nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

antiskeptic

Haven't read the detail but in essence a rugby players career called a halt to because he said gays and various other sinners will go to hell.

Leaving aside his dodgy theology (if God was in the business of excluding sinners from heaven then nobody would "get there"), is this not a case of LGBT sensitivity gone mad?

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

I can understand that some in A&A might rejoice but surely many can see the deeper ramifications: that at another time and place, their own expression of belief might not be of the moment and be condemned for mere expression.

Thin end of a thick wedge, this one.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

BarryD2

Speaking in generalities, there's always been people ready & willing to be offended. Most take no notice, what's the point, life's too short etc. It's just that the voices of the former are amplified these days.

Guy:Incognito

Varta wrote: »

If I were gay I wouldn't be too bothered by what a person who believes in Hell or Heaven has to say about me. They are really saying much more about themselves.

Thats grand as long as it never affects you. What happens when some fundamentalist nutjob takes this type of attitude as justification to go on a shoot up in a gay club or runs a car in to the queue of people waiting to get in?

It's this kind of crap from respected members that make Muslim fundamentalists carry out attacks on Christians or vice versa and make white supremacists decide to kill a few black people.

NIMAN

He is entitled to hold his opinion, we all are.

Whether you decide you want to tell the world about it is another matter.

He was warned last year (to the day) when he tweeted something similar.
So he went against this warning and did the same thing again, bringing his club and possibly his sport into disrepute.

He has to take the consequences of his actions. He is now likely to get sacked by his club, his country won't pick him for the upcoming World Cup and he might never get another team to employ him, so his career could be over. Unlikely to be employed as a TV analyst either.

So of course he will stand by his comments, but they were very costly for him.

Anteayer

I don't honestly think LGBT people are actively seeking to be offended by a highly prominent sports person putting out a statement like that. That's really taking victim blaming to the extreme and is a ridiculous comment.

Sometimes you have to be offended by things like this and challenge them or it becomes a slippery slope towards normalisation.

You're talking about a % of the population who still extremely marginalised in many societies and have only barely stepped out of the closet in many western societies, including this one.

Those rights were very, very hard won and shouldn't ever be taken for granted.

There's this endless narrative coming from right wing types that anyone offended by anything is a "snowflake" or is whining. It's a rather blatant attempt to just get people to shut up.

Guy:Incognito

Anteayer wrote: »

I don't honestly think LGBT people are actively seeking to be offended by a highly prominent sports person putting out a statement like that. That's really taking victim blaming to the extreme and is a ridiculous comment.
.

Pretty much all of the people on my twitter feed (amongst people I actually know) that were condemning Folau and supporting the consequences and famous people condemning him are straight people. In fact , off hand I dont remember seeing any posts from gay people I know.

Anteayer

You carried out a full survey of every tweeter's sexual orientation. That's impressive - what mind reading technologies did you use?

There were plenty of gay people who were responding to that.

This response by Nick Heath a rugby commentator who happens to be gay was particularly well put:

https://twitter.com/nickheathsport/status/1116689212210909184?s=21

Guy:Incognito

Anteayer wrote: »

You carried out a full survey of every tweeter's sexual orientation. That's impressive - what mind reading technologies did you use?

You dived right in there , didnt you? Didnt even wait long enough to read the first sentence properly. Pay particular attention to the bit in brackets.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Pretty much all of the people on my twitter feed (amongst people I actually know)

Last sentence is fairly clear too. Did you just pick out a few random words or what?

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

In fact , off hand I dont remember seeing any posts from gay people I know.

Anteayer

No but I'm absolutely fed up to the back teeth or this kind of defending the indefensible with whataboutery.

Why in 2019 am I on an Irish forum arguing that it's unacceptable to condemn gay people like this.

How would you like it if someone condemned some specific aspect of your person: gender, where you were born, your skin colour, your eye colour.

Then you come onto a forum like this and other wise reasonable people are having academic chats about whether this is acceptable or not.

It's really infuriating and yes I did jump right in to the rather large hole you dug for yourself.

Forget it! I'm off for lunch rather than wasting my time debating nonsense like this.

This isn't some abstract and academic debate to me. It's about me and people like me.

Guy:Incognito

Anteayer wrote: »

It's really infuriating and yes I did jump right in to the rather large hole you dug for yourself.

what hole did I dig? You said you dont think LGBTQ people are actively seeking to be offended and I made the point that of the people I know, its mostly straight people that are condemning him. As in, its good to see that most right thinking people are willing to call him out .

Not sure where you got the impression I was defending anything. Maybe calm down a touch and read through stuff a bit.

It would be a fairly abrupt about turn from my first couple of posts in the thread to the 2nd couple if I'd just decided "you know what, Folau is actually right"

Varta

Marengo wrote: »

Ok here's just a quick list of Christian scientists, not exclusive. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html Look at the division among modern scientists. https://owlcation.com/humanities/10-Brilliant-Scientists-and-Their-View-of-God
These great minds were delusional but you, like myself, pretty much a non entity in terms of the intellect of these people, can make a sweeping statement like that.

In your own way you're just as insulting of a large cohort of society as those who preach hatred of gay people, black people etc. So much intolerance from those who purport to be tolerant.

You know nothing of my intellect. Are you seriously trying to equate science with religion? All religion is superstitious nonsense. All religion preaches hate. Most religions try to mask that hate, but it is always there.

Varta

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's not the same thing.
You can choose not to be an adulterer....

Would it be ok to say black people are wrong and should burn in hell for daring to be black?

(EDIT , beaten to it)

This is yet more proof that religion is stupid and unecessary. All it does it drive wedges between groups, cause hate and none of the good they do couldnt be done be community groups or other types just coming together.

I was making the point that if you tolerate religion then you must also tolerate its beliefs. I agree with your views on religion.

Varta

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Thats grand as long as it never affects you. What happens when some fundamentalist nutjob takes this type of attitude as justification to go on a shoot up in a gay club or runs a car in to the queue of people waiting to get in?

It's this kind of crap from respected members that make Muslim fundamentalists carry out attacks on Christians or vice versa and make white supremacists decide to kill a few black people.

Those nut jobs don't just target gay people though. It is surely better to condemn them for all of their hate rather than focussing on one element. United against religious hate.

splinter65

Varta wrote: »

You know nothing of my intellect. Are you seriously trying to equate science with religion? All religion is superstitious nonsense. All religion preaches hate. Most religions try to mask that hate, but it is always there.

But you can’t ignore the fact that many many scientists are religious, just because it doesn’t suit you. You can’t ignore facts.

Tell me how

Varta wrote: »

You know nothing of my intellect. Are you seriously trying to equate science with religion? All religion is superstitious nonsense. All religion preaches hate. Most religions try to mask that hate, but it is always there.

That's because the hate is in the human. As emanates from your own post.

Religion in it's purest form is not about hate. But the individuals who participate in it (any of them) are as susceptible to be evil thinking or evil acting as those in any branch of society. But, because, in many instances their religious beliefs are seen as the most unique or identifiable thing about them and so their evil acts are attributed to the religion more so than the individual.

Anteayer

What's annoying me is this is a thread is opening a debate about gay rights, largely by people who seem to see it as some kind of abstract topic, as it doesn't impact them.

When it impacts you personally, it's a very different discussion and it's extremely frustrating to see this rugby player's statement being defended.

If it were a discussion about race, I would think the tone would be very different and someone being LGBT is not a matter of personal choice or opinion. It's fundamentally about who they are. It's also potentially also very isolating, as they don't automatically have community.

So all I'm saying is be careful when you post. This is a real world issue for plenty of people potentially reading this thread.

Tell me how

Anteayer wrote: »

What's annoying me is this is a thread is opening a debate about gay rights, largely by people who seem to see it as some kind of abstract topic, as it doesn't impact them.

When it impacts you personally, it's a very different discussion and it's extremely frustrating to see this rugby player's statement being defended.

If it were a discussion about race, I would think the tone would be very different and someone being LGBT is not a matter of personal choice or opinion. It's fundamentally about who they are. It's also potentially also very isolating, as they don't automatically have community.

So all I'm saying is be careful when you post. This is a real world issue for plenty of people potentially reading this thread.

Most of the people posting on this thread are castigating both Folau and the OP, readers who have such real world issues should focus on those messages of support.

Varta

splinter65 wrote: »

But you can’t ignore the fact that many many scientists are religious, just because it doesn’t suit you. You can’t ignore facts.

Scientists, like anyone else are prone to the superstition of religion. None of them have been able to use science to prove the existence of a god.

Varta

Tell me how wrote: »

That's because the hate is in the human. As emanates from your own post.

Religion in it's purest form is not about hate. But the individuals who participate in it (any of them) are as susceptible to be evil thinking or evil acting as those in any branch of society. But, because, in many instances their religious beliefs are seen as the most unique or identifiable thing about them and so their evil acts are attributed to the religion more so than the individual.

No. The hate is in the religion. Religion is and always was a cut-throat business.

Pherekydes

Marengo wrote: »

Ok here's just a quick list of Christian scientists, not exclusive. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html Look at the division among modern scientists. https://owlcation.com/humanities/10-Brilliant-Scientists-and-Their-View-of-God
These great minds were delusional but you, like myself, pretty much a non entity in terms of the intellect of these people, can make a sweeping statement like that.

These lists often get wheeled out from time to time.

This begs the question: what would these people believe if they were alive today, with access to all the information that we have access to?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Saying that gay people deserve to be tortured for being gay is a bad thing.

That would depend on

a) whether you believed or not that it was a bad thing

b) whether believing it was a bad thing you did or didn't believe that a place exists for the torture to take place.

It would be slightly ridiculous to be offended by someone saying that gays shouldn't be visited by Santa

You're allowed to state your belief, but you can't really whine that people don't like you when your belief is a bit awful and hurtful.

So you don't suppose that gays in the 50's had much to complain about?

Maybe he shouldn't hold a terrible belief like "gays deserve to be tortured" when there's no basis for it in the first place.

So, holding a belief first has to pass a basis-for-the-belief test before being even considered whether it is to be expressed or not.

And just who wouldl this basis-police be? Science? Rationalism? Empiricism?

antiskeptic

Pherekydes wrote: »

This begs the question: what would these people believe if they were alive today, with access to all the information that we have access to?

Probably the same thing that believing scientists believe today.

splinter65

Varta wrote: »

Scientists, like anyone else are prone to the superstition of religion. None of them have been able to use science to prove the existence of a god.

No scientist has ever been able to use science to disprove the existence of God either. Isn’t that the problem atheists have?

splinter65

Pherekydes wrote: »

These lists often get wheeled out from time to time.

This begs the question: what would these people believe if they were alive today, with access to all the information that we have access to?

But there are many scientists alive today with access to the same information as you and I who still believe in God.

antiskeptic

Anteayer wrote: »

So all I'm saying is be careful when you post. This is a real world issue for plenty of people potentially reading this thread.

Society is always drifting. The present drift sees a move towards the normalisation of LBGTetc. Some will see this as a good and thing (and not without good reason, given the historical persecution of people).

However, it is a real world issue for people who don't want their children being taught to normalise the idea of say, fluidity of gender. If they simply don't think that such a thing is normal, whatever about tolerance, then they are perfectly entitled to hold and express that view.

It's not like the drift happens perchance. It is driven by people with an interest in drifting society in the way they think it should go. That right, insofar at it is a right, is to be enjoyed by everyone. Including the right to resist the direction of drift, indeed, causing drift in the direction they think things ought to go.

Ave Sodalis

splinter65 wrote:

No scientist has ever been able to use science to disprove the existence of God either. Isnâ€™t that the problem atheists have?

No scientist has ever been able to use science to disprove anything. That's not how science works.

As for the OP, if I was publically being a twat about people in my workplace, I would probably be fired too. Especially if I had been warned about it before.

Pherekydes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Probably the same thing that believing scientists believe today.

splinter65 wrote: »

But there are many scientists alive today with access to the same information as you and I who still believe in God.

Ken Ham?

Wanderer2010

Hes pretty opinionated about it, I wonder why gay people bother him so much? Only he knows the answer to that. In this world of ours where there is so much evil and hatred and torturing/killing and corruption, where someone chooses to put their genitals is surely very, very low down the pecking order.

skD13

Most sports clubs, business etc. have codes of conduct that value inclusivity. I work for a multinational and nobody would dream of announcing any privately held views on race, religion, sexual orientation etc. or they'd be handed their P45 promptly. It's perfectly normal in 2019 to show such respect to your colleagues.

This idiot deserved what he got, if not for his backward views, then for being stupid enough to spout them off in public.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Society is always drifting. The present drift sees a move towards the normalisation of LBGTetc. Some will see this as a good and thing (and not without good reason, given the historical persecution of people).

However, it is a real world issue for people who don't want their children being taught to normalise the idea of say, fluidity of gender. If they simply don't think that such a thing is normal, whatever about tolerance, then they are perfectly entitled to hold and express that view.

People also don't want their children being taught that it's ok to mix races...

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

That would depend on

a) whether you believed or not that it was a bad thing

b) whether believing it was a bad thing you did or didn't believe that a place exists for the torture to take place.

It would be slightly ridiculous to be offended by someone saying that gays shouldn't be visited by Santa

Firstly, torture is a bad thing. Not sure how some people can argue that it's not, but there you are...

Secondly, hell not being real doesn't really apply here as the sentiment is what is the issue.
Saying/believing that gay people deserve punishment for the crime of being gay, whether or not that punishment is real, is not a good thing.
It's still based on the idea that gay people are somehow flawed, evil or lesser.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So you don't suppose that gays in the 50's had much to complain about?

I don't follow you argument here...

antiskeptic wrote: »

So, holding a belief first has to pass a basis-for-the-belief test before being even considered whether it is to be expressed or not.

And just who wouldl this basis-police be? Science? Rationalism? Empiricism?

Ok, then please explain why do you believe that having or expressing racist ideas is unacceptable?
What's the difference between those and homophobic (ie hateful against gay people) beliefs that make them acceptable and defensible?