homosexuality is a sufficient justification, like the shooter in this case.

...Yes? Exactly?
I'm not seeing how this is equivalent to trying to convince people that a particular sub-culture is inferior; so inferior that we must deny them the rights necessary to live their own lives as they see fit.

They're both arguments. They're both ideas about how to live life as you see fit. If equality of culture is what you're advocating, then why is the cultures of "all cultures are of equal values" superior to "some cultures are better than others"?

Also, what are the specific rights being denied to homosexuals that make their lives impossible?

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby yurell » Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:38 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Then I should be able to limit my arguments to the subset of the population that hates Christians and thinks that homosexuality is a sufficient justification, like the shooter in this case.


Way to completely misrepresent the motive of the shooter. Or do you really see the world in such two-dimensional, black-and-white terms?
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Steroid » Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:53 pm UTC

We can't know the motivations of the shooter, unless he tells us, but is it not at least possible that it was anti-Christian bigotry brought on by wanting an oppressive homosexual regime to reign? Or is the idea of anyone not of the right wing having an impure thought a physical impossibility in your view?

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:13 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:We can't know the motivations of the shooter, unless he tells us, but is it not at least possible that it was anti-Christian bigotry brought on by wanting an oppressive homosexual regime to reign? Or is the idea of anyone not of the right wing having an impure thought a physical impossibility in your view?

Why ought we not assume he's working for the lizard people, since that makes as much sense?
The left wing, i suppose we should call it, would probably think that this was a bridge too far to be called an 'impure thought' because the guy Shot Someone. Maybe you file that under 'impure thoughts' but hey, maybe that's why you're on the right.
There is nobody calling for an opressive homosexual regime, but there is a call out for Christians to stop being such dicks all the fucking time just because they 'love jesus'.
Show me the oppresive homosexual regime please, or from whence it will come.
I would like to subscrible to their newsletter.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby yurell » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:23 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:We can't know the motivations of the shooter, unless he tells us, but is it not at least possible that it was anti-Christian bigotry brought on by wanting an oppressive homosexual regime to reign? Or is the idea of anyone not of the right wing having an impure thought a physical impossibility in your view?


Oh, right, he was an anti-Christian bigot: that's why he blew up a cathedral. No, sorry, shot up a church, and said "I hate your religion". No, I screwed that up again: it's why he went and attacked an organisation that was saying he should be deported from the country, that wanted to remove all his right as a person, and why he said "I don't like your politics." Yup, that sounds like insane anti-Christian bigotry right there, and he clearly wants to establish a homosexual autocracy. It's the only rational conclusion!
Last edited by yurell on Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:25 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:25 pm UTC

I've bolded some words that you don't understand. It's okay, they've got lots of syllables; I can understand how someone would forget what they actually mean.
Steroid wrote:Christians are being called upon to surrender their values in place of multicultural ones that treat anti-Christian concepts as equal. They consider that oppression.

You keep using that word, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. When a group is the majority, and is preventing a minority group from having the same rights as them, and the minority group asks for equal rights, the majority (Christians) aren't being OPPRESSED, they're being told to stop oppressing.
Steroid wrote:a story about two opposing sides that both have legitimate arguments is harder to write and less likely to be enjoyed.

A legitimate argument for Christians here is 'don't force me to marry a gay person'. The homosexual agenda here isn't trying to do this.
Steroid wrote:They're both ideas about how to live life as you see fit. If equality of culture is what you're advocating, then why is the cultures of "all cultures are of equal values" superior to "some cultures are better than others"?

Because the majority culture, Christianity in this case, is making an effort to make the minority culture, freedom to be non-Christian, LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
AJR
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:53 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby AJR » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:26 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:
...Yes? Exactly?
I'm not seeing how this is equivalent to trying to convince people that a particular sub-culture is inferior; so inferior that we must deny them the rights necessary to live their own lives as they see fit.

They're both arguments. They're both ideas about how to live life as you see fit. If equality of culture is what you're advocating, then why is the cultures of "all cultures are of equal values" superior to "some cultures are better than others"?

It's a "your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose" thing. Do you not see the difference between "I'll live how I want and you can live how you want" and "I'll live how I want and you can live how I want"? Anti-gay Christians (which, BTW, is not all Christians) are trying to force their moral code onto other people.
Also, what are the specific rights being denied to homosexuals that make their lives impossible?

Legally-recognised marriages, and everything that comes with that, for one.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:27 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:
Belial wrote:But no one is seriously calling for christians to be stigmatized or oppressed. Which means it's not the symmetrical struggle that you're trying to paint, it's not two groups trying to oppress each other, it's one group saying "we want to be treated equally" and another group saying "well we don't want to treat you equally so nyeah".

You can keep repeating this, but it doesn't make it any truer. Vague terms confuse the issue. What you call stigmatizing and oppressing is different for each group. Christians are being called upon to surrender their values in place of multicultural ones that treat anti-Christian concepts as equal. They consider that oppression. It strikes me as rather egotistical to assume that the other side's opposition is done purely out of spite for you, while your opposition to them is done purely out of self-interest and honor.
You are missing the point. Despising homosexuality is actually not inherently Christian.
Moreover, "Christian opposition" (it is Christian-flavored, but not inherently Christian) to gay rights and acceptance is an attempt to dictate the personal affairs and interactions with others. Homosexual opposition to...opposition against homosexuals...is an attempt to be allowed to dictate their own personal affairs and interactions with others.

Steroid wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:I'm not referring above to anything specifically done by the FRC. I am referring to the subset of the population that both hates gays and thinks Christianity is a sufficient justification for that hatred.

Then I should be able to limit my arguments to the subset of the population that hates Christians and thinks that homosexuality is a sufficient justification, like the shooter in this case.
Okay, sure, let's do that. Let's talk specifically about the subset of the homosexual population that hates Christians, seeks to pass legislation based on their own personal feelings about Christians, and talks about how evil and immoral it is to be a Christian, justifying all of these actions and beliefs by referring erroneously to a two thousand year old text about how to be gay.
Of course, we'll then be talking about a very, very, very, very, very, very tiny subset of the homosexual population, which is itself a fairly tiny subset of the population as a whole (contrasted with Christians, who, in America at least, constitute a majority (an oppressive majority if Christianity is being used, y'know, to oppress)).

Steroid wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:...Yes? Exactly?
I'm not seeing how this is equivalent to trying to convince people that a particular sub-culture is inferior; so inferior that we must deny them the rights necessary to live their own lives as they see fit.
They're both arguments. They're both ideas about how to live life as you see fit. If equality of culture is what you're advocating, then why is the cultures of "all cultures are of equal values" superior to "some cultures are better than others"?
No, they are not "both ideas about how to live life as you see fit" when one set of those ideas is used to decree another set invalid.
Telling you you're not free to tell me how to live my life is *not* in any way equivalent to telling you how to live your life.
The gay-hating-Christian culture is trying to force the homosexual culture to live by gay-hating-Christian rules. The homosexual culture is not trying to force gay-hating-Christians to live by homosexual rules.

Steroid wrote:Also, what are the specific rights being denied to homosexuals that make their lives impossible?
Marriage equality, for one large extremely glaring example that I cannot imagine you are honestly unaware of. You don't see gays running around saying how evil it is to go to church , but you see plenty of gay-hating-Christians running around saying how evil it is to do sexy sex with someone of the same sex.

Edit: fixed a quote tag and some badly mangled wording
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Belial » Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:26 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:They're both arguments. They're both ideas about how to live life as you see fit. If equality of culture is what you're advocating, then why is the cultures of "all cultures are of equal values" superior to "some cultures are better than others"?


If you insist on the idea that "stop oppressing me" is exactly as oppressive as "I'd like to oppress you", then you realize what the end point is, right?

If not: you're insisting on a worldview in which the two viewpoints literally cannot coexist. You're advocating the idea that a belief in equality and fairness and noninterference cannot peacefully exist beside these christian ideals.

So if you successfully convince the world of that...then what? What's your goal here, to convince us that we *do* need to eradicate people like you before you eradicate us? You might want to think that one through. Because what you're saying here is that the shooter is actually two steps further down the correct path than the rest of us.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Steroid » Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:37 pm UTC

yurell wrote:Oh, right, he was an anti-Christian bigot: that's why he blew up a cathedral. No, sorry, shot up a church, and said "I hate your religion". No, I screwed that up again: it's why he went and attacked an organisation that was saying he should be deported from the country, that wanted to remove all his right as a person, and why he said "I don't like your politics." Yup, that sounds like insane anti-Christian bigotry right there, and he clearly wants to establish a homosexual autocracy. It's the only rational conclusion!

Thank you for interpreting my question of "Is it possible?" as "Is is the only rational conclusion?" My point is that you're willing to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt, but not the FRC. They say that they're not against the people, only the practice. Why do you refuse to take them at face value?

Izawwlgood wrote:Because the majority culture, Christianity in this case, is making an effort to make the minority culture, freedom to be non-Christian, LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

No, they're not. The one legal issue that's being discussed is legal partnership. The Christian beef with that is A) that it's being enacted through judicial fiat instead of representative legislature, and B) that the social trappings of marriage are being dragged along with it. B is not a legal argument. It's a social one. As of yet, that's the only legal complaint I've heard here.

So let's talk about the social sphere. This also relates to AJR's post that anti-gay Christians are trying to force a moral code onto others, and the Princess's post about the hating subsets of both populations.

Christianity, and the anti-gay part of it, didn't become the majority through illicit means. They became so by a long, steady build of influence, power, and results. Christianity has been working for over two millenniums, and heternormativity for even longer. They've developed their influence by convincing people to ascribe to their values. You don't get to cancel all of that out just because you have a disagreement. The homosexual culture in particular, and the multicultural view in general, both have a long way to go before they reach the status that Christianity already has. And this is the heart of our difference. To you, power is the source of oppression. To me, it's evidence of past success. If working hard to advance your culture doesn't gain you anything, then what's the point?

Imagine if it had gone the other way. If the homosexual movement were the majority and had done all the work to get there, and the Christian sect jumped into existence a century ago and started to preach heteronormativity and sexual self-discipline, would they be right to whine about not having equal social standing? Again, take the legality part of it out. In the social arena, anything goes.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests