Jesus Depicted In Sex Act In Loveland Co. Art Exhibit?

[tomato1236]

No, it's not the truth. I have never suggested that Mormons or any other anti-gay group should be censored or deprived of their civil liberties in any way. What I have done is to argue against their attempts to deprive us of our civil liberties.

Interesting that people who do the actual persecuting feel persecuted when they're criticized for it.

Interesting that this is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm mormon, sure, but I haven't ever voted in California or anywhere else on gay issues. I don't persecute gays. I actually went to a protest at temple square in Salt Lake City last night. But just because someone knows I'm mormon, I'm a persecutor.

 

[tomato1236]

Ironically, you reveal far more about yourself with this statement, than you do about homosexuals.

I just mean that just by being a member of my church, and gay people finding out such, there is a lot that is assumed about my disposition toward them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I just mean that just by being a member of my church, and gay people finding out such, there is a lot that is assumed about my disposition toward them.

Pattern recognition isn't limited to homosexuals.

 

[tomato1236]

Pattern recognition isn't limited to homosexuals.

Neither is the desire to be open-minded.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Neither is the desire to be open-minded.

Okay, who said otherwise?

 

[Smoke]

I just mean that just by being a member of my church, and gay people finding out such, there is a lot that is assumed about my disposition toward them.

Not without reason. You belong to a virulently anti-gay church, and the number of members who dissent from the official line is relatively small. People would make certain assumptions about you if you said you belonged to the ACLU, the Ku Klux Klan, the National Center for Science Education, or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, too. It's not entirely unreasonable to assume that people support the goals of groups to which they belong.

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't think explicit intent is necessary for the singling out Xtians to be problematic.

Possibly not, but it is if you're going to accuse them of using public money to "dis" a religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Possibly not, but it is if you're going to accuse them of using public money to "dis" a religion.

I differ on that. Intent, while significant, is not essential.

 

[Skwim]

What amuses me are people who delight in engaging in certain activities, but become upset, even enraged, when its suggested their idols do the same.

Anyone got an explain to this double standard? My best guess is that it has something to do with a "sex is dirty" attitude.

 

[tomato1236]

Not without reason. You belong to a virulently anti-gay church, and the number of members who dissent from the official line is relatively small. People would make certain assumptions about you if you said you belonged to the ACLU, the Ku Klux Klan, the National Center for Science Education, or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, too. It's not entirely unreasonable to assume that people support the goals of groups to which they belong.

I do support the goals of the group to which I belong, but that doesn't make the assumptions that are often made about me (or the church) correct. So again, all I have to do is exist, and gay people get huffy. You said that's not true, and now you're saying it is (not without reason). Make up your mind. Or did you just reply initially because nothing I say can be correct, because I'm mormon? D:

 

[Midnight Pete]

What amuses me are people who delight in engaging in certain activities, but become upset, even enraged, when its suggested their idols do the same.

Anyone got an explain to this double standard? My best guess is that it has something to do with a "sex is dirty" attitude.

The unchecked proliferation of STDs would account for a lot of that "sex is dirty" attitude. How much of the sex being had in the world today could be described as wholesome? Pure?

 

[Kathryn]

I wonder how many who approve of offensive portrayals of Jesus object to Westboro Baptist Church's anti-gay rants?
It seems to be largely a matter of whose ox is being gored.

I do not know a SINGLE Christian who is NOT horribly offended by just about everything that the Westboro idiots do - including their ridicule of gays.

 

[Revoltingest]

What amuses me are people who delight in engaging in certain activities, but become upset, even enraged, when its suggested their idols do the same.

Anyone got an explain to this double standard? My best guess is that it has something to do with a "sex is dirty" attitude.

I'm no expert on religion, but here's what I see:
Idols are something separate from us, & above our petty desires. Tis not for me to convince them that it's wrong or
illogical for them to hold things sacred. It's like vile protests at funerals....I don't care about them, but I understand
that many others do care a great deal. So it makes sense that there will be public wrangling to establish limits to such
speech. Personally, I favor less restriction than more.

 

[Kathryn]

I started to respond to a lot of the posts and snippets of posts on this thread, but then I realized this - I don't give a rat's *** about this so why waste a bunch of time debating what should be obvious to most rational people?

1. The "art" in question is crap.
2. It is no accident that one section portrays Jesus with the implication that he's getting a blow job.
3. Of course this would offend Christians - and it was meant to be provocative.
4. This otherwise rather untalented "artist" (and I use the term loosely) is getting his 15 minutes of fame via this load of crap that he's shoved off on some podunk museum, and I'm done giving him any attention.

 

[Revoltingest]

I started to respond to a lot of the posts and snippets of posts on this thread, but then I realized this - I don't give a rat's *** about this so why waste a bunch of time debating what should be obvious to most rational people?

So you think topics should have some value in order to discuss them?
The most insignificant issues are the ones resulting in the most blood spilled!

 

[Kathryn]

So you think topics should have some value in order to discuss them?
The most insignificant issues are the ones resulting in the most blood spilled!

Hey, you're talking to the girl who started a thread called "What's your favorite candy?"

Please - carry on. I'm just not going to attend the exhibit, or give this ridiculous artist any more validity by paying a bit more attention to him.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hey, you're talking to the girl who started a thread called "What's your favorite candy?"

Yeah, & I noticed that your favorite candy ******* **** & smelled like ****** ****** on a hot day!
People who call that "candy" really make me puke. You're in league with Satan....if there is a Satan.

I need to get into that government art business. It doesn't seem like a lack of talent or skill will hold me back.
What do you think.....weekly public recitations of my poetry on NPR?

 

[Kathryn]

Absolutely - apparently we are both missing out on a veritable GRAVY TRAIN of publicity and sweet moolah.

 

[Skwim]

The unchecked proliferation of STDs would account for a lot of that "sex is dirty" attitude.

Well, that's a new one. The thing is, many people considered sex to be dirty long before STDs gained prominence. The "dirty" of sex has nothing to do STD, but with the ishy coupling of humans in its various configurations.

How much of the sex being had in the world today could be described as wholesome? Pure?

I have absolutely no idea because I have no idea what pure and wholesome sex is. Care to tell us what it is?

Idols are something separate from us, & above our petty desires.

Re. the subject of the OP, sexual behavior, I don't regard it or any of its aspects as reflections of petty desires. Sex is a pretty big drive, almost as big as hunger, and sleep.

1. The "art" in question is crap.

And to each his own.

2. It is no accident that one section portrays Jesus with the implication that he's getting a blow job.

Well that's what I also thought until it was pointed out that it's more likely he's just getting a thigh licking.

3. Of course this would offend Christians - and it was meant to be provocative.

I would limit the "of course," to fundy reactionaries who delight in finding issues to take offense at. I believe most thinking Christians, not a large group I admit, would put it into proper perspective, shrug, and move on.

4. This otherwise rather untalented "artist" (and I use the term loosely) is getting his 15 minutes of fame via this load of crap that he's shoved off on some podunk museum, and I'm done giving him any attention

Having taken a few art courses in college I've learned to never judge the talent of others. I remember shaking my head at the works of artists such as Picasso, Kadinsky, and Miro and wondering why the hell their stuff was considered great art.

 

[Smoke]

I do support the goals of the group to which I belong, but that doesn't make the assumptions that are often made about me (or the church) correct. So again, all I have to do is exist, and gay people get huffy. You said that's not true, and now you're saying it is (not without reason). Make up your mind. Or did you just reply initially because nothing I say can be correct, because I'm mormon? D:

One of your church's goals is making sure that gay people don't have equal rights under the law. They've spent years working for that, and spent millions of dollars on it. It didn't start with Prop 8. I'm well aware that not every Mormon supports the Church's crusade against gay people, and I think most people are aware of it. Nevertheless, I don't think you should be surprised when people assume you have a negative attitude about gay people, or when gay people have a negative attitude toward your Church. Under the circumstances, it's not surprising at all.

But the gay people who resent you don't resent you for existing, or for being a Mormon as such. They resent you because you support a church that has chosen to make itself an enemy of gay people.