Honesty.

[NathanATX]

Originally Posted by mmalm

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by mmalm

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]

Originally Posted by BrentRichards

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]

Originally Posted by mmalm

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]

Originally Posted by mmalm

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:

Originally Posted by keltic63

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 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.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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]

Originally Posted by 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??

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]

Originally Posted by mmalm

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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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]

Originally Posted by kara speltz

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]

Originally Posted by mmalm

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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).