We're here, we're queer and we're coming for your children'

[ALAYMAN]

Studies are mixed on the issue of homosexuality (vs heterosexuality) and pedophilia so I won’t open that laborious discussion, but what I don’t get, and what I wouldn’t have gotten as a non-Christian thinker is why people think children need to be approached with sexually sensitive thematic material of ANY kind, whether it’s of a perverted kind like that of the OP or the normative and Biblically sanctioned kind that most on here would endorse. I am old enough to remember the kerfuffle that the Jon Benet Ramsey tragedy caused in regards to child Beauty pageants and the over-sexualization of children, and it’s only gotten much worse since then. Let them be kids, not future sex symbols.

 

[abcaines]

what I don’t get, and what I wouldn’t have gotten as a non-Christian thinker is why people think children need to be approached with sexually sensitive thematic material of ANY kind,

That is pedophilia. No physical contact may be being made with the children but the subject of sex is being presented to children in very suggestive ways. It's no different than exposing kids to "mainline" pornography such as playboy or hustler (I refuse to dignify those names with capitol letters). The galling part is these drag queens have clothed their activities in the guise of "civil rights" and the public has taken that farce hook line and sinker. Well, they aren't exercising civil rights, they're exercising appetites.

 

[Ransom]

Would you say, historically, that it’s always been associated with Marxism (at least since Marxism was born)?

This isn't a topic that I've studied out in any great detail. But my recollection of the early 90s when the gay-rights movement was really taking off, was that it was about being treated as equal members of society: the moral equivalent of heterosexual couples, not being discriminated against in things like housing or employment, allowing partners to be beneficiaries in insurance policies or treated like family with respect to hospital vistation, and so forth. I'm no relativist, and I don't think homosexuality and heterosexuality are moral equals. But I don't have a problem with much of the equal-rights advocacy. It's not my business whom anyone wants to let visit them in hospital.

In a sense, it's like the civil-rights era. Not that I'm equating black people and gay people; a whole lot of blacks would rightly take issue with that. But MLK's argument was basicallly that black and white people are all God's children and justice demands that they be treated with equity. King was no Communist, despite what the FBI said, and his philosophy wasn't based on Marxist rhetoric. And the early gay-rights advocates were framing their movement in the same terms: we're all equal, so treat us as equals.

But the modern gay-rights movement, like the modern anti-racist movement, has departed from that. Modern queer theory, like, say, James Cone's style of black liberation theology, borrows from Marxist doctrine and frames the question in terms of liberating the oppressed from the oppressor.

 

[Ransom]

Well, they aren't exercising civil rights, they're exercising appetites.

I am borrowing that. Thanks in advance.

 

[abcaines]

I am borrowing that. Thanks in advance.

Why not? I did.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

"Regarding marriage, it really does not matter what laws the state passes, "gay" marriage will never be a REAL message! Marriage was ordained of God as one man and one woman and even fully secularized societies understand (or used to anyway) that a marriage is between a man and a woman!"

It's very ironic because I had the best example in the world of a wonderful marriage: my beloved parents who were married for 64 years. I'm sure my father would have agreed with you.

I do, however, find it amusing that people will say that marriage is between one man and one woman while at the same time they will divorce their own spouse. Apparently they think it means one man and one woman at a time. Just how holy can that be.

Anyway, you're right, the Bible does teach that marriage is between one man and one woman. Absolutely.

Well, since I am divorced, this is a real sore spot for me! It was the darkest point in my life and not something I ever wanted to experience. I was chastised by the eldership when my wife announced that she no longer wanted to be married to me but what was I to do? She not only wanted out but also refused counseling and had no desire to talk with the eldership of our Church. I fully acknowledge and take ownership of my failures. Most of the time, it is the woman who wants out and with "No Fault Divorce," there is little to nothing a man can do about it!

 

[Ransom]

I do, however, find it amusing that people will say that marriage is between one man and one woman while at the same time they will divorce their own spouse. Apparently they think it means one man and one woman at a time. Just how holy can that be.

Well, we can be opposed to both. There isn't a finite quantity of wrongdoing that gets swapped around, and the gays happen to be using it right now.

 

[Gringo]

Well, since I am divorced, this is a real sore spot for me! It was the darkest point in my life and not something I ever wanted to experience. I was chastised by the eldership when my wife announced that she no longer wanted to be married to me but what was I to do? She not only wanted out but also refused counseling and had no desire to talk with the eldership of our Church. I fully acknowledge and take ownership of my failures. Most of the time, it is the woman who wants out and with "No Fault Divorce," there is little to nothing a man can do about it!

.
The same thing happened to Dr Charles Weigle, the composer of "No one ever cared for me like Jesus". I wasn't referring to those who couldn't help it; to whom it was against their will. And, I'm glad that you went on to fine real happiness!

Alayman, I agree that children shouldn't be exposed to any type of in-their-face sexuality and I'm sorry for what the drag queens and others in that community are doing to them. And I want it stopped just as you do.

Dr HukNDuk, perhaps "hate" was too strong of a word. Maybe "disdain" is a better word.
.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

This isn't a topic that I've studied out in any great detail. But my recollection of the early 90s when the gay-rights movement was really taking off, was that it was about being treated as equal members of society: the moral equivalent of heterosexual couples, not being discriminated against in things like housing or employment, allowing partners to be beneficiaries in insurance policies or treated like family with respect to hospital vistation, and so forth. I'm no relativist, and I don't think homosexuality and heterosexuality are moral equals. But I don't have a problem with much of the equal-rights advocacy. It's not my business whom anyone wants to let visit them in hospital.

In a sense, it's like the civil-rights era. Not that I'm equating black people and gay people; a whole lot of blacks would rightly take issue with that. But MLK's argument was basicallly that black and white people are all God's children and justice demands that they be treated with equity. King was no Communist, despite what the FBI said, and his philosophy wasn't based on Marxist rhetoric. And the early gay-rights advocates were framing their movement in the same terms: we're all equal, so treat us as equals.

But the modern gay-rights movement, like the modern anti-racist movement, has departed from that. Modern queer theory, like, say, James Cone's style of black liberation theology, borrows from Marxist doctrine and frames the question in terms of liberating the oppressed from the oppressor.

They (Marxists) fully embrace this concept from their own website: “The struggle against sexual discrimination is linked to the struggle against class society in general for several reasons. The first is that only the abolition of class society can create the material economic basis and cultural drive sufficient to dismantle the model of the monogamous family as the only basic unit of society.”

LGBT

Marxist website defending the ideas of Marxism as a tool for workers and youth today - by the International Marxist Tendency.

www.marxist.com

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Dr HukNDuk, perhaps "hate" was too strong of a word. Maybe "disdain" is a better word.

If by “disdain,” you mean not approve or embrace, then you’d probably be correct for many people. As for me, I’ve been pretty clear that while I don’t morally support gay marriage, I do legally support it. (My views probably run contrary to others on this forum with regard to my spiritual vs political views in some areas.)

I believe we’re all equal sinners, and the choices people make are ultimately between you and God. If someone reads the Scriptures and engages in an activity and believes it’s acceptable in the eyes of God, my opinion isn’t the one that counts.

 

[Ransom]

They (Marxists) fully embrace this concept from their own website: “The struggle against sexual discrimination is linked to the struggle against class society in general for several reasons. The first is that only the abolition of class society can create the material economic basis and cultural drive sufficient to dismantle the model of the monogamous family as the only basic unit of society.”

Which is why Marxism is so easily applied to every other leftist movement. It's all a class struggle, after a fashion. Marx wrote specifically about literal economic class: the middle class (bourgeoisie) controlling the means of production and profiting off the labour of the working class (proletariat): oppressor and oppressed. Swap in "women," "LGBTQ," "blacks," "Palestinians," "fat people," or whatever for "proletariat," and some combination of "straight, white, Republican, Christian male" as needed for "bourgeoisie," and voila! You have the next big social movement that's going to rise up and overthrow the cultural hegemony.

 

[AverageJoe]

I know and understand that not all gay people are "IN YOUR FACE" about their lifestyle. Many of them live their lives privately (as do most heterosexuals) and just want to be left alone. All they ask for is that they can walk down the street without fear of being assaulted or murdered and I fully respect this! A human being is a human being and EVERYONE deserves their due dignity and respect as such.

Regarding marriage, it really does not matter what laws the state passes, "gay" marriage will never be a REAL message! Marriage was ordained of God as one man and one woman and even fully secularized societies understand (or used to anyway) that a marriage is between a man and a woman!

The question to ask though is why does the radical fringe act the way they do? Why is it not enough that I respect their basic human rights and treat you like any other person? Why do they insist I not only affirm their lifestyle but my motives are questioned if I am not marching in lock-step with them waving their "Gay Flag" and openly celebrating? Why is it that they have the "Thought Police" out in full force questioning my motives because I am a Christian and believe the Bible?

I would say that it is a spiritual matter! They will not leave Christians alone because the Holy Spirit will not leave them alone! I believe this has been at the root of Christian persecution throughout the history of the Church.

I have two first cousins who are lesbians. They are quite quiet and peaceful about their choices. They've never been in your face about any of it. But, they realize that many are. And while they work for gay right and peace and safety for the LGBTQ community, they never get ugly about it. Many others I know do.

 

[AverageJoe]

Well, since I am divorced, this is a real sore spot for me! It was the darkest point in my life and not something I ever wanted to experience. I was chastised by the eldership when my wife announced that she no longer wanted to be married to me but what was I to do? She not only wanted out but also refused counseling and had no desire to talk with the eldership of our Church. I fully acknowledge and take ownership of my failures. Most of the time, it is the woman who wants out and with "No Fault Divorce," there is little to nothing a man can do about it!

True. I have a sister who is divorcing her husband for no good reason right now. She may already be divorced. I haven't talked to her in months. She moved out of their home, bought a new car, filed for a restraining order against her husband (there was no good reason for this) and had divorce papers delivered to him about three weeks ago. He didn't want a divorce, so, I don't know if he signed them or not. I'm hoping he didn't. I fully believe my sister has had a nervous breakdown and is running from a lot of things right now.

 

[ALAYMAN]

If by “disdain,” you mean not approve or embrace, then you’d probably be correct for many people. As for me, I’ve been pretty clear that while I don’t morally support gay marriage, I do legally support it. (My views probably run contrary to others on this forum with regard to my spiritual vs political views in some areas.)

I believe we’re all equal sinners, and the choices people make are ultimately between you and God. If someone reads the Scriptures and engages in an activity and believes it’s acceptable in the eyes of God, my opinion isn’t the one that counts.

I’m willing to admit I have to work at not having disdain towards homosexuals. The uptick in aggressive propaganda marketing and activism has only increased that battle. That sentiment has more to do with my non-Christian childhood upbringing and the way my father taught “men ought to be men and women ought to be women”. The degree to which I have suppressed those early ingrained attitudes is actually attributable to my Christian understanding of humanity, grace, and the Imago Dei. Most of the males in my circle of influence from that part of my life had the same sort of attitudes. So again, I’d say the “tolerant” attitudes of respect shown here on the forum is also probably due to a proper understanding of how Christians should “hate the sin but love the sinner”.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

I’m willing to admit I have to work at not having disdain towards homosexuals. The uptick in aggressive propaganda marketing and activism has only increased that battle. That sentiment has more to do with my non-Christian childhood upbringing and the way my father taught “men ought to be men and women ought to be women”. The degree to which I have suppressed those early ingrained attitudes is actually attributable to my Christian understanding of humanity, grace, and the Imago Dei. Most of the males in my circle of influence from that part of my life had the same sort of attitudes. So again, I’d say the “tolerant” attitudes of respect shown here on the forum is also probably due to a proper understanding of how Christians should “hate the sin but love the sinner”.

I don’t recall a great deal of time spent on the subject when I was growing up. My church didn’t spend a great deal of effort on it either. I think it was just taken for granted that everyone knew what the Bible taught and it was case closed. Don’t get me wrong, it was occasionally mentioned in a sermon and in my home, but it was a rarity.

As for making fun of gay people or making off-color jokes, it happened on occasion, but not very often. My dad would occasionally make a comment about someone being “light in their loafers,” but that’s the worst I can recall. I had one grandfather who would call them “funny” (making a limp wrist gesture), and my other grandfather was actually pretty tolerant towards them—sort of a “not my business what they do behind closed doors” attitude.

The absolute worst I can recall as a child was a Sunday school teacher (junior high) who exclusively referred to them as f—s. To make matters worse, he’d scold any boy who would refer to them as gays and correct us to use the f-word. I actually remember telling him I wasn’t comfortable using the term and he got really upset and said he didn’t care, it was mandatory. It was awkward and uncomfortable, and it always left a negative impression on what was otherwise a good teacher to us young men.

 

[Gringo]

I’m willing to admit I have to work at not having disdain towards homosexuals. The uptick in aggressive propaganda marketing and activism has only increased that battle. That sentiment has more to do with my non-Christian childhood upbringing and the way my father taught “men ought to be men and women ought to be women”. The degree to which I have suppressed those early ingrained attitudes is actually attributable to my Christian understanding of humanity, grace, and the Imago Dei. Most of the males in my circle of influence from that part of my life had the same sort of attitudes. So again, I’d say the “tolerant” attitudes of respect shown here on the forum is also probably due to a proper understanding of how Christians should “hate the sin but love the sinner”.

.
I'm afraid to ask but . . . what's your feeling towards me? If you have negative feelings towards me regarding my orientation, could you be specific. I'd appreciate it.
.

 

[ALAYMAN]

.
I'm afraid to ask but . . . what's your feeling towards me? If you have negative feelings towards me regarding my orientation, could you be specific. I'd appreciate it.
.

Lol, no reason to fear asking that question Gringo, I’m glad you’re here. Believe it or not I have great respect for the perspective you’ve brought to the forum. See, I really do believe in diversity and inclusion . In all seriousness, I value your input on a variety of levels, but I ain’t about to name them all for fear you might get an over-inflated ego.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I don’t recall a great deal of time spent on the subject when I was growing up. My church didn’t spend a great deal of effort on it either. I think it was just taken for granted that everyone knew what the Bible taught and it was case closed. Don’t get me wrong, it was occasionally mentioned in a sermon and in my home, but it was a rarity.

As for making fun of gay people or making off-color jokes, it happened on occasion, but not very often. My dad would occasionally make a comment about someone being “light in their loafers,” but that’s the worst I can recall. I had one grandfather who would call them “funny” (making a limp wrist gesture), and my other grandfather was actually pretty tolerant towards them—sort of a “not my business what they do behind closed doors” attitude.

The absolute worst I can recall as a child was a Sunday school teacher (junior high) who exclusively referred to them as f—s. To make matters worse, he’d scold any boy who would refer to them as gays and correct us to use the f-word. I actually remember telling him I wasn’t comfortable using the term and he got really upset and said he didn’t care, it was mandatory. It was awkward and uncomfortable, and it always left a negative impression on what was otherwise a good teacher to us young men.

Do you remember the Grant Hill “gay” commercial?

There was a reason that commercial had traction and relatability. MANY from my generation used that slur casually and daily as one of the ultimate put-downs. I’m not trying to play the old dude card on your perspective, but I think your experience may be less of the norm than people just a bit older than you.

 

[abcaines]

.
I'm afraid to ask but . . . what's your feeling towards me? If you have negative feelings towards me regarding my orientation, could you be specific. I'd appreciate it.
.

I'm in the same boat with ALAYMAN. On the one hand I want to show grace and tolerance toward others but when the drag queens and activists grab all the attention, it becomes easy to respond in the flesh and lash out at all. Your candor in this thread kinda puts the breaks on my rage and reminds me that I need to show grace. Grace. GRACE. GRACE.

I, too, am glad you're here. I think all of us are richer for having come to know you. Whether you recognize it, believe it, or not, you aa picture of grace, God's grace, and are being used by Him to teach others.

It's complicated. There is no way to adequately express all that is on my heart on this subject.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

There was a reason that commercial had traction and relatability. MANY from my generation used that slur casually and daily as one of the ultimate put-downs. I’m not trying to play the old dude card on your perspective, but I think your experience may be less of the norm than people just a bit older than you.

I agree. And believe me, we made some gay cracks as kids/teenagers with our buddies. As a guy in my early 40s, I definitely didn’t come from a generation of kids who promoted gay equality or thought it was “cool” or “acceptable.” However, I guess society had shifted enough that the f-slur was generally frowned upon.

I only used it once towards a gay person when I was a teen. I was dating a girl who had a younger brother who was gay. Of course, at the time it wasn’t confirmed he was gay, but everyone knew he was “different.” Unfortunately, he didn’t like me because I was dating his sister, and therefore I didn’t like him. Also, unfortunately, he checked some of the boxes of the gay stereotypes back then. He was just a negative, sniveling, gossiping, kid with a big chip on his shoulder. One day I had enough of his backstabbing, bickering ways and I dropped the f-bomb on him. Of course, afterwards I felt guilty and also that was pretty much the end of my relationship with his sister because she babied him. I never had confirmation of his sexuality until years later I learned he was a model on the reality TV show called The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency.

To wrap up, I guess as I got older I chose to adopt my grandfather’s position on gays. Although you’ll never see me marching in support or collecting rainbow stickers, I figured it’s a free country and what someone does in their home isn’t my business. What I’m not okay with is the indoctrination of children and the agendas being shoved in people’s faces today. The pride flag seems to be becoming a gang flag and if you’re not in lock step with those views, people want you cancelled, fired from your job, etc.