A Christian group showed up at the Chigaco Gay Pride...

[Welsh cake]

Okay, let's work with this a little bit.

The only thing we need to do is slap the USA awake and get them to revise the First Amendment of the Constitution so that Laws prohibiting hate speech that debases one's sexual orientation may finally be introduced and no longer considered 'unconstitutional'.

[tackattack]

@KN... That is the most awesome bike pic I've ever seen. Awesome!

---

Let me get this straight: because Christians say such nasty things about some other group, it's okay for you to say nasty things about them.

NOT because they are Christians saying nasty things, but because they are human beings acting like arseholes...


Not being a believer, I do not accept 'turn the other cheek".

Get in my face or insult me here on this forum or in public,I may say some very unkind things,and use some very coarse language. Punch me in the face, I will hit you with a brick.

I do not subscribe to smug,hypocritical, bourgeois Judeo-Christian values.

---

Good pad because smug and hypocritical aren't judeo-Christian values to my knowledge

---

The difference is it's none of your goddamned business who other people love or fuck. This isn't just politics, it's about people's lives we're talking about. We are talking about love, life, and happiness. Attacking someone's pursuit of those things will make people hate you. Fucking deal with it.

Okay, let's work with this a little bit. If the principle is "It isn't your business, so don't express disapproval", what's wrong with saying "It isn't your business, so don't express approval"? Why is it that--conveniently--it is only people who disagree with your own personal views who are disallowed by the rules of polite society to express their views?

And I love how you can't let the term "homosexual" drop. Can't use gay, no, because you want to keep the last smidgen of clinical connotations to the topic that you can.

I don't care what terms we use. I use "homosexual" because I don't know what will offend people, and because I think that "gay" tends to be gender-/sex-specific, when the principle I'm trying to get at is more general.

Also, I don't give two sh*ts what consenting adults of any gender, creed, sex, or political stripe do to themselves or each other in their bedroom. I don't find the idea appealing, but I've seen enough weird crap on the internet that the idea doesn't shock or offend me.

So let's dispense with the "you're a Christian trying to tiptoe around how you really feel" bullsh*t, mkay?

---

+1

[CliveStaples]

There's no work that needs to be done.

In your examples, one is a parade celebrating love, fun, and acceptance.

The other is celebrating hate, intolerance, and bigotry.

The difference is that simple. Could you have a parade of that sort? Of course. The Westboro people have there little versions of it all the time. But don't expect to not be hated for it.

...wait, what? They're not celebrating "love, fun, and acceptance." They're celebrating a particular kind of lifestyle. And last time I checked, saying "No, I don't think that kind of lifestyle is actually good" isn't celebrating "hate, intolerance, and bigotry" any more than saying "Yes, I think this kind of lifestyle is actually good."

I can celebrate love, fun, and acceptance and still express my view that a particular kind of lifestyle isn't good.

Let's take a concrete example. Suppose there's a "City pride" march, where people are marching to celebrate living in huge urban areas. I can hold a counter "Rural pride" march that not only celebrates rural living, but also criticizes urban living. I can say "No, I don't think urban living is actually a good thing." And that doesn't commit me to saying "And therefore I f**king hate everyone who lives in cities, and I don't respect their right to live wherever they can afford to."



See how that works? I can say, "Actually, I think you've put the wrong moral value on this kind of thing" without saying "...and the government should punish you" or "and I don't trust you around children" or anything like that. Sometimes, an argument about sexual values is really just an argument about sexual values, not just a pretext to argue against people you hate.

---

Okay, let's work with this a little bit.

The only thing we need to do is slap the USA awake and get them to revise the First Amendment of the Constitution so that Laws prohibiting hate speech that debases one's sexual orientation may finally be introduced and no longer considered 'unconstitutional'.

Might as well get rid of the "free exercise" clause as well, as long as you're shredding the foundations of our liberty.

Speech that isn't offensive doesn't need to be protected. Why? Because it isn't offensive. Nobody's going to complain about it. The only time free speech even matters at all is when the speech in question is offensive; one's commitment to free expression can be tested by seeing how offensive an opinion must be before they support making it illegal.

You just tapped out at "I don't like the fact that you like this kind of people." Hard to believe that the land holding the bones of Thomas Jefferson admits of such an unprincipled descendent like you. And you lecture me about the value of tolerance? Freaking Helen Keller could see the irony of that.

[Whateverist]

The difference is it's none of your goddamned business who other people love or fuck. This isn't just politics, it's about people's lives we're talking about. We are talking about love, life, and happiness. Attacking someone's pursuit of those things will make people hate you. Fucking deal with it.

Okay, let's work with this a little bit. If the principle is "It isn't your business, so don't express disapproval", what's wrong with saying "It isn't your business, so don't express approval"? Why is it that--conveniently--it is only people who disagree with your own personal views who are disallowed by the rules of polite society to express their views?

RW has already answered this but I'm not sure you get his point. Do you see that a parade that not only allows a downtrodden group to affirm their human rights but also allows those not in that group to affirm their support, is different than a parade to condemn that group and to send the message yet again that gays deserve their second class status? These are not equal positions and that isn't only because I happen to agree with the former and not the latter.

Are you arguing in the abstract or would you yourself actually like to participate in a parade to celebrate discrimination, bigotry and your right to feel okay about being a hater?

[CliveStaples]

RW has already answered this but I'm not sure you get his point. Do you see that a parade that not only allows a downtrodden group to affirm their human rights but also allows those not in that group to affirm their support, is different than a parade to condemn that group and to send the message yet again that gays deserve their second class status? These are not equal positions and that isn't only because I happen to agree with the former and not the latter.

...huh? How does saying "I think you're wrong about sexual values" mean "and so therefore you're a second-class citizen"??

I don't think homosexuals (male or female) deserve second class status. I hate the very notion of classes in society. I just don't think that taking their argument seriously but disagreeing with their conclusion somehow renders them into second-class citizens.

You're saying that only the pro-homosexual sex side gets to speak. Yes, they've suffered. Yes, they're being discriminated against even today. But that doesn't mean that their arguments regarding sexual values should be privileged and not subject to dissent.

Again, incredibly ironic that you guys are pretending to be committed to tolerance.

Are you arguing in the abstract or would you yourself actually like to participate in a parade to celebrate discrimination, bigotry and your right to feel okay about being a hater?

I wouldn't personally attend such a rally, because I don't value discrimination, bigotry, or "being a hater" (unless this is the hip-hop sense of "hater" meaning "someone who disagrees or opposes").

I might actually attend a parade to celebrate monogamy (regardless of sexual orientation). I might actually attend a parade to celebrate abstinence until marriage (regardless of sexual orientation). I might actually attend a parade to celebrate our collective liberty to have and express whatever the f**k opinion we have about a guy doing a guy or a guy doing a girl or a girl doing a toaster or whatever.

But mostly I don't give two sh*ts about what consenting adults do behind closed doors, because there are far greater wrongs going on in the world that deserve to be protested that should be prioritized above celebrating the fact that you like dudes or chicks or that you don't like dudes who like dudes or whatever.

The only thing more retarded than having that discussion instead of talking about genocide or generating wealth in the third world or helping the economy recover...is only letting one side of the discussion have its say.

[Whateverist]

In actual fact gay youth in the world too often grow up hating themselves for what they are because they have been indoctrinated to feel as you do about it. They don't grow up and decide to join the hated group, they would never choose that given the what they've been raised to believe. It's just that they happen to be born gay. Being young and seeing no way out they too often choose to side with societal intolerance and end their own life.

Expressing the opinion that homosexuality is not okay has consequences. There certainly are more important matters in the world to concern ourselves with than the debate over the status of homosexuality .. but not to these gay suicides. You'd have to agree that for them this was the most important thing of all. So as long as it truly is so low on your list of priorities, perhaps you could deign to agree not to contribute to the atmosphere of intolerance which has this sad side effect. I won't ask you to join me in decrying the open expression of your homophobia as hate speech, but I think if you were a follower of Jesus instead of a bible driven Christian you'd make that choice yourself.

[CliveStaples]

In actual fact gay youth in the world grow up hating themselves for what they are because they have been indoctrinated to feel as you do about it. They don't grow up and decide to join the hated group, they would never choose that given the what they've been raised to believe. It's just that they happen to be born gay. Being young and seeing no way out they too often choose to side with societal intolerance and end their own life.

First, they shouldn't be hated. Second, it isn't being gay that's sinful.

Oh, and guess what? Every single Christian is a sinner, and most struggle with habitual sin. So a failure to reach out to homosexuals on the issue of sin is a pretty big problem for the church in general with regard to its approach to habitual sin.

Expressing the opinion that homosexuality is not okay has consequences. There certainly are more important matters in the world to concern ourselves with than the debate over the status of homosexuality .. but not to these gay suicides. You'd have to agree that for them this was the most important thing of all. So as long as it truly is so low on your list of priorities, perhaps you could deign to agree not to contribute to the atmosphere of intolerance which has this sad side effect.

I'm afraid I've missed the point of your emotional pleading (and grats on using suicides as a political device, very caring). I'm not contributing to an atmosphere of intolerance. I'm all for tolerance. You're the one saying that certain views shouldn't be expressed. You're the one trying to silence and reject people.

The only argument I'd make with regard to homosexuality, if I were forced to make it, would be that people shouldn't do it. I think there's a clear case from the Biblical text that homosexual sex acts are immoral.

But so's blasphemy. So's taking the Lord's name in vain. And I tolerate the f**k out of that. So how in the world does disagreeing with you automatically make me into a promoter of intolerance who shouldn't be allowed to say things?

I won't ask you to join me in decrying the open expression of your homophobia as hate speech, but I think if you were a follower of Jesus instead of a mindless Christian you'd make that choice yourself.

I do make that choice myself. See, I'm big into existentialist Christianity. I'm not even sure we should have actual churches. So I'm all about choices and free will and self-determination. Of course, your crude attempt to categorize me fundamentally disrespects my personhood, but hey, you're doing rhetoric, if some personhood has to get disrespected then them's the breaks.

The choice I (myself) make is to embrace free speech instead of polite speech or nice speech. Because I think that sort of thing matters. I think you have to tolerate things you don't like in a free society. But you disagree, and that's your right. (See? I can do rhetoric too. I just don't have to use the broken lives of anguished suicidal teens to do it.)

[Welsh cake]

Might as well get rid of the "free exercise" clause as well, as long as you're shredding the foundations of our liberty.

Speech that isn't offensive doesn't need to be protected. Why? Because it isn't offensive.

*ignores the rest of your rant* I said HATE SPEECH not FREE SPEECH.

Kindly take the time to READ my post or don't fucking bother.

[The Grand Nudger]

...wait, what? They're not celebrating "love, fun, and acceptance." They're celebrating a particular kind of lifestyle. And last time I checked, saying "No, I don't think that kind of lifestyle is actually good" isn't celebrating "hate, intolerance, and bigotry" any more than saying "Yes, I think this kind of lifestyle is actually good."

I can celebrate love, fun, and acceptance and still express my view that a particular kind of lifestyle isn't good.

Yes, you can say that, and we can ask for reasons...and you wont have any that don't amount to hate, intolerance, and bigotry. Unless you're here to show us a brand new revelation.

See how that works? I can say, "Actually, I think you've put the wrong moral value on this kind of thing" without saying "...and the government should punish you" or "and I don't trust you around children" or anything like that. Sometimes, an argument about sexual values is really just an argument about sexual values, not just a pretext to argue against people you hate.

Sometimes that's true, unfortunately we're not talking about "sometimes" but something that is actively happening. This disagreement has led states to consider bans on gay marriage, which is punishment...if you're looking to get married and happen to be gay. So, you can say that, but that's not what's being done. Nor are you actually saying any such thing. You're just deferring punishment to the hands of a cosmic tyrant rather than your own, because blood is distasteful on one's own hands.

Might as well get rid of the "free exercise" clause as well, as long as you're shredding the foundations of our liberty.

Ironic, this has always been a suggestion of religious authority.

[Doubting Thomas]

...wait, what? They're not celebrating "love, fun, and acceptance." They're celebrating a particular kind of lifestyle. And last time I checked, saying "No, I don't think that kind of lifestyle is actually good" isn't celebrating "hate, intolerance, and bigotry" any more than saying "Yes, I think this kind of lifestyle is actually good."

Since when has the WBC ever said something as calm as "No, I don't think that kind of lifestyle is actually good?" No, they're spouting hate speech pure & simple. How can "God hates fags" be anything but hate speech? They're telling a group of people that God hates them and therefore the WBC members hate them as well. They're spreading hate, intolerance, and bigotry.

And frankly, if you don't like gay pride parades, then don't go to them.