🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi Brian,

You wrote:
> > I wrote:
> > I believe that Brian's original post was a spinoff from Rex's (which started the thread
> > above.)  If that is the case, then Brian is attempting to convince the same population
> > which I spoke of in the paragraph above to change its attitude.
> 
> If not, then to at least stop the anguish that is being forced upon us.
> This is more the issue.  We are not scapegoats to be dumped upon please.

But the issue, on *this* NG is; how is that the responsibility of BSA?  I maintain that 
it is not.  It is the responsibility of the youth's family.
 
> > Brian, and you, may or may not succeed in your efforts (to change that population.)  But
> > I believe that you have a better chance if you follow those customs and courtesies
> > established by the Scout Law.
> 
> Read second thread to this posting please, all is explained

I did, and don't agree.  Read my reply.
 
> > And no, I was not speaking of nettiquet.  I believe that if Brian and I were face to
> > face having the same conversation which we started above, then his demeanor and attitude
> > would have been the same as they were in this NG.  And he would have accomplished about
> > the same, except that I would have left *without* giving him the opportunity to tell me
> > his points.
> 
> > Mark
> 
> Well Mark,
> 
>         Perhaps you are confusing demeanor and attitude with focused
> direction and purpose?  

Unfortunately, all we have to go on in this media is demeanor and attitude.

> I can tell you that, out of personal experience,
> religiously dependant 

Careful, you're getting close to intolerace again <g>.

> persons exhibit obvious signs of being threatened
> when a member of my pack asks to be treated with equal respect as any
> other pack.

A member of your 'pack' did, last week on this NG.  He was accepted and treated with all 
the respect due any other Scouter.  You see, when you make blanket statements about the 
treatment of 'homosexuals' by 'heterosexuals' you are being judgemental and biggoted.
 
>         But let's pretend for a bit shall we?
> 
>         I'm sure that you would talk with the same purpose and "demeanor"
> as I did if one were to come to you telling you that you and your wife are a
> less-than-acceptable member of society; 

Perhaps, but we don't know that for certain.  Do *all* homosexuals act the way you did 
when you entered this NG?  Of course not.  If we cannot say that they will, then I don't 
think you can (fairly) say that I, or any other heterosexual would.

<CUT OF SECTION WHICH REPEATS AND EXPANDS HIS STATEMENT.>

>         You are no longer a person, you are a heterosexual...
>                 People pitty you and stomp you into the ground...
> Ministers preach about the 6 references in the Bible which (in English)
> _might_ refer to heterosexuality as a negative aspect of life...

But you don't believe in that Bible, and you don't believe what those ministers are 
saying, so what difference does it make?

>                         Millions of your people are slaughtered in Germany
>                         by the NAZI's and there is no significant historical
>                         mention of this...

Sorry, but you're wrong.  I learned of this 26 years ago in high school.  Again in 
college.

>         Your parents forced you out of the house because you thought they
>         had an "unconditional love" which would understand your problem
>         dealing with heterosexuality which was not the case...

I'm sorry if your family couldn't deal with your sexuality.  I hope that my children are 
all heterosexual, but if not, I hope to be able to deal with them in a loving and 
Christian manner.

> Your pending marriage license is not valid outside Hawaii and you receive no
> federal benefits although you pay taxes like everyone else...

I don't think I'll comment on this one, we're far enough from Scouting as it is.

>               There are tasteless jokes about heterosexuals and how little
>               fashion sense they have on the television...

You mean like on Rosanne, and Ellen, and several other shows which promote the 
acceptablity and normalcy of the 'homosexual' lifestyle?

> You have to hide your heterosexuality unless grandpa and grandpa find out,
> they will never want to talk to you again, but you love them...

Again, I'm sorry your family hasn't dealt well with your homosexuality.  Why is that the 
responsibility of BSA?

>      Homosexuals say that they are not heterophobes, they just don't like
>      heterosexuals and think that they should abstane from
>      heterosexual/genital contact....

I have not said anything of the sort, yet you combine me with those who do.

>           Your only sex advice from you doctor was that your
>           heterosexuality is just a phase (which is explained to your
>           parents as well, as though you are not in the room)...

Sorry your doctor was an a**.  Again, why is that any concern of BSA?

> 
>              You use escapes such as drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and if these
>              don't work you attempt suicide again...

I'm sorry if you feel that the only solution for you is death.  But thousands of 
heterosexual children come to the same decision every year.  How does that make you any 
different?  Why should we treat you any differently than we do them?  (I'm speaking of 
BSA.)

> 
>         Okay, the pretending is over (this was the quick 2 minute version
> - please try a lifetime as I have for full flavour).  

No thanks, I prefer my life.

> As you see all odds
> are against my peoples (and this is truely what they are, we are - a lost
> tribe looking for our clan's roots).  

I've put up with this for a day or so, but now need to ask...  Who died and left you in 
charge of 'your peoples?'  Do you speak for *all* homosexuals?  Do you speak for *all* 
homosexuals in Canada?  Do you speak for *all* homosexuals at your University?  If not, 
then please stop being so melodramatic.

> We are a society without race,
> without country and most definitely without a role-model.  

Unless you can speak for *all* of them, then you are not a society at all.

> Yet we are not
> people either in some people's eyes either.  Imagine that, being
> human but not treated as one.  Hatred is the norm.  But no-one see's it.  They
> blame it on us.

Again, you are lumping everyone into one big pile.  I do not hate you.  I know people 
who would, if they took the time to talk to you.  I also know people who would not.  You 
assume that because *some* heterosexuals hate you, that gives you the right to label us 
all as 'heterophobic' and then change its meaning from "fear" to "hate."
 
>         When the BSA is in a leadership role it should have a duty to perform.
> It must let all boys know that they are human beings owed the respect that
> they must show others no matter what their circumstance.

I agree with this statement.  However, since sex and sexuality are not to be discussed 
at a Troop level, BSA's 'duty' stops short of validating a boy's (or girl's) 
homosexualtiy -- or heterosexuality.

> The BSA, if
> uncomfortable about such issues should at the very least have the resources
> to point a youngster in the right direction to the help that they need (eg
> - family counsellor / anti-homophobia trained).

It is not the place of BSA to counsel youth on sexual matters.  I'm sorry you wish it 
were.  But you have to live in the world as it is, and not as you wish it were.

> Anything else is like
> rolling a ten sided die and hoping that the numbers 2, 5 and 8 don't pop up
> (this is a proven ratio) or else the child commits / attempts suicide.

Watch out, or you'll start that gambling thread up again :-)

> Ignorance is no excuse for letting someone's child die or come close to death.

I understand that, but you are ignorant about the purpose, method, and goals of 
Scouting.  The teaching of sexual tolerance ain't one of them.
 
>         The really sad thing is that the boyscouts meant a lot to me when
> I was younger.  

I'm glad for that.  I hope you learned something and have good memories of your 
activities.

> Had I "come of age" during this time as many others do, I
> would surely have gone to the people I trusted, the BSC (Boy Scouts of
> Canada).  Just as surely, I would be dead and not talking to you right now
> over this medium if I had done so.

Had you come to me, my response would have been.  "Our sexual lives are our own 
business.  I will not share mine with you, and want to know nothing of yours.  I suggest 
that you speak to your parents, a counsellor, or religious advisor about this subject."
 
>         You are right that my "demeanor" may appear to be more threatening
> than some other peoples'.  But if you were a community leader or
> activist for a minority who's existance was being wiped out, would you
> seem happy and bubbly about it?

Boy am I getting tired of your melodramatic statements.  I understand that there have 
been hate crimes committed on individuals simply because they were homosexual.  I abhore 
those occurances.  But WIPED OUT???  Spare me, Brian.  How many homosexuals do you know 
that are killed every year.  It would have to be in the tens of thousands to wipe out 
your whole community.  And that just plain doesn't happen.
 
>         Please show a sign of respect by feeling guilty about the evils that
> are ignored by society, and which ultimately affect you and your family.
> But more importantly, do something about this before one more innocent
> child dies (really it's in the thousands though).

I    feel    guilty    for    nothing    I    have    done.  I have not hated you 
because you are homosexual.  I have not discriminated against you.  I have not prevented 
you from doing something you want to do.  I have admitted that *some* members of the 
heterosexual society have perpetrated evils on *some* members of the homosexual 
community.  But to say that 'my society' (blanket statement) has committed evils against 
yours (blanket statement) is as wrong as to say that crime is committed by the 'black 
community' because *some* have.  Please stop painting all heterosexuals with your broad, 
and biased brush.
 
>         Sure I seem harsh and mal-tempered but Silence = Death.  Please don't
> even try to prove me wrong on this one.  There is too much documention
> backing me up.

Prove it.  I have not seen any documentation to back up ANY thing you have said to this 
point.
 
>         Let's do something positive for our children!!!!!

OK, register them in BSA (sorry, couldn't resist that <g>)
 
>         Less than tempered but still respectful,

And respected in turn

Peace
Mark

This is the last post to this thread that I am adding.

Inaction can, in certain circumstances such as this, be as leathal as
negative action.  When parents, community leaders and others stand by
and let churches, the "klan" and school bullies degrade and chew into
other humans without showing concern for their humanity you _are_
responsible, to some degree, for the outcome of these peoples (your
family's) life.

Everyone should be aware of the cruelty around them.  Ignorance about it
will not help anyone get into those pearly gates.

I end with this:

I find it quite ironic.  The tolerance we queers show without resorting
to terrorism is a good quality.  A queer quality.  The hatred we see
from the fundamentalist churches is still hatred.  Who do you think will
be judged more hashly when they apply for passage into eternity?

Brian R. Kneebone wrote:
> 
> 
> I end with this:
> 
> I find it quite ironic.  The tolerance we queers show without resorting
> to terrorism is a good quality.  

Would that tolerance include blowing whistles inside a church, or protesting in that 
church while services are going on.  Sounds pretty tolerant to me.

> A queer quality.  

'Nuff said.


Peace,
Mark

Chris Salter wrote:
> 
> MARK (mdw@roanoke.infi.net) wrote:
> > Would that tolerance include blowing whistles inside a church, or protesting
> > in that church while services are going on.  Sounds pretty tolerant to me.
> 
> Sounds a good sight more tolerant than gay-bashing.  I've been the victim
> of hate-spawned violence before.  Trust me, blowing whistles inside a
> church is a lot more tolerant than a lot of people would like to be.

Then you, sir have a very twisted definition of 'tolerant.'

Peace,
Mark

MARK (mdw@roanoke.infi.net) wrote:
> Would that tolerance include blowing whistles inside a church, or protesting
> in that church while services are going on.  Sounds pretty tolerant to me.

Sounds a good sight more tolerant than gay-bashing.  I've been the victim
of hate-spawned violence before.  Trust me, blowing whistles inside a
church is a lot more tolerant than a lot of people would like to be.

> > A queer quality.  
> 'Nuff said.

Agreed.  Blowing whistles or severe beatings, I think I prefer queer
qualities, thank you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Salter                                             Toaster Boy
How many computer science geeks does it take to change a lightbulb?
					-- It's a hardware problem!
--------------------------------------------------------------------

MARK wrote:
> 
> Chris Salter wrote:
> >
> > MARK (mdw@roanoke.infi.net) wrote:
> > > Would that tolerance include blowing whistles inside a church, or protesting
> > > in that church while services are going on.  Sounds pretty tolerant to me.
> >
> > Sounds a good sight more tolerant than gay-bashing.  I've been the victim
> > of hate-spawned violence before.  Trust me, blowing whistles inside a
> > church is a lot more tolerant than a lot of people would like to be.
> 
> Then you, sir have a very twisted definition of 'tolerant.'
> 
> Peace,
> Mark

Ummmm let me see.  Either you are just totally ignorant or you are a
moron.  Let's see what the discussion is:

Which is more tolerant - whistle blowing or beating the shit out of
someone?

Hmmmm that's a hard one.  

andru

How many people did Jesus beat up?

MARK (mdw@roanoke.infi.net) wrote:
> > of hate-spawned violence before.  Trust me, blowing whistles inside a
> > church is a lot more tolerant than a lot of people would like to be.
> Then you, sir have a very twisted definition of 'tolerant.'

No, my good man, I do not.  I've asked quite a few of my most severely
Christian friends, some of whom are entirely anti-queer, and the unanimous
decision is that violence, no matter who the target, is far, far, worse
than merely disrupting a church service.

Or can you honestly say that the people who attempted to hospitalise me
were more tolerant than the people disrupting a church service?  If you
answer yes, then I can guarantee it is NOT I with the twisted definition.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Salter                                             Toaster Boy
How many computer science geeks does it take to change a lightbulb?
					-- It's a hardware problem!
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris Salter wrote:
> 
> MARK (mdw@roanoke.infi.net) wrote:
> > > of hate-spawned violence before.  Trust me, blowing whistles inside a
> > > church is a lot more tolerant than a lot of people would like to be.
> > Then you, sir have a very twisted definition of 'tolerant.'
> 
> No, my good man, I do not.  I've asked quite a few of my most severely
> Christian friends, some of whom are entirely anti-queer, and the unanimous
> decision is that violence, no matter who the target, is far, far, worse
> than merely disrupting a church service.

I agree, Chris, but that was never the question.  Brian did not say that homosexuals 
were more or less tolerant than heterosexuals.  He said that homosexuals 'show' 
tolerance.  Had he said that homosexuals show more tolerance than heterosexuals, we 
could have had a discussion on that subject.  He didn't.  We aren't.
 
> Or can you honestly say that the people who attempted to hospitalise me
> were more tolerant than the people disrupting a church service?  If you
> answer yes, then I can guarantee it is NOT I with the twisted definition.

Of course not, but we were not discussing 'more or less' tolerance.  Brian made a 
statement about how tolerant homosexuals were.  He compared it to terrorism.  He made no 
comment on the tolerance of heterosexuals.  I suggested that an act which some 
homosexuals have made in regard to certain Churches and congregations was not tolerant 
at all.  My statement stands.  If you want to discuss who is more or less tolerant, 
fine, we can.  That was not what I was talking about.

Additionally, "Because you did it first!" is a pretty weak argument for acting in an 
intolerant manner.  It is an argument I hear daily among elementary school children.  I 
thought that I was speaking to University students.  Perhaps I was wrong.

Peace,
Mark

andru wrote:
> 
> MARK wrote:
> >
> > Chris Salter wrote:
> > >
> > > MARK (mdw@roanoke.infi.net) wrote:
> > > > Would that tolerance include blowing whistles inside a church, or protesting
> > > > in that church while services are going on.  Sounds pretty tolerant to me.
> > >
> > > Sounds a good sight more tolerant than gay-bashing.  I've been the victim
> > > of hate-spawned violence before.  Trust me, blowing whistles inside a
> > > church is a lot more tolerant than a lot of people would like to be.
> >
> > Then you, sir have a very twisted definition of 'tolerant.'
> >
> > Peace,
> > Mark
> 
> Ummmm let me see.  Either you are just totally ignorant or you are a
> moron.  Let's see what the discussion is:
> 
> Which is more tolerant - whistle blowing or beating the shit out of
> someone?
> 
> Hmmmm that's a hard one.
> 
> andru
> 
> How many people did Jesus beat up?


My, my, here's an adult post.  If you've got nothing intelligent to say, curse and call 
names.

Peace, andru (I believe you need it and hope you find it)
Mark

MARK (mdw@roanoke.infi.net) wrote:
> Chris Salter wrote:
> > No, my good man, I do not.  I've asked quite a few of my most severely
> > Christian friends, some of whom are entirely anti-queer, and the unanimous
> > decision is that violence, no matter who the target, is far, far, worse
> > than merely disrupting a church service.
> I agree, Chris, but that was never the question.  Brian did not say that homosexuals 
> were more or less tolerant than heterosexuals.  He said that homosexuals 'show' 
> tolerance.  Had he said that homosexuals show more tolerance than heterosexuals, we 
> could have had a discussion on that subject.  He didn't.  We aren't.

He said "The tolerance we queers show...".  He said that queers show
tolerance.  Considering that a lot of queers (and here I'm no exception)
would enjoy going on the same kind of bashing spree that's been directed
at us, I believe we're being tolerant by only blowing whistles.  At any
rate, you won't agree with me.  You seem intent on trying to show yourself
as some patient and wise individual who has all the answers, without ever
actually saying anything, because face it, you have nothing to say.  The
most you've added to the discussion so far is, in effect, "I think it's
wrong."  Now, try again.  I've met a small number of truly wise people in
my life.  You will never impress me that way.

> Of course not, but we were not discussing 'more or less' tolerance.  Brian made a 
> statement about how tolerant homosexuals were.  He compared it to terrorism.  He made no 
> comment on the tolerance of heterosexuals.  I suggested that an act which some 
> homosexuals have made in regard to certain Churches and congregations was not tolerant 
> at all.  My statement stands.  If you want to discuss who is more or less tolerant, 
> fine, we can.  That was not what I was talking about.

That is what Brian was talking about, and that was what I was talking
about.  The only person who seems to have missed the point of the
discussion is you.  

> Additionally, "Because you did it first!" is a pretty weak argument for acting in an 
> intolerant manner.  It is an argument I hear daily among elementary school children.  I 
> thought that I was speaking to University students.  Perhaps I was wrong.

I believe the actions of the queer community are similiar to the actions
of the black community several decades ago.  Would you then say that
blacks (my apologies if the label offends anyone) should have sat back and
taken the abuse?  What about women, 70 years ago and still today?  Should
they have remained silent and taken the abuse?  I think anyone with an
ounce of humanity will agree that the actions taken by black people and
women were justified; why is it so different now that it's queers?


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Salter                                             Toaster Boy
                    In numbers there is a crowd.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

MARK wrote:
> 
> andru wrote:
> > Ummmm let me see.  Either you are just totally ignorant or you are a
> > moron.  Let's see what the discussion is:
> >
> > Which is more tolerant - whistle blowing or beating the shit out of
> > someone?
> >
> > Hmmmm that's a hard one.
> >
> > andru
> >
> > How many people did Jesus beat up?
> 
> My, my, here's an adult post.  If you've got nothing intelligent to say, curse and call
> names.

Well what does it take for you to wake up.  You are trying to argue that
protesting horrible acts of discrimination is just as bad as getting
beat up or fired from your job just because of who you love.
 
> Peace, andru (I believe you need it and hope you find it)
> Mark

People like you truly make me sick.  Wow look it's another loving
Christian who can say all the hateful things in the world but ends it
all with a "Jesus loves you" type of thing.

andru

MARK wrote:
> Additionally, "Because you did it first!" is a pretty weak argument for acting in an
> intolerant manner.  It is an argument I hear daily among elementary school children. I
> thought that I was speaking to University students.  Perhaps I was wrong.
> 
> Peace,
> Mark

Ummm so what you are saying is that responding to verbal and physical
violence and hatred by protest is being petty - I think not.

andru

Chris Salter wrote:
> 
> MARK (mdw@roanoke.infi.net) wrote:
> > Chris Salter wrote:
> > > No, my good man, I do not.  I've asked quite a few of my most severely
> > > Christian friends, some of whom are entirely anti-queer, and the unanimous
> > > decision is that violence, no matter who the target, is far, far, worse
> > > than merely disrupting a church service.
> > I agree, Chris, but that was never the question.  Brian did not say that homosexuals
> > were more or less tolerant than heterosexuals.  He said that homosexuals 'show'
> > tolerance.  Had he said that homosexuals show more tolerance than heterosexuals, we
> > could have had a discussion on that subject.  He didn't.  We aren't.
> 
> He said "The tolerance we queers show...".  He said that queers show
> tolerance.  

And I said, and repeat, that it is *not* tolerant to blow whistles in the Church of 
people who *probably* have not done anything to you, simply because the Church is a 
representation of some insult or attack you feel that you have received from 
heterosexuals.

> Considering that a lot of queers (and here I'm no exception)
> would enjoy going on the same kind of bashing spree that's been directed
> at us, I believe we're being tolerant by only blowing whistles.  

Well *I* for one am sure glad that you didn't.

> At any
> rate, you won't agree with me.  You seem intent on trying to show yourself
> as some patient and wise individual who has all the answers, without ever
> actually saying anything, because face it, you have nothing to say.  The
> most you've added to the discussion so far is, in effect, "I think it's
> wrong."  Now, try again.  I've met a small number of truly wise people in
> my life.  You will never impress me that way.

Aww, Chris, now you've hurt my feelings, think I'll go off and pout, or maybe I'll post 
eight angry notes to this NG like a friend of yours did.  Get off it.  If I cared what 
you think about me, this would bother me.  I care about you, not what you think about 
me.  I most certainly am not trying to impress you, after all, you have your tolerant 
friends who I'm sure are *much* more impressive than I.

I hope I'm patient (gets a little hard when talking to you and andru.)  I certainly *do 
not* have all the answers.  Wish I did, but all I can do is speak for myself.  If you 
don't like what I say, don't listen, or don't respond.

> > Additionally, "Because you did it first!" is a pretty weak argument for acting in an
> > intolerant manner.  It is an argument I hear daily among elementary school children.  I
> > thought that I was speaking to University students.  Perhaps I was wrong.
> 
> I believe the actions of the queer community are similiar to the actions
> of the black community several decades ago.  Would you then say that
> blacks (my apologies if the label offends anyone) should have sat back and
> taken the abuse?  What about women, 70 years ago and still today?  Should
> they have remained silent and taken the abuse?  I think anyone with an
> ounce of humanity will agree that the actions taken by black people and
> women were justified; why is it so different now that it's queers?

Show me one example of Civil Rights protesters or Suffragets disrupting a Church 
service.

I wondered how long it would take y'all to get to the comparison of the 'homosexual 
rights' movement to the civil rights movement.

There are several things wrong with calling homosexuality as a civil right. The law 
(here in the good ol' US, anyway) already protects the civil rights of citizens (and 
non-citizens, as well.) Homosexuals already enjoy these civil rights the same as 
everyone else. I will agree that individual homosexuals have had certain rights deprived 
at times (just as anybody else in this country could), and it *may be* because of their 
homosexuality, but the law already addresses it.

For example, it is already against the law to beat someone up. If a homosexual is beaten 
up by someone who hates homosexuals, the attacker is already punishable by law. To 
extend further protection to a homosexual on the basis of his homosexuality is 
unnecessary and unfair to non-homosexuals. One's behavior should not be the subject of 
civil rights laws. If I believe that homosexuality is immoral, why should I not have the 
right to avoid homosexuals? After all, we are extending the cover of civil rights to 
behaviors, aren't we? If I believe that African Americans should not be able to join 
my country club, I can keep them out, can't I.  After all, we are extending the cover 
of civil rights to behaviors, aren't we?  If homosexuality is a civil right, does that 
mean that a church could not deny a job to a homosexual because of his homosexuality?

Blacks and women were protesting discrimination based upon non-behavioral factors.  You 
are not.  You *chose* to behave in a certain way, then cried when those who are opposed 
to that behavior stated their opposition.  You made a choice, live with it, or change.  
Don't ask others around you to change their response to what you did.

Peace,
Mark

MARK wrote:
 
> Blacks and women were protesting discrimination based upon non-behavioral factors.  You
> are not.  You *chose* to behave in a certain way, then cried when those who are opposed
> to that behavior stated their opposition.  You made a choice, live with it, or change.
> Don't ask others around you to change their response to what you did.
> 
> Peace,
> Mark

If you aren't gay how can you pass judgement on others and tell them how
to live their lives?  I'm sorry but being gay is not a choice.  If it
were then answer this one question for me - why would anyone "choose" to
be a part of a group that faces discrimination and violence for
something that is private and not the public's concern. Why should you
or anyone else tell me who I can love or have sex with?  It's my body
not yours.  

By the way Bible thumpers such as yourself are amusing because they
believe so deeply in a book, yes I said a book, made with paper just
like the yellow pages and guess what - just like the yellow pages the
Bible was written by human beings and not God.

andru

MARK (mdw@roanoke.infi.net) wrote:
> And I said, and repeat, that it is *not* tolerant to blow whistles in the Church of 
> people who *probably* have not done anything to you, simply because the Church is a 
> representation of some insult or attack you feel that you have received from 
> heterosexuals.

And I repeat, blowing whistles is showing tolerance.  Not full tolerance,
obviously, but more tolerance than blowing up the church, or severely
beating every homophobic member of the congregation.

> Well *I* for one am sure glad that you didn't.

And so am I.  Violence and hatred have never, IMO, solved any problems.

> Aww, Chris, now you've hurt my feelings, think I'll go off and pout, or maybe I'll post 
> eight angry notes to this NG like a friend of yours did.  Get off it.  If I cared what 
> you think about me, this would bother me.  I care about you, not what you think about 
> me.  I most certainly am not trying to impress you, after all, you have your tolerant 
> friends who I'm sure are *much* more impressive than I.

I'm sorry, you're under a mistaken impression.  The wise person I spoke of
was not a friend, she was my grandmother.  I only barely knew her
directly, but I've seen reflections of her in my mother and my aunt, and
in her sisters, and in other people who've come into contact with her over
the years.  Even from my own very limited direct knowlege of her, I would
call her a saint, and everyone who met her would agree with me.  There is
no person who could exist on this Earth who could hope to surpass her, and
few who could claim to be her equal.  Again, not just my own opinion; many
others said the same thing.

> I hope I'm patient (gets a little hard when talking to you and andru.)  I certainly *do 
> not* have all the answers.  Wish I did, but all I can do is speak for myself.  If you 
> don't like what I say, don't listen, or don't respond.

Oh, don't worry, my patience hasn't even begun to run out.  I've put up
with far worse than your fairly intelligent (albeit misguided) opposition
for much longer than this.

> Show me one example of Civil Rights protesters or Suffragets disrupting a Church 
> service.
> I wondered how long it would take y'all to get to the comparison of the 'homosexual 
> rights' movement to the civil rights movement.

"y'all".  Wow, that's even more painful typed than it is spoken.  'Civil
rights' meant only 'human rights', IIRC.  Nothing more, nothing less.  And
I believe that civil rights protesters did a lot more than just disrupt
church service; and I imagine they would have had to do that on occaision
as well, in order for blacks to get their own recognized as ministers,
pastors, preists, etc.

> There are several things wrong with calling homosexuality as a civil right. The law 
> (here in the good ol' US, anyway) already protects the civil rights of citizens (and 
> non-citizens, as well.) Homosexuals already enjoy these civil rights the same as 
> everyone else. I will agree that individual homosexuals have had certain rights deprived 
> at times (just as anybody else in this country could), and it *may be* because of their 
> homosexuality, but the law already addresses it.

Actually, no, I'm afraid you're wrong, or at least were wrong just a short
time ago.  IIRC, the human rights code in the United States still will not
protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation; so just for
being gay, people can still be fired.

> For example, it is already against the law to beat someone up. If a homosexual is beaten 
> up by someone who hates homosexuals, the attacker is already punishable by law. To 
> extend further protection to a homosexual on the basis of his homosexuality is 
> unnecessary and unfair to non-homosexuals.

What about the strong anti-jew movement that seems to be resurfacing? 
They really only discriminate based on behaviour; after all, Jews and
Christians worship basically the same God, the only real difference being
how the worshipping is being done.  But when hate crimes directed at Jews
are being discussed, everyone (with any sense, that is) kicks into high
gear to help prevent it.

 One's behavior should not be the subject of 
> civil rights laws. If I believe that homosexuality is immoral, why should I not have the 
> right to avoid homosexuals? After all, we are extending the cover of civil rights to 
> behaviors, aren't we? If I believe that African Americans should not be able to join 
> my country club, I can keep them out, can't I.

On this count, I honestly hope you're wrong.  Discrimination based on
anything other than personality (which is seperate from orientation, in
case you didn't know) is just pathetic.  And civil rights are meaningless.
Human rights are all that matter, and they've been denied to the queer
community.

> Blacks and women were protesting discrimination based upon non-behavioral factors.  You 
> are not.  You *chose* to behave in a certain way, then cried when those who are opposed 
> to that behavior stated their opposition.  You made a choice, live with it, or change.  
> Don't ask others around you to change their response to what you did.

Chose?  "Why would I choose to be something that horrifies my parents,
that could ruin my career, that my religion condemns, and that could cost
me my life if I dared to walk down the street holding hands with my
boyfriend?"  (from _Is It A Choice_, Eric Marcus).  I can't imagine why
anyone would *choose* to be queer.  If you're upset at my choice to act on
those feelings (whether I have or not is irrelevant, apparently), if God
has perfect love for all beings, and God created me the way I am, then God
loves me as I am, and the only way I can thank him is to try to share that
love, however I can.

> Peace,

You'll forgive me if I find peace to be lacking from oppression.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Salter                                             Toaster Boy
    Together, we may stand, but apart, we have room to sit!  :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca> wrote in article
<3329E4F6.466B@chat.carleton.ca>...
> If you aren't gay how can you pass judgement on others and tell them how
> to live their lives?  I'm sorry but being gay is not a choice.  If it
> were then answer this one question for me - why would anyone "choose" to
> be a part of a group that faces discrimination and violence for
> something that is private and not the public's concern. Why should you
> or anyone else tell me who I can love or have sex with?  It's my body
> not yours.  
> 
I guess in the same way that you can have a straight person working in your
center at the university. How can they even have an idea of what it is like
if they are straight? I've always been of the opinion (professionally) that
the most successful counselors are those that have been there. 

You can do what you want. I've got no problem with that. You have the right
to do with your body what you want and be with who you want to be. That
acceptance does not mean that I agree with what you are doing. As I have no
right to intrude in your world, you do not have the right to intrude in
mine.   

> By the way Bible thumpers such as yourself are amusing because they
> believe so deeply in a book, yes I said a book, made with paper just
> like the yellow pages and guess what - just like the yellow pages the
> Bible was written by human beings and not God.
> 
You are correct.
1. The Bible is a book.
2. It is made with paper.
3. The Bible was written by people. These people were inspired by God. 
4. I believe in it and use it as a guide for my life. One of the guiding
principles of this guide is to love others. 
I see no problem with that.

But why bring it up at all. It has nothing to do with the discussion. 


-- 
Dave Livingston                                                            
      dliving@minn.net
Scoutmaster, BSA Troop 522                                              
Coon Rapids, MN
SE-583 Camp Reeves NC
I used to be a buffalo.. 
 
 

dave livingston (dliving@minn.net) wrote:
> I guess in the same way that you can have a straight person working in your
> center at the university. How can they even have an idea of what it is like
> if they are straight? I've always been of the opinion (professionally) that
> the most successful counselors are those that have been there. 

What we're doing at the Center is to provide support, education, and
advocacy.  Perhaps, possibly, a straight person wouldn't be able to
understand homophobia enough to be the most effective counsellor; we take
what we can get, though, since we're not given very much.  And, more
importantly, only a small amount of our work is support by counselling. 
Is a straight person less capable of answering phones, or knowing where
everything is, or answering questions?

> You can do what you want. I've got no problem with that. You have the right
> to do with your body what you want and be with who you want to be. That
> acceptance does not mean that I agree with what you are doing. As I have no
> right to intrude in your world, you do not have the right to intrude in
> mine.   

I hope you keep in mind that the "world" in question is the world of the
bedroom.  Outside of the bedroom, sexual orientation should make no
difference, and the world of the queer should be no different from the
world of the straight, just as the world of the pagan should be no
different from the world of the Christian, the world of the black should
be no different from the world of the white.

> You are correct.
> 1. The Bible is a book.
> 2. It is made with paper.

Yes.  This is true so far, and everyone I know agrees with this.

> 3. The Bible was written by people. These people were inspired by God. 

This is debatable, depending on your religion.  One thing I will *not*
agree with is the translation of the Bible.  Even inspired by God, there
is no way that anyone could properly translate that important a work
through that many languages.  It's a miracle that any of it makes any
sense at all any more.  If you don't think that translation makes a
difference, go read something in French and try to translate it properly
into English; that's an easy task, really, but it can't quite be done
*properly*.  Certain nuances are missing, certain inflections are added. 
If you want an even more disturbing example, try translating Tolkein's
works from the way he wrote them to more "modern" English.  What's the
point of that example, you ask?  Simple: the sentence structure has to
change, and it destroys so much of the meaning.  Different languages
automatically have different sentence structures, meaning that perfect
translation for anything other than "Where is the washroom?" is
impossible.  I won't dispute that the original Bible (written in Greek,
was it not?  Possibly Latin?  And let's not get into Old Testament, that's
in like Sumerian or something) was written exactly as God intended; what I
do dispute is that the English version is capable of meaning anything
important.

> 4. I believe in it and use it as a guide for my life. One of the guiding
> principles of this guide is to love others. 

The Golden Rule of Christianity: "Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you."  Yes, Christianity teaches love, but how many people who
believe themselves to be devout Christians truly remember that?  How many
people acting "in the name of God" actually think about what they do and
how it reflect's God's Law?  You'll find more than a little hypocrisy in
Christianity (as in any religion) if you take the time to look.  The
institutionalised homophobia is just one example.

> I see no problem with that.

If you truly believe in love for all beings, then you are beyond the scope
of this world, my friend; your wings and halo wait for you.  But don't
just say "I love you" and expect that to make it better somehow that you
don't act that way.  Many people seem to expect that they can mouth the
words and forget the intent.

> But why bring it up at all. It has nothing to do with the discussion. 

IIRC, the Boy Scouts have at least a certain amount of religion at their
base.  At any rate, religion has been used as a reason to keep queers out
of the BSA.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Salter                                             Toaster Boy
    Together, we may stand, but apart, we have room to sit!  :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------