Important notice: Understanding attacks on homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

I wouldn't call it banished as much as "sent home". The discussion as it relates to WP rules had reached it's end so I could have either closed it down or sent it here to continue the new tack the discussion had taken.

Lee - I won't discuss moderator decisions or how they are made.

I think everyone here understands mod decisions are "final", as such, and that is how things must be in a setting such as this where it would be completely unreasonable for volunteer mods to be expected to offer pages of dissertation related to calls made.


Unless I have personally missed something completely, that is a ridiculous statement!


Again: We all understand mod decisions are final, and for the record: I have no personal issue with that.



**insert editorial comment**

Aha! There it is folks! Somebody somewhere must have either been or become somehow uncomfortable with whatever challenge had seemed to appear while some of us were here merely discussing our human interactions variously affected by at least potentially-conflicting and personal-or-corporate "opinion, belief or philosophy" related to homosexuality and/or homosexual behaviour ... and it now appears skafather84 is correct and we are all left wondering -- and I am actually suggesting -- there was but a political, philosophical or religious agenda or motive behind a mod decision ...

... but that is okay with this writer. At least nothing has been censored.

**end of editorial comment**


I definitely understand that, but nothing of the sort had even been requested. Rather, myself and others here are but asking some simple questions:

Was that a personal call of your own or a unanimous decision made by all mods, and what guidelines or other considerations were part of that?

But of course, I do well know all mods are volunteers and that we others out here should not make unreasonable demands.
==========================

Edit: We members should really make no demands at all, and neither should we expect mods to ever have to defend themselves.

Mods make calls/decisions and act upon them ... and that is the end of that!

Last edited by leejosepho on 23 Feb 2011, 12:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I'm not going to engage you in this argument Lee. I understand that you are stinging a bit right now but the last thing I will allow is a public row between the mods and ex-mods. You have seen how valuable other ex-mods can be to the community by maintaining a working relationship with them. It is your choice which way you want to go with this.

There is no argument here.


Not a bit! I am feeling so much better this morning than yesterday that I should probably be sending flowers somewhere!


There is no such thing here, yet I can easily believe that kind of spin ... ah, oh well.


I hope you might yet to come to see the actual value of what I am quite wittingly and considerately doing here!

Leejosepho, the decision to move the thread is backed up by the rules and there's consensus over that, please leave the discussion go back to the subject, it's an interesting one.

We all thank you ... or at least I do!

So then, here is where we were ...

... and here again is the essence of my own contention:

One's repeating of something/anything merely quoted from Scripture is *not* an "attack on homosexuality".

However, 1984 has arrived and the thought police and other such "special forces" or whatever are now insisting everyone begin viewing anything from Scripture being found objectionable by anyone (or by any group of people, actually) as worthy of eradication from all of today's global pluralistic society.

Beliefs can and should be challenged. The problem is with generalizations, and assumptions drawn from knowing someone associates with a particular belief system.

I have seen videos in PPR openly mocking Christianity as a whole but after much debate and discussion had to leave them be. But they were hurtful to me. Yet, that is OK? You all in this thread want to draw a distinction that says you are free to hurt the feelings of someone of faith, but they are not free to hurt the feelings of someone with a different sexual orientation, because the later is somehow more "special" than the former. What I'm saying is that isn't a good way to draw the line. No one should be huring anyone's feelings, and I really resent any argument that attempts to color having faith as fair game. Particulars of faith are fair game, debate them all you want in PPR, but so are certain particulars of sexual orientation (the right to adopt, the right to marry, what is the level of choice).

I would not allow someone to say homosexuality is an abomination. It's a broad sweep against an entire group of people, and we don't do that here.

You have to understand that this forum is already seen as highly unfriendly to people of faith. I know members that have left over it. While I would never suggest that their needs be placed higher than someone else's, or to have them able to speak freely on beliefs that may harm others,
you have to understand that the forum tone already puts their needs and level of respect miles below that of someone who happens to be gay.

Most of the parents who come here are people of faith. We can do a lot for those parents with their kids. But not if this is a place that is hostile to faith. They'll just run away.

The problem with the first sentence in your conversation is that it makes the statement as a statement of fact. But, in fact, it is a statement of belief coming from a specific source that is also subject to debate and belief. A simple change of words makes allows it to invite debate and, thus, makes it less offensive (in my opinion, Dorris and Alswearagon can let me know if they agree):

"I believe that the Bible says that homosexual activity is an abomination. As a result, I believe that the action displeases God."

The statements are now personal to you, expressed as personal beliefs, and allow room for someone to believe something different, without implying that your belief system is so superior it's fact.

A lot of the time the hurt comes from making a statement with such certainty that the person you are talking to can only conclude you think horrible things about them. You haven't left any room for error, disagreement, or debate. You've totally dismissed the idea you could be wrong and they could be right. I wouldn't want to engage with someone who would say, "Christians are closed minded and mentally disallusioned," so why would someone who was born gay want to engage with someone who says "homosexual activity is an abomination"? It's hurtful and unecessary.

The right-or-wrong indoctrination of my upbringing still causes an initial *mental* reaction there, but I say nothing at all about that while simply offering this:


To whom was that third excerpt even written?

Christians need to stop preaching to the wrong choir.

Agreed. In the early stages of what led to this discussion, I was called a bigot for merely suggesting that I took my Church's position on the issue of homosexuality. Nothing was done about that - of course, neither did I report it - and I didn't really involve myself much further in the discussion. Another member did; and the discussion progressed to provocation/unwise retort; to harrassment; to harrassment and stalking by members recruited and signed up for the purpose; to off-forum impersonation and defamation of that member, to blackmail publically mediated through WrongPlanet. No one responsible for any of that has been banned, simply told to keep it to private messages.

And yet this is an autism/Asperger's support site. True, there is an LGBT subforum. I haven't set foot in there, nor will I - to me, that's a simple matter of respect. PPR is a different question; should a thread on the subject begin here, I would hope that either side can have a say according to their own understanding of the matter and not beholden to what the other side thinks they must be saying. Give us the respect of thinking us honest in what we say; give us, since we have no subforum of our own, some space in which to voice our opinions.

Were you possibly "positioned" in front of the wrong choir at that particular time?

Christendom is dead.

It is time to disengage from this world and to simply meet individuals at the respective points of need ... if and/or when they ask.

Or possibly I am giving a loose restatement of an offhand comment made weeks ago and not revisited. Obviously it was to the "wrong choir", i.e. someone who disagreed.

Sure, and I hope no critical or scolding tone came in there.

If Christians would just stop trying to change the world, at least some of the world would then stop trying to change them -- persecution exists without being dependent upon self-infliction -- and then we can/could all, Christian or not, just let God sort things out in the end like He is going to do anyway.

I was once hauled before the dean on the basis of it matters not here what accusation.

I was sent back to class with a warning.

A VERY important principal of justice in the domain of Big Brother's Anointed:

If somebody on the Schedule FEELS harassed,

SOMEBODY is harassing and MUST be identified.

Since I am pretty sure that is not something I had done ... I sure hope ...

Yep. That is how things are in this world.

So then, I cheesily ask, what shall be done about that?