It would help if I could spell "homophobia" wouldn't it?

Thank you for posting this thread, ninjafaery. Your words are eloquent, meaningful, and challenging.

My own opinion is that all homophobic posts should be deleted. Entire threads, I'm less sure about. I actually enjoy, and have been enriched through, reading the responses.

That being said, these forums come with their own rules and regulations attached. They can be found at http://wondercafe.ca/user-agreement .

In part... "...Provider shall be entitled to use the material (notes, postings, ideas, suggestions, etc.) for any type of use forever including in any media whether now known or hereafter devised."

Us posts become Wondercafe property. They can do with them whatever they deem appropriate. Now, I'm not advocating for this, but they could wipe every single message off the boards, and/or close the place down.

There is also this from the same source... "you will not use the Forums to... engage in any form of harassment or other offensive or illegal conduct, including but not limited to the posting of... ...(...statements which defame any race, religion or other minority group)..."

Let's us all, then, in all our posting, seek to be grace full, kind, and understanding. Following the rules with a friendship heart. Let us all strive toward understanding and respect, and so to appreciate our differences and the things we hold in common as human beings sharing this cyberspace.

Exactly.  I'm not against the posts being removed, or better yet, neutered.  (I'm not against the authors being neutered, either).

Hell, lock the threads.  That way, unlike Jesus, they can't be resurrected again and again.

honestly, it would have been better if Nucc's posts had just been removed.  I thought the "are homosexuals sinners?" thread was making good discussion (until certain people came in) and I was actually a little dissapointed to see it go.  But then again a few posts had already been deleted but he kept posting more so I guess it's a little more complicated than that.  I do agree that homophobic posts should not be allowed though.

I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree that learning takes place.  I guess my point is that since other posters reference the original nasty posts, in effect it's still giving too much attention to those original posters.

For example.  On wondercafe, say there's a young teenager with a disability.  They are reading threads on here and find a lot of stuff about how they are an "abomination" and "unclean" and maybe, since they are still developing their self-concept, they wonder if there's anything to this since it's rooted in scripture (especially if they've been raised in a very conservative and intolerant family). 

Or you are having a conversation, like "Black History Month" and someone chimes in with some horrible scriptural interpretation that people of colour aren't entitled to marry white people or they have no right to vote?

Is it ok to learn this way when it comes with that high a cost?

You could learn about racism inviting a white supremist coming in to chat too, but is that a good idea?

That's what I'm talking about.

 certain topics have been discussed ad nauseum. like homosexualtiy and abortion.  I am NOT saying that they are not worthy topics because they certainly are.  However I do find people start reiterating themselves after a while.

People are going to experience predjudice, based on scripture or otherwise.  Might as well be here in some form of controlled environment.  It's not my main reason for being an anti-theist, but it certainly doesn't lessen my resolve to oppose religion.

So would I talk to a white supremist?  Sure, why not?  Take a look at the average racist, or the average homophobe.  We're not talking about debating against intellectual giants, here.  All they have going for them (other than poor grammar skills) is a literal interpretation of "the Word of God".  Science and reason can easily pick apart "the Word of God", and even compassionate Christians have their biblically-based arguments against a literal, hateful interpretation.

My fear is that deleting posts and threads is exactly what these people want.  They feed on being silenced and "censored".  I'd prefer to let them have their say, and simply oppose their words with better answers, better humour, and better grammar.  It's not even much of a challenge.

That's an excellent point there.  If people read something hurtful then go on to see that the offensive post has been torn to shreds by everyone else, thats a definite pick-me-up.

Exactly.  Affirmation through the backing of the greater community.

I think "I'm offended!" is one of the weakest complaints in the English language, but let the offender become the offended.

The united church is open minded and tolerant provided, of course, you favour one of their favourite hobby horses.  Anything else can be eliminated. This observation comes after years of experience of Presbytery and Conference meetings and the consequent mind manipulation and intimidation foisted on delegates and congregations.  (Putting me on the DSL would be futile, I'M RETIRED!)

Free_thinker -- please weigh in on this, if you're so inclined.  I may not always agree with your take, but I always enjoy reading it.

And for the record -- I'm am not a UC member, nor do my opinions reflect those of either the official UC or Wondercafe.

that thread was 600 posts long, guys, and the majority of the posts dated back to 2006. 

if you want to discuss it again, start another thread.  that one was the deadest horse around these parts... flogging it would be futile.

I think with debate we have the opportunity to explain in detail why the hate mongering is wrong including the unbiblical spin and deception the fundys use. We can use the hateful posts as an opportunity to teach and illuminate. Granted it can't be anything goes. If someone is just spouting venom for its own sake we don't have to allow that but I would look at the good that could come out of a debate too.

Jon, I have much the same opinion as you just expressed. For me quite a bit of good comes from these debates in that I find WonderCafe a good training ground for dealing with fundies in real life. Makes me think of using war games to train soldiers.  

Personally I was happy to see that one can no longer post to the thread mentioned above.  I think this is a happy compromise between deletion and resurrection.

One problem I see with resurrection, is if the new poster has not slogged through the umpteen previous posts they will miss the fact that whatever they are about to post has already been hashed out.  

For the same reason, deleting such threads does not allow new people to know what horses have been beaten to death thus preventing some unknowingly trotting out the dead argument.

I would also like some way for new people to recognize what constitutes an offensive post.  As someone who gives people the benefit of the doubt that they are not actually as malicious as they appear, and just simply ignorant of the power and damage of words, I believe this may provide a learning tool to play nice in the sandbox.

Of course it will do nothing to eliminate the truly malicious but it may help some...

LB

No language is rude that can boast polite writers.     Aubrey Beardsley
 

Should long atheistic, God dishonouring, self-serving, blasphemous, pro-abortion, clergy pontificating, United Church hobby horse, pro-NDP, anti-Christian, pro 'unitarian', Bible disparaging, etc., threads be removed?  Of course not!  This is the United Church, after all.  Without all these, we'd lose our identity.  Yikes!!! 

what on earth are you attempting to say here, retiredrev??  sounds like you have an issue or two.

Having been in, and exposed to, the United Church for sity years, I'd say more than an issue or two.  Having done doctoral research in mind manipulation and brainwashing, I've seen these tactics used not only by so-called 'cults' or conservative, fundamentalist groups, but also by 'mainstream' denominations including the UCC.  We can 'tolerate' everything from soup to nuts, but not if it contradicts our personal agendae.   To lump 'homophobia' with 'racism' is like lumping together the United Church with, Oh, say, Fred Phelps!  I understand discrimination better than most members of the 'gay' community by living with people's attitudes toward people with physical disabilities.  If anyone steps outside the 'corporate culture', we cry 'fowl'.  We 'duck' , point and go 'Quack, Quack!'  My issue, or two, or twelve, or thrity-seven, is that any point of view contrary to "General Conference rhetoric" is subject to censorship.  Why don't we be honest and just join the Unitarians?  "Ut Omnes Unum Sint" could apply in that situation, too.

retiredrev, it sounds like you have the material, and the energy, for a thread of your own.

so, rev, you are saying that its not fair that homophobia is looked upon as being in the same league as racism??

why??

I think they should be removed.

Homophobia has caused me and others to experience terrible things, like violence, exclusion, and when I read these types of posts it has a much different impact on me then others. It drags up old memories, and it adds to a climate that makes Wondercafe less friendly to new comers of all sorts.

As a comprimise I would consider supporting a seperate area for those that want to debate the issue. One that does not show up in the recently active list. One that I can ignore in effect.

I believe the disscussions in the passed have made Wondercafe un friendly and the posts regarding GLBT tend to attract not just those with conservative and liberal views but also hateful people who use this site as a place to spew their hate.

These haters ( as distinguished from conservative, or misinformed posts) not only make wondercafe in hospitalble to GLBT and their families, but also baits people into arguments that divert us from more important issues. It scares people from raising other issues as well.

However a GLBT section which is excluded from the recently active list allows thise of us you have difficulty with hate against GLBT might work. It would still need to be censored for the clearly hatefilled posts, but it would allow discussion around the issue.(I could just ignore it)

Youve got it (you must have had your omega-3's today!)  It's like mixing apples and oranges.  What phobias do YOU have?  Are they the same as racism?  Racism involved both discriminaton and abuse; that is, both thoughts and actions.  Let me give you a personal example of discrimination and abuse contrasted to a phobia.  After I had polio as a kid, people refused to let me play with their kids because they might 'catch' what I had.  I got laughed at and ostracized in school, at church, and in the community (an example of a phobia).  My parents forced me to participate in community sports even though I couldn't compete at my age level.  I only mention this to demonstrate the depth of the 'discrimination' due to disability. An example of discrimination (due to disability) - I was physically assaulted and homosexually abused at a church group (Sigma C)-toothpaste forcibly rubbed, with their hands, on the end of the p*n*s).  The leader was a public school principal (The leaders excuse was 'it's just boys being boys')!  It was done because they could, and get away it.  The official board swept the whole incident under the carpet with the advice not to let it happen again.  Discrimination?  I was called 'cripple', 'hopalong', 'retard' (I currently hold 6 earned degrees), and from there, it gets worse.  At age 11, I was stripped naked in front of a group of local girls by my older brother and his friend to 'prove' that I was really a guy!  (I didn't get mad.... I got even!  When my mother got done with him, he couldn't sit down for a few days.)  I grew up in a multi-racial, multi-cultural area in which having a disability was considered more repulsive than being of a different race (white, black, aboriginal, oriental, etc), language (mostly English, French, Dutch), denomination Protestant, Orthodox and Roman Catholic), religion (Christianity, Judaism), etc.  A phobia, although undesirable, compared to outright prejudice and physical abuse based on other factors doesn't compare.  Having a 'phobia' isn't illegal, or we'd all be in jail!  Counselling and education are key components and combatting any phobia.  As for the people who abused me, I followed the advice of Donald Trump:  I got even IN SPADES!

Sorry retiredrev, but if you don't think homosexuals experience discrimination and abuse just as bad as experienced by victims of racism, or even as bad as you describe, then you need to give your head a shake

The only difference between homophobia and racism is the particular attribute you hate people for.

Homophobia doesn't mean just "fear of". Look it up. In reality homophobia isn't an accurate word, but it's the word that has been attached to that particular form of prejudice. Of course racism isn't an accurate word either, but we all seem to know what it means. Homophobes choose to hate gays for exactly the same reasons that some people choose to hate Jews, or people with disabilities, or whatever. They need something to hate.

Homophobia involves both discrimination and abuse in both thoughts and actions. We're comparing apples to apples.

No it doesn't!  No we're not!  Case closed.

I gave my head a shake, and all I got was a headache (I have arthritis of the spine).  Everyone hates something, or someone.  It's part of the human condition.  (I personally hate ice cream with sardines on top.  Yuck!).  What do you hate, witch?  If you say 'nothing', they you're not being honest.  What is the difference between "homophobia" (if such a thing exists) and not being favourable to the gay lifestyle?  Is a straight person homophobic because they choose not to participate in that lifestyle and chooses to adhere to heterosexuality?   When I did my Ph.D., I had to define my terms clearly and precisely before I presented the body of the thesis. If homophobia isn't an accurate word (and accuracy is a desiratum, surely), then choose a word that is more accurate.  Otherwise, people get the wrong impression and arrive at different conclusions. 

just to clarify, then, you are saying ...

- homophobia is not in the same league as racism because of semantics...  the word 'homophobia' means that hating gay people is somehow outside of the realm of a persons ability to control, and therefore fighting against it is wrong.

- most people in the gay community have never experienced discrimination.

- sexual orientation is a choice.  people choose to either follow the 'gay lifestyle' or the 'heterosexual lifestyle'.

- the united church of canada uses little-known mind control techniques to influence the delegates at the general council.

are those statements correct, retired rev???

Hi ninja

I'm not sure if the archives go way back to Nov. 2006 or not? From my experience of reading on other forums if I was moderator I'd remove all of the archive materials except the last 2 or 3 mos. It can be saved by the UC but it isn't necessary that it be available to the public at large.

Engaging in heterosexual mating rituals does not make a straight person homophobic. Hating homosexuals makes a straight person homophobic.

The only difference is that homophobia is a prejudice you accept and racism isn't, that's it. There is no difference beyond that. If you want to "close the case" admit that obvious truth and move on otherwise try and learn something here.

In my opening post, I said:

The UC should be a place where, if not free of homophobia (that would be impossible), at least stands beside us and offers some safety here.

I didn't mean the UC.  I meant Wondercafe, which is an important distinction.  I can in no way speak to UC policy.

Also wanted to mention that I've shared much of Retivedrev's childhood suffering and shame.  Wouldn't wish that on anyone. 

Being gay in a small town can be the same.  Kids can be soooo cruel.

Actually, the united church (and other religious groups and denominations) use WELL-KNOWN mind manipulation techniques (I used the word, 'manipulation', not 'control'!  There is a difference.  (Please quote me accurately, with footnotes)  The united church uses mind manipulation to influnce the delegates at general council, conference, presbytery and in local congregations.  Of course, some ministers use these same techniques in their sermons, employers use them on employees, and advertisers use them on us all.  The problem permeates our society.  Racism is one expression of discrimination.  'Homophobia' (whatever that is) is one expression of discrimination.  This comparison doesn't make them equal.  A newspaper is a medium of communication.  A television set is a medium of communication.  A newspaper is not a television, and vice versa.  Try watching Don Cherry and Ron MacLean on a newspaper.

Mind Manipulation is the intention of controlling others’ behavior in a way that will persuade them to buy a particular product, alter the way they think, change the way they perform and even influence their style of clothing. Another word that so thoroughly defines mind manipulation is Propaganda; which is the spreading of ideas or     information to promote a cause or damage another. “Contrived Propaganda” is the type of propaganda we know as advertising. 

It sounds like a few Conference meetings I've attended in the past.....

Sounds like we have a conspiracy theorist on our hands!  (re: mind manipulation - see 'organized religion in general') I'll steer away from that discussion now!

@ ninjafaery:  I agree that old posts should be locked (as chasen said) but not deleted.  Those newer members (such as myself) get to see where WC came from and where it is.  Who used to be here, who shares the same views and gives an interesting read. 

Re: where this thread has gone.  Narcotics Anonymous' website says it best: An Addiction is an Addiction is an Addiction.  Let's play "replace the word" shall we?

'A Prejudice is a Prejudice is a Prejudice.' 

ALL prejudice should all be regarded as disgusting 'aspects of the human condition'. All are on the same level of disgrace and should be treated as such.  It's no worse to beat the tar out of someone for their skin colour than it is to throw a broken beer bottle at someone for their sexuality.  Certainly the end result is worse but the root of the act is the same disgusting thing - Prejudice.

Oh goody!  Could you guys just hold on for minute?  I just wanted to compose myself.  I found a discussion about homosexuality on Wondercafe!  I've never seen THAT before ...

Care to expand on that a tad?

Okay ninj I'll be serious. 

I am so sick of seeing these discussions of homosexuality that I never want to see another one.  Or even another one about the other ones.  Please please please!  I'll listen to old Nelson Eddy and Jeannette MacDonald records ... The Captain and Tennelle even  ... but not another discussion about homosexuality.   

Perhaps someone should just declare that the pros and cons of homosexuality are just not up for discussion here.  Maybe we could make those who start these "homo" threads present themselves for the same sort of scrutiny to which they presume to subject others.  Maybe a short essay entitled "My penis would be perfect if ..."  or maybe those who wish to start threads about other people's sex lives should be made to answer a detailed questionnaire about their own sexual practices and preferences and write a short essay about what they like most about sex and post it with their thread starter for evaluation by the patrons of the wondercafe.  Maybe we should make a rule that on wondercafe the word gay or homosexual and all the derivatives thereof are verboten and that in their place we must use "Jewish" and "Jew" so it would be clear what these discussions are really about (scripture or no scripture).  Maybe we should make it a rule that if you want to start one of these threads you must publish your name address and phone number together with your topic starter and have it verified by admin before they will put up your topic.

As far as taking off the threads that are already there, perhaps if we do not do any of the things I've suggested maybe we should leave the other threads on the site eg. "Are Homosexuals Sinners?" as a sort of cesspool into which any newbie bigot/homophobic masquerading as a "Christian" can toss their excrement.   

My wife and I second Qwerty's notions :3

The Admin is G_d here. The Admin can do pretty much anything.

We can write what we want, but we can't write anything. This is perfectly normal. Every society, tribe, civilization, person has its own set of Taboos and Comforts, of that which is acceptable and that which isn't acceptable...we even have, in WC, at the same time, topics that are both acceptable and unacceptable at the same time (and at differing times).

Someone here might want to, for fun, think up a venn diagram of WC acceptable topics and unnaceptable topics and see if there is any overlap?

Just a Self-writing poem,

Inannawhimsey

what ideas is the UCC national conference manipulating the congregations into believing??

so, if i refer to people discrimiating against homosexuals as 'homosexual discrimination' or 'homosexual prejudice', that would be a better fit for you, then?? 

if not, what term should we use to describe the descrimination of homosexuals based on their sexual orientation?

Qwerty said:

"As far as taking off the threads that are already there, perhaps if we do not do any of the things I've suggested maybe we should leave the other threads on the site eg. "Are Homosexuals Sinners?" as a sort of cesspool into which any newbie bigot/homophobic masquerading as a "Christian" can toss their excrement."
 

I like that idea!  In fact, I think "The Cesspool" would be a great forum on it's own. 

"C'mon in!  The Water's Foul".

You could have "vanilla bigot" threads for the merely misinformed and other threads for varying degrees of willfully self-righteous swill.   It would be necessary to set this up as a private group to prevent unsuspecting innocents from stumbling upon it.

It wouldn't matter which side of the fence you're on.

I sure hope we don't take "off" any topic of discussion that involves prejudice, marginalization, or any kind of privileging of others.  To do so (in my humble opinion) is dangerous because it assumes that there is no more devlopment to be done.  When African Americans had just gotten full rights under US law (or say 5 years later), I would hate to think that the discussions of equality would have been closed.  Some may not agree with comparing gay rights to black rights or other marginalized groups, but marginalization is marginalization.  Even if someone does not "agree" with full rights and inclusion of gay people or same-sex couples into all visible domains of society, this is still law.  I'm sure there were many that didn't agree with inclusion of African Americans way back when, and for a long time thereafter.  Unfortunately gay people face heteronormativity (and sometimes homophobia) on a daily basis...work places, families, tv, ads, radio, social intereactions.  This is supported in the academic literature too.  There's still work to be done :-)   Good topic, btw!

Fantastic post, yvrguy, and welcome!  Love your avatar. 

It sounds like you are in favour of keeping threads active to serve as a public place to hash out stuff and to learn from it.  Did I get that right?  I'm not sure I agree.  I guess I get all mama bear about it, knowing we have young readers.  I'm trying to look at it from the standpoint of someone who faces a hostile home, school, workplace or church environment. 

There are many who come here with the specific agenda to "witness" to GLBTQ people, and there tends to be a repetitive and hurtful pattern to these threads.  These are the ones I advocate ending.  I think I've seen some evidence of some people learning and maybe changing their opinion about gay ordination, same-sex marriage etc, but I'm not sure how common that is.  The ones on a mission aren't listening and think it's their calling to keep us from going to hell in a handbasket. 

Maybe there are forums on the 'net where one can "debate" civil rights for people of colour, but I'm sure they aren't church-sponsored sites, and would probably meet with some legal challenge.

I also learned a new word from you -- "heteronormativity".  It's a long one, but very accurate.  It catches the distinction between the actual fear and hatred and the more common, but invisible blinders worn by even well-meaning people sometimes. 

I think that by locking or removing the older threads on this subject would force people who have something to say about it to start new threads.  Starting a new thread is less anonomous than posting to one as your username is right there next to it.  It would be interesting to see if those who are willing to resurect an old thread to post crap have the jam to start one of their own.

Hmmm, I'm a little torn on this, the threads that you are speaking (well typing) about really get my blood boiling and can be extremely hurtfull and are never disscusion but rather War of the Words(coming to an interwbs near you). But can there be disscussion with just one point of view? (I hate to use this term but....)It could be a "slippery slope"(I hate using that cliche SOO MUCH!) leading to the cafe only having people of one idea and one mind roaming the interwebs saying "One of us! One of us! YOU SHALL BE ASSIMILATED!!".

I see and hear racism, homophobi and heteronormativity (thanks for the new word Domo Kun) every day and I don't like it at all and I would love to have it go away but I would like to do so without simply forcing those with different opinions to be quiet and not be able to disscuss, that said, maybe if we are to get rid of a few threads it could be the ones where the "discussion" is pure hate speach with a few of us fighitng back or where it has gotten WAYYYYY off track. And who knows, maybe getting rid of these threads could cause some of the biggots to try and convey their opinion in a way that isn't just "T3H BIBL3 SAID IT SO SHUT UP P3OPLE WHO  DISS4GR33!!!!11!11!1111oneoneone" (I know it's not QUITE that bad but it CAN get that bad here on the interwebs)

So....I still don't know if I'm for or against it

peace all lol

Also!

@retiredrev and anyone else who doesn't think that homophobia is "as bad as racism" (or anyone else)

Please click this link and then think about what you have said. Thank you.

Ah, I checked out what you all were talking about (previous threads) and can see your point about hurtfulness.  Interestingly, if someone posted comments such as "I think x ethnicity is subservient to y ethnicity" or "I feel that all women are sinners and should be incarcarated" or something equally silly, there's be no discussion - it'd be considered wholly innappropriate.  So I kind of agree with Sebb and Ninja - keep RESPECTFUL discussion alive, but perhaps not tolerate DISRESPECTFUL posts.  Glad you liked "heteronormativity".  I study sociology, so I have a bag full of terms like this, LOL.

What some people here have knocked loose s'more concepts (especially Sebb and retiredrev). This is just a model.

Ramses is a community. They exist in a multicultural venue. They tend to identify with one another (part of the same Tribe). But they aren't homogenous (there are cliques). There is also a high level of traffic coming in from outside, of people from other communities. Some of these outsiders' interactions with people have caused problems. Verbal fights, sometimes even fisticuffs.

They get together for a meeting. The topic is "What is the best way to make the community safe?"

Some of them bring the point up we should keep out the riff raff, by closing the gates.

Another group says that the community should do things like start giving citizens tasers, so that they can take out the offenders and to make the streets so that only certain citizens can drive down them.

Another group says that it is imperative to teach the citizens how their own actions and thoughts affect how they feel and act. This group gets a few stares.

A few people point out that Ramses is a choice, and that violence is violence, not Ramses violence, and that those of you who are up in arms aboot Ramses violence are generalizing your own concepts into a universal. These people get a few stares as well.

Another person points out we could just make the place unpalatable to those we deem uncouth/outcast/unclean.

One person drinks a Dr Pepper on the sidelines and finishes reading a book

The Ramses community meeting continues.

Just a Self-writing poem,
Inannawhimsey

man, if i had a tazer, my neighbour would go down so fast.