Do you find the term "abomination" offensive?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Don't mean this thread to be about her but Irish Robinson is often quoted as calling homosexuality an abomination. And how this is a controversial view etc.

On the other hand she's rarely quoted for saying what I think is far worse:

"There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children."

She actually said homosexuality is worse than child sex abuse. Not only is that deeply offensive to homosexuals, its equally offensive to victims of child sex abuse.

Abomination is a biblical word, and only religious people use it. The bible is quite clear about homosexuality being an abomination so what's the big deal with her saying that?

Now I'm not homosexual myself, so maybe I just can't understand it.

kisaragi

Google just defined it for me as "A person who is loathsome or disgusting". So yes I'd find it offensive if someone said it to me. Also, I don't think she said "the bible says homosexuals are abominations", but more matter of factly "homosexuality is an abomination". I could be wrong though.

Also I don't really think your faith gives you a right to insult other people? If she had said she thought homosexuality is immoral because of her beliefs she'd be entitled to her opinion, but to call it an abomination is rather degrading.

But yes what she said about homosexuality being "viler" than child abuse is a lot worse.

cotwold

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Abomination is a biblical word, and only religious people use it. The bible is quite clear about homosexuality being an abomination so what's the big deal with her saying that?

I don't think the Bible is clear on homosexuality at all. What specific passages give you that impression?

Boston

Long established rule of no bible discussion

Bottle_of_Smok, Also, are you taking the piss with this thread?

cotwold

Boston wrote: »

Long established rule of not bible discussion

Also, are you taking the piss with this thread?

Fair enough Boston, wasn't aware of that rule.

Just felt Bottle_of_Smoke was talking a load of sh*te

Boston

cotwold wrote: »

Just felt Bottle_of_Smoke was talking a load of sh*te

agreed

Rick_

If the word isn't being used to describe Iris Robinson, then yes, I do find it offensive.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Boston wrote: »

Long established rule of no bible discussion

Bottle_of_Smok, Also, are you taking the piss with this thread?

No, I'm really not. No one uses the term "abomination" unless they're using it in a religious sense. That's why I don't get the uproar and constant referencing when she said something far far more offensive on a different occasion that's rarely mentioned.

I think it would be analogous to an atheist getting offended for a Christian saying he's going to hell.

Boston

By your logic I shouldn't get offended if I'm called a prick, as I know I'm not one.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Boston wrote: »

By your logic I shouldn't get offended if I'm called a prick, as I know I'm not one.

No, not at all.

Do you not see my point that its specifically a biblical word, and the bible says the abomination bit?

Furthermore would you agree her comments about saying homosexuality is more vile than child sex abuse is a lot more offensive/serious?

diddlybit

Well obviously, the insinuation that queer individuals are more morally corrupt, than child sexual abusers is infinately more offensive.

As to why that quote wasnt picked up in the media is a mystery. Perhaps they wished to give her an easy time...refering to the abomination quote, she sounds like a lot of bible bashing idiots that exist in this country. The second one ust illustrates the fact that she is delusional, irrational and unstable. Maybe the media didn't want to clarfiy what was meant by the ridiculously archaic term "sodomy."

But in answer to the question, is being called an abomination offensive?
No, I dont find it to be. If someone calls me an abomination, a perve, a dyke, a sicko etc I revel in it...It's a hell of a lot more fun than being a small-minded, heteronormative, sexually repressed, uptight, tunnel visioned little bigot.

Nevyn

It;s just a word, I don't find it offensive, I do find the mindset which can label a person to be an abomination loathsome in the extreme.

cotwold

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

No, not at all.

Do you not see my point that its specifically a biblical word, and the bible says the abomination bit?

Furthermore would you agree her comments about saying homosexuality is more vile than child sex abuse is a lot more offensive/serious?

Just because the word is quoted from the bible it doesn't make its meaning any less offensive. OR any more tolerable in this context.

Sacred is a "bible word", if i was to use it to refer to Mecca would any Muslim or Christian be offended. Of course not. Words have no inherent meaning, they serve to convey a mutual understanding.


In this case abomination is used to describe gay people of a persons who are loathsome or disgusting. How can that not be offensive.

Thaedydal also makes a good point.

Iwasfrozen

Of course the word abomination should be offensive, it means loathsome or disgusting for Gods sack. I don't think anyone, gay or straight can seriously say they don't mind being called loathsome or disgusting.

As for the 2nd insult I think being called worse then a child abuser is much more vile then simply being called an abomination.

Dwn Wth Vwls

I wouldn't find it offensive purely because I would find it comical. If someone said I was an abomination I'd just laugh because they're obviously mad.

diddlybit

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course the word abomination should be offensive, it means loathsome or disgusting for Gods sack. I don't think anyone, gay or straight can seriously say they don't mind being called loathsome or disgusting.

There's a certain irony in that, don't you think. By the act of calling someone loathsome or disgusting on the basis of their sexuality implicatly become loathsome and disgusting themselves by exposing themselves as a vile homophobe.

Strangely enough though, there is a current schism in academic theory at the moment that has embraced shame and negativity as a more liberated position, than pride and queer positivity.

Instead of "How dare you call me disgusting?"
It's "You call me disgusting? Good, because I want to trouble your own identity and wish to make you feel deeply uncomfortable."

Believing that someone's sexuality is abject reveals a lot more about the speaker than the person it is directed towards.

Annasopra

I don't see the point of this thread - clearly Iris Robinson caused offence with all her statements and I think it's pedantic to suggest biblical phrases should not cause
offense because they are biblical phrases

Aard

I don't find the term "abomination" offensive, not because it has religious overtones, but, rather, that I've become somewhat desensitised to hate-speech.

stephen_n

Boston wrote: »

By your logic I shouldn't get offended if I'm called a prick, as I know I'm not one.

You sure? :D:D:D

MicraBoy

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

No, not at all.

Do you not see my point that its specifically a biblical word, and the bible says the abomination bit?

Furthermore would you agree her comments about saying homosexuality is more vile than child sex abuse is a lot more offensive/serious?

I find a lot of what the bible says is offensive.

I'd challenge you to show that the bible (or its writers) have some copyright and exclusive right to the use of certain words.

And no I don't think it's anymore offensive. Both are idiotic statements and both are offensive, personally I try not to get too wound up by idiotic statements.