Tapping one's foot means what?

[Archer93]

A further thought- sex in public bathrooms is illegal in most places, I believe?
So you are basically asking if there are any gay organisations or individuals who have spoken out condemning illegal acts.
Probably not, in the same way that Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, JWs, Jews, Hindus and Muslims don't. It's kinda taken for granted that illegal things are not allowed.
Groups might try to get the law changed so that previously illegal things are made legal, but issuing statements to the effect that 'We do not approve of the idea of people carrying out an illegal act' seems to be a bit of a waste of time....

 

[rainycity]

just because a bathroom is marked "mens" does not mean a woman will not enter. There are plenty of examples of heterosexual sex happening in restrooms (regardless of if they are mens, womens, or both).

No, it isn't. I'm sure there are gays that do have sex in a restroom, just like there are heterosexuals that have sex in restrooms. Hoever, the fact that some do have sex in restrooms (regardless of if it is heterosexuals or homosexuals having sex) does not make it a practice of either sexual orientation. The fact remains that most gays, just like most heterosexuals, do not have sex in restrooms.

Man and woman decide to have sex.

Man and woman walk into men's (maybe women's, depending upon which is empty) bathroom, and have sex.

The fact it is 'men's only' does not stop a woman from entering.

Is it moral or ethical for *anybody* do to this? Why target homosexuals?

The world doesn't follow a politically correct code. I think some of you are being a bit naive here, sex between men in restrooms occurs much more frequently, then between men and women, or at least, there is more of a 'beat' for gay sex in restrooms. It is actually quite a common practice amongst homosexual men. I cannot say whether most homosexual men do it, but there are statistics which indicate that many gay men have at least done it before. The fact that it's 'mens only' doesn't neccessarily stop a woman from entering, but obviously, in a men's restroom, its more likely for sexual activity between men to occur. Srawling on the walls related to this sort of activity is pretty common in outdoor public mens rooms.

That poor little boy. I agree with morningstar. The adult should have known this was a little kid, and it was a terrible thing he did.

I'm pretty sure that he did know it was a kid, you're not likely to mistake the foot of a 12 year old, for the foot of a fully grown man. In restrooms were men meet for anonymous sex, underaged boys are often involved, and yes, kids as young as this, and younger. They're usually prostitutes. Drugs are often involved in this sort of activity, many hustlers are drug users earning money to support their habit.

No, he was called a homophobe because he only wanted homosexual sex acts in public bathrooms to stop. If he had stated he wanted bathroom sex to halt without singling out homosexuals he wouldn't have had the problem. Especially since per the Ft. Lauderdale police gay sex is not a problem in public restrooms. Police Sgt. Frank Sousa stated, "There's no evidence, no reports or arrests made for any men having sex in any restrooms."

I'm not familiar with this case and I'm not disputing that there isn't a 'cottaging' problem in Ft. Lauderdale, but sex in public restrooms is definitley more common between men and drug use and underage sex are often involved.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

My son is 13 and he wears a size 10 - men's.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Can you point me to a place, a link or an organization, where anyone IN the Gay Community and its professed culture, EVER speaks out against anonymous, promiscuous, public bathroom sex engaged in by gay men?

That would dispell some of the homogenization of all things gay culture for me anyway. And I am well established in my pronouncements about the ubiquity of beliefs and goals of the gay community, it's agenda and social, private, religious, legislative and education gaols for all in society regarding gay life.

Certainly those groups involved in AIDS awareness and sexuality education such as Gay Men's Health Crisis do that.

Now can you show where any conservative religious right group has ever condemned a member of the clergy of their denomination who has counseled a battered wife to "submit" to her abusive husband?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Certainly those groups involved in AIDS awareness and sexuality education such as Gay Men's Health Crisis do that.

Now can you show where any conservative religious right group has ever condemned a member of the clergy of their denomination who has counseled a battered wife to "submit" to her abusive husband?

No, because any pastor in his right mind doesn't tell a wife who is being abused to submit to her abusive husband.

That's a fallacious argument and a red herring you've tried to throw in the mix, Lynn.

 

[Supernaut]

No, because any pastor in his right mind doesn't tell a wife who is being abused to submit to her abusive husband.

That's a fallacious argument and a red herring you've tried to throw in the mix, Lynn.

AMEN!!

 

[Texas Lynn]

No, because any pastor in his right mind doesn't tell a wife who is being abused to submit to her abusive husband.

That's a fallacious argument and a red herring you've tried to throw in the mix, Lynn.

Sorry, no. It's a frequent occurrance. I've observed it occur numerous times, generally in proportion to the particular church's adherence to religious right ideology. In the early days of its opposition to women's rights the religious right opposed funding for battered women's shelters and derided them as havens for "runaway wives".

The other person sought to paint LGBTs negatively due to actions of a handful of cruisers and I merely showed him how using the exact same logic another could use the actions of these pastors to broadbrush condemn right-wing Christians, with more accuracy.

 

[Maren]

The world doesn't follow a politically correct code. I think some of you are being a bit naive here, sex between men in restrooms occurs much more frequently, then between men and women, or at least, there is more of a 'beat' for gay sex in restrooms. It is actually quite a common practice amongst homosexual men. I cannot say whether most homosexual men do it, but there are statistics which indicate that many gay men have at least done it before. The fact that it's 'mens only' doesn't neccessarily stop a woman from entering, but obviously, in a men's restroom, its more likely for sexual activity between men to occur. Srawling on the walls related to this sort of activity is pretty common in outdoor public mens rooms.



I'm pretty sure that he did know it was a kid, you're not likely to mistake the foot of a 12 year old, for the foot of a fully grown man. In restrooms were men meet for anonymous sex, underaged boys are often involved, and yes, kids as young as this, and younger. They're usually prostitutes. Drugs are often involved in this sort of activity, many hustlers are drug users earning money to support their habit.



I'm not familiar with this case and I'm not disputing that there isn't a 'cottaging' problem in Ft. Lauderdale, but sex in public restrooms is definitley more common between men and drug use and underage sex are often involved.

I'm going to question your claims. I'd be really interested in seeing a reputable study that supports your claims.

 

[LittleNipper]

I'm going to question your claims. I'd be really interested in seeing a reputable study that supports your claims.

Well, you may wish to surf the Internet. But logic should tell onyone that it is far easier for two men to be in a men's room than a woman and a man.

Logic will also seem to indicate that if a cell mate in an all male prison says, "You got a cute butt," he ain't likely speaking to a lady.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Sorry, no. It's a frequent occurrance. I've observed it occur numerous times, generally in proportion to the particular church's adherence to religious right ideology. In the early days of its opposition to women's rights the religious right opposed funding for battered women's shelters and derided them as havens for "runaway wives".

I highly doubt this.

The other person sought to paint LGBTs negatively due to actions of a handful of cruisers and I merely showed him how using the exact same logic another could use the actions of these pastors to broadbrush condemn right-wing Christians, with more accuracy.

No, you just thought you found another way to put religious conservatives down again.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I highly doubt this.

It's quite well documented including in James Davison Hunter's Culture Wars.

No, you just thought you found another way to put religious conservatives down again.

If telling the truth about them is putting them down I'm willing to do it and that's all I did.

 

[beechy]

I highly doubt this.

No, you just thought you found another way to put religious conservatives down again.

Here's an article from a Christian website regarding pastors counseling women to submit to their husbands in domestic violence cases. A particularly striking quote from the article summarizes findings cited by Denise George in her book "What Women Wish Pastors Knew":

George sites a survey in which nearly 6,000 pastors were asked how they would counsel women who came to them for help with domestic violence. Twenty-six percent would counsel them the same way Marleen’s pastor did: to continue to “submit” to her husband, no matter what. Twenty-five percent told wives the abuse was their own fault—for failing to submit in the first place. Astonishingly, 50 percent said women should be willing to “tolerate some level of violence” because it is better than divorce.


Here's another article by seminary professor Dr. Steven R. Tracy on the topic of clergy responses to domestic violence, which includes the following passage:

Some pastors simply emphasize that abused wives should stay and trust God. For instance, one well known megachurch pastor argues that the Bible unequivocally teaches wives to submit, even to abusive husbands. In the context of women fearing to submit because the husband might take advantage of her, he argues that godly women, like Sarah, should simply trust God: “If there was an abuse, they knew God would take care of the results." ....

... To quantify clergy beliefs about domestic violence and divorce, a questionnaire was sent to more than five thousand Protestant ministers in the United States. A full 27 percent of the clergy who responded said that, if a wife would begin to submit to her abusive husband, God would honor her obedience and the abuse would stop (or God would give her the grace to endure the beatings).

 

[beechy]

AMEN!!

Amen indeed. See my above post.

 

[quatona]

Here's an article from a Christian website regarding pastors counseling women to submit to their husbands in domestic violence cases. A particularly striking quote from the article summarizes findings cited by Denise George in her book "What Women Wish Pastors Knew":

George sites a survey in which nearly 6,000 pastors were asked how they would counsel women who came to them for help with domestic violence. Twenty-six percent would counsel them the same way Marleen’s pastor did: to continue to “submit” to her husband, no matter what. Twenty-five percent told wives the abuse was their own fault—for failing to submit in the first place. Astonishingly, 50 percent said women should be willing to “tolerate some level of violence” because it is better than divorce.


Here's another article by seminary professor Dr. Steven R. Tracy on the topic of clergy responses to domestic violence, which includes the following passage:

Some pastors simply emphasize that abused wives should stay and trust God. For instance, one well known megachurch pastor argues that the Bible unequivocally teaches wives to submit, even to abusive husbands. In the context of women fearing to submit because the husband might take advantage of her, he argues that godly women, like Sarah, should simply trust God: “If there was an abuse, they knew God would take care of the results." ....

... To quantify clergy beliefs about domestic violence and divorce, a questionnaire was sent to more than five thousand Protestant ministers in the United States. A full 27 percent of the clergy who responded said that, if a wife would begin to submit to her abusive husband, God would honor her obedience and the abuse would stop (or God would give her the grace to endure the beatings).

Bah, those aren´t TRUE Christians.

 

[Supernaut]

Amen indeed. See my above post.

But my Amen was for Preacherswife's post not yours. I do not believe that true freethinking Christians would accept the submission behavior.

 

[b&wpac4]

But my Amen was for Preacherswife's post not yours. I do not believe that true freethinking Christians would accept the submission behavior.

and thus the problem. What is a "true freethinking Christian"? Some on this board would say your not one based on certain beliefs, while others will say they are when you will disagree with them. The term is not set in stone.

 

[MoonLancer]

But my Amen was for Preacherswife's post not yours. I do not believe that true freethinking Christians would accept the submission behavior.

nor would true Scotsmen.

but apparently 26% of them DO! I bet you were pritty shocked when provided with an actual study and evidenced.

 

[beechy]

But my Amen was for Preacherswife's post not yours. I do not believe that true freethinking Christians would accept the submission behavior.

PreachersWife2004 said pastors in their right minds don't counsel battered wives to submit to their husbands, and that claiming they do is a red herring. You Amen-ed that. I don't think it's a red herring if 26% of 5,000+ pastors polled would provide such advice. If you think those 26% are not in their right minds, then that's an even bigger problem, eh?

So my return Amen to you was tounge-in-cheek.

 

[Supernaut]

PreachersWife2004 said pastors in their right minds don't counsel battered wives to submit to their husbands, and that claiming they do is a red herring. You Amen-ed that. I don't think it's a red herring if 26% of 5,000+ pastors polled would provide such advice. If you think those 26% are not in their right minds, then that's an even bigger problem, eh?

So my return Amen to you was tounge-in-cheek.

My Lord in Heaven!! Calm down!!!

 

[Supernaut]

and thus the problem. What is a "true freethinking Christian"? Some on this board would say your not one based on certain beliefs, while others will say they are when you will disagree with them. The term is not set in stone.

The term cannot be set in stone in that regard...and for the better! A freethinking Christian reads for themselves, has the gall to speak up against the church over unsound doctrine, forms their own opnions/beliefs instead of just sitting in a pew and listening to whatever sermon is being taught. Most importantly, they do their own research and rely moreso on their personal relationship with God rather than just doing whatever the church tells them to.

And that is my opinion.