And god said, "Thou shall not wear ankle length corduroy skirts."

Stinky hippy right wingers with their corduroy and patchouli. Purple and brown what Was she thinking?

"...and Christ shall set you free!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJhSnD-5Ghk

irony

That reminds me of this one, from last year:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/burstein/2979979221

I applaud Chris Pesto for his action, but does he really think it was the sign that made people want to get their pictures taken with him? The sign was just an excuse to have their pictures taken with a smiling cutie! (JUST KIDDING)

I take mild issue with the title here, though. As someone who has been repeatedly physically attacked for being queer, I'd like to keep the term 'bashing' for that. This woman is clearly anti-gay, but calling her "gay-bashing" seems inaccurate.

nt-gy strs rnd hr r lwys s pr-gy bsd. "n ngry lsr"? Rlly? Dd sh cm t t bbs nd rp prschlrs n hr wy t Nz rlly? Wy t sty bjctv thr Wltr Crnkt. Y knw t sm "pthtc" ppl t's mndtd by thr rlgn tht t hv sx wth th sm sx s bhrrnt t ntr nd gs gnst th dsgn f ll th rst f fnctnl crtn. Tht hs t b t lst s mprtnt s th blty t chs fshnbl prnt pttrns r nc dry ppltn.

That'll teach her to be judgmental and petty.

AFAIK, BB has never promised objectivity. And bigots deserve to get whatever beat down they get.

A better sign would be, "God Hates Idiots".

@ Zaron3d

Thanks for clearing up any confusion about what "an angry loser" really is.

And if you don't think same-gender sex is "functional" you must be doing it wrong.

There is really nothing wrong with what she's wearing. I think that may be part of the point.

If not, double irony points. Or triple, because "fashion" has nothing to do with what actually looks good.

I did not know that was a bad fashion choice.
I did not even knew they still made stuff in corduroy. Last I heard of this material was from a bear in a shopping mall looking for a button.

The real problem here is this woman's moronic position on forcing her option onto everyone else.

Regardless of how stupid or great her opinion is, it is not her place to go around proclaiming anyone should do anything.

We have entered a time in our society when people have everything provided for them, so they can waste their time doing things like this.

I mean does she go home and tell her husband "I think I converted 3 of them today, tomorrow I am going to shoot for 4!"

Seriously Lady.... Go Home and stay away from the rest of society.

And Mr. Pesto, I give you credit for doing what you are doing, but I wouldn't say your support came from Homosexually friendly neighborhood... It should have come from knowing what this woman is doing is just STUPID. And supporting you because she is an idiot and you are pointing that out.

@possiblyj: You, sir or madam, win the thread.

All that is needed for bad fashion to prevail is for gay men to do nothing.

She doesn't look particularly angry or fearmongering.

Although it must have felt great to confront and stand up to the anti-gay placard holder, I suspect that what she took away from the experience was something more like: "Syracuse University is over-run with sin and the devil. I surely must stand strong and accept this difficult challenge that God has chosen for me".

It's all fun and games until a lesbian wearing a corduroy skirt walks by.

Th sgn n th rght s fctlly tr, bt xtrmly nsnstv nd dngrsly t f cntxt. Consequently, it only provokes anger and resentment, as Mr. Pesto and the author of this article clearly demonstrated. Why people still choose to hold up signs like that boggles the mind.

Her offense isn't being "petty and judgmental."

Her offense is that, instead of staying in her home with her cats and sister-wives, she took her pettiness and judgment to Syracuse University.

Syracuse students don't go to her home to tell her how to interpret the Bible and she should go to theirs and tell them who and how to fuck.

You know to some "pathetic" people it's mandated by their religion that to have sex with the same sex is abhorrent to nature and goes against the design of all the rest of functional creation.

Yes, well, believing that is pathetic. Religions that preach that are wrong (wrt "abhorrent to nature") and stupid (wrt the so-called "design" of the the rest of functional so-called "creation"). Freedom of religion means you're free to believe whatever kind of bullshit you want, and I'm free to believe whatever kind of bullshit I want. It doesn't mean I can't say your bullshit is bullshit, or that you can't say mine is. Hey, I worship ROCKS. You can make fun of that all you like, go ahead.

Oh, and I also believe that when people try to push their bullshit on me, I should push back. If they're rude to me in that process, I should respond with whatever level of rudeness is required—rudeness, mind you, not physical violence, though if they initiate violence...ooo, make my day. I believe that it's my duty to put them in their place. So by my lights Chris Pesto was behaving properly, though probably not for exactly the same reasons I would.

That has to be at least as important as the ability to choose fashionable print patterns or a nice dry appletini.

As important to whom? If someone believes that a dry appletini (and to be perfectly honest I can almost not type that word without throwing up a little) is more important than Christian scripture, why should Christian scripture be privileged in society? Fuck that, and the horse it rode in on, to put it politely.

The sign on the right is factually true

You should probably look up the word 'factually'. I don't think it means what you think it means.

You're right she doesn't seem that angry. How about bigoted loser? That's more fair I think. After all she didn't come to eat babies, only to spread her opinion, albeit rather mis-stated as fact.

As for her religion I don't care who it teaches her to disapprove of. It's her right to protest in this country and it's everyone else's right to as well. It's also everyone else's right to make fun of her for her unpleasant beliefs. Why should she get a free pass on them because they're religious? She put herself out there, now she will be mocked. Besides, boingboing contributors get to decide what they contribute. That means if they have a "pro-gay bias" then that's just how they roll.

Don't worry though. The bigots get plenty of approval on other sites.

While she doesn't look very angry in the picture, I think we can safely refer to her as a "loser" due to her having an irrational belief (homosexuality is bad) based on another irrational belief (God exists). If that doesn't make you a loser, what does?

Syracuse students don't go to her home to tell her how to interpret the Bible and she should go to theirs and tell them who and how to fuck.

From context I assume you meant "shouldn't."

In the end, though, it doesn't really matter what she took away from this. What matters is that passing people who happen to be homosexual get more than a reminder that some people hate them, they also get a reminder that some people don't.

@Xopher

True.

"Gay-bashing", um, not so much. She is holding a sign stating her relgious belief system.

"humiliated", um, I can see no evidence of how she feels. Perhaps you should have used the word "mocked" because she is clearly being mocked for her dress.

"angry loser" "pathetic hatred", uh, wow. Someone has an axe to grind here, don't you? From what I can see in the photo, it appears to be a calm woman, holding a sign, not like the folks from the Westboro church who scream that gays should be murdered. THOSE folks are shouting hatred and those folks are angry.

Sadly, we have an instance where folks disagree and instead of having a conversation, it degenerates into mocking, name-calling, and stereo-typing (on the side of the "victim", aka the man holding the sign on the left of the photo)

How is he stereotyping her? He's proclaiming a belief which, to my mind, is as stupid as hers. A fashion no-no isn't a sin, any more than being born with an unusual sexual orientation is. He's parodying her, but not stereotyping her.

Hey Moderator, I don't think it was necessary to disemvowel Zaron3rd's comment. It's much more fun to see the groundswell of reactions, IMHO.

Once you are "born again" the first thing you realize is that you are now flawless and perfectly suited to point out everyone else's flaws.

"An angry loser (right) came to Syracuse University to make a fool of herself by spreading pathetic hatred"

Hmm, I took some flak in the Swiss minaret thread for my comments, with proud words and phrases such as "tolerance" and "freedom of religion/whatever" being thrown around, amid much additional disapproval from the moderators.

The girl, at worst, is a person misguided by religion, and aiming hatred, disrespect and name calling at her is not going to help the situation.

Tolerance is about being constructive even if you don't agree with someone's views, no matter how right you think you are. It is really inconsistent, BoingBoing.

"Constructive" is exactly what the gent on the left was! Approached the matter with humour, made his point, and I think that is just great.

And also...having a conversation with someone who holds that dumb belief strongly enough to make a sign about it and stand on the corner...well, we've learned from long experience that the light of reason will not penetrate the blinders these folks have on. It's utterly useless and almost certainly annoying to have a "conversation" with them.

And this isn't "an instance where folks disagree." It's an instance where one of these stupid boneheads is attacking a group to which Chris Pesto belongs, in a way that was within her rights (before she was banned from the Syracuse campus); he retaliated by mocking her. It's the optimal response. He knew better than to attempt to convince HER of anything, so he used humor to show her as being as stupid as she really is.

My guess is that she does not consider herself an angry loser, fool or a pathetic hater. My guess is that she holds a beatific view of the universe that she'd like others to share. Far from an ignorant gay-basher with a violent agenda, she may only wish to share her vision with others she perceives as lost to that specific vision.

Weird that someone who is interested in a measure of liberation from a history of dehumanizing behavior done in the name of said vision, chooses to be dehumanizing himself by not seeing her natural desire to have order and beauty in her world, and to share that with others.

Sticking labels on her is, to my mind, an inherently dehumanizing practice. This kind of dehumanization is the preferred and socially acceptable method in our culture of discrediting the other. The popularity of this mentality is plainly evident in all those Rush Limbaughs and Glen Becks who make a great living doing this.

Yup. I can only be free if I smash you. That's the American way. God Bless America.

In this economy, she could just be a hired sign spinner for the local troglodyte church.

What makes you think HE doesn't have a 'beatific view of the universe' that excludes corduroy skirts? Where do you get off claiming that such a petty and silly belief should be less privileged than her petty and silly belief?

She went to Syracuse because that's where the homosexuals are (so she assumes, or maybe that's just where the impressionable young minds are ripe to be contaminated by her abhorrent beliefs). He found someone wearing a corduroy skirt to denounce.

What you don't get is that, all things being equal, what he's doing is no worse than what she's doing. And this is America, so all things ARE equal. That he did it with humor is to his credit, if anything.

Why should her vision (no homosexuals!) be privileged over his (no corduroy skirts!)? You're being irrational.

Yes, nothing more beautiful and visionary than reminding people that you believe they will burn in some eternal torment unless they live their lives by your rules. How kind of her.

Seriously? This poor woman just wants to share her unique viewpoint of why other people are wrong, so making fun of her makes you ignorant?

Sorry, tolerance is never going to mean anything, if people think it means you can't speak against intolerance. They may look similar, but from the outside they are not the same.

Xopher, In what universe does it make logical sense to imply that it's freedom, or that it's somehow free to believe whatever bullshit may be at hand?

My guess is that she holds a beatific view of the universe that she'd like others to share.

and this seeems to be an example of a hundred or so people 'doing unto her as she would do unto them', a simple manifestation of her own beatific philosophy, no?

I wasn't referring to the Chris Pesto, I was referring to Mark's commentary.

Can you clarify your question? I don't get it

Sean Blueart, if she were into a joyful and beatific view of the universe, she could put it on a sign and stand around waving it at people. She hasn't. She thinks it's more important to tell passers-by that homosexuality is a sin -- which, by the way, is a doctrine that's only marginally supported by core Christian texts, if at all.

Is she judging others? Yes. Is she implicitly sticking labels on them? Yes. Are you doing the same? Heck yes. And I, by the way, am judging both of you, so don't even try coming back with tu quoque. Your attempt to depict her as some kind of Bambi for God is just plain excessive:

Weird that someone who is interested in a measure of liberation from a history of dehumanizing behavior done in the name of said vision, chooses to be dehumanizing himself by not seeing her natural desire to have order and beauty in her world, and to share that with others.

I may not agree with the use of her skirt as an alternate issue -- yeah, it's shapeless, big deal -- but shifting the focus of the interaction to something other than her prepared agenda is a smart and completely legitimate move. If the other guy has a prepared script, do something that's not in it.

What a great way to make hatred look stupid with out being hateful yourself.

That's what freedom of religion means. And what she's believing is bullshit, plain and simple.

Sean, because humans, as a species, believe in illogical bullshit to get by. All of us. (Some of us make a better attempt a logical bullshit, but even that eventually has problems, that one usually glosses over or otherwise ignores to deal with daily life.) This is how our minds work.

In fact, this comment is also an example of belief in illogical bullshit. (Meaning: the part about "simplifying human thought process as 'humans simplify the world around them to be able to process said world'".)

That skirt is pretty bad.
So is that woman's profound misunderstanding
of Christianity.

I recognize that there are judgemental, dehumanizing, forceful and violent fundamentalist "Christians"*, who favor a myth of redemptive violence. I also recongnize that there are "Secularists" , and other self-labeled gangs, who share precisely the same tactics. I guess that both sides of these questions are hoping for some change to a more loving, human vision of the world. Sad that they don't choose strategies that are more loving and human.

*Yes, there are many different types of folk who use the label Christian*, and not all are judgmental and damning. Some even follow the examples of Christ himself. You get that, right?

MDH@42 wins the thread!

We'll hire a truck to help you get it home, but you'll have to wait until tomorrow to have the inscription engraved (up to ten words).

I really don't think any of it is bullshit. I believe everybody's motivation is driven by something beautiful and ordered and life-giving. It's all relevant to me on that level. The strategies for expressing that beauty may be a tragic shit-fight, but that's not what I'm looking at or speaking to in this instance.

To connect her with what others have done while hot having had a meaningful dialogue with her personally is jumping the gun, no matter how you slice it. Looks like Chris Pesto started a dialogue with her. Standing afar and throwing epithets at either of them is fundamentally unfair. Mark's comments say far more about Mark's thoughts than about her or Chris. Calling attention to this, in this way, is more "New York Post" than an appeal to liberation, meaning, and life.

Wow, I wrote "hot having". that's too funny.

"Howl with wolves, but louder".
Or something like that (can't find the source of that quote),

If every serious sign holder was accompanied by a few parody sign holders, it wouldn't take long to make all "sin" sign holders seem just ridiculous. Even to those who would agree with them.

"..everybody's motivation is driven by something beautiful and ordered and life-giving.."

You've met people, right? :)

Yeah, what a tragic mess we make.

Mocking this woman in this way is certainly more effective than trying to reason with her. She expects debate. But debate will simply strengthen her resolve. Mocking her puts her on the other side of the equation and maybe, just maybe, gets her to actually think about what it means to degrade people for their pants/sexuality.

Let me restate; It's not logical to say you're free to believe any bullshit that happens to be out there. I'm asking: if it's bullshit, how can it be freedom?

> What makes you think HE doesn't have a 'beatific view of the universe' that excludes corduroy skirts?

> That he did it with humor is to his credit, if anything.

Either he has a religious hatred of bad fashion, or he's making a joke. You can't have it both ways. The joke is made BECAUSE he is comparing her belief to something silly. Therefore, your claim that what he's doing is no different than what she is doing is false.

...unless you think he's serious. Do you?

Mocking is very very effective, which is why it's so popular. Shooting someone with a gun is even more effective. That doesn't make it right or even smart.

Sean, your optimism about the motivation of humans strikes me as unfounded. I've met too many people who are motivated by various ugly, disordered, and life-hating things.

I also think it's dangerous. While you seem to realize that some people are messed up, it strikes me that you may not be adequately cautious with people who are not noticeably disturbed, but whose motivations range from the amorally selfish to the outright monstrous.

Such people need to be locked up to protect others. This woman isn't one of them; she just needs to be mocked to protect the public sanity. If any.

Fundamentalists usually use a verse in Leviticus to justify opposing homosexuality. But then there's also this:

'21After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, "I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me."

22His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means."

25Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?" ' John 13:21-25

I believe everybody's motivation is driven by something beautiful and ordered and life-giving.

Why am I the one who always has to Godwin the thread?

I think his sign is very funny and clever in a sit-com, smarty-pants kind of way. I wouldn't characterize it as amazing or brilliant.

Amazing and brilliant would be if they went to a coffee-shop afterwards, had a conversation, fell in love*, got married and had kids. Or, if they went to a coffee-shop afterwards, had a conversation, became the best of friends and worked together to reconcile Gay and Christian world-views.

*Is he gay? - doesn't say.

Leviticus actually says that wearing cloths of mixed fiber is a sin so her skirt actually is a sin (according to he logic)

Reminds me of when that movie 'The Last Temptation of Christ' came out. Christians were outrages and demonstrated outside of movie cinemas here in Sydney (Australia). Believe me that tkaes some doing in Australia where we don't have the religious right of the U.S.

The funny thing though was that S.P.A.M (The Sydney Python Appreciation Movement) demonstrated as well with plackards proclaiming that Brian is the one true messiah.

Classic!

25Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?" ' John 13:21-25

That was a side-hug.

Oh, I see. No, of course the believers don't think it's bullshit. It's the rest of us who see it that way. By saying "you're free to believe any kind of bullshit you want" I meant that truth is not a criterion for permission to believe, and certainly MY opinion that something is bullshit is not a legitimate reason for denying freedom of religion.

There are people out there who believe that someone named God created the world in seven days a little over six thousand years ago, that Joseph Smith was an actual prophet instead of a lunatic and/or charlatan, that an evil alien named Xenu did something really terrible a long time ago, that alien lizards are running the world, or (gods forbid it should be 'and') that frog-descended beings with magic powers will come forth one day from caverns beneath the Earth to destroy us all (I swear I'm not making this up).

I believe all that is bullshit, which in no way diminishes my belief that all those people have a perfect right to believe those things. I also believe I have a perfect right to mock them. I normally consider it rude to do so, but a lot of things are rude even though one has a right to do them. Intentional rudeness begets itself, however, and this woman deserved what she got.

Either way, Chris Pesto's in the right. I was responding to what I thought was a pretty silly argument with an equally silly one.

Amazing and brilliant would be if they went to a coffee-shop afterwards, had a conversation, fell in love*, got married and had kids. Or, if they went to a coffee-shop afterwards, had a conversation, became the best of friends and worked together to reconcile Gay and Christian world-views.

If by 'amazing and brilliant' you mean what I would mean by saying 'horrible and disgusting', then we agree.

You've watched too many dopy movies. Ick.

I just don't see the value in looking at surface behavior without also considering the deeper motivation. For example, I believe Mark's motivation is for justice, fairness, balance and community, all very beautiful human needs, and the way he expresses that is tragic to me because the labels he's slapping on her is A. dismissive of her desire to meet the very same needs and B. he's focusing on the division which is what he's accusing her of doing. I would guess that he really wants unity, preferring that she not be divisive, and he's trying to get it by being divisive.

I see the motivations as beautiful, and the expressions of the motivations are tragic.

This is a beautiful example of our free speech values at work. In the marketplace of ideas, we don't need to quash "bad speech"- if the ideas are baseless, unfounded, biased, or reprehensible, other voices in the community will win out. obviously this happened here. score 1 for the good guys! If only this happened more often...

Xopher: "You've watched too many dopy movies. Ick."

Xopher, my friend, I am offended as an Artist. Please, don't ever accuse me of seeing dopey (read most "Hollywood") movies. You wouldn't catch me dead in a dopey movie.

My point, albeit tragically stated, was that their interaction was alive and real (for me) to the degree that they engaged and effected each other. I root for more genuine engagement is all.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical that she's motivated by any such thing.

And you may not think you have any outright enemies...but if you've maintained that belief, you can't be a gay man. I am, and I know that some people are my enemies, and that engaging them is worse than useless, because it wastes my time and energy.

This woman is one of those enemies. If she believes in justice, fairness, balance, and community, she should hold a sign advocating them, instead of the stupid bullshit she chose instead. If you carry a sign that says you hate cats, no one can be blamed for thinking you hate cats.

Also, public protest is, to this extent, phenomenological: if you carry an anti-gay sign, you ARE, in fact, anti-gay. She's proclaimed herself my enemy, and I believe her. YOU go sit in a coffee shop with her; maybe you'll fall in love. I'll be over here barfing.

I know it looks like he's doing a blackface routine in the youtube video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=459-nItVFpE ) but I think he's just parodying the silhouettes in the iPod commercials.

Xopher, you're tending towards the "if you're not with us, you're against us" view, which I think you'll agree has been proven rather lame by the Bush administration ;-)

Is there no place for someone inbetween? Not your friend, but also not your sworn enemy? Ok, I know - it's very difficult to have a real conversation with a religious zealot, but surely there are circumstances where someone can not approve of something about you and yet not be labelled as an enemy?

How old is she? Early 20s? With a background of severe brainwashing and social pressure? I will stick with Sean on this one - I do think there is hope for all people, and there is the possibility that one day she will become more "enlightened". Whether it happens or not, I dunno, but I want to believe it can happen.

Xopher, I wish that I could sit down and have coffee with you. It's difficult for me, trying to have meaningful dialogue in these limiting forums. I'm getting that the dialogue is very meaningful to you. Am I correct?

I am so embarrassed for those that exhibit oppressive and hateful behavior and call themselves "Christian." I'm as sorry as I can be for them.

My point...was that their interaction was alive and real (for me) to the degree that they engaged and affected each other. I root for more genuine engagement is all.

What you don't see is that "genuine engagement" between these two would be all to her advantage, and not at all to his. He'd be having the conversation she wants to have, and implicitly giving credence to her ridiculous beliefs. No one who holds such a sign should be treated as a reasonable person.

Engagement is what these assholes are trying to get. By advocating that they should get it (for some "all humans deserve it" kind of reason), you are in fact advocating that she get what she wants in exchange for doing something stupid, obnoxious, and rude.

Sorry, my family religion was Behaviorism, and my every instinct recoils at the idea of rewarding such antisocial behavior. I doubt his mocking her made any real impact on her, since anyone who would carry a sign like hers must be dead to any sense of shame, but at least he didn't reinforce her.

And think of all the people he did engage! Lots of people complimented him, posed with him...he found that a lot more people than he thought cared about gay rights. And all those pictures made her attempt at homophobic activism backfire massively. It got BOINGed, ferhebbinsake. I think he chose a path that led to much more "genuine engagement" than attempting to talk to her would ever accomplish.

A few of my co-workers and I did the same type of thing in LA recently... we just stood across the street from the "God Hates Fags" protesters with signs that read, "God Hates Signs", "God Hates Cream Cheese" , and other ridiculous-sounding things... People did the same thing, honking, high-fives, and posing with us for photos! Right on!
-Josh Tjaden, Astoria, NY

Do you even know if that's him? I googled the name and got a few people with that name.

There are lots more people that believe that homosexuality is a sin than that carry signs to that effect. If I believe it's wrong to eat veal, and say nothing when you order it in a restaurant, my belief harms you not at all. If, however, I say "omigod how can you order veal omigod that's just so wrong omigod," I've crossed a line.

But ordering veal is a choice. Being gay is not. What this woman is doing is proclaiming me a sinner for something that I cannot change. Since my homosexuality is intrinsic to me, she can't (whatever her beliefs on the matter) "hate the sin, love the sinner." She is my enemy.

Another parallel: nearly everyone (I'd say everyone but someone would pop up and say "I don't!" so I'll leave that out) harbors racist feelings and/or thoughts. Some people have truly terrible racist beliefs. People who hold signs proclaiming racist beliefs are the enemies of everyone else. When the other categories of people see those beliefs being mocked, it reinforces their proper sense of shame at holding them.

Boo. This would have been much more poignant if he wrote something relevant to her message on his card. Like, for instance, 'Intolerance is a Sin', or 'Judge not lest ye be judged', or one of the gazillion other wise God quotes this woman should be familiar with.

Dissing the way she dresses just makes him look like a jerk without a message.

Sean, this lady believes that countless people are inherently bad because of the way they were born, something they cannot control. How is that in any way beatific? How should somebody standing on a corner with a sign expressing her distaste with an entire subgroup of people inspire debate? All it should inspire is pity for her pithy hate.

This would be like if I stood with a sign saying that all African Americans were going to hell. It would be tasteless, stupid, and mock-worthy. Props to Chris for his delightful, snarklicious sign. Taking people like this seriously cannot lead to anything good.

http://www.thenewshouse.com/story/protest-gay-rights

Check out the local write-up to see a few of the other signs involved too. Inspirational stuff from the students that day.

I can't understand a word you're saying, take your foot out of your mouth.
oh sorry I mean;
cn't ndrstnd wht yr syng, tk yr ft t f yr mth. dck!

I dunno. Personally I care more about fashion than God. And they're both matters of opinion.

I can't speak for him, but for me it would be disingenuous to borrow some saying from her religion because it isn't mine. That is I wouldn't be interested in framing it within that because that shifts the question to whether either of you knows what "God" wants.

It's not a matter of religious debate for everyone. For some of us it's an argument about how privileged some people think their personal opinions should be.

He offered a personal opinion right next to hers. It doesn't matter to me whether her God is on her side or not.

To the patchouli wearing hippie hater, most of us are not right winged, and most of us protest for gay rights. Let's call the sign holdin lady like we see it, a sad, sheltered JW.

Well, of course. 'Christopher' is a particularly delightful name, as any fool should know. And Pesto is one of the most delicious things known to humankind! Naturally a lot of people would be named that.

"Her "specific vision" is shared by losers who injure and kill people simply for being gay. She is seething with hatred and anger."

Mark, excuse me, but her specific vision is also shared by many people who would be horrified at the thought of harming or insulting someone just because they don't share that vision. Please don't insult these people.

It is quite possible not to share someone's belief and yet not consider them an enemy.

"his lady believes that countless people are inherently bad because of the way they were born"

Actually she probably believes that countless people are *choosing* sin because they are tempted by *evil* inside them that they must fight their entire lives against and that only the passion of Jesus will save them from themselves and their disgusting, child-corrupting, society-destroying impulses. Luckily she has an out for any sexual urges because she can always marry a man and submit to him. However with enough right-think even the homosexuals will eventually see the light and repent. If they don't well then they have rejected God and sadly, very sadly, will be punished forever.

No doubt in her mind this is truly loving and kind.

"This would be like if I stood with a sign saying that all African Americans were going to hell."

Nnno....it wouldn't. Read the second part of her sign. The way she announces it is not very tactful but what she is actually saying is 'If you are a homosexual, you are a sinner, and Christ can help you stop being one.'

Is there no place for someone inbetween?

According to her actions, what do you suspect the girl in the corduroy skirt would answer?

Anyone who gets up on a beautiful, sunny morning and marches to a street corner with the sole purpose of telling perfect strangers that their lives are wrong and need 'fixing' acts as a hostile, unfriendly person. I don't see how you think Xopher is being hostile simply by acknowledging that woman's clear message. She's the one drawing lines in the sand and ostracizing others who don't fit her warped little world view.

What makes you think she'd even accept a gay person's invitation for coffee and a heartfelt chat?

Gah, forgot to sign in..

Doesn't matter. What she believes is erroneous. It would be like walking up to someone and telling them that there skin is sinful, and they should change it. I can't change my sexuality any more than I could change my skin color.

And if that person's opinion is you're going to hell because the way you are, the way you were born, is in their eyes sinful?

I'm sorry I can't imagine how that could be anything other than an enemy. They'd believe you are wrong and bad for just being who you are.

That's repugnant and insulting. Its quite a different thing than, say, merely believing in God or not.

This woman's beliefs are deeply, personally insulting to a large segment of the population.

This is not something so easily set aside.

"This would be like if I stood with a sign saying that all African Americans were going to hell."

Not really, more like saying African Americans will go to hell if they don't recognize that the shame of Ham marked them as slaves forever and graciously accept the superiority of whites, adopting their wisdom, and understanding that you can live happily so long as you agree with them. The emphasis is on the action, not the state of birth. Remember that being gay is a *lifestyle choice* not something you're born with.

Very true. Just like race. ;)

I must will away these feelings! >:O

Sadly, confronting fundamentalists in this manner often just drives them to cling all the more firmly to dogma.

That sort of confrontation is too threatening, and the mind simply rationalizes and seeks to defend itself from the attacking ideas rather than considering them.

It's still awesome to see that sort of solidarity in opposition, though.

Not really, more like saying African Americans will go to hell if they don't recognize that the shame of Ham marked them as slaves forever and graciously accept the superiority of whites, adopting their wisdom, and understanding that you can live happily so long as you agree with them. The emphasis is on the action, not the state of birth. Remember that being gay is a *lifestyle choice* not something you're born with.

Not really, more like proclaiming "being African-American" a lifestyle choice and pointing out that you can have your skin bleached, your nose narrowed, your lips reduced, and your hair straightened, and be white like God intended everyone to be.

Her belief is no less absurd than that. That's the point.

I know you don't share her belief. But it's just as stupid as telling black people that Christ can save them and make them white. The fact that no one is doing the latter just means it's more obviously stupid, not that the stupidity itself is greater.

AirPillo, that's exactly why I take the position that their minds are not a productive battleground, and that engaging them is pointless at best. This woman may have gone home thinking herself a righteous martyr, but lots of other people saw her as the braindead jackhole she really is.

"Corduroy skirts are a sin", says a man who hides his sense of fashion behind his sign. "Drama major" fits him just right.
Then again, I think punishing homos is so Old Testament. Christ's gang was men only, and I believe they loved each other.

All you need is love! That is the root of all things!

The only people that can tell you that you are a sinner, is someone who has never sinned! There is only ONE person that could have done that. I am willing to bet that HE loves everybody just the same!

"And if that person's opinion is you're going to hell because the way you are, the way you were born, is in their eyes sinful?
I'm sorry I can't imagine how that could be anything other than an enemy. They'd believe you are wrong and bad for just being who you are."

You can't work with such extremes. Just because someone doesn't approve of my sexuality doesn't automatically mean they think I am wrong and bad. What they do think is that I am making a bad choice. We can still be friends.

In fact I have several religious acquaintances who probably believe I am doomed to hell for my beliefs and actions, as well as several atheist acquaintances who probably believe I am doomed to idiocy and 'loserdom' because of my belief in God. They are not my enemies. Until they come up to me and try to force me to change, they are not my enemies. And no, I don't consider being informed that I am doomed an act of force, unless they repeat it after my request to leave the subject alone.

This goes for friends, of course, who really don't want to hurt my feelings, no matter what they think of who I am. I wouldn't expect such courtesy from a stranger trying to spread their message.

"Not really, more like proclaiming "being African-American" a lifestyle choice and pointing out that you can have your skin bleached, your nose narrowed, your lips reduced, and your hair straightened, and be white like God intended everyone to be.

Her belief is no less absurd than that. That's the point. "

Though I disagree with her belief I would argue that it's a little less absurd simply because it is much easier to prove and understand that we have no control over what colour we're born than to prove and understand that sexuality is also not a choice. There is no excuse for believing skin colour is a matter of choice, but the excuse for believing sexuality is is simply a lack of experience. I mean, HOW do you prove to someone who is straight that you really are gay and that it's not something you can change? They have to take your word for it.

But your friends seem like reasonable(ish) people. They aren't the ones standing outside with a sign, denouncing random passerby. Keeping the seething bigotry underneath is fine, but airing it in the open is rather impolite.

And while your friends might not openly hate on you, but you can sure bet that they and people like them will probably go out and vote to take away my rights. And as levelheaded as they may seem, that is just not reasonable.

Incidentally, how does an Aetheist friend believing that you're\e a loser compare at all to a religious friend that believes that you are going to be tortured for eternity by a thousand hot irons? Seems like comparing marshmallow-launchers to thermonuclear warheads to me, mate.

The most I would be comfortable ever interpreting from this woman's sign is that homosexual behavior (not necessarily homosexual orientation) does not biologically produce children and therefore is not a fully natural sexual expression. That's basic to her world-view, which is unarguably logical, UNTIL you put judgmental and retributive baggage on it, which, sadly, most Christians have done.

If she's Catholic, like some Catholics I know personally, her view may in fact be; that to not fully participate in this kind of creation of life is a kind of bondage. If you don't express fully, you're limiting yourself. That's not stupid or prejudiced.

My point is that not all Christians see it the same. Not all that put on the Christian "hat" think the same way. The fact is, you can't tell from this photo or story how she thinks about it.

If you project your conveniently homogenized, pop-view of Christianity, you're not seeing objectively. I'm not saying she doesn't think that way, I'm simply saying that you're heaping your baggage without full knowledge. For me, that's not honest, that's not logical. It's disrespectful as saying that Gays will, in fact, burn in hell (which, any hardcore Catholic who's done their homework knows, that may not happen anyway.)

I don't see "burn in hell". Where do you see "burn in hell"? You all must be listening to the incessant drumbeat of self-labeled "conservatives." Why are you listening to them if it's so painful?

As I have asked in similar threads here before: Why don't we see these same nutjobs picketing football games? After all, equal time is given in the same aforementioned book to the sin of touching the skin of a pig! It is certainly telling in a Freudian sense where fundies choose to draw the line in their selective interpretation disguised as the "literal word of God." Methinks they do protest too much.

Xopher, your comment @~78 nails it! =D

If anyone hasn't seen the Sodomobile episode of Michael Moore's The Awful Truth then do yourself a favor and watch it now.

Also, I love bacon.

When I first read the sign on the left I thought he was being ridiculous to illustrate the ridiculousness of ::her:: argument, but someone brought up that Leviticus bans mixed-fiber clothing. It's both mockery AND truth!

What's corduroy made of? Is that a mixed fiber? I think that *is* a sin, according to Leviticus 19:19 (or is it Deuteronomy 22:11?).

"Incidentally, how does an Aetheist friend believing that you're\e a loser compare at all to a religious friend that believes that you are going to be tortured for eternity by a thousand hot irons? Seems like comparing marshmallow-launchers to thermonuclear warheads to me, mate."

No religious friend has ever told me I would be tortured for who I am. Atheist friends have, on the other hand, tried to mock and provoke me. Maybe because they don't believe there is a Hell to take care of my 'stupidity', and so feel they must take the task on themselves, and make me a 'living hell' right here on Earth?

Mind that the religious friend does not decree that I will end up in Hell, so I don't see why they should hold any more blame just because their belief is more graphic. Also I have to point out this vision of Hell is not universal. Most Catholics I know believe Hell to be an absence of God, which, if you assume a Good God exists, is clearly a torment and leads only to misery. So if the Atheists think that my belief in God is what leads to misery...

I mean how do you even know the woman in the picture believes gays will go to hell and be poked by red hot irons? She didn't put that on her sign.

I'm gonna take a minority position here and defend -- a little bit -- the woman in the corduroy skirt. Although I won't be able to defend her fashion sense.

She has the right to her religious viewpoint, and she has the right to proclaim it on streetcorners. This is America. She wasn't (so far as I can tell from the article) attempting to force anyone to do or say anything.

It takes guts to stand up for your beliefs in public like that.

I think she's dead wrong -- homosexuality is not a sin. And I applaud Chris Pesto's response. Often the best approach is humor and ridicule. He too has the right to express his opinions. But let's take a moment to admire this woman for her courage. (And then let's get back to the ridicule, for she truly is wrong).

And for the record I'm a Catholic gendertwisted bisexual. There. I'm out on both counts, if that makes my comments any more or less valid, so be it.

Why are you listening to them if it's so painful?

Because they dominate the media and their domination of the media is increasing. Because they buy politicians and sponsor media campaigns that convince people to vote against me having equal rights. Leave Pleasantville someday: you'll find it educational.

"Her "specific vision" is shared by losers who injure and kill people simply for being gay. She is seething with hatred and anger."

To clarify (I hope) - I'm fairly sure Mark was tying this conversation back to the recent Muslim-related comment threads. I them, one of the most repeated themes is that, because some muslims have done some pretty horrible violent things, it is therefore reasonable to be xenophobic / against muslims in general / against minarets, etc.

So, a poster who takes the view that this woman is non-violently sharing her universal peace & love would hopefully extend that incredibly generous tendency to assume the best about people towards non-christians. Without naming names, I'm pretty sure some of these commenters are cutting the young christian lady a lot more slack than they do to muslims around the world.

Or, who knows, maybe he's serious. She might not be violent personally, but I'd bet money that she'd vote to strip several rights & freedoms from gay people.

Mockery is a good way to respond to hate-mongering.

That is a strange assumption, Mark. First of all there are many Christian faiths, and they all interpret the Bible differently. Second, that is what the Bible is for, interpreting, and you should know that it is not a source that gives clear-cut rules and can be taken completely at face value. Third, I don't know of you know that even in the Catholic Church to which I belong, what the Pope says is NOT ultimate truth unless he very specifically declares it to be. Neither JP2 nor B16 have made such declarations, to speak of the two most recent Popes. Fourth, Christians are not by definition a blind flock that always follows rules without thought and question. I am Christian and yet I reject the belief that homosexuality is a sin, among other things.

Finally it is impossible to fully agree with the Bible because the Bible often disagrees with itself.

It is very insulting to a person of ANY faith to assume that they follow any one interpretation of that faith to the very letter. You don't know what they believe. The only way to find out is to ASK them.

That said, the woman should of course be aware that no one will care enough to ask her, and that assumptions will be made about her based on the sign she is holding up. But to make those same assumptions about all other Christians is just...well, horrible.

Well, technically, Mark, that's not quite true. They COULD be (mis)interpreting Paul as denouncing homosexuality (there's some stuff in there that has been interpreted that way) and discarding the Old Testament entirely.

But you and I know that Christianists don't tend to discard the Old Testament, but to choose the parts of it that they think justify them in doing injustice, loving cruelty, and pridefully arrogating to themselves the judgement of God. (Naturally, they ignore Micah 6:8 and anything that looks like it.)

Isn't patchouli an herb and not something to wear?

Xopher, like I just said to Mark above, you don't know any of that, you assume it. I realise you were probably given cause to think all Christians hate you, but even in this thread you have several examples that prove that they don't.

What you're describing in your comment are arrogant pricks.

except shooting someone with a gun would only serve to turn said person into a martyr and cause more misunderstanding.

beyond that, just because someone has some ideal they want to share with others doesn't give them the right to do so and she should know better. especially with such a controversial issue as gay rights

So you pick and choose which parts to follow? How did you make the decision to believe Jesus is the son of God, born of a virgin. Yet 'homosexuality is a sin' is something you don't agree with.

Don't get me wrong, I much prefer that you only believe the bits that don't involve being hateful or intolerant. It just seems to be a strange way to determine the truth value of the words of your religious leaders.

Actually, Syracuse's general attitude is more "meh" than anything else. That passes for being "gay friendly" in Kansas, but New York? I have never heard of gay pride parades at Armory Square or a boutique that sells rainbow flags in the Carousel Mall.

Or at least the proper way to do it. :-)

Oh, wait, Mark said "holding a sign professing Christian beliefs." Mark, I think you meant a sign like the one this woman is holding, right? Because someone standing across the street from the Westboro Bozo Crazies holding a sign that says "JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED - Christ Never Preached Hate" is also "holding a sign professing Christian beliefs," yet pretty clearly rejecting the message of that Leviticus passage, wouldn't you agree?

I think you're also supposed to be put to death for adultery. Why don't these morons hang outside of divorce lawyer offices with signs for that big ass sin?

They seem almost transfixed with only homosexuality and abortion for some reason. I bet God is pissed that they've let adultery slip... yep, they're going to hell for disobeying gawd. They're screwed.

:D Xopher

I'd hold up a sign like that.

Christianists. By analogy to Islamists. People who believe that their narrow, hateful version of Christianity (in name only) should be the law of the land.

Not to be mistaken for your run-of-the-mill Christian, as I think I made pretty clear in #122, which of course you didn't see before posting here.

I mean, HOW do you prove to someone who is straight that you really are gay and that it's not something you can change?

WHY SHOULD you have to prove to some one who is straight that you really are gay and that it's not something you can change?

Cowicide, you know the reason? It's simple. Most of these morons are straight. Homosexuality is thus a sin they can NEVER commit. For people who need to up their self-esteem, that creates a perfect scapegoat.

Sad, but true.

Abortion is another issue, I'd say, for another thread...

Is hippy right winger an oxymoron?

I figured as much. Part of the reason I brought it up.

By the way, I'm not at all anti-Christian, just anti-Dominionist. And my Christian friends, of whom I have many (hard not to, singing in a church choir as I do) are as anti-Dominionist as I am. They have more sympathy for Dominionists than I do, but share my belief that they are profoundly wrong-headed. My Christian friends have more sorrow than anger toward them, whereas I have nothing but anger!

Sorry, Xopher, I didn't understand that analogy. I see what you mean now. Your next comment made me go :D .

Mark, I really hope you're not just finding this out now :( Christianity as per Christ is not supposed to be about murdering anyone. I wish we were a smaller faith, there would be a smaller ratio of idiots. But you must know that even those who believe being gay is a sin are not by default advocating violence against homosexuals. Those would, once again, be arrogant pricks who have no business calling themselves Christians.

Anyway, I'm off to bed, thanks for the discussion, guys. Sorry if I yelled at anyone.

"WHY SHOULD you have to prove to some one who is straight that you really are gay and that it's not something you can change?"

So that they believe you? Don't you want people to believe your sexuality is valid? I know I do, and yet it's so complicated, I hesitate to tell anyone because most often I get blank stares. Honestly, I wish I could just say 'I'm gay', at least that is a term people universally understand, whether or not they approve of it.

Context is a wonderful thing. Why, without context, anything could be applied to anything else!

http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/8jybf/if_christians_oppose_homosexuality_mainly_due_to/

Most of these morons are straight. Homosexuality is thus a sin they can NEVER commit.

Exactly. Preaching against homosexuality is the easiest thing to preach, because it asks *nothing* of those who aren't gay. Real preachers challenge their flock.

If she's Catholic, like some Catholics I know personally, her view may in fact be; that to not fully participate in this kind of creation of life is a kind of bondage. If you don't express fully, you're limiting yourself. That's not stupid or prejudiced.

Funny, isn't that the same religion (Catholicism) that holds celibacy as a virtue and ordains celibates as monks, priests and nuns? Nice way to participate in the natural creation of life.

What if the teller of this tale is a liar, and the woman and her sign appeared on the scene second. Now who has the sense of humor?

What an inspiring and hilarious story! It's so great how he drew the support and actions of others for the sake of equality.

"What if the teller of this tale is a liar..."

Now hang on a GD minute!

Don't you want people to believe your sexuality is valid?

Yes I do. However I have a problem with being put in a position where I have to prove my sexuality is valid to people.

I don't want to have to defend myself in order to have the right to be who I am. I have a problem with the fact that it's even still on the table. Of course my sexuality is valid. Just because some one doesn't have the same experience as you doesn't make their experience invalid, and I have a problem with the sort of thinking that allows people to be comfortable holding that belief. So for me it's a part of a bigger question. Less a question of how to prove it and more a question of how to raise awareness enough that it doesn't have to be *proven* at all.

She doesn't have to think. Jesus does all her thinking for her... *shudder*

Chris is cool. We get fundies like this on my college campus (Georgia Tech) all the time. We have a pretty open gay community, so this gives the local Baptists the idea that we need to be told to stop living in sin, etc. etc. It's always a good laugh. A good friend of mine met a few of these angry folk one day, one of them carrying a sign saying "GAY SEX IS A SIN". He promptly returned later with a sign that read "DON'T KNOCK IT UNTIL YOU'VE TRIED IT."

DON'T KNOCK IT UNTIL YOU'VE TRIED IT.

Sex is important. Only a genuine fuckhead would seek to curtail others' sex lives; cause they're the only ones capable of coming up with reasoning to justify applying their own values to to someone else's private business.

Nice to see such a one get owned in such style : )

Thank you for posting this. What a great story1

This is an awesome story!

I love that book. It's really about total acceptance for who you are rather than how you look. How appropriate. Then again, corduroy skirts are seriously lame.

I'm proud that Syracuse has such a homosexual friendly community.

Can we PLEASE stop using the term "homosexual" when we mean gay? I find that term totally dehumanizing and reductive. It's like an African=American person calling themselves "darker-complected." It refers to something that is nowhere near the only aspect of the identity it is meant to represent.

Sean Blueart got burned. Hard.

*Yes, there are many different types of folk who use the label Christian*, and not all are judgmental and damning. Some even follow the examples of Christ himself. You get that, right?

I could smell your Christianity before I even got to the explicit proof.

I'm so glad we don't have idiots holding signs like her where I live because otherwise my usual pacifist stance would surely crumble.

sslt s K smtms... Yp... Thts nt typ... mn sslt.

Ahhh, snap!

You can believe any damn fool thing you want (I know I have a few silly beliefs). The problem is that is a very short road from believing someone is going to hell in the afterlife, to believing you should create this hell now, in case there's no afterlife (even hard-core believers have moments of doubt, I'm sure).
Case in point: The pro-lifers believe abortionists go to hell, so why shoot them? I mean, isn't god gonna take care of it later? (and if it's because of the poor babies going to Limbo, just shoot some holy water in the womb before the abortion & the babes go straight to heaven).
It's a conundrum. Before ww2, a lot of fairly intelligent & seemingly nice people (including a lot of jews, in Italy) believed that fascism would be a decent form of governance. The practical execution of these beliefs turned out to be horrendous & so we learn. So if we had eradicated fascism in the 30'ies, a lot of suffering could have been avoided, at the cost of free will/speech.
The right wing christians (and radical ecologist, hard-core nationalists etc) have the right to their beliefs, but as soon as they act on these beliefs, they become criminals. So do we try & stop them now, possible avoiding another pogrom, at the cost of losing our own humanity?

Ah, life is too freaking complex, thank god for drugs ;-)

Chris, You FUCKEN ROCK my man!

Repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that he may forgive your sins.
FCK JC ND FCK Y. 'm s trd f fls lk y sprdng yr tth fry strs nd xpctng s ll t blv thy r tr. Th bbl ws wrttn by ppl y prsmpts fck. Qtng scrptr s nt prf f nythng.

Considering that there are at least 19 major world religions (not to mention the roughly 270 sub-groups they seperate into), the chance that you have chosen the correct religion is 1 in 19 (at absolute best). Taking into account that evidence suggests all 19 are probably wrong... Looks like you're dedicating your time/life to nothing.

There is nothing positive about homosexuality
Yeh.. thats right.. the thousands of gay married couples are all masochists who despise their choice. Thnks fr yr sht pnn. Please shut up in future. Considering that 1,500+ animal species practice homosexuality god must have really fucked up there. Probably smoking all the weed he accidentally left around on the 7th day (RIP Bill Hicks).

Logic failure mrn. Bible considered to be guidebook of morals as directed by god. Bible says homosexuality is wrong. God creates many homosexual animal species. God's creation contradicts what you claim to be god's desire.

G fck yrslf. Srsly. 'pr' wrld wld b wrld wtht sht lk y.

(looks like the guy's comment was deleted)

...God Hates RAGS...

You know, Leviticus (the book gay-bashers quote) also says

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you."

Why don't these people protest seafood restaurants with the same ferocity that they protest gay-pride parades and abortion clinics?

Actually, when all is said in done - The Bible hates on shellfish more than it does homosexuals.

Makes you wonder how many Christians have actually read The Bible at all. Oh well, it's just a religion - we're so fortunate that it's never gotten out of hand and caused the progression of society to become stuck at a standstill for over a thousand years...

Heh... just goes to show you that not only are we queers happier and more creative, we’re wittier and funnier, too! The best (and most effective) reaction to authoritarian control freaks and/or Mary Moralist busybody gawd-botherers is to get people to laugh at their preposterous nonsense — it removes their power. Good on you, Chris Pesto!

And as for Michelle and Jim Deferio, they seem to be Scripture-lovers, so here's some Scripture for them to study:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They shall have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." -- Matthew 6:5-6

Seems pretty clear to me... THE BIBLE SAYS: PRAYER BELONGS IN THE CLOSET. Doesn't say nuttin' about sticking us queers there. So get back to your closet, Michelle and Jim, and leave *us* the hell alone!

There is nothing positive about homosexuality

nor anything negative.

Usually I would be saying "Simmer down, mate," but honestly I love hardcore, unbridled activist rage. With hyperlinks, too! Very choice.

Sometimes I kinda wish the Mods would leave asinine comments like those up, though, just so that we can all feel better about ourselves.

Seriously though, comments like those pale in comparison to the shit that gets thrown around on my local newspaper's site. Any thread with even a hint of politics turns into a gay-bash-fest in a matter of seconds. Recently I was told that banning gay sex was the most pressing concern our country is facing.

Best thing, though? Posting something halfway intelligent and watching the neanderthals attempt to retaliate. XD

Intolerance plus intolerance equals intolerance.

Are you suggesting that we be intolerant of her intolerance? Even as her and others like her continue to foist their intolerance upon the general public, poisoning minds and denying me and others of basic rights?

Or are you suggesting that we merely be tolerant of terrible fashion choices? Because that's where I draw the line.

As the proud liberal, atheist, fag that I am, I felt a duty to give a quick scroll through the comments on this story. It's strange, I always expect the simpering, spineless, quisling sort of comments prominently on display on these sorts of blog posts; but to actually see them, well, it never fails to be somehow surprising that the depths of human cluelessness can apparently always be plumbed ever deeper. "intolerance plus intolerance equals intolerance", "why can't we just try to understand her beautiful, beatific view of the universe", "you don't KNOW what this woman believes just because she's holding up a sign about homosexuality being sinful and christ belief being redemptive, how dare you stereotype her beliefs like that!", "oh those atheist, 'secularist' gangs, why they're just as bad as religious fundamentalists doncha know!" And on and on and on teh stupid goes. It's amazing really, if you are ever in doubt as to the frailty of human cognition, just hop on the web and read the thoughts of moderate Christians and credulous, morally relativistic postmodernists everywhere, all of your uncertainties will soon be allayed.

GENIUS!!! You win!!!

Well done.

Most people should engage those bigots, and the way you did it was clever adn inspired.

Most of these morons are straight. Homosexuality is thus a sin they can NEVER commit. For people who need to up their self-esteem, that creates a perfect scapegoat

or....check this out: How much more would their self esteem be lifted if they actually WANT to commit the sin they are scapegoating.

Seriously. These people think more about what's in other peoples pants then anyone else.

So, some of you folk in the comments are opposed to "gay bashing" and bigotry but you think it's ok to use lesbianism as an insult?

Clue. You haz none.

Time and again it saddens me that people forget the fundamental teaching of Die Hard With a Vengeance: don't rush to judge the actions of people brandishing offensive signs.

"Yes I do. However I have a problem with being put in a position where I have to prove my sexuality is valid to people.
I don't want to have to defend myself in order to have the right to be who I am. I have a problem with the fact that it's even still on the table. "

Yes, well, it IS on the table and it will be for a long time, as long as people have trouble understanding what doesn't apply to them personally. So, I presume, forever. Minorities will ALWAYS be somewhat misunderstood, because they're minorities, ergo few people can relate to their issues.

Funny, and provocative. This is the way to fight these ridiculous ftards, with humor. Good for you!!!! I'm proud of you, sir.

I have seen a lot of mean hateful Christians out there, but there are those that surprise me with kindness and dare I say compassion, but mostly not. She doesn't look to be "seething with hatred and anger," nor particularly "humiliated" nor an "angry loser." She's a young woman holding a sign. That's it. It could just as easily read "alcoholism is a sin,""gambling is a sin," "eating meat is a sin," or, "pollution is a sin" She might even share common interests with us, whoever we are. She's probably Apostolic or Pentecostal, as they're the ones with a problem against pants, AFAIK.

I know it's easy to let your emotions run hot, but I don't think this should be one of those times. It's not like we really know what's going on inside of her head. No need to speculate as to how hateful or how much of a loser she is. She already got pwned, and that good enough for me. Plus us real loser don't like to be lumped in with those religious ones. ;-)

Ths mn Pst thnks t s s fnny bt h wll nt lgh n Hll!!

I'm surprised that any human being with basic mental independence would believe in a god that encourages followers to preach so much hate.

@ Zaron3d

Um... what?

"..but he will not laugh in Hell!!"

You're totally right, none of us will. Good Times!

What's this about "rights" to beleive what you want? no-one has the "right" to teach bullshit to the uninformed, and people - especially children - have the "right" to grow up without stupid adults telling them thousand+ year old fairy tales

Wake up Ms. Corduroy. When is the last time a gay person looked at a anti-gay cardboard sign and said, "Well, that does it, I'm not going to be gay anymore!" Telling others 'gay is wrong' is the same as saying 'I'm straight and I'm right' and really, nobody cares.

"The girl..." "How old is she? Early 20s?"

Grey hair ≠ "girl".

Honestly, have you ever come across a frumpy, patchouli stinking, floor-length corduroy skirt wearing female that wasn't middle-aged? You don't get that way overnight. It takes decades to get that level of frump *just so*.

Sorry to hijack the tread, but

Exactly when did being a Christian mean hating the people around us? This is not how God wanted us to "reach" anyone. We're supposed to follow Christ and Christ only went around condemning the Pharisees. You know, the people with their heads so far up their rear ends, they couldn't see that there's more to faith than following the law and patting themselves on the back for their distorted view of faith? Yeah. Those guys.

It's really sad that Christians who are interested in reaching out in love to those around them are often shunned by non christians and lumped into this view that all Christians are out to condemn others.

As for the man's sign, well, frankly, he stood up for himself with as much anger and hate as the lady was spreading. A better sign would be "Hate is a sin" or "Jesus loves Gays" (because He does).

Wow. Look at that point sail! The thing is she *is* equating gambling or something with homosexuality. The issue here is that homosexuals are not choosing to be homosexuals the way that some one chooses to gamble. They simply are homosexuals.

In other words what some the comments here seem to be missing is that it's already a common abuse heaped on homosexuals that they choose to live in violation of the norm out of a perversion inside themselves when in reality some people just *are* gay the way that some people just *have* brown eyes.

I think one would have to ask the woman if she was humiliated for it to be so. I don't think she was. Amused, perhaps!

sorry, i just had to say something to that comment. hippie RIGHT wingers? the last time i checked, hippies are extremely left wing and fight for the rights of people to be who they are. they were the movement in the 1960's and 1970's for free love. she would be considered conservative, not a hippie. just saying.

awesome article, ps.

She had to wear a corduroy skirt because if you wear cord pants they catch fire when your thighs rub together while walking.

Hey, idiot, pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. "Rp prschlrs" as you call pedophilia in your post is just as much a straight thing as a gay thing. When you examine the population of child molesters, you find that the straight vs gay percentages are exactly the same and they are in the non-pedophile world. Gays have no higher a propensity for molesting others than straights do. So, statistically, a child has a much higher risk of being molested by a straight person than a gay person, given the fact that there are so many more straights in the world than gays.

Love that another Chris is standing up for fashion as well! I am a stylist for film and television and now own a garmet company so I LOVE this!! All the best and give em hell!!!!! Christopher Avery

Go there and see.

"Gay Bashing" doesn't mean "Bash a Gay". It means bash the idea of gay. Bash isn't like punch. You're messing up the nomenclature. We straight now?

I'm a sinner. I'm going to have to get rid of my corduroy skirt!

This makes my heart smile!! LMAO!!

People like her used to "visit" Oberlin College (one of THE most gay-friendly campuses in the country) when I was a student there. Mostly they were either ignored or laughed at in passing. But the more activist gays would often would make opposition signs (My favorite was "God made me gay, so he must be okay with it.") and then stand right in their faces. Not just next to them. When the Westboro Morons came, they had to be surrounded by a fence for their own safety. And then the gays and gay supporters surrounded them, shoulder to shoulder, so no one could see them. You DON'T have to put up with this shit!

Closing out my thoughts on this thread. I get riled when anyone calls out the "other" as evil. I get more riled when people I admire, like Mark do it. I feel very sad for all the oppressive epithets and any physical violence on both sides of the issue. Violence emboldens the worst aspect of fundamentalism no matter your adopted gang, Christian, Gay, whatever. I firmly believe violence is unnecessary.

My point, my belief, which I may not have gotten across too clearly, is that when you get beyond the superficial enemy images and focus on the deepest human level these surface conflicts, bloody and pervasive as they are, simply evaporate. This has been my practical experience in the world.

False cultural messages like a myth of redemptive violence is a tenacious indoctrination that infiltrates and subverts all good intentions in whatever form of expression you may choose. For the last compassionate word on the bloody divide between Gay and Christian, I leave you with an article by Theologian Walter Wink.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink

Thanks folks.

Her face is priceless.

She looks defeated.

Hey cut her some slack will ya. It could be a white corduroy skirt after Labour Day.

I have read some of your views on here, and they are so ridiculous. Why is it okay to return "bashing" with "bashing"? Why do you think FASHION is more important than someone's soul? That just doesn't make sense...I thought his sign, although clearly just a form of retaliation, was petty as well. Who cares what the lady is wearing?! This lady has the right to her opinion and the right to protest, tho she was misguided in how to share it. I live in Houston, and I have a gay brother, and I have seen so many gay protesters out there, and they probably offend many people driving by. So what? That's their right and you people wouldn't complain about that. This lady was only doing what SHE feels necessary; even if it's not really necessary. She didn't harm anyone, did she? She looks like she is protesting peacefully. People who hate on her are JUST as "hateful" as those like this lady who protest against homosexuals.

lol I believe the moral of this story is don't judge how others should be before you judge yourself (basically, lady should've looked in the mirror first before she decided homosexuality is a sin)

As Jon Stewart has proved again and again, humor is the smartest bomb ever devised. It's also a weapon way beyond the capabilities of priggish moralizing wingnuts. Bombs aweigh!

By the way, everyone knows the old argument that there are many animal species out there that are homosexual. How is that a good argument? They are ANIMALS, without a soul...and they pretty much hump everything, animate or inanimate. That is not a logical argument stating that God "messed up". The Old Testament (Leviticus in particular) was abolished...the laws in there were before Jesus came...before He died. People who look at the Bible as a book of "rules" fail to understand the concept of GRACE. As I said before, I have a gay brother, who I love and adore, and I do not judge him. I do not judge anyone, or try not to at least (sometimes that is difficult, but I am human). He knows that I love him and accept him, and I love his friends and hang out with them all the time. But he still knows my beliefs conflict with his- we just don't let that get in the way of our relationship. I don't believe in Christians being hateful either, and NEVER in my life would I go protest as this lady did with a sign against gays. In fact, although I understand where she's coming from (although ignorant, she thinks this is her duty for some reason), I do think it is wrong for her to do this, and it definitely turns off people away from Christ. If there were true Christians out there and everyone knew at least one TRUE Christian, then I believe our world would be a different place. People, in general, can be misguided. This lady was very misguided.

Well, I think this is hilarious and I happen to own a corduroy ankle length skirt.

I can't recall any instances of being systematically discriminated against and occasionally murdered for making poor fashion choices.

The greatest con that the right wing has pulled is making liberals believe that if they are to get their idea across, that they should follow some ideal set of rules. That we should not only accept that everyone has their own ideas, but we should respect the ideas themselves. Somehow, we should be consistent in giving merit to all ideas, whether we find the ideas meritorious or not.

That. is. bullshit. I reserve the right to fight hate with hate. To call someone I find to be idiotic an idiot. I reserve the right to shit-sling and slander when I find no other alternative. I reserve the right to be as base as Glen Beck if it will get my point across. I reserve the right to use the argument "If you temporarily look stupid due to my shenanigans, you must be wrong and I must be right." I will not be neutered by my opponents assertion that I should be fair when they refuse to be fair.

/end_rant

Not only do I have to thank you for this witty retort at the tired old gay-bashing for Jebus stunt, but I am so inspired by the crowd you gathered. This is the courage it'll take to win this battle. Too many just pass by and let people like her get away with this kind of bigotry, and you did not. I salute you.

Now looks aren't everything - but she does look like Terry Gilliam in Life of Brian...
http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsG/6562-12886.gif

Brilliant...

It's factually true in the sense that homosexuality belongs to the set {X| Christian Orthodoxy considers X to be a sin}.

Well, when you say something is factually true, people have a right to assume you mean, you know, factually true, rather than in the sense that some ideology to which you don't subscribe holds it to be true. If we followed your rule, you'd have to count the statement "Frog-descended beings will one day destroy us all with their magic powers" because adherents of certain wacky conspiracy theories believe it.

Sorry, but Christian beliefs aren't entitled to be privileged as "factual." For something to be factually true there must be evidence to support it, and "sin" isn't exactly measurable in the lab.

Whether or not the statement "There exists such a thing as sin" is factually true is a completely different matter, which gostdom seemed to recognize when he mentioned the importance of context.

So now you require me to time-travel in order to correctly interpret others' posts? Crap. I read based on what I see, and respond accordingly.

The disemvowelment of gostdom's post and your outrage are unfair, philosophically ignorant, and degrade the conversation.

Bullshit. For one thing, my outrage wasn't disemvowelled. (I figured out what you meant, but do try to avoid those scope ambiguities, will you?) Seriously, it wasn't unfair to disemvowel that post. As you reply to this, look just above the comment box. It says right there not to make homophobic remarks.

I'm not even sure what you mean by "philosophically ignorant," unless you believe that Christian scripture is a philosophical system that everyone who is not ignorant is familiar with, which is a position someone could take, though not exactly applicable here. I'm quite familiar with that scripture, and I think much of it is bullshit. Paul, in particular, is chiefly interested in getting his own way and enforcing the very social structures Jesus was trying to overturn; but I'm not going to argue Christian scripture with you.

As for "degrade the conversation," I'm going to let the mods rule on that one.

By the way, everyone knows the old argument that there are many animal species out there that are homosexual. How is that a good argument? They are ANIMALS, without a soul...and they pretty much hump everything, animate or inanimate.

It's a response to the claim that homosexuality is "abhorrent to nature." That claim is bullshit because homosexuality exists in nearly every species that has sexuality.

And your experience with animals appears to be limited to male dogs.

How can you even begin to say that poking fun at someone's fashion sense and insulting someone's lifestyle are even remotely the same?

The guy was clearly engaging someone who is hateful toward him for no apparent reason in a way that just made it seem silly. It's not like he was standing next to her with a "Christians are idiots" sign or something.

LOL! That is great!

I love the Stephen Colbert style mockery, I think it's really the appropriate way to go after those nut jobs.

Well done!

Complementary poster: "Self righteous theocratic meddling is a sin"?

I don't even know you but I am SO PROUD OF YOU right now!

This reminds me of the T-Shirt Hell picture where some fundamentalists are standing with these signs and there's a guy in a shirt with an arrow pointing sideways that says "He loves the cock."

What you have right there is a nonviolent--almost nonverbal--conversation. She said something with her presence and her sign and he's responding with his presence and his sign. People came and joined the conversation by standing in support of him...again, fantastic. That is exciting and the very essence of free speech. NO ONE should be made to shut up.

When any group can be made to shut up, any group can be made to shut up--including yours. "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." said Voltaire. It's hard in practice though, especially about things that really stir your ire. As Harlan Ellison said "You'll never be asked to defend the First Amendment rights of Reader's Digest."

well done my man - she looks quite defeated in the photo!
;-)

Hate is a sin

Take another read; he is talking about the woman in the photo.

Homophobia, antisemitism, and racism aren't opinions; they are crimes against humanity. I think we've come to a point in human civilization where we have enough experience, knowledge, and common sense to draw the line, and say we won't allow intolerance disguised in free speech to pollute rational discourse anymore.

I say: 100$ fines for every homophobic, racist, or antisemitic view expressed in public. 200$ if the view is caused by religious belief. How about that for a change?! =)

FUCKING AMAZING!!! Hilarious and creative.!!!!!

I'm gonna have to go with Betty Bowers on this one. "Love the sinner, hate their clothes."

Bad idea. A thought, even a hateful one, isn't a crime. Nor is the peaceful expression of said thought.

The solution to bad speech isn't censorship, it's GOOD speech. Evolution didn't gain so much ground in the last century or so because we wrote laws against creationism, it did so because the people who had a chance to hear both sides usually pick the one that makes sense.

This kid's a genius.

love it.

No I don't. What you saw is the second post I made after I started to worry that someone who didn't remember the first iPod ads would consider the video racist. The first post was speculating on whether it was the same Chris Pesto in the youtube video. The first one didn't make it to the web so the second one sounds a little disjointed. The Chris Pesto in the video does look similar to the photos at Syracuse.

Hey, corduroy pillowcases are going to be the next big thing!

They're already making headlines!

Perhaps she dressed that way to avoid dangerous sexual attraction from any gays of either gender, or anyone, for that matter!

I think Chris' point is: 'I can make a sign that is as idiotic and pointless as yours is' Neither 'point' is, nor should be valid in any argument.

Well done Chris. You have justly earnt the right to be very proud of yourself. Nice one!

Moderator Note: If you don't understand why some comments don't have vowels, read this.

Evolution didn't gain so much ground in the last century or so because we wrote laws against creationism, it did so because the people who had a chance to hear both sides usually pick the one that makes sense.

Then why has evolution lost so much ground in the last three decades? In fact, why has evolution lost so much ground since we have an internet and ten thousand television channels to give us unfettered access to free speech? The weight of evidence suggests to me that free speech is leading people away from science and rationality and into the dark ages. But that doesn't square with the paradigm of your meme.

That totally rocks!!! Nobody has the right to make you feel inferior, I am so happy that you stood up and made yourself known..we need more people around just like you!!!! Brightest Blessings Chris! Keep fighting the good fight and be happy with who you are, you are a wonderful example of how adversity is the spice of life!!!

Just wanted to say Thanks, Chris Pesto...for having a sense of humor & a backbone. I'm glad people stood with you against this idiotic nonsense!

Do you have reliable data that fewer people believe in evolution today than did three decades ago? I've heard the hand-wringing but I haven't yet seen the evidence that people are really getting dumber.

At any rate one thing that has definitely improved in the last three decades is the public perception of gays in the U.S. In the 1970s we were still debating whether or not homosexuality was a bona-fide mental illness and whether or not it was proper to outlaw sex acts between consenting adults in the privacy in their own homes. Now we're actually within sight of full legal equality within a few years (fingers crossed).

I credit freedom of speech for a big part of the gay civil rights movement. The hate-mongers have always been able to have their say, but the movement really started getting a foothold when people stopped censoring the other side. When I was in high school it was still scandalous for a TV show to include a gay character- now it's practically a requirement.

In the big picture, free speech works best when it works for everybody- even if that means having to tolerate hateful assholes once in a while.

Sean Blueart: I kinda tuned you out when you indicated that you look at the woman in the photo and see "the motivations as beautiful".

Condemning a large fraction of humanity is what she's doing. Whatever her motivations, her actions reveal her as just a kinder, gentler Fred Phelps. (But maybe you see his "motivations as beautiful", and his actions immune from Chris Pesto's gentle mockery, as well.)

I think that opinions are becoming more polarized. I also think that the idea that free speech leads to progress, although possible true, is still wishful thinking rather than established fact. Free speech is often just a meme that each person configures according to personal convenience. Many people would extend it to this woman, but very few people would extend it to sexually explicit picket signs outside a middle school. There's always a line, and most people draw it right behind themselves.

If corduroy lady wants to put up a website expressing her beliefs, I consider that free speech. When she carries that sign around in public, I consider it harassment. I understand that I've made a choice about what speech should be free and what speech shouldn't. For most people, it's just an unexamined slogan.

I don't see anything in her countenance or signage that suggests this woman is "angry" and I find it sad that so many people on the site neglected to consider the "Christ can set you free" section. Could it be that this woman is not actually motivated by hate, but by love? Could it be that her intent in standing on a street corner and accepting mockery for her beliefs is based on a faith that says that many things mankind does are a refection of a sickness that resides in us all, and from which Christ died to set us free? I know that's pretty hard to fit on a medium -sized sign:) I agree with her that homosexual activity is a sin and I hope that nobody would make the giant leap that because I hold that belief I hate people who practice homosexual activity. Were that true, logic would dictate that I hate everyone who sins, which would make me one cranky dude. I hope this is taken with the peace that is intended.

I think that opinions are becoming more polarized.

It often seems that way, but it's also easy to forget that only a few generations ago we were so polarized that our country literally declared war against itself. I know plenty of people who didn't want Obama elected but I don't know any who would shoot me if they knew I voted for him.

I also think that the idea that free speech leads to progress, although possible true, is still wishful thinking rather than established fact.

Maybe not established fact but I think the idea is supported by precedent. Most of the times and places we associate with "progress" are associated with societies that valued free expression of ideas.

Good job Chris u gays stay together keep it up man

it's also easy to forget that only a few generations ago we were so polarized that our country literally declared war against itself.

I'm kind of hoping that doesn't happen again. Although realistically, how many regular folks (as opposed to politicians) were actually willing to get into the Civil War?

I'm speechless....the response was carefully measured, properly aimed, and exquisitely executed.

If you have to call homosexuality a sickness, you don't get it. Believe me, we get where you're coming from, we UNDERSTAND your religious perspective (indeed, we've had it shouted at us since birth), we just disagree with it on a molecular level. Every fiber of my being cries out that religious bigotry is an obscenity in itself, and I've had enough of the practitioners of said obscenity. You want to hate (and not even admit you are)? Fine, but go do it quietly, away from the rest of us, who are tired of your ignorance and selfishness.

BRAVO Chris; I would have stood with you too!

I'm kind of hoping that doesn't happen again.

I'm with you, but I just don't see anything like that happening in our lifetime. My point is that anyone who says we're "more polarized than ever" is dramatically overstating the divisions in our current political climate.

I find it mildly disturbing that some people in this threat are under the impression that the Christian view of homosexuality as a sin is somehow not supported by Biblical texts. Consider the following (all quotes are Revised Standard Version):

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." Leviticus 20:13

"...God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error...[The people commit lots of other sins besides.]...Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them." Romans 1:26-32

"[T]he law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine." Timothy 1:9-10.

I suspect that people who identify as Christians and who are okay with homosexual people and homosexuality itself (i.e. "the sin" as well as "the sinner") choose, in this instance, not to believe in what their religion says. Don't be scared, Christians! Say, "My religion is right on a whole lot of things, but, on this point, it's just wrong."

The hoodie is an extra-special touch.

Dont cry.

She started the hate - so clearly she is in the wrong. He wouldn't have reacted had she not been there. You fail.

BTW humans are animals. Just because you choose to believe otherwise doesn't make it true. More evidence suggests we are animals than not. Dont give me your fairytales about 'soul' - just because you choose to live a deluded life.

Man... as soon as there is some level-headed discussion here, all the fundamentalist nuts come out of the woodwork because they suddenly feel mocked for all the sign-holding they have done themselves.

His sign is a tongue in cheek critique of her fashion sense. Her sign is a condemnation of his very humanity. I don't perceive that his actions indicate any hate, only a humor-tinged rejection/reflection of hers. And yes, I see her sign as a form of hate and intolerance....for which I have no tolerance. And I am unanimous in that.

Oh yeah, and I am now officially in love with Xopher.

Could it be that this woman is not actually motivated by hate, but by love?

No. For the explanation of why, read the thread. I mean actually READ it. All your points have been covered.

Gay Bashing" doesn't mean "Bash a Gay". It means bash the idea of gay. Bash isn't like punch.

Excuse me, but you don't know what you're talking about. Bashing has been for decades the term for beating (and sometimes killing) people for being gay. Only recently has it been watered down to just talking nasty. I have been bashed and I know the difference.

You're messing up the nomenclature.

Locate the nearest sock. Put it in your mouth. Inhale.

We straight now?

Are you being deliberately obnoxious, breeder, or are you just mindbogglingly inept?

I am now officially in love with Xopher.

Why thank you!

Um...what did it?

You tell em baby!

I don't think my sexual orientation is unusual. God doesn't make mistakes. I'm not straight but that doesn't make me unusual, that makes me fabulous!

I would like to support all those who take issue with calling this woman a "gay basher". To call someone a "basher" loosely and lightly devalues, takes away from the seriousness and almost trivalizes physical assaults that have occured on people because of their actual or percieved orientation. A misguided moron who needs to get a life? That she is. A gay basher? No.

Way to go Chris. You have my vote if you ever want to join the Sisters here.

Sister Ida Know

I think Chris showed a lot of courage to stand up with that sign and demonstrate how ridiculous this poor woman is. The point is: Who cares what she thinks? Who is she to decide what sin is, last time I heard that was God's job. Christ can't set me free if I already am! She's the one in a prison of her own making built with hate and fear. I feel sorry for someone who has nothing better to do with her time then to stand on a corner and share her homophobic opinions with a bunch of people who couldn't care less what her views are. All this talk about fashion and corduroy is irritating because it misses the point that Pesto is making. He could have chosen anything about her to put on his sign, the point is how ignorant she is to think any intelligent people care what she thinks or build their own belief systems based on what they read on signs held up by homeless people on street corners.

LOL! I love it! This is the hippie girl in my home town, and would never in a million years be protesting gay rights, but I gots to say I love it! Good for you!

LOL, I know the girl in the skirt, and I would have told her she sinned too!

Just stopping by to point out that no one's mentioned yet that her sign is passive aggressive. Isn't aggression a sin?

I wonder if that skirt used mixed fabrics. That's a sin. Eating shellfish is a sin, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUKMWNU1BEQ

Bravo!!

I read your comments. I am a crazy, helpless, fool when confronted with thoughtful, measured, intelligent discussion....don't even get me started on what righteous anger does to me. That's how I roll.

Being tolerant of intolerance doesn't lead to tolerance, it leads to intolerance.

Also the claim that she is just expressing her belief, but that he is oppressing her, is an abhorrent excuse for bigotry.

Alright, one more try: The real oppressor here is bigotry and a desire to dominate. I see it on both sides of the argument. The system of domination and retribution that's so celebrated and pervasive in our culture has really has us by the balls. One proven way to loosen it's grip is to give up the enemy images of one another. I'm flashing on Captain Kirk and Kang in the engine room:

Captain's Log : Star date ...Armageddon.
We must find a way to defeat the alien force of hate that has taken over the Enterprise. Stop the war now, or spend eternity in futile bloody violence.

This is Captain Kirk. A truce is ordered. The fighting is over. Lay down your weapons.

This is Kang. Cease hostilities. Disarm.

The cessation of violence appears to have weakened it. I suggest that good spirits
might make an effective weapon.

Get off my ship! You're a dead duck. You're powerless. We know about you.
And we don't want to play. Maybe-- Maybe there are others like you around.
Maybe you've caused a lot of suffering, a lot of history, but that's all over.
We'll be on guard now, ready for you. So ship out! Come on! Haul it!

Yeah, out already.

Out! We need no urging to hate humans. But, for the present, only a fool fights in a burning house. Out!

Stephen, Who said he was oppressing her?

The content of the woman's sign was not exactly hateful, though I disagree with her theology, nor did she appear particularly angry. Regardless, her outfit is a clear transgression of the bounds of sartorial propriety and Mr. Pesto's tongue-firmly-in-cheek display was a clever retort.

Sean Blueart --

We queers have spent the last couple thousand years "turning the other cheek" while fantasists and mythology-mongers purporting to be "godly folk" have persecuted, hunted, beaten and killed us. Now that we are *finally* beginning to get a degree of respect and equal rights (but nowhere near enough yet) you expect us to get all "kumbaya" and hand-holdy and "the bigger person"...? Well fuque that.

If you are sincere about a cessation of hostilities, then you go to Rick Warren (a "moderate" who refuses to "take sides" when the government of Uganda wants to obliterate us), or to Tony Perkins, Fred Phelps, Joey the Rat, Pat Robertson, etc. etc. ad nauseum, and you tell them "The queers say, 'you first'." These "godly men" and their ilk will laugh you out of the room.

Here's a hint for you -- freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion. And here's another tip -- I don't give a good gawddamn just WHAT their little book of myths, hatreds, blood libels and lies has to say. If they want to live in a theocracy so badly, they can move to Iran.

Mark, I get that Christianity has been corrupted and the message used to do the worst to others. I don't agree with that spirit of interpretation and it's subsequent oppressive agenda / behavior towards the gay community or anyone else. There are a lot of Christians who see it that way.

Please read the Walter Wink essay I posted a link to earlier, I can't say it as well as he does. I'd really enjoy hearing what you think about it.

http://www.slfrc.rg/rtcl/hmsxlty-bbl-wltr-wnk

'berto, I'm genuinely saddened and frustrated that the Christian message gets twisted and stands for oppression more often than not. I fully empathize with your feelings of outrage. I get it and am not seeking to minimize it. I'm not making demands of anyone to join hands.

I'm viewing respect, dignity, fairness, empathy and cooperation as basic human needs. I believe they belong to everyone. In that spirit, I do, in fact, go to "conservative" friends, clergy, and anyone who will listen on whatever side. I'm doing my best to appeal to everyone's dignity. I hold everyone to the same standard equally. Why shouldn't I do that?

BTW, the *only* thing Mr. Pesto got wrong with his sign was that he never added the (vital) second part:

"Tim Gunn can set you free!"

*s'NERK*

Okay, I'll believe you.

But my folks (my *Family*, damn it) have a LOT more reason to fear and mistrust our enemies -- their choice to be that, not mine -- than they do of us. So you go tell 'em this:

"You first."

I'll be waiting here to find out what they say.

When it comes to defeating hateful ideologies, the best weapon is mockery. It works.

@ Zaron3d damn straight duuuuude (little joke at your expense)... ummmm.. maybe they have a point... ethnic, gender, racial, sexuality based cleansing is kinda fascist, don't you think? and by the way, what are you wearing right now? and what's with the poor grammar and syntax?

Why did this woman do this! This is not what Christianity is actually about, judging people and condemning other people is definitely not what God teaches. It frustrated me because i am a christian and you would never find me going on like that! God loves everyone and i personally dnt believe being gay is a choice like some Christians do and i try to love all people not judge all people!

As the (very funny) comedian Jimmy Tingle once said* --

"That's why despots and dictators, when they first take over, line up cartoonists, comedians and poets against the wall, and have them shot. 'Coz they can't stand to be laughed at -- that's the one thing that will utterly defeat them."

* Montreal Comedy Fest, as seen on "Just for Laughs", CBC TV

It seems to me, after reading most of the comments, that Chris's sign is ironic. Her bible considers both corduroys and homo's a sin.

I love that he did it. Thanks for standing up for me.

What amazes me is that this woman has nothing better to do on that day. As if someone will read her sign and act upon it. I don't get it.

Good for you! Gandhi and MLK would be proud of you.

'berto, I am so sorry that your family can't find a way to accept and affirm you. I have a hard time imagining how painful that must be for you. Thanks for hearing me. I really appreciate it.

I think you misunderstood 'berto. He meant the gay "family" has given less cause to be regarded as enemies than people like this woman (an much worse than her) have.

Hooray for Freedom of Speech, in all of its forms. I also wish for freedom to choose our spouses without hassles too!!

Camp Freddie, I definitely affirm that oppression needs to be called out and focused upon. Absolutely. Oppression cannot be tolerated. I prefer sharp-witted parody (as in this case), sober dialogue, or non-violent resistance. For me it depends on the quality of the mocking. If it's mean-spirited or dehumanizing I have a big problem with it. I believe there's a line that, if crossed, becomes oppressive itself.

Anyone who gets up on a beautiful, sunny morning and marches to a street corner with the sole purpose of telling perfect strangers that their lives are wrong and need 'fixing' acts as a hostile, unfriendly person.

Incidentally, while corduroy skirts are not necessarily a sin, that particular skirt is definitely a sin.

I love this photo. The contrast of the angelic kid's smile and the wretchedness radiating from the foolish woman is hilarious.

the world would be a better place if we all stayed out of each others bedrooms. It is no ones business anyway. I believe that God wanted us to accept and be at peace with one another. At least I know my God does not judge people.

Xopher, thank you, I did miss that.

In that case, I would wholly agree with his statement. The oppressive attitude (spirit) of those "Christians" necessitate making "the other" an enemy. The compassion and empathy qualities get negated in favor of the desire to dominate. It's so gut-wrenchingly disturbing to me whenever I encounter it. It's so unnecessary. I feel even more sick when they call it "love".

So my question becomes, why let them dictate how you see them. Don't you have a choice to throw off their oppressive strategies? I believe there are better ways. Isn't that what creativity is all about? I don't think MLK or Ghandi ever mocked or belittled anyone. I think they held their own sense of dignity. Didn't they?

Hi everyone, it will be enlightening to watch this debate between rationalists and the catholics =)
It answers alot of my questions and the current issue discussed here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvZz_pxZ2lw

Xopher, I hear what you're saying, and it's horrible you've been beaten for being gay.  But unfortunately the term "bashing", as it is used here, is in wide use with the "informal" meaning.  From www.thefreedictionary.com:

#3  Informal To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, and threateningly

When people were referred to as Bush-bashers, they weren't taken literally- in any of the several ways you could take that! ;-)

Lev 20:13 is obviously not anti-homosexuality in any absolute sense. What it is saying is that you should not perform a sexual act with a man that you have performed with a woman. So it's really telling bisexual men to be careful. If you're gay and you've never lain with a woman, you're totally cool, even by Lev 20:13

Also, a common misconception is that a Sodomite is gay. Not true. A Sodomite is a straight man who rapes another straight man in order to humiliate them. Much like The Sisters in Shawshank Redemption.

this is so funny! what a sharp guy to pick up on tis,haha.It shows how equally silly each sign is! what a great way to oppose..wihout violence!

JK-hearts, Thank you so much. I did go and watch the debate. My compassionate view of Christianity was, sadly, not well represented. It makes it seem like deep human connection, compassion and empathy on all sides, are generally in the minority. It makes it seem like the deep need for love that all humans share is tragically lacking the support it might otherwise have.

In the big picture, free speech works best when it works for everybody- even if that means having to tolerate hateful assholes once in a while.

I would agree in theory. But punishing racism, homophobia, or antisemitism isn't against free speech.

E.g. nazi symbolism is illegal in Germany. Does it make Germany less free in speech? I would dare to say that the answer is no.

I think that whether we want it or not, it's impossible to have a functional society in which people are "free" to publicly humiliate, insult, or defame people for what they are. It has nothing to do with free speech.

"Does it make Germany less free in speech?"

Yes. Next question?

wow. 275 posts about two people holding signs.

Maybe she's not as thick as she seems. Maybe she figured out that dumbing down her message to the point of insulting our collective intelligence will buy her a lot more online publicity (via the legions of people out there just itching for the opportunity to show the world how enlightened and open-minded they are) than a clever banner campaign and google keyword buy ever could. Or maybe not.

Did Christ ever marry? Just wondering....

Sean Blueart,

Please don't post the same link twice in one thread. Or in more than one thread in the course of a month. You've made two dozen comments in this thread so far. They all say almost the same thing. You're done here. At this point, you're just trolling.

...punishing racism, homophobia, or antisemitism isn't against free speech.

Punishing the expression of any idea (rather than a direct call to violent action or an implied threat) is by definition against free speech.

Consider for a moment: any law that allowed for punishment of antisemitic ideas would presumably have to forbid negative speech about ANY religion. That means that the people who diss Scientology or the Westboro Baptist Church could end up sharing a cell with the Neo-Nazis. Better to let everyone have their say and let the voices of reason drown out those of intolerance.

Antinous, fair enough. I hear you. I honestly don't know what trolling is though. I'm feeling hungry to engage people. I'm attempting question why anyone would bash anyone at all. I feel curious. Sorry to overstate my points. When I hear you say that I'm "done here," I 'm guessing you might feel annoyed.

Actually, Sean, he means "stop posting in this thread." Trolling is trying to get a rise out of people for fun. Not sure if that's your intention, but at this point the effect is the same, so Antinous as Moderator is directing you not to post in this thread from now on. It's not a request.

Let's pretend that someone starts a religion and writes a holy book that contains the following passage:"If a man or woman professes to be a Christian they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

For the record, Christians did use to be persecuted and killed for their beliefs, once. I know what you meant, I just wanted to point that out.

And not to take away from the horrible stuff gays and other non-standard-sexuals have to deal with, but let's not be under the illusion that being a Christian is the way to being accepted and tolerated everywhere. People get mocked and abused for being Christian all the time- because it's not considered cool to go to Church, to kneel and pray, to dress modestly and try to abstain from sex. Those are actually perfectly innocent practices which hurt no one, and yet gather a lot of ridicule.

Before someone says that can't be compared to the discrimination towards gays, I repeat: this is not a comparison, I'm just adding a little information about what it's like to be Christian. I've personally experienced both the alienation of being Catholic and of not fitting the gender and sexuality mold society is used to, so I am against any kind of bashing- be it gay-bashing, Christian-bashing, or corduroy-skirt-bashing. Discuss, disagree, point out flaws, expose and condemn immoral behaviour and logical fallacies, but don't try to run your opponent into a corner with gleeful rhetorics because all that proves is you're a douche with a faster mouth.

And just because it seems to have gotten lost in the discussion again: you can be Christian without agreeing to everything the leader of your particular branch of Christianity (there are SO MANY) says. Seriously. You think Christians just sit around and go 'Ah yes we know everything about everything?' Rubbish. We sit around and go 'What does this part of the Bible mean and how does that fit into the real world? What does Authority X say and do I agree with them? What am I going to do, since the Bible doesn't actually have any proper answers to my questions?'

Also, newsflash, the Bible can't be taken literally as a whole because it is full of contradictions. Measuring someone's Christianity by how much they agree with particular passages of the Bible is missing the point- what is actually relevant is how they interpret those passages through the teachings of Christ, whom the religion was named after, and who preached, most importantly, that we should all love one another. If you just want to be told what to do without being made to think for yourself, then it doesn't matter what religion you follow, you're going to fall prey to another human's interpretation.

Thanks again Xopher. Thank God I wasn't trolling. Absolutely not my intention. I respect the moderator. I'm off. Peace.

So what's the obsession with homosexuality that Christians have? It's creepy. There are so many Bible-sins to address, especially at a university, for Cthulhu's sake!

Excessive drinking? Premarital sex? Cheating on exams? Doing drugs? Getting tattoos? All sins.

No mention of them, or not nearly so much as the gay stuff!

Good for you! Too many people remain silent when confronted with this kind of hatred. These religious hypocrites need to read their bibles more closely! In Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, lest ye be judged" it's funny how a lot of these people claim to be "Fundamentalists" or to take everything literal from the bible, but then do not pactice what they preach?! God made all of us. To call gay people an abomination, is really to say that God made something imperfect, which in itself is to judge God (which for those of us who are TRULY religious, would be considered the ultimate sin! Judging God!) So a word to those that use religion as a tool of hate, rather than love and compassion, as it is intended, you will be judged accordingly by God. Every single person, straight, gay, bi-sexual is born into sin, it is through our beliefs, and what we practice here on earth, either to love and help each other out, or whether we choose to hate and demonize that is what will be judged. These people that claim to "have a special relationship with God" are truly "false prophets!" and everyone who is a decent and caring human being needs to stand up to these people to let them know their actions and words are unacceptable, not to mention a true abomination!

Tikihead, so true. It's like they don't have anything better to talk about. I actually noticed a while back that the priest at my church never even mentions homosexuality in his sermons. I'm sure he considers it a sin, but it doesn't come up because he knows that aside from being a delicate subject, among a straight majority, it's not the one we should be concerned with. He talks instead about adultery, lying, laziness, treachery, greed- transgressions far more likely to occur in the pews. He makes people think about who they are and what they're doing that affects others- he doesn't give them an easy out by pointing them towards the gay people out there (and in our Church, without doubt).

I wish more priests were like that.I wish more congregations were committed enough to listen to such sermons and better themselves before they try to go out with a sign and imagine they are 'saving' strangers more sinful than they.

Pride and sloth. Two sins I think the woman in the picture is committing.

:-)Peace to all mankind

The thing that scares me the most about what I see is this underlying trend in Christianity to make it so "cool" that the messages of hate and fear get buried. Dont get me wrong, I know some really cool and really accepting Christians who just happen to believe in Jesus and all that, but it is the Mars Hill churches of the world and the "cool" tattooed, rock-n-roll (If you can call christian rock that) playing pastor that are dangerous when they are hiding not only anti gay messages but anti feminism messages in their sermons.

And as for talking to someone who has the balls to stand on a corner with a sign, well please try, but I imagine you will not get very far. It takes a rather intense emotion to take things that far.

Good on Chris for standing up in tongue in cheek kinda way to ignorance.

In earlier times in this country and others, it was a typical penance given to sinners to be required to make a public display of wrongdoing - theirs - could this frumpy, sad young lady have sinned in the flesh with another woman? If so, I say to you, put down your placard and go in peace, your "sins" are forgiven you - that is a rough paraphrase of the words used by Jesus to the woman at the well and the woman about to be stoned.

My Christ is All-Loving.

Wearing corduroy is a choice!

Punishing the expression of any idea (rather than a direct call to violent action or an implied threat) is by definition against free speech.

Fair enough, apparently I'm opposed to free speech then. But it also means that every country that bans hate speech doesn't respect human rights (including France, the country that wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen).

Consider for a moment: any law that allowed for punishment of antisemitic ideas would presumably have to forbid negative speech about ANY religion.

Come on now, that's not the case at all. Antisemitism isn't the same as criticizing Judaism.

Fair enough, apparently I'm opposed to free speech then. But it also means that every country that bans hate speech doesn't respect human rights (including France, the country that wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen).

Whether a country "respects human rights" is not a simple either/or issue. France respects many human rights but certainly has its problems- for example, the controversial ban on wearing headscarves and other religious symbols in public schools.

Antisemitism isn't the same as criticizing Judaism.

OK, but I challenge you to write a law that clearly differentiates between the two.

Better to let everyone have their say and let the voices of reason drown out those of intolerance.

You keep making the assertion, but you have yet to offer any proof that it works. Perhaps letting everyone have their say will lead us straight to fascism and genocide. Your belief in the miraculous power of unfettered speech seems religious rather than rational.

Actually, if her corduroy skirt was made of any type of blended fabric instead of 100 percent cotton or 100 percent wool, it is indeed a sin, according to Leviticus 19:19, which book I'm guessing she believes in. So very likely they're both "right." And in that case, Chris Pesto is kind of a genius. (Anybody know what they typically make cords of nowadays?)

--Cam

Hey, you're the one who made the claim that evolution has been losing ground for the last thirty years and didn't offer a lick of evidence to back it up. I may not have proof to support my claim but prefer to err on the side of freedom rather than censorship.

IMHO this woman is entitled to her beliefs, she does have ground to stand on if you use the bible as a rulebook. Her real problem is that she is rubbing her opinion in other peoples face as the truth. Religion should be a 'personal truth', keep it to yourself, or at least within a group of people who share your views and beliefs, but never rub it in other peoples faces as the absolute truth.

I applaud Chris for using humor to show how silly this protester was.

I am not into the whole 'homosexual' thing, but I am not going to tell someone they are bad or evil because of a personal choice that they do in their own home, and which harms no one. I am more 'anti-stupid' than 'anti-gay'.

Whether a country "respects human rights" is not a simple either/or issue.

Totally true.

France respects many human rights but certainly has its problems- for example, the controversial ban on wearing headscarves and other religious symbols in public schools.

This law makes a lot of sense if you consider the fact that France is a secular country. It would be discriminatory if crosses were allowed and headscarves weren't or the other way around.

OK, but I challenge you to write a law that clearly differentiates between the two.

Well, there's Germany's Volksverhetzung. I'm sure there are others but I'm not very familiar with them.

I think that free speech is good in and of itself. The idea that good free speech will inevitably drive out evil free speech is faith-based. I invite you to give some evidence for the assertion.

As to the rollback of belief in evolution, my citation is all media on earth since about 1980.

Fantastic. Playful, fun and correct form the fashion perspective. So happy that people are starting to come ofu of their own hiding places to support members of their community against hateful practices.

I enjoyed your posts, Sean.

But I agree your point has been (well) made, and you should let it stand.

My idea is that good free speech is the BEST way to deal with evil free speech, not an infallible and absolute cure to all the world's ills. It is my opinion that this kid's anti-corduroy sign was a much better solution all around than throwing the Christian lady in jail.

And in the spirit of your last comment, my citation is all good things that have ever happened since ever.

Clearly the high road was taken.

I thought Jesus loved everybody. Nowhere in the Godspells says homosexuality is a crime. Is she worshiping the wrong Christ?

PS, Syracuse is "people friendly", not just "homosexual friendly". Either you want to be part of the whole mixing pot - or you want to be defined.

Your choice.

It's getting really old.

Thanks Cefeida. I am a gay nonbeliever myself, but goodness there is an obsession there with some Christians.

"Fair enough, apparently I'm opposed to free speech then."

Apparently so. I'm disappointed, but you are hardly alone. Few people really mean it when they say they support free speech. They just mean they support speech that is within a sphere they find acceptable.

"But it also means that every country that bans hate speech doesn't respect human rights (including France, the country that wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen)."

It maens they've chosen to restrict one human right in an attempt to promote others. No rights are universal and all rights have the potential to conflict with each other, so choices must be made.

Mr. Pesto, your actions are as delicious as your name and this article is furiously making its way around myspace and facebook! :p Thank you!

I'm straight as the day is long. (Well, the day before the autumn equinox.) I likes the ladies. AND I support the right of gay folks to be left in peace and spared the obsessive idiocy of close-minded troglodytes like this bible broad. Go, Chris Pesto!

i am gay and none religous. However i do beleive as humans we are born ignorant of one another. Its all about respect.. if i have the right to live the way i want to, others should be as well. Free of speech is just that. It is free. I would rather support this form of expression than war.. and killing and descrimination... you cant take away someone elses rights without taking away your own.

Thing is... who knows if im a sinner cause im gay? i dont and you sure dont.. but it sure hasnt stopped me from fallowing my bliss ;)

Every time I see someone do that on campus I'm so going to do what he did....

Jesus loved Adulterers, Tax collectors (I dont have that much love), Drunks, Harlots etc. What makes you think he doesn't love Gays. Are you so petty to think he would make an exception like that. In fact the only people he vehemently attacked with whips were the religionists and money changers in the temple (like tele-evangelists?) It's funny Homosexuality didn't even make God's top 10 sin list. (10 Commandments). And Jesus never said anything about the Gays as I remember, and I've read the Bible dozens of times. God does seem to have an issue with Homosexuality but he did with lots of things including working on Sat. (#3 on the top 10). And as someone reminded me today, "Wearing a garment made from more than one fiber (as corduroy is) is considered sinful. Ironically it's in the same book as the "man shall not lie with another man" prohibition. I really think that the Christian Right needs to start cracking down on corduroy wearers."

I have to chime in in support of Sean - I'm not sure why he's picking up so much flack, because he's articulating a pretty reasonable position.

The thing is, suppose that you believe that a person is going to hell. What are you if you sit by and let that happen? An asshole. Penn Gillette, an outspoken atheist, has argued that conservative Christians have a moral obligation to get other people to believe the way they do, because not evangelizing is like not tossing a flotation device to someone drowning.

That said, this whole difficulty comes from corrupt and misguided theology. Anybody looking critically at the scriptures would see that Leviticus also advocates killing adulterers. No Christian I've ever known holds signs about that. Also, the whole heaven/hell dichotomy isn't all the well supported by anything except Evangelical tradition. The text actually leaves a lot of room for some alternative interpretations.

My belief is this - almost all people earnestly believe that they are doing the RIGHT THING. Democrats, Republicans, Atheists, Spiritualists, and every body else all are acting (generally) in a way that they think is best not just for themselves, but for everybody.

Keeping that in mind, I think there is plenty of room to be gracious (and tolerant) towards everyone (within reason) by understanding that while their views may be misguided, they are trying to do what they legitimately believe will make the world a better place.

Getting bothered and demonizing anyone doesn't EVER help. 2 wrongs doesn't make a right. And, I think Gandhi said it best: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". We need to be careful that we don't respond to intolerance with our own brand of it.

Gay bashing is an expression used to designate verbal confrontation with, denigration of, or physical violence against people thought to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered (LGBT) because of their apparent sexual orientation or gender identity. Similar terms such as "lesbian bashing" or "queer bashing" may also be formed. A "bashing" may be a specific incident, or one could also use the verb "to bash" e.g. "I was gay bashed." As there is no foolproof way to detect a person's sexual orientation, people sometimes fall victim even if they are not LGBT, should they be perceived to conform to the relevant stereotypes.

A verbal gay bashing might use sexual slurs, expletives, intimidation, or threats of violence — or, it might take place in a political forum and include one or more common anti-gay slogans. Passionate invective fits more closely into the general idea of gay bashing than does a calm, intellectual justification for anti-LGBT attitudes or policies. However, some people[who?] would include any expression of anti-LGBT sentiment in one or another category of "bashing".
The term can also be applied to non-verbal acts of homophobia although that application is less common.

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

I have to chime in in support of Sean

No, you really don't.

I'm not sure why he's picking up so much flack,

You think that's FLACK? That's us being really nice to him.

because he's articulating a pretty reasonable position.

Yes, but it's been articulated quite enough in this thread. Why you're articulating it again is what I don't understand. Is it because we still don't agree? No amount of articulating is going to change that. What this woman did was obnoxious and annoying; what Chris Pesto did in response was clever and appropriate.

You are presuming all the people who supported Chris Pesto are gay. I'm hetro, and I support gay rights. I believe that NO ONE has the right to tell consenting adults who they can and can not love.

My God thinks spreading hate and distracting drivers with her big, stupid sign and ugly skirt is a sin.

@ Stupid Lady- "Judge not, yest ye be judged yourself." Matt 7:1. Read your own Bible lady!!! =_=

"Thou shalt not judge." I wonder what Bible so many of these people are reading that they do not know this very fundamental tenet of the Christian faith? I am of another faith entirely and I know it. And some of the best Christians I have ever known have never been to a church, and yet they know the Bible backwards and forwards and tend to get the true meaning better than if they were to have someone telling them what it means. As a gay woman and a human being, I completely reject the judgemental nature of many people. "Minds are like parachutes...they both work best when open."

If we decided that we were going to have such an insanely strong dedication to the words of the constitution, this whole place would go up in flames.
There is a line, that one doesnt cross.
This photo, hasn't crossed the line. I dont agree with her at all, but she still has the right to do what shes doing. If thats what she believes, its cool. Whatever. Doesn't mean she has to be an old hag about it, but its still her right.
Like i said,
don't agree with her.
But she's still within the standards.

Sign of the times

love it - great comeback.
LOL - my security submit words are re-ideology. very appropriate.

And so is Chris. The answer to bad speech is more speech.

That kid is my new hero! :o)

Thanks Xopher.... you saved me the effort.

eigengrau got burned. Hard.

I think strangefriend wanted to point out line 23, not 25.

"[T]he disciple whom Jesus loved ..."

Not the disciple he loved *most*, just the one he loved. I interpreted this to imply intimate romantic feelings/relationship. And I didn't even have my slash-goggles on.

You're holding a double standard. You've held just as staunchly to your stance and I haven't seen any new information from your camp, but that apparently isn't permissible for people that hold an opposing opinion.

I'm not saying that the lady is right or that the guy is wrong - I'm saying that repaying hate with hate gets us nowhere - only reason and goodness can ever triumph over bigotry. MLK and Gandhi both agree. You haven't responded to that, so I would say that this is indeed new and relevant information.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

free speech means that you are allowed to express your opinion. If your opinion is that the frump next to you wearing a corduroy skirt is committing a fashion sin, you are still entitled to it. If your opinion is that another person's opinion is absolutely retarded, that is your opinion and you are still entitled to express it. I don't see that by exercising his right to free speech, Chris Pesto has somehow punished Ms Frump or in any way over stepped the bounds of free speech.

By the same token, I don't think Ms Frump, having been very demure about her protest has overstepped the bounds of her free speech.

I haven't seen any new information from your camp

Camp? That's an odd language choice, Mister Kumbaya.

That's an odd language choice

True, I could've chosen better, but I am merely trying to point out that posts agreeing with one veiwpoint are being assessed differently then posts arguing a different one. All posts are equal in my book as long as they hold a mutually respectful and productive tone.

All posts are equal in my book as long as they hold a mutually respectful and productive tone.

That's called lack of a moral compass.

Thank you.

Hmm... I'm failing to see how my assertion was much different than this one:

"Here are the kinds of comments that energize happy mutants: Opinions that move the debate forward. Disagree with what we or another commenter has to say? Let's hear it! But please be respectful. "

I was pretty okay with what was going on until the part about people cursing off the woman. Nothing about her actions strike me as being done out of hate; more than likely, it was a misguided attempt at love. She honestly believes that homosexuality is a sin, and that it can be cured through faith.

Granted, I don't believe a bit of that, but she's free to believe what she wants, just as much as I am. She's not forcibly trying to convert anyone, she's just peaceably sharing her opinion. Also granted, Chris had every right to retaliate in the way he did. It just seems to me that it should have been left at that.

More than that just seems to be a negative reflection on us, more than anything.

corduroy skirt aren't really a sin, but stupidity should be.

have you guys heard about those new corduroy pillows??

there making headlines.

Im not sure if I should or shouldnt (who is?) but I feel bad for this skirt girl the same way that I feel bad for anyone in an exposed position.