Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:00:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6490 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Eric Smith wrote:
| |
| |
Some have suggested that sexual orientation has no business being openly
discussed on LUGNET. This opinion is quite respectable, but it does not
recognize that sexual orientation is as much an identifying aspect of life
for some people as, say, religion or occupation or hobbies are for others.
Some have suggested that certain religious beliefs are being actively
ignored, and that allowing the creation of an LGBT group, which openly
embraces a lifestyle that is counter to those beliefs, is disrespectful to
those beliefs. The fact is that while LUGNET respects all religious
beliefs, it is also religion-neutral. Thus, religous beliefs play no role
here in determining whether or not the creation of an LGBT group is
warranted.
|
So if LUGNET is religion neutral, why can’t it be sexually neutral too? If
you don’t see a need for a religious-oriented group, it follows that there’s
no need for this type of group either.
You talk about how people can simply not look at this stuff, but there is a
problem. We tell parents at our shows about LUGNET. The first time they come
visit the highlighted articles on the home page are talking about LGBT
rubbish. I certainly wouldn’t want that to be the first thing people see when
they visit. LUGNET has always been a safe place to discuss LEGO topics
without the fear of running into something that many people would rather just
avoid. I’m afraid that’s no longer possible with the addition of these
severely off-topic groups.
There’s something to be said for not having sexuality thrown in your face in
every single place you go these days. This site used to be a place where
people could set that stuff aside and just build stuff. Apparently the
politically correct have invaded LUGNET, as well.
|
man, oh man, have you crystalized my thoughts! i agree with everything you
have just said. lugnet is just another facet of e-society (or society, for that
matter) that the homosexual agenda has permeated (as if we are not bombarded
with it enough through the media). good point on the “religion-neutral” issue
as well. if lugnet is going to allow this “lavender brick” rubbish, then why
don’t we start an “anti-lavender brick” in .people? that way, if anyone calls
us “homophobic” or any other label, we can just say “because of
compartmentalization, one can always pick and choose the groups one wishes to
read and participate primarily in”. free speech? please, there’s no such
thing!
jason
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) So if LUGNET is religion neutral, why can't it be sexually neutral too? If you don't see a need for a religious-oriented group, it follows that there's no need for this type of group either. You talk about how people can simply not look at (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
