Gay

[ether-ore]

What kind of forum? You may have broken the rules by expression such thoughts, in a way that proselytizing is against the forum rules here.
But, some forum mods do abuse their power.

It was another religion forum. I don't consider that anything I've said is active proselytizing. My advocating a position that says homosexuality is wrong does not constitute an offering for anyone to join my specific or any other religion. It is what it is, a statement of belief on the present subject and nothing more. In my opinion, being called a bigot for having the point of view that I have and then being banned on those grounds is an abuse of the moderator's power. If all that is wanted in this or any forum is the parroting of the PC narrative, then what is the point of having the forum? I had always understood that the purpose of a forum is to air opposing views. In the case of the forum from which I was banned, this purpose appears not to be the case. They only wanted to hear one side of the argument on the issue of homosexuality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In my opinion, being called a bigot for having the point of view that I have and then being banned on those grounds is an abuse of the moderator's power.

It just depends on the forums rules.

 

[jojom]

It was another religion forum. I don't consider that anything I've said is active proselytizing. My advocating a position that says homosexuality is wrong does not constitute an offering for anyone to join my specific or any other religion. It is what it is, a statement of belief on the present subject and nothing more. In my opinion, being called a bigot for having the point of view that I have and then being banned on those grounds is an abuse of the moderator's power. If all that is wanted in this or any forum is the parroting of the PC narrative, then what is the point of having the forum? I had always understood that the purpose of a forum is to air opposing views. In the case of the forum from which I was banned, this purpose appears not to be the case. They only wanted to hear one side of the argument on the issue of homosexuality.

I've come across the same kind of sites, possibly the one you were banned from. Judging from some of the intense and radical posts I've seen here this place seems pretty permissive and forgiving.


.

 

[SomeRandom]

.​

Umm, cool?

 

[jojom]

Umm, cool?

Interesting.


.

 

[Riverwolf]

No, not here... yet. I was referring to some bitterness I still feel for being banned from another forum for expressing the same thoughts. I call that an abuse of power.

It's not, because internet forums aren't analogous, in any fashion, to governments, and I would fight TOOTH AND NAIL for the legal right to spew whatever hateful nonsense people want without fear of arrest, so long as it's not making direct threats or yelling "fire" in a crowded building.

Forums are privately organized and run, and as such, the people in charge of them have every right to make and enforce their own rules as they see fit. While I understand feeling bitter about it, that doesn't excuse certain types of behavior which are unwelcome in certain circles.

There are people on these forums who are against same-sex marriage, creationists (young and old earth alike), and most other flavor you can imagine, and they have been here for years. It's not your opinion, or expression thereof, that would get you banned. It's the manner in which that opinion is expressed.

Freedom of speech does not protect from the social consequences of that speech, nor should it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Norman: Hi Riverwolf, I hear that all the time that homosexuality is not a choice, however, did you find a gene to back that assumption up?

I don't have to. I simply trust that I did not choose to be a heterosexual (given the choice, I'd have preferred to be bisexual or pansexual, to be honest), and I simply trust the testimonies of non-heterosexual people that they have no control over whom they are sexually attracted to. Genes aren't necessary.

 

[SomeRandom]

Interesting.


.

Indeed?

 

[JoStories]

I make the assumption based on these remarks: "Wow. What a narrow, myopic and eternally sad outlook on life. You only speak to and interact with people who view life from your own small, bigoted world that is but a sad example of how wrong your faith is and how it doesn't even come close to what Christ taught. You are Paulian and a bad example of even that. Pathetic, really."
It doesn't bother me, but I acknowledge that they are statements of contempt. I could really care less about your PhD. That indicates no badge of authority for me. That you think that your degree in theology has any merit... I'll add that to the several thousand extant denominations of Christianity. I do admire your desire to be ethical in your medical practice. I have no problem with your choices. I am not in a field where I am faced with such decisions. But to answer your question; it would depend on what such a person came to me for. For any general medical condition, I most likely would treat. If it was for the furtherance of transgendered procedures, I would suggest they go somewhere else. What I was referring to were those instances where homosexuals sought out Christian businesses for the sake of causing them problems... the photographer and the baker. In either case, the homosexuals could have found others willing to provide what they wanted, instead, they deliberately picked someone for the sake of a law suit in order to draw attention and to force others to accept and support their lifestyle.

You are partially right. I know very little of you, only what you have written here. That is sufficient.

Most gay people would not go to a place that would deny them. There are some, admittedly, that wish to push an agenda. I don't hold to such a view. What I loathe are those who loudly say no to a person who is gay and then turns that into some media whore agenda. Both are at fault for being idiots, IMO. I applaud that you would at the least treat a person such as I asked about. At least you have some degree of compassion. No one said it was for furtherance of the procedure. The woman had been beaten to a pulp for being transgender and that was all. To refuse to care for her is, IMO, so wrong as to have the license yanked. Let me give you MY view. All I want is the same rights as you. To have been able to marry my late partner and live a quiet life. But because of alleged 'christian' pundits, I could not and she died. I have no desire to force my life on you or have you agree to support it. as I have no desire to support you. I just want the same things you do. Period. That you don't get that is beyond my comprehension Ether-Ore. Or maybe you do and if you do, great.

 

[JoStories]

If I thought it was a waste of time, I wouldn't be participating here. The thing I object to is any attempt to silence opinions that homosexuals don't like. While I disagree with gay marriage, it has become a fact of life now and I won't dispute it... that would be a waste of time. I will maintain however, that it is the right of any pastor, preacher, bishop, etc. to refuse to perform such marriages; especially when homosexuals can go to a justice of the peace.

But don't you see that right here, you are deciding that only some people can have faith? There are tons of gay people who have religion. YOUR religion, whether you like that or not. Not all by any means but there are lots of gay pastors who are openly gay and admit it. The fact that you don't like it is really beside the point. You would consign all gays to only have the right to go to a justice of the peace. What if that justice was a Christian and refused them? What then? Do you really not see how biased your position is? Frankly, I don;t give a damn about your opinion as it has no influence on me but what I do care about is your kind of person deciding who a person can go to to get married. THAT is the same as sending me to the back of that goddamn bus.

 

[JoStories]

My names Izzy, and your story is a flip path to my recent and ongoing route with this "sky god". What I mean is that instead of choosing to not believe in God and stay on the gay route, I grasped those nudges and bounced away from a really weird time in my life.
I'm not gonna go into detail but my rebirth in Christ (I was also raised in Christianity but had a fallout), but God made me realize that it was poison to my soul.

I was in and out of sexual relations with many guys and it was draining me, and a part of me knew it. I kept on though, and then God kinda let the chains loose on some kind of entity. I believe he allowed it to attack me to show me what I was doing to myself with lust and unnatural actions.

The love in a gay relationships real, but not really what God wants. It's still hard to get used to, but I feel urges that are always very pulling but it's those urges that make me realize that life shouldn't be like that.

Through all of this it's been so easy to love other people that are gay while knowing who I am with God there.

Just as an fyi, this isn't me pushing a conversion, but it's good for thought.

Welcome to the board Izzy. I am so sorry you have lived such a contentious path. IMO, God is nothing like the one you view. God loves me completely as a bisexual woman as that is how God made me. I've nothing to feel shame or think of as wrongdoing. I am as God made me. That is enough.

 

[Marisa]

Obviously. There can be not agreement where there is no cogent dialog. Your grasping at straws in an attempt to use shaming tactics isn't relevant to anything I've said. Besides, your use of an obscure phrase,,, "wile pence", really makes no sense. You really are out in left field.

Yeah that was a typo. It should have been silence. Sort of like how you used the wrong form of "you're".

Thing is, you don't get to say "I have no problem with my thoughts being examined when I post them publicly" and then accuse people who examine your thoughts of attempting to silence your right to speak. ROFLOL

 

[Marisa]

No, not here... yet. I was referring to some bitterness I still feel for being banned from another forum for expressing the same thoughts. I call that an abuse of power.

Meh, these forum owners have a right to set their own standards. You haven't given enough context anyway, for all we know you could been making derogatory homophobic remarks in a forum that is meant to be a safe place for people to be who they are. Don't expect much sympathy from us, okay?

 

[Marisa]

Norman: Hi Marisa, "2000+year old morals? How old are you morals?

Much, much older.

 

[Marisa]

Norman: Hi Shadow Wolf, same sex attraction is a minority and always will be. Just because the Supreme Court ruled for same sex marriage doesn't instantly make a minority a majority. Maybe we should bounce some polls around and see which direction this would sway?

Ah, the age old "majority rules" dialogue. Doesn't work. SCOTUS got this one right and here's why: 14 previous rulings establishing marriage as a basic right we 'Murican's possess, like life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (I'd place it under the latter). As a basic right, in order for any government to deny it to any 'Murican the government has to establish that it's in the greater good that this one person or small group of people no be allowed this basic right. "My invisible friend gets the heebie jeebies from thinking about gay sex" isn't enough to establish that society is damaged by same sex marriage. Numerous studies have been done which all conclude that same sex (stable) marriages are not more detrimental to the children raised in them that heterosexual (stable) marriages, so that argument falls flat on its ugly face as well. But your whole "majority rules" argument (pro-tip: you might wanna look up the numbers on who supports and who doesn't same sex marriage and recheck that argument anyway) dissolves into a puddle of jello when you realize the following:

GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IS TO PROTECT THE MINORITY FROM THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.




Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

 

[Marisa]

Norman: Simply, because there is no evidence that it is not a choice biologically speaking. You said the same to me about heterosexuals and I said no.

Sure there is. Do you remember when you chose to be straight? If you didn't choose your sexual orientation, it's exceedingly likely that nobody else chose theirs.

 

[Marisa]

Just have to say: What right do some straight people have to think they know gay people well enough to know whether they personally made the choice in their sexual orientation?

Do some straight people know us gay people on well to generalize who we are "individually" by studies of half of the people who are not gay?

If you'll notice from this thread, every single one of those straight people are thumping a 2,000 year old book that also says bats are birds and rabbits chew cud.

 

[Marisa]

Norman: Why don't we bounce some polls back and forth to each other and see which way this sways instead of you said, I said?

Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage | Pew Research Center

Poll: Gay-marriage support at record high - The Washington Post

Civil Rights

Let's see, I believe that pretty well blankets the issue. But tell me something, when the tide shift on religion and more 'Muricans are polling as not religious, will you side with the majority then? It does seem that you tend to be more concerned with how many accept an issue as opposed to whether or not it's the right position to take on an issue.

 

[Marisa]

Okay, go ahead. I'm not in the survey business, I suppose you are? Get back to me with the results.
In Australia at the moment, the polls seem to indicate support for SSM.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Poll shows growing support for same-sex marriage
Fairfax/Ipsos poll: Gay marriage support at record | afr.com

And bear in mind that in Australia voting is legally mandatory.

So in your opinion should this indicate that it should be legal, given that support overall seems relatively high?

I posted some polls. Right now 60% of us 'Muricans support same sex marriage. Since our country still boasts well over 70% who self identify as some sort of christian, that means that a hefty majority of that 60% are religious folk.

 

[Looncall]

Norman: Hi Marisa, "2000+year old morals? How old are you morals?

I think you may have hold of the wrong end of the stick here. Some idea being old indicates that it is less likely to be reliable not more likely since the ancients were more ignorant and uncivilized than moderns. The bible, for example, shows that very clearly.