Methodist church declines gay volunteer [Fermanagh]

TylerIE

A Co Fermanagh man has spoken out against the Methodist Church after they refused his offer to volunteer with a youth project due to his openly gay lifestyle.


Frankie Dean told UTV he wants to challenge the decision and has made a complaint to the church.

The 48-year-old man, from Ballinamallard, claims he was told that he would not be an appropriate role model for young people.

"I am a qualified performing artist and in response to a church bulletin request, I offered my services to a joint youth project in the area," he said.

"I also have some youth work qualifications and have had experience working with young people."

A born again Christian, he said that he "wanted to help young people in the community" as many of them were interested in the work he does.

However, Frankie says he was informed that his services were not required.

He claimed he was told that he was not "the right role model" and that there was the likelihood "young men will turn gay" if he was involved in the youth work.

Frankie said: "I feel the church should not be able to treat equality as optional."

A member of Ballinamallard Methodist Church for ten years, he said that he will not be returning to worship there.

He said that he does not believe the church should be able to pick and choose on the issue of equality.

A statement from the Methodist Church, taken from a document on their teachings on marriage, stated: "A loving marriage relationship is seen as the only appropriate relationship within which sexual intercourse may take place.

"The church advocates responsible family planning, with the use of contraception.

"In keeping with New Testament teaching, we are opposed to all debased forms of sexuality and sexual practice, whether heterosexual or homosexual."

The statement continued: "We do not seek to be arrogant or unfair about this, and it is for us a tension which often isn't understood."

Gay Lesbian Youth Northern Ireland [GLYNI] said the case has shocked everyone.

Regional Development Youth Officer Mark Brown said the church was supposed to provide "a supportive, pastoral role" for people.

He added that there had been "no pastoral care of duty offered to this young man."

"Young people are going to look at that and say, 'If I come out in my church, are they going to turn their back on me?'"

The organisation said they were helping Frankie challenge the Methodist Church's thinking.

Courtesy of UTV


I dont know what to say.....

G.K.

Pathetic really.

baby and crumble

Well I hope that the only volunteers that they currently work with are married or virgins.

Somehow I doubt it.

Honestly, this kind of rubbish pisses me off.

Shakti

Not surprising, I think all methodist churchs condemn homosexuality.

TylerIE

Shakti wrote: »

Not surpising, I think all methodist churchs condemn homosexuality.

Theres not approving and there is saying that being around a gay man "will make the young men turn gay".

Anyway the Methodist church in the States is moving towards equality. There was a toned down official policy released in 2008, although it still prohibited LGB ministers.

However there are some even more Pro LGB including the following from the Advocate

United Methodist Clergy Vow to Marry Gay Couples

Despite church regulations forbidding marriage equality, about 40 Minnesota United Methodist clergy have signed a statement vowing to marry any couple who comes to them, including those of the same sex.

The Reverend Bruce Robbins of the Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church in Minneapolis (pictured) read the statement Wednesday at the annual Minnesota United Methodist conference, which drew approximately 900 members, WJON News reports.

According to Bishop Sally Dyck, a vow to marry same-sex couples does not in itself break church rules, but clergy who follow through could lose their clergy credentials or conference membership.

Robbins says the bishop’s warning won’t deter him from performing the ceremonies.

Shakti

TylerIE wrote: »

Theres not approving and there is saying that being around a gay man "will make the young men turn gay".

Anyway the Methodist church in the States is moving towards equality.

Quite,

So I read...they (USmc) tolerate homosexuality but they dont condone it or something to that effect.

unreal imagine what it was like a few years ago,

BanzaiBk

that there was the likelihood "young men will turn gay" if he was involved in the youth work.

Yes it's very likely alright.

Seriously what are these people taking?!

stanley 2

better safe than sorry

TylerIE

stanley 2 wrote: »

better safe than sorry

What do you mean?

Sonics2k

At first, I was thinking "Well, its stupid, but they have that right I suppose".

Then I read some more, and saw the part about

young men will turn gay

and I actually face desked, and now I have a bruise on my forehead.

What a bunch of <expletives>.

MOSSAD

Why waste your time with these ****? At the end of the day they hate you.
Their loss .

DubArk

I’m surprised a gay man would want to be part of such an organisation to start with! Their Church (Methodist) is inherently bigoted and they really don’t want open homosexuals, anywhere near them. No surprise at all that a group meeting weekly; to honour and pray to their imaginary friend would be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Blessed be the sandwiches!;)

28064212

I don't really understand the whole "try and change the church from within" approach to religion people take. If you want a rugby league club set up in your locality, you don't join the local rugby union club to try and change it from within, you set up your own club and try and persuade their members that your way is better

TylerIE

28064212 wrote: »

I don't really understand the whole "try and change the church from within" approach to religion people take. If you want a rugby league club set up in your locality, you don't join the local rugby union club to try and change it from within, you set up your own club and try and persuade their members that your way is better

Where does that stop though... IF the GAA Central Council doesnt allow Black players, do you set up your own GAA league for black players? What if your the only Black GAA player for fifty miles around?

Its somewhat understandable the Church not offering marriage ceremonies etc, but saying that having a gay youth worker will turn the kids gay??? He wasnt trying to change the church, he just wanted to help them in their projects.

Also the Change from within approach is working in the States. There are pure LGBT Churches such as the MCC, but there are also Churchs which realise that its appropriate to love all of their God's people equally and treat them the same.

28064212

TylerIE wrote: »

Where does that stop though... IF the GAA Central Council doesnt allow Black players, do you set up your own GAA league for black players? What if your the only Black GAA player for fifty miles around?

It's not central to the GAA that only white people can play the game. It's more akin to a black man applying for membership to the local KKK chapter.

I don't think people and organisations who hold stupid beliefs should be forced to change them. I think they should be alternately ridiculed and ignored

TylerIE

28064212 wrote: »

It's not central to the GAA that only white people can play the game. It's more akin to a black man applying for membership to the local KKK chapter.

I don't think people and organisations who hold stupid beliefs should be forced to change them. I think they should be alternately ridiculed and ignored

Unusual comparison!

I think the victim above isnt returning to the church anyway!

foggy_lad

All church run schools and other groups run and organised by the church here are exempt from parts of the equality legislation so the same would have happened here in the south!

Most schools and youth orginisations can refuse people employment if their lifestyle does not fit with the ethos of the organisation/school

stanley 2

what do you think I mean

TylerIE

stanley 2 wrote: »

what do you think I mean

I dont know, thats why I asked? Your obviously not too sure yourself?

stanley 2

TylerIE wrote: »

I dont know, thats why I asked? Your obviously not too sure yourself?

I think on the lines of the Irish blood board
why take the risk

rainbow kirby

stanley 2 wrote: »

I think on the lines of the Irish blood board
why take the risk

Please explain why you chose to use the word "risk" in this context.

TylerIE

stanley 2 wrote: »

I think on the lines of the Irish blood board
why take the risk

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Please explain why you chose to use the word "risk" in this context.

Thank you kirby, I too am lost as to what risk the poster is referring to?

stanley 2

what did Jeaus say

TylerIE

stanley 2 wrote: »

what did Jeaus say

You cant even spell your Lord's name.

Jesus said stuff like "Love one another" and "love they neighbour as thyself".

He also practiced equality. He never said anything about homsexuality.

That doesnt answer our questions re what this "risk" is or why "better safe than sorry".

28064212

stanley 2 wrote: »

what did Jeaus say

I don't know, I've never heard any quotes from "Jeaus" about gay people (or from Jesus for that matter). Would you like to inform us?

stanley 2

the word gay wasnt used back then there are more choice words but not pc these days pity

28064212

stanley 2 wrote: »

the word gay wasnt used back then there are more choice words but not pc these days pity

And which non-pc words did this 'Jeaus' use?

TylerIE

stanley 2 wrote: »

the word gay wasnt used back then there are more choice words but not pc these days pity

Your clueless, absolutely clueless. You dont have a notion what your talking about so you keep changing the topic.

Most of your lot normally come up with something resembling a "reasonable argument" based on your understanding of "facts". You cant even do that?

Jesus never made any documented reference to what we would now know to be gay people. NEVER! EVER! AT ALL!

CrystalLettuce

I think that most of the people saying that "changing things from within" is dumb are suffering from a serious case of Privilege. People have to fight these things all the time sadly...

The Brigadier

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that people are entitled to freedom of religious belief and expression of that belief.

Nothing to see here.

CrystalLettuce

The Brigadier wrote: »

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that people are entitled to freedom of religious belief and expression of that belief.

Nothing to see here.

Says a religious person, who probably has little interest in furthering gay rights anyway. Privilege.

foggy_lad

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

Says a religious person, who probably has little interest in furthering gay rights anyway. Privilege.

There is that accursed privilege again! What did Jesus have to say about that?

TylerIE

The Brigadier wrote: »

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that people are entitled to freedom of religious belief and expression of that belief.

Nothing to see here.

People... Except Mr Dean above. Hes not allowed... Or any gay people.

Oh Ye article 7 (equal treatment before the law) Doesnt apply to him or his family... Or 16, the right to marry, we will skip that one too...

Listen to yourself.
Rights and responsibilities...

Sonics2k

The Brigadier wrote: »

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that people are entitled to freedom of religious belief and expression of that belief.

Nothing to see here.

It also states you cannot discriminate between people based on Race/Religion/Sexuality and so on.

So what was your point, or did you just feeling like throwing out a random statement to make homophobia seem less ignorant?

CrystalLettuce

The reason why you have to look at it in terms of privilege is because of the knobbers who say people have a "right" to a certain belief etc., and it's their private club so they can exclude who they want.

But this doesn't give a realistic picture of what it's like to be a gay person versus what it's like to be a straight person, white vs. black etc. It's misdirection.

You can't ignore the fact that in this country, a regular straight catholic has more "Options" open to them. They would not have been turned down here. You can say that it's the right of the church to turn him down and that he doesn't have rights in this situation, but it does not change the reality that this leads to the person in question having less opportunities open to them.

Some smart fella coming along pointing out how it's their right etc. who's probably never had to fight for anything in that regard, should rub people the wrong way. It is very much showing your privilege, as it's great for him to comment on it when he's not the one being affected by it.

If you have a world where people with "private property/business" and "private clubs" such as what religions supposedly are that discriminates against one type of person, that is still an issue. The fact that they are within their "right" to do so does not change the fact that there is a problem and it would not have happened if they weren't gay/trans/POC etc.

It doesn't matter who's "Right" it is by law. It doesn't make it right and it doesn't somehow take away the damage inflicted on those individuals at the receiving end. This is why people like "The Brigadier" and Foggy Lad are very, very wrong. And nobody who really gave a **** about gay people would support it.

Again it's very easy to get cocky about these things when you are not on said receiving end. And that even applies to some members of marginalised groups who've been lucky to escape the normal ****fest that comes with it.

The Brigadier

Sonics2k wrote: »

It also states you cannot discriminate between people based on Race/Religion/Sexuality and so on.

So what was your point, or did you just feeling like throwing out a random statement to make homophobia seem less ignorant?

Methodists are entitled to practice their religion and uphold their religious beliefs. Rather than people crying homophobia at every turn people should try and be considerate of others.

Some of the comments on this thread are just downright nasty.

I fail to see how this man is being disadvantaged. To try and condemn these methodists is just morally wrong.

I am married and I am prohibited from being a Catholic Priest. Am I having my rights trampled upon?

I am a man and I can't get pregnant - what about equality?

If I was good enough I couldn't play football for Brazil - oh no!

Those are all just silly examples - every bit as silly as this.

Anyone who starts to try and curtail religious freedoms in the name of equality is bonkers. If you feel you are being persecuted do you really think it is right to persecute in return?

The Brigadier

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

The reason why you have to look at it in terms of privilege is because of the knobbers who say people have a "right" to a certain belief etc., and it's their private club so they can exclude who they want.

But this doesn't give a realistic picture of what it's like to be a gay person versus what it's like to be a straight person, white vs. black etc. It's misdirection.

You can't ignore the fact that in this country, a regular straight catholic has more "Options" open to them. They would not have been turned down here. You can say that it's the right of the church to turn him down and that he doesn't have rights in this situation, but it does not change the reality that this leads to the person in question having less opportunities open to them.

Some smart fella coming along pointing out how it's their right etc. who's probably never had to fight for anything in that regard, should rub people the wrong way. It is very much showing your privilege, as it's great for him to comment on it when he's not the one being affected by it.

If you have a world where people with "private property/business" and "private clubs" such as what religions supposedly are that discriminates against one type of person, that is still an issue. The fact that they are within their "right" to do so does not change the fact that there is a problem and it would not have happened if they weren't gay/trans/POC etc.

It doesn't matter who's "Right" it is by law. It doesn't make it right and it doesn't somehow take away the damage inflicted on those individuals at the receiving end. This is why people like "The Brigadier" and Foggy Lad are very, very wrong. And nobody who really gave a **** about gay people would support it.

Again it's very easy to get cocky about these things when you are not on said receiving end. And that even applies to some members of marginalised groups who've been lucky to escape the normal ****fest that comes with it.

I care an awful lot about gay people. I have many Gay friends.

I still don't see how you can feel that persecuting a minority is an anyway acceptable.

Annasopra

foggy_lad wrote: »

All church run schools and other groups run and organised by the church here are exempt from parts of the equality legislation so the same would have happened here in the south!

Most schools and youth orginisations can refuse people employment if their lifestyle does not fit with the ethos of the organisation/school

I'm not sure if this would happen here at all.

Section 37 of the employment equality act does not mention anyone's lifestyle.

rainbow kirby

The Brigadier wrote: »

I still don't see how you can feel that persecuting a minority is an anyway acceptable.

Think about that for a minute.

L.Jenkins

Found this link last night on facebook. Might hold some relavence. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/09/noms-new-project-for-victims-of-imaginary-gay-intolerance-spotlights-liar-frank-turek/

Shakti

The Brigadier wrote: »

Methodists are entitled to practice their religion and uphold their religious beliefs. Rather than people crying homophobia at every turn people should try and be considerate of others.

Some of the comments on this thread are just downright nasty.

exaggeration

I fail to see how this man is being disadvantaged. To try and condemn these methodists is just morally wrong.

the condemnation in origin emanates quite clearly from the methodists

I am married and I am prohibited from being a Catholic Priest. Am I having my rights trampled upon?

you could join as an already married misogynistic protestant bishop

I am a man and I can't get pregnant - what about equality?

lots of people are unable to give birth that includes women and men question is are you a person who is capable of being and raising children in a positive, loving and supportive way.

If I was good enough I couldn't play football for Brazil - oh no!

are you Brazilian? as I think you have to be if you want to play for Brazil

Those are all just silly examples - every bit as silly as this.

as what?

Anyone who starts to try and curtail religious freedoms in the name of equality is bonkers. If you feel you are being persecuted do you really think it is right to persecute in return?

No-one has the right to persecute but 'the law' has the right to prosecute were there is injustice.
No religion, church, sect etc. is above the Law of the land that includes equality law if an individual needs to take them to court then they are free to and/or at the very least lodge a complaint or protest to draw attention to it, sure beats the days when people were afraid to question authority for fear of real and mortal persecution.

foggy_lad

mango salsa wrote: »

I'm not sure if this would happen here at all.

Section 37 of the employment equality act does not mention anyone's lifestyle.

You would think that should be the case but unfortunately religious and other organisations were given an exemption for certain things which do not fit with the ethos of their religion or organisation, Catholics could be barred from working in a Church of Ireland school or muslims could be barred from working in hospitals operated by the Catholic Church and gay lesbian or transgendered can be barred by any religious group.

http://www.gcn.ie/feature.aspx?sectionid=14&articleid=2550

The contentious article, Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act, provides denominational schools with an exemption allowing them to take “reasonably necessary” action to prevent an employee or prospective employee “from undermining” its religious ethos.

“Well over 90 per cent of all primary schools in this State could potentially claim the special protection of section 37. These schools are State funded and teachers are paid by the State yet their denominational employers have available a broad and unspecific entitlement to discriminate.”

http://www.into.ie/ROI/InformationforTeachers/TeacherSpecialInterestGroups/LesbianGayBisexualTeachersGroup/Section371/

Employment Equality Act, 1998, 2004

Section 37 (i) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, 2004 states:

---

A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part or Part II if—

a) it gives more favorable treatment, on the religion ground, to an employee or a prospective employee over that person where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution, or

b) it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution.

---

Sonics2k

The Brigadier wrote: »

I am a man and I can't get pregnant - what about equality?

Seriously? I mean really?

/steps out crying softly

TylerIE

]Methodists are entitled to practice their religion and uphold their religious beliefs. Rather than people crying homophobia at every turn people should try and be considerate of others.

You keep saying this... and forget to say "Methodists EXCEPT Mr. Dean... or any gay ones". You throw out the UN argument then ignore the truth. Funny thats what always comes from the "Religious side". Once we mention or clarify your "facts" you just ignore them, after all why believe facts?

Some of the comments on this thread are just downright nasty.

I agree... stuff like better safe than sorry, and particularly "nothing to see here" - as if its not a big deal that a dedicated church goer is rejected from working with youth group because "it might turn them gay". Very nasty

I fail to see how this man is being disadvantaged. To try and condemn these methodists is just morally wrong.
I am married and I am prohibited from being a Catholic Priest. Am I having my rights trampled upon?

You can become unmarried. You cant become "un-gay". You can get your marriage anulled. And another poster has addressed this.

I am a man and I can't get pregnant - what about equality?

If you can get Science to catch up with you theres nothing to stop you getting pregnant. Ridiculous.

If I was good enough I couldn't play football for Brazil - oh no!

You could play for Ireland or wherever your native country is. Its the Brazilian soccer team - they are not discriminating against a "minority" group.

Those are all just silly examples - every bit as silly as this.

Anyone who starts to try and curtail religious freedoms in the name of equality is bonkers. If you feel you are being persecuted do you really think it is right to persecute in return?

They are not being persecuted. They choose to discriminate arbitrarily against groups. This individual Church has went beyond what some other churches do. Some non-Christian groups have strict religious laws that are enshrined in history with something resembling foundation. They apply them blindly, no exceptions. I would have some sympathy if it was a group like that in question, but its Christians who are "picking and choosing" which parts of their religion to apply. As "baby and crumble" said

Well I hope that the only volunteers that they currently work with are married or virgins.

The Brigadier wrote: »

I care an awful lot about gay people. I have many Gay friends.

I still don't see how you can feel that persecuting a minority is an anyway acceptable.

Funny how the above comment reminds me of all the people who say "Im not racist, I have lots of black/Asian/African/Polish/Irish friends BUT"....

CrystalLettuce

The Brigadier wrote: »

I care an awful lot about gay people. I have many Gay friends.

I still don't see how you can feel that persecuting a minority is an anyway acceptable.

"Gay friends argument".

I already pointed out that there are far more opportunities for the average straight person than the average gay person in this country, and access to religion is one of these. It is irrelevant if they have a "right" to be bigots, it does not make it morally right, nor does it change the fact that if everyone were to exercise their "Right" to discriminate against gay people, gay people would total outcasts. Yet you would defend this right.

You are a privileged little man who does not give the first **** about someone in a situation different to your own. I'm sure you uphold superficial relationships as is required of most adults in this day and age. But it does not mean you truly care for the plight of marginalised groups such as homosexuals, because you don't. At all.

Your list of things you "can't do" is disgusting because it's implying you have anywhere near the lack of privileges a gay person has. You can't play football for Brazil - seriously? Perhaps if you became a citizen of Brazil and stayed there for a while. It'd probably be easier for you to pull this off somehow than it would for this man just to do work with the church. Does that not strike you as ridiculous?

The fact that there are things you cannot do does not excuse consciously denying homosexuals of many things heterosexuals have access to. Funnily enough, a homosexual cannot do most of the things you list on top of the discrimination they already face. Privilege cannot be "cancelled out" in that manner.

On a daily basis as a heterosexual person…

1. I can be pretty sure that my roommates, hall-mates and classmates will be
comfortable with my sexual orientation.

2. If I pick up a magazine, watch TV, or play music, I can be certain my
sexual orientation will be represented.

3. When I talk about my heterosexuality (such as in a joke or talking about
my relationships), I will not be accused of pushing my sexual orientation
onto others.

4. I do not have to fear that if my family or friends find out about my sexual
orientation there will be economic, emotional, physical or psychological
consequences.

5. I did not grow up with games that attack my sexual orientation (i.e., fag tag or smear the queer).

6. I am not accused of being abused, warped or psychologically confused
because of my sexual orientation.

7. I can go home from most meetings, classes, and conversations without
feeling excluded, fearful, attacked, isolated, outnumbered, unheard, held
at a distance, stereotyped or feared because of my sexual orientation.

8. I am never asked to speak for everyone who is heterosexual.

9. I can be sure that my classes will require curricular materials that testify to the existence of people with my sexual orientation.

10. People don't ask why I made my choice of sexual orientation.

11. People don't ask why I made my choice to be public about my sexual
orientation.

12. I do not have to fear revealing my sexual orientation to friends or family.
It's assumed.

13. My sexual orientation was never associated with a closet.

14. People of my gender do not try to convince me to change my sexual
orientation.

15. I don't have to defend my heterosexuality.

16. I can easily find a religious community that will not exclude me for being
heterosexual.

17. I can count on finding a therapist or doctor willing and able to talk about
my sexuality.

18. I am guaranteed to find sex education literature for couples with my sexual
orientation.

19. Because of my sexual orientation, I do not need to worry that people will
harass me.

20. I have no need to qualify my straight identity.

21. My masculinity/femininity is not challenged because of my sexual
orientation.

22. I am not identified by my sexual orientation.

23. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help my sexual orientation will
not work against me.

24. If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative
episode or situation whether it has sexual orientation overtones.

25. Whether I rent or I go to a movie theater, I can be sure I will not have
trouble finding my sexual orientation represented.

26. I am guaranteed to find people of my sexual orientation represented in the
MIT curriculum, faculty, and administration.

27. I can walk in public with my significant other and not have people doubletake or stare.

28. I can choose to not think politically about my sexual orientation.

29. I do not have to worry about telling my roommate about my sexuality. It is assumed I am a heterosexual.

30. I can remain oblivious of the language and culture of LGBT folk without
feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

31. I can go for months without being called straight.

32. I'm not grouped because of my sexual orientation.

33. My individual behavior does not reflect on people who identity as
heterosexual.

34. In everyday conversation, the language my friends and I use generally
assumes my sexual orientation. For example, sex inappropriately is
referring to only heterosexual sex or family meaning heterosexual
relationships with kids.

35. People do not assume I am experienced in sex or that I even have it
merely because of my sexual orientation.

36. I can kiss a person of the opposite gender without being watched and
stared at.

37. Nobody calls me straight with maliciousness.

38. People can use terms that describe my sexual orientation and mean
positive things (i.e., "straight as an arrow", "standing up straight" or
"straightened out") instead of demeaning terms (i.e, "that's gay" or being
"queer").

39. I am not asked to think about why I am straight.

40. I can be open about my sexual orientation without worrying about my job.

This needs to be stickied. The cisgender one is even worse.

yawha

I really don't understand why gay people would want to join a church. Religion is as archaic and backward as discrimination against homosexuals is.

This is a man who wishes to volunteer his time to actively engage in the indoctrination of children into what is essentially a jewish zombie cult. In terms of discrimination I would give a shit about, this would be way down the list for me.

TylerIE

yawha wrote: »

I really don't understand why gay people would want to join a church. Religion is as archaic and backward as discrimination against homosexuals is.

This is a man who wishes to volunteer his time to actively engage in the indoctrination of children into what is essentially a jewish zombie cult. In terms of discrimination I would give a shit about, this would be way down the list for me.

Even when the reason they give is because the "kids could catch it" [homosexuality] from him? And where the kids in this church (some of whom will be gay) grow up with only negative reinforcement of gay stereotypes?

TylerIE

Ohio Billboards Debate God and Gays


American United Methodist Church places Billboards stating that "Being Gay is a Gift from God"... others disagree...

Link

foggy_lad

I have never been very religious but have always tried to be tolerant of all religions. But I thought the catholic church in particular was not very understanding about gay lesbian or trans people. Their whole attitude is that we deserve gods love just as much as anyone else, possibly even more because of the way we decide to live.

I dont want pity from any group that prays to the sky and prays to statues and a celibate old man in rome or any other group that thinks we as gays etc need extra love to get us through. I need just about the same amount of love as anyone else. if any group decides to give me extra love without me looking for or needing it and it will be thrown back in their face.

rainbow kirby

Stanley 2 banned for 7 days for using homophobic language.