"In 64 countries around the world, homosexuality is still criminalized.
Nearly half are in Africa. The rest are in Asia and the Middle East.
In 12 countries, it’s the *death penalty* for private, consensual same-sex sexual activity. These are:
Iran
Northern Nigeria
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Yemen
Afghanistan
Brunei
Mauritania
Pakistan
Qatar
UAE
Uganda
*Note the common denominator
This June, as you celebrate Pride out on the streets in NYC and London and SF, instead of LARPing as marginalized communities rather than celebrated ones that everyone from large multi-national corporations to Western governments actively endorse and promote, perhaps zoom out and have a little bit of a global perspective.
The West is sexually liberated. Too sexually liberated, I might add. It doesn’t actually need Pride anymore.
But go ahead and have your fun early summer parades. Just bear in mind where Pride is needed the most.
It’s not where any of you actually live. And to keep calling the places where you can celebrate Pride “phobic” and full of hate and bigotry is to hand a PR coup for all the other places that continue to kill citizens or arrest them for gay sex.
Happy Pride Month y’all 
"
In 2024 32% of the countries in the world homosexuality is a crime. In 12 of those it's a capitol offense. For some reason there is an "organization" known as Queers for Palestine who are staunch supporters of Hamas and Gaza, even though Hamas would imprison or kill them. What I find interesting is that here in the US we have a month of Pride parades with people walking down "Main Street" wearing bondage gear that probably isn't appropriate for wear in public, complaining about how oppressed they are. While they don't seem interested in staging Pride parades in any of the 64 countries where homosexuals really are oppressed. It's also interesting to watch companies like BMW add rainbow graphics to their logos, and to see the rainbow folks laud them for being allies, but these companies don't have the courage to show their "convictions" everywhere. It's almost like companies realize that adding a rainbow to their advertising one month a year magically convinces gay folx to shop there the rest of the year. It's almost like a cynical advertising strategy, instead of a real commitment.
So, all of you Rainbow Social Justice Warriors, how about you take your parades where the fight really is, not just where it's safe.
43 comments:
Thanks for raising these concerns. They are REAL concerns, life and death and human rights, so I applaud your concern (if you ARE concerned... you tell me).
What are YOU doing to help fight the oppression of LGBTQ folks in nations (generally ones ruled by conservative religious zealotry/bigotry)? Are you condemning oppression wherever it happens? Are you suggesting we should go to those nations to protest and, if so, are you leading the way?
Because it almost sounds like you aren't truly concerned about the oppression of LGBTQ people... that you're actually trying to mock them rather than being an ally. Is that the case? Or do you truly want to be an ally to help fight for an end to oppression?
Craig:
"Only when there is little or no risk..."
I guess you know that in our lifetimes, thanks to the brave leadership of LGBTQ heroes and their allies (often at great personal risk to themselves), they/we have moved our nation from being one of the ones that overtly oppressed LGBTQ people to one where they've largely won the hearts and minds of the nation to support their human rights. But surely you know that LGBTQ folks in the US and the rest of the free world have been imprisoned, beaten, raped, abused, mocked, attacked, fired from their jobs, kicked out of their families and churches/faith groups and killed over their fight for their human rights? Little risk? You can't be serious.
How many times have you been beaten up, killed or kicked out of your family and church for being straight? Does that not seem a little blithely ignorant and privileged for you to suggest that the LGBTQ have had little or no risk? YES, things ARE much better now and the risk has declined (not gone away, but declined), but that took a helluva lot of bravery and risk on the part of many. You know this, right?
Are you complaining that, after gaining so much ground in this formerly oppressive nation, that they aren't doing enough elsewhere? And if so, what are you doing?
These seem like reasonable questions.
all of you Rainbow Social Justice Warriors, how about you take your parades where the fight really is, not just where it's safe.
Do you not know that there are STILL bomb and physical threats that happen at most if not all gay pride marches? TODAY, in the US, this is still a reality. They/we know that to attend one of these rallies or any event where LGBTQ folk are gathered, that there is still a risk of being attacked, mocked or killed for just being who they are.
But I guess you have that threat all the time, you and your white CIS privilege, right?
Get serious.
Also, the brave struggle for human rights for LGBTQ folks that came at such great risk and a high cost in free nations like the US IS part of the strategy for improving human rights in other, less tolerant, less free nations globally. We are the shining light on the hill, in that regards. People can see our human rights progress in the US and it shames other nations and freedom-loving people in those nations can see that and be inspired.
The moral arc of the universe IS long, but it does bend towards justice.
Also, the anti-Muslim bias/bigotry is noted in the article you posted, but did you know:
Thirty-five of the 71 countries that criminalise homosexuality, or 49%, are nations where most citizens are Muslims, according to the Erasing 76 Crimes news site.
Thirty-one countries, or 44%, are majority Christian.
The remaining five countries include Nigeria, which has a roughly 50-50 split of Muslims and Christians. The other four are either Hindu or Buddhist majority. No country with a nonreligious majority bans homosexuality.
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2022/05/90-percent-countries-banning-gay-sex-are-majority-muslim-or-christian
It's conservative religious bigotry that's the problem, not Muslims, not Christians, but bigotry and the quiet acceptance of bigotry.
"Thanks for raising these concerns. They are REAL concerns, life and death and human rights, so I applaud your concern (if you ARE concerned... you tell me)."
I am concerned, but more about the cowardice in the ranks of the social justice warrior crowd. It's one thing to protest someplace where the worst that'll happen is a minor brush with the law, it's another thing to actually put yourself at risk.
"What are YOU doing to help fight the oppression of LGBTQ folks in nations (generally ones ruled by conservative religious zealotry/bigotry)? Are you condemning oppression wherever it happens? Are you suggesting we should go to those nations to protest and, if so, are you leading the way?"
This is one of my favorite leftist dodges. It's usually around abortion, "What are you personally doing about all the unwanted babies.", but it fits here as well. Trying to put others in a position of fighting your fight for you, before you actually put yourself at risk.
For example, I support the removal of regimes that oppress women, gays, etc by depriving them of basic human rights. But when I put myself at risk or in a position of sacrificing my personal comfort, I choose to invest myself in causes and places that I find compelling. I choose not to be pressured, bullied, or shamed into fighting someone else's battle for them.
"Because it almost sounds like you aren't truly concerned about the oppression of LGBTQ people... that you're actually trying to mock them rather than being an ally. Is that the case? Or do you truly want to be an ally to help fight for an end to oppression?"
NO, I'm more concerned by the hypocritical cowardice of people who only "protest" where it's safe
but refuse to place themselves at risk for a cause they claim is of vital importance.
Craig:
"
I guess you know that in our lifetimes, thanks to the brave leadership of LGBTQ heroes and their allies (often at great personal risk to themselves), they/we have moved our nation from being one of the ones that overtly oppressed LGBTQ people to one where they've largely won the hearts and minds of the nation to support their human rights. But surely you know that LGBTQ folks in the US and the rest of the free world have been imprisoned, beaten, raped, abused, mocked, attacked, fired from their jobs, kicked out of their families and churches/faith groups and killed over their fight for their human rights? Little risk? You can't be serious."
Sure I can. Despite the fact that a few people, decades ago, might have actually exposed themselves to actual risk, that's not the case today. I'd suggest that it's the antithesis of heroic to prance around main street in an officially sanctioned "pride" parade wearing leather bondage gear in a country that bends over backwards to cater the the alphabet soup. Hell, there's virtually zero risk of being ticketed for public nudity or indecency at a "pride" parade.
"How many times have you been beaten up, killed or kicked out of your family and church for being straight? Does that not seem a little blithely ignorant and privileged for you to suggest that the LGBTQ have had little or no risk? YES, things ARE much better now and the risk has declined (not gone away, but declined), but that took a helluva lot of bravery and risk on the part of many. You know this, right?"
Nope. Y'all have cast this as a heroic fight against oppression. As you keep claiming that, in the US, you've basically won on this issue. So, go ahead and have your victory parades, celebrate prancing around in bondage gear, knowing that even if someone does counter protest that they'll end up going to jail.
"Are you complaining that, after gaining so much ground in this formerly oppressive nation, that they aren't doing enough elsewhere? And if so, what are you doing?"
That's exactly what I'm saying. After their heroic victory to prance in the streets in bondage gear one month a year, that abandoning your fellow alphabet soups to risk their lives is cowardice.
Returning to trying to twist your (as a group) cowardice in abandoning others across the globe into shaming me to fight your fight for you is bold in a risk averse sort of way. But it's still just a dodge to avoid confronting your (as a group) lack of action to heroically win freedom for those oppressed across the globe.
"These seem like reasonable questions.'
If your goal is to draw atention away from the collective failure of the alphabet soup folx failure to fight oppression where it actually exists, then sure they're reasonable. If your goal is to shame others into fighting your fight for you, sure they're reasonable. If your goal is to demonstrate how much you really care about the plight of oppressed alphabet soup folx in countries where there is real oppression, totally unreasonable.
It's probably the same reason why you won't fight for the 70+ year old women just sentenced to die in prison for praying outside an abortion clinic. Your commitment to fighting oppression is selective and predicated on maintaining as little risk as possible.
"Do you not know that there are STILL bomb and physical threats that happen at most if not all gay pride marches? TODAY, in the US, this is still a reality. They/we know that to attend one of these rallies or any event where LGBTQ folk are gathered, that there is still a risk of being attacked, mocked or killed for just being who they are."
There are risks of being attacked, mocked or killed in virtually every major urban area in the US. I could look up the exact numbers, but I'd be willing to bet there were more people attacked, shot, and injured in Chicago than at "pride" parades in the last 5 years. But by all means, focus on a tiny risk to mostly naked dudes twerking at children, while ignoring the very real risk from governments that sentence gays to death. FYI, do these parades not have police protection? Are there not measure in place to protect the paraders?
"But I guess you have that threat all the time, you and your white CIS privilege, right?"
Ahhhhhhhh the "CIS" tactic. Sorry, CIS is a made up bullshit collection of letters that means nothing.
"Also, the brave struggle for human rights for LGBTQ folks that came at such great risk and a high cost in free nations like the US IS part of the strategy for improving human rights in other, less tolerant, less free nations globally. We are the shining light on the hill, in that regards. People can see our human rights progress in the US and it shames other nations and freedom-loving people in those nations can see that and be inspired."
Blah, blah, blah, let's sit back and let others do the hard work of fighting oppression. What specifically is the US doing to overturn Sharia law in Muslim countries? Hell, for all the Biden kowtowing to Hamas, what is Biden doing to stop the execution of gays in Gaza?
When statistics are deemed "anti Muslim" that's when yo know Truth isn't important. The question remains, what are y'all rainbow warriors doing to fight for freedom in ANY of the 64 countries?
The answer, virtually nothing.
Y'all have cast this as a heroic fight against oppression. As you keep claiming that, in the US, you've basically won on this issue.
We haven't "cast it" as a heroic fight against oppression. It WAS a heroic fight against oppression.
LGBTQ folks used to have literally keep themselves, their lives hidden and secret. Coming out (in the first half of our lives here on earth - prior to 1990s at least) came with actual threats. Beatings. Harassment. Literal threats against their persons and their livelihoods and their homes.
If you want to be taken as a serious conversant on today's news and concerns, then you MUST begin by recognizing that to be LGBTQ in the US prior to 1980s came at real risks. Your family would likely disown you. Just as a point of fact. Your church would likely call you evil and say you're going to hell. Random strangers would consider you a pedophile or "gay rapist" and would beat you up if you "came across" the "wrong way." This was a dangerous nation to live in for LGBTQ folks prior to the 1990s (and even moreso prior to the 1970s. Being gay in the military meant you could be beaten, kicked out and/or killed.
EVEN today...
"Every year, dozens of transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals are murdered in the US, and the murder of black transgender women is especially prevalent...
Over time the number of these acts of violence has increased greatly, whether due to the changing religious and political views, increased community visibility, or other factors. There have been political protests intended to bring about harsher penalties for these crimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States#Federal_hate_crime_statistics
and on and on. Serious, rational adults talking about gender and orientation issues MUST begin by recognizing the threat the LGBTQ people have lived under in these United States.
DO you recognize the oppression of LGBTQ folks or does your privilege (as a conservative white CIS guy, I've never been oppressed because of my orientation, so it must not be a reality...) blind you to the real oppression of LGBTQ people?
"We haven't "cast it" as a heroic fight against oppression. It WAS a heroic fight against oppression."
OK, if the propaganda is that important to you fine. The reality, as you just pointed out in another thread, is that the alphabet agenda has virtually won in very aspect of American life. But somehow, even after the win, y'all want to pretend that your still "oppressed". Why because someone has the temerity to disagree with you? Because Western Europe is leading the way to protect children from being mutilated? Because the data is telling us that "trans" kids still commit suicide after they've been mutilated, and that "trans" kids almost all end up "gay or bi" if given the chance? Excellent job of diverting attention though, well done.
"LGBTQ folks used to have literally keep themselves, their lives hidden and secret. Coming out (in the first half of our lives here on earth - prior to 1990s at least) came with actual threats. Beatings. Harassment. Literal threats against their persons and their livelihoods and their homes."
The key word there is "used to" this isn't the '50s. The alphabet soup folx have moved from wanting to have sex with whoever they want in the privacy of their bedrooms, to demanding control of public streets and libraries. Yeah, the oppression in horrible.
I'm not going to waste time with your cherry picked statistics, I will ask about domestic violence among lesbian couples and the increasing number of rapes and assaults from "trans" women in women's prisons. I suspect that a breakout of those numbers doesn't show what you want it to show.
"and on and on. Serious, rational adults talking about gender and orientation issues MUST begin by recognizing the threat the LGBTQ people have lived under in these United States."
As we sit here in the middle of "pride" MONTH (hell, black folks only get a 28 day month), where the streets of filled with parades, advertisers pander by adding a rainbow for a whole month, where rainbow signs are everywhere, and 10 year old drag queens dance in front of old gay men, don't even think this bullshit is serious. But it's a great excuse to leave all y'all in the rest of the world to suffer because someone might "misgender" you.
"DO you recognize the oppression of LGBTQ folks or does your privilege (as a conservative white CIS guy, I've never been oppressed because of my orientation, so it must not be a reality...) blind you to the real oppression of LGBTQ people?"
Not in the US. Not after being bombarded with "pride" month bullshit. Not when y'all ignore the rest of the world.
So, go ahead and have your victory parades, celebrate prancing around in bondage gear, knowing that even if someone does counter protest that they'll end up going to jail.
You keep bringing this up. And, look, I know that emotionally fragile CIS guys like you have a strong fear reaction to people not dressing in ways you approve of, but have you ever attended a gay pride? I know they're different everywhere, but here (the link below) are some of my photos of our gay prides, with the families, children, churches, synagogues, bubbles, rainbows, puppies, joy, grace, art, gay and straight friends and neighbors coming out for a beautiful walk for justice and to celebrate love, love, love...
It's just about the most wholesome activity one could hope for:
https://flickr.com/search/?user_id=59766195%40N00&view_all=1&text=pride
And yes, some people wear bikinis (egad!). Some skin is exposed. Some people wear leather (not my thing on a hot June day, but live and let live, ya know?). And other ministers wear their stoles, and other people wear rainbow t-shirts or messages of love and acceptance. I am not one to get bothered by a young woman or man wearing what amounts to a bikini's worth of clothes. Again, not my thing, but they're literally harming no one. I think perhaps your fear has you imagining monstrous demons and leather-whipping dungeon masters as the norm or even common. It's just not.
Also, as to the "bondage" nonsense: For centuries, the church has abused, demonized, kicked out, yelled at, ostracized and otherwise told LGBTQ folks they were the worst kinds of evil and in response, some folks have embraced that "I'm the devil" outlook as a protest against the hateful bigotry of religious types. They do it to outrage and put the fear of a Glam God in y'all and it works.
And others don't do it for those reasons, it's just an aesthetic choice. Live and let live, dear brother.
As to religious protesters going to jail, not here. We see the religious bigots come out and shout truly hateful things. By and large, the crowd just ignores them. Sometimes, some few marchers will respond in kind - "you're evil and going to hell!" is matched by, "Well, you're a bigot and you're ugly, so there's that..." But unless and until some bigot starts trying to cause harm, they are left alone to showcase their hateful bigotry.
Those bigots who are fighting, causing harm or sending bomb threats? YES, they will go to jail, as they should. Right?
But jailed for being a loud, obnoxious bigot? It's just not generally happening. Certainly never any here.
I'm not inclined to waste much more time with Dan trying to pretend like the US is anything but tolerant of the alphabet soup folx. The US might well be the most alphabet soup friendly country in the world in 2024. But as long as Dan tries to paint the US as some sort of dystopian hellscape for alphabet soup folx. I just can't take him seriously. The point of this post isn't that a few people in the US might say mean things to a random alphabet soup person. The point is that after all they've achieved in the US, that they're doing virtually nothing to help their own across the globe.
As usual. I'll approve the bullshit, but I see no reason to enable him in avoiding the topic.
I asked you if you recognized the reality of the oppression of LGBTQ folks, historically and currently in the US. Your response:
Not in the US. Not after being bombarded with "pride" month bullshit.
Well, of course, the reality is that there HAS been oppression. Whether or not you recognize reality. This is precisely part of the reason you all have lost this argument: You're delusional, pretending you live in some pollyanna world where no gay oppression is happening or has happened in the history of the US. The data is there. Reality is there, you're just factually wrong.
And it sounds like ("we're being bombarded with pride month bullshit") like an awfully emotionally fragile response.
In our nation, after years/centuries of actual oppression, we've made progress where the human rights of LGBTQ folks are legally recognized in the US. And so, we have parades to reinforce and celebrate those rights.
And in the years since we've had these parades, do you know that NOT ONE emotionally fragile conservative person has ever been forced to take part. NOT ONE conservative person has been forced to sit on the sidelines or, God forbid, actually march in the parade. NO ONE. You are free to stay at home and watch Archie Bunker and long for the good ol' days if you want.
And we are free to have these parades. That we have the freedom to celebrate, to announce, to publicize, to promote these events DOES NOT EQUAL "I'm being bombarded..." It's freedom, baby. You are free to stay home and ignore. Others are free to promote and announce and take part.
Why does that shake you so?
But it's a great excuse to leave all y'all in the rest of the world to suffer because someone might "misgender" you.
Again, what are YOU doing to fight the oppression of LGBTQ folks around the world? America and the free nations are leading the way by way of example and that's not nothing. What are you doing? Which nations have you stepped up to stop the oppression of LGBTQ people?
And you've already answered. Nothing. Not one damn thing. Because you're bringing it up NOT out of concern for LGBTQ people globally, but to try to attack and oppress LGBTQ people here.
We invite you to step up and be an ally in this global fight for human rights, but failing that, get out of the way of the adults who are working on it and who've made such great strides.
"You keep bringing this up. And, look, I know that emotionally fragile CIS guys like you have a strong fear reaction to people not dressing in ways you approve of, but have you ever attended a gay pride? I know they're different everywhere, but here (the link below) are some of my photos of our gay prides, with the families, children, churches, synagogues, bubbles, rainbows, puppies, joy, grace, art, gay and straight friends and neighbors coming out for a beautiful walk for justice and to celebrate love, love, love..."
It's amazing how many things that you "know" to be facts, are simply wrong. I'm merely pointing out that if I walked down Main Street in a BDSM outfit that consisted of three strips of leather that barely cover my junk, I'd probably be arrested for indecency. You can pretend like this indecent crap doesn't happen or that the balloons, bubbles and rainbows make up for it, but the reality is that old guys in bondage gear don't belong in public.
"It's just about the most wholesome activity one could hope for:"
If "wholesome" means old guys in bdsm gear twerking in front of kids, sure.
"And others don't do it for those reasons, it's just an aesthetic choice. Live and let live, dear brother."
Y'all do whatever you want in the bedroom. How about y'all keep it out of Main Street.
"As to religious protesters going to jail, not here. We see the religious bigots come out and shout truly hateful things. By and large, the crowd just ignores them. Sometimes, some few marchers will respond in kind - "you're evil and going to hell!" is matched by, "Well, you're a bigot and you're ugly, so there's that..." But unless and until some bigot starts trying to cause harm, they are left alone to showcase their hateful bigotry."
Oh lord! You mean that people are allowed to exercise their protected freedom of speech! How dare they! The scandal of it all! What's next, terminally ill old women being jailed for praying in public!!!!!
"Those bigots who are fighting, causing harm or sending bomb threats? YES, they will go to jail, as they should. Right?"
Yes, anyone who actually injures another person, burns down a building or who plants a bomb should be dealt with by the legal system regardless of their reasons why. Those things are illegal in all circumstances.
"But jailed for being a loud, obnoxious bigot? It's just not generally happening. Certainly never any here."
Because that pesky first amendment protects speech even if it offends someone.
Since this got posted before I gave my warning, know that this is the last one of these I'll engage in unless it is on topic.
"Because it almost sounds like you aren't truly concerned about the oppression of LGBTQ people... that you're actually trying to mock them rather than being an ally."
Mockery is appropriate, especially for those who defend that which has no basis in science OR Scripture...and far less in common sense. But mockery for mockery's sake, while fun, isn't the be all and end all of MY concern. It's just a part of it. It leads to discussion (as if they care to have an honest one) about the truth and facts related to their most abnormal compulsions.
"Is that the case? Or do you truly want to be an ally to help fight for an end to oppression?"
They're not oppressed in this country. They only pretend they are. Most of their suffering is self-inflicted, by their choices to indulge their perverse compulsions, as well as by conflicts amongst themselves.
And once again, if I see a flaming homosexual being mistreated by thuggish individuals, I have no problem helping out the flamer. However, that's no different than if I saw anyone else being messed with for no legitimate reason. That's not oppression, but bullies using the queer's obvious "orientation" as an excuse to bully someone for their own amusement. It's not the culture or society such people are defending by this behavior. But leave it to lying progressive fake Christians to count that as an example of "homophobia" to pad their stats in their favor.
"...in our lifetimes, thanks to the brave leadership of LGBTQ heroes and their allies ...they/we have moved our nation from being one of the ones that overtly oppressed LGBTQ people to one where they've largely won the hearts and minds of the nation to support their human rights."
More's the pity. This is in no way a feather in the cap of the nation. It's a stain, much like you are, on the soul of it.
"But surely you know that LGBTQ folks in the US and the rest of the free world have been imprisoned, beaten, raped, abused, mocked, attacked, fired from their jobs, kicked out of their families and churches/faith groups and killed over their fight for their human rights?"
Setting aside how badly it has been shown that the perv community...like Dan...overstates, hypes and lies about the "struggle" of those obsessed with their deviant urges. The vast majority of the worst of it occurred long, long ago, but liars like Dan need to cling to those events in order to try and convince people of virtue and character...as well as those who seek to be such people...that the cause of perversion is a noble one because these people who's suffering was preventable, chose to submit to their controllable urges. As in all things, Dan and other supporters of perversion, do little to get the full story on any of these people and the tales of woe they tell. Lots of unsupported claims, though. Something Dan pretends is verboten.
"How many times have you been beaten up, killed or kicked out of your family and church for being straight?"
A dishonest question which depends upon the lie that the LGBTQ pervs are really no different than the rest of us. But given the norm is 95%+ of the population, why would anyone try to run this nonsensical question in the first place except to perpetuate that lie? So even to consider what it might be like to be denied the ability to unite with one of the opposite sex, that still leaves the fact that it isn't immoral and LGBTQ behavior is.
"Does that not seem a little blithely ignorant and privileged for you to suggest that the LGBTQ have had little or no risk?"
No. Not in this more corrupted current cultural climate. Very little risk at all.
"Are you complaining that, after gaining so much ground in this formerly oppressive nation, that they aren't doing enough elsewhere?"
None of them are doing enough if they're not overcoming their immoral urges and learning to cope with them, as truly virtuous people of character do all the time with any number of various immoral urges. I have no great pity for those who refuse to do this and suffer as a result, except that they do indeed refuse as if they have a moral right to live immorally.
"Do you not know that there are STILL bomb and physical threats that happen at most if not all gay pride marches?"
Boo-hoo. Lots of people aren't happy with pervs parading around in as perverted a manner as is so common at these events. But I would insist that they lie about how often or how many threats they actually receive, and by whom. Their entire agenda is based on lies, so I don't believe a word they say without absolute, unassailable proof affirmed by someone not a liar.
"But I guess you have that threat all the time, you and your white CIS privilege, right?"
You might recall the summer of 2020, various pro-life offices, churches and synagogues, as well as police stations targeted in various ways. But hey, nice of you to go all racist again, Sis, you contemptible trash!
"We are the shining light on the hill, in that regards. People can see our human rights progress in the US and it shames other nations and freedom-loving people in those nations can see that and be inspired."
"Oh, look! If the United States of America...whose Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people... can wallow in abject immoral depravity, WE CAN, TOO!"
Yeah...that's what God's looking for us to do.
"The moral arc of the universe IS long, but it does bend towards justice."
This crap clearly and unequivocally does NOT represent a "moral" arc in any way, shape or form. Only a fake Christian scumbag would even suggest such a thing.
"No country with a nonreligious majority bans homosexuality."
What a surprise. Those with no God can rationalize anything, and Dan does.
"It's conservative religious bigotry that's the problem..."
This is how inveterate liars speak of those devoted to Scriptural truth. They're bigots for adhering to the Will of God.
"We haven't "cast it" as a heroic fight against oppression. It WAS a heroic fight against oppression."
Heroes do good. They don't promote perversions and pretend those are good. It's not heroic to "fight" for immorality. It's heroic to reject immorality, especially that which comes from within. That's the real fight we all face as members of the human race born with a sin nature. Dan and his kind redefine what is sinful rather than put their big-boy pants on and act like actual men.
"LGBTQ folks used to have literally keep themselves, their lives hidden and secret."
As do thieves, drug dealers, members of organized crime, pedophiles, the bestial...how badly do these people wish to be availed of this moral degradation of society such that their preferred sinfulness is also as widely tolerated!
"If you want to be taken as a serious conversant on today's news and concerns, then you MUST begin by recognizing that to be LGBTQ in the US prior to 1980s came at real risks."
If you want to be taken as an actual honest person, instead of the dishonest person you actually are, then you MUST begin by admitting that attempts to legitimize that which is clearly perverse, immoral and self-destructive will entail said risks.
"Your family would likely disown you."
No solid and sincere Christian family would allow abject abomination to persist within their home. It's not the compulsion to sin which results in being driven out. It's the insistence that the sin isn't sin and thus one insists on remains not only unrepentant, but without any desire to be so. This is why these people would be driven out from their families and churches...not because of some flaw in the family or church.
The rest of this comment is just hyperbolic, over-the-top propaganda. But all of it could've gone away or have been prevented by resisting the evil urges they instead chose to embrace.
Now, the NBA Finals begin in just moments, so I'll leave with these horrible examples of LGBTQ oppression in American today.
"DO you recognize the oppression of LGBTQ folks or does your privilege (as a conservative white CIS guy, I've never been oppressed because of my orientation, so it must not be a reality...) blind you to the real oppression of LGBTQ people?"
A fictional narrative as is so many from the left. And what a blatantly stupid thing to say, that because we aren't "oppressed" because we're normal, thus it doesn't happen to the abnormal. No. It doesn't happen with any real threat to them in this current age, because it's never been the true Christians/conservatives who caused any true harm anyway. Refusing to support their deviant cause is not "oppression", you lying sack of shit. It's called "promoting morality and virtue".
In any case, most harm which comes to them is of their own making, indirectly or otherwise, by virtue of their appeasement of their abnormal, immoral urges and compulsions. I would wager that stats are skewed based on how many have encountered harm, without any true accounting of how they came to be harmed. How many who assert they were harmed for their "orienation" were harmed by their own kind, or by those who were led to believe those men who call themselves "trans women" as if there actually is such a thing (they're men. Period.) only to find that actual men don't like being approached by pervert men? Dan doesn't care, and neither do the activists (also liars). It's all oppression if they say so. Again, this alleged "oppression" is self-inflicted by those with no moral spine to oppose their own immoral temptation. Their whining falls on deaf ears. They reap what they sow.
"It's just about the most wholesome activity one could hope for:"
There's nothing at all wholesome about perverts marching in celebration of their perversion...especially when there are children around. There are millstones with the names of each of them...and you, Danny-boy...written clearly on them. Christ warns about leading the innocent to sin. Yet, you champion such vile behavior. What scum you are, Dan!
"Again, not my thing, but they're literally harming no one. I think perhaps your fear has you imagining monstrous demons and leather-whipping dungeon masters as the norm or even common."
We imagine nothing. We see clearly evil promoting evil and the harm to the souls of those who are lured by their immorality is far greater than any physical harm could ever be. But then, since you're not really Christian, but just a vile cretin who exploits the word, this crap doesn't surprise.
"They do it to outrage and put the fear of a Glam God in y'all and it works."
They do it because they're truly evil and in blatant rebellion against God...just as you are. Good luck with that. We don't "fear" them. We're nauseated by them.
"And others don't do it for those reasons, it's just an aesthetic choice. Live and let live, dear brother."
"Aesthetic choice". That's funny. Still perverse and immoral, but yeah...live and let cretins live to degrade the culture. No thanks. And you're no brother of ours. You're scum. Period.
"You are free to stay at home and watch Archie Bunker and long for the good ol' days if you want."
Ah...we're not "forced" (as if you twinks had the ability to force anyone openly), but we're also not considered in any way, because only the feelings of the queers matter. Got it.
""you're evil and going to hell!""
That's not hateful bigotry, you hellish piece of crap. That's called "a warning". It's a greater sign of love for one's fellow man (regardless of whether or not the man regards himself as such) than any enabling of those like yourself. While you champion their cause, you grease the slide down which they slide to perdition and pretend you're doing God's will. But the truth is that you're doing the will of your Father of Lies.
The notion that no one has suffered for opposing the perv nation is bullshit...an intentionally, willfully told lie. It's happened with great frequency and we still see news regarding a baker who dared suggest in a Christian manner that a couple of queers take their business elsewhere. He wasn't loud, obnoxious and opposing actual, factual perversion isn't "bigotry". Opposing those who speak truthfully about it is bigotry, and there's no greater bigot like a progressive/leftists/Democrat/marxist.
At one point I remember mentioning that I had spent more time out of the country helping the poor and oppressed than Dan had. If I remember correctly his response was something like "Well, I choose to put my effort into my local community." or words to that effect.
So, I guess as Dan has tried to shame me because I don't go abroad to fight for HIS cause, I'll use what he said and point out that at this point in my life I focus on causes that are local.
Or, I'll use his other gem. "I'm a finite human being and I don't have the time to focus and invest time in every cause." so I choose to focus my energy on causes in my local area.
I've placed myself at risk of physical harm to help people in other countries. Dan, not so much.
Art,
I have to point out that Dan, for all his effort, has actually demonstrated the accuracy of my post. His proudly acknowledges that the risk to the alphabet soup folx has diminished exponentially in recent years. He acknowledges that the "risk" is mostly about getting their feelings hurt because someone might say something mean. He even acknowledges that the worst "risk" that they have (from "bomb threats") isn't an actual physical risk.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/series-bomb-threats-targeting-lgbtq-pride-events-montana/story?id=109983401
The journalists note that the "bomb threats" were hoaxes, therefore there was no actual risk.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/federal-agencies-warn-of-possible-threats-to-lgbtq-events-including-pride-month-activities
While PBS (Dan really "reveres" PBS) reports that "foreign terrorists" are a significant concern, as well as noting that the "deadliest attack on the LGBTQ community in U.S. history," was committed by a Muslim, not a "right wing extremist" white guy.
To be fair, the first amendment does protect these events and the police should do everything in their power to prevent any attacks. Of course this should be True of EVERY group or ideology.
My point remains that the alphabet soup folx face very little actual risk in the US, and are (in fact as well as law) a "protected class". But they need the narrative that they are in more danger than they are to convince themselves how heroic they are, and to convince themselves that they don't have to risk anything for any of their fellows who live at greater risk daily.
He even acknowledges that the worst "risk" that they have (from "bomb threats") isn't an actual physical risk.
Well, that, and the dozens of murders and unknown number of beatings and assaults. That and being kicked out of their families - sometimes while still in their teens - and ending up homeless. There are also the state legislators who are trying in various ways to criminalize and demonize being LGBTQ. Then there are the employers who discriminate against LGBTQ folks.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/employ-discrim-effect-lgbt-people/
and
Results showed that, in 2017, LGBT people experienced 71.1 victimizations per 1,000 people, compared to 19.2 victimizations per 1,000 people for non-LGBT people.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-lgbt-violence-press-release/
But you're right. Being told by YOUR FAMILY and YOUR FAITH TRADITION and YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES that you are vile, evil and hell-bound, loathesome and sick - that you are not acceptable as you are and that you don't belong, that's no big deal.
Then, there's the threats of suicides that comes with this constant hateful bigotry.
And also, the murders and the beatings for simply Being who you are.
What in the name of all that is holy is wrong with you all? Have you lost all human decency? Have you no shame?
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2022/07/11/violentvictimization/
Recent statistics showcase a long standing trend — LGBT people are still four times more likely to experience violence in their life than their straight counterparts. FBI data from 2019 illustrates a rise in anti-LGBTQIA+ hate crimes, including higher rates of police brutality...
The risk of sexual violence is also increased for trans people;
50% of transgender people have been sexually assaulted at least once in their life.
Transgender victims of sex trafficking were more likely to be criminalized by law enforcement than offered victim services. Transgender people are seven times more likely to be victims of police brutality than cisgender people.
https://www.nsvrc.org/blogs/fact-sheet-injustice-lgbtq-community
I could go on, but to what end?
Have the decency to at the very least denounce the people who violently assault, rape, abuse or attack LGBTQ people... denounce THAT as a great evil, despicable and vile.
And then, try to recognize the demonization that you all perpetuate is part of the reason WHY LGBTQ people are so often assaulted, murdered and abused... AND why there is increased risk of self-loathing and suicide. Because of your words. Because of MY words, once upon a time.
An entire comment where Dan tries desperately to maximize the "threat" to the alphabet soup folx, and most of it ends up being theoretical or scare tactics.
I'm not going to waste my time looking into his source for "dozens" of alleged incidents, but I'd suspect that it goes back decades and isn't particularly relevant to the current risk of being gay in America.
It's almost like Dan thinks that being gay is 100% risk free, except for all the meanies that threaten the alphabet soup folx.
"To hell with the data. I can be a jackass oppressor of an historically oppressed people if I want. To hell with basic human decency."
Who was it that said that? Jesus?
No. Not quite. Indeed, sort of the opposite.
What you do for the least of these, you do for me.
The commitment to bigotry and hateful comments and attitudes run deeply in the hearts of the American "conservative."
Dan tries desperately to maximize the "threat" to the ****** (hateful comment deleted)
Accurately noting the real world threats and actual history of oppression of LGBTQ folks is not "maximizing" anything. It's reporting the reality that you, in your privilege, want to prance around and ignore.
But the hateful, deadly bigotry of especially modern conservative extremists (whether Muslim or Christian or otherwise) is a reality for LGBTQ. It's both an historic reality and a modern problem.
If you had a loved one (I hate saying that, because WHY should it matter) who was 2-5 times MORE likely to be assaulted, harassed and killed for just being who they are, would you NOT come to their defense?
"To hell with the data. I can be a jackass oppressor of an historically oppressed people if I want. To hell with basic human decency.""
Well, we know where Dan is now because he's making up bullshit and acting as if anyone actually said what he made up.
"Who was it that said that? Jesus?"
No. The correct answer is no one. Despite your attempt, it's not a quote, and no one has actually said that. It's made up.
"No. Not quite. Indeed, sort of the opposite."
If imaginary, nonexistent, and made up is the "opposite" then you're correct.
"What you do for the least of these, you do for me."
1. You're not Jesus.
2. I regularly do all sorts of things for all sorts of "the least".
3. I'm not sure that the alphabet soup folx in the US in 2024 really qualify as "the least" of much of anything. Maybe % of the population, but that's about it.
"The commitment to bigotry and hateful comments and attitudes run deeply in the hearts of the American "conservative.""
Clearly not as deep as the commitment to lying, bullshit, made up "quotes", attacking straw men, and the like is with you. I'm not even going to attribute your behavior to "the left", it's yours and yours alone.
"Accurately noting the real world threats and actual history of oppression of LGBTQ folks is not "maximizing" anything. It's reporting the reality that you, in your privilege, want to prance around and ignore."
If you say so, because you'd never cherry pick anything to try to shore up a weak argument. Of course the point of THIS POST is the fact that the alphabet soup folx and their allies aren't willing to risk their safety by leaving the US to fight for freedom and justice. Instead y'all stay here where it's much safer and whine about being victims.
"But the hateful, deadly bigotry of especially modern conservative extremists (whether Muslim or Christian or otherwise) is a reality for LGBTQ. It's both an historic reality and a modern problem."
Blah, blah, blah, nothing has changed in the past 500 years, it's all the same old complaints and false equivalencies. None of this has does anything to dispute THE POINT OF THIS POST.
"If you had a loved one (I hate saying that, because WHY should it matter) who was 2-5 times MORE likely to be assaulted, harassed and killed for just being who they are, would you NOT come to their defense?"
Of course I would but I would do so for ANYONE who was under a specific and direct threat. I don't discriminate in who I help.
Of course, if I was passionate about ensuring justice, freedom, and safety for my alphabet soup friends across the globe, I wouldn't sit safely in the US and complain about how horrible my life is in the middle of a freaking month dedicated to freaking alphabet soup folx. I'd get off my ass, take a risk, and go try to end the oppression.
I just slogged through a study about victimization of alphabet soup folx, and there were two things that stuck me as not being adequately explained.
1. How much of the victimization was from other alphabet soup folx (disproportionately high domestic violence rates for lesbian couples).
2. How much of the victimization was directly related to their sexual orientation.
It looks like they have some correlation/causation issues to work out, as well as a small sample size from lack of recording to deal with as well.
Per the CDC 43.8% of lesbians reported domestic violence by their partners. That seems like a lot.
Dan is devoid of honesty and integrity, which is why we see him so often take his favored news sources...pretty much any source he uses for anything, actually...and cite them for the mere fact they promote the same narrative Dan so much pretends is truth. Your two points in your comment on June 7, 2024 at 9:08 AM are typical of his arguments and manifest in discussions of any number of issues.
--We see the same two points in regard to discussions on "oppression" of the black community. That is, stats indicate they take more assaults of various degrees of severity by others of their own race. We also see allegations of racism simply because harm to a black individual resulted from a confrontation with a non-black person...such as a white cop.
--We see it in Dan's list of "oppression" against contractors and such, with no willingness to investigate whether or not the complaining party had an actual legit complaint against Trump, or if Trump actually did not receive the quality of work for which he paid.
--We see it in Dan's "reporting" of violence by white supremacists, when a deeper dive reveals that some of what is reported involved non-racial issues between even two from the same racist group.
All these things, and more, have been brought up in past discussions, and Dan does nothing to rebut any of our rebuttals to that which he takes as gospel simply because it favors his preferred narratives.
This particular issue is most revealing about the absence of character in Dan, as his concerns necessitate the legitimizing of behavior God called an abomination (or "detestable") without any hint of caveat or tempering of his great disapproval of that which runs counter to His design of Creation. Where such individuals are unjustifiably attacked...usually be those Dan would ordinarily protect and align himself...we have never so much as hinted that such should be tolerated. But like Craig also states, we feel the same about anyone victimized in a criminal way.
But being the liar Dan is, he joins these morally corrupt people (Dan being morally corrupt himself) in suggesting any opposing response to their agenda is some kind of rank bigotry or religious extremism (I only wish I was Christian enough to be regarded as "extreme"). Dan and these people are in rebellion against both God and science. There is no upside to support for these people and their agenda. The only upside for them and the culture is for them to work toward overcoming their abominable urges and compulsions, reject their lifestyles based upon them and carry that cross for His sake, as all are better off doing.
And of course, here we see Dan also employing his favored tactic of referring to the past as if there's been no change. These pervs are in no way at risk as they once might have been. Not by a long shot. But they'll keep pretending until not just tolerance is universal, but absolute acceptance that what so greatly displeases God is actually moral and good. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord...not perversion. And we will do that in all we do to the best of our ability.
At the bank the other day, the teller had a folding fan with a rainbow pattern spread out against the teller window. I asked her if it's there because it's June. She said, "Yes...it's Pride Month." I tsk-tsked her response and lamented that anyone would take pride in such a thing. She responded that everyone is entitled to their opinion. While this concept is certainly true, a valid, worthy opinion should be based on something more substantive that feelings. Facts, science, truth, and for Christians, the Word of God, should be the foundation of one's opinion. Dan has none of these on his side. He doesn't care about not having any of it on his side.
One final thing.
I still watch FoxNews. Two shows I try to see often are "The Five" and "Gutfeld!". The former includes Gutfeld, but also has four others, one of whom is a leftist. It's been their format since the beginning. Greg Gutfeld, on his highly rated late night show, very often has guests who are homosexual. Some are one with some regularity. Tucker Carlson often had regular appearances by homosexuals, and Tammy Bruce often sits in for hosts of shows, such as Hannity and others. The point here is twofold:
1. This news source Dan's leftists rank as least trustworthy and reliable, routinely welcomes the input of homosexuals and lesbians.
2. The welcoming of homosexuals by Fox indicates they have given up the fight against this perversion, with Brian Kilmeade saying on "Gutfeld!" the other night (with Dave Rubin on the panel...an actual homosexual), that America no longer cares about homosexuals. I've heard this before from some who should know better.
I don't believe it's accurate at all. There's a huge difference between how one treats someone like this with acceptance of their lifestyle choice. Those like Rubin, Bruce, and others one sees often on Fox, don't present as anything other than "normal" people, and their politics indicates an otherwise positive degree of intelligence, maturity and understanding of all else. I've known enough homosexuals in my life to know how that can be the case as far as outward appearances and how they try to live as if their perversion is not abnormal and immoral. I actually appreciate those who don't "rub it in our faces".
But to promote it as normal and moral...or morally neutral...is totally unacceptable, and I believe that a survey properly worded (not falsely the way lefties do polls, but "properly" to get as accurate a reflection of public sentiment as can be had) would indicate that America is not at all cool with the notion of homosexuality and/or the LGBTQ+ agenda. For example, anyone who insists they wouldn't care if their son or daughter came out as "gay" are liars. Dan's a liar, so I've no doubt he pretends it doesn't at all matter to him if his kid chose to reject God. And if Dan truly believes all the crap he's been spewing here about the "oppression" pervs still suffer at the hands of evil Christians, then the lie is even worse.
Art,
I think the most disingenuous tactic here is the pretending like society hasn't changed massively in terms of how the alphabet soup folx are treated. We're not even halfway through "pride" month and Dan's bitching about how oppressed the ABC folx are. I think that we can all agree that it is possible to disapprove of a behavior without attacking (verbally or physically) the one who's behavior you disapprove of. I think that we all agree that the protected groups should be treated equally in society and law. I think we can agree that we would intervene to protect ANYONE who was being attacked regardless of the reason. I think that we can agree that when the argument was "We should be able to do what we want in the privacy of our bedrooms.", that keeping things in the bedroom was reasonable.
But we've gone way beyond that now. I don't need someone else's sexual predilections shoved in my face in public. Honestly if "pride" parades were always "G" rated, I don't think I'd care one way or another. It's when they call something kid friendly and then we see fat old guys in bondage gear twerking down the street, sexual activities in display that I have a problem. Hell, if hey wanted to do an adults only parade where they could do whatever they wanted I could even live with this. Maybe I'm a prude, but I don't see how ANY group of people parading in public wearing cloths (or not) and engaging in actions that should probably be kept in private. I feel the same way about the Mardis Gras "show us your tits" crowd as I do about the ABC soup folx.
Unfortunately IMO society doesn't agree with me, and we'll likely be seeing things get more explicit and sexualized instead of less.
"I still watch FoxNews. Two shows I try to see often are "The Five" and "Gutfeld!". The former includes Gutfeld, but also has four others, one of whom is a leftist. It's been their format since the beginning. Greg Gutfeld, on his highly rated late night show, very often has guests who are homosexual. Some are one with some regularity. Tucker Carlson often had regular appearances by homosexuals, and Tammy Bruce often sits in for hosts of shows, such as Hannity and others. The point here is twofold:"
I haven't watched Fox News for years. I did occasionally enjoy The 5, but I went cold turkey on political talk radio/TV years ago and haven't regretted it. To be clear, those shows are not news programming. They are opinion, talk shows, and are fine for what they are. But I wouldn't expect them to be doing journalism or reporting.
1. All of Dan's "revered" news sources lean heavily to the left. It's not really even debatable at this point. The question is can anyone put their bias aside and simply report the events as they happened.
2. Fox has definitely been sliding to the left as well. I'm not sure that the ABC soup folx should be excluded from an outlet like Fox News, but that's me.
"I don't believe it's accurate at all. There's a huge difference between how one treats someone like this with acceptance of their lifestyle choice. Those like Rubin, Bruce, and others one sees often on Fox, don't present as anything other than "normal" people, and their politics indicates an otherwise positive degree of intelligence, maturity and understanding of all else. I've known enough homosexuals in my life to know how that can be the case as far as outward appearances and how they try to live as if their perversion is not abnormal and immoral. I actually appreciate those who don't "rub it in our faces"."
That's the point. Don't make who you have sex with the primary defining factor of your existence. I suspect that there are plenty of more interesting facets to people's lives than who they have sex with.
"But to promote it as normal and moral...or morally neutral...is totally unacceptable, and I believe that a survey properly worded (not falsely the way lefties do polls, but "properly" to get as accurate a reflection of public sentiment as can be had) would indicate that America is not at all cool with the notion of homosexuality and/or the LGBTQ+ agenda. For example, anyone who insists they wouldn't care if their son or daughter came out as "gay" are liars. Dan's a liar, so I've no doubt he pretends it doesn't at all matter to him if his kid chose to reject God. And if Dan truly believes all the crap he's been spewing here about the "oppression" pervs still suffer at the hands of evil Christians, then the lie is even worse."
I guess I don't think that journalism is the place to make moral judgements. Talk, opinion shows, editorials, whatever, but in straight news I fail to see how moral judgements are appropriate. The reality is that most of us interact with people of multiple different worldviews and sex preferences on a daily basis, and do so in a civil, respectful, friendly manner. How about we just strive for basic civility?
I don't disagree in theory. But there's always influence in how we interact if we never speak of these things and pretend "live and let live" is really as good as it sounds. I don't think there is any place or context in which moral judgements are inappropriately made. If one is reporting on a situation in which a homosexual is involved, there mere fact he is doesn't mean any moral judgements should be made. Objective reporting with the assumption that the story is of interest in and of itself is as it should be. If a story being reported features a homosexual promoting the lifestyle as morally benign, I think the other side of the story is that many don't agree and that's objective journalism to include that reality. These days, particularly with regard to that which the left promotes...regardless of the issue...we don't see the other side of the story. For a simple report of something which had happened, just the facts surrounding how it went down is enough.
It's absurd to think America is cool with queers. I've seen no polls which actually indicate that's the case, as I've seen none which I believe are worded to get an accurate picture. For example: "Do you believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry?" doesn't provide an accurate picture. What does the questioner mean by that? "Marry" as the word has been defined since the dawn of time, or "married" as how the queers want the word to be defined? That's two different answers for many people. Homosexuals have always been marrying throughout human history, but they've been marrying those of the opposite sex, often having children with that person as well. I've no problem with that, though I pity the non-homosexual spouse and any children the union produces. But the laws should never have been changed to pretend SSMs are the same as marriages. They are not. The culture suffers as a result. They can live together if they want, but there was justifiable reason to change the laws to accommodate their disorder. We're not seeing this ever discussed anymore, as if the whole thing has been settled and truthfully, factually so. It hasn't. It was merely imposed and many simply threw up their hands in surrender to this evil. I never did. I'm sure many never did.
It's one thing to associate or work with someone who is homosexual. I've done it and can do it again if need be. Given a choice, I'd rather not if such a person doesn't bring something extraordinarily beneficial to the arrangement.
None of this even comes close to "oppression", though Dan will regard it as such or pretend morons will take it as incitement to treat people badly. I'm not going to discontinue speaking against the heinous sinfulness of progressive ideology just because some goofball takes it a license to act criminally, though Dan would insist we ought, just to provide more space for evil to exist and flourish.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and promote His Will... not the will of sinners.
My experience is that I have no problem interacting with people in my daily life who are engaged in behavior I believe to be sinful (especially since I regularly engage in sinful behavior my self).
I'm not sure how you define "cool with". I suspect that most of us aren't particularity interested on how others spend their time when it comes to who or what they sleep with. I do think that most Americans agree that everyone should be treated equally under the law, not be discriminated against, and have an equal opportunity in public life. We all agree that the ABC soup folx should have the same constitutionally guaranteed rights as every other US citizen, I think.
Given the protected class status of the ABC soup folx, it's ridiculous to suggest that they are "oppressed" in any meaningful sense. The problem is that "oppressed" sounds really bad and confers a special victim status for dealing with the same general crap people go through regularly. People have been treated poorly and made fun of for all sorts of things, none of it is "nice" or should happen, but it's not like the ABC soup folx are the only ones who've ever been "bullied".
"Cool" as in, "Americans don't care any more about the homosexual agenda". I'm not cool with that agenda. I do care that it has resulted in laws which should never have been passed because there was never any true justification for them. There was no righteous argument for suggesting SSMs should be treated like marriages, since they aren't marriages given the 5000 year old meaning of the word. There was no justifiable, Constitutional basis for forcing a new definition on the whole of the nation without the consent of that nation. They were not denied anything which wasn't denied to everyone, and as such they were already enjoying equal application of the law. Prior to the change being forced upon us, NO ONE was allowed to marry another of the same sex...neither homosexual nor normal person. ALL PEOPLE were allowed to marry, as the word had been understood for all of human history, and for all of American history...whether homosexual OR normal person.
I am not "cool" with what's been done to us for the sake of a tiny percentage of mentally disordered people. The nation clearly has not benefited in any way as a result, and more clearly has suffered as a result. If ever I was polled, I would absolutely prefer that all pro-homosexual laws enacted since Lawrence v Texas be reversed. I would wager there's a significant percentage of the American population which would agree.
Gotcha.
What I'm talking about is acknowledging that every US citizen shares certain basic rights that extend equally to all. I'm also suggesting that I will serve gay clients exactly the same way I serve every other client, and that I'd happily share an office with one of my colleagues who is gay. Beyond that I agree that there are problems. I was and am fine with allowing two consenting adults to do pretty much whatever they want in the privacy of their home. Where I begin to have problems is when that spills out into the public, and the agenda is being pushed by government entities. When "tolerance" is expanded to mean encouragement and forced on us, that's too far.
In short, I'm fine with equal rights and treatment under the law, not with special rights and unequal treatment under the law.
Let's put it this way: If one is willing to associate in any way with these people, they are certainly free to do so. In general, I don't want them anywhere near me and my world, anymore than I want others who intentionally choose to indulge in bad behaviors. I know that's a tall order, as there are many bad behaviors which are perpetrated routinely...and some I'm guilty of perpetrating myself. But again, I don't promote such bad behaviors as anything other than bad behaviors, whether I fail to refrain or not. The problem here is that it's rare that one who would admit to being compelled toward homosexual behavior doesn't also assert there's no moral problem with it. Where I have the choice, ability and/or authority to decide, I would choose they take their sorry selves elsewhere rather than to exist in my world and influence it in such a clearly negative way. Sadly, I don't hold such power and must deal accordingly. This makes people like Dan extremely happy because immorality is something they embrace more than grace.
I guess I realize that I (a sinner) spend every waking hour of every day in the company of sinners and that I can choose to be a light to them in some small way or to hide my tiny light under a bushel. The fact that I can interact with, be friends with, and do business with those who are sinners shouldn't be a surprise, nor is it an endorsement of their behavior.
If someone who engages in homosexual behavior tries to make such assertions, I see that as a great opportunity to engage with them in the hopes of sharing the Gospel (this'll get Dan pissed).
Fortunately YHWH's grace is available to everyone He wills and it's not my role to determine who qualifies and who doesn't.
My power to cast out the unrepentant doesn't interfere with God's ability to affect change in their attitudes. My casting them out has no impact on that, but is simply a desire to see the innocent aren't influenced by their lies.
Again, I have no such power (despite what you might have heard) and as such I am often in a position where I must interact with them...as I do with others not of the perfect kind. Despite my belief regarding such behavior, as I do with regard to other blatant indulgence in bad behavior, I am not shy about making my opinion known, nor do I see it as Christian to keep my thoughts to myself. Shining one's light is not simply living in a manner which doesn't rebuke bad behaviors. Indeed, it's not a matter of whether or not interacting means endorsing bad behavior, but can and often is seen as such. Otherwise, stating interaction isn't an endorsement wouldn't be necessary.
You do you. I seem to remember that Jesus had a different attitude, and I'll try to emulate that.
I've found that actually developing a relationship with other sinners so that I can talk about how we all struggle with sin, leads to more productive discussions than simply rebuking people. Especially people I don't know.
But, if you think that Jesus wants to to call out sin in random people, go for it. I'm sure that you've had great success is leading people to Christ that way.
Scripture speaks of casting out the unrepentant sinner. Christ spoke of not knowing those who did things in His name, and clearly, He speaks of how exclusive heaven is. I'm not speaking of "random" people, but of people who continue to promote their sinful behaviors as not sinful. At some point, they are spoiling the bunch, as it were, to allow them to remain and preach their corruption.
When I'm in a situation in which I must interact with any overtly sinful people, I don't bring up their behaviors and begin preaching at them how hellbound they are. That's because the circumstances which brought us in such close proximity doesn't lend itself to such. But dealing with them in a professional manner, or a cordial manner or in any manner other than that doesn't necessarily lead them to Christ, does it? How could it? There must at some point be an actual message delivered one way or another, and if they don't see their sinfulness as sin, how does my simply interacting with them make any difference in that regard?
So, in your developing of relationships, what happens when your eventual preaching has no effect? Because the point here is two opposing ideologies in constant conflict. Each has the potential to affect those around you.
The only context I'm aware of for "casting out" is when you have someone who's in the Church and who continues in sin, who should be "cast out" of the Church. Nowhere does it tell us that we should completely avoid sinners. For example, what's the difference between someone who knows what they are doing is sin and chooses intentionally to continue, and someone who is genuinely ignorant? What's the point of sharing the Gospel with fellow sinners, if you "cast them out" of your presence?
It seems much more likely that someone will be open to the sort of conversation you seem to be talking about, if you demonstrate the love of Christ to them in your interactions with them. Why would anyone take you seriously if your default response is to "cast them out" of your presence? What's the old saying, "They don't care what you know until they know that you care."? Look at the example of Jesus, who regularly interacted with sinners in a gentle, loving, and as those created in the Imago Dei, yet still called them to forsake sin.
It's not my responsibility to force people to accept the Gospel. It's completely;y out of my hands. All I can do is to be "salt and light" to the best of my ability, and trust that the Holy Spirit will do the work that leads to salvation. It's in YHWH's hands and I can't see the future. I do the best I can and trust Him for the outcome.
But, you do you.
You seem to be assuming I'm suggesting casting out as a first option. That's not the case. And "the church" is us, not a building, as you're no doubt aware. Thus, to cast out in either sense is a matter of having determined that a given sinner is unrepentant...a reprobate...and therefore no longer to be given the same welcome as any other with a true desire to know Truth.
And while it is not our job to force Christianity upon anyone, it is also not our job to allowing the unrepentant to exist without rebuke, infecting and spoiling the whole bunch, as it were. On the contrary, I would say it's our job to insure that doesn't happen and by casting them out or away from us, sin can have no influence...there's less risk of one being turned toward following their example.
I have to say that this notion of leaving things in God's hands is a bit twisted, in the sense that by being "salt and light" we are in effect "God's hands". Even by our example, which you acknowledge has the potential for luring the sinner to hear of God's ways and thus being called by Him to follow is us being God's hands. God Himself will not forever tolerate, though He will welcome the prodigal whenever he returns, repents and puts Him first. God is not inclusive. We're to flee sexual immorality, and I would say all forms of sinfulness. To rebuke it to the extent the unrepentant are rightly "marginalized" is part of the deal.
Given that casting out has been the primary thing you've talked about, it's not unreasonable to conclude that it's a ready option.
The notion that you seem to think that you can determine that a particular sinner is unrepentant without a lengthy relationship and extensive conversations with willful rejection of Christ seems strange. As I noted, some people take longer than others for the Holy SPirit to work on them. Patience seems reasonably important.
I'd argue that allowing the "unrepentant to exist" within The Church might be a problem, but it's not our role to "allow" sinners to "exist" outside of The Church and certainly not our role to lead with telling random strangers about how sinful they are.
It's strange to hear you refer to the Biblical notion that YHWH and only YHWH draws people to Him an dto repentence, and to think that we play no role in that. The notion of baing "salt and light: is explicitly Biblical and doesn't conflict with YHWH's sovreignty.
I'd be interested to see if you treat others engaged in sexual immorality in the same way. Are you suggetsing that the pastro who's a regular porn user should be "cast out"? The church member who's having an affair? It seems like you're seperating sexual sin into categories that scripture doesn't.
Art,
You seem to be confused about what I'm suggesting.
I'm suggesting that, in our everyday lives, that we treat those who are engaged in unrepentant sin the same way we treat everyone else. I'm suggesting that those engaged in unrepentant sin should always be welcomed into the fellowship of a local church, where they should be exposed to the gospel and encouraged to repent. I'm suggesting that specifically alphabet soup sinners should not be discriminated against legally, in housing, or otherwise by our secular government.
I'm making all of those suggestions in a general sense. The "casting out" thing seems aimed at a specific person who is a member of a local church who persists in their behavior, not at excluding anyone who's not perfect from the church.
Post a Comment