speaking of "special rights"

[ladyinred]

It seem to me the accusations that the RR level at the LGBT community (About wanting special rights and privileges) are really are a reflection of their own agenda and "values"
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=23783

[Alecto]

There's a really bizarre habit, I've noticed, of looking at reality through Alice's mirror or something. Gay people want special rights, but christians are a persecuted and oppressed minority. Down is up. 0_0

[Progo35]

I just wish the people fighting for LGBT rights were more consistent with disability rights. It's a real pain in the neck to have to shift between the two communities of right and left depending on the issues being discussed.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Progo35

I just wish the people fighting for LGBT rights were more consistent with disability rights. It's a real pain in the neck to have to shift between the two communities of right and left depending on the issues being discussed.

I didn't know that this was the discussion at hand Progo. Sorry- but you are sounding more and more like you can only play one tune.

Johnny One Note.

(That's a song by Rodgers and Hart.)

[ladyinred]

Think about it for a minute they accuse Gays of wanting to influence politics in their favor and get activist judges to support their "agenda"
The right has made no bones about taking over politics in the US and putting judges and politicians they favor into power. They talk about their rights but it's always at the expense of some group usually a minority group or even other Christians who don't share their world view of dominion.They want special "favors" from the government to support their"faith based programs."http://www.impactpress.com/articles/winter06/nallwinter06.html

It's somthing akin to the pot calling the kettle black...That's why I said the very things they accuse gays of doing they are doing themselves.The only difference is there is no gay agenda to take over public schools or govt. There is a world of difference in wanting equal rights and special rights. The religious right has room to talk. For people who profess to be such righteous "good" christians they have no qualms about lying or manipulating public opinion to support THEIR agenda. And for claiming they are "persecuted"? They sure have alot of political clout and power.(And money)I don't see that any gay activist has the ear of our president or is influencing his decisions.

[ladyinred]

I think the issue of disability may be suited for another forum. After all soul force's forums are for specific issues that affect the LGBT community.(Not trying to offend or hurt people's feelings here)

[Alecto]

Just sayin', I think it's a little more like the pot calling the shiny stainless-steel kettle black.

[antiochian]

Special rights all the way, baby!!!! Let's start with... mandatory homosexuality for all!!!!!!!!!!

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by antiochian

Special rights all the way, baby!!!! Let's start with... mandatory homosexuality for all!!!!!!!!!!

Now, dude, you know someone is going to run across this statement via google and think it's something you really stand for. We'll be seeing it quoted all over as part of the scary gay agenda, "See, there it is, posted on the Soulforce website!" Folks, y'see, there is this thing called "sarcasm. . . ."

Progo - I got into LGBT activism b/c I chose to devote some of my time to the issues that affect LGBT people. Not to slight all the other highly important causes (including causes that could be easily considered more urgent, like, gee I dunno, WAR! and genocide, starvation, erosion of the American middle class, etc.) but I chose this cause. Every activist must have a focus or they will last 5 minutes, go crazy, and fall over. I am tired of hearing what sounds like accusations against this forum for being focused on what the forum is FOR.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by ladyinred

It seem to me the accusations that the RR level at the LGBT community (About wanting special rights and privileges) are really are a reflection of their own agenda and "values"
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=23783

Lady- The armchair psychologist in me says you are on to something here- I think they call it projection. You see in others what you are doing yourself. And if anything, RR's are keen about other's following their 'values', which, to me, aren't values at all. For instance: if they really valued 'family', they would see the love that gay families have. But no. Family has to look a certain way to them, which only reveals to me just how far their 'love' actually reaches. Not very far.

[antiochian]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Now, dude, you know someone is going to run across this statement via google and think it's something you really stand for. We'll be seeing it quoted all over as part of the scary gay agenda, "See, there it is, posted on the Soulforce website!" Folks, y'see, there is this thing called "sarcasm. . . ."

Of course. The only "gay agenda" I have is to be able to exercise my right to live my life, to love, date, marry and live with whom I want, to be able to express my own unique personality and sexuality without fear of violence or discrimination. I claim the right to disagree with the opinion of the majority, the right to chart my own path, harming no one else along the way. I see nothing radical in that.

If people want to believe I'm living in sin, that's their right as long as they leave me alone. Let them worry about THEIR sins.

[Progo35]

Looking at my comment, I see how that probably wasn't the best statment to make, as it does seem out of place in the discussion and, therefore, is really kind of lame. So, sorry about that.

I wasn't trying to take us into a discussion of disability rights at all...I was just commenting that as someone concerned with social justice, I wish that organizations like the United way were more consistent. As to playing one tune, I don't think it's wise to get into an argument about who plays one tune and when, where, why and how. Obviously, what the United Way said about some Christian leaders misinterpreting/misrepresenting the content of the hate crime legislation is right...but it, like the right wing, will always have its flaws in terms of the positions it takes and that, like anything else, will always impact people who are joining in the fight for universal equality in terms of marriage and standing before the law.

Moreover, people need not respond to the disability part of the message...i.e, how one responds to a message partially determines what the content of the message communicates. My point is, there is conflict in taking certain positions whenever one has to allign oneself with the position of a certain organization on an issue. I'm sure that in general, everyone here can relate to that moral dilemmna, regardless of what questions are involved. I mean, doesn't the LGBT community at large wish that some Christians were more consistent, for instance, when they preach of God's love for everyone but then fight against the civil rights of a minority group? That is inconsistent as well. If people were more consistent in terms of how their moral convictions related to their actions, we'd all be a lot better off.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Progo35

Looking at my comment, I see how that probably wasn't the best statment to make, as it does seem out of place in the discussion and, therefore, is really kind of lame. So, sorry about that.

Ok.....

I wasn't trying to take us into a discussion of disability rights at all...I was just commenting that as someone concerned with social justice, I wish that organizations like the United way were more consistent.

Really? 'Cause that how it looks from here.

As to playing one tune, I don't think it's wise to get into an argument about who plays one tune and when, where, why and how.

Oh...but I disagree. It's only when we have a grasp on what we're actually doing that we can change it. Do you have any idea how much you go on and on about disability rights on this forum? Huh?

A clue: This isn't a forum for Disabilty Rights. It's a forum for Gay Rights. Your conversation about Disability Rights is a welcome one- but on another forum. What not start you own?

Obviously, what the United Way said about some Christian leaders misinterpreting/misrepresenting the content of the hate crime legislation is right...but it, like the right wing, will always have its flaws in terms of the positions it takes and that, like anything else, will always impact people who are joining in the fight for universal equality in terms of marriage and standing before the law.

Excuse me! Did you actually read the article? It's from a website for People for the American Way, not the United Way. The latter organization is something else entirely. Hello!

Moreover, people need not respond to the disability part of the message...i.e, how one responds to a message partially determines what the content of the message communicates.

Oh....so it doesn't matter what you write here? You can do what you want and others can do what they want? Is that how it is with you? Giving yourself an excuse?

My point is, there is conflict in taking certain positions whenever one has to allign oneself with the position of a certain organization on an issue.

How about aligning yourself with the goals and aims of this organization instead of, seemingly, using it as a platform for your own concerns?

I'm sure that in general, everyone here can relate to that moral dilemmna, regardless of what questions are involved.

In a word. No. Can't relate. I think you're talking through your hat here.

I mean, doesn't the LGBT community at large wish that some Christians were more consistent, for instance, when they preach of God's love for everyone but then fight against the civil rights of a minority group? That is inconsistent as well. If people were more consistent in terms of how their moral convictions related to their actions, we'd all be a lot better off.

I would venture that this diverse group of folks is not concerned about the consistency of a group of Christians, but rather, how they are treated by them. The words have to match the actions. Plain and simple. That said, I bet any of us would be happy with those who said all the wrong things, but, in the end, did the right thing.

Moral convictions, like words, are cheap, costing those saying them absolutely nothing. And actions speak louder than words.

God loves gay people. And they deserve legal protection from hate. It's that simple. So it's time to pass the Hate Crimes Law. No moral dilemma there. Hate is not a right. And what RR's seem to want is the special right to hate. And they think we want a special right?

Gawd!!!!!

[Progo35]

Originally Posted by Daniel

I would venture that this diverse group of folks is not concerned about the consistency of a group of Christians, but rather, how they are treated by them. The words have to match the actions. Plain and simple. That said, I bet any of us would be happy with those who said all the wrong things, but, in the end, did the right thing.

Moral convictions, like words, are cheap, costing those saying them absolutely nothing. And actions speak louder than words.

God loves gay people. And they deserve legal protection from hate. It's that simple. So it's time to pass the Hate Crimes Law. No moral dilemma there. Hate is not a right. And what RR's seem to want is the special right to hate. And the think we want a special right?

Gawd!!!!!

Right! I agree!

[Progo35]

Speaking of frustrating conversations, I recently had a conversation with someone who said that he felt he had a right not to have to think about Gene Robinson being gay while this man was presiding as bishop, because then he was "thinking about what he does whenever he's preaching." I told him to stop thinking about it.

[ladyinred]

I would say I agree with you Daniel about projection.What I'm saying is there is no organized cause on the part of LGBT to recruit heteorsexual children into the lifestyle,or destroy heterosexual marriages.I don't see how they can say gays can destroy their marriages anyway.I'd like to know how? Unless they think heterosexual men or women who are married could be recruited into a gay lifestyle or turn gay?(Which is highly doubtful, just like it is highly doubtful that gays can change their orientation)

Even if there was a so-called gay agenda they have probably distorted and twisted it's intent. Because none of the people here or that I know have the slightest interest in wanting to convert heterosexuals into a gay lifestyle.Nor do they want "special rights" Equal is not the same as special as I mentioned before.And Zerbie is right ,they can take anything said on this forum out of context no matter how innocently it is said. That's certainly not the fault of antiochian , we know better, but the right has been known to take things out of context and twist things if it serves them.

I certainly don't want to censor anyone here by any means. No matter how carefully worded, it seems they can screw with the content and turn it around to some twisted interpretation of their own.And of course we know they have been known to do that. So I guess I wouldn't worry too much about it or be overly cautious. If people are hell bent on distorting things to suit their agenda they will do it anyway.
Besides do we need to be censored for having an offbeat sense of humor?LOL

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by ladyinred

And Zerbie is right ,they can take anything said on this forum out of context no matter how innocently it is said. That's certainly not the fault of antiochian , we know better, but the right has been known to take things out of context and twist things if it serves them.

I certainly don't want to censor anyone here by any means. No matter how carefully worded, it seems they can screw with the content and turn it around to some twisted interpretation of their own.And of course we know they have been known to do that. So I guess I wouldn't worry too much about it or be overly cautious. If people are hell bent on distorting things to suit their agenda they will do it anyway.

Oh count on it. Anyone determined to do so, will. Even if they have to invent a story themselves. No censorship here. The subject just got me to thinking about it more overtly than usual.

[ladyinred]

Zerbie here is an example of how the right can even take events out of context and distort the truth about what really went on.
March 29, 2007
from Ralph G. Neas, People For the American Way

On March 15th, the body of Ryan Keith Skipper, 25, was found bloodied and abandoned on a roadside in Wahneta, Florida. Police have charged two men with first degree murder and announced that witness testimony makes clear that Skipper was killed because he was gay. The sad reality of brutal crimes motivated by hatred is the impetus for bipartisan federal hate crimes legislation recently introduced in Congress.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal legislators are moving three bills that would put an end to hate crimes, employment discrimination, and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The legislation needs bipartisan co-sponsors, and we need your support.

Take Action Now!The American public has shown that it wants Congress to pass hate crimes laws, which are designed to prevent and punish violent acts that target individuals from a particular part of the community for intimidation and physical harm. But Religious Right groups are so eager to prevent any legal recognition or protection for gay and lesbian Americans that they are waging an aggressive disinformation campaign against these legal protections. Their strategy? Create a distraction from the reality of violent crimes by claiming that such laws are really designed to criminalize Christianity.

The campaign is, of course, dishonest to the core. But it is part of a larger strategy that has been politically and financially useful to Religious Right leaders over the years. They tell millions of Americans, week after week, that gay rights advocates are out to silence conservative Christians, criminalize the reading of the Bible, and force people to choose between their faith and public service. It’s not true. But it serves the radical right’s political goals: it is easier to convince Americans to support discrimination – even to oppose laws designed to discourage violent hate crimes – if you have first convinced them that their gay neighbors want to shut down their church and throw their pastor in jail for reading the Bible.

Lies about Religious Liberty

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins insists that the “only effect [hate crimes legislation] will truly have is to gag people of faith and conviction who disagree with the homosexual agenda.”

Rev. Ted Pike, Director of the National Prayer Network, called a hate crimes bill sponsored by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee “the most dangerous legislation ever to come before Congress,” and claimed that “it leads directly to an end of free speech.”

Former judge and far-right activist Roy Moore has claimed that “the day is rapidly approaching and perhaps is already here when speaking out in love against sin or contending for our faith by opposition to false religions like Islam will become criminal conduct.”

Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition makes a similar claim, asserting that, “if a pastor stands up in the pulpit and says homosexuality is a sin ... it will be considered hate speech. And if this law passes, the federal government will go after people who say those kinds of things.”

These are just a few examples of the exaggeration, misinformation, and willful deception that make up the campaign to portray hate crime legislation as contrary to free speech or freedom of religion.

The First Amendment clearly and incontrovertibly guarantees the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. At People For the American Way, we are committed to the preservation of both of these core constitutional principles. We recognize the right of religious leaders and other individuals to speak openly about their personal religious convictions, including their conviction that homosexuality is sinful. We recognize the right of those who oppose legal equality for gays and lesbians – and those who oppose hate crimes legislation – to participate freely and fully in public debate.

Hate crimes legislation is not targeted at any of this constitutionally protected activity. It targets only those who commit violent crimes against persons intentionally selected because they belong to, or are perceived to belong to, certain groups in our society.


Repent America: Mythology Grounded in Half-truths

In support of their claim that hate crime legislation will abridge free speech or freedom of religion, the far right group Repent America and its allies continue to push a misleading and one-sided version of events that took place at a Philadelphia gay pride festival in 2006. The story as told by Repent America and other Religious Right groups – most recently in two videotaped ads by grandmothers who participated in the Repent America protest against the festival – is that people were arrested merely for “sharing the gospel” on public property. The arrest of the protestors and subsequent charges against them on several counts – some under Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law – is, in the mythology of Repent America, proof that the goal of gay rights activists in general, and hate crimes laws in particular, is to outlaw the gospel.

The kernel of truth at the bottom of the propaganda pile is that the two grandmothers and others were in fact arrested while protesting Philadelphia’s OutFest, and a local prosecutor did charge them with violations of several laws, including the state’s hate crimes law.

But none of those charges were for “sharing the gospel.” Repent America doesn’t mention that a federal court later found that the women “insulted individual attendees, blocked access to vendors, and disobeyed direct orders from the police, who were trying to preserve order and keep the peace.” The police arrested the protesters only after “their presence disrupted public order.” Unlike the organizers of OutFest, Repent America leaders failed to obtain a permit from the city. The city and the police gave the women great leeway, but they still overstepped the bounds of peaceful protest.
Notice those on the gay side abided by the law, the grandmothers did not.Again apparently the religious right wants "special rights" because they don't feel like they have to abide by same laws that apply to everyone else.Should they get "special treatment " for breaking the law and causing a disruption of public order?I doubt if a gay person doing the same thing would have been given such "leeway"

[antiochian]

As folks have so eloquently stated already, it seems the conservatives are the ones seeking special rights, including the right to make the lives of everyone who disagrees with them miserable.

This talk on the grannies protesting has gotten me thinking. I'm trying to think this through as best as I know how... Obviously, people have the right to speak their minds publicly, so long as laws aren't broken... and I'm sure if these people would have just quietly protested with their signs and done things right, things would have been fine. But really, what is the sense in people coming to lgbtq events and raising a stink? What do they want to prove? If these people are really concerned about people's souls, wouldn't their time be better spent at home praying about it rather than ranting and raving out in the open and spewing forth hate? Alcoholism has no doubt ruined far more families than lgbtq folks ever could, why don't they go and stand in front of liquor stores with their signs? (granted, prohibition was a failed experiment, so we know that's a waste of time) Poverty has ruined many families--wouldn't their time be better spent volunteering at a soup kitchen or something? Honestly, these "Christians" could be doing so many more productive things than showing up to harass the gays.

Incidentally and this is a rabbit trail though relevant, I've been reading in a class about how Native American children were treated in the "Christian" boarding schools years ago, and those kids never forgot that. The result being that many of them had a life-long aversion to Christianity. Don't these people get it, that cruelty doesn't attract folks to their faith, but only drives them away? The mind set seems to be, "These folks are dirty heathens, so we'll treat them like garbage and that'll bring 'em to the Lord." As if... OK, I'm thru bitching now. If some fundie comes here to check out this site, let 'em read this!

[ladyinred]

No actually Antiochian,I wouldn't call it bitching at all ,just expressing your view points and you have some valid points which I agree on.