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…1819212324…54

Comments

  • #602
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    eagle eye wrote: »
    If you cannot show me where their claims are backed up in the bible then they don't compare with Folau.
    Where has Folaus beliefs been shown to be backed up by the bible?
    Cause they arent any more than the WBC...


  • #603
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    King Mob wrote: »
    Repent from what thought?
    If they are not having sex, what sin are they commiting?
    You tell me. You said earlier that gays were threatened with going to hell just for being gay, regardless of any "sinful" acts. I asked you "who said that" and now you don't seem to know.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok. So then when they did believe all that what they did and said wasnt racist.
    Mormons developed a racist religion, at a time when the society they lived in was racist. As society changed around them, God sent them a message to change too.
    'Cos God is the good shepherd, and he doesn't want his flock being arrested.


  • #604
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    batgoat wrote: »
    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.

    Are you sure you're quoting the post you meant to respond to? I, for example, haven't quoted any scripture.


  • #605
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Are you sure you're quoting the post you meant to respond to? I, for example, haven't quoted any scripture.

    You haven't in this post but otherwise your postings have primarily been preachings. Do you think it's okay based on your worldview to send a teen for conversion therapy? Do you think there's nothing homophobic about effectively rejecting your child because of their sexual orientation?

    You can claim all you want that there nothing homophobic about holding such views or expressing them but in practise they are, they are homophobic and such views are actively used to denigrate or even limit the rights of the LGBT community. Eg Uganda's policy on gay people originates from Christianity, is that policy homophobic?


  • #606
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    batgoat wrote: »
    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.

    The first question to consider is whether what Folau said is true or not. Are unrepentent sinners hell bound? Is homosexual thought/act sinful? If the answer is yes, then you have a choice:

    -say nothing about it because the truth is hurtful to those who don't believe the truth. And some will use the truth for hateful purposes.

    - say it as it is and bring about the above downsides.

    Now you can argue that you don't believe its true - in which case we have a stalemate, a clash of beliefs: yours and his. He has as much grounding for his position (his belief) as you have for yours (your belief).


  • Advertisement
  • #607
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The first question to consider is whether what Folau said is true or not. Are unrepentent sinners hell bound? Is homosexual thought/act sinful? If the answer is yes, then you have a choice:

    -say nothing about it because the truth is hurtful to those who don't believe the truth. And some will use the truth for hateful purposes.

    - say it as it is and bring about the above downsides.

    Now you can argue that you don't believe its true - in which case we have a stalemate, a clash of beliefs: yours and his. He has as much grounding for his position (his belief) as you have for yours (your belief).
    Cool, dodge away. But I honestly think it's more beneficial for teens coming to terms with their sexuality to not be preached to by homophobes, so rugby stars doing so is not very welcome and it's far from beneficial.


  • #608
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    King Mob and batgau how do you deal with the fact that so many 100s (possibly 1000s) of millions of people outside of the western world (and plenty within the western world) agree wholeheartedly with this rugby player? Or do you ever consider that at all?


  • #609
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    splinter65 wrote: »
    King Mob and batgau how do you deal with the fact that so many 100s (possibly 1000s) of millions of people outside of the western world (and plenty within the western world) agree wholeheartedly with this rugby player? Or do you ever consider that at all?

    Perfectly aware of it and still view them as homophobic views. You seem to think that you're gonna provide some shocking revelation for us at some point.

    The reality here is, player breached contract after a warning and on top of that, it was negative pr. Simply not a view that you want associated with sport.


  • #610
    AllForIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,687 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    splinter65 wrote: »
    King Mob and batgau how do you deal with the fact that so many 100s (possibly 1000s) of millions of people outside of the western world (and plenty within the western world) agree wholeheartedly with this rugby player? Or do you ever consider that at all?

    There is much work to be done but the tide is turning.


  • #611
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    batgoat wrote: »
    Perfectly aware of it and still view them as homophobic views. You seem to think that you're gonna provide some shocking revelation for us at some point.

    The reality here is, player breached contract after a warning and on top of that, it was negative pr. Simply not a view that you want associated with sport.

    Some sports. For example, If you’re in India or Bangladesh or Pakistan or Sri Lanka or Afghanistan then cricket is far bigger then rugby is here. Homosexuality isn’t tolerated and anyone who supports homosexuals isn’t tolerated either. You’re talking about more then a billion people who won’t even let you open your mouth. What are you going to do?


  • Advertisement
  • #612
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    AllForIt wrote: »
    There is much work to be done but the tide is turning.

    Don’t be ridiculous. Over a billion people all across Asia don’t want to know. Not a hope.


  • #613
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    batgoat wrote:
    You haven't in this post but otherwise your postings have primarily preachings

    I rarely quote scripture but argue a worldview. And argue that the other side frequently express from their worldview which is as faith-based as mine. This to undermine the higher ground auto-assumed.

    Do you think it's okay based on your worldview to send a teen for conversion therapy?

    That would depend on whether the teen is a bona fide christian or not. That is, someone who had the spirit of the living God within / born again / a new creation etc.

    If they are and the homosexual attraction is the result of a warping of their emerging sexuality, brought about by their life experiences, then I would see benefit in rectification steps (I don't know anything about conversion therapy as such).

    In this case you have:

    - a person who understands their sexuality has been warped by influence (e.g. child abuse)

    - is convinced the potential exists for undoing the warping.

    In the event someone is born gay and is a believer and wants to walk as best they can according to God's order, even if that means sacrifice, then I would see benefit in support for that walk.

    I wouldn't exclude the possibility of the miraculous. But my view of God at work isn't sugar-coated view of Jesus' 'ask anything in my name and it will be granted you'. The person might struggle with that 'cross' but if seeing it as such and choosing to bear it then by all means support.

    In the event of an unbeliever (even if nominally a Christian), then harm can only be done. You are speaking to the unconverted.

    Do you think there's nothing homophobic about effectively rejecting your child because of their sexual orientation?

    See above. The chief protagonist is the teen and what they make of their situation. Of they reject their homosexual element then those helping aren't rejecting the person. And are supporting ther person in their own choice to struggle

    Of course, if a person is being coerced and pressurised and manipulated due to the views off the parents / their church then that is abusive.
    You can claim all you want that there nothing homophobic about holding such views or expressing them but in practise they are, they are homophobic and such views are actively used to denigrate or even limit the rights of the LGBT community. Eg Uganda's policy on gay people originates from Christianity, is that policy homophobic?

    Of course people can use whatever tool at their disposal to hate. That says nothing at all about the truth of the tool.

    Hammers aren't intrinsically evil. They only become so in the hands of people bent on damage.

    Similarly, unrepentant sinners hellbound isn't in itself an evil statement. But it can be used thus.


  • #614
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    batgoat wrote: »
    splinter65 wrote: »
    King Mob and batgau how do you deal with the fact that so many 100s (possibly 1000s) of millions of people outside of the western world (and plenty within the western world) agree wholeheartedly with this rugby player? Or do you ever consider that at all?
    The reality here is, player breached contract after a warning and on top of that, it was negative pr. Simply not a view that you want associated with sport.

    Whilst technically correct, this merely kicks the can down the road. The question arises whether such a clause has any place in a work contract.

    Its merely the mood of the times that has such things included. And we're examining the mood of the times.


  • #615
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    batgoat wrote: »
    Cool, dodge away.

    Your failure to actually answer the question on the paper is noted.


  • #616
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,499 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Vunipola was asked about it after receiving his man of the match award yesterday. He didn't back down but didn't talk about it either, just said something like I have my beliefs and then started talking about the game he had just played.


  • #617
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Undergirding the arguments of proponents of the current mood is Science and what science has to say about the development of sexuality. The following on the state of scientific research from the current editor of The Lancet. A former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine was even more excoriating in her assessment of the state of modern day science.

    11th edition, editor-in-chief Dr. Richard Horton published his own perspectives on the symposium. In what amounts to an editorial, entitled What is medicine's 5 sigma, he wrote:

    A lot of what is published is incorrect. I'm not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations. The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, poor methods get results.


    An obvious case is the takeover by Big Pharma of medical research - it not taking a rocket scientist to figure out that the hand that rocks the research cradle rules the world. But the problem is a wider one.

    So forgive if scientific support for a position receives less than wholesome welcome.


  • #618
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,499 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    King Mob wrote:
    Where has Folaus beliefs been shown to be backed up by the bible? Cause they arent any more than the WBC...
    I believe it's in Corinthians which covers all the 'sinners' that Folau mentions.


  • #619
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Whilst technically correct, this merely kicks the can down the road. The question arises whether such a clause has any place in a work contract.

    Its merely the mood of the times that has such things included. And we're examining the mood of the times.

    You could say the exact same thing about racism no longer being tolerated.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Undergirding the arguments of proponents of the current mood is Science and what science has to say about the development of sexuality. The following on the state of scientific research from the current editor of The Lancet. A former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine was even more excoriating in her assessment of the state of modern day science.





    An obvious case is the takeover by Big Pharma of medical research - it not taking a rocket scientist to figure out that the hand that rocks the research cradle rules the world. But the problem is a wider one.

    So forgive if scientific support for a position receives less than wholesome welcome.

    Cool, so a science conspiracy?


  • #620
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    batgoat wrote: »
    You could say the exact same thing about racism no longer being tolerated.

    You could. But by that measure, whatever the mood of the time says is right, is right.

    Which is clearly is problematic. Was the mood of the time right when is was culturally acceptable to be racist and homophobic?




    Cool, so a science conspiracy?

    I don't think the editor of The Lancet mentioned conspiracy in his assessment of the corrupted nature of modern science. Plain old corporate greed is one perfectly corrupting ingredient. Where one corporation finds a way to bend things to their will, the rest will follow. No conspiracy required

    Presumably you disagree with his assessment. Could you tell us what qualification you have to begin to dismantle his assessment?


    Might I note that your responses aren't exactly compelling? There is a tendency not to address points raised but to sidestep. Just like you do above. It's getting tiresome. So, deal with the points directly as they occur or else we won't be conversing for long more.


  • #621
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You could. But by that measure, whatever the mood of the time says is right, is right.

    Which is clearly is problematic. Was the mood of the time right when is was culturally acceptable to be racist and homophobic?







    I don't think the editor of The Lancet mentioned conspiracy in his assessment of the corrupted nature of modern science. Plain old corporate greed is one perfectly corrupting ingredient. Where one corporation finds a way to bend things to their will, the rest will follow. No conspiracy required

    Presumably you disagree with his assessment. Could you tell us what qualification you have to begin to dismantle his assessment?


    Might I note that your responses aren't exactly compelling? There is a tendency not to address points raised but to sidestep. Just like you do above. It's getting tiresome. So, deal with the points directly as they occur or else we won't be conversing for long more.

    You're attempting to use the editor of the Lancet to justify your homophobia.. You're not putting forward research. Meanwhile the likes of conversion therapy can actively damage the mental health of those subject to it. Corporate greed does not factor in.


  • Advertisement
  • #622
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    batgoat wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You could. But by that measure, whatever the mood of the time says is right, is right.

    Which is clearly is problematic. Was the mood of the time right when is was culturally acceptable to be racist and homophobic?







    I don't think the editor of The Lancet mentioned conspiracy in his assessment of the corrupted nature of modern science. Plain old corporate greed is one perfectly corrupting ingredient. Where one corporation finds a way to bend things to their will, the rest will follow. No conspiracy required

    Presumably you disagree with his assessment. Could you tell us what qualification you have to begin to dismantle his assessment?


    Might I note that your responses aren't exactly compelling? There is a tendency not to address points raised but to sidestep. Just like you do above. It's getting tiresome. So, deal with the points directly as they occur or else we won't be conversing for long more.

    You're attempting to use the editor of the Lancet to justify your homophobia.. You're not putting forward research. Meanwhile the likes of conversion therapy can actively damage the mental health of those subject to it. Corporate greed does not factor in.

    Corporate greed countered your supposing my supposing a conspiracy need be at work.

    Are we agreed I need not be supposing a conspiracy?

    I've used the editor of The Lancet (and the equally prestigious NEJM to undergird the notion that resorting to Science isn't a killer card anymore for your position.

    My (or Forau's) supposed homophobia is something your aiming to establish. Its premature to be assuming it - especially given the poverty of your responses to direct counters.

    I've elaborated on my view of support for those people who chose to reject homosexuality in themselves. And have stated where I think damage might well be done. Zero absorbtion by yourself, zero developing your position in response.

    Just a repetition of elemental slogans. Over and out!


  • #623
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    Hence he thinks atheists, drunks, fornicators and REALLY DUMB WORD DELETED need to repent, while they still can.
    While undoubtedly hoping to reflect accurately your view of another poster by reflecting the uncivil view of another poster, your use of uncivil prose went a step too far, so your helpful moderator has removed the inadvertent incivility concerned.


  • #624
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Might I note that your responses aren't exactly compelling? There is a tendency not to address points raised but to sidestep.
    478311.png


  • #625
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    My response to a query on 'conversion therapy' was nuanced. It set the parameters for positive and negative application. Zero response. Your kettle/pot is a lazy reponse. Made worse coming under the guise of moderation


  • #626
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Corporate greed countered your supposing my supposing a conspiracy need be at work.

    Are we agreed I need not be supposing a conspiracy?

    I've used the editor of The Lancet (and the equally prestigious NEJM to undergird the notion that resorting to Science isn't a killer card anymore for your position.

    My (or Forau's) supposed homophobia is something your aiming to establish. Its premature to be assuming it - especially given the poverty of your responses to direct counters.

    I've elaborated on my view of support for those people who chose to reject homosexuality in themselves. And have stated where I think damage might well be done. Zero absorbtion by yourself, zero developing your position in response.

    Just a repetition of elemental slogans. Over and out!

    Except there's no proof that the likes of conversion therapy works and it can have incredibly negative consequences (parents force their kids into that btw) . You've brought big pharma into it which has feck all to do with gay people. Basically you're treating the entire discussion as a soapbox on the dreaded gay agenda...


  • #627
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    your use of uncivil prose went a step too far, so your helpful moderator has removed the inadvertent incivility concerned.
    Fair enough, I just thought if it was OK with the BBC, it might pass the censor here in A&A.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q2SYFjlzg4


  • #628
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,904 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    splinter65 wrote: »
    King Mob and batgau how do you deal with the fact that so many 100s (possibly 1000s) of millions of people outside of the western world (and plenty within the western world) agree wholeheartedly with this rugby player? Or do you ever consider that at all?

    The fact that there remain hundreds of millions of homophobic Christians is no doubt true, but this is hardly something to be proud about, and as this article explains Christianity in the west is increasingly post homophobic. From that article
    Sally Kohn wrote:
    Wars are won and lost. Liberty, freedom and the ever-bending arc toward equality have won. Intolerance and hate have lost. But this was not a war of liberty versus religion; the war itself took place within religion, including within Christianity itself. And Christianity is ultimately taking the side of equality and liberty, too.

    To those who remain in the fringe minority stubbornly mired in hatred and the dark rationalizations of the past, please try to lose gracefully. You are not being exiled. The world is simply moving on without you.


  • #629
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    eagle eye wrote: »
    I believe it's in Corinthians which covers all the 'sinners' that Folau mentions.
    Cool.
    That also supports the westboro baptist churches position.


  • #630
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    splinter65 wrote: »
    King Mob and batgau how do you deal with the fact that so many 100s (possibly 1000s) of millions of people outside of the western world (and plenty within the western world) agree wholeheartedly with this rugby player? Or do you ever consider that at all?

    The fact that there remain hundreds of millions of homophobic Christians is no doubt true, but this is hardly something to be proud about, and as this article explains Christianity in the west is increasingly post homophobic. From that article
    Sally Kohn wrote:
    Wars are won and lost. Liberty, freedom and the ever-bending arc toward equality have won. Intolerance and hate have lost. But this was not a war of liberty versus religion; the war itself took place within religion, including within Christianity itself. And Christianity is ultimately taking the side of equality and liberty, too.

    To those who remain in the fringe minority stubbornly mired in hatred and the dark rationalizations of the past, please try to lose gracefully. You are not being exiled. The world is simply moving on without you.

    Given the vast bulk of Christianity is cultural, actual Christianity is and only ever will be fringe. For all the change you think you see, there has been little actual change. Culture will always flow with the times and cultural Christianity with it.


  • Advertisement
  • #631
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    batgoat wrote: »
    Cool, so a science conspiracy?
    I prefer calling it the Big Gay Conspiracy to make it sound matchingly appropriate.


Advertisement