memechose Wrote:Here's Daniel Pierce and the first news report on him. Americans can take this opportunity to be really pissed with their news providers that the first to break the story was BBC.
It isn't just service to your country this time V. You may not think so, but you're someone the rest of us look up to as a great example of humanity. I don't mean to make it sound hokey, but that's how this moment strikes me.
And are you really surprised the US media hasn't picked this up as soon as the BBC did? I would have thought Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, or Don Lemon should have picked this up and run with it immediately. Typical.
It took them that long to get advice from a *respectable* fundamentalist minister about how to deal wiyh a gay child.
By *respectable* I really mean they probably shopped around for a while for one who said exactly what those ignorant turd heads wanted wanted Jesus to say. It's funny how fundamentalists say they believe in the exact words of the bible except when they need to change some of the words to fit their own ignorant ways.
The exact word... well let's see. It comes from Leviticus at first and Deuteronomy with the very same sentence:
"Do not lie with a man, as you do with a woman, this is detestable"
Beside that far fetch story of Sodom and Gomoreah, this sentence in the whole 5 books of the Pentateuch which forms the first testament, those are the only one that actually made references to homosexuality. And yet, knowing that this have been translated, I'm trying to find the sentence in old hebrew and have it analyse properly by real linguists to find out if this was truly the meaning. Because honestly, a father could fuck his daughter, offer her as sex slaves or dirty pigs for rape, but this wasn't as detestable than a man lying with another man.
In fact, because bestiality was more a concern, one would find much more references of Israelites to be into fucking their sheeps more than assbanging other man. And yet, if a man was caught having sex with their livestock they were condemned to be stoned and the animal should be immediately killed. Like it was the sheep's fault that his master was after his ass... Because get the best of this, most of the sheeps were SHEEP not female, but male sheep, so it's seems it's was more exciting to assbang a sheep's ass.
Honestly, anyone making reference to the bible to show that god hates gay, they really are imbecile as I see stuff in there that is much more outrageous than two men having coitus in a bush.
I just did a search for "news on Daniel Pierce." There was not ONE listing for a major US news source ....
But Latin News was on the top of the list. Independent and Daily Mail of the UK had it. US media? Lame as usual. They ought to all be put out of business to make room for people who would do a better job
It took them that long to get advice from a *respectable* fundamentalist minister about how to deal wiyh a gay child.
By *respectable* I really mean they probably shopped around for a while for one who said exactly what those ignorant turd heads wanted wanted Jesus to say. It's funny how fundamentalists say they believe in the exact words of the bible except when they need to change some of the words to fit their own ignorant ways.
It sounded like their ambush was meant to be an "intervention." As if Daniel were part of a cult. The irony would be laughable but this kind of crap is no joke.
OH HERE'S ONE FOR YOU . . . I've mentioned my older sister and her her attempt to cast the demon of homosexuality out of her gay son as he lay dying of AIDS. WELL, MY OTHER SISTER, a few years younger is no better. In fact she is worse.
In the course of an attempted conversation with her about the harm done to gay teenagers who grow up in 'born again' families and communities, I mentioned it was one of the primary causes of teen suicide. Her response: "Well good. If they're gay, they should kill themselves."
Yep.
Like I say, these women are toxic which is why I have nothing to do with them.
It was discussed on Headline News last night (Saturday) on the Dr. Drew Show. He is interviewed on the second video. They refer to him as "David" because Dr Drew did not want to release his identity.
MikeW Wrote:It sounded like their ambush was meant to be an "intervention." As if Daniel were part of a cult. The irony would be laughable but this kind of crap is no joke.
OH HERE'S ONE FOR YOU . . . I've mentioned my older sister and her her attempt to cast the demon of homosexuality out of her gay son as he lay dying of AIDS. WELL, MY OTHER SISTER, a few years younger is no better. In fact she is worse.
In the course of an attempted conversation with her about the harm done to gay teenagers who grow up in 'born again' families and communities, I mentioned it was one of the primary causes of teen suicide. Her response: "Well good. If they're gay, they should kill themselves."
Yep.
Like I say, these women are toxic which is why I have nothing to do with them.
[SIZE="5"][COLOR="Red"]Reading an the article from Latin News it was a crude attempt at an intervention.
MIke, I understand what you mean. There's a 22 y/o guy who recently transferred to a job here, away from family in northern Nebraska. His family tried to have him arrested, committed and harassed his boss trying to force him to help them lure the guy into going to a gay conversion program. It's a good thing he's a strong and smart guy.
In the article Daniel also said he hoped people wouldn't be negative to his family about the whole thing. I don't see how that is possible because to us these people aren't *family.* They are monsters who would rather kill their own children than accept them. [/COLOR][/SIZE]
MikeW Wrote:Ok, well, I appreciate the optimism meme, but for people like in the OP's vid, it doesn't matter what we think or say or do.
memechose Wrote:You're totally right, Mike Stupidity cannot be fixed. I wasn't expecting to fix it. You hit on my reason for wanting to widen this viral issue to the point everyone sees it.
You are both such smart guys. That's why I like you so much.
I tried to find the exact quote that a friend of mine made on another forum, but because of the site's really dysfunctional search feature, I simply couldn't find it. So I'll paraphrase what he said. It was within a greater discussion along the lines of "Why do/why would anyone bring up race so much, doesn't it just draw attention/cause trouble instead of doing any good." And he said "Do you think that people who were racist in the 1960's just up and suddenly learned that they were wrong in their beliefs and gave up their ideas? F* no they didn't, they were shamed into silence where their views had to be hidden and they were afraid of voicing or acting on them socially or in workplace settings, and that's exactly how you have to deal with people like that, whether it's about homophobes or racists, because you cannot change their minds with reason or facts."
When people would otherwise attempt to overtly harm or oppress people based on their irrational beliefs, and you cannot reach them with reason due to religion or ideology or partisanship, shaming them into silence, obscurity and irrelevance is an absolutely valid tactic imho.
Buzzer Wrote:Why do/why would anyone bring up race so much, doesn't it just draw attention/cause trouble instead of doing any good." And he said "Do you think that people who were racist in the 1960's just up and suddenly learned that they were wrong in their beliefs and gave up their ideas? F* no they didn't, they were shamed into silence where their views had to be hidden and they were afraid of voicing or acting on them socially or in workplace settings, and that's exactly how you have to deal with people like that, whether it's about homophobes or racists, because you cannot change their minds with reason or facts."
When people would otherwise attempt to overtly harm or oppress people based on their irrational beliefs, and you cannot reach them with reason due to religion or ideology or partisanship, shaming them into silence, obscurity and irrelevance is an absolutely valid tactic imho.
Right you be Buzzerino. People like this cannot be reasoned with and it's stupid to even pretend to treat treat them as equals. They do understand being humiliated, reviled and being exposed for their hypocrisy, stupidity and inhumanity. The biggest difference between Islamic and Christian fundamentalists is their levels of violence. In this case the christians have not yet resorted to assassinating and bombing the people who criticize and mock them. If they gain more control in US politics it is beyond any doubt they will use government power to impose their religious beliefs on the nation by laws.
Oh sure, I'm used to being told to take my tin foil hat off when I talk about a fundamentalist plots to takeover US government in order to impose the religion on sciences, education, medicine, the justice system, literature and much more.
If you think I'm ranting conspiracy theories it only shows how ignorant you are of this subject. GO HERE and read about the Wedge Strategy developed in 1999 by the same people who concocted Intelligent Design. Scroll down to the part about their goals. The book is still a big seller,in its 2nd or 3rd printing --- but I've never met someone who has called me a conspiracy theorist who ever heard of The Discovery Institute or the Wedge Document.
These people need to be constantly harassed and publicly humiliated rather than tolerated in any fashion.
Buzzer Wrote:. . . And he said "Do you think that people who were racist in the 1960's just up and suddenly learned that they were wrong in their beliefs and gave up their ideas? F* no they didn't, they were shamed into silence where their views had to be hidden and they were afraid of voicing or acting on them socially or in workplace settings, and that's exactly how you have to deal with people like that, whether it's about homophobes or racists, because you cannot change their minds with reason or facts."
When people would otherwise attempt to overtly harm or oppress people based on their irrational beliefs, and you cannot reach them with reason due to religion or ideology or partisanship, shaming them into silence, obscurity and irrelevance is an absolutely valid tactic imho.
I agree it is a "valid tactic," but there is a huge difference between the civil rights movement during the 1960s and the kind of situation we're dealing with here.
First, the civil rights issue was predominantly a legal issue. Blacks weren't allowed the same rights as whites, solely because they were black. This movement built over a period of a decade into a vast social movement that required people risking arrest and, in some cases, death. It culminated in massive protests including the nation's capital. This garnered a lot of media attention for years and had a very charismatic leader in the form of MLK.
The situation we're confronted with in the OP is a FAMILY issue. Now, in this specific instance, Daniel is an adult. He may have been living at home and his family's attitude may indeed be unfair, even unjust, but he is beyond the age of minority. They *can* legally request he leave their home for any reason.
The point I'm making is that even in instances where the gay child is being emotionally abused by a family, so long as the abuse is not physical, so long as he or she is fed, clothed and etc., there is little authorities can do. This is a very different legal situation than the civil rights movement.
It is similar in regard to prejudice. Again, I'm not saying it is a waste of time -- on a societal level -- to point up this kind of bigotry for what it is. They *should* be ashamed and their attitudes challenged on a societal level. But when it gets into matters of faith and religion we're in a whole other ball park legally from racial prejudice. Freedom of religion is as much apart of our constitution as is the concept of free speech. We may not like what they believe, rightly feel it is despicable and worse, destructive, but legally there is nothing that can be done there. Even if religion weren't apart of the picture, even if it were only a matter of intolerance or homophobia, so long as a child isn't being physically abused there is little authorities can do to intervene. I don't see that changing on a legal level.
That said, I do think it is *already* changing on a societal level. The outpouring of support for Daniel is evidence of this. I think in general kids feel safer coming out now than they did even 10 or 20 years ago. Obviously this isn't the case for all gay children/teens.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
Capricorn
