Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

1…1718202223…54

Comments

  • #572
    devlinio
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 172 ✭✭devlinio


    ted1 wrote: »
    He represents his club. Odds are there’s is s gay person in his team. He deserves what happened to him.

    No he doesn't deserve what happened to him. He's entitled to his opinion, albeit one that most people (including myself) disagree with.

    He disagrees with homosexuality, so he should lose his career over it???


  • #573
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    There's no flaw other than I chose how to arrive at definitions.
    And how you chose seems to be entirely arbitrary and no more reliable than those used by the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church.

    Saying that gay people are lesser, for any reason, religious or not, is hateful.
    You said they are lesser. This rugby player said it too.
    It's hate speech in the same way as you agree it is when people say the same about black people.

    You don't agree with those definitions because you do a lot of mental gymnastics to do so.
    Most people do not share those same gymnastics. You can't really act shocked when they don't.


  • #574
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,644 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    devlinio wrote: »
    No he doesn't deserve what happened to him. He's entitled to his opinion, albeit one that most people (including myself) disagree with.

    He disagrees with homosexuality, so he should lose his career over it???

    He didn’t lose his career he lost his job, he can get another. He is absolutely entitled to his opinion but not entitled to voice it without repurcussions from his employer if he has signed up to codes of conduct.


  • #575
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    KingMob wrote:
    And how you chose seems to be entirely arbitrary and no more reliable than those used by the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church.

    Seems to you. But then it would. You work from another worldview which is informed by an entirely different set of first principles.

    As for reliability? I'm not sure how reliability is established.





    Saying that gay people are lesser, for any reason, religious or not, is hateful.
    You said they are lesser.

    You'd have to quote where I said that. I have said that all are born inflicted with a disease (lets call it) called sin. It results in skewedness in our bodies and minds. It manifestz in different ways in different people. There is no one lesser. How could there even be thought to be when we can't know how it manifests in each individual.

    All that can be said for certain is that all fall way short of the holiness (or utter goodness) of God

    This rugby player said it too

    For the nth time I'll ask for a quote to that effect
    Gays lesser. Where is it?

    It's hate speech in the same way as you agree it is when people say the same about black people.

    Simple reiteration is goig to get you nowhere. I've argued why I see a difference (and presumably Folau would see a difference). It appears you can't deal with the argument.
    You don't agree with those definitions because you do a lot of mental gymnastics to do so.


    Most people do not share those same gymnastics. You can't really act shocked when they don't.

    So its majority rule is it? Was the majority right the last time - when the view was opposite the one now?

    Shocked? I'm not in the least surprised.
    Mankind ebbing and flowing is no surprise since its gone on forever. Anyway, sin diseased mankind coming to accomodate, or even rejoice in sin is more the norm than the exception.

    Duck n dive II. No dealing with the argument about personally arrived at definitons. Because there is no dealing with it.

    Majority rule 😩


  • #576
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    For the nth time I'll ask for a quote to that effect
    Gays lesser. Where is it?
    When he said that gays are going to hell for being gay and compared them to liars and cheaters.
    Again, you cannot pass this off as "he's refering to the act" as 1) gay people are gay whether or not they have sex and 2) he refers to fornicators as a separate category, so the act is not the issue.

    You say gay people are lesser by comparing them with people who have a disease along with making several unsupportable and untrue claims such as them causing themselves harm and being unhappy with themselves.

    You haven't done anything to show that this is a case of "LGBT nonsense" and you've only gone on to make more ridiculous homophobic claims to defend other ridiculous homophobic claims.


  • Advertisement
  • #577
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,874 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    It's obvious how he views them as lesser.

    If he viewed them as equal to heterosexuals he would have either included heterosexuals as well as a separate group.... Or he would have omitted both.

    As he didn't include heterosexuals in his "burn in hell" threat, then he views homosexuals as lesser than heterosexuals.


  • #578
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    bilbot79 wrote: »
    Pathetic to think homosexuality is sinful. What scant character a person must have, when they need to outsource their moral values to a religion.

    Why is it pathetic? Especially when I wholeheartedly support the right of people to engage in it?

    I think it’s sinful. You don’t. Neither of us are bothering eachother, so what’s the problem?


  • #579
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    Can someone explain to me why the hell secular folk get so uptight and start all this righteous indignation when they hear that Christians like myself actually believe in Christianity and that homosexual activity is sinful.

    I also fail to understand how this is hate. I mean folks have the right to do this stuff if they want. They just don’t have the right to my endorsement of it.


  • #580
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    King Mob wrote: »
    you cannot pass this off as "he's refering to the act" as 1) gay people are gay whether or not they have sex and 2) he refers to fornicators as a separate category, so the act is not the issue.
    Fornication is actually bible speak for sex outside marriage, so I'm afraid your argument here does not hold up.
    sydthebeat wrote: »
    It's obvious how he views them as lesser.
    If he viewed them as equal to heterosexuals he would have either included heterosexuals as well as a separate group.... Or he would have omitted both.
    As he didn't include heterosexuals in his "burn in hell" threat, then he views homosexuals as lesser than heterosexuals.
    That's nonsense. The guy is obviously being judgemental, but he is not judging on the basis of equality. He's judging what he believes to be sins.
    Hence he thinks atheists, drunks, fornicators and REALLY DUMB WORD DELETED need to repent, while they still can.


  • #581
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,499 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    King Mob wrote:
    You haven't done anything to show that this is a case of "LGBT nonsense" and you've only gone on to make more ridiculous homophobic claims to defend other ridiculous homophobic claims.
    It's in the bible so its his belief, it's not hate. It's in the holy book of all the older religions.
    For it to be hate I think there has to be intention to hate which he is not doing in his statement.
    Just because you and I don't agree with his belief doesn't make it hate speech.


  • Advertisement
  • #582
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    recedite wrote: »
    Fornication is actually bible speak for sex outside marriage, so I'm afraid your argument here does not hold up.
    Yes. So why then are homosexuals counted as a separate group of undesirables?
    If their crime isn't fornication, what is it?

    Being gay perhaps?


  • #583
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    eagle eye wrote: »
    It's in the bible so its his belief, it's not hate. It's in the holy book of all the older religions.
    For it to be hate I think there has to be intention to hate which he is not doing in his statement.
    Just because you and I don't agree with his belief doesn't make it hate speech.
    Ok.
    Then the Westboro Baptist Church does not engage in hate speech?

    It's not racist to say "black people are going to hell" or "black people are inferior" if you claim a religious reason for saying it?


  • #584
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,499 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    King Mob wrote:
    Ok. Then the Westboro Baptist Church does not engage in hate speech?
    Never heard of them. Do you have a copy of their Bible?


  • #585
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Never heard of them. Do you have a copy of their Bible?

    You have heard of them.
    And they use the same bible as everyone else.

    People also used the same bible to justify their beliefs that black people were inferior and that they should be enslaved.

    You are arguing that this isn't racist or hateful.
    That's how silly your position is...


  • #586
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    It's obvious how he views them as lesser.


    Let's look


    If he viewed them as equal to heterosexuals he would have either included heterosexuals as well as a separate group.... Or he would have omitted both.

    He included hetrosexuals. He said adulterers. That means married people who are unfaithful to their spouses.

    Now, you might (somehow) conclude that all those adulterers were gays married to opposite sex partners and who combined adultery with homosexual acts. But that would be a reach.



    As he didn't include heterosexuals in his "burn in hell" threat, then he views homosexuals as lesser than heterosexuals.

    a) It's not his burn in hell threat. Dont' shoot the messenger?

    b) he did include heterosexuals in "his" burn in hell "threat". I say "threat" since a treat assumes something that is perceived by the threatee as being a real and realistic proposition.


  • #587
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,499 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    King Mob wrote:
    You are arguing that this isn't racist or hateful. That's how silly your position is...
    No, I'd never heard of them before but after much reading it's clear they are bad people.
    Folau is nothing like them.


  • #588
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    King Mob wrote: »
    When he said that gays are going to hell for being gay and compared them to liars and cheaters.

    Since we're all liars and cheaters where's the lesser? Or have you never lied or cheated? I know I have. The point is, if homosexual acts a since then on a par with lying and cheating. Not greater, not lesser

    You need to demonstrate lesser.

    Again, you cannot pass this off as "he's refering to the act" as 1) gay people are gay whether or not they have sex

    I'm reporting the thinking (since some thinking about context is required) that the reference involves the act. Not the being.


    .. and 2) he refers to fornicators as a separate category, so the act is not the issue.

    Again the context is important:

    adulterers (act)
    homosexuals (act)
    fornicators (can be either hetero or homo but since homo is dealt with, we might presume hetero)

    There are therein, three different categories of sexual sin. The hint lies in the fact that two of the three involve acts/thought. Reason to suppose the third too?


    You say gay people are lesser by comparing them with people who have a disease


    How does comparing gay people with people with a physical disease (such as cystic fibrosis) render gay people lesser? Unless, that is, you (and I mean you yourself) consider people with a physical disease lesser. Do you consider people with a physical disease lesser?

    I don't.


    I've left out answering the rest of your post. Your in enough trouble already/


  • #589
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    eagle eye wrote: »
    No, I'd never heard of them before but after much reading it's clear they are bad people.
    Folau is nothing like them.
    But your argument is that if the person is arguing from the bible, then their claims can't be hate speech or racist or bigoted.

    The Westboro Baptist Churchs statements are based on the bible just as much as Folaus.
    They are also quite careful in that they "are just warning people that they believe they are going to hell".

    There isn't that much difference beyond the scale of offensiveness.


  • #590
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Again the context is important:

    adulterers (act)
    homosexuals (act)
    fornicators (can be either hetero or homo but since homo is dealt with, we might presume hetero)

    There are therein, three different categories of sexual sin. The hint lies in the fact that two of the three involve acts/thought. Reason to suppose the third too?
    But being gay isn't an act.
    You can be gay without having sex.

    Fornication is not the same as adultery, hence it is a separate category.

    Are you arguing that being gay (ie. having an attraction to the same sex) is the sin?


  • #591
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes. So why then are homosexuals counted as a separate group of undesirables?
    If their crime isn't fornication, what is it?
    Being gay perhaps?
    Gay sex is the sin. But I see you answered your own question...
    King Mob wrote: »
    But being gay isn't an act.
    You can be gay without having sex.
    Are you arguing that being gay (ie. having an attraction to the same sex) is the sin?
    That is not the general opinion within Christianity. The RCC says it is an "intrinsically disordered" human condition. Folau probably believes something similar.


  • Advertisement
  • #592
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    recedite wrote: »
    Gay sex is the sin. But I see you answered your own question...
    Yup. But a gay person who doesn't have gay sex ever is still going to hell, as they are gay.
    recedite wrote: »
    That is not the general opinion within Christianity. The RCC says it is an "intrinsically disordered" human condition. Folau probably believes something similar.
    And Christianity, catholism and Folau as wrong as they basing that idea on ignorance and bigoty.

    Again, it wasn't that long ago that Mormons were saying pretty much the same thing about black people...
    Was it ok for Mormons to use hate speech towards black people then?


  • #593
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Let's look





    He included hetrosexuals. He said adulterers. That means married people who are unfaithful to their spouses.

    Now, you might (somehow) conclude that all those adulterers were gays married to opposite sex partners and who combined adultery with homosexual acts. But that would be a reach.






    a) It's not his burn in hell threat. Dont' shoot the messenger?

    b) he did include heterosexuals in "his" burn in hell "threat". I say "threat" since a treat assumes something that is perceived by the threatee as being a real and realistic proposition.
    Simple one for you on why it's both hateful and dangerous for a figure in a public position of respect to express such views on social media. So any gay teen who follows rugby in Australia and reads such ****ty views, do you think it would be incredibly hurtful and ****ty to see the team that they support doing nothing when they see Folau express such views? Do you think it's helpful for a person who is coming to terms with their sexuality to see figures of respect saying that they're doomed to hell because they're attracted to people of the same sex? It's incredibly hurtful and can both act as a justification by those who will bully them and just painful for those who need a society that supports them.

    So any fecking day, I support him being lobbed out of the team over some paradox of tolerance.


  • #594
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yup. But a gay person who doesn't have gay sex ever is still going to hell, as they are gay.
    Who says that?

    Folau said they should "repent", therefore I presume he must not believe they are automatically going to hell.
    RCC say they should remain celibate, in which case the church is very tolerant of their presence (as evidenced by the high numbers of gay clerics and trainees in the seminaries).
    King Mob wrote: »
    And Christianity, catholism and Folau are wrong as they basing that idea on ignorance and bigotry.
    Maybe you should start a campaign to have the Pope arrested then? The guy has no commercial sponsors that could be scared off, so your campaign will have to be based on his breach of actual hate speech laws. Unlike the campaign against Folau.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, it wasn't that long ago that Mormons were saying pretty much the same thing about black people...
    Was it ok for Mormons to use hate speech towards black people then?
    They were smart enough to have a divine revelation causing them to revise their doctrine around the same time as US equality laws were being revised, so they remained on the right side of the law.


  • #595
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,499 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    King Mob wrote:
    There isn't that much difference beyond the scale of offensiveness.
    You've brought them into the conversation so show me the bible quotes backing their claims.


  • #596
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    King Mob wrote: »
    eagle eye wrote: »
    No, I'd never heard of them before but after much reading it's clear they are bad people.
    Folau is nothing like them.
    But your argument is that if the person is arguing from the bible, then their claims can't be hate speech or racist or bigoted.

    The bible is the source of the persons worldview. You too have a source. And from that source you conclude it is hate speech.

    Somewhere along the line you've given your source a free pass. That somehow its to be considered authoritative.

    You are unable to show how this came about however.


  • #597
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The bible is the source of the persons worldview. You too have a source. And from that source you conclude it is hate speech.

    Somewhere along the line you've given your source a free pass. That somehow its to be considered authoritative.

    You are unable to show how this came about however.

    Do you think conversion therapy is ethical? Cause LGBT teens gets shoved into because of such views. Seems pretty hateful when such views can result in parents refusing to accept their children for what they are. You've created this thread for propaganda hour on why homophobia should be completely acceptable in certain scenarios. You have no interest in discussion and instead resort to quoting scripture that we're all aware of.


  • #598
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    eagle eye wrote: »
    You've brought them into the conversation so show me the bible quotes backing their claims.
    They believe the bible backs their claims.
    They as much grounds to claim that about thr bible as every other flavour of christian does.

    Does the bible actually have to back up claims before they become not hate speech? If that's the case, then no I cant show their beliefs are supported thus are hate speech.
    Your guy's beliefs arent supported either.


  • #599
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,499 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    King Mob wrote:
    They believe the bible backs their claims. They as much grounds to claim that about thr bible as every other flavour of christian does.
    Does the bible actually have to back up claims before they become not hate speech? If that's the case, then no I cant show their beliefs are supported thus are hate speech. Your guy's beliefs arent supported either.
    If you cannot show me where their claims are backed up in the bible then they don't compare with Folau.


  • #600
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    recedite wrote: »
    Who says that?

    Folau said they should "repent", therefore I presume he must not believe they are automatically going to hell.
    RCC say they should remain celibate,
    Repent from what thought?
    If they are not having sex, what sin are they commiting?
    recedite wrote: »

    Maybe you should start a campaign to have the Pope arrested then? .
    Why would I do that?
    I have suggested any such campaign and said pretty specifically that I wouldnt support him being arrested....
    recedite wrote: »
    They were smart enough to have a divine revelation causing them to revise their doctrine around the same time as US equality laws were being revised, so they remained on the right side of the law.
    Ok. So then when they did believe all that what they did and said wasnt racist.


  • Advertisement
  • #601
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    eagle eye wrote: »
    If you cannot show me where their claims are backed up in the bible then they don't compare with Folau.

    You do realise that a huge proportion of world religions don't directly use the religious text as the sole source of their views. Even Catholicism doesn't, so are you saying any religion that holds hateful views but they develop outside of their religious text are in fact hateful?


Advertisement