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.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s