• 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]

No, your replacement doesn't work either, you did not produce a statement showing that it works......AND....you, like Billy and Wake refuse to produce an equal statement that would cause the walkout in the first place that has any logical underpinnings.

Logical according to your worldview.

If any students feel offended, they have the right to walk out and I feel they shouldn't have to be insulted for doing so. That's what it means to be fair. It is unfair to say it's perfectly acceptable for gay students to walk out when offended, then have some people insult/ridicule those Christian students who also decide to leave when offended.
 
I also don't think these instances of homosexuals being bullied by some "Christian" bullies should be used (as) on (sic) an attack against Christianity;
This is a statement of belief in the infallibility of a religion. You have no problem criticizing Islam when it promotes the persecution of homosexuality . But if christianity is the source of persecution, the condemnation of homosexuals, you defend it.....via infallibility.


to me it seems like some are using these tragedies to further their own agenda.
Yes, the agenda of equality of human beings.
 
Logical according to your worldview.
Logic is not based on world views, it is a matter of rational explanation.

If any students feel offended, they have the right to walk out and I feel they shouldn't have to be insulted for doing so. That's what it means to be fair. It is unfair to say it's perfectly acceptable for gay students to walk out when offended, then have some people insult/ridicule those Christian students who also decide to leave when offended.
You keep bring up this totally fabricated argument, no one is debating their "right", and they can be insulted for doing it when it is not rational. Your "fairness" is a false equivalence.
 
(1) This is a statement of belief in the infallibility of a religion. (2) You have no problem criticizing Islam when it promotes the persecution of homosexuality . But if christianity is the source of persecution, the condemnation of homosexuals, you defend it.....via infallibility.


(3) Yes, the agenda of equality of human beings.

(1) Believing my religion to be true, I'm disinclined to consider it fallible.

(2) That is a bit different. Some "Christian" bullies bullying homosexual students is far different from the way more devout Islamists treat homosexuals. That and then you have the radical Islamists, who kill them. I don't feel preaching/opining that homosexualityh is a Biblical sin is the persecution of homosexuals; in America every person has the right to give voice to their beliefs. If there were some "Christians" who actively called for the jailing/killing/bullying of homosexuals I'd be fighting against it.

(3) That is a nice way of stating your belief. Here's my nice way of stating my belief: the agenda of saving people from an eternity in Hell.
 
This is a statement of belief in the infallibility of a religion. You have no problem criticizing Islam when it promotes the persecution of homosexuality . But if christianity is the source of persecution, the condemnation of homosexuals, you defend it.....via infallibility.

No he doesn't!

In the very post you quote he says he thinks people who bully should go to jail.

I never said there weren't homosexual students that were bullied. Bullies need to be placed in jail; my beliefs are Draconian when it comes to punishing them. It is not Christian to bully people. One can give their opinion that homosexuality is a sin, yet do so in a way as to not bully others.
 
(1) Logic is not based on world views, it is a matter of rational explanation.

(2) You keep bring up this totally fabricated argument, no one is debating their "right", and they can be insulted for doing it when it is not rational. Your "fairness" is a false equivalence.

(1) Religion isn't logical, because it requires belief. Not everything in our existence is necessitates logic. There doesn't need to be a "logical explanation" for why a walkout should happen, as if that justifies Dan's crude behavior. How about don't be an ass to people when giving a speech? Do that instead of trying little semantic ways to justify his base behavior.

(2) Ignoring your game of semantics, I think any students have the right to walk out when offended while also not having to be insulted for doing so.
 
(1) Believing my religion to be true, I'm disinclined to consider it fallible.
You proved my point.

(2) That is a bit different. Some "Christian" bullies bullying homosexual students is far different from the way more devout Islamists treat homosexuals. That and then you have the radical Islamists, who kill them. I don't feel preaching/opining that homosexualityh is a Biblical sin is the persecution of homosexuals; in America every person has the right to give voice to their beliefs. If there were some "Christians" who actively called for the jailing/killing/bullying of homosexuals I'd be fighting against it.
The only difference is the CURRENT mode of punishment, christians have killed homosexuals in the name of god and the Bible in the past, the condemnation used still exists, it is continually cited. You cannot say you would fight against the persecution by christians of gays who use the Bible as justification and still support the text that encourages that action. Again, what stops you is this belief in the infallibility in the text.

(3) That is a nice way of stating your belief. Here's my nice way of stating my belief: the agenda of saving people from an eternity in Hell.
LOL....that is NOT the agenda of homosexuals that you implied you knew. That is YOUR "agenda". You can't keep your context straight. How embarrassing.
 
(1) Religion isn't logical, because it requires belief. Not everything in our existence is necessitates logic. There doesn't need to be a "logical explanation" for why a walkout should happen, as if that justifies Dan's crude behavior. How about don't be an ass to people when giving a speech? Do that instead of trying little semantic ways to justify his base behavior.
Geez, you cannot keep track of what the point was, you are totally confused.

The point was that you and Billy CANNOT produce a logical "shoe on the other foot" statement from a "christian" speaker that would be equal to what Savage said to cause the walk out. I already showed that many times.

Ignoring your game of semantics, I think any students have the right to walk out when offended while also not having to be insulted for doing so.
I am not playing semantics, there has NEVER been a debate about the "rights" of the "offended" students. Their action can be insulted if their actions are irrational, and Savage has that right.
 
I never said there weren't homosexual students that were bullied. Bullies need to be placed in jail; my beliefs are Draconian when it comes to punishing them. It is not Christian to bully people.

That's fine, and I agree with you.

Unfortunately, you are not in charge of the numerous Christian groups that are actively opposing anti-bullying work in schools. Many of your faith do feel that bullying is Christian. More accurately, they feel anti-bullying legislation promotes homosexuality, or at the very east, doesn't take a stand (their stand) against homosexuality. You have to come to terms with the fact that a large segment of society, conservative religious groups, are actively attacking a turning social tide of tolerance of gays. It makes people of faith look ridiculous, and gives guys like Dan Savage somewhat-legit ammo against them.

Dan Savage has been a gay activist for years, and he's most likely encountered numerous anti-gay Christian groups in his years. As one who has been interested in such topics, I can absolutely see where he's coming from. At every level of society, there are shrill religious people who oppose something on their own personal moral grounds and demand that others conform to it. They are idiots, and frankly are given far too much leeway by hiding behind the otherwise respected idea of faith.

One can give their opinion that homosexuality is a sin, yet do so in a way as to not bully others. I also don't think these instances of homosexuals being bullied by some "Christian" bullies should be used on an attack against Christianity; to me it seems like some are using these tragedies to further their own agenda.

First off, it's funny how you put Christians in quotations. I'm assuming that means you don't feel people who act like that can call themselves Christians?

Second, of course it's possible that events are spun to further a cause. You have seen American media before, yes? It doesn't make what Mr. Savage said any less inherently true; a segment of the American religious population is actively working to keep homosexuals from being fully accepted in society. When a religious group takes issue with anti-bullying rules because they think that not explicitly condemning homosexuality is equal to actively promoting it, the sad fact is you are now dealing with backwards morons and frankly, you have to basically run them over to get anywhere.

Whether you are gay or not, you shouldn't be bullied, you do have the right to civilly leave, and I fell you shouldn't be insulted for doing so. Also, whether a gay activist or a Christian activist, I don't think you should act like an ass when trying to spread your message.

Maybe Savage could have been more respectable in tone, especially in front of high school students. I suppose my issue with this is how he showed younger people that in respectable debate, name calling and mocking is a tactic to use. If he had said this to me in private, I would have high-fived him.
 
It is not the same, Billy, but then maybe the problem is that you don't know the difference between an inanimate object (a book) and an animated one (a person).



Well now Gimmie this sounds like a personal problem for you. Good luck.
 
(1) One point I've been making in this discussion is that all kinds of students should have the right to leave civilly without being castigated.

(2) We're probably not going to agree on this. My religion is very important to me, and you see it as merely a book. I also feel you're distorting the points I'm trying to convey, one of the main ones being in point #1. When I refer to "the show on the other foot," I'm referring to those people on one side of the spectrum who view homosexuality as a sin, and those people on the other who don't view it as a sin and support the concept of homosexuality. Also, I don't think there is such a thing as a gay Christian, just like I don't think there are adulterous Christians; the Bible explicitly mentions those things as sin and warns Christians of it. There is a difference, though, if a Christian has had gay temptations or was gay, but is trying his/her best to change and follow the Word of God. Those are my thoughts on the matter.

Ah yes, the "no True Scotsman" argument - often seen on the xian side these days.

OK, it is seen on any side of any argument where those on one side can only agree with certain folks if they have a common enemy, as soon as that first opponent is gone/dead/defeated, the former allies turn on each other.
 
Wake wrote:
we have very different views on this issue and like oil and water our beliefs cannot really mix. You feel God created homosexuality and that it is alright, I feel it is a sin and that it is mentioned as such in the Bible both OT and NT.

This is the central point of Dan Savage's speech, how can one who claims to follow the strictures found in the Bible on condemning homosexuality be anything but a hypocrite when they don't follow the other laws and commands in that same text? How do you make the choice on which commands you follow and which ones you ignore?
 
Ah yes, the "no True Scotsman" argument - often seen on the xian side these days.

OK, it is seen on any side of any argument where those on one side can only agree with certain folks if they have a common enemy, as soon as that first opponent is gone/dead/defeated, the former allies turn on each other.

I don't think so.

Not every person in a group is the same. That said, when following the Word of God you're to actually follow it rather than try and make exceptions. There are many "Christians" who, imo, aren't. That goes for "Christians" who have no problem routinely cheating, or those "Christians" who have no problem turning their church into a freaking business to rake in a lot of money.

The NT states what it takes to be a Christian. They will always be some who consider themselves a part of that group who want it both ways. There are also those Christians who try their best to follow God's Word, but also struggle with their own weaknesses.
 
Wake wrote:


This is the central point of Dan Savage's speech, how can one who claims to follow the strictures found in the Bible on condemning homosexuality be anything but a hypocrite when they don't follow the other laws and commands in that same text? How do you make the choice on which commands you follow and which ones you ignore?

That point I will agree with Dan on. However, Dan was still being an asshole. Also, there are some verses in the NT that are virtually impossible to make happen in this day and age.
 
Wake wrote:


This is the central point of Dan Savage's speech, how can one who claims to follow the strictures found in the Bible on condemning homosexuality be anything but a hypocrite when they don't follow the other laws and commands in that same text? How do you make the choice on which commands you follow and which ones you ignore?
Their counter is that they are excused from following the OT, but when asked about the 10 commandments, they go silent.

Cognitive dissonance.
 
That point I will agree with Dan on. However, Dan was still being an asshole. Also, there are some verses in the NT that are virtually impossible to make happen in this day and age.
Yeah...like love your neighbor, those without sin may cast the first stone...
 
Wake wrote:


This is the central point of Dan Savage's speech, how can one who claims to follow the strictures found in the Bible on condemning homosexuality be anything but a hypocrite when they don't follow the other laws and commands in that same text? How do you make the choice on which commands you follow and which ones you ignore?



Disclaimer: No great biblical scholar but I do believe Jesus said there were 2 Commandments which "all the laws of Moses and the prophets hinge".

1. Love God with your whole heart, etc.

and the 2nd was "liken to it"

2. Love thy neighbor as they self.

Sounds like those were the most important to Jesus. And IMHO, those 2 kinda sum it all up.
 
Disclaimer: No great biblical scholar but I do believe Jesus said there were 2 Commandments which "all the laws of Moses and the prophets hinge".

1. Love God with your whole heart, etc.

and the 2nd was "liken to it"

2. Love thy neighbor as they self.

Sounds like those were the most important to Jesus. And IMHO, those 2 kinda sum it all up.
Exactly Billy, which is why Savage points out that christians are hypocrites for condemning gays. Christ did not say "love thy neighbor...but it is ok to condemn, kill.....homosexual neighbors."
 
Disclaimer: No great biblical scholar but I do believe Jesus said there were 2 Commandments which "all the laws of Moses and the prophets hinge".

1. Love God with your whole heart, etc.

and the 2nd was "liken to it"

2. Love thy neighbor as they self.

Sounds like those were the most important to Jesus. And IMHO, those 2 kinda sum it all up.

I think you're misrepresenting things.

"Hate the sin, not the sinner."

You can love fellow sinners, yet hate the sin.
 
Exactly Billy, which is why Savage points out that christians are hypocrites for condemning gays. Christ did not say "love thy neighbor...but it is ok to condemn, kill.....homosexual neighbors."


Ah now Grimme, the children came in sat down with their teacher, Savage went into his "supposedly anti-bullying" which was really an anti-Christian tirade, the children got up and walked out. Savage called them "pansed asses". No "homosexual neighbors" were harmed by the children.


I know you want that to be so, but it didn't happen the way you wanted it to happen.
 
Last edited:
I think you're misrepresenting things.

"Hate the sin, not the sinner."

You can love fellow sinners, yet hate the sin.
Which is totally contradicted by condemning to hell homosexuals.
 
Which is totally contradicted by condemning to hell homosexuals.

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.
 
Ah now Grimme, the children came in sat down with their teacher, Savage went into his "supposedly anti-bullying" which was really an anti-Christian tirade, the children got up and walked out. Savage called them "pansed asses". No "homosexual neighbors" were harmed by the children.


I know you want that to be so, but it didn't happen the way you wanted it to happen.
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.
 
Originally Posted by Somerville

This is the central point of Dan Savage's speech, how can one who claims to follow the strictures found in the Bible on condemning homosexuality be anything but a hypocrite when they don't follow the other laws and commands in that same text? How do you make the choice on which commands you follow and which ones you ignore?


That point I will agree with Dan on. However, Dan was still being an asshole. Also, there are some verses in the NT that are virtually impossible to make happen in this day and age.


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.
 
It is not when you state that homosexuality/homosexual acts is sin.
It is not your place to condemn, to act as god, that is above your pay grade.

During my time on DP I've made it clear that I view homosexuality as sin, not homosexuals. There is an important difference.
I would hope that you don't confuse a verb with a noun.

That was not the point.
 
Back
Top Bottom