So I just told off an Evangelical Neoconservative and thought I'd share.

[Brendan]

So I've even further cut back on exactly what I'll say. And I'll make it simple enough for you to understand. I'm a steadfast homophobe who in the past year, thanks to help of good people, has become more open, less critical, and less outspoken on the issue. I've done this with the assertion that if I lessened my intolerance of the other side that this would be reciprocated. I think even the thought of your group indicates that those who see gay rights as a civil rights issue rather than a moral/ethics one have little tolerance for the other side, even going as far as to impugn their convictions.

And thus, that is where I stand, very willing to relent in all the progress I've made. I'm sure it doesn't concern you because we'll never speak in person again most likely, but if the pro-gay side shows little tolerance for my side, I hope you aren't blind to expecting my side to have tolerance for those who differ in opinion with us. There you are. Hope you are still awake. I'd hate to disappoint in anyway.

With compassion,
Sean

Sean, I don't care what you think, so why should I bother tailoring my communication to what you like? I don't care if people disapprove of me, and I mean any part of me, not just whom I'm attracted to. People can hate me, scorn me, whatever, I really don't care. I remember from your profile that Jesus once said that if the people of this world hate you, to remember that they hated him first. But to have someone say that because of who I am, I deserve no rights? I won't take that. I won't be silent while you grope around in the darkness for the light of openmindedness. I won't be silent while you insult my entire personality based on a part of it. I will speak my mind, and again if you have a problem with that, tough.

Especially coming from someone who proclaims to be so deeply Christian, a faith that was persecuted, prosecuted and punished; in and out of the courts of law for ages, not unlike homosexuality.

Sean I can't visit my aunt and uncle because they live on a ranch in rural South Dakota and going there puts my life in jeopardy, and you're whining to me because I have the attitude of, "You've got something to say, I've got something to say back," and you can't handle being stood up to? FUCK you.

Take your cross. Go nail yourself to it on a hill that displays it to someone who cares. And take your compassion with you.

With ambivalence,
Brendan

The group he references is a joke facebook group I created about having a suspicion that homophobes are secretly gay.

 

[niffer]

Mr. Sean is someone that needs to loosen the eff up.

 

[Totenkindly]

I never know how to respond to these things.

I think Sean is naive. Despite some "positive" shifts in his thinking, he is still entrenched firmly in his world view; and I do not equate tolerance to love.

This is because he's still intellectualizing the problem. Tolerance is an intellectual solution -- "I disagree, but I will just to not speak my mind as much and try to let others do their thing." Love is an active solution. Would Sean take a gay person with AIDs to the hospital and visit them? Would he give shelter to a gay-identifying virgin kid kicked out of his home by irate parents just because he went to talk to them?

And that is why he fails to get that, although this is an intellectual problem to him, this is a very REAL problem for you. His words are vapor. They mean nothing when you're suffering real damage, real danger, real persecution far beyond words. It's like some ass going on about what sort of organization is best for donating money to feed the poor (and meanwhile contributing no money), while you are recalling the little girl who shriveled up and died in your arms from malnourishment just that morning.

Meanwhile, though, I just wonder whether your blast was more for your sake or for Sean's sake. Is it going to pop his head out of his posterior, or is it just going to drive it in more deeply... meaning an even harder time for your cause in the future?

I know it was a vent. Still, is it going to help or hinder you?

 

[niffer]

What Jen said makes sense, but the thing is...it was just a facebook group. Someone from "Brendan's side" (him) was just having a little fun. It wasn't an attack or anything, but this guy just shot out and pissed all over him and attempted to intellectualize the "issue", which he took as a personal attack. It's like he was suggesting that gays were not even human like him...he could not grasp that Brendan actually wasn't interested in his input. It's just a vaporous intellectual issue to Sean, he doesn't realize that it is very real and there are in fact humans that are different that him and still human. Mere tolerance in this case means nothing. The fact that he didn't even have that before is just disturbing. He didn't even need to comment. If I got that sent to me, I would get pissed too.

 

[Lookin4theBestNU]

The group he references is a joke facebook group I created about having a suspicion that homophobes are secretly gay.

You created a facebook group to intentionally get under peoples' skin? If that was not the intention what was? What kind of reaction were you expecting/hoping from the members of this board?(And yes, I do have 17 other questions waiting for you)

 

[Brendan]

I never know how to respond to these things.

I think Sean is naive. Despite some "positive" shifts in his thinking, he is still entrenched firmly in his world view; and I do not equate tolerance to love.

This is because he's still intellectualizing the problem. Tolerance is an intellectual solution -- "I disagree, but I will just to not speak my mind as much and try to let others do their thing." Love is an active solution. Would Sean take a gay person with AIDs to the hospital and visit them?

I have no idea, but I know he would assert that AIDS is the fault of the person in question. If they didn't want AIDS, why did they choose to be gay?

Would he give shelter to a gay-identifying virgin kid kicked out of his home by irate parents just because he went to talk to them?

Absolutely not. If he didn't want to be kicked out of the house, he shouldn't have chosen to be gay.

Meanwhile, though, I just wonder whether your blast was more for your sake or for Sean's sake. Is it going to pop his head out of his posterior, or is it just going to drive it in more deeply... meaning an even harder time for your cause in the future?

When it comes to Sean, I've learned not to let myself care about wether people like him have their heads in their asses or not, but I can tell you that his response to the message I sent hims was this:

Well, if you prefer that attitude, then we could make it mutual. I've just never let any petty differences stand in the way of friendships. That's your choice man, not mine.

And for the record, I don't judge you at all. I don't hate you, and if I did it would be for the attitude you've given me, not for any bit of your personality. From my standpoint, I've always been told to hate the sin, but love the sinner.

Again up to you. As naive as I am in doing so, I still haven't retracted my hand for a handshake as a gesture of friendship. That's up to you to - either to shake it or push it away. I'd prefer the shake option, but with the attitude you've relayed, I could care little about what you chose to do.

Sean

To which I told him that I could have sworn I told him to display his crucifixion to someone who cares.

I know it was a vent. Still, is it going to help or hinder you?

Probably neither. I probably won't ever be able to count him as a friend, still the people I know who've heard about me telling him off say that they're happy I did so. These people include people who are both his friend and my friend.

 

[runvardh]

While I am not a fan of the acts I feel no need to hate the one who does them. AIDS is not a gay disease and belief in such is, in my opinion, a result of ignorance that shows a poor face of Christianity. My friend is my friend, bound in love and loyalty; yes I would take him to the hospital and yes I would visit him. A parent who would cast a child away only for loving another human being is, in my opinion, a disgrace of parenthood and is in need of reflecting on their own sin. Such a child I would take in.

I suppose it helps that my brother identifies as gay, but he has done some stupid things that are unrelated to it. I suppose it is less the wolves that bother me and more the sheep that bite each other. Anyway, sorry if I bothered anyone too much; these subjects always leaves someone hurt...

 

[miked277]

Is it going to pop his head out of his posterior, or is it just going to drive it in more deeply... meaning an even harder time for your cause in the future?

i've thought about this specific question a bit, not just on this topic but in general. i think the answer depends on the person, or type even. some people when in the wrong can come to terms w/ the fact they're wrong and someone else is right all on their own after reviewing the facts. others have to experience life more to fully appreciate points of view different to what theyre used to. and yet others will hold onto their views for dear life in the face of contradicting evidence and experience. they often need to be told by an authority they trust that such and such is wrong.

part of the whole question is what the goal even is. is it to change the one persons mind, or change the minds of people they have influence over. there are different ways to go about each.

anyways, the point i tried to make wasn't really directly related to the op so i'll just state that yes i agree, sexuality should have zero legal ramifications. i love tearing people up in an argument who start w/ the air of "i am naturally correct as stated by god, anything i concede should be treated as a blessing from on high"... i hate that attitude especially w/ the "gray" political areas like sexuality, abortion, etc.

 

[cafe]

Hopefully the guy will outgrow it, Brendan. When you grow up being taught that kind of stuff it can take awhile to get past it and figure out how to function within the broader population. Some people never do.

Personally, even though I still identify on a doctrinal level with evangelicalism, I don't believe the rest of the world should be forced to pretend like they are evangelicals for my comfort and convenience, nor should they be denied property or other rights. I also think that God is plenty big enough to handle his interactions with other people without my intervention and I just cannot be bothered to be judging and rejecting perfectly wonderful people based on what they do with consenting adult partners in a private situation that isn't harming anyone else (though I admit adultery gets to me because it does usually hurt other people) when so many of the "righteous" are so nasty and unkind, etc that I can't stand them.

I hate the double standard that what you do with your ding-a-ling (or somebody else's) is a such a huge deal that it overrides what you do with every other part of your mind and body.

 

[runvardh]

Hopefully the guy will outgrow it, Brendan. When you grow up being taught that kind of stuff it can take awhile to get past it and figure out how to function within the broader population. Some people never do.

Personally, even though I still identify on a doctrinal level with evangelicalism, I don't believe the rest of the world should be forced to pretend like they are evangelicals for my comfort and convenience, nor should they be denied property or other rights. I also think that God is plenty big enough to handle his interactions with other people without my intervention and I just cannot be bothered to be judging and rejecting perfectly wonderful people based on what they do with consenting adult partners in a private situation that isn't harming anyone else (though I admit adultery gets to me because it does usually hurt other people) when so many of the "righteous" are so nasty and unkind, etc that I can't stand them.

I hate the double standard that what you do with your ding-a-ling (or somebody else's) is a such a huge deal that it overrides what you do with every other part of your mind and body.

Amen

 

[PuddleRiver]

Hopefully the guy will outgrow it, Brendan. When you grow up being taught that kind of stuff it can take awhile to get past it and figure out how to function within the broader population. Some people never do.

Personally, even though I still identify on a doctrinal level with evangelicalism, I don't believe the rest of the world should be forced to pretend like they are evangelicals for my comfort and convenience, nor should they be denied property or other rights. I also think that God is plenty big enough to handle his interactions with other people without my intervention and I just cannot be bothered to be judging and rejecting perfectly wonderful people based on what they do with consenting adult partners in a private situation that isn't harming anyone else (though I admit adultery gets to me because it does usually hurt other people) when so many of the "righteous" are so nasty and unkind, etc that I can't stand them.

I hate the double standard that what you do with your ding-a-ling (or somebody else's) is a such a huge deal that it overrides what you do with every other part of your mind and body.

Amen

Seconded.

 

[Brendan]

Hopefully the guy will outgrow it, Brendan. When you grow up being taught that kind of stuff it can take awhile to get past it and figure out how to function within the broader population. Some people never do.

Personally, even though I still identify on a doctrinal level with evangelicalism, I don't believe the rest of the world should be forced to pretend like they are evangelicals for my comfort and convenience, nor should they be denied property or other rights. I also think that God is plenty big enough to handle his interactions with other people without my intervention and I just cannot be bothered to be judging and rejecting perfectly wonderful people based on what they do with consenting adult partners in a private situation that isn't harming anyone else (though I admit adultery gets to me because it does usually hurt other people) when so many of the "righteous" are so nasty and unkind, etc that I can't stand them.

I hate the double standard that what you do with your ding-a-ling (or somebody else's) is a such a huge deal that it overrides what you do with every other part of your mind and body.

Thank you! This is exactly what I was trying to get across. I don't care if someone doesn't like what I do, I don't care if they don't like me, but that doesn't make it okay to treat me like a second class citizen.

 

[Brendan]

You created a facebook group to intentionally get under peoples' skin?

No, though I do believe that people who are uncomfortable with other people's sexuality and like to bash it as immoral or this, that and the other thing are either projecting or trying to will themselves out of their own confusion when it comes to themselves. Kind of like how Mark Foley was extremely vocal in his belief that pedophilia ought to be harshley punished.

If that was not the intention what was?

The same purpose as the group called "Dear Pennsylvania, Get The Fuck Out Of The Left Lane. Love, New Jersey." Or the group called "Against Gay Marriage? Then Don't Get One And Shut The Fuck Up." Or for that matter, the group called, "Abolish Don't Ask Don't Tell. Ask Them And Don't Let Them Join." It was about bringing together like-minded people for both light and heavy-hearted discussion or just joking around. Hell the same could be said about the group called, "Neville Longbottom is a BAMF."

What kind of reaction were you expecting/hoping from the members of this board?

Of this board? Well knowing and being familiar with the major people here, I expected most people would be sympathetic or bring up other points that I could potentially use next time something like this happens, which I know it will, because there's always someone else to hate you.

As for the group on facebook, I expected people who didn't agree with the statement not to join.

 

[Brendan]

Apparently Sean thinks it's appropriate to display the chain of messages to everyone who will pay attention. I have no way of knowing wether or not he's changed any part of the messages.

He's going to be at a going away party that I'll also be at. I swear to God if he says the wrong thing, I'm punching him straight in the face.

 

[NoahFence]

Just accuse him of usurping God's rightful place. It's not his place to judge you, nor to carry out any particular sentence. Tell him to be careful of throwing first stones, he'll like that. But most important:

IT IS NOT HIS OR ANYONE'S PLACE TO STOP YOU FROM SINNING. Any effort to force you into "goodness" is robbing you of your God Given free will.

I just wonder when people are going to make the leap that Sodom and Gomorrah's big sin was not in what they were doing, but how. Their crime of lust and exploitation was carried out in hetero just as much (probably more) as homo.

Biggest missed point in the whole damn Bible, IMO.

 

[Totenkindly]

IT IS NOT HIS OR ANYONE'S PLACE TO STOP YOU FROM SINNING. Any effort to force you into "goodness" is robbing you of your God Given free will.

That is where I fall as well.

Even if one is an evangelical Christian, the precedent is there, in black and white:

God purposefully gave people choices, even though he knew that some would make the "wrong" one. If that was Good Enough and Important Enough for God to do, why can't we do the same?

I just wonder when people are going to make the leap that Sodom and Gomorrah's big sin was not in what they were doing, but how. Their crime of lust and exploitation was carried out in hetero just as much (probably more) as homo.

It's spelled out in the New Testament (inhospitality as the sin of S&G) ... and if you read the narrative, the act that was being considered against the two visitors was not really "homosexual sex" but "gang rape." It was an extreme and embarrassing act of violence being perpetrated against visitors who were supposed to be receiving the grace of their host, as guests.

Still, Brendan, it sounds to me like you have a chip on your shoulder against this person. Is it worth all of this conflict to the point of physical violence? Why let this experience shape you like that?

 

[Oberon]

That is where I fall as well.

Even if one is an evangelical Christian, the precedent is there, in black and white:

God purposefully gave people choices, even though he knew that some would make the "wrong" one. If that was Good Enough and Important Enough for God to do, why can't we do the same?

The implications of this to the criminal justice system are profound. By that reasoning, all victimless crimes (such as prostitution, doing or selling recreational drugs, polygamy, and so on) should be legal.

That's a pretty libertarian stance you've got going there, Jen. I'm glad you're seeing things this way.

 

[Ivy]

The implications of this to the criminal justice system are profound. By that reasoning, all victimless crimes (such as prostitution, doing or selling recreational drugs, polygamy, and so on) should be legal.

That's a pretty libertarian stance you've got going there, Jen. I'm glad you're seeing things this way.

Give unto Caesar and all that. That's the realm of law, not of the church.

 

[Totenkindly]

That's a pretty libertarian stance you've got going there, Jen. I'm glad you're seeing things this way.

:horor:

I summarily retract every bit of insanity I uttered.

 

[Oberon]

Give unto Caesar and all that. That's the realm of law, not of the church.

...but Jen agreed with NoahFence's assertion that "IT IS NOT HIS OR ANYONE'S PLACE TO STOP YOU FROM SINNING."

"Anyone" includes government, does it not?