Censored (in “Christians and LGBT Bullying”): reply to poster who argued that being ignorant was better than acquiring knowledge and that he is helpless in his state of comfortable and chosen ignorance

Monday, December 17, 2012, 2:23 PM
===============================

Anna wrote: ” Christians must be willing to talk about and fight the bullying, harassment, and (yes) bigotry that gays and lesbians face. Roughly 80 percent of LGBT teens have experienced verbal harassment, and 40 percent have experienced physical harassment. ”

Nothing different than youth in general.

And what needs to be noted is that a significant number of youth who bully or harass or sexually harass others think what? That homosexuality is normal. And most teens who think homosexuality is normal, think porn is normal. And many of those think hook-ups are normal. And they spread an enormous number of STDs (especially if we include college students).

People with a homosexualist agenda should be willing to face how destructive their views on relationships and sexuality are, but they aren’t willing.

And many of these LGBT kids are exactly the kind that will advocate for the destruction of wonderful companies like Chick Fil A, who will discriminate against anyone who question their views as soon as they get in such a position, who minimize and trivialize all the violence that LGBT individuals perpetrate in society, etc.

==================================

Heather wrote:
December 17th, 2012 | 5:24 pm

Andrew O’Brien wrote: “But on the other hand, gay people have largely trained themselves to believe that their whole lives revolve around their orientation, and because of this, every act of injustice against them MUST be because they are gay, even if it isn’t true.”

Nickol wrote: “On what basis do you make this sweeping, negative generalization about gay people? I have no hesitation classifying this as . . . shall we say a product of “anti-gay animus.” ”

Because the homosexualist agenda movement is largely based on a discourse of exaggerated and false claims to victimization, of equating LGBT people to blacks under oppressive racism, of claiming anyone who disagrees with their views is a bigot, of spreading wild lies about “epidemics of suicides,” etc.

On this blog, we had so many recent examples.

People with a homosexualist agenda will basically only omit, dismiss, minimize and trivialize information regarding how destructive, violent, or harmful LGBT individuals are, while posting comment after comment on how much violence (true or wildly exaggerated) LGBT people suffer.

And, as an aside tied to what Andrew wrote, based on news reports (but no formal study), the LGBT group is the minority group who most fakes “hate” crimes in society.

There are already very few other individuals who are so perverse to fake their own suffering, to dupe society, as if we didn’t have enough real horrible events as it is. But every now and then, there is a report in the news of another LGBT person who completely faked some attack – to *pretend* to be a victim.

Christians need to be aware just how manipulative people with a homosexualist agenda are.

==================================

Michael wrote:
December 19th, 2012 | 9:28 pm

I don’t know that we need any statistics to convince us of the omnipresence of the bullying of gays. Growing up, I can’t recall ever hearing anyone get mocked for being straight, but mockery of being gay existed even before I knew what one was, much less what one did. And despite attending a fine Catholic Church and school, I don’t remember ever hearing that gays shouldn’t be reviled. We would mock but could also understand gamblers, drunkards, and adulterers. Their crimes seemed like excess rather than a violation of nature.

For my mind to change about gays, I only had to meet one gay man who shared the same desires that I do. Once I started meeting gay men and women who were devoted Christians and who desired a spouse and family, the conviction that homosexuality was intrinsically disordered melted away.

In the meantime, the argument that sex is essentially or primarily procreative has always seemed so patently false. The desire behind sex has always been so obviously about achieving and expressing emotional intimacy. To reduce it to either procreation or pleasure is to misunderstand its role in tearing people away from their birth families and uniting them into a new family. That is the teaching of Genesis 2:24 after all, that sex pulls our loyalties away from mother and father, shifting them to our spouse.

And this issue of loyalty is what gave birth to the gay marriage movement. The sight of grieving partners at death beds and then estranged parents swooping in to make decisions crystallized the conviction that gay couples had indeed formed families distinct from their birth families. Once gay couples were seen fulfilling Genesis 2:24, gay marriage no longer seemed so unimaginable.

==================================

Heather wrote:
December 20th, 2012 | 3:06 am

Michael wrote: “I don’t know that we need any statistics to convince us of the omnipresence of the bullying of gays.”

Oh, I think we do – and very much so. Because what I see when I look at many school settings out there today is quite different than what you describe.

In many settings, teens with a homosexuality problem are told they are normal, along with the porn, the hook-ups, the sex outside marriage (and committed relationships), the spreading of STDs with impunity, etc.

Normalizing homosexuality is done as part of a larger package of a sexuality ideology that seeks to warrant social approval to a variety of interconnected harmful attitudes and practices.

Furthermore, what we also need that we mostly don’t have in terms of statistics regarding sexuality behavior is how frequently do people with a homosexuality or bisexuality problem make unwanted or unwelcome advances to others, how much they sexual harass, exploit or abuse others, how perverse and perverted their sexualities are.

Take the recent Kevin Clash case (now with allegations from his fourth -and underage- male victim). Suppose that before the scandal, he came on this forum and told us he had been bullied as a “gay” teen. It would give the impression that he was just a nice, benign, harmless, poor little homosexual victim, persecuted by the socially conservatives meanies at his school. Isn’t this the image that liberals constantly insist on?

And it would give the impression that this is the only or major problem we have in society regarding homosexuals. But flash forward several years, and we find a perverted wealthy, privileged individual who trolls the Internet searching for young male meat to exploit (and allegedly abuse). All the while he has been told by liberals that “there is nothing disordered” about him or his homosexuality.

When liberals go on and on about bullying of homosexual teens, they never address just how many dysfunctional and harmful behaviors these very same teens are in the process of adopting as teens or later as adults.

And imagine if you were applying for a job under Clash and stated the truth about being socially conservative. You would never get the job.

This narrative about homosexuals as victims of bullying or anything else is much more misleading and complicated than what liberals will have you believe.

===================================

Ray Ingles wrote:
December 20th, 2012 | 11:57 am

Heather –

how frequently do people with a homosexuality or bisexuality problem make unwanted or unwelcome advances to others

I’ll assume, by your name, that you’re female. How many “unwanted or unwelcome advances” have you received from straight males? Is that an exclusively homosexual phenomenon?

To my knowledge, I’ve been hit on by a man exactly once. He was circumspect about it, and backed off immediately when I made it clear that wasn’t the sort of thing I was interested in.

how much they sexual harass, exploit or abuse others, how perverse and perverted their sexualities are.

Again, are these exclusively homosexual problems?

There’s also the problem of correlation and causation. For example, I’d be willing to bet that the rate of mental pathology was pretty high among the black population from the 1700s through the 1800′s and well into the 1900′s. But was that because they were black, or because of slavery and segregation?

(Note – that doesn’t mean that gays are or have been discriminated against in the same manner or to the same degree as blacks have. It does establish the point, though, that raw rates of problems need context to establish causation, as opposed to correlation.)

And imagine if you were applying for a job under Clash and stated the truth about being socially conservative. You would never get the job.

Imagine if someone who said they were gay asked you for a job. Would they get it?

========================

Heather wrote:
December 20th, 2012 | 5:29 pm

Heather wrote: “how frequently do people with a homosexuality or bisexuality problem make unwanted or unwelcome advances to others”

 

Ray Ingles wrote: Is that an exclusively homosexual phenomenon?

It seems you are unable to understand what I am pointing out.

Let’s go back to a quote from the original post: “Christians must be willing to talk about and fight the bullying, harassment, and (yes) bigotry that gays and lesbians face. ”

Is the post talking about heterosexuals? Is it talking about children? Animals? No, it is talking exclusively about people with a homosexual problem.

And it is underlining the issue of bullying that only this group faces. I didn’t see you pose the question if only people with a homosexual problem experienced bullying in society? Why are you asking this question of exclusivity to me then?

If we want to have a more realistic picture of the problems we have in society, we need to collect and present data on how perverse and perverted, violent and dysfunctional people with a homosexuality problem are. These are all serious problems.

Looking exclusively at the bullying problem, and even worse, using an optic that is often exaggerated and not based on evidence, gives us a very false picture of society as it concerns people with a homosexuality problem.
LGBT people perpetrate a large number of crimes and they do a great deal of harm, as well as sometimes being the targets of bullying.

I don’t know why it’s not clear to you that this thread is not about heterosexuals, animals, children, etc. It is about homosexuals. Wanting to change the group focus is nothing but a red herring attempt.

Christians must be willing to talk about and fight the many destructive attitudes and behaviors LGBT individuals have, and they must hold them accountable for the harm they do to others and in society in general. Bullying is far from the only problem there is, and all the violence and harm LGBT individuals do in society is much, much worse than the bullying problem. So the priority should be to give attention to how destructive and harmful people with a homosexuality problem are.

=========================

Heather wrote:
December 20th, 2012 | 5:52 pm

Ray Ingles wrote: “To my knowledge, I’ve been hit on by a man exactly once. He was circumspect about it, and backed off immediately when I made it clear that wasn’t the sort of thing I was interested in.”

Your point is? The world begins and ends with your experience? Not quite.

Are you suggesting that if you haven’t been kidnapped, there is not kidnapping? If you haven’t been raped, there is no rape in the world? Clearly you haven’t been murdered, so there is no murder either?

You describe a life experience of extreme privilege. In addition, you purposefully dismiss above every single news article, study, testimony, and other bit of information that attests to criminal, destructive, harmful, or harassing attitudes and behaviors by homosexuals.

In short, the aim of your discourse here is a refusal to acknowledge and confront all the violence and harm that LGBT people do in the world.

============================

Ray Ingles wrote:
December 21st, 2012 | 10:42 am

Heather –

The world begins and ends with your experience? Not quite.

In the absence of other data, that’s what I’ve got to go on. Speaking of which…

If we want to have a more realistic picture of the problems we have in society, we need to collect and present data on how perverse and perverted, violent and dysfunctional people with a homosexuality problem are. These are all serious problems.

I’ve seen you assert that. I’ve not seen you support that. I asked you to in my last comment in this thread (December 12th, 2012 | 12:48 pm), and you didn’t. Nor did you answer any of the other questions I posed.

So, yeah. I’m gonna stick with my experience until and unless you actually give me some reason to think differently.

===============================

Heather wrote:
December 21st, 2012 | 2:45 pm

Heather wrote: The world begins and ends with your experience? Not quite.

Ray Ingles wrote: In the absence of other data, that’s what I’ve got to go on.

In other words, what you have to go on is basically no knowledge and no data, that is, you basically know nothing about 8 billion people regarding this subject. That’s a vast black hole of lack of information.

Although you could access a considerable amount of “other data” about other people that is readily available online and in the media by doing simple searches or just plain reading or listening, you curiously refuse to.

The amount of effort you put into shutting reality and knowledge out of your mind is quite intense.

================================

Heather wrote:
December 21st, 2012 | 4:32 pm

Ray wrote: “I’ve seen you assert that. I’ve not seen you support that. I asked you to in my last comment in this thread (December 12th, 2012 | 12:48 pm), and you didn’t. Nor did you answer any of the other questions I posed.”

That’s not true at all. I certainly did answer.

I wonder if FT will censor this reply as well.

=============================

Raymond Ingles wrote:
December 21st, 2012 | 7:00 pm

Heather, when you won’t help me understand it and won’t support it, why should I accept your position?

=============================

CENSORED: My reply to Raymond’s ridiculous question above:

 Raymond Ingles: “Heather, when you won’t help me understand it and won’t support it, why should I accept your position?”

It seems one thing is not clear to you: Your lack of capacity for evaluating a position is not equal to a lack of support of any such position.
What articles, books, testimonies have you read regarding this subject that you didn’t understand? Oh, none. What articles, books, testimonies have you read on this subject at all? None. No information must enter your mind.

Is all this denial and ignorance effective in maintaining your perception of your narrative  as the Truth? Ah, so very effective. No information must come between you and your narrative, lest it would disrupt it and expose it as false. If any such information exists, you just steer away from it as much as possible.

It’s true, I can’t help someone whose objective in life is deliberate, sheer ignorance about the world – that comfortable made-up nonsense, that bliss of three or four self-serving sound bites occupying their entire intellect.

For many people, their dark little caves are so much more comfortable than the light of knowledge. Ignorance in these cases, we could certainly say, is self-serving bliss.

===============================

Since my comment above was censored, I wrote a minimalist version of it, but IT WAS ALSO CENSORED:

Heather wrote:
December 23rd, 2012 | 5:14 am

Raymond Ingles: “Heather, when you won’t help me understand it and won’t support it, why should I accept your position?”

It seems one thing is not clear to you: Your lack of capacity for evaluating a position is not equal to a lack of support of any such position.

Censored (in “Christians and LGBT Bullying”): reply to poster calling my views the equivalent of the KKK/Hitler for addressing how much violence LGBT individuals perpetrate in society

Monday, December 17, 2012, 2:23 PM
===============================
Heather wrote:
December 22nd, 2012 | 5:23 am

Heather said to Michael: “you stated this in this very thread (“we don’t need studies”); reality for you is irrelevant”

Michael: I said that, “I don’t know that we need any statistics to convince us of the omnipresence of the BULLYING of gays,” which is to say that anyone who has listened to kids on a playground, listened to pop music, or watched a movie pitched at junior high and high school students will know that the mockery of gays is everywhere. It has certainly lessened, but it is still strong.

Michael, there is significant difference between mocking and bullying. Even if bullying can comprise “intense mocking,” equating any mocking to bullying is simply more of your inflated nonsense. Not only that, it’s simply irresponsible. Bullying is a very serious issue. And, yes, we need statistics to know just how widespread bullying is, who does it, why, and to whom.

Furthermore, are you aware that there isn’t a single school in the US where teens (of all kinds) are not mocked? Mocking is ubiquitous – it’s not about just one little group. Millions and millions of heterosexual teens are mocked every year.

Teens mock others, for all kinds of reasons, some of which are good. There are also different types of mocking. This does not mean every time that one teen mocks another that they are participating in a bullying process.

There is a widespread bullying problem in schools – and it is horrible – but, contrary to your hyperbolic nonsense, it affects all kinds of kids.

This also means that teens with a homosexuality problem mock other kids. Teens with a homosexuality problem can be mean, stupid, disgusting, violent, anything really, just like any other teen.

And it also means that mocking is not the only type of harmful attitude/behavior there is – especially related to sexuality. Teens with a homosexuality problem can engage in an infinite number of harmful and destructive actions related to sexuality, relationships, or anything else.

If you go to any school environment which is not built on socially conservative principles, it’s the notion that homosexuality is normal that is everywhere. And there can be widespread hostility and virulence to anyone who questions your homosexuality agenda in such school environments where a liberal ideology is dominant.

Lastly, teens should mock anyone who tries to impinge on them a harmful sexuality ideology. That is to say, they should mock your views – because the latter have harmful consequences.

============================

Michael replied:
December 20th, 2012 | 9:10 pm

Heather wrote: “Oh, I think we do – and very much so. Because what I see when I look at many school settings out there today is quite different than what you describe”

Are you saying that gays are not bullied and mocked just about everywhere in American society? The slurs and insults I heard people direct at gays seem just as prevalent today. What is different is that more people reject such terms, but every young person I know has heard or used these terms.

Heather wrote: “In many settings, teens with a homosexuality problem are told they are normal, along with the porn, the hook-ups, the sex outside marriage (and committed relationships), the spreading of STDs with impunity, etc”

You’re right that, happily, more and more teachers are asking students to respect gays, but I don’t see teachers saying that porn, hook-ups, extra-marital sex, and the spreading of STDs is normal. What neighborhood do you live in?

Heather wrote:“how frequently do people with a homosexuality or bisexuality problem make unwanted or unwelcome advances to others, how much they sexual harass, exploit or abuse others, how perverse and perverted their sexualities are”

I know a lot of gay people. Some are among my closest friends; others I will talk to only when necessary because I disapprove of their moral character. Some are kind and even heroic, and others are the kind of people you describe, the only kind of gays you describe.

In short, as a group, gays are just like everyone else I know—some are wonderful, others are rotten, and most are in-between.

The arguments you use against gays were used before you about blacks, Jews, and Catholics. In fact, variations of those arguments were used against women. And these arguments will be used again against whatever group somebody wants to hate on.

The word we use to describe arguments like these is bigotry. It is bigoted to ascribe to some group characteristics that are found across humanity.

In the last week, First Things has published a number of articles exploring the question of bigotry and gay marriage. I’m one of those gay marriage supporters who think there are some good arguments against gay marriage. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to argue that marriage should remain between men and women. It is perfectly obvious that most marriage laws and customs have grown up around the expectation of children and the provision of inheritance. It is equally obvious that divorce and is fracturing our society and that our culture has become over-sexualized.

Thus, although I disagree with the arguments put forward by people like Michael PS and Ken Zaretzke against gay marriage, I admire the logic of their arguments, and I have never accused them of bigotry. Their opposition to gay marriage is rooted in principle, not in gross stereotypes. They are not alone, of course, and many others employ reason and principle in fighting gay marriage.

Arguments that gays are especially violent, aggressive, perverse, or dangerous, however, are, by definition, bigotry.

==============================

CENSORED – my reply to Michael:

Michael wrote:” The arguments you use against gays were used before you about blacks, Jews, and Catholics. In fact, variations of those arguments were used against women. And these arguments will be used again against whatever group somebody wants to hate on.”

Your comment above is nothing but a hyperbolic “racist” tarring. Blacks were never deemed to have been born white, but developed a psycho-social problem and then turned black.

In fact, it’s your “eugenics”/born-this-way nonsense that claims that people with a homosexuality problem were genetically determined into homosexuality (akin to racist ideologies), including the claim that they cannot change their myriad psycho-sexual dysfunctions. It’s nonsense. Every single study that claims homosexuality is genetically determined has been disproven and shown to  be quackery.

Every time I point out the fuller picture of reality regarding LGBT folks, which includes millions of people doing harm and committing crimes, you launch into some vilification attack.

Take this thread. It asks Christians to combat the abuse homosexuals face – which you exaggerate to say is everywhere. That’s plain hysteria – and it’s completely false. Kids with a homosexuality problem are not abused everywhere. They are not being bullied everywhere, meaning all of them. Furthermore, reality means that LGBT kids both abuse and are abused. So why shouldn’t Christians confront LGBT kids concerning all the harm they do? All the harmful ideas, thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors that they are embracing about sexuality and relationships? Presenting LGBT teens exclusively as little victims is nothing but a gross and irresponsible distortion of reality.

Any time I point out how much you paint a false picture of reality regarding LGBT people, you retort by saying that am some kind of Hitler. That is the level of ad hominem nonsense your espouse here. Such ad hominem attacks are really the stuff of racists, or sexist, or bigoted individuals.

Michael wrote: “You are lying. I have, in fact, discussed gay violence with you.”

By “discuss,” do you mean you write a series of ad hominem attacks if I present data and criticize how much violence and harm LGBT people perpetrate? Because that’s exactly what you did above.

Michael wrote: “I don’t think the fact that some gays hurt others is evidence that there is something wrong with being gay.”

Your constant attacks any time we present a more realistic picture of what LGBT individuals do in the world in terms of harm certainly demonstrate a willingness for collusion and denial, however.

Michael wrote: “Arguments that gays are especially violent, aggressive, perverse, or dangerous, however, are, by definition, bigotry.”

As one example, does  the presentation of how much intimate violence LGBT individuals are involved in constitute an argument that they are especially violent? What does “especially violent” mean?

It’s a worthless term, really. 30% of violent people in any group is very violent. This means millions of violent LGBT individuals. Facing reality is not bigotry. Trying to whitewash, minimize, trivialize how much harm and violence LGBT individuals do in society, on the other hand, is particularly malicious.

===============================

Michael replied:
December 22nd, 2012 | 10:03 am

Heather,

I am reaching the conclusion that you don’t write or read coherently and that this inability makes conversation hopelessly confusing.

I’ll explain what I mean by that assessment.

You said, “Because what I see when I look at many school settings out there today is quite different than what you describe. In many settings, teens with a homosexuality problem are told they are normal, along with the porn, the hook-ups, the sex outside marriage (and committed relationships), the spreading of STDs with impunity, etc”

I took this comment to mean that you believe that, in school settings, teens are told that homosexuality, porn, hook-ups, etc, are normal. I inferred that you meant that teachers, guidance counselors, and administrators are presenting these phenomena are normal because that is what most people mean by “school settings.”

But now you are saying that “reality today means millions of young people have sex before they get married,” etc. You have shifted the conversation away from your claim that schools are normalizing various kinds of disapproved sex and toward the perfectly obvious claim that the larger culture now approves off these things.

How can we possibly have a productive conversation when you keep changing the subject?

=========================

Heather replied:
December 22nd, 2012 | 4:57 pm

Michael,

I was describing the overall environment of many kids. Yes, when I said “kids are told in schools” that homosexuality is normal, it’s not unreasonable to assume it’s the adults doing the telling. But that is far from the complete picture of who is “doing the telling” in schools. This is why I went to present much more of who is sending messages to kids, outside and inside schools.

There are so many harmful messages being sent to kids in environments where homosexuality is normalized. Because it’s a packaged ideology. And many kids are behaving in very damaging ways regarding sexuality if they follow a liberal ideology.

=================================

Michael wrote:
December 23rd, 2012 | 1:15 am

Heather,

Heather wrote: “there is significant difference between mocking and bullying.”

Once again, you have taken what I said out of context, and once again, you are changing the subject of conversation.

First, the context. Here’s my original paragraph: “I don’t know that we need any statistics to convince us of the omnipresence of the bullying of gays. Growing up, I can’t recall ever hearing anyone get mocked for being straight, but mockery of being gay existed even before I knew what one was, much less what one did. And despite attending a fine Catholic Church and school, I don’t remember ever hearing that gays shouldn’t be reviled. We would mock but could also understand gamblers, drunkards, and adulterers. Their crimes seemed like excess rather than a violation of nature.” It’s clear that I’m placing bullying in the broader context of mockery.

Second, the subject of conversation. You insulted me for supposedly arguing that “reality is irrelevant,” and I answered by quoting what I actually argued. Instead of apologizing for misrepresenting my views, you seize on the term “bullying.”

It’s frustrating to try to converse in such conditions.

Heather wrote: “Even if bullying can comprise “intense mocking,” equating any mocking to bullying is simply more of your inflated nonsense.”

Really? Why all of the insults all of the time? Can’t you just have a civil exchange?

Heather wrote: “Teens mock others, for all kinds of reasons, some of which are good.”

In the school I attended, kids mocked other kids for being fat, skinny, smart, dumb, left-handed, stuttering, tall, short, red-headed, curly-haired, black, white, Hispanic, and Asian. Kids who overreacted got teased worse. But on Mondays, guys would brag about facing down some black guys or harassing immigrants or homosexuals. So yes, kids mock other kids for lots of things, but some characteristics are more dangerous than others.

A gay person can go through his whole life and not ever get beaten, but he or she knows the threat is there. The scrawny kids, the lefties, and the stutterers don’t live with the same kind of fear.

Heather wrote: “That is to say, they should mock your views – because the latter have harmful consequences”

Thanks. I’ll try to remember that you would encourage people to mock people like me.

====================

Given that my above post got censored, I decided to write another minimal one.
Michael wrote: “It’s frustrating to try to converse in such conditions.”
Converse? When you insult others, you are not censored. When I point out how you insult me, my posts get censored. When I point out how you deform my views, my posts get censored. You are doing many things, but conversing is not one of them. FT is also not allowing a conversation to take place.And how ironic that you insult other people while complaining about mocking.

Michael wrote: “Thanks. I’ll try to remember that you would encourage people to mock people like me.”

If you want to promote harmful views, distort what I say, and insult me in the process, you should be criticized for it. Mockery is a type of criticism, and in your case, it’s deserved.

Michael wrote: “You insulted me for supposedly arguing that “reality is irrelevant,”

Michael, any time we point out you’re wrong about something, you call it an “insult.”

Pointing out how much you distort reality in your inflated, wildly distorted narrative is not an insult. Your narrative does not match reality to such an extent that we can all observe how much reality is irrelevant to you.

CENSORED (in Christians and LGBT Bullying): Criticism concerning lack of civility from homosexual poster

Monday, December 17, 2012, 2:23 PM

David Nickol commented: “As must be clear, I am almost always in the minority here, and so when I make a point, I try to make it as forcefully as I can without being too aggressive. I try to respond by criticizing ideas rather than the people who state them, but I don’t always succeed. You seem like a nice person . . . unlike all the others. 😛 ”

========

CENSORED – Heather replied:

“unlike all the others?”

oops it looks like David went on another personal attack spree again…

It also looks to me like a good example of his “anti-other people” animus.

If David had good arguments, he wouldn’t need to be aggressive, just reasoned, and he wouldn’t need to make personal attacks at others.

=============

Added here: But since Nickol is just a sockpuppet of the homosexuality agenda FT writers, he doesn’t get censored while making his cheap shots against social conservatives. And he is certainly not in the minority at FT. Many of his views are largely encouraged, while counter-arguments are censored.

Censored (in Christians and LGBT Bullying): how much homosexuals exaggerate their victimization, even fake “hate” crimes

Monday, December 17, 2012, 2:23 PM
Heather wrote:
December 17th, 2012 | 5:05 pm

Anna wrote: ” Christians must be willing to talk about and fight the bullying, harassment, and (yes) bigotry that gays and lesbians face. Roughly 80 percent of LGBT teens have experienced verbal harassment, and 40 percent have experienced physical harassment. ”

Nothing different than youth in general.

And what needs to be noted is that a significant number of youth who bully or harass or sexually harass others think what? That homosexuality is normal. And most teens who think homosexuality is normal, think porn is normal. And many of those think hook-ups are normal. And they spread an enormous number of STDs (especially if we include college students).

People with a homosexualist agenda should be willing to face how destructive their views on relationships and sexuality are, but they aren’t willing.

And many of these LGBT kids are exactly the kind that will advocate for the destruction of wonderful companies like Chick Fil A, who will discriminate against anyone who question their views as soon as they get in such a position, who minimize and trivialize all the violence that LGBT individuals perpetrate in society, etc.

********************************

Heather wrote:
December 17th, 2012 | 5:24 pm

Andrew O’Brien wrote: “But on the other hand, gay people have largely trained themselves to believe that their whole lives revolve around their orientation, and because of this, every act of injustice against them MUST be because they are gay, even if it isn’t true.”

Nickol wrote: “On what basis do you make this sweeping, negative generalization about gay people? I have no hesitation classifying this as . . . shall we say a product of “anti-gay animus.” ”

Because the homosexualist agenda movement is largely based on a discourse of exaggerated and false claims to victimization, of equating LGBT people to blacks under oppressive racism, of claiming anyone who disagrees with their views is a bigot, of spreading wild lies about “epidemics of suicides,” etc.

On this blog, we had so many recent examples.

People with a homosexualist agenda will basically only omit, dismiss, minimize and trivialize information regarding how destructive, violent, or harmful LGBT individuals are, while posting comment after comment on how much violence (true or wildly exaggerated) LGBT people suffer.

And, as an aside tied to what Andrew wrote, based on news reports (but no formal study), the LGBT group is the minority group who most fakes “hate” crimes in society.

There are already very few other individuals who are so perverse to fake their own suffering, to dupe society, as if we didn’t have enough real horrible events as it is. But every now and then, there is a report in the news of another LGBT person who completely faked some attack – to *pretend* to be a victim.

Christians need to be aware just how manipulative people with a homosexualist agenda are.

*****************************************

David Nickol replied: December 17th, 2012 | 6:56 pm

There are already very few other individuals who are so perverse to fake their own suffering, to dupe society, as if we didn’t have enough real horrible events as it is. But every now and then, there is a report in the news of another LGBT person who completely faked some attack – to *pretend* to be a victim.

Heather,

“Every now and then” there is a report? You make charges like that, and you “document” them by saying “every now and then there is a report”? I can come up with three fabricated anti-gay attacks. Can you come up with more? Suppose you can come up with ten. Does that reflect poorly on every gay person in America? If I can document a number of false charges of rape, does that prove women are “perverse” enough to fake their own suffering. If I can document a number of blacks falsely claiming racial attacks by whites, or vice versa, does that prove something about white people or black people in general?

It is a common tactic of yours to come up with some real or alleged offensive behavior of some gay people and treat it as if it were the behavior of gay people. That a classic characteristic of prejudice.

**********************************************
CENSORED: my reply to David:

David wrote: “Every now and then” there is a report? You make charges like that, and you “document” them by saying “every now and then there is a report”?

I am reporting what I have seen reported: I see a report like this “every now and then,” not every day. Would you prefer I lie?

And yes, news reports are a form of documentation. Even when they report facts you don’t like, because it exposes issues with your manipulative narrative. Even when you would prefer that everyone would carelessly dismiss and ignore any kind of report that confirms dishonesty on the part of particular individuals with a homosexual problem and a homosexualist agenda.

Are we all supposed to lie that these reports and cases exist? Do we all have to be ignorant about them? It seems to bother you that they are one more example of how people with a homosexualist agenda fabricate lies about the victimization of LGBT individuals.

Your reaction also makes me wonder what happens if we have a person with a homosexualist agenda as news editor anywhere. It seems they would be highly motivated to suppress such reports.

David wrote: “I can come up with three fabricated anti-gay attacks. Can you come up with more? Suppose you can come up with ten. Does that reflect poorly on every gay person in America?”

It does raise questions as to how exaggerated are the victimizing claims by the LGBT community. Just how much are people with a homosexualist agenda trying to manipulate society with false or exaggerated claims? I think that is a very important question.

Your strawman consists of falsely claiming that a problem is not a problem simply because it is not valid for every individual. Fabricating attacks by some individuals is a subset of the larger problem of millions of people promulgating a discourse of various kinds of exaggerated or false victimizing claims for LGBT people.

Your strawman consists in attributing to me a claim of cloning every LGBT individual as the same, but I am not doing that.

Your logic is: since every LGBT individual is different, there are no problems with any LGBT person, nor with any homosexualist agenda. That’s just silly.

Pointing out the long list of problems with the varied kind of people espousing a homosexualist agenda is not the same as saying they are all clones.

Your construction of such shabby strawmen is a characteristic of manipulation – and a clear lack of valid arguments.

David wrote: “If I can document a number of false charges of rape, does that prove women are “perverse” enough to fake their own suffering. ”

It means that some are perverse enough to make very serious accusations that are false and damaging. And if you think that false accusations of rape are not a serious issue, it only goes to show how lacking in seriousness your views are.

==============================

=============

Below is a very good comment in the above thread:

David Strunk wrote:
December 17th, 2012 | 11:51 pm

I don’t disagree with the premise of the piece here at all. I agree wholeheartedly. We must protect the LGBT from bullying. The real question, implied in the piece, is from whom? Other Christians? I’m not so sure.

I wonder how much we advance the conversation when we either self-flagellate or straw man a whole group of people (ie evangelicals). I have a friend, gay, Christian, trying to live the difficult celibate life, and who is politically conservative. He regularly says that he has never lost a Christian friend for being gay (not even in patterns of sinfulness) but he’s lost tons of gay friends for being conservative. I honestly don’t know who the evangelical haters of the LGBT are, other than the fake war fought in blogs and on the tv. Most evangelicals (I amongst them) are too cowardly to have a conversation about Jesus with most, much less have a conversation about sin with someone in the LGBT community.

Again, where is this war really being fought, and are Christians really the bullies? There will always be some (and that is regrettable), I suppose, but let us not straw man a whole population of them.

Back to the premise of the piece, though, and that is this: we do have an obligation to protect anyone from bullying. Self-evident to a true Christian, perhaps?

 

Censored (in Long, Noble History of Men’s Leggings): Criticism of effeminate clothing for men

Friday, December 14, 2012, 12:52 PM

my comment – CENSORED:

Gross.

The whiff of a man with his little striped “meggings” is a perfect image of the guy who wrote the fabulous Queen James Bible.

=========

Added comment here:

And really, noble history? It makes you wonder how much Schmitz would like to prance around in his own little pair of meggings…

Schmitz is the same FT editor who posted on BDSM, without criticizing S&M. He also attacked Rick Warren and the FRC regarding the Uganda homosexuality bill, as well as claiming all Christians were against said legislation.

hmmm…

Censored (The Queen James ‘Gay’ Bible): Retort to accusation from David Nickol that said “bible” might have been written by “homophobes”

Friday, December 14, 2012, 11:14 AM

David wrote: “The overall idea is so horrible that one wonders if the anonymous creators of The Queen James Bible are not homophobes playing dirty tricks.”
================

Heather replied (CENSORED):

I’m surprised. When I first read that its authors were anonymous, the first thing that crossed my mind is that David and Michael were great candidates for the mystery writers. Every post they write on here is written…

“in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.”

I’m surprised also that there are no verses normalizing BDSM like David was insinuating is also something he favors or partially favors, when the topic came up in the Harvard thread.

I guess we’ll have to wait for the following edition of the “fabulous” Bible to get the revised pro-BDSM verses, all the word of God, of course.