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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.” And pretend that religion becomes very popular.

Now, let’s say one of the followers of this popular religion stands in front of a Christian church with a sign that reads “CHRISTIANITY IS A SIN.” Would you think, “Could it be that this woman is not actually motivated by hate, but by love?”

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.

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

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’m merely arguing the position that she most likely THINKS that she’s doing the right thing, and thus is guilty of nothing more than ignorance (although it might be pretty severe). I’m saying that it would be “bigger” of us to give her some pity, because I think we’ve all been ignorant about certain things in our past, and even continue to be.

Honestly, knowing Evangelicals, if you really wanted to start to change them, I think there are some things you could say… “I know you think you’re doing the right thing, but you’re actually driving people away”, or saying “Holding a sign isn’t going to change anybody’s mind or make them more open”, or even saying “Your sign makes me feel unloved and unwelcome”, which is consistent with what many conflict-resolution folks would advise. It’s a non-confrontational way to let someone know how their actions are detrimental.

You probably can’t convince her that she shouldn’t try to convert gays, but you might be able to convince her that she’s going about it the wrong way. And I think getting people away from the belief that holding a judgmental sign will make a positive difference is a first step to examining how many of their accepted truths may be suspect.

I’m just saying what I think would be productive. And, I’ve talked to some sign-holders in my day, and frequently there is absolutely no progress to be made. But I still think we act as the bigger person (which in my mind is commendable although not obligatory) if we don’t stoop to the level of the people that would attack us.

Also, it seems to me that there IS a difference between the “Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it” sign that some have mentioned and the “Your garb is a sin” sign. The first is just funny. The second takes the original message and points it in the opposite direction. The original message of “I reject you” is still there.

I think it is a strong person that can say “I won’t reject you the way you’ve rejected me”. Not everybody can do that. Not everybody is obligated to do that. But, the truth is that we’ll never break the cycle if we repay like for like. The only examples I know of where a people group was liberated without subjugating someone weaker are non-violent ones, examples where people asserted their value without negating that of others.