girhen: I don't think the girl at 0:20 has any reason to be offended and walking out yet. Some of them really can't take anything. The very next sentence after seeing her, though, "ignoring the b******"... fair game to start leaving.

A lot of what he said was good and needs to be argued/considered. How he said it was way out of line.

He is angry, he has reason to be angry. But being angry at people you are trying to reach rarely works. I wonder if they didn't all just realize he is the "Santorum" guy.

spmkk: truthseeker2083: "I woild like to see another source, as a 'culture wars' 'reporter' from fox news smacks of bias, but..."

loveblondieo: "I would like to see this story come from some other source than Fox."

illusionofjoy: "A link to Fox News? I'm sure the article is fair and balanced."

Giant Clown Shoe: "transcript or video required for opinion formation.

/fox news editorial isn't credible evidence imo"

usernameguy: "Fox News."

Mrtraveler01: "Seriously though, Fox News subby? Wake me up when you have a non-biased source for this story."


I know it's been posted a few times, but here y'all go - from the Huffington Post, no less. With full video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/28/dan-savage-speech-controver sy _n_1461863.html

Here's a parallel:
An ostensibly pro-rights speaker gets up in front of a group of Americans and says, "We can learn to ignore the bullshiat in the Constitution about gun ownership rights, the same way we have learned to ignore the bullshiat in the Constitution about only counting three-fifths of a vote from slaves versus free men....we ignore bullshiat in the Constitution about all sorts of things....If the Constitution got the easiest democratic question that America has ever faced wrong -- voting equality -- what are the odds that the Constitution got something as complicated as the right to bear arms wrong? 100%"

...and then riles everyone up to laugh at the "Constitution guys down the hall" and calls them pansy-ass for walking out of your talk. Would a reporter be wrong for referring to the presentation an "anti-democracy tirade" and calling it out as a "Constitution-bashing, profanity-laced speech"? No - he would pretty much be spot on.

/not Christian
//anti bullying
///pro gay rights
////anti hypocrisy
//pro respect

Pointing out the objective truth that the Constitution hasn't always been right is in no way "anti-democracy". And the same thing goes for the bible. Your post proves the opposite of what you intended. Like rain on your wedding day, that.

phoolishone: Keizer_Ghidorah: phoolishone: Keizer_Ghidorah: phoolishone: The My Little Pony Killer: phoolishone: peterquince: phoolishone: That he resorted to bullying was quixotic;

He expressed disbelief at their reactions. That's not bullying. That's questioning their behavior.

Making fun of people's religion is bullying. Calling people names is bullying. He didn't say to them, "Why are you leaving? You are cowards for leaving." He berated their religion and called them "pansy-asses".

BTW, isn't "pansy" synonymous with "gay"? The man who didn't want the mean old Christians to bully gay people was calling them gay? LOL whut?

You got it backwards. Watch the video.

Yes, you're right, I did see the video later. He did indeed calmly call them out for walking away, and then called them pansy-assed.

His basic argument was they could dish it out but they couldn't take it. I think that's a pretty heavy burden to place on kids he doesn't know. His only indictment was that they believed in the Bible and their religion enough to walk out of his talk when he began berating it.

His attempt to place the adult burden of analyzing their faith on them backfired; we all know how kids that age are 100% sure of everything they believe, especially when they've been heavily brainwashed. Savage did a good job of making sure they stay stubbornly entrenched in their beliefs for years to come, simply by attacking them out of left field.

He didn't "attack" THEM. He called them out on their immature behavior. Two different things, and frankly we need to start doing it more often. If those students were willing to just up and walk out before Savage could begin that part of the talk, they're not ones who would change their minds or even have an open mind in the first place.

Sure he attacked them, in a mocking, condescending, and profanity-laden way. They did not sign up for a lecture on why their Christian values were wrong, nor were they toting signs and chanting anti-gay slogans. These were kids -- immature huma ...

I have no problem battling Christian hypocrisy and prejudice. I think it's wise to pick one's battles. These children were not there to protest gays (which would legitimately inspire pushback,) nor did they come to hear their faith mocked.

Sometimes people who have no particular faith think that people who do have faith should somehow not be offended when their beliefs are made fun of. Think, for a minute. How does that make any sense? Just because you would not be offended, somehow that means they should not be? Perhaps one should contemplate more closely the nature of faith and belief.

I saw some of those kids disturbed and near tears. Watch again.

Why foster enmity when it's not necessary? Fight with the adults who have the capacity to question their own beliefs -- especially the ones who are sponsoring anti-gay legislation or chanting anti-gay slogans. Don't pressure the kids who either don't have the developed character or the family circumstances to do so. And don't call them (or their behavior) "pansies-assed" when they do what they've been taught is right.

And yes, I'll fight people who bully Christian kids for being Christian just as adamantly as I'll fight those who bully gay kids for being gay.

If discussing religion at an anti-gay bullying conference is somehow off-limits, then there is no point in having the conference at all. Savage's point was that people use religion to justify bullying. This is objectively correct.

eddiesocket: "Pointing out the objective truth that the Constitution hasn't always been right is in no way "anti-democracy". And the same thing goes for the bible. Your post proves the opposite of what you intended. Like rain on your wedding day, that."


If a Frenchman with an anti-American bent is preaching to you about the finer points of American democracy by telling you which parts of the Constitution -- a document on which you base your values and which he openly despises -- you should dismiss as "bullshiat" because some other parts have been amended, you would be well forgiven for decrying his lecture as anti-democracy.

It's one thing to teach people that religion is an unacceptable pretext for discrimination and oppression. It's another thing entirely to publicly insult half the people in the hall (from an anti-bullying pulpit, no less) by proclaiming that the main document that guides their belief system should be hacked and slashed and arbitrary parts (of your choosing) should be thrown out -- and then to further tar-and-feather them by inciting the other half of the attendees to mock them for being the "Bible guys down the hall".

That's a shiat-headed, counterproductive and damaging way to go about "pointing out the objective truth"; Fox News here is merely calling him on it. Sadly, all I've seen so far is a thread mostly full of people beating the messenger rather than admitting that their side -- however noble in cause -- got one wrong. Being that it's my side too, it's pretty embarrassing.

spmkk: by proclaiming that the main document that guides their belief system should be hacked and slashed and arbitrary parts (of your choosing) should be thrown out

But the fact is we have. We don't eat shellfish because someone either figured out how to make it clean, or because we just decided that God was being a little too heavy handed with that. We know more about homosexuality these days. I think it is time for the church to catch up.

Sorry, "Christians", but your hate-mongering, backwards ideals are no longer working. You're afraid because those you used to mock and belittle are standing up to you, and like any schoolyard bully your victims fighting back makes you confused and scared.

For decades you've been using your Holy Book, the word of God himself, who told you to love everyone as you love yourselves and himself, to justify attacking those different from you and who don't share your view. You desperately cling to the one sentence in the entire Old Testament that sort of sounds like "hate the gays" like it's some kind of life-support system, while at the same time merrily discarding everything else it tells you to do regarding seafood, mixed fabrics, menstruating women being near civilization (which is to kill them without a second thought). You say the New Testament renders the Old Testament worthless while screaming the OT as your battle cry against homosexuals. Using a religion that preaches love, tolerance, and brotherhood, you seek to strip away more and more rights and freedoms from those you deem "evil" and "sinful", which includes women, homosexuals, minorities, and anyone not of your religion.

And to top it off, the Pope himself, leader of the Catholics, is trying to form an alliance with the Jews and the Muslims. Not for peace, not for and to war or strife, not for anything remotely beneficial. What does he want an alliance for? TO MORE EASILY STRIKE DOWN HOMOSEXUALS. Yes, the leader of one of the largest and most powerful Christian sects is trying to make an anti-gay allegiance, because people who love each other and happen to have the same gonads apparently terrifies the ever-loving shiat out of him. While he and his cronies STILL continue to protect and cover up the pedophile clergy. Men and women loving each other? "AN AFFRONT TO GOD AND EVERYTHING HE STANDS FOR!!" Adults taking advantage of children? "Whatever".

War. That's what this is. A declaration of war, against everyone the "Christians" deem unworthy. Women, gays, minorities, other religions, all are the targets. It's already begun in America, ten states passing anti-gay laws as fast as they can while trying to force Creationism and ID into schools at the same time attacking women who want to control their own bodies, all while screaming "WE'RE BEING PERSECUTED!". Only they're discovering that people have finally grown tired of their hypocritical bullshiat. People are seeing their right hand preach love and tolerance and brotherhood while the left hand demeans, demonizes and destroys.

"Christians" have declared war. Let's hope that it doesn't get too bloody.

spmkk: eddiesocket: "Pointing out the objective truth that the Constitution hasn't always been right is in no way "anti-democracy". And the same thing goes for the bible. Your post proves the opposite of what you intended. Like rain on your wedding day, that."


If a Frenchman with an anti-American bent is preaching to you about the finer points of American democracy by telling you which parts of the Constitution -- a document on which you base your values and which he openly despises -- you should dismiss as "bullshiat" because some other parts have been amended, you would be well forgiven for decrying his lecture as anti-democracy.

It's one thing to teach people that religion is an unacceptable pretext for discrimination and oppression. It's another thing entirely to publicly insult half the people in the hall (from an anti-bullying pulpit, no less) by proclaiming that the main document that guides their belief system should be hacked and slashed and arbitrary parts (of your choosing) should be thrown out -- and then to further tar-and-feather them by inciting the other half of the attendees to mock them for being the "Bible guys down the hall".

That's a shiat-headed, counterproductive and damaging way to go about "pointing out the objective truth"; Fox News here is merely calling him on it. Sadly, all I've seen so far is a thread mostly full of people beating the messenger rather than admitting that their side -- however noble in cause -- got one wrong. Being that it's my side too, it's pretty embarrassing.

"Our side" has tried being nice. "Your side" has insisted on being farktards. When kind words and overtures of peace are met with laws stripping people of their rights and freedoms while being denounced as unholy abominations against God, don't expect the oppressed to just roll over and say "You're right, we're sorry, you can crush us now".

abb3w: Keizer_Ghidorah: What does he want an alliance for? TO MORE EASILY STRIKE DOWN HOMOSEXUALS.

I'm not sure if the pope is more worried about the gays or the secularists.

The article pretty much says he's doing it to fight the homos.

Keizer_Ghidorah: "Our side" has tried being nice. "Your side" has insisted on being farktards.


You seem to be unclear as to what "my" side is...

Callous: I've been telling people for years to stop using words like hate, homophobe and bigot when dealing with Christians. Most have no ill feelings toward gay people at all. They just believe it's a choice and wrong. If you ever think you will change their opinions about it the last thing you need to do is start calling them things they are not. All it does is cause them to tune you out as "one of those angry people". If you ever expect to make any progress you gotta get away from the angry name calling.

I commend you for getting over the homophobic BS that you were brainwashed with. Thank you for actually getting to know us. However, the other Farkers have a point - would you want to be friends with those who brand you as a hell-bound, mentally-deficient abomination?

FuryOfFirestorm: @Max Awesome: I'm sorry you had to suffer through all that bullsh*t. Keep being awesome!

(PS - I put you down as Cyan #3. Awesome guys get that color. Red is for trolls, orange for colossal dicks and yellow for annoying twats. The politics threads look like a beautiful sunset)

Thanks Fury - you're a lovely shade of green on my monitor as one of my favourite people here. I've been using green for intelligent gay folks and their allies for awhile now, but maybe I should start differentiating with different shades. Threads like these end up being mostly green.

Come to think of it - that's actually a good thing. :)

spmkk: Keizer_Ghidorah: "Our side" has tried being nice. "Your side" has insisted on being farktards.

You seem to be unclear as to what "my" side is...

I'm sorry about that. But the facts are that Savage did not "bully" or "attack" or anything to them. Those teens got up the instant he mentioned the Bible and walked out en masse, all wearing smug smarmy expressions. It looked like they had planned to do it, and he rightly calls them out on it. Baby talk and "sensitivity" doesn't guarantee anything, sometimes you have to be a bit harsher. If it takes three swear words to make people start to think, so be it.

Savage didn't rant, raise his voice, or spew vitriol. He discussed the hypocrisy of using parts of the Bible to condemn and attack others while selectively ignoring other parts. Those audience members didn't want their faith challenged, so they just took off, a cowardly gesture.

spmkk: Keizer_Ghidorah: "Our side" has tried being nice. "Your side" has insisted on being farktards.


You seem to be unclear as to what "my" side is...

Nope. Your "concern" is duly noted, though. (You gave yourself away with the French guy part).

s2s2s2: girhen: I don't think the girl at 0:20 has any reason to be offended and walking out yet. Some of them really can't take anything. The very next sentence after seeing her, though, "ignoring the b******"... fair game to start leaving.

A lot of what he said was good and needs to be argued/considered. How he said it was way out of line.

He is angry, he has reason to be angry. But being angry at people you are trying to reach rarely works. I wonder if they didn't all just realize he is the "Santorum" guy.

He really wasn't presenting much anger, but he was presenting what is wrong. How would you tell them that something is wrong without telling them that something is wrong? Since it's already been suggested that kids can't think for themselves, the most unambiguous path seems the most constructive. "Look! This is wrong! My proof? Look at the bullshiat you ignore! If that's bullshiat, it's all bullshiat!"

spmkk: eddiesocket: "Pointing out the objective truth that the Constitution hasn't always been right is in no way "anti-democracy". And the same thing goes for the bible. Your post proves the opposite of what you intended. Like rain on your wedding day, that."


If a Frenchman with an anti-American bent is preaching to you about the finer points of American democracy by telling you which parts of the Constitution -- a document on which you base your values and which he openly despises -- you should dismiss as "bullshiat" because some other parts have been amended, you would be well forgiven for decrying his lecture as anti-democracy.

It's one thing to teach people that religion is an unacceptable pretext for discrimination and oppression. It's another thing entirely to publicly insult half the people in the hall (from an anti-bullying pulpit, no less) by proclaiming that the main document that guides their belief system should be hacked and slashed and arbitrary parts (of your choosing) should be thrown out -- and then to further tar-and-feather them by inciting the other half of the attendees to mock them for being the "Bible guys down the hall".

That's a shiat-headed, counterproductive and damaging way to go about "pointing out the objective truth"; Fox News here is merely calling him on it. Sadly, all I've seen so far is a thread mostly full of people beating the messenger rather than admitting that their side -- however noble in cause -- got one wrong. Being that it's my side too, it's pretty embarrassing.

He actually pointed out that their main belief system has already been arbitrarily hacked and slashed. And they started walking out before he even got to that. They started walking out when he said religion was unacceptable pretext for discrimination. Your "one thing".

PsiChick: FirstNationalBastard: Yes, Subby, the Christian Teens did fail.

But, hopefully, they'll hit college, forget their brainwashing and their cult, and become fine, upstanding citizens who care more about a person's character than who they fark and what a book of fairy tales tells them they should think about that.

Look, I would agree if we were talking to hardcore adult members of a hate group, but we aren't. We're talking about teenagers who are insecure, probably never found reason before to question their faith, and walked into that room assuming they'd find a rational discussion.

I'm all for going after adults, but children are off the table for a reason. All you're doing is punishing them for what totally unrelated people have done, and if you punish person X for what person Y did, you're worse than person Y, because you have no sense of what justice actually is.

Who was being "punished"? How can you talk about anti-gay bullying without talking about its cause (religion)?

lukehasnoname: Wow, there's a lot of hate. "Christian teenagers are some of the worst creatures". Really? Are you that secluded and delusional?

How about the cracks about being driven to suicide? That gay kid who killed himself troubled, but suicide is one's own fault. That's why it's called suicide.

If you can't take the heat of being gay in 2012, don't be gay. Otherwise, man up (unless you're bottom).

If it was Xians killing themselves, would you tell them to stoo being Xian.

PsiChick: FirstNationalBastard: Yes, Subby, the Christian Teens did fail.

But, hopefully, they'll hit college, forget their brainwashing and their cult, and become fine, upstanding citizens who care more about a person's character than who they fark and what a book of fairy tales tells them they should think about that.

Look, I would agree if we were talking to hardcore adult members of a hate group, but we aren't. We're talking about teenagers who are insecure, probably never found reason before to question their faith, and walked into that room assuming they'd find a rational discussion.

I'm all for going after adults, but children are off the table for a reason. All you're doing is punishing them for what totally unrelated people have done, and if you punish person X for what person Y did, you're worse than person Y, because you have no sense of what justice actually is.

They're precisely at the age when they should be challenged on their beliefs. The Christian school bubble is so insular that I had a friend who managed to scandalize the entire school by going to the prom with a black guy--in 2004. I grew up in that world, getting called on their bullshiat walkout was precisely what they needed. It'll get some kids thinking, and considering that odds are one of those kids is probably gay, it could be the first time that kid heard anything other than that they're a horrible rotten sinner destined to burn in hell.

vrax: s2s2s2: girhen: I don't think the girl at 0:20 has any reason to be offended and walking out yet. Some of them really can't take anything. The very next sentence after seeing her, though, "ignoring the b******"... fair game to start leaving.

A lot of what he said was good and needs to be argued/considered. How he said it was way out of line.

He is angry, he has reason to be angry. But being angry at people you are trying to reach rarely works. I wonder if they didn't all just realize he is the "Santorum" guy.

He really wasn't presenting much anger, but he was presenting what is wrong. How would you tell them that something is wrong without telling them that something is wrong? Since it's already been suggested that kids can't think for themselves, the most unambiguous path seems the most constructive. "Look! This is wrong! My proof? Look at the bullshiat you ignore! If that's bullshiat, it's all bullshiat!"

I'm okay with this.

PsiChick: rynthetyn: PsiChick: FirstNationalBastard: Yes, Subby, the Christian Teens did fail.

But, hopefully, they'll hit college, forget their brainwashing and their cult, and become fine, upstanding citizens who care more about a person's character than who they fark and what a book of fairy tales tells them they should think about that.

Look, I would agree if we were talking to hardcore adult members of a hate group, but we aren't. We're talking about teenagers who are insecure, probably never found reason before to question their faith, and walked into that room assuming they'd find a rational discussion.

I'm all for going after adults, but children are off the table for a reason. All you're doing is punishing them for what totally unrelated people have done, and if you punish person X for what person Y did, you're worse than person Y, because you have no sense of what justice actually is.

They're precisely at the age when they should be challenged on their beliefs. The Christian school bubble is so insular that I had a friend who managed to scandalize the entire school by going to the prom with a black guy--in 2004. I grew up in that world, getting called on their bullshiat walkout was precisely what they needed. It'll get some kids thinking, and considering that odds are one of those kids is probably gay, it could be the first time that kid heard anything other than that they're a horrible rotten sinner destined to burn in hell.

Exactly. Swearing isn't challenging; it tells the kids "your parents are this way and you aren't old enough to choose otherwise, so you're Christian now whether you like it or not, and we'll hate you for what your parents did". It turns faith into something like race: unchosen and forced upon you. Then you punish them for it? That's not challenging, that's the mentalities of bigotry. That's wrong.

Challenging? That's when you say "Hey, this is Matthew Shepard. Let's learn why he died, and let's talk about what you think here--do you real ...

Did you even watch the video? Using the word "bullshiat" a few times isn't going to hurt even the most delicate of snowflakes. I'm telling you, I grew up in that world, they needed to hear what he said. Telling a sob story about Matthew Shepard isn't going to do squat because they've been told all their lives to "love the sinner, hate the sin," and all they will conclude is that "it was tragic what happened to him, but we're not like that, we love gay people we just think they're going to hell if they don't change." Matthew Shepard merely allows them to feel compassionate while continuing to support the same bigoted policies that their parents have been teaching them.

On the other hand, even the most sheltered Christian teenager will have figured out that there are certain things that even over the course of their lifetime have gone from being treated by the church as horrible sins to perfectly fine. By the time I finished high school, tattoos, for example, had gone from a horrible sin in violation of Leviticus to the thing that every cool, hip worship pastor had to have. Being told that the church ignores or explains away some parts of the Bible so why not ignore this is something that a teenager that grew up in the bubble can totally understand.

PsiChick: No, I didn't watch the video.

Gah! Fail!

PsiChick: No, I didn't watch the video.

HOLY CRAP.

The utter chutzpah of admitting you're uninformed, but still feel entitled to opine, anyway. Un-freaking-believable.

PsiChick: rynthetyn: PsiChick: rynthetyn: PsiChick: FirstNationalBastard: Did you even watch the video? Using the word "bullshiat" a few times isn't going to hurt even the most delicate of snowflakes. I'm telling you, I grew up in that world, they needed to hear what he said. Telling a sob story about Matthew Shepard isn't going to do squat because they've been told all their lives to "love the sinner, hate the sin," and all they will conclude is that "it was tragic what happened to him, but we're not like that, we love gay people we just think they're going to hell if they don't change." Matthew Shepard merely allows them to feel compassionate while continuing to support the same bigoted policies that their parents have been teaching them.

On the other hand, even the most sheltered Christian teenager will have figured out that there are certain things that even over the course of their lifetime have gone from being treated by the church as horrible sins to perfectly fine. By the time I finished high school, tattoos, for example, had gone from a horrible sin in violation of Leviticus to the thing that every cool, hip worship pastor had to have. Being told that the church ignores or explains away some parts of the Bible so why not ignore this is something that a teenager that grew up in the bubble can totally understand.

No, I didn't watch the video. Quite frankly, the video is completely irrelevant--the students are claiming that the man didn't just swear at their holy book, he called them names when they left.

That is nothing but hate. I don't care how noble your intentions are--when you start off by being disrespectful and hateful, you are no better than the people you hate.

What you're talking about in your second paragraph would have been a wonderful way to explain things to these teenagers. And it all could have been said, and in fact I think that it would actually take effort not to say it the opposite way, without any kind of disrespect to their culture or beliefs. ...

Then I suggest you do watch it. Direct evidence > Fox News bias.

PsiChick: rynthetyn: PsiChick: rynthetyn: PsiChick: FirstNationalBastard: Did you even watch the video? Using the word "bullshiat" a few times isn't going to hurt even the most delicate of snowflakes. I'm telling you, I grew up in that world, they needed to hear what he said. Telling a sob story about Matthew Shepard isn't going to do squat because they've been told all their lives to "love the sinner, hate the sin," and all they will conclude is that "it was tragic what happened to him, but we're not like that, we love gay people we just think they're going to hell if they don't change." Matthew Shepard merely allows them to feel compassionate while continuing to support the same bigoted policies that their parents have been teaching them.

On the other hand, even the most sheltered Christian teenager will have figured out that there are certain things that even over the course of their lifetime have gone from being treated by the church as horrible sins to perfectly fine. By the time I finished high school, tattoos, for example, had gone from a horrible sin in violation of Leviticus to the thing that every cool, hip worship pastor had to have. Being told that the church ignores or explains away some parts of the Bible so why not ignore this is something that a teenager that grew up in the bubble can totally understand.

No, I didn't watch the video. Quite frankly, the video is completely irrelevant--the students are claiming that the man didn't just swear at their holy book, he called them names when they left.

That is nothing but hate. I don't care how noble your intentions are--when you start off by being disrespectful and hateful, you are no better than the people you hate.

What you're talking about in your second paragraph would have been a wonderful way to explain things to these teenagers. And it all could have been said, and in fact I think that it would actually take effort not to say it the opposite way, without any kind of disrespect to their culture or beliefs. ...

Seriously, you didn't watch the video, which has been posted over and over again in this thread, and are taking the FoxNews spin as fact? I don't know why I'm bothering to discuss this with you if you won't watch the video of what was actually said and in fact find the video irrelevant.

For the record, if you actually bothered to watch the video, which I'm going to link once again, you'd see that Dan Savage in fact said a variation on the exact same thing that I said. And they got up and walked out the second he mentioned the word "Bible" and didn't even hear what he had to say.

Seriously, watch the video.

PsiChick: Quite frankly, the video is completely irrelevant

"Quite frankly, what actually happened is irrelevant. All that matters is what people claim happened.".

THIS IS SOMETHING YOU ACTUALLY WROTE DOWN.

s2s2s2: Max Awesome: Anyway, now I'm rambling. I appreciate Callous' attempt to explain the thinking behind the anti-gay sentiment of the Christians in their community, but I'm not going to go out-of-my way to reach out to any persons who think I'm less-than-human because their pastor tells them so. I'm not going to turn the other cheek - I have no desire to. I'm not Christian so there is no compelling reason for me to counter hatred with humility and love. That's a sucker's game.

I don't know if this will have any effect on your opinion of me, but I left my church because, though my pastor is loving towards individual gays(visiting AIDS hospice without preaching, only being kind and listening) he clings to the GOP and thinks Gays shouldn't have FULL(but maybe like 90% would be ok with him) rights. That pastor is also my father. I am not a christian, per se. I think these people that walked out are weak, because they literally fear that hearing alternate theories might get inside them, and forcibly change their minds. I love love love the gay community. I love everyone. Perhaps I let my feelings about suicide in general, cloud my views of this particular segment of suicide victims. I put them out there to see what kind of reaction I would get. This is how I change my mind on things. I say my piece, listen to the responses, and think about it.

Wow, great story. I now consider myself atheist, but I used to attend an Anglican (think Episcopalian in the US) church here in Adelaide Australia which was very non-judgmental, indeed seemed extremely tolerant. Your father seems unfortunately conflicted, unlike yourself. As a straight guy, I simply can't understand homophobia on any level. It has no impact on me or my marriage whether gays get married, and if I was angry about it, surely this would be much more to do with my own insecurities than 'Adam and Steve' next door.

Here's an idea I'm throwing out there (and presumably someone has already done this, but I've never heard of it). Many "Christian" opportunists open churches preaching hate and raking in the dough. Surely one can open a truly liberal church of non-hate, welcome gays, welcome drug addicts, welcome (non-practising) paedophiles (and avail counselling etc to ensure no harm is done by these poor loons) and welcome a community of non-hating Christians. Is there a "market" for this (religion being a free enterprise like all others)?

Aussie_As:
Here's an idea I'm throwing out there (and presumably someone has already done this, but I've never heard of it). Many "Christian" opportunists open churches preaching hate and raking in the dough. Surely one can open a truly liberal church of non-hate, welcome gays, welcome drug addicts, welcome (non-practising) paedophiles (and avail counselling etc to ensure no harm is done by these poor loons) and welcome a community of non-hating Christians. Is there a "market" for this (religion being a free enterprise like all others)?


There actually are a number of churches and denominations that fit that description. Metropolitan Community Churches are the best known, though they have the reputation of being the "gay" church (I don't know how accurate that reputation is, I've never been). Unlike the Anglican Church in England, the US, branch, the Episcopalians, are welcoming. One branch of the Lutherans are, the Presbyterian Church USA is officially, some of the United Methodists are, and well, basically all of the old traditional mainline US denominations are welcoming of LGBT people. Then, most of what's known as the "Emergent Church" movement in the US is open and accepting of LGBT people. Interestingly, even the very conservative Southern Baptist churches I grew up in have had no problem with welcoming people with drug addiction problems, or in general with embracing people who were trying to get their lives back on track after drugs/prison stints/homelessness, etc. The religious right just controls the discourse because they're far better organized and because too many Christians who don't agree with the religious right aren't willing to speak up and say it.

The iffy thing that you mention is the whole paedophile issue because of the whole thing with it being hard for someone to avoid close contact with children in a church setting. It makes it difficult to know what to do and how to handle it because on one hand, you don't want to isolate somebody because that makes them more likely to offend, but on the other hand without notifying everyone it can put kids in danger. People at my sister's church are dealing with that issue right now because there's a guy who started coming who was arrested about a decade ago for possession and distribution of child pornography, and while he claims that it was a time in his life when he was really messed up and all, and they don't want to isolate him, at the same time, it's a huge church and not many people know his history so how do protect kids without chasing him away?

Funny, you'd think Christians would be game for a little persecution. Gets 'em to heaven faster where they can reunite with their foreskins and 36 Wu-Tang virgins, or something.

Madbassist1: cryinoutloud: --as soon as he said something like "The Bible got it wrong" (with lots of explanations) they just got up and left. LALALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

rynthetyn: And they got up and walked out the second he mentioned the word "Bible" and didn't even hear what he had to say.

Manufactured outrage. If you don't think that was the goal all along, put on your dunce hat and sit in the corner. This was the plan from the beginning. Mission accomplished.

We pointed that out many times, actually.

eddiesocket: They started walking out when he said religion was unacceptable pretext for discrimination. Your "one thing".


And that's relevant to what he went on to say....how?

We were actually talking about Dan Savage's actions, not his listeners' - nice try at deflection, though. Incidentally, one of the trademarks of bullying (which Savage is ostensibly against) of blaming the victim. Justifying the fact that he publicly mocked his Christian listeners and called them names on the grounds that they were bigoted whiners and had it coming is doing exactly that. Good work...keep farking that chicken.

spmkk: eddiesocket: They started walking out when he said religion was unacceptable pretext for discrimination. Your "one thing".


And that's relevant to what he went on to say....how?

We were actually talking about Dan Savage's actions, not his listeners' - nice try at deflection, though. Incidentally, one of the trademarks of bullying (which Savage is ostensibly against) of blaming the victim. Justifying the fact that he publicly mocked his Christian listeners and called them names on the grounds that they were bigoted whiners and had it coming is doing exactly that. Good work...keep farking that chicken.

He said their ACTIONS, not they themselves, were "pansy-ass". He did not attack anyone, he did not bully anyone, he did not denounce anyone. He was right in calling out their actions, especially when it was an obvious attempt to make a scene. None of them looked offended or hurt, they all had smug smarmy expressions on their faces. Plus the fact they all got up as a single group and left shows that they weren;t there to learn and think, they were there to be assholes.

Not very "Christian" of them, just like the ones who use God's words to justify attacking women, gays, minorities, and other religions.

Keizer_Ghidorah: He said their ACTIONS, not they themselves, were "pansy-ass".

Savage was insulting their actions, not the people - kind of like when "Christians" say they hate homosexuality, but not homosexuals.

If the "Christians" can play semantics games, so can we.

FuryOfFirestorm: Keizer_Ghidorah: He said their ACTIONS, not they themselves, were "pansy-ass".

Savage was insulting their actions, not the people - kind of like when "Christians" say they hate homosexuality, but not homosexuals.

If the "Christians" can play semantics games, so can we.

Savage isn't the one demanding we take away the rights and freedoms of a group of people. Savage isn't the one using a holy book that teaches love and brotherhood to wage a war against women, gays, minorities, and other religions. Savage isn't the one trying to turn the United States into a Christian theocracy.

Those teens failed as Christians and failed as compassionate human beings. Any "Christian" who uses the Bible to justify their hatred, fear, and bigotry has failed. And the "Christians" who don't tell those "Christians" to stop being stupid fail as well.

Aussie_As: Here's an idea I'm throwing out there (and presumably someone has already done this, but I've never heard of it). Many "Christian" opportunists open churches preaching hate and raking in the dough. Surely one can open a truly liberal church of non-hate, welcome gays, welcome drug addicts, welcome (non-practising) paedophiles (and avail counselling etc to ensure no harm is done by these poor loons) and welcome a community of non-hating Christians. Is there a "market" for this (religion being a free enterprise like all others)?

Yes, there is a market for it. There are a lot of churches like this out there. ELCA, Methodist, and Episcopalian churches are ALL varying degrees of this viewpoint. "Deliberately diverse" is a slogan some use. Others have big rainbows in their logos.

They just don't get the airtime as the more vitriolic churches.

Keizer_Ghidorah: "Those teens failed as Christians and failed as compassionate human beings."


You continue to insist on missing the point that the article, and this discussion, are about what Dan Savage -- NOT his audience -- said and did.

What you and eddiesocket keep saying, repeatedly, is the equivalent of trying to discredit a critical report of a parent smacking their child around because the child was acting up and looking "smug". As you're cheering on a professed anti-bullying crusader, no less.

As for the kids (though I again stress that this is not relevant to the impropriety of Savage's actions) -- while they aren't beyond reproach, one can hardly fault them for their reluctance to entertain a militant atheist self-righteously (speaking of smug, btw) telling them what being a Christian is all about and marginalizing entire swaths of their belief system as "bullshiat" -- even if he's not wholly wrong.

Not to mention, these are students attending a conference on journalism (in general relatively open-minded, or at least curious, folks), not farking rednecks who tied up Matthew Shepard. If you get up on a soapbox and proudly demonstrate just how much of a douchebag a gay man can be by regarding them all like violent gay-bashers, you're not exactly going to score any points for your team with the folks who are on the fence. If I were gay I would be furious with Savage for using his position and influence to widen the divide instead of building bridges.