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

Guy:Incognito

splinter65 wrote: »

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

If you're telling me something exists, it's up to you to prove it does. Not for me to prove the figment of your imagination doesn't exist.

Anteayer

King Mob wrote: »

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?

Bear in mind that it's not all that long ago that you had people making stretched religious arguments for the preservation of slavery.

http://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/

There are hypocrites who'll use religious explanations to justify anything and most religions are vague enough to be used like that and any conflicts of logic are usually just whittled away with out of context quotations or being told to accept arguments based on blind faith.

Varta

splinter65 wrote: »

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

Oh great! Let's disprove things instead of proving them. Unicorns, the monster under the bed, the list is endless. When a superstitious person who believes in gods suggest disproving their existence they are merely providing themselves with comfort. That's ok, I hope you are feeling comfortable. However, you are talking nonsense.

Wanderer2010

Varta wrote: »

Oh great! Let's disprove things instead of proving them. Unicorns, the monster under the bed, the list is endless. When a superstitious person who believes in gods suggest disproving their existence they are merely providing themselves with comfort. That's ok, I hope you are feeling comfortable. However, you are talking nonsense.

To be fair, you cannot with 100% certainty state that there is no God or higher plane. Yes, obviously I cannot state that it IS true but it works both ways.

magicbastarder

splinter65 wrote: »

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

No scientist has been able to disprove the existence of God using a method which God supposedly exists outside of and above. Yeah, you have science on the ropes there.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

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

The torture is an existence which involves precisely what you didn't want: God and all that he represents.

I'm not sure how giving someone their hearts desire (for it is a heart desire) is a bad thing.

Seems you can argue the point.

Secondly, hell not being real doesn't really apply here as the sentiment is what is the issue.

I understand there was no sentiment as such. He was merely stating what he believes is the biblical case.

Hell either does or doesn't await sinners who don't repent. I see no issue stating your belief whichever of the possibilities you believe. It's not really relevant whether society happens to consider this or that not a sin.

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.

I think you'll find that he holds that all sinners who don't repent face hell. Did he say that he thought sinners deserve punishment? Or was he stating the pretty mainstream idea that all unrepentant sinners will be separated from God for ever (a.k.a. Hell).

Did he elaborate on what his model of Hell was? Or are you simply inserting your own burning fires version?

Ok, then please explain why do you believe that having or expressing racist ideas is unacceptable?

If the bible stated that those of other races where lesser then I would have no particular issue with it. Not because the bible states it / I believe it / that settles it. Rather, the case the bible makes for it's positions are, I find logical and compelling.

In the case of homosexuals, it's not the homosexuality that's the problem, its the unrepentant element that matter. Heaven will be filled with drunks, adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals and all the rest.

What's the difference between those and homophobic (ie hateful against gay people) beliefs that make them acceptable and defensible?

Could you quote something hateful he said? Merely quoting the biblical destination for unrepentant sinners (of any hue) isn't in itself hateful.

Your position rests on large dollops of supposition: chief of which is that the bible isn't true.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

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

So establish the correct line in the sand for me.

Bogwoppit

smacl wrote: »

Atheists are on his shít list too though this has very little to do with the A&A forum. I'd imagine if you posted the same thing on the Christianity forum, you'd get pretty much the same reaction you're seeing here. Homophobia is generally considered hateful and not acceptable to anyone in our society.

I got 7, anyone score higher than that?

Edit; I ain’t sorry either

(2nd edit; I’m sorry about the bar of chocolate i stole from Naas superquinn 30 years ago, still get embarrassed when I think about it)

antiskeptic

Anteayer wrote: »

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

Where was the condemnation (other than citing a relatively straightforward piece of Christian theology: that (unrepentant) sinners go to hell.

I don't see why the passage of time ought necessarily alter things - unless you happen to believe that mankind is on some ever onward /upward trajectory and we ought have left such "superstitious nonsense" behind us. You might be in for a long wait.

You can argue the intricacies of things (whether a hellfire and brimstone form of evangelism has any place). You could also argue about what exactly a repentant sinner looks and acts like subsequent to their salvation. You can argue about what repentance actual is

Heaven will be full of sinners of every hue. They won't be there because they became saints. They'll be there because the repented.

Insofar as the LGBT agenda wants its way to hold sway, resistance might well be and ought be expected.

salmocab

Getting a bit heated, anyone looking for a light moment, Billy Vunipola tweeted a sort of support for Folau, today his club Saracens were playing Bristol and Bristol played ‘it’s raining men’ over the tannoy.

splinter65

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If you're telling me something exists, it's up to you to prove it does. Not for me to prove the figment of your imagination doesn't exist.

But I don’t care wether you believe it exists or not. The only person bothered about my beliefs or lack of them is you.

splinter65

magicbastarder wrote: »

No scientist has been able to disprove the existence of God using a method which God supposedly exists outside of and above. Yeah, you have science on the ropes there.

I love science. Science and belief in God go hand in hand. You know all this already.

Guy:Incognito

splinter65 wrote: »

But I don’t care wether you believe it exists or not. The only person bothered about my beliefs or lack of them is you.

Well you just missed the point. Well done.

[Deleted User]

If the man is delusional enough to have the beliefs he does, that's his right.
But and here's the rub, no one has the right to say that someone is going to hell, judgement is God's alone so who is he to judge his fellow man.
You'd imagine religious people who apparently believe what the bible says is the truth would hold to this and actually act like their supposed to rather than spout their prejudice online.

[Deleted User]

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well you just missed the point. Well done.

Just trying to get a rise when there's no counter argument.

LeinsterDub

splinter65 wrote: »

I love science. Science and belief in God go hand in hand. You know all this already.

Science and a blind belief in anything are polar opposites

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

The torture is an existence which involves precisely what you didn't want: God and all that he represents.

...

Did he elaborate on what his model of Hell was? Or are you simply inserting your own burning fires version?

You seem to be assuming that he subscribes to you personal, rather strange and unique version of hell.
I see nothing to justify that assumption, so I sill assume the version that the vast majority people refer to.

If he didn't mean the version of hell that resulted in torture, perhaps he should clarify that and then understand why people think he is saying that it is torture and why they think that saying gay people deserve torture for being gay is bad.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the bible stated that those of other races where lesser then I would have no particular issue with it. Not because the bible states it / I believe it / that settles it. Rather, the case the bible makes for it's positions are, I find logical and compelling.

There are many people who use and have used the bible in an equally valid way to justify racist ideas as well as homophobic ones.
Those interpretations are not more valid than yours and yours no more valid than those.
There are many Christians who would reject yours and the person in question's position of homosexuality just as much as they would with the defenders of racism.

Declaring that you have the one true correct and true interpretation of the bible is silly.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the case of homosexuals, it's not the homosexuality that's the problem, its the unrepentant element that matter. Heaven will be filled with drunks, adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals and all the rest.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you quote something hateful he said? Merely quoting the biblical destination for unrepentant sinners (of any hue) isn't in itself hateful.

Well the above quote is a good example of why you are stating that gay people are lesser.
Being gay is not equivalent to having an alcohol problem or being deceptively unfaithful to your partner.
Suggesting that it is something that is equivalent betrays a hateful opinion no matter the mental backflips you no doubt do.

By saying that being gay is a sin, you are saying gay people are lesser or broken or somehow less worthy than you.
That's hateful.
You can believe it's not, but to most people, it looks exactly like it is.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your position rests on large dollops of supposition: chief of which is that the bible isn't true.

Well, yea...

The supernatural claims of the bible are not true and indistinguishable from fiction.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So establish the correct line in the sand for me.

Somewhere before you start declaring the some people are lesser than you due to the circumstances of their birth.

You've dodged the point however.
Why is it acceptable to you for parents to be opposed to their children being taught that gay people are normal and not abhorrent?
Why then would some parents being likewise opposed to teaching acceptance of race mixing be an unacceptable thing for you?

What's the difference? Why should one set of parent's bigotry be coddled, yet the other rejected?
Do you believe that both positions are equally valid?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

You seem to be assuming that he subscribes to you personal, rather strange and unique version of hell.
I see nothing to justify that assumption, so I sill assume the version that the vast majority people refer to.

Assuming the (assumed) majority view appears to be a modus operendi of yours. The mood of the times is right: whether a view of hell or a view of human sexuality.

If he didn't mean the version of hell that resulted in torture, perhaps he should clarify that and then understand why people think he is saying that it is torture and why they think that saying gay people deserve torture for being gay is bad.

Hell is torture. But all is altered by it being self-administered. This isn't innocents being tortured by an evil regieme.

As for deserving. Nothing too controversial there either: unrepentant sinners deserve to be separated from God. It's not being gay that matters, it's being unrepentant.

There are many people who use and have used the bible in an equally valid way to justify racist ideas as well as homophobic ones.
Those interpretations are not more valid than yours and yours no more valid than those.

You asked me and I gave you my view.

Declaring that you have the one true correct and true interpretation of the bible is silly.

As is you supposing your interpretation (the nature of Hell/torture (as in the torture of innocents). All I am doing is positing not very controversial views of things to counter your somewhat caricatured view.

Your getting your knickers in a twist when it needn't necessarily be.

Well the above quote is a good example of why you are stating that gay people are lesser. Being gay is not equivalent to having an alcohol problem or being deceptively unfaithful to your partner.

Gay people aren't lesser. They are just like everyone else in that that sin inhabits every cell of their being. They are dealt the sin-hand they are dealt just like everyone else is dealt the sin-hand they are dealt. We all have our own propensities and our own baggage. There is no one who can stand and say they are more than another.

What you seem to be saying is that being born gay (which assumes that is what occurs, or occurs in all cases) ought absolve someone from sin. As distinct from the person who chooses in such a way as to become an alcoholic.

Except that the person becoming an alcoholic isn't necessarily a free agent. Inhabiting a world of pain and anxiety (the source of which can well lie in the environment of the womb) they come to self-medicate.

By saying that being gay is a sin, you are saying gay people are lesser or broken or somehow less worthy than you.
That's hateful.
You can believe it's not, but to most people, it looks exactly like it is.

I'm saying that God exists. What he says about the matter is his affair. And as far as I can tell, he doesn't particularly rate one sinner above another so I don't see how you arrive at your lesser-conclusion.

Sexual sin does appear to rank as more significant in terms of the damage it can do us: he has given sex a spiritually more significant role in things.

The supernatural claims of the bible are not true and indistinguishable from fiction.

...to you.

Somewhere before you start declaring the some people are lesser than you due to the circumstances of their birth.

DIVISION!!. Presumption about how people come to be gay. Presumption that all homosex occurs between homosexuals.

You've dodged the point however.
Why is it acceptable to you for parents to be opposed to their children being taught that gay people are normal and not abhorrent?

Do you mean abhorrent or aberrant?

Its* acceptable to me because of my worldview. My worldview is formed by psychology, experience, Christianity

It's* is a little more subtle than your simple sledgehammer. But since the world works in sledgehammer fashion (tending towards polar views) I would tend towards the viewpoint that homosex-isn't-to-be-normalized in school. I'm not saying the world view of homosexuality ought be that of past times. Neither do I think the headlong plunge into everything-is-normal is warranted.

Why then would some parents being likewise opposed to teaching acceptance of race mixing be an unacceptable thing for you?

Because it runs counter to the above worldview.

What's the difference? Why should one set of parent's bigotry be coddled, yet the other rejected?

You forgot to include your own set of parents in there. Why should parents who think homosex-is-normal have their views coddled by schools.

It's as if you assume your position the default and suppose others have to prove your wrong on something. Convenient!

Bogwoppit

Antiskeptic, if god makes people in his image and gay people are gay from birth then does it not follow that he made them gay?
Why repent for being something god made you if he made you in his image?

batgoat

antiskeptic wrote: »

You forgot to include your own set of parents in there. Why should parents who think homosex-is-normal have their views coddled by schools.

It's as if you assume your position the default and suppose others have to prove your wrong on something. Convenient!

You're endangering the mental health of children and teens when you choose to ignore the ones that are LGBT. It fosters a homophobic climate to avoid the topic and it basically provides no support for them. So it's putting their mental health first rather than outlandish views of homophobes to discuss it.

So yep entirely beneficial to discuss it and detrimental not to.

[Deleted User]

DesperateDan wrote: »

I wonder if some chap didn't happen to jot down how sinful it was to be gay 2k years ago, if we would still find a way to demonize it

Jesus never said anything about gays. That was the old testament. As an atheist I don't care but 2K years ago it was Jesus in the house. Before that it was Moses and friends.

[Deleted User]

I think you should be free to say what you want, outside incitement to violence, but organisations should be also free to have codes of conduct. Which is the case.

For example this rugby team doesnt allow this kind of comments, just as the Catholic Church doesn't allow gays to marry. In your world the Catholic Church should be forced to marry gay people, as its the law.

If you don't like the rules of the club, either try to change them or leave. The UK parliament hasn't worked this out yet.

Everyone needs to follow this regardless of political beliefs.

Anteayer

It's sad to see how certain religions that would profess to be all about love and acceptance seem to wander off into these agendas of hate.

I always find Christianity has a double standard where the face put forward is the New Testament and Love thy Neighbour friendly stuff but begins the scenes you've got the Fire & Brimstone, Magdalene Laundry, Judge thy Neighbour, Homophobic crazy stuff that endlessly uses selective quotes from the Old Testament.

It's always the same : present this vision of love and friendship but judge and condemn in the same breath.

There's a lot to be said for a bit of humanistic atheism.

I honestly don't even see the point in engaging with some of the posts above. You can't change that kind of ideology. It's hatred justified by dogma.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming the (assumed) majority view appears to be a modus operendi of yours. The mood of the times is right: whether a view of hell or a view of human sexuality.

Do you have anything to show that the person in question shares your unique interpretation of hell?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hell is torture.
...
Your getting your knickers in a twist when it needn't necessarily be.

So gay people get tortured.
Some people think that's kind of a hurtful idea.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Gay people aren't lesser. They are just like everyone else in that that sin inhabits every cell of their being.

You are almost contradicting yourself in single sentences.
Saying that being gay is a sin (or however you'd like to split that hair) is saying that gay people are lesser.

I'm sure YOU don't see it that way. And you tell yourself it's a completely innocuous idea.
But you are not all people and to someone else who doesn't share your particular religious viewpoint such a position might be offensive and hurtful because of how it sounds.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As distinct from the person who chooses in such a way as to become an alcoholic.

Except that the person becoming an alcoholic isn't necessarily a free agent. Inhabiting a world of pain and anxiety (the source of which can well lie in the environment of the womb) they come to self-medicate.

But alcoholism is a disease that results in physical and psychological harm.
That's not comparable to being gay.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sexual sin does appear to rank as more significant in terms of the damage it can do us: he has given sex a spiritually more significant role in things.

All of which is indistinguishable from something you've made up.
And which is in indistinguishable from the same claims made by a christian who believes that interracial marriage is also sinful.
Your argument isn't convincing.

antiskeptic wrote: »

DIVISION!!. Presumption about how people come to be gay. Presumption that all homosex occurs between homosexuals.

Not presumption. It's based on the most up to date and current knowledge in the matter.
Nor have I stated that same sex intercourse occurs soley between gay people alone. Not sure where you got that idea...

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because it runs counter to the above worldview.

You're going to have to explain your position more clearly here.
Some people object to the idea that mixing races should be normalised.

How is such a position different from yours?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You forgot to include your own set of parents in there. Why should parents who think homosex-is-normal have their views coddled by schools.

It's as if you assume your position the default and suppose others have to prove your wrong on something. Convenient!

Because there is no evidenced detriment to normalising it.
If your objection relies on an unprovable arbitrary consequence from an entity that is indistinguishable from fiction, then you don't have a valid objection.
Because not normalising it, and normalising offensive hurtful opinions (such as gay people are bad/gay people deserve to be in hell) results in actual, real provable harm.

[Deleted User]

Anteayer wrote: »

It's sad to see how certain religions that would profess to be all about love and acceptance seem to wander off into these agendas of hate.

I always find Christianity has a double standard where the face put forward is the New Testament and Love thy Neighbour friendly stuff but begins the scenes you've got the Fire & Brimstone, Magdalene Laundry, Judge thy Neighbour, Homophobic crazy stuff that endlessly uses selective quotes from the Old Testament.

It's always the same : present this vision of love and friendship but judge and condemn in the same breath.

There's a lot to be said for a bit of humanistic atheism.

I honestly don't even see the point in engaging with some of the posts above. You can't change that kind of ideology. It's hatred justified by dogma.

While you have a point I think you are being a bit unfair to Christians, or really catholics. They don't all think like this, and most are horrified by these things. Just as most Muslims don't either. And there are no shortage of militant atheists - if you look at the genocides of the 20th century all were humanist ideologies.

I'm atheist myself but don't make a song and dance about. It. Saying one ideology is better than another and the right one is conceited.

Anteayer

I've often wondered why certain individuals get so highly riled up over the concept two guys or two women in a happy, loving relationship?

I mean what's so offensive? Why are they so fixated on it?

It's not at all unusual in mammalian or bird species. Our closest primate relative, the Bononbo is extremely bisexual for example. You've gay male penguins even successfully raising chicks and so on.

Also humans are probably the most complex social mammalian species. So the success or failure of offspring is as much about the success or failure of the tribes, villages and societies that they're raised in. That would mean that it's not just about simple reproduction volume.

So you're probably looking at a scenario where homosexuality provided some kind of evolutionary advantage in successful tribes and was evolved into our genetics - you could speculate that it may have freed up adults from reproductive burdens providing more people to support society and ultimately ensure that the next generation was successful. It may also have played social functions that we' temporarily made taboo due to religious notions.

There are lots and lots of reasons why homosexuality is probably very much part of human evolution but since you lot on the far right of religion usually don't even accept we evolution, there's probably no point even bothering to argue.

It's also very unfair and irrational to just pretend that gay people don't exist or to condemn them for existing. There's always been a % of the human population who are gay. We just managed to utterly oppress them and push them into the shadows for absolutely no reason other than religiously inspired bigotry and hatred. Exactly the same way as we shunned and punished single mothers and so on. It's a shameful and very unenlightened period of human history that really should be consigned to the Dark Ages.

c.p.w.g.w

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

If you replace gays with black folks would you hold the same views.

Being gay isn't a choice the same way being Black, Asian or White isn't a choice

[Deleted User]

Anteayer wrote: »

There are lots and lots of reasons why homosexuality is probably very much part of human evolution but since you lot on the far right of religion usually don't even accept we evolution, there's probably no point even bothering to argue.

There isn't an evolutionary justification needed. Evolution is random so it might not confer any advantage. Or maybe taking some men out of the straight dating pool is a plus
A society where 80% of men are gay and the other 20% of straight men have harems would work pretty well for me LOL

c.p.w.g.w

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There isn't an evolutionary justification needed. Evolution is random so it might not confer any advantage. Or maybe taking some men out of the straight dating pool is a plus
A society where 80% of men are gay and the other 20% of straight men have harems would work pretty well for me LOL

It may also be an evolutionary nessesity to curb population growth.

Anteayer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There isn't an evolutionary justification needed. Evolution is random so it might not confer any advantage. Or maybe taking some men out of the straight dating pool is a plus
A society where 80% of men are gay and the other 20% of straight men have harems would work pretty well for me LOL

It's random but when you analyse most of these things they did tend to be carried forward because they either had an evolutionary advantage or they were at least totally benign.

If you look at human society though. It doesn't ever neatly fit the religious puritanical views of what they think it should be. It's much more complex and nuanced.

I mean if you look at the stuff coming out of the US at the moment where you've got this notion of the idealised, isolated nuclear family, the noble hunter and imagined ideals of frontiersmen, the survivalists, the pulling yourself up by your boot straps without any awareness of the social structures that made that possible or even invented and produced boots in the first place... etc etc it's all fantasy nonsense.

Nothing in human development happens without society and networks. It's a big complex system of knowledge building, supports and specialisation that's enabling every one of us to function. That society doesn't require every member of it to reproduce nor does it mean that by their not reproducing that they haven't played a role in supporting or moving it forward.

Evolutionarily, human success is the tribe. If you step back we're not all that different from other highly successful social species. We're just bigger, more individually intelligent and messier than say ants, which are more machine like. The over all effect is similar though. Look at humanity from a slightly distant view and it's basically not that different from a very very sophisticated ant colony.