Aunt Haley:
Will S.,
If you say “homo” or “queer” one more time in this thread in reference to homosexual men, I’m sticking you in moderation.
Will. S:
AH: I see.
Interesting.
Kathy:
Curiouser and curiouser… shakes head.
Kathy:
“But what the hell do homos know about what is truly sexy”
How else should Will put this, then?
This? But what the hell do homosexuals know about what is truly sexy?
Shakes head once again.
Will S:
Apparently that would have been more acceptable. Don’t know why the abbreviation is problematic, or why we Christians should care… But, her casa, her rules…
Anna:
How about “people with same-sex attraction”? It can be shortened to SSA.
Matthew:
Sodomites?
Jennifer:
“If you say “homo” or “queer” one more time in this thread in reference to homosexual men, I’m sticking you in moderation”
Yipes.
I understand the queer thing, but not the abbreviation (not to criticize Haley) or why it infuriates people. It’s one thing to retain politeness on a public blog like this, but when I was discussing homosexual people with others on a movie blog, some of which were Christians, and I got tired of spelling out the word homosexual, I finally used the abbreviation once. And whoa: the place exploded. The debate lasted an hour. I went to my best friend, a liberal woman with gay friends, afterward and told her about it. She was nonplussed about the fuss, and her comments were hilarious. You’d have to email me, though, if you wanted to know what they were 😛
Why again are Christians so damn afraid of offending the feelings of fudge-packers again? Evangelicals, giving into the trends, once again. Looks like it’s up to Papists, Reformed, and High-Church Prots to keep the faith.
Patriactionary 
Will S.
December 19, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Hi Anna, welcome to Patriactionary.
I’m wondering why we shouldn’t call homosexuals ‘homosexuals’, or what’s so offensive about the abbreviation of that word, or the word ‘queer’, or the Biblical term ‘sodomite’; why ought we use a term like ‘same-sex attraction’? That seems, to me, like needlessly giving into the progressive spirit of the day, where those people get to define what we call them, and term anything else as offensive.
We are all traditionalist Christians; why should we pander to them, cave in to their demands?
Svar
December 19, 2011 at 2:24 pm
“There is a vast gulf separating our sexes in this life and I believe it can be bridged through compassion and love, not through polemics, especially with those who actually appreciate the other sex and want to understand where the other is coming from”
Anna, you do realize that this is just a blog, right? We’re all here to just shoot the breeze and discuss things the way men do (womenfolk are free to hang along of course). We’re not here to bridge gaps, pet bunnies, or braid each others’ hair. I still get this feeling that you want to nag us into playing nice.
As for the “vast gulf separating our sexes in this life” and the deal between men and women… As much as I’ve read, observed, and experienced, I’ve come along to the view that these things really don’t have to be that complicated; we just make them that way.
Svar
December 19, 2011 at 2:34 pm
“I have not seen this version of manliness from the little interaction that I’ve had with the authors and commentators of this blog.”
Can’t believe I missed this gem.
Anna
December 19, 2011 at 3:22 pm
7man: I actually agree with you about respect tho I think that’s a bigger issue for men. The flip side is for women needing to feel secure/taken care of. There are “dark sides” to the need for respect and to the need for needing to feel secure, and I think that a lot of the sex wars comes from those.
Will S: I agree with you about fighting the zeitgeist but homosexuals *are* people first. Some of them are trying to shove their agenda down and throats and that is annoying and we should fight it, but I don’t see how using outdated, offensive terms is going to get us anywhere. I like the term “people with same-sex attraction” or SSA because it takes into account people who experience it but who don’t want to engage in those behaviors. In any case, not every homosexual is of the narcissistic agenda-driven bent. They just want to live and let live.
Svar: I don’t care what you do on your blog but don’t quote me and then expect that I won’t join the fray.
Will S.
December 19, 2011 at 4:16 pm
@ Anna: Of course they’re people. But you haven’t answered, what is wrong with the word ‘homosexual’ itself, that we must switch to something like ‘people with same-sex attraction’? (A bit of a mouthful, that, no?) And what is so offensive with shortening ‘homosexual’ to ‘homo’; how is the word ‘queer’, which they chose to use for themselves (before they did so, queer just meant odd; not that their behaviour isn’t odd, so queer is an appropriate word; if they can use it to describe themselves, why not the rest of us?). And what is wrong with ‘sodomite’, a term derived from Scripture? It’s not like I said ‘fag’ or ‘faggot’; those might be considered offensive terms, and I avoid calling people by such terms. But ‘homo’ and ‘queer’ and ‘sodomite’, I can’t see anything truly offensive about them, truly wrong with them.
How are those terms ‘out-of-date’; what does date or time have to do with right and wrong? God is the same “yesterday, today and forever”; why should we care what the world of the 21st century thinks about anything, if we be traditionalist Christians?
God hates sin; He hates evil, and He hates it in all times and places. He wishes us, His people, to stand up for His truth, His ways, and to oppose evil. How does capitulating to homosexuals, in terms of calling them only what they want to be called and not calling them anything they don’t want to be called, equal ‘fighting the good fight’, as God calls us to do?
As for the ones who just want to live and let live, we’re not going after them, are we? We’re going after those who are activists, shoving their agendas down our throats, indeed. Why should the other ones, the quiet, peaceful ones, get offended when we are taking on their brethren? If they do get offended by the things we say, doesn’t that mean they don’t really want to live and let live, per se, but in fact silently, tacitly, support the actions of their louder, brasher brethren?
Svar
December 19, 2011 at 4:21 pm
“but I don’t see how using outdated, offensive terms is going to get us anywhere”
I don’t see why Christians feel the need to care. I don’t see why we need to pander to their feelings and “sodomite” and “homosexual” are technical terms. The best way to “fight” this problem is to simply ignore it. I just don’t see how pandering to homosexuals helps anything anymore than pulling off a tasteless Westboro Baptist Church spiel.
As for “outdated, offensive terms”… these change constantly. Why are we to let them change the goalposts and reframe the terms of discussion?
“I like the term “people with same-sex attraction” or SSA because it takes into account people who experience it but who don’t want to engage in those behaviors.”
Once again, what difference does it make? Homosexual is a technical term and “homo” is a shortened version. Once again, I don’t see why grown men need to watch what they say to spare the feelings of homosexuals. Fags, shit-packers, butt-pirates, queers, is all fair game. It’s not like they show respect for anything of ours. Case in point: Roman Catholic Church.
On top of that, why do people who experience homosexual feelings but don’t act upon them need to be differentiated? It’s like nowadays every fucking minority-racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious needs special consideration. It’s ridiculous for Christians to give into that kind of crap because it never, ever ends: http://samsonsjawbone.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/742/
The Old Right who warned about the (relative)normalization of other deviant sex acts seem to to have been right.
“In any case, not every homosexual is of the narcissistic agenda-driven bent. They just want to live and let live. “
Really? As Roissy would say, “the exceptions don’t make the rules”. They push a little, we push back. Revolutionaries breed Reactionaries.
“Svar: I don’t care what you do on your blog but don’t quote me and then expect that I won’t join the fray.”
Fair enough, but this wasn’t an attack upon you. I quoted you because I found your SSA term to be ridiculous and typical spineless Evangelical behavior-there are times when you need to hold the line.
MikeJJ
December 19, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Just when things start getting juicy you decide to censor yourselves. Who are you afraid of?
MikeJJ
December 19, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Editing my previous comment where I baaaaaa your point but tell you to take it more seriously is absurd considering the topic of the post.
Svar
December 19, 2011 at 5:41 pm
“Just when things start getting juicy you decide to censor yourselves. Who are you afraid of?”
Where have we censored ourselves?
“Editing my previous comment where I laud your point but tell you to take it more seriously is absurd considering the topic of the post.”
To be honest, none of us give a damn. Go back to felching over at Haley’s, no one’s forcing you to act like a whiny little bitch over here.
Will S.
December 19, 2011 at 5:46 pm
I didn’t do the baahammering, though it’s up to my fellow Councillors if they wish to use it.
Svar
December 19, 2011 at 5:57 pm
“I didn’t do the baahammering, though it’s up to my fellow Councillors if they wish to use it.”
Hey, Will, what was that laudatory comment that MikeJJ wrote on this site after mewling at us from Haley’s Fag-Hag Station?
Seems full of shit to me.
Will S.
December 19, 2011 at 6:03 pm
He had said:
“No, I get why you did it. You were on a roll making some good points then allowed yourself to get sidetracked so you could have a giggle with your friends. It was a waste of momentum.”
I disagreed, but I thought it was fair comment. Hence why I responded to him; I only edited my comment after I’d seen the baahammer had been deployed.
Matthew
December 19, 2011 at 11:26 pm
MikeJJ should note that I am typically the wielder of the Hammer of Transmutation. You bore me, therefore you baaaaaaaa.
Matthew
December 19, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Svar, you may have noticed that I express appreciation for the idea of an emotional disorder best named “same sex attraction”. It’s delicious to me that churchian femtards do, too. Because it means I can sneak up on them, all sensitive-like, then say “FAG”.
Matthew
December 19, 2011 at 11:33 pm
“Just when things start getting juicy you decide to censor yourselves. Who are you afraid of?”
In case anyone didn’t catch it, this is an attempt to manipulate. The next comment by MikeJJ I see that isn’t relevant, cogent, and honest gets him banned. I halfway think he’s a she anyway, which means instant nuke.
Will S.
December 20, 2011 at 7:41 am
Fair enough, Matthew.
I agree, that is manipulative.
I noticed, BTW, over at Haley’s, that MikeJJ didn’t bother to attack me till I could not respond there, having been placed into moderation. Cowardly, that, eh?
Will S.
December 20, 2011 at 10:25 am
BTW, love that phrase, ‘churchian femtards’; fits them afraid-of-offending-queers ‘Christian’ women, perfectly, as well as others.
Svar
December 20, 2011 at 10:48 am
“In case anyone didn’t catch it, this is an attempt to manipulate. The next comment by MikeJJ I see that isn’t relevant, cogent, and honest gets him banned. I halfway think he’s a she anyway, which means instant nuke.”
I’m suspecting the same. “Juicy”? Which man even says that? My first feeling was that this was some extremely supplicating little twat, but I find it strange that he/she/it shows up only after Haley loses her shit. Never saw this MikeJJ before. Probably a troll.
“No, I get why you did it. You were on a roll making some good points then allowed yourself to get sidetracked so you could have a giggle with your friends. It was a waste of momentum.”
This statement implies agreement, but the tone implies disagreement. Matthew’s right, this is a subtle manipulation technique. Next time, ban.
Svar
December 20, 2011 at 10:50 am
“Svar, you may have noticed that I express appreciation for the idea of an emotional disorder best named ‘same sex attraction’. It’s delicious to me that churchian femtards do, too. Because it means I can sneak up on them, all sensitive-like, then say ‘FAG’.”
Well, it was one of those stupid sayings made up on the spot by some PC Eastern Orthodox femtard who basically acts like an Evangelical.
But good point. I really like the idea of bait-n-switching.
MikeJJ
December 20, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Eeeeh-haaaww!!!! Eeeeh-haaww!!
Will S.
December 20, 2011 at 3:29 pm
@ MikeJJ: Uh, that wasn’t self-censorship, so much as, not wanting to get pigeon-holed as something we’re not particularly about, here, which is a real danger in discussing that sort of thing. Besides, we were pretty much having a convo with only three people involved anyway, at that point; no-one else was participating.
Our blog. We’ll talk about whatever we want, but also not talk about whatever we don’t wish to discuss, publicly. If we were all that afraid of, or worried about offending, that group, we wouldn’t have even discussed what we did, for so long… Obviously we’re not; we just don’t want to be misunderstood by outsiders / newcomers… So we’ll do as we please, thank you.
Matthew
December 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm
“I’m certain I don’t bore any of you since my issue was you not taking the topic, one I’m also interested in, seriously enough. “Tone implies disagreement” – THAT’S all it takes to offend you?”
Shitty arguments and transparent attempts at manipulation bore me.
Matthew
December 20, 2011 at 5:42 pm
MikeJJ: “The censoring I meant is how in the very same thread condemning Haley’s actions, which are either motivated by a desire to not offend a certain group (and face reprisal?) or wanting to keep the thread from veering off course, you guys decide to then take a potentially controversial and interesting topic to private email for seemingly the same reasons.”
This would appear to be a fair point. I now proceed to demonstrate how it’s wrong:
Kike, hebe, yid, bignose, Christ-killer, hooknose, hymie, marrano.
Do you see what I did there?
Svar
December 20, 2011 at 6:11 pm
“The censoring I meant is how in the very same thread condemning Haley’s actions, which are either motivated by a desire to not offend a certain group (and face reprisal?) or wanting to keep the thread from veering off course, you guys decide to then take a potentially controversial and interesting topic to private email for seemingly the same reasons. I don’t see the difference. Someone could twist that as you being afraid of truth or standing up for the faith.”
We don’t give a fuck about how someone can “twist” our intentions. This topic is about the ridiculous fag-hagging tendencies of aging, childless Evangelical women not about the Jews and their dealings.
“Kike, hebe, yid, bignose, Christ-killer, hooknose, hymie, marrano.”
You forgot, “untermenschen” and “neo-con”.
““Tone implies disagreement” – THAT’S all it takes to offend you?”
No, you stupid cunt, I’m not offended, I’m pointing out how you’re just a troll. Now you can fuck off.
Will S.
December 20, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Then there’s the great French slur, “baptisé au sécateur”, which means “baptized with pruning shears”.
Matthew
December 20, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Is that anything like the famous jump scare scene from Exorcist III?
Will S.
December 20, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Not familiar with that, I’m afraid.
Matthew
December 20, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Ain’t gonna spoil it for you.
Will S.
December 20, 2011 at 7:40 pm
O.K.
OffTheCuff
December 20, 2011 at 10:27 pm
My mother’s cousin posted this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-jay-emerson-johnson-phd/homos-for-the-holidays-a-_b_1161494.html
Now you know why I was a confused Lutheran…
Will S.
December 21, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Your mother’s cousin is an idiot mainline liberal.
“Now you know why I was a confused Lutheran…”
Not really; that cousin of your ma’s was a liberal, mainline Episcopalian; what that has to do with the Lutheranism in which you were apparently raised, I don’t know because you haven’t really explained that to us, OTC. But you said back then that you “feel a lot more qualified to understand religion from the outside than the inside”, so why don’t you enlighten us?
Svar
December 21, 2011 at 4:07 pm
@ Will
Haha, I know right? He feels so qualified to understand religion(especially Christianity) from the outside than on the inside but he doesn’t even know that the Lutheran Church and the Episcopalian Church are two different churches.
Just the standard that we’ve all come to expect, huh?
Will S.
December 21, 2011 at 4:31 pm
‘Tis most amusing, indeed, Svar.
Svar
December 21, 2011 at 7:42 pm
“‘Tis most amusing, indeed, Svar.”
Definitely. I always love when the experts come by to have their say. Now, I wonder, at which point will we be criticized for our lack of Christian charity? Because, accommodating the obtuse is a Christian duty after all.
Will S.
December 21, 2011 at 7:56 pm
The moment we disagree with them, of course. 😉
Svar
December 22, 2011 at 10:45 am
Interesting. Our expert on the Faith has still not shown by to show us the difference between the Lutheran and Episcopalian Churches… or how something a mainline leftist Episcopalian said would confuse a Lutheran.
Maybe he is trying to look for his qualifications, hmm? I’m rather disappointed. I was expecting an nice, angsty, ButtFlowing and heart-wrenching story. Oh well.
Will S.
December 22, 2011 at 11:06 am
Too bad; so sad…
OffTheCuff
December 22, 2011 at 1:44 pm
I didn’t mean it in the sense I am more qualified than you, that’s silly.
I meant that by reading stuff written by you (and others like you, CL, 7man, etc), I now have a far better understanding — relative to myself — than when I was taught by people inside my own church.
That was *supposed* to be a compliment.
Of course, if you want to be a dick about someone attempting to learn, then you’ll be exactly like most hard-line you’re-with-us-or-against-us Christians I’ve known.
Svar
December 22, 2011 at 2:20 pm
I see that I have misunderstood your intentions, OTC. For what it’s worth, I have seen read some of your comments throughout the blogosphere and I assumed you were just being obtuse, not trying to genuinely learn. We, over at Patriactionary, have had to deal with alot of those types throughout the ‘net.
“Of course, if you want to be a dick about someone attempting to learn, then you’ll be exactly like most hard-line you’re-with-us-or-against-us Christians I’ve known.”
I’m completely and one-hundred percent open about someone attempting to learn. I’m just going to be a dick when I start smelling bullshit, you know what I mean?
It’s good to know that we got this sorted out.
OffTheCuff
December 28, 2011 at 12:41 pm
My intentions are to learn what I can from those who really do walk to the walk — admittedly, I am a bit of a dick when I smell hypocrisy or trying to suss people out. So I see where you’re coming from.
Will S.
December 28, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Ah, I see. If that be so, then, OTC, you’re welcome to follow us on our journey, and if you have something to contribute to the convo, to do so. Cheers. 🙂