Jump to content

gay geocaching group


Recommended Posts

Even so, not everyone was free until the Emancipation Proclamation Act many years after that.

Little known fact: not one slave was freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

Secretary of State William H. Seward commented, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

Link to comment

...The gay people that I know are just normal people leading normal lives.

You were doing good 'till you got to that point. Their being NOT normal is the whole issue here, for both sides.

They are normal in every way, except for who they are physically attracted to. And since I'm married, and not available for anyone other than my spouse, who they are attracted to is of no interest to me.

 

I'd like to know who appointed a couple of posters on this thread to be the arbiter of what "normal" is?

 

What gives ANYONE the right to tell gay people they aren't "normal"?

 

I find that statement to be extremely offensive. Hear that TAR and Don B?

 

TAR you wanted to see some evidence of intolerance on this thread? There you go.

Edited by ThePetersTrio
Link to comment

Even so, not everyone was free until the Emancipation Proclamation Act many years after that.

Even that depends on what freedoms you're talking about. Most women in the United States weren't free to vote until 1920. And most 17 year olds still cannot.

:laughing: Thanks. I read 4wheelin_fool's post and said out loud, "I guess he's not a woman, cause he didn't think of women voting". Not that you have to be a woman to think of that, it's just what I blurted (no idea if Canadian Rockies is a man or a woman).

Link to comment

...The gay people that I know are just normal people leading normal lives.

You were doing good 'till you got to that point. Their being NOT normal is the whole issue here, for both sides.

They are normal in every way, except for who they are physically attracted to. And since I'm married, and not available for anyone other than my spouse, who they are attracted to is of no interest to me.

 

What the hell is "normal"? Sheesh! We play a game that many "muggles" find strange. I'm not even entirely sure what is "normal" for me. I certainly am not gonna decide what is "normal" for you.

 

If someone can find love and happiness I am gonna stand up and cheer for them. Well done! Congratulations!

Link to comment
Hmmm, This thread took a surprsing path.... Actually, what I was asking was were there gay people on geocaching.com that organize group events in our area that we could participate in. Maybe we'll start one up, and see what happens. Always great to make new friends, which was the intent.
...ant the path continues to take many twists and turns! B)

 

As a recent post (yes, on page 4! or was it 3?) has suggested, perhaps you should start a group. My one thought of caution, which I had when I first read this, was don't be disappointed if you list an event (see the underlining I added to the post) and it gets denied by your reviewer if you invite only LGBT cachers. The way the guidelines are written, it should be open to all cachers. So, start a group, host an event, but invite all to join and you'll be fine!

 

Other than that, all I have to say is that for me, the only time someone's significant other has ever come up in a geocaching conversation is when the topic of how crazy they think we are comes up. Really, I have no interest in the sexuality of who I'm caching with. Just don't need that image, either way. [fingers in ears][scrunched eyes]lalalalalalala......[/fingers in ears][/scrunched eyes]:laughing:

Link to comment
:laughing: Thanks. I read 4wheelin_fool's post and said out loud, "I guess he's not a woman, cause he didn't think of women voting". Not that you have to be a woman to think of that, it's just what I blurted (no idea if Canadian Rockies is a man or a woman).
:laughing: Thanks. I read your post and said out loud, "I'm glad I'm not the only one who blurts things out at their computer".
Link to comment
Hmmm, This thread took a surprsing path.... Actually, what I was asking was were there gay people on geocaching.com that organize group events in our area that we could participate in. Maybe we'll start one up, and see what happens. Always great to make new friends, which was the intent.

My one thought of caution, which I had when I first read this, was don't be disappointed if you list an event (see the underlining I added to the post) and it gets denied by your reviewer if you invite only LGBT cachers. The way the guidelines are written, it should be open to all cachers. So, start a group, host an event, but invite all to join and you'll be fine!

Good point, and well worth mentioning. But it applies only to group events listed as caches on geocaching.com for which you get a smiley if you attend.

 

If someone wants to organize a non-Groundspeak group event with its own mailing list, then they can invite whomever they wish.

Link to comment
:laughing: Thanks. I read 4wheelin_fool's post and said out loud, "I guess he's not a woman, cause he didn't think of women voting". Not that you have to be a woman to think of that, it's just what I blurted (no idea if Canadian Rockies is a man or a woman).
:laughing: Thanks. I read your post and said out loud, "I'm glad I'm not the only one who blurts things out at their computer".

:) Well, to be perfectly honest, I talk to things (or myself) a lot. I talk to the computer, the tv, cars, whathaveyou. My kids are always laughing at me, asking me who I'm talking to, or why I think the tv people will talk back to me. :P

Link to comment

Even so, not everyone was free until the Emancipation Proclamation Act many years after that.

Little known fact: not one slave was freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

Secretary of State William H. Seward commented, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

 

So true. People are never really granted freedom. It is declared. You don't ask "may I be free?", or "thank you for allowing me to be free". You say I AM FREE. They may have been granted freedom, but it wasn't until the 1960s that it was declared.

Link to comment

Even so, not everyone was free until the Emancipation Proclamation Act many years after that.

Little known fact: not one slave was freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

Secretary of State William H. Seward commented, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

 

So true. People are never really granted freedom. It is declared. You don't ask "may I be free?", or "thank you for allowing me to be free". You say I AM FREE. They may have been granted freedom, but it wasn't until the 1960s that it was declared.

You miss my point.

 

The Emancipation Proclamation did nothing.

 

It declared slaves to be freed, in states which denied that they were subject to the laws of the United States. Therefore, no slaves in those states were freed.

 

It specifically did not grant freedom to slaves who were being held in slavery in states which were under the authority of the United States.

 

Thus, the Seward quote.

Link to comment
Hmmm, This thread took a surprsing path.... Actually, what I was asking was were there gay people on geocaching.com that organize group events in our area that we could participate in. Maybe we'll start one up, and see what happens. Always great to make new friends, which was the intent.

My one thought of caution, which I had when I first read this, was don't be disappointed if you list an event (see the underlining I added to the post) and it gets denied by your reviewer if you invite only LGBT cachers. The way the guidelines are written, it should be open to all cachers. So, start a group, host an event, but invite all to join and you'll be fine!

Good point, and well worth mentioning. But it applies only to group events listed as caches on geocaching.com for which you get a smiley if you attend.

 

If someone wants to organize a non-Groundspeak group event with its own mailing list, then they can invite whomever they wish.

 

Exactly. Apart from Groundspeak, people organize a number of events or caching activities for particular groups. Perhaps some of the angst in this particular thread stemmed from people thinking in terms of sanctioned geocaching.com events, which raise different issues.

 

But as OregonCacher noted, even if the thread got off topic, it has been a good discussion. We disagree about a lot -- I sometimes describe myself as a simple Eisenhower Republican who believes in fundamental equality under the law -- but I appreciate his thoughtfulness. In my youth, I took various causes to the streets, walking for peace, working in support of everything from Native Americans to gay rights, or urging people not to buy grapes. I am sure I made some people uncomfortable. So I can understand when people do things that push the bounds in various ways. Certainly, some people of various sexual orientations like to do things that are more outlandish -- I have never attended the Folsom Street Festival in San Francisco because leather is not my particular interest, but I can imagine that some people would be offended by it. But most of the LGBT people I know are simply interested in living their lives -- raising the kids, running an agency that I happen to work for, being the (former) national poet laureate, and the like. If anything, they are often more "normal" than I, and do not understand my interest in finding bison tubes or Ammo cans that contain a few broken items. My wife has even been known to think I am strange.

 

That is why I appreciate this comment:

 

What the hell is "normal"? Sheesh! We play a game that many "muggles" find strange. I'm not even entirely sure what is "normal" for me. I certainly am not gonna decide what is "normal" for you. If someone can find love and happiness I am gonna stand up and cheer for them. Well done! Congratulations!

 

Indeed.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

If I had my wife or girlfriend dress up like a 12 year old girl so I could get turned on I sure wouldn't run around advertising it to the rest of the world, so why should you run around telling everyone you are a homosexual?

:huh:

 

Because there is a big difference between the two? :blink:

 

 

But thanks for posting that. You just illustrated perfectly why a separate group is justified, as well as everyone else who is downplaying it as silly. It's difficult for them to blend in with other cachers when there are attitudes out there like that. Or perhaps you are jealous? I cant tell.

Why is it different? Both cases would be considered abnormal by most people. In my post I never said I was against the homosexuals having their own group, more power to them. You can carry on any type of abnormal sexual activities that you like, I just don't like it when groups like this act out bunch cram it down peoples throats. If you can't tell I'll make it clear to you, it's certainly nothing to be jealous about.

 

You are comparing someone who fantasizes about being a sexual predator, to someone else who is in a same sex relationship.

 

A person who fantasizes about preying on young children is a great danger to society. Their perversion is not relationship based, or lifestyle based, but only revolves around an psychopathic, egotistical desire to satify themself. Psychopathic people have absolutely no feelings towards others. This also frequently occurs with someone who is mentally disturbed about their own percieved shortcomings, and may act out in other non sexual ways to compensate for that. In many cases they believe that their behaviour is more normal to society because they are targeting the opposite sex. Such as someone who has many young wives under the age of 15, but then announces that gay people are evil.

Now you are putting your spin on what I post. I didn't mean someone who fantasizes about preying on young children, I meant it as being a fetish like some people have a foot fetish or a long hair fetish. There are probably millions of people in the world that have fetishes and go through life never harming anyone.

Link to comment

...The gay people that I know are just normal people leading normal lives.

You were doing good 'till you got to that point. Their being NOT normal is the whole issue here, for both sides.

They are normal in every way, except for who they are physically attracted to. And since I'm married, and not available for anyone other than my spouse, who they are attracted to is of no interest to me.

 

I'd like to know who appointed a couple of posters on this thread to be the arbiter of what "normal" is?

 

What gives ANYONE the right to tell gay people they aren't "normal"?

 

I find that statement to be extremely offensive. Hear that TAR and Don B?

 

TAR you wanted to see some evidence of intolerance on this thread? There you go.

 

Depends on your definition of normal, truly.

Merriam-Webster defines it as:

a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle

b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

 

If the ratio of 10% gay to 90% straight is correct, I'd classify that 90% as a regular pattern. No offense is intended by this.

 

I know I said I wouldn't post again. I've just been turning things over in my mind for two days, since I read what Chokecherry posted. It's a viewpoint I admit I have never considered before, and she made some telling points.

 

A major problem is that a movement or religion, any movement or religion, can become defined all too easily by the militant, in your face, my way or the highway, me above all, types that claim all the attention. We've seen it time and time again. Like the example given above, of the gay people acting out, or the people who threatened Chokecherry for what she is, or the people who try to kill abortion workers, or the Westboro gang (I won't dignify them by associating "church" with them). It becomes the public face, becomes the stereotype, and it gets harder and harder to dig through and see the people who just want to live and let live, the longer and louder these extreme fringes act.

 

The rest of it, I'll just refer to OregonCacher's posts for. I know I've strayed off topic again, but I think the topic itself has shifted, and like I said, I've been mentally chewing on a lot the last day or two, and wanted to put some semi-coherent thoughts down to help the process.

 

Closing off with just one honest question: There have been homosexuals throughout the entirety of human history. Why is it such a divisive issue now? Is something forcing it? What is the cause?

Link to comment

Closing off with just one honest question: There have been homosexuals throughout the entirety of human history. Why is it such a divisive issue now? Is something forcing it? What is the cause?

 

during the inquisition they burned us, during the holocaust they gassed us. i guess more of us are standing up and saying enough, we don't need/want your bigoted attitudes.

 

btw i have a life, not a lifestyle and my life includes caching with friends both straight and gay.

 

runs and puts on nomex suit.

Link to comment

...The gay people that I know are just normal people leading normal lives.

You were doing good 'till you got to that point. Their being NOT normal is the whole issue here, for both sides.

They are normal in every way, except for who they are physically attracted to. And since I'm married, and not available for anyone other than my spouse, who they are attracted to is of no interest to me.

 

I'd like to know who appointed a couple of posters on this thread to be the arbiter of what "normal" is?

 

What gives ANYONE the right to tell gay people they aren't "normal"?

 

I find that statement to be extremely offensive. Hear that TAR and Don B?

 

TAR you wanted to see some evidence of intolerance on this thread? There you go.

 

Depends on your definition of normal, truly.

Merriam-Webster defines it as:

a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle

b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

 

If the ratio of 10% gay to 90% straight is correct, I'd classify that 90% as a regular pattern. No offense is intended by this.

 

I know I said I wouldn't post again. I've just been turning things over in my mind for two days, since I read what Chokecherry posted. It's a viewpoint I admit I have never considered before, and she made some telling points.

 

A major problem is that a movement or religion, any movement or religion, can become defined all too easily by the militant, in your face, my way or the highway, me above all, types that claim all the attention. We've seen it time and time again. Like the example given above, of the gay people acting out, or the people who threatened Chokecherry for what she is, or the people who try to kill abortion workers, or the Westboro gang (I won't dignify them by associating "church" with them). It becomes the public face, becomes the stereotype, and it gets harder and harder to dig through and see the people who just want to live and let live, the longer and louder these extreme fringes act.

 

The rest of it, I'll just refer to OregonCacher's posts for. I know I've strayed off topic again, but I think the topic itself has shifted, and like I said, I've been mentally chewing on a lot the last day or two, and wanted to put some semi-coherent thoughts down to help the process.

 

Closing off with just one honest question: There have been homosexuals throughout the entirety of human history. Why is it such a divisive issue now? Is something forcing it? What is the cause?

 

I'm sorry Sioneva but if your argument is that the majority of any group is "normal" and the minority of any group is abnormal then I'm going to vehemently disagree. You can quote dictionary definitions until the cows come home, it won't matter to me.

 

Normal when used in this context is offensive in its implication...that being those in the minority are NOT normal. Gay people are as normal as straight people are. They are driven by their biology to love people of the same sex. It isn't a choice (as some would wish to believe) any more than it is a choice to have brown eyes. They are NORMAL in every sense of the word. And just because some people don't like that, it doesn't change that fact. Sorry.

 

BTW, using your definition of "normal" you do realize you are saying that while people aren't "normal" simply because they aren't the world's majority race?

 

As to your last question, I'd say emzernask answered it quite well.

 

FWIW, I hope you continue to chew. And being that you have outed yourself previously as a Catholic how about a question for you? If God is omnniscient and omnipotent, why would some of His followers question His creation of gay people?

 

(that question is open to anyone who believes in God - doesn't have to be limited to just Sioneva)

Edited by ThePetersTrio
Link to comment

As to your last question, I'd say emzernask answered it quite well.

 

FWIW, I hope you continue to chew. And being that you have outed yourself previously as a Catholic how about a question for you? If God is omnniscient and omnipotent, why would some of His followers question His creation of gay people?

 

(that question is open to anyone who believes in God - doesn't have to be limited to just Sioneva)

 

Well, since someone already just labelled me bigoted... and this is going to be waaaay off topic, so I'll apologize in advance.... I'm not not uncomfortable with what they are, I'm uncomfortable with what they do.

 

This is how I see it. God created people and gave them free will. While I believe that the natural order of things is that opposites are meant to attract, for whatever reason, that isn't always the case. But... and here is where free will comes in... just because there is an attraction doesn't require an action. As a straight woman, I can feel a very strong attraction to a straight man. It doesn't follow that I have to act on it, or that I should.

 

So, no, I'm not questioning the creation of people with a tendency to be attracted to the same sex. I just don't agree with the choices they make, but God gave them free will to make those choices.

 

Regarding the definition of 'normal': I'm aware I have a tendency to split hairs. But words having meaning, sometimes I wish people would think more about the meanings before tossing them out. That's all. :(

 

(and re: my question - I was hoping people would actually think about it before answering, not just toss off a one-liner insult)

Edited by Sioneva
Link to comment

(and re: my question - I was hoping people would actually think about it before answering, not just toss off a one-liner insult)

 

oh i thought long and hard before i answered. i've been thinking long and hard since the OP posted and the reasonable and not so reasonable replies started pouring in. i did not accuse you personally of being a bigot; you asked why it currently seems to be an issue and i answered. so what exactly do we do that makes you uncomfortable? is it that we love who we love? i've been with my partner/spouse for 34 years and we will be together until the end of days. i am so lucky, all my caching friends know who i am, who my partner is and who we are together; i wish the same for all cachers regardless of who they love.

Link to comment

I am lucky to have friends...gay and straight. To me they are my friends - sexual orientation, religion or politics don't matter. I don't give a toss, as long as we can all be whoever and whatever we are without any pretense. Or fear of ridicule. Or fear of being ostracized.

We are all human, have feelings and want to be accepted as a person first, and (for argument's sake) a Democrat second.

I try to put myself in others' shoes and treat them how I would wish to be treated. Unless someone is downright nasty, I believe in live and let live and love one another.

Hugs to everyone!

Link to comment

Closing off with just one honest question: There have been homosexuals throughout the entirety of human history. Why is it such a divisive issue now? Is something forcing it? What is the cause?

 

during the inquisition they burned us, during the holocaust they gassed us. i guess more of us are standing up and saying enough, we don't need/want your bigoted attitudes.

 

btw i have a life, not a lifestyle and my life includes caching with friends both straight and gay.

 

runs and puts on nomex suit.

 

Should not be controversial. And sad if it is.

 

Ck and gang

Link to comment

Even so, not everyone was free until the Emancipation Proclamation Act many years after that.

Even that depends on what freedoms you're talking about. Most women in the United States weren't free to vote until 1920. And most 17 year olds still cannot.

:laughing: Thanks. I read 4wheelin_fool's post and said out loud, "I guess he's not a woman, cause he didn't think of women voting". Not that you have to be a woman to think of that, it's just what I blurted (no idea if Canadian Rockies is a man or a woman).

 

Women were "free", just not equal. There is a bit of a difference between held in captivity and treated as property compared to being treated as a child. Not all comparisons are alike, and not all people are alike. They never will be. But all should be respected, despite what someone else thinks is disgusting to them.

 

Some people never will be free, as it is more of a state of mind. Some women still are not free, and some minorities are still being discriminated against. It is a continual battle. Freedom is not free.

You have to stand up for it constantly.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Even so, not everyone was free until the Emancipation Proclamation Act many years after that.

Little known fact: not one slave was freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

Secretary of State William H. Seward commented, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

 

So true. People are never really granted freedom. It is declared. You don't ask "may I be free?", or "thank you for allowing me to be free". You say I AM FREE. They may have been granted freedom, but it wasn't until the 1960s that it was declared.

You miss my point.

 

The Emancipation Proclamation did nothing.

 

It declared slaves to be freed, in states which denied that they were subject to the laws of the United States. Therefore, no slaves in those states were freed.

 

It specifically did not grant freedom to slaves who were being held in slavery in states which were under the authority of the United States.

 

Thus, the Seward quote.

 

So on paper they were free, but not until the war was over was it a reality.

 

So, nothing changes on new years day, as they had to fight for it afterwards. Ive heard that before..

Link to comment

If I had my wife or girlfriend dress up like a 12 year old girl so I could get turned on I sure wouldn't run around advertising it to the rest of the world, so why should you run around telling everyone you are a homosexual?

:huh:

 

Because there is a big difference between the two? :blink:

 

 

But thanks for posting that. You just illustrated perfectly why a separate group is justified, as well as everyone else who is downplaying it as silly. It's difficult for them to blend in with other cachers when there are attitudes out there like that. Or perhaps you are jealous? I cant tell.

Why is it different? Both cases would be considered abnormal by most people. In my post I never said I was against the homosexuals having their own group, more power to them. You can carry on any type of abnormal sexual activities that you like, I just don't like it when groups like this act out bunch cram it down peoples throats. If you can't tell I'll make it clear to you, it's certainly nothing to be jealous about.

 

You are comparing someone who fantasizes about being a sexual predator, to someone else who is in a same sex relationship.

 

A person who fantasizes about preying on young children is a great danger to society. Their perversion is not relationship based, or lifestyle based, but only revolves around an psychopathic, egotistical desire to satify themself. Psychopathic people have absolutely no feelings towards others. This also frequently occurs with someone who is mentally disturbed about their own percieved shortcomings, and may act out in other non sexual ways to compensate for that. In many cases they believe that their behaviour is more normal to society because they are targeting the opposite sex. Such as someone who has many young wives under the age of 15, but then announces that gay people are evil.

Now you are putting your spin on what I post. I didn't mean someone who fantasizes about preying on young children, I meant it as being a fetish like some people have a foot fetish or a long hair fetish. There are probably millions of people in the world that have fetishes and go through life never harming anyone.

 

I actually have a foot fetish. :D Just because it is labeled "fetish", does not mean that all fetishes are on the same level, or alike. Slap a label on it and its all the same? Necromania is a fetish also, and doesnt hurt anyone. Is that the same as a long hair fetish? Someone who fantasizes about his wife being a 12 year old girl is a potential danger to society. Someone who fantasizes about the same sex is a potential danger to whom?

Link to comment

Closing off with just one honest question: There have been homosexuals throughout the entirety of human history.

 

And then why would it not be normal? I suppose if all of the bald eagles died off there would never be any bald eagles anymore. If all of the eskimos were abducted by aliens, there would never be anymore eskimos anymore. If all of the Westboro Baptists commited suicide, there would not be anymore of them either. However, if all of the gay people suddenly died of a disease, eventually there would be more. They would return. In every culture and every race. The Westboro people would not return, but it would be some other group with the same agenda. I would say that it is quite normal for there to be gay people, just as it would be normal for people to hate them. But which is worse? Doing something which harms nobody, or telling someone what they should or should not do? Which is easier, getting a gay person to change, or telling someone else to mind their own business?

Link to comment

Many people celebrate freedom on July 4th by shooting off Chinese fireworks and flying foreign manufactured American flags. However, that's only the general date that we declared independence. There wasnt any freedom on that date, only many years later after we fought for it. Even so, not everyone was free until the Emancipation Proclamation Act many years after that.

Even that depends on what freedoms you're talking about. Most women in the United States weren't free to vote until 1920. And most 17 year olds still cannot.

Women were "free", just not equal. There is a bit of a difference between held in captivity and treated as property compared to being treated as a child. Not all comparisons are alike, and not all people are alike. They never will be. But all should be respected, despite what someone else thinks is disgusting to them.

This is why I noted that it depends on what freedoms you're talking about. If you're defining "free" as not being held in captivity and treated as property, then the colonists were "free" even before the Revolutionary War. You're talking about one type of freedom for the colonists and another type of freedom for the slaves.

Link to comment

Well, since someone already just labelled me bigoted...

 

Two girls are walking down the street holding hands, or maybe a black girl and a white guy are, or perhaps its a hispanic couple in a openly bigoted neighborhood. In any case they are out enjoying themselves, dinner, movie, a walk around the lake. Suddenly people they have never met, and never seen before, and have no idea about anything about them, shouts insults at them. Hey you @$@@%#%^ get out of here! Go back home! @@$^ #^# !!!! They try to ignore it, but it cuts through the serenity of their romantic evening and gets them upset.

 

The next day one of them is sitting at home and the radio goes off. There is an emergency in town, and one of them is on call with the local emergency squad. She immediately drops what she is doing, rushes to the garage, hops in the ambulance and tears out of there to help. Immediately she notices at the accident scene one of the guys who was shouting insults the day before. She loads him into the ambulance and immediately he recognises her. OMG!! Im so sorry! I really did not mean it at all! PLEASE dont screw anything up, I need help! He wails. She doesnt say a word, but starts taking his vital signs and performing basic first aid as someone else drives them off towards the hospital. Then he says, Listen. I will pay double your salary if you honestly help me. I dont want to die! She replies that she is not getting paid at all, as she is only volunteering. What? You are doing this for free? Im sorry, I misjudged you terribly. I could never do that, he cries.

 

But then she tells him that its too late anyhow. Ive just injected this chemical into your veins that will kill you. They wont test for it at the hospital either. Sorry, bigot! she says. But Im not a bigot! he screams. I was just going along with the group! My half sister is a black hispanic lesbian. I was only trying to get to the bottom of all of the hate, by secretly getting to the root of it all and finding out where it was coming from. They were only words! Just labels. My actions have never been bigoted!

 

Holy crap! she realizes, and looks at his ID and sees that she knows his sister very well, as she was raped recently. She desperately tries to reverse what she has done in a cold sweat and panic. Then her cell phone rings. Its her 8 year old son. Mommy, Im sorry but that funny bottle you had in your purse? I dumped it out and filled it with water. I thought it was funny, and I thought I should tell you, he says. Why on earth did you do that? she asks. Well I thought that you could tell anyhow. It should be obvious that what was inside was nothing like what the label said..

 

Relieved, she calms down and tells him he's the best kid in the world. But then the driver of the ambulance looks down for some reason, hits a deer, skids off the road into a ditch and flips it over. They all are seriously injured at the side of the road in the middle of nowhere. But suddenly a eerie figure appears out of the clouds and magically fixes everything with a wave of his hand. Wow! Thanks! They all say. What shall we do now? they ask. He replies, run through town, naked, screaming at the top of your lungs. They nod and do it without question. Next they get arrested, while the eerie figure watches. Why did we do that? they say. I have absolutely no idea, the eerie figure says. Just because I helped you does not mean that you should stop thinking for yourself. What have you labeled me as, your own brain?

 

And whats the moral to the story? Well there isnt any. None at all. It just something I made up. A bunch of symbols strung out across a page. It never has happened, and never will, and has absolutely no meaning at all. Just something to entertain the stereotypical unwashed and unshaven forum regulars who are hunched over their monitors 22 hours a day. Anyone with over 2500 posts, actually..

Link to comment

And whats the moral to the story? Well there isnt any. None at all. It just something I made up. A bunch of symbols strung out across a page. It never has happened, and never will, and has absolutely no meaning at all. Just something to entertain the stereotypical unwashed and unshaven forum regulars who are hunched over their monitors 22 hours a day. Anyone with over 2500 posts, actually..

 

Hey!!! I resent that assumption! :angry: I'm freshly washed and shaven. :anitongue:

Link to comment

...The gay people that I know are just normal people leading normal lives.

You were doing good 'till you got to that point. Their being NOT normal is the whole issue here, for both sides.

They are normal in every way, except for who they are physically attracted to. And since I'm married, and not available for anyone other than my spouse, who they are attracted to is of no interest to me.

 

I'd like to know who appointed a couple of posters on this thread to be the arbiter of what "normal" is?

 

What gives ANYONE the right to tell gay people they aren't "normal"?

 

I find that statement to be extremely offensive. Hear that TAR and Don B?

 

TAR you wanted to see some evidence of intolerance on this thread? There you go.

Until you learn the definition of the word normal I guess you will just have to be offended. An example, I was born with a heart murmur so I don't consider myself as being normal compared to the majority of the population.

Link to comment

I am odd in many ways. For me being called abnormal is only a problem when it's thrown around in a way to puporposely make someone feel less than. "why can't you just be normal like the rest of us? Those people aren't normal so shouldn't be able to do whatever." it's fine if you don't agree with me or who I am. However there is no reason to dehumanize a person by using the normal card. Because it's a fine line between saying someone is not normal and using it as social leverage to make one group less than the other group. Many people don't know where that line is.

 

I've been in the position many times to have to help people who are bigots as well. Some people who have treated me poorly dorectly as a result. If people hate me because of a part of who I am I can't stop them. But I won't stop doing the right thing and not help them if they need it.

 

I've passively followed this thread since I last posted. Saw comments about OT embracing me and many people trying to so the minority by proxy thing (I have gay friends so I can't possibly be one of those mean people even though I don't like that life at all and it oozes out of my pores when I hear about it). OT may tolerate who I am but back on topic here a small number of folks have become wildly defensive in their displeasure with any of this. Again a small cross section of society and cachers. Going out in a group where you know at least some of the people will exude that displeasure at the mere mention of a same gendered partner is uncomfortable. Hence why some folks do want to be around people like themselves.

 

I guess I don't care if you like me or bits of me or all of me. Or people like me. I do care when people don't even bother to get to know the person when they can't past the labels. And I do care when people purposely use terms either knowingly or unknowingly to dehumanize other people regardless of who they are.

Link to comment
If God is omnniscient and omnipotent, why would some of His followers question His creation of gay people?

 

 

This is something I've been thinking about for about 25 years on and off. Not everyone agrees with the conclusions I've come to, but I cannot arrive at any other without either questioning my own sanity; living a lie; compromising my relationship with God or my view of Him being without sin, omnipotent and also Love or not bearing witness to all I know about my various gay friends and relatives over the years.

 

The conclusion I have arrived at is that where the Bible refers to homosexuality, it is a misnomer and instead of outlining the appalling behaviour that was the real 'abomination' (child trafficking, slavery, ritual abuse, rape and so on) they chose an inappropriate word in its place. Why they did that, I can only guess from the way that gay people have been treated badly on and off through the centuries. It was human failure. But that has then led to it being perpetuated and taught that it is wrong to be a practising gay/lesbian.

 

In translation to English, we have the additional difficulty of many people not distinguishing between the people and an action. When I was growing up, we were taught in church to distinguish between the people (love them) and the action (hate the sin) as defined in the original text. (But this does not go far enough.)

 

Nobody has the right to get between a gay person and their faith in God. While for me that means not compromising on who God is, or who I know my gay friends and relations to be, for most Christians that means not compromising what the Bible says. To compromise on it could be risking false teaching, watering down the truth to the extent that it becomes too dilute so that some 'sin' is regarded as good and then there would be no saving grace and no longer any truth in it. I have to say hogwash personally, but not very many have ever joined me.

 

For one thing, as God loves gay people, and we are to love gay people and God clearly created gay people as being different in such an intrinsic way on such a very basic level then why is it that the only way to accept the Bible as it stands and to accept gay people is if they are celibate and don't express their feelings to someone they are attracted to? Homosexual behaviour cannot be any more of a sin than heterosexual behaviour. Nobody should have to deny who they are or what they are.

 

Secondly, what the church's teaching often leads to is gay people deny their feelings and marry someone of the opposite sex who they are not attracted to appear straight, often as a cover for another life they carry out secretly. In other words, they live a lie. That is what 'love the person, hate the sin' leads to, from what I have seen, over and over again. That's another reason why I cannot accept just that, for the same reason - nobody should have to deny who they are.

 

So that leaves a bit of a gaping hole where the whole matter of how gay people live is concerned but as I am not gay, or God, it is not my place to get into all that. I am all for gay marriage and for the same legal rights for gay couples as for anyone, but it is not my fight and so there is only so much it is right for me to do. It is my responsibility to assess what I am being taught about God (and I expect others to disagree with what I have written. That's OK too.)

 

....

 

Please let me try to clear up my personal use of the word homophobic in OT which was used in relation to my own life experiences of people I have met, not in relation to anyone who posted on this thread. Sorry for any confusion there. I have been rejected by churches because of my beliefs about this, and was stopped from being able to contribute to discussions about it in study groups. Somehow in the last 25 years or so, some church leaders don't seem to bother to spend time understanding the texts they teach about, and the 'love the people' bit seems to be being dropped, at least until 'they' have somehow 'stopped' being gay! This is my personal experience of teaching I have received in some churches and large Christian gatherings. I regard this as being homophobic behaviour. It is based on irrational fear of homosexuality. In one church's case, it was sadly (and so wrongly) based on one man's abuse of boys in his care years before we lived there. (That wasn't a Catholic church.) The difficulty I faced was they took everything they read in the Bible as literal without consulting original texts, the culture of the times, and with inadequate training.

We've moved from those places now, but I had to do a lot of thinking and praying about it all over the years. When this thread started, I was involved in a lively (and lovely) open facebook discussion about religion and homosexuality and so a lot of these feelings from the past were fresh again when I posted in OT. Sorry bout that.

Edited by Fianccetto
Link to comment

I should just keep my mouth shut. Someday that lesson will be learned.

Me too. No matter what I say it's going to be taken wrong and I look like the bad guy. Actually on this particular topic I think anyone not proclaiming themselves gay is going to take heat no matter what we say, so I will bow out and let folks think what they will.

 

Good luck to the OP with his/her new group.

Link to comment

I should just keep my mouth shut. Someday that lesson will be learned.

Me too. No matter what I say it's going to be taken wrong and I look like the bad guy. Actually on this particular topic I think anyone not proclaiming themselves gay is going to take heat no matter what we say, so I will bow out and let folks think what they will.

 

Good luck to the OP with his/her new group.

 

You were doing just fine until the 'normal' comment.

 

However, I think that this thread has been fairly tolerant towards people who could be bigoted.

 

But words really don't have too much meaning anyhow, it's the actions that really count. Just because someone labels you a bigot, it doesn't mean a thing, does it?

Link to comment

...The gay people that I know are just normal people leading normal lives.

You were doing good 'till you got to that point. Their being NOT normal is the whole issue here, for both sides.

They are normal in every way, except for who they are physically attracted to. And since I'm married, and not available for anyone other than my spouse, who they are attracted to is of no interest to me.

 

I'd like to know who appointed a couple of posters on this thread to be the arbiter of what "normal" is?

 

What gives ANYONE the right to tell gay people they aren't "normal"?

 

I find that statement to be extremely offensive. Hear that TAR and Don B?

 

TAR you wanted to see some evidence of intolerance on this thread? There you go.

Until you learn the definition of the word normal I guess you will just have to be offended. An example, I was born with a heart murmur so I don't consider myself as being normal compared to the majority of the population.

 

Oh yeah...I bet you are routinely ostrasized and demoralized simply because you have a heart murmur. I bet people shun you and call you names all the time, even threaten your life for just walking down the street. I can see how it is just the same thing as being gay. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

So a page or two back, I was struck by the term "Breeders" which was used to refer to heterosexual couples. I've seen it a couple times before, usually used by same sex couples, or at least in conversation about them. It got my attention for a moment, but then it slipped to a back burner to stew. I couldn't really put my finger on why it bugged me at the time, but I figured it out:

 

First, it sorta feels like a comparison to livestock, which is somewhat degrading, IMHO. For a group who is all the time working against other such terms, it seems incongruous that they'd use such a term. Terms that objectify a person should be avoided, otherwise it's not much better than referring to someone as a bundle of sticks.

 

Second, and really most importantly, I know half of a heterosexual couple who was moved almost to tears of anger when they were referred to in this way. Turns out, the couple would love to have children of their own, but they are infertile.

 

So, when starting a gay geocaching group, please make sure it's members are aware that "breeders" can be offensive to some.

Link to comment

So a page or two back, I was struck by the term "Breeders" which was used to refer to heterosexual couples. I've seen it a couple times before, usually used by same sex couples, or at least in conversation about them. It got my attention for a moment, but then it slipped to a back burner to stew. I couldn't really put my finger on why it bugged me at the time, but I figured it out:

 

First, it sorta feels like a comparison to livestock, which is somewhat degrading, IMHO. For a group who is all the time working against other such terms, it seems incongruous that they'd use such a term. Terms that objectify a person should be avoided, otherwise it's not much better than referring to someone as a bundle of sticks.

 

Second, and really most importantly, I know half of a heterosexual couple who was moved almost to tears of anger when they were referred to in this way. Turns out, the couple would love to have children of their own, but they are infertile.

 

So, when starting a gay geocaching group, please make sure it's members are aware that "breeders" can be offensive to some.

 

Since me and the wife went through this exact thing and had to adopt 'A' and 'J', I totally agree. This to me is a lot more insulting then any term I could use against another human being. Now, I need to find that post and rant. Post #23. Got it. If that isn't against forum rulez, something is amiss.attack.gif

Edited by A & J Tooling
Link to comment

I would suggest reporting the person who called straight people breeders. And then understand just like in the straight community where you extremists marching around shouting the q word, f word or d word that there are the same people in the gay community as well who harbor extreme resentment towards the straight population instead of telling the rest of us gay folk who are well aware of how offensive breeder is as a term not to use it. Also I would expect with the same standard that no gay slur ever be uttered as well amongst non-gay groups... keeping the standard the same after all.

 

More interesting to me is that the only two times I have heard the b word come up in any sort of conversation was with a straight couple who were passionate about zero population growth discussing anyone who had children and then another straight person who was interesting in homing unwanted children and who had issues with people having children when there are so many in the world that needed homes. So this is not just a gay phenomena either.

 

This thread goes very well until the pot shots are thrown out. Some great discussions have occured here until people let their collective undies get in a knot and stop using their brain when talking (as evidenced by the b word comment and others). If you're looking for reasons to dislike the gay community I'm quite people can find many many reasons to dislike them beyond the b word. Lets try to keep the level of conversation more adult than pot shots etc.

Link to comment

This thread has gone far afield from the original question about whether there were any specialized geocaching groups. Much of the discussion belongs in the Off Topic forum, if anywhere at all. I see that the OP has found a friendlier thread, so I am closing this one.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...