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

sydthebeat

eagle eye wrote: »

If he is a follower of a religion which teaches him, and the Bible says, that homosexual activity is sinful then it's not hate speech.
.

I'm sorry, but that's a complete cop out.

Of course a religious belief can be considered as hate speech.... And holding that belief does not excuse anyone

batgoat

sydthebeat wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that's a complete cop out.

Of course a religious belief can be considered as hate speech.... And holding that belief does not excuse anyone

Eg the Westboro Baptist Church have strongly held religious beliefs. They can quote scripture to back it up but they're still engaging in hate speech.

splinter65

King Mob wrote: »

And again, question dodged. :rolleyes:

It’s not really king mob. You’re being ridiculous. He couldn’t possibly be racist because he’s black. It’s as simple as that.

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s not really king mob. You’re being ridiculous. He couldn’t possibly be racist because he’s black. It’s as simple as that.

But I didn't ask if he would be racist.
I asked if saying "black people go to hell because they are" is hate speech.

You are now being misrepresentative and pedantic to continue to avoid the obvious answer.
Saying such a thing is hate speech.

batgoat

King Mob wrote: »

But I didn't ask if he would be racist.
I asked if saying "black people go to hell because they are" is hate speech.

You are now being misrepresentative and pedantic to continue to avoid the obvious answer.
Saying such a thing is hate speech.

The user doesn't actually believe in the existence of hate speech. So they're probably not worth our time tbh.

eagle eye

sydthebeat wrote:

Of course a religious belief can be considered as hate speech.... And holding that belief does not excuse anyone

For a start there is no hate speech on what he said unless you believe that him holding the belief that homosexual activity is sinful.
That's his belief, you believe differently so again that's just a belief system either way. I believe differently too but they doesn't mean that it's hate speech.

I'd consider anybody saying that all gay people should be put down as hate speech. I'd consider anybody saying that gay people are inferior human beings to be hate speech.

I don't consider a religious person asking these people to repent to save themselves from hell as hate speech because they believe from their Bible teachings that all those people, not just gay people, are sinning. It doesn't matter that they are born that way, they make a choice to have sexual relations. It's that part which is considered sinful. I believe the Bible says that sex is only for procreation and not for pleasure, I could be wrong about that but I think I heard some lunatic spouting it once.

[Deleted User]

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't consider a religious person asking these people to repent to save themselves from hell as hate speech because they believe from their Bible teachings that all those people, not just gay people, are sinning.

So then, you believe that the Westboro Baptist Church are not engaging in hate speech either.

eagle eye wrote: »

It doesn't matter that they are born that way, they make a choice to have sexual relations. It's that part which is considered sinful.

Cept, wee problem.
Gay people are still gay even if they never have sex.
The meme that was copy pasted simply states "homosexuals" not "people who have sex with the same sex."
Gay people go to hell for being gay, not for engaging in gay sex.

Further, it specifies "fornicators" as well, so there would be no need to then also state "homosexuals" if your argument held.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

For a start there is no hate speech on what he said unless you believe that him holding the belief that homosexual activity is sinful.
That's his belief, you believe differently so again that's just a belief system either way. I believe differently too but they doesn't mean that it's hate speech.

Rubbish. He didn't say in his opinion homosexual activity is sinful, whatever that may or may not mean, he said that homosexuals will go to Hell. Hell, as in a place of eternal damnation and suffering. The specific implication here is that he is categorically stating that homosexuals will be punished for what they are, that being something they've no choice about. This is very clearly hate speech even if it derives from religious indoctrination. That his beliefs are sincerely held doesn't make what he's saying any more acceptable. Like it or not, Christianity has a deeply unpleasant history that it pins on scripture. Have a look at the Albigensian crusade for example, which is widely considered genocide in the name of religion. Most Christians that I know reject the more barbaric aspects of their faith, those who choose not to are fair game for criticism and/or sanction.

SoundsRight

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish. He didn't say in his opinion homosexual activity is sinful, whatever that may or may not mean, he said that homosexuals will go to Hell. Hell, as in a place of eternal damnation and suffering. The specific implication here is that he is categorically stating that homosexuals will be punished for what they are, that being something they've no choice about. This is very clearly hate speech even if it derives from religious indoctrination. That his beliefs are sincerely held doesn't make what he's saying any more acceptable. Like it or not, Christianity has a deeply unpleasant history that it pins on scripture. Have a look at the Albigensian crusade for example, which is widely considered genocide in the name of religion. Most Christians that I know reject the more barbaric aspects of their faith, those who choose not to are fair game for criticism and/or sanction.

You are deliberately misquoting him. He said hell awaits them UNLESS THEY REPENT. That is the key in all of this. He does not believe they are intrinsically evil. There is hope for them if they want it.

sydthebeat

SoundsRight wrote: »

You are deliberately misquoting him. He said hell awaits them UNLESS THEY REPENT. That is the key in all of this. He does not believe they are intrinsically evil. There is hope for them if they want it.

The problem is his assertion in his broadcast that there is something wrong in being gay which needs repenting for.

THATS the nub of the issue that his employers have with him.

Ave Sodalis

SoundsRight wrote:

You are deliberately misquoting him. He said hell awaits them UNLESS THEY REPENT. That is the key in all of this. He does not believe they are intrinsically evil. There is hope for them if they want it.

How do you propose repenting for being gay? I wonder how I would repent for being straight if told to...

Ave Sodalis

batgoat wrote:

The user doesn't actually believe in the existence of hate speech. So they're probably not worth our time tbh.

I do wonder if the user would continue not to believe in hate speech if it was targeting the their religion, or some aspect of themselves...

smacl

SoundsRight wrote: »

You are deliberately misquoting him. He said hell awaits them UNLESS THEY REPENT. That is the key in all of this. He does not believe they are intrinsically evil. There is hope for them if they want it.

You can't repent for being gay any more than you can repent for being straight, nor should you have to in any sense. The notion that being gay is intrinsically evil (your words) unless you repent is where the problem lies. Broadcasting this over social media solidifies this problem.

Also the wording is "Hell awaits you. Repent!" No 'unless' mentioned or details on what repenting might achieve. I'm not gay myself but am and atheist, so apparently Hell awaits me too unless I renounce my right to freedom of religious expression and subscribe to his fúcked up fantasy. This is hateful however you slice or dice it.

[Deleted User]

eagle eye wrote: »

If he is a follower of a religion which teaches him, and the Bible says, that homosexual activity is sinful then it's not hate speech.
The same applies to anything else which is in the Bible.

So he should have no problem with slavery, human sacrifice etc as its all in the bible and justified also. Also if he's so religious and believes everything in the bible why did he decide to ignore some of it when it suited him.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

You can't repent for being gay any more than you can repent for being straight,

My understanding is that the repentance involves actions not state of being

(This would resolve you repenting of being black being placed on a par with being gay)

At risk (severe in your case) of an emotional rather than logical approach:.

Lets say being born gay is like being born with cystic fibrosis.Its not your fault but is a result of the Fall nevertheless. Unlike cystic fibrosis however, a direct consequence of this (and there are many,
despite your focus) particular aspect of your falleness leads to sin.

Repenting involve sin, not repenting of something you have absolutely no hand in. Like being born black.

The notion that being gay is intrinsically evil

You would do better to concentrate on the way in which you express your own intrinsic evilness. For we are all intrinsically evil. The focus on homesex might give you a bone to gnaw on. But its a distraction - you (like me) have bigger personal fish to fry. The only difference between us is that I'm morr aware of my fish. And make piss poor attempts to fry them under the auspices of having been already saved.

Also the wording is "Hell awaits you. Repent!" No 'unless' mentioned or details on what repenting might achieve. I'm not gay myself but am and atheist, so apparently Hell awaits me too unless I renounce my right to freedom of religious expression and subscribe to his fúcked up fantasy. This is hateful however you slice or dice it.

He's probably relying on a certain amount of prior knowledge by which people fill in the gaps
I mean, what would Just do it mean if we has no prior context?

splinter65

batgoat wrote: »

The user doesn't actually believe in the existence of hate speech. So they're probably not worth our time tbh.

Your hate speech about me is hurting my feelings. Stop, please.

splinter65

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I do wonder if the user would continue not to believe in hate speech if it was targeting the their religion, or some aspect of themselves...

Go on, say something AWFUL and I’ll see if it hurts me.

[Deleted User]

have we reached peak "b-but muh free speech!" nonsense?

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

have we reached peak "b-but muh free speech!" nonsense?

No we have a load of people that think that anything that they don't like said is hate speech.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

My understanding is that the repentance involves actions not state of being

(This would resolve you repenting of being black being placed on a par with being gay)

But this doesn't make sense as people are gay independent of whether or not they act on it.
Gay people are still gay even if they never have sex.
It was not specified that he was referring to people who have gay sex.
He refereed only to homosexuals: ie, a state of being.

It's no different than if he had said the same thing about black people, hence why all of you have been avoiding that question.
It's hate speech to say that black people are going to hell for being black.
That's clear to everyone.
It's also hate speech to say that about gay people as well.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Lets say being born gay is like being born with cystic fibrosis.

Hey, maybe you shouldn't compare being gay with having a disease. It doesn't look super good for your position.

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

No we have a load of people that think that anything that they don't like said is hate speech.

And also some people that think free speech means say whatever you want with no consequences.
He said it he has to own it.

Ave Sodalis

splinter65 wrote:

Go on, say something AWFUL and Iâ€™ll see if it hurts me.

Just to note that I was very active on the threads in AH dyring both referendums and do remember your posts. This is where I am coming from when I say you only believe there is no hate speech when it's not directed at you.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

My understanding is that the repentance involves actions not state of being

(This would resolve you repenting of being black being placed on a par with being gay)

But this doesn't make sense as people are gay independent of whether or not they act on it.
Gay people are still gay even if they never have sex.
It was not specified that he was referring to people who have gay sex.
He refereed only to homosexuals: ie, a state of being.

He was referring to the biblical position without comment. The biblical position would appear to find sin in thought and act.

It's no different than if he had said the same thing about black people, hence why all of you have been avoiding that question.
It's hate speech to say that black people are going to hell for being black.
That's clear to everyone.
It's also hate speech to say that about gay people as well.

Resolved above

antiskeptic wrote: »

Lets say being born gay is like being born with cystic fibrosis.

Hey, maybe you shouldn't compare being gay with having a disease. It doesn't look super good for your position.

I'm not interested in what looks super good. Does that inform how you respond to things?

There was a Fall. All of nature became skewed from ideal order because of it. Skewed in every way imaginable.

Repenting isn't a act that is focused on a particular area of your life: its a realisation that your whole life is pointed in the wrong direction, a direction that sees self direction as opposed to God direction. A person who is gay can repent whilst holding their gayness to be in line with God's order. And can continue to hold that view and act on it.

The saved aren't saved because their theology perfectly aligns with God's actual view. They aren't saved because they turn towards and maintain God's order for the rest of their lives. They are saved because they realise their own way isn't working. And turn to a (probably unbelieved in God at that point) as the only possible place left to turn to because they want their life to work right.

That might be a little to nuanced for you. And Folau's hellfire message is I think not nuanced enough. However, the way of salvation doesn't necessitate a long, closely argued treatise - folk have been convicted by a sentence in the bible. That sentence triggering what has already been going on in God's attempt to get through to each individual
Folau's snippet can be seen in that light: not a complete exposition, but the issuing of a triggerpoint that might reach someone suitably pre-primed.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

If my aunt had testicles, would she be my uncle?

Dodging the question is not a good way to carry on a conversation. Instead of dodging it and thereby suggesting that there's no substance of any kind to your position, why not try answer it instead, giving yourself with a chance to show why your position is a better one than everybody else's?

antiskeptic wrote: »

That might be a little to nuanced for you.

And I would hate to think that the the charter's perfectly clear, unambiguous rule "1. No personal insults. Attack the post not the poster." would be too nuanced for somebody attempting to scale the hill of beans which is the bible. Anyway, FYI, this is one of the Forum Gods speaking and, lo, it will come to pass that you will be smitten with a cluestick of great energy should you continue ignoring the will of the Forum Gods.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

He was referring to the biblical position without comment. The biblical position would appear to find sin in thought and act.

Resolved above

Before I wade into your points, could you at least do me the courtesy of addressing mine directly and clearly.
No where in your post can I see anything that directly and clearly answers the question: "Is saying black people are going to hell for being black hate speech?"

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would do better to concentrate on the way in which you express your own intrinsic evilness.

Nice. So I'm morally reprehensible now? You might well call yourself evil, but when you start calling other people evil who do not share your rather unusual worldview you might want to show a little caution as many would consider this an insult. Perhaps both yourself and Folau could take the sagely advice of Maggie Smith

I subscribe to neither your religion nor your anachronistic and rather questionable morality.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would do better to concentrate on the way in which you express your own intrinsic evilness.

Nice. So I'm morally reprehensible now? You might well call yourself evil, but when you start calling other people evil who do not share your rather unusual worldview you might want to show a little caution as many would consider this an insult.

As is frequently stated, the gospel is good news for bad people who have become aware of that. And bad news for bad people who think their good.

It can't be helped (the message of the gospel that is, not the fact of peoples badness.

Of course, you might well be a decent enough skin, if ranked o the scale of human decency.

But thats not the measure being used. Against holiness you and I fall flat on our faces.

Perhaps both yourself and Folau could take the sagely advice of Maggie Smith

I subscribe to neither your religion nor your anachronistic and rather questionable morality.

Its a free world. Until you die in any case

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

He was referring to the biblical position without comment. The biblical position would appear to find sin in thought and act.

Resolved above

Before I wade into your points, could you at least do me the courtesy of addressing mine directly and clearly.
No where in your post can I see anything that directly and clearly answers the question: "Is saying black people are going to hell for being black hate speech?"

It depends on how you define hate speech. I would define that as hate speech myself because there is zero biblical warrant* for the idea (the bible forms my basis for the definitions of many things incl. love and hate)

And so hate seems like the motive behind saying such a thing.

*where warrant means thought through, consistent, internally congruant support

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

It depends on how you define hate speech. I would define that as hate speech myself because there is zero biblical warrant* for the idea (the bible forms my basis for the definitions of many things incl. love and hate)

And so hate seems like the motive behind saying such a thing.

*where warrant means thought through, consistent, internally congruant support

Ok.
But many people argue that the bible justifies their racism in the same way you argue it justifies your homophobic ideas.
Similarly many Christians reject your homophobic ideas in the same way you reject the racist ideas.

So your definitions have a bit of a flaw there.

The fact some people think their hateful views are justified by the bible doesn't affect whether or not it's hate speech I'm afraid.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

It depends on how you define hate speech. I would define that as hate speech myself because there is zero biblical warrant* for the idea (the bible forms my basis for the definitions of many things incl. love and hate)

And so hate seems like the motive behind saying such a thing.

*where warrant means thought through, consistent, internally congruant support

Ok.
But many people argue that the bible justifies their racism in the same way you argue it justifies your homophobic ideas.
Similarly many Christians reject your homophobic ideas in the same way you reject the racist ideas.

So your definitions have a bit of a flaw there.

There's no flaw other than I chose how to arrive at definitions. I can chose a majoritys view (because it makes sense to me), or a minority view (because it makes sense to me), or my own view (because it makes sense to me).

You do the same and as such we play on a level playing field.

What others arrive at by personal choice is, well, personal choice
Neither I nor you are particularily bound by them.

The fact some people think their hateful views are justified by the bible doesn't affect whether or not it's hate speech I'm afraid.

According to your personally arrived at definition as to what constitutes hate. You presumably have a justification for your view, stemming, no doubt from a larger worldview. For some the bible is their source, for others, something else.