American prom cancelled due to lesbian couple

[JennaFletcher]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/11/mississippi.prom.suit/index.html

A Mississippi high school cancelled their prom after it emerged a pupil wished to go with another girl despite (strict, outdated?) rules that state all dates must be of the opposite sex.

Do you think they were justified or is this just a case of typical American homophobia?

Discuss :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/11/mississippi.prom.suit/index.html

A Mississippi high school cancelled their prom after it emerged a pupil wished to go with another girl despite (strict, outdated?) rules that state all dates must be of the opposite sex.

Do you think they were justified or is this just a case of typical American homophobia?

Discuss :greengrin

:rules::rules:

[JennaFletcher]

:rules::rules:

:worms:

[Viva_Palmeiras]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/11/mississippi.prom.suit/index.html

A Mississippi high school cancelled their prom after it emerged a pupil wished to go with another girl despite (strict, outdated?) rules that state all dates must be of the opposite sex.

Do you think they were justified or is this just a case of typical American homophobia?

Discuss :greengrin

Are the Americans more typical than other nations wrt. Homophobia?

I think you'll find that the Mississippi area is perhaps less "progressive" than other parts of America :cool2:

IMO its a mistake to label Americans as one. Things vary across the states. This probably just reflects that.

[JennaFletcher]

Are the Americans more typical than other nations wrt. Homophobia?

I think you'll find that the Mississippi area is perhaps less "progressive" than other parts of America :cool2:

IMO its a mistake to label Americans as one. Things vary across the states. This probably just reflects that.

Didn't label Americans as one at all, it's obvious that Americans are more religious than us and thus their morals are based around the bible. They are a lot more homophobic than the UK where civil partnerships and homosexuality has been more embraced. as soon as gay marriage is legalised in parts of America, there is strong outbursts from the mormons/traditionalists/conservatives/republicans that try to eliminate it. nothing as of yet has happened in the UK in a similar nature.

Prop8 in California shows that things don't really vary across the states. There is still a clear 'north/south' divide but the republicans are very wide spread.

[J-C]

Down in the American South is the bible belt where these things Are usually a complete no no, remember the Top Gear programme when they painted their cars for a laugh and were chased out of town, well that sums up the attitude of the deep south.

[ArabHibee]

IMO I think the lassie was just at it to get a reaction. She got one and spoiled it for the rest of her classmates. What a muppet.

[Betty Boop]

Didn't label Americans as one at all, it's obvious that Americans are more religious than us and thus their morals are based around the bible. They are a lot more homophobic than the UK where civil partnerships and homosexuality has been more embraced. as soon as gay marriage is legalised in parts of America, there is strong outbursts from the mormons/traditionalists/conservatives/republicans that try to eliminate it. nothing as of yet has happened in the UK in a similar nature.

Prop8 in California shows that things don't really vary across the states. There is still a clear 'north/south' divide but the republicans are very wide spread.

Like this hypocrite of the highest order? :greengrin

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ashburn9-2010mar09,0,5423366.story

[JennaFletcher]

Like this hypocrite of the highest order? :greengrin

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ashburn9-2010mar09,0,5423366.story

That story seriously shocked me! Can't imagine him as a speaker at any gay pride event any time soon.

Though, obviously, in some instances it must be really hard to come out... but if you don't know by the time you are 16 you really must be in denial.
:agree:

Am just full of controversial opinions this week! :thumbsup:

[CropleyWasGod]

Didn't label Americans as one at all, it's obvious that Americans are more religious than us and thus their morals are based around the bible. They are a lot more homophobic than the UK

Aren't you contradicting yourself there?

[NYHibby]

Like this hypocrite of the highest order? :greengrin

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ashburn9-2010mar09,0,5423366.story

Never heard of log cabin republicans?

He had some nerve. Following the wishes of the people of California. What kind of terrible politician would do something so crazy as actually listening to the voters? The taxpayers probably weren't even paying for his trips to the gay bars.

[CropleyWasGod]

Though, obviously, in some instances it must be really hard to come out... but if you don't know by the time you are 16 you really must be in denial.
:agree:

Am just full of controversial opinions this week! :thumbsup:

.. rising to the bait here. :greengrin

Can't agree with the bit in bold. I have known many people, male and female, who have lived content hetero lives, with family, and have come out in their 30's.

Sexuality is not fixed, IMO, it's a "sliding scale", and people can and do move along it for any number of reasons.

[degenerated]

Lesbians, the exception that proves the rule - you are what you eat :greengrin

[Beefster]

Some magic stereotyping going on here.

Saying that some lunatics in America / the South are representative of the entire nation is no different to saying that the guy from Govan, who is an alcoholic, a bigot, has no teeth, only eats Super Noodles and beats his wife most weeks is a stereotypical Scot.

[Green Mikey]

IMO I think the lassie was just at it to get a reaction. She got one and spoiled it for the rest of her classmates. What a muppet.

Is it not the organisers that spoiled it by cancelling it?

Muppet? Surely the muppets are the people cancelling an event due to a same sex couple attending. This is something that is common in many places now and not seen as a bit deal.

[J-C]

Some magic stereotyping going on here.

Saying that some lunatics in America / the South are representative of the entire nation is no different to saying that the guy from Govan, who is an alcoholic, a bigot, has no teeth, only eats Super Noodles and beats his wife most weeks is a stereotypical Scot.


A big difference concerning us and the southern states, where the majority of the population is a very right wing/extreme religious type, it's called the bible belt for a reason.

[Lofarl]

Some magic stereotyping going on here.

Saying that some lunatics in America / the South are representative of the entire nation is no different to saying that the guy from Govan, who is an alcoholic, a bigot, has no teeth, only eats Super Noodles and beats his wife most weeks is a stereotypical Scot.

No, but he is the sterotypical weegie.

[Beefster]

A big difference concerning us and the southern states, where the majority of the population is a very right wing/extreme religious type, it's called the bible belt for a reason.

The majority of the population of Southern USA are very right-wing and extremists?

[ArabHibee]

Is it not the organisers that spoiled it by cancelling it?

Muppet? Surely the muppets are the people cancelling an event due to a same sex couple attending. This is something that is common in many places now and not seen as a bit deal.

I think the bit that got me was when she demanded that she be allowed to wear a tuxedo (obviously the 'man' in her current relationship). That's when her argument fell down for me.

[J-C]

The majority of the population of Southern USA are very right-wing and extremists?




The name "Bible Belt" has been applied historically to the South and parts of the Midwest, but is more commonly identified with the South. In a 1961 study, Wilbur Zielinkski delineated the region as the area in which Baptist denominations are the predominant religious affiliation. The region thus defined included most of the Southern United States (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Southern_United_States), including most of Texas (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Texas) and Oklahoma (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Oklahoma) in the southwest, and in the states south of the Ohio River (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Ohio_River), and extending east to include central West Virginia (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/West_Virginia), Virginia (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Virginia) south of Northern Virginia (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Northern_Virginia), and parts of Maryland (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Maryland). In addition, the Bible Belt covers parts of Missouri (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Missouri), Illinois (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Illinois), Indiana (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Indiana), and Ohio (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Ohio). A 1978 study by Charles Heatwole identified the Bible Belt as the region dominated by 24 fundamentalist Protestant denominations, corresponding to essentially the same area mapped by Zielinski.[3] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-2)
Tweedie (1978)[4] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-3) defines the Bible Belt in terms of the audience for religious television. He finds two belts: one more eastern that stretches from central Florida (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Florida) through Alabama (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Alabama), Tennessee (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Tennessee), Kentucky (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Kentucky), Georgia (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)), North (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/North_Carolina) and South Carolina (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/South_Carolina), and into Virginia (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Virginia); and another that is more western, moving from central Texas to the Dakotas, and concentrated in Texas (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Texas), Arkansas (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Arkansas), Louisiana (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Louisiana), Oklahoma (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Oklahoma), Missouri (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Missouri), Kansas (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Kansas), and Mississippi (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Mississippi).


The term Bible Belt is used informally by journalists and by its detractors, who suggest that the region allows religion to influence politics, science, and education.
In 1950, President Harry Truman (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Harry_Truman) told Catholic leaders he wanted to send an ambassador to the Vatican (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Holy_See). Truman said the leading Democrats in Congress approved, but they warned him, "it would defeat Democratic Senators and Congressmen in the Bible Belt."[9] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-8)
In presidential elections (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/United_States_presidential_election), the Bible Belt states of Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas have voted for the Republican candidate (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_results_by_sta te) in all elections since 1980. Virginia and North Carolina had not voted Democratic since 1964 and 1976, respectively, when they went for Barack Obama (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Barack_Obama) in the 2008 election.[10] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-9) Prior to the 1960s the majority of these states generally voted for the Democratic candidate after the formation of the modern Democratic party.[11] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-10)


http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/CoEvan/ReligRight.html (http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/CoEvan/ReligRight.html)


http://www.ostroyreport.com/2006/06/more-repuglican-hypocrisy-bible-belt.html (http://www.ostroyreport.com/2006/06/more-repuglican-hypocrisy-bible-belt.html)

[Beefster]

Copy and paste job

There's nothing there to say the majority of the population in the Southern states are very right-wing and extremists. As I said, the stereotyping going on here is magic.

PS Voting Republican doesn't make you very right-wing or extreme.

[Hibs Class]

They're always protesting against something :wink:

[J-C]

There's nothing there to say the majority of the population in the Southern states are very right-wing and extremists. As I said, the stereotyping going on here is magic.

PS Voting Republican doesn't make you very right-wing or extreme.

I'll let you read for yourself instead of pasting it as you obviously don't like me doing that.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/)


http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=99284.0 (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=99284.0)

[Beefster]

I'll let you read for yourself instead of pasting it as you obviously don't like me doing that.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/)


http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=99284.0 (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=99284.0)

Still nothing to back up your statement that the majority of the population of the Southern states are very right-wing and extremist. I'm not arguing about the fact that there are some loonies in America. I'm arguing about the stereotyping.

There's been a rise in Muslim extremism and BNP voting in the UK. It doesn't make the majority of the UK's population extremist and/or racist though.

[Twa Cairpets]

I think the bit that got me was when she demanded that she be allowed to wear a tuxedo (obviously the 'man' in her current relationship). That's when her argument fell down for me.

And the logic here is...?

She demanded to wear a tuxedo, and thats why it becomes ok for the discrmination to kick in? That's an odd set of values you're applying here Arab.

[J-C]

Still nothing to back up your statement that the majority of the population of the Southern states are very right-wing and extremist. I'm not arguing about the fact that there are some loonies in America. I'm arguing about the stereotyping.

There's been a rise in Muslim extremism and BNP voting in the UK. It doesn't make the majority of the UK's population extremist and/or racist though.

The bible belt has been known for it's extreme right wing views, Lious Theroix did a programme on it and it's well documented, I wasn't trying to stereotype but to show that these states have a strong right wing attitude to life and that the church plays a major part in it.

If you want to keep your eyes closed and not see that, then fine with me but there are many publications and blogs which states there is a problem in that part of the USA. Seemingly ther has been a rise in the white supremacy movement since Obama toook charge and the Government are a bit concerned about this, I'll not give a link, you can find it yourself.

[Dashing Bob S]

I'm deeply suspicious of people who get all worked up about the love/sex life of others. It does seem to be a particularly odious and antiquated form of tyranny. It should be no business of anyone other than the parties involved as to who does what with whom.

Time we all grew up on this issue, methinks.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm deeply suspicious of people who get all worked up about the love/sex life of others. It does seem to be a particularly odious and antiquated form of tyranny. It should be no business of anyone other than the parties involved as to who does what with whom.

Time we all grew up on this issue, methinks.

:agree: There is research out there that suggests that the most homophobic individuals are likely to be in the closet themselves.

[Andy74]

Still nothing to back up your statement that the majority of the population of the Southern states are very right-wing and extremist. I'm not arguing about the fact that there are some loonies in America. I'm arguing about the stereotyping.

There's been a rise in Muslim extremism and BNP voting in the UK. It doesn't make the majority of the UK's population extremist and/or racist though.

I lived in Alabama and I'll back it up allright!

[RyeSloan]

I think the bit that got me was when she demanded that she be allowed to wear a tuxedo (obviously the 'man' in her current relationship). That's when her argument fell down for me.

Too true!!

How dare she decide what she was going to wear...no wonder the cancelled it....a woman in a tuxedo whatever next.

[Future17]

Never heard of log cabin republicans?

He had some nerve. Following the wishes of the people of California. What kind of terrible politician would do something so crazy as actually listening to the voters? The taxpayers probably weren't even paying for his trips to the gay bars.

:top marks

[Removed]

:agree: There is research out there that suggests that the most homophobic individuals are likely to be in the closet themselves.

:whistle:

[RigRoars]

I lived in Alabama and I'll back it up allright!


I worked on a rig,for 3 months,where all the guys(black and white)were from Alabama.

They were not right wing or extreme,so i wont back it up.

Just goes to show,stereotyping does no one any good.

[Future17]

:agree: There is research out there that suggests that the most homophobic individuals are likely to be in the closet themselves.

True, but the research was in there for a long time before it realised it was reinforcing the same prejudices which had led to it living a lie. :greengrin

[JennaFletcher]

Aren't you contradicting yourself there?

Not at all. America doesn't have equal rights for a reason! No civil patnerships and no gay marriages because most are greeted with outrage from the Bible lovers.

To be honest, looking for contradictions in my posts is taking away from the original post. I was arguing if the organisers were right or not to cancel the prom in question.

My argument is that they are wrong and that this would never happen in the UK because we're not as homophobic, there's no point in being ridiculous and accusing me of being contradictory because I'm well aware that not all Americans are homophobic - what I said was that they are more homophobic than the UK, the UK is smaller than the US and we are not as religiously mental as they are, we have civil partnerships and better equality laws.

---------- Post added at 10:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------


I worked on a rig,for 3 months,where all the guys(black and white)were from Alabama.

They were not right wing or extreme,so i wont back it up.

Just goes to show,stereotyping does no one any good.

But Alabama is always a dead cert to vote Republican... :agree:

---------- Post added at 10:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------


I think the bit that got me was when she demanded that she be allowed to wear a tuxedo (obviously the 'man' in her current relationship). That's when her argument fell down for me.

Why? Would you feel intimidated by a woman in a suit? lol

So you're judging her based on her choice of clothing/her choice of date... that's not cool.

---------- Post added at 10:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 AM ----------


I'm deeply suspicious of people who get all worked up about the love/sex life of others. It does seem to be a particularly odious and antiquated form of tyranny. It should be no business of anyone other than the parties involved as to who does what with whom.

Time we all grew up on this issue, methinks.

:top marks

---------- Post added at 10:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 AM ----------


There's nothing there to say the majority of the population in the Southern states are very right-wing and extremists. As I said, the stereotyping going on here is magic.

PS Voting Republican doesn't make you very right-wing or extreme.

Voting republican makes you conservative though, and in the US, conservatism is a lot more right-wing than over here. Not claiming it's extreme though.

[Dinkydoo]

Didn't label Americans as one at all, it's obvious that Americans are more religious than us and thus their morals are based around the bible. They are a lot more homophobic than the UK .

Pretty sure this is a contradiction :greengrin Definately a generalisation :agree:


Not at all. America doesn't have equal rights for a reason! No civil patnerships and no gay marriages because most are greeted with outrage from the Bible lovers.

To be honest, looking for contradictions in my posts is taking away from the original post. I was arguing if the organisers were right or not to cancel the prom in question.

My argument is that they are wrong and that this would never happen in the UK because we're not as homophobic, there's no point in being ridiculous and accusing me of being contradictory because I'm well aware that not all Americans are homophobic - what I said was that they are more homophobic than the UK, the UK is smaller than the US and we are not as religiously mental as they are, we have civil partnerships and better equality laws.


"We're not as homophobic" - generalisation numero dos:rolleyes:

Nobodies being ridiculous, isn't everyone entitled to an opinion, even if it is one that thinks you're full of generalisations and contradictions........

Yes, the UK is smaller and not quite so religious, but religiously mental? I know what you mean but to get up in arms about people being homophobic and then to go onto lable a race of people "religiously mental" reeks of hypocrisy :blah:

I think I know what you mean and I agree that the prom should never have been cancelled because of same sex couples but theres no point in arguing about in the way you have. You've created so many holes in your "arguement" by generalising everything that it doesn't hold much wieght at all and to be honest it's come across as a bit of a drunken rant.

Ahh..... I feel better :greengrin

[Jack]

The USA is a country of wonderfully f’d up people of all sorts. Its 5 times the size of the UK, population, but seems to have many more than 5 times the nutters. If it wasn’t so powerful it would be so funny. :confused:

Not quite the same but another story from the USA that amused me today. The best bits


An ex-vegan who was hit with chili pepper-laced pies at an anarchist event in San Francisco said Tuesday that her assailants were cowards who should direct their herbivorous rage at the powerful - not at a fellow radical for writing a book denouncing animal-free diets.

As Keith stood at a lectern at the Hall of Flowers in Golden Gate Park, three people in masks and black hooded sweatshirts ran from backstage, shouted, "Go vegan!" and threw pies in her face.

The group said Keith was wrong about veganism, referred to her as an "animal holocaust denier," and scolded her for calling the "agents of state oppression" - the police.

Her assailants were "masked marvels" who "made their statement very eloquently and succinctly on behalf of the billions of animals she advocates killing," the group said.

"If this is what is considered radical action," she said, "this movement is dead."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/16/MNGI1CGM1H.DTL#ixzz0iRDjOgeB (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/16/MNGI1CGM1H.DTL#ixzz0iRDjOgeB)

I thinks its wonderful they take themselves so seriously.

[Andy74]

I worked on a rig,for 3 months,where all the guys(black and white)were from Alabama.

They were not right wing or extreme,so i wont back it up.

Just goes to show,stereotyping does no one any good.

So, you've met three and at aleast one was black. They also got themselves out to a rig. Not particulalry representative!

[Beefster]

So, you've met three and at aleast one was black. They also got themselves out to a rig. Not particulalry representative!

I think you've misread what he was saying. I took it that the entire population of the rig were Alabama natives.

[Twa Cairpets]

Pretty sure this is a contradiction :greengrin Definately a generalisation :agree:

"We're not as homophobic" - generalisation numero dos:rolleyes:

Nobodies being ridiculous, isn't everyone entitled to an opinion, even if it is one that thinks you're full of generalisations and contradictions........

Yes, the UK is smaller and not quite so religious, but religiously mental? I know what you mean but to get up in arms about people being homophobic and then to go onto lable a race of people "religiously mental" reeks of hypocrisy :blah:

I think I know what you mean and I agree that the prom should never have been cancelled because of same sex couples but theres no point in arguing about in the way you have. You've created so many holes in your "arguement" by generalising everything that it doesn't hold much wieght at all and to be honest it's come across as a bit of a drunken rant.

Ahh..... I feel better :greengrin

Well, Americans are more religious, with around 85% declaring a belief in a deity compared to less than 50% in the UK, so thats not a generalisation, and whilst on personal levels there may be all shades of view on homophobia, the number of states that do not recognise same sex couples does mean that - legislativley at least - they are more homophobic than the UK. So thats not a generalisation either.

It is reasonable to conclude that the intolerance of homosexuals on a individual basis, as exampled by the cancellation of the prom is driven in a large part (if not exclusively) by the belief in the bible and, for want of a better decription, the intensity and fervour of that belief.

I dont think Jenna's points were general at all.

[RigRoars]

But Alabama is always a dead cert to vote Republican... :agree:

Not arguing with that.

Its the Extreme right wing/bible bashers, thats a sweeping generalization.




I think you've misread what he was saying. I took it that the entire population of the rig were Alabama natives.

:agree:

[J-C]

Not arguing with that.

Its the Extreme right wing/bible bashers, thats a sweeping generalization.





:agree:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Fundamentalism/Fundamentalists_AROW.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Fundamentalism/Fundamentalists_AROW.html)

Quite a good wee read.

[RigRoars]

[/URL][url]http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Fundamentalism/Fundamentalists_AROW.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Fundamentalism/Fundamentalists_AROW.html)

Quite a good wee read.


Interesting read.


Determining how many of these people possess truly "fundamentalist" beliefs or support the agenda of the Christian Right in politics (closely associated in turn with populist nationalist attitudes) is a difficult question." A Pew poll of March 2004 indicated that 40 percent of Americans believed in the literal, word-for-word truth of the Bible, with another 42 percent declaring that it is the word of God, but not necessarily true. Of course, most of these people do not attempt to match behavior to beliefs, but nonetheless this world of belief does give the more determined minority a wide ocean of public acceptance in which to swim, something that does not exist elsewhere in the developed world. According to Gallup, 18 percent of Americans polled in 1993 believed that floods that year were a punishment by God for the sins of the people living on the Mississippi River."

That paragraph shocked me :eek:.


It has been suggested that between one-third and one-half of the White evangelicals (including the fundamentalists), or between about 7 percent and 12 percent of the whole population of America, support the Christian Right or at least share its ideology. However, the strength of the fundamentalists, like the strength of some ethnic minorities, lies not so much in numbers but in relatively greater social and political commitment: high rates of voter turnout, willingness to agitate over particular issues, readiness to make personal sacrifices of time and money, and concentration in politically strategic regions.


There's no doubt that the southern states are more religious but,is it safe to say The Majority are extreme right wing bible bashers?

[steakbake]

Ahhh American PROM. I was wondering....

[Andy74]

Not arguing with that.

Its the Extreme right wing/bible bashers, thats a sweeping generalization.





:agree:

Yes, apologies, I have completely misread!

I think you've been lucky, but, having said that, for the first few months there I thought everyone was reasonable as well, but the more I saw and the more familiar I got with the people I was working with the more apparent their views became.

Where I was the only black workers were the ones who cleaned and served and in the local services it was the same story, not one white person in a service job.

Even after 2 yrs there were people I thought were actually not too bad in tetrms of their views but now from those same people and as they get older I see some strange and worrying stuff coming through from their facebook sites!

Before I went over there I assumed the South had changed from the days of the civil rights clashes but underneath not much has unfortunately.

[RigRoars]

Yes, apologies, I have completely misread!

I think you've been lucky, but, having said that, for the first few months there I thought everyone was reasonable as well, but the more I saw and the more familiar I got with the people I was working with the more apparent their views became.

Where I was the only black workers were the ones who cleaned and served and in the local services it was the same story, not one white person in a service job.

Even after 2 yrs there were people I thought were actually not too bad in tetrms of their views but now from those same people and as they get older I see some strange and worrying stuff coming through from their facebook sites!

Before I went over there I assumed the South had changed from the days of the civil rights clashes but underneath not much has unfortunately.


No Probs.

You obviously have a lot more experience than me,having lived there for a number of years.And i have heard similar stories to your own.

However,i can only go on my own experience and found all the guys pretty normal (as normal as mad offshore yanks can be).

[J-C]

No Probs.

You obviously have a lot more experience than me,having lived there for a number of years.And i have heard similar stories to your own.

However,i can only go on my own experience and found all the guys pretty normal (as normal as mad offshore yanks can be).


I think there may have been a difference from working on a rig to actually living day to day amongst the people in a community, which Andy seems to ahve done.

[RigRoars]

No Probs.

You obviously have a lot more experience than me,having lived there for a number of years.And i have heard similar stories to your own.

However,i can only go on my own experience and found all the guys pretty normal (as normal as mad offshore yanks can be).


I think there may have been a difference from working on a rig to actually living day to day amongst the people in a community, which Andy seems to ahve done.


Yes,and i conceded that.

[Andy74]

No Probs.

You obviously have a lot more experience than me,having lived there for a number of years.And i have heard similar stories to your own.

However,i can only go on my own experience and found all the guys pretty normal (as normal as mad offshore yanks can be).

Of course the Southerners wouldn't like being called Yanks!

I think a lot of people I know from Alabama have got more and more conservative and religious as they have settled down and grown older as well.

I seen some of these Alabama girls doing all sorts of things that don't quite sit with thier current views! :greengrin

[ArabHibee]

Why? Would you feel intimidated by a woman in a suit? lol

So you're judging her based on her choice of clothing/her choice of date... that's not cool.


That's not cool? :faf:

No, I would not be intimidated by a woman in a suit. But if she wants to be a bloke so much then maybe she/he/it should be having a wee think about a sex change?

[Twa Cairpets]

That's not cool? :faf:

No, I would not be intimidated by a woman in a suit. But if she wants to be a bloke so much then maybe she/he/it should be having a wee think about a sex change?

Its interesting that someone can be both a parody of themselves and offensive at the same time. He/she/it? Lesbians are "its"? Seriously? And you get all this from a tuxedo? My god, do you find it restrictive having such a narrow field of vision? Have you ever met a lesbian or a lesbian couple? Or are you just happy to wear all your prejudices openly? I hope the poor girl doesnt have a Polish name, then she'd really get your wrath eh?

[lapsedhibee]

I hope the poor girl doesnt have a Polish name, then she'd really get your wrath eh?

Arab's nightmare scenario, a Cherry Blossom Civil Partnership (http://www.theluxuryhandmadecardshop.co.uk/thecardshop/prod_663954-Horseshoe-amp-Cherry-Blossom-Civil-Partnership-Wedding-card.html) :greengrin

[J-C]

Its interesting that someone can be both a parody of themselves and offensive at the same time. He/she/it? Lesbians are "its"? Seriously? And you get all this from a tuxedo? My god, do you find it restrictive having such a narrow field of vision? Have you ever met a lesbian or a lesbian couple? Or are you just happy to wear all your prejudices openly? I hope the poor girl doesnt have a Polish name, then she'd really get your wrath eh?
:top marks

When I first moved in with my now wife, we had a lesbian couple next door to us and at no time were there any suits, even of the tuxedo variety. Both women were very womanly and you would never have thought they were in fact lesbians and both really nice people to boot. :greengrin

[JennaFletcher]

Well, Americans are more religious, with around 85% declaring a belief in a deity compared to less than 50% in the UK, so thats not a generalisation, and whilst on personal levels there may be all shades of view on homophobia, the number of states that do not recognise same sex couples does mean that - legislativley at least - they are more homophobic than the UK. So thats not a generalisation either.

It is reasonable to conclude that the intolerance of homosexuals on a individual basis, as exampled by the cancellation of the prom is driven in a large part (if not exclusively) by the belief in the bible and, for want of a better decription, the intensity and fervour of that belief.

I dont think Jenna's points were general at all.

:top marks

Finally someone who understands my points.

[JennaFletcher]

That's not cool? :faf:

No, I would not be intimidated by a woman in a suit. But if she wants to be a bloke so much then maybe she/he/it should be having a wee think about a sex change?

Wanting to wear a garmet traditionally associated with the opposite gender does not mean someone wants to be the opposite sex! Gender is a social construction, sex is biological and the two are completely different. Your gender judgements are nothing more than mere prejudice. Obviously you get transexual people who identify as being in the wrong body for their mind/their self so they get sex changes to match the way they feel on the inside. But the girl who wants to wear a tux is a lesbian... she's not transexual.

People can dress however they like, if someone wants to stroll about in a tux then all power to them - doesn't mean to say they deserve to have a sex change. I happen to love diversity and some of the best nights out I have involve a drag DJ who is a right laugh.

I find your comments particularly offensive actually, and I shudder to think that there are people like you about.

You need to educate yourself.

---------- Post added at 12:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 AM ----------


:top marks

When I first moved in with my now wife, we had a lesbian couple next door to us and at no time were there any suits, even of the tuxedo variety. Both women were very womanly and you would never have thought they were in fact lesbians and both really nice people to boot. :greengrin

:thumbsup:

I wonder what it would take that would change the stereotypical perceptions people have of gay people! Honestly, you'd think some of the people on here have never met one.

[JennaFletcher]

Pretty sure this is a contradiction :greengrin Definately a generalisation :agree:



"We're not as homophobic" - generalisation numero dos:rolleyes:

Nobodies being ridiculous, isn't everyone entitled to an opinion, even if it is one that thinks you're full of generalisations and contradictions........

Yes, the UK is smaller and not quite so religious, but religiously mental? I know what you mean but to get up in arms about people being homophobic and then to go onto lable a race of people "religiously mental" reeks of hypocrisy :blah:

I think I know what you mean and I agree that the prom should never have been cancelled because of same sex couples but theres no point in arguing about in the way you have. You've created so many holes in your "arguement" by generalising everything that it doesn't hold much wieght at all and to be honest it's come across as a bit of a drunken rant.

Ahh..... I feel better :greengrin

Right then, you find the facts which suggest what I have stated are hypocritical/contradictory and you can prove me wrong.

Read the guy above me who completely disproved everything you said. (TwoCarpets)

Religiously mental - because they are. See facts on religious believers with a contrast to UK/US. How the f does this reek of hypocrisy?!

Created no holes in my argument!

A drunken rant? Excuse me but give me some more credit than that please. If anything your response is more of a drunken rant than anything I have typed on here because IF (a big IF here) you've read the stats on religion between US/UK and homosexual equality laws - you are seriously deluded to call me a hypocrite or a contradiction. I am making the causal relationship that countries which have HIGHER numbers of RELIGIOUS people mean LESS equality laws for gay people.

PS Also try spelling big words like 'argument' correctly next time you try to brand me 'hypocrite' and 'contradiction' yeah?

[J-C]

Right then, you find the facts which suggest what I have stated are hypocritical/contradictory and you can prove me wrong.

Read the guy above me who completely disproved everything you said. (TwoCarpets)

Religiously mental - because they are. See facts on religious believers with a contrast to UK/US. How the f does this reek of hypocrisy?!

Created no holes in my argument!

A drunken rant? Excuse me but give me some more credit than that please. If anything your response is more of a drunken rant than anything I have typed on here because IF (a big IF here) you've read the stats on religion between US/UK and homosexual equality laws - you are seriously deluded to call me a hypocrite or a contradiction. I am making the causal relationship that countries which have HIGHER numbers of RELIGIOUS people mean LESS equality laws for gay people.

PS Also try spelling big words like 'argument' correctly next time you try to brand me 'hypocrite' and 'contradiction' yeah?


Jenna, I posted something similar to you a few posts earlier talking about the bible belt and it's extreme right wing views and I was told I was being general etc. certain people on here just don't like looking at the facts and enjoy contradicting for the sake of arguments(spelt correctly).:greengrin

[ArabHibee]

Wanting to wear a garmet traditionally associated with the opposite gender does not mean someone wants to be the opposite sex! Gender is a social construction, sex is biological and the two are completely different. Your gender judgements are nothing more than mere prejudice. Obviously you get transexual people who identify as being in the wrong body for their mind/their self so they get sex changes to match the way they feel on the inside. But the girl who wants to wear a tux is a lesbian... she's not transexual.

People can dress however they like, if someone wants to stroll about in a tux then all power to them - doesn't mean to say they deserve to have a sex change. I happen to love diversity and some of the best nights out I have involve a drag DJ who is a right laugh.

I find your comments particularly offensive actually, and I shudder to think that there are people like you about.

You need to educate yourself.


I need to educate myself? Get over yourself. What you've posted above is also a contradiction, "People can dress how they like, stroll about in a tux", :blah::blah::blah: but I'm not allowed to have a different opinion from you about homosexuality?

Let's get back to the question you originally asked. Do I think they should have cancelled the prom? No. She just shouldn't have been allowed to go. She's spoiled it for the rest of the school, nobody else. And why would she want to wear a tuxedo? That just reeks of a 'look at me, look at me' mentality.

And if I've particularly offended you then don't start topics on a forum that will be controversial if all you want is people to agree with you or stick up for you.

[RigRoars]

Jenna, I posted something similar to you a few posts earlier talking about the bible belt and it's extreme right wing views and I was told I was being general etc. certain people on here just don't like looking at the facts and enjoy contradicting for the sake of arguments(spelt correctly).:greengrin


Naw a dinny :agree:

[LiverpoolHibs]

I need to educate myself? Get over yourself. What you've posted above is also a contradiction, "People can dress how they like, stroll about in a tux", :blah::blah::blah: but I'm not allowed to have a different opinion from you about homosexuality?

Let's get back to the question you originally asked. Do I think they should have cancelled the prom? No. She just shouldn't have been allowed to go. She's spoiled it for the rest of the school, nobody else. And why would she want to wear a tuxedo? That just reeks of a 'look at me, look at me' mentality.

And if I've particularly offended you then don't start topics on a forum that will be controversial if all you want is people to agree with you or stick up for you.

Why are people struggling with the relatively simple concept of a contradiction?

No-one suggested you're not entitled to your (remarkably stupid) opinions, but you haven't even attempted an explanation for why you think she shouldn't have been able to go, you've just got weirdly angry.

[Twa Cairpets]

I need to educate myself? Get over yourself. What you've posted above is also a contradiction, "People can dress how they like, stroll about in a tux", :blah::blah::blah: but I'm not allowed to have a different opinion from you about homosexuality?

Let's get back to the question you originally asked. Do I think they should have cancelled the prom? No. She just shouldn't have been allowed to go. She's spoiled it for the rest of the school, nobody else. And why would she want to wear a tuxedo? That just reeks of a 'look at me, look at me' mentality.

And if I've particularly offended you then don't start topics on a forum that will be controversial if all you want is people to agree with you or stick up for you.

And of course no-one who goes to these events is in the least bit concerned about how their image goes down with their peers.

[Removed]

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the idea of an attractive woman dressed in a tuxedo somewhat exciting and erotic?

Or am I just thinking of Kim Basinger :greengrin

[Dinkydoo]

Well, Americans are more religious, with around 85% declaring a belief in a deity compared to less than 50% in the UK, so thats not a generalisation, and whilst on personal levels there may be all shades of view on homophobia, the number of states that do not recognise same sex couples does mean that - legislativley at least - they are more homophobic than the UK. So thats not a generalisation either.

It is reasonable to conclude that the intolerance of homosexuals on a individual basis, as exampled by the cancellation of the prom is driven in a large part (if not exclusively) by the belief in the bible and, for want of a better decription, the intensity and fervour of that belief.

I dont think Jenna's points were general at all.

Is this just another case of typical American homophobia

Comes across as a generalisation to me.

[Wilson]

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the idea of an attractive woman dressed in a tuxedo somewhat exciting and erotic?

Or am I just thinking of Kim Basinger :greengrin

As long as she is not scratching her balls it is okay.

---------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------


:top marks

When I first moved in with my now wife, we had a lesbian couple next door to us and at no time were there any suits, even of the tuxedo variety. Both women were very womanly and you would never have thought they were in fact lesbians and both really nice people to boot. :greengrin

You were eventually tipped off by the fact they both appeared to have goatee beards every morning?

[Dinkydoo]

Right then, you find the facts which suggest what I have stated are hypocritical/contradictory and you can prove me wrong.

Read the guy above me who completely disproved everything you said. (TwoCarpets)

Religiously mental - because they are. See facts on religious believers with a contrast to UK/US. How the f does this reek of hypocrisy?!

Created no holes in my argument!

A drunken rant? Excuse me but give me some more credit than that please. If anything your response is more of a drunken rant than anything I have typed on here because IF (a big IF here) you've read the stats on religion between US/UK and homosexual equality laws - you are seriously deluded to call me a hypocrite or a contradiction. I am making the causal relationship that countries which have HIGHER numbers of RELIGIOUS people mean LESS equality laws for gay people.

PS Also try spelling big words like 'argument' correctly next time you try to brand me 'hypocrite' and 'contradiction' yeah?


Right dafty,

1. I thought I did

2. Hardly disproved, gave his/her opinion on the matter and used stats to back it up. More down to perception than anything else.

3. "Religiously mental? because they are"

Seriously, are you that stupid? You are calling American's religiously mental and you don't think you're generalising just a little?

Give me strength :faf:

4. I'm deluded to call you a hypocrite and a contradiction? What does that even mean? :greengrin

5. I didn't comment on your spelling so that has absolutely nothing to do with being a hypocrite or contradicting anything!

I would go on but I think you've proved my point by going off on one, rambling about spelling and being deluded.:rolleyes:

If you remember I agreed with you, just not with the way you've tried to put your points across.

'Holes a plenty' :dummytit:

[CropleyWasGod]

As long as she is not scratching her balls it is okay.

---------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------



You were eventually tipped off by the fact they both appeared to have goatee beards every morning?

:yawn:

[J-C]

Naw a dinny :agree:


:greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

Right dafty,

1. I thought I did

2. Hardly disproved, gave his/her opinion on the matter and used stats to back it up. More down to perception than anything else.

3. "Religiously mental? because they are"

Seriously, are you that stupid? You are calling American's religiously mental and you don't think you're generalising just a little?

Give me strength :faf:

4. I'm deluded to call you a hypocrite and a contradiction? What does that even mean? :greengrin

5. I didn't comment on your spelling so that has absolutely nothing to do with being a hypocrite or contradicting anything!

I would go on but I think you've proved my point by going off on one, rambling about spelling and being deluded.:rolleyes:

If you remember I agreed with you, just not with the way you've tried to put your points across.

'Holes a plenty' :dummytit:

So if you give an opinion and then back it up with stats this is a matter of perception? Surely its evidence to support a stance? Perception is subjective, analysis of undisputed fact is objective.

[Dinkydoo]

So if you give an opinion and then back it up with stats this is a matter of perception? Surely its evidence to support a stance? Perception is subjective, analysis of undisputed fact is objective.

No my apologies.

Jenna claimed you "disproved" everything I said, which wasn't entirely true. I felt that she was contradicting herself and being a bit of a hypocrite by complaining about a pretty simple case of homophobia by claiming all/most americans are religious fruit cakes.

Her posts come across as homophobia is wrong but a little generalistic racisim is ok. Which IMO is a bit hypocritical.

You gave statistics and did prove me wrong but not for every pointI was trying to make, some of which were down to the way I percieved the comment.

I.E: I perceive comments such as "Religiously mental - because they are" as a generalisation. OK they may be religious but mental? Come on mate.

Sorry, my post was a bit slap dash

[JennaFletcher]

No my apologies.

Jenna claimed you "disproved" everything I said, which wasn't entirely true. I felt that she was contradicting herself and being a bit of a hypocrite by complaining about a pretty simple case of homophobia by claiming all/most americans are religious fruit cakes.

Her posts come across as homophobia is wrong but a little generalistic racisim is ok. Which IMO is a bit hypocritical.

You gave statistics and did prove me wrong but not for every pointI was trying to make, some of which were down to the way I percieved the comment.

I.E: I perceive comments such as "Religiously mental - because they are" as a generalisation. OK they may be religious but mental? Come on mate.

Sorry, my post was a bit slap dash

If you bothered to actually read my posts you will see that I nevet claimed that all Americans were religious fruit
cakes... Enjoyed your use of fruit cake there.

Wait until I manage to reply ay home on my computer, I will not have you undermine my intelligence!

[JennaFletcher]

No my apologies.

Jenna claimed you "disproved" everything I said, which wasn't entirely true. I felt that she was contradicting herself and being a bit of a hypocrite by complaining about a pretty simple case of homophobia by claiming all/most americans are religious fruit cakes.

Her posts come across as homophobia is wrong but a little generalistic racisim is ok. Which IMO is a bit hypocritical.

You gave statistics and did prove me wrong but not for every pointI was trying to make, some of which were down to the way I percieved the comment.

I.E: I perceive comments such as "Religiously mental - because they are" as a generalisation. OK they may be religious but mental? Come on mate.

Sorry, my post was a bit slap dash

If you bothered to actually read my posts you will see that I nevet claimed that all Americans were religious fruit
cakes... Enjoyed your use of fruit cake there.

Wait until I manage to reply ay home on my computer, I will not have you undermine my intelligence!

[--------]

If you bothered to actually read my posts you will see that I nevet claimed that all Americans were religious fruit
cakes... Enjoyed your use of fruit cake there.

Wait until I manage to reply ay home on my computer, I will not have you undermine my intelligence!




There appears to be an echo in here.....



... in here...



... in here ...

[HibsMax]

Firstly, I think that canceling the prom over that is ridiculous - shows a great lack of tolerance.

Secondly, some people should try to understand / remember that the United States is in many ways like 50 different countries. We have Federal Law and State Law. You can check out this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States) if you want to learn more about same-sex unions.

Let's try and keep the sweeping generalisations to a minimum. :wink:

[hibsdaft]

the Taliban would approve.

[An Leargaidh]

[/URL][url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/11/mississippi.prom.suit/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/11/mississippi.prom.suit/index.html)

A Mississippi high school cancelled their prom after it emerged a pupil wished to go with another girl despite (strict, outdated?) rules that state all dates must be of the opposite sex.

Do you think they were justified or is this just a case of typical American homophobia?

Discuss :greengrin

Although I have read all the posts after the original one I will just answer the original question.

I do not think the school were justified on a human rights level.
I read a very long interview with Beth Ditto from the band Gossip and she described what it was like growing up as a teenage lesbian in the state of Arkansas. What she described wasn't very nice for anyone to have to endure and she actually hinted at stuff much worse than she admitted to. Funnily enough Arkansas is just next door to Mississippi.

At least one poster alluded to the fact that the states in the US are all quite different. This is because they are indeed states, just like separate countries but a proportion of their sovereign powers are given to the overall federal collective country, i.e. the USA. Just like different countries, the states of the USA have quite varied laws, customs, religious and moral norms. What would go as normal in say San Francisco, California could just as easily get you lynched in small town Texas I do not doubt :rolleyes: Based solely on Beth Ditto's description of small town Arkansas it doesn't surprise me that the school in Mississippi cancelled the prom. I don't understand why they didn't just ban the same sex couple from attending in as much as did they cancel just to make everyone blame the poor girl and her friend and ostracise them? They probably thought they wouldn't get away with a lynching in 2010.

[JennaFletcher]

Right dafty,

1. I thought I did

2. Hardly disproved, gave his/her opinion on the matter and used stats to back it up. More down to perception than anything else.

3. "Religiously mental? because they are"

Seriously, are you that stupid? You are calling American's religiously mental and you don't think you're generalising just a little?

Give me strength :faf:

4. I'm deluded to call you a hypocrite and a contradiction? What does that even mean? :greengrin

5. I didn't comment on your spelling so that has absolutely nothing to do with being a hypocrite or contradicting anything!

I would go on but I think you've proved my point by going off on one, rambling about spelling and being deluded.:rolleyes:

If you remember I agreed with you, just not with the way you've tried to put your points across.

'Holes a plenty' :dummytit:

Try reading my posts before jumping the gun and highlighting only the things you wish to see. You called my posts a drunken rant which I feel slightly insulting and given the circumstances I wrote a suitable reply including this:

"If anything your response is more of a drunken rant than anything I have typed on here because IF (a big IF here) you've read the stats on religion between US/UK and homosexual equality laws - you are seriously deluded to call me a hypocrite or a contradiction. I am making the causal relationship that countries which have HIGHER numbers of RELIGIOUS people mean LESS equality laws for gay people."

If you read this properly you will notice that if you have read the statistics on religion in the US and compare this to the UK then I am not completely an effete fool in making the causal link between highly religious areas and less equality laws for gays.

I am totally repeating myself here because this is probably the only way you will carefully read what I post before calling me a ''dafty" and ''stupid''. I'm not daft and nor am I stupid.

I stated in a previous post that I wasn't referring to the US or Americans as a whole and I was certainly not pigeon holing all of them to be 'religiously mental' - a brief study around Churches that can be found in America illustrate that there is more Churches inciting homosexual and racial hatred than over in the UK. For instance, there is the Westboro Baptist Church (these people placard everywhere with massive 'GodHatesFags' statements). In the UK these extremists have been banned, so it's fair play for me to say they are more religiously mental than over here because we don't have as many institutions as bad as that.

I feel I am deviating a little from the main point of the thread but I feel I have to in order for you to get it around your head that I am not a hypocrite, I am not a contradiction and you should perhaps get your facts straight before you get all huffy and puffy at me.
:agree:

[JennaFletcher]

Although I have read all the posts after the original one I will just answer the original question.

I do not think the school were justified on a human rights level.
I read a very long interview with Beth Ditto from the band Gossip and she described what it was like growing up as a teenage lesbian in the state of Arkansas. What she described wasn't very nice for anyone to have to endure and she actually hinted at stuff much worse than she admitted to. Funnily enough Arkansas is just next door to Mississippi.

At least one poster alluded to the fact that the states in the US are all quite different. This is because they are indeed states, just like separate countries but a proportion of their sovereign powers are given to the overall federal collective country, i.e. the USA. Just like different countries, the states of the USA have quite varied laws, customs, religious and moral norms. What would go as normal in say San Francisco, California could just as easily get you lynched in small town Texas I do not doubt :rolleyes: Based solely on Beth Ditto's description of small town Arkansas it doesn't surprise me that the school in Mississippi cancelled the prom. I don't understand why they didn't just ban the same sex couple from attending in as much as did they cancel just to make everyone blame the poor girl and her friend and ostracise them? They probably thought they wouldn't get away with a lynching in 2010.

Good post, I believe that canceling the prom altogether probably means that the girl would get more abuse than she already did... maybe this was their intent? To show them that they would not tolerate diversity and anyone who did break the 'rules' would be made an example of.

Shocking to admit though but this could be their rationale.

---------- Post added at 02:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 AM ----------


No my apologies.

Jenna claimed you "disproved" everything I said, which wasn't entirely true. I felt that she was contradicting herself and being a bit of a hypocrite by complaining about a pretty simple case of homophobia by claiming all/most americans are religious fruit cakes.

Her posts come across as homophobia is wrong but a little generalistic racisim is ok. Which IMO is a bit hypocritical.

You gave statistics and did prove me wrong but not for every pointI was trying to make, some of which were down to the way I percieved the comment.

I.E: I perceive comments such as "Religiously mental - because they are" as a generalisation. OK they may be religious but mental? Come on mate.

Sorry, my post was a bit slap dash

Generalistic racism? Please... :grr:

How many times must I point out to you: READ MY POSTS BEFORE YOU PICK OUT THINGS.

[JennaFletcher]

I need to educate myself? Get over yourself. What you've posted above is also a contradiction, "People can dress how they like, stroll about in a tux", :blah::blah::blah: but I'm not allowed to have a different opinion from you about homosexuality?

Let's get back to the question you originally asked. Do I think they should have cancelled the prom? No. She just shouldn't have been allowed to go. She's spoiled it for the rest of the school, nobody else. And why would she want to wear a tuxedo? That just reeks of a 'look at me, look at me' mentality.

And if I've particularly offended you then don't start topics on a forum that will be controversial if all you want is people to agree with you or stick up for you.

Get over myself? I think you need to get over yourself. I was stating that you needed to educate yourself on the difference between gender and sex.

Maybe she'd have just felt more comfortable in a tux.

You have offended, however, whilst I consider this a controversial topic I am still prepared to argue my points with everyone. I didn't expect someone as intolerant as you are though!

[HibsMax]

If you bothered to actually read my posts you will see that I nevet claimed that all Americans were religious fruit
cakes... Enjoyed your use of fruit cake there.

Wait until I manage to reply ay home on my computer, I will not have you undermine my intelligence!
Oh no, you misspelled the word "never". Does this make your point any less valid? ;) In my opinion, trying to score points (or whatever) by picking up on someone's spelling is never a good move. That's just my opinion.

[J-C]

I seem to remember a certain famous singer, Annie Lennox who used to wear mens suits while singing. Now does this mean she has gender issues, well no, at the time she was doing this she herself said she felt more comfortable wearing men's clothes, she is happily married with kids.

Eddie Izzard is another who openly wears women's clothing but is very hetrosexual, too many stereotypes here, clothesw mean nothing, it's the person underneath.

[J-C]

Try reading my posts before jumping the gun and highlighting only the things you wish to see. You called my posts a drunken rant which I feel slightly insulting and given the circumstances I wrote a suitable reply including this:

"If anything your response is more of a drunken rant than anything I have typed on here because IF (a big IF here) you've read the stats on religion between US/UK and homosexual equality laws - you are seriously deluded to call me a hypocrite or a contradiction. I am making the causal relationship that countries which have HIGHER numbers of RELIGIOUS people mean LESS equality laws for gay people."

If you read this properly you will notice that if you have read the statistics on religion in the US and compare this to the UK then I am not completely an effete fool in making the causal link between highly religious areas and less equality laws for gays.

I am totally repeating myself here because this is probably the only way you will carefully read what I post before calling me a ''dafty" and ''stupid''. I'm not daft and nor am I stupid.

I stated in a previous post that I wasn't referring to the US or Americans as a whole and I was certainly not pigeon holing all of them to be 'religiously mental' - a brief study around Churches that can be found in America illustrate that there is more Churches inciting homosexual and racial hatred than over in the UK. For instance, there is the Westboro Baptist Church (these people placard everywhere with massive 'GodHatesFags' statements). In the UK these extremists have been banned, so it's fair play for me to say they are more religiously mental than over here because we don't have as many institutions as bad as that.

I feel I am deviating a little from the main point of the thread but I feel I have to in order for you to get it around your head that I am not a hypocrite, I am not a contradiction and you should perhaps get your facts straight before you get all huffy and puffy at me.
:agree:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church)




YouTube - The Most Hated Family in America (1 of 8) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOrz5k0jWdU)


Watch this and open your eyes to religion at it's worst.

[Dinkydoo]

If you bothered to actually read my posts you will see that I nevet claimed that all Americans were religious fruit
cakes... Enjoyed your use of fruit cake there.

Wait until I manage to reply ay home on my computer, I will not have you undermine my intelligence!


Try reading my posts before jumping the gun and highlighting only the things you wish to see. You called my posts a drunken rant which I feel slightly insulting and given the circumstances I wrote a suitable reply including this:

"If anything your response is more of a drunken rant than anything I have typed on here because IF (a big IF here) you've read the stats on religion between US/UK and homosexual equality laws - you are seriously deluded to call me a hypocrite or a contradiction. I am making the causal relationship that countries which have HIGHER numbers of RELIGIOUS people mean LESS equality laws for gay people."

If you read this properly you will notice that if you have read the statistics on religion in the US and compare this to the UK then I am not completely an effete fool in making the causal link between highly religious areas and less equality laws for gays.

I am totally repeating myself here because this is probably the only way you will carefully read what I post before calling me a ''dafty" and ''stupid''. I'm not daft and nor am I stupid.

I stated in a previous post that I wasn't referring to the US or Americans as a whole and I was certainly not pigeon holing all of them to be 'religiously mental' - a brief study around Churches that can be found in America illustrate that there is more Churches inciting homosexual and racial hatred than over in the UK. For instance, there is the Westboro Baptist Church (these people placard everywhere with massive 'GodHatesFags' statements). In the UK these extremists have been banned, so it's fair play for me to say they are more religiously mental than over here because we don't have as many institutions as bad as that.

I feel I am deviating a little from the main point of the thread but I feel I have to in order for you to get it around your head that I am not a hypocrite, I am not a contradiction and you should perhaps get your facts straight before you get all huffy and puffy at me.
:agree:



:blah:

You really are unbelievable :faf:

You object to me calling you "dafty" and "stupid" yet you seem to think that dishing out abuse yourself is OK. Calling people deluded, telling them to educate themselves and picking up on spelling for sheer point scoring purposes is just a few of the things you've said on this thread that has made you lose pretty much all credability.

You don't have to repeat yourself constantly or patronise people by telling them to read your posts carefully; you posted on a contraversial issue and expected everyone to agree with you and berated those that didn't, big mistake IMO.

FWIW I admit I've been proved otherwise in terms of the US being a lot more religious than ourselves, so that wasn't a generalisation but calling people "mental" or "religiously mental" is a sweeping statement if you're saying that this is what the majority of southern american are.

I don't have to say anything else really since you've basically proved my "drunken rant" point by becoming abusive and really quite petty.

If you maybe read your own posts before submitting them once and a while you'l probably find that they can come across as quite offensive.

I'd even go as far to say that the "casual relationship" you're talking about is a generalisation, since in reality, we all kniow that not all religious people oppose gay rights - a lot of them do but to make a generalised "casual relationship" between the two isn't fair on the more liberal religious types.

and branding people mental in any shape or form is very narrow minded considering you've probably never even met any of the people you're including within your sweeping statements.

Thats' it; I'm out. :bitchy:

[--------]

Firstly, I think that canceling the prom over that is ridiculous - shows a great lack of tolerance.

Secondly, some people should try to understand / remember that the United States is in many ways like 50 different countries. We have Federal Law and State Law. You can check out this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States) if you want to learn more about same-sex unions.

Let's try and keep the sweeping generalisations to a minimum. :wink:


There are lots of people here who judge all muslim clerics by the example of one man - Abu Hamza. (Did you hear he was the most successful shoplifter in Baghdad? Only two convictions.... :wink: )

Or all Christians by the Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps and his family. And Benny Hinn. And the snakehandlers.

Or all Americans by the nut-jobs they see portrayed on TV on the moron-channels.

In this country we regularly have a laugh at the 'ignorance' of 'stupid Yanks'.

I'm sure that many 'Yanks' ARE ignorant. As ignorant as the average school-leaver in the UK these days.... :rolleyes:

Like you, Max, I see no reason why the prom should have been cancelled. A huge lack of tolerance and balance on the part of the school authorities.

I'm not sure if they could have enforced a dress code - I don't actually see why they should want to. Dress codes are a bit silly anyway, IMO. IIRC a couple of years back a high school student was refused admittance to a high school prom because he was in Highland dress - wearing a kilt. It was interpreted as 'cross-dressing' and 'sexually-ambiguous'. Tell that to the Black Watch, and see what happens. :devil:

[J-C]

There are lots of people here who judge all muslim clerics by the example of one man - Abu Hamza. (Did you hear he was the most successful shoplifter in Baghdad? Only two convictions.... :wink: )

Or all Christians by the Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps and his family. And Benny Hinn. And the snakehandlers.

Or all Americans by the nut-jobs they see portrayed on TV on the moron-channels.

In this country we regularly have a laugh at the 'ignorance' of 'stupid Yanks'.

I'm sure that many 'Yanks' ARE ignorant. As ignorant as the average school-leaver in the UK these days.... :rolleyes:

Like you, Max, I see no reason why the prom should have been cancelled. A huge lack of tolerance and balance on the part of the school authorities.

I'm not sure if they could have enforced a dress code - I don't actually see why they should want to. Dress codes are a bit silly anyway, IMO. IIRC a couple of years back a high school student was refused admittance to a high school prom because he was in Highland dress - wearing a kilt. It was interpreted as 'cross-dressing' and 'sexually-ambiguous'. Tell that to the Black Watch, and see what happens. :devil:


I think the last sentence just proves how ignorant the Americans can be towards anything other than their own little bubble of a world they live in.

We over here know about the mad Muslim clerics who stir up hatred where ever they go but we know, through having a broad outlook on life that they are a tiny minority and the majority of Muslims are a peaceful, hard working, family orientated members of our community.

[JennaFletcher]

:blah:

You really are unbelievable :faf:

You object to me calling you "dafty" and "stupid" yet you seem to think that dishing out abuse yourself is OK. Calling people deluded, telling them to educate themselves and picking up on spelling for sheer point scoring purposes is just a few of the things you've said on this thread that has made you lose pretty much all credability.

You don't have to repeat yourself constantly or patronise people by telling them to read your posts carefully; you posted on a contraversial issue and expected everyone to agree with you and berated those that didn't, big mistake IMO.

FWIW I admit I've been proved otherwise in terms of the US being a lot more religious than ourselves, so that wasn't a generalisation but calling people "mental" or "religiously mental" is a sweeping statement if you're saying that this is what the majority of southern american are.

I don't have to say anything else really since you've basically proved my "drunken rant" point by becoming abusive and really quite petty.

If you maybe read your own posts before submitting them once and a while you'l probably find that they can come across as quite offensive.

I'd even go as far to say that the "casual relationship" you're talking about is a generalisation, since in reality, we all kniow that not all religious people oppose gay rights - a lot of them do but to make a generalised "casual relationship" between the two isn't fair on the more liberal religious types.

and branding people mental in any shape or form is very narrow minded considering you've probably never even met any of the people you're including within your sweeping statements.

Thats' it; I'm out. :bitchy:

I don't dish out abuse at all. You were deluded to call me a hypocrite (if you read my posts you will see that I wasn't contradictory etc etc).

Not trying to patronise you but when you jump the gun and highlight the things you only wish to see out of context and then call me stupid, daft and a 'general racist' then sometimes things get nasty.

Besides if you call people stupid and daft like you have done me, do you expect me not to point out your poor spelling on words such as 'arguement' and 'contraversial' - this illustrates to me that you're the one who is a bit dim frankly.

My posts have only been offensive to those who are offensive. I take particular offence to someone then I have no problem in giving them it back.

This is a controversial thread, and this is a controversial topic, there's going to be offensive comments, but I can't stand illiterate ones from you that hardly make any sense then you have the cheek to call me stupid.

'and branding people mental in any shape or form is very narrow minded considering you've probably never even met any of the people you're including within your sweeping statements.' - I may not have met Shirley Phelps Roper (for good reasons) but if I did I'd have no problem telling her to her face that she is mental. I am not narrow minded - I think you will find that homophobic people and churches like the Westboro Baptist Church are worthy of such comments and if you have a look online you will see that I am not alone in my way of thinking.
:bye:

[JennaFletcher]

I think the last sentence just proves how ignorant the Americans can be towards anything other than their own little bubble of a world they live in.

We over here know about the mad Muslim clerics who stir up hatred where ever they go but we know, through having a broad outlook on life that they are a tiny minority and the majority of Muslims are a peaceful, hard working, family orientated members of our community.

Exactly. Though here is a more controversial question. I was recently at the Anti-BNP protest in Edinburgh, with minority groups such as muslims and gay people coming together to voice their concern at the BNP, a lot of muslims were s******ing as soon as a speaker included 'gay and lesbian' people in the minority category - just how many muslims would turn out if it was a protest against homophobia etc?

Curious question! :cool2:

[JennaFletcher]

Oh no, you misspelled the word "never". Does this make your point any less valid? ;) In my opinion, trying to score points (or whatever) by picking up on someone's spelling is never a good move. That's just my opinion.

There's a difference between a typo and a spelling mistake. I know how to spell the word 'never' :wink:

I left this in here because I knew it was only a matter of time before someone picked up on it!

I'm not trying to score points at all by picking up on poor spelling but if someone calls you stupid and daft yet is spelling words like 'arguement' and 'contraversial', you would be bound to pick up on it to!
:agree:

[HibsMax]

I think the last sentence just proves how ignorant the Americans can be towards anything other than their own little bubble of a world they live in.

We over here know about the mad Muslim clerics who stir up hatred where ever they go but we know, through having a broad outlook on life that they are a tiny minority and the majority of Muslims are a peaceful, hard working, family orientated members of our community.
It's these types of posts that I personally find inflammatory. Try saying something like this instead:
I think the last sentence just proves how ignorant SOME Americans can be towards anything other than their own little bubble of a world they live in.

"THE" Americans? WTF? I'm American. Are you saying I'm ignorant? Do I live in a tiny bubble?

[HibsMax]

There's a difference between a typo and a spelling mistake. I know how to spell the word 'never' :wink:

I left this in here because I knew it was only a matter of time before someone picked up on it!

I'm not trying to score points at all by picking up on poor spelling but if someone calls you stupid and daft yet is spelling words like 'arguement' and 'contraversial', you would be bound to pick up on it to!
:agree:

Nah, you're wrong in that last bit. I've been active in the messageboard community for some time and it's never bothered me that some people can't spell certain words. Competence in spelling is not an accurate measure of a person's intelligence so I just let it pass. There's no point in picking up on spelling mistakes, it serves absolutely no purpose unless you're looking to get a rise out of someone. I would rather debate the issues, not someone's spelling.

[J-C]

It's these types of posts that I personally find inflammatory. Try saying something like this instead:
I think the last sentence just proves how ignorant SOME Americans can be towards anything other than their own little bubble of a world they live in.

"THE" Americans? WTF? I'm American. Are you saying I'm ignorant? Do I live in a tiny bubble?


Jeez man keep yer hair on, obviously I didn't mean all Americans here, given the context of the thread and what we are discussing it was plainly obvious that I was commenting on a certain portion of Americans, look at the earlier post with the youtube link about the Westboro Baptist church.

Again people picking what they want out of posts and getting all hot under the collar, read the rest of my posts on this thread carefully and you'll find they're all about the bible belt right wing part of America, never once have I mentioned all Americans, so think and read before you have a bloody rant.

There are times I give up on some of these threads, when people start getting too personal and forget it's purely dicussion and we all have differing views.

[lapsedhibee]

It's these types of posts that I personally find inflammatory. Try saying something like this instead:
I think the last sentence just proves how ignorant SOME Americans can be towards anything other than their own little bubble of a world they live in.

"THE" Americans? WTF? I'm American. Are you saying I'm ignorant? Do I live in a tiny bubble?

You're some American. So stupid you don't even know where you live!

[HibsMax]

Jeez man keep yer hair on, obviously I didn't mean all Americans here, given the context of the thread and what we are discussing it was plainly obvious that I was commenting on a certain portion of Americans, look at the earlier post with the youtube link about the Westboro Baptist church.

Again people picking what they want out of posts and getting all hot under the collar, read the rest of my posts on this thread carefully and you'll find they're all about the bible belt right wing part of America, never once have I mentioned all Americans, so think and read before you have a bloody rant.

There are times I give up on some of these threads, when people start getting too personal and forget it's purely dicussion and we all have differing views.
My hair is quite secure thanks. This is not another example of people picking what they want from threads. I've read every post in this thread and I'm well aware of the context. But you didn't say "some" Americans, you said "the" Americans. If you can't see the difference then I'm sorry but there is one. I haven't gotten personal in this discussion, nor have I forgotten that it is a discussion. Of course we all have differing views but that's not an excuse to make inaccurate, sweeping comments. I lived in Scotland from birth until I was 27. I moved over here in 1998 and became a US Citizen in 2004. I'm proud of my heritage and I'm proud of me new citizenship. If I wasn't why would I even go through the expense and hassle of doing so? Perhaps that might explain to you why I take such comments as personally as I do. If a similar statement was made about "the" Scottish then I can easily see some people getting a little bit pissed about that (but I'm sure nobody is going to admit that now). ;) And don't tell me how to think and read, I've been doing both very successfully for a number of years now. I think most people who know me on here will back me up when I say that most of my contributions are reasoned and generally well thought out even though I know my opinions sometimes differ than those of others.


You're some American. So stupid you don't even know where you live!
LOL. OK, just for, I should have asked, "Do you think I live in a tiny bubble?" Hilarious. ;)


EDIT : I'm not interested in getting into any online name-calling fights, just presenting my case.

[JennaFletcher]

Nah, you're wrong in that last bit. I've been active in the messageboard community for some time and it's never bothered me that some people can't spell certain words. Competence in spelling is not an accurate measure of a person's intelligence so I just let it pass. There's no point in picking up on spelling mistakes, it serves absolutely no purpose unless you're looking to get a rise out of someone. I would rather debate the issues, not someone's spelling.

It doesn't bother me what spelling standard folk in the message board are at, what irked me is someone calling me stupid and daft when they couldn't spell what I consider to be quite basic words.

I would say that competence in spelling is not the main measurement of a person's intelligence but it's a pretty safe bet.

I have been trying to debate the issues but when people start nit picking my posts and taking it the wrong way then accusing me of being stupid/hypocritical etc. then I get annoyed which is why I have been responding to the poster in question the way I have.

You are entitled to respond to the posts in any manner you find acceptable and likewise I am entitled to respond to the posts in any way which I find is suitable to the situation.

[JennaFletcher]

Jeez man keep yer hair on, obviously I didn't mean all Americans here, given the context of the thread and what we are discussing it was plainly obvious that I was commenting on a certain portion of Americans, look at the earlier post with the youtube link about the Westboro Baptist church.

Again people picking what they want out of posts and getting all hot under the collar, read the rest of my posts on this thread carefully and you'll find they're all about the bible belt right wing part of America, never once have I mentioned all Americans, so think and read before you have a bloody rant.

There are times I give up on some of these threads, when people start getting too personal and forget it's purely dicussion and we all have differing views.

:top marks

I feel these threads sometimes turn too much into a personal thing, with people only reading what they want to read - ready to post a rant about how everyone is hypocrtical/contradictiory/stupid/generalising far too much, it takes away from the main debate.

Some people are just up for a scrap on these boards!

I'm one who wont sit on my arse and be beaten though, so if people want to keep throwing **** my way I'll throw it back at them twice as hard. :wink:

[Betty Boop]

:top marks

I feel these threads sometimes turn too much into a personal thing, with people only reading what they want to read - ready to post a rant about how everyone is hypocrtical/contradictiory/stupid/generalising far too much, it takes away from the main debate.

Some people are just up for a scrap on these boards!

I'm one who wont sit on my arse and be beaten though, so if people want to keep throwing **** my way I'll throw it back at them twice as hard. :wink:

You go girl! :thumbsup:

[JennaFletcher]

You go girl! :thumbsup:

:greengrin

Of course I will, I am representin' here sister! :wink:

[MSK]

:top marks

I feel these threads sometimes turn too much into a personal thing, with people only reading what they want to read - ready to post a rant about how everyone is hypocrtical/contradictiory/stupid/generalising far too much, it takes away from the main debate.

Some people are just up for a scrap on these boards!

I'm one who wont sit on my arse and be beaten though, so if people want to keep throwing **** my way I'll throw it back at them twice as hard. :wink:See, thats the problem with this forum ..at times there has been some excellent debates depending on topic ..i dont partake in many as i enjoy reading ..however the place seems to have been taken over by the "hey look at me" brigade ...content on preaching from journals & slating anyone who dares doubt them ..

Shame really ..:rolleyes:

[Pete]

See, thats the problem with this forum ..at times there has been some excellent debates depending on topic ..i dont partake in many as i enjoy reading ..however the place seems to have been taken over by the "hey look at me" brigade ...content on preaching from journals & slating anyone who dares doubt them ..

Shame really ..:rolleyes:

I reckon the debates might flow better if some people stopped being so stubborn and admitted they were wrong on occasions.

It's can be hard to do sometimes but you don't lose face. Nobody knows everything and personal opinions are not set in stone.

[steakbake]

What's this thread about?

[sleeping giant]

What's this thread about?

Periods :agree:

[Dinkydoo]

There's a difference between a typo and a spelling mistake. I know how to spell the word 'never' :wink:

I left this in here because I knew it was only a matter of time before someone picked up on it!

I'm not trying to score points at all by picking up on poor spelling but if someone calls you stupid and daft yet is spelling words like 'arguement' and 'contraversial', you would be bound to pick up on it to!
:agree:


I don't dish out abuse at all. You were deluded to call me a hypocrite (if you read my posts you will see that I wasn't contradictory etc etc).

Not trying to patronise you but when you jump the gun and highlight the things you only wish to see out of context and then call me stupid, daft and a 'general racist' then sometimes things get nasty.

Besides if you call people stupid and daft like you have done me, do you expect me not to point out your poor spelling on words such as 'arguement' and 'contraversial' - this illustrates to me that you're the one who is a bit dim frankly.

My posts have only been offensive to those who are offensive. I take particular offence to someone then I have no problem in giving them it back.

This is a controversial thread, and this is a controversial topic, there's going to be offensive comments, but I can't stand illiterate ones from you that hardly make any sense then you have the cheek to call me stupid.

'and branding people mental in any shape or form is very narrow minded considering you've probably never even met any of the people you're including within your sweeping statements.' - I may not have met Shirley Phelps Roper (for good reasons) but if I did I'd have no problem telling her to her face that she is mental. I am not narrow minded - I think you will find that homophobic people and churches like the Westboro Baptist Church are worthy of such comments and if you have a look online you will see that I am not alone in my way of thinking.
:bye:

What so because I mispelled arguement whilst posting on my lunch break - this illustrates to you that I'm thick. and how would you know if it was a "typo" or not, you really are full of it. :blah:

But of course, when you mispell a word, it's left there for obvious reasons :wink:

OMG :faf:

You "don't dish out abuse" but you then go onto call me "illiterate" in the next paragraph - I don't think I'm going to get anywhere here am I...

It's not only the sweeping statements that you fail to acknowledge; it's the flaws in your posting altogether.

You are such a hypocrite and you have the cheek to call me deluded when you say one thing and then in the very next sentence contradict yourself and deny it ever happend.

OK so you're not trying to patronise me are you? Telling someone to read your posts again is being patronising, wait I forgot, you can't see that:rolleyes:

I think you'll find I called you stupid, daft and a general racist after you berated me - go on, have a look yourself. So you can't really use that as an excuse for dishing out abuse - unless you knew what I was going to say before I posted it and beat me to it that is :faf:

You're not narrow minded? so calling Americans IN GENERAL "religiously mental" is open minded.... :top marks

The point you miss everytime is that you weren't just talking about the "western baptst church" initially.

Say what you want but it's painfully obvious that you're the deluded one.

All this from agreeing with you whilst highlighting some inconsistencies in your posting.

FWIW, I'm slightly dyslexic btw.

Well done!

[J-C]

What so because I mispelled arguement whilst posting on my lunch break - this illustrates to you that I'm thick. and how would you know if it was a "typo" or not, you really are full of it. :blah:

But of course, when you mispell a word, it's left there for obvious reasons :wink:

OMG :faf:

You "don't dish out abuse" but you then go onto call me "illiterate" in the next paragraph - I don't think I'm going to get anywhere here am I...

It's not only the sweeping statements that you fail to acknowledge; it's the flaws in your posting altogether.

You are such a hypocrite and you have the cheek to call me deluded when you say one thing and then in the very next sentence contradict yourself and deny it ever happend.

OK so you're not trying to patronise me are you? Telling someone to read your posts again is being patronising, wait I forgot, you can't see that:rolleyes:

I think you'll find I called you stupid, daft and a general racist after you berated me - go on, have a look yourself. So you can't really use that as an excuse for dishing out abuse - unless you knew what I was going to say before I posted it and beat me to it that is :faf:

You're not narrow minded? so calling Americans IN GENERAL "religiously mental" is open minded.... :top marks

The point you miss everytime is that you weren't just talking about the "western baptst church" initially.

Say what you want but it's painfully obvious that you're the deluded one.

All this from agreeing with you whilst highlighting some inconsistencies in your posting.

FWIW, I'm slightly dyslexic btw.

Well done!

You should never use this as any excuse for mis spelling, there is a spell check, my son has dyslexia and he never uses that as an excuse for anything in his life.


Instead of petty bickering and personal abuse, try adding something positive to this thread and if you can't do this, please then get off the board and let others who have valid points to make, enjoy these discussions. :grr:

You are both still young kids age wise, so try and act a bit more mature, instead of a pair of school kids.

[Beefster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church)


Watch this and open your eyes to religion at it's worst.

Nah, this is religion at its worst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

[J-C]

Nah, this is religion at its worst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases)


That's a whole can of worms for more than just this thread, infact most of this has been covered on various threads on here.

[MSK]

See, thats the problem with this forum ..at times there has been some excellent debates depending on topic ..i dont partake in many as i enjoy reading ..however the place seems to have been taken over by the "hey look at me" brigade ...content on preaching from journals & slating anyone who dares doubt them ..

Shame really ..:rolleyes:


What so because I mispelled arguement whilst posting on my lunch break - this illustrates to you that I'm thick. and how would you know if it was a "typo" or not, you really are full of it. :blah:

But of course, when you mispell a word, it's left there for obvious reasons :wink:

OMG :faf:

You "don't dish out abuse" but you then go onto call me "illiterate" in the next paragraph - I don't think I'm going to get anywhere here am I...

It's not only the sweeping statements that you fail to acknowledge; it's the flaws in your posting altogether.

You are such a hypocrite and you have the cheek to call me deluded when you say one thing and then in the very next sentence contradict yourself and deny it ever happend.

OK so you're not trying to patronise me are you? Telling someone to read your posts again is being patronising, wait I forgot, you can't see that:rolleyes:

I think you'll find I called you stupid, daft and a general racist after you berated me - go on, have a look yourself. So you can't really use that as an excuse for dishing out abuse - unless you knew what I was going to say before I posted it and beat me to it that is :faf:

You're not narrow minded? so calling Americans IN GENERAL "religiously mental" is open minded.... :top marks

The point you miss everytime is that you weren't just talking about the "western baptst church" initially.

Say what you want but it's painfully obvious that you're the deluded one.

All this from agreeing with you whilst highlighting some inconsistencies in your posting.

FWIW, I'm slightly dyslexic btw.

Well done!....Unbelievable ..another .."hey look at me"...:blah:..:faf:

[JennaFletcher]

What so because I mispelled arguement whilst posting on my lunch break - this illustrates to you that I'm thick. and how would you know if it was a "typo" or not, you really are full of it. :blah:

But of course, when you mispell a word, it's left there for obvious reasons :wink:

OMG :faf:

You "don't dish out abuse" but you then go onto call me "illiterate" in the next paragraph - I don't think I'm going to get anywhere here am I...

It's not only the sweeping statements that you fail to acknowledge; it's the flaws in your posting altogether.

You are such a hypocrite and you have the cheek to call me deluded when you say one thing and then in the very next sentence contradict yourself and deny it ever happend.

OK so you're not trying to patronise me are you? Telling someone to read your posts again is being patronising, wait I forgot, you can't see that:rolleyes:

I think you'll find I called you stupid, daft and a general racist after you berated me - go on, have a look yourself. So you can't really use that as an excuse for dishing out abuse - unless you knew what I was going to say before I posted it and beat me to it that is :faf:

You're not narrow minded? so calling Americans IN GENERAL "religiously mental" is open minded.... :top marks

The point you miss everytime is that you weren't just talking about the "western baptst church" initially.

Say what you want but it's painfully obvious that you're the deluded one.

All this from agreeing with you whilst highlighting some inconsistencies in your posting.

FWIW, I'm slightly dyslexic btw.

Well done!

How Primary School are you?! :hilarious:idiot:

[JennaFletcher]

You should never use this as any excuse for mis spelling, there is a spell check, my son has dyslexia and he never uses that as an excuse for anything in his life.


Instead of petty bickering and personal abuse, try adding something positive to this thread and if you can't do this, please then get off the board and let others who have valid points to make, enjoy these discussions. :grr:

You are both still young kids age wise, so try and act a bit more mature, instead of a pair of school kids.

Nuff of your ageist bull****. Give the 'kids' some credit.

I started this thread and I have been enjoying the wide range of opinions on this topic. It's not actually your place to tell who is welcome and who isn't welcome on these Boards.

[HibsMax]

It doesn't bother me what spelling standard folk in the message board are at, what irked me is someone calling me stupid and daft when they couldn't spell what I consider to be quite basic words.

I would say that competence in spelling is not the main measurement of a person's intelligence but it's a pretty safe bet.

I have been trying to debate the issues but when people start nit picking my posts and taking it the wrong way then accusing me of being stupid/hypocritical etc. then I get annoyed which is why I have been responding to the poster in question the way I have.

You are entitled to respond to the posts in any manner you find acceptable and likewise I am entitled to respond to the posts in any way which I find is suitable to the situation.
For the record, I think any sort of nit-picking is annoying and unnecessary when it comes to discussion, be it spelling or otherwise. The reason I think that is because if the best arguement [sic] you have is a person's spelling or grammar then you've all but run out of arguments. It's a non-issue but I would tend to disagree with your comment about a person's spelling ability.....but I'm not arguing with you over that. Not everyone is a touch typist. Not everyone goes back and proof reads their posts. People make mistakes. I know the difference between "here" and "hear"; "there", "they're" and "their" but on occasion I've used the wrong one just because I wasn't concentrating. I usually do go back and reread my posts and I usually pick up those mistakes but I can understand that not everyone is as precise as you and I. :wink:

Of course everyone is entitled to respond in whichever manner they find appropriate. I'm just saying that you're not going to lose an argument with me just because you spell a word or two wrong.

[HibsMax]

:top marks

I feel these threads sometimes turn too much into a personal thing, with people only reading what they want to read - ready to post a rant about how everyone is hypocrtical/contradictiory/stupid/generalising far too much, it takes away from the main debate.

Some people are just up for a scrap on these boards!

I'm one who wont sit on my arse and be beaten though, so if people want to keep throwing **** my way I'll throw it back at them twice as hard. :wink:
Good for you. There is no reason why you should sit down and not defend yourself......which was precisely what I was doing in reaction to what I thought was a poorly worded comment.

You may turn around and say it was misinterpreted but I say it was poorly worded. I'm a naturlised American with an American wife, I think I have the same right to stand up for myself, don't you? That doesn't mean that I agree with everything that goes on in this country, far from it, but it gets tiring reading anti-American stuff. It happens more often than you might think. I guess I should shut my mouth and keep my opinions to myself. What do I know, I've only lived here for the last 12 years. :wink:

EDIT : contrary to what you might think, I do have a sense of humour. LOL. Hell, I used to bash America as much as the next guy / gal when I lived in Scotland. But then I moved here and things changed for me a little. It's more of a pet peeve now.

[HibsMax]

You should never use this as any excuse for mis spelling, there is a spell check, my son has dyslexia and he never uses that as an excuse for anything in his life.
But not everyone deems it important to spell check their posts before submitting them - it is a forum after all, a place where people should be able to contribute without being persecuted for their sub-par spelling, their gender, religion, age, country of origin, race, etc. I use Firefox which points out my typos as I type, I don't know if all browsers do that though.

This whole issue of spelling is quite ironic to be honest. I work in Quality Assurance and it's my job to spot mistakes. I find them all over the place, much to the amusement of my wife. LOL. I take great pride in my work and poor spelling, in the workplace, is something that I take seriously. I have it, it's part of my job. I just don't think the same rigid rules should apply here.

Oh yeah, I still don't think the prom should have been canceled. ;)

[J-C]

Nuff of your ageist bull****. Give the 'kids' some credit.

I started this thread and I have been enjoying the wide range of opinions on this topic. It's not actually your place to tell who is welcome and who isn't welcome on these Boards.


The problem was you yourself started out with good quality arguments and the it became a slagging match between the two of you, almost like two kids in the playground " Yes you did.......No you didn't "etc, etc.

I did't say you were not welcome, read the post again, I said stop the bickering or get off the thread, to allow others to enjoy the discussion.

I know you started the thread but you have become sidetracked with the personal digs and slagging and thus the thread has become boring and not what it was meant to be.

Oh! and by the way it's not ageist, if you act like a child then I'll soon tell you no matter what age you are, there are a few people on these boards that are of a decent age but still act like big kids.:greengrin

Read my posts and you'll see I was fighting your corner all the time as I agreed with all your original posts until it became personal.

[J-C]

But not everyone deems it important to spell check their posts before submitting them - it is a forum after all, a place where people should be able to contribute without being persecuted for their sub-par spelling, their gender, religion, age, country of origin, race, etc. I use Firefox which points out my typos as I type, I don't know if all browsers do that though.

This whole issue of spelling is quite ironic to be honest. I work in Quality Assurance and it's my job to spot mistakes. I find them all over the place, much to the amusement of my wife. LOL. I take great pride in my work and poor spelling, in the workplace, is something that I take seriously. I have it, it's part of my job. I just don't think the same rigid rules should apply here.

Oh yeah, I still don't think the prom should have been cancelled. ;)changed it for you :greengrin


This wasn't my point, he used Dyslexia as an excuse, which is what I picked up on and said he shouldn't be doing that, if he has a problem spelling due to Dyslexia, then he could easily use the spell check option.

[lapsedhibee]

For the record, I think any sort of nit-picking is annoying

I'm just saying that you're not going to lose an argument with me just because you spell a word or two wrong.

Wrongly. :rules:

[JennaFletcher]

For the record, I think any sort of nit-picking is annoying and unnecessary when it comes to discussion, be it spelling or otherwise. The reason I think that is because if the best arguement [sic] you have is a person's spelling or grammar then you've all but run out of arguments. It's a non-issue but I would tend to disagree with your comment about a person's spelling ability.....but I'm not arguing with you over that. Not everyone is a touch typist. Not everyone goes back and proof reads their posts. People make mistakes. I know the difference between "here" and "hear"; "there", "they're" and "their" but on occasion I've used the wrong one just because I wasn't concentrating. I usually do go back and reread my posts and I usually pick up those mistakes but I can understand that not everyone is as precise as you and I. :wink:

Of course everyone is entitled to respond in whichever manner they find appropriate. I'm just saying that you're not going to lose an argument with me just because you spell a word or two wrong.

Max, my central argument did not involve around his poor spelling! I was saying that I couldn't be a hypocrite or a contradiction because my argument was this: highly religious areas (such as those found in SOME states of the US) usually results in less equality laws for gay/lesbians/anyone not heterosexual. DinkyDoo still persisted to call me stupid/daft/hypocritical and I could not help but pick up on his poor spelling.

Whilst this may come across to others as nit-picking, I am entitled to respond to posts about me in any way I like and I wasn't best impressed as you can tell at being wrongly accused repeatedly. If you check DinkyDoo's posts you will see he constantly goes round and round in a circle and I get no where, even when I try to explain myself to the best I can.

I've decided that I will let this one go just now :wink: But if I get another bloody post where someone is slagging me off without no good reason too I will get rowdy and I'm sorry if this annoys some people but you can easily ignore my posts and skip to the next post if you wish!
:agree:

[JennaFletcher]

The problem was you yourself started out with good quality arguments and the it became a slagging match between the two of you, almost like two kids in the playground " Yes you did.......No you didn't "etc, etc.

I did't say you were not welcome, read the post again, I said stop the bickering or get off the thread, to allow others to enjoy the discussion.

I know you started the thread but you have become sidetracked with the personal digs and slagging and thus the thread has become boring and not what it was meant to be.

Oh! and by the way it's not ageist, if you act like a child then I'll soon tell you no matter what age you are, there are a few people on these boards that are of a decent age but still act like big kids.:greengrin

Read my posts and you'll see I was fighting your corner all the time as I agreed with all your original posts until it became personal.

I'm just one of those people who can't let go if I've been wronged! I am female... :greengrin

[ArabHibee]

I'm just one of those people who can't let go if I've been wronged! I am female... :greengrin

That's a sweeping generalisation if I've ever seen one.

[Wilson]

That's a sweeping generalisation if I've ever seen one.

... and a mopping generalisation ... and a dishes one...

[Dinkydoo]

Edit:

I've removed what I initially had put down for this comment as after havinga wee think it's become apparent to me that it was just the same old pish me and Jenna have been spouting for the best part of 3 pages.

I apologise for this debate turning personal and for not simply logging out and taking a deep breath instead of retaliating.

I think I know why my arguement could be percieved as going "round in circles", it's because I initially only had one point - that Jenna's post wasn't worded very well and gave the wrong impression. Whilst people have tried to take this to a personal level (because of them maybe feeling a bit hurt from my interpretation of thier post - I don't know..) I've (upto t acertain point) attempted to bring them back to my original comment:

The fact that I found it extremely ironic and hyporitical to be outraged at a simple case of homophobia, yet didn't seem to realise that people (like myself) found it unaacceptable to say things like, most Americans from a certain area are religious nutters - lets face it boys and girls, that is what they were saying before trying to back track.

Enough of that though, if Jenna has any further issues she wishes to (ahem) discuss with me then feel free to send me a PM.

I think that we have come to a point where we simply aren't going to agree on the use of generalistic (conscious and sub-conscious) racism. :wink:


Edit, edit: I wasn't "point scoring" by mentioning the trouble I have some times with spelling, I was simply providing a reason as to why at times it can be prety terrible. TBH, I was somewhat 'taken aback' by being called illiterate - it wasn't a fair comment (and not entirely accurate lol :P)

Peace

[J-C]

Edit:

I've removed what I initially had put down for this comment as after havinga wee think it's become apparent to me that it was just the same old pish me and Jenna have been spouting for the best part of 3 pages.

I apologise for this debate turning personal and for not simply logging out and taking a deep breath instead of retaliating.

I think I know why my arguement could be percieved as going "round in circles", it's because I initially only had one point - that Jenna's post wasn't worded very well and gave the wrong impression. Whilst people have tried to take this to a personal level (because of them maybe feeling a bit hurt from my interpretation of thier post - I don't know..) I've (upto t acertain point) attempted to bring them back to my original comment:

The fact that I found it extremely ironic and hyporitical to be outraged at a simple case of homophobia, yet didn't seem to realise that people (like myself) found it unaacceptable to say things like, most Americans from a certain area are religious nutters - lets face it boys and girls, that is what they were saying before trying to back track.

Enough of that though, if Jenna has any further issues she wishes to (ahem) discuss with me then feel free to send me a PM.

I think that we have come to a point where we simply aren't going to agree on the use of generalistic (conscious and sub-conscious) racism. :wink:


Edit, edit: I wasn't "point scoring" by mentioning the trouble I have some times with spelling, I was simply providing a reason as to why at times it can be prety terrible. TBH, I was somewhat 'taken aback' by being called illiterate - it wasn't a fair comment (and not entirely accurate lol :P)

Peace

Well done young man, it takes a wee bit maturity to realise when things go a bit astray and things are said when they shouldn't have been.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm having a chuckle reading this.

20 years ago I worked in an insurance company in St Andrew Square, it has now been absorbed into that big Dutch multinational that sponsors Ajax.

At that time, single men had to take a female partner to the staff dance, unless they were over the age of 30. Some nut job manager had serious homophobia and must have thought that it was something that people grow out of.

Mind you that was the same place that had a "soft fruit policy" which set out which fruits could be safely eaten at your desk, and which were out of bounds.

You think the company was mad? I reckon it was the staff who went along with this sort of thing.

[HibsMax]

This wasn't my point, he used Dyslexia as an excuse, which is what I picked up on and said he shouldn't be doing that, if he has a problem spelling due to Dyslexia, then he could easily use the spell check option.
That's a fair point. If it was me I would probably say, "I can't spell, get over it." :)

EDIT: and cancelled vs canceled. Argh. Damned American way of spelling words. It's sneaks up on me all the time. ;)

[HibsMax]

Wrongly. :rules:
LOL. I stand corrected yet again. I should have gone with my gut instinct and said incorrectly, not "wrong".

[HibsMax]

Max, my central argument did not involve around his poor spelling! I was saying that I couldn't be a hypocrite or a contradiction because my argument was this: highly religious areas (such as those found in SOME states of the US) usually results in less equality laws for gay/lesbians/anyone not heterosexual. DinkyDoo still persisted to call me stupid/daft/hypocritical and I could not help but pick up on his poor spelling.
You'll need to work on that or else your post count will go through the roof. ;)



Whilst this may come across to others as nit-picking, I am entitled to respond to posts about me in any way I like....
Of course you are. I personally wasn't telling you what to do or not to, I was just stating how I would respond. Without trying to give the impression of "I'm older, I know more than you", I have just seen too many discussions go down the toilet over silly little things like that. Looks like this discussion has righted itself.....perhaps (I still have some more posts to read yet......yup, normal service has been restored.)