Ex-Gay Watch

My excerpting of the GLSEN manual clearly illustrated my point that their aim were not purely to end bullying of certain students.

I demonstrated that GLSEN, with its push to get school administrations involved in support of ONE SIDE of a contentious issue, looks to shut down dissent by the power and intimidation of the state. Chase Harper is one case and the perfect example of a viewpoint being marginalized and punished simply for being expressed. The kid didn’t physically threaten anyone, nor as far as I know did he even approach anyone. The acceptance of GLSEN’s agenda by the school resulted in all other viewpoints being suppressed. We have evidence of what the practical impact on the rights of students that don’t agree with the GLSEN agenda. With what I have presented above, it is almost impossible to argue that what they are aiming for IS for schools to allow only one side of this debate.

The denominations you mention are fractured, small and/or disappearing precisely because most have outrightly rejected the plain meaning of the Bible, the nature of God

So, in other words, the First Amendment does not apply in your world, and religions are not free to interpret the “bible” in any way they choose. Or, wait, forgive me, the First Amendment only applies for those who agree with your interpretation of the “bible” – all others can be ignored.

The truth is Nunja, that no “religion” has a corner on the “truth” – in fact, I am willing to be that whatever “religion” you practice I would consider a heretical false, potentially Satanic, cult.

The question is Nunja, should I respect your right to make what I consider a horrible mistake that will threaten your eternal soul, or should I treat you the same way the “pro-family” movement treats gays and lesbians – by claiming to love them and then attempting to destroy their rights to live open, honest and authentic lives?

Nunja, personally I have zero problem with Chase’s shirt. If anything, it makes him look somewhat silly. (Does anyone remember those anit-fag shirts in the 80s?) However, in the case of the court case, I don’t know if the decision is wrong. The courts have repeatedly stated that the schools do have some regulated issues, and First Amendment rights can be limited in certain arenas. For example, the Post Office is a government setting, and an employee cannot come in wearing a shirt with a beer can on it. Since I work in the schools, I can tell you that even in public schools, they can regulate messages on shirts that are disruptive. I had a neo-Nazi student who would wear shirts with her husband’s picture on the front. Underneath it said “My husband killed for his race.” This was not appropriate, and it was not a free speech issue. Outside the classroom, fine. Inside, it can be a real problem. If a student in my class stood up and spouted anti-Bush speeches for no reason, they would be removed. I think that is legit. There is a place and time, and the courts have determined that. Personally Chase can look like a fool, but the schools are not forced to accept it (anymore than a shirt that says “Don’t feed the straight people”).

“the Left uses this verse in an attempt to shut off all debate”

I’m not “the Left” and nor is this the propper venue in which to discuss and dispute “the left”. If I criticized your reluctance to discuss the scriptural text you quoted, you don’t get to justify it by arguing about “the left”.

In your desire to find a place where Jesus condemned sin, you have to entirely ignore the message of the story and focus on three words. Though you may desire it to be so, the message of that story is NOT “sin no more”. The message is not even “and to sin no more”. The message of that story is to not condemn.

It is consistent with Jesus’ discussion of worrying about the beam in your eye before the mote in someone else’s. Or where Jesus said that what you use to measure someone else’s sin will be used by God to measure yours (for example, if you use Leviticus to measure a gay person’s sin, you’d better be living up to every rule in Leviticus including those dealing with menstuation and dietary laws).

In reading everything Jesus had to say about condemning others and all he had to say about waving the Law at others, all you found was three words to justify coming on here and trying to convict those here for what you think is their sin.

And these three words were taken out of context. The message Christ gave in that story is the opposite of the one you are seeing there. It’s sad that you have to distort the message of Christ to fit a dogma or justify a spirit of condemnation.

“The denominations you mention are fractured, small and/or disappearing…”

Irrelevant to the point which is that you claim near-universal agreement when you don’t have it.

You may think that these churches are not valid, and that’s fine. But don’t make claims you cannot support. And when proven wrong you don’t get to redefine your position to be that those who agree with you (denominations that “take the Bible seriously”) nearly-universally agree with you. What kind of nonsense is that?

The fact is, and remains, that your position is not “near-universal” – whether you stand confidently or not – and each year there are more congregations that find an anti-gay interpretation of scripture as a whole to be inconsistent with the rest of Jesus’ message. The number of people who believe what you believe decreases each year.

“If a dissenting voice is too much for the gecko-skinned around here..”

This sort of language will not be tolerated. It is inflamatory, rude, and offensive.

“With what I have presented above, it is almost impossible to argue that what they are aiming for IS for schools to allow only one side of this debate.”

I’m confused about this “other side”. Let me ask you a direct question:

Nunja, should the school take efforts to stop some kid from being slammed into the lockers or beaten up on his way home or come under a barrage of “faggot” every day?

Is there an “other side” to this issue?

And finally, you do seem to fit the definition of a troll in that it seems your purpose here is not to dialog or learn anything or provide anything. It doesn’t matter when you are proven wrong or your points are refuted. You don’t seem interested in conversing, just shouting. If – as it currently seems – you are only here to agitate, then you are a troll. If not, start behaving as someone who actually respects the views of others (even the gecko-skinned ones).

Well, Nunja Bidnet….
Whatever the Bible says, and how much of it you want to believe…is up to you. By law…you can follow it to YOUR heart’s content for yourself.

Same goes for any other believer here or where you are.
Ya know…Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in tissue or organ donation, but they aren’t called on the keep YOU from accepting such a donation, nor can they make the government do it for you either.
Autopsies and blood exchange or touching blood is a religious taboo.
However, now we know they are vital to us, don’t we?
Let’s just say, that all this hostility and discussion on the sins of homosexuality, is pretty well academic.

Gay children are subjects to their orientation and can’t do anything about it, nor is it their choice to be gay, no more than your choice in being heterosexual.
There is no choice in one’s orientation, so haranguing gay people over and over again, isn’t very productive.
Because whether a person is gay or not, doesn’t really affect you or anyone else at large, now does it?
Gay kids aren’t trying to make anyone else gay, because they can’t anyway. It’s impossible.
All gay kids want and need, is to be able to be HONEST about their orientation without being punished as if they’d committed a crime.
Otherwise EVERYTHING is disrupted, not just school life, but homelife and their relationships with their own families.

However, education is mandatory and free in this country. Gay kid’s parents are paying good money for their children’s educations too.
Gay kids are as smart, talented, attractive and kind to puppies as any other kid has the potential to be.
They are the apple of their grandparent’s eye and their folks like to see them at the school recital or playing on the ball field too.

All your Scriptue quoting and interpretations of the Bible doesn’t change those facts.
Applying 21st century social progress to Biblical standards, is as useful as putting a woman in the garage away from the family because she has her period.
You could call that people do that, and women could live in the garage for a few days…but, exactly WHAT would be the point of that?

What IS so wonderful about throwing heterosexual privilege at a gay kid?
To show how compassionate heteros really are? How smart and special?
What IS so special about being heterosexual? I’m heterosexual and I don’t see how being disdainful to gay people, makes straight people better people.

I have harbored many suspicions about the lack of women’s participation in the writing of the Bible and the dispensation of it’s tenets.
Yeah, I said it.
Only MEN are endowed with holy enlightenment?!
Girl PULEEZE!

It’s a new day, it’s a new century. Some of us are running with wings on our feet to a more enlightened future, and you seem to be lurching FAR behind with the weight of the Bible and your conceit on your back.
You glory in the underestimation of your symbiotic gay family.
And boys like Chase Harper can go on wearing his shirt, talking in Scripture what he thinks he knows about gay people.
But after he puts his Bible to bed everyday-there is always gonna be a gay kid that outclasses him.
This is the best time for Harper to learn, that being hetero isn’t virtue, or character, nor is how much Scripture you’ve memorized.
It’s how he treats another human being and what THEIR deeds are towards him as well.
Kinda hard to reconcile spewing his lines, at who he can identify as gay at school.

But he’s going to have a time of it if a potential employer is gay, and Harper REALLY needs that job.

The put downs are easy now, but in the real world, we can accept that changes come, change is inevitable, and things we were taught about people who were different from us aren’t the bad things originally thought.
That’s GOOD news, Nunja, that gay kids are good kids, who can grow into talented, compassionate adults.
And so…isn’t that cool?

I have been challenged above to “put up or shut up” in regard to GLSEN’s recent manual overhaul. Please see below. There are excerpts directly from the manual…

I was just on GLSEN’s website and downloaded the current version of the manual in PDF format, and I can’t find any of the specific examples you cited there. Not one. In particular, I don’t see any section of text whatsoever that can even be remotely construed as an exercise in building an enemies list. It’s just not there.

Now, it’s likely the manual has undergone multiple revisions. What I need, is a copy of that manual, The Entire Manual from a reliable source that contains the text you’ve quoted.

By reliable source, I mean a source that I can trust hasn’t altered the original text. That would exclude any source for example, that also cites Paul Cameron.

Of course, you may not want to provide that document, because obviously what I’m looking for is the context of the text you’ve cited. Specifically, I want to see the complete text of that section 6, “Who Is Likely To Stand In The Way Of Our Solution?” I have a…hunch…there’s more to it.

Can anyone here give me a pointer to it? A good one?

David,

There are people here who are not Christian, and have views about Christianity that may or may not correspond to yours. I notice, though, that when someone expresses a view that does not mention the way you approach Christianity, you seem to take offense and run to the defense of the religion.

Other have opinions that are just as valid as yours, and they should be able to express those opinions without feeling like you are automatically going to take offense to them. Maybe you didn’t like what Randi had to say about Jesus. Maybe you disagree with what Regan said. But your disagreement does not have to translate into offense for them having expressed how they feel about the subject (certainly Regan was not trying to “trash Christianity”!). Please take that into account because there’s no reason to expect that anyone should withold their opinions because you are quick to offense. With all due respect, it is more offensive to expect them to hold their tongues.

Please do explain how what Regan said was an insult to Christianity. She certainly said nothing about Christianity in general and she certainly didn’t say anything demeaning to Christianity. She simply compared one set of moral standards (Biblical) with another set of moral standards (Native American). That is why I am suggesting that you seem to be quick to offense.

This isn’t the first time I’ve noted it, even if it is the first time I’m mentioning it. You’ve done it before. It seems to me, though, that anyone should be able to speak their mind without feeling like you will probably take offense. If there is an us versus them vibe going on, it seems to me that it is coming from the person who finds offense where none is meant–not from the person sincerely offering comments on how they view the issue.

David, you have to really look at what I said.
And remind yourself of the directives of the culture then and how these proscriptions are applied NOW.

I’m pointing out EXACTLY why there is disrespect for the way those who say they are Christian, treat gay people in particular.
I’m not criticizing Christianity, but those Christians who are selective in the way they cooperate or DON’T with everyday laws and social expectations.

It DOESN’T make sense, especially to someone like me who is making an observation, not a criticism.
I try very hard to be clear on that. I don’t appreciate what Chase Harper did, because as someone pointed out, kids are going to process something THAT HARSH very differently, and not well.
And with gay kids, that statement is about their PERSONHOOD, not what they do in school performance or social cooperation.

There IS a strong pattern of religious harshness against gay people especially, regardless of the good they do.
But there is little harshness against religious people, no matter what they do.
But once there is some criticism thrown back, the results of that criticism don’t carry at all the same consequences to that person.

Communicating one’s needs and honest social interaction is vital to a young gay person.
The need for a religious person to criticize a gay person isn’t vital to THEM.
The main reason being: one’s religous path is chosen, and one’s sexual orientation is not.
Arguing that is beside the point, it’s not a matter of faith.

One isn’t so harmed by self restraint of harsh, selective and unsolicited criticism, as a gay is in hearing it and also not being able to disclose their identity without such criticism.

So, it lands on the Chase Harper’s of the world to understand EXACTLY what treating others as you would want to be treated really means.
It’s not just words going in one direction.
He knows his words hurt. He does it because he has no expectation or likelihood of being hurt in return.

Sometimes it just comes down to this: what religious people think of gay people isn’t news.
And saying so constantly gets old and it’s negative and hurtful in ways that don’t help anything and foster pain and hostility.

So, eventually a young Christian like Harper will have to learn, am I really doing any good here, or am I just saying something for the sake of saying it because I WANT to hurt this group and I can?
If it’s the latter, than the message of Christian faith in compassion is lost, isn’t it?

grantdale at April 28, 2006 01:26 PM

That sounds like good advice.

The one exception, however, is when it is not an inter-family squabble but is relevant to the theme of the thread. For example:

Acceptable: “Joe Televangelist misquoted scripture when he said “Blessed are the meek except gay people cuz their nasty”.”

Not Acceptable: “Joe Televangelist can keep his quotes. Jesus was a myth and all Christians are homophobes.”

(and I personally promise to be better at not feeding the trolls)

I understood that, darlings.
Whattup down under?

:0P

Sounds like Chase Harper’s parents should take far more responsibility for their son’s problem. They obviously are the influence (because of their extremist fundamentalist belief in this kind of dogma) behind his rant at the high school. His parents sound like fundamentalist Christian fascists who have no regard for or tolerance of diversity unless it falls within their narrow bigoted view of truth. They probably will turn around (like the t.v. Evangelists typically do) and say that they are being persecuted by “activist judges” who are chaning the constitution. It all depends upon who’s ox is being gored in this situation.

Thank the God of Heaven that we are protected from people like Chase Harper’s family or their Church because of the U.S. constitution. If it weren’t for that God help us all. We’d probably be fighting for our very lives because of medieval attitudes like these. It is so sickening to me to see the virulent hate in this kids eyes. It’s pathetic and sad. His parents ought to have their parental rights revoked for abusing him in such a way through teaching him to abuse others as he has been doing. Truth will prevail and their “day of truth” which is in all actuality “the day of lies” will come to naught. We shall overcome!

Thanks David, I understand you now. Ya know what bro’, It ain’t no thing.
I’m just trying to make sure I’m not disrespecting a person of or a person’s religious feelings.
Or that my opinion was taken the wrong way as such.
And incidentally, I wasn’t expressing a NA viewpoint, but just working to come to a logical conclusion about this kid Harper, and who put him up to his expression and why.

Sometimes we need to step away from what can easily be emotionally contentious and take a colder calculation to it.

We’re witnessing the intense reactions those of strong Muslim faith are willing to do and what they are capable of.
This world is very small now. Such complete alliance to Islam, also shows a people who have moved from their traditional lands.
They are in Europe, marching in the streets-knowing that those countries on that continent are FREE.
And as they increase in numbers, those who are aligned with Islam are demanding their neighbors adhere to Islamic cultural standards.

So, why did they go where the culture is so vastly different and so free?
Why do they complain about Western mores influencing their children?
Exactly.

We can see now where religious power and control over less informed populations will eventually implode.
Christians would not do any better by this country in having so much political influence either.
We see now who they are willing to make scapegoats and who they’d ‘disappear’ if given the opportunity.
This Harper, is white and male and presumably hetero, or otherwise closeted.
And so are the higher ups in Christian leadership or at least visibility in America.
He knows he’s set, and little sacrifice will be made or expected of him.
They don’t like sharing this country with who they want to continue to believe are ‘unworthy’ and they wax nostalgic for the days when they didn’t have to.
I was there too.

It’s obviously not about a stand up, civilized, cooperative differences.
It’s about the other having to not be here…as if dead.
I”m not having that. And I know very well why someone like say…Alan Chambers or a Stephen Bennett…or a DL Foster, avoids women like me.

Dear Lord, you people really haven’t a clue of what God has been trying to tell us for over two centuries now. LOVE!

Dumbasses.