Honest question, I'm totally confused as why you shared it. It has nothing to do with anything.
It was right in the text of the post.
Quote:
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.
Unless all stories about gays must be framed as positive, then it's no more irrelevent than a number of the so-called "pro-" posts here, and, yes, there was a lot of name-calling. It's within the site guidelines to just call Tim Thomas a dick though? The expectation is that the same standards will be applied to questioning the motivation for other posts then.
Well, it may be hard to believe but that story has totally changed my mind. Can't believe a guy did that. The gays can go fata themself because of that lap toucher. Fataing Tony. Tony is a pretty gay name too. Was he a rugged looking italian fellow.
If there are any gays in this thread, go screw yourselves because of Tony. I'm sure you are all Tony apologists too.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The Following User Says Thank You to Displaced Flames fan For This Useful Post:
Shrug. Then we can wait until October to discuss hockey.
Or we could just burn you at the stake like the witch you clearly are!
Seriously though why would you post all of that? Particularly the anecdote. Was it just one of those things where typing it all out gives you some sort of positive feeling of sharing? It certainly wasn't intended to convince anyone of anything, unless you're much dumber than you seem. Given that the only palpable effect was to lower others' opinions of you (which it seems to me was totally predictable given the posts preceding yours) I do not understand why making your perspective public, even though anonymous, seemed like a good idea.
I find it pretty funny and obvious that the thing most people are getting all huffed and puffed about is the imagery of two guys skin fencing.
No one is against two women getting married. That doesn't stir up any emotion. It's 'ok' to find two women kissing attractive. No one gives two stinky stink holes about their Aunt Jenny and her 'friend' Sandra.
Mention two guys touching boners (that's how the gays make sex, right?) though and suddenly everyone's underwear gets uncomfortable.
It's not about gay marriage, it's about gay-men marriage, and it's about coming to terms with that visual.
I agree with another poster about Calgaryborn's guilt. He sounds like he's on a Ted Haggard level of gayness. Snortin' lines off a Johnsson before a little resistance bottoming.
He's just too obvious.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
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.
I'm a Christian. Raised Evangelical, and still self-identify as an Evangelical, but most likely not in line with a lot of what most Evangelicals hold to as "orthodox".
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I agree with another poster about Calgaryborn's guilt. He sounds like he's on a Ted Haggard level of gayness. Snortin' lines off a Johnsson before a little resistance bottoming.
He's just too obvious.
While admittedly somewhat amusing this isn't really any different from the patently idiotic tactic still inexplicably used by certain homophobic morons whereby anyone standing up for gay rights or taking offense at the insensitive use of homophobic slurs must be gay themselves.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AR_Six For This Useful Post:
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.
Arguing that people who want to amend the constitution to prevent commited same sex couples from getting the same rights and privileges as heterosexual ones are acting like bigots is a completely tenable position. It's not fair to paint all opposition with one large brush, but I can't see how using that term should be dismissed out of hand. Why is it clearly not an example of bigotry?
Quote:
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.
Heterosexuals have the option of getting legally married and getting the rights and privileges that come with it; that option does not exist for same sex couples in most states. I'm unsure what point you're trying to make with the comparison.
Quote:
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.
This is an odd thing say. It's like you're taking your black and white view on homosexuals and transposing it onto others with the assumption that others don't view this issue with any kind of nuance. Frankly it's almost like you don't view homosexuals as people like everyone else. Do you really think that people who support same sex marriage think every single homosexual is a fine upstanding citizen? Seriously? How stupid do you think we are?
Quote:
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.
If the country has far more pressing issues then why is everyone spending so much effort to try and amend the constitution to prohibit same sex marriage?
This issue is being debated in public, but frankly one side is pretty clearly on the wrong side of history. Social conservatives in North America have spent most of the last century trying in vain to stop change in its tracks in order to hold on to some mythical golden age that never really existed. Same sex marriage is coming to the USA and it's a matter of when, not if.
...My theological positions were adopted after much personal study. Was I influenced by teachers and Pastors? Sure but, I have always attempted to put the authority of scriptures above any man.
So, how would you respond if I made the same claim: that "I have always attempted to put the authority of scriptures above any man"?
Do you see the problem here? You have an idea of what constitutes "scriptural authority" and I have an idea about what constitutes "scriptural authority", and we both apply these ideas to the biblical text. Furthermore, how can you even know that your own positions are purely "biblical", and that you are not unduly influenced by your own pre-existing sympathies? By your current socioeconomic situation? By your own intelligence and literacy? By your own impression of literature and its purposes and function?
In short, you are attempting to make a claim of objectivity in a venue in which pure objectivity is virtually impossible. Whether you like it or not; regardless of how carefully you try to deflect your own biases and prejudices, you will never help but to see yourself in everything that you read. I think that in light of this, the most pragmatic thing to do is to admit and to embrace one's own interpretive biases. The best model for applying "scriptural authority" is that which is most self-aware of its own weakness, and which is keenly attuned to conforming with the best available evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
...I have also always held dogma to be a public matter; Something I am willing to debate and defend.
I keep inviting you to challenge me on any individual points with which you disargee, and you continue to return volley with the same, tiresome charge of "German rationalism". Until I see you actually engage with specific points of challenge to your position, then I will choose to disbelieve that you are at all willing or able "to debate and defend."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
...The reason why I site (sic.) biblical scholars and councils is two fold:
I have yet to see you cite ANY biblical scholars or any actual sources with which I could counter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
...Firstly, your beliefs again because of your philosophy(german rationalism) are not main stream. You aren't representative of that faith once delivered Jude was talking about....
This is preposterously laughable. In the first place, even if what you say about my position being outside of the mainstream were true, why would this even matter? "Truth" and "reality" are not matters of public opinion, and I strain to form my positions on the basis of the best available evidence, regardless of how closely they conform to popular opinion. In the second place, who appointed YOU to be the arbiter of what is or is not "representative of that faith once delivered"?
Again, you have an opinion about what that is, and I have a counter opinion, and because my position is at enmity with yours, you have declared victory by fiat. It's convenient for you, but sadly, arguments are won and lost and positions are formed most effectively on the body of the best available evidence. Where is your evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Now I know because of your philosophy you believe the goal posts has changed many times in scriptures and through out the centuries. What you fail to see is that you are the one moving them.
In actual fact, I believe the problem here is that YOU cannot recognize your own influences and biases, and how these affect YOUR reading of the text. You talk about the goal posts as if you have no effect on their placement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
...Marriage in scriptures has always been between a man and a women.
Have I ever claimed otherwise? I don't think you even understand my arguments in this debate, but I most certainly have never challenged the notion of marriage in Scripture as it is consistently presented to preclude same-sex unions. (However, I would argue at this point that it has NOT always been between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. There are dozens of prominent examples and teachings from Scripture that show that polygamous marriage was tolerated, and that this position changed over time).
Furthermore, I have taken great care to show that the reasons behind the scriptural teachings on marriage are not straightforward, and that they require considerable and careful deliberation. You seem content to merely decode the words on the page of the injunctions and precepts, whereas my own interest lies in their purpose and function. Why does the Bible define marriage as it does? How does it understand its purpose? How does this reflect and apply to the circumstances met in the modern world, which is so dramatically different from the ancient biblical world?
It is these questions precisely that distinguish my position from yours, but these are ALWAYS the sorts of questions that should be applied in any cross-cultural exploration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Secondly, you call yourself "Textcritic". You could have chosen a name like I did saying where you were born. You could have chosen a name based on your favorite hockey player. You chose to highlight your profession. You have presented yourself as a expert. I will continue to remind you and anyone reading these post that you might be an expert but, you are not orthodox.
What is "orthodox" Who decides? Has it always remained static, or does "orthodox" change and shift over time? How can you be certain that your own definition of "orthodox" is indeed "orthodox"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
...The greatest christian scholars through out the centuries rejected your philosophy and the resulting conclusions.
Who are the "greatest Christian scholars throughout the centuries"? Who decides who were "the greatest"? Why did they reject my position? Why should I care?
You are an incredibly pretentious person if you believe that you have somehow cornered the market on how to evaluate "Christian orthodoxy". Sadly, I suspect that do not even realize how arrogant and condescending your above two sentences really are.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
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.
BadgerBob is taking a lot of flak for the actual "points" he's trying to make in this point, and yes, if you take his post at face value, it seems misguided, misdirected and little insane.
But the reality is, that post simply shows the words of a homophobic person. It's the same way we all read T&T's hateful words about gays, and he later revealed that it was all because of one incidint.
You can tell by the way they articulate their posts, that an incident in their life has caused them to become homophobes, and as society changes and progresses, they likely won't.
It's too bad that they'll be left behind and viewed as bigots, where as they probably believe they are decent, kind human beings, but that's teh way she goes.
*Also...been drinking. So if this post doesn't make sense, not my fault.
Also, BadgerBob, I'm not sure what planet you're living on, where you think all the tolerant, pro gay comments are coming from people with 2010 and later join dates? Or how you think that even means anyhing. But from what I've seen Calgarypuck as a whole is very pro-equal rights, and there are very few of you guys left (mikey, Calgaryborn, T&T and you are the only ones I can think of).
Just as a test, lets see if your theory holds any water.....
