It’s not on the oppressed to educate the oppressors. Especially when it comes at the expense of their physical and mental well-being.
Why is/was the discussion of fervid anti-gay ministers, politicians, etc. who are themselves secretly gay flagged?
Remove the “uality”, then put a space between “MO” and “SE”.
That will really piss them off.
It’s off-topic, and the vast majority of homophobes are not “closet cases”. They are just bigots.
Because of this
Seems to be a lot of auto-flag triggers firing… One hopes and assumes the moderators will see fit to restore things when they are able.
They are not “auto-flags”. Those posts are contravening the TOS. As such, community members are flagging them.
Yeah, I’m gonna Godwin it.
Should the Jews or homosexuals in Poland have tried to educate to the invading Nazis about what it is to be Jewish or homosexual? Or should they just have tried to GTFO?
If I was Jewish or homosexual, I’d be going for plan B.
Yes, “auto” was an incorrect term. What I meant was perhaps the human moderators simply haven’t had a chance to review yet. However, they may remain hidden regardless. Satire is tricky.
I’m not surprised this happened in OK.
I’m a bit surprised it happened in a Church on Sunday.
With about 50% of married people having committed adultery, why aren’t they praying that away from their church members? Instead, cherry-picking some “sins” but not others.
If this is the alternative, I’d rather they stick to just “thoughts and prayers”
That’s exactly the reason why these churches and people focus so much on LGBTQA+etc. people. If you talk about adultery, or pride, or treating the poor and the refugees like shit… well, that hits uncomfortably close at home, and you might feel like you should change your life and try to do better. But since most of these folks are straight and cis (simple statistics), they can point at gay people or trans folks etc. and bray loudly about how they’re sinful sinners sinning all the time, safe in the knowledge that they are not “tempted”.
Because, as discussed above, it is off-topic. They can go start another thread to discuss that.
No, not really.
Perpetuating stereotypes isn’t on the agenda here, and hurts the mentioned minorities in the process.
Suggesting that people who act reprehensibly must nt be heterosexual is akin to saying people who do evil acts must be living with mental illness.
There’s no need to go there. Asshats can be asshats without needing additional unsubstantiated labels. Sometimes evil is just evil.
So please, let’s keep the discussion about the article, not about whether or not one should have the right on the BBS to disparage a given minority to fit a stereotype.
As Conversion Therapy goes, that’s more direct than most, but not by much.
The gory scene at the hate church from that awful kingsman movie comes to mind.
This sounds like a situation with the distinct possibility of going from “slain in the spirit” to just plain “slain” much more quickly than one would like.
Indeed it’s pretty much what you’d expect shortly before 9ne of those “honor killing endorsed by assorted local dignitaries and everyone clams up when outside law enforcement finally shows up” stories.
Exactly, and in the catholic church it isn’t a sin to be born gay. But if you’re myopic and propagandistic and you’re writing a one-dimensional article to rally your ass-kissers, none of that matters because ‘Christianity’ and ‘church’ are all one, grey, lifeless entity to be mocked. Because, you know… ‘do what I say and think what I think or you’re not one of the cool kids.’
So if, for hundreds of years, generations of actual priests and ministers (probably rabbis too) have been unable to pray the pedophilia away, what chance to a handful of laymen stand of changing sexual orientation? Sexual orientation is probably the most deeply hardwired, difficult to change, human behavioral trait that there is. Trying “cure” gays is like trying to cure people of eating food.