A comment on "What would you do if your child told you they were gay?"

[RICHARD]

Pentagon's gay weapon

US military chiefs are said to have considered developing an 'aphrodisiac' chemical weapon that would make enemy troops sexually irresistible to each other.

The Sunshine Project, which exposes research into chemical and biological weapons, revealed the plans, according to New Scientist.

Provoking widespread homosexual behaviour among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale, the proposal says.

Other ideas included chemical weapons that attract swarms of enraged wasps or angry rats to troop positions, making them uninhabitable.

Another was to develop a chemical that caused 'severe and lasting halitosis', to identify guerrillas trying to blend in with civilians. There was also an idea to make troops' skin unbearably sensitive to sunlight.

The proposals, from the US Air Force Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, apparently date from 1994.

The lab sought Pentagon funding for research into what it called "harassing, annoying and 'bad guy'-identifying chemicals".

Sunshine Project spokesman Edward Hammond said it was not known if the proposed six-year research plan was pursued.

----------------------------------

This is my rifle, this is my gun,
one is for fighting, one is for fun.........


Or

You are my sunshine, my only sunshine.....
you make me happy...........

[Fox-Gal]

Originally posted by GraciesMommy

I don't think any one "started" this for a fight..I think it was a question that they felt was a good topic for an adult discussion..probably knew it would/could get heated but didn't realize it would touch off some hurt feelings or I don't think they would have ever posted it.

True, No fight was ever intended.

All I can say for me, is I didn't see the thread turning into some big fight, sure maybe it got a little side track from the original question, but what conversation doesn't. So I didn't feel it was worthily of a deletions. And I have to say that after reading through the thread, I total forgot that she said she might delete it, you get so involved in the main issues that you somethings forget other things.

As for the lack of respect for other people and their opinions, comment. This is how I look at it.

If you where sitting around having a chat with a friend or family member, about something that was important to you and they brushed your words off as if they meant nothing. How would you feel? I know it would hurt and disappoint me and I would consider it a lack of respect. So I look at any thread that way too. I guess this is the reason I'm not fond of the idea that you can delete a thread at any time.

I'm use to most other forums where you only have so long to delete, as long as no one has posted on it. Just as in life when you put your words out there, they are out, and there is no deleting them. Makes you have to think before you speak and maybe that's not a bad idea even in a forum.

So sorry if any one got hurt in all this mess.

[Cataholic]

Originally posted by sirrahbed
Most of you know that Chris is my daughter and so I am trying not to be too personal about this, but that is a bit difficult.

I wish many of you would stop bashing Chris. If you knew her, knew about our family - you would probably like us. I know we are loving and accepting of anyone - but our convictions will never be compromised, ever. Still by our actions, we show love.

Enough from me.

Debbie,
I believe you said similar commentary when Devon (your d-i-l, if I am not mistaken) also posted some imflammatory topic. While I imagine it would be VERY hard to not get upset when a family member is 'attacked' (though I see it differently), I have to ask: where is the "loving action" that comes from posting such topics, and ones overly righteous views on it? I didn't see one ounce of 'love and acceptance' in her posts. I saw hate, bigotry and smallmindedness. She STARTED the thread! She wasn't inadvertantly dragged into it. She STARTED it. Maybe religious convictions would be better fodder for another type of website? Maybe?

[RICHARD]

This is one question that has puzzled me for a while.

No offense meant to anyone posting, your religious views or your opinions concerning homosexuality.

If you follow religion "A", which has no tolerance for gays,

And a person who follows religion "B" is a homosexual-isn't it up to religion B's God to pass judgement on that person?

I always thought it's really weird that religion A's straight people have a problem with the gays from religion B....

But then again, religion B doesn't like religion A's gay people and
Religion C, D and E also have something to say about the OTHER guys gay people.


What happened before we got that "Old Tyme Organized Religion"??

-----------------------------------

I worked with a gay guy who was one of the funniest people I had ever met. He was very open about his 'orientation'-funny thing about that word-it makes me think about a compass.

Orientation merely states your direction. It's the needle/pointer that REALLY counts, without the pointer you just have a dial with four directions printed on it.

Anyway, this guy was always upset with himself for being gay.
He hated himself for it.

The day he died (ARC) was the day the San Francisco earthquake hit.

I have always wondered if there was some kind of connection there....

-----------------------------------------

The thing that was the biggest 'sin' in my eyes was the way that most of the people treated him when he got sick. People would stand in the doorway and throw papers on his desk-they were afraid of catching "the AIDS", they would avoid contact with him and would carry any paperwork he generated between their thumbs and forefingers.

Those people were the ones that cried the loudest and longest at the memorial.

--------------------------------------------

Most liasions happen in the dark between two consenting adults.

Problems crop up when the light in the room goes on.

I lay the blame at the feet of science-


And Thomas Edison.

[PayItForward]

Originally posted by sirrahbed
Her reasons for deleting it - some folks are simply assuming that she did so because "people did not agree with her". She is being discussed in a personal manner and in an angry, superior tone. I am sure you know the old adage that when you assume, you put an ass between u and me. That is what is happening here

I am also being talked about in an angry, superior tone and people are assuming things about me wrongly but I won’t be deleting the threads as I am a strong moral person who believes it is everyone’s right to have an opinion …for right or wrong…about me or anyone else.

-------------------------------

[I]Originally posted by PayItForward
Chrang threw her dummy out of her pram when people who didn't agree with her posted on her nice anti-gay christain post

Originally posted by kimlovescats NASTY as usual, PIF!!!

See my above comment, you are assuming malice where there is none. The smilie at the end of the comment shows I am making a joke, as I find it very amusing when people delete threads when people disagree with them.

The ‘dummy comment’ is English slang which is commonly used in reference to adults who behave in a childish way and deleting a thread for no good reason is childish.

I am interested in the ‘as usual’ part of your comment did I disagree with someone else recently ? This is a genuine question.

Originally posted by catcrazylady
Totally uncalled for PIF!!!

Please see my above comment to Kim.
-------------------------------

Originally posted by catcrazylady
The original thread became "personal" and that is where things started going wrong. It was becoming an attack instead of a debate or opinion sharing. People want respect for their opinions and yet don't want to give the same to others.

This again is assumption, I did not post any attack or get personal at any point, I was enjoying the debate until the thread was deleted.
Like I said to Kim you are assuming malice when I am only disagreeing with some one else’s opinion. I didn’t write it with malice, hence there is none.

The only personal attack on the post came from Catoholic and that was aimed more at ‘Christians who condemn gays’ than a particular person. Shame it was lost as it was a post straight from her heart, an avid Christian herself may I add.
-------------------------------

Originally posted by PayItForward
This is why my forum doesn't allow posters to delete entire thread it prevents posters deleting threads for no reason other than people not agreeing with the original poster.

I got two separate comments about this post

Originally posted by kimlovescats
Then my question is ... why don't you stay on your own forum PIF, instead always coming to PT and getting something started?

I am also confused, owning your own forum does not exclude a member from posting on Pet Talk, as there are dozens of posters with their own forums.

I actually posted this comment to tell the people who are getting fed up with people deleting entire threads, that a solution is possible on this forum.

I run the same software and that is why amendments I make to my site can also be made to this site. I am being pragmatic and offering a solution to a problem, which upset several people.

I have also PM Karen with the actual settings to be altered to only allow people to delete their own posts not the entire thread. Karen & Paul are thinking about applying this amendment, I hope they do.

Originally posted by catcrazylady
Too many statements going on here about what you allow and what you don't allow on your website. This is NOT your website, live by the rules or move on. I understand that you are upset that the original thread got deleted and that is your right but these kinds of statements are just plain nasty and no longer express an opinion. Weather you agree/disagree with any statement made by anyone on this board is your right and that is what keeps the Dog House interesting but personal attacks and slams against this website are uncalled for!

Please see the above comments made to Kim.
-------------------------------

Originally posted by kimlovescats
I know that she didn't start the original thread, but unfortunately she has a long history of being rude here on PT and I for one have had ENOUGH of it!

Another wrong assumation, I have a long history of stating my opinion which is often polar to other people opinions. People have been far ruder to and about me and on occasions have actually lied about me, than I ever have been to others. Unless your definition of rudeness is disagreeing with people, I do not have a history of being rude.
-------------------------------

Originally posted by kimlovescats
OK, wait a minute ... I have to post this. I have now seen with my own two eyes, the post in question. Chris posted very nicely and calmly and then PIF started the rudeness and name-calling!

That is your opinion, I believe Chris started the name calling by writing :=

I think acting out on a person's gay/lesbian desires is sinful.

Hopefully, they will make wise decisions based on the values and Biblical beliefs Bryan and I raised them with. I would not agree with their decision to be gay or be in a gay relationship

Being gay if not going against the bible or having an unwise decision or indeed a decision in many cases.
… that being gay was the same as

To me that would be the same as them wanting to do drugs, drink,

.

I posted my opinion and asked two questions, which have not been answered to date. I did not name call anyone, if you have to revert to calling names rather than putting your opinion forward, you have already lost the debate, that is why I don’t do it.

-------------------------------

Originally posted by Cataholic
Thanks, Micki Mouse. BUT, what I just don't get is why the blasting doesn't get pointed at the source. PIF didn't stir this up...

Thank you to you Cataholic and all the others who PM’d or emailed support to me on this matter.
-------------------------------

Just on Christianity, this part of my post is not aimed at anyone, these are my own personal views on religion.

I was a full member of the Church of England, both baptised and confirmed and very devoted as a young adult, until I was told that gays, blacks and others were not welcome at church. So I decided that such a bigoted church was not part on a true Christian path.

I honestly don’t know what I feel religion wise these days though some times I read my grandma’s bible and yet other days I don’t even think God ever existed, when I see the hate in the world.

But one thing I know to be true that accepting others for who they are no matter what without judgement is such an important part of living as a true Christian.

Going to church does not make a good Christian, neither does saying or thinking you are a Christian or reading the bible.

To be a true Christian, you have to live as the best person you can be, loving and helping your fellow man (and women), be they a drug crazed single mother, a professional gay couple, a Christian person.

Every person on this earth deserves compassion not judgement.

Anything less is not Christian (in my eyes)

[jonza]

Originally posted by sirrahbed
… However, some of you are judging and criticising her mercilessly. You do not know her.
… some folks are simply assuming that she did so because "people did not agree with her". She is being discussed in a personal manner and in an angry, superior tone.
… It is unfair to suggest that our homes are not LOVING and CHRISTIAN. To suggest that we represent true ignorance, narrowmindedness and intolerance is simply not true.
… If you knew her, knew about our family - you would probably like us.

I must admit that I agree with all that. It's always sad when a sensible discussion seems to get side-tracked and bitterness and misunderstandings rear their ugly heads.
The tragedy of it is, that if we all sat round and discussed this over a nice meal, we'd probably all get on as right as rain, and have much more respect for each other!

I don't intend to be mean or spiteful when I post, but I have been brought up in an environment where free speech was a basic human right, and differing opinions didn't necessarily lead to conflict and dissension. We must remember that this is an international forum and everybody has the right to state any opinion they want to as long as they keep it civil.

I can quite easily enjoy a discussion in which I am proved wrong, I don't feel embarrassed or inferior at all. In this way I can learn something new. If the discussion gets bogged down and nobody will move from their position, then I just move on. No problem. But I think it's a mistake to close your mind or, as in this case, just delete an unpleasant thread. This often results in what has happened here, a lot of misunderstanding and aggressive bickering.

I am not anti-Christian, and I'm not anti-Muslim, we all have the right to our own faith, there's an awful lot of good in both of them. What I have great difficulty with is extremism, where there is only one truth, and that one truth is the belief of the particular individual or group of people in question. This applies in politics too. I also have great problems with the way that books purporting to be the true and only words of God can be interpreted in a fashion that happens to suit the reader(s). Isn't it due to differing (and extreme) interpretations of the Koran that we have such a gigantic problem with Islamic terrorism nowadays? Fundamentalist Christians shouldn't fall into the same trap, as they appear to be doing in America at the moment. Haven't we learnt anything from the Crusades and the Inquisition and other persecutions and exploitations by the church after all this time?

I think this thread has epitomized the problem of discussing sensitive issues on the web. I find it a peculiar format to try and communicate in, you think you know the person but you don't really know them. As I've said before, I would much prefer to have more information about who I'm talking to, their age, nationality, religious beliefs etc. all help. This make it much easier for me to get something productive out of a discussion, and there's less chance of involuntary misunderstandings or offense.

But - it irritates me when I am asked for an opinion, spend time and thought on a reply, and then it is just deleted. That was the reason for my response with this thread. So please do me a favour, don't delete my posts without asking first, my tolerance level falls sharply and I can get a bit uppity!

[Kfamr]

Originally posted by Cataholic
Debbie,
I believe you said similar commentary when Devon (your d-i-l, if I am not mistaken) also posted some imflammatory topic. While I imagine it would be VERY hard to not get upset when a family member is 'attacked' (though I see it differently), I have to ask: where is the "loving action" that comes from posting such topics, and ones overly righteous views on it? I didn't see one ounce of 'love and acceptance' in her posts. I saw hate, bigotry and smallmindedness. She STARTED the thread! She wasn't inadvertantly dragged into it. She STARTED it. Maybe religious convictions would be better fodder for another type of website? Maybe?

I'm so glad we're getting married.

Dittttoo, diiiittoo, diiiitttttoo!!!

[moosmom]

Okay..well here's my reply AGAIN!!!

Beause I love my daughter unconditionally, I'd stand by her. Everyone has to live their lives the way THEY want to, not the way others believe they should.

[lizzielou742]

Well, I didn't see the original thread, so I'll stay out of all that nonsense.

If my son or daughter said they were gay, I'd say, "OK. No problem." I was brought up the child of two hippies, and I was raised to be very accepting and loving of all people and their choices in life. I believe we're all just people, and no matter who my son or daughter chooses to love, I'll still love and support my son or daughter. I'm not saying I'd be a completely relaxed parent on all fronts - my kids won't be allowed to smoke or get tattoos or date people twice their age, because I wasn't allowed to do stuff like that, either.

My parents are now "old hippies," by the way, and tons of fun. I agree 100% with the way they raised me. They chose to let me choose my own religion, if I wanted, when I was an adult, instead of "choosing it for me," as they put it. My dad was raised Protestant, and is now Buddhist. My mom was raised Greek Orthodox and is now Methodist. I haven't found a religion yet that pleases me.

[carole]

I personally love a good discussion and debate, but I believe these type of threads are just better not started, we have had them before and I am sick of them, because one knows that someone is going to get hurt bigtime, honestly If I were gay, I would be so angry and upset.

Sure everyone is entitled to their opinions, but some topics are just best left alone, either on this website or another, even though I did contribute to the thread, I wished I hadn't. it saddens me to read such stuff.

I have the utmost respect for both Kim and Jenny, and it is very hard to read what I have.

I actually felt relieved it had been deleted, because I knew it was turning real nasty, how could it not, it is such a controversal subject, ah well JMO.

[CathyBogart]

Originally posted by Cataholic
Debbie,
I believe you said similar commentary when Devon (your d-i-l, if I am not mistaken) also posted some imflammatory topic. While I imagine it would be VERY hard to not get upset when a family member is 'attacked' (though I see it differently), I have to ask: where is the "loving action" that comes from posting such topics, and ones overly righteous views on it? I didn't see one ounce of 'love and acceptance' in her posts. I saw hate, bigotry and smallmindedness. She STARTED the thread! She wasn't inadvertantly dragged into it. She STARTED it. Maybe religious convictions would be better fodder for another type of website? Maybe?

^ ^ ^
Ditto! I can't remember who...but I think it was Devon who threw some really nasty comments at me when I posted a response in here that didn't even have an opinion in it! Then, when people stuck up for me, she just deleted the nasty comment and the bit about "No wonder I have you on ignore" and went on as if nothing happened.

It seems to me that this thread went very well until someone took Sirrahbed's response WAY out of context and started getting angry preemptively. (I felt that it was a very well written expression of an opinion that was different from most on here, NOT rude or inflammatory in any way.)

Don't you think some of us are being a little bit hypocritical? We sit here and accuse the more conservative among us of starting problems because our opinions were different, and yet....WE WERE THE MAJORITY. When one person posted a conservative biew, one of "us" liberals jumped down their throat and a bunch of others jumped on the bandwagon. Does this seem absurd to anyone else?!

[Sara luvs her Tinky]

Originally posted by Edwina's Secretary

If it is such a big deal...why didn't it make the Ten Commandments? And...other than Bibically....what's wrong with it? Two consenting adults making each other happy....and that is a sin...

So there are only ten sins in the world?

In God's eyes every sin is equal... there are so many thing in the Bible that are talked about that are abominations toward Him.. just because they are not listed in the ten commandments does not mean God is accepting of them.

Some people may not think coveting your neighbor's things would be a big deal and it is a commandment...

[lbaker]

... and my invisible god is better than your invisible god nah nah nah

[ramanth]

I think the gods are laughing at us.

[jonza]

Perhaps a certain Mr Bush's attitude towards homosexuals has something to do with this apparently increasingly negative attitude towards Christians?

His insistence on mixing up his church with his politics in order to acquire more power has made an awful lot of people much more suspicious of the motives of the church in our (Western) societies. This is definitely true in Europe at least. We just do not need any more "Crusades". It's like putting the clock back a thousand years.

It's all very sad and rather stupid in the long run.

Just another example of a disastrous misconception by a short-sighted politician.


… Oh well, he and his hawks in the White House will presumably be going to war with Iran soon, so we can look forward to more thrilling news on our TV channels, watching innocent people suffer and die.
That would probably produce some more interestingly "controversial" opinions on our cosy little forum!