| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/19/2012 12:31:58 AM · #5676 |
| I'm neither gay nor a pedophile but I shoot a lot of kids. the way I have found, that overcomes the resistance, is to approach the parents, tell them I am a photographer and offer to them that in return for their permission to shoot their kids I will send them the photos via email. We exchange email addresses and I have yet to have anyone disagree or for that matter even protest. I also invite them to review any shots I have taken before I leave. Again no one has felt the need to review a single photo. |
|
|
|
07/19/2012 05:48:40 AM · #5677 |
Originally posted by unbreakable:
I'm neither gay nor a pedophile but I shoot a lot of kids. the way I have found, that overcomes the resistance, is to approach the parents, tell them I am a photographer and offer to them that in return for their permission to shoot their kids I will send them the photos via email. We exchange email addresses and I have yet to have anyone disagree or for that matter even protest. I also invite them to review any shots I have taken before I leave. Again no one has felt the need to review a single photo. |
I have no problems with your approach, but can relate stories where I was yelled at and threaten (like I was really scared too) by the parents of children who walked into the middle of what I was trying to shoot.
I had no interest whatsoever in taking an image of their children but still had to bear the brunt of their paranoia.
Ray
|
|
|
|
07/19/2012 11:50:10 AM · #5678 |
| It may have something to do with where one lives too. I am very rural and the people are much less prone to hysteria I think |
|
|
|
07/19/2012 06:14:09 PM · #5679 |
Originally posted by unbreakable:
It may have something to do with where one lives too. I am very rural and the people are much less prone to hysteria I think |
...Could be, but I can hear the mooing of the cows as we speak and have encountered the very thing that some have mentioned here.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/20/2012 07:59:20 PM · #5680 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I absolutely love children and have learned over the last few years that men my age are viewed with a certain level of trepidation...actually NO... a preconceived notion that we are all perverts who will prey on children. |
Now imagine feeling like that at EVERY age, because that's what the culture tells you, without the luxury of 40+ years to build up a little self-confidence around your non-pervert legitimacy. |
|
|
|
07/21/2012 12:14:33 PM · #5681 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence, and again regret that my comments was viewed in that regard... such was most certainly not my intention.
Ray |
Hey, *I* knew what you meant. Just wanted you to clarify it for others who might read the words differently. This being a thread about gay rights and all :-)
R. |
... and thank you for that my friend, it is greatly appreciated.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/21/2012 12:18:15 PM · #5682 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I absolutely love children and have learned over the last few years that men my age are viewed with a certain level of trepidation...actually NO... a preconceived notion that we are all perverts who will prey on children. |
Now imagine feeling like that at EVERY age, because that's what the culture tells you, without the luxury of 40+ years to build up a little self-confidence around your non-pervert legitimacy. |
...and to you  Mousie, thank you ever so much for opening my eyes to a perspective I truly had not ever considered.
I wholeheartedly agree that for me this is something that I have only recently had to deal with and have no way of appreciating what you have had to endure over the years.
Thank you for enlightening me.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/25/2012 09:36:18 PM · #5683 |
So this whole Chick-Fil-A thing is really heating up. Been randomly watching the comments on their facebook in response to these two posts:
"The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect â regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 Restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.
Chick-fil-A is a family-owned and family-led company serving the communities in which it operates. From the day Truett Cathy started the company, he began applying biblically-based principles to managing his business. For example, we believe that closing on Sundays, operating debt-free and devoting a percentage of our profits back to our communities are what make us a stronger company and Chick-fil-A family.
Our mission is simple: to serve great food, provide genuine hospitality and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A."
"Hey Fans, thanks for being supportive. There is a lot of misinformation out there. The latest is we have been accused of impersonating a teenager with a fake Facebook profile. We want you to know we would never do anything like that and this claim is 100% false. Please share with this with your friends."
Backpedalling pathetically after the drama:
CFA Lies about why the Henson toys are removed.
Fake teenage girl defends CFA
To be clear, they fund known hate groups that spread lies about gays. So this isn't just about "standing up for what they believe in" as blind supporters like to say so they sleep better at night. |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 11:22:30 AM · #5684 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
To be clear, they fund known hate groups that spread lies about gays. |
What hate groups?
And because of their beliefs, they're told to stuff it:
Mayor Menino on Chick-fil-A: Stuff it - Vows to block eatery over anti-gay attitude
So much for freedom of religion.
Now, we might go to jail for our beliefs New Scottish bishop could see going to jail over 'gay marriage'
I guess those hate groups include religious groups. |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 11:54:02 AM · #5685 |
You did take the time to read those articles before you posted them right?
The first one has nothing to do with religion, whereas the second one addresses a "It could possibly happen scenario" that is based on mere speculation and not at all supported by fact.
As an aside, I found the following comment he made to be rather amusing: "Such a response is undemocratic, closes debate and is highly manipulative,â... this coming from a representative of the Catholic church, who of course never engaged in this type of activity.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 12:32:35 PM · #5686 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
To be clear, they fund known hate groups that spread lies about gays. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I guess those hate groups include religious groups. |
When it comes to their attitudes and behaviors towards gays, yes.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2012 01:45:20 PM · #5687 |
Fact Check
"Family Research Council Is Designated As An Anti-Gay Hate Group By the SPLC. The Family Research Council has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for its propagation of known falsehoods about the LGBT community. For example, president Tony Perkins has a long history of false and inflammatory attacks, such as claiming that pedophilia is a "homosexual problem." [Washington Times, 11/24/10; SPLC, accessed 6/27/12]"
"Exodus International Promotes âEx-Gayâ Therapy. Exodus International is a major promoter of âex-gayâ therapy, the practice of trying to change a personâs sexual orientation from gay to straight. The organization refers to being LGBT as âperverseâ and a form of âsexual brokenness.â [Truth Wins Out, accessed 6/27/12]" |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 02:38:45 PM · #5688 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Fact Check
"Family Research Council Is Designated As An Anti-Gay Hate Group By the SPLC. The Family Research Council has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for its propagation of known falsehoods about the LGBT community. For example, president Tony Perkins has a long history of false and inflammatory attacks, such as claiming that pedophilia is a "homosexual problem." [Washington Times, 11/24/10; SPLC, accessed 6/27/12]"
"Exodus International Promotes âEx-Gayâ Therapy. Exodus International is a major promoter of âex-gayâ therapy, the practice of trying to change a personâs sexual orientation from gay to straight. The organization refers to being LGBT as âperverseâ and a form of âsexual brokenness.â [Truth Wins Out, accessed 6/27/12]" |
So anti-gay means hate. That would mean all the major religions of the world are hate groups. Just scratching the surface of those hate claims doesn't revel hate.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2012 02:43:29 PM · #5689 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
So anti-gay means hate. That would mean all the major religions of the world are hate groups. |
Correct... exactly the same as anti-black, anti-women and anti-Jew means hate. To clarify, though, the major religions of the world are NOT anti-gay as there is actually little to nothing of the sort in their tenets and quite a few welcome people regardless of sexual orientation. It's the people using religion as an excuse to justify their own bigotry that make it hate (like Chick-Fil-A referring to Leviticus to support their prejudice while thinking nothing of mixing meat and dairy in the same kitchen).
Message edited by author 2012-07-26 14:47:50. |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 02:50:09 PM · #5690 |
To say ALL the major religions is a vast overreach. Many of the world's religions do not follow the Pope's teachings
Here is a handy chart to compare various world religions and their stands on homosexuality. To say that religion takes a variety of views on the subject is an understatement. |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 03:15:52 PM · #5691 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
To say ALL the major religions is a vast overreach. Many of the world's religions do not follow the Pope's teachings
Here is a handy chart to compare various world religions and their stands on homosexuality. To say that religion takes a variety of views on the subject is an understatement. |
Are we reading the same link? Excluding ancient Greeks and Romans:
Buddhism: prohibited under the Third Precept
Christianity: Traditionally considered sinful.
Hinduism: Condemned by most Hindu cultures, though not often for religious reasons.
Islam: Sinful and punishable under Islamic law.
Jehovah's Witnesses: Sinful.
Judaism Orthodox: Strongly condemned.
Judaism Conservative: Violation of Jewish law
Judaism Reformed: Approved in context of committed relationship
Mormonism: Considered a serious sin.
New Age: Accepted within bounds of general ethics.
Sikhism: Generally condemned in light of its association with Lust
Wicca: Accepted within bounds of general ethics.
So, 3 of these religions would be non-hate groups. Those 3 religions don't show on UN charts
UNITED NATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS &
FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF
I think I can safely say, "That would make all major religions hate groups."
|
|
|
|
07/26/2012 03:17:43 PM · #5692 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
(like Chick-Fil-A referring to Leviticus to support their prejudice while thinking nothing of mixing meat and dairy in the same kitchen). |
Obviously you don't have a new abridged version of the bible which comes with little L's and M's after each passage. You know, to tell you which ones are literal and metaphorical so you don't get caught up in absurd pedantry.
Message edited by author 2012-07-26 15:20:40. |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 03:38:27 PM · #5693 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Are we reading the same link? |
You're only reading what you want to see. "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B Anthony
Buddhism: Where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept.
Christianity: Many Christians and denominations continue to uphold this belief, while others have reconsidered it or in the process of doing so.
Hinduism: Not generally condemned in itself. "...in all things connected with love, everybody should act according to the custom of his country and his own inclination."
Islam: Not generally condemned.
Jehovah's Witnesses: Not necessarily sinful.
Judaism Orthodox: Strongly condemned.
Judaism Conservative: Neither condemned nor affirmed.
Judaism Reformed: Approved in context of committed relationship
Mormonism: Considered a serious sin.
New Age: Accepted within bounds of general ethics.
Sikhism: a minority believe the Sikh value of universal equality supports acceptance of homosexual relations.
Wicca: Accepted within bounds of general ethics.
Note that all but the most fanatical of these have at least varying opinions on the matter. Within Christianity alone, Episcopals, Lutherans, and the United Church of Christ (among others) have all welcomed homosexuals, and there have been at least three gay popes.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2012 03:38:32 PM · #5694 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
So anti-gay means hate. That would mean all the major religions of the world are hate groups. |
Correct... exactly the same as anti-black, anti-women and anti-Jew means hate. To clarify, though, the major religions of the world are NOT anti-gay as there is actually little to nothing of the sort in their tenets and quite a few welcome people regardless of sexual orientation. It's the people using religion as an excuse to justify their own bigotry that make it hate (like Chick-Fil-A referring to Leviticus to support their prejudice while thinking nothing of mixing meat and dairy in the same kitchen). |
And Nullix also overlooked the fact that they purposely spread lies. Wasn't there something about lying... being like... a sin or something somewhere in some important list? I just don't know... |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 03:44:12 PM · #5695 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Obviously you don't have a new abridged version of the bible which comes with little L's and M's after each passage. You know, to tell you which ones are literal and metaphorical so you don't get caught up in absurd pedantry. |
You mean the new, improved, abridged, standardized, modern translation version that agrees with whatever view you already hold? Clearly I must be using the wrong version of the wrong translation of the wrong language of the unchanging word of God... or you are, or he is, or just maybe it's all fiction that can be (and has been) interpreted justify anything at all.
Message edited by author 2012-07-26 15:45:59. |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 04:48:14 PM · #5696 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by scalvert:
(like Chick-Fil-A referring to Leviticus to support their prejudice while thinking nothing of mixing meat and dairy in the same kitchen). |
Obviously you don't have a new abridged version of the bible which comes with little L's and M's after each passage. You know, to tell you which ones are literal and metaphorical so you don't get caught up in absurd pedantry. |
Or maybe they just pay attention to Acts where food restrictions are explicitly removed. I dunno...
The actual passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy (not Leviticus) says, "Do not cook a young goat in its mothers milk". So, if we're being pedantic, I'm confused. Is Chik-fil-a guilty of a metaphorical sin or a literal one?
Message edited by author 2012-07-26 17:00:55. |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 05:31:11 PM · #5697 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by scalvert:
(like Chick-Fil-A referring to Leviticus to support their prejudice while thinking nothing of mixing meat and dairy in the same kitchen). |
Obviously you don't have a new abridged version of the bible which comes with little L's and M's after each passage. You know, to tell you which ones are literal and metaphorical so you don't get caught up in absurd pedantry. |
Or maybe they just pay attention to Acts where food restrictions are explicitly removed. I dunno...
The actual passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy (not Leviticus) says, "Do not cook a young goat in its mothers milk". So, if we're being pedantic, I'm confused. Is Chik-fil-a guilty of a metaphorical sin or a literal one? |
That's the point. Who decides which is metaphorical and which is literal? Seems a matter of convenience. I like hamburgers so that one is metaphorical, I don't like gays so that one is literal. See?
I had this very argument yesterday with a very sweet black friend of mine who COULD NOT see the connection in how the bible is used against gays today and was used against slaves and blacks in the past. It's like a major wall in logic shot right up and short circuited her brain. All of her arguments trying to explain to me why it was wrong to use the bible to support the enslavement of Africans, supported my very argument about gays and she COULD NOT see it. Bless her heart... It boggles my mind. |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 05:41:34 PM · #5698 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Or maybe they just pay attention to Acts where food restrictions are explicitly removed. |
Oh, so THAT'S where an unchanging god changed his mind... in Acts, where Peter clearly still regards various foods as unclean a decade after hanging out with Jesus and has a vision that reveals the newly converted Gentiles (not food) are OK now. I agree that you dunno. Actually, I much prefer the hilarity of God's prior instructions to Noah at the other end of the spectrum: "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." Mmm... hawksbill turtle with a side of polar bear liver paté (both toxic). Just make sure you drain the blood first! |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 05:52:09 PM · #5699 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by scalvert:
(like Chick-Fil-A referring to Leviticus to support their prejudice while thinking nothing of mixing meat and dairy in the same kitchen). |
Obviously you don't have a new abridged version of the bible which comes with little L's and M's after each passage. You know, to tell you which ones are literal and metaphorical so you don't get caught up in absurd pedantry. |
Or maybe they just pay attention to Acts where food restrictions are explicitly removed. I dunno...
The actual passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy (not Leviticus) says, "Do not cook a young goat in its mothers milk". So, if we're being pedantic, I'm confused. Is Chik-fil-a guilty of a metaphorical sin or a literal one? |
That's the point. Who decides which is metaphorical and which is literal? Seems a matter of convenience. |
It's exactly the point. I know Shannon likes to be acerbic and sarcastic, but the question would be pertinent to him as well. He was saying that Chick-fil-a was guilty of breaking levitical laws but seemingly only in a very metaphorical way. So why does Shannon or Venser get to decide the law is metaphorical? Just calling it like I see it when Venser chimed in and we all laugh at the stupid Christians.
It's not worth a conversation in Rant, but Shannon does raise a good question about things changing but God not. Clearly the dietary rules did change and yet we say God is unchanging. I'd recommend reading up on on the concept of progressive revelation. The best analogy I can offer is to ask whether the Constitution changes if habeus corpus is suspended? The answer seems to be no. The constitution is the same, yet the daily rules of living could be quite different.
Mainly I'm just proud of the ACLU for standing up and saying, hey, Cathy (Chick-fil-a CEO) has the right to voice his opinion under the First Amendment. I appreciate the fact that they are willing to back people up they do not agree with.
Message edited by author 2012-07-26 17:57:12. |
|
|
|
07/26/2012 06:01:10 PM · #5700 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by scalvert:
(like Chick-Fil-A referring to Leviticus to support their prejudice while thinking nothing of mixing meat and dairy in the same kitchen). |
Obviously you don't have a new abridged version of the bible which comes with little L's and M's after each passage. You know, to tell you which ones are literal and metaphorical so you don't get caught up in absurd pedantry. |
Or maybe they just pay attention to Acts where food restrictions are explicitly removed. I dunno...
The actual passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy (not Leviticus) says, "Do not cook a young goat in its mothers milk". So, if we're being pedantic, I'm confused. Is Chik-fil-a guilty of a metaphorical sin or a literal one? |
That's the point. Who decides which is metaphorical and which is literal? Seems a matter of convenience. |
It's exactly the point. I know Shannon likes to be acerbic and sarcastic, but the question would be pertinent to him as well. He was saying that Chick-fil-a was guilty of breaking levitical laws but seemingly only in a very metaphorical way. So why does Shannon or Venser get to decide the law is metaphorical? Just calling it like I see it when Venser chimed in and we all laugh at the stupid Christians.
It's not worth a conversation in Rant, but Shannon does raise a good question about things changing but God not. Clearly the dietary rules did change and yet we say God is unchanging. I'd recommend reading up on on the concept of progressive revelation. The best analogy I can offer is to ask whether the Constitution changes if habeus corpus is suspended? The answer seems to be no. The constitution is the same, yet the daily rules of living could be quite different.
Mainly I'm just proud of the ACLU for standing up and saying, hey, Cathy (Chick-fil-a CEO) has the right to voice his opinion under the First Amendment. I appreciate the fact that they are willing to back people up they do not agree with. |
Oh sure, he has the right to say what he says, and society has the right to react the way they see fit. I will never say he CAN'T say what he said. But I will say it was pretty darn stupid. That's the funny part about the reaction I've been watching on the CFA facebook page. People crying "free speech!" because there is a negative reaction. But really, the reaction I've seen is the free speech of people to say "hey I'll never eat your food again." That isn't a restriction of his free speech.
Seems fitting to me. He's no victim of big brother, he just gets to reap what he sows. |
|
