Subject:
|
Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:55:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2975 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.people, Jesse Alan Long wrote:
> Second, you are not gay because gay means happy. What you would be
> termed would be ranging from sexually confused to sexually deviant to even
> being a sodomist. I did not make the terms up, people, I am just repeating
> what God and others who followed Him have said about such a lifestyle.
It also means homosexual in today's context. True it didn't always mean that,
but regardless it's a common term nowadays to refer to homosexuals.
> If you, Suzanne, and you, Todd, and you, other LUGNET people, wish to give me
> the boot from LUGNET, then I will sue you for discrimination.
Well, you can't really sue LUGNET. They already reserved the right to
discriminate for any reason whatsoever (although they try their best not to):
"Although we hope that everyone can play well together, we must reserve the
right to allow or to refuse access to this site to anyone, for any reason,
with or without prior warning or explanation." - LUGNET Terms of Use
And since you agreed to the Terms by signing up for posting privilages and
actually posting, you really wouldn't have a case.
> With that being said, here are the reasons why such groups should NEVER be
> formed on here. The first reason is that such a group would promotes agendas
> that might irritate other LUGNET users. I know for a fact that people who
> call homosexual people hateful things will be banned so why not ban other
> forms of hatred?
So... you know that it'll result in people being banned for being inflammatory
things, hence the group should not be created? By that logic, I'd think step 1
would be to get rid of off-topic. Step 2 would be "nothing inflammatory may ever
be posted to Lugnet". That way nobody gets banned. But that's not very likely.
But really, people are going to say what they're going to say anyway. Would you
rather have gay people chatting to each other about being gay AFOL's in
lugnet.general for lack of a better place to post? Wouldn't you rather they
talked in their own group where you can skip-filter them?
> The second reason is that we do not have LUGNET users who have groups on here
> that represent other ideologies or faiths or ethnicities on here, so why
> should we treat you any differently than any other group on here?
I'd be all for a lugnet.people.christians group if Christians decided they
wanted it. But you can bet it'd go on my skip-filter list if their traffic level
ever got too high.
> The third reason is that it is a form of hatred.
Wait, what? Having a group for gay AFOLs is a form of hatred? Or gay people are
a form of hatred? I'm not sure I follow.
> Do we really need a white supremacist LUGNET group or a Black Panther LUGNET
> group or a fundamentalist Islamic militant LUGNET group? Absolutely not,
> people!
I'd say we don't need those groups only because there isn't a need. If we had a
good chunk of Nazi AFOL's on LUGNET, I wouldn't object to them getting their own
little group. But to my knowledge, we don't have 'em. And chances are their
group would be so cluttered with ANTI-nazi sentiment that they'd probably seek
another venue anyway.
> The fourth reason is that I do not want to be the focus of unwarranted hatred
> and intolerance for what I have faith in my life simply because I show
> respect and faith towards the One who created the whole universe. If people
> hate me on here, then they are the truly intolerant ones on LUGNET.
That's not quite right-- people may not like you, but as long as they agree that
you have a right to post here and would be entitled to a group, then they're
really not being intolerant. Besides, I don't see how having a Lavender group
makes you a target. You only become a target when you post beliefs that people
disagree with-- doesn't matter where you post 'em to.
> The fifth reason is that homosexuality is NOT a tolerant lifestyle. It is an
> immoral, hateful, bigoted, sexist, discriminatory, intolerant, deviant, and
> even racist lifestyle.
Let's see:
immoral - I'd disagree.
hateful - I'd disagree. I've known 1 hateful homosexual, many nice ones.
bigoted - I'd disagree.
sexist - Uh, I suppose technically sorta. But not really, no. Gays don't
typically dislike people who aren't their gender. In fact, gay men usually
adamantly support lesbian rights and visa versa.
discrimintory - Against who? I can't really think of anything, short of sexual
partners. But then again, heterosexuals are equally discriminating in the
opposite direction.
intolerant - I'd disagree.
deviant - I'd agree! (I just don't see anything wrong with it)
racist - I'd disagree.
> No one who lives the lifestyle and is confronted with these things and
> remains proud of what they do in life will do so once they actually start to
> ask the questions of the lifestyle. Often, the people who refuse to answer
> the well-meaning questions of the lifestyle are too arrogant to really answer
> such questions in life because they would not want to lose their moral
> superiority or they simply do not have an answer to those questions in life.
What sort of questions are those, anyway? I can't really think of any questions
that would apply here.
> So what if the company has policies that promote such a lifestyle? If the
> founders of LEGO found that fact out, then they would be turning over in
> their graves. From what little I know about them, I believe that they were
> truly moral and right people in life and that they would NEVER allow such a
> thing in their company.
That's entirely possible. Gay rights have rarely ever been endorsed by religion,
and OKC was supposedly very religious. He might indeed have been appauled, who
knows. But hey, I'm sure we can find some founding fathers who would be appauled
by the fact that blacks have the right to vote and attend school with whites--
but just because they might have been opposed to the fact doesn't make it wrong.
> Why become a hypocrite, LUGNET? It would only allow hypocrisy to
> reign in LUGNET. I am a LEGO fan, you are a LEGO fan and what you do with
> your lifestyle is your business but when you are on LUGNET, you are to NEVER
> promote or to support hatred. This also goes to you, Todd, Suzanne, and
> anyone else who would support them in their true hatred of me.
Well, then shouldn't you *not* have insulted all gays by calling them "immoral,
hateful, bigoted, sexist, discriminatory, intolerant, deviant, and even racist"?
And for the record, I don't hate you or even dislike you-- though I am glad
you're not the one making the decisions at LUGNET :)
> If this is my last time on here, then it will be the last time that anyone
> who makes sense to stand up for what is right not only for LUGNET but for
> what is morally right in life to be on here.
Are you saying that if you're booted off LUGNET that nobody else will ever come
along who stands up for what's right? Are you unique in that respect?
> The next time that you see me, I will be a headless LEGO Minifig and my
> little yellow LEGO Minifig head will be in one of those little LEGO pots.
Does that mean you think you're going to get banned? I wouldn't think so. At
least, not for your post. I do recall there were issues in the past with you and
LUGNET, although admittedly I don't remember what they were specifically. If you
get banned, I'd guess it would be for some other offense-- what you've said here
(while I don't agree with it) is hardly grounds for dismissal. You have as much
right to speak your mind here as we all do, just so long as you respect the
rules of LUGNET...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) I was going to write what you just posted, Dave, but I didn't look hard enough to find the right line in the LUGNET terms of use. With that said, it's open threats like the one Jesse posted that would make me ban the poster immediately if I (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
207 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
