Gay Pride Organization Files Complaint Against Local T-Shirt Company

[EdwinWillers]

There are so many problems with this. Where to begin?

1) Homosexuals didn't "hijack" the word "gay". It was being used with connotations of immorality since as early as the 1600s. There are old cartoons from the 1850s that use "gay" in that way. For example, there's one from 1857 that has two prostitutes talking to each other, and one says, "So how long have you been gay?"

In fact, "gay" was used to describe homosexuals by heterosexuals first, not homosexuals. Strike one!

2) There's nothing perverse or degenerate about the homosexual lifestyle. Making you uncomfortable does not automatically make something perverse and degenerate. Strike two!

3) Christians have been kvetching about homosexuality for EVER. There's no "starting". Strike three!

You're OUT!

1. It's origins are irrelevant. It is used exclusively today to describe the homosexual lifestyle, used by homosexuals to describe their lifestyle, mimicked by others for the exact same reasons, which in my book constitutes a hijacking of a perfectly decent word for utterly degenerate means. Strike one.
   
2. It's irrelevant how it makes me feel. It's irrelevant how it makes you feel. The practice is perverse and degenerate - the bible. Strike 2.
   
3. It's irrelevant that Christians have been "kvetching" (whatever that means...) about it. Their "kvetching" or their not "kvetching" - let alone how long they've been "kvetching" - not to mention the fact they haven't been "kvetching" - or could they have been "kvetching" for "EVER" is irrelevant. Strike 3.

And no, I'm not "out" - I have no reason to be "out" (another hijacking of a perfectly decent word to describe a degenerate lifestyle).

 

[stiggywiggy]

Do you think serious adults would ever ridicule your birth mark?

If I had one, yes.

 

[variant]

If I had one, yes.

I have never seen someone religiously ostrasized, ridiculed and demonised for a birth mark in serious society, and if people did do such, people would be acting childish and irrational.

Your argument is terrible.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Ohmygosh! Have the gayz done spoilt another word??? "Pride"?

Not really, but get a spellchecker.

Used to be "pride" was what you felt when you won the big Football Game and patted your team mates on the behinds!

Or maybe they're using it to point to their simlarity to a group of lions? Gay pride: a lair of homosexuals? Maybe they just love those fantabulous manes.

 

[stiggywiggy]

I have never seen someone religiously ostrasized, ridiculed and demonised for a birth mark in serious society, and if people did do such, people would be acting childish and irrational.

Yeah. Your point?

Your argument is terrible.

Yeah. Tell me about this "serious society" we really live in.

 

[variant]

Yeah. Your point?

Your analogy both fails because people don't act that way, and it does more harm to your point than good (makes you look rather silly).

Yeah. Tell me about this "serious society" we really live in.

Christians like most people who air their opinions in public expect to be taken seriously, and have their opinions respected, and yet they make arguments that if we take your analogy and apply it would be quite childish and irrational.

So, if you wish to be taken serously you don't poke fun and demonise people for being born differntly.

The Christian argument is a bit like demoniseing blue eyed people or those with birthmarks as per your analogy so it's a good reason not to take you very seriously.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

1. It's origins are irrelevant. It is used exclusively today to describe the homosexual lifestyle, used by homosexuals to describe their lifestyle, mimicked by others for the exact same reasons, which in my book constitutes a hijacking of a perfectly decent word for utterly degenerate means. Strike one.

Ohhh, okay. I get it. You're not actually upset about the "hijacking" of the word, you're just looking for another reason to kvetch about homosexuals. I gotcha now

It's irrelevant how it makes me feel. It's irrelevant how it makes you feel. The practice is perverse and degenerate - the bible. Strike 2.

The Bible also says you shouldn't shave your beard or your temples. Shaving your beard and temples is a sin. THE BIBLE!

See? I can play this game too Now it's just a matter of counting down how long it takes you to come up with excuses for why that doesn't count because of Jesus.

It's irrelevant that Christians have been "kvetching" (whatever that means...) about it. Their "kvetching" or their not "kvetching" - let alone how long they've been "kvetching" - not to mention the fact they haven't been "kvetching" - or could they have been "kvetching" for "EVER" is irrelevant. Strike 3.

Urban Dictionary: kvetch

It's not irrelevant, because you specifically said that Christians need to START calling the homosexual lifestyle "perverse" and "degenerate". They don't need to start because they never stopped, endlessly, for a couple thousand years.

Honestly, I'll fear the apocalypse is nigh if they ever STOP complaining about it.

 

[gnomon]

I'm confused. If they are born that way, as many of them (erroneously IMO) believe, why would they take pride in that fact? Should I be proud of "being born" hetero? Can we expect a Left-Handers Pride Day? How about Albino Pride? Cleft Palate Pride? Or for that matter Non-Cleft Palate Pride?

Taking pride in being born gay is a statement that they are not wrong, degenerate or abominable merely for the fact of the state of their birth and subsequent hormonal development. The reason their is not a "Left-Handers" Pride or "Cleft Palate" pride day is that such individuals have not faced a society filled with ignorance regarding reality of human nature, or even nature in general, and backed that ignorance with the force of a collective delusion on the same level or long term as homosexuals.

Since you did bring up cleft palate individuals with such a condition do face a social stigma. Thankfully there exists the reason and understanding to fix a cleft palate and even provide therapy if necessary. However, homosexual is not a similar condition. It's a state of being that is revealed to us through the same reasoning and understanding. A state of being that is not an inherit disability. Human sexual development and gender development is found to be far more complex than many of our ancestors understood.

Unless, of course, one wants to resort to magical thinking. Then anything goes.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Also, can you not do the weird indented numbers? It screws up my post

 

[stiggywiggy]

Your analogy both fails because people don't act that way,

Sure they do. Many, that is.

you wish to be taken serously you don't poke fun and demonise people for being born differntly.

OK. So people who persecute the blind or the lame or the birthmarked by ridicule are not "serious." Maybe. So what? How would that change the fact that people do that very thing? That makes no sense.

 

[EdwinWillers]

< Snip >
Now, despite about a billion synonyms for "happy" perfectly unsullied by the horrible homo hordes, we are left bereft of a perfectly good all-American word like Gay!

And what about people, like myself, who simply love chopping wood and making small bits of wood for my fireplace. Oh sure I could say "I really need a stick of kindling" but easily 50% of the synonyms I would use are out of reach.

Kindly kindle all the cords of kindling your kindred heart desires, knowing your kindly kindling has nothing - nada, zilch, zip, nichts, niente to do with the word "gay" (knot even synonymously).

P.S. give or take, there are only about 250,000 words in the English language, proper. And Roget only identifies about 50 synonyms for the word "gay" - 4 or 5 of which are actually phrases, not words. So to suggest there are "about a billion" synonyms for "gay" is off by a factor of about oh, 20 million - or about 80 times the total number of words in the entire language itself. Kudos for the hyperbole though!

 

[stiggywiggy]

Since you did bring up cleft palate individuals with such a condition do face a social stigma.

But according to some guy here, that stigma is "not serious," unlike the persecution that homosexuals face.

 

[Wayte]

Sure they do. Many, that is.



OK. So people who persecute the blind or the lame or the birthmarked by ridicule are not "serious." Maybe. So what? How would that change the fact that people do that very thing? That makes no sense.

Because the people that do those things have no illusion of legitimacy, whereas those who demonize homosexuality do, and pose a legitimate threat to those who would seek equality for gays.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Kindly kindle all the cords of kindling your kindred heart desires, knowing your kindly kindling has nothing - nada, zilch, zip, nichts, niente to do with the word "gay" (knot even synonymously).

Actually, that's incorrect. You're forgetting "fa**ot".

Then there's "f*g", or cigarette.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Also, can you not do the weird indented numbers? It screws up my post

Who's kvetching now?

P.S. just edit between, or within the tags.

 

[Wayte]

Actually, that's incorrect. You're forgetting "fa**ot".

Then there's "f*g", or cigarette.

And derivations thereof. You'd be amazed how creative the most ignorant portion of the population can be

 

[gnomon]

Gay Pride Organization Files Complaint Against Local T-Shirt Company | LEX18.com | Lexington, Kentucky









The company?

I don't believe for a second that these eternal malcontents picked the "Christian Outfitter" at random. It's emblematic of the chaotic deviance they strive for in so many other facets of their lifestyle. They are enemies of the healthy culture they could never belong to.

Funny that media coverage completely omits the religious affiliation, even at the local level.

Christian apparel?

Hands On Originals both employs and conducts business with people of all genders, races, religions, sexual preferences, and national origins. However, due to the promotional nature of our products, it is the prerogative of Hands On Originals to refuse any order that would endorse positions that conflict with the convictions of the ownership.

That's from the site specifically for "christian outfitters". Who advertise numerous products that in no way specifically mention anything related to Christianity. Of course, anyone can request the artwork or design with such imagery.

I can see from their disclaimer that the parent company may make the argument that a Gay Pride event "conflicts with the convictions of the ownership" and that they could argue that they would not refuse to do business with the someone of any sexual preference but specifically because of the nature of the event.

It's tricky business when a company is open to work with the public at large but wishes to place certain limits. The question here is can a consumer state that a demand on a product be placed even if the company does not wish to make that product. I don't know enough about this business or industry.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Actually, that's incorrect. You're forgetting < Snipped >.

Then there's < Snipped >, or cigarette.

Dude, mind the swear filter and edit your post...

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Dude, mind the swear filter and edit your post...

All I said was f*g and f*ggot. Those aren't swear words, they are perfectly legitimate English words that got hijacked

Also, I edited my other post so you should have no problem responding

 

[gnomon]

But according to some guy here, that stigma is "not serious," unlike the persecution that homosexuals face.

Depends upon the individual and the culture. Most children with cleft palate are susceptible to feeling stigmatized. As far as homosexuals, some places in the West you may hardly feel ostracized or in any fear from society or the government. In other places they will kill you.

The point is that it's not the same thing. Homosexuality is a state of being. It's not a physical deformity. Not a mental illness. Not a genetic disorder. Not a lifestyle.

It just is. For too long these people in general have been ostracized, persecuted and killed merely for a fact of birth based on a concept of faith. A concept of faith never validated by any empirical reasoning. In the face of the overwhelming disdain shown by the majority culture against them the ability to stand up and proclaim oneself to not be an abomination is an act of personal and communal pride.

edit: Or to put it another way. When a person puts their hand out for someone with a physical deformity they do so in an act of compassion as opposed to an act of aggression which is how it has been for homosexuals in many cultures and still is in many more.