Religion PDF - Blue Bird - Outages on the homosexuality thread

Carl Brooks18 said:1. Look, I never once used the word "outages," and I absolutely did NOT attempt to censor anyone's freedom of speech. Please stop accusing me of things I didn't do and quit putting words in my mouth.

2. I have a serious question here: if an average user isn't allowed to label homosexuality as a sickness or a disorder, then does a moderator get a pass to do it?

3. That wasn't even directed at you—it was for the site administration. Honestly, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation with you.

Actually, you were the one linking back to my posts, and not just from the Religion thread, but from another PDF entirely. I participate in these discussions just like any other regular user, moderator, or admin. There’s a specific button for quoting for a reason.

Regarding whether certain topics are off-limits: I expect Strile to weigh in and confirm what I said, because that's what we're debating. No single moderator should be left hanging in a dilemma to make these calls alone. That was the situation here. And please, stop twisting my words—I clearly stated that, within context, one can express an opinion that homosexuality is a disorder, rather than simply labeling people as "disordered," and obviously, that requires providing actual arguments.

Brenda Cook4 said:Why are you making things up? I didn't "ban" you, I just answered your question about why the post got flagged—it's because you're repeating the same thing over and over (and honestly, I think that's just a circular, fallacious way to argue).

Look, if you're flagging someone for repeating an argument while letting other people loop the same tired talking points—like claiming homosexuality is unnatural—then you aren't moderating, you're just tilting the scales of the debate.

Brenda Cook4 said:Alright, so you're leaning on the mod status—you got one single warning out of 418 posts, which I think is probably the only strike in this whole thread I've handled, so where's the issue with moderation? Repressive? For what?

The real issue is that the warning is a heads-up on what not to do if you want to avoid a permanent ban. By explaining it that way, you basically admitted that certain arguments are off-limits. And instead of citing the actual Subreddit Rules, you just leaned on your own personal opinions.

It’s frustrating because you can't actually defend a strike using the Rules here; you're just trying to win the argument by debating the topic itself. It proves that when you moderate, you're just protecting your own side of the conversation instead of focusing on the quality of the discussion, which is the whole damn point of being a mod.

rowdyotter25 said:I’m frustrated because you can’t just hide behind the Rules when you want to justify a ban; instead, you try to win by arguing the topic itself. It feels like you're using moderation to protect your own side of the debate rather than focusing on the quality of the discussion, which is actually what a moderator is supposed to do.

Look, I already gave you my answer, and I've "defended" why I issued the ban. This isn't the first time a moderator might have made a mistake with a strike—that’s exactly why we have mods and admins to review things, and it wouldn't be the first time a strike was reversed. I’m certainly not the final word on anything here. My stance remains the same: this was blatant trolling through repetitive, unnecessary behavior (it wasn't just "an argument") without providing any actual logic to back up the claim that opposing same-sex marriage is racism.

So, that’s settled. Do you have any other strikes to discuss or any further complaints regarding how things are being moderated?

rowdyotter25 said:If you penalize someone for repeating an argument simply because it’s being repeated—while simultaneously allowing other arguments to loop indefinitely (for instance, claims that homosexuality is unnatural)—then the moderation process itself is destroying the balance of the debate.

This feels like yet another sneaky attempt to silence anyone who holds a different opinion.
On one hand, it seems perfectly acceptable to label others as homophobes—which implies a psychological disorder—or to call them narrow-minded, backward, or worse... yet, on the other hand, the moderators seem to flinch if anything doesn't align perfectly with their specific views.
You, rowdyotter25, have pointed out numerous times how you moved to Washington, D.C. just to escape primitive Americans; you've called us and our parents narrow-minded, often speaking down to us from a position of perceived superiority.

Please, leave Brenda Cook4 alone. She, along with Tyler Cruz32 and Nicole James, has moderated this thread quite fairly, I believe.

Carl Brooks18 said:You have already been involved on numerous occasions, which is evident from the evidence provided, even when you were being "diplomatic" and contributing to those topics; therefore, I expect a statement from another moderator regarding your activity.

Fine, here it is.
The situation here is as follows:

- It is not okay to enter a thread and start posting randomly, essentially spamming:
Homosexuals are sick, disturbed, crazy, it's all unnatural, diseased—and so on. This constitutes provocation; it is unconstructive and harmful both to the state of the forum and to discussions in general. Consequently, it will not be tolerated.

- It is okay to enter a thread and write a post that is constructive, argued, and meaningful, in which it is acceptable to say something along the lines of:
Homosexuality as a phenomenon is a departure from the conventional/natural/normal, in my opinion because.............. (provide a meaningful argument for why someone might think this, such as gay gene studies, Dr. Rice's findings, and stances on epi-markers, for example).

This is truly what Strile confirmed for us, as we have had similar debates in the past.
As long as something is written constructively, with arguments, and for the purpose of discussion rather than pure provocation, mockery, or taunting, it is permitted.

rowdyotter25 said:Furthermore, on the Complaints thread, you attached a quote from a post that the warning does not actually apply to, thereby gaining support from another moderator (the other moderator used your quote, not the quote from the actual warned post, as their argument for acceptance). You misrepresented the reason for the warning.

Anyway, regarding the matter of you.
Some of your posts are on our staff topic, and if you ask me, you would have received two troll warnings long ago.
Moreover, we don't have an issue with a false dilemma at all, since your posts are linked—both the warned ones and others in the same transcript—so everything is visible, including how and why.

And if our head moderator feels it necessary to comment further, add anything, or remove your warning, then they will. That is all.

Carl Brooks18 said:What kind of "forum user" are you writing as on that thread? What are you talking about now? Are you the moderator for Religion? Have you participated in the thread regarding homosexuality from social and religious aspects as a moderator by issuing warnings and such?

When a mod writes on a thread, they write as a forum user.
If they issue a warning during a discussion when necessary, it doesn't mean they weren't writing as a forum user—until that moment. They simply reacted when it was required.

Did the other moderators (Tyler Cruz32, Nicole James) explicitly state on that thread that homosexuality should not be labeled as a disorder?

Here is the post from moderator Tyler Cruz32:

Perhaps my instructions weren't understood quite correctly.

That specific point was meant to address the fact that there is no need for us here to dive excessively deep into the intricacies of the APA, psychological disorders, the history of voting, removal from diagnostic lists, treatment efficacy, and so on. We aren't a specialized medical journal for that kind of thing. However, since it is obvious that people feel the need to write and debate this sphere of homosexuality, I have asked my colleagues over at the other forum to set up an existing thread for those willing to discuss it.

And that is all; my warning pertained strictly to that matter, nothing more and nothing less.
Of course, given threads like this regarding homosexuality, it would be impossible to completely eliminate every single reference to the background of its occurrence, and nobody ever asked us to do that.

As for everything else, the distinction I mentioned earlier regarding what is permitted still stands.

One more thing concerning moderator participation and reports:
if anyone finds something objectionable, they can file a report using the triangle icon, but we also conduct regular cleanups, and no one’s moderation acts as immunity from bans. Nicole James and I have had this agreement since day one, and it remains in effect.

In that regard, Brenda Cook4's posts could have been properly reported if someone found them controversial, allowing us to have a civil discussion in the Log if anything was questionable, rather than engaging in this style of polemic.
I see no necessity for it.

Look, rowdyotter25—since you’ve admitted that your previous post was definitely over the line—let’s just call it what it is: a formal warning. We’ve had some closed-door discussions regarding our moderation criteria, and we'll need to hash those out further, but since half the team (including the admins) is currently away on vacation, we can't really finalize any major decisions right now.

Aside from those incredibly crude comparisons involving illegal paraphilias—which are obviously off-limits—there aren't any blanket restrictions on the actual arguments being made. Of course, personal attacks, insults, and anything else that violates our code of conduct will result in a ban.
I'm asking everyone to please get back to the topic and try to keep things as constructive as possible.

@Tyler Cruz32: Honestly, I didn’t find anything controversial or confusing about this sentence:

If anyone actually wants to debate homosexuality as a mental disorder, its removal from diagnostic manuals, the APA, or whatever, feel free to take that conversation elsewhere.

So, looking at the comments from that moderator—some of which I’ve quoted here—regarding that whole messy topic, I don't see any of the "constructive dialogue" everyone keeps talking about. It just looks like people making fun of each other. Because of that, I thought it was perfectly reasonable to ask some actual questions about what rights we even have here and who gets to exercise them. Especially since just last week, a few users were handed warnings and three-day bans just for posting links or joking around about those specific disorders.

But look, the stance on this issue is pretty clear now. Point taken. As far as I'm concerned, we can close the thread. I guess we'll know when we've finally reached a consensus on how to balance "expressing an opinion" with "respecting others." Cheers. 😉

So you're saying this is the criteria:

Grace Kim80 said:- Look, it’s fine to jump into a thread and drop a post that actually makes sense, stays constructive, and carries some weight. You could say something like:
In my view, homosexuality is a departure from what's considered standard or natural, because... (and then you lay out a legitimate argument, like citing those studies on the gay gene, Dr. Rice's research, or specific epigenetic markers).

The thing is, I got slapped with a ban on a post that was just responding to someone else's one-liner linking race to homosexuality (link). In my response, I was basically just showing how the legal tools being proposed by one side would actually play out if they were applied to a different minority group. I didn't twist their words or water down their logic; I just took those exact legal instruments and held them up against another group to show what they actually mean in practice.

Then, in a PM, I get warned about using "false dilemmas," which seems like a convenient way for the Appeals moderator to justify the ban by quoting a completely different post—which, fine, I agree that one was questionable and I won't make that mistake again.

But honestly, it's frustrating when Brenda Cook4 uses her own personal judgment to claim a dilemma is "false" and then threatens sanctions to demand that such dilemmas and anything even remotely similar be scrubbed from the discussion. Meanwhile, she uses that exact same rhetorical trick herself in much more trivial and downright rude ways (link). I don't go clicking the report button on her posts because I don't think she's actually breaking any rules, but the hypocrisy is glaring.

Gregory Turner71 said:Look, rowdyotter25, Look, since you’ve already admitted that your last post was a total disaster—honestly, you practically earned a red card for that one—let's just call it what it is and move on.We had a deep dive during our private session, mostly focusing on the specific criteria and... We're definitely going to need to circle back and hash this out some more.But honestly, half the crew—including the admins—is out on vacation right now, so we aren't exactly in a position to make any major decisions at the moment.

If this were just one single post like that:

Kids in America are increasingly prone to risky sexual behavior and often find themselves justifying violence against women—even when they are women themselves. It seems we’re raising them within the framework of traditional marriages, and that's clearly having an impact.

Studies have pointed out certain risks associated with traditional upbringing, yet I don't see any reason to dismantle the institution of marriage itself. However, when it comes to the potential risks of homosexual parenting, those concerns just haven't been backed up by any actual evidence.

Violence against gay people is incomparably more frequent within the American Society than in more secular societies. Honestly, I find it a total failure that religious folks aren't stepping up to influence one another—there needs to be a real push to quiet down this constant demonization of the LGBTQ+ community that’s fueling all of this.

In America, LGBTQ+ individuals don't have the freedom to live openly as their true selves without facing backlash. And yet, you all stand here telling them they’re just being "exhausting" by fighting for their basic rights—all while expressing admiration for the way people in Russia legally punish them for it.

I honestly think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here. It’s easy to get caught up in the immediate drama, but if you compare this situation to how a major corporation like Apple handles a product rollout, you see a totally different level of coordination. Everything feels a bit scattered right now. It reminds me of that one time I was trying to organize a massive charity event in Chicago—everything seemed fine on paper, but once the actual logistics hit, it felt like we were building the plane while flying it. That’s kind of where we are. We have all these great ideas, but the execution is just... messy. If we want to actually get somewhere, we can't just keep reacting to every little thing. We need a roadmap. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels.

ili

I honestly think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here. It’s like when you’re trying to fix a leaky faucet by tightening the handle, but the real problem is actually a cracked pipe deep inside the wall. You can twist that handle until your knuckles bleed, but you aren't solving the core issue. We keep circling the same arguments, focusing on these surface-level symptoms, while ignoring the fundamental structural flaws in how this whole system is built. It’s frustrating, really. We’re all just spinning our wheels. If we don't address the underlying cause—the actual "cracked pipe"—all this debating is just noise. We need to stop treating the symptom and start looking at the foundation.

I’ve heard people claim that it’s somehow "bad" for Germany to constantly sift through its own ashes regarding those historical camps. But honestly? Germans have mastered the art of being blunt about it. They openly acknowledge that facing their darkest chapters head-on is exactly what fueled their rapid progress and built such a prosperous, forward-thinking society. The US hasn't quite hit that level of accountability. We haven't fully confronted our own history of systemic wrongs—not even during the era of the old administration, and certainly not now. I’ve even seen people in certain circles here arguing that we don't even have a history of crimes to account for. It’s wild. If people could just take one honest look back at where we came from—remembering how we used to use the exact same arguments against interracial marriage that some use today—they probably wouldn't have the nerve to act so self-righteous now.

Don't act surprised that people feel backed into an impossible corner regarding LGBTQ+ rights. It’s really not all that shocking when you look at the bigger picture. You see this kind of pattern everywhere. Take the crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, for example. Every single day, impoverished communities are losing people to AIDS because missionaries have spent years preaching that using protection will land them in hell—ignoring the fact that condoms aren't even a foolproof shield against the virus anyway. It's the same logic playing out in different contexts. I know you won't admit it to yourselves, but let’s be honest: you aren't actually fighting against same-sex marriage because of the kids. If that were the case, you wouldn't have washed your hands of everything when the Forest Hills incident went down. And don't tell me you care about people's welfare—you stay silent while people in distant parts of the world suffer the consequences of this kind of propaganda..

And right there, you can see the beginning of that classic, tired racism argument. It’s like watching a broken record—we see that same old Forest Hills logic being recycled, exactly like the point he made in that previous post he claims to have "realized" he got wrong. He’s acting like it's a brand-new epiphany when we all know he's just repeating himself. The guy just points at one specific instance and goes, "See? Boom, racism," while constantly framing everything through this aggressive "you, you, you" mentality.

edit:

I should probably add a disclaimer here: I’m highlighting these posts just to show the broader patterns—it’s not my way of saying this is how everyone in America thinks or that the Church is some monolith. But honestly, one thing really stung me, and it felt incredibly low, was the comment about kids in America being "raised to be future woman-beaters." On any other forum, you’d probably get banned for saying something like that. Look, I’m not a fan of banning people; I think everyone should have a voice. I just wish we could move past the sweeping generalizations and the constant repetition of the same tired talking points, regardless of who's saying them.

rowdyotter25 said:I received a warning in my direct messages. I can't use that. It’s those classic "false dilemmas" that get me. They set up these rigged scenarios just to justify pulling a card on the Moderation board later, using quotes ripped from an entirely different thread. Honestly, I agree that the specific post being used was problematic, but there's no reason to repeat that mistake.

.

Please, stop spreading misinformation. I already told you exactly what I thought—I even sent you a private message asking you to stop dragging out the same "fake dilemma" over and over again. Thank goodness for direct messaging, because now I'm going to send some much-needed praise over to Nicole James.

(Which I definitely agree is a bit controversial, and honestly, I don't think it's worth making that same mistake twice.)

I was looking back at some of your older posts earlier—you have such a distinct way of putting things together. It’s actually become one of my favorite parts of following this thread, so if you could keep that style going, I’d really appreciate it.

Gregory Turner71 said:Look, rowdyotter25, since you basically earned yourself a one-way ticket to the principal's office with that last post—and we both know you did—let's just call it what it is.

I'm in.

Gregory Turner71 said:Look, aside from those absolutely revolting comparisons involving zoophilia and other kinds of illegal paraphilias that’ll get you slapped with a lawsuit, there aren't any blanket restrictions on what kind of arguments you can throw around here.

Sweet. Looks like my mission to vent was a success—I’ve officially secured the right to argue that drawing parallels between different types of discrimination is, in itself, a form of discrimination, all without Brenda Cook pulling a red card on me or risking a ban.

Thanks and cheers. 👋

Well, it looks like Tyler Cruz32 and Nicole James have covered all the bases and gotten everything squared away, so I'm going to go ahead and close this thread.