On 10.20.10, the Golden Rule Pledge is partnering with the National Bullying Prevention Month to raise awareness among people of faith about bullying prevention. Later today, I am going to post a link here and on the Golden Rule Pledge website to some resources which I hope will be of use to youth leaders in talking to youth groups about becoming part of the solution to school bullying. One resource I am going to include on that page is the following video from the You Tube page of The Poultry Press. Roll the tape:
This video is a direct challenge to far right observers who believe the distress felt by many young people is due to their sexual orientation. This young man identifies as straight and yet reports repeated harassment due to perceptions that he was gay.
Now, go check out the resources (small in number but growing) on the Golden Rule Pledge site.
Posted and sent to friends…
I’m watching and listening how this issue is being debated in the public, finally. But there are too many people who believe that gays and lesbians are dominating the conversation to their own ends.
And those ends are continually described as ‘the militant homosexual agenda’.
It’s being diluted with statements like ‘ALL kinds of other children get bullied, not just gay ones’.
Which is true, but those other children, won’t find themselves discriminated against if they want to be soldiers, get married, want to live in certain places or serve in the BSA.
That is to say, the bullying of the other kids won’t be manifest in the adult world, as it is for gay men and women.
So if the root of the bullying is religious doctrine based anti gay sentiment, then it will have to stop there too.
I can put out a question of ethics very seriously to the most avowed person of faith, and they will fail to answer the question at all, if honestly.
That question is, would a parent want their child to be taught about Jews, from a non Jewish anti Semite, or about blacks by a segregationist?
Then why the exception when it comes to learning the truth about homosexuality, and the intents and abilities of someone gay.
There are several newspapers that invite comment threads on this subject, and you can see for yourself easily why children distrust gay people and are sharp to assault someone based on the stereotypes they’ve learned.
Dr. Throckmorton, this is to you. The assault I went through and I’m still at risk for, is sexual because I’m a woman. When I was growing up, boys had no respect for be and my developing body, and it was very difficult to protect myself.
Girls are STILL socialized to accept this treatment, or face rejection. And considering how many ways now this manifests in new media, the situation is worse.
What would happen, is, if I defended myself, I got in trouble. If I didn’t, I got worse treatment.
If I defended someone else, I got in trouble.
When schools don’t distinguish right from wrong, nor require accountability from the bullying element, then they empower the bully.
In a lot of ways, religious doctrine is bullying and predatory in it’s own way. There is a long sad history of such things against indigenous peoples, women, support of slavery and Jim Crow in America, and similar systemic discrimination and intimidation of gay people.
As someone on the receiving end of serious prejudice (racial) as well as gender based, and now abuse has come my way in defense of gay people, one has to be VERY clear and strong about what and who they defend.
And understand what ethics and morals really are.
That it’s about how you treat another person, not how much you can influence them through dominance.
Our ethical consciousness wouldn’t support ANY oppressive laws, no matter WHAT the Bible says.
Which is why we don’t allow slavery. We don’t allow the subjugation of women.
Which is why this issue clearly shows you hurt one, you hurt us all.
We lose our humanity, when we no longer consider a group human beings.
The connection between the bullying and who is truly influencing this occurrence is getting clearer, and those responsible are trying to hide, but it’s harder to do so.
I don’t appreciate weakness in owning up to that accountability, Dr. T.
And I don’t appreciate denial that the influence if Christian or any other doctrine in this is very strong.
Indeed, I’m sure you’ve noticed some of the family/pro marriage groups that are euphemism for anti gay, are playing the victim card over several court decisions in favor of Constitutionally protecting gay people’s rights.
DADT is still in a holding pattern and treated like there is a rush to change it, after SEVENTEEN years.
Well, when the tenderest and most vulnerable of us, are blowing their brains out and jumping from bridges, it’s fair that gay people and their supporters have lost patience.
The thousands of years cited to justify discrimination, are the same thousands of years gay people have endured the unedurable.
And there is no defense for it.
None.
Just as there is no defense of slavery. There never was defense of the abuse of another human being.
Not ever.
So the STRONG have to defend gay people. Very strong, VERY committed people must defend the Justins, Ashers, Aiishas and Tylers.
This boy did it in a few minutes. The response to this crisis from the gay community has been very compassionate and supportive.
From Christians as a large group, not so much.
Not only that, there have actually been some mockery of these tragedies, such as from Mike Adams of TownHall.
http://www.townhall.com
Saying that he’s not representative of all Christians doesn’t help. When you read the comment threads, he actually represents quite a few.
These tragedies prevailed because good people did nothing. Gay people have been practically begging and fighting for help, and it came to late for these kids and almost to millions more by these heartfelt testimonies.
Gay people have been saying all along, it’s NOT a choice to be gay. And no Christian on Earth should be arguing that point. Nor deciding FOR gay people that the government is right to deny all civil and legal equality on condition of conversion and never challenging that doctrine.
I’ll believe a Christian is sincere, when they stop believing and telling others that gay people can convert and should.
Especially when it’s obvious there is no moral test for a hetero to be treated equally by the law.
That alone would go a long way to keep families together, and children protected.
And this issue needs strong people who’ll stand up for that.
Regan DuCasse wants to force people who hold Christian beliefs to abandon them because they don’t agree with her. If you believe something other than what she believes, in her worldview you are a prejudiced bigot. Who is she to tell others what to believe and what not to believe?
In order to give her assertions credence she refers to some mysterious assault that she does not describe. How does being assaulted help the rightness or wrongness of an argument? It doesn’t. If I was assaulted by a gay man in my youth, would that give any arguments I make against hers any added validity? Of course not, so I don’t understand this mention of an assault to make her some sort of victim. Hypocritically we see that she condemns others for using the victim card.
The main point ought to be not what certain Christians say, but rather what their authority says. For Christians it is the Bible. This being the case it would have been better for her to dispute those Scriptures that deal with homosexuality. But it seems that this is not necessary for her since she rejects the Bible as an authority when she writes “Our ethical consciousness wouldn’t support ANY oppressive laws, no matter WHAT the Bible says.” Of course she hasn’t proven that the Bible has oppressive laws, she just assumes it then rebels against it.
To her gays are victims just as non-white people were victims in the past. They are today’s victims of Jim Crow. But are they? To her they are when people don’t agree with state recognition of same-sex marriage. If you don’t support SSM then you support Jim Crow. It doesn’t matter if there are good reasons for rejecting it, you’re a bigot anyway. Then there’s the Boy Scouts of America rejecting gays as scoutmasters. It doesn’t matter to her that the BSA is a private organization. She wants to force them to do something they don’t believe in. Sounds like religious discrimination to me. Isn’t that bigotry too? What about the alternative that doesn’t require force and hypocrisy, such as forming a separate organization that has gay scoutmasters? No, she would rather force an existing group to do something they don’t believe in.
It is interesting that she talks about ethics and morals, but what is her source for those ethic and morals? Why is she trying to force her ethics and morals on those with different ethics and morals? Sounds like bullying.
Bullying is the key word here. It is the tactic of the Far Left. Bully those who disagree with you. In days of old the Klan would burn a cross on the lawn of those who disagree with it, these days the LGBT groups try to boycott and push for firing of those who disagree with them. On another site she defended the firing of a broadcaster for making statements that didn’t agree with the Canadian government’s position. Free speech laws don’t apply there, so for voicing one’s Christian beliefs concerning SSM, one loses their job. Is this Canada’s Jim Crow against Christian theology? Whatever one calls it, Regan defended it.
Professor Throckmorton encourages people to live a lifestyle consistent with their faith. In terms of their sexuality it may mean that they live a celibate life. Is there something wrong with that? This is something that is clearly biblical, and it is not just for those who have same-sex attraction. People with opposite-sex attraction need to be celibate before marriage too.
But Regan may object that the issue is that people with same-sex attraction cannot marry. This is not true. Legally they can marry, just to a person of the opposite sex. But, she may counter, they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex. Okay, but then they have the choice not to marry. The law does discriminate in that it doesn’t (in states where it is not legal) permit same-sex marriage. But it also discriminates against polygamous marriage. It also discriminates against brother-sister marriage, and mother-son marriage, and father-daughter marriage, etc. It doesn’t give recognition to someone who wants to marry their dog or cat, or their favorite old shoe. Yes, the law discriminates against a lot of different types of sexual preferences. As it should.
(For those who claim that this is a slippery slope fallacy they are wrong. This is a slippery slope argument. There is a difference. Moreover, state recognition of SSM is the argument that polygamists are currently using before the court. Facts can be stubborn things.)
But SSM should not be compared with polygamy she may claim. Why not? Why is this wrong but it is okay to compare the struggles of the LGBT community with the struggles of women and racial minorities? As they say, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” She may reply “Gay people have been saying all along, it’s NOT a choice to be gay. And no Christian on Earth should be arguing that point.” I don’t see that anyone is claiming that same-sex attraction is a choice, especially in males. There is a choice, however, in what one does and how one behaves. But if a Christian were to make that claim, would Regan force or coerce that person not to? What happened to her opposition to oppressive laws? Seems like a double standard, doesn’t it.
Enough of responding to Regan’s assertions. What Prof. Throckmorton is to be commended. Keep up the good work, or as what Regan wrote in another posting, “Go get em!”
All kinds of children are told that because of what they are they are abandoned by God.
All kinds of children are told that what they are makes them equivalent to gang rapists.
All kinds of children are told they will grow up to be child molesters.
All kinds of children are told that if they ever have sex, they deserve to be executed.
All kinds of children are told that they can never marry.
All kinds of children are told that they can never have children.
All kinds of children are taught to hate themselves by their parents.
IF THIS WERE TRUE, HUMAN BEINGS WOULD BE SUCH REPREHENSIBLE CREATURES THAT OUR SPECIES WOULD NOT DESERVE TO CONTINUE.
Warren this comment seems like simply a rag on Regan DuCasse to me, highly suspect, since it comes 15 months after the article was published.
SGM – The comment takes exception to Regan’s approach and that is fine.
Okay, the way it was worded I took it differently but I am fine with it.
Okay, the way it was worded I took it differently but I am fine with it.
SGM – The comment takes exception to Regan’s approach and that is fine.
Warren this comment seems like simply a rag on Regan DuCasse to me, highly suspect, since it comes 15 months after the article was published.
Okay, the way it was worded I took it differently but I am fine with it.
SGM – The comment takes exception to Regan’s approach and that is fine.
Regan DuCasse wants to force people who hold Christian beliefs to abandon them because they don’t agree with her. If you believe something other than what she believes, in her worldview you are a prejudiced bigot. Who is she to tell others what to believe and what not to believe?
In order to give her assertions credence she refers to some mysterious assault that she does not describe. How does being assaulted help the rightness or wrongness of an argument? It doesn’t. If I was assaulted by a gay man in my youth, would that give any arguments I make against hers any added validity? Of course not, so I don’t understand this mention of an assault to make her some sort of victim. Hypocritically we see that she condemns others for using the victim card.
The main point ought to be not what certain Christians say, but rather what their authority says. For Christians it is the Bible. This being the case it would have been better for her to dispute those Scriptures that deal with homosexuality. But it seems that this is not necessary for her since she rejects the Bible as an authority when she writes “Our ethical consciousness wouldn’t support ANY oppressive laws, no matter WHAT the Bible says.” Of course she hasn’t proven that the Bible has oppressive laws, she just assumes it then rebels against it.
To her gays are victims just as non-white people were victims in the past. They are today’s victims of Jim Crow. But are they? To her they are when people don’t agree with state recognition of same-sex marriage. If you don’t support SSM then you support Jim Crow. It doesn’t matter if there are good reasons for rejecting it, you’re a bigot anyway. Then there’s the Boy Scouts of America rejecting gays as scoutmasters. It doesn’t matter to her that the BSA is a private organization. She wants to force them to do something they don’t believe in. Sounds like religious discrimination to me. Isn’t that bigotry too? What about the alternative that doesn’t require force and hypocrisy, such as forming a separate organization that has gay scoutmasters? No, she would rather force an existing group to do something they don’t believe in.
It is interesting that she talks about ethics and morals, but what is her source for those ethic and morals? Why is she trying to force her ethics and morals on those with different ethics and morals? Sounds like bullying.
Bullying is the key word here. It is the tactic of the Far Left. Bully those who disagree with you. In days of old the Klan would burn a cross on the lawn of those who disagree with it, these days the LGBT groups try to boycott and push for firing of those who disagree with them. On another site she defended the firing of a broadcaster for making statements that didn’t agree with the Canadian government’s position. Free speech laws don’t apply there, so for voicing one’s Christian beliefs concerning SSM, one loses their job. Is this Canada’s Jim Crow against Christian theology? Whatever one calls it, Regan defended it.
Professor Throckmorton encourages people to live a lifestyle consistent with their faith. In terms of their sexuality it may mean that they live a celibate life. Is there something wrong with that? This is something that is clearly biblical, and it is not just for those who have same-sex attraction. People with opposite-sex attraction need to be celibate before marriage too.
But Regan may object that the issue is that people with same-sex attraction cannot marry. This is not true. Legally they can marry, just to a person of the opposite sex. But, she may counter, they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex. Okay, but then they have the choice not to marry. The law does discriminate in that it doesn’t (in states where it is not legal) permit same-sex marriage. But it also discriminates against polygamous marriage. It also discriminates against brother-sister marriage, and mother-son marriage, and father-daughter marriage, etc. It doesn’t give recognition to someone who wants to marry their dog or cat, or their favorite old shoe. Yes, the law discriminates against a lot of different types of sexual preferences. As it should.
(For those who claim that this is a slippery slope fallacy they are wrong. This is a slippery slope argument. There is a difference. Moreover, state recognition of SSM is the argument that polygamists are currently using before the court. Facts can be stubborn things.)
But SSM should not be compared with polygamy she may claim. Why not? Why is this wrong but it is okay to compare the struggles of the LGBT community with the struggles of women and racial minorities? As they say, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” She may reply “Gay people have been saying all along, it’s NOT a choice to be gay. And no Christian on Earth should be arguing that point.” I don’t see that anyone is claiming that same-sex attraction is a choice, especially in males. There is a choice, however, in what one does and how one behaves. But if a Christian were to make that claim, would Regan force or coerce that person not to? What happened to her opposition to oppressive laws? Seems like a double standard, doesn’t it.
Enough of responding to Regan’s assertions. What Prof. Throckmorton is to be commended. Keep up the good work, or as what Regan wrote in another posting, “Go get em!”
Regan DuCasse wants to force people who hold Christian beliefs to abandon them because they don’t agree with her. If you believe something other than what she believes, in her worldview you are a prejudiced bigot. Who is she to tell others what to believe and what not to believe?
In order to give her assertions credence she refers to some mysterious assault that she does not describe. How does being assaulted help the rightness or wrongness of an argument? It doesn’t. If I was assaulted by a gay man in my youth, would that give any arguments I make against hers any added validity? Of course not, so I don’t understand this mention of an assault to make her some sort of victim. Hypocritically we see that she condemns others for using the victim card.
The main point ought to be not what certain Christians say, but rather what their authority says. For Christians it is the Bible. This being the case it would have been better for her to dispute those Scriptures that deal with homosexuality. But it seems that this is not necessary for her since she rejects the Bible as an authority when she writes “Our ethical consciousness wouldn’t support ANY oppressive laws, no matter WHAT the Bible says.” Of course she hasn’t proven that the Bible has oppressive laws, she just assumes it then rebels against it.
To her gays are victims just as non-white people were victims in the past. They are today’s victims of Jim Crow. But are they? To her they are when people don’t agree with state recognition of same-sex marriage. If you don’t support SSM then you support Jim Crow. It doesn’t matter if there are good reasons for rejecting it, you’re a bigot anyway. Then there’s the Boy Scouts of America rejecting gays as scoutmasters. It doesn’t matter to her that the BSA is a private organization. She wants to force them to do something they don’t believe in. Sounds like religious discrimination to me. Isn’t that bigotry too? What about the alternative that doesn’t require force and hypocrisy, such as forming a separate organization that has gay scoutmasters? No, she would rather force an existing group to do something they don’t believe in.
It is interesting that she talks about ethics and morals, but what is her source for those ethic and morals? Why is she trying to force her ethics and morals on those with different ethics and morals? Sounds like bullying.
Bullying is the key word here. It is the tactic of the Far Left. Bully those who disagree with you. In days of old the Klan would burn a cross on the lawn of those who disagree with it, these days the LGBT groups try to boycott and push for firing of those who disagree with them. On another site she defended the firing of a broadcaster for making statements that didn’t agree with the Canadian government’s position. Free speech laws don’t apply there, so for voicing one’s Christian beliefs concerning SSM, one loses their job. Is this Canada’s Jim Crow against Christian theology? Whatever one calls it, Regan defended it.
Professor Throckmorton encourages people to live a lifestyle consistent with their faith. In terms of their sexuality it may mean that they live a celibate life. Is there something wrong with that? This is something that is clearly biblical, and it is not just for those who have same-sex attraction. People with opposite-sex attraction need to be celibate before marriage too.
But Regan may object that the issue is that people with same-sex attraction cannot marry. This is not true. Legally they can marry, just to a person of the opposite sex. But, she may counter, they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex. Okay, but then they have the choice not to marry. The law does discriminate in that it doesn’t (in states where it is not legal) permit same-sex marriage. But it also discriminates against polygamous marriage. It also discriminates against brother-sister marriage, and mother-son marriage, and father-daughter marriage, etc. It doesn’t give recognition to someone who wants to marry their dog or cat, or their favorite old shoe. Yes, the law discriminates against a lot of different types of sexual preferences. As it should.
(For those who claim that this is a slippery slope fallacy they are wrong. This is a slippery slope argument. There is a difference. Moreover, state recognition of SSM is the argument that polygamists are currently using before the court. Facts can be stubborn things.)
But SSM should not be compared with polygamy she may claim. Why not? Why is this wrong but it is okay to compare the struggles of the LGBT community with the struggles of women and racial minorities? As they say, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” She may reply “Gay people have been saying all along, it’s NOT a choice to be gay. And no Christian on Earth should be arguing that point.” I don’t see that anyone is claiming that same-sex attraction is a choice, especially in males. There is a choice, however, in what one does and how one behaves. But if a Christian were to make that claim, would Regan force or coerce that person not to? What happened to her opposition to oppressive laws? Seems like a double standard, doesn’t it.
Enough of responding to Regan’s assertions. What Prof. Throckmorton is to be commended. Keep up the good work, or as what Regan wrote in another posting, “Go get em!”
All kinds of children are told that because of what they are they are abandoned by God.
All kinds of children are told that what they are makes them equivalent to gang rapists.
All kinds of children are told they will grow up to be child molesters.
All kinds of children are told that if they ever have sex, they deserve to be executed.
All kinds of children are told that they can never marry.
All kinds of children are told that they can never have children.
All kinds of children are taught to hate themselves by their parents.
IF THIS WERE TRUE, HUMAN BEINGS WOULD BE SUCH REPREHENSIBLE CREATURES THAT OUR SPECIES WOULD NOT DESERVE TO CONTINUE.
All kinds of children are told that because of what they are they are abandoned by God.
All kinds of children are told that what they are makes them equivalent to gang rapists.
All kinds of children are told they will grow up to be child molesters.
All kinds of children are told that if they ever have sex, they deserve to be executed.
All kinds of children are told that they can never marry.
All kinds of children are told that they can never have children.
All kinds of children are taught to hate themselves by their parents.
IF THIS WERE TRUE, HUMAN BEINGS WOULD BE SUCH REPREHENSIBLE CREATURES THAT OUR SPECIES WOULD NOT DESERVE TO CONTINUE.
I’m watching and listening how this issue is being debated in the public, finally. But there are too many people who believe that gays and lesbians are dominating the conversation to their own ends.
And those ends are continually described as ‘the militant homosexual agenda’.
It’s being diluted with statements like ‘ALL kinds of other children get bullied, not just gay ones’.
Which is true, but those other children, won’t find themselves discriminated against if they want to be soldiers, get married, want to live in certain places or serve in the BSA.
That is to say, the bullying of the other kids won’t be manifest in the adult world, as it is for gay men and women.
So if the root of the bullying is religious doctrine based anti gay sentiment, then it will have to stop there too.
I can put out a question of ethics very seriously to the most avowed person of faith, and they will fail to answer the question at all, if honestly.
That question is, would a parent want their child to be taught about Jews, from a non Jewish anti Semite, or about blacks by a segregationist?
Then why the exception when it comes to learning the truth about homosexuality, and the intents and abilities of someone gay.
There are several newspapers that invite comment threads on this subject, and you can see for yourself easily why children distrust gay people and are sharp to assault someone based on the stereotypes they’ve learned.
Dr. Throckmorton, this is to you. The assault I went through and I’m still at risk for, is sexual because I’m a woman. When I was growing up, boys had no respect for be and my developing body, and it was very difficult to protect myself.
Girls are STILL socialized to accept this treatment, or face rejection. And considering how many ways now this manifests in new media, the situation is worse.
What would happen, is, if I defended myself, I got in trouble. If I didn’t, I got worse treatment.
If I defended someone else, I got in trouble.
When schools don’t distinguish right from wrong, nor require accountability from the bullying element, then they empower the bully.
In a lot of ways, religious doctrine is bullying and predatory in it’s own way. There is a long sad history of such things against indigenous peoples, women, support of slavery and Jim Crow in America, and similar systemic discrimination and intimidation of gay people.
As someone on the receiving end of serious prejudice (racial) as well as gender based, and now abuse has come my way in defense of gay people, one has to be VERY clear and strong about what and who they defend.
And understand what ethics and morals really are.
That it’s about how you treat another person, not how much you can influence them through dominance.
Our ethical consciousness wouldn’t support ANY oppressive laws, no matter WHAT the Bible says.
Which is why we don’t allow slavery. We don’t allow the subjugation of women.
Which is why this issue clearly shows you hurt one, you hurt us all.
We lose our humanity, when we no longer consider a group human beings.
The connection between the bullying and who is truly influencing this occurrence is getting clearer, and those responsible are trying to hide, but it’s harder to do so.
I don’t appreciate weakness in owning up to that accountability, Dr. T.
And I don’t appreciate denial that the influence if Christian or any other doctrine in this is very strong.
Indeed, I’m sure you’ve noticed some of the family/pro marriage groups that are euphemism for anti gay, are playing the victim card over several court decisions in favor of Constitutionally protecting gay people’s rights.
DADT is still in a holding pattern and treated like there is a rush to change it, after SEVENTEEN years.
Well, when the tenderest and most vulnerable of us, are blowing their brains out and jumping from bridges, it’s fair that gay people and their supporters have lost patience.
The thousands of years cited to justify discrimination, are the same thousands of years gay people have endured the unedurable.
And there is no defense for it.
None.
Just as there is no defense of slavery. There never was defense of the abuse of another human being.
Not ever.
So the STRONG have to defend gay people. Very strong, VERY committed people must defend the Justins, Ashers, Aiishas and Tylers.
This boy did it in a few minutes. The response to this crisis from the gay community has been very compassionate and supportive.
From Christians as a large group, not so much.
Not only that, there have actually been some mockery of these tragedies, such as from Mike Adams of TownHall.
http://www.townhall.com
Saying that he’s not representative of all Christians doesn’t help. When you read the comment threads, he actually represents quite a few.
These tragedies prevailed because good people did nothing. Gay people have been practically begging and fighting for help, and it came to late for these kids and almost to millions more by these heartfelt testimonies.
Gay people have been saying all along, it’s NOT a choice to be gay. And no Christian on Earth should be arguing that point. Nor deciding FOR gay people that the government is right to deny all civil and legal equality on condition of conversion and never challenging that doctrine.
I’ll believe a Christian is sincere, when they stop believing and telling others that gay people can convert and should.
Especially when it’s obvious there is no moral test for a hetero to be treated equally by the law.
That alone would go a long way to keep families together, and children protected.
And this issue needs strong people who’ll stand up for that.
I’m watching and listening how this issue is being debated in the public, finally. But there are too many people who believe that gays and lesbians are dominating the conversation to their own ends.
And those ends are continually described as ‘the militant homosexual agenda’.
It’s being diluted with statements like ‘ALL kinds of other children get bullied, not just gay ones’.
Which is true, but those other children, won’t find themselves discriminated against if they want to be soldiers, get married, want to live in certain places or serve in the BSA.
That is to say, the bullying of the other kids won’t be manifest in the adult world, as it is for gay men and women.
So if the root of the bullying is religious doctrine based anti gay sentiment, then it will have to stop there too.
I can put out a question of ethics very seriously to the most avowed person of faith, and they will fail to answer the question at all, if honestly.
That question is, would a parent want their child to be taught about Jews, from a non Jewish anti Semite, or about blacks by a segregationist?
Then why the exception when it comes to learning the truth about homosexuality, and the intents and abilities of someone gay.
There are several newspapers that invite comment threads on this subject, and you can see for yourself easily why children distrust gay people and are sharp to assault someone based on the stereotypes they’ve learned.
Dr. Throckmorton, this is to you. The assault I went through and I’m still at risk for, is sexual because I’m a woman. When I was growing up, boys had no respect for be and my developing body, and it was very difficult to protect myself.
Girls are STILL socialized to accept this treatment, or face rejection. And considering how many ways now this manifests in new media, the situation is worse.
What would happen, is, if I defended myself, I got in trouble. If I didn’t, I got worse treatment.
If I defended someone else, I got in trouble.
When schools don’t distinguish right from wrong, nor require accountability from the bullying element, then they empower the bully.
In a lot of ways, religious doctrine is bullying and predatory in it’s own way. There is a long sad history of such things against indigenous peoples, women, support of slavery and Jim Crow in America, and similar systemic discrimination and intimidation of gay people.
As someone on the receiving end of serious prejudice (racial) as well as gender based, and now abuse has come my way in defense of gay people, one has to be VERY clear and strong about what and who they defend.
And understand what ethics and morals really are.
That it’s about how you treat another person, not how much you can influence them through dominance.
Our ethical consciousness wouldn’t support ANY oppressive laws, no matter WHAT the Bible says.
Which is why we don’t allow slavery. We don’t allow the subjugation of women.
Which is why this issue clearly shows you hurt one, you hurt us all.
We lose our humanity, when we no longer consider a group human beings.
The connection between the bullying and who is truly influencing this occurrence is getting clearer, and those responsible are trying to hide, but it’s harder to do so.
I don’t appreciate weakness in owning up to that accountability, Dr. T.
And I don’t appreciate denial that the influence if Christian or any other doctrine in this is very strong.
Indeed, I’m sure you’ve noticed some of the family/pro marriage groups that are euphemism for anti gay, are playing the victim card over several court decisions in favor of Constitutionally protecting gay people’s rights.
DADT is still in a holding pattern and treated like there is a rush to change it, after SEVENTEEN years.
Well, when the tenderest and most vulnerable of us, are blowing their brains out and jumping from bridges, it’s fair that gay people and their supporters have lost patience.
The thousands of years cited to justify discrimination, are the same thousands of years gay people have endured the unedurable.
And there is no defense for it.
None.
Just as there is no defense of slavery. There never was defense of the abuse of another human being.
Not ever.
So the STRONG have to defend gay people. Very strong, VERY committed people must defend the Justins, Ashers, Aiishas and Tylers.
This boy did it in a few minutes. The response to this crisis from the gay community has been very compassionate and supportive.
From Christians as a large group, not so much.
Not only that, there have actually been some mockery of these tragedies, such as from Mike Adams of TownHall.
http://www.townhall.com
Saying that he’s not representative of all Christians doesn’t help. When you read the comment threads, he actually represents quite a few.
These tragedies prevailed because good people did nothing. Gay people have been practically begging and fighting for help, and it came to late for these kids and almost to millions more by these heartfelt testimonies.
Gay people have been saying all along, it’s NOT a choice to be gay. And no Christian on Earth should be arguing that point. Nor deciding FOR gay people that the government is right to deny all civil and legal equality on condition of conversion and never challenging that doctrine.
I’ll believe a Christian is sincere, when they stop believing and telling others that gay people can convert and should.
Especially when it’s obvious there is no moral test for a hetero to be treated equally by the law.
That alone would go a long way to keep families together, and children protected.
And this issue needs strong people who’ll stand up for that.
Posted and sent to friends…