GAY vs. QUEER

[LittleNipper]

I have received an infraction for using the english term queer. The reason being that it is offensive. Oddly, I have an aversion to the general use of the term "gay." I find the way "gay" is being misapplied as highly offensive to the extreem. I have been unwilling to report anyone for it's misuse in the past, as I felt that as a witness one is often confronted with those who unknowingly offend and to do so would hinder any real interaction. The problem I'm now seeing is that any discussion that places homosexuality in a bad light is attacked right and left, and even the proper use of the english language is being case aside in order to appease those who insist on being committed to living in sin. At the same time slang applications of english are being used to hide the real sin nature of various sins. The term gay once only meant, joyous & merry or bright and festive as in color. Queen was but a monarch or ruler
This is not how I see the sin of homosexuality. "Queer," has always meant eccentric, different, and strange. However, I cannot use that term because it is offensive to homosexuals and yet they can misapply "gay' and "queen" to their own ends. I'm asking that on this forum that if "queer" cannot be applied in anyway to homosexual behavior that "gay" and "queen" need to be limited to only their proper place. If a homosexual is offened by the word "queer," even though they seem to apply it themselves --- when they feel so moved, then "gay" and "queen" need to be limited and not misused to refer to homosexuality in anyway. It is highly offensive to both me and the english language.:preach:

[NeTrips]

littlenipper. It seems there may be misunderstanding on the term "queer". Perhaps the fact that it is an accepted term amongst many homosexuals within academia may help if you decide to appeal.

Just a quick google search of "LGBTQ" reveals many instituions of higher learning who embrace this term as valid

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=lgbtq

yale, georgetown, U Chicago, ASU, UNC, and the list goes on.

[Bombila]

One could probably avoid offending anybody by using the term 'homosexual'.

[synger]

Original post, by LittleNipper. Reposted here in case we use the Wiki part of the thread to summarize the discussion.

I have received an infraction for using the english term queer. The reason being that it is offensive. Oddly, I have an aversion to the general use of the term "gay." I find the way "gay" is being misapplied as highly offensive to the extreem. I have been unwilling to report anyone for it's misuse in the past, as I felt that as a witness one is often confronted with those who unknowingly offend and to do so would hinder any real interaction. The problem I'm now seeing is that any discussion that places homosexuality in a bad light is attacked right and left, and even the proper use of the english language is being case aside in order to appease those who insist on being committed to living in sin. At the same time slang applications of english are being used to hide the real sin nature of various sins. The term gay once only meant, joyous & merry or bright and festive as in color. Queen was but a monarch or ruler
This is not how I see the sin of homosexuality. "Queer," has always meant eccentric, different, and strange. However, I cannot use that term because it is offensive to homosexuals and yet they can misapply "gay' and "queen" to their own ends. I'm asking that on this forum that if "queer" cannot be applied in anyway to homosexual behavior that "gay" and "queen" need to be limited to only their proper place. If a homosexual is offened by the word "queer," even though they seem to apply it themselves --- when they feel so moved, then "gay" and "queen" need to be limited and not misused to refer to homosexuality in anyway. It is highly offensive to both me and the english language.:preach:

[minutz3]

gay = happy
queer = strange

[Mary_Magdalene]

back in the day (when i was on staff in debate,etc.), we did not give violations for calling homosexuals "queer" for the same reasons as listed in NeTrips post. All of the homosexuals that I know use the term queer.
so unless we are going to start having everyone state if they themselves are homosexuals (thus, they can use the word "queer"), then you should not have gotten a violation.

:wave:

[synger]

gay = happy
queer = strange

I would say it probably depends on context. I doubt I'd get in trouble for talking about a queer little teapot I picked up at an antique store over the weekend. Or mentioning that my 6-year-old daughter was dancing gaily around the living room to "Crocodile Rock".

But if I apply those terms to adolescent-and-older humans, then I need to re-examine if they are appropriate and loving. The meaning of the terms has changed over the years, and they are almost always suspect in this day and age. English is a very fluid language, and I can almost always find another word to use to denote "happy" or "strange" if that's what I intend.

In the case of the report mentioned in the OP, it sounds like you were indeed talking about homosexuals. Personally I try to be extra-special-careful with these terms when I speak about homosexuals. "Gay" is a term that can be both descriptive (as an identifier) and mean (as an insult). "Queer" is even more problematic in my opinion, as it is one of those terms that people can use about themselves but is usually an insult coming from someone outside their community.

Either way, the moderation staff likely looked at your wording in the context of the thread and your post, and ruled according to that. It's not as simple as saying "gay" is fine but "queer" is verboten. It's a matter of context, meaning, and impact (intended or not).

[tapero]

edit

[I'ddie4him2]

I would say it probably depends on context. I doubt I'd get in trouble for talking about a queer little teapot I picked up at an antique store over the weekend. Or mentioning that my 6-year-old daughter was dancing gaily around the living room to "Crocodile Rock".

But if I apply those terms to adolescent-and-older humans, then I need to re-examine if they are appropriate and loving. The meaning of the terms has changed over the years, and they are almost always suspect in this day and age. English is a very fluid language, and I can almost always find another word to use to denote "happy" or "strange" if that's what I intend.

In the case of the report mentioned in the OP, it sounds like you were indeed talking about homosexuals. Personally I try to be extra-special-careful with these terms when I speak about homosexuals. "Gay" is a term that can be both descriptive (as an identifier) and mean (as an insult). "Queer" is even more problematic in my opinion, as it is one of those terms that people can use about themselves but is usually an insult coming from someone outside their community.

Either way, the moderation staff likely looked at your wording in the context of the thread and your post, and ruled according to that. It's not as simple as saying "gay" is fine but "queer" is verboten. It's a matter of context, meaning, and impact (intended or not).


I have to agree.
This depends greatly upon context and from the OP it seems that these terms were used in a derogatory manner.



posted @ 9:35 pm 3/26/2008

[tapero]

Anytime someone uses the word queer here on cf, gays who do not accept the term are offended. Even if accepted is still hurtful and painful to see it in post and I've been told that several times by people who are gay.

It does not matter that some gays have 'embraced' the word. It does not mean all have, and all have not. And the ones who have does not mean it's okay to use in posting here at cf.

Not to mention a member if seeing cf let that word go would show that member; cf has no regard for the feelings of others.

The world taunts people with the word queer.

Also, if the word is permitted then those who quote it, who are known to dislike gays or whatever it is.. when is used by these people; can be done so in a manner without flaming, and but the ones who know that person's stances will report it, and will result in no vio as person is just using the term, and people will be hurt.

The word should be filtered out imo

[NeTrips]

LN -

what I think I'm hearing is that while the term may be accurate, and while it may be embraced by many (http://www.gaylesbianpridestore.com/Gay-Lesbian-Pride-Designs/Gay-Lesbian-GLBT-Pride-Designs-We're-Here-Queer-Get-Over-It.htm ), it's not PC here on CF.

[synger]

LN -

what I think I'm hearing is that while the term may be accurate, and while it may be embraced by many (http://www.gaylesbianpridestore.com/Gay-Lesbian-Pride-Designs/Gay-Lesbian-GLBT-Pride-Designs-We're-Here-Queer-Get-Over-It.htm (http://www.gaylesbianpridestore.com/Gay-Lesbian-Pride-Designs/Gay-Lesbian-GLBT-Pride-Designs-We%27re-Here-Queer-Get-Over-It.htm) ), it's not PC here on CF.

Again, I don't think it's that clear-cut. We try to moderate based on "common knowledge". Even if the term "queer" is embraced by some GLBT folks, it is not embraced by others. And even if the term is used as a perfectly good self-identifier, it can be used as an insult by an outsider.

So if someone posted, for instance, "I'm queer and proud." it might not be a violation. They are not flaming others... they are self-identifying.

However, if *I* posted "I saw a bunch of queers at the mall." it could be a violation. It might not be. It really depends on the context of my post and the thread I'm in. But I'm talking about "them"... and whenever we use terms to describe others we can inch into potentially flaming territory.

[minutz3]

"Gay" is a term that can be both descriptive (as an identifier) and mean (as an insult). "Queer" is even more problematic in my opinion, as it is one of those terms that people can use about themselves but is usually an insult coming from someone outside their community.
I wouldn't like to use the term"gay" to descripe people who think they're "homosexual", since it implies that it's something good, as "gay" means glad. "Queer" would be okay, because that about describes them more correctly. It is weird, strange an unnatural. Since I know that this might be a sensitive subject, I must add that I'm aware that we should love them even if they're sinning. :thumbsup:

[TheDag]

I would suggest little nippur and anyone else who fully agrees with him/her to go to
http://dictionary.reference.com
Type in the words gay and queer and queen and see what comes up. You will find similar results in other online dictionaries as well as printed dictionaries.

Little nippur (LN) claimed Queen used to only mean monarch or ruler. Does LN therefore claim that queen has never been used to refer to a piece in the very old game called chess? Does LN claim that queen has never meant a card or group of 4 cards in a deck of playing cards? I think you are wrong in your claim about Queen.

Under Queer you will find that it is listed as a slang word that is dispariging and offensive. It also has for a long time meant not feeling well.

That leaves the word gay. It certainly does mean what you said it means but it also is a word used to refer to homosexuals. In both cases the context would determine the meaning. To argue what you are saying would mean we should stop the use of many other words simply because they have different meanings.

Another thought. Why should it just be english that is limited why not ban all words that are different that have their base meaning in the same latin word? After all if as your suggesting words can not have two different meanings it is only fair isn't it?

As others haave said English is a very fluid language and words gain new meanings all the time and we gain new words as well. This has been very useful feature of the english language yet I don't hear you complaining about the word bacteria being intoduced to the english language when it once wasn't. Simply because in this situation it doesn't suit you that these terms are used and have gained additional meanings does not justify your position of using a word that is normally an insult to describe a group of people and your refusal to use a different word that is commonly used to refer to the same group.

[DeaconDean]

Perhaps I'm the only one who remembers this, but, does anybody remember a time when "f - g" refered to a cigarette?

And "gay" meant you were a "happy-go-lucky" kind of person?

And "queer" meant strange, or out of the ordinary?

Just goes to show how times change along with words.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[E-beth]

I believe the N word has been accepted by members of the African American culture amongst themselves as well, but that doesn't mean it's OK to use that word. More often than not, it is considered offensive to most people.

I don't think the word is what matters. If any word is used to demean, belittle, or insult someone it should be acted on. Moreover, I think any one of us who feels that people's feelings are more important than being right, should self-censor when we know a word may be offensive...whether we ourselves think so or not.

[Crazy Liz]

It does depend on context. I've had several discussions about queer theory & never been reported for using that phrase.

CF has a rule against flaming. Any word can be used as a put-down or in an insulting manner. Let's not concentrate on the words themselves, but on how they are used.

[TheDag]

It does depend on context. I've had several discussions about queer theory & never been reported for using that phrase.

CF has a rule against flaming. Any word can be used as a put-down or in an insulting manner. Let's not concentrate on the words themselves, but on how they are used.
you and me agree on something again. Is this where the world ends?????:D

[Moms4Christ]

Wow...how one little word can offend so many people is beyond me.

[Morrigu]

you know what is funny?

some of you might never understand that is not the word what is offensive. In fact, it doesn't even matter what word it is...

[HollandScotts]

This site has enough rules, and enough free speech stiffled. Both words should be allowed. I mean, really, with all the other things you can say about gays on this site, you can't tell me ya'll actually care about what gays think.

[Heart of Darkness]

This site has enough rules, and enough free speech stiffled. Both words should be allowed. I mean, really, with all the other things you can say about gays on this site, you can't tell me ya'll actually care about what gays think.

It shines a little human decency in a place where people generally aren't decent to the LGBT community.

"Queer" can be used as a blanket statement for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender" within the LGBT community. However, when the word "queer" is used in NCE, E&M, or CPE, it is almost always as an insult. In fact, I've only seen one person on this site ever refer to herself as "queer."

[Texas Lynn]

you know what is funny?

some of you might never understand that is not the word what is offensive. In fact, it doesn't even matter what word it is...

Well put. there are some who want carte blanche to insult LGBTs and feel since this is said to be a "Christian" site they should be able to.

About "Queer" though it's exactly like "N------" in the African-American community.

A white boss saying to a crew of African-American construction workers, "Which one of you n------s is going to drive to Pizza Hut to get lunch?" is cruisin' for a bruisin' and not just with the company's EEO compliance officer. But an African-American guy on a streetcorner talking to another African-American who says "I don't know whether to join the Navy or the Marines" and he says, "N-----, there's more brothas and sistas in the Army!" is just giving emphasis.

A straight boss at a salon saying "Which one of you queers is going to do cranky old Mrs. Wintergreen's hair?" is out of line (some would say that sterotype is but work with me, okay) but a gay man telling another who's voting for McCain "We queers have to stick with those who support us, not those in bed with the religious right" is okay.

Despite differences I've had with moderators over nuances of terms I think even most of them can can tell when the terms are okay and when not.

[Crazy Liz]

Lynn, I'm curious what your position is, then, on the use of "queer" as it is used in queer theory, that is (as I understand it) to be inclusive of other forms of gender and sexual differences besides heterosexuality and the four categories represented in the GLBT framework. That seems to be a usage that is quite different from either usages of the N word you described.

I use the word to represent a greater variety of sexual and gender differences than can be represented by a category paradigm. Am I wrong to use it in that way? Would it be proper for me to use it that way only if I identified myself as "queer" rather than "straight?" If so, what vocabulary can you suggest for a person who does not self-identify as "queer," but who sympathizes with and seeks to understand those who do? I don't need to use the N word to describe people of color or African-Americans or people of African descent. I have other vocabulary for that. What I need is other vocabulary if my usage of "queer" in this way is still offensive. Can you make any suggestions?

[Texas Lynn]

Lynn, I'm curious what your position is, then, on the use of "queer" as it is used in queer theory, that is (as I understand it) to be inclusive of other forms of gender and sexual differences besides heterosexuality and the four categories represented in the GLBT framework. That seems to be a usage that is quite different from either usages of the N word you described.

I use the word to represent a greater variety of sexual and gender differences than can be represented by a category paradigm. Am I wrong to use it in that way? Would it be proper for me to use it that way only if I identified myself as "queer" rather than "straight?" If so, what vocabulary can you suggest for a person who does not self-identify as "queer," but who sympathizes with and seeks to understand those who do? I don't need to use the N word to describe people of color or African-Americans or people of African descent. I have other vocabulary for that. What I need is other vocabulary if my usage of "queer" in this way is still offensive. Can you make any suggestions?

I'M NOT A GOOD ONE TO ASK, SINCE i'M NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT. I had heard of a str8 person who was a close friend of an elderly gay man calling him affectionately "you old [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]" as an example of the type of things people do in the highest stage of Kohlberg's stages of morality.

I might suggest "Friends of Dorothy".

I think intent is the key. An elderly now retired detective I had worked with in the past would explain the "rights warning advisory" form to persons he was interrogating because it said "he/she" in several places and he'd say "I'm gonna mark out 'she' here because I'm not a 'he/she'" and some would say that was transphobic because of the content but I know he would never hurt any transfolk and probably protected a few back when cross dressing was a status offense.

[Morrigu]

look, to all of you, the politicaly correct is hardly ever correct at all.

If the word is used as a positive thing by the group affected but is still used as an offence then the word doesn't matter, its the context....

But how do we get there?, how does said word come to be of common usage among said group?

Let me tell you why....


YOU LABEL US, YOU INSULT US, YOU TAKE AWAY OUR IDENTITY AND REPLACE IT WITH THIS CONSTRUCTED STEREOTYPE, MAKING US LOOK ALMOST UNHUMAN... ALL OF THAT BECAUSE OF A FEW WORDS....

The only natural answer to that is to TAKE SAID WORDS and make their negative meanings void, so that they stop being used....

but the context and the insults remain, because in your eyes we are still something other than you, and as such you treat us as the different. And you tell us we are wrong for being different...


You want the "politicaly corret" way?? STOP USING WORDS TO LABEL US AS "SOMETHING OTHER"!!!!!!

[TheDag]

This site has enough rules, and enough free speech stiffled. Both words should be allowed. I mean, really, with all the other things you can say about gays on this site, you can't tell me ya'll actually care about what gays think.

The problem with generalisations like this statement is that they will always be wrong for some. It may be a minority but there are still plenty of people here who do care. I don't know if you want to accept that (or if you can according to your own post) but it is true. I realise there are those who do just want to belittle others and put them down but that doesn't apply to all of us.

[TheDag]

look, to all of you, the politicaly correct is hardly ever correct at all.

If the word is used as a positive thing by the group affected but is still used as an offence then the word doesn't matter, its the context....

But how do we get there?, how does said word come to be of common usage among said group?

Let me tell you why....


YOU LABEL US, YOU INSULT US, YOU TAKE AWAY OUR IDENTITY AND REPLACE IT WITH THIS CONSTRUCTED STEREOTYPE, MAKING US LOOK ALMOST UNHUMAN... ALL OF THAT BECAUSE OF A FEW WORDS....

The only natural answer to that is to TAKE SAID WORDS and make their negative meanings void, so that they stop being used....

but the context and the insults remain, because in your eyes we are still something other than you, and as such you treat us as the different. And you tell us we are wrong for being different...


You want the "politicaly corret" way?? STOP USING WORDS TO LABEL US AS "SOMETHING OTHER"!!!!!!

who do you mean by you???? I know you shouldn't mean me but your generlised statement would almost certainly include me. Part of your complaint is people labelling groups. Are you not also labeling a group with your post here?

[Morrigu]

who do you mean by you???? I know you shouldn't mean me but your generlised statement would almost certainly include me. Part of your complaint is people labelling groups. Are you not also labeling a group with your post here?

Ok, fair enough. The "you" was suposed to be an open statement. In the end that constructed image of a group, that labeling is not made by a single person or group.

Its an entire society that still thinks of homosexuality and people of diferent ethnic origins as "something other", or to say it in a diferent way, as something that must be dealt with.

Not part of the society, but something that must be dealt with.

I'm not pointing fingers, I'm just saying, being politically correct by chosing carefully what words are allowed, but leaving hatefull contexts intact only leads to more labeling and more "others".

[MercyBurst]

The word "queer" is disparaging yet "queer theology" is gay-affirming to the max. Go figure...

I think the real issue here is one group of people (that are gay) demands that everyone else marches in step to their agenda and euphimisms. Anyone that does not agree with them is automatically tagged with pejoritives, and endless trivial complaints are sent to the moderators in a continual whining/coddling tantrum which some of the moderators seem to encourage.

Gay-advocates are allowed to get away with misleading "loaded" labels like "homophobe" (which in reality is a rare phsychological disorder), and stereotypes like "all fundamentalists are bigots" though Fred Phelps is a registered democrat and was a NAACP civil rights attorney. Also many african americans are fundies. These emotionally charged labels and misrepresented analogies quickly reduce any intelligent dialogue to mud-slinging. Then the "racial biggot" card is pulled for the "self-justifying" "woe is me" grand finale of a slur coming from the gay left. This is not Christianity, folks.

That is why I would be in favor of banning the subject altogether on Christian Forums. It does not belong, it releases a contentious-bitter-rebellious spirit soaked in lies and deception, and it does not promote a dialogue that's in the spirit of Christ Himself.


James 1:8 (http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B59C001.htm#V8) A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.


So it is with "Gay Christianity." It can either be gay or it can be Christian, and the instability of this theology is self-evident.

Can't someone be an ex-gay Christian without persecution from the gay-left?

I have covered this ground at length in a web-blog that has gained recognition by some of the high-profile Christian media tabloids. It isn't "just my opinion". It is shared by many many Christian believers. "Gay Christianity" is a dark evil spirit -- known by the fruits it produces. Read this article and you will see what I am talking about:

http://scripturerefinersfire.blogspot.com/2008/01/historical-christianity-can-not-be.html

[Bombila]

So MercyBurst's solution, rather than trying to explore ways of not hurting people's feelings, is to 'disappear' an entire segment of humanity.

There are lots of words you can use without harm. The problem is straight people (and even some gay people) trying to find a pop word that lumps every differently oriented person into some kind of 'uber-group', for the sake of convenience. GLBT is recognized by most people, means what it says, and includes a fair number of people, and can be used in most discussions pertaining to rights and laws. Other than that, why is it difficult to say or write homosexual, lesbian, bi-sexual, trans-gendered, transvestite, and so on?

If you are not sure if a pop designation is acceptable to another person, don't use it, use the conventional dictionary term.

[MercyBurst]

So MercyBurst's solution, rather than trying to explore ways of not hurting people's feelings, is to 'disappear' an entire segment of humanity.

There are lots of words you can use without harm. The problem is straight people (and even some gay people) trying to find a pop word that lumps every differently oriented person into some kind of 'uber-group', for the sake of convenience. GLBT is recognized by most people, means what it says, and includes a fair number of people, and can be used in most discussions pertaining to rights and laws. Other than that, why is it difficult to say or write homosexual, lesbian, bi-sexual, trans-gendered, transvestite, and so on?

If you are not sure if a pop designation is acceptable to another person, don't use it, use the conventional dictionary term.

The point is that nothing short of "affirming the sin" is acceptable conversation to the LBGT community.

If gay affirmation is what they want, then shouldn't they be looking somewhere else? If I wanted someone to accept my sin, I wouldn't do it with a Bible. This would be insulting to many believers who have staked their eternity on the Biblical promises. Also, some Christians just happen to be ex-gay based on their faith in the Bible. Then supposedly "gay Christians" condemn their spiritual decision, and this comes from an evil dark spirit. This spirit can not hide behind some "affirming" forum moderator that just happens to show up clear out of the blue "perfectly timed to cast his vote of affirmation" or some sock puppet thereof. The second voice adds no credibility to the first, but reduces both of their credibilities. In reality it could be just one person along with his or her multiple sock personalities all of whom should just be ignored.

On the otherhand, if a person is looking for the Spirit of Christ, they don't need affirmation. Popularity, approval, social acceptance, and all other worldly "measures of goodness" are irrelevant in eternity. Likewise, sex is irrelevant in eternity. Salvation through Jesus Christ is the only thing that really matters.

Either Christ is LORD of ALL or He isn't Lord at all.

[Bombila]

MercyBurst:

I've seen plenty of polite debates here regarding the designation of homosexual behaviour as sinful according to some, but not all Christian interpretations of scripture. I haven't seen any evidence that Christians are ever silenced for stating outright that they believe it is an important sin. I have seen evidence that some moderators will delete outrageously cruel posts, and evidence that many people, Christians included, will try to stop bigoted people from passing on false rumours, obvious fallacies, and outright lies about GLBT persons.

There are differing Christian beliefs about all kinds of sins, and moral rights and wrongs. Some Christians don't believe any kind of birth control is right, others have different opinions on the matter, and interpret 'be fruitful and multiply' quite differently. Which group of Christians do you think should be driven from CF?

I have no idea what your veiled accusations against moderators/sock puppets is about, since I am neither a moderator nor do I have any other account or name than this one.

[Crazy Liz]

Also, some Christians just happen to be ex-gay based on their faith in the Bible. Then supposedly "gay Christians" condemn their spiritual decision, and this comes from an evil dark spirit.

I agree with you about respecting each person's spiritual experience.

How do you think ex-Christians feel when the OSAS crowd tells them they were never Christians to begin with?

But I'm not sure how we can learn to respect the spiritual experience of people unlike us if we can never discuss it with them. Discussing with someone requires listening, as well as speaking.

Again, it's not the topic or the words. It is the ability and willingness to listen.

[Texas Lynn]

I think the real issue here is one group of people (that are gay) demands that everyone else marches in step to their agenda and euphimisms. Anyone that does not agree with them is automatically tagged with pejoritives, and endless trivial complaints are sent to the moderators in a continual whining/coddling tantrum which some of the moderators seem to encourage.

No one says one cannot have an antigay opinion. All who are rational recognize that one cannot ever have a reasonable expectation to advocate an opinion and then expect to be free from criticism for it.

Gay-advocates are allowed to get away with misleading "loaded" labels like "homophobe" (which in reality is a rare phsychological disorder)

There's a thread on this.

it does not promote a dialogue that's in the spirit of Christ Himself.

Anything else could and much has been shown to do the exact same.

So it is with "Gay Christianity." It can either be gay or it can be Christian, and the instability of this theology is self-evident.

This is exactly the sort of comment which, as you have said, does not promote a dialogue that's in the Spirit of Christ himself.

Can't someone be an ex-gay Christian without persecution from the gay-left?

Spare us the hyperbole. No one has to my knowledge been expelled from a church body for being anti-gay in any form. Criticism is not "persecution" and to label it as such is to insult all those who truly have been persecuted in reality.

"Gay Christianity" is a dark evil spirit -- known by the fruits it produces.

Again this is the sort of comment you decry from others but feel carte blanche to make yourself. The above is certainly your opinion but not deserving of some special sanction. The assertion "Antigay Christianity is a dark force etc." is no less appropriate, or not.

[Texas Lynn]

The point is that nothing short of "affirming the sin" is acceptable conversation to the LBGT community.

Unless they are putting people in prison for expressing an antigay sentiment (and, no, the case of one fundamentalist pastor in Sweden does constitute this in America) what others find "acceptable" or not is insignificant. That the constant assertion all LGBT relationships are sinful does prove to be a barrier to dialogue, as it certainly should.

If gay affirmation is what they want, then shouldn't they be looking somewhere else?

Somewhere else from where? I do advise LGBT Christians to avoid churches actively engaged in antigay efforts; but to those who are from these traditions, that is not, for many, an option as they see it. That is certainly reasonable on their part, to seek to change such things from within.

..supposedly "gay Christians" condemn their ["Ex-Gays"]spiritual decision, and this comes from an evil dark spirit.

Malice from any source might be said to "come from an evil dark spirit" but categorical attacks like the above can just as reasonable be said to do the same.

[MercyBurst]

MercyBurst:

I've seen plenty of polite debates here regarding the designation of homosexual behaviour as sinful according to some, but not all Christian interpretations of scripture. I haven't seen any evidence that Christians are ever silenced for stating outright that they believe it is an important sin.

There is no debate with the Holy Spirit. How can a Holy Spirit tell one person they are ok to have gay sex, and another (ex-gay) person that they can not, and should not?

This would make the Holy Spirit a liar.

I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a liar, and that one side must be wrong. I do not believe the Holy Spirit has two standards of conduct -- one gay and the other ex-gay. This would make God duplicitous, and corrupted in His character. I do not believe God is corrupt. I believe "Gay Christianity" is corrupt and it is out to carnalize our church body.

I chose the side that makes the greatest sacrifice for Christ as the one that really has the Holy Spirit. This is obviously the ex-gay side of the debate. The gay-side shows no change at all. It's just the same thing it always was rather than a new creation in Christ.

Additionally, there is no Bible version that legitimizes gay sex, but rather a simple, straight-forward reading of scriptures is sufficient proof that it does not belong in the life of a Christian.

The gay side of the debate doesn't really belong on a Christian forum IMHO. It (gay sex) isn't something that children can talk about and that should be a big clue. If it isn't family-rated, then it just plain doesn't belong on a Christian forum.... period.

[MercyBurst]

Malice from any source might be said to "come from an evil dark spirit" but categorical attacks like the above can just as reasonable be said to do the same.

Anything short of "affirming gay sex" is an attack on somebody's political agenda, and it's really getting old.

[Bombila]

There is no debate with the Holy Spirit. How can a Holy Spirit tell one person they are ok to have gay sex, and another (ex-gay) person that they can not, and should not?

This would make the Holy Spirit a liar.

I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a liar, and that one side must be wrong. I do not believe the Holy Spirit has two standards of conduct -- one gay and the other ex-gay. This would make God duplicitous, and corrupted in His character. I do not believe God is corrupt. I believe "Gay Christianity" is corrupt and it is out to carnalize our church body.

I chose the side that makes the greatest sacrifice for Christ as the one that really has the Holy Spirit. This is obviously the ex-gay side of the debate. The gay-side shows no change at all. It's just the same thing it always was rather than a new creation in Christ.

Additionally, there is no Bible version that legitimizes gay sex, but rather a simple, straight-forward reading of scriptures is sufficient proof that it does not belong in the life of a Christian.

The gay side of the debate doesn't really belong on a Christian forum IMHO. It (gay sex) isn't something that children can talk about and that should be a big clue. If it isn't family-rated, then it just plain doesn't belong on a Christian forum.... period.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit has a 'one size fits all' solution for all situations and individuals? Why should there not be some for whom becoming ex-gay through their particular beliefs is the right course, but for others, being part of a loving Ghristian gay family, raising children who might need homes is what is required by the Holy Spirit? How would you know?

Your simple reading is widely debated among Christians.

It is generally not acceptable to discuss any kind of adult sex with small children.

[synger]

If you wish to debate the doctrinal soundness, ethics, or morality of homosexuality, including discussion of whether one can be both homosexual and Christian at the same time, please move the discussion to the appropriate forum. This is not it.

Thank you.

[Texas Lynn]

There is no debate with the Holy Spirit. How can a Holy Spirit tell one person they are ok to have gay sex, and another (ex-gay) person that they can not, and should not?

This would make the Holy Spirit a liar.

I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a liar, and that one side must be wrong. I do not believe the Holy Spirit has two standards of conduct -- one gay and the other ex-gay. This would make God duplicitous, and corrupted in His character. I do not believe God is corrupt. I believe "Gay Christianity" is corrupt and it is out to carnalize our church body.

I chose the side that makes the greatest sacrifice for Christ as the one that really has the Holy Spirit. This is obviously the ex-gay side of the debate. The gay-side shows no change at all. It's just the same thing it always was rather than a new creation in Christ.

Additionally, there is no Bible version that legitimizes gay sex, but rather a simple, straight-forward reading of scriptures is sufficient proof that it does not belong in the life of a Christian.

The gay side of the debate doesn't really belong on a Christian forum IMHO. It (gay sex) isn't something that children can talk about and that should be a big clue. If it isn't family-rated, then it just plain doesn't belong on a Christian forum.... period.

I suppose there are some threads, somewhere, discussing what it means for "The Holy Spirit" to say certain things to certain people.

The conservative commentator Diane Knippers claimed the lesbian minister Beth Stroud was "mistaken" to have heard a call to ministry, but of course she had no way of knowing, nor does anyone else.

The concept LGBT Christians are "mistaken" about spirit-motivated faith is the height of arrogance. The concept somehow the antigay side embodies a form of "sacrifice" the other side does not indicates not only a pompous arrogance of sorts but a clear misunderstanding of the spirituality of one's LGBT brothers and sisters.

If one side of the debate is somehow improper for a Christian forum, then so is the other side. CF has not denigrated into this extreme system of cowardice and fear, nor is it likely to. If one objects, one is certainly free to refrain from participating in these debates.

[Texas Lynn]

Anything short of "affirming gay sex" is an attack on somebody's political agenda, and it's really getting old.

As is anything condemning same. So it goes.

[Crazy Liz]

If you wish to debate the doctrinal soundness, ethics, or morality of homosexuality, including discussion of whether one can be both homosexual and Christian at the same time, please move the discussion to the appropriate forum. This is not it.

Thank you.

Does this mean the proprietor of CF doesn't care about the morality or immorality of homosexuality, but will make a rules decision on some other basis?

[MercyBurst]

Synger said:


If you wish to debate the doctrinal soundness, ethics, or morality of homosexuality, including discussion of whether one can be both homosexual and Christian at the same time, please move the discussion to the appropriate forum. This is not it.

Thank you.


I understand what you are asking, however, the point is that "Gay Christianity" doesn't belong on another forum because it is hostile toward a spirit-filled life in Jesus Christ. Where else should I go to protest? I think you would agree that it's not a DOH forum.

I present just one example of very many on this forum where an ex-gay is besmirched and denounced simply for following the Holy Spirit of Christ. This comes from the DOH forum:

Exhibit A:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=3873956&highlight=Charlene+Cothran

You'll notice an immediate entourage of faithless individuals that are out to destroy credible Christian testimony. These are supposedly "Christ-followers" but they are Christ-doubters instead, like this response:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=27764830&postcount=19

Aren't we as Christians supposed to uplift a brother or sister that surrenders their life to Jesus Christ? Shouldn't we be rejoicing, as the angels rejoice?

This is so typical of the response we get from the so-called "gay-Christians" where ex-gay Christians are shunned and berated simply for trying to follow Christ. It gets pretty hostile too.

In short, it isn't possible for a gay to show Christian love toward an ex-gay Christian. It threatens their political agenda. Christ didn't care much for political agendas at all, but that's what "gay Christianity" is all about.

[MercyBurst]

Do you believe the Holy Spirit has a 'one size fits all' solution for all situations and individuals? Why should there not be some for whom becoming ex-gay through their particular beliefs is the right course, but for others, being part of a loving Ghristian gay family, raising children who might need homes is what is required by the Holy Spirit?

The answer is that God is consistent.

God does not have two standards for Christian conduct: one for gays and another for ex-gays.

God does not have two plans for salvation: one for gays and another for ex-gays.

God does not have two spirits: one for gays and the other for ex-gays.

There are two spirits, however, and they are at war. One of them is a counterfiet.

[synger]

Does this mean the proprietor of CF doesn't care about the morality or immorality of homosexuality, but will make a rules decision on some other basis?

I mean that the morality or immorality of homosexuality, in the general sense, should be discussed in the forum (http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=746)for that sort of discussion. This particular thread, on the other hand, began as a discussion of whether "gay" and/or "queer" should be blanket-condemned (or blanket-allowed) in the rules. The background discussion for that question should not need to get into extreme detail of each side's argument for the immorality/morality of homosexuality.

[Texas Lynn]

"Gay Christianity" doesn't belong on another forum because it is hostile toward a spirit-filled life in Jesus Christ.

The above is merely an opinion. This individual wants his view elevated and the opposing view suprerssed and offers nothing in favor of doing this except repeating assertions of opinion.

[MercyBurst]

I mean that the morality or immorality of homosexuality, in the general sense, should be discussed in the forum (http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=746)for that sort of discussion. This particular thread, on the other hand, began as a discussion of whether "gay" and/or "queer" should be blanket-condemned (or blanket-allowed) in the rules. The background discussion for that question should not need to get into extreme detail of each side's argument for the immorality/morality of homosexuality.

My point is that neither "queer" or "gay" belongs on a Christian Forum.

On the one hand you have a DOH forum that's basically an arm of the Gay Christian Movement.

On the otherhand you have a sexual recovery forum where people are spiritually struggling with unwanted sexual attraction:

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=389

This is like an Alchoholic's Anonymous meeting with a liquor store right across the street.

How could CF in good conscience support both store-fronts? It would look hypocritical and unchristian.

Likewise, the Gay Christian Movement is incompatible with ex-gay Christianity. There can only be one Christ. So why does CF support two Christs? These two Christs are NOT compatible .... period.

Why not start forums that advocate alchoholism, prostitution, pornography, and any other "feel good" carnality -- then have recovery forums sitting beside them too?

[Texas Lynn]

My point is that neither "queer" or "gay" belongs on a Christian Forum.

If that's what you believe then stop posting on the topic.

[MercyBurst]

If that's what you believe then stop posting on the topic.

Obviously, you want the "Gay Christian Movement", with it's PG-13 rating, to be the only voice around.

On the DOH forum, confused teenagers are encouraged to "explore" gay sex by older, "well-seasoned" gays. Other Christians have also complained about it to the administrators.

Then there's a sexual addiction recovery forum where a teenager can try to heal from his or her life's biggest mistake. :groupray:

I ask: Is PG-13 Christianity really consistent with the spirit of Christ? It's not "family friendly," and I don't think it can be.

I think I've made the point clear enough.

[Morrigu]

Obviously, you want the "Gay Christian Movement", with it's PG-13 rating, to be the only voice around.

On the DOH forum, confused teenagers are encouraged to "explore" gay sex by older, "well-seasoned" gays. Other Christians have also complained about it to the administrators.

Then there's a sexual addiction recovery forum where a teenager can try to heal from his or her life's biggest mistake. :groupray:

I ask: Is PG-13 Christianity really consistent with the spirit of Christ? It's not "family friendly," and I don't think it can be.

I think I've made the point clear enough.

Wouldn't it be easier for all you people to hand chastity belts yo everyone and give the keys to your local priest?

Look, there is a difference between encouragin a teen to have sex, and encouraging a teen to accept themselves instead of going trough hell on earth to try and become something they are not....

What i find awful is that you would give impresionable teenagers the idea that they are somehow "wrong".

[MercyBurst]

Wouldn't it be easier for all you people to hand chastity belts yo everyone and give the keys to your local priest?

How about if Christian Forums became R-rated, or even X-rated? Would that bother you? PG-13 Christianity bothers me.


Look, there is a difference between encouragin a teen to have sex, and encouraging a teen to accept themselves instead of going trough hell on earth to try and become something they are not....


Wouldn't it be a lot more helpful if these troubled teens went to counselling professionals instead? The DOH forum has gay pundits waiting in ambush for anyone that walks in unaware.

What i find awful is that you would give impresionable teenagers the idea that they are somehow "wrong".

I think PG-13 Christianity is pretty awful myself. When Jesus spoke, it was fit for little children to hear. :angel:

[Morrigu]

How about if Christian Forums became R-rated, or even X-rated? Would that bother you? PG-13 Christianity bothers me.

I didn't made a coment about the forum, I made a coment on your isues on sexuality.

Wouldn't it be a lot more helpful if these troubled teens went to counselling professionals instead?

And a counselling professional would say the exact same thing that I said.
But fair enough, let them go to a professional, but that includes removing any "amateur" counselling made by people on the forums to scare people away from homosexuality as well.

The DOH forum has gay pundits waiting in ambush for anyone that walks in unaware.

I asure you that at least I do not wait "In ambush" for anyone. I just want a nice debate, Something extremely dificult in this forums.
The only thing I really do't like about the DOH forum is the amount of people passing judgement based on speculation and misguided stereotipes, only to make hateful coments

I think PG-13 Christianity is pretty awful myself. When Jesus spoke, it was fit for little children to hear.

Well, im pretty sure you can watch what your children see from home, also im pretty sure there are special site fit for little children to visit. But sometimes people like to speak between grown ups without much worry about apropiate content for children.

[Texas Lynn]

Obviously, you want the "Gay Christian Movement", with it's PG-13 rating, to be the only voice around.

Feel free to say whatever you want. Just don't expect to be able to do so free of criticism.

On the DOH forum, confused teenagers are encouraged to "explore" gay sex by older, "well-seasoned" gays. Other Christians have also complained about it to the administrators.

Some posts in that area may indeed cross a line but I haven't seen what you describe. There's a report button, you know.

I ask: Is PG-13 Christianity really consistent with the spirit of Christ? It's not "family friendly," and I don't think it can be.

If we're going to be squeamish then we need to ban all discussion of homosexuality, abortion, premarital sex, etc. That includes the conservative position on all of the above. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

[TheDag]

My point is that neither "queer" or "gay" belongs on a Christian Forum.
Ok so provide your reasoning and logic for this statement please. Provide your proof of why it shouldn't be allowed. After all i know people on this forum who use the terms gay and queer and they don't mean anything to do with homosexuality when those people use them. In other words there are legitimate uses for those words in non-homosexual discussions. All one needs to do is look at a dictionary (which if you look at earlier posts in this thread I have done) and you will see these other definitions. Therefore there is a place for those words here on CF. Of course I persoanlly see nothing wrong with a discussion on homosexuality provided it is a discussion rather than a bunch of hateful people posting opinions or just argument.

[Texas Lynn]

The DOH forum has gay pundits waiting in ambush for anyone that walks in unaware.

Who? Andrew Sullivan? Tammy Baldwin? Really? It's kind of validating if homocelebs come here to intereact with us peons.

[MercyBurst]

Ok so provide your reasoning and logic for this statement please.

It's self-evident. PG-13 "Gay Christianity" fails upon inspection because of the audience it excludes, whereas Christ is available to everyone.


Provide your proof of why it shouldn't be allowed.


When Jesus spoke, it was fit for little children to hear. Christian Forums is supposed to honor the Spirit of Christ. PG-13 Christianity does not honor the Spirit of Christ. This is self-evident as already shown. Therefore, Christian Forums should either change its name or change its content.

All one needs to do is look at a dictionary (which if you look at earlier posts in this thread I have done) and you will see these other definitions.

So if a word is in the dictionary then it is "fair for use" in your opinion, but the rules forbid that. Shouldn't the forum stay within existing rules and guidelines? Why must it exclude young people? Jesus did not exclude young people. :angel:

[Texas Lynn]

It's self-evident. PG-13 "Gay Christianity" fails upon inspection because of the audience it excludes, whereas Christ is available to everyone.



When Jesus spoke, it was fit for little children to hear. Christian Forums is supposed to honor the Spirit of Christ. PG-13 Christianity does not honor the Spirit of Christ. This is self-evident as already shown. Therefore, Christian Forums should either change its name or change its content.



So if a word is in the dictionary then it is "fair for use" in your opinion, but the rules forbid that. Shouldn't the forum stay within existing rules and guidelines? Why must it exclude young people? Jesus did not exclude young people. :angel:

This concept of "PG 13 Christianity" is better described as "I want the freedom to say anything and everything I want, but I want those with whom I disagree to be severely restricted in anything and everything they say and will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this."

The quoted poster cannot provide nothing to substantiate his claim of risque material. If anything it is the right wing cohort continually bringing up the mechanics of sex acts while the most prurient pro-gay poster will seldom even describe two same gender folks engaging in oipen mouthed kissing.

[TheDag]

It's self-evident. PG-13 "Gay Christianity" fails upon inspection because of the audience it excludes, whereas Christ is available to everyone.
But who is saying under 13's aren't allowed to hear the words gay or queer? It isn't actually the rulemakers on this site. It is mainly christian society that tends to say certain words are unsuitable for young people. So maybe you should suggest getting rid of christians!



When Jesus spoke, it was fit for little children to hear. Christian Forums is supposed to honor the Spirit of Christ. PG-13 Christianity does not honor the Spirit of Christ. This is self-evident as already shown. Therefore, Christian Forums should either change its name or change its content.
Jesus teaching was so fit for young people to hear that hundreds of ADULTS walked away from him because of one of his teachings being a horrible concept. Once again most christians and churches would not consider talking about sex with really young kids so the problem is once again not with this site but rather with christian society's expectations.


So if a word is in the dictionary then it is "fair for use" in your opinion, but the rules forbid that. Shouldn't the forum stay within existing rules and guidelines? Why must it exclude young people? Jesus did not exclude young people. :angel:
I didn't realise they had made the use of the word gay against the rules. Must be a new rule made with the recent changes because it wasn't in the rules before that (I read through the rules 2 days before the site shut down to make the changes). The other flaw in your argument is that if use of the word gay was against the rules then it would be in the automatic censor and would not be coming up in posts on this thread like it is. Can you actually give the specific rule number that says using the word gay is against the rules please.

[Bombila]

I have received an infraction for using the english term queer. The reason being that it is offensive. Oddly, I have an aversion to the general use of the term "gay." I find the way "gay" is being misapplied as highly offensive to the extreem. I have been unwilling to report anyone for it's misuse in the past, as I felt that as a witness one is often confronted with those who unknowingly offend and to do so would hinder any real interaction. The problem I'm now seeing is that any discussion that places homosexuality in a bad light is attacked right and left, and even the proper use of the english language is being case aside in order to appease those who insist on being committed to living in sin. At the same time slang applications of english are being used to hide the real sin nature of various sins. The term gay once only meant, joyous & merry or bright and festive as in color. Queen was but a monarch or ruler
This is not how I see the sin of homosexuality. "Queer," has always meant eccentric, different, and strange. However, I cannot use that term because it is offensive to homosexuals and yet they can misapply "gay' and "queen" to their own ends. I'm asking that on this forum that if "queer" cannot be applied in anyway to homosexual behavior that "gay" and "queen" need to be limited to only their proper place. If a homosexual is offened by the word "queer," even though they seem to apply it themselves --- when they feel so moved, then "gay" and "queen" need to be limited and not misused to refer to homosexuality in anyway. It is highly offensive to both me and the english language.:preach:

Getting back to the OP.

There isn't enough information in this post, IMO. The whole problem with censoring specific word usage (not including words/terms generally agreed upon to be cursing/swearing/vulgar/racist) is that context then has no bearing on censure. We have already run into the problem of words that are vulgarities in one country and not in others, and the decision was made to continue with the typically US-centric perceptions of vulgar (thus sometimes targeting innocent people with violations they are completely surprised by, or offending them by word use that is shocking by their standards).

We can't see LN's post which was censored. We don't know what the content was. We don't know in what context LN used the word. We don't even know for sure if the 'offensive' judgement had much to do with using the word 'queer', or if the moderator's wording was confusing to LN.

We don't even know on what basis a moderator might decide the word 'queer' is offensive to homosexual people. Anti-homosexual people in my country have various words they use to sneer at or bully gay people. 'Queer' actually isn't one of them, in my experience. My gay friends and acquaintances presently and in the past haven't indicated any particular dislike for the word except in circumstances where the speaker meant to be offensive, in which context the word 'homosexual' is just as offensive.

BTW, LN, 'queen' is also the term used to designate an unaltered female cat. Want to stop people using the word that way as well?

[4foot2]

It does not matter that some gays have 'embraced' the word. It does not mean all have, and all have not. And the ones who have does not mean it's okay to use in posting here at cf.


Wow my first post and I'm probably already stepping on toes.

I think that we just have to live in this evolving "feelings first" world of double standards. I.E. The word FAT is now know as degrating whether or not it is ment to be degrating. It has been changed to obese and huskey or overweight. Yet the complete opposite SKINNY is not insulting nor degrating. How is it that a description word by itself is now reason to cause a fuss.

Again this world of double standards and who feels insulted now. If your insulted by the definition of the word that is being use to properly discribe, not lable, but discribe your actions......shouldn't that say something?

Hope yal's toes are ok, just learning, first seek to understand, then seek to be understood.

~Still Trying~

[Morrigu]

I will repeat, its not the word, its the intention.
It doesn't even matter what word it is.

[KatAutumn]

On the DOH forum, confused teenagers are encouraged to "explore" gay sex by older, "well-seasoned" gays. Other Christians have also complained about it to the administrators.


I would be very interested in reading such threads. Links, please.