Jump to content

'A message from the gay community performed by the san francisco gay mens chorus'


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whataboutism on stuff that nobody here approves of anyway is an extremely weak argument. Repeating it doesn’t make it any stronger. 
 

It’s not that difficult a concept a concept to grasp, especially for one who claims to be “seeking understanding.” 
 

Google “tu quoque fallacy” if you need a tutorial. 
 

When the gay choir says they are coming for your children to teach them tolerance and love, it is very clear they aren’t being literal. Here is a perfect example of how gay people are coming for your children:

 

BYU-TV (strong supporter of the gay agenda) runs a show called studio c. It’s a hit with families in the church across the country. Their children like it and follow those involved. As it turns out Stacey Harkey (one of the stars) is gay. He posts about it on Instagram. 

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CMAmOEFhuB3/?utm_medium=share_sheet

 

Maybe your kids see it. It causes them discomfort to see someone they looked up to living a life that they are taught is sinful. They have to decide what to do with that. Then they find out their friend at school/brother/ uncle / cousin is gay. They have to deal with that. Maybe they consume media where they see being gay as totally normal. They have to deal with that. And the way they deal with that overwhelming is to accept being gay as completely normal. The church is losing the cultural war here. 

 

At no point is there a gay guy coaching kids on how to recruit your kids behind your back. At no point is there a gay guy in a van inviting your kid to “gay activities”. All of this conversion is happening right under your nose and in front of your eyes. 

 

Just like the people pushing gay acceptance and gay rights, the church has a large social media presence. Last I checked, they don’t make you ask your parents permission before watching their social media videos. You don’t have to ask your parents permission to view lds.org or read the Book of Mormon. Church members even make movies like witnesses and meet the Mormons. As far as I know the church has made no attempt to hide these things from people who don’t have parental permission to see them. 

 

In addition, going beyond what people pushing gay rights do, The church encourages young primary children to be missionaries (“we’ll bring the world his truth”). They actively coach their youth to push church messages on social media. They push the youth to recruit people to attend camps, activities and functions. 

 

When my wife and I left the church, we explicitly asked the local leadership for no contact. Despite this, the youth in the ward routinely come by to invite my sons to activities. After I resigned my membership, the church defaulted to sending my unordained son all of the church announcements from the bishop, sp and on and on via email. Despite not having permission to do so. We get a ward newsletter on fast sundays from time to time. This is above and beyond anything that people pushing the gay agenda do. 

 

In addition the church in the past has actually sought out young people to baptize them in large numbers without parental permission. 

 

Given the above, I really can’t wrap my head the extreme negative reaction by some here. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
2 hours ago, pogi said:

In regards to the “informal” interactions, you see no problem with gay adults coaching kids to share gay messages and videos on social media to try and convert their friends to the truth?  

 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course I would disapprove of that!

But it’s okay when the church does it (church leaders coach the youth on how to share gospel messages with friends)?

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment

I thought it may be interesting to take a break from dumping on @smac97 to consider that it isn't just social conservatives who think this song was a very bad idea.  The following is a post by a lesbian on a radical feminist site and is an interesting perspective.  

https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/36361/why-the-gay-men-s-chorus-we-ll-convert-your-children-song-wasn-t-funny

Quote

 

I want to make it clear that this song is a spoof, it's obviously a spoof, even conservatives are aware the song is a spoof. In the 90's and 00's, it would have been hilarious. It would have been a finger in the eye of fundies like Jerry Falwell. A well-deserved cap back to Christian conservatives that wanted to control society.

But it's not funny 20 years later.

GLAAD's own research shows a decline in lgbtq support for the third year in a row, among people aged 18-34.

The report has the usual wishful thinking, that it's all Trump's fault. GLAAD vows once more to maximize "outreach." But if the data is anything to go by, maybe all this outreach is the problem. Young people did not largely vote for Trump, and even he didn't talk about lgbtq issues very much. He didn't run on the religious ticket, and mentioned religion when he had to. Trump's winning issues were immigration and taxes. Far leftists don't understand that it's not just white evangelical christians who like low taxes and don't want to help any foreigners out. But I digress.

GLAAD can't explain why the decline in support continues, and I sure am curious about 2020 and 2021. If support hasn't returned, it's pretty damn obvious why.

The LGBTQ community, especially gay men, enjoyed a PR Golden Age in the 90's and 00's. The media was very supportive, and had the professional expertise to find out who was telegenic. Who could turn around America's perception of gay people. And it worked. Say what you will about how *Will & Grace, *The Bird Cage, and To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything, were problematic. They worked, too. Lesbians still got a male gaze representation, but KD Lang and Melissa Etheridge went mainstream. Americans realized that paranoia about lesbians was preposterous.

Enter the dominance of T. Enter the rise of social media.

Gay male activists in particular are clueless that, by their own hand, the LGBTQ community at large has developed a reputation for being creepy. Mean. Aggressive. Weird. And at times, deranged. All the media I mentioned above are vintage pop culture curios. It's all about self-representation, now. But there's no clever production whiz who knows how to make them sparkle. No one to save them from themselves through basic marketing savvy.

The T brought in this new dimension of invasive, vitriolic, nasty dishonesty. Maybe we all need to relfect on why the T had its cloth cut out for it, but it definitely soured the tone. Here were people that were visibly lying to the whole world, at the cost of a community that had just gained fragile acceptance. And yet, they got that very community to cape for it.

For the sake of the T and the Q, the lgbtq community has followed their lead on moving forward. The result? Parents now have social media with endless images of convicted rapists of children at Drag Queen Story Hour, and men writhing on the floor infront of kids. They have foul videos of AGPs, young and old, sounding off. A bizarre, self-hating lesbian with a Queer Kids Stuff channel. Men in pup suits crawling towards kids at Pride parades. The Gender Bread Person in public schools, legislation that takes custody away if you Don't Believe, and now, snappish demands that girls accept naked men sitting next to them in jacuzzis.

Why, in the span of a few short years, has there been such an obsession with interacting with people's children, often behind their backs or against their will? Why not do outreach in Africa where gays and lesbians are murdered daily? Why not stick up for gays and lesbians in the Muslim community, who are not safe, even in London? Why the emphasis on children?

Gay men in activist circles seem to be oblivious to how the T has spoiled everything for them. They enjoyed their culture in an adult context and never needed kids to be involved. They only had children if they really, really wanted them. But by helping the T out and being an ally for every demand, they resurrected the superstition that they were closet predators. And this time, they did it to themselves.

There was no way the T wasn't going to do this- you can't build a positive, helpful thing out of a fundamental lie. Members of the T do not have the minds of the opposite sex. They cannot, with any treatment, become the opposite sex. And they are not some in-between, either. To claim that any of that is even possible is a malicious falsehood.

So this cute little "We'll Convert Your Children" song is not funny. It just isn't. And I hope new LGB groups get off the ground soon so they don't get dragged down as the West runs out of patience.

 

And a reply by a smac-like lesbian:

Quote

 

One of the guys was a sex offender (child under 14). I mean, I'm certain he was an outlier, of course - (and perhaps he joined the choir to turn his life around, which is a good thing)

but there he was on the front page.

 

 

Edited by Ipod Touch
Link to comment
7 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But it’s okay when the church does it (church leaders coach the youth on how to share gospel messages with friends)?

LGBTQ adults coaching children about the humanity of LGBTQ individuals is one thing, but once the adults tell the children how that translates into law and political activism, I’d say that is off limits. And let’s not try to equate such political indoctrination of children with what the Church did in its advocacy for Prop 8 or the “Utah compromise.”

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

LGBTQ adults coaching children about the humanity of LGBTQ individuals is one thing, but once the adults tell the children how that translates into law and political activism, I’d say that is off limits.

Another bit "off limits" thing is parental subversion, which is hugely played up in the song/video.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

I thought it may be interesting to take a break from dumping on @smac97 to consider that it isn't just social conservatives who think this song was a very bad idea.  The following is a post by a lesbian on a radical feminist site and is an interesting perspective.  

https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/36361/why-the-gay-men-s-chorus-we-ll-convert-your-children-song-wasn-t-funny

Quote

I want to make it clear that this song is a spoof, it's obviously a spoof, even conservatives are aware the song is a spoof. In the 90's and 00's, it would have been hilarious. It would have been a finger in the eye of fundies like Jerry Falwell. A well-deserved cap back to Christian conservatives that wanted to control society.

But it's not funny 20 years later.

GLAAD's own research shows a decline in lgbtq support for the third year in a row, among people aged 18-34.

The report has the usual wishful thinking, that it's all Trump's fault. GLAAD vows once more to maximize "outreach." But if the data is anything to go by, maybe all this outreach is the problem. Young people did not largely vote for Trump, and even he didn't talk about lgbtq issues very much. He didn't run on the religious ticket, and mentioned religion when he had to. Trump's winning issues were immigration and taxes. Far leftists don't understand that it's not just white evangelical christians who like low taxes and don't want to help any foreigners out. But I digress.

GLAAD can't explain why the decline in support continues, and I sure am curious about 2020 and 2021. If support hasn't returned, it's pretty damn obvious why.

The LGBTQ community, especially gay men, enjoyed a PR Golden Age in the 90's and 00's. The media was very supportive, and had the professional expertise to find out who was telegenic. Who could turn around America's perception of gay people. And it worked. Say what you will about how *Will & Grace, *The Bird Cage, and To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything, were problematic. They worked, too. Lesbians still got a male gaze representation, but KD Lang and Melissa Etheridge went mainstream. Americans realized that paranoia about lesbians was preposterous.

Enter the dominance of T. Enter the rise of social media.

"T" being . . . what?  At first I thought it was "Trump."  But it seems to be a reference to Trans people.  Is that correct?

15 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:
Quote

The T brought in this new dimension of invasive, vitriolic, nasty dishonesty. Maybe we all need to relfect on why the T had its cloth cut out for it, but it definitely soured the tone. Here were people that were visibly lying to the whole world, at the cost of a community that had just gained fragile acceptance. And yet, they got that very community to cape for it.

I'm not really catching all she is saying here.  "Lying to the whole world" about what?  How did this lying come "at the cost" of "a community?"  What community?

And what does "to cape for it" mean?

15 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:
Quote

For the sake of the T and the Q, the lgbtq community has followed their lead on moving forward. The result? Parents now have social media with endless images of convicted rapists of children at Drag Queen Story Hour, and men writhing on the floor infront of kids. They have foul videos of AGPs, young and old, sounding off.

"For the sake of the T and the Q."  T is "Trans," so "Q" must be "Queer," but what does that mean?  She's clearly using it for a particular meaning that escapes me.

Also, I had to look up "AGPs."  Apparently this refers to "autogynephilia" which is  "a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female."

Hard to keep up with all the colors of the rainbow these days.

15 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:
Quote

A bizarre, self-hating lesbian with a Queer Kids Stuff channel. Men in pup suits crawling towards kids at Pride parades. The Gender Bread Person in public schools, legislation that takes custody away if you Don't Believe, and now, snappish demands that girls accept naked men sitting next to them in jacuzzis.

Yes, this stuff is getting a bit much.  And the "You're a bigot if you don't accept this stuff" schtick seems to be losing most of whatever potency it previously had.

15 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:
Quote

Why, in the span of a few short years, has there been such an obsession with interacting with people's children, often behind their backs or against their will? Why not do outreach in Africa where gays and lesbians are murdered daily? Why not stick up for gays and lesbians in the Muslim community, who are not safe, even in London? Why the emphasis on children?

Fair questions, these.  The problem is that there does not seem to be any answer that is not creepy, offensive, etc.

15 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:
Quote

Gay men in activist circles seem to be oblivious to how the T has spoiled everything for them. They enjoyed their culture in an adult context and never needed kids to be involved. They only had children if they really, really wanted them. But by helping the T out and being an ally for every demand, they resurrected the superstition that they were closet predators. And this time, they did it to themselves.

So here she seems to be blaming "T" (Trans) for the "obsession with interacting with people's children."  I'm not understanding the connection (even though we seem to understand manifestations of it in stuff like Drag Queen Story Hour, Desmond Is Amazing dancing like a stripper in a gay bar, etc.).

15 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:
Quote

There was no way the T wasn't going to do this- you can't build a positive, helpful thing out of a fundamental lie. Members of the T do not have the minds of the opposite sex. They cannot, with any treatment, become the opposite sex. And they are not some in-between, either. To claim that any of that is even possible is a malicious falsehood.

So the "lying to the whole world" thing mentioned above is . . . that a "trans woman" is not really a woman, that a "trans man" is not really a man?  Is that what she is saying?"

She seems to be writing to an "in group."  As an outsider, I'm having difficulty understanding what she is saying.

15 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:
Quote

So this cute little "We'll Convert Your Children" song is not funny. It just isn't. And I hope new LGB groups get off the ground soon so they don't get dragged down as the West runs out of patience.

 

No "T" in that acronym (and no "+" either).  Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual.  The initialism is contracting?

Hard to keep up with this stuff:

Quote

As Professor Steven Hayward cleverly points out in his “50 Shades of Gay” post at Power Line (great headline, by the way), Wesleyan University is now making sure every sexual fetish, whim, kink, orientation, impulse and desire – plus the kitchen sink – gets its own capital letter in the ever-growing acronym of the formerly Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer community.

Wesleyan University’s residential life division’s “Open House” at 154 Church Street boasts, according to the university’s website: “a safe space for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Flexual, Asexual, Gender*%$k, Polyamourous, Bondage/Disciple, Dominance/Submission, Sadism/Masochism (LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM) communities and for people of sexually or gender dissident communities. The goals of Open House include generating interest in a celebration of queer life from the social to the political to the academic. Open House works to create a Wesleyan community that appreciates the variety and vivacity of gender, sex and sexuality.”

Wesleyan-500x266.jpg

 

Yeah, the initialism was starting to come across as pretty ridiculous.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But it’s okay when the church does it (church leaders coach the youth on how to share gospel messages with friends)?

Please show me where the Church encourages missionaries, youth, etc. to subvert the parents of children.

Please show me where the Church's proselytizing materials use sexual euphemisms and double entendres.

Please show me where the Church gloatingly taunts parents that it (the Church) is "coming for {their} children," tells them we'll do this "quietly and subtley," and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment

 

Image

So we are suppose to be outraged that the youth of our country are becoming more tolerant and understanding about what it is like to be gay.  Is this anything new?  The same group that is outraged about this song has taken every opportunity to be outraged about virtually everything the LGBT community has done. This is hardly the worst thing that has happened to our community.  This is a community that has had to endure physical violence not only from bigoted christians, but police forces.  It is a community that had to fight the Church for it's right to marry.  It is a community that has had to take the risk of being murdered just for being gay.  It is a community that has been kicked out of a lot of "christian" churches.  How many times on this very board, including this very thread has the gay community been accused of being pedophiles?  

I am just not going to get all bothered about this current outrage.  This has been going on for decades and it will continue to go on for many more decades.  It is just the religious right trying to stop the clear change in acceptance of gay people who want to live their lives with someone they love.  This current outrage is not going to change that shift.  If anything, the youth will look at this outrage and double down on their own acceptance of the LGBT community.  

Did the lyrics cross the line?  Probably. Does it matter?  Probably not.  The more intolerant the religious right is about this message, the more intolerant the youth of the Church and of this country will be about how the LGBT community gets demonized over ridiculous stands designed to instill fear and prejudice.  In the end, this is not a battle the "christian" churches are going to win are they.  And that is EXACTLY what this song is about.

I am pretty strong feeling the youth are cracking up about how outraged the religious right is about this song of love and tolerance is causing.  Isn't this pretty typical that such hatred and intolerance among the same group that always reacts this way. Part of being gay is to not let other peoples judgements about our lives and the individual choices we make bother us.  It is why in the end, most of us decide to take on that intolerance and come out of the closet.  We know we are putting ourselves right in the site of all those that are going to hate us.  But we also find the love and support from many who understand that love is actually love.  We only have one life on this earth.  There is no dress rehearsal.  And we are determined to live that life on our own terms and we are going to fall in love, create a family, and encircle ourselves with those that will be a positive influence in our lives.  

 

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"T" being . . . what?  At first I thought it was "Trump."  But it seems to be a reference to Trans people.  Is that correct?

I'm not really catching all she is saying here.  "Lying to the whole world" about what?  How did this lying come "at the cost" of "a community?"  What community?

And what does "to cape for it" mean?

"For the sake of the T and the Q."  T is "Trans," so "Q" must be "Queer," but what does that mean?  She's clearly using it for a particular meaning that escapes me.

Also, I had to look up "AGPs."  Apparently this refers to "autogynephilia" which is  "a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female."

Hard to keep up with all the colors of the rainbow these days.

Yes, this stuff is getting a bit much.  And the "You're a bigot if you don't accept this stuff" schtick seems to be losing most of whatever potency it previously had.

Fair questions, these.  The problem is that there does not seem to be any answer that is not creepy, offensive, etc.

So here she seems to be blaming "T" (Trans) for the "obsession with interacting with people's children."  I'm not understanding the connection (even though we seem to understand manifestations of it in stuff like Drag Queen Story Hour, Desmond Is Amazing dancing like a stripper in a gay bar, etc.).

So the "lying to the whole world" thing mentioned above is . . . that a "trans woman" is not really a woman, that a "trans man" is not really a man?  Is that what she is saying?"

She seems to be writing to an "in group."  As an outsider, I'm having difficulty understanding what she is saying.

No "T" in that acronym (and no "+" either).  Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual.  The initialism is contracting?

Hard to keep up with this stuff:

Yeah, the initialism was starting to come across as pretty ridiculous.

Thanks,

-Smac

Please.  You are an amateur when it comes to trying to convince us that gays are pedophiles.  Anita Bryant was way better at this stuff than you are.

"WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN...
WE'LL MAKE THEM TOLERANT AND FAIR."

Edited by california boy
Link to comment

Test

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We have “leaders targeting youth?” In defiance of or without the knowledge of their parents? Seriously? If you have personal knowledge of such a thing, don’t you think you should bring it to the attention of Church authorities immediately so it can be dealt with? 
 

Otherwise, I think you are trying desperately to find a functional equivalence here and not having much success at it. 

I’ve given several examples that we are all aware of and all seem to be cool with., which are all endorsed at the highest levels of leadership and encouraged in conference talks and manuals.  Heck, the adults make much of the media for them. You stated explicitly that it is not ok if the same tactics were being used by gay people.  Seems like a double standard to me.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, pogi said:

I’ve given several examples that we are all aware of and all seem to be cool with., which are all endorsed at the highest levels of leadership and encouraged in conference talks and manuals.  Heck, the adults make much of the media for them. You stated explicitly that it is not ok if the same tactics were being used by gay people.  Seems like a double standard to me.

Do you really think that sharing our beliefs is the same thing as saying "we will convert your kids against your will and there is nothing you can do about it"?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Do you really think that sharing our beliefs is the same thing as saying "we will convert your kids against your will and there is nothing you can do about it"?

The gay agenda.

"WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN...
WE'LL MAKE THEM TOLERANT AND FAIR."

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you really think that sharing our beliefs is the same thing as saying "we will convert your kids against your will and there is nothing you can do about it"?

The song is satire. This is what converting your kids against your will looks like:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CMAmOEFhuB3/?utm_medium=share_sheet
 

That’s it. They are just living their lives. That their message is compelling enough to capture the church’s indoctrinated youth is not their fault. In the words of president Faust:

After the lease had been signed, one of our friends insightfully remarked, “Oh, we know that you are not going to proselyte, but what are you going to do about the light that is in their eyes?” He was referring to our students who were studying in Israel.”

It’s the light in their eyes you have to look out for  

 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, california boy said:

The gay agenda.

"WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN...
WE'LL MAKE THEM TOLERANT AND FAIR."

I get that.  I've said a few times on the thread that I don't have any issue with the theme of the song, which I realize is about tolerance.  

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The song is satire. This is what converting your kids against your will looks like:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CMAmOEFhuB3/?utm_medium=share_sheet
 

That’s it. They are just living their lives. That their message is compelling enough to capture the church’s indoctrinated youth is not their fault. In the words of president Faust:

After the lease had been signed, one of our friends insightfully remarked, “Oh, we know that you are not going to proselyte, but what are you going to do about the light that is in their eyes?” He was referring to our students who were studying in Israel.”

It’s the light in their eyes you have to look out for  

 

I really have no idea what you are saying here.

I don't believe that I've said anything about the song's effect on the church's "indoctrinated youth."  The church also strives to be tolerant and fair and to teach others to do the same.  It is one of their main teachings.

(For what it's worth, using that phrase--church's indoctrinated youth--does not seem to be in your usual character.  How do you say that gay people are just living their lives and that has an impact on the people around them but for members, we are indoctrinating people?  That seems like a pretty big double standard.)

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do you really think that sharing our beliefs is the same thing as saying "we will convert your kids against your will and there is nothing you can do about it"?


Not the same at all.  I have acknowledged that if the song is guilty of anything it is bad taste.  The church would never taunt or joke about converting children against the will of parents, but that doesn’t stop us from doing it.  We all know it happens.  We all know that coordinated efforts are designed to target youth, with or without the knowledge of their parents.   No we don’t joke about it, but we do do it.  So, we might be higher class in our PR, but we can’t claim moral superiority in subverting parents and targeting children.

Baptism and conversion are not the same thing, by the way.    

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, pogi said:


Not the same at all.  I have acknowledged that if the song is guilty of anything it is bad taste.  The church would never taunt or joke about converting children against the will of parents, but that doesn’t stop us from doing it.  We all know it happens.  We all know that coordinated efforts are designed to target youth, with or without the knowledge of their parents.   No we don’t joke about it, but we do do it.  So, we might be higher class in our PR, but we can’t claim moral superiority in subverting parents and targeting children.

Baptism and conversion are not the same thing, by the way.    

No, we really all do not know the bolded.  You seriously need to speak up and stop it if it's happening in your area.  

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, we really all do not know the bolded.  You seriously need to speak up and stop it if it's happening in your area.  

You are not considering the half dozen other examples I gave which are coordinated on a much higher level and encouraged in conference and in manuals with media prepared by the church to be disseminated by the youth.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
4 hours ago, california boy said:

Please.  You are an amateur when it comes to trying to convince us that gays are pedophiles.  Anita Bryant was way better at this stuff than you are.

"WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN...
WE'LL MAKE THEM TOLERANT AND FAIR."

For anyone who doesn’t remember Anita Bryant (who is still alive, btw) Here are a few things she said:

 "As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children" and "If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nail biters."[19] 

So these talking points have been around for 40+ years. 

 

 

Edited by Peacefully
Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

For what it's worth, using that phrase--church's indoctrinated youth--does not seem to be in your usual character.  How do you say that gay people are just living their lives and that has an impact on the people around them but for members, we are indoctrinating people?  That seems like a pretty big double standard.)

 

Fwiw I think this completely fair and accurate. I personally feel this entire thread is a bad faith effort to smear gay people. And ever since the “pedo” accusations were brought out this thread has me upset and disgusted. That’s on me and I should listen to the little voice inside telling me to take a break!
 

The indoctrination comment you make is spot on too. It’s a poor word choice and I regret it. I did not intend the negative connotation of the word, as in my mind we all indoctrinate our children. Especially when they are young. That said the word has negative connotations so while it would be acceptable for me to say I indoctrinate my children, using it to describe those on the other end of a debate is not optimal. Sorry. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, california boy said:

Please.  You are an amateur when it comes to trying to convince us that gays are pedophiles.  

Worse than an "amateur," since I have done nothing of the sort. 

To the contrary, I said this:

Quote
Quote

And you would fry anyone who flippantly suggested someone you cared about was a pedophile.

I didn't do that.

And this:

Quote
Quote

He even had a pedophile in his back pocket to spring on the thread at just the right moment.  

Again, no.

And this:

Quote
Quote

Dr Qais Munhazim, a queer Afghan scholar and Assistant Professor at Thomas Jefferson University said: "The musical is not only an orientalist depiction of Afghans as a whole, but it is also painfully damaging to the queer and trans Afghans. The musical wrongfully associates paedophilia with queerness.

In the BBC article above the 2017 Sohne/Rosser musical is described as "romanticizing child sexual abuse and child rape," and Dr. Munhazim states that it "wrongfully associates paedophilia with queerness."  I agree with Dr. Munhazim.  Pedophilia should not be equated with homosexuality.

(Emphases added.)

And this:

Quote

Again, I agree with Dr. Munhazim.  Pedophilia should not be equated with homosexuality.  But Sohne/Rosser seemed to be doing that.

(Emphasis added.)

And I quoted this:

Quote
  • "I have just seen a video of your chorus saying “they want our children” wtf you doing tarring all gay men as pedophiles. Stop this nonsense now. We gay men do not want to be harassed because you lot like and support kiddy fiddlers."

And this:

Quote
Quote

They are taking at least two tropes, comparing homosexuality to pedophelia, 

Replete with double entendre.

What are your thoughts about the creators of the song, Sohne and Rosser, having done this sort of thing before?  Did they not learn anything from that experience?

Quote

The Afghan LGBTQ community in particular has expressed discontent with the orientalist nature of the story and many have said the show harmed sexual assault survivors.

 

Dr Qais Munhazim, a queer Afghan scholar and Assistant Professor at Thomas Jefferson University said: "The musical is not only an orientalist depiction of Afghans as a whole, but it is also painfully damaging to the queer and trans Afghans. The musical wrongfully associates paedophilia with queerness.

 

Here, let me present my position a few more times:

1. Dr. Munhasim made a remark about it being wrong to associate pedophilia with queerness.  I agree with Dr. Munhazim.  Pedophilia should not be equated with homosexuality.

2. Dr. Munhasim made a remark about it being wrong to associate pedophilia with queerness.  I agree with Dr. Munhazim.  Pedophilia should not be equated with homosexuality.

3. Dr. Munhasim made a remark about it being wrong to associate pedophilia with queerness.  I agree with Dr. Munhazim.  Pedophilia should not be equated with homosexuality.

4. Dr. Munhasim made a remark about it being wrong to associate pedophilia with queerness.  I agree with Dr. Munhazim.  Pedophilia should not be equated with homosexuality.

5. Dr. Munhasim made a remark about it being wrong to associate pedophilia with queerness.  I agree with Dr. Munhazim.  Pedophilia should not be equated with homosexuality.

6. Dr. Munhasim made a remark about it being wrong to associate pedophilia with queerness.  I agree with Dr. Munhazim.  Pedophilia should not be equated with homosexuality.

7. Dr. Munhasim made a remark about it being wrong to associate pedophilia with queerness.  I agree with Dr. Munhazim.  Pedophilia should not be equated with homosexuality.

8. Dr. Munhasim made a remark about it being wrong to associate pedophilia with queerness.  I agree with Dr. Munhazim.  Pedophilia should not be equated with homosexuality.

There.  I am now on record at least ten times as saying the pedophilia should not be equated with homosexuality.

I feel I need to say this over and over not because readers here are stupid, but rather to lay bare the dishonesty of your anticipated further accusation that "convince {you} that gays are pedophiles."  That is a lie.  A flagrant and black lie.

You are trying to shame me into silence.  It will not work.

You are a bully.  I will not submit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I really have no idea what you are saying here.

I don't believe that I've said anything about the song's effect on the church's "indoctrinated youth."  The church also strives to be tolerant and fair and to teach others to do the same.  It is one of their main teachings.

(For what it's worth, using that phrase--church's indoctrinated youth--does not seem to be in your usual character.  How do you say that gay people are just living their lives and that has an impact on the people around them but for members, we are indoctrinating people?  That seems like a pretty big double standard.)

E5zAxC5VoAAAy6r?format=jpg&name=smallE5zAxC8VEAA6s1g?format=jpg&name=360x360

"After decades of children being indoctrinated and taught intolerance for anyone who is 'other,' ... now it’s our turn."

An observation:

Quote

They seemed to double down on their “joke” that they are coming for your children by saying that It’s their “turn” to do the indoctrinating.

“After decades of children being indoctrinated and taught intolerance for anyone who is ‘other,’ from using the Bible as a weapon to reparative therapy, it’s our turn.”

Similar to drag queen story hour and Nickelodeon pushing LGBTQ radicalism, this song reflects other recent efforts by the left to target children with Marxist thought. This has been a decade-plus movement to undermine traditional American values and the nuclear family; It is now in full swing and being pushed through education and the media.

And another:

Quote

Ok this makes no sense. They claim on the one hand that it was “obvious tongue-in-cheek”, meaning it wasn’t serious. Yet they go on to say in the same statement that “after decades of children being indoctrinated and taught intolerance for anyone who is ‘other’, from using the Bible as a weapon to reparative therapy, it’s our turn”. So they do want to indoctrinate our children after all, just as they sang about.

Geez. And you wonder why people are so upset at them.  Here’s a little reaction to this ridiculous statement:

Quote
“you misunderstood us when we said verbatim ‘we’re coming for your children.’”
lmaooo “also, we’re not going to back down. now ... please stop sharing the video we switched to private”
Quote

They are really upset we pointed out what they said.

Some further Twitter responses to the above statement from the SFGMC:

Quote
Quote

Don't say stuff you don't mean.
And don't pretend you didn't mean what you said.

Quote

They don't want the public to reply...

But I want them to know this sort of thing is why a lot of us can't bring ourselves to be allies.

Quote

"Hey, you know this video. Here's my reaction to it. Here's a link to it. 
Oh, it's private. Ok, I'll upload the important parts.
I'm getting struck with a DMCA, you'll just have to take my word for it."

"If we don't control the narrative, we'll control your kid instead."

Quote

Sounds like it's time to stop treating "far right" as if it's wrong.

Time to stop being afraid of being called names.

Quote

For those who don't want to read it…summary:  SF Gay Chorus is coming after you kids, they want to indoctrinate them and they are going to get the evidence off of social media.

Quote

With lyrics such as thoes how would anyone not think it would  create a firestorm and a issue to further divide. A modicum of common sence was certainly lacking in doing this song and its effect was as expected in today's world

Quote

I knew they would immediately play the victim card and claim they were under attack. So predictable

Quote

“Context”? That’s their position? If it’s just misunderstanding the “context”, they should be letting others see it and judge for themselves. Decent people will understand context. Their furious hiding of it speaks to the “context” being recognised by them as a big problem

Quote

it reads as a panicked admission of guilt but with no apology. they probably didn't even realize what they were doing. now they do, but have no path of recourse. logic gets blocked by the ego and emotions.

Quote

Well there’s nothing funny about their song, and saying it’s our turn to indoctrinate, as the Bible has done, is a pretty big indicator that they meant exactly what they said!

Quote

They can walk this back however they want. However, you singing about coming for our kids is real. The environment y'all are creating made you feel like you could say it out loud and be accepted, you were wrong! So FU for even thinking this was/is ok.

Quote

Why even use lyrics like that? Tongue and cheek or not they’re offensive and inappropriate. Your not teaching tolerance or love when you threaten to force your values and ideas on others. The LGBT community should condemn this and apologize.

Quote

They can live their lives as they see fit.

It is their right.

This is America.

It is also my right to like it or not.

But, I do not like any group pushing their beliefs in my face and trying to force me to like Iit no matter who they are.

Quote

"It was tongue in check humor"

"After decades of children being Indoctrinated and taught intolerance, using the bible as a weapon, it's our turn".

So definitely not humor

Quote

taken “out of context”…they really think they can get away with that excuse? AND, they locked the tweet. Cowards and creeps.

Quote

If any adult, gay or otherwise, jokes about “we’re coming for your kids” they are sick and creepy, at best.

Quote

No, they're not upset. They crave attention - any kind will do. They knew precisely the reaction they would get with that song. It plays into their oppression and victim narrative.

Quote

“When someone tells you who they are, believe them!” - Maya Angelou

Quote

We won't forget it and do not consent. Leave our children alone. That's where I draw the line and they crossed it. It isn't satire.

Quote

They say "they will not be threatened" but didn't they threaten to "come for" our children?

Quote

Willfully, gleefully, sexualize children... expect violence.

Quote

This self-serving “we’re just so misunderstood” lie from the left has been exposed big time. We’re not taking you “out of context” or “misinformed”. We hear you. We take you seriously when you speak. And we’re actively rejecting your bs.

Quote

Shouldn't have threatened to come after our kids. We won't let it happen.

Quote

You see that line, “After decades of indoctrinating children… it’s our turn.”

Big cringe.

Quote

Imagine your neighbor saying that he's not comfortable with you being around his wife and kids because he thinks you're going to do them harm and you reply,"I am"

 

The threats of violence I am seeing are deeply problematic.  The song/video was calculated to be offensive and provocative, but we need to reign in the threats of violence, some of which may turn into actual violence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The song is satire. This is what converting your kids against your will looks like:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CMAmOEFhuB3/?utm_medium=share_sheet
 

That’s it. They are just living their lives.

But some, it seems, are not content with "just living their lives."

Some are gloatingly taunting us, accusing us of bigotry and hate in one breath and in the next using tell us that now it's their "turn" to "indoctrinate" and "come for" and "convert" our children.

So much for the whole "live and let live" thing, I guess?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...