Why we need disagreement on this board

[dewdrop_world]

I'm not sure if I'll have time to complete these thoughts tonight, but want to take a stab anyway...

In an earlier thread, consensus was that this board is not a place to engage in debate with people who do not accept the morality of same sex relationships. If I recall correctly, one of the main reasons is that we wanted this to be a supportive space where people could come and find comfort and community. So the decision was not to create an area on the board where such discussion could take place.

I'd like to state a couple reasons why I disagree with that decision. I don't remember if I stated them at the time, but recent threads have made them more relevant so I hope this isn't rehashing old territory.

The first reason is that I think we need to be careful to distinguish between people who are here to cause trouble, and people who say things that we find offensive because they have not yet learned another way to speak. (That is, they don't mean to be offensive, but are not yet able to see how other people might react to their words.) I don't think the moderation here is draconian by any means, but for myself, I would rather err on the side of giving someone a chance.

The second reason grows out of the first, and I think is deeply entwined with the mission of Soulforce -- and may even be an essential part of that mission.

The purpose of this organization is to redress, through nonviolent means, the harm done to gays and lesbians -- most notably the harm done in the name of religion, but including other sources as well. Nonviolence means countering hatred with love. To do this, we must come to understand the sources of violence within ourselves, to become familiar with their triggers, and to deflect that energy within us before responding.

I believe that we learn to do this only by exposing ourselves to those triggers. By seeing the triggers for what they are, and seeing the conditions that give rise to our immediate responses (whether responses of calm, of anger, of hurt), we can learn slowly that the triggers are ultimately empty of substance. We give them power, and we can approach them in a way that takes their power away. When the triggers have no more power, then we are free to love the trigger-ers back, without reservation and without expecting something in return.

It's like getting a flu shot. Getting a small, safe dose of a harmful organism prepares the body to deal with that organism in the real world. If you don't have the exposure, you are likely to be wiped out by it if it catches you off guard.

It is not something that happens overnight. We don't do it by having good intentions. It is a skill that has to be learned, and I think a certain amount of pain is involved. That's part of nonviolence -- we volunteer to take on some of the pain of the world in order to transform it into peace.

I feel very strongly that the decision to keep painful stimuli off the board is ultimately self-defeating. How will we learn to transform our responses without the opportunity to practice that transformation? Without having a safe space in which to make the mistakes? Yes, there are plenty of other places to gain that exposure, but they are not necessarily safe spaces. Should one go directly to CARM without having any practice beforehand? Of course not.

We know that, with Equality Ride coming up, we will see some new posters with more hostile attitudes than we are accustomed to. Should we go into this situation without preparation?

I don't think that potentially hostile threads should be scattered around the board. But I see no harm -- and I see potential benefits -- in quarantining them in a special area which people may visit if they choose, when they feel ready, and which they may ignore if they are not up to the challenge at that moment. (There is nothing wrong with not wanting to deal with it!)

I also think truly recalcitrant newcomers should not be permitted to post. But right now, it's kind of all-or-nothing. I'd like to see a creative solution to allow more time to determine their true intent, and also to provide opportunities to practice, to become better at nonviolence.

James

[sammy1980]

I'm behind you, James.

[Daniel]

It is not something that happens overnight. We don't do it by having good intentions. It is a skill that has to be learned, and I think a certain amount of pain is involved. That's part of nonviolence -- we volunteer to take on some of the pain of the world in order to transform it into peace.

I feel very strongly that the decision to keep painful stimuli off the board is ultimately self-defeating. How will we learn to transform our responses without the opportunity to practice that transformation? Without having a safe space in which to make the mistakes? Yes, there are plenty of other places to gain that exposure, but they are not necessarily safe spaces. Should one go directly to CARM without having any practice beforehand? Of course not.

---

I don't think that potentially hostile threads should be scattered around the board. But I see no harm -- and I see potential benefits -- in quarantining them in a special area which people may visit if they choose, when they feel ready, and which they may ignore if they are not up to the challenge at that moment. (There is nothing wrong with not wanting to deal with it!)

I also think truly recalcitrant newcomers should not be permitted to post. But right now, it's kind of all-or-nothing. I'd like to see a creative solution to allow more time to determine their true intent, and also to provide opportunities to practice, to become better at nonviolence.

James


James- I agree with you on all these points. I just differ in that I don't think pain needs to involved per se. Fear, Anger, Fury, Impatience and Boredom tansmuting into compassion, patience, forbearance, clearminded-and-hearted-vision-and-action?- yes. A resounding yes to that.

The idea of taking on pain seems ripe for mismanagment- leading toward the shadow-side that is martydom. I'm leery of that. But this my own personal quibble perhaps- I know that. Don't think you meant my meaning actually. And now's not the time to quibble about such things.

I suppport your idea.

There's only one way to clean out the barn.

One just has to remember to wipe one's shoes before entering the house.

[scott snedeker]

Perhaps such a discussion would have some value, but I have some apprehensions:

Many members are struggling to overcome self -loathing imposed upon them by the past abuse of homophobia. For these individuals such viewpoints if allowed could be frightening and possibly damaging.

The gay-safe cyber-sanctuary that this site now offers would change with adding a persecutorial spirit to the mix. I would worry that this change would frighten away people as it would then start to include the part of the world that is hostile.

I like the current alignment of philosophy of the site. It is congruous with Abraham's Law of Attraction (If you want something, create it and attract others to you. If you push against what you don't want, you activate it and strengthen it, acheiving the opposite of what you want)---Abraham-hicks.com

Perhaps creating a link to a separate site or chat room might preserve the present sanctuary but give some members duelling quarters, however I have doubts about the idealogical hygeine of this suggestion alltogether.

love and affirmation,

Scotty:cowboy:

[Vanessa White]

As with many issues that come up here that are controversial or difficult, I am torn on this issue. I do agree, that we need to meet our oppressors, when we feel ready and able, with love, understanding, patience, and compassion. It does not mean we have to allow them to walk all over us, just allow them to express their views. However, they do need to live by the rules of posting here on the forums if they want to participate. So, that could be a way of getting rid of persons who are just visiting to assault us verbally/in writing with their views. However, I do agree with dewdrop that to make progress, we need to explore those options openly, safely, in some fashion. We all possess, and I can safely say all, a certain level of internalized homophobia, based on our upbringing, whether we are gay or straight. As we proceed throughout our development, hopefully the level of that homophobia lessens with new information and a new perspective, as well as the more self-loving we become, the less self-loathing we are. Only then can we dialogue without everything counter to what we say feeling like a personal attack. I think those that condemn us always feels personal to me, but I don't feel as attacked as I have in the past. That for me has come with me feeling more confident in my lesbian orientation, and in the belief that I am loved and cherished by God. I am also wondering, if anyone can help me with this, how often do we actually have visitors here that only come to condemn, and not to reach out or to learn in some way? If persons that view us differently come here to ask questions and to possibly evolve somehow, shouldn't we safely assist them with that process, while still keeping it as a safe haven for those of us who need it? Can't we do both, somehow? Peace and love, Vanessa :love: :love: :love: :love:

[Zerbie]

I am with James and Vanessa. Vanessa articulates so well the essential need for a safe space that this board provides. We are such a small and close-knit group! We have been able to be that safe space for some (like, hey, ourselves! ;) )

With regard to long discussions/debates with those who aren't fully on board with the SF mission, well, it's already been happening. I need only point to recent discussions with 2 new members asking questions from a conservative standpoint (from 2 very different personality styles), or long debates from last spring during the E Ride.

I don't think that we would be encouraging a higher traffic flow of dissenters if we added a separate page for such visitors. Rather, it would contain those discussions to a page where those who do not feel up to reading/participating won't stumble upon them accidentally in the "faith" section, or the "general chat" section.

Mods?

[BruceChris]

I've got Two Questions. First, just how would we solicit moderate posters more like frankandcathy, and less of those who are clearly way off the deep end. The movable middle, in other words. Second, wouldn't this require a considerably greater time commitment from moderators?

Reinforcing - Zerbie's parting shot: Mods?

P&L, BC

[andrewlittle]

I agree with most everything I have read in this thread.

Discussion - respectful dialogue - is the key to gaining understanding. It does take two (or more) people to engage in healthy dialogue, with all willing to listen and learn, and to talk (write) and teach. I have found it always more productive to do them in that order, as well.

Respectful dialogue requires that participants are intent on listening, on reflecting and on responding. This becomes, I think, the criteria by which moderators must determine the value of posts, and that would not always be an easy task.

It is never easy to discern intent, unless it is overtly disclosed. Judgment calls have to made, however, when arguments are circular, repetitive and/or obviously unreflective. No relationship is strengthened by relentless reiteration of old, worn out diatribe.

I would also applaud the notion of having a separate forum which can be used for this type of discussion, and to which threads can be moved if they become potentially oppressive to those who do not wish to participate. It's easy to say that no-one need read anything that is posted, but you do not necessarily know the content of posts until after you have read them. By then the discomfort has already been experienced.

Only those who are "outside" or pushed to the edge of culture know the value of safe spaces. Sanctuaries should not be compromised, even if the discussion is deemed generally positive or valuable for the majority. The people this site intends to affirm should be able to easily avoid reading offensive material.

[BruceChris]

SF Member: I don't think most of these comments made by homophobic fundies are one damned bit funny. :mad: :mad:

Sf Moderator: Oh, I don't know about that. I threw a bunch of them in the fire, and the fire just roared! :lol: :lol: :lol:

P&L, BC

[keltic63]

Re Zerbie's parting shot: Mods?

P&L, BC


I believe she's referring to moderators. I'm a brand new mod here. i'm following the discussion and for now I'd prefer to allow this discussion to continue. I do believe that this needs to be a safe place for lgbt people. I also note that during those times when we haven't had a "controversial" member posting, the discussion lags. So perhaps there is a balance somewhere. This is a great forum, and I've noticed our habit of discussing ideas and eventually finding a great solution. Keep talking, I'm sure we'll find the right symbiosis for this place.

[BruceChris]

We should have the more controversial forum(s) accessable only thru a seperate icon. -- BC
Or at it's own URL.

[Zerbie]

Yep Keltic, I was asking what you moderators thought so far.

A separate space on the forum, not designed for debate (since I agree with SF stance that debating one's existence is part of the problem) but for containing those FAQs that come from visitors who are questioning, possibly challenging us, or else re-evaluating their stance for the first time and have to address questions like "how can you be gay and christian?" That way, none of us who have found a safe "home" here have to run into those questions in our sanctuary, but they can be dealt with in their own space. Since those threads appear anyway. . . .

[dewdrop_world]

Just to clarify -- I was merely proposing that there be a space, somewhere, maintained by Soulforce, as a container for the inevitable challenging questions. I want to reiterate that I do not think it should be just put out there with no warnings. It should be very clear that people who go into that area will find challenges and possibly homophobic postings. It should be clear that there is never any obligation for anyone to go into that area.

I agree that 98% of this board should be a safe space where anti-gay material is not allowed.

I also think we should have more options than just the binary:

Friend -- you're ok, stick around

or

Foe -- bye bye, no room for you here


Like I said, I think there's a creative solution. Just hoping we can move in that direction.

Thanks,
James

[sammy1980]

Hello everybody,

It has caught my attention that when people introduce some info, where a discrimination/oppression/persecution has occurred against those who had adverse views on homosexuality, that info is being perceived by some individuals as the promotion of antigay rhetoric and intended dehumanization of all gay and lesbian people. Now, I have seen that many people on this forum agreed to allow disagreement, but my concern is how do we deal with such a disagreement, if somebody gets too reactionary? Would it be okay to keep the info on?

Sam

[Daniel]

Sammy- I encourage you to restate your post. I don't have a clear picture as to what you are trying to say.

You mention "something caught my attention" but don't tell the reader WHERE this happened or HOW it came about.

Neither do you tell the reader WHAT this "some info" and "discrimination/oppression/persecution" is.

The devil is in the details which is what this thread is all about.

[sammy1980]

Daniel,

I prefer not to mention specific names, for the sake of people's feelings and dignities. However, I would like to point something out; there were some statements made on these threads when people said stuff like that homosexuality was a sin or told a story how somebody got expelled/fired/arrested for vocalizing their views on homosexuality. Subsequently, other people responded by labeling the people who said the above stuff, as being antigay and/or using their posts for antigay platform.

Now, I remember how James introduced the idea that we should allow people on these threads to say that they disagree with the morality of homosexuality, ie saying like homosexuality is a sin. Majority of you, said it would be okay.

So, let's rehearse a pretend situation. Suppose, a forum member A expresses something critical about homosexuality, gay marriage, just by stating what he or she believes but in a non-hateful way. Then, suppose, a forum member B would react to the staments of a forum member A, by labeling that person as being antigay, dehumanizing gay and lesbian people, creating antigay platform, etc. My question is, how should we handle this pretend situation?

Does it make sense, now?

Sammy

[Daniel]

So, let's rehearse a pretend situation. Suppose, a forum member A expresses something critical about homosexuality, gay marriage, just by stating what he or she believes but in a non-hateful way. Then, suppose, a forum member B would react to the staments of a forum member A, by labeling that person as being antigay, dehumanizing gay and lesbian people, creating antigay platform, etc. My question is, how should we handle this pretend situation?

Does it make sense, now?

Sammy

Sammy- well sort of, but I can't say that I agree. Why? Bcause SPECIFICS are always better when dealing with a matter of this importance rather than a statement which is general. Using a wide brush just paints over everything.

To be specific:

I believe you are in error in your 'pretend' situation by the ASSUMPTION that the statement by A is 'non-hateful'.

If there is a negative reaction to A's statement you can be sure of at least one of two things.

1) A hasn't given enough thought to WHAT has he/she has written and HOW it will be perceived based on the MILIEU (environment or setting) of the forum.

2) The view expressed by A personifies (at least in the mind a B) the very oppression which A is not yet aware of. What A thinks is right or true at this point doesn't matter: the belief system of the forum has been breached.

If you want to discuss this kind of matter further, I suggest you do it in a PM (or start a thread dealing with the subject). This thread, properly speaking, is dealing with a matter of importance to everyone, not just your concerns regarding protocol.

[sammy1980]

Okay, Daniel.

Based on your last response, I got out of it, that the poster should be aware of how the majority of the forum members would perceive what he or she wants to post.

Well, that was good enough.

Thanks,

Sammy

[dewdrop_world]

Well... if it were my board to run (which it isn't, but maybe this will clarify some of what I've been talking about), I would advise person A that the comments are contrary to the spirit of the board. I would also move the thread into an area reserved for nonviolent, loving responses to contentious posts (containment, so that those who are not prepared to deal with such comments can choose to avoid them). That would start a kind of probationary period where it could be determined if this person is willing to engage with other viewpoints, or if they came just to complain about gay people.

James

[suzer1013]

Hello everybody,

It has caught my attention that when people introduce some info, where a discrimination/oppression/persecution has occurred against those who had adverse views on homosexuality, that info is being perceived by some individuals as the promotion of antigay rhetoric and intended dehumanization of all gay and lesbian people. Now, I have seen that many people on this forum agreed to allow disagreement, but my concern is how do we deal with such a disagreement, if somebody gets too reactionary? Would it be okay to keep the info on?

Sam

Sammy,

One more time: The upholding of laws aimed to protect minorities from discrimination and harassment is NOT discrimination, oppression or persecution of the person or persons the minority is being protected from. You continue to present this slanted view, as if we should feel sorry for CC's who want to continue to break the law (where there are laws protecting GLBT persons). CC's are allowed to hold their own particular prejudices against whoever they want to, however they are not allowed to break laws intended to protect people. If and when those laws overstep boundaries, according to the links you posted, the law has actually worked in favor of the CC's. (Though I cannot speak for the laws of another country, it appears even that case is being appealed and the offending pastor will not face punishment for what, in that country -- printing material espousing hatred toward GLBT people in a newspaper -- amounted to a hate crime. Interesting, because if he had printed the same thing about Jews, I think we'd all see it pretty clearly as a hate crime, wouldn't we?)

So let's get over the idea that CC's are being oppressed by GLBT people who want equality. It's just not true. Providing rights to one group of people is NOT oppressing any other group, period. It is your slanting of this subject, continuing to assert that CC's are oppressed and discriminated against by those seeking equality, and presented biased and slanted research and articles (the Alliance Defense Group? -- give me a break!), and persisting in doing so even when you've been called on it, that is problematic to some of us. I do not and will never feel sorry for people who want to demean and dehumanize GLBT people. And though I will support their rights to hold their opinion, I will never support acts of discrimination against GLBT people in the name of religion or for any other reason.

I hope that's not too "reactionary" for you. I have simply stated my opinion, and believe I have always done so in a polite, but firm, manner.

As for the subject of this thread, I agree -- we definitely need to maintain safe spaces here.

Susan

[Zerbie]

Thank you, Susan. Well said.

[Daniel]

La Verita Susan. La Verita!

[sammy1980]

Sammy,

One more time: The upholding of laws aimed to protect minorities from discrimination and harassment is NOT discrimination, oppression or persecution of the person or persons the minority is being protected from. You continue to present this slanted view, as if we should feel sorry for CC's who want to continue to break the law (where there are laws protecting GLBT persons). CC's are allowed to hold their own particular prejudices against whoever they want to, however they are not allowed to break laws intended to protect people. If and when those laws overstep boundaries, according to the links you posted, the law has actually worked in favor of the CC's. (Though I cannot speak for the laws of another country, it appears even that case is being appealed and the offending pastor will not face punishment for what, in that country -- printing material espousing hatred toward GLBT people in a newspaper -- amounted to a hate crime. Interesting, because if he had printed the same thing about Jews, I think we'd all see it pretty clearly as a hate crime, wouldn't we?)

So let's get over the idea that CC's are being oppressed by GLBT people who want equality. It's just not true. Providing rights to one group of people is NOT oppressing any other group, period. It is your slanting of this subject, continuing to assert that CC's are oppressed and discriminated against by those seeking equality, and presented biased and slanted research and articles (the Alliance Defense Group? -- give me a break!), and persisting in doing so even when you've been called on it, that is problematic to some of us. I do not and will never feel sorry for people who want to demean and dehumanize GLBT people. And though I will support their rights to hold their opinion, I will never support acts of discrimination against GLBT people in the name of religion or for any other reason.

I hope that's not too "reactionary" for you. I have simply stated my opinion, and believe I have always done so in a polite, but firm, manner.

As for the subject of this thread, I agree -- we definitely need to maintain safe spaces here.

Susan

Well, Susan, I see you got some interesting points here, dealing with different groups and how they differently view discrimination. I would like to remind you that there is a thread on this forum called "God loves diversity" dealing with these issues. I would appreciate if you check it out, and especially the fable about Elephant, the painter. This fable was originally written by a French writer Jean de La Fontaine, then the same subject was picked up by a Russian fabulist Ivan Krylov, and finally another Russian poet (this time, during the Cold War) named Sergei Mikhalkov produced similar fable. It is about trying to please people who have opposing demands and what usually comes out of it. I think it relates to what you were saying. I highly suggest, you take a look at it.
By the way, you sounded firm but not reactionary.

Nice talking to you,

Sammy

[dewdrop_world]

Hi Sammy,

I'm not quite convinced by your reading of the fable. The story shows what happens when one person tries to appease conflicting demands of people (or groups) who not only have different opinions, but who are also all sure that their opinion is right and everybody else is wrong.

You're suggesting that the problem in the story is the elephant's fault, for not standing up for what he believes in. But isn't it really the fault of the various groups who put their own needs ahead of the needs of a harmonious society?

Before you say that gay people are putting gay needs ahead of the needs of society, first, name which of the following are irreconcilable with a healthy society:

1. The right of all people to live peacefully, free from harassment and violence (in other words, the right to be left alone);
2. The right to hold a job without fear of being fired because the boss doesn't like some characteristic of yours (the right to achieve and contribute to society);
3. The right of gay and lesbian couples to form lasting partnerships, and to live together without interference from the state (the right to love).

Note that nowhere in this is "the right to force other people to hold religious views that are the same as mine" or "the right to control other people's viewpoints."

Now consider the positions of the extreme conservative Christians on these same matters.

1. Since the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination, any society that doesn't let us say whatever cruel things we want about gays is infringing on the right to free exercise of religion. If gays don't like it, they have to suck it up. [Consider that one of NARTH's "psychiatrists" actually said that being bullied is GOOD for kids who don't fit into gender stereotypes. -- http://www.waynebesen.com/2006/08/two-rebukes-ex-gay-therapist-for.html -- Glad to see someone is looking out for the kids. Crush their spirits while they're young! -- full disclosure: NARTH eventually repudiated that statement... but it took a couple of weeks and outside pressure before they reached the conclusion that, hey, raising kids to be polite and courteous and not to beat up on people who are different... maybe that's not such a bad idea after all. Jeez. Isn't that obvious? If I have a choice between that and Rosie O'Donnell being a mom, I'm with Rosie.]

2. My religion says gays are immoral and untrustworthy and I should have the right to discriminate against them in employment, housing, etc. even when it's really, really unfair.

3. Joe and Steve across the street are going to break up my marriage JUST BY BEING THERE -- therefore it is my religious duty to push for laws that put painful obstacles in the way of their stability and happiness.

Now, who is refusing to play nice for the sake of a healthy democracy? Who is trying to push their religious beliefs into the realm of law and policy, everyone else be damned?

Who's trying to put the palm trees in the Arctic? Hint -- it ain't the gays.

I'm with Susan. Gimme a break.

James

[Daniel]

James- A break? How about applause? You have mine. An incisive and expertly worded statement. Thank you big-time.

[sammy1980]

Hello James

I'm not quite convinced by your reading of the fable. The story shows what happens when one person tries to appease conflicting demands of people (or groups) who not only have different opinions, but who are also all sure that their opinion is right and everybody else is wrong.

You're suggesting that the problem in the story is the elephant's fault, for not standing up for what he believes in. But isn't it really the fault of the various groups who put their own needs ahead of the needs of a harmonious society?

I need to remind that it was Jean de La Fontaine who wrote the fable, not me. So, I can't suggest anything here, per se. I'm just a reader just like you and I can only say what I learned from it. I learned that the elephant was being a fool for wanting to please everybody and unwilling to agree to disagree. But I agree with you that it was mainly the fault fo the various groups who put their needs first.

Before you say that gay people are putting gay needs ahead of the needs of society, first, name which of the following are irreconcilable with a healthy society:

1. The right of all people to live peacefully, free from harassment and violence (in other words, the right to be left alone);
2. The right to hold a job without fear of being fired because the boss doesn't like some characteristic of yours (the right to achieve and contribute to society);

You would be surprised that there are moderate conservative Christians, different from those extremist religious fanatics you mentioned below and their demands are exactly the same, although the details might be different. These moderate conservative Christians also want to live peacefully, free from harassment and violence that comes from activists who disagree with them. In other words, they demand a right to be left alone. They also want a right to hold a job without fear of being fired because the boss doesn't like some religious beliefs of theirs. The boss thinks that your beliefs are a threat to the boss's views of "diversity." In other words, moderate conservative Christians are asking for the right to achieve and contribute to society. Furthermore, those people are asking for the right to say openly what they think about love, morality, values, virtues without the fear of being rejected. In other words, the right to be respected.


Now consider the positions of the extreme conservative Christians on these same matters.

1. Since the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination, any society that doesn't let us say whatever cruel things we want about gays is infringing on the right to free exercise of religion. If gays don't like it, they have to suck it up. [Consider that one of NARTH's "psychiatrists" actually said that being bullied is GOOD for kids who don't fit into gender stereotypes. -- http://www.waynebesen.com/2006/08/two-rebukes-ex-gay-therapist-for.html -- Glad to see someone is looking out for the kids. Crush their spirits while they're young! -- full disclosure: NARTH eventually repudiated that statement... but it took a couple of weeks and outside pressure before they reached the conclusion that, hey, raising kids to be polite and courteous and not to beat up on people who are different... maybe that's not such a bad idea after all. Jeez. Isn't that obvious? If I have a choice between that and Rosie O'Donnell being a mom, I'm with Rosie.]

2. My religion says gays are immoral and untrustworthy and I should have the right to discriminate against them in employment, housing, etc. even when it's really, really unfair.

3. Joe and Steve across the street are going to break up my marriage JUST BY BEING THERE -- therefore it is my religious duty to push for laws that put painful obstacles in the way of their stability and happiness.

Now, who is refusing to play nice for the sake of a healthy democracy? Who is trying to push their religious beliefs into the realm of law and policy, everyone else be damned?

Those are the views of some fanatics, and they are asking for the right to create tyranny, to force everybody to see their way as the high way, and punish those who disagree. But guess what, my friend? There are similar fanatics in the gay community who also want to have a tyrannical approach and punish those who disagree as well. Hint: Ake Green case in Sweden. But you see, James, these are the exceptional black and white people, aka nutjobs. Majority of the people are grey. Yes, those moderate CC's are grey and they are not nutjobs. They are people like you, James, even if they have different views on the morality from you. Why are they people like you? Because they want to have right to be left alone, to achieve and contribute to society (just like the first two that you listed), and also to be respected. What other other words can I use to convince you of that?
Back to the fable, now that you see that we have 4 different groups; two very black and white, and two who are very grey. But having people with grey views, who are the majority, makes it more difficult to balance things out thus it is more difficult for the ruler to use wisdom. This is the moral of the fable.

I'm sure that with the situation like ours, the elephant would get a heart attack.

Who's trying to put the palm trees in the Arctic? Hint -- it ain't the gays.

Well, the fable with this subject was written before our greatgrandparents were born, so the people who were trying to put palm trees in the Arctic, were King Louis XIV, Emperor Nicholas I, and Nikita Khrushchev (Cuban Missile Crisis). By the way, when the fable was printed in a new version in the 1950s, Sergei Mikhalkov was accused by the KGB for mocking the Soviet politics and he was temporarily banned. In America, the one I think who was trying put the palm trees in the Arctic, was Billy Clinton, and maybe John Kerry.

I wanted to ask you if you would be okay to continue this type of discussion in this thread. I knew that you create a topic, and I didn't want anybody to lose track of it. So, I suggested to move the fable issue to "God loves diversity" thread, where the fable is originally at.

Peace,

Sammy

[andrewlittle]

Intense conversation. Very good exchange. Bravo.

From many people's points of view, however, this thread could be just about like watching your favorite TV show and having a commercial come on with exploding blood and guts.

This is the kind of conversation that needs a separate place, which is, I believe, the responsibility of the moderators.

While the conversation deserves to continue, it should be easier to avoid for people who have just had too much of this stuff.

Back to the suggestion for a separate forum.

Sorry for the interruption, please come back out from your corners ...

[dewdrop_world]

I wanted to ask you if you would be okay to continue this type of discussion in this thread. I knew that you create a topic, and I didn't want anybody to lose track of it. So, I suggested to move the fable issue to "God loves diversity" thread, where the fable is originally at.

I moved the reply over to "for sammy1980" because this discussion is a bit more heated. That thread was created for that purpose, so check it out there.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=15979&postcount=151

James

[rainbowdog]

:confused: My opinion is this: We welcome all people, but we let them know up front that SF is not about gay bashing. Also if you can't say anything nice, meaning us GBLT folks than don't say anything. We need to pray:pray: for our enemies such as gay bashers, fundamentals, Dobson, Falwell, Kennedy, Robertson, and Cameron. They are ignorant and they don't keep up with APA or Sociological stats. I know about these things because i majored in sociology with a minor in psychology.:cool: I hope one day everyone will understand that there is a such thing as sexual orientation whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. I hope society will realize we have no choice in our sexual orientation. God made me gay and I am a proud Christian lesbian.:)

Peace,
Christy

[Emproph]

So... whats the procedure for making a decision about whether to start a "High conflict" forum or not? would a poll help? Will the moderators chat about it and make a decision?

I just bumped these two threads, they're in the general chat section, from August I think:

Poll: A Safe Place to Battle on the forums? (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1106)

Building a FAQ section (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1137)

[andrewlittle]

If interested, please see my response in "A Safe Place to Battle ...".

[BruceChris]

To reflect my own experiences (i.e., biases), of course.

"There is so much male in the female of us, and so much female in the male of us, how can anyone assume that there is an absolute dichotomy?"

Note: The word dichotomy is not to be confused with dyke-otomy, a common medical procedure.

And yes, of course I support a place for disagreement. the only questions I see are (1) how do we keep the two adequately seperated, and (2) do we have the resources, and if not, how do we get them?

Peace, Love, and Occasional Goofyness, Bruce Chris

[BronzDragon]

James- I agree with you on all these points. I just differ in that I don't think pain needs to involved per se. ... The idea of taking on pain seems ripe for mismanagment- leading toward the shadow-side that is martydom. I'm leery of that. But this my own personal quibble perhaps- I know that. Don't think you meant my meaning actually. And now's not the time to quibble about such things.

» Thom says: ☛ As a Massage artist, I find pain to be my ally. On my side, it tells me a lot about where I need to work, and sometimes why it hurts. On my client’s side, it awakens their brain and reminds them there is a problem to fix, and gets it to work on fixing what it can.

I agree with James, in that it is best to find those triggers that could interfere with full nonviolent civil dissent. It is good to find a friend (sometimes one does not know who one’s friends are until we need one) to help with this.

I know in my introspection, I’ve found a kernel of anger, protecting something precious. Whatever it is, I don’t think I could fully commit to a nonviolent action, because this anger would interfere with it. :'( And I don’t have a lot of friends in my neighborhood where I can just interact and find this thing, and not have them think it is personal against them.

I would hope this board would be a safe place to work that out, and I suppose verbal martial arts are the best venue for that. If not, would someone direct me to such a place?!?

[andrewlittle]

"There is so much male in the female of us, and so much female in the male of us, how can anyone assume that there is an absolute dichotomy?"

And yes, of course I support a place for disagreement. the only questions I see are (1) how do we keep the two adequately seperated, and (2) do we have the resources, and if not, how do we get them?

Peace, Love, and Occasional Goofyness, Bruce Chris

Thank God for goofyness, Bruce. I would say that I am f'ing goofy, but that would be an opening for a very bad joke.

To your first point, I couldn't agree more. See post #30 in "For Sammy1980" for my attitude on the lack of clearly defined sexuality.

Perhaps you should know that I am British - which means, of course, that I belong to a lineage that has always exhibited some confusion over its sexual stereotypes. The English love pantomimes, in which there is always a prominent character in drag, and it has often been said that "its never difficult to get an Englishman to dress in women's clothing." Monty Python skits were not nearly as outrageous to English audiences as those in the U.S. Now, if you'll excuse me, I feel a chorus of "I Feel Pretty" coming on.

Okay, that's better.

Now, to your most important points. Hell, I don't know - I'm not a moderator. That's my cheap answer.

Actually, the question is threefold, I think. Do we have the ability to insert another forum on the community forum page? If yes, can we add a description as a caution? Also can the title of the most recent thread or post NOT be shown?

If these are answered "yes", then a safe place for disagreement is established that is at least avoidable for those who wish to have sanctuary from the anti-LGBT rhetoric flying around in the rest of the world. Safe places are assured all around. The moderators would still need to monitor the "debate" section to ensure that it is not just a venue for relentless diatribe - the rules of engagement must still apply in spirit.

Does that make some sense?

Oh, excuse me, I feel a song coming on ...
"I feel pretty,
Oh, so pretty ..."

Damn, now that's stuck in my head. Thanks ever so much Bruce. I'll have to resort to my usual antidote - I'll listen to a rousing rendition of Ted Nugent's "You Can't Keep a Good Dog Off Your Leg."

[BruceChris]

Andrew, I just checked your post #30. It kinda takes my views on the multi-dimensions of sexuality, and expands it into almost everything. Neat.

Second thought: Projection, religious style. That God believes exactly as we do, ostensibly because we have learned the Truth, but actually, because we Need Him/Her to believe that, to justify ourselves.

Quote Andrew:
I even, remarkably well I might add, crafted a theology that lines up with my emotional state. God hated gays as much as I did. I created a hatred in God that made me feel accepted and lessened my shame. I committed idolatry to make myself feel better as a person.

These forums have not, so far, been inundated with "well intentioned" Evangelicals, i.e., those who desperately need to believe that we desperately need to be saved, by hearing what they desperately need to tell us. I believe that this is largely because we are just not all that well known. And it is my fear that a certain number of them will do Anything to get posted.

If this is the case, we will almost certainly need to have a separate website, and that there will suddenly be a very large need for moderators, to blackball any that get into these forums. (I could use some input from moderators, here.)

In short, if we create a space for debate/disagreement here, and somehow attract a suitable number of CC's, and still want to keep this a safe space, we will almost certainly need a helluva lotta resources. (Imagine, for a moment, plopping SF directly down in the middle of CARM........ )

I hope that it can be done, I think that it brings out the best in us, perhaps it is our mission, or the mission for some of us.

P&L, BC

[Jamie McDaniel]

Just a quick note to make sure everyone knows I plan to thoroughly read this thread on Monday.

I've only read dewdrop_world's initial post and a couple of the first responses. dewdrop_world is probably one of the best members to make the case given the time he spends interacting with forum guests who still hold antigay views. This is indeed activism, which is what Soulforce does.

And yet, we need a solution that does not allow this space where GLBT people congregate and activists come home to, to be a place where gays can be easily demeaned and affronted once again with those old, tired untruths about homosexuality.

I also need to look at the features of vBulletin (the forum software) concerning access to private forums. If we do have a private forum, I would like members to be able to manage their own access to it.

[Zerbie]

Excellent Jamie! I'm glad.

A private forum (separate log-in maybe?) sounds like a terrific solution so that we can indeed have all needs met, since preserving the safe space, imo, should be Priority #1. Nevertheless, "challengers" do come here and make posts, and it would be great to have a place for them set up already. Count on some more "visitors" during the E Ride.

Hope it all works out! :)

[Jamie McDaniel]

In addition to this thread, I am taking a look at how similar forums address this.

GCN has a FAQ page
http://www.gaychristian.net/community/help.php

Their rules prohibit anti-GLBT comments on the forums
http://www.gaychristian.net/rules.php

I also took a look at guidelines at ex-gay watch
http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archi...guideline.html

And the United Church of Christ forums. Notice the first post in this thread stating "The subject of the sanctity or sinfulness of homosexual relations will not be discussed on this board."
http://forums.ucc.org/viewtopic.php?t=560