Ashley Wagner decries Russian anti-gay law

Bluebonnet said:

I should have explained myself better in the quote you have used for this post. I didn't mean that Christians had been persecuted because he/she was a Christian in the western world. What I meant was that Christian values have been oppressed. Yes, I know perfectly that Christianity has started gradually waning in US long ago. But Obama has accelerated that process so much more. you have climbed onto the elitest level in US and a few western extreme liberal countries. But of course there will never be any place on this earth where there is 100% no racism. Homophobia is a word that homosexuals created. No one fears homosexuals. Are you heterophobia?



Thanks! I do have a mind of my own, clear and firm!

Click to expand...

Then why when asked what you think gay propaganda is you source other articles and don't even specifically what from those articles fits your definition of gay propaganda. It's like being asked to do an essay in school and then getting somebody else to write it for you.

Please explain how has Obama accelerated Christianity waning? Christianity is based on faith and belief, so I don't see how a President can all of a sudden shift people's beliefs. The reason Christianity is waning is not because Obama. It's because kids are being progressively more rational and educated. They see going to church on Sundays as an annoyance. They see discrimination of LGBT people as wrong.

Frankly people are moving away from religion because it kinda sucks. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion <-- Have a look... even though it's a comic, it makes some very legitimate points.

Bluebonnet, I am a believer, so I think I should weigh in about Christians being oppressed (an idea I disagree with, by the way). I understand your worry about values being undermined, but that's been going on for a long time and is separate from the issue being discussed here. (We could blame Elvis and Marlon Brando as easily as some of the people of today, in a way.) Actually, compared to other Western countries, our public life is unusually overtly religious. Though, paradoxically, we're also unusually hedonistic, which is the chief cause of declining religious participation by many groups. This split personality is what makes it so hard to sort out what's going on, and what makes people at the far ends of both spectrums so angry at one another. This country is actually unusually flexible about allowing religious groups of all kinds a space to conduct their lives. Just think of the Amish, who are exempt from compulsory education after the eighth grade and have won other exemptions as well. Then there are all the denominations of Christianity that have found a home here, from Albanian Orthodox through various Middle Eastern sects who are being picked off and killed in their home countries, for example the Chaldeans of Iraq. Then there are all the non-Christian religions, from Judaism to Islam to Sikhism to the Baha'i, whose lives would be in danger in Iran, the country where the religion originated. The point is that all these groups, including yours and mine, are free to live and practice the faith, but no one gets to tell everyone else what to do. It's pretty tricky these days...a lot trickier than the days when everyone was much more the same and some values weren't publicly questioned.

I don't think this Supreme Court is the wrecking ball you fear that it is; in fact, because of Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and others, it often skews more conservative than it did in the sixties and seventies and even in the eighties, when people like Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan still sat on the bench.

We've all seen real religious persecution around the world these days. This is one reason that I worry about using that word for any religious group here. It takes away from the very urgent need to pay attention to what's going on in places where people are in grave danger. Also, I don't tend to like the "dueling victims" approach to an argument. Even if Christians were having a tough time here, which I don't think they are, it wouldn't negate the fact that other groups are being threatened in some way. The recognition of injustice isn't a contest.

I also worry about using the term elitist to apply to a minority group such as gays. The perception is often exaggerated. Yes, there are a lot more openly gay people in the public forum, but that doesn't mean they're running things. I have a special reason for bringing up this point. As a Jew, I have been all too aware of the way some people (not just in the U.S.) claim that Jews "run the newspapers and the banks." There's something particularly unsettling about statements like that to me, so I hope you don't mind if I protest its use for any group.

(CSG, I am also not comfortable with the blanket statement that religion "sucks." I hope you can dial it down a bit, because such a statement is both offensive and inaccurate.)

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Then why when asked what you think gay propaganda is you source other articles and don't even specifically what from those articles fits your definition of gay propaganda. It's like being asked to do an essay in school and then getting somebody else to write it for you.

Click to expand...

Gee, are you trying to understand the meaning of gay propaganda, or are you and Buttercup busy trying to discredit and test my English skills? It looks like the latter. No, my English is not as good as yours (because English is not my first language) and I'm not ashamed of that.

You cannot defend the way the US radical gay propaganda movement, so you started personal attacks. Great strategy!

Bluebonnet, don't use English proficiency as an excuse. You've have been very consistent in stating your views and quite clear about what sort of people speak for you on LGBT issues. CSG is right in noting that it would be helpful to provide a brief explanation of your views rather than expecting people to wade through pages of anti-gay content, many of which have nothing to do with either the Russian laws or school curricula related to LGBT issues.

Olympia said:

Bluebonnet, I am a believer, so I think I should weigh in about Christians being oppressed (an idea I disagree with, by the way). I understand your worry about values being undermined, but that's been going on for a long time and is separate from the issue being discussed here. (We could blame Elvis and Marlon Brando as easily as some of the people of today, in a way.) Actually, compared to other Western countries, our public life is unusually overtly religious. Though, paradoxically, we're also unusually hedonistic, which is the chief cause of declining religious participation by many groups. This split personality is what makes it so hard to sort out what's going on, and what makes people at the far ends of both spectrums so angry at one another. This country is actually unusually flexible about allowing religious groups of all kinds a space to conduct their lives. Just think of the Amish, who are exempt from compulsory education after the eighth grade and have won other exemptions as well. Then there are all the denominations of Christianity that have found a home here, from Albanian Orthodox through various Middle Eastern sects who are being picked off and killed in their home countries, for example the Chaldeans of Iraq. Then there are all the non-Christian religions, from Judaism to Islam to Sikhism to the Baha'i, whose lives would be in danger in Iran, the country where the religion originated. The point is that all these groups, including yours and mine, are free to live and practice the faith, but no one gets to tell everyone else what to do. It's pretty tricky these days...a lot trickier than the days when everyone was much more the same and some values weren't publicly questioned.

I don't think this Supreme Court is the wrecking ball you fear that it is; in fact, because of Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and others, it often skews more conservative than it did in the sixties and seventies and even in the eighties, when people like Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan still sat on the bench.

We've all seen real religious persecution around the world these days. This is one reason that I worry about using that word for any religious group here. It takes away from the very urgent need to pay attention to what's going on in places where people are in grave danger. Also, I don't tend to like the "dueling victims" approach to an argument. Even if Christians were having a tough time here, which I don't think they are, it wouldn't negate the fact that other groups are being threatened in some way. The recognition of injustice isn't a contest.

I also worry about using the term elitist to apply to a minority group such as gays. The perception is often exaggerated. Yes, there are a lot more openly gay people in the public forum, but that doesn't mean they're running things. I have a special reason for bringing up this point. As a Jew, I have been all too aware of the way some people (not just in the U.S.) claim that Jews "run the newspapers and the banks." There's something particularly unsettling about statements like that to me, so I hope you don't mind if I protest its use for any group.

(CSG, I am also not comfortable with the blanket statement that religion "sucks." I hope you can dial it down a bit, because such a statement is both offensive and inaccurate.)

Click to expand...

Thank you for this thoughtful post. Being Jewish myself (though obviously not in the US) the bolded part really struck a chord with me.

I'm with you in not being comfortable with blanket statements about religion. Religion can certainly be used for horrible ends, but a lot of good things have also been accomplished by people who believe in kindness and generosity as ways of expressing of their religious beliefs.

Buttercup said:

You've have been very consistent in stating your views and quite clear about what sort of people speak for you on LGBT issues.

Click to expand...

Thanks! I am very proud of that!

Olympia said:

(CSG, I am also not comfortable with the blanket statement that religion "sucks." I hope you can dial it down a bit, because such a statement is both offensive and inaccurate.)

Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have been less offensive. What I meant to say is, the aspects of religions that condemn and discriminate make it suck, and this is why people are moving away from it.

Bluebonnet said:

Gee, are you trying to understand the meaning of gay propaganda, or are you and Buttercup busy trying to discredit and test my English skills? It looks like the latter. No, my English is not as good as yours (because English is not my first language) and I'm not ashamed of that.

You cannot defend the way the US radical gay propaganda movement, so you started personal attacks. Great strategy!

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with English proficiency. If you can understand the articles that you're posting (and you clearly have a grasp of English), you should be able to articulate in your own terms what you think gay propaganda is, especially since you keep parroting that phrase over and over in your posts.

Bluebonnet said:

Thanks! I am very proud of that!

Click to expand...

Obviously.

I hope that at some point down the line, when you realize that you personally know lovely LGBT people who deserve respect and support, you'll look back on this discussion and realize that you were on the wrong side of it. As it is, I see no purpose in further engaging with you on the subject.

bigsisjiejie said:

I've tangled with "Bluebonnet" before on a different issue on this forum. Same torrent of illogic, closemindedness and defensiveness though. Ultimately, not a person worth wasting your time on.

Click to expand...

bigsisjiejie, you never said you were this much of a master of understatement!

Buttercup said:

CSG is right in noting that it would be helpful to provide a brief explanation of your views rather than expecting people to wade through pages of anti-gay content, many of which have nothing to do with either the Russian laws or school curricula related to LGBT issues.

Click to expand...

I cannot make a few words in order to explain the whole meaning of what I want to say. If you are not willing to read and watch how gay activists aggressively shove the gay propaganda down to innocent young kids and everyone's throat, then you are not trying to understand what you are asking. You must be after something else other than wanting to know what is gay propaganda.

Let me help you a little on this since you are so insisting that I should summerize them:

From this link: http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html

In one of the videos, after reading to them a children's book about same sex moms stuff, the teachers asked them to discuss it, a boy who looked like a six year old, was saying that, "If you're not very open minded, let's say there is a new kind of vegetable or something, if you are not very open minded, then you won't try it. You know, you are not, like, trying new stuff. If you are open minded, then you would like to try it." There are plenty more stuff.

In another link, there are many audio clips that used to teach public school system. There are graphic, disturbing sexual languages. They taught 14 year olds in public school how to have homosexual "fist sex" in public restroom. I admit that I have just roughly gone through the list and the article, but did not listen to them.

Here are the titles of some of that audio list:

From this link: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in America/Sodomy/glsen_fistsex.htm

Department of Education Helping to Put Children into Sexual Exploratory Mode (Length 3:55)

Gay Straight Alliance (GSA), Coming to a School Near You (Length 2:26)

What Your Child Can Do On An All Out Sex Date (Length 4:41)

Teaching Children to Try Something Bad... TRIBADISM (Length 3:38)

Children Learn About 'Fisting' (Length 5:36)

As With Vegetables, Children Shouldn't Knock Homosexuality Until They Have Tried It (Length 8:02)

A Poem On The Real Agenda (Length 2:49)

Bluebonnet said:

I cannot make a few words in order to explain the whole meaning of what I want to say. If you are not willing to read and watch how gay activists aggressively shove the gay propaganda down to innocent young kids and everyone's throat, then you are not trying to understand what you are asking. You must be after something else other than wanting to know what is gay propaganda.

In another link, there are many audio clips that used to teach public school system. There are graphic, disturbing sexual languages. They taught 14 year olds in public school how to have homosexual "fist sex" in public restroom. I admit that I have just roughly gone through the list and the article, but did not listen to them.

Click to expand...

So you skimmed a list, and didn't listen to the clips for what content they were actually saying.... And that's what constitutes your comprehensive idea of what gay propaganda is. Imagine how ridiculous I would say if "Our children must be afraid of straight propaganda. I can't explain what straight propaganda is in a few words and I haven't actually read in detail or listened to people talk about it, but I can assure you it's chilling and very real."

Oh, and exactly what percentage of homosexuals do you think engage in fisting? I can assure you that the vast majority of the gay community does not partake in it. It may come as a surprise, but a lot of the sexual acts that tend to be ignorantly tied to the "gay lifestyle" are acts that straight people can and do engage in, including sodomy and fisting. Straight people also have sex before marriage, engage in adultery, and perform oral sex (which according to the Bible constitutes sodomy because it isn't for the purposes of procreation -- if you or your friends have ever had oral sex, you're technically all sodomites according to the Bible).

So, clearly the solution is teaching kids that sex must be a singular, not a regular, act for the purposes of procreation and if they do not intend to procreate then they must not be sexually active, they must never perform/receive oral sex, etc. Oh, and if you're an infertile man or woman you are prohibited from having any sex at all, since your inability to procreate renders every sexual act as sodomy. Because the Bible says so.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

Sorry, I should have been less offensive. What I meant to say is, the aspects of religions that condemn and discriminate make it suck, and this is why people are moving away from it.

Click to expand...

Thanks, CSG.

Just to give you something to contemplate, there's a nationally known organization in at least one city in the U.S. (New York) that was originally founded to bring fresh meals to homebound people with AIDS. It has now expanded to include other serious illnesses such as cancer, but at first the preponderance of its beneficiaries were gay men with AIDS. Its name is God's Love We Deliver. While it's not affiliated with any religious group, its founder clearly intended the name to make a statement.

It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

So you skimmed a list, and didn't listen to the clips for what content they were actually saying.... And that's what constitutes your comprehensive idea of what gay propaganda is. Imagine how ridiculous I would say if "Our children must be afraid of straight propaganda. I can't explain what straight propaganda is in a few words and I haven't actually read in detail or listened to people talk about it, but I can assure you it's chilling and very real."

Oh, and exactly what percentage of homosexuals do you think engage in fisting? I can assure you that the vast majority of the gay community does not partake in it. It may come as a surprise, but a lot of the sexual acts that tend to be ignorantly tied to the "gay lifestyle" are acts that straight people can and do engage in, including sodomy and fisting. Straight people also have sex before marriage, engage in adultery, and perform oral sex (which according to the Bible constitutes sodomy because it isn't for the purposes of procreation -- if you or your friends have ever had oral sex, you're technically all sodomites according to the Bible).

So, clearly the solution is teaching kids that sex must be a singular, not a regular, act for the purposes of procreation and if they do not intend to procreate then they must not be sexually active, they must never perform/receive oral sex, etc. Oh, and if you're an infertile man or woman you are prohibited from having any sex at all, since your inability to procreate renders every sexual act as sodomy. Because the Bible says so.

Click to expand...

You are impossible!

I have watched the entire videos. I have gone through the writing part. I don't think it's necessary for me to go through the audio to prove that they were indeed gay propaganda. If necessary, I might sometime go through them when I have an empty stomach in case I throw up. For the record, I did listen to one of the audio titled "As with vegetable... " after I've made the last post. They are indeed gay propaganda! Plain, chilling, and disgusting! Have you gone through them? If you have not, what makes you have the right to say anything?!

Obviously, it is not a matter of who would do what in their own bedroom, is it?! They taught the 14 year old in school the gay sex in public restroom! Gay sex in public restroom! To the 14 year olds! At public school! Will you tell me that that was normal?! Do you feel offended?! You should! If you don't, then there must be something wrong! I bet plenty of parents don't know what they taught to their kids at school.

BLUEBONNET: The links I looked at/listened to at the sites you have provided didn't show any "gay propaganda" itself, just talked about it -- that is, I couldn't find anything showing any alleged gay propaganda itself, just persons talking about what supposedly went on. Do any of those links show an actual document or record an actual talk given in a school -- NOT just a "report" from an anti-LGBT propaganda site itself describing what supposedly went on?

Now, I'm not for encouraging underage children into engaging in sexual behavior, but I recognize how likely experimentation is to happen in teens and pre-teens, and I am all for educating children on how to be safe and protect themselves from disease, unwanted pregnancy, and unwanted advances of any sort from any peer, adult, or anyone else, etc.

However, I fail to see anything inherently chilling about efforts to recognize homosexuality as normal behavior (not speaking mathematically, stats and math gurus, just socially! Normal as in acceptable, non-aberrant, not unusual, etc.).

Here is the main page of the organization referred to in post 190 above.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com

Mathman said:

Here is the main page of the organization referred to in post 190 above.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com

Click to expand...

Lovely design, and so many articles to peruse! I believe I will begin with the evil of Harry Potter. I mean, I'll admit I wasn't a fan of Order of the Phoenix, but evil seems to be overstating it, I think "boring and 200 pages overlong" would be a better description. Still, I am open to opposing views (within reason). Is the website run by Lord Voldemort, by any chance, or is it merely Dolores Umbridge?

I used Web Archive to avoid giving them page views.

BTW, that website is so wacky that when I Googled it, I got a lot of hits wondering if it's real/a parody/a hoax.

That awkward moment when something is so insane, biased and baseless that you think it's satire.

I can't understand the fuss against Harry Potter. There's real evil in the world, and they're obsessing on imaginary witches. I loved the books myself, though I agree that by Order of the Phoenix they were getting way too long. Nevertheless, Rowling's writing is so deft that I read even the last one in about four or five days (while working fulltime). She's a stupendous storyteller, and she's inventive in so many areas, including names--the best creator of character names since Dickens. The way she juggles all the plot elements and keeps things connected is astounding, especially considering they were her first books. As for evil, the whole point is the battle between good and evil, and except for some incompletely thought out aspects, the morality is clear. I have evangelical friends who dislike and distrust it, but I have other friends who are believers who love it and find it very nourishing, as I do. Any site that uses Harry Potter as a touchstone to prove mental purity will not get any business from me.

Curiously, there actually is a theological objection to good-triumphs-over-evil stories. I think it goes something like this. We are all sinners. It is not possible for anyone to be good without the merciful grace of God, Likewise, it is not possible for us to overcome evil by our own efforts, because we are not as strong as the Devil. Only God is.

So stories in which Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins face down evil by their own courage and virtue promote a false and sacrilegious doctrine that man is sufficient without God. This is just what the Devil wants us to believe.

Thanks, math, for the jesus-is-savior link, but what I meant was that I went to that website and went through several of the links off that page, and never found any actual pro-homosexual material, just descriptions by antis of what they the antis allege happen/claim was said/was taught/what have you, or how they interpret the opposing viewpoint. I didn't see a transcript of a lecture being given in which 14 year olds are taught fisting, for example, or an audio of same, nor did I see a reproduction of a document proven to have been distributed to schoolkids, etc. Each link I looked at (thought I admittedly did not watch/listen to them all) was just polemical rhetoric reviling alleged items/lectures/talks, no actual original material was produced. It may be there, but I couldn't find it.

Bluebonnet, to say it another way, John says James is bad and evil because he tells underage children to steal. Susie tells the world James is evil and when asked for proof, says because John said so. But John never heard or saw James tell children to steal. But because John has a website saying so, then Susie and other like-minded people can cite John as a source and claim it is chilling and horrible to read about and James is evil. But John's website has nothing but John's word that James ever did anything wrong. No one has caught James on videotape, no evidence has been produced, etc. I really didn't see anything on those websites that had actual original source material. But maybe I missed it.