No apologies needed MA. It is not what you have said in the past , but what you say in the future that matters.
Concerning the perceived conflict with your religious views, many other devoutly religious people have found a way to reconcile this issue and I sincerely hope that you will be able to also.
Thank you, Mesquite. I am hoping to reconcile these issues. I think I'm on the right track. :wink:
Something was brought up in another thread and it brought a question to my mind and J_B suggested I post it in this thread. This thread has been helpful to so many and maybe this question has crossed someone else's mind also.
Right now, I am especially careful of what I say about homosexuality because it will take time to change behaviors from my previous mindset. So, here is my question.
Isn't making fun of homosexuality being discriminatory? Especially since some of the jokes are "stereotypical" of homosexuality? I realize that many do it and it's all in the spirit of fun and I don't think they mean anything offensive by it. But, how do you know you aren't crossing the line? When is it ok to make jokes about it and when is it not? I'm rather confused by this right now.
here is the 'Let's all be Gay!!!!' thread.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48382
My response to momma is that this thread didn't 'make fun' of gays.
Quote:If you read through the pages on the Let's all be GAY!!!! thread, it really isn't making fun of gays. It's embracing them. Maybe that's because the people who were posting were known supporters of gay rights but not even that. Other people came about and just had fun with it. There was no real 'making fun' it was just being happy with being gay. If anything was being mocked it was the word gay and it's negative connotation.
Momma.... I've been meaning to commend you for trying to revise your feelings about homosexuality. I hope you're doing it because you truely want to.
As for jokes.... well, it all depends on the setting. If I'm sitting at a gay bar with my brother, I'll make stereotypical commentary about gays, but they're rarely offensive commentary. I know my audience. That's something that takes time. You have your firends, the lesbians, ask them what they think!
Tell them of your quest or understanding - your changing views, too.
do you all joke about other things?
Yes, we do. We're like sisters. All this time littlek, I have been thinking I haven't been discriminating at all. Now, I am wondering if maybe we have avoided certain things because of my views? This concerns me greatly. Betty and Sue are as close as sisters to me and I thought we could discuss anything. Now, I am not so sure they felt that comfortable doing that. If that is the case then I have been responsible for making them feel less than! I wish I could get them on the phone and ask them to come over so we could talk.
It's great learning things, but man!, sometimes it gives you quite a slap in the face, ya know?
Don't go over-analyzing it just yet!
I'm trying not to, littlek. I do know that even if that is what I did, Betty and Sue would forgive me and we'd be better friends than ever because we will now be able to talk about anything. It's just that fear of the unknown thing right now.
Just recieved in my email box.
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 9:26 PM
Subject: Getting it straight
On Wednesday, March 1, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.
At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"
Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
The room erupted with applause.
cicerone imposter wrote:Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
That is immaculate perception!
MA- I don't know for sure, but it does not look like they would able to do anything about it. If this theory pans out, it looks like these children were programmed in utero. In the case of the young twins, their behavior was developing quite differently, even at an age where actual sexual activity was not an issue yet.
You may be too young to remember this, but years ago left handedness was considered undesirable. Parents and teachers attempted to "change" the lefties by force, and in many cases, either it did not work, or it caused a lot of behavioral problems in the children.
Hey, thanks for mentioning the video. I did not realize that I could watch it on the computer. They only showed part of the piece, though!
I think that I will do a bit of Googling on "childhood gender nonconformity".
