And The Brown Shirts March On....

[Sparko]

Actually, I didn't even say that. I just asked why the shirt-makers had an issue with the shirt design. You then responded with an analogy about White Pride, and I explained that White Pride has a very clear malevolent meaning that's starkly different from gay pride, and that your comparison is therefore invalid. I didn't specify whether I thought the gay pride shirt issue was okay or not.


You repeatedly misrepresent my arguments or ignore them while insulting my character and intelligence, yet *I* am the one who's a jerk?

No, you are a jerk because you constantly back-pedal when confronted with what you are actually saying.

[MaxVel]

How would this logic sound if you replaced "gay advocates" with Christians?

The bolded part is my impression too, of how at least some Christian activists act. And it's a big reason why I'm against Christian rights--those people are dangerous, because they are not content to "live and let live." I feel that they are somehow compelled to seek not just acceptance--"you do your thing, we'll do ours, just keep out of each others faces"--but rather active endorsement--"Christians are great, being religious is normal, healthy behavior." And when someone merely accepts them, but won't endorse their behavior...look out!

You're overgeneralizing, for one thing, and it's strange to oppose a group's activism on the basis of some advocates being overzealous, unless you think abortion ought to stay legalized to a large part because some anti-abortion protesters engage in poor behavior.

(1) I'm not overgeneralising, since I intentionally said "...at least some...". I deliberately qualified what I said.

(2) If Christians were to act like those gay rights advocates, I'd oppose their behaviour too. See Fred Phelps et al. <Bleh>

What I don't really see is other gay rights advocates speaking out against the extremist's behaviour - which I do with Christians. Of course I may just be ignorant of this, and there may be many gays who condemn activist who do things like curse out, threaten and intimidate the wives of conservative politicians in the street; send hate mail and threats, send human faeces and worse in the mail, make threatening anonymous phone calls, conduct interviews under false pretenses to entrap politicians into statements they can later use against them, and more. (All this I've seen close up, working with people who have been the victims of this kind of behaviour.) I don't recall a single gay person saying that doing this kind of thing to political and ideological opponents was unacceptable. I worked with a truly sweet and lovely woman who begged her husband in tears and fear not to publicly express his views on homosexuality, because of the treatment she'd had the last time he'd done that. His view? Simply that homosexual behaviour was morally wrong, and should not be encouraged.

(3) If gays are content to let the extreme fringe of their movement set the tone and their agenda, which they seem to be, then it's no surprise if people feel threatened by that. As I said above, I don't feel confident that the 'gay rights' movement will stop when they have won acceptance from society in general - I think they want to 'take out' anyone who even holds a different opinion.

As a Christian I believe that homosexual behaviour is sinful, just as many other behaviours are sinful. I can - and do - work with and live alongside all kinds of sinful people quite happily. I'm a sinner, too. I accept their right to live their life as they choose, while they accept my right to believe that certain of their behaviour is morally wrong and damaging to their conscience and spiritual life. When it's appropriate, and in as sensitive a way as I am able to, I will even express that belief to some of those people. Usually, even when they disagree, there's no real problem. They don't want to enact laws to force me to silence my belief, or accuse me of 'hate speech', or seek to drag me to court. They simply disagree.

Gay rights advocates, however, are just... ...different.

[robrecht]

Oh bull crap. Black pride is used by black racists all the time, like Black Panthers. And Gay Pride is used by Gay activists to suppress anyone who disagrees with them, as in the case of trying to force businesses and people to agree with them and serve them or be sued. They are nothing but bullies. Pure and simple.

Isn't that the law, or at least a generally accepted principle of civil rights, ie, that public businesses should not be allowed to refuse service to some customers based solely upon their race or sex or sexual orientation, etc? Do you think that a McDonalds or Burger King should be allowed to refuse service to African Americans or bisexuals or people over the age of 65 or whatever other criteria they might choose?

[seer]

Do you think that a McDonalds or Burger King should be allowed to refuse service to African Americans or bisexuals or people over the age of 65 or whatever other criteria they might choose?

Yes, totally. And that was the law of the land until very recently.

[fm93]

Out of curiosity, what about "straight pride"?

It hasn't been used primarily (if at all) by any legitimate hate groups, as far as I know, so I don't think it's on the same level as the slogan White Pride. That said, there are still some issues with the phrase "straight pride," but that's a separate topic. I'll flesh it out later if you'd like.

No, you are a jerk because you constantly back-pedal when confronted with what you are actually saying.

I've done no such thing.

[Zymologist]

It hasn't been used primarily (if at all) by any legitimate hate groups, as far as I know, so I don't think it's on the same level as the slogan White Pride. That said, there are still some issues with the phrase "straight pride," but that's a separate topic. I'll flesh it out later if you'd like.

I've never used it, and can't think of anytime I've seen it used, so I was just curious. I'd also be curious to see what you think the other issues are, but it may not be on-topic. No biggie.

[fm93]

(1) I'm not overgeneralising, since I intentionally said "...at least some...". I deliberately qualified what I said.

Yes, but the tone of your post comes off as if you're describing the vast majority of them.

(2) If Christians were to act like those gay rights advocates, I'd oppose their behaviour too. See Fred Phelps et al. <Bleh>

I know you would.

What I don't really see is other gay rights advocates speaking out against the extremist's behaviour

*waves hand excitedly in air

Hi.

Of course I may just be ignorant of this, and there may be many gays who condemn activist who do things like curse out, threaten and intimidate the wives of conservative politicians in the street; send hate mail and threats, send human faeces and worse in the mail, make threatening anonymous phone calls, conduct interviews under false pretenses to entrap politicians into statements they can later use against them, and more. (All this I've seen close up, working with people who have been the victims of this kind of behaviour.) I don't recall a single gay person saying that doing this kind of thing to political and ideological opponents was unacceptable. I worked with a truly sweet and lovely woman who begged her husband in tears and fear not to publicly express his views on homosexuality, because of the treatment she'd had the last time he'd done that. His view? Simply that homosexual behaviour was morally wrong, and should not be encouraged.

I'm not gay, but I absolutely condemn that sort of behavior. Before the site crashed, I defended the Chick-Fil-A president from other gay rights advocates specifically because I disapproved of their behavior, even though I disagreed with Mr. Cathy's political position.

(3) If gays are content to let the extreme fringe of their movement set the tone and their agenda, which they seem to be, then it's no surprise if people feel threatened by that. As I said above, I don't feel confident that the 'gay rights' movement will stop when they have won acceptance from society in general - I think they want to 'take out' anyone who even holds a different opinion.

Well...I certainly agree that the tone is something that needs to be fixed. I hope to win acceptance for the LGBT community by educating and converting people, not by simply removing all opposition, and some advocates admittedly do take a harsh approach that prevents discussion and education. But I'm not sure what you mean by "agenda." There isn't really a unified movement so much as a large number of people who happen to think that gay people deserve equal civil and human rights (i.e. should be treated with equal respect and dignity as human beings).

As a Christian I believe that homosexual behaviour is sinful, just as many other behaviours are sinful. I can - and do - work with and live alongside all kinds of sinful people quite happily. I'm a sinner, too. I accept their right to live their life as they choose, while they accept my right to believe that certain of their behaviour is morally wrong and damaging to their conscience and spiritual life. When it's appropriate, and in as sensitive a way as I am able to, I will even express that belief to some of those people. Usually, even when they disagree, there's no real problem. They don't want to enact laws to force me to silence my belief, or accuse me of 'hate speech', or seek to drag me to court. They simply disagree.

Gay rights advocates, however, are just... ...different.

I understand, but I think that in your overall frustration (some of which is admittedly justified) you're ignoring some of the more valid points.

[robrecht]

Yes, totally. And that was the law of the land until very recently.

Now let's see if Sparko agrees with you.

[rogue06]

Isn't that the law, or at least a generally accepted principle of civil rights, ie, that public businesses should not be allowed to refuse service to some customers based solely upon their race or sex or sexual orientation, etc? Do you think that a McDonalds or Burger King should be allowed to refuse service to African Americans or bisexuals or people over the age of 65 or whatever other criteria they might choose?

In a libertarian sense they should be allowed to refuse to provide service (an exception would be needed services like those performed at hospitals) but suffer the obvious consequences of such an action. It would be financial suicide and they would likely go out of business as a result of the boycotts.

[seer]

Now let's see if Sparko agrees with you.

Why wouldn't any freedom loving person agree.

[Sparko]

Now let's see if Sparko agrees with you.

No shirt no service. That is OK, right?

I think the problem is making the protected groups overly broad. And I think that if someone wants to refuse service to someone because of deeply held religious beliefs, they should be able to.

Its not like that was the only t-shirt print shop in town. It was targeted.

[robrecht]

Why wouldn't any freedom loving person agree.

The question was directed to Sparko so I think he should be free to give his own explanation. With respect to freedom, I do not see freedom as merely individual freedom from restrictions of any sort, but more fundamentally freedom for some greater good than mere selfishness. Freedom is ultimately directed toward love of the good, love of others, and love of God. Freedom to be racist is, in my opinion, not a greater good than the common good of a society relatively free of racial or other forms of hatred.

[Sparko]

The question was directed to Sparko so I think he should be free to give his own explanation. With respect to freedom, I do not see freedom as merely individual freedom from restrictions of any sort, but more fundamentally freedom for some greater good than mere selfishness. Freedom is ultimately directed toward love of the good, love of others, and love of God. Freedom to be racist is, in my opinion, not a greater good than the common good of a society relatively free of racial or other forms of hatred.

Not wanting to print up gay pride t-shirts does not equate to hatred. A Christian owned business would equally be against printing up t-shirts supporting satanism, adultery, prostitution or any other number of sinful acts. That doesn't mean they hate the people who sin.

Also:

If sexual orientation is protected, then why not pedophilia or incest? They could be considered sexual orientations. Would you say the business had to print up t-shirts supporting them?

Or how about a gay-owned print shop being forced to print up Westboro Baptist t-shirts?

[robrecht]

No shirt no service. That is OK, right?

I think the problem is making the protected groups overly broad. And I think that if someone wants to refuse service to someone because of deeply held religious beliefs, they should be able to.

Its not like that was the only t-shirt print shop in town. It was targeted.

My question was a little more broad than that. Do you think it would be a good thing for a restaurant to refuse to serve people on the basis of whatever criteria they choose, eg, race or religious beliefs or any arbitrary criteria they choose? Do you think that makes for a better society? Is that a greater good than a society that accepts some sense of civil rights?

[robrecht]

Not wanting to print up gay pride t-shirts does not equate to hatred. A Christian owned business would equally be against printing up t-shirts supporting satanism, adultery, prostitution or any other number of sinful acts. That doesn't mean they hate the people who sin.

Also:

If sexual orientation is protected, then why not pedophilia or incest? They could be considered sexual orientations. Would you say the business had to print up t-shirts supporting them?

Or how about a gay-owned print shop being forced to print up Westboro Baptist t-shirts?

I will happily answer your questions when you answer mine. Even if you refuse to answer my questions, I will answer yours, but first I want to give you another opportunity to engage in more conventional conversation.