• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens[W:165; 667]

Sometimes a situation demands "asshole" behaviour so as to gain the attention of the audience. No matter how well known the speaker, no matter how important the subject of the speech - teenagers will often fail to pay attention simply because they are teens. Using a 'bad' word - such as BULL**** will cause teenage students to listen more closely. No matter how well intentioned most of the student journalists might have been on the day of Savage's 'attack on xians', it is a safe bet that a majority of them were thinking more about the fun they would be having outside of the various speeches and seminars during the convention. Being provocative in speech causes people to pay attention.

Who wants to deny that up to the moment the kids walked out, many of the attendees were more concerned with the way they were dressed, "Do I look OK or does this outfit make me look like a dork?" Some guys were thinking, or saying to their buddies, "Damn, she's got a nice set on her!" Some of the girls were asking friends, "Does this dress make me look fat!" or "He's cute, hope I get a chance to talk to him" - on and on and on - then some gay guy stands up on the stage and starts talking some **** and "Woohooo! - this is kewl!" "Hey look, that teacher who tried to preach to us just walked out - all right!"

The real world tells us - No matter how well intentioned participants in a group may be, teenagers can and will act in ways that years later will be the cause of embarrassment to them when friends or family tell of "that time". Dan Savage with his speech probably caused at least a few of those kids to pull their brains out of their crotches and to think of more serious matters for at least a few minutes.

Does this only work for your point of view?

Maybe from a different pov a Christian orator should act like an asshole to get his point across?
 
(1) It is not your place to condemn, to act as god, that is above your pay grade.

(2) I would hope that you don't confuse a verb with a noun.

That was not the point.

(1) Incorrect. If Christians did not state the verses that show there are sins, Christianity would cease to exist. Stating that there are sins mentioned in the Bible is not the same as condemning a person to Hell.

(2) I'm not sure what you mean. I hate the sin, not the sinner.
 
It is not when you state that homosexuality/homosexual acts is sin.

During my time on DP I've made it clear that I view homosexuality as sin, not homosexuals. There is an important difference.


So? Do you then advocate for the forced castration of gay men or just the criminalisation of homosexuality? How do you plan on stopping gays, lesbians and bi-sexuals from having sex? You know it is part of what makes us human? Enforced celibacy certainly seems to have worked so well in the Catholic Church.

Just what is your prescription for preventing those "gays you love as a good Christian" from enjoying the pleasures of sex that you enjoy?
 
So? Do you then advocate for the forced castration of gay men or just the criminalisation of homosexuality? How do you plan on stopping gays, lesbians and bi-sexuals from having sex? You know it is part of what makes us human? Enforced celibacy certainly seems to have worked so well in the Catholic Church.

Just what is your prescription for preventing those "gays you love as a good Christian" from enjoying the pleasures of sex that you enjoy?

I can opine that it's a sin without manipulating the laws to block the rights of homosexuals.

America is not a theocracy.
 
Does this only work for your point of view?

Maybe from a different pov a Christian orator should act like an asshole to get his point across?

My personal take on the matter - far too many of the best known of the tele-evangelists are acting in such a manner. They seem to make a very good living doing it too.


Being provocative in speech does make the audience pay attention. I've had to suffer thru speeches made by people I admired for their writings but .... Holey Crap! were they boring.

Some people can speak and hold the attention of an audience and some can't - it is a performance art, Some people have good ideas and put their audiences to sleep and some very evil people can hold an audience of 1000s in thrall for hours.
 
Billy, Billy, Billy....no one has said that the little kiddies were killing gays.....we call that a straw argument.

You are so wrapped up in the "insult" of the action that you can't get past it and discuss the MESSAGE, the POINT that Savage made. I think this is intentional, just as it is intentional that you bypassed my point....which is Savage's point.


Well, Grimmie, I'm sure you'll understand when I tell you, the message to me was clear. Savage abused the school children for personal reasons.

Now I know you want to put lipstick on the pig, but the pig will remain that Savage took his personal feelings out on school children. Simple.
 
(1) Incorrect. If Christians did not state the verses that show there are sins, Christianity would cease to exist. Stating that there are sins mentioned in the Bible is not the same as condemning a person to Hell.
But that is the point, the christians in question are condemning to hell homosexuals, that is what is happening. That is not loving the sinner, at all.

(2) I'm not sure what you mean. I hate the sin, not the sinner.
It is a bs, irrational belief. Homosexuality is present in nature in multiple examples, it is a genetic characteristic, it is something you are born with. Alzheimer patients forget friends, families....even their own names, but one thing they never forget is their sexual orientation. It is a base characteristic.
 
Last edited:
I can opine that it's a sin without manipulating the laws to block the rights of homosexuals.

America is not a theocracy.



Good! not every American who names their self - Christian, holds that view. Their are too many who do advocate the measures I noted. The problem we have is the reality of far too many of the 'polite' xians refusing to speak up in protest of the actions and words of their fellow religionists who do promote the idea of biblical punishment for the sinners.
 
Well, Grimmie, I'm sure you'll understand when I tell you, the message to me was clear. Savage abused the school children for personal reasons.

Now I know you want to put lipstick on the pig, but the pig will remain that Savage took his personal feelings out on school children. Simple.
Billy, Billy, Billy...you just proved my point....again. You can't get past the faux outrage and examine the message.
 
(1) My personal take on the matter - far too many of the best known of the tele-evangelists are acting in such a manner. They seem to make a very good living doing it too.


(2) Being provocative in speech does make the audience pay attention. I've had to suffer thru speeches made by people I admired for their writings but .... Holey Crap! were they boring.

(3) Some people can speak and hold the attention of an audience and some can't - it is a performance art, Some people have good ideas and put their audiences to sleep and some very evil people can hold an audience of 1000s in thrall for hours.

(1) I don't believe in tele-evangelists. There may, may, be some who are sincere. However, when I see how they look as though they live in luxury, using the Church and Christianity for their own vain and worldly means, I get angry. Really angry. Humble, and I mean humble, churches are best.

(2) I think you can spur interest in your audience without being an ass.

(3) When you call names you scathe your credibility. Imagine if each presidential debate started with name-calling and insulting. Imagine if Barack Obama started his speech with "Those bitches on the right know nothing about taxes..." Yeah, that'd kill his credibility.

(1) But that is the point, the christians in question are condemning to hell homosexuals, that is what is happening. That is not loving the sinner, at all.

(1) Those "Christians" who do so, like the Westboror Baptist Church, are in the wrong. Stating that homosexuality/homosexual acts is a sin is not condemning people, but trying to help them change their ways to save them by finding salvation.

By trying to help the sinner in finding eternal salvation instead of eternal damnation... that is the quintessential act of loving them.
 
Good! not every American who names their self - Christian, holds that view. Their are too many who do advocate the measures I noted. The problem we have is the reality of far too many of the 'polite' xians refusing to speak up in protest of the actions and words of their fellow religionists who do promote the idea of biblical punishment for the sinners.

Well, let's just not rush things, please.

I view homosexuality/homosexual acts as a sin, but I'm not in support of limiting the rights of homosexuals or punishing them for being homosexual. Note that I still believe it's a sin and I fully support preaching/opining that it is such. Also, I'm against any person who dare try to then take a step further and say that giving your belief that it is a sin is bullying/punishment; I won't tolerate that encroachment that will result in pretty much silencing a differing opinion/belief. You may be shocked that I've had people tell me I was harming/hating homosexuals merely for voicing my opinion, them knowing full well I had no intention of restricting their rights. There is a line, and I will not see it crossed.
 
Well, Grimmie, I'm sure you'll understand when I tell you, the message to me was clear. Savage abused the school children for personal reasons.

Now I know you want to put lipstick on the pig, but the pig will remain that Savage took his personal feelings out on school children. Simple.


"Savage abused the school children"? Sorry but I ain't buying it. Priests forcing themselves onto altar boys - that is abuse. True Believers praying over sick children instead of getting them medical care - that is abuse. Old style Muslims forcing their daughters to be genitally mutilated - that is abuse. A gay man calling out a few teens who had their religious fee-fees hurt for refusing to listen to his speech - that ain't abuse


Every day, Dan Savage deals with the horrific results of bigoted teens abusing gay, and sometimes they are perceived as gay even though they are straight, classmates - so I think he may have a bit more experience with true abuse than most commenters in this thread.
 
By trying to help the sinner in finding eternal salvation instead of eternal damnation... that is the quintessential act of loving them.

1. If you believe that one's personal bedroom actions damn them, it hardly seems like an organic act of love to try to "save" them from something they probably don't agree with. More like a selfish act wrapped in the cover of "love".

2. I worry about the psychological consequences of firmly believing you know the Absolute Truth. Power, even imaginary power, can bring out the worst in people.
 
Well, let's just not rush things, please.

I view homosexuality/homosexual acts as a sin, but I'm not in support of limiting the rights of homosexuals or punishing them for being homosexual. Note that I still believe it's a sin and I fully support preaching/opining that it is such. Also, I'm against any person who dare try to then take a step further and say that giving your belief that it is a sin is bullying/punishment; I won't tolerate that encroachment that will result in pretty much silencing a differing opinion/belief. You may be shocked that I've had people tell me I was harming/hating homosexuals merely for voicing my opinion, them knowing full well I had no intention of restricting their rights. There is a line, and I will not see it crossed.

yet when gay students with their straight friends promote a "Day of Silence" in schools, that is seen as "imposing" the idea of tolerance on xians. When a Gay-Straight Friends Club is asked for - too many xians see that as "imposing" homosexuality on them.

Tell us - where's the "line"?
 
Billy, Billy, Billy...you just proved my point....again. You can't get past the faux outrage and examine the message.



The message? I think that was clear. The "supposeded" journalist took out his bias and hatred on school children that did nothing to him.
 
(1) Those "Christians" who do so, like the Westboror Baptist Church, are in the wrong. Stating that homosexuality/homosexual acts is a sin is not condemning people, but trying to help them change their ways to save them by finding salvation.
It is a bs, irrational belief. Homosexuality is present in nature in multiple examples, it is a genetic characteristic, it is something you are born with. Alzheimer patients forget friends, families....even their own names, but one thing they never forget is their sexual orientation. It is a base characteristic.
 
The message? I think that was clear. The "supposeded (sic)" journalist took out his bias and hatred on school children that (sic) did nothing to him.
You are continuing to spread the straw and avoid the discussion.
 
It is a bs, irrational belief. Homosexuality is present in nature in multiple examples, it is a genetic characteristic, it is something you are born with. Alzheimer patients forget friends, families....even their own names, but one thing they never forget is their sexual orientation. It is a base characteristic.

You say that.

If science hasn't shown the genetic evidence of homosexuality, wouldn't it be irrational to believe in it?
 
You say that.

If science hasn't shown the genetic evidence of homosexuality, wouldn't it be irrational to believe in it?
Oh, not me....and there is LOTS of evidence pointing to this as being the case, and since this is a very recent area of study, I am sure that the direct links will be known. We call this a "rational" explanation.

On the other hand, the Biblical explanation is....the devil?
 
You are continuing to spread the straw and avoid the discussion.



Gimmie, Gimmie . . . . . the thread is about this dipwad "wanna be journalist" who decided to use his captive audience, Christian school children, and call them "pansed ass" because they chose not to sit and listen to his hate speech.

I've said before and will repeat, you Gimmie want to change the story, but you have to stick to the one offered by the originator of the thread.

Might I suggest you write another "hate story" and put in all the things you want in the story. But . . . . . . . it won't be this story. :mrgreen:
 
You say that.

If science hasn't shown the genetic evidence of homosexuality, wouldn't it be irrational to believe in it?


A more accurate statement would be: If science hasn't yet found conclusive genetic evidence of homosexuality, wouldn't it be irrational to deny the possibility?

To date, studies are inconclusive, yet there are strong indicators for a combination of genetic and environmental causes for same sex attraction, not only in H. sapiens but also in many other species.

Same-Sex Behavior Found in Nearly All Animals LiveScience June 2009
Examples of same-sex behavior can be found in almost all species in the animal kingdom — from worms to frogs to birds — making the practice nearly universal among animals, according to a new review of research on the topic.


Plenty O' Partners LiveScience Sept 2011
Homosexuality has been documented in more than 450 species of vertebrates signaling that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals. From Male bonobos that hang from trees and engage in "penis fencing" to bull manatees and bottlenose dolphins, the animal kingdom tolerates all kinds of lifestyles.

Do Gay Animals Change Evolution? Scientific American June 2009

Animals that engage in same-sex sexual behavior may be acting in accord with adaptational strategies rather than against them--and bending the way we think about evolution
 
Billy Billy Billy, you don't want to discuss the whole event, the entire content of the speech, you want to focus and twist out of proportion a single part so that you don't have to discuss the message.....even though you admit to agreeing with the hypocrisy pointed out.



:lamo Hell Gimmie, you talking about other posters twisting . . . I'll bet if we could see you right now you'd look like a pretzel.


We've discussed the story. Now you want us to discuss what you want the story to be. I'm just not into fantasy, but I can see you are. Good on ya. :2razz:

I've agreed Savage, an adult, bullying school children because he is filled with hate and decided to take it out on kids. Sad . . . but true.
 
Gimmie, Gimmie . . . . . the thread is about this dipwad "wanna be journalist" who decided to use his captive audience, Christian school children, and call them "pansed ass" because they chose not to sit and listen to his hate speech.

I've said before and will repeat, you Gimmie want to change the story, but you have to stick to the one offered by the originator of the thread.

Might I suggest you write another "hate story" and put in all the things you want in the story. But . . . . . . . it won't be this story. :mrgreen:


Billy ... how do you know the captive audience were all Christian school children? and really - CAPTIVE? some two dozen got up and walked out, sure is an interesting definition of 'captive'

"wanna be journalist? BZZZZT! Wrong. Savage has had his words published in multiple outlets since the early '90s, he is presently the editorial director of the alternative weekly newspaper The Stranger in Seattle - so I think he qualifies as a 'journalist"

and the description of the walkouts was "pansy asses" not "pansed ass"

When the story gets updated to more accurately reflect reality, you still think only the original version should be argued over?
 
Billy ... how do you know the captive audience were all [/i]Christian school children[/I]? and really - CAPTIVE? some two dozen got up and walked out, sure is an interesting definition of 'captive'

"wanna be journalist? BZZZZT! Wrong. Savage has had his words published in multiple outlets since the early '90s, he is presently the editorial director of the alternative weekly newspaper The Stranger in Seattle - so I think he qualifies as a 'journalist"

and the description of the walkouts was "pansy asses" not "pansed ass"

When the story gets updated to more accurately reflect reality, you still think only the original version should be argued over?



Well I'm glad you read my post quickly. Thanks for all the corrections.
 
A more accurate statement would be: If science hasn't yet found conclusive genetic evidence of homosexuality, wouldn't it be irrational to deny the possibility?

To date, studies are inconclusive, yet there are strong indicators for a combination of genetic and environmental causes for same sex attraction, not only in H. sapiens but also in many other species.

I'm not up to date with the science, but it seems that what homosexuality isn't is a mental illness or personality disorder. As to whether or not homosexuality is an evolved thing? I don't know. Seems to me that every human biological system can develop with "flaws"; autism, hemophilia, spina bifida, anencephaly, etc. Some are benign, like extra digits, some are lethal. No one possibly blames these conditions on the person. Could homosexuality just be a similar condition in human sexuality? I really don't know, but it seems plausible...
 
Back
Top Bottom