Tim Thomas Stands with Chick-Fil-A (i.e. against gay marriage)

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I realize this is late, but I would be remiss to neglect this:


It.....can....???

This, I have to see: Do tell, please explain to us the fruits of "German rationalism" in the iron-age myths of Genesis.


The only hostility I might harbour is towards your particular brand of the Christian faith, and your representation of the faith. How can you make charges against my church without knowing what church it is that I keep membership?

Again, I think the real issue here is probably the (likely) dramatically different perceptions that you and I have of the Gospel—what it is, how it works, and what it means in today's modern society. Of course, because I am likely to reject your own very narrow interpretation of the Gospel, then it is no surprise that you would consider me "apostate". This is yet another famous fundamentalist canard: to provide only the narrowest of definitions of terms and ideas; to erect only the most rigid and inflexible boundaries; and then to insist that everyone on the outside of the ghetto you have formed is "apostate".


You keep throwing the label around, but have yet to provide any clear indication that you know what it means. The label is practically meaningless to me—as it is to practically every other modern biblical scholar. I will invite you once again: If you have any specific criticisms of various components of my position and thinking on this issue, then state them.


Absolutely and unequivocally incorrect. You have not the faintest idea about how I read, consider and apply Scripture, but have blindly presumed behind your derogatory branding of my position in accordance with "German rationalism" that my hermeneutic and methodology is somehow less "inspired" or "orthodox" than your own.

Quite to the contrary, when I approach Scripture, I tend to ask, first: "What did this mean"? Only upon arriving at a close approximation of the author's intent do I feel competent enough to proceed with exploring the text's developing function. Arriving at what a text meant for the author requires very thoughtful deliberation about his identity, his circumstances, his influences, and his own apparent goals. It is a difficult taks and one that no biblical scholar takes lightly, but this is absolutely fundamental for a starting point in any serious biblical study.

Second, I ask: "How did this text develop"? There is that word again, as "meaning" in Scripture was not some arbitrary one-time event, but in the case of most of these texts, there is a well worn history of interpretation that usually takes some surprising turns as far mor religious people than you or I from centuries past grappled with their own sacred texts. This is what I consider my heritage—it is the interpretive journey of my predecessors that informs my own place in the text, and how the text works in my world.

Third, I ask: "Why is this text important"? While I believe that the Bible contains the whole counsel of God, surely there are some parts that bear special consideration, while others are historically, culturally, and morally obsolete. It is precisely why any modern Christian will gravitate towards the apologetic artistry of the Epistle of Hebrews before sifting through the minutia of Leviticus.

Finally, I ask: "After all of this, how does this passage expand my understanding of God and his Kingdom?" The "word of God" is not some spoken or written word—it is a mindset; a worldview; a manifesto. Of course, not all texts reflect God's word evenly—some are inordinately flummoxed by an excess of cultural, religious, or political baggage. This is where biblical study is difficult, and it is at this point that I proceed with trepidation and some uncertainty.

THAT is how it is done.


No! I approach the Scriptures as someone who is REALLY interested in how they can possibly be meaningful and relevant in a day and age that has expanded and changed so far beyond the time for which these texts were produced. If the Bible were "just another book" then I might approach it as you do and merely flatly demand from it some sort of arbitrary meaning. But it is NOT just another book—it is a very ancient and complicated collection of numerous books that will not simply conform to some benign impression of what you think it might mean.

More later...

Imagine a biblical scholar looking at the Bible as "just another book". Would kind of defeat any interest you had in what you did. What a ludicrous statement really.

"I understand it, and despite the fact that you devoted you career to it, my understanding of it is the only right one"

[TorqueDog]

Textcritic and I have not seen eye to eye in the past, but he's rockin' in this thread.

[Lobotroth]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No! I approach the Scriptures as someone who is REALLY interested in how they can possibly be meaningful and relevant in a day and age that has expanded and changed so far beyond the time for which these texts were produced. If the Bible were "just another book" then I might approach it as you do and merely flatly demand from it some sort of arbitrary meaning. But it is NOT just another book—it is a very ancient and complicated collection of numerous books that will not simply conform to some benign impression of what you think it might mean.

I applaud you for this approach, had my days in Catholic school been centered more around this kind of mindset I think I may have taken more of an interest.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by nik-

And what's the Chik-Fil-A's stance? We don't support your rights, but we'll take your money because capitalism trumps our bigotry. Honourable.

First of all, anybody who has to resort to name-calling isn't debating in a rational, adult manner. Second of all, this issue is not a right, it's a demand. Unless you can show that sexual proclivities guarantee a litany of new rights under the U.S. Constitution, then you might have a point.

It's just reflective of how the gay movement has shifted its emphasis. Most of the obnoxious young punks screaming "bigot!" only joined this forum after 2010. It's safe to say that they weren't even born during the earlier days when Queer Nation and Act Up called the shots.

Their agenda was so radical that they even ran contrary to the Act Up founder! When AIDS first hit, Larry Kramer, reasonably suggested shutting down the bathhouses. Nope, they weren't goint to stand for it. Then, they demanded (and got!) a "right" that nobody had. Patients with AIDS did not have to be quarantined, in the way that tuberculosis patients did. They also had privacy rights that nobody else with certain afflications had in terms of reporting to health departments. That wasn't the end of it. When they learned about AZT, which was an abandoned cancer treatment drug, they thought that it was the new magic elixir. Of course, this drug was toxic as hell, but they even expected it to be federally funded, as if it'd be some cure-all to take after infection.

The religious aspects don't interest me much, but there was also a well-known example of one of those pressure groups staging a sit-in at St. Paul Cathedral in NYC. Seems to me that it was the members of the parish were the ones whose rights were being violated, by the demonstraters interfering with the rights of others to assemble and practice their religion.

We could go on about other examples, but the media and Hollywood strategy has always been to portray gays as innocent victims and anybody who is not completely adoring of them as a "intolerant" or worse.

Before closing, let me share a personal story. Many years ago, a local restaurant hosted a summer picnic at a state park. It was a great event, attended by quite a few friends. The owner of the restaurant also owned other properties. So, his employees were in attendance, including one of the maintenance crew, Tony. My friend, Matt, and I were talking with him and we were even making plans to socialize. Matt wanted a pack of cigarettes. So Tony offered a ride to the convience store, which was only 3 miles away. A LOT of time elapsed. It was getting close to dark and guests were starting to leave the picnic. The bikes weren't locked. So, naturally, we were getting worried. I got both the bikes home and told the others that Matt hadn't returned yet.

Much later, Matt walked home. Turns out that Tony drove them to a secluded area. He put his hand on Matt's lap. Matt said that he wasn't like that, but Tony kept at it. Matt got out of the car. Tony drove back to the park, but sped off after he saw Matt telling some others what had happened. Believe me, a serious beatdown would've ABSOLUTELY been deserved. Of course, you won't read these types of stories in the paper or see a movie with that type of scene. Something tells me that these incidents are not isolated or uncommon either. Anybody could've accepted that this guy was gay, but he pretended otherwise and couldn't accept "no" as answer.

So, forgive me for indifferent to their supposed "rights." Honestly, if this scumbag had found himself a permanent butt buddy, and had their little ceremony it makes no difference to me. I'm just sick of constantly being bombarded with the issues, their victim mentality and their never-ending list of grievances. For those of you in this thread, who are gay. That's fine. Go ahead and be gay. Just don't expect sympathy because your dad didn't accept it or you got made fun of in school.

[SeeBass]

^^ you were doing ok at the start and then...

[nik-]

What does all that have to do with what you quoted from me? Chick-fil-a is no longer wrong because some gay dude harassed your friend one time?

[Flash Walken]

And boom goes the dynamite.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by nik-

What does all that have to do with what you quoted from me? Chick-fil-a is no longer wrong because some gay dude harassed your friend one time?

I knew this guy who kept hitting on my sister even after she said no.

all straight white men are the same

[MrMastodonFarm]

Oh my Lord.

[Lobotroth]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

My friend, Matt, and I were talking with him and we were even making plans to socialize.

Sounds like you and Matt led Tony on.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

First of all, anybody who has to resort to name-calling isn't debating in a rational, adult manner. Second of all, this issue is not a right, it's a demand. Unless you can show that sexual proclivities guarantee a litany of new rights under the U.S. Constitution, then you might have a point.

It's just reflective of how the gay movement has shifted its emphasis. Most of the obnoxious young punks screaming "bigot!" only joined this forum after 2010. It's safe to say that they weren't even born during the earlier days when Queer Nation and Act Up called the shots.

Their agenda was so radical that they even ran contrary to the Act Up founder! When AIDS first hit, Larry Kramer, reasonably suggested shutting down the bathhouses. Nope, they weren't goint to stand for it. Then, they demanded (and got!) a "right" that nobody had. Patients with AIDS did not have to be quarantined, in that that tuberculosis patients did. They also had privacy rights that nobody else with certain afflications had in terms of reporting to health departments. That wasn't the end of it. When they learned about AZT, which was an abandoned cancer treatment drug, they thought that it was the new magic elixir. Of course, this drug was toxic as hell, but they even expected it to be federally funded, as if it'd be some cure-all to take after infection.

The religious aspects don't interest me much, but there was also a well-known example of one of those pressure groups staging a sit-in at St. Paul Cathedral in NYC. Seems to me that it was the members of the parish were the ones whose rights were being violated, by the demonstraters interfering with the rights of others to assemble and practice their religion.

We could go on about other examples, but the media and Hollywood strategy has always been to portray gays as innocent victims and anybody who is not completely adoring of them as a "intolerant" or worse.

Before closing, let me share a personal story. Many years ago, a local restaurant hosted a summer picnic at a state park. It was a great event, attended by quite a few friends. The owner of the restaurant also owned other properties. So, his employees were in attendance, including one of the maintenance crew, Tony. My friend, Matt, and I were talking with him and we were even making plans to socialize. Matt wanted a pack of cigarettes. So Tony offered a ride to the convience store, which was only 3 miles away. A LOT of time elapsed. It was getting close to dark and guests were starting to leave the picnic. The bikes weren't locked. So, naturally, we were getting worried. I got both the bikes home and told the others that Matt hadn't returned yet.

Much later, Matt walked home. Turns out that Tony drove them to a secluded area. He put his hand on Matt's lap. Matt said that he wasn't like that, but Tony kept at it. Matt got out of the car. Tony drove back to the park, but sped off after he saw Matt telling some others what had happened. Believe me, a serious beatdown would've ABSOLUTELY been deserved. Of course, you won't read these types of stories in the paper or see a movie with that type of scene. Something tells me that these incidents are not isolated or uncommon either. Anybody could've accepted that this guy was gay, but he pretended otherwise and couldn't accept "no" as answer.

So, forgive me for indifferent to their supposed "rights." Honestly, if this scumbag had found himself a permanent butt buddy, and had their little ceremony it makes no difference to me. I'm just sick of constantly being bombarded with the issues, their victim mentality and their never-ending list of grievances. For those of you in this thread, who are gay. That's fine. Go ahead and be gay. Just don't expect sympathy because your dad didn't accept it or you got made fun of in school.

1. I don't believe he was name calling.

2. It most certainly is about rights. Human rights. The same rights everyone else gets. They are only asking for rights other people already enjoy. Like Women's rights and Civil rights movements before, it is about a group of people segregated with less rights. The fact that you say, 'their rights' just proves you don't look at them as fully human or fully equal. It's been simplified and called 'gay rights' for ease of knowing what topic people speak of. But it's not about special or different rights for gays, it's about equality.

3. Lastly, your story has nothing to do with the debate. It could be an harassment thing, for sure, but the same things happen whether one is gay or straight, male or female.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Is anyone else like me, in that they want to respond to Calgaryborn's homophobic, bigoted posts, but since textcritic is involved in the thread, you just wait for him to come along and do it better?

[puckluck2]

A gay guy harassed your friend? I'd bet everything I own that 99.9% of harassment happens between straight people.

Gay people shouldn't have rights because your straight buddy had his lap touched by a gay dude? this thread just got a whole lot dumber.

[normtwofinger]

Textcritic,

I'm sure it's been brought up in the past, and I apologize if this has been discussed in this thread (haven't fully read it), but what do you consider yourself? Christian, Atheist, former Christian, etc? Just curious, as it would help me understand your posts more.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Daradon

1. I don't believe he was name calling.

It wasn't necessarily the intention to single him out by quoting him. So, sorry to him if there was that impression. Probably quite a few others were a lot more strident than him. However, when you resort to referring to those who disagree as "bigots," it's just to try and shut down any dissent.

Originally Posted by Daradon

2. It most certainly is about rights. Human rights. The same rights everyone else gets. They are only asking for rights other people already enjoy. Like Women's rights and Civil rights movements before, it is about a group of people segregated with less rights. The fact that you say, 'their rights' just proves you don't look at them as fully human or fully equal. It's been simplified and called 'gay rights' for ease of knowing what topic people speak of. But it's not about special or different rights for gays, it's about equality.

Again, until shown what constitutionality there is, it's a demand not a right. Since Canada has federally funded health care, the debate is framed a little differently. However, in the U.S. one of the purposes was to allow for health care coverage of "domestic partners" (which many employers offer). (Heterosexual) common law marriages were not considered "equal" yet nobody hit the streets for their "rights" or clamored in the press.

It'll come down to judicial activism, anyway, like it always does.

Originally Posted by Daradon

3. Lastly, your story has nothing to do with the debate. It could be an harassment thing, for sure, but the same things happen whether one is gay or straight, male or female.

The point of sharing the story was to show that they're not all wonderful, honest, upstanding citizens. Universally, any stories about gays always portray them sympathetically. If you're going to demand "equality," then let's lay everything out on the line.

Originally Posted by Iginla

A gay guy harassed your friend? I'd bet everything I own that 99.9% of harassment happens between straight people.

Stats aren't kept or reported. So, it's safe for you to make up just any figure, exaggerated for effect or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Iginla

Gay people shouldn't have rights because your straight buddy had his lap touched by a gay dude? this thread just got a whole lot dumber.

You and some of the others replying type before reading. It said near the end, that it didn't matter to me if he eventually got married or not.

Since you brought it up - want to know my actual position? Indifference. The country has far more pressing issues. This one seems to be real hot button with you and your newbie buds here. So what if the founder of Chic-Fil-A mailed out a check? So what if Tim Thomas tweeted that it was his right to so? Seems to me that's the democratic process. If this is indeed about "rights," then it should be debated vigorously in the public forum. The expectation that there should be no opposition sounds more totalitarian.

[Resolute 14]

Every time I read Calgaryborn's posts, I imagine he writes them out of self-loathing guilt, then goes to bed with his own gay lover.

[Lobotroth]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

The point of sharing the story was to show that they're not all wonderful, honest, upstanding citizens. Universally, any stories about gays always portray them sympathetically. If you're going to demand "equality," then let's lay everything out on the line.

I don't think anyone is insinuating that they are all wonderful, YOU are the one who made an inane generalization based on one personal experience.

Something tells me that these incidents are not isolated or uncommon either.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

Since you brought it up - want to know my actual position? Indifference. The country has far more pressing issues. This one seems to be real hot button with you and your newbie buds here. So what if the founder of Chic-Fil-A mailed out a check? So what if Tim Thomas tweeted that it was his right to so? Seems to me that's the democratic process. If this is indeed about "rights," then it should be debated vigorously in the public forum. The expectation that there should be no opposition sounds more totalitarian.

Do you feel the same way about interracial marriage? If someone comes out and says that there should be a ban on black people marrying white people, that you are super fine with that? I have an EXPECTATION that we are past the bigoted racism that prevented interracial marriage in the past. The expectation that there would be no opposition isn't because I demand to be right and will not allow any differing opinion... I simply hold out hope that the humanity has come to the point where such discrimination has no place. I am quite often disappointed.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Lobotroth

I don't think anyone is insinuating that they are all wonderful, YOU are the one who made an inane generalization based on one personal experience.

Nice deflection. I didn't make any generalizations, just shared a story. You didn't have to like it.

Now, basing your opinion on comments from the replies of others...now, that's inane.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

Nice deflection. I didn't make any generalizations, just shared a story. You didn't have to like it.:

What was the point of your story?

Honest question, I'm totally confused as why you shared it. It has nothing to do with anything.