Dispatches from the HoB/D: Teh Ghey? Knock it Off!

Ah, calling me a hateful homophobic bigot is okay, because it’s true and I deserve it, but simply saying, “That’s so gay” is not allowed.

Ah, the inclusive, tolerant tribe.

Inclusive of themselves and tolerant of no one.

Here is another quote from Kaeton, thos one regarding the inhibition of the Islamic priest: “I do believe that you can claim to be a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Muslim and still be a devout Christian. I think Ann has a very good point, and I have no doubt that her Christianity is enhanced by walking with Allah as well as Yahweh. ”

Kinda touchy, huh?

If Kaeton thinks she can reform teenage slang, she is in for a surprise.  And I wish she would look up the word “diffuse.”

”...it’s patently unbecoming Christian behavior to demean a group…”

Like she has never done this? Riiiiighhhhht!!!! As #1 Paul B has pointed out, Ms. Kaeton, is one of many offenders of offending those she is oppose to that do not sign onto her agenda! I don’t ever recall the farmers of America ever being upset about teenagers saying “Farm-Out” many years ago. How about teenagers calling each other (including the guys) the “B” word but with a different annunciation to it! Where is her disdain over this?
Ms. Kaeton is just “so GLBT!”

To Ms Kaeton:  Aww, c’mon, Lizzie!  GET A LIFE!

Yes, Katherine, I’m sure she meant defuse, not diffuse.

Kinda hard to make those subtle word choices when one is galloping along on one’s high horse.

I actually agree that saying “That’s so gay” as a pejorative statement should not be considered a moral way to express distaste.  When we do so, we make a demeaning statement against those who are gay (or lesbian, or transgendered), even if it seems like an innocent comment.  A parallel might be using the word “retarded” in the same way (i.e. “that’s so retarded”).  While we are to call sinful behavior (i.e. homosexual behavior) sinful, we are not to demean the person.  Rather, we are to love the person in the name of Christ, and encourage him or her to receive healing from our Savior.

Paul B (#1), I offer this correction to your statement: neither is okay.  One should not call you bigoted without warrant, and we should not use the phrase “That’s so gay” for the reasons I have stated above.

Greg (original poster): the end of your post, though tongue-in-cheek, was perhaps not the most loving way to finish.  Let us post and comment on this topic with the following in mind: “Would a person who is engaged in homosexual behavior—after reading what we write—be more encouraged to seek the truth of who Christ is and his saving work on the cross, or less inclined to do so?”

“If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we guide their whole bodies.  Or look at ships: though they are so large that it takes strong winds to drive them, yet they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs.  So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits.  How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire!” - James 3:3-5 (NRSV)

I’m not surprised that Kaeton thinks you can be any two religions at the same time - it’s not a problem when you don’t actually have to *believe* anything that either one of them says. You’ve got beliefs? Knock it off! There, isn’t everything everso much easier now?

OK, let’s be nice, now!  Or else I’ll sue your @$$!

Dear Mz. One Tyke Caper,

As you may be aware, Saturday Night Live had an ongoing comic superhero cartoon “Gary and Ace,” which aired for many seasons.  The punchline for all of these episodes was the naive Midwesterner or teen or Santa determining after a long conversation that Gary and Ace were in fact homosexual, with the exclamation, “You’re gay!” 

I’m not entirely sure what SNL’s point was, but it does reveal something interesting about our culture.  When men act and dress effeminately, it is indeed regarded as ‘gay.’  If you’d like to take up the issue with SNL, you have my support.  If not, I invite you to return to your other activities, including (but not confined to) building playgrounds in exotic places, condemning pictures that show the pre-born as manipulative, and surveilling people who have more children than you. 

Thank you,
“That Moot Guy”

Colorado Benjamin,
I understand what you are trying to say here, but I for one am a bit sick and tired of Ms. Kaeton and those who are like her on their political & social correctness soap box attacking groups of people to suit their purpose. Ms. Kaeton has been a very verbal abuser of many stripes at those to whom she takes aim that do not sign on to her thinking and GLBT agenda. Stand Firm has documented these incidents and especially one horrendous incident that was an attack on one of Stand Firms staffs wife, Mrs. Kennedy not too long ago. Ms. Kaeton is hypocritical. The more Stand Firm can show the hypocrisies of Ms. Kaeton and those in her cam the better!

Like we need our forests burned down.  The shortening year will set a fey Fall flame to the leaves of New Hampshire.  Glorious mulch for the worms.

Agreeing with Colorado Benjamin - I’ve been objecting to the “that’s so gay” expression with my teenagers for years.  We all know that they don’t mean that the thing or situation is homosexual, and it is the same as using other pejoratives - an expression of contempt.

One Day Closer (#12): Agreed: we should shine light on hypocrisy and I commend those on this site (both posters and commenters) for doing so.  However, let us not engage in our own hypocrisy by professing that we should be gracious to everyone in our speech while not doing so.  May our goal be to speak piercing truthfulness and shed light on darkness while at the same time holding ourselves to the highest standard of love in our speech and writing.  If the purpose of this post is to shine light on hypocrisy, we should not make light of the sin of unlove towards those who are entrenched in homosexual behavior.

What a long way we’ve come from being able to say,  “your living room looks so festive and gay this Christmas.”

Agree with Colorado Benjamin and GillianC.  I told my kids not to use the phrase.  But really, Kaeton is fooling herself if she thinks she can change this, or even if she thinks the kids hear it from adults.  It appears to be a phrase used by teens and not much by others.

Kaeton would also be surprised at how much silent resistance and resentment there is among teens who don’t like having all the pro-same-sex propaganda shoved at them.  My daughters heard about this especially from boys.

I’m all for anybody telling teenagers to clean up their language.  The other day my 9 year old son came home and told me that he heard some older kids using “bad language” and he told them they shouldn’t do it because “it’s offensive to Christians.”  (Wow!  He thinks Christians don’t use bad language!  NOTE TO SELF:  Be even more careful of my own language).  Please, please, please God let him still think this 10 years from now!!

I had not actually heard the expression before this was posted (I haven’t watched TV in years and don’t have a teen to keep me up-to-date on what not to say.) But I agree with Colorado Benjamin, and I do think it is possible to change the usage. I know that having grown up in the South, where the n-word was everywhere once and almost unheard now, thankfully. Pejoratives like this have to be the weakest sort of words to use- used against someone we don’t like for whatever reason and used because we have nothing more compelling to say.

I’m with you #16.  “Gay” was such a lovely word, conveying a sort of dashing light-heartedness.  Now sadly lost to our language.  Just another reason I loathe the strident “G"LBT crowd.  Personally, I refuse to use the term “gay” to describe homosexuals, prefering an earlier term frequently used by themselves.

My kids will grow out of saying “nigga” and “that’s so gay”.  They don’t attach racism or homophobia to the phrases - the phrases are just part of the the current teen lingo.  I have told them they shouldn’t be using either phrase, and how it might offend others, but at least they don’t curse (much).

In fact, if Keaton says they shouldn’t say it, maybe I should encourage them to use the phrases even MORE…hmmm…

For more on the educational efforts of the GLSEN organization commended by Elizabeth Kaeton see Marjorie King’s 2003 article in City Journal here.

Colorado Benjamin #8 - No saying “gay” is not the same as saying “retarded.” One is a choice, one is not.

...sorry, should have been “Kaeton”...my bad.

I think KJS should hold a service to apologize to all the gay people that have been offended throughout history.  That would be good.

Or, as Wanda Sykes would say, “When you say, ‘That’s so gay,’ do you realize what you say?”

I wonder - maybe the kids know exactly  what they are saying.

Do you really think you are going to change their opinion be telling them to “knock it off”?

agree with #23 re #8. I hear what you’re saying, CB, but
we have to be careful about censoring terms that refer to
behavior as opposed to referring to immutable
characteristics. To offer a counter example: Eze 16, comparing Israel to a harlot for slipping into idolatry. Should Zeke not have used that pejorative, so as to offending prostitutes? If it causes shame, who is responsible for that? The one using the term or the one doing the action?
I’m a bit reluctant to aid Kaeton in her determination to
convince herself and everybody else that what she does is her “identity” and not an action.

There are alot of words and symbols that used to have a good and wonderful meaning that the GLBT’s hae taken and re-defined and then when it is used to describe they get offended and upset. Quite frankly I, a hetrosexual married to a man mother of three grandmother to one am very offended that the word “Gay” as been redefined as well as God’s promising symbol the Rainbow. How dare they as that is just insulting!

sorry about the formatting. Also I meant “so as to avoid offending prostitutes”

Perhaps Mother Liz can suggest to teenagers that they start using “bad” to mean “good.” That always drives The Man insane!

B. Hunter, tell a black person there’s nothing racist in “nigga” - and don’t say they call each other that, because it’s only a small percentage of young ones who don’t know their own story who do. Is name calling of any sort ever a really Christian thing to do?

Who the heck is Wanda Sykes?

#23: I agree in your distinction.  However, both phrases, “That’s so gay” and “That’s retarded,” are pejorative statements that do not reflect a good Christian witness.  That is my point.

#31
“ye generation of vipers”

“It’s like saying, ‘Man, that HOB/D listserve is so stupid…”

I have said that one before, and some of my best friends are on the HOB/D listserve.

evan, I don’t think that was mere name calling, do you?

Ooooh! I got it!

Kaeton should tell kids to start using the word “groovy” instead!

Personally, I refuse to use the term “gay” to describe homosexuals, prefering an earlier term frequently used by themselves.

I prefer “sodomite.” It has a nice, Biblical ring to it, and REALLY gets a rise out of any homosexuals in the room.

Kaeton is right; it is unbecoming and unChristian to us the label derisively like that.  I wouldn’t let my children do it.  And it has nothing to do with the moral status of homosexual practice, which I take to be unexceptionably wrong. 

What saddens me is the way that SFIFers let their contempt for our opponents cloud their better judgment and compromise their civility.  Why not be better rather than sinking lower?

The fact that Elizabeth Kaeton engages in the very name calling and hurtful behavior that she decries when her group is the offended ones in no way excuses Christians from name calling.  My 4th grade son started using this term because he heard it from his friends at school.  My wife and I explained to him what that meant and he has stopped using it because it doesn’t mean what he wants to say.

We should stand firm for the Faith and for the attitudes and behavior that God calls us to.  Let the reappraisers yell and cry and use names and we will still respond with God’s love.  We can’t beat Satan with hatred.  His is much stronger than ours and he is more adept at using hatred than we are.  Instead, let’s fight with God’s love and grace.  These are weapons that the Enemy doesn’t understand and cannot counter.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Amen, Occasional Reader.  I have been so pleased by the higher road taken by the orthodox blogs.  Please, please don’t let us down now!

#38
Oooh, I think I’ll start doing so as well.  Besides, it is descriptive of their behavior, not their “orientation” and is therefore fair game for perjorative comment.

The kids know what they are saying. Even the LGTB group have said it on TV programs. Perhaps adults are not the only ones who get tired of the LGTBQI (did I miss any letters) agenda.

Having observed about 6 months of postings on the HoB/D listserv from “(the Rev’d Dr)” Kaeton, her misconstrual of diffuse for defuse, is virtually emblematic of her writing. It rather makes one wonder if she has some perceptory disability (e.g., dyslexia—or is that lesdyxia?), or whether it might more aptly be ascribed to some attitudinal origin (lackadaisical speech—heaven forbid that it might be thinking—or inattention to detail, as just two examples). It also makes one wonder where, and in what field, her doctorate was earned (I am, herein, assuming that it was an earned, rather than an honorary, degree, which assumption might conceivably be unwarranted).

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

My aged father has a a habit of forwarding Internet memes to his children about six to nine months behind when we all saw them for the first time. Given the age of the Rev Dr K, it’s entirely possible that the cool kids are no longer using ‘gay’ in a derogatory sense.

I don’t believe that I’ve heard it in that sense in quite some time.

Is there any chance that this is yet another Piskie tempest in a teapot?

Maybe we should all apologize or something….

The Episcopal Church: Expiating our guilt for the War of Jenkin’s Ear.

As a knuckle dragging homophobic in a small box dinosaur who is fifty years behind Kate in my spiritual evolution I will redirect my kids to revise their expression to:
” That’s so Kaeton” so only to perhaps offend the one whose very existence is offensive to thousands upon thousands and to spare the remaining sexual deviants of further anguish.
Shalom,
Intercessor

That is so gay…

If you don’t like being called gay, then don’t be gay.  Simple.

http://search.twitter.com/search?q=“so+gay”

Good luck with that.

I think, the way these things go, that the expression is on the way out, and Ms. Kaeton is trying to keep it alive as a form of PR.  She has to move quickly, because soon, she’ll lose her window of opportunity.  Before you know it, you’re going to hear the kids say instead, “That is so polyamoristic!”  Or something.  And the “gay” thing will be so “last week.”

Hear hear to Phil Snyder and the Occasional Reader. Regardless of what people think about Elizabeth Kaeton (and I admit I know nothing about her), name-calling isn’t something to applaud.

To see someone go through mental gymnastics to applaud it, so as to ding Mother Kaeton is uninspiring. But I guess it just shows that we are, all of us, human, sinners, imperfect, and capable of being wrong.

Of course I do not use the phrase, “That’s so gay.”  I do not respect people who do.  Can we encourage people to be a little more articulate?  Pejoratives like that are the refuge of a weak mind.

As someone who works in a high school, I will mildly rebuke students who use the phrase, “That’s so gay.”  What gets a 20 minute lecture from me, however, is the term “faggot.” When I hear that word, that’s when the class gets a lecture on the etymology of the word and why it is used to refer to homosexuals….and why it is so offensive to any human being who thinks burning people alive is… well… wrong….

The Yiddish “faygele” has a nice ring to it. “That’s so faygele.” “Poof” is also good.

Yet one wonders how the word “faggot” relates to burning people alive. That used to be a punishment for heresy.

....and why it is so offensive to any human being who thinks burning people alive is… well… wrong….

High school teachers should not perpetuate urban legends.  Homosexuals were not burned at the stake.  They hung them, but they were NOT burned alive.

Pilgrim is right, there is no evidence for the “burning at the stake” theory… not that that’s ever stopped the culture of victimology…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang)

Marty, Pilgrim, you’re setting a poor example. Someone (who I presume is not a “traditionalist”) points out that using the phrase “that’s so gay” as a pejorative is offensive, and simply bad behavior.

Someone asserts that “faggot” is more offensive, presumably from a belief in what is probably an urban myth about the etymology of this term. The etymology of the term faggot is unclear, as so often etymology is. Marty, Pilgrim use this as an excuse to get a dig in for free, referring to “victimology.” Perhaps you think that in a community of like minds this is OK? I would encourage you to “man up”, to “grow a pair”, and be honest enough to call truth when you see it, regardless who speaks it.

“that’s so gay”, “faggot” are offensive.

Yawn… i must have missed the commandment “thou shalt not offend”...

As if “grow a pair” isn’t an offensive insult.  Good one too.

There is no point to giving needless offense.  We don’t need mindless pejoratives to carry the case the homosexuality is unnatural.  Besides, there are more effective expressions.  In this case, I think that the Left has a point that we should respect.  We should drop the phrase.

carl

OK, I guess I should get us back on track.

The question I’d like to see Kaeton answer is…

Why do you think it is that teenagers use the term “gay” to describe something that’s “bad, or gross, or whatever”? Hmmmm? Ever given any serious thought to that?

I agree with Phil Snyder, carl, humility and others.  There is no need to give gratuitous offense to others.  In fact, it runs counter to what Jesus would have us do.

Fr Liz, didja hear the one about the Irish priest, the rabbi, the Mormon and the blonde?  Well, ...

(How many blondes does it take to change a light bulb?  Well, I don’t know, big boy, but if you could find some way to fix that lamp, maybe we could see each other better and talk about it ...)

[Shields up! Ducking ...]

Alternative question:

If you’re Liz Kaeton, why not mount a campaign to point out to teenagers that, since being gay is so awesomely awesome, you’re actually complimenting somebody when you say they’re “so gay”?

Right?

You’re all wrong.  They’re not actually saying, “That’s so gay.”  They’re saying, “That’s so ghee.”  In other words, that’s so much Indian clarified butter.  Some of you people ought to get your hearing checked.

They chose gay because they didn’t like the more definitive term Sodomite. This ruined that great carol phrase ‘don your gay apparel’ all I think when I hear it is what passes as apparel in a gay pride parade.

When I was a California high-schooler in the late seventies I heard a lot of “That’s so choice!!”  Not as a pejorative, mind you, but as an expression of approval.

Imagine saying “That’s so choice” to the perverts these days.

Osc (#31)—Use of that N word is more prevalent than you might think.  If you’re an XM subscriber and channel surf like I do, park on one of the rap channels and your eyes will be opened.

Not trying to justify the word’s use, because I don’t want to.  It’s just that I don’t like duplicity from anyone, let alone Kaeton and her ilk or the certain part of the American population that dare not be offended.

Marty, Pilgrim, you’re setting a poor example. Someone (who I presume is not a “traditionalist”) points out that using the phrase “that’s so gay” as a pejorative is offensive, and simply bad behavior.

Humility, I do not use the “gay,” as in “that’s so gay.” I say “sodomite.”  It was good enough for Paul, and it’s good enough for me.  This is what the left calls “speaking truth to power,” and they do not like it when it is done by anyone other than themselves.  I used it once on Susan Russell’s site, and two people complained because the word “hurt their feelings.” I thought I was a fairly good student of American history, but I must have missed the part of the Constitution that protects me from having my feelings hurt in free and open discourse.

That letter from the good priestess is so gay, not that there is anything wrong with that.

From Etymology Online:

Burning was sometimes a punishment meted out to homosexuals in Christian Europe (on the suggestion of the Biblical fate of Sodom and Gomorah)

and

faggot (1)

1279, “bundle of twigs bound up,” from O.Fr. fagot “bundle of sticks,” from It. faggotto, dim. of V.L. *facus, from L. fascis “bundle of wood” (see fasces). Esp. used for burning heretics (a sense attested from 1555), so that phrase fire and faggot was used to mean “punishment of a heretic.” Heretics who recanted were required to wear an embroidered figure of a faggot on their sleeve, as an emblem and reminder of what they deserved.

You seem to be lacking citations, Selah.  Perhaps you forgot to include them. 

The OED cites the first use of “fagot” in the US in 1914; Considerably after the middle ages, and half a world away from Europe. And, this particular usage did not originate in Europe. In fact, the use of the word fagot/faggot to describe a male homosexual was strictly American usage until the 1960s.  If you could show an etymological trail from Europe to here, you might have something but you cannot.  The following citation comes from the British publication “The New Statesman,” in 1966:
“1966 New Statesman 18 Mar. 392/3 The American word ‘faggot’ is making advances here over our own more humane ‘queer’.”
(From the Oxford English Dictionary.  You can look it up.)

And that is all the time I choose to devote to this unsubstantiated urban legend. to paraphrase something Marty the Baptist said upstream, this myth is only another fanciful projection of the culture of “victimology.”

The Pilgrim, I don’t think St Paul spoke or wrote in Kings James English.

What does #71 have to do with #70?

I’m always interested in word derivations, and The Pilgrim’s research in #70 confirms what I have been able to find online.  There doesn’t seem to be a connection between burning at the stake and the American derogatory “faggot”  (which I don’t use anyhow, nor should I).  As to “gay,” I don’t use it as the teens do, and I deplore its loss in its previous definition.  We used to be able to sing “Don we now our gay apparel” without sniggering.

Using the term ‘gay’ to describe an individual isn’t considered offensive, and the phrase being discussed here isn’t even that. It refers to a *thing* (say VGR’s shoes), while simultaneously expressing disapproval of a lifestyle. It’s not directed towards an individual. It is not like calling someone ‘faggot’ where the only intent is to wound that individual. How can the phrase therefore be considered offensive unless you’ve already decided that the lifestyle is morally neutral?

Isn’t it good for society to keep a vestige of standards around in their consciousness? Let’s say a father wouldn’t let his daughter buy a particular outfit, ‘because it would make you look like a ****’. What if a prostitute overhears and feels ashamed? Is this the same as the man deliberately seeking out a prostitute to humiliate by verbal abuse? Let’s not equivocate, let’s be accurate about what is at play here. The phrase should be dropped because it’s silly and juvenile, but for no other reason.

SpongJohn (#73):
I would like to offer a rebuttal to your statement paralleling “that’s so gay” to “you look like a [prostitute].”  If a youth were dressed up in a way that a homosexual would dress, than you might be right in saying, “you look gay.”  However, this is not the common use of the phrase. 

Here the point I would love comment and discussion on: I assert that when one uses the phrase “that’s so gay,” it is pejorative speech against those who are homosexual.  First, to demean a person who identifies him or herself as homosexual is unloving and is different from condemning homosexual behavior.  Second, while claims of persecution against homosexual individuals can be exaggerated, the Church as a whole in our culture has many times acted in hateful and sinful ways towards homosexual individuals.  When a Christian uses the phrase, “that’s so gay,” we should be aware that some of that baggage comes with it, whether intended or not.  If our ultimate prayer and goal is that homosexual individuals would come to know Christ, be saved and be healed, why would we fight so hard for the right to say, “that’s so gay” when it is offensive to some?  Do we have the right in our culture to use the phrase “that’s so gay” to express distaste for something?  Yes.  But is not one duty of Christians who have been saved and are thus set free in Christ to give up some of our worldly rights for the sake of the gospel?

As we continue to discuss, I would like to express my appreciation that the postings on this topic have for the most part been respectful from folks on all sides of the issue.  Let’s continue to speak and write knowing that those who do not know Christ—perhaps some homosexual individuals—are reading and listening.

#31 et al -
*  Isn’t “faggot” a slang term that originated in England as a term for a cigarette? 
*  “nigger” comes from the latin niger which means “black”. 
*  Didn’t “gay” evolve from the meaning “being happy” to a term for homosexuals because the males tended to be effeminate?

The use of “nigga” by my kids is a term of endearment or affection - “my bother” would be a suitable substitute.  Their black teenage friends call them “nigga” and my white teenage boys call their black teenage friends “nigga” - it has zero to do with race.  It’s from the rap culture.

“That’s so gay” has nothing to do with homosexuality - “stupid” would be a suitable substitute.  Same for “retarded”.

So chill out everyone…the words have different meanings than they did in our generation. 

FYI, it’s not the same for me to use these terms as my children, as these terms do have a different meaning to me - therefore I don’t use them.  Does this make sense?  And my children are estute enough to know the right times and places (well, for the most part) when they can use the latest “slang” and when not to.  Again, they will grow out of it…they are certainly not racist or homophobic (but do recognize the latter as sin).

* Isn’t “faggot” a slang term that originated in England as a term for a cigarette?

 
Yes.  Or in prep school wew called them “fags,” as in I’m going down to the smoking room to sponge a fag.”
Also the end of a rope is/was known as “the fag end” on board ship or on a stage.

The end of a rope aboard ship is called “the bitter end.”

Greg,  You’ll excuse me if I scroll down past all the comments (they are so boringly predictable, anyway) and remind you of this little note at the bottom of all HOB/D posts:

“Unless this message is clearly in the public domain, e.g. a press release,it may not be redistributed without its author’s permission. See http://hobd.org/help.html for information about the Bishops and Deputies list, including information about changing or ending your subscription.”

I know how scrupulous you regard policy, having read your own on this site, so I’m sure this was simply an oversight and not a desire on your part not to be “bounced” for an infraction of policy.  Or, perhaps it was, given the neo-orthodox Evangelical penchant for persecution as evidence of “true faith.”

I am deeply honored that you would lower yourself to troll my progressive website, but again, yet again, you missed the details.

This is what I said regarding the inhibition of Mother Redding:  “In this situation, I sadly agree with Bishop Wolf’s decision. I suspect Ann does, as well, with an equally heavy heart.”

You can disagree with anything I say I feel or believe, but please do quote me completely.

Marty, Pilgrim

Perhaps my words were ambiguous. I wasn’t making a point about the language either of you use.

I was criticizing your responses for taking the easy way out, and inviting you to be men, and to acknowledge that the woman made a fair point. If you choose to not notice when your opponent speaks truth then you’re taking an easy way out. You also make it less likely that someone will take your comments seriously and think hard when you make a thought-provoking point.

It may be understandable, but it’s also arrogant and erroneous to assume that any person or any side has a monopoly on truth.

THATkind,

No, I didn’t miss any details, but thanks for checking. I’ve already explained in a previous post my reasons for disregarding the notation at the bottom of HoB/D messages.

Also: No idea what you’re talking about re Redding.

What’s Kaeton going to do about the fact that when adolescents thinks something is really good they say “that’s fat”???? Isn’t that discrimination???? Fat people unite!!!  I agree with the person who said “get a life”.  More often than not, adolescents think “speaking in code” is integral to their unique time in life. And it probably is. We all did it.

So let’s replace it with ... That’s so TEC.

>>>“No, I didn’t miss any details, but thanks for checking. I’ve already explained in a previous post my reasons for disregarding the notation at the bottom of HoB/D messages.”<<

Of course, no reference to said “previous post,” but I have absolutely no doubt as to it’s content. My goodness, Greg Griffith, you are a revisionist at heart.  Takes one to know one.

>>>>Also: No idea what you’re talking about re Redding.<<<

Convenient, that.  Sort of reminds me of the line used by Ronald Regan:  “I don’t remember.”  Early Alzeimer’s, Greg?
There, there.  Let me help you, dear:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=29373297&postID=5868147144976472903

Convenient, that.  Sort of reminds me of the line used by Ronald Regan:  “I don’t remember.” Early Alzeimer’s, Greg?

Goodness.  You bleat about “That’s so gay” on your blog and then make a comment like that? I am sure all the people who deal with Alzheimer’s found it hysterical.  There is a word for that in the English language.  It starts with ‘H’ and ends in ‘ypocrisy.’

carl

#84 - Huh???—I maybe slow and very stupid, but give me a hint, how does your link prove (or for that matter reference) anything? I did not find the name of anyone from SFIF in the comments nor the sentence you referenced above. It seems to be a non sequitur.

[Per the other complaint, ask Mad Potter, he also was very upset at Greg for violating HoB/D list policy, only to be informed that Greg is not on the list, he gets stuff via other means].

Seems perfectly obvious to me that she has a crush on him…

Seems perfectly obvious to me that she has a crush on him…

  +1

Liz,

Not revisionism. Defiance, maybe. Not revisionism.

Also: Still unclear on the Redding thing. Your link only adds to the confusion, which oddly enough is none of my doing.

Ah Liz has her snarky on this evening! How fun! Liz hon, you simply must stop tying tin cans to the tails of cats, and so forth. The transparency of your faux humor is of the same tired quasi-intellectual sort. Perhaps you’re tired and need a little nap or something - not up to your usual par at all hon. Please, bring your A game here, anything less is rather moot.

I loved the commentary inthe link by the way - not related at all, but sort of pithy in that “we Anglicans jus’ luvs our tensions yes we does” sort of way. Judging however from the huge numbers of books on reducing tension and stress in the self-help aisles of the local bookseller - tension may not be the answer…. just sayin’.

Actually now that I think about it - i first heard the phrase in question from another source entirely, from some of my Jewish friends who said “that’s so goy” in reference to some WASPish incident or other. I can see how it could garner a west coast twang and end up as the objected-to phrase. And of course once it hits California anything can happen - and obviously did in this case.

Pity. “that’s so goy” really made me chuckle. Now I suppose its going to return and get banned too.

To Commenter No.54 - Homosexuals have been punished in many different ways through the ages by the Christian Church and by governments of all kinds.  Although western
nations are in the slow process of removing such penalties, there are many countries in the world where punishments are severe, including life in prison and the death penalty.
FOR INFORMAION GO TO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world

Which punishments do you think should be enforced in the
United States? Why?

79
If you want to protect it, you’d need to (claim) copyright (on) it.  Not sure how that could be done with something posted to a public forum, but I’m sure the legal folks could get something going - SCO has been losing to IBM for well over 5 years now….

That silly message at the bottom doesn’t carry any weight - it is nothing more than a request, and requests can of course be refused.

St. James asked…

“Which punishments do you think should be enforced in the
United States? Why?”

If you are referring to legal sanctions, I don’t believe anybody should be punished for being homosexual, in this life.  But I also believe that people who commit homosexual acts will face consequences in the next.

Okay, Greg, just a few last things.

1. It’s “Elizabeth”.  You may call me “Rev’d Elizabeth,” “Dr. Kaeton” or simply “Elizabeth.”  I know.  It’s a lot more syllables than “Greg” or “Bob” or “Jack” but you can do it.  If you can say, “Archbishop Gregory Venebles,” or “Archbishop Peter Akinola,” I know you can say “Elizabeth” if you give it a try.  You don’t need to use any titles with me.  When I talk with God, S/he always just calls me “Elizabeth.”  So, you can do it, too.

2. What is that smell here?  It’s like old socks or something.  Phew!

3. I thought that second quote you posted was from my blog.  I was wrong.  I apologize for the confusion.

4.  You have absolutely no respect for anything TEC - that much is abundantly clear, but you are a revisionist, Greg!  A defiant one, to be sure, but a revisionist when it comes to HOB/D policy none the less.  How very interesting.  I knew there was a small place in my heart that was fond of you.

5.  What IS that horrid smell here?

6.  Let me break it down for you.  I’ll try to make this real easy so you won’t get confused.

If Greg Griffith had a birthday cake and said, “Hey, everyone, come help me eat my birthday cake,” and it wasn’t even your birthday, some might say, “Hubboy, that Greg Griffith is such a weirdo!”

If Greg Griffith had a birthday cake and said, “Hey, all the men in this place, I’m going to take my birthday cake and spread it all over my naked body and I want you to lick it off me,” and it wasn’t even your birthday, some might say, “Hubboy, that Greg Griffith is such a weirdo - and he’s also so gay.”

Got it? 

It is insulting to use a term that belongs to a particular a target population or person of that population and used in a pejorative manner. 

I’m assuming you understand this because your own policy states, and I quote directly: For example, I know Bishop Robinson’s real name is indeed “Vicki Imogene,” but I never refer to him by that in the context of opposing his episcopacy or his theology, because it’s obviously intended as a slam against him personally. It’s a <b>juvenile, playground taunt</b> that doesn’t belong here. Go to Google and learn why he’s named that, and my guess is that you’ll understand why it’s inappropriate in the extreme to use it. Same goes for calling Susan Russell things such as “arch-lesbian.” I know she embraces the term, but it’s like the “n” word - it’s not okay for us to use it. When she uses it, it’s funny and self-effacing; when we use it, it’s petty and derisive. To everyone’s credit, we see very little of that kind of thing here, but even a little is too much. For the best thoughts on our Worthy Opponents, read Sarah’s essay. This is not to say that you can’t call a heretic a heretic, just make sure you (respectfully) make the case for their heresy.”

So, you get it.  At least, it sounds like you get it.

I am curious, though, why you feel the need to state in your policy: ” . . .no racial or ethnic slurs . . .” Apparently, everyone else - including women, and those of different class, educational, economic, physical or intellectual status - is fair game, eh?  Interesting - that you have to caution folks against employing some slurs and not against others.  What does that say about y’all?

Never mind, I really don’t want to come back here to hear your answer.  Although I must compliment you, by way of confession, that I often come here after a “breaking news story.”  You are much more reliable than, say, “Virtue on line” - and even less inflammatory.  Well, not in your reporting, anyway.  Good on yer!

7. Okay, I really have to go.  That smell is really getting to me.  It smells like . . . sulfur burning . .  or something.  Phew!  It really limits the amount of time I can stay in the open comment section in this place. 

Ah, perhaps there’s a method to your madness.

It’s always a joy when the patented Kaeton hit and run rolls in.

For the TL,DR crowd, here is the executive summary of the above.

1. We get to decide what is insulting and what isn’t, under all circumstances.

2. When we insult you, it’s us being clever, because we are smarter than you, and loving, because we are better than you. It’s all for your own good.

3. When you insult us, it’s uncharitable and unchristian.

4. We can change our minds at any time about anything and it’s the will of the spirit. So don’t question it.

5. Anything the Episcopal Church decides should be treated more seriously than anything God ever said.

I hope the above proves helpful. I think that covers the main points.

If you get baptized in Newark, do they give you a Spong bath?

7. Okay, I really have to go.  That smell is really getting to me.  It smells like . . . sulfur burning . .  or something.  Phew!  It really limits the amount of time I can stay in the open comment section in this place.

Greg, did you upgrade the exterior of our secret volcano lair with a new sulfur gas generating unit, good job! I hadn’t noticed it before, but I never tried standing on top and shouting down, I just take the elevator to the bunker. I’m not so interested in the new PowerBars but the coffee good.

That is so TEC…

A quick summary of Ms Kaeton’s Opus:

1.  Frantic arm-waving mixed with gratuitous ad hominim.

2.  A little more gratuitous ad hominim.

3.  The buried lead.  And how tragic that such a good effort at condescension should have foundered simply for want of careful checking.  Arrogance demands its payment in blindness.

4. A fast change of subject so people will slip past 3.

5. A little more gratuitous ad hominim.  What did she say about ‘respect’ again?

6.  A long disquisition lest anyone even think about returning to 3.  Throw in a little condescension with the ad hominim this time.  Dangerous considering how that last bit of condescension turned out.

7. We conclude with ... gratuitous ad hominim.

And a good time was had by all.

carl

That was so Kaeton. Perhaps her olafactory event has something to do with BeerKat’s emissions?
Shalom,
Intercessor

#95 is the weirdest post I have ever read.  I protect my mind and computer by not reading the revisionist blogs or HoBD (tried it once and it was too nauseating, disorienting, illogical, rabidly so) and skip/delete Mad Potter, Emily H, et al without reading.

Scripture, His Voice, His Body, (whatsoever things are holy, true, virtuous, godly, righteous, good…)these are the proper food for the Christian mind and soul to heed, contemplate and obey.

Don’t waste your time in the frustration and futilility of ‘listening’ and ‘dialogue’ with them as Ephesians 4:17 warns us.

Can’t resist .. I think the smell is gone.

Elizabeth Kaeton, bless her heart.

The mousestalker nailed it in #96.  Even coming here to protest our insulting ways, she seeks to insult us—and that is nothing compared to what she writes on her blog.  In addition followed one of her links to a blog she likes and read her comments there - ONCE - came back and took a metaphorical bath with lots of soap.)

To me, the most egregious abuse of fellowship lies in the difference between this site and hers.  Greg will graciously allow her post to stand for all to see and respond to.

If you were to submit the same type of missive at HER site it would never get posted or see the light of day.

I am truly offended and I wonder if I can sue, Ms. That Kind of Christian, (Ms. Kaeton?) for saying “I don’t remember.” Early Alzeimer’s, Greg?

My dear father died of that hideous and horrific disease and it was not a pleasant sight to watch. It not only takes the loved on from you while still breathing but ages you at the same time having to deal with all that it entails. How dare You Ms. Kaeton! How dare you! You are so self absorbed!

One more thing for Ms Kaeton! How nice it is that you can come to SFIF and post without having your comments pre-screened and actually post! Unlike you and your site where anyone with a different view than you never sees the light of day! You really need to look in the mirror and take a self examination!

Thanks for the laughs, Miss Keaton.  You’re a hoot!

Elizabeth, I don’t understand your example with birthday cake in 95, but I don’t want to dwell on it.  My mind’s eye has been seared by the visual imagery.

Anyway, what does “It is insulting to use a term that belongs to a particular target population or person of that population and used in a pejorative manner. “ mean?  If an openly gay person does something “gay”, and I derisively say “That’s so gay”, am I not telling the truth?  How can the truth be an insult?

I guess it’s actually Gay ™, huh?  Only you can use it?

Liz’s crush on Greg is painful to watch.

I do believe that you can claim to be a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Muslim and still be a devout Christian. I think Ann has a very good point, and I have no doubt that her Christianity is enhanced by walking with Allah as well as Yahweh.

Interestingly, Ms. Kaeton failed to post the most interesting part of her comment referenced in #84 above.  Now don’t you think this will bring comfort to the Christians among us - especially coming from someone who claims to be a Christian priest.

Good call Jackie! She can claim all she wants but the truth lie within her words and actions! They tell on her everytime!

FWIW, I do not think the expression “so gay” is a neutral or acceptable behavior.  That teenagers do it is hardly the level we wish to set the bar.  Same for retarded.  I’m not talking about mandating political correctness.  I’m talking about basic class versus the lack thereof.  Slang in general isn’t all that helpful but tends to be a bad habit ... remember Valley Girl slang?  Not a marker for intelligence.

monologistos,
YOu have a very good point. But I think the real point here is that while all slang terms are childish, and can have an intent to hurt or make fun of said group or types of persons, th LGBT activists are doing with slang as they do with scripture and canons…they pick what best pushes their agenda forward to show them as victims while everyone else is just chopped liver per se! In other words, anything that pokes fun at or demeans us, LGBT’s, is not acceptable but anything and everything else is up for grabs. Just read Kaeton’s posts up the thread here and if you need more and I pray you do not, go to her website! But, be warned first, like the HoB?D Listserv, it’s not a nice place to be….It’s quite alright in Kaeton’s mind to say awful things about others but yu don’t dare do it to her and her fellow LBGT activists! She is a hypocrite!

“Allah as well as Yahweh…”
That is to take the name of the Lord thy God in Vain.

I’m so glad that Liz came by to troll our stinky, rabidly fundamentalist blog.  Loved the analogy that dealt with rubbing birthday cake over a naked body.  Loved the references to the “stench,” though given her analogy, we have an idea of what constitutes cleanliness in her circles. 

I am confused about one thing, though..  Why Liz prefers to be called, “Elizabeth.”  Why is that, Liz? 

- that Moot guy.

Moot,
She brought the stench with her. It didn’t start smelling until she showed up!

I cannot express in words adequately the profound sense of sadness I felt when I read Ms. Kaeton’s posts.  They were so, desperate, unsure, weak, punished, I could almost visualize her crying at the keyboard while she re-ran the odyssey that had been her life and wondered, for the thousandth time, if she was on the right track, or horribly deceived and cast down the path to perdition.

My sorrow is complete.  Please pray for her, I am right now.

KTF….mrb

You really need to look in the mirror and take a self examination!

HIDEOUS!!
Signed,
Perez Hilton

OK, while I joked earlier about Elizabeth, the posting at 95 really, really saddens me. The utter pathos in the undercurrent of her words was so strong that I actually paused while reading to take a deep breath. The dark side of her words, the desperate assertion of the proper name, the intensely juvenile reaction to the general atmosphere - mirroring the stereotypical self-important debutante role in many movies, the attempt to “fling poo” at Greg by calling him revisionist - as if that attempt was supposed to be insulting. The condescensional tone throughout seems so symptomatic of a personality very self-conscious, very insecure, and so self-loathing that no thought of humorous response occurred to me. Just deep, deep sympathy, concern and sadness. This one is moving way up on my prayer list today. Dear brothers and sisters, these words don’t have any sting, no stench at all - it is a clear distant scream of a heart in deep need of a Savior.

In light of the undercurrent of maladjustment in her post, do you think we should contact child welfare in case her grandkids are in danger.  There is precedent for it.

In light of the undercurrent of maladjustment in her post, do you think we should contact child welfare in case her grandkids are in danger.  There is precedent for it.

I doubt they are in any physical danger.  Now their souls, on the other hand, probably are.

OK, everybody… we’ve got what we were looking for. Thread closed.