A Broad Question

[heretotalk]

In reading through the site's rules I ran across the thread "A Return to Boundaries". In it I noticed that the current principle of the administration is that they "will no longer allow new posts deemed anti-gay to remain on the forums. Such posts will be removed and returned to their authors."

My question is: What qualifies as "anti-gay"?

I understand that discrimination, name calling, hate messages, and bigoted remarks obviously fall under the title of "anti-gay" but there are several things that remain unclear. Is it anti-gay if someone disagrees with homosexuality as a lifestyle practice and clearly says it in a manner like "I don't think that homosexuality is right"? Is it anti-gay if someone was to critique Mel White's 4 Premises and say that they "think he's reading the Bible incorrectly and that the Bible has a lot to say about homosexuality and it all goes against what Mel White thinks"?

I suppose that I'm basically asking if it's "anti-gay" to politely, but with an acceptable amount of conviction, disagree. To me the phrase "anti-gay" is very unclear and in an effort to be respectful of the administration's intent I'd like it if someone, preferably the administration, could give me a bit of a clearer definition of the phrase's boundaries before I start operating inside of them.

To explain, quickly, I'm not homosexual and though I'm part Japanese I've never heard the phrase "anti-(insert group name here)" used so I'm a little confused.

PS: Please forgive the "(insert group name here)" statement. It's not meant to be offensive, simply to identify that various groups could use a similar term and I'd still be confused.

Further Note (Modified after I found the Community Guidelines but before anyone else responded)

Okay, so I found the link and that's much clearer, however it's brought up a new problem, namely my presence on the site.

I understand that I should not put up links to "reparative therapy", which I never planned to do and never heard of until a moment ago, and that I shouldn't point people towards "ex-gay ministries" which I've heard of but had no plan of doing because honestly that's not what a good guest does.

However I'm still confused because there's a whole set of words that aren't clear to me. Words like "demean" and "oppress". Honestly while I know what these words mean I want to be sensitive to people on this site and so I'd like some clarification. Would it be oppressive or demeaning if I said that "the Bible, contrary to what Mel White believes, does in fact consistently label homosexuality as a sin"? I can very easily perceive how this could be interpreted as being oppressive, since if I said this I would be making a very serious and contrary statement that could in fact hurt some people's feelings.

The worry that I have, if such a statement is found to be oppressive, is how does one express a contrary view here without being told that they're wrong for disagreeing? Obviously this may not be the case however I'd like for someone, once again preferably an administrator, to give me a clearer definition before I say something that goes against the site rules.

[ctozrn]

If you are not a homesexual or support those people that are LGBT then why are you here? What is your purpose? Are you here to save us?

Christine

[Daniel]

Without going on at length about your question, I would like to posit that you have answered your concern in your post.

Would you go to a person's house as their guest and proceed to make disparaging statements about the decor, the parenting skills of the couple living there, the way in which they lived, telling them what they were doing was wrong?

No. A guest doesn't do those things. A guest acts like a guest. He/she wipes his shoes off before entering, is polite, and tries not to spill red wine on the white sofa.

A really great guest enters into the environment of the dwelling and brings those there as much happiness and joy as he/she can. A really great guest is curious about the people living there, and engages his/her hosts, wanting to learn more about them- asking questions that reveal a curious and open heart/mind- which is a lot better than those that are geared towards the insertion of a per-determined judgement (the hallmark of a very poor listener).

A fabulous guest can be the life of the party.

And a guest usually brings a gift. It's simple good manners.

[sawyer]

heretotalk, If you are here to discuss the subject you are probably not anti-gay. But can you tell me, if its wrong for someone to be gay, is it wrong for gay people to try to act like they arent gay, to deceive the opposite sex into believing they are straight?

You may not have noticed the 14th chapter of Mark. verse 33 "He taketh with him Peter, James and John,..." to a place called Gethsemane, in the middle of the night, to pray. Peter, James and John are asleep, so who hears what Jesus prayed? Verse 51. Part of this story is obviously erased, but the young man who is boasting about being nearly naked with Jesus, is probably the writer of the book of Mark and he hears Jesus' prayer. Whenever KJV says naked it means something sexual. Now go down to verse 67 and this is the same night and Peter is warming himself by the fire. So Probably what was erased was Jesus having compassion on this near naked boy who was obviously freezing. Otherwise why would they erase it if the boy was being rebuked by Jesus for being sexual?

When you consider that the Bible was doctored up to keep Jesus from looking too gay, how can you base your whole life on that?

[Alecto]

The basics (I'm not a mod):

This forum is designated safe space. You won't be immediately banninated if you show the same concern that you already have in posting this thread, but if you post certain touchy "trigger" topics, views, or language, you may be moved to the foyer. People who want to see the foyer can see the foyer, but people who are here because they need that kind of safe space can remain protected.

You'll find that (most) folks here are relatively patient: we really want to believe that you're here with the best of intentions. The foyer is a way to continue a dialogue even when someone with good intentions might not be "in" on some of the etiquette. Virulent anti-gay sentiments (trolling), as far as I understand, are usually still just banned outright, because no one needs that.

[Zerbie]

"banninated" ????!!??? Tell me this is not a word?!
:lol:

(Sorry, Talk, for not addressing you. Your question is indeed broad and I have little to add to the topic, thus will not comment.)

[Daniel]

"banninated" ????!!??? Tell me this is not a word?!
:lol:

(Sorry, Talk, for not addressing you. Your question is indeed broad and I have little to add to the topic, thus will not comment.)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=BANNINATED


Banninated

The result of a serious infraction on a server, usually game related. The offending party is banned from returning to the server, which has been transliterated into the pseudo-leetspeak "Banninated"

[Zerbie]

It's a WORD????????!!!!!!!!!!
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

No. It neither looks nor sounds like a word.
:disagree::disagree:

How about "Gebanninatet werden haben sein. . . . Würdet."

:p

[Alecto]

:o Sorry, net-speak slipped in.

[scott snedeker]

Is it anti-gay if someone disagrees with homosexuality as a lifestyle practice and clearly says it in a manner like "I don't think that homosexuality is right"? Is it anti-gay if someone was to critique Mel White's 4 Premises and say that they "think he's reading the Bible incorrectly and that the Bible has a lot to say about homosexuality and it all goes against what Mel White thinks"?

Almost certainly it is indeed antigay to critique in this direction on this site. Though I am not a moderator or a member of Soulforce, I am an active participator in many discussions. In my experience the scope of discussions on this forum specifically excludes debating the opinion whether homosexuality is a sin. I'm confident that this direction of debate is outside of the purpose of this forum.

Though an engaging and riveting exercise for both debaters, it is almost certainly best begun somewhere else besides Soulforce




I suppose that I'm basically asking if it's "anti-gay" to politely, but with an acceptable amount of conviction, disagree.

Again I would have to answer: probably Yes. The reason is, to disagree with my entitlement to passionately love the man for which I feel God has given me the capacity for intimacy, implies that you believe I have fewer entitlements than you do for the same joy. It may be said politely, but it is antigay none the less as this implies that I am a second class human by God's design with fewer entitlements to joy.

I believe that a decision of whether you should continue really would depend on the reason why you wish to start "operating."

If it is because you see something "wrong" with how I live and with debate and references want to reveal me the "wrong" for my sake and yours, then you should probably not continue at all. This reason is of no value to any of us here.

If the reason is that you are opening your heart and mind with compassion and a desire to understand how each of us has overcome the struggle of being gay in a hostile homophobic environment, then this is one of the best places with some of the most patient, informed and compassionate folks you will find anywhere.





Search your heart.

If you desire to be the student of humanity with compassion and if your heart is soft, then here is a good place. You are welcome to Listen to our stories.

If you are here to right what you feel uncomfortable with and your heart is not soft with compassion and desire to understand how we feel, then your path is probably leading you away to another destiny.

[u-dog]

Talk,

First, thank you for being so careful to understand the ground rules. That is very respectful and refreshing.

My understanding is that if you come here and honestly ask the question, "How is it that you all believe that homosexuality is not a sin?" with a sincere desire to understand rather than to convince (not that you have to agree), then you are "in bounds" with regard to the rules of engagement here. The best place for that discussion (which we who are regulars have had many times before) would be "the Foyer". Why don't you join the foyer and request one of the moderators to move this thread there?

Keltic would be the guy to talk to.

U-dog

[Daniel]

Search your heart.

If you desire to be the student of humanity with compassion and if your heart is soft, then here is a good place. You are welcome to Listen to our stories.

If you are here to right what you feel uncomfortable with and your heart is not soft with compassion and desire to understand how we feel, then your path is probably leading you away to another destiny.

Can't do better than that. Really. Nicely said.

[Matt Algren]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=BANNINATED
It's derivative of "burninate" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=burninate) from HomestarRunner.com, which I am woefully behind on.


heretotalk, if you're here to talk reasonably, I have a feeling you'll be okay. If you're here to repeat Dobson talking points, or if you've got the Leviticus verse in your hip pocket just in case someone disagrees with you, you'll probably not be here long.

And since we're talking about words, please don't call it a "lifestyle" or "lifestyle practice". Speaking only for myself, that's a pretty offensive term because it reduces being gay to an inferior state of being. Smooching dudes is no more a lifestyle than smooching dames.

[Daniel]

In reading through the site's rules I ran across the thread "A Return to Boundaries". In it I noticed that the current principle of the administration is that they "will no longer allow new posts deemed anti-straight to remain on the forums. Such posts will be removed and returned to their authors."

My question is: What qualifies as "anti-straight"?

I understand that discrimination, name calling, hate messages, and bigoted remarks obviously fall under the title of "anti-straight" but there are several things that remain unclear. Is it anti-straight if someone disagrees with heterosexuality as a lifestyle practice and clearly says it in a manner like "I don't think that heterosexuality is right"? Is it anti-straight if someone was to critique Mel White's 4 Premises and say that they "think he's reading the Bible incorrectly and that the Bible has a lot to say about heterosexuality and it all goes against what Mel White thinks"?

I suppose that I'm basically asking if it's "anti-straight" to politely, but with an acceptable amount of conviction, disagree. To me the phrase "anti-straight" is very unclear and in an effort to be respectful of the administration's intent I'd like it if someone, preferably the administration, could give me a bit of a clearer definition of the phrase's boundaries before I start operating inside of them.

To explain, quickly, I'm not straight and though I'm part Japanese I've never heard the phrase "anti-(insert group name here)" used so I'm a little confused.

PS: Please forgive the "(insert group name here)" statement. It's not meant to be offensive, simply to identify that various groups could use a similar term and I'd still be confused.

Further Note (Modified after I found the Community Guidelines but before anyone else responded)

Okay, so I found the link and that's much clearer, however it's brought up a new problem, namely my presence on the site.

I understand that I should not put up links to "reparative therapy", which I never planned to do and never heard of until a moment ago, and that I shouldn't point people towards "ex-straight ministries" which I've heard of but had no plan of doing because honestly that's not what a good guest does.

However I'm still confused because there's a whole set of words that aren't clear to me. Words like "demean" and "oppress". Honestly while I know what these words mean I want to be sensitive to people on this site and so I'd like some clarification. Would it be oppressive or demeaning if I said that "the Bible, contrary to what Mel White believes, does in fact consistently label heterosexuality as a sin"? I can very easily perceive how this could be interpreted as being oppressive, since if I said this I would be making a very serious and contrary statement that could in fact hurt some people's feelings.

The worry that I have, if such a statement is found to be oppressive, is how does one express a contrary view here without being told that they're wrong for disagreeing? Obviously this may not be the case however I'd like for someone, once again preferably an administrator, to give me a clearer definition before I say something that goes against the site rules.

Words bring with them worlds of meaning, don't they? All I did was change some words above, and one has a very different perspective.

It should be mentioned here that the word homosexual was invented in the 1880's by a German doctor. As such, the word has a prejorative connotation in that it reduces what is natural for some people to an illness, which the modern sciences (medicine and phychology etc) refute.

It should also be noted as well that the bible NEVER uses it, at least not in the original language. As such, it was inserted latter to reflect the prejudices of the time.

[tymejumper]

It's a WORD????????!!!!!!!!!!
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:



I thought it was made up also. They really do add about 100 new words to the dictionary every year. Most of them this last year were computer/tech speak. I actually have a teen who talks to me in IM language. For something funny she des not always laugh she says LOL. (Spoken out L O L.) She is not allowed to swear in the house so for the swearing she does do it's WTF? when she really wants to swear.

I feel so old and nerdy!

[tdogg]

Are you really here to talk, or just stir the pot? Why would you want to talk here if you believe being gay is bad or wrong? If that's the case, I'm sure you'll find other forums much more welcoming. If you are indeed here to talk and learn, then I suggest you take a look through the threads, you'll find an endless array of answers to your questions. Then come back and talk, and you'll probably find it much more pleasant than you seem to anticipate.

I feel contention in your words, which makes me think "here we go again." It's been a while since we've had someone like this on the forums, but it happens so often, I personally am not much inclined to get involved until I feel pretty certain you really are here to talk and learn. Again, I think you'll be better prepared to enter into genuine dialogue if you take some time to read past discussions. Cheers.

[BruceChris]

Heterotalk?

If you say that "I don't think that homosexuality is right", it probably means that homosexuality is not right, For You. If you think that American cars, or chocolate, or the color green are not right, they probably are not right, for you. Being German, or seven feet tall are very likely not right for you either.

But being gay, or lesbian, or transsexual are right, for some people. They have found that that is how God has made them. So live, and let live. I don't see any source of disagreement here.

Namaste', Bruce Chris

[scott snedeker]

Heterotalk?

If you say that "I don't think that homosexuality is right", it probably means that homosexuality is not right, FOR YOU. If you think that American cars, or chocolate, or the color green are not right, they probably are not right, for you. Being German, or seven feet tall are very likely not right for you either.

But being gay, or lesbian, or transsexual are right, for some people. They have found that that is how God made them. So live, and let live. I don't see any source of disagreement here.

Namaste', Bruce Chris

I like your style. Maybe simple statement of the obvious is the best start!:)

[Alecto]

Something I hadn't thought of before: "here to talk" we get a lot, hence a lot of folks' suspicion. "Here to listen" is a bit rarer, but a lot more welcome.

[heretotalk]

Uh-huh. Well I suppose the build up of responses is what I get for loosing the link to the thread I started.

To ctozrn: I suppose that I'm here to talk, like my name says, and after reflecting on what Alecto said I believe that I came here to listen as well. I'm not here to save you for a few reasons. First and foremost is that God alone saves, I have about as much control in the process as a fish does over what goes on outside of its bowl. Second, it's not my place to save you or to tell you that you need to be saved. I do believe in a loving God who wants to draw all people to Him but that's based on His will, not mine.

So in short I'm not here to save you. I was simply looking for a forum where I might be able to learn something.

To Daniel: It's hard to bring a present to an online forum and even more difficult to spill the red wine but I had been hoping that the present could be me. You and I have already had a row in which it became very clear that we don't see eye to eye and that I've done something to upset you. I'm really sorry about that; honestly, the last thing I meant to do in coming here was to upset anyone or make them think that I had any agenda. I really wanted to just try to shed some light on a topic or two as I've been brought up and taught to understand them.

I suppose, after reading your fourth post in this thread, that you don't like me very much; at least that's the impression I'm getting. Honestly I don't know how to react to that. Part of me is sad because everything I've asked or said has been sincere. I have done my very, very best to be polite and kind; I've tried to be respectful and honest and to ask questions that would bring me into a place of understanding with others on this forum. Yes, perhaps I've said things that people disagree with, however I was hoping that a different view might be welcomed so long as it was presented in an intelligent and non-derogatory manner. If I've failed to do that then I cannot begin to say how sorry I am. I really mean that. Maybe you don't think I mean it when I say that I'm sorry for any offense that I've caused, and I can't convince you that I am, but I'll just say that I am and hope you believe that I'm sincere.

sawyer: Let me first qualify this by saying that I'm finding it difficult to present opposing views on this site. I'm trying to tread very carefully as I attempt to correct what I understand to be as bad hermeneutics without offending anyone. This is very difficult. It would take me a long time to explain why this is difficult and perhaps towards the end of this post I'll manage to do that but for now please understand that though I am disagreeing with your opinion on the Bible that I am not disagreeing with who you are as a person.

Simply put, the Bible really has not been doctored up. As far as I am aware there are no authentic manuscripts to suggest that this is the case and considering that early manuscripts, when translated today into English, match and affirm the Bible's message I would suggest that means that the Bible has not been doctored up.

I am staking my entire life on Jesus as He has revealed Himself to me through both the Scriptures and in my own personal life. As I write this I'm considering what would happen if I found out that the truth really was otherwise, if someone could prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that I believe in a lie. Honestly I think I would have to go and jump off a bridge because. It would be like if someone proved to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that everyone you'd ever known had lied to you and that they all hated you. I'm not suggesting that this is true but if you can imagine how devastating that would be to you then you can understand how devastating a fake Jesus would be to me.

To Alecto, u-dog, and scott snedeker: Thank you. I believe that you understand why I came here and the dialogue that I hoped to engage in. I was happy to find people who met me first in kindness and openness and I am thankful that you are courageous enough to be kind to me, someone from a faith that has not always been as kind as it ought to be. I hope that such kindness will be repaid in your lives many times over.

I do not believe that you agree with my views but I am grateful that you allow me to have them until such time as they might be affirmed or denied. So I hope you won't be offended when I simply say "bless you" for the kindness that you have shown to a "traveler".

To Matt Algren: Thank you as well. I don't know who Dobson is, and I'm not sure that I want to know, and I have never Leviticused someone yet and I really don't plan to unless they want me to.

Also, thank you for correcting my usage of the word "lifestyle". Where I come from that's simply how we refer to the way someone lives. I do my best to live a "Christian lifestyle" meaning that my faith should permeate every aspect of my life. Perhaps it didn't ring clear but when I said "homosexual lifestyle" I meant it along a similar line, that your sexuality permeates every aspect of your life. I suppose that sounds rather crude and harsh doesn't it?

Please know that I meant no disrespect and that I have taken your critique seriously. In the future I will do my best to be more mindful of my language and how it reflects upon my "dude smooching" peers.

To tdogg: I hope I'm not just here to stir the pot unless it needs to be stirred, but I'm not the judge of that. Anyway, hopefully my presence on the site hasn't been too trying or upsetting and I hope that I haven't caused you any unwanted stress or discomfort.

To BruceChris: If I wasn't afraid of how far some people take "live and let live" I'd agree with you; even now I do in theory. However I find that for most people "live and let live" means that they just want you to be quiet and lie about how you feel about what they're doing.

I'm willing to live with people who disagree with me and who I disagree with but I'm uncomfortable with the idea that I can't disagree with someone. Disagreement is so often coupled with disrespect that I wonder how far things can go in a person's life before "live and let live" is overridden by "live and speak with a voice of loving concern".

I can't describe how nervous it makes me to even say that, because right now I am so tempted to simply let everyone have their own opinions, but to do so at the expense of not expressing my own would be to repress myself. If I am wrong then as I speak let me be corrected and guided; if I am right then please let those who listen think carefully about what I'm saying.

I'm sorry. I'm pretty sure right now, as I'm writing this that I've upset you, but if you keep reading I'm sure that I'll do something that will make a lot of people happy.

I've responded to a lot of people in this post and it's taken me the better part of two hours. I don't think that I've ever written more on a forum and it has tried me as a person; it really has. I've gone from depression, to thanksgiving, back into depression, and then on into a state of resolution (if there's an adjective for that I don't know it).

Anyway, since I'm finished with this post I'm going to delete my account. Despite the way a few people have responded I'm not certain that I'm welcome here. So I'm going to change my password and then lose it.

If someone wants to they can refer a moderator or someone else to this thread and have them delete my account but either way this is my last post.

[tdogg]

I don't think you are upsetting anyway necessarily. But believe us when we say we've heard all the 'arguments' before. We are done with people coming to our safe place and voicing their disagreement with us being who we are. If you want to learn, great, stick around but only if you have an open mind and heart.

I've been fed the 'religious' crap about sin and going to hell. I'm over that, I've processed it, gone through my phases and not really interested in debating religion and sexuality. Frankly, I believe that people in this country are uptight when it comes to sex at all. It shouldn't be freaky, it's a natural urge. Sexuality shouldn't be freaky either. Just because I happen to be attracted to women (I'm a woman), doesn't mean I'm a freak or a sinner.

So, Heretotalk, if you are here to learn with an open mind and heart, welcome. If you are here to voice your arguments about how I'm wrong to be gay (something I don't have control over by the way) and a sinner, I'm not too interested in joining that conversation. I've had 40 years of it and have other interests and passions.

[Matt Algren]

I was actually thinking about this topic the other night, so I'm glad you resurrected the thread. Without reading your whole post (Good Lord that's a lot of words), I'd just say this.

One of the requisite understandings of the non-sinful nature of homosexuality. The forums weren't created to debate that, but rather to work from that understanding. If you're here to debate whether being gay is a sin, then you're in the wrong place. If you're here to debate the clobber passages or one of Dr. White's pieces, then you're in the wrong place. If you're here to cluck your tongue at people and tell them that you love them even though they are like unto a child molester or a murderer (which we get quite a lot, you know), you're in the wrong place.

There are plenty of places to debate and argue and bicker about that. This isn't one of them.

God speed.

[u-dog]

However I'm still confused because there's a whole set of words that aren't clear to me. Words like "demean" and "oppress". Honestly while I know what these words mean I want to be sensitive to people on this site and so I'd like some clarification. Would it be oppressive or demeaning if I said that "the Bible, contrary to what Mel White believes, does in fact consistently label homosexuality as a sin"? I can very easily perceive how this could be interpreted as being oppressive, since if I said this I would be making a very serious and contrary statement that could in fact hurt some people's feelings.

H2T, the short answer is "yes" it would be oppressive and demeaning if you said that. The folks who have gathered here all believe the opposite. this place exists as a sanctuary against that argument and to make it will wound those who have already been wounded enough. As others have said, if you wish to argue that ... there are other places where you may. On the other hand, if you wish to ASK (with a sincere desire to understand) how it is that we believe what we believe about the blessedness of our God given gay natures then you MAY ask that. It needs to be done in the part of the forums called "The Foyer". Only those of us who are willing to engage around that issue go in there. The same rules apply in the Foyer as apply outside of it but those rules are somewhat more flexible since the vulnerable ones in our midst don't go in there.

The worry that I have, if such a statement is found to be oppressive, is how does one express a contrary view here without being told that they're wrong for disagreeing? Obviously this may not be the case however I'd like for someone, once again preferably an administrator, to give me a clearer definition before I say something that goes against the site rules.

One does it carefully and respectfully with a sincere desire to understand the beliefs of others and one does it in the Foyer. We believe that the debate about our basic humanity is over and that the verdict is already in. Most of us are done arguing about it. If you want to convince people here that they are wrong and need to believe as you do ... it would be best if you left or kept silence. if you wish to ask questions for understanding then post your questions in a thread in the Foyer and those of us who wish to will engage you.

Also, you may PM me if you want. I'll argue about anything you want in private and I won't tell the mods unless you are really mean to me. :eek:

U-dog

[sauu4equality]

Umm...I almost hesitate to ask this question, but where is the foyer?

Nevermind, I found it. Thanks,
Kyle