North Carolina Preacher encourages violence against "gay acting" children

[Recusant]

I am just wary of this simplistic ."Atheist  good, Christian Bad" mindset which exhibits the same blinkered intolerance that we are so quick to denounce on the part of the religious Right.

On this we are fully in agreement, and I do see such a simplistic attitude cropping up once in a while (not here, in particular, but in the theist/atheist dialog in general). I don't think that pointing to Stalin is going to do much to curb it, however, because most atheists have already heard the "look at Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot" line, and essentially throw it out as the lame propaganda that it is. I think that one does much better when they say precisely what they mean without resorting to ineffective tropes.

[En_Route]

I am just wary of this simplistic ."Atheist  good, Christian Bad" mindset which exhibits the same blinkered intolerance that we are so quick to denounce on the part of the religious Right.

On this we are fully in agreement, and I do see such a simplistic attitude cropping up once in a while (not here, in particular, but in the theist/atheist dialog in general). I don't think that pointing to Stalin is going to do much to curb it, however, because most atheists have already heard the "look at Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot" line, and essentially throw it out as the lame propaganda that it is. I think that one does much better when they say precisely what they mean without resorting to ineffective tropes.

The very point I was making was that stigmatising Christianity by highlighting those of the fruitcake persuasion is just as hackneyed and misleading as theists' invocation of the usual suspects such as Stalin.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I wouldn't base my opinions of all Christians on that clip, but I don't think checking in on the "fruitcake" factions of any group is irrelevant. They might be a minority, but they're still part of the dialogue. People used to dismiss the impact of creationist ideology until they got big enough to build their own "museum" and started legally challenging the validity of science in the classroom. 

[Harmonie]

Am I the only one bothered by how this rant is being taken as about homosexuality?

I know that this was supposedly coming from a pastor's speech's where he is trying to get his church's people to ban same-sex marriage (shouldn't that be a problem we're focusing on, BTW? A pastor trying to mix religion with law), but what he was talking about isn't even homosexuality, nor was it even 'gay-acting'. A 'boy' wearing a dress and acting out on 'childhood fantasies' isn't talking about homosexuality. It's talking about being transgendered. It's more a rant about gender roles than it is homosexuality.

Now knowing how bad he sounds in his speech and what this is related to, he may be one of those people who can not even distinguish between the two concepts. It is not something I could ever understand, but I have run into homophobic people lately who act like homosexuality and being transgendered are one and the same.

I've just never thought of a boy wearing a dress as 'acting gay'. Are these people really so ignorant and removed from reality that they can't even tell the difference between being attracted to the same sex and wearing the opposite sex's clothing? Is it all really that simple in their minds?

[Recusant]

Is it all really that simple in their minds?

I think that it is. At least that has been my experience with certain types of rabid anti-gay individuals. They don't differentiate, nor do they care about the distinctions you mention.

[Sweetdeath]

I noticed it was a gender role thing too.
Most logical people understand a girl with short hair cut doesnt equal gay, or a boy wearing a dress or pink isnt gay.

I think most christians want a certain look for people, and anyone not fitting that "mold", sexuality involved or not- - must be disctiminated against.

[markmcdaniel]

Am I the only one bothered by how this rant is being taken as about homosexuality?

I know that this was supposedly coming from a pastor's speech's where he is trying to get his church's people to ban same-sex marriage (shouldn't that be a problem we're focusing on, BTW? A pastor trying to mix religion with law), but what he was talking about isn't even homosexuality, nor was it even 'gay-acting'. A 'boy' wearing a dress and acting out on 'childhood fantasies' isn't talking about homosexuality. It's talking about being transgendered. It's more a rant about gender roles than it is homosexuality.

Now knowing how bad he sounds in his speech and what this is related to, he may be one of those people who can not even distinguish between the two concepts. It is not something I could ever understand, but I have run into homophobic people lately who act like homosexuality and being transgendered are one and the same.

I've just never thought of a boy wearing a dress as 'acting gay'. Are these people really so ignorant and removed from reality that they can't even tell the difference between being attracted to the same sex and wearing the opposite sex's clothing? Is it all really that simple in their minds?

This "man" is ignorant as well as bigoted. He does not understand the difference between a homosexual and a cross dresser. In addition he also does not understand the difference between a cross dresser and a transsexual. Cross dressing is defined as persons of one gender who wear the gender specific clothing of the opposite gender. A transsexual is a is a person born to one gender who thinks they should have been born to the other gender. There are homosexual cross dressers, but most cross dressers are in fact heterosexual. However, I am digressing. I will conclude my post by saying that it is a good idea to understand what you are ranting about least you sound like an idiot as wall as a bigot.

[Recusant]

I think that in this cultural context, ignorance of the distinctions you're describing is a given and a prerequisite. Indeed, even if one were aware of such distinctions, displaying any knowledge of them would be rather suspect.

[markmcdaniel]

I think that in this cultural context, ignorance of the distinctions you're describing is a given and a prerequisite. Indeed, even if one were aware of such distinctions, displaying any knowledge of them would be rather suspect.

I am afraid that you are probably right. It is probably to much to hope that he will nominate himself for a Darwin Award.