1. Sarina says

    It’s pathetic that something as noble as Day of Silence could be attacked by supposed christians. What would Jesus do? He wouldn’t judge or cast stones. That’s for sure.

  2. Tom in long beach says

    Yes, lets get the conversation started, that perhaps focus on the family DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON TRUTH. Their translation and understanding of scriptures is not the only possible doctrine on sexuality. Being in a loving stable gay relationship or, god forbid, marriage, is way better than pretending to be strait and cheating to get your real needs met… Horrid video by the way.

  3. uffda says

    The very idea of Christianity, its entire set of notions and structures around its concepts of received truth, is becoming more and more disreputable as a result of evangelical resistance to gay people. If evangelicals had persisted in their open resistance to civil rights they would have become a “nation” of shame, the intellectual and spiritual pariahs of the Western world.

    This is increasingly the position they hold today as a result of their homophobia. It puts them in the nuthouse.

  4. Jon says

    I don’t think dialogue is a bad thing, but they could have held this next month instead of the day before. Also, it won’t be a dialogue about facts – just rambling. Too bad it couldn’t be organized in some way. Why not have debate teams debate each other in the morning (with moderators to check the facts)? It could be informative, but it will probably end in screaming/preaching. Too bad.

  5. Jon says

    About the first sentence, I meant that they could have held it on a day other than the 19th, which is the day before the day of silence on the 20th. That makes it seem adversarial. As for the debate idea, I think it would be interesting for the two groups to argue points opposite to what they believe. That might be a learning experience.

  6. boone68 says

    Jon, you speak as if there are two sides to this. There are not. These kids are the product of brainwashing by the hateful bigots who raised them and the vile “preachers” who poison their minds against justice, love and compassion. We should NOT be debating them but rather shutting them down. It would NOT be interesting to hear them argue their points. It would be offensive and insulting to once again give a legitimate voice to their poisonous, soul damaging vile.

  7. Bart says

    Let’s get the conversation started = Let me talk in your face why you’re going to hell.

    Here would be my conversation, “If you have to go back over 3000 years when they thought the earth was flat and the sun went around the earth to find anything to support your sick and sad phobias and bigotries, then you’re too stupid to have a conversation. Grow up, grow a pair, and realize the world didn’t stop evolving – a scary word for you I know – 2000 years ago. What God gave you was a brain and it’s really sad you won’t use it to actually think for yourself.

  8. TJ says

    I just threw up a little – no, a lot, and not just in my mouth. Would that it would be a conversation, an exchange, a learning rather than a teaching moment. But this will be “God said it, I believe it, that’s it!” with acne. Because faith is SO much more important than rationality, science, and critical thinking. Just ask Frothy!

  9. ichabod says

    I flagged the video as well. Sighting that the “Day of Dialogue” is sponsored by Focus on Family –an organization classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.

  10. MKe says

    Who’s idea was it to shake the camera around and repeat the lines over and over again? Is that what young film-makers do now? The hip, in crowd? Shaky annoying camera work with a light and airy soundtrack for an animus inspiring day of ignorance toward gay students. Fun.

  11. Jon says

    Hmm. @Rob & @Boone68: The conversation will take place inside school or outside school. If it takes place outside school there will be no guidance or control and, I think, will amount to a group of vocal kids picking on another group. To debate requires time and research. To develop the best arguments for things requires emotional detachment – the best screamer doesn’t win. And to moderate debates is a tactical advantage.

    Religion isn’t going anywhere. We have to find a way to live together. I’m not suggesting that I think anti-gay groups would win the debate. I’m suggesting that moderated debates might actually demonstrate to kids certain logical errors in the way they are thinking.

    For one, the term ‘natural law’ is, historically, essentially synonymous with ‘God’s law’ and has nothing to do with ‘nature’ in the modern sense of the word. So point this out and ask why in a secular society we still use phrases like “against nature” at all. When we (gay people) argue that homosexuality is found in nature, we are arguing right past these kids. In church-language, which is what they hear at home and church, saying that homosexuality is ‘against nature’ is not refuted by pointing out instances of homosexuality in nature. But all this stuff requires research and time. Imagine being anti-gay and finding this out for yourself, or imagine being gay and figuring out that a better response to the ‘against nature’ argument is to point out the merits of the separation of church and state.

  12. architectinberlin says

    Isn’t the accompanying music the “Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy” from the “Nutcracker” by the great GAY composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky?

  13. PaulR says

    How apt that they would choose the 19th of April — the date of the 2nd biggest terrorist massacre in American history, also performed by right-wing nutjobs.

  14. just_a_guy says

    Hey class, let’s DEBATE whether lefties ought to be acknowledged and respected as human–or whether we should go back to shunning and marginalizing them as if OUR dignity depends on it!! God loves us so much that he doesn’t want ANYONE to be a dirty lefty and dirty lefties should be punished as unnatural if they won’t change; PROVE ME WRONG, YOU DIRTY LEFTIES.

    The conversation they want: Why you gay people shouldn’t exist, deserve no rights or basic privacy or dignity…why we YOUR very HUMANITY ought to be up for debate because WE are superior moral judges as straight Christianists, with the RIGHT to inflict MORAL TERROR.

    Tchaikovsky’s music here DRIVES HOME the extent to which their “conversation” is inherently unconscionable. I’m sure they deny that he was gay or are saying that we should marry silly women who we don’t love like he made himself do:

    No thanks, A-holes: I’d rather ignore you. Except you’ve declared the right to terrorize gay people’s existence.

    “Christian” my a**. They’d deserve PITY if they didn’t have so much power and dangerous influence.

  15. Chuck Mielke says

    How typically blind and self-aggrandizing of FotF. “The conversation” has been going on since WWI; the rational side of it only found its voice through Alfred Kinsey, in the 1950’s. Humanism and rationality will put an end to “the conversation” because FotF, and it’s clones, keep saying the same things over and over and they all start with “God says….”

  16. Rrhain says

    You will note that the Rating and Comments for the video have been disabled on YouTube.

    So much for their request to “start the conversation.” Looks more like they want a monologue.

  17. Charles Lemos says

    Apparently, this is only for whites (and upper middle class). If you’re black, Hispanic or Asian (or poor), then the Focus on the Family doesn’t really care. Lucky them.

Leave A Reply