Not gay enough?

[JBond]

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-22/bay-area/20859561_1_san-francisco-sexual-orientation-gay-sports/2



Three bisexual men disqualified from the 2008 Gay Softball World Series because of their 'perceived hetrosexuality' have agreed a cash settlement for the discrimination they suffered.

The trio, who had played on the team for several years, filed the federal lawsuit last year, claiming they had been discriminated against because they were bisexual, not gay.

Tournament officials convened a protest committee and brought in five D2 members for questioning.

In a conference room filled with 25 people, many of them strangers, the players were asked questions about their sexuality and private lives. The protest committee then voted on whether the men were gay.

Two were determined to be gay, but the committee found Apilado, Charles and Russ to be straight.


Got to love those "tolerant" homosexuals

[iceberg]

you must accept us but we can tell you to fuck off. : )

[VTA]

Surprised? Of course not. Insane people do insane things.

[erdawiro]

Gay people are insane? Let's see how this was resolved (http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issue_caseDocket_apilado_et_al _v_NAGAAA):

In November 2011, the players and NAGAAA agreed to settle the case. In the settlement, NAGAAA recognized that disqualifying the players from the 2008 tournament was not consistent with NAGAAA’s intention of being inclusive of bisexual players. NAGAAA now recognizes the players’ team, D2, as a second-place winner of the 2008 Gay Softball World Series, and will award the team a second-place trophy. NAGAAA expressed regret at the impact the 2008 protest hearing process had on the players and their team.

As a result of this case, NAGAAA changed its rules to be fully inclusive of all bisexual and transgender players, permitting an unlimited number of bisexual or transgender players to participate on a Gay Softball World Series team. This rule change is a step towards making the league a more welcoming space for all players, including bisexual players and people of color. Several studies have shown that men of color are more likely to identify as bisexual than as gay. NAGAAA’s rule changes mean that LGBT people of color are less likely to disproportionately face exclusion from its tournaments.

NCLR, K&L Gates, and NAGAAA have also agreed to participate in an ongoing dialogue about making sports at all levels more inclusive of the entire LGBT community, including a panel discussion at the 2012 Gay Softball World Series in Minneapolis, MN about ways to create and maintain LGBT inclusive sports organizations.

[VTA]

Gay people are insane?

People who like to segregate our nation based on ridiculous notions are insane. So now they want to play the discrimination game and claim exclusivity. If they want to separate themselves from everyone good, the church should have the same right and not be forced to accept them, correct?

Are all gays like this? Of course not, I have enough in my life to know better.

[JBond]

The entire premise is screwed up. Allowing membership based on who you sleep with? What a pack of losers. No different than baning people because of skin tone. What a bunch of intolerant assholes.

[erdawiro]

The entire premise is screwed up. Allowing membership based on who you sleep with? What a pack of losers. No different than baning people because of skin tone. What a bunch of intolerant assholes.

Or gender, which I believe Augusta National still does.

[erdawiro]

People who like to segregate our nation based on ridiculous notions are insane. So now they want to play the discrimination game and claim exclusivity. If they want to separate themselves from everyone good, the church should have the same right and not be forced to accept them, correct?

Are all gays like this? Of course not, I have enough in my life to know better.

Private groups are given freedom of association, so no the church should not be forced to accept gays as members. However, it seems silly to exclude them for living in sin.

[VTA]

However, it seems silly to exclude them for living in sin.

Why is that? It's taught in the bible (Corinthians 1 &2 ) and that's the tenet of the belief; who is anyone to force a change, let alone force the church to accept gay preachers?

[erdawiro]

Why is that? It's taught in the bible (Corinthians 1 &2 ) and that's the tenet of the belief; who is anyone to force a change, let alone force the church to accept gay preachers?

I was talking about membership. I can understand why a church would refuse to ordain a gay person.

[VTA]

I was talking about membership. I can understand why a church would refuse to ordain a gay person.

Because if a member continues to act a certain way, contrary to the teaching, they're not really taking in the gospel and aren't to be accepted in the church.

This is turning into a thread hijacking. Sorry.

[erdawiro]

Because if a member continues to act a certain way, contrary to the teaching, they're not really taking in the gospel and aren't to be accepted in the church.

This is turning into a hijacking. Sorry.

But everyone lives in sin, if members were thrown out because they continied to be lustful, prideful, or envious then the church would be empty and no one would be preaching.

[VTA]

But everyone lives in sin, if members were thrown out because they continied to be lustful, prideful, or envious then the church would be empty and no one would be preaching.

Everybody is a sinner, not everybody lives in sin and acts on his sin. There's a difference.

[erdawiro]

Everybody is a sinner, not everybody lives in sin and acts on his sin. There's a difference.

I should have said we all live with sin. I would argue the prideful man and the gay man should be treated the same.

[VTA]

I should have said we all live with sin. I would argue the prideful man and the gay man should be treated the same.

In effect they are. It depends on whether or not he's truly repentant, regardless of the sin.
And if you read the bible, you'll find that pride in it's own way does lead to worse sins, like sexual deviance.

[iceberg]

I should have said we all live with sin. I would argue the prideful man and the gay man should be treated the same.

i would argue neither should hold title to a reason to be given anything.

[erdawiro]

In effect they are. It depends on whether or not he's truly repentant, regardless of the sin.
And if you read the bible, you'll find that pride in it's own way does lead to worse sins, like sexual deviance.

Are they treated the same? Not in practice. I have never seen, heard, or read about a church rejecting a member because they were too prideful or too glutinous. To turn someone away for one on-going sin, while allowing others with on-going sins is arbitrary judgement.

Arguments have been made that say pride is the worst sin (outside of speaking against the Holy Spirit). Afterall, it was pride the fueled Lucifervs transgressions and which prompted Eve to eat the wrong fruit. I think it's incorrect to call sexual deviance a "worse sin". Sexual immorality is simply more recognizable because, as C. S. Lewis said, other sins can be mistaken for benign traits:

"...we can mistake pride for a good conscience, and cruelty for zeal, and idleness for the peace of God, etc. But when lust is upon us, then, owing to the obvious physical symptoms, we can't pretend it is anything else.

Is it perhaps only the least disguisable of our dangers?"

[VTA]

Are they treated the same? Not in practice. I have never seen, heard, or read about a church rejecting a member because they were too prideful or too glutinous. To turn someone away for one on-going sin, while allowing others with on-going sins is arbitrary judgement.

Arguments have been made that say pride is the worst sin (outside of speaking against the Holy Spirit). Afterall, it was pride the fueled Lucifervs transgressions and which prompted Eve to eat the wrong fruit. I think it's incorrect to call sexual deviance a "worse sin". Sexual immorality is simply more recognizable because, as C. S. Lewis said, other sins can be mistaken for benign traits:

"...we can mistake pride for a good conscience, and cruelty for zeal, and idleness for the peace of God, etc. But when lust is upon us, then, owing to the obvious physical symptoms, we can't pretend it is anything else.

Is it perhaps only the least disguisable of our dangers?"

It's definitely the genesis of the worst outcome for a person. Pride going before destruction isn't an idle admonition, pride is what spawns all other bad behavior. It's why humility is highly praised and Jesus' appearance as a humble servant ready to die for lack of self interest. If prideful people aren't rejected, it's probably because their sin hasn't manifested itself farther down the path to destruction or at least not in an overtly evident way. Unrepentant thieves, liars, cheats and sexual deviants have passed a critical point of a simple mis-guided view of self and have allowed it to spread in more damaging and easily distinguishable ways.

That's not to say they don't deserve to be appealed to and an attempt made to reason through why it's not for their best interest, but you can't for one second deny that to do sees a person run the risk of being derided as a bigot or trying to be superior. So humans being human, the path of least resistance is probably more likely sought: just get them out of the way and don't deal with it.

[iceberg]

Are they treated the same? Not in practice. I have never seen, heard, or read about a church rejecting a member because they were too prideful or too glutinous. To turn someone away for one on-going sin, while allowing others with on-going sins is arbitrary judgement.

Arguments have been made that say pride is the worst sin (outside of speaking against the Holy Spirit). Afterall, it was pride the fueled Lucifervs transgressions and which prompted Eve to eat the wrong fruit. I think it's incorrect to call sexual deviance a "worse sin". Sexual immorality is simply more recognizable because, as C. S. Lewis said, other sins can be mistaken for benign traits:

"...we can mistake pride for a good conscience, and cruelty for zeal, and idleness for the peace of God, etc. But when lust is upon us, then, owing to the obvious physical symptoms, we can't pretend it is anything else.

Is it perhaps only the least disguisable of our dangers?"

no one should be able to get an "entitlement" because of a trait.

you either have a standard you follow, or you make shit up as you go.

these days we make it up as we go and justify it by "right" of some sort.

right or wrong is pretty simple. agendas fuck it up from there.

[erdawiro]

no one should be able to get an "entitlement" because of a trait.

you either have a standard you follow, or you make shit up as you go.

these days we make it up as we go and justify it by "right" of some sort.

right or wrong is pretty simple. agendas fuck it up from there.

What do you mean by entitlement? I don't understand what you're getting at.

[erdawiro]

It's definitely the genesis of the worst outcome for a person. Pride going before destruction isn't an idle admonition, pride is what spawns all other bad behavior. It's why humility is highly praised and Jesus' appearance as a humble servant ready to die for lack of self interest. If prideful people aren't rejected, it's probably because their sin hasn't manifested itself farther down the path to destruction or at least not in an overtly evident way. Unrepentant thieves, liars, cheats and sexual deviants have passed a critical point of a simple mis-guided view of self and have allowed it to spread in more damaging and easily distinguishable ways.

That's not to say they don't deserve to be appealed to and an attempt made to reason through why it's not for their best interest, but you can't for one second deny that to do sees a person run the risk of being derided as a bigot or trying to be superior. So humans being human, the path of least resistance is probably more likely sought: just get them out of the way and don't deal with it.

I don't agree that pride spawns all other bad behavior. For instance, lust and gluttony aren't necesarrily preceded by pride but they create their own unique negative behaviors. Also, pride doesn't have to take a noticeable physical manifestation - it can be purely mental and still be a sin. My point doesn't really hinge on pridefulness though, it just happens to be what I wrote. Gluttony may fit even better because its effects are more readily seen. I'm just saying that churches allow other on-going, repeat sinners. It seems silly to me to excuse the glutton but cast out the homosexual.

I'd say the path-of-least-resistance and the task of evangelism are pretty opposed to one another.

[iceberg]

What do you mean by entitlement? I don't understand what you're getting at.

i'm gay so forgive me.

i don't give a damn you're gay.
and i hate those that do.

how many are like me
how many others are you "fighting"

we tend to fight extremes vs find common ground.

i don't care who's say. gay people get persecuted.

so do fat people. (hi!)

we all do.

growing past that is how we evolve.

crying it hurts is how we die.

[VTA]

I don't agree that pride spawns all other bad behavior. For instance, lust and gluttony aren't necesarrily preceded by pride but they create their own unique negative behaviors. Also, pride doesn't have to take a noticeable physical manifestation - it can be purely mental and still be a sin. My point doesn't really hinge on pridefulness though, it just happens to be what I wrote. Gluttony may fit even better because its effects are more readily seen. I'm just saying that churches allow other on-going, repeat sinners. It seems silly to me to excuse the glutton but cast out the homosexual.

I'd say the path-of-least-resistance and the task of evangelism are pretty opposed to one another.

Gluttony, lust, thievery, etc are the product of selfishness. If any man can reason within himself that he is entitled to do something, or take more of something that's sinful, it's a product of his self view. You can say all are gluttonous, because they all are an attempt to get more of something.

How do you discern the difference between someone with a thyroid problem and one who eats too much? One is basically genetically heavy and one who got there due to demanding more than his due? Sure in spending time with someone you can note their habits, but it's not quite as overt, but I won't defend a glutton to make my point valid. It is sinful to be a glutton, but it's not accounted to wickedness as sins of the flesh are, because primarily it's effects are largely personal. Sins of the flesh involve two participants and in such a case, you're not only defiling yourself, but another. A stumbling block to another via seduction. You've succeeded in taking steps further down the path to destruction in doing so.

And let's face it, sodomy is filthy no matter how you slice it. God told the Jews to move their bowel movements far away from the camp because he knows what feces carries, let alone using that hole for sexual pleasure, let alone centering a lifestyle around it. It is an abomination. It was the last straw for all the civilizations He condemned to destruction, including his beloved Israel. It's a sign that you've gone too far. Gluttony, lying, thievery aren't.

People may kid themselves and take comfort in wrong headed notions about STD's but the grounded truth is, they are the product of sexual deviance. An overt sign that you're doing the whole sex thing very wrong.