It finally happened in the town that I live in. I live in Portland which is approxiamtely 25 miles to Nashville. I was somewhat shocked when I saw it because this small town has a huge billboard at the entrance that reads "Man should not lie with man, it is an abomination." I mention the billboard because so many people blend a man wearing a skirt with sexual preferences, and this town is no exception.
Anyway, we had stopped at the local Mapco. I observed a very tall man wearing a sportcoat with red roses all over it. He was also wearing a long striped skirt with lace leggings underneath. His choice of shoes however, seemed somewhat off. They were some type of loafers with a strap across the top. The strap was not fastened and just flopping around. Not many people paid attention to him. I did see one young boy around the age of 9 that seemed to be staring. I was excited and wondered if I may have started a trend here.
Sightings "in the wild"
-
Freedomforall
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 1182
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:00 pm
-
moonshadow
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 7268
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
- Location: Lake Goodwin, Washington
- Contact:
Re: Sightings "in the wild"
Maybe so!Freedomforall wrote: ↑Sun Dec 26, 2021 12:23 pm I was excited and wondered if I may have started a trend here.
Re: Sightings "in the wild"
Quite the sighting. Nothing subtle about that outfit you described, and for most to ignore it is saying something.
As to the billboard, I see the two issues as unrelated, but I'm likely in the minority. The issue is that a lot of conservative folks seem to think it's the same people advocating both. While there is overlap for sure, there is no reason they have to be.
And the good book is remarkably quiet on clothing choices. Almost no one in the the entire thing wore any sort of bifurcated clothing. There are some references to girding your loins (tying up your skirts up to increase mobility, such as for battle) and something that looks like shorts to be worn by priests under their robes, but that's about it. Back then, only the barbarians to the north of the Roman empire wore pants...
The one and only reference to men not wearing women's clothing is buried in the OT with a lot of other stuff that we don't follow to the letter today. Applying it today, I see it as prohibiting transgenderism and crossdressing for sexual or religious purposes, but that's about it. Incorporating a few items that are unusual for men into a masculine or neutral outfit, while not attempting to "pass" should be no issue.
But some folks are stuck in the 1950's, and there's no logic that will move them...
As to the billboard, I see the two issues as unrelated, but I'm likely in the minority. The issue is that a lot of conservative folks seem to think it's the same people advocating both. While there is overlap for sure, there is no reason they have to be.
And the good book is remarkably quiet on clothing choices. Almost no one in the the entire thing wore any sort of bifurcated clothing. There are some references to girding your loins (tying up your skirts up to increase mobility, such as for battle) and something that looks like shorts to be worn by priests under their robes, but that's about it. Back then, only the barbarians to the north of the Roman empire wore pants...
The one and only reference to men not wearing women's clothing is buried in the OT with a lot of other stuff that we don't follow to the letter today. Applying it today, I see it as prohibiting transgenderism and crossdressing for sexual or religious purposes, but that's about it. Incorporating a few items that are unusual for men into a masculine or neutral outfit, while not attempting to "pass" should be no issue.
But some folks are stuck in the 1950's, and there's no logic that will move them...
-
moonshadow
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 7268
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
- Location: Lake Goodwin, Washington
- Contact:
Re: Sightings "in the wild"
https://youtu.be/QS2jqR9fc0U
It looks like the message created quite a controversy...
Shoot... I'm so used to seeing those kind of things here in Appalachia, it doesn't even phase me.
Besides, the person who posted it is correct. As per the God of Abraham, homosexuality is an abomination. I'm not saying I personally believe "God" really cares either way, but the scriptures are clear on the matter.
Thankfully, folks have the right to create billboards like that, and thankfully we have the right to ignore them if we wish.
Freedom works both ways.
It looks like the message created quite a controversy...
Shoot... I'm so used to seeing those kind of things here in Appalachia, it doesn't even phase me.
Besides, the person who posted it is correct. As per the God of Abraham, homosexuality is an abomination. I'm not saying I personally believe "God" really cares either way, but the scriptures are clear on the matter.
Thankfully, folks have the right to create billboards like that, and thankfully we have the right to ignore them if we wish.
Freedom works both ways.
Re: Sightings "in the wild"
When the OT (and the NT for that matter) were written men mainly wore skirts.
Re: Sightings "in the wild"
Other records would infer the many written versions, long after the events, have taken great liberties with the actual history of the times. But logic is apparently a mere concept for the likes of Spock, not for use on this little rock.by Dust » Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:00 am
And the good book is remarkably quiet on clothing choices. Almost no one in the the entire thing wore any sort of bifurcated clothing. There are some references to girding your loins (tying up your skirts up to increase mobility, such as for battle) and something that looks like shorts to be worn by priests under their robes, but that's about it. Back then, only the barbarians to the north of the Roman empire wore pants...
The one and only reference to men not wearing women's clothing is buried in the OT with a lot of other stuff that we don't follow to the letter today. Applying it today, I see it as prohibiting transgenderism and crossdressing for sexual or religious purposes, but that's about it. Incorporating a few items that are unusual for men into a masculine or neutral outfit, while not attempting to "pass" should be no issue.
For a split second, Freedom for All -- when you said "Portland" I thought maybe I had been spotted--but, wrong State!
-
Freedomforall
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 1182
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:00 pm
Re: Sightings "in the wild"
I have never seen that video. How did you find it?moonshadow wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 5:37 pm https://youtu.be/QS2jqR9fc0U
It looks like the message created quite a controversy...
-
Freedomforall
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 1182
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:00 pm
Re: Sightings "in the wild"
A couple of years ago a place opened here called Envy. They would have drag shows. That did not go well. There were protest and uprisings like we have never seen here. The place closed and they left town. It was a mess.
-
moonshadow
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 7268
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
- Location: Lake Goodwin, Washington
- Contact:
Re: Sightings "in the wild"
Ahh the Christian Taliban... gotta love it...Freedomforall wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 4:15 am A couple of years ago a place opened here called Envy. They would have drag shows. That did not go well. There were protest and uprisings like we have never seen here. The place closed and they left town. It was a mess.
I just googled "Portland Tennessee billboard".
-
Ray
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
- Location: West Midlands, England, UK
Re: Sightings "in the wild"
That sign would be banned in the UK.
Legislation exists to stop the display or sharing of material which is seen to incite hatred against individuals of groups on the basis of, inter alia, race, religion/religious beliefs, or sexual orientation.
The key here is that if the words cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, and
“(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,”
then the originator of that message is in trouble - with the possibility of a custodial sentence.
You may argue that this is a restriction on free speech. I’d argue otherwise. To me, it’s a cap on the extreme use of free speech. With freedom comes responsibility. The laws in the UK curb the irresponsible uses of that right to free speech.
Not that the law does not prohibit or restrict
“discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”
So you can make fun of God, Mohammed, Buddha and so on. That’s fine.
Is that right? That’s a debate in itself!
Legislation exists to stop the display or sharing of material which is seen to incite hatred against individuals of groups on the basis of, inter alia, race, religion/religious beliefs, or sexual orientation.
The key here is that if the words cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, and
“(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,”
then the originator of that message is in trouble - with the possibility of a custodial sentence.
You may argue that this is a restriction on free speech. I’d argue otherwise. To me, it’s a cap on the extreme use of free speech. With freedom comes responsibility. The laws in the UK curb the irresponsible uses of that right to free speech.
Not that the law does not prohibit or restrict
“discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”
So you can make fun of God, Mohammed, Buddha and so on. That’s fine.
Is that right? That’s a debate in itself!
on this forum at least....-
Ray
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
- Location: West Midlands, England, UK
Re: Sightings "in the wild"
Oh, I think more than one person has had a pop at the Royals… 
-
crfriend
- Master Barista
- Posts: 15142
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
- Location: New England (U.S.)
- Contact:
Re: Sightings "in the wild"
There is no special rule for the Royals in the UK here, at least not anything codified. Whilst some level of decorum is expected, opinions are just that -- opinions -- and we all have them. Individuals may get riled about someone else's opinion, but so long as things remain reasonably civil there is no official stance.
Simple name-calling is merely silly and shows a marked lack of dignity and respect on the part of the name-caller.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
-
moonshadow
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 7268
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
- Location: Lake Goodwin, Washington
- Contact:
Re: Sightings "in the wild"
Well, I don't agree with the billboards message, but I'll support their right to say it.
Actually... on second thought, there really isn't anything really "wrong" with the message, it quotes a line of scripture, and then says to "love the sinner" and hate only the sin.
Its not something I'd personally broadcast, but I don't think the message should be banned.
-
Ray
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
- Location: West Midlands, England, UK
Re: Sightings "in the wild"
Hmm.
The sign basically states that being gay is an abomination. That’s pretty nasty language in anyone’s book, let alone the bible.
From my perspective, the sign comes from bigots. I’m not going to pay for a billboard that states “Tennessee Christians are narrow minded homophobic bigots who believe in works of fiction and imaginary beings”. I may feel that way, but I’ve got enough respect - just - for these individuals not to publicly display such language.
This bible thing. Does it talk about tolerance? I’m sure it does. Do these idiots not read all of their precious book? You know, get a balanced perspective?
Thank goodness I live in a more tolerant part of the world. Not perfect; but a lot more tolerant.
The sign basically states that being gay is an abomination. That’s pretty nasty language in anyone’s book, let alone the bible.
From my perspective, the sign comes from bigots. I’m not going to pay for a billboard that states “Tennessee Christians are narrow minded homophobic bigots who believe in works of fiction and imaginary beings”. I may feel that way, but I’ve got enough respect - just - for these individuals not to publicly display such language.
This bible thing. Does it talk about tolerance? I’m sure it does. Do these idiots not read all of their precious book? You know, get a balanced perspective?
Thank goodness I live in a more tolerant part of the world. Not perfect; but a lot more tolerant.