Honesty.

[mmalm]

I recently transferred from Trinity Bible College in Ellendale, ND, a stop on the 2007 Equality Ride, for which I was present. I recently read a blog on this site from one of the members of SoulForce that came to Trinity. I must say I was very disappointed on how the blog twisted so much what really happened. It was first stated that the group was only given a small fenced off area at the edge of campus where the surrounded streets were barricaded from traffic. You must understand that Trinity is a tiny campus- the road was the only road that runs by the campus, and it was barricaded for the groups' safety, not to isolate them. It was also stated that the Vice President stood between the group and the TBC students most of the time they were there, to make it awkward for students to approach the group, which is untrue. Students were not restricted to any area, and could have talked to any of the group members at any time- most just chose not to. I don't think it was unreasonable for our Vice President to be present as it was a matter concerning the students of our college. The one thing said that really offended me most in the blog was the statement, "We had been greeted by the Vice President in the morning, who had told us that the students had neither been told to talk to us, nor to ignore us–that it was of their own volition if they wished to enter into dialogue with us. We found out the next day through the local newspaper that this was not the case. The students had been told not to leave campus." The local newspaper was not present because one does not exist- the closest media came from Aberdeen, SD, which is 40 minutes away. It makes me very sad that this group would jump to the conclusion that the Vice President of our Bible College told a bold-faced lie, and that the news reporter from 40 minutes away knew better. As I student I will tell you that at absolutely no point in time was I ever told not to leave campus.
Although I may not agree with everything this group represents, I do respect it, as do the rest of the students and faculty at TBC. Although the visit was unwanted because the protesting went directly against our doctrine, the school still willingly accommodated the group by giving them a safe place to protest our own values. It makes me sad that reports in the newspaper and even blogs on this site would stretch the truth to make their Christian brothers and sister look guilty of things they did not do.

[Dash]

Hello mmalm,

I'm glad you stopped by to express your reaction. Was this the article to which you were referring?

http://www.soulforce.org/article/1176

From this article:
On Monday, April 23rd, Equality Riders along with 6 friends from CoffeeLoft.org, a progressive campus ministry at the University of South Dakota, held vigil in a small 'free speech zone' set up on campus at Trinity Bible College in Ellendale, North Dakota. Working with local emergency services, the school put up metal fencing around our zone. All streets leading up to our vigil were barricaded and one student told the local paper that, though she wanted to talk with us, she felt she needed to 'respect the school's wishes' and refrain.

In this article, I didn't see anything about the Vice President of Trinity, but you may be referencing another article, which I would like to read. If you can provide that link, I would be grateful.

In any case, I think your emotions and your indignation deserve full respect. You are experiencing the same kind of feeling that gltb folk have experienced for many, many years when listening to some of the awful, misleading rhetoric that comes from religious leaders and their followers. This pain at hearing someone say something that is in direct contradiction to your own experience of Truth...something that colors you, or those you love in less than flattering light...feels like an attack for which you have no defense. If you can add to that feeling the dread of losing your mother's or your father's love, the respect of your faith community, the trust and company of your friends, the civil protections of your community...then you will understand how much deeper our pain is as we bear the burden of untruth that is laid upon us by generations of religious anti-gay thought.

I'm sure those who blogged about their experience as Equality Riders were speaking from a place of honesty. Their perspective is the only one they saw. If you arrived in a location and metal fences were put up to house your group, would feel in your heart that they were for your protection? Would you not find them to be more cage-like?

I guess it depends on which side of the cage you stand.

Which side do you stand on, mmalm? Inside? Outside?

How does that change your perspective?

Peace...Dash:pray:

[Daniel]

mmalm- Welcome to the Soulforce forum.

Like Dash, I would be interested in any information that you could provide regarding your assertions.

You mentioned that Soulforce was barricaded for their own safely, which seems rather implausible, unless they would be in danger from the law abiding students of Trinity. Do you really mean to make the case that Soulforce was in danger?

Three members of Soulforce were arrested for nonviolent resistance. This speaks for itself.

http://www.kxmb.com/Life/116996.asp

[sailaway58]

Wouldn't chapel be open to anyone?
3 arrested for wanting to attend a service?

And the sign said anyone caught trespassing would be shot on site,
So I stood on the fence by my bus and said, what gives you the right?
What gives you the right to keep me out and to keep heterosexuals in?
If God were here he'd tell you to your face, man you're some kid of sinner!

Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs...

[mmalm]

http://www.soulforce.org/blogs/author/wick-thomas/

The above link is the blog to which I was referring. In reference to Dash's comment, I do understand the feeling of hearing someone say something that is in direct contradiction to your own experience of Truth. I face it every day with friends and family who are not saved, and who have lost respect for me now that I am. I was in no way in my post meaning to be ignorant of the feeling of the people representing this cause. Again, I may not agree with all that the group stands for, but I very much respect the people involved, even after the demonstration.

In response to Daniel's comment- the barricades were set up by the Ellendale Police Department, not by the school. When I said they were set up for safety, it was because the protest happened right on the street, which is like I said the one street that goes past campus, so it has a lot of traffic. The safety I was referring to would be from the traffic that would have been going through all day.

I'm not sure how much of Sailaway58's comment was meant to be serious, but I'll respond to it anyway. The three that were arrested were not trying to attend a chapel service. They were arrested during one of the class periods during the day, which is why many of the students were present, because they did not have class that period. I will assume the poem wasn't meant to be literal, as there obviously was no such sign.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I do have a question that has been burning in my mind. This is a completely serious question, not meant to be biting or offend anyone. I am wondering why, when the group is not allowed on campus, it still comes to make a big show of getting arrested and making sure the media is there to show it. From my perspective, it seems like the main thing the group was trying to accomplish was to make the college look bad. If that wasn't the case, then why call up the media and make sure to let law enforcement know so that arrests can be made? Why make our fellow Christians look badly to the public, who then, if they are not Christians themselves, will have an even worse view of Christianity? It just seems like it is driving the lost further away from Christianity by making it appear so judgmental. I fully understand the groups values and goals, but I don't understand the means. Dash spoke about losing the love of a father or mother...but would you go to their place of work and make a scene to protest that they do not accept your views on homosexuality?

I do have one more serious question. I am wondering if SoulForce has a policy on how to respond if a group comes to their headquarters to protest, and if so, how would it be handled?

Again, I am in no way trying to be offensive, I am just trying to understand.

[Daniel]

MM- Thanks for the link.

In response to Daniel's comment- the barricades were set up by the Ellendale Police Department, not by the school. When I said they were set up for safety, it was because the protest happened right on the street, which is like I said the one street that goes past campus, so it has a lot of traffic. The safety I was referring to would be from the traffic that would have been going through all day.

Does this mean that the school would have preferred to have Soulforce's visit unbarricaded, but the police thought otherwise? For their safetly from traffic?

It would be more honest to say that the goal on the part of the school was not crowd control, but rather, to keep Soulforce as far away from possible. This is understandable when one considers the fear that can can surround issues such as sexuality and matters of faith.

The three that were arrested were not trying to attend a chapel service. They were arrested during one of the class periods during the day, which is why many of the students were present, because they did not have class that period.

MM- I'm sure you are making a point here which I fail to understand. Your words seem to contradict themselves. It was a class period....but they didn't have class?

The link you've provided from this site reports this...

After we held a short ceremony blessing each one of the shawls, we handed them to two students from USD and one of our Equality Riders. These three women carried the shawls onto campus, intending to place them at the foot of the chapel cross and to continue to pray.

Attending chapel...going to chapel. This hardly seems a point worth fighting over. That said, I'm not surprised that media often get the facts muddled.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I do have a question that has been burning in my mind. This is a completely serious question, not meant to be biting or offend anyone. I am wondering why, when the group is not allowed on campus, it still comes to make a big show of getting arrested and making sure the media is there to show it. From my perspective, it seems like the main thing the group was trying to accomplish was to make the college look bad.

Tthe answer to your question is found in an understanding of the methods of nonviolence, which you can find on this site.

That said, it is unaccurate to suggest that Soulforce's motives (I do not speak for SF btw) have anything to do with shaming your school. Their presence was an honest attempt to reach those who, through no fault of their own, have little understanding gay persons and matters of faith.

I do have one more serious question. I am wondering if SoulForce has a policy on how to respond if a group comes to their headquarters to protest, and if so, how would it be handled?

From what I gather, you would be welcomed with open arms. Does anyone know if such a thing has taken place?

[mmalm]

This is understandable when one considers the fear that can can surround issues such as sexuality and matters of faith.

I don't believe it was fear at all, but simply the fact that the protests go directly against our doctrine. If you have a child that you are nurturing and teaching as they grow, I don't think it is unreasonable to not want someone who teaches something directly against what you have been teaching them to come try and undo what you have done. I'm not saying that college students are like little children, but simply that Bible College is a place where students grow tremendously on their relationships with the Lord, and learn (in most cases) much more than they have ever known through Bible classes, daily chapel, etc.

Also, Trinity had been in contact with other schools that SoulForce has visited when trying to decide whether to let them on campus. One specific visit was to the North Central campus, where students had difficulty getting to class because the protesters sat/stood right in front of the doors to the classroom buildings. I don't think it is unreasonable for the administration to not want that to happen at our school.

To clear up the question about my chapel statement, at every college that I know of, not every student has a class every period. For example some students may have class 4th period, some may not, it depends on their schedule. The reason I specified that they were not trying to attend a chapel service was because Sailaway58's comment said that that was the exact reason why they were arrested, was for trying to attend a chapel service.

That said, it is unaccurate to suggest that Soulforce's motives (I do not speak for SF btw) have anything to do with shaming your school. Their presence was an honest attempt to reach those who, through no fault of their own, have little understanding gay persons and matters of faith.


If that is the case, then why call the media from a town 45 minutes away to make sure they will be there, if their sole purpose is to reach the students at Trinity Bible? Also, I realize that there is little to no chance of either of us convincing the other that their position is wrong, but I do find it offensive for you to tell me that I and my fellow students "have little understanding gay persons and matters of faith." I have read through the entire Bible and have a sound knowledge on what it says about these issues. I have not once attacked or insulted your knowledge of the Bible, even though your perspective is different from what I believe is truth. You are right, that I cannot personally understand the feelings and emotions of gay persons, but please do not insult my knowledge of the Bible and "matters of faith."

[marutidas]

First of all, you kinda go it back words, It's that Gays and Lesbians are become something that you don't want them to be, its they are become who they were ment to be.

If God has a plan for everyone, then would that not mean, at least from my point of view, that he made gay people to teach others how to love, and learn to except all kinds of love. If a church cannot understand how to this then they are the one's who need help, not us. Unfortunately when two sides of an opposing arguement come clash, it is very rarely peaceful on either side. What is Docterine to Love, can you truely annylize or subjegate these feelings, In the end its a bunch of words, with no substance. But to live in Love and want others to feel loved, is truely doing the Lord's work.

Marutidas

[Zerbie]

I, but I do find it offensive for you to tell me that I and my fellow students "have little understanding gay persons and matters of faith." I have read through the entire Bible and have a sound knowledge on what it says about these issues. I have not once attacked or insulted your knowledge of the Bible, even though your perspective is different from what I believe is truth. You are right, that I cannot personally understand the feelings and emotions of gay persons, but please do not insult my knowledge of the Bible and "matters of faith."

But it is true that many people, especially many young people raised in environments where being gay is not "allowed" or talked about, do NOT understand gay persons.

I am at a public university. Not long ago, a lovely young woman entered our degree program at the masters level having done her undergrad at a religious school. In conversation, she repeated something that she had always been taught about gay people, something which happens to be false, and frequently used as a weapon for denying gay people equal protection under the law (jobs, housing, and much much more). In her case, it was simply something she had been taught by everyone around her before. There was a gay man listening, and he shook with hurt and anger while trying to remain calm and polite, explaining to her that it is simply NOT SO. I witnessed the conversation and tried to help mediate the hurt, angry feelings he had and the feeling of being "on the spot" and embarassed that she had at being caught by his reaction. She is a lovely person, and meant no harm by what she said, but it hurt someone nonetheless. And she appeared embarassed and confused.

That incident illustrates a compelling need for students at these religious schools to at the very least be EXPOSED to real information about what life is like for actual gay people. For everyone's sake. Otherwise, when these people graduate such a sequestered environment, they will have no idea what they're walking into in the "real" world.

[mmalm]

In response to Zerbie, why are you under the impression that "students at these religious schools" are not exposed to what life is like for gay people? I have friends who practice a homosexual lifestyle, as do many of my friends at Trinity. There are even students at Trinity who used to practice that kind of lifestyle, including one of my best friends. Just because students at Trinity may not agree with the lifestyle, certainly does not mean they are not exposed to it. We do not live in a box at Bible College. True, those of us who do not practice that lifestyle may not know the feelings and emotions of gay persons, but a protest is not going to solve that. Also, I think it is very wrong and offensive to conclude that because a student goes to a religious school, that they are not living in the "real world."

[NathanATX]

It makes me sad that reports in the newspaper and even blogs on this site would stretch the truth to make their Christian brothers and sister look guilty of things they did not do.

MM, you are on thin ice here. Your posts are highly anti-gay, in my opinion. I'm willing to let this conversation procede, for the moment.

The bottom line is this. Your school, like many other religious schools that are protected from regulation in spite of their students receiving federal financial aid dollars, is advocating philosphies, dogmas, and prejudices that we believe are incredibly harmful to gay & lesbian young people... the LGBT students at your school and the young people whom your graduates will affect through their careers, ministries, etc.

These philosophies, dogmas and prejudices are the cause of much emotional, mental and spiritual dysfunction in the lives of LGBT young people. We use the term "Spiritual Violence" because of the very real harm that is done to God's precious LGBT kids and their families.

You're throwing a tantrum because your bubble was penetrated for a few moments.

Put your seat belt on, because we are committed to bursting the bubbles that keep the hearts and minds of God's people insulated from the violence of their actions, words, and dogmas towards LGBT people.

The goal isn't for you to be comfortable... the goal is for the violence to stop.
(and I speak only for myself, as a volunteer, as a person committed to social justice... and not on behalf of this organization)

[keltic63]

In response to Zerbie, why are you under the impression that "students at these religious schools" are not exposed to what life is like for gay people? I have friends who practice a homosexual lifestyle, as do many of my friends at Trinity. There are even students at Trinity who used to practice that kind of lifestyle, including one of my best friends. Just because students at Trinity may not agree with the lifestyle, certainly does not mean they are not exposed to it. We do not live in a box at Bible College. True, those of us who do not practice that lifestyle may not know the feelings and emotions of gay persons, but a protest is not going to solve that. Also, I think it is very wrong and offensive to conclude that because a student goes to a religious school, that they are not living in the "real world."


Allow me to reiterate Nathan's warning about your posts being anti-gay. The words that I've highlighted in red indicate your lack of knowledge about gay and lesbian people. There is no lifestyle. To continue to frame your argument using these words diminishes all gay and lesbian people to their sexual activity. Reducing people to a sex act is an insult. It is this kind of spiritual violence that we fight. For all the talk from the religious right about glbt people wanting "special rights" based on their behavior (ie, not a "real" minority) it really is the religious right that wishes to define us as such, especially when they use those terms to cut living, loving people down to mere sexual behavior. Please review the Forum Guidelines (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/faq.php?faq=soulforce_faq_item#faq_soulforce_faq_i tem1) to which you agreed when you joined the forums.

[Dash]

I have friends who practice a homosexual lifestyle, as do many of my friends at Trinity. There are even students at Trinity who used to practice that kind of lifestyle, including one of my best friends.


And...no need to burnish your gay-friendly credentials, neighbor. :cool:

Honestly...try telling your gay "friends" that they are "practicing a homosexual lifestyle" and see how many of them appreciate it.

I practice singing.

I love my boyfriend.

;)

[paul]

mmalm,

Zerbie was trying to help things along not insult you, her illustration was really good.
you asked:
In response to Zerbie, why are you under the impression that "students at these religious schools" are not exposed to what life is like for gay people?

You are giving that "impression." As has been pointed out, your choice of words demonstrates ignorance at best...I don't mean that as an insult. The example Zerbie gave was of a wonderful person who simply didn't realize she was hurting someone, and you are repeating the illustration yourself.

Shall I assume you are practicing a heterosexual lifestyle? No? Never thought of it that way? Just doing what comes naturally? Or were you really born gay and are just choosing to be heterosexual?

[mmalm]

First, let me say that I in no way meant to offend anyone with any of the terminology I have used. I thought I was using terminology that was not offensive, which is clearly not the case, so would those who have posted in reply to that please tell me what non-offensive references I can use? Keltic63, I did read the Forum Guidelines you provided (I'll admit I hadn't read them before) but I'm don't see any of them that I am violating. If you could please tell me which specific ones I have, I will make sure it does not happen again. The Guidelines do say "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." As I said, I in no way meant my posts to come off as anti-gay, and since they have not been removed I will assume that my intent is understood by the staff. Also, I have not received any private messages warning me against what I have been posting. But once again, I apologize for anything that may have offended anyone.

NathanATX, I am sorry you feel I am "throwing a tantrum because your bubble was penetrated for a few moments." If you will refer to my first post, my purpose of posting was because I felt a blog that was written about a visit to my school stretched the truth to make my college look like they acted in a way that they did not. I'm not sure what you mean by my bubble being penetrated- as I said, I am friends with gay persons, so certainly if I am understanding you correctly, my bubble has already been penetrated. You are right, it is not about me being comfortable, but it is about sticking to the truth of the events that happened.

To clear up any questions, that is the sole reason I started this thread, was just to say that during these protests, participants should be careful not to stretch the truth in what really happened to make their cause look better. I in no way meant to begin an argument about what doctrine is right and wrong. If it seems that that is what it has been reduced to, it is only because I wanted to throughly respond and explain things that were talked about in replies to my posts.

[NathanATX]

I recently transferred from Trinity Bible College in Ellendale, ND, a stop on the 2007 Equality Ride, for which I was present. I recently read a blog on this site from one of the members of SoulForce that came to Trinity. I must say I was very disappointed on how the blog twisted so much what really happened. It was first stated that the group was only given a small fenced off area at the edge of campus where the surrounded streets were barricaded from traffic. You must understand that Trinity is a tiny campus- the road was the only road that runs by the campus, and it was barricaded for the groups' safety, not to isolate them.

So what is questionable is the number of streets...

It was also stated that the Vice President stood between the group and the TBC students most of the time they were there, to make it awkward for students to approach the group, which is untrue. Students were not restricted to any area, and could have talked to any of the group members at any time- most just chose not to. I don't think it was unreasonable for our Vice President to be present as it was a matter concerning the students of our college.

So, he *was* there. You're simply asserting his "intent" wasn't to "make it awkward."

The one thing said that really offended me most in the blog was the statement, "We had been greeted by the Vice President in the morning, who had told us that the students had neither been told to talk to us, nor to ignore us–that it was of their own volition if they wished to enter into dialogue with us. We found out the next day through the local newspaper that this was not the case. The students had been told not to leave campus." The local newspaper was not present because one does not exist- the closest media came from Aberdeen, SD, which is 40 minutes away. It makes me very sad that this group would jump to the conclusion that the Vice President of our Bible College told a bold-faced lie, and that the news reporter from 40 minutes away knew better. As I student I will tell you that at absolutely no point in time was I ever told not to leave campus.


So you're questioning the integrity of the Equality Riders because of an article a reporter wrote? Nice.

Although I may not agree with everything this group represents, I do respect it, as do the rest of the students and faculty at TBC. Although the visit was unwanted because the protesting went directly against our doctrine, the school still willingly accommodated the group by giving them a safe place to protest our own values. It makes me sad that reports in the newspaper and even blogs on this site would stretch the truth to make their Christian brothers and sister look guilty of things they did not do.

You clearly have an issue with said reporter and not with us. Demonstrate some, how did you say it... "honesty" and take your problem up with him/her.

[mmalm]

My problem is, as I stated in my post, that the author of the blog basically wrote that our Vice President had lied to the group, based on what the reporter said. In his mind it obviously wasn't that the reporter was confused, it had to be our administration being dishonest.

[dsdrane]

And...no need to burnish your gay-friendly credentials, neighbor. :cool:

Honestly...try telling your gay "friends" that they are "practicing a homosexual lifestyle" and see how many of them appreciate it.

I practice singing.

I love my boyfriend.

;)

A gay auntie of mine -- and an author of some repute, though far be it of me to name-drop :rolleyes: -- once told me, when asked whether he was a "practicing homosexual" said:

oh, darling, no; I perfected it long ago.

[Harrumph.]

[mmalm]

I also practice Christianity. As I said, I wasn't trying to be offensive and have apologized.

[NathanATX]

My problem is, as I stated in my post, that the author of the blog basically wrote that our Vice President had lied to the group, based on what the reporter said. In his mind it obviously wasn't that the reporter was confused, it had to be our administration being dishonest.

Again, you're being dishonest.

Instead of getting clear with the author of the blog AND the reporter about what was said or done, you're throwing a tantrum here, attempting to defame US because you are apparently reading the mind of a blog author, a reporter, and a university vice president... all at the same time. (I went to ORU and didn't learn mind-reading... did I miss out?)

Demonstrate some integrity. Get your facts straight. Get this resolved with the actual people involved.

[NathanATX]

I also practice Christianity. As I said, I wasn't trying to be offensive and have apologized.

I truly don't think you're intending to be offensive, but believe, rather... your intent is to be dramatic.

And, girl, this drama don't fly.

[u-dog]

I am willing to believe that it is not your intention to offend.


but a more important question is: Do you intend to try to understand WHY that choice of words IS OFFENSIVE whether or not you intended it to be so?

[mmalm]

In response to NathanATX: My original plan was in fact to get ahold of the author of the blog instead of posting on a thread, however unfortunately his contact information was not available. Also, I find it very interesting that you used the term "jipped" in your post, which is actually spelled "gypped." It happens to be racial slang, derived from the word gypsy. I happen to be of Romanian and Moravian gypsy decent. However, I realize (at least I hope) that you were unaware of the origin of the word, therefore I will not jump down your throat about offensive terminology, as people have to me on this forum. Do you all see now how easy it is to make a mistake like that??

U-dog, to answer your question, yes I am trying to understand why it is offensive, which is why I asked in one of my last posts for someone to tell me a better terminology to use. I suppose I should have specified "and why." So please enlighten me U-dog.

[BrentRichards]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I do have a question that has been burning in my mind. This is a completely serious question, not meant to be biting or offend anyone. I am wondering why, when the group is not allowed on campus, it still comes to make a big show of getting arrested and making sure the media is there to show it. From my perspective, it seems like the main thing the group was trying to accomplish was to make the college look bad. If that wasn't the case, then why call up the media and make sure to let law enforcement know so that arrests can be made? Why make our fellow Christians look badly to the public, who then, if they are not Christians themselves, will have an even worse view of Christianity? It just seems like it is driving the lost further away from Christianity by making it appear so judgmental. I fully understand the groups values and goals, but I don't understand the means. Dash spoke about losing the love of a father or mother...but would you go to their place of work and make a scene to protest that they do not accept your views on homosexuality?

Who exactly is making Christians appear judgemental? The demonstrators being arrested because the Christian college doesn't want to be disagreed with on its own turf? I agree that the church looks very bad to the public in this and many other circumstances. The CHURCH has chosen that. I'm sure you disagree, but your statement here is something like saying "Why do these black people insist on making me look judgemental by sitting at my lunch counter and making me arrest them?"

Effectively, the college asked Soulforce a question: "Will you please go away and allow us to continue creating a bad place for gay students to be?" Soulforce simply answered no. We will not help you to avoid being embarrassed or inconvenienced because of policies we consider unjust. Why the media? Very simple ... because the people at these schools have already shown that they are unmoved by our voices, so others need to know. Is it to put pressure on the school? Of course! Otherwise, we can expect things to continue exactly as they are.

I also could not disagree more with your statement to the effect that Christian colleges should somehow "protect" students from values and ideas different from their own. Since when has it been the job of any school, Christian or otherwise, to protect its students from ideas? Does a Christian school have the RIGHT to do so? Yes. Is it RIGHT when it does so? No way. An education that consists only of reaffirming what I already believe is worse than useless.

Know that your initial volley here offended a lot of people because it came across as "Hey, why are you people persecuting us?" ... a statement that never goes down well when coming from the majority holding all the cards and being directed at the minority asking for change they cannot themselves effect. It's kinda like watching the biggest kid on the playground pounding the tiny nerd into the ground, and shouting with each blow: "STOP ... PICKING ... ON ... ME ..." It sounds pretty silly.

[NathanATX]

In response to NathanATX: My original plan was in fact to get ahold of the author of the blog instead of posting on a thread, however unfortunately his contact information was not available. Also, I find it very interesting that you used the term "jipped" in your post, which is actually spelled "gypped." It happens to be racial slang, derived from the word gypsy. I happen to be of Romanian and Moravian gypsy decent. However, I realize (at least I hope) that you were unaware of the origin of the word, therefore I will not jump down your throat about offensive terminology, as people have to me on this forum. Do you all see now how easy it is to make a mistake like that??

U-dog, to answer your question, yes I am trying to understand why it is offensive, which is why I asked in one of my last posts for someone to tell me a better terminology to use. I suppose I should have specified "and why." So please enlighten me U-dog.

Your original plan was a wise one.

Thank you very much for the clarification on that term. I certainly won't use it anymore.

And you do need to address your issues with the people responsible.

Maybe you'd like to ask for assistance in locating the three people involved?

Peace,
Nate

[BrentRichards]

So please enlighten me U-dog.

I don't imagine you intended this, but that comes across as very condescending. Let's all take a deep breath and be calm as we proceed, yes?

However, here are some of the words you can be sure will offend, and a very brief why, followed by a few less offensive choices:

Lifestyle (including Alternate Lifestyle or Lifestyle choice, or ...) - This, along with other terms, reduces homosexuality to a set of behaviors, when in fact, most (if not all) homosexual persons experience this as a deep and unchangable part of their identity. This is not about whether I am a night owl or a morning person ... it's about who I love. Also, this term implies a stereotypical set of behaviors that all GLBT people are assumed to engage in ... and the list is usually pretty unsavory. There is no "gay" lifestyle any more than there is a straight lifestyle. People are individuals, with individual differences.

Preference - I prefer milk and sugar in my coffee. My sexual orientation operates at a much deeper level. This term comes across as a flippant dismissal of a significant part of my being as if it were no more important than what color of clothes I like. Likewise, talking about "choice" is a hot topic ... naturally we all make choices every day. But we did not choose to have the desires, drives, emotions, and so on that define our orientation. They're just part of our particular human givens.

Practicing Homosexual - ask yourself when you are a practicing heterosexual. Only when you engage in an actual sex act with a person of the opposite gender? Not hardly. Again, this reduces homosexuality to a mere behavior, which is central to how Christianity has put down the gay community for a long time. You're not just asking me not to DO something. You're asking me not to BE who I am. Most straight people have no idea how often during a given day they "practice" their heterosexuality. Try, some day, just for fun ... to go through an entire day consciously avoiding doing or saying anything that might tip someone off that you're straight ... you might just see that you "practice" more than you think.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" - I could go on for a long time on this one, but I'll simply say this: It's a hollow refrain. In the average gay person's experience of Christians, they might say: I have no doubt that you hate my sin ... you've proven that, I've seen it. But you love me? That I haven't seen. You've given me no reason to believe that's true. (the "you" here is generic, not YOU specifically, MM)

If you truly want to use terms that won't give offense, you can say "GLBT people" (short for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered) or "LGBT" (same meaning, different order)

... the term "gay" is often used generically, though its usually an adjective: "a gay man" but not "the gays"

The terms homosexual or bisexual are very neutral. They carry neither positive nor negative connotations for most, and so are often safe terms for people who disagree.

Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality are orientations. Transgender is a gender identity or expression. (Fill these in in place of "lifestyle")

[Zerbie]

Who exactly is making Christians appear judgemental? The demonstrators being arrested because the Christian college doesn't want to be disagreed with on its own turf? I agree that the church looks very bad to the public in this and many other circumstances. The CHURCH has chosen that. I'm sure you disagree, but your statement here is something like saying "Why do these black people insist on making me look judgemental by sitting at my lunch counter and making me arrest them?"

Effectively, the college asked Soulforce a question: "Will you please go away and allow us to continue creating a bad place for gay students to be?" Soulforce simply answered no. We will not help you to avoid being embarrassed or inconvenienced because of policies we consider unjust. Why the media? Very simple ... because the people at these schools have already shown that they are unmoved by our voices, so others need to know. Is it to put pressure on the school? Of course! Otherwise, we can expect things to continue exactly as they are.

I also could not disagree more with your statement to the effect that Christian colleges should somehow "protect" students from values and ideas different from their own. Since when has it been the job of any school, Christian or otherwise, to protect its students from ideas? Does a Christian school have the RIGHT to do so? Yes. Is it RIGHT when it does so? No way. An education that consists only of reaffirming what I already believe is worse than useless.

Know that your initial volley here offended a lot of people because it came across as "Hey, why are you people persecuting us?" ... a statement that never goes down well when coming from the majority holding all the cards and being directed at the minority asking for change they cannot themselves effect. It's kinda like watching the biggest kid on the playground pounding the tiny nerd into the ground, and shouting with each blow: "STOP ... PICKING ... ON ... ME ..." It sounds pretty silly.

Brent,

All so beautifully put! And a very apt analogy there at the end.
You've covered it; I've nothing to add.

[BrentRichards]

Also, I find it very interesting that you used the term "jipped" in your post, which is actually spelled "gypped." It happens to be racial slang, derived from the word gypsy. I happen to be of Romanian and Moravian gypsy decent. However, I realize (at least I hope) that you were unaware of the origin of the word, therefore I will not jump down your throat about offensive terminology, as people have to me on this forum. Do you all see now how easy it is to make a mistake like that??

You make an excellent point here ... and I see that Nathan took it. I learned this fact quite a while ago, and stopped using the term for that reason ... prior to that, I had no idea. Similarly, I take offense when people speak of "Welshing" on a bet ... it's a direct slap at my heritage, though most people have no idea of the origins of the phrase ... but you are right to point it out, and we (whoever) are right to take it to heart and change our language.

Incidentally, I meant to mention that Sailaway's "signs" reference was not implying that anyone was holding any such signs at your school ... it was a play on a song lyric by the Five Man Electrical Band (c. 1970) ... you'd have to be old like us to get it, I suppose. Sigh. Memories.

Now that we're all (I think) breathing again, hope you'll stick around and discuss?

[keltic63]

U-dog, to answer your question, yes I am trying to understand why it is offensive, which is why I asked in one of my last posts for someone to tell me a better terminology to use. I suppose I should have specified "and why." So please enlighten me U-dog.

I believe I explained why it is offensive here, very early in this thread:

Allow me to reiterate Nathan's warning about your posts being anti-gay. The words that I've highlighted in red indicate your lack of knowledge about gay and lesbian people. There is no lifestyle. To continue to frame your argument using these words diminishes all gay and lesbian people to their sexual activity. Reducing people to a sex act is an insult. It is this kind of spiritual violence that we fight. For all the talk from the religious right about glbt people wanting "special rights" based on their behavior (ie, not a "real" minority) it really is the religious right that wishes to define us as such, especially when they use those terms to cut living, loving people down to mere sexual behavior. Please review the Forum Guidelines (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/faq.php?faq=soulforce_faq_item#faq_soulforce_faq_i tem1) to which you agreed when you joined the forums.

Now I realize that I did not give you alternatives. I apologize. I was pressed for time, but wanted to weigh in on this thread before I left work.

Brent,

All so beautifully put! And a very apt analogy there at the end.
You've covered it; I've nothing to add.

Yes, Brent, that was perfect. Nicely done.

I post this particular post to indicate that the information mmalm asked for, was indeed here, if not as thoroughly illuminated as it might have been. I did not post this to throw gas on the fire.

[u-dog]

In response to NathanATX: My original plan was in fact to get ahold of the author of the blog instead of posting on a thread, however unfortunately his contact information was not available. Also, I find it very interesting that you used the term "jipped" in your post, which is actually spelled "gypped." It happens to be racial slang, derived from the word gypsy. I happen to be of Romanian and Moravian gypsy decent. However, I realize (at least I hope) that you were unaware of the origin of the word, therefore I will not jump down your throat about offensive terminology, as people have to me on this forum. Do you all see now how easy it is to make a mistake like that??


Actually the ethnic group about which you are speaking are the "Roma" They were -- and in places still are -- a nomadic people. Because of oppression and prejudice on the part of settled people they were, historically, forced into a lifestyle based on deceipt, dishonesty, stealing, and confidence schemes. They preyed on the stupid and vulnerable. Some Roma people still engage in this "lifestyle." They are called "Gypsies" Ever had any experience with people who live this "lifestyle"? the word "gypped" is a well coined phrase. People are not dishonest con-artists because they are of Roma decent. But if they are Gypsies you will want to move your wallet to your front pocket.

I was a delivery driver for a florist in suburban Cleveland back in 1974 when the Queen of the Eastern Kingdom (everything east of Mississippi) happened to be there when she died. Every Gypsie in the Eastern US arrived within days. Oh my goodness! a lot of pockets were picked that week. a lot of unsavvy business people were fleeced. What an adventure.

[dsdrane]

I also practice Christianity. As I said, I wasn't trying to be offensive and have apologized.

Christianity is a religion; it's a path; it involves faith; it involves belief.

Do NOT equate it with homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a religion; it is not a path (except for those struggling); it is not a faith; and it is not a belief;...it simply is.

Get it or don't; I don't really care. Stand in the way, however, in our God-given right to be fully-realized human beings, with the same rights and entitlements you yourself presume, and fully expect to be removed from the path.

It's that simple.

We'll settle for nothing less.

Is there anything about the above that you don't understand?

[kara speltz]

Actually the ethnic group about which you are speaking are the "Roma" They were -- and in places still are -- a nomadic people. Because of oppression and prejudice on the part of settled people they were, historically, forced into a lifestyle based on deceipt, dishonesty, stealing, and confidence schemes. They preyed on the stupid and vulnerable. Some Roma people still engage in this "lifestyle." They are called "Gypsies" Ever had any experience with people who live this "lifestyle"? the word "gypped" is a well coined phrase. People are not dishonest con-artists because they are of Roma decent. But if they are Gypsies you will want to move your wallet to your front pocket.

.

Dear Dave: While I love and respect you I have to say that your prejudice against gypsies is, just that. I have been pickpocketed by gypsies and nongypsies, mostly nongypsies. Part of why gypsies have no problems with the idea of stealing is that there philosophy is that if you have two chickens and I have none, then, I'm entitled to one of the two that you have. Certainly there is a part of me that believes in that same philsophy, which is probably why I respect them.

I was fascinated with the gypsies as a young woman and read up on them and there is much in their philosophy to be applauded.

Unknown to most people, some 500,000 to 600,000 gypsies were exterminated by the Nazies, but no one cared. There are a couple of books about them that I read, both by the same author. If I remember correctly his name was Jan Yoors, a Dutchman, if I recall, who became part of a gypsy family and traveled with them for many years. I recommend both of his books to get a greater understanding of the gypsies.

Like Arabs, prejudice against gypsies seems always to be acceptable in our society. I guess we always need to find an "other."

Kara

Kara

[u-dog]

Dear Dave: While I love and respect you I have to say that your prejudice against gypsies is, just that. I have been pickpocketed by gypsies and nongypsies, mostly nongypsies. Part of why gypsies have no problems with the idea of stealing is that there philosophy is that if you have two chickens and I have none, then, I'm entitled to one of the two that you have. Certainly there is a part of me that believes in that same philsophy, which is probably why I respect them.

I was fascinated with the gypsies as a young woman and read up on them and there is much in their philosophy to be applauded.

Unknown to most people, some 500,000 to 600,000 gypsies were exterminated by the Nazies, but no one cared. There are a couple of books about them that I read, both by the same author. If I remember correctly his name was Jan Yoors, a Dutchman, if I recall, who became part of a gypsy family and traveled with them for many years. I recommend both of his books to get a greater understanding of the gypsies.

Like Arabs, prejudice against gypsies seems always to be acceptable in our society. I guess we always need to find an "other."

Kara

Kara


Kara,

I'm kind of spending today recovering from the psychic trauma of witnessing a terrible car accident so I don't wanna do it today but in a couple of days I want to start a new thread to talk about this. When is a negative opinion of a culture or ethnicity "prejudice" and when is it merely a "description" of reality. Is there a moral difference between picking pockets and liberating George Washington from wallet captivity? between stealing chickens and "redistributing" them? I don't know, but it should be an interesting conversation. I don't hate Gypsies or harbor particularly negative impressions of them. In fact, I kind of admire their "Chutzpah" in the face of millennia of oppression... but I still move my wallet to my front pocket when I'm around them. see you in a couple of days.

[mmalm]

There have been a lot of posts by a lot of people since I last posted, so I will really try not to ramble.

First, NathanATX, as I stated, if I could have directed this to the blog author I would have, but at the same time, group members are representatives of their group. If a student at Trinity had done something, say vandalized the SoulForce bus, do you think the group would have sought out that individual student or seen it as a reflection of the school as a whole and their feelings towards the group? I'm not trying to fuel the fire here, just giving a different perspective.

Brent Richards, I sincerely thank you for clarifying on terminology for me. As far as the rest of what you said, there are obviously many things about the situation that we don't agree on, and I'm willing to leave it at that because I don't think there is a point to argue just for the sake of an argument that won't go anywhere. I am curious about one thing however- you talked about how you can expect things at these schools to stay exactly as they are without the protests. I'm wondering, and this is a serious question, if you know of how many schools have changed their doctrines as the result of SoulForce protests?

U-Dog, I actually have had experience Romanian Gypsies (aside from it being part of my heritage). Trinity took a mission trip to Romania just a few years back and went to a Gypsy village. They were some of the most compassionate people you will meet. For the record, not one pocket was picked. Thank you Kara, for pointing out that "prejudice against gypsies seems always to be acceptable in our society." U-Dog, you are in essence holding the same type of judgment against the Gypsies that you and this group as a whole are trying to abolish for yourselves.

Dsdrane, I was certainly not trying to equate Christianity with homosexuality, I'm sorry if it came off that way. I was simply trying to clarify my usage of the word practicing, because it offended some people. After re-reading my post I could see how it could come off that way, and I definitely didn't mean it in that way, I was just trying to use a different context to show why I didn't not think "practicing" was an offensive word.

For the record, I did not mean to start a huge slew of arguments by posting this thread. I'm sorry for anyone who may have gotten the wrong impression and thinks I just came to stir up trouble.

[Depdem]

mmalm what is this doctrine you believe in?... I'm pretty sure you must have gotten some bible classes concerning homosexuality(as some sermons).

[dsdrane]

Dsdrane, I was certainly not trying to equate Christianity with homosexuality, I'm sorry if it came off that way. I was simply trying to clarify my usage of the word practicing, because it offended some people. After re-reading my post I could see how it could come off that way, and I definitely didn't mean it in that way, I was just trying to use a different context to show why I didn't not think "practicing" was an offensive word.

MM, I know you weren't trying to equate Homosexuality with Christianity...but your words were.

The key verb is "practicing".

One can be a "practicing" Christian, insofar as one tries to practice Christianity.

However, homosexuality is not something that can be practiced...well, not without a lot of snide, late-night humor.

There is no practicing; one just is.

I can only imagine that this is difficult to understand from an un-initiated point of view. And I have some sympathy for this...but not a lot. The world moves fast these days, and people need to keep up. Learn it now or learn it later, but learn it you must.

Or stand aside.

[Daniel]

There is the old question:

How do you get to Carnegie Hall?

The answer is:

Practice.

But there is more to it than that. Practice- and practicing- is more than a set of behaviors. If it were, everyone could get there. Why is this not so? Because not everyone is a musician. And being a musician is a whole other matter- one which implies a state of being.

As does being gay.

You can play the piano and never make music. And there lies the difference between a musician and someone who 'practices'.

[dsdrane]

There is the old question:

How do you get to Carnegie Hall?

The answer is:

Practice.

But there is more to it than that. Practice- and practicing- is more than a set of behaviors. If it were, everyone could get there. Why is this not so? Because not everyone is a musician. And being a musician is a whole other matter- one which implies a state of being.

As does being gay.

Amen. Why is this so hard to understand?

[mmalm]

Originally Posted by MM
I do have one more serious question. I am wondering if SoulForce has a policy on how to respond if a group comes to their headquarters to protest, and if so, how would it be handled?

Originally Posted by Daniel
From what I gather, you would be welcomed with open arms.

Can you honestly tell me, judging by the comments of some of the people on this forum, that if protesters who actually picketed non-violently with anti-gay signs, that they would be welcomed with open arms when there is so much hostility just on this internet forum on which I am doing my best to be respectful?

[Alecto]

I just wanted to point out that while some people said it outright, many more are here in various parts of their "journey". I, for example, have no connection to Soulforce whatsoever. I'm not saying that the bulk of the comments here would or would not be supported by Soulforce, but what I will say is that "judging by the comments of some of the people on this forum" would be a bad idea. We're not all members of the organization. Some of us believe fully in the mission statement, others of us are more curious about it than anything, there's a number of people such as yourself who have criticisms and questions...membership on the forum carries with it no authority from the organization. I do actually believe that a protest probably would be fully welcomed at Soulforce. And that the leadership would wish to dialogue with the organizers of said protest to understand why they were there.
Would I personally welcome such a protest? Probably not. That's why A)I've mostly stayed out of this thread and B)I'm not a member of SF. I don't necessarily agree fully with everything they stand for, but I admire them and respect them, so here I am.

Apologies if I was redundant or rambly, cause it's a bit late here, but I think I was somewhat coherent (hope so anyways).

[sailaway58]

Can you honestly tell me, judging by the comments of some of the people on this forum, that if protesters who actually picketed non-violently with anti-gay signs, that they would be welcomed with open arms when there is so much hostility just on this internet forum on which I am doing my best to be respectful?
If when the signs were put down the people could engage in a manner not patronizing, and if they could share dialog without the underlying agenda of saving my friends from their deceived and depraved minds, if the protesters could engage in a serious exchange of ideas, (The point of liberal arts college I would think) yes, they would be received with open arms.
By the way, not that it matters, but I am not Gay. I am a person who came to this site to understand from a group of people that live the experience every day of their lives what their perspective is. Before coming to this site I only listened to people, like me, that had an opinion based on prejudice, and scriptural interpretation that would condemn these people to a death by stoneing.
If you really want to understand listen to the people that live it every day. Christian brothers and sisters that for what ever reason or cause are Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual or Transgendered. They will never be anything but what God has created them to be. It is a choice and the choice was God's.
As a Christian we have one responsibility, to love others, period. One judge is enough and none of us are qualified for the job.
I have yet to meet an evil GLBT person but I have met and worshiped with hateful, judging, self righteous Christians all my life.
Evil exists but it is in the heart of a man not in his orientation.
Try starting with, I don't understand you folks, but I love, respect, accept you as equals in the eyes of God.

[keltic63]

Can you honestly tell me, judging by the comments of some of the people on this forum, that if protesters who actually picketed non-violently with anti-gay signs, that they would be welcomed with open arms when there is so much hostility just on this internet forum on which I am doing my best to be respectful?

You need to understand that most of the workers at soulforce do not post in these forums, and conversely, those of us who post regularly on these forums are not employees and not official spokespersons for soulforce.

We can offer our opinions, we can imagine a hypothetical situation based on what we know of past events and soulforce's mission statements.

honestly, were anti-gay protesters to show up and hold a non-violent protest, soulforce would be more than happy to meet with them, speak with them, reason together. The dialog is what we are looking for! there have been several soulforce Actions in which the target of the action has not only refused to meet with soulforce participants, but have actually closed down for the day or days that soulforce is in town. Imagine, these groups are so afraid of dialog that they have to lock the doors when the gays & lesbians and their allies show up!

I'm not sure why you think there has been hostility from us. You've said some offensive things here, if unintentionally, they were offensive nonetheless. Several have now explained why. One has pointed out to you that your original argument isn't really with the members of this forum, yet you seem to want to hold us responsible for something that we didn't write (blog), that we were not participants in (equality ride), and that we did not witness (a protest and an arrest). We get our information about those events from many sources. your willingness to come talk to us gives us a chance to address the misinformation you have about homosexuality. If there's an edge to our responses, it's because we've heard the kinds of statements you make before, and we know where they lead.

[dsdrane]

Can you honestly tell me, judging by the comments of some of the people on this forum, that if protesters who actually picketed non-violently with anti-gay signs, that they would be welcomed with open arms when there is so much hostility just on this internet forum on which I am doing my best to be respectful?

I'm constantly amazed by people who come looking for a fight (no matter how "respectful" they are struggling to be) are shocked...shocked!...when they get one.

Before I even opened the thread for the first time, I knew from the title "Honesty." alone that this was going to be one of the challenging ones.

Amazing how that works.

With respect to anti-gay protesters at SF HQ, I, like others, have no doubt that dialogue would be attempted and welcomed.

I would, however, like to point out this "what if the shoe were on the other foot?" argument rings false to me. What exactly would these "non-violent, anti-gay signs" look like? How exactly would these be the flip-side of signs SF activists have used in the past?

Is it not one thing to attack a policy and quite another to attack a person?

[mmalm]

Alecto, I agree with you and understand that not everyone here is a member of SF and may not fully believe in the mission statement. I do, however, believe that the vast majority of people posting on this particular thread do believe in it, based on what they have said.

Posted by sailaway58:
If when the signs were put down the people could engage in a manner not patronizing, and if they could share dialog without the underlying agenda of saving my friends from their deceived and depraved minds, if the protesters could engage in a serious exchange of ideas, (The point of liberal arts college I would think) yes, they would be received with open arms.

Is that not exactly what SF tried to accomplish by coming to my school- having an agenda to save my friends from their "deceived and depraved minds"?

Originally posted by sailaway58:
Before coming to this site I only listened to people, like me, that had an opinion based on prejudice, and scriptural interpretation that would condemn these people to a death by stoneing.
If you really want to understand listen to the people that live it every day.

Is what you mean by this, that I should not use Scripture to determine my beliefs on this subject (I do not interpret Scripture to sake that GLBT persons should be stoned, for the record). It seems like you are saying that I should refer to people that live it every day over the Bible.

Originally posted by Sailaway58:
As a Christian we have one responsibility, to love others, period. One judge is enough and none of us are qualified for the job.


I think that we have more than one responsibly, but I absolutely agree that a huge one is to love others, and also wholeheartedly agree with the rest of that quote.

Originally posted by sailaway58:
I have yet to meet an evil GLBT person but I have met and worshiped with hateful, judging, self righteous Christians all my life.

I don't know if this is how you intended it to sound, but basically what you're saying here is that the only "evil", "hateful, judging, self-righteous" Christians are heterosexuals?

Originally posted by sailaway58:
Try starting with, I don't understand you folks, but I love, respect, accept you as equals in the eyes of God.

I believe I did start that way, when in my very first post I stated: "Although I may not agree with everything this group represents, I do respect it"

Originally posted by keltic63:
I'm not sure why you think there has been hostility from us.

It has not stemmed from everyone who has posted, but I take people telling me I am trying to be dramatic, that I am throwing a temper tantrum, and many other sarcastic remarks as hostile.

Also, keltic63 and dsdrane, you have both said that protests would be welcomed because it is the dialog you are looking for. I have not exactly felt welcomed on this thread, and have even been threatened by a moderator, even tho dialog is all that is happening.

Originally posted by dsdrane:
I'm constantly amazed by people who come looking for a fight (no matter how "respectful" they are struggling to be) are shocked...shocked!...when they get one.

Honestly, the sarcasm is getting old. Especially coming from a person who just said dialogue would be much welcomed. I'm sorry that, judging by your quotations around respect, you clearly don't believe that I am trying to be respectful. But do you really think you are right now? Honestly, it seems as if I am being asked to walk on eggshells here, while anyone else (not saying everyone has, mind you) is welcome to use biting sarcasm and say that I am throwing a dramatic temper tantrum. Also, in response to you thinking I "came looking for a fight," please refer to my earlier post:

For the record, I did not mean to start a huge slew of arguments by posting this thread. I'm sorry for anyone who may have gotten the wrong impression and thinks I just came to stir up trouble.

Finally,
Originally posted by dsdrane:
Is it not one thing to attack a policy and quite another to attack a person?

I'm not really sure what you are referring to here? Was it something I said? Please elaborate.

[paul]

mmalm,

I gotta say, some of your points strike me as salient, some not. You impress me as intelligent and articulate. I still think Zerbie described you well in her example.

I'm finding this an interesting discussion, as a frequent, albeit fairly new, contributer here. I'm not a Christian, so I'd be one of the ones who probably wouldn't qualify as representing the views of SoulForce.

Mmalm, since the topic of this thread is "Honesty," do you consider SoulForce to be a Christian organization? More to the point, do you think it's possible to follow Christ and be a gay person living in a sexual relationship with another gay person? Because, as you have no doubt observed, many here and the SoulForce organization does believe that possible. I think this is really the crux of the problem, isn't it?

I honestly don't know how SoulForce organizes their "protests" ("actions?"), but I am guessing that the organization probably doesn't just show up, pickets in hand. In other words, the places where these actions take place have advance notice of their arrival. So, I am curious why a Christian bible college wouldn't instead take the course of inviting the SoulForce group in for lunch, setting up a forum for all interested parties to discuss the topic at hand? Even if the general consensus at your school is that these gay folk are sinners, didn't Jesus eat with sinners? If you have the truth on your side, why wouldn't you invite the opportunity to discuss it in a loving, hospitable way?

Okay, I know you cannot speak for your college any more than I can speak for SoulForce, but what think you?

[BrentRichards]

If a student at Trinity had done something, say vandalized the SoulForce bus, do you think the group would have sought out that individual student or seen it as a reflection of the school as a whole and their feelings towards the group? I'm not trying to fuel the fire here, just giving a different perspective.

Riders have already responded to this situation ... see for example:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/771
http://www.soulforce.org/article/1193

In each case, the incidents seemed to create an even MORE positive dialogue at the schools ... it does not seem, in either case, that students at the schools were the ones doing the vandalism, nor was that assumption ever made by the riders.

Brent Richards, I sincerely thank you for clarifying on terminology for me. As far as the rest of what you said, there are obviously many things about the situation that we don't agree on, and I'm willing to leave it at that because I don't think there is a point to argue just for the sake of an argument that won't go anywhere.

This last sentence is somewhat troubling to me ... the assumption that this is an argument that won't go anywhere. For the record, this "argument" has gone plenty of places for me ... I'm a former staff member of Campus Crusade for Christ, I've studied at two VERY conservative theological seminaries, and was once VERY outspoken against gay-affirming theologies. Then I stopped arguing and started listening, to myself and others ... and the "argument" really got somewhere with me. There are certainly others who have changed their minds in the same or opposite direction. Any discussion without the possibility of "going somewhere" is a waste of breath. I learn and change my opinions on various topics all the time because of my discussions (a better word) here and elsewhere. I don't think you meant this badly, but it's a way of thinking worth pointing out and guarding against.

I am curious about one thing however- you talked about how you can expect things at these schools to stay exactly as they are without the protests. I'm wondering, and this is a serious question, if you know of how many schools have changed their doctrines as the result of SoulForce protests?

Soulforce's Equality Ride is only two years old, and institutional change takes time. Nor is institutional change the only goal of a project like this ... Soulforce receives dozens and dozens of letters during a campaign like the Equality Rides telling them what a difference they made to individuals ... whether by supporting them in their GLBT identity, or by challenging them to see things in a new way. That being said, if you were to read the various news items posted here about the stops on the Ride (or those in local media outlets as well), you'd see some very significant things: Not least of all, schools TALKED about the issue, which they otherwise might not have. Students at Messiah College, near my home, were galvanized by the visit to start a Gay-Straight Alliance for their campus. Students at Gordon College were emboldened (at least in part by the Ride) to speak out about their GLBT experience at Gordon in a profound printed set of testimonies distributed at the school. At several schools, the Ride called attention to policies many students didn't even know existed, and began discussion about whether they should. In one case (BYU), University policy was actually changed three weeks after the visit, in a positive direction ... according to administration, this was a direct result of the visit: "As a result of your visit, several students contacted the administration of BYU to ask about the University's Honor Code. Because of those questions and concerns, BYU has changed the code in significant ways." (see the story here: http://www.soulforce.org/article/1245.)

So are things exactly the same at these schools after the Ride? I'd say no. Are things "fixed?" Of course not. Was it worth it? Yup.


Dsdrane, I was certainly not trying to equate Christianity with homosexuality, I'm sorry if it came off that way. I was simply trying to clarify my usage of the word practicing, because it offended some people. After re-reading my post I could see how it could come off that way, and I definitely didn't mean it in that way, I was just trying to use a different context to show why I didn't not think "practicing" was an offensive word.

The different context is exactly the point. I too am a PRACTICING Christian. And a PRACTICING Republican (for which I take endless grief among many of my friends). I'm even a PRACTICING father of teens (and believe me, that takes practice ... I'm just starting to get the hang of it, and now they're becoming adults!) I am not, on the other hand, a PRACTICING Welshman, or a PRACTICING high-risk for skin cancer person, or a PRACTICING homosexual. This things are parts of my givens (each in different ways) that I can't choose, though I can choose to ignore them and pretend they're not there --perhaps to my peril.

[BrentRichards]

It is a choice and the choice was God's.

Tim, I love you more all the time. You are beautiful. (And apparently, you might even be a little Calvinist! :D)

[dsdrane]

Honestly, the sarcasm is getting old.

Frankly, so is this discussion.

Honestly, it seems as if I am being asked to walk on eggshells here....

Mmalm, your participation here is strictly voluntary.

Also, in response to you thinking I "came looking for a fight," please refer to my earlier post.

Protest all you want, but I'm not buying it. To paraphrase an old -- and somewhat crude -- saying: don't urinate down my back and tell me it's raining.

You clearly came here in an attempt to "catch" SF in a perceived hypocrisy.

I'm not really sure what you are referring to here? Was it something I said? Please elaborate.

When SF shows up to shine a light on policies that we believe are fundamentally discriminatory, we are addressing a policy. Your theorectical "non-violent, anti-gay protesters", on the other hand would be attacking people...who they are and how and whom they love.

The reversed analogy of yours, therefore, is a false one. It is apples and oranges.

[BrentRichards]

Can you honestly tell me, judging by the comments of some of the people on this forum, that if protesters who actually picketed non-violently with anti-gay signs, that they would be welcomed with open arms when there is so much hostility just on this internet forum on which I am doing my best to be respectful?

MM

I (we) hear this a lot. We hear a million variations on the theme of "What are you people so touchy about?" Are you meeting some hostility, tension, and frustration here? Yes you are. Would you like to understand why? Here's what I had to say on the topic to a visitor here some time ago who probably had some similar beliefs to you, though he made no effort whatsoever to avoid being offensive about stating them. I'm not saying what I wrote then applies to you now. I'm saying it applies very much to the idea of why more than a few of us here are a little angry, and a little touchy, over hearing the same stuff over and over and over ...

Yes, _________, I am angry. I'm very angry. I know I'm not the only one here... in my observation, we take turns having no patience with certain types of discussion on these forums.

At the moment, I am very angry indeed with the words and attitudes of a lot of people in the church who talk like you. You are, admittedly, taking the brunt of my anger at a lot of other people as well. My last few posts to you have been very sharp, yes ... and for a reason. I was hoping to get your attention. Have I?

It may be that you feel you're being attacked and persecuted here: certainly by me, and perhaps by others as well. If so, you now know how we feel in the church EVERY DAY OF OUR LIVES.

True confessions, I am making some assumptions about you based on your statements here, and if those assumptions are wrong, I'm sorry. But yes, I'm angry, and I'll be happy to tell you why.

I'm angry because people who talk like you assume that I'm the problem. They come to our forum, start arguments, and then act surprised when I take offense.

I'm angry because almost every day I deal with Christians, many of whom weren't even born when I came to faith, who assume that they are far more mature in the faith than I could possibly be. They assume that I must be ignorant of the Bible and Christian history, because if I knew what they knew, I'd obviously agree with them.

I'm angry because so many of my GLBT brothers and sisters (on this forum and elsewhere) have been told in no uncertain terms that they have no place in the body of Christ. They've taken the hint, and left the church, never looking back. But having been ushered unceremoniously out the door, they must still deal day after day with people telling them they're lost for leaving.

I'm angry when people begin their interactions with me on the assumption that I need to be witnessed to ... a statement that assumes I cannot be a Christian (your recent statement of us "both being Christians" notwithstanding). After all, they say (sometimes overtly and sometimes covertly), if I were REALLY a Christian (or really a Spirit-filled Christian, or really under Christ's Lordship, or ... choose your particular language) I wouldn't be gay, or believe what I believe.

I'm angry when people use God's Holy Word as a weapon to make me and others like me feel unwelcome at the foot of the cross, and then accuse me of being defensive when I disagree.

I'm angry when people (and I don't mean you here, I have no idea what kind of education you have) with a Sunday School level Bible and Theological education think they've got it all down pat, and are perfectly willing to dismiss dissenting scholarly viewpoints (on topics like the Biblical view of homosexuality) without so much as a moment's consideration, because they're "obviously" wrong.

I'm angry that my church is perfectly willing to accept my money, my voice in their choir, my time in service, my skills in teaching, and so on, but is NOT willing to offer me a voice in leadership, a place in the clergy, or a blessing for my (future, I hope) covenanted partnership.

I'm angry that the straight majority has the nerve to talk about "the dangers of the gay agenda" as if we were the ones in power opressing THEM.

I'm angry that Christians assume that I'm a pervert, promiscuous, and a danger to their children and families. I'm angry at being blamed for the downfall of a marriage institution in which I'm not even permitted to participate.

I'm angry that so many Christians continue to tell me and others like me "Jesus hates you, this I know."

I'm angry that to so many people who talk like you consider me an "issue" to discuss. This isn't an issue, this is my life --don't expect me to discuss it as dispassionately as if it were a grocery list.

I'm angry that so many Christians consider it blasphemous, or at least laughable, to say that God might actually have created me like this ... and that those same people shout loudly about God being in control, except of course when Him being in control would mean something they don't like.

I'm angry that you can call another member of this forum self-righteous, but when I call you on what I see as your self-righteous behavior, I'm attacking your character, and it's suddenly unacceptable.

I'm angry that you can laugh off my concerns and opinions, but I'm supposed to take you seriously.

As you know, Jesus got angry, and he cleared the Temple court ... the buyers and sellers there were taking up the space that was supposed to be used for worship by the outcasts and foreigners ... people who the religious of the day had no problem sweeping out the door ... after all, they have no real place here. I'm angry that we still don't seem to get the point.

You want me to stop talking to you? Happy to. In fact, if you read my last post, I already said I would. But if you want to know why I'm so angry, there it is. Talk to me like a person, not an issue, and we'll go on. Play games with ulterior motives (which you stated up front) and I'm not playing.

So yes, I'm angry. Very angry. I won't apologize for being angry. If I've directed any of this anger at you unjustly, I can certainly be sorry for that. But the fact is that you've talked just like all the other people who have treated me and others like me this way for too long. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I'm going to assume it's a duck. If you want me to respond differently to you, you'll have to start by talking differently to me. Evangelism begins with understanding. When it begins with statements that you disagree with "95%" of what we believe ... (translation, you are TOTALLY wrong about just about everything, and I'm here to straighten you out [pun apt, though not intended]), then you can't very well be surprised that I'm resistant to anything you might say next.

So maybe I have a reason or two to be angry.

[Daniel]

Brent- I remember when you wrote this. And your words still move me deeply. From the bottom of my heart- thank you! :love:

[dsdrane]

Brent- I remember when you wrote this. And your words still move me deeply. From the bottom of my heart- thank you! :love:

Moi aussi, mon petit bijou!

Merci beaucoup!!

[Don't ask me...I was just feelin' the French. I have no clue why.]

[u-dog]

Moi aussi, mon petit bijou!

Merci beaucoup!!

[Don't ask me...I was just feelin' the French. I have no clue why.]

What exactly IS a "Bijou" anyway? And I remember Brents post too. Very powerful! Thanks Brent!

[sailaway58]

Posted by sailaway58:
If when the signs were put down the people could engage in a manner not patronizing, and if they could share dialog without the underlying agenda of saving my friends from their deceived and depraved minds, if the protesters could engage in a serious exchange of ideas, (The point of liberal arts college I would think) yes, they would be received with open arms.


Is that not exactly what SF tried to accomplish by coming to my school- having an agenda to save my friends from their "deceived and depraved minds"?


Absolutely not. In your college you have gay people that are oppressed and shamed into the closet. Soulforce, (my opinion) is there for them. It is there to open dialog in not only your college community but surrounding areas that are touched by these Equality Rides. Because of this one ride you are talking to a group of people you never heard of before (Soulforce). You are learning how to address them respectfully. This one ride has engaged you to the point that you must now decide what you believe about Gods' GLBT children.


Originally posted by sailaway58:
Before coming to this site I only listened to people, like me, that had an opinion based on prejudice, and scriptural interpretation that would condemn these people to a death by stoneing.
If you really want to understand listen to the people that live it every day.

Is what you mean by this, that I should not use Scripture to determine my beliefs on this subject (I do not interpret Scripture to sake that GLBT persons should be stoned, for the record). It seems like you are saying that I should refer to people that live it every day over the Bible.

What I mean by this is now you have something to decide. Is what I believe about scripture, what I have been indoctrinated to believe, the belief system I have found comfort in founded in truth? Does what I believe equate with the realities of life? Am I right about orientation?

Originally posted by Sailaway58:
As a Christian we have one responsibility, to love others, period. One judge is enough and none of us are qualified for the job.


I think that we have more than one responsibly, but I absolutely agree that a huge one is to love others, and also wholeheartedly agree with the rest of that quote.

What responsibility's do we have that do not fall under Christs command to love others? It is our call, to love those that hate you, love your neighbor, they will know we are Christians by our love, What you have done to the least of these you have done to me. Why feed the hungry? Why take car of the widows? Why visit the jails? Why interact with those outside of Christ? Because we are called to love.

Originally posted by sailaway58:
I have yet to meet an evil GLBT person but I have met and worshiped with hateful, judging, self righteous Christians all my life.

I don't know if this is how you intended it to sound, but basically what you're saying here is that the only "evil", "hateful, judging, self-righteous" Christians are heterosexuals?

My point is Homosexuality is not evil, nor are homosexuals.
I have spent the last 48 years in the Christian fundamentalist movement. They would tell you otherwise. What say you?

Originally posted by sailaway58:
Try starting with, I don't understand you folks, but I love, respect, accept you as equals in the eyes of God.

I believe I did start that way, when in my very first post I stated: "Although I may not agree with everything this group represents, I do respect it"


...but I love, respect, accept you as equals in the eyes of God?
Would you believe the stories of the lives here? How they came to know who they are? Will you read any stories about anyone here?
Someone please suggest a book she should read... will you read it?

[sailaway58]

Tim, I love you more all the time. You are beautiful. (And apparently, you might even be a little Calvinist! :D)
Arminian all the way. And I prefer to consider myself handsome. ;)

[BrentRichards]

Arminian all the way. And I prefer to consider myself handsome. ;)

Well, I still like you. Arminians are chosen people too ... :D.

How about handsome with a beautiful soul?

[paul]

What exactly IS a "Bijou" anyway? And I remember Brents post too. Very powerful! Thanks Brent!

:) it means kisses U-dog

[Zerbie]

We must always value the human being above a book. Any book.

Have you ever looked into the eyes of a book and read pain there? Neither have I. But I have read pain in the eyes of human beings - far too much of it. Not only pain. Light. That light is far more alive in the human soul than in paper marked with ink.

[sailaway58]

How about handsome with a beautiful soul?
I think I like that! Your not really a 50 year old chubby drunk woman are you? :lol:

[sailaway58]

We must always value the human being above a book. Any book.

Have you ever looked into the eyes of a book and read pain there? Neither have I. But I have read pain in the eyes of human beings - far too much of it. Not only pain. Light. That light is far more alive in the human soul than in paper marked with ink.
Yea but sugest a book, like Stranger at the Gate or something.

[u-dog]

Yea but sugest a book, like Stranger at the Gate or something.


How about Stranger at the Gate by Mel WHite?

[sailaway58]

How about Stranger at the Gate by Mel White?
I think it might be to much for mmalm. Can we find something a little softer? Or do you think this is a good introductory book? My wife is reading it while I finish Religion Gone Bad
and I gave my second copy to my mother. I haven't started it yet but from what my wife says I wonder if it is a good book for introductory to the topic.
What do you think?

[Zerbie]

Yea but sugest a book, like Stranger at the Gate or something.

How about Stranger at the Gate by Mel WHite?

Recommendation thirded. For a close-up view of the pain and soul-searching that many gay christians endure, a discussion of the intersection of theology with personal experience AS a gay man, and how he traveled from a negative outlook on homosexuality to full self-acceptance, this is the classic.

From a not-specifically-religious perspective, but still a personal account, see "Straight Parents, Gay Children: Keeping Families Together" by Robert A. Bernstein. That's another account of learning and coming to acceptance.

For a thorough (if now somewhat outdated) discussion of civil rights combined with personal testimonies of overwhelming rejection and pain, see "Created Equal: Why Gay Rights Matter to America" by Michael Nava and Robert Dawidoff. When I first came out for the LGBT cause, it was this book that clarified the "issues" for me in a way that truly resonated both logically/intellectually, and emotionally/intuitively. I begged my homophobic best friend to read it. She did, but she "hated" it. I'm guessing that mmalm is uncomfortable enough with LGBT issues to probably hate this book as well. But it is well-written and compelling, and despite that it's now 13 years old so some of it's political discussion is out of date, I find it continues to articulate the plight of gay Americans beautifully, while placing that plight into a larger historical perspective.

[Zerbie]

I think it might be to much for mmalm. Can we find something a little softer? Or do you think this is a good introductory book? My wife is reading it while I finish Religion Gone Bad
and I gave my second copy to my mother. I haven't started it yet but from what my wife says I wonder if it is a good book for introductory to the topic.
What do you think?

Actually, I'm guessing it might be a perfect introductory book. It is simply Mel White's personal story. I am hard pressed to think of anything more appropriate for a first glance.

Otherwise, perhaps something by a straight person who changed their perspective, like in 'Straight Parents, Gay Children.'

Or - oh hey is it still in print? - the one by Bobby Griffith's mother. Was it called "Prayers for Bobby"? That one might be just perfect for mmalm - because Bobby's mother was trying to do right by holding to Biblical teachings despite her son's pleas for acceptance. Her rejection of her son led to tragedy.

Otoh, one of the books I just mentioned would be a total flop with mmalm. But I recommend it to forum readers in general, which is why I mentioned it.

[dsdrane]

What exactly IS a "Bijou" anyway? And I remember Brents post too. Very powerful! Thanks Brent!

I think it means "jewel".

Or cabbage.

Oh, wait...that's "chou".

(French is hard.)

[dsdrane]

:) it means kisses U-dog


That, I think, is "bisoux".

(Again...French is hard.)

[Zerbie]

I think it means "jewel".

Or cabbage.

Oh, wait...that's "chou".

(French is hard.)

Jewel cabbage kiss? Cabbage jewel kiss? :lol:
Kiss a cabbage and it turns into a jewel? :confused:

Je vous aime, les gars. :love::love: Gros bisous! *smack* (not to be confused with bijou;))

[u-dog]

Or - oh hey is it still in print? - the one by Bobby Griffith's mother. Was it called "Prayers for Bobby"? That one might be just perfect for mmalm - because Bobby's mother was trying to do right by holding to Biblical teachings despite her son's pleas for acceptance. Her rejection of her son led to tragedy.

I'm not sure that its still in print. I found it at Half-price books. I wonder if it can be gotten through Amazon? It is a wonderful book and might be just the thing for mmalm to read.

Yes... its still in print and Yes Amazon has it.

[dsdrane]

Jewel cabbage kiss? Cabbage jewel kiss? :lol:
Kiss a cabbage and it turns into a jewel? :confused:

Je vous aime, les gars. :love::love: Gros bisous! *smack* (not to be confused with bijou;))

Ruffage, in any form, is a jewel...

...of sorts.

Or words to that effect.

I'll be here all week....

:D:rolleyes:

[Zerbie]

Ruffage, in any form, is a jewel...

...of sorts.

Or words to that effect.

I'll be here all week....

:D:rolleyes:

C'est dégoutant. :sick:

[dsdrane]

(French is hard.)

[keltic63]

I think it means "jewel".

Or cabbage.

Oh, wait...that's "chou".

(French is hard.)

Oui. It is jewel.

[Zerbie]

Oui. It is jewel.

I could be really cryptic here and say, "Ah!! Que de bijou! Est-ce un reve charmant qui m'éblouie? Ou si je veille?"

Who recognizes it?

[dsdrane]

I could be really cryptic here and say, "Ah!! Que de bijou! Est-ce un reve charmant qui m'éblouie? Ou si je veille?"

Who recognizes it?

Oy veh ist mir!

[Dash]

I could be really cryptic here and say, "Ah!! Que de bijou! Est-ce un reve charmant qui m'éblouie? Ou si je veille?"

Who recognizes it?


Ô Marguerite...à tes pieds me voici!

[carolb]

There are stories of people's lives on www.deardrdobson.com (http://deardrdobson.com) but I can't get the link to work. there are books like "Is it a choice?" (author?), "Good-bye, I love you," by Carol Lynn Pearson and "The Other Side of the Closet," by Amity Pierce Buxton. These are not theological books but rather stories that either are about or include personal stories. Also on www.beyondexgay.com (http://www.beyondexgay.com), there are narratives from several perspectives on how lives have been hurt through trying to be someone other than oneself.

Or, mm can read introductions on this very site.

But mm may not be willing to hear because he/she is unwilling to unlearn what has been taught. It is to point out these policies and to reach out to those who have never considered that "gay" and "Christian" go together, that the Equality Riders take aim.

I have heard it said that the Bible is a book of and about God, not a book on human sexuality. Until one is willing to listen to peoples' stories, hear why glbt people are hurt by the interpretation of the Bible by fundamentalists, and truly accept what one hears from those who live their lives the best they can, it is of no use to recommend anything.

mm - if you will listen, you will hear a lot of honest people telling the truth about their lives. I ask that you try.

[dsdrane]

There are stories of people's lives on www.deardrdobson.com (http://deardrdobson.com) but I can't get the link to work. there are books like "Is it a choice?" (author?), "Good-bye, I love you," by Carol Lynn Pearson and "The Other Side of the Closet," by Amity Pierce Buxton. These are not theological books but rather stories that either are about or include personal stories. Also on www.beyondexgay.com (http://www.beyondexgay.com), there are narratives from several perspectives on how lives have been hurt through trying to be someone other than oneself.

Or, mm can read introductions on this very site.

But mm may not be willing to hear because he/she is unwilling to unlearn what has been taught. It is to point out these policies and to reach out to those who have never considered that "gay" and "Christian" go together, that the Equality Riders take aim.

I have heard it said that the Bible is a book of and about God, not a book on human sexuality. Until one is willing to listen to peoples' stories, hear why glbt people are hurt by the interpretation of the Bible by fundamentalists, and truly accept what one hears from those who live their lives the best they can, it is of no use to recommend anything.

mm - if you will listen, you will hear a lot of honest people telling the truth about their lives. I ask that you try.

Thank you, Carol.

[u-dog]

Ô Marguerite...à tes pieds me voici!


OK... Now you guys are just showing off! stop it! :mad:

[u-dog]

mmalm said:Is what you mean by this, that I should not use Scripture to determine my beliefs on this subject (I do not interpret Scripture to sake that GLBT persons should be stoned, for the record). It seems like you are saying that I should refer to people that live it every day over the Bible.

No Christian is going to suggest that you form your convictions without recourse to the Scriptures, MM. Sailaway is suggesting that you consider WHICH "lenses" you will wear while reading scripture. EVERYONE WEARS SOME LENS. Sailaway is suggesting that rather than reading the very few passages that seem to deal with this issue through the lenses of your culturally conditioned prejudice and distaste that you read them through the lenses of real people's real life experience of themselves. If you do that you will be in a position to decide for yourself what scripture teaches. If you DON'T do that you are only in a position to judge what it is that you WANT scripture to teach.

When you think about it... Isn't this the method of biblical interpretation that Jesus himself employed? When Jesus interprets the Sabbath laws and the Ten commandments, doesn't he ALWAYS do it from the perspective of hungry people, handicapped people, despised people? The pharisees HATE the way Jesus interprets scripture. They call him a sinner and they begin very quickly to plot his murder.

When you think about it... Doesn't Jesus approach EVERYTHING from the perspective of the hungry, the poor, the disgusting low life scum of the world? Think about it !! Jesus was born in a barn. Jesus touched lepers (the faggots of the first century) Jesus ate with tax collectors and prostitutes, Jesus touched unclean people. The Pharisees HATED JESUS FOR THAT! They KILLED Jesus for that.

Jesus bore witness in EVERYTHING HE DID that PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LAW... and the Pharisees had him killed for it.

Why do so many people in the fundamentalist movement seem to gravitate more to the Gospel according the Pharisees than they do to the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Why do fundamentalists pay LIP SERVICE to the "name of Jesus" but give their true allegiance and service to the legalistic anti-gospel of the pharisees?

THIS IS WHY THIS "ISSUE" is so important. Its about MORE than just the rights of GLBT people. THE GOSPEL ITSELF is at stake here.

Repent, MM, repent while there is still time. You are worshipping a false god.

[paul]

That, I think, is "bisoux".

(Again...French is hard.)

:o damn, that was a sweet correction it was almost worth the mistake. I realized I was off on that one and thought "oh, can I delete it before anyone notices?" But then thought, what the hell. :D

[paul]

mmalm said:

No Christian is going to suggest that you form your convictions without recourse to the Scriptures, MM. Sailaway is suggesting that you consider WHICH "lenses" you will wear while reading scripture. EVERYONE WEARS SOME LENS. Sailaway is suggesting that rather than reading the very few passages that seem to deal with this issue through the lenses of your culturally conditioned prejudice and distaste that you read them through the lenses of real people's real life experience of themselves. If you do that you will be in a position to decide for yourself what scripture teaches. If you DON'T do that you are only in a position to judge what it is that you WANT scripture to teach.

When you think about it... Isn't this the method of biblical interpretation that Jesus himself employed? When Jesus interprets the Sabbath laws and the Ten commandments, doesn't he ALWAYS do it from the perspective of hungry people, handicapped people, despised people? The pharisees HATE the way Jesus interprets scripture. They call him a sinner and they begin very quickly to plot his murder.

When you think about it... Doesn't Jesus approach EVERYTHING from the perspective of the hungry, the poor, the disgusting low life scum of the world? Think about it !! Jesus was born in a barn. Jesus touched lepers (the faggots of the first century) Jesus ate with tax collectors and prostitutes, Jesus touched unclean people. The Pharisees HATED JESUS FOR THAT! They KILLED Jesus for that.

Jesus bore witness in EVERYTHING HE DID that PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LAW... and the Pharisees had him killed for it.

Why do so many people in the fundamentalist movement seem to gravitate more to the Gospel according the Pharisees than they do to the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Why do fundamentalists pay LIP SERVICE to the "name of Jesus" but give their true allegiance and service to the legalistic anti-gospel of the pharisees?

THIS IS WHY THIS "ISSUE" is so important. Its about MORE than just the rights of GLBT people. THE GOSPEL ITSELF is at stake here.

Repent, MM, repent while there is still time. You are worshipping a false god.

Wow Dave,

I think this is so insightful and well put. Jesus really threw some of the Pharisees for a loop. He pointed out that they had a relationship with laws carved on stone vs. something alive. Alive? Human nature often seems to want an anchor, something that stands still, some thing we can "know," put in a neat box. We mistakenly identify that as security, but is it really delusion? But "the Spirit is like the wind, you don't know where it comes from or where it's going,so is everyone who walks by the Spirit..." (please forgive the paraphrase, going from memory).

Jesus seemed to contradict Gods law when during the "sermon on the mount" he said things like: "you have heard it said...but I say to you...."

Mmalm, you have heard it said that homosexuality is a sin, but...

[dsdrane]

No Christian is going to suggest that you form your convictions without recourse to the Scriptures, MM. Sailaway is suggesting that you consider WHICH "lenses" you will wear while reading scripture. EVERYONE WEARS SOME LENS. Sailaway is suggesting that rather than reading the very few passages that seem to deal with this issue through the lenses of your culturally conditioned prejudice and distaste that you read them through the lenses of real people's real life experience of themselves. If you do that you will be in a position to decide for yourself what scripture teaches. If you DON'T do that you are only in a position to judge what it is that you WANT scripture to teach.

When you think about it... Isn't this the method of biblical interpretation that Jesus himself employed? When Jesus interprets the Sabbath laws and the Ten commandments, doesn't he ALWAYS do it from the perspective of hungry people, handicapped people, despised people? The pharisees HATE the way Jesus interprets scripture. They call him a sinner and they begin very quickly to plot his murder.

When you think about it... Doesn't Jesus approach EVERYTHING from the perspective of the hungry, the poor, the disgusting low life scum of the world? Think about it !! Jesus was born in a barn. Jesus touched lepers (the faggots of the first century) Jesus ate with tax collectors and prostitutes, Jesus touched unclean people. The Pharisees HATED JESUS FOR THAT! They KILLED Jesus for that.

Jesus bore witness in EVERYTHING HE DID that PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LAW... and the Pharisees had him killed for it.

Why do so many people in the fundamentalist movement seem to gravitate more to the Gospel according the Pharisees than they do to the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Why do fundamentalists pay LIP SERVICE to the "name of Jesus" but give their true allegiance and service to the legalistic anti-gospel of the pharisees?

THIS IS WHY THIS "ISSUE" is so important. Its about MORE than just the rights of GLBT people. THE GOSPEL ITSELF is at stake here.

Repent, MM, repent while there is still time. You are worshipping a false god.

God you're good.

Can we get this printed on cards to hand out whenever we cross paths with the fundies?

It's so simple; it's so obvious; it's so perfect.

[Zerbie]

Oy veh ist mir!

:p

Ô Marguerite...à tes pieds me voici!

Okay, now that just morphed into "O,o,o, Margueriiiiii-te. . . avant de quitter ces lieux. . ."

OK... Now you guys are just showing off! stop it! :mad:

No! :p

God you're good.

Can we get this printed on cards to hand out whenever we cross paths with the fundies?


Actually, I like that idea very much.

Oh, sta-aff?

[BrentRichards]

I think I like that! Your not really a 50 year old chubby drunk woman are you? :lol:

Not as far as I know. Though it might explain some things.

[BrentRichards]

:) it means kisses U-dog

I think it means "jewel".

Or cabbage.

Oh, wait...that's "chou".

(French is hard.)

Jewel cabbage kiss? Cabbage jewel kiss? :lol:
Kiss a cabbage and it turns into a jewel? :confused:

Je vous aime, les gars. :love::love: Gros bisous! *smack* (not to be confused with bijou;))


Can we settle on "Kiss my jeweled cabbage?"

[sailaway58]

My guess is we lost her, too much honesty. :(

[BrentRichards]

I think it might be to much for mmalm. Can we find something a little softer? Or do you think this is a good introductory book? My wife is reading it while I finish Religion Gone Bad
and I gave my second copy to my mother. I haven't started it yet but from what my wife says I wonder if it is a good book for introductory to the topic.
What do you think?

I read Stranger when I was still rabidly anti-me. While I often got angry at it, I was also touched by it, no doubt. Naturally, I have read it again since I came out.

One that really impacted me "back then" was Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mallencott's Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? It moved and challenged me to tread very carefully on my condemning path.

[u-dog]

I read Stranger when I was still rabidly anti-me. <<<<----This is a funny thing to say!While I often got angry at it, I was also touched by it, no doubt. Naturally, I have read it again since I came out.

One that really impacted me "back then" was Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mallencott's Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? It moved and challenged me to tread very carefully on my condemning path.
This is a great book! Is it still in print? I read this VERY EARLY in my process (like 30 years ago?) and it saved me MUCH self-inflicted misery


///////////\\\\\\\\\\

[dsdrane]

///////////\\\\\\\\\\

Can I get a translation?

I don't read chicken.

:confused:

[u-dog]

Can I get a translation?

I don't read chicken.

:confused:

since I had written my wisdom inside the quotes the software thought I hadn't said anything and it wouldn't let me post. so I wrote in chicken at the bottom the requesite 10 characters.

[dsdrane]

since I had written my wisdom inside the quotes the software thought I hadn't said anything and it wouldn't let me post. so I wrote in chicken at the bottom the requesite 10 characters.

Oooooo...tricky!

[mmalm]

To much French actually. That and I'm a busy girl. Sorry to disappoint.

[Daniel]

To much French actually. That and I'm a busy girl. Sorry to disappoint.


Too busy for a little soul searching? You've jumped in the pool and now you crawl out with this?

Mes amies. You can do better.

[u-dog]

Too busy for a little soul searching? You've jumped in the pool and now you crawl out with this?

Mes amies. You can do better.


Now Daniel! Behave! Don't make me come back there !

[mmalm]

I didn't say that, only that it will be a busy weekend, I'll catch up with you all later. Blessings.

[Zerbie]

Yeah I thought the French might have been a bit much, off topic and all - but given the heated emotions this thread stirred up, I decided to run with it too.

Never read "Is the homosexual my neighbor?" perhaps because I found it uncomprehensible to even ask the question.

First book I did read on the subject was called "The Church and the Homosexual."' I *think.* Written by a clergy - catholic, perhaps?? Anyone know? I remember being moved by it.

[BrentRichards]

Yeah I thought the French might have been a bit much, off topic and all - but given the heated emotions this thread stirred up, I decided to run with it too.

Never read "Is the homosexual my neighbor?" perhaps because I found it uncomprehensible to even ask the question.

First book I did read on the subject was called "The Church and the Homosexual."' I *think.* Written by a clergy - catholic, perhaps?? Anyone know? I remember being moved by it.

Fr. John McNeill ... quite good. He was later defrocked for his views, and has come out, now happily partnered (some indication that the partner isn't new ... wink)

[keltic63]

We Were Baptized Too: Claiming God's Grace for Lesbians and Gays was one of the books that I read early in my coming out. My pastor lent it to me and I really should buy my own copy. It's a great book.

[BrentRichards]

We Were Baptized Too: Claiming God's Grace for Lesbians and Gays was one of the books that I read early in my coming out. My pastor lent it to me and I really should buy my own copy. It's a great book.

You ARE from Western PA, n'at!

[dsdrane]

Never read "Is the homosexual my neighbor?" perhaps because I found it uncomprehensible to even ask the question.


Me, too.

However, I've often wondered:

Is my neighbor a homosexual?

:D

[BrentRichards]

Me, too.

However, I've often wondered:

Is my neighbor a homosexual?

:D

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[keltic63]

You ARE from Western PA, n'at!

That's perfectly acceptable Pittsburghese!

Lent=Past tense of Loan :D

[keltic63]

Me, too.

However, I've often wondered:

Is my neighbor a homosexual?

:D

please, please, please, let the tattooed man next door, and the sexy bald man a few doors down be homosexuals. please, please, please! :pray:

[BrentRichards]

please, please, please, let the tattooed man next door, and the sexy bald man a few doors down be homosexuals. please, please, please! :pray:


See, I've always been of two minds on this ... like when I was excited to find out Rupert Everett is gay ... like I'm ever gonna date him!

[BrentRichards]

And now we're probably scaring the crap out of poor MM ... sorry M. It's a human thing.

[BrianB]

please, please, please, let the tattooed man next door, and the sexy bald man a few doors down be homosexuals. please, please, please! :pray:

There is a sexy, tattooed, bald man a few floors up from me.:) It's a shame that he has a girlfriend. :( "It's like meeting the man of your dreams... and then meeting his beautiful wife." --Alanis Morrisette--

[Daniel]

Now Daniel! Behave! Don't make me come back there !

So you think you're in the driver seat, huh? ;)

I didn't say that, only that it will be a busy weekend, I'll catch up with you all later. Blessings.

Nope. You didn't say that. The brevity of your post gave- for me anyway- the wrong impression. Glad to hear that you are still in the pool. (I like this better than moving vehicle allusions).

[u-dog]

That's perfectly acceptable Pittsburghese!

Lent=Past tense of Loan :D


I'm NOT from Pittsburgh (grew up in Northern Ohio) Are you telling me that "lent" is NOT the past tense of "loan"? Since when? If it isn't that would leave ... what? "Loaned?" preposterous!:eek:

Next you'll be telling me that the past tense of "dive" isn't "dove".

[keltic63]

I'm NOT from Pittsburgh (grew up in Northern Ohio) Are you telling me that "lent" is NOT the past tense of "loan"? Since when? If it isn't that would leave ... what? "Loaned?" preposterous!:eek:

Next you'll be telling me that the past tense of "dive" isn't "dove".

it appears that we're allowed to use it, u-dog. I just looked it up at Merriam Webster online:



Loan, 1 a : money lent at interest b : something lent usually for the borrower's temporary use

[u-dog]

it appears that we're allowed to use it, u-dog. I just looked it up at Merriam Webster online:






HOORAY !!!! And I just checked on the past tense of "dive" . "Dived" and "Dove" are both acceptable. WHEW!

[BruceChris]

Well, I have a buddy who never returns anything that he borrows. So if he "borrows" my chocolate, I can always tell my pastor that I have given it up for "lent".

P&L, BC

[u-dog]

Well, I have a buddy who never returns anything that he borrows. So if he "borrows" my chocolate, I can always tell my pastor that I have given it up for "lent".

P&L, BC


YOu BC... there are limits to what even friendship can bear. :rolleyes:

[mmalm]

Thank you all for the reading recommendations you have given me. I will be honest, I don't forsee reading any of them this semester, but perhaps next when I have more leisure time.

Brent Richards- refering to your lengthy post from a few days ago, I understand why you would be angry. However, how much of what you have written in your post pertains to me? I think that there are a lot of assumptions made and a lot of people putting words in my mouth.

One thing people keep saying is that I have been "indoctrinated to believe" what I believe, that I need to "unlearn what I have been taught," and that I am "reading the very few passages that seem to deal with this issue through the lenses of your culturally conditioned prejudice." You are all making huge assumptions here. Is it too much to believe that I have actually read the Bible myself and have come to my own conclusions, rather then just robotically taking in what the Big Bad Church has taught me? I think a big problem is that when SF goes to these colleges they assume that students don't have minds of their own- that they completely soak in everything the doctrine of the school orders them to believe. That's at least the way it is coming off to me.

Paul, you asked about why Trinity was not willing to dialouge with Soul Force. As I wrote in a previous post (and I don't blame you for missing it, this thread is getting quite lengthy), the administration did consider it. However, after talking to the administrative counsels of other schools whom Soul Force had visited, they decided against it. Refer to my North Central example in a previous post. Had Soul Force conducted themselves differently in previous instances, there would have been a better possibility they would have been welcomed on our campus.

Thank you for the article references Brent Richards. That does bring up another question I have- why would Soul Force refuse the food and water we tried to give them, but accepts help in cleaning their bus?

dsdrane said "When SF shows up to shine a light on policies that we believe are fundamentally discriminatory, we are addressing a policy. Your theorectical "non-violent, anti-gay protesters", on the other hand would be attacking people...who they are and how and whom they love." I disagree. They would be protesting the belief that homosexuality is not a sin. If you still feel this is attacking people, then so is a protestor that says the people at a school are sinning for believing otherwise. You also said this discussion is getting old- if you feel so, then by all means please leave.

U-dog- I honestly don't remember the last time I was as offended as I was when I read one of your last posts. At the risk of sounding dramatic, how dare you accuse me of worshipping a false god. After reading that I was ready to say forget you all and not come back to this site at all. If that is what you plan on saying to people who do not share your beliefs, good luck with your whole dialogue thing. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for accusing someone of something like that, someone you don't even know. You claim that I "give [my] true allegiance and service to the legalistic anti-gospel of the pharisees" rather than to Jesus? How dare you assume that. If the rest of you believe that as well please tell me and I will gladly leave this thread and website.

[u-dog]

mmalm wrote: U-dog- I honestly don't remember the last time I was as offended as I was when I read one of your last posts. At the risk of sounding dramatic, how dare you accuse me of worshipping a false god. After reading that I was ready to say forget you all and not come back to this site at all.

hmmm.... I wonder if your rage and hurt is anything like that which the young gay person at your school feels when they hear that it is impossible for them to be both gay and Christian? I wonder if your desire to leave and not come back is anything like what a gay person feels towards the gospel of Jesus Christ when who they are is attacked in the Christian church. And think about THIS: You are feeling turned away from a website. THEY are feeling turned away from the one who has the "words of life". Think long and hard about this mmarm. PLEASE! You, your school, and your wing of Christianity are driving people away from the central core of the gospel ...the love and grace of God ... for the sake something that is not even important enough for Jesus to talk about even once! how will y'all answer for that before the throne of God at the end of time?

And just for the record... I don't really think that you are worshipping a false god. At the most I might say that you are worshipping the true God falsely.. but even that... probably not. I was saying to you what fundamentalists say to GLBT people ALL THE TIME. So I'm curious... How does it look to you when you see it coming at you? Does it feel like love? Does this give you ANY sense of how hollow "Love the sinner, hate the sin" sounds to GLBT people? Stop feeling sorry for yourself and GET ON JESUS' SIDE! Not OUR side... not the GLBT side ... Jesus side. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and stand on the side of the oppressed... where HE ALWAYS STOOD, and look at life from there. THATS ALL I'M SAYING.



You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for accusing someone of something like that, someone you don't even know. You claim that I "give [my] true allegiance and service to the legalistic anti-gospel of the pharisees" rather than to Jesus? How dare you assume that. If the rest of you believe that as well please tell me and I will gladly leave this thread and website.

Actually, mmarm, if you go back and read what I wrote you will find that I DIDN'T say that. Here is what I said:
Why do so many people in the fundamentalist movement seem to gravitate more to the Gospel according the Pharisees than they do to the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Why do fundamentalists pay LIP SERVICE to the "name of Jesus" but give their true allegiance and service to the legalistic anti-gospel of the pharisees?

Many in the fundamentalist movement DO love the pharisees more than they love Jesus judging by the fact that they emulate the pharisees RATHER than Jesus. with their lips they say one thing.. with their lives another. I am only talking about you if you are a part of the fundamental movement and IF you are one of those who think that the "law" is more important than people. That is "anti-gospel" and its evil. Many people believe it. maybe you are one of them. Maybe you are not. I have no opinion about that. My question was: Why do you suppose that THOSE fundamentalists choose the pharisees over Jesus?


U-Dog Wrote: No Christian is going to suggest that you form your convictions without recourse to the Scriptures, MM. Sailaway is suggesting that you consider WHICH "lenses" you will wear while reading scripture. EVERYONE WEARS SOME LENS. Sailaway is suggesting that rather than reading the very few passages that seem to deal with this issue through the lenses of your culturally conditioned prejudice and distaste that you read them through the lenses of real people's real life experience of themselves. If you do that you will be in a position to decide for yourself what scripture teaches. If you DON'T do that you are only in a position to judge what it is that you WANT scripture to teach.

mmalm, you also misread this passage. I asked you to read scripture through a PARTICULAR set of lenses. The set of lenses I asked you to use were the experiences of actual GLBT people. No one reads Scripture without SOME lenses. We all do. We all always will. If we don't pay attention to what we are doing we will use our culturally conditioned prejudice... all of us... we all do it. I am asking you to conciously remove those lenses and put on the lenses of GLBT peoples lives and then read scripture again and see if it seems to see the same thing. I said this in response to what you said to Sailaway. I was not accusing you of being a bad person. Just a person.




In your rage you missed the really important part of what I wrote:

When you think about it... Isn't this the method of biblical interpretation that Jesus himself employed? When Jesus interprets the Sabbath laws and the Ten commandments, doesn't he ALWAYS do it from the perspective of hungry people, handicapped people, despised people? The pharisees HATE the way Jesus interprets scripture. They call him a sinner and they begin very quickly to plot his murder.

When you think about it... Doesn't Jesus approach EVERYTHING from the perspective of the hungry, the poor, the disgusting low life scum of the world? Think about it !! Jesus was born in a barn. Jesus touched lepers (the faggots of the first century) Jesus ate with tax collectors and prostitutes, Jesus touched unclean people. The Pharisees HATED JESUS FOR THAT! They KILLED Jesus for that.
Jesus bore witness in EVERYTHING HE DID that PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LAW... and the Pharisees had him killed for it.

[Steven E. Webster]

Arminian all the way. And I prefer to consider myself handsome. ;)

Well, I still like you. Arminians are chosen people too ... :D.


Sorry, this reminded me of a nifty book of cartoons I saw many years ago. It was titled something like "The Porcine History of Philosophy and Theology." The illustrations were all of pigs. On one pair of pages there were two identical illustrations of a pig wallowing in the mud. The first was captioned "Calvinist pig sinning because of original sin." The second was captioned "Arminian pig sinning because he wants to."

The other cartoon that comes to this old Methodist mind of mine was the illustration of pigs stampedeing. They were "Wesleyan pigs fleeing the wrath to come."

Appreciating the occasional bits of comic relief in this thread--

Steven Webster

[BrentRichards]

Brent Richards- refering to your lengthy post from a few days ago, I understand why you would be angry. However, how much of what you have written in your post pertains to me? I think that there are a lot of assumptions made and a lot of people putting words in my mouth.

Which is exactly what I said in prefacing my repost of those words ... they weren't written to you, but I hoped they would nonetheless illuminate some of the reasons for the anger you are encountering. People who have been beaten over the head (metaphorically, for the most part) by the same phrases and arguments for years are not likely to assume that "Surely this person is not the same as everyone else who has pounded me with these same words." No conversation begins with our first word in it ... it began long before that, and what came before affects how we talk now. Right?

Thank you for the article references Brent Richards. That does bring up another question I have- why would Soul Force refuse the food and water we tried to give them, but accepts help in cleaning their bus?

I can't find reference to the specifics of the food situation at Trinity, so I don't know. I know that food was refused at one or more places (I'm thinking BJU?) because of the manner in which it was offered. A truck pulled up, unloaded lunches, and left. Here, have food, but we're still not talking to you. The offer to stand by someone's side to wipe away the graffitti on their bus, or the offer to sit down at a table to share a meal with them (as happened at Messiah College, where I was fortunate enough to meet the Riders) is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than the token of food without fellowship. It's much like rich suburban churchgoers (we've probably all known churches like this) who are happy to "write a check" but don't ask them to "get dirty" by serving the homeless where they live, or the like. This is even Biblical ... foreigners and anyone else can "glean" from your fields, but when you accept someone into your home to eat WITH them, you are showing true hospitality ... conversely, when you decline to eat with someone, you are showing intentional rejection. Again, I don't know specifically what happened with this at Trinity, but if food was "sent out" to the Riders without a corresponding offer to SHARE the meal, I'm not at all surprised if they refused.

U-dog- I honestly don't remember the last time I was as offended as I was when I read one of your last posts.

M, I've gotten to know U-Dog (Dave) quite well over the time I've been here. He does not make personal attacks for the fun of it. He is, however, a very prophetic voice, and he challenges people - strongly. It seems to me (as he pointed out above) that he effectively got you to feel how many of us feel all the time ... we're routinely told our faith isn't genuine because of who we are. It's my opinion that U-Dog has a genuine prophetic gift (I'm a Presbyterian, and we don't use that term to mean "fortune teller" ... it means one who speaks the truth of God in insightful and incisive ways ... often unpopular truth!) ... may I suggest that you read his words in that sense, understanding that it's not a personal attack, and asking "What truth might be in these words for me?" As an evangelical, I know that I always have more to learn, and more changes to be made to my heart and attitude, and I value people like Dave who have the ability to "tick me off" in ways that challenge me to look at truth ... maybe not even the truth he intended me to see, but truth nonetheless.

I also know (and I can only speak for myself here, so ignore this if it doesn't apply to you) that the more offended I am by a given comment, the closer to home it hit. Sometimes that's because it is way off in an area that's really important to me, but sometimes it's because it's not far enough off for my comfort. Mostly, I get offended when a comment steps on my ego ... accuse me of being ignorant of the Bible, or uninformed in an area I've actually studied, or talk to me as if I were dumb and unedumacated ... and all my self-alarms go off ... So for me, when something REALLY offends me, I know that it's time to look carefully at what I need to learn there ... even if it's the opposite of what the person who offended me is saying, there's got to be something, or I wouldn't have reacted that way.

Just a thought.

[Daniel]

Thank you all for the reading recommendations you have given me. I will be honest, I don't forsee reading any of them this semester, but perhaps next when I have more leisure time.

I know exactly how you feel. I only have so many hours in the day, and reading things I'm not really interested in can take a great deal of effort. That said, I'm wondering how curious you are about gay people and their experience. At some point, if you really want some perspective, you are going to have to hit the books- that is- inform yourself. However, if you are here on a 'fly-by', then 'perhaps' will surely mean 'never'.

MM- you have to realize something about many of us here. We've lived with the self-knowledge of being gay a long time. We're used to thinking outside the box. In fact, most of us have been pushed outside of it- if not thrown over the side. This gives us a particular perspective. We see things differently because we've had to. Straight folks don't go through the psychological mill that gay persons routinely find themselves in- at least- not in the same way. They don't think outside the box for the simple reason that they don't have to. This applies to many areas: civil rights, sexuality, matters of faith etc.

Thinking outside the box.

That's what's Udog and Brent are asking you to do in their own way. And that's what I'm suggesting you entertain when you get around to a little reading.

Knowledge can be a dangerous thing. It can change your mind.

[dsdrane]

dsdrane said "When SF shows up to shine a light on policies that we believe are fundamentally discriminatory, we are addressing a policy. Your theorectical "non-violent, anti-gay protesters", on the other hand would be attacking people...who they are and how and whom they love." I disagree. They would be protesting the belief that homosexuality is not a sin. If you still feel this is attacking people, then so is a protestor that says the people at a school are sinning for believing otherwise. You also said this discussion is getting old- if you feel so, then by all means please leave.

With pleasure.

One last thing before I go, however: to the extent any "dialogue" has ever existed in this thread you started, it ceased to exist some time ago.

Further, I believe you are now taking advantage of others' willingness to continue to engage you so that you might continue to have a platform here. Your questions have been answered and your views allowed (something your school did not do for the SF activists, I might add), and now I believe it is time for you to leave.

Unfortunately, I have no power to make this happen (other than to recommend to those who do have this power, which I certainly will).

[NathanATX]

I'm closing the thread for a couple days to allow some time for things to simmer down.

Nate