LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Hey, I'm the first one to admit that Christians don't say things in the best ways. It's a flaw of ours. I do it constantly, as these boards no doubt prove.

But everyone says things stupid, everyone gets too impassioned and makes a bad analogy. As someone suggested, I don't think Christians are the most awesome thing ever, but I also don't think that our every single misdeed, misquote, and mistake is proof we're the devil.

It wasn't just a single, isolated slip of the tongue, though. If the guy really bears no hatred towards gay people or effeminate behaviour, he should see a goddamned speech and language therapist about that impediment of his.

Yeah... but... "cockroaches". If you're being ground down and belittled for something about yourself you barely understand... <shudders>

You become an Ace at reading the meanings between the lines. <_< And, it's not that much of a hop and leap form "this behaviour should be crushed like a cockroach" to "you should be, too, you little cockroach, for not being able to dismiss your instincts".

Agreed. The whole tone was... loaded.

edited 18th Oct '12 2:07:27 PM by Euodiachloris

Beating up a boy for wearing dresses is enforcing morals? Fuck that shit. He's wearing a dress, not selling drugs or having orgies. You fundie Christians just need to grow the fuck up is your problem. Stop acting like overgrown school bullies and get your goddam priorities straight before you even think about raising children.

Hm. An interesting suggestion.

Believe it or not, I agree with this sentiment. It's a bit emphatic, but nevertheless correct.

Morgi, I think you need to either narrow who you were aiming that at... or... take a deep breath, mate. <hugs>

You might have meant the "pastor", but... the random "you" could be taken to mean anybody in the thread.

edited 18th Oct '12 2:11:29 PM by Euodiachloris

The "what defiles" bit is most often taken as justification for dropping that rule.

Now Euo, I think we have to be fair. Morgikit specifically said "you fundie Christian assholes need to grow up and stop being schoolyard bullies before you even think of having children."

He stepped up and made the distinction clear. The only person who could be offended is someone who is...well...a fundie Christian asshole, or a total illiterate.

Thank you Morg for demonstrating the same good faith I try to demonstrate in my discussions.

Remember, you are talking about a group containing more than 20% of the world population. I'm pretty sure that you could find all kinds of child-rearing styles among them, from the horrifically abusive to the ludicrously permissive...

Well that's why he said "some", know what I mean .

I weren't getting at Morgikit, Maxima. But... I can see how that could be read into what I wrote... <blushes a bit>

I was just saying the royal you can get a little... dangerous, sometimes. Heck, I do it myself, and rather like it when somebody whacks me over the head with a rubber chicken to warn me I've been a little loose with the prose.

You enjoy getting whacked with rubber chickens?? So...that's what neuro-scientists do for fun these days....

That was a joke.

You're not the bad guy and you never were.

edited 18th Oct '12 3:10:26 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

When did I become the bad guy here? I'm not into beating up kids.

Also, I though it would be obvious I was referring to that honor-killing thing in regards to the Muslim statement. Now it doesn't seem so obvious at all. In my defense, I did say "some" because I know not all Muslims are like that.

I do think it's kind of implied that with the statement about beating up boys in dresses that I wasn't talking to you if you don't think that's the moral thing to do.

edited 18th Oct '12 3:33:58 PM by Morgikit

Psst, I did notice that and I pointed it out. I may be a crazy right-wing loon, but I'm fair.

And, I didn't say that you had. Oops. I was only saying "whoops: bad choice of pronoun use, mate".

edited 18th Oct '12 3:38:55 PM by Euodiachloris

This is how the UK does it: Gay couple win Berkshire B&B refusal case followed by Nick Griffin's tweets about gay couple in B&B case investigated followed by general condemnation on TV and radio and, then... Nick Griffin's tweets 'a damp squib', gay couple say (how to handle the blow-hard, bigoted Git of Gits).

I'm looking forward to the "Nick Griffin charged for inciting violence" post... <rubs hands>

edited 19th Oct '12 1:53:53 AM by Euodiachloris

@Morgikit: I never meant to paint you as "the bad guy", for what's worth. But as a pro-LGBT person, I am sure that you are well aware of the dangers of stereotyping: just to make one example, it is indubitably true that some homosexual people (as well as some heterosexual people, of course) are also child molesters, but the whole "homosexual"—"child molester" association is one that has been often used to paint the whole category in a very unpleasant, unfair light.

Similarly, it is certainly true that some Muslims (as well as some non-Muslims) are intolerant fundamentalists and commit honor killings; but this is often used to paint the whole category in a very unpleasant, unfair light. Now, I am sure that that was not your intent; but replying to a casual reference to Muslims teaching Islam to their children with "some Muslims commit honor killings" rubbed me in a similar way in which replying to a reference about gay parents teaching their children about alternative sexualities with "some gay people rape their children" would.

I'm probably making way too much of a big deal about this — it's not a huge issue, and as I said I am sure that you did not mean to imply anything negative about Muslims as a whole. But still, I must admit that I find it a little concerning when a random reference to a very big group of people is immediately followed by the observation that some members of that group are child abusers.

edited 19th Oct '12 2:58:41 AM by Carciofus

Agreed. It's very easy to get sloppy with group terminology... and that can lead to unintended meanings. Heck, we all do it, but... <shrugs> doesn't make it a good idea.

edited 19th Oct '12 4:34:57 AM by Euodiachloris

This is starting to feel like Political Correctness Gone Mad. Let's not forget it was said in context of someone defending a man who recorded a video advocating what you yourself have called child abuse.

Exactly.

edited 19th Oct '12 6:06:34 AM by Morgikit

The thing is... I do believe passive-aggressive psychological attacks that seriously threaten (but, rarely deliver) on physical attacks constitutes abuse. <shrugs> And, advocating that behaviour in others facilitates it, even should they turn around and go "just rhetorical bombast, mate".

I think the key thing that makes something 'psychological abuse' as opposed to 'firm parenting' is the thing you're trying to stop them from doing. If your child has a tendency to steal, or is just naturally aggressive, or a compulsive liar, it wouldn't be abuse to make them feel bad for that behaviour. Even though telling them off for it might make them feel bad about themselves. It's something that's socially unacceptable and harmful and kids need to be taught not to do it even if it upsets them.

What Maxima is arguing for is basically the same thing, I think, just applied to a behaviour that is not harmful and (in everybody else's opinion here) is or should be acceptable.

Is that right, or am I totally off base?

Makes sense to me. If a hypothetical parent is saying no to their son wearing a dress because they want to protect them from bullying or harassment, that would be understandable though I'd strongly disagree (it sends the message that being true to yourself and your beliefs comes second to pleasing ignorant, violent people). If said hypothetical parent does it because "you are a boy and boys don't wear dresses" (Deuteronomy has a verse to that effect if I'm not mistaken, though the reasoning need not be biblical) that's only better than pastor Harris by a degree. If said parent takes his advice and resorts to hitting the boy for wearing a dress...parenting is a responsibility, not a right. I'd report them without a second thought.

Let's clear this much up: does anyone here believe that what's been characterized here as "passive-aggressive child abuse" warrants a visit from Child Protective Services? If not, why not? If so, what governmental measures are appropriate vis-à-vis the parent?

@Jhimmi: In a perfect world, yes, I think it should. Especially considering that it can lead to some fairly serious problems later on, if the kid doesn't commit suicide first.

In reality, I don't think the CPS would care. They hardly care about physical abuse, so I don't see them getting involved with psychological abuse either.

In either case, I think that there needs to be more assessment before action is taken by the government. There's entirely too many kids who are being physically abused who get left with their abusive parents because they're charismatic, and too many kids who get taken away from good parents for little reason. We really need to fix that before we can rely on it for anything.

edited 19th Oct '12 7:48:37 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

Seconded.

Although in a perfect world there would be no need for Child Protective Services.

Honestly I don't think Child Protective Services could afford to intervene in every "passive-aggressive child abuse" case. I don't even think they would have enough staff.