A little help?
Stacy over at Accepting Abundance posted on her feelings about her kids having to witness homosexual acts of affection in a public setting. For daring to speak about her beliefs, she's getting a lot of hateful comments. If you've the time, please pay a visit and give her some encouragement. Here's the link:
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/2011/08/you-duped-me-o-lord.html?showComment=1314636125640#c432774936900928214
13 comments:
Her hate has been met with some hate, yes, but she is being put through the ringer because she is a bigot and said bigoted things.
You said "the gloves are off" over here. Is that true?
The correct spelling is "wringer". Your communication needs to be precise and concise for optimum effectiveness.
She wasn't a bigot, not did she say bigoted things. Her natural revulsion is completely understandable.
Yes, the gloves are off. My Church requires I admonish the sinner and instruct the ignorant. Anyone who approves of a blantantly disordered and immoral manner of living is either one or the other.
For further elucidation, check the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
bigot: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."
How is what she said not bigoted?
And by the way, I can take the gloves off, too, but I think it's more productive to be civil. Both sides feel less emotionally attached to their positions and less defensive. That puts us both in danger of learning something.
This isn't my blog, but Anonymous, haven't you the courage of your own convictions. to put some sort of name on your comment, so we could, perhaps, visit your web site?
And I say this--to force someone to accept a moral system inimical to their religious beliefs, and to call their natural antipathy "Hate" is simply religious bigotry, standing on a false high ground.
When free speech is called "hate", the fascism is indeed on the march, be it based on militarism, ethnicity, or sexual preference.
Subvet,
I'm like the other guy over at Stacy's blog. Why all the Anonymous postings? Are these little children afraid to stand and be counted? And as you so politely pointed out they can't spell.
Pops
Anonymous, the woman didn't express hatred or intolerance. As a matter of fact, several times she attempted to clarify her position. That isn't good enough. Only wholesale capitulation would earn her a grudging acceptance and that is the real bigotry exhibited on her blog.
Homosexual behavior is immoral and unhealthy. For proof of the last check out what the CDC has to say on the topics of the gay lifestyle and the strong association with substance abuse, domestic violence, etc.
Speaking against homosexual behavior is only voicing the truth. If that counts as bigotry then I cheerfully accept that label.
IR, for those supporting the gay lifestyle only wholesale prostration at their feet is accepted. Groupthink at it's finest.
Pops, why learn to spell properly when you can claim "bigotry" and "prejudice"? The only word it's necessary to know is "victim".
Ignorant Redneck, whether I have a username is a side issue. We're here to discuss ideas. At least I thought so. I'll stay civil with you and respect your ideas. It'd be great if you'd give my ideas respect as well. Now, back to the discussion.
Subvet, thank you for your reply. I look forward to discussing things with you.
A few replies: You first state that the "gay lifestyle" has high rates of "unhealthy" things, such as substance abuse and domestic violence. From the CDC website: "Men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 53% of the estimated new HIV infections in 2006." BUT: 31% of new HIV infections were from HETEROSEXUAL couples. So, by your rationale, because heterosexual, like homosexual relationships are unhealthy in this respect, both should be wrong, no?
DV:Didn’t see any at CDC. However, a simple google search quickly revealed the following statistic: "The prevalence of domestic violence among Gay and Lesbian couples is approximately 25 - 33%. It is as common as it is in heterosexual relationships."http://www.uwstout.edu/cvpp/same_gender_stats.cfm
Anecdotally, I can tell you that this stat rings true. (I have worked for years with both victims and perpetrators of DV). DV in same-sex relationships is the same dynamic as in heterosexual relationships—it’s one partner wanting to control the other and employing different methods, sometimes violent ones, to gain that control. I believe that same-sex DV is underreported because victims are afraid of system’s disapproval of their lifestyle, so they don't have faith that that system will protect them. But I have no problem believing that it occurs with the same frequency.
As far as the unhealthy angle, that doesn't seem to be why you and Stacy have a problem with it. It seems to be the moral reason more than a health reason.
To your last point: I get what you're saying; that your religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong. If you were to say it's right, then you would be going against what you know in your religion to be true. Here is the disconnect I see (and a lot of arguing that results):
You and Stacy believe that atheists are asking you to not only tolerate, but ENDORSE it. If you feel that's going against God and your religious teachings, then that puts us at an impasse, no? But I don't think that's what people are doing here. I and otheres got upset when she stopped talking about her own, personal, religious beliefs, which she is absolutely entitled to, and then started talking about how she wanted to "change her community." That goes from disagreeing with something to trying to influence what other people do in a very private part of their lives--choosing their significant other. She talked about how she followed the rules, she paid taxes, and yet she's still "outnumbered." Saying that you'll use your vote to change things is very different from having your own moral code. So she went from having her personal beliefs in right and wrong to wanting to enforce her moral code to silence others. It was the political implications that got me. To me, that's where it went from tolerant to intolerant.
I realize this was a long post, hope it was clear. Looking forward to replies.
Ignorant Redneck: see the last paragraph of my comment. I am not trying to force her to accept anything. It's useless to do that, anyway. I could present arguments, but she seems pretty set in her beliefs. But that doesn't change whether the tone and some parts of her post were tolerant or intolerant. I simply believe that it fits the definition of bigoted, as I presented it to you. I never called it hate speech, nor do I think she doesn't have the right to say what she says. But she is no doubt someone who is devoted to her opinions, and does not tolerate a group of people being around her, taking certain actions, because it represents one characteristic: their sexual orientation. She actually, in clarifying herself, made very clear that she doesn't tolerate homosexuality, that she feels it's wrong, that she is now resonating with literature about being a 'martyr."
ABNPOPPA
"Why all the Anonymous postings? Are these little children afraid to stand and be counted? And as you so politely pointed out they can't spell."
Did you really just start a sentence with the word "And"?
To your credit though you never did say that YOU were good at spelling or writing. Just try not to knock on people for that stuff.
Anonymous, if Catholics such as Stacy and myself truly follow our religion it's because following the will of God is of prime importance for us. Our success at that dictates where we spend eternity. Doesn't it follow that implies more importance than getting along? This isn't a case of "Charlie" likes hot dogs and "Eddie" likes hamburgers, it's something involved with our eternal salvation/damnation.
Along with that, the use of politics to foster a private belief is something common to both sides of the debate here. For the "Catholic side" I'll only state it goes along with the whole "will of God" line of thinking. So since the public display of affection between homosexuals entails a choice of acceptance or condemnation, devout Catholics will opt for the latter.
While the exhibition of PDA's by heterosexuals can be distasteful (IMO all too many need to go rent a room!) it doesn't as readily imply that same choice of acceptance/condemnation.
Yes, this means we reach an impasse in any discussion.Just the way things are and I'm certain neither one of us is particularly happy about it.
I have no interest in reading anything posted by "Anonymous." Pick a name, any name, don't hide behind the nameless moniker of the masses.
Despite how much sexual intercourse they have with each other, homosexuals can't reproduce without involving someone of the opposite gender. Logically, scientifically, homosexuality is a biological aberration and a dead end in the human species.
That many people find homosexual behavior disgusting is the natural reaction of the normal for that which is abnormal. Demanding that people accept and embrace the abnormal as normal is both futile and slightly insane. Not that that will stop anyone from screaming for "gay rights." We live in an insane time, apparently.
Post a Comment