20 Jan 09
Originally posted by RBHILLThat's hard for me to believe. I know quite a few and while they were confused like every other adolescent, every one has known from a very early age they were not heterosexual.
I do believe that it is a choice to be gay.
They say they were born that way for an excuse.
21 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloyd.....ahhhhhhhhhh...the voice of sanity. 🙂
That's hard for me to believe. I know quite a few and while they were confused like every other adolescent, every one has known from a very early age they were not heterosexual.
I should have used my comments for RB instead of you.
22 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by RBHILLSo anything that does not fit the perfect gender template is sinful?
The Word of God is against Gays.
God Created Adam and Eve no Adam and Steve.
What about intersex children born with two genitalia? There are many accounts of these individuals struggling with thier sexual identity.
Are they committing a hate crime against God? Are they "sinning"? Are they using the fact that they were born that way as an excuse?
My guess is that you weren't born a bigot and ignorant judge of others - so what's your excuse?
24 Jan 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydI was teasing you.Lighten up. I was encouraged by the fact that you did challenge him and was wondering whether you could see what I see in him.
See what bullying, name-calling, and acting in haste gets you?
Answer: One less friend.
Why would I want to be friends with someone who has no sense of humour and thinks sandwiches might be a sinful abomination?
This is just a waste of time. RBHILL's zealous bigotry is placed before us . His outrageous comments are manifestations of the kind of rabid ignorant fundi Christianity that causes so much pain to homosexual Christians - and you are still seem more concerned with your own sensitivity than you are with the real issue at hand.
Ask yourself who is being the most offensive around here? RB or me?
25 Jan 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterAnd you seem utterly unconcerned with the sensitivities of others, which I find quite ironic.
I was teasing you.Lighten up. I was encouraged by the fact that you did challenge him and was wondering whether you could see what I see in him.
Why would I want to be friends with someone who has no sense of humour and thinks sandwiches might be a sinful abomination?
This is just a waste of time. RBHILL's zealous bigotry is placed before us ...[text shortened]... he real issue at hand.
Ask yourself who is being the most offensive around here? RB or me?
25 Jan 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydBut where does one draw the line?
And you seem utterly unconcerned with the sensitivities of others, which I find quite ironic.
Let's explore this shall we. Let's say I found your accusation that I am "utterly unconcerned" offensive and rude. Let's say I was very sensistive about this and complained to the moderators about it and demanded an apology from you. Let's say I was outraged by it. Would you apologise and agree your comment was offensive , or would you say that you were sorry I was upset by it but you still could not understand why I was soooooo sensitive about it?
My question is this. Isn't there some point where the person who is "offended" starts to take a good look at himself and wonders whether it's really very reasonable? Who decides what is offensive and what is not?
I have met people who seem almost painfully offended by the merest inoccuous comment. In a certain mood such people seem to be very brittle and shattered by any innocent phrase. Now , whilst I will try to be a bit careful around such people , part of me also feels justified in pointing out that they really ought to be a bit less sensitive and stop playing the victim with other people and trying to make them feel guilty about what they have said.
Do you not think there is a point where the person who is offended takes responsibility for how they perceive the comment and stops demanding an apology?
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterFirst paragraph (after opening question)- I would appolodize if it was pointed out that I had insulted someone and didn't realize it. And I wouldn't need a moderator to direct me to co this--it's common courtesy.
But where does one draw the line?
Let's explore this shall we. Let's say I found your accusation that I am "utterly unconcerned" offensive and rude. Let's say I was very sensistive about this and complained to the moderators about it and demanded an apology from you. Let's say I was outraged by it. Would you apologise and agree your comment was o ...[text shortened]... takes responsibility for how they perceive the comment and stops demanding an apology?
Second paragraph-- I decided what is offensive to me. Always. A am the sole arbiter of this. We all do--it's part of our personalities. As for taking "a good look at himself", that too is part of one's personality. Thus the answer to who decides what is and is not offensive to me is..... me .
Third paragraph--it is unfortunate that you don't stop at the first analysis you made. When you recognize a person as particularly brittle, broken, emotionally scarred, etc., you say that you "try to be careful around such people." But then any sensitivity you might have shown goes out the window because what...you just HAVE to point out a perceived flaw in the other person (not really knowing anything about him or her)? My advice would be to follow that first way of thinking you described; as for the part that wants to criticize, it would be a nice thing to not follow that urge.
Last paragraph- People must take responsibility for what offends and hurts them--we have no choice because it's problematical. But we should not be coerced or forced to change those feelings. And while there may be some who do, I do NOT demand apologies. If I had the power, I might, but one cannot demand something that another is unwilling to give without resorting to force, which is another thing I will never do.
26 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydI decided what is offensive to me. Always. A am the sole arbiter of this. We all do--it's part of our personalities. ------------------------------------------------pinkfloyd--------------------------
First paragraph (after opening question)- I would appolodize if it was pointed out that I had insulted someone and didn't realize it. And I wouldn't need a moderator to direct me to co this--it's common courtesy.
Second paragraph-- I decided what is offensive to me. Always. A am the sole arbiter of this. We all do--it's part of our personal unwilling to give without resorting to force, which is another thing I will never do.
But think about this now. What if I decided that the word "arbiter" was insulting to me and offensive. Do I have the right to ask for an apology? Would you consider giving one?
(Of course you would say something like " well I'm sorry that you are hurt by that phrase " - but would you also not be thinking "however, I have no idea why you are so offended by it and I think your offense is quite irrational" )
The point is you ARE the sole arbiter of what you deem to be offensive to you ......BUT.... I am the sole arbiter of what I deem to be a reasonable phrase or unreasonable phrase. You do not have the right to dictate your reality on to mine , any more than you have the right to stop me eating sandwiches because you think God might find them sinful.
The line regarding what one should apologise for and what one shouldn't has to be drawn somewhere or we just descend into chaos where nothing can be said about anything. Just ask Salman Rushdie! Do you think he should have caved in to pressure - even though he thought what he had written was Ok.
You think I have been gravely offensive - I think you are being petty and over sensitive . We disagree - big deal. You want me to cave in and apologise for something that I don't think is a problem. I want you to reconsider why you find it so offensive. We are at an impasse. Neither of us can claim the moral high ground without trying to force our reality on the other.
All I can do is appeal to reason. I think it's an irrational idea to think that God would declare sandwiches an "abomination" - you have yet to counter my argument with anything substantial.