A Safe Place to Battle on the forums? [Archive]

View Full Version : A Safe Place to Battle on the forums?

Mia14

08-13-2006, 05:50 PM

I honestly have no idea what the rest of you will think about this idea, but I thought it deserved discussion.

Would it be a good idea to create another part of this forum for discussion with individuals whose words might offend those not looking to explain?

My thoughts are that we seem to get people now and then who want to discuss things with us - and many of us readily join in the discussions - but it's not good to have that type of talk rampant in the common areas for obvious reasons.

What if we had another topic area, one whose newest titles were not shown on the community center, where people could go if they felt the need to discuss topics that might offend the casual readers? I don't even know what the moderation would look like for such a section, but I know that some of us go to other forums to discuss these things on a regular basis. It might be worth it to have a place here where topics can be handled by people who know how to speak well, but yet nobody sees it without wanting to.

Any ideas? Reactions? Feasibility?

Mia14

08-13-2006, 05:58 PM

By the way, this comes in response to get_unlost and those before him who all brought similar arguments and had similar discussions.

Zerbie

08-13-2006, 06:08 PM

YES!

Mia, I very nearly PMed Jamie yesterday to suggest this very thing. I strongly believe we need a solution that avoids sending everyone who isn't in agreement with ourselves packing. That strengthens the perception that our "side" is just as intolerant as the "other side." There were plenty of members here who were willing to respond to Unlost and had some kind, patient, wise words to offer him. What do the mods think?

Otoh, the most important thing about our forum is that it's our Safe Space where we can come be ourselves WITHOUT hearing from those who want to tell us how wrong they think we are. That needs to be preserved, and is obviously the reason behind Unlost's thread being closed. Right?

Hey Jamie - could this forum possibly play host to a specified Debate Zone? I understand if SF wouldn't want to get into that. But I think it's worth considering.

awediot

08-13-2006, 06:20 PM

Yes Yes Yes! That is most of the reason I (sorry guys) get just bored with this site. I understand the need to have a safe place and get away from the veiled and outright condemnations of day to day pressures, but the hyper-sensitivity is isolating, makes us look weak and unable to withstand a little criticism. We have dealt with it our whole lives and it would be nice to be able to confront some of these people on our own turf. We are not given the opportunity and the feeling here of being coddled is a little condescending... It could also present those who are not ready to confront such difficult accuser, the means to quietly observe good (and bad) debate... YES!

(whew, been meaning to say that for awhile)

btw; emailed get unlost a couple times now, and he did not understand where he went wrong (he does now). He genuinely wants to help, and needs to understand why we don't think we need it. If we are not just going preach to our own little rainbow choir, we've got to have the reproductive organs to open ourselves up as well...

Zerbie

08-13-2006, 06:50 PM

Excellently put. Awe's right.

Thanks for this thread Mia. You ROCK!

BruceChris

08-13-2006, 07:23 PM

Right after he told me that he was closing Get_Unlost's thread.

Jamie, (I) Appreciate that. Still, writing loving but self-affirming arguments with someone who is willing to just keep coming back, without, within his own understandings, being deliberately abusive, seems like the sort of practice that we rarely get. I think that it brought out the best in a lot of us. I would Love to see us doing more of this. O.K., yer the boss.

Peace and Love, BruceChris

P.S.: Just how might we recruit ~moderates~ like Get_Unlost, without being inundated with Gadzillions of Screaming, Bible-Battering Fundies?

awediot

08-13-2006, 09:35 PM

P.S.: Just how might we recruit ~moderates~ like Get_Unlost, without being inundated with Gadzillions of Screaming, Bible-Battering Fundies?

Ah ha... the rub... (and beginning with "Just how might we RECRUIT~" the big "R" word!!!:lol: edit that out...hurry!) unfortunately, short answer, we can't. BUT, perhaps the forced reading of a summary of this thread, or a concise, firm and (what the hell, they do it) threatening honing of what will or won't be tolerated on such a board, what the general stance of SF's beliefs are, may disuade some of the more enthusiastic thumpers and sift out those who may just disagree, but truly are open to civil discussion... (and the good ship lolly-pop can sail on lemonade seas into bubble gum sundae sunsets).

Still seems worth the effort...

Jamie McDaniel

08-13-2006, 09:56 PM

When we first launched the forums I recommended that we not host debates on whether or not gay people are sinful. Leaders in Soulforce have come to believe that continuing to participate in these debates actually fuels our oppression.

After all, isn't that the problem with our churches? Did we not put our hope in such debates bringing about justice and our inclusion? Instead, here it is 2006 (Stonewall was 1969) and no Christian denomination save the UCC has decided to end the debate and affirm us. Every other denomination lets the debate live on, and as a result, the oppression of GLBT people.

I strongly believe we need a solution that avoids sending everyone who isn't in agreement with ourselves packing. That strengthens the perception that our "side" is just as intolerant as the "other side."

There is much, much disagreement on the Soulforce forums about lots of important, weighty issues. I certainly don't feel we send people who disagree packing. Who would be left? Rather I feel that we have made the decision not to host statements that condemn people based solely on sexual orientation.

And I think we need to be careful not to define tolerance is such a way that it therefore includes someone's intolerance. I don't understand tolerance to mean that.

Same thing with inclusion. I see inclusion as meaning including people, not some people's ideas which, in turn, exclude people.

...the hyper-sensitivity is isolating, makes us look weak and unable to withstand a little criticism. We have dealt with it our whole lives and it would be nice to be able to confront some of these people on our own turf. We are not given the opportunity and the feeling here of being coddled is a little condescending.

Awediot, I feel this statement ignores the 7 year history of Soulforce. I've argued with hundreds of Southern Baptists, a few Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists. And I've won every single time. :good:

Yet... I didn't win the person. And I certainly haven't won equality for myself yet. I think that the people I have won over has been through coming out and engaging them face to face. And plus I feel they had to be open somewhat to the idea that gay people might actually be ok. The good news is that I do think the majority of people are those type of people. However I think there will always be 10% who will never be for GLBT equality, even years after we achieve it. I think it is not good for activists (all of you) to give that 10% your energy.

That said, I do want to make Soulforce inviting for those who are "on the journey to understanding GLBT people." I get the sense some members feel we could better fulfill that. Any ideas concerning a solution there, I would love to hear about.

Just how might we recruit ~moderates~ like Get_Unlost...
Dear BruceChris, surely you jest! What made you feel that get_unlost might be a moderate (or have a moderate view on GLBT issues)?

I just take a look at the UMC boards and the sorry state they are in and wonder if people need to start saying, hey, I know gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people in 20, 30 year faithful relationships and I'm not going to allow you any of my time debating you on the sinfulness of those relationships.

Is such a refusal a weakness or rather is it standing up?

I should say that I do agree with BruceChris on his comment that engaging people brings out the best in many of you. I love to see such awesome posts (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=10993#post10993), but then when someone comes back comparing gay relationships with a foul-mouth, it's time to end it. Now perhaps the argument could be made that such posts are not really made for folks like get_unlost, but the moveable middle who follow along. Maybe, I don't know. But before we go further I would request that everyone read this article (http://www.soulforce.org/article/585).

Daniel

08-13-2006, 10:02 PM

I think this is an idea with legs- as they say- as long as it stays on track and has, as Dean points out, firm guidelines to follow for everyone involved.

For those who want to (as Captain Picard was wont to say) 'engage' in this way, I say: Knock yourselves out.

Addendum:

Jamie- I was posting and then saw your message and reread Dr. White's address. What stands out to me is this:

I am not against real dialogue or debate for they lead to understanding and reconciliation. I will sit down with anyone who comes to the table with certain basic positive assumptions about us

The trouble for me in my own off forum interaction with UnLost was my strong perception that the 'basic positive ussumptions' that Dr. White writes of were sorely lacking in the very manner and substance of the conversation. I felt like my beliefs were being solicited so that they could be challenged ie 'defend your reasoning to me so I can approve it or not." How does one engage under these circumstances? I have no easy answer to that.

Steven E. Webster

08-13-2006, 10:27 PM

Friends,

I cast my vote on this poll "no," but I'm willing to dialogue about that response and change my mind, if convinced.

I called for moderation (which was followed by the moderator closing the thread). Someone else had earlier clearly stated what the "rules" were on this discussion board when they felt the line was crossed by Get_Unlost. It appeared to me that the line continued to be crossed. Our visitor seemed to be deliberately pushing the boundaries.

More important: I think we need to consider the Soulforce principles around voluntary and involuntary suffering. Get_Unlost was practicing spiritual violence (whether he thought he was doing a bad or a noble thing is irrelevant).

Now it is an o.k. thing for Soulforce volunteers to accept voluntary suffering in the face of spiritual violence in order to eventually reach an adversary. However, it is not o.k. that others are subjected to involuntary suffering here--especially if they have come to these discussion boards, as some do, for support in a world where they experience involuntary suffering and spiritual violence all the time.

I really appreciate what Dash is doing over at the UMC discussion boards. Other people from our forums are getting involved over there as well with varying degrees of effectiveness and ineffectiveness. Yet it is hard to see Dash treated with such disrespect there--it does not speak well of the UMC boards or the United Methodist Church (my own church and a church many would call "moderate") and it would not speak well of this forum if we allowed it here.

I believe the kind of dialogue with spiritually violent adversaries that some may wish to voluntarily participate in are available at the UMC discussion boards as well as many other places. Perhaps we can collectively take on some of those forums as "projects." However, we need a safe home here.

Someone suggested, I think, that Soulforce might sponsor a separate forum not associated with this site where such dialogue might happen. Maybe that could be done under a totally separate set of rules, but I'm not sure I'd want Soulforce's name associated with it--it depends on how it is managed.

Finally, someone seemed to describe Get_Unlost as a "moderate"--I checked out his website/blog and found it anything but "moderate"--It was kind of sick, actually. At any rate, he didn't strike me as someone who was seeking to really understand anyone else--he seemed to think that he and God were on the same page and he was here to bring us the truth with no expectation that we might have a truth that he might need to really hear.

I guess I really didn't believe he wanted to actually learn anything from us. If I thought that he did, maybe I would have felt differently. As it was it seemed like he was getting perverse jollies at the expense good-hearted people here, and I just don't want to see that kind of spiritual violence inflicted on people here the way it is at the "moderate" United Methodist discussion board.

I just read Jamie's post. I believe there is a lot of wisdom and experience there. I've come along at least part of the way with Jamie through a number of Soulforce direct actions and experiences since the year 2000. I believe his judgment is sound and tested in "the real world."

Daniel

08-13-2006, 10:40 PM

to add to what I just wrote (I am contradicting myself of course). Or course the short answer is not to engage at all if one feels that one is participating in one's own oppression. How and where one draws that line may be the key.

Daniel

08-13-2006, 10:48 PM

Steven- excellent post! Thank you for your perceptions. Voluntary and involuntary suffering. Well put! That's a 'doctrine' I can believe in.

NathanATX

08-13-2006, 11:57 PM

First, let me say that I believe we should hold our ground 100%.

People who believe differently are welcome here, of course.

No one, however is welcome to use language that intentionally or unintentionally hurts other people.

By joining the soulforce forums, you agree to a specific way of being... one that is new even for many of us... the bottom line is you essentially agree to be committed to the principles of nonviolence. And when you "miss the mark," you agree to clean up the mess you made and try again.

This is not just about sexuality my friends. This is about calling people to a new, much higher standard of responsibility. To truly be loving, compassionate, and merciful. To truly be humble, open to learning, and to be coachable.

Getunlosts issue here wasn't that he was antigay, it was that he used words that belittled, disrespected, and attacked other people-- IN VIOLATION of his own given word.

It's about integrity and inviting people to step up to participate in a game where the standards are higher than they've ever been.

I'll be the first to tell you, that incorporating these ideas and values is tough. I still struggle with them. But I am committed to them. I want to grow in them. I see how they radically impact my faith and who I am in the world... and I want more.

So, yes... maybe we have a "debate" section. But there should be absolutely no relaxation of the rules. The rules challenge us all.

Like iron sharpens iron...

Here's my response to "getunlost" when he sent me a message telling me he had been banned from posting:

******************
Brother,

What you have encountered at soulforce is a new kind of gay & lesbian... the kind who know without a doubt that God loves them just as they are, that they are called, covenanted and commissioned to bring the mercy, justice and compassion of Christ into the world.

Our lives, our sexuality, and our faith are not up for debate.

The very questioning of our worth, of our loved-ness and created-ness is an affront to the gift of life our Creator has given us.

You have said on one hand that you only want to understand, yet you continually used words that disrespect, dimunize & destroy us.

This new kind of gay & lesbian person, one who has absolute confidence in a loving God, does not sit quietly while ANY harm or injustice is committed against another human being.

Your words, regardless of intention, were harmful and degrading. Maybe your heart is in the right place. If so, you now have an opportunity to be responsible for your words in the future, so that you do not cause harm.

We have consecrated the forums at soulforce to be a special, sacred space... where the causation of harm does not happen... where we are committed to continually growing in our desire to be like Jesus... where we strive to incorporate the principles of nonviolence in our words and actions.

You were confronted with violating the covenants you agreed to upon joining the message board and failed to demonstrate any commitment to your word or to the people you were in community with. And you were denied the opportunity of continued participation as a result.

I do know... that if you do think there may be something here for you... if you truly have an open and compassionate heart... and you will commit to the covenants that you agreed to when you joined, that you will be welcomed back... warts and all, as you journey with us.

I bless you in the name of the God who created us, loved us, and continually desires us to live in harmony with Him and each other.

I am going to post this message on the forums for the benefit of the community and to hopefully prepare them to welcome you back, should you be willing to honor your word.

Peace,

Nate Black

www.nateblack.us

BruceChris

08-14-2006, 10:00 AM

NathanATX

08-14-2006, 10:25 AM

O.K., guys, working at building and maintaining the self esteem of self and others is truly a noble goal, and one that I support. And it is reasonable to protect ourselves from anything that could harm members, or their self esteem, especially those of us who have been hurt more, or are just more sensitive. But any of that that is expressed in a form of self-righteousness gets old in a hurry.

I want to make one central point here. Every one of us starts from the place that we are, right now, emotionally and preceptually. Not where we or someone else might wish or require that we be. Get Unlost was and is starting from where he is, and understood that way, he was doing his best. I think that the fact that he kept coming back attests to that more than anything else.

I do not believe that when he said that he was not being offensive, or that he was lying to us, as he understands the world.

Hey, some of our members go to UMC or CARM, and we offend them, and we break their rules. And remarkably, they often let us back on, after a few days. In a practical sense, just maybe they're more tolerant than we are. (But of course, they're a lot bigger)

Now I've visited GU's website, and I would say that he has what I would call a fear-driven belief system. Yet somehow, he was willing to reach out to us, without being judgemental up front, as he best understood it. I give him one hell of a lot of credit for that, even if some of us were just frightened enough to not quite see it that way.

I want to give my belief here that our members have belief systems that are partially fear based, and partially love based. (I do, we all do. Perhaps that is one meaning of the word "sin") And it is all too easy for anything that triggers our fears to drive some of us back into a more fear based place, where we can set up defenses that we hope will make us feel safer.

So my point is that GU is a moderate, he is as moderate as we are going to get. And if I catch hell for saying that, so be it.

Now, that does not mean that this forum must provide a place for us to reach out to such as GU. What we need, obviously, is a SAFE forum, somewhere in the middle. Will we ever find one, I don't know.

Second point: Thay I believe that should be every person's goal to do whatever is necessary to grow as a person and help others grow, and by this I mean to learn to move from a fear based belief system to a love based system, and when necessary, to take some risks, or even experience some pain to do so. A person should do this whether they are a Christian or not, although I personally believe, and no, I'm not requiring anyone else to believe this, that it is part of the essence of being a Christian to do so.

Now I'm gonna run off and get a quote, and be right back with it, and post this for now.

Good old tdogg: Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved. --Hellen Keller

Peace, and Much Love, Chris

I want to say again, that I (we?) don't have have the fear you're asserting I(we?) have. The bottom line is we have designated this space for a specific purpose with a specific covenant that all posters agree to when they join. He was out integrity and refused to reconsider and restate his posts. He was getting stuck on the words he was using and couldn't see how they could possible be perceived as judgemental or demeaning. Trust me, he's starting to get that now.

We all disagree with each other here... pretty frequently, I might add. But we do our best to communicate our thoughts and ideas with love and concern for those we are communicating to. We try to be humble and gracious.

As a matter of fact, I am rethinking a post I wrote recently and maybe I need to rewrite it... because I don't want the person reading it to feel attacked. I just want them to know how I perceive and understand the issue.

Getunlost emailed me and suggested that in the future he have someone review his posts before he posts them to the board. I think that's a great idea.

In my opinion, lowering the standards of the board not only lets someone who thinks abusive words are "christian" and "ok" continue with that behavior, but it lowers the standard of the community response to that person too. In other words, they don't grow and we don't grow.

If we're not growing here... then what's the point?

BruceChris

08-14-2006, 10:53 AM

Anger and self-righteousness are both responses that come from fear, I'll dispute you on that right up front.

And, if you will please re-read my last post, I am not saying that we should allow such mutually antagonizing posts on our forum, I am just saying that I wish that somehow we could, and that I do wish that there was a (DIFFERENT!) forum out there, somewhere, on which to do so. (Edit) O.K., we would have to pretty much set up, or find, a different website.

No, I am NOT saying that we should lower our standards. Please go back and re-read my post. I am not saying that we should do anything that would expose anyone to anything that they do not want to see. (Edit) And exactly how that could be done in a single website is a good question.

Hey, I expect to catch hell, and I have no problem with that. But please do not put words in my mouth. That is dishonest. Please read my posts a lot more carefully, before telling me what I said.

And I suspect that we may have different definitions of the word growth.

And if you think that I was angry when I wrote this post you are right, and for that I apologise.

P&L, Bruce Chris

BruceChris

08-14-2006, 10:59 AM

Nate,

Peace?

NathanATX

08-14-2006, 11:17 AM

And, if you will please re-read my last post, I am not saying that we should allow such mutually antagonizing posts on our forum, I am just saying that I wish that somehow we could, and that I do wish that there was a (DIFFERENT!) forum out there, somewhere, on which to do so.

No, I am NOT saying that we should lower our standards. Please go back and re-read my post. I am not saying that we should do anything that would expose anyone to anything that they do not want to see.

Hey, I expect to catch hell, and I have no problem with that. But please do not put words in my mouth. That is dishonest. Please read my posts a lot more carefully, before telling me what I said.

Chris,
I did not intend to put words in your mouth. I apologize if I am coming across in way that is upsetting to you. Having a debate forum where fundamentalists could use our space to promulgate their views would lower the standards of the board... because the current standards are...

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/faq.php?faq=soulforce_faq_item#faq_soulforce_faq_i tem1

Anti-Gay comments
We welcome people who are on the journey to understanding and accepting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. However obvious anti-gay comments will not be allowed in the public forums. Such comments are not merely opinions, but rather a way to demean and oppress GLBT people. Any posts deemed by the Soulforce staff to be anti-gay will be removed. First time offenders will always receive a warning via private message. Repeat offenders will lose both their right to post messages on any of the Soulforce Public Forums and also their right to send private messages to other members.

Materials promoting "ex-gay ministries" or "reparative therapy"
Some homosexual persons claim to have experienced a change in their sexual orientation. Their stories are their stories and we should not try to change them if they are sincerely happy. With that said, however, the vast majority of these brothers and sisters entered "ex-gay ministries" or "reparative therapy" under the belief of a homosexual orientation being morally inferior and a heterosexual orientation being morally superior. Such a belief is a falsehood that is used by many to deny GLBT people equality in society and full membership in our churches. Thus the promotion of "ex-gay ministries" or "reparative therapy" is not permitted on the forums and will be handled as anti-gay comments.

Posts that are openly hostile to Soulforce
We certainly make room for forum members to disagree with Soulforce and post constructive criticism. However we don’t permit open hostility towards us on our own website. Such posts will be removed and offenders will lose their privilege to post messages.

NathanATX

08-14-2006, 11:17 AM

Nate,

Peace?

Peace, my friend, along with much love & respect.
Nate

Jennifer5

08-14-2006, 01:16 PM

I had voted 'no'.... and agree even more with that decision after reading the thing Jamie posted by Mel White...

I said no because, even though at times I think that it would be wonderful to be able to have such a section here. Then I think... what would happen to this place? I can just see that it would end up all over the forum and completely out of control, because let's face it... there are a lot of people who don't follow forum rules, and I think that would become a big mess very quickly. There isn't any realistic way to keep such things to one area.

On the other hand I think that it's great that some of you are still talking to Get_Unlost.... I didn't feel that he was sincere about many things he said, but maybe I'm very wrong about that, and maybe if he comes to better understand forum rules and such, he'll evenually be let back on.

*in my opinion part of the problem with debate, is that the debate is quickly lost and everyone just ends up arguing and getting nowhere.

I just think that many of us are always commenting on how much we love this place, it's home, family and friends... all in one thing... and that after hard days, we land here... it's kind of where everyone comes to re-fuel... and I think a lot of that would be lost if we added more of a debate section to Soulforce... I just really feel that that's not what Soulforce would want to be connected with.

Zerbie

08-14-2006, 04:35 PM

Wow! What a fascinating thread this has become! And all I can say is, holy smokes, I agree with everyone.:rolleyes: Yes! No! And maybe If!!
:confused: :confused: :confused:

BruceChris' first post on this thread was excellent. (Had to say that before I forget.)

I'll tell y'all my motivation for saying Yes before, and throw that into the mix too. My motivation had MUCH less to do with Mr GetLost than I may have expressed it to be. He seemed beyond "reach" to my understanding, and the best response I could think of to that one, was to not respond. Came a point after which I ignored him.

I am more concerned about who we DON'T have posting here on a more frequent basis. We regulars are basically the more left-winged and liberal or New Agey LGBTs, and every couple months a proseltyzing ex-gay type visits for a day. With all the people out there who are questioning and confused, I sometimes wonder why they don't post concerns or questions here, or more importantly, if there is a reason why after posting once or twice, the questioning people don't come back!? ???? (Mystery and Kingdom Minded come to mind, but there have been others who have not come back.) The question nagging at me is, would they come back if they felt that their questioning viewpoints, largely suspicious that their own feelings are "wrong," would be more accepted here? I've noticed that those who introduce themselves as feeling that way often preface it with, "I'm not sure this group will like me."

Yeah I couldn't really care less about Getlost at this point, though if he cools off and comes back politely, great. I am concerned for the other non-straight people, particularly those dealing with strong feelings of internal homophobia, who may feel not-quite-welcome here. That's why I wondered if there could be a forum section for dealing with figuring it all out, psychologically, theologically, whatever, where we can tolerate disagreements, but certainly WITHOUT descending into belittling one another. I definitely do not want to meet certain favorite bullies from UMC and CARM over HERE. That is not what I meant.

Anyway Jamie, I thought that would probably be your decision and I understand. Jus' thought before this thread dried up though, to throw out my additional ruminations. :p

Oh and lest I forget: I love all of you. You have such thoughtful and intelligent viewpoints on this, and above al, such caring demeanors. You're angels, all of you. :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love:

awediot

08-14-2006, 09:16 PM

Why we Can't Wait to End the Debate ~ Mel White {in blue}

Our civil rights revolution begins when we end the studies and the debates by refusing to participate in them. We must no longer allow ourselves to be examined and discussed like lab rats or exotic insects by clergy or laity who act as though we aren't even in the room. >( We cannot stop such examinations or discussions that will go on with or without us...) We must boycott and protest those events where our dignity is to be debated and our integrity questioned by non-gays or former gays who have "studied" the issue and have all the "answers." >( How can you boycott what has no desire for your involvement? An out of the loop protest only gives them more to discuss when the doors are closed in our face, and unites them with a shared experience and the immediate fodder of comparing notes the protest just gave them.) To accept the role of a "specimen" to be researched and discussed like a virus or rare fungi is the ultimate act of self-denigration. To sit patiently through another vote (let alone be silent when another "study" is called for) is another proof of our internalized homophobia. To play along with this game of studying, debating, and voting who and what we are is to support the structures of bigotry. >( since we cannot stop being a specimen, lets go from being anesthetized subjects, sit up mid dissection and explain with a clear, lucid , healthy and happy voice just what it is they are so fascinated with. Lets meet them on their own frightened grounds, not run from them in defeat... We can converge in candle lit masses of relentless, annoying, 'block you way' peace, and we can parade around in glitter and rainbow baited hyper-pride to fish for a compliment or hint of big acceptance, but if we cannot even face a one on one debate or defend ourselves out in the open from even the initial stages of just why 'it REALLY is better for a kid to have a mom and dad', then we are already defeated by our silence or drown out by our own safety in numbers and inability to stand any ground...)

...Dr. King admits that the revolution of 1963 could not have happened "...if there had not been at hand a philosophy and a method worthy of its goals."

What philosophy?; and must the method be either licking our wounds in little groups and cursing under our breath, or grandiose, impersonal spectacles made for, but still ignored by the media... Vast paths of grey area exists. How and where and when do we engage the normal man, confused and concerned about us, be able to thank them, explain we are not in need of that help/But: , then offer to pray right back for them.

Since national church policies have hardened into place, it is up to individual clergy and laity to end this debate personally, unilaterally. Ecclesial disobedience (clergy and laity breaking the unjust laws by ordaining and marrying us) is our last, best hope. >(...and again, how are the sympathetic clergy and laity to learn anything from us when they are out the door from ignorant, habitual, but unintended offense; or just shut themselves down for fear of one?)

To say, "I will no longer participate let alone be the subject of your study or your debate" >(...instead, I will accept, use and Dominate it in the name of Truth.) is an act of liberation and humanization. To say, "I know who I am, and if you want to know, ask me; don't tell me," is an act of self-actualization and integrity. Let us decide now and forever. The debate has ended. The verdict is in. God has created us equal - and we will settle for nothing less.

Amen... but the debate is not over and I see no reason to opt out... I hope we allow them within earshot...

>~~~~~~~~~~( http://www.msnmonkey.co.uk/Emoticons/Animals/Black_cat_runs.gif)~~~~~~~~~~~<

Jamie, you with out a doubt have more experience and practical foresight as to what opening such a forum would likely do FOR, and do TO, such a unique and sensitive site. It is you baby and family and has done much more good than you can know... From the safety and luxury of this casual armchair position, where I can pick what I like, or just shut it all off, it is much too easy to say I think it would give SF a greater depth, outreach and maturity, so I won't... (oopsy***) ...A couple things to think about...

And I think we need to be careful not to define tolerance is such a way that it therefore includes someone's intolerance. I don't understand tolerance to mean that.

Same thing with inclusion. I see inclusion as meaning including people, not some people's ideas which, in turn, exclude people.

No offense, but it reminds me of tolerating all but the intolerant, including all but those who exclude... I'll entertain all disagreements that agree with me... A catch-22 that is difficult to transcend.

Awediot, I feel this statement ignores the 7 year history of Soulforce. I've argued with hundreds of Southern Baptists, a few Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists. And I've won every single time.

Yet... I didn't win the person.

I am definately speaking from ignorant, shifty orafi, my elbow or ground hole to be sure... the whole "well, if it were MY SITE !.," clueless imagination, hampered with stupid reality and logistics and blah blahblah experience, gets ahead of my common sense...

This does make me curious as to what you think "winning" is? While butting halos on CARM, I re-examined what I realistically expected from it... The gold medal "OH! I get it... You are Saved, God is still good and I love gays now", was instantly replaced by knowing that 'TRVLA', who told me I hated God, finally GOT how horrible and arrogant that made him sound, how unChristian, I could tell by later posts, it made him feel. It sunk in and slight growth was evident... And now the next time he hears a friend rip on gays, or reads Romans, or finds out his granddaughter is a lesbian, I feel with the help of God, I made a small dent, and ripple... ~This interaction and direct, personal opportunity to reach out, and feel I or you, or Zerbie, Jennifer or BruceChris or... (all you who do good daily, regardless) may make a small alteration in attitude, and planted a seed that is left in God's hands, seems a gift of this powerful, anonymous and profound internet thing that SF is overlooking... Did I win this person, or any of the other six or seven I have seen soften or be cornered and question their original condemnation of me, or any of the lurkers I am mostly there for? I don't have any idea. Whats win? ...I do know 'IEGT' took a deep, introspective breath when I suggested the reason his sister, who had just came out, was avoiding him not out of lonely, shameful misery, but because she was being the most honest with herself she had ever been and was sick and tired of his version of Love, he understood... ~I deeply hope others find ways to quietly touch and enlighten others with the one of a kind blessing God has given them... and I can't help seeing SF as in a perfect position, with the philosophy, love, Spirit and means in place, to be used to spread such an edifying and beautiful message around.

>~~~~~~~~~~(http://www.msnmonkey.co.uk/Emoticons/Animals/LionKing.gif )~~~~~~~~~~~<

It is a difficult issue. Steven, Nate and Jen all make good points. The aura of this site would change, motives and intentions would be second guessed, old wounds some come here to heal may be exposed to the same old abuse in cyber form, our comfort zones we like to think are a bit broader than most, would be put to the test... Who in their right mind invites their abuser, their enemy to take another swing, at the other cheek?

Its funny, Christians are told not to befriend the World, not to dine with the unrepentant sinner. We have been cast aside for these scriptures, without a second thought that this contradicts how Jesus related to people. His most cutting words and anger was reserved for the Pharisees and hypocrits... We have a way to show them how Christ really desires us to act.

>~~~~~~~~~~~( http://www.msnmonkey.co.uk/Emoticons/Animals/HorseRider.gif)~~~~~~~~~~~<

"...why not pray that God will reveal to you if there is anything else that He needs for you to hear or know about this issue."

{ from "Pearl", the mother of a Christian gay son, trying to practice defending him before she puts herself on the chopping block of her baptist church. I told her is was one of the simplest, most perfect prayers I had heard, applicable to everything... It was amazing to see her get essentially a ' 'cause we know it all anyway. Just an innapropriate example of extremes.}

...a practical note: maybe a seperate registration process that isolates the debate forum(s). Separate the Soul side from the Force side. (?)

Liberal Crozier

08-15-2006, 08:55 AM

This is Spouse +, because +Crozier is quite ill, bedridden, and is now hospitalised for his weekly chemo treatments. Please pray for him as he will undergo both PET and CAT scans tomorrow to determine the success or failure of the treatment.

+Crozier misses the interaction, and often asks about what topics are being discussed. When I told him that several of his topics met with lurks and few commentaries, he chuckled and gave me his big smile and said that he trusted their judgement and was a chastened Canadian. Of course, we understand, for if it takes the United States a few more generations to be as free as Canadians, Dutch, Belgian, or Spanish citizens are today, then it will have to be borne by patriotic Americans in the same way that African-Americans and Native Americans have borne prejudice and second-class citizenship.

Apologetics is the defence of the Faith in the face of those who oppose and/or persecute the Body of Christ. Apologetics also has a definition that seeks to define "Christian orthodoxy" as opposed to heresy or heterodoxy. Of course, there is the Western Church split on theological lines and then again in many ways - and the Eastern Church equally split on theological lines but more cohesively so....and they agree with the Roman Church on the sacramental nature of the Church and the necessity for Succession in the process of administration.

Dialogue is a much more informal, and less academic exercise where we engage those who oppose us and we tend to mix both catechetical and theological elements along with love or animus in the discussion.

We agree with Jamie and others.....for this reason. Our opponents know the apologetics and the dialogue. They are, as Jamie reinforced, buoyed by the fact that most of Christianity either supports their homophobic claims of sin and choice, and that very few accept us - easily marginalising these groups as either complicit with the " homosexual agenda " or if to important or significant to dismiss outright, labelling them as " duped by the homosexual agenda."

What does it take? There are many strategies. Some merely tell their cradle or chosen Christian denomination, " Your theology is unacceptable, and I formally withdraw from communicant status with you. Please have your records reflect this fact, along with the reasons stated herein."

Others adopt the strategy of cultural and nominal membership or communicant status. They merely stop all support - economic or communicant - and do not bother to join or support the many fractured but groups who do support the sexual theological positions outlined by gay-affirming churches.

( As an aside, for example, there are validly sacramental "independent" Catholic or Anglican gay-affirming churches who are never supported by LGBT Catholics or Anglicans despite the ability to build their fledgling dioceses and parishes and have persecuted Catholics or Anglicans receive valid sacraments in the bargain.)

Mainline Protestant LGBT Christians often remain culturally or nominally loyal to their cradle or adult chosen denomination." After all, the large second from left stained glass window is in honour of great-grandparents - and the flower vases on the main altar were given in memory of great-aunt Alice. Besides, it is important to maintain membership for a variety of societal or business reasons....and that UCC church has never included those residents who represent the leaders of the community." Sound familiar, eh ?????

In Canada, however ( sorry ) the United Church of Canada is taking active members from all Anglican dioceses save Westminster BC where the Ordinary is on record for us. The United Church of Canada in Quebec ( yes there are French-speaking Canadian Anglicans and United Church members) has realised a 15% increase in membership there. In parts of WASP Canada, the membership is growing. They marry Canadian Protestant gays and lesbians, they baptize our children, and they nurture our legal status and our role in Canadian familial society. Are they not worthy of support????

The Roman Catholic Church in Canada is also experiencing a large and clear loss of LGBT communicants. There are several "autocephalous" Catholic and Anglican churches in Canada, and they are seeing phenomenal growth. Many of their bishops are former Roman Catholic priests who received consecration at the hands of renegade French or Brazilian bishops whose ability to consecrate is intact and valid. These men are capable of counteracting the lies and falsehoods about them while they create an alternate way to the Catholic Faith without the Inquisition of +Joseph Ratzinger, Bishop of Rome.

Daniel

08-15-2006, 02:48 PM

+Crozier misses the interaction, and often asks about what topics are being discussed. When I told him that several of his topics met with lurks and few commentaries, he chuckled and gave me his big smile and said that he trusted their judgement and was a chastened Canadian.

Chastened? Surely not so! Please let Liberal know that his is much missed and prayed for daily.

Apologetics is the defence of the Faith in the face of those who oppose and/or persecute the Body of Christ. Apologetics also has a definition that seeks to define "Christian orthodoxy" as opposed to heresy or heterodoxy. Of course, there is the Western Church split on theological lines and then again in many ways - and the Eastern Church equally split on theological lines but more cohesively so....and they agree with the Roman Church on the sacramental nature of the Church and the necessity for Succession in the process of administration.

I don't mean to be irreverent, but the phrase' gay Christan apologetics' bubbled up in my mind (if there were such a thing) in response to your- as usual - excellent social and theological commentary.

Dialogue is a much more informal, and less academic exercise where we engage those who oppose us and we tend to mix both catechetical and theological elements along with love or animus in the discussion.

We agree with Jamie and others.....for this reason. Our opponents know the apologetics and the dialogue. They are, as Jamie reinforced, buoyed by the fact that most of Christianity either supports their homophobic claims of sin and choice, and that very few accept us - easily marginalising these groups as either complicit with the " homosexual agenda " or if to important or significant to dismiss outright, labelling them as " duped by the homosexual agenda."

A loud AMEN to that.

There is a practical matter to be considered as well. Does Jamie want to manage such a discussion? I know I wouldn't want the job- which- it seems to me- would be akin to making sure everyone picks up their doggy-pooh.

The whole topic reminds me (I have used this elswhere here) of Oscar Wilde's phrase in of his plays: "Manners before morals". It just seems to me that one has to spend an inordinate amount of time fending of other people's moralizing (UnLost) when in fact, a little manners would go a long way. And its oh so hard to have manners when you know you're 'right' about anything, especially 'God'. And I should know, seeing that I know everything! lol

Dash

08-15-2006, 06:45 PM

Honey!!! I'm home!!

[slings his hat deftly onto the hatrack]

Where is everybody?

Ahh...there you are... mmmmmmmwahhh!

Yes it was a hard day. It's a jungle out there, and I don't mean the nice love-making-Bonobo-monkey kind!!

What's this I hear about the Bishop being ill? We should send flowers....something lovely to bless his beard with a smile. :love:

How 'bout we order in tonight? I just wanna stay at home and be with my family....

:rainbow:

nowvoyager

08-15-2006, 09:58 PM

Hi everybody! I haven't been here for a bit, I missed you all.

A tough decision, but I decided to vote no. I think of this community as one that is quite rare, to be able to discuss these issues with other LGBTs in a safe space of spirit and understanding. It's also a place where I have learned so much and picked up techniques of engagement. In fact, that's where I've been, I've been tangling with people in various forums elsewhere on Australian sites (and in 3D, like this: http://www.theage.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Thousands-protest-samesex-marriage-ban/2006/08/13/1155407669715.html ). I find that I'm getting better at it, having spent time here - I always think, "what would the SF gang say?". So thanks to you all, coz you're all GEMS. :) :love:

tdogg

08-15-2006, 10:37 PM

Well, I kinda have mixed feelings about this topic, but in the end I voted 'no'. While I agree it is important to engage folk such as get unlost (if the desire and knowledge is there to participate), I'm not sure sure these forums are the place. I agree with Zerbie the discussion would be more beneficial to lurkers rather then get unlost and others with similar motives. I still think its possible that get unlost is mentally exploring his own sexuality while simultaneous desperately attempting to avoid that exploration. Hence the extreme interest.

I find it curious that get unlost and our past friend venari had the failure to answer others' questions in common. Similar motives - maybe not for the same reason, and not quite honest perhaps? I think its a good thing if get unlost is still privately communicating with one or more of the members here. Good for him anyway.

My reason for eventually deciding no on this, is that the forums to me (and many) have become a sort of haven, more than a way to pass the time. I consider the people here to be friends and even confidants. We pour our hearts and souls out, honestly and without much reservation. There are so many that get so much benefit from hanging out at these forums and communicating with awesome people, getting advice, comfort, joy and the like. I believe if these forums were opened to discussion with little or no rules, we would be in jeopardy of losing the very things we love about this place. That would be a sad day and would venture to guess, a good many of us would probably end up leaving and finding what we get here somewhere else.

I do not believe that would be fulfilling the goals of Soulforce.

Daniel

08-15-2006, 11:39 PM

I still think its possible that get unlost is mentally exploring his own sexuality while simultaneous desperately attempting to avoid that exploration. Hence the extreme interest.

I find it curious that get unlost and our past friend venari had the failure to answer others' questions in common. Similar motives - maybe not for the same reason, and not quite honest perhaps? I think its a good thing if get unlost is still privately communicating with one or more of the members here. Good for him anyway.

Interesting speculation, which, of course, would only be proven to be so if Mr. UL comes clean, so to speak. I have to confess that this idea didn't occur to me for one second. Duh! That said, I had a moment of panic (?) when I thought that UL might be V, but that has not proved to be true.

Guess what? I haven't voted. And I don't think a decision should be predicated based on the outcome actually. I think Jamie should (and has) the say-so in this matter.

To practical matters again: it seems that UL has pursued his issues (whatever they are or aren't) privatedly with various members. And that may be all that needs to be done. Speaking personally, though UL repeatedly tried to keep a 'conversation' going, it was not one I wished to engage in. This may be a failing on my part, but I like to think that decision has everything to do with knowing and respecting my own limitations. Those who can: do. And bully for those who chose to take on voluntary suffering as Steven has so adroitly put it. My perspective is that we aren't all talented alike in going "Where Angels Fear to Tread" (I must have written this title at least 5 times now on this forum!). Which is why my first post said: "Knock yourself out!"

Dash - Glad you're home buddy.

Emproph

08-16-2006, 05:56 AM

I said no because, even though at times I think that it would be wonderful to be able to have such a section here. Then I think... what would happen to this place?That's why I wondered if there could be a forum section for dealing with figuring it all out, psychologically, theologically, whatever, where we can tolerate disagreements, but certainly WITHOUT descending into belittling one another....a practical note: maybe a seperate registration process that isolates the debate forum(s). Separate the Soul side from the Force side. (?)There is a practical matter to be considered as well. Does Jamie want to manage such a discussion? I know I wouldn't want the job- which- it seems to me- would be akin to making sure everyone picks up their doggy-pooh. I find it curious that get unlost and our past friend venari had the failure to answer others' questions in common.I've found that ^ to be standard procedure for "these types." When at a loss for a meaningful response, they ignore.

How about a ‘lion’s den’ section where IF they get out of hand (don’t answer questions, etc.), they can be challenged to a 1 on 1 debate?

It seems more a matter of feasibility as far as rules and means of enforcing them goes.

I know I’ve seen working templates for both, ‘lion’s den’ section and debate though.

Dash

08-16-2006, 10:24 PM

Here's my thoughts...for what they're worth...

[blows a smoke ring]

We know we want people to feel welcome to visit...

We understand they have questions...

No one is welcome to bring violence into our home...

***

I was wondering if there could be a category here where we could post our research and answers to common questions. It would not be a place of debating. I'm increasingly in agreement that the discussions are inherently cruel and unjust. When someone showed up wondering all the tired old wonderings, we could gently refer them to that reading (not posting) room first, where they could peruse at their lesiure all of our myriad research and reasonings. I myself am interested in continuing my readings in homosexual behavior as it occurs in nature, and I think y'all might enjoy hearing some highlights of that. :inspector:

Life in the usual threads wouldn't change much. With Jamie and others guarding the gate, and strong warriors like Nate to rise up in our defense(and I'd entrust my life to Nate, you know :cool:) we'd still be happy to talk, but it might help people learn about us before they mistakenly win themselves a stern escort to the exit door.

I don't know...I haven't really thought this through, plus I'm really sleepy :sleep: and my brain is tired, but I know that I've come across so many wonderful resources in other places, and since we do draw some attention here, perhaps we could provide some of that kind of thing too.

Goodnight darling people...:sleep: Tell awediot I like his new avatar, but I wish he'd take that cigarette away from his face. :p

:love:

Vanessa White

08-17-2006, 01:32 PM

I have just now reviewed all the different points of view regarding this, and I have yet to vote. My nagging question in my own head is, "What if the person posting such questions as Venari, or GetUnlost, is really one, whether they disclose it or not, struggling with their sexual orientation, so they do have some internalized homophobia issues that are yet unresolved?" I know, I know- LONGGGGG question. This IS without a doubt, an extended version of my family. NO DOUBT. I want to preserve and keep that intact, without the potential damage that could be done by those that come in and make judgmental statements. I am not condoning flexing or changing the forum rules, no way. And, whatever Jamie decides I would definitely support, because, as with Nate, I have trusted them both to watch all of our backs. Constantly. However, I wonder why these people, unless it is because they are questioning their own identity, come here in the first place? Curiosity? Trying to save us from damnation? I don't know that I hold that to be true, although it could be. I don't know what it would have to look like logistically, but I do think a reading thread, like Dash suggested, is great. A lion's den is an interesting idea too. Rules that would address a person coming in to deliver commentary of their own view without really being interested in learning, although not sure how we could monitor that, could be beneficial. because I am so forthcoming on here, as to who I am in all senses, I sometimes feel quite naive to the fact that there are others out there (none of my family, of course) that may tread on those parts of me, or use them to beat me up with. But, that is fear on my part talking, and I try not to be guided by that as much as possible. I don't want to reject an idea of dialoging with any person such as we are describing simply out of being afraid that it possibly could be a disaster. Because, maybe, just MAYBE, it could bring about a change of mind or heart that is lasting and significant. Anyway, thanks for listening all. I love all of you and this thread has had my brain waves firing quite rapidly today, which I have been needing! :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love:

Mia14

08-17-2006, 11:28 PM

I almost didn't start this thread because I thought it might get people passionate.

After reading both sides, I am still undecided about what I'd prefer. I'm curious about the possibility, but also a bit nervous about how we'd moderate such an area. I agree with a previous statement that we'd still be able to keep the nasties out of the regular forum thanks to Jaime and Nate's (and others') amazing defense, but still I don't know.

I know the decision is ultimately not ours to make - there are people like Jaime and the other higher-ups in Soulforce who would make this decision. The poll is not to be a majority vote (by the way, at the time of this post it is interestingly enough split 7 for vs. 8 against and 3 undecided), but rather to give a summary of the opinions.

Wow, what a passionate discussion...

BruceChris

08-18-2006, 07:52 AM

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1128

Just showed up this morning, on "Hello, My Name is....."

P&L, BC

Vanessa White

08-18-2006, 09:31 AM

Hey Chris: I thought the same thing, and in light of this thread that has really gotten me thinking about all of this, I welcomed him accordingly. I guess we just see what comes next.....

otseng

08-18-2006, 10:43 AM

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1128

Just showed up this morning, on "Hello, My Name is....."

P&L, BC
Well, since I've been called out... ;)

For some reason, I could not vote. But, if I could, I'd vote "yes".

The question is: "Should there be a place to discuss topics with nonsupportive people on these forums?" The answer is "of course". But, if the question is "Should there be a place to debate with nonsupportive people on these forums?" That would be a more difficult one.

Since I'm a newbie here, my perspective could be wrong, but I don't sense this forum is a place for debate. And I don't think it's the goal of this site. But, I do think it should be a place for someone who is not a homosexual to be able to engage in a civil dialogue with homosexuals.

As long as the rules are abided by, it should be allowed.
- No Sexual harassment
- No Anti-Gay comments
- No Materials promoting "ex-gay ministries" or "reparative therapy"
- No Posts that are openly hostile to Soulforce

I would not say that I "support" the agenda of soulforce. But, that should not preclude me from participating in the forum if I abide by the rules.

otseng

08-18-2006, 10:59 AM

However, I wonder why these people, unless it is because they are questioning their own identity, come here in the first place? Curiosity?
For me, it'd be understanding. I don't have any association with any gay people in the real world (that I know of). And I prefer to discuss things online is a civil environment. This place seems to be that way, so that's why I joined.

I'm not here to "convert" people. If someone accepts Jesus as their Savior, it's good enough for me, even if they are gay.

Though I doubt my personal stance on homosexuality would change by participating here, I think my perception of homosexuals would. I think part of the reason for animosity between groups (whoever they are) is that they have failed to find common ground. They only stress the differences. But, when one looks deeper, there are areas where people can find things they both share. Lack of communication is another problem. If people are communicating, the walls are less likely to be erected.

Lydia

08-18-2006, 04:58 PM

Mia14

08-19-2006, 12:33 PM

The question is: "Should there be a place to discuss topics with nonsupportive people on these forums?" The answer is "of course". But, if the question is "Should there be a place to debate with nonsupportive people on these forums?" That would be a more difficult one.

I agree. I tried to carefully word the question, but I didn't express it as clearly as I'd like.
Thanks for clarifying what I wanted to say.

Vortex

08-20-2006, 05:31 AM

I don't want to reject an idea of dialoging with any person such as we are describing simply out of being afraid that it possibly could be a disaster. Because, maybe, just MAYBE, it could bring about a change of mind or heart that is lasting and significant.

I do not believe hope such as this is ‘wasted energy’. Never lose this.

With all the people out there who are questioning and confused, I sometimes wonder why they don't post concerns or questions here, or more importantly, if there is a reason why after posting once or twice, the questioning people don't come back!? ????

Why indeed? A hidden community that may in fact dwarf the now open one, and a struggle I do not think we can win without them. If we become yet another adversary for them, lost they will remain. Lost too our cause will be.

Jamie McDaniel

08-20-2006, 10:35 PM

I spent some time on Saturday revisiting this thread and pulling things out I wanted to later comment on. It's a different experience reading the entire thread after a few days have passed as compared to reading it while it is unfolding. One thing is for sure, the situation of moderating the posts of nonsupportive people will continually present itself.

I think we need to consider the Soulforce principles around voluntary and involuntary suffering. Get_Unlost was practicing spiritual violence (whether he thought he was doing a bad or a noble thing is irrelevant). Now it is an o.k. thing for Soulforce volunteers to accept voluntary suffering in the face of spiritual violence in order to eventually reach an adversary. However, it is not o.k. that others are subjected to involuntary suffering here--especially if they have come to these discussion boards, as some do, for support in a world where they experience involuntary suffering and spiritual violence all the time.

Steven introduced to this thread a few phrases: voluntary suffering, involuntary suffering, and spiritual violence. I think Steven did a great job of explaining the distinction between voluntary and involuntary suffering. It might help to give some history on the phrase "spiritual violence" as it was coined by Soulforce's Jimmy Creech at the 1999 action in Lynchburg.

As many of you know, Creech was a United Methodist minister who was defrocked for marrying a same gender couple. He used the phrase "spiritual violence" to describe the effects of Falwell's rhetoric on GLBT persons and their families.

In the seven years since that first action, Soulforce has had difficulty getting the church and the public to grasp this concept of "spiritual violence." I've noticed we don't use the phrase as much in our press conferences or media alerts, though it remains in our current mission statement (http://www.soulforce.org/article/7). And the reality of spiritual violence certainly remains.

When we use the term "nonsupportive people" we are being polite. What would you call someone who was nonsupportive of the African-American struggle for equality?

People who hold anti-gay views frequently try to frame this as a difference of opinion, that what they are doing is merely disagreeing with GLBT activists. An example might be, "Well, I want to say that I love homosexual people, I know that God loves homosexual people, but I disagree with redefining marriage."

As activists, we need to work to keep this seen for what it is -- a justice issue, a situation of oppressor and oppressed. Posts intended to make GLBT people feel inferior to heterosexuals are not just the opinions of nonsupportive people, they are spiritual violence. That is the reasoning behind treating anti-gay posts differently.

I really appreciate what Dash is doing over at the UMC discussion boards. Other people from our forums are getting involved over there as well with varying degrees of effectiveness and ineffectiveness. Yet it is hard to see Dash treated with such disrespect there--it does not speak well of the UMC boards or the United Methodist Church (my own church and a church many would call "moderate") and it would not speak well of this forum if we allowed it here.

I agree that it does not speak well. We have no control over the presence of anti-gay statements on other boards. We do have the ability to stigmatize such posts here. Some leaders of the African-American struggle for equality have told Soulforce that significant gains were made when they were able to stigmatize anti-black statements. It is frustrating that, at this moment in history, anti-gay statements are too often viewed as merely a "difference of opinion."

Getunlosts issue here wasn't that he was antigay, it was that he used words that belittled, disrespected, and attacked other people...

NathanATX, this post made me stop and think about my decision and actions regarding get_unlost. I reviewed the thread (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1091) and have concluded that I did remove get_unlost's posting privileges primarily due to his comments being deemed anti-gay. However, it certainly didn't help that he described heterosexuality as "natural" and homosexuality as being repulsed by the opposite sex.

Brother,

What you have encountered at soulforce is a new kind of gay & lesbian... the kind who know without a doubt that God loves them just as they are, that they are called, covenanted and commissioned to bring the mercy, justice and compassion of Christ into the world.

Indeed. I hope get_unlost and others like him who hold anti-gay views experience a happy and abundant life. But when they encounter us, it should leave them with the impression that there are GLBT people of faith who do not need their affirmation. (Of course, we don't need their vote for marriage amendments, either, but...)

Hey, some of our members go to UMC or CARM, and we offend them, and we break their rules. And remarkably, they often let us back on, after a few days. In a practical sense, just maybe they're more tolerant than we are. (But of course, they're a lot bigger)

Well, I think it is important to examine which rules are being broken. For example, when activists conduct a civil disobedience, laws, rather than just rules, will be broken. A sit-in offends both the restaurant owner and the patrons. The owner's and patron's endurance of the sit-in, I would not call tolerance. I view Soulforce activists posting on other forums as a sort of mini-version of a sit-in. As long as we are being nonviolent it is good to be assertive.

...I believe that should be every person's goal to do whatever is necessary to grow as a person and help others grow, and by this I mean to learn to move from a fear based belief system to a love based system, and when necessary, to take some risks, or even experience some pain to do so.

This is a very good belief you have, BruceChris. Thank you for sharing it with everyone. The really deep part was the experiencing pain that someone else might grow. I understand that to be voluntary suffering with an emphasis on seeing the oppressor growing. And that is the most difficult kind.

I am concerned for the other non-straight people, particularly those dealing with strong feelings of internal homophobia, who may feel not-quite-welcome here. That's why I wondered if there could be a forum section for dealing with figuring it all out, psychologically, theologically, whatever, where we can tolerate disagreements, but certainly WITHOUT descending into belittling one another.

My nagging question in my own head is, "What if the person posting such questions as Venari, or GetUnlost, is really one, whether they disclose it or not, struggling with their sexual orientation, so they do have some internalized homophobia issues that are yet unresolved?"

Zerbie and Vanessa, I share that concern. Here is what I had sent Awediot a few months ago concerning ExgayBiz (Tony) and my removal of his post titled "Why I Left The Homosexual Lifestyle."

If Tony were heterosexual and said those things about gays, I would have went ahead and reduced him to read-only. Perhaps there is some bias at work here that would have me block a heterosexual but only give a warning to an ex-gay for the same offense.

Still, as bad as ex-gays can be, they do know what it is like being same-sex attracted in a world geared for those who are opposite-sex attracted. And so I feel a sense of sadness when we have to send them away knowing they will only go back to the ill-treatment of anti-gay heterosexuals whose acceptance they so crave.

Nevertheless, so many ex-gays are not wanting to just identify as ex-gay and relish in the social acceptance that comes with dating someone of the opposite gender. Here at Soulforce, we've learned to set boundaries.

After this thread (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=626), however, I did end up placing Tony on read-only. I remember Venari initially identifying as ex-gay (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=308). It seemed to me he moved away from that though. Despite everything, I never did revoke his posting permission.

...but if we cannot even face a one on one debate or defend ourselves out in the open from even the initial stages of just why 'it REALLY is better for a kid to have a mom and dad', then we are already defeated by our silence or drown out by our own safety in numbers and inability to stand any ground

I'm not worried about you or any of the regulars here being able to defend themselves. It might serve to help us stay sharp and to better "know our values and frame the debate" as George Lakoff wrote. Still, I don't think that should happen on our forums. And I want to lean more towards our verbalizing that the debate is over. I know, the debate is not really over, but I am mindful that Dr. King pronounced segregation dead before it was. He said, "Today we know with certainty that segregation is dead. The only question remaining is how costly will be the funeral."

How and where and when do we engage the normal man, confused and concerned about us, be able to thank them, explain we are not in need of that help/But: , then offer to pray right back for them.

A really good question. I don't know. I do know, however, that collectively we all have stories of doing this.

This does make me curious as to what you think "winning" is? While butting halos on CARM, I re-examined what I realistically expected from it... The gold medal "OH! I get it... You are Saved, God is still good and I love gays now", was instantly replaced by knowing that 'TRVLA', who told me I hated God, finally GOT how horrible and arrogant that made him sound, how unChristian, I could tell by later posts, it made him feel. It sunk in and slight growth was evident... And now the next time he hears a friend rip on gays, or reads Romans, or finds out his granddaughter is a lesbian, I feel with the help of God, I made a small dent, and ripple... ~This interaction and direct, personal opportunity to reach out, and feel I or you, or Zerbie, Jennifer or BruceChris or... (all you who do good daily, regardless) may make a small alteration in attitude, and planted a seed that is left in God's hands...

A response here probably deserves its own thread. Maybe a future discussion about what we all hope to realistically accomplish when we engage nonsupportive people. Anyhow, I do believe you planted a seed. I guess the question is rocky ground, or were there birds around? Let's hope good soil.

There is a practical matter to be considered as well. Does Jamie want to manage such a discussion?

Soulforce wants to see the online forums grow, new people becoming involved, members going deeper into nonviolent activism, members gaining strength from each other and thereby speaking out more in their daily lives, things like that. Schoolboi has stepped up to be a moderator. We can have others take on moderator duties. Given the public nature of the internet, we would never host an unmoderated forum, though. But yeah, a forum where we debated with fundamentalists or conservatives would require a good amount of maintenance, I think.

I think of this community as one that is quite rare, to be able to discuss these issues with other LGBTs in a safe space of spirit and understanding.

I actually presented the idea of Soulforce having forums after being a member at GayChristian.net. Their guidelines (http://www.gaychristian.net/rules.php) also do not allow for anti-GLBT comments.

How about a ‘lion’s den’ section where IF they get out of hand (don’t answer questions, etc.), they can be challenged to a 1 on 1 debate?

Interesting variation, 1 on 1.

I was wondering if there could be a category here where we could post our research and answers to common questions. It would not be a place of debating. I'm increasingly in agreement that the discussions are inherently cruel and unjust. When someone showed up wondering all the tired old wonderings, we could gently refer them to that reading (not posting) room first, where they could peruse at their lesiure all of our myriad research and reasonings.

I really like this idea. Actually, back in April, Awediot sent me a similiar idea of having a FAQ section. I think it is time to make this happen. Let's start a thread where people submit questions that would go into a FAQ section. We can vote on the best 10-15 and then create threads for each of those questions where everyone can submit a well written response. We can then vote on the best answer to each question and that will be the featured answer. Just the initial plan. Let me know if you have improvements.

I wonder why these people, unless it is because they are questioning their own identity, come here in the first place? Curiosity? Trying to save us from damnation? I don't know that I hold that to be true, although it could be.

I've noticed we get alot of our anti-gay comments whenever a story about Soulforce breaks in the media and our traffic spikes. But yes, I think you are right about some fighting with their own sexual orientation.

A hidden community that may in fact dwarf the now open one...

I for one believe this. The hidden GLBT community is likely much larger than the visible one. I want our moderator team to be mindful that when these folks show up, they won't exactly be activists, and may inadvertently say some crazy things.

Ok, so those are some of my thoughts from having revisited this thread.

Jennifer5

08-20-2006, 11:16 PM

I definately agree with the idea of having the selected questions and answers for people to view... I think that could be a great help!

BruceChris

08-21-2006, 11:02 AM

Jennifer, I just read on ExgayBiz that you are just 15. My congratulations, you are a very articulate and outspoken young person. I hope that you have a good relationship with your parents, and I hope that they are proud of you.

Jamie, I read most of ExgayBiz's thread, and while he started out being fairly polite, when he started going downhill, he pretty much went off the deep end. Ex gay? Still quite a few unresolved issues there. And you are right, if we allow postings on our forum by people who may go blooey at some point, it brings up the problem of spiritual violence.

P&L, Chris

Jennifer5

08-21-2006, 12:39 PM

redrat

08-28-2006, 11:50 AM

YES YES YES

I think it is a good idea but at the same time it has to be agreed with an air of caution .It is very good to debate issues but i think the way in which the debate is done should to responsible .It should be a debate about views as well as facts which are substantiated but that is easier said tahn done cause a lot of the time people just end up exchanging insults and cheap digs at each other with out appreciating what the differing side is saying .
Inconclusion debate yes but responsibly.

Emproph

12-08-2006, 10:56 PM

Since we're discussing this again I thought it should be bumped.

Jennifer5

12-08-2006, 10:58 PM

Since we're discussing this again I thought it should be bumped.

Huh???I'm confused....

Emproph

12-08-2006, 11:17 PM

Huh???I'm confused....

Here:
Why we need disagreement on this board (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1698)

Jennifer5

12-08-2006, 11:37 PM

ok... sorry... very out of the loop... :)

andrewlittle

12-09-2006, 08:31 AM

What I have to say has to be understood in context - I am an ally. I am not personally oppressed, rejected or demeaned because of who I am at the core of my being. I, therefore, cannot speak for anyone who is. I can, however, speak to this issue from my viewpoint and see if what I say sheds any light on the situation.

First, Jamie or another moderator, remove my "yes" vote from the poll - I voted before thinking through my "right" to vote. I am not changing my vote to "no", but simply saying my vote is inappropriate in light of my first paragraph.

I am going to use two recent discussions to illustrate my points:

Frankandcathy entered the forums with questions that could have been offensive, and I would say were to some readers. She responded very well to comments about language and attitude, and made very sincere efforts to reframe her questions in non-combative ways in order to gain understanding.

Sammy1980 came into the forums with questions that really just camouflaged comments and accusations that were, in my mind, equally or more contentious, and has been argumentative towards suggestions that he reconsider his language and attitudes. I have yet to see much effort on his part to gain understanding - he just seems to reframe his same old tired arguments to validate his feelings that he is yet another CC who is oppressed by liberals - in this case, pro-GLBT activists.

Both of these posters, at some point, violated the "letter" of the covenant that each committed to by entering the site. Some of the responses may also have committed breaches - at least from the point of view of non-violence (I am owning my own discomfort with some of my responses I gave). There are distinct and, I believe, very important differences between these participants.

Put simply, frankandcathy participated wholeheartedly, in my opinion with the "spirit" of the covenant, while I cannot say the same thing for Sammy1980. The level of participation in the first, by number of respondents and number of posts, was a good indication of the value of the "Serious question ..." thread to a wide range of people. The tenor of the second appears to be more of a running argument.

Both threads could, and I believe were, uncomfortable for some Soulforce subscribers. They should not have to unwittingly stumble across these sometimes heated discussions, nor should they be affronted with even the titles.

A separate forum, listed on the community forums page, is an ideal place for dialogue about what some may consider contentious issues. They do exist, and it does benefit the GLBT community to engage in this dialogue when and if individuals choose to do so.

Even in this new forum, however, the "spirit" of the covenant needs to apply. When that "spirit" is violated, then the "letter" of the covenant is used to disqualify some posts, thread or even participants. This is the thankless function of moderators - to try to determine the spirit or the intent in a private place with very well articulated rules of engagement.

For what it is worth, I would have placed frankandcathy's thread in this new forum, and flushed Sammy1980's down the ether-toilet. There are, however, myriad possibilities both between these two threads and on either end of them and it would ultimately be the role of the moderator(s) to determine their value to the community as a whole and to individuals.

To use an old, worn out adage, "it is not either/or, but both/and."

Dialogue and, even, debate can occur within the "spirit" of the covenant and be generally helpful and valuable to those who choose to participate. These discussions may prove painful to many others and these people need to have the ability to avoid these potentially damaging threads. A separate "Debate" forum that is identified as "potentially disturbing" would allow both to occur.

The covenant, however, does not need to be compromised or abandoned to accomplish this. Care and oversight still needs to be exercised by those granted the authority to do so. Violations of the "spirit" of the covenant should be no more welcome in the "Debate" section than anywhere else.

suzer1013

12-09-2006, 09:55 AM

Andrew -- perfectly said! Thank you. :)

Susan

Zerbie

12-09-2006, 10:56 AM

BruceChris

12-09-2006, 11:00 AM

My signature line definitely applies to Children of God, like you.

Emproph

12-09-2006, 11:08 AM

Phew, I thought I was going to have to come back here tonight after my sisters' Christmas party and weed through all this stuff. That was an excellent assessment.

Both threads could, and I believe were, uncomfortable for some Soulforce subscribers. They should not have to unwittingly stumble across these sometimes heated discussions, nor should they be affronted with even the titles.

A separate forum, listed on the community forums page, is an ideal place for dialogue about what some may consider contentious issues. They do exist, and it does benefit the GLBT community to engage in this dialogue when and if individuals choose to do so

Dialogue and, even, debate can occur within the "spirit" of the covenant and be generally helpful and valuable to those who choose to participate. These discussions may prove painful to many others and these people need to have the ability to avoid these potentially damaging threads. A separate "Debate" forum that is identified as "potentially disturbing" would allow both to occur.

The covenant, however, does not need to be compromised or abandoned to accomplish this. Care and oversight still needs to be exercised by those granted the authority to do so. Violations of the "spirit" of the covenant should be no more welcome in the "Debate" section than anywhere else.

I think you’ve summed it up better than anyone so far. I like the "potentially disturbing" caveat for the title of that section, easily avoidable. Possibly even a secondary caveat/closed thread clarifying warning and rules – members only?

I’ve got more, but huge sigh of relief for now. I think what you've suggested is as far as we can go within the context of this forum layout. :tup:

Emproph

12-09-2006, 11:12 AM

Andrew, you belong here, okay? Stop feeling like an intruder. You have tremendous insight and are incredibly articulate - you're an invaluable member of this community.

And if you don't have the "right" to vote on this poll, what on God's green earth made me think that I did???? We aren't outsiders. This is our community. Any place where friends are, friends belong.

Yeah, what she said.

andrewlittle

12-09-2006, 12:59 PM

Believe me, I in no way feel like an intruder. I have felt nothing but welcome from my first day here, which was not long ago, actually.

I remain aware, or I try at least, that I am a guest in this House that God built. As a guest, I am called to act with humility and thankfullness for being made to feel welcome. I am embraced with kindness, as your post's show. I am truly thankful for that.

frankandcathy, I think, also kept in mind that she was a guest in another's house. This doesn't come with a sense of being an intruder or outsider, but with a requirement that the house etiquette be honored, and that discussion remain respectful and loving.

I believe a lack of thinking "I am a guest in someone else's HOLY place" is what drives the need for this thread in the first place. To me, that's what the entry covenant said.

So, thank you for welcoming me into your home, your family, your sanctuary. I pray I do not take it for granted and that I remain aware of being an invited and welcomed GUEST.