Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

Sean.3516 · 22-04-2019 02:10PM

King Mob wrote: »

You can use it as a short hand for "anti homosexual bigotry".

Are people now arguing that bigotry against gay people doesn't exist?

Yep. By your definition my belief that homosexuality is sinful doesnt constitute homophobia either.

Bigotry is defined as intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

I can believe something is sinful and wrong while still acknowledging the right of others to hold a different belief that contradicts mine. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Again you will have to explain you’re grip with folks who think homosexuality is sinful.

Sean.3516 · 22-04-2019 02:13PM

King Mob wrote: »

Are people now arguing that bigotry against gay people doesn't exist?

I’m not arguing that it doesnt exist.

I’m arguing that you and others are falsely attributing it to people who believe that homosexual acts are sinful.

22-04-2019 02:20PM

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I can believe something is sinful and wrong while still acknowledging the right of others to hold a different belief that contradicts mine. These things are not mutually exclusive.

So what do you call it when you have a negative opinion about a group of people (especially one in a minority)?

I’m arguing that you and others are falsely attributing it to people who believe that homosexual acts are sinful.

Ok. So the Westboro Baptist Church's opinion about gay people is not homophobic/bigoted/prejudiced/whatever label you prefer...

smacl · 22-04-2019 02:22PM

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Can someone please define homophobia?

For the sake of objectivity, let's have a look at a couple of sources we might trust;

Google wrote:

dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people

Merriam-Webster wrote:

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Oxford English Dictionary wrote:

Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

Collins Dictionary wrote:

a strong and unreasonable dislike of homosexual people, especially homosexual men

But wait a moment, we have a more definitive version from some randomer on the internet

splinter65 wrote: »

Homophobia is fear of homosexual people.

@splinter65 and @Eagle Eye, not sure where you picked up your knowledge of the English language but it is sorely lacking on this point. Wanting a word to have a given meaning that is contrary to that in every major published authority on the matter isn't going to make it true. This isn't the religion forum, we expect a bit of objective support for our stated assertions here.

batgoat · 22-04-2019 02:28PM

smacl wrote: »

For the sake of objectivity, let's have a look at a couple of sources we might trust;

But wait a moment, we have a more definitive version from some randomer on the internet

@splinter65 and @Eagle Eye, not sure where you picked up your knowledge of the English language but it is sorely lacking on this point. Wanting a word to have a given meaning that is contrary to that in every major published authority on the matter isn't going to make it true. This isn't the religion forum, we expect a bit of objective support for our stated assertions here.

If I recall correctly, Eagle also doesn't view certain homophobic words as homophobic. So consistency in terms of not understanding words.

Sean.3516 · 22-04-2019 02:34PM

King Mob wrote: »

So what do you call it when you have a negative opinion about a group of people (especially one in a minority)?

Ok. So the Westboro Baptist Church's opinion about gay people is not homophobic/bigoted/prejudiced/whatever label you prefer...

First part:
I can’t think of a specific word that fits that definition, but I would assume you would say “bigotry” or “intolerance” or something to that effect. I’d disagree as you’re definition isnt specific enough
However I disagree that my opinion on homosexuality is a negative opinion about a group of people. My issue isnt with them as people but with the act they engage in. Not to get into a theological disquisition, prosylytising aint my thing, but Christianity teaches that you hate the sin but love the sinner, man is made in God’s image, even those men that commit sins.

After looking up that Westboro crowd and seeing that they run a website called GodHatesFags, I would agree that they are homophobic as you and others have defined the term. They are right as far as they believe that homosexual activity is sinful. However they are wrong both morally and theologically for hating gay people.

Sean.3516 · 22-04-2019 02:37PM

The reason I asked for a definition in my original post was that I simply wanted a hard standard as to the nature of what we are arguing about.

smacl · 22-04-2019 02:44PM

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The reason I asked for a definition in my original post was that I simply wanted a hard standard as to the nature of what we are arguing about.

That's entirely reasonable. I think most of us, myself included, have prejudices we don't even realise we have until such time as we start looking. There's a lot to be said for researching a number of sources on a subject to see what's out there rather than relying on what you think you know.

22-04-2019 02:45PM

Sean.3516 wrote: »

However I disagree that my opinion on homosexuality is a negative opinion about a group of people. My issue isnt with them as people but with the act they engage in.

Honestly, I believe that argument is a side stepping dishonest cop out.
But we will leave that aside.

The issue at hand is that the rugby player in question did not refer to the act but the people.
The sin was being gay, not having gay sex.

Do you think it is acceptable for someone to say that being gay is sinful?
If someone said that, would you call that the same thing we (and most of the rest of the world) call homophobic?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

After looking up that Westboro crowd and seeing that they run a website called GodHatesFags, I would agree that they are homophobic as you and others have defined the term. They are right as far as they believe that homosexual activity is sinful. However they are wrong both morally and theologically for hating gay people.

But you see, they very specifically argue what you do.
They specifically state that they don't hate gay people.
They argue that their version of god hates gay people (amoung many other things) and supply their biblical support for that.

So how can they be homophobic if they have biblical support and they don't "hate" gay people?
How are they different in this regard from you?

Sean.3516 · 22-04-2019 03:04PM

King Mob wrote: »

Honestly, I believe that argument is a side stepping dishonest cop out.
But we will leave that aside.

The issue at hand is that the rugby player in question did not refer to the act but the people.
The sin was being gay, not having gay sex.

Do you think it is acceptable for someone to say that being gay is sinful?
If someone said that, would you call that the same thing we (and most of the rest of the world) call homophobic?

But you see, they very specifically argue what you do.
They specifically state that they don't hate gay people.
They argue that their version of god hates gay people (amoung many other things) and supply their biblical support for that.

So how can they be homophobic if they have biblical support and they don't "hate" gay people?
How are they different in this regard from you?

It’s not some little technical cop out. The distinction between the humanity of individuals and the acts they commit is the whole crux of the issue. As soon as we start conflating the two, we can’t have a free society. I’m not hiding the ball here. I don’t have a deep seated hatred of gay people that getting out of having to admit to by some technicality. I do my very best not to hate people as a general rule.

I don’t believe that being gay is sinful. There are literally gay folks out there who are celibate because they’re also devout christians. Religion is based on the idea that humans have certain natural drives that should be suppressed. I’d rather not get into the weeds with the theology of why this includes homosexual acts. The point I’m making is that you and others obviously don’t share my belief which is fine with me. Welcome to free society.

smacl · 22-04-2019 03:07PM

Sean.3516 wrote: »

prosylytising aint my thing

This is a key point though. Proselytising clearly is Folau's thing. It is also the OP's thing, why else come on to an atheist forum to rant about the 'height of LGBT nonsense' in defense of religious homophobia. Holding a religious belief is a basic human right, even if it might be offensive to others. Broadcasting over social media that other people who do not share your belief will go to hell unless they change over to your way of thinking is something entirely different. Doing it as a person in the public eye who has already been warned not to do it by your employers will lose you that employment.

Sean.3516 · 22-04-2019 03:08PM

King Mob wrote: »

But you see, they very specifically argue what you do.
They specifically state that they don't hate gay people.

The may very well say this, but as evidenced from the GodHatesFags website that they run, I would say quite simply that they are being disingenuous.

22-04-2019 03:11PM

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It’s not some little technical cop out. The distinction between the humanity of individuals and the acts they commit is the whole crux of the issue. As soon as we start conflating the two, we can’t have a free society. I’m not hiding the ball here. I don’t have a deep seated hatred of gay people that getting out of having to admit to by some technicality. I do my very best not to hate people as a general rule.

This argument is not convincing. But it's neither here nor there.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I don’t believe that being gay is sinful.

So then if a person says that being gay is sinful, would you classify this as "homophobic" in the way we apply the word?
If not that, how would you describe it?

What if a person said something like "being gay causes a person and society harm"? Would this be homophobic?

How about the WBC? You seem to have missed my question regarding them:

So how can they be homophobic if they have biblical support and they don't "hate" gay people?
How are they different in this regard from you?

Sean.3516 · 22-04-2019 03:14PM

smacl wrote: »

This is a key point though. Proselytising clearly is Folau's thing. It is also the OP's thing, why else come on to an atheist forum to rant about the 'height of LGBT nonsense' in defense of religious homophobia. Holding a religious belief is a basic human right, even if it might be offensive to others. Broadcasting over social media that other people who do not share your belief will go to hell unless they change over to your way of thinking is something entirely different. Doing it as a person in the public eye who has already been warned not to do it by your employers will lose you that employment.

Folau’s religious belief differs from mine in that mine doesnt tell me to hate gay people.

However when you say that holding a belief is different from broadcasting it over social media, how is it exactly?

Are you saying he shouldnt be allowed or are you saying it’s wrong, yet he should be allowed

If you’re saying he shouldnt be then you’re acknowledging his right to hold a belief but denying his right to express it.

As much as I disagree with him, I think he has the right to express it.

splinter65 · 22-04-2019 03:16PM

batgoat wrote: »

Both you and Eagle being intentionally pedantic doesn't negate recognised the globally recognised definition.

Some background on the origin of the terms explains the rationale for it. No doubt you two will think that this is a part of some ridiculous gay agenda. But the reality is, there's no reasonable rationale to be either in fear or hold contempt towards gay people. The term also has never excluded religious beliefs as an example of homophobia.

How can it be “globally recognized” when about 1/2 the world thinks that gay people should be at the very least hidden away from the rest of humanity or at the worst thrown off a roof?

22-04-2019 03:16PM

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The may very well say this, but as evidenced from the GodHatesFags website that they run, I would say quite simply that they are being disingenuous.

But what about their position in particular is different from yours?
They state and argue they don't hate gay people.
They provide the biblical support for their position.

So by all rights, you guys should be stating they aren't homophobic...

But then, to avoid that, you are accusing them of being disingenuous and actually being homophobic because you don't accept their word or their definitions.

This is incredibly hypocritical.

Sean.3516 · 22-04-2019 03:27PM

King Mob wrote: »

But what about their position in particular is different from yours?
They state and argue they don't hate gay people.
They provide the biblical support for their position.

So by all rights, you guys should be stating they aren't homophobic...

But then, to avoid that, you are accusing them of being disingenuous and actually being homophobic because you don't accept their word or their definitions.

This is incredibly hypocritical.

I literally agree with you.

The reason I said they were being disingenuous is because they claim to hate the act and not the person and at the same time run a website called GodHatesFags.

Yes I believe they are homophobic

They might very well make the same arguments I do but I don’t run a website called GodHatesFags.

So one of us is homophobic and I’m pretty sure it’s not me.

22-04-2019 03:30PM

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I literally agree with you.

The reason I said they were being disingenuous is because they claim to hate the act and not the person and at the same time run a website called GodHatesFags.

Yes I believe they are homophobic

They might very well make the same arguments I do but I don’t run a website called GodHatesFags.

So one of us is homophobic and I’m pretty sure it’s not me.

Ah, so the only thing that separate your positions is that they use a slur and you don't?

That's not a good position to have...

(Also, fyi, they have a biblical justification for using that slur. So again, by the arguments given here that can't be homophobic either.)

Sean.3516 · 22-04-2019 03:36PM

King Mob wrote: »

This argument is not convincing. But it's neither here nor there.:

Well if you’re willing to be convinced why don’t you tell me the bits you have a problem with and I’ll adress them. I’m happy to be cross examined.

King Mob wrote: »

So then if a person says that being gay is sinful, would you classify this as "homophobic" in the way we apply the word?
If not that, how would you describe it?:

Yes I would classify it as homophobic.

King Mob wrote: »

What if a person said something like "being gay causes a person and society harm"? Would this be homophobic?:

Well since we’ve defined homophobia as basically a hatred or intolerance of gay people, then it’s unclear if this statement is homophobic. I would think it’s possible to hold the above view without hating or being intolerant of gays.

22-04-2019 03:46PM

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Well if you’re willing to be convinced why don’t you tell me the bits you have a problem with and I’ll adress them. I’m happy to be cross examined.

No, I don't think it's worth going into in this thread.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yes I would classify it as homophobic.

Then the statement made that kicked off this thread is homophobic.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Well since we’ve defined homophobia as basically a hatred or intolerance of gay people, then it’s unclear if this statement is homophobic. I would think it’s possible to hold the above view without hating or being intolerant of gays.

No, it's not possible to hold that view without hating or being intolerant of gay people.
Holding that view (especially in the light of the fact that it's not supported by anything at all) is hatred and intolerance of gay people along with a healthy dose of bigotry and prejudice.

In what way do you think that holding such a view is anything except homophobic?
Do you hold such a view?
If not, why not?

Sean.3516 · 22-04-2019 03:47PM

King Mob wrote: »

Ah, so the only thing that separate your positions is that they use a slur and you don't?
That's not a good position to have...

Well I’m taking the fact that they’re using a slur as evidence that they have deeper hatred for gay folks that I don’t.

What seperates us is that deeper hatred, not just the slur.

King Mob wrote: »

(Also, fyi, they have a biblical justification for using that slur. So again, by the arguments given here that can't be homophobic either.)

I’d honestly like to see what parts of the bible they’re using to justify that.

You keep on saying that because both myself and Westboro rely on the bible to justify our views that by my own standard, this means neither of us can be homophobic.
I never stipulated this point.
I think you actually have to correctly understand what the bible says before you use it to justify your views.
In other words, it’s possible to misread the bible or twist it’s words to suit an agenda.

smacl · 22-04-2019 03:52PM

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Folau’s religious belief differs from mine in that mine doesnt tell me to hate gay people.

However when you say that holding a belief is different from broadcasting it over social media, how is it exactly?

Are you saying he shouldnt be allowed or are you saying it’s wrong, yet he should be allowed

If you’re saying he shouldnt be then you’re acknowledging his right to hold a belief but denying his right to express it.

As much as I disagree with him, I think he has the right to express it.

Of course he has a right to express it, but in doing so he's showing himself to be an overly zealous religious homophobe which is clearly not compatible with his current job. Look at his instagram page for a moment from his employers point of view. Three hundred a fifty thousand followers, which are a result as much if the teams performance and corporate marketing effort as anything else, and he's telling a large number of them that 'Hell Awaits You!"
.

How many followers do you reckon he'll still have if he falls out of the limelight over this? You might not find what he's saying overly offensive but very many people clearly do. How would you feel if he was from another religion, say Islam, and the message read that all Christians will burn in hell unless they convert to Islam?

22-04-2019 03:59PM

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Well I’m taking the fact that they’re using a slur as evidence that they have deeper hatred for gay folks that I don’t.

What seperates us is that deeper hatred, not just the slur.

This is deeper hatred you are assuming based on very little to no facts.
You say you haven't even read their justification for why they use that slur, yet you are sure it's disingenuous.

Again, your position comes from a book that is from a deep hatred and caused a lot of deep hatred, including the one in the WBC.
I think that's evidence enough to your separation razor thin.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You keep on saying that because both myself and Westboro rely on the bible to justify our views that by my own standard, this means neither of us can be homophobic.
I never stipulated this point.

People here, arguing on your side, have claimed this.

To clarify, you believe that it is possible to hold a homophobic belief that is based on the bible? And that the basing a belief on the bible, doesn't prevent that belief from being homophobic?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I think you actually have to correctly understand what the bible says before you use it to justify your views.
In other words, it’s possible to misread the bible or twist it’s words to suit an agenda.

And there's tons of Christians out there who say the same about your interpretation that "gay acts" are sinful.
Your interpretation is not more correct than theirs or the WBC.

Sean.3516 · 22-04-2019 04:20PM

King Mob wrote: »

No, it's not possible to hold that view without hating or being intolerant of gay people.
Holding that view (especially in the light of the fact that it's not supported by anything at all) is hatred and intolerance of gay people along with a healthy dose of bigotry and prejudice.

Right,
Your position is that if someone believes that being gay is bad for the individual and society then they are homophobic, bigoted and prejudiced on the grounds that it is not supported by objective evidence.

(Reminder: we have defined homophobia as a hatred or intolerance of gay people.)

There is a logical leap here which need to be adressed:
Firstly, let’s assume that I believe being gay is in fact harmful for the individual and society.

I might believe this for a multiplicty of reasons. Maybe I believe being gay carries economic disadvantages, maybe I believe that being gay correlates with social problems like crime. Maybe I’m afraid gay folks by not behaving in a way concurrent with Christianity carries negative impacts on society. Maybe these views are supported by evidence, maybe they’re all complete rubbish. Maybe I’m stupid.

Let’s also assume I’m stupid and I have no evidence for any of these reasons that I believe being gay is harmful for the individual and society.

You’re position states that I hold these views and am therefore hateful and intolerant of gay people.

I could have held all those views and hated gay people and been intolerant of them, or I might not have. Those two are not mutually exclusive, nor are they synonumous. But you are ASSUMING that I held them because I have a hatred and intolerance of gay people. This is the fallacy in you’re argument.

And you know what ASSUME did?

It made an ASS out of U and ME.

batgoat · 22-04-2019 04:21PM

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Right,
Your position is that if someone believes that being gay is bad for the individual and society then they are homophobic, bigoted and prejudiced on the grounds that it is not supported by objective evidence.

(Reminder: we have defined homophobia as a hatred or intolerance of gay people.)

There is a logical leap here which need to be adressed:
Firstly, let’s assume that I believe being gay is in fact harmful for the individual and society.

I might believe this for a multiplicty of reasons. Maybe I believe being gay carries economic disadvantages, maybe I believe that being gay correlates with social problems like crime. Maybe I’m afraid gay folks by not behaving in a way concurrent with Christianity carries negative impacts on society. Maybe these views are supported by evidence, maybe they’re all complete rubbish. Maybe I’m stupid.

Let’s also assume I’m stupid and I have no evidence for any of these reasons that I believe being gay is harmful for the individual and society.

You’re position states that I hold these views and am therefore hateful and intolerant of gay people.

I could have held all those views and hated gay people and been intolerant of them, or I might not have. Those two are not mutually exclusive, nor are they synonumous. But you are ASSUMING that I held them because I have a hatred and intolerance of gay people. This is the fallacy in you’re argument.

And you know what ASSUME did?

It made an ASS out of U and ME.

If you believe it's damaging to the individual and society then you've got a pretty irrational fear... So you've answered your own question.

antiskeptic · 22-04-2019 04:22PM

smacl wrote: »

So a Christian isn't a 'real' Christian unless they support you very narrow minority interpretation of what it means to be a Christian?

No. There are plenty of christians as defined by born again/saved etc. who would interpret the bible on sin differnently than me. But born again/saved christians are comparatively fringe given the scale of cultural christianity

You're right, they're wrong, in something that is a matter made entirely of unsubstantiated belief?

Assuming for a moment anyone can ve right it can be me. As for substantiation, the offer remains open for substantiating your worldview (empiricism / rationalism).

How did robindch put it? Kettle, pot, black?

As said previously this is both a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy and an extreme case of confirmation bias.

You don't understand your fallacies very well. Since there can be christians as defined and people who aren't christians as define but who identify as christians prohibits a fallacy.

This version of Christianity that states that gay people must repent of suffer in hell for all eternity is clearly a religion of fear, hate and greed.

You don't need to confine things to gays. Its a religion of goodness resolving the problem of evil. And offers anyone who wants it a chance to escape it for free.

Its understandable that someone who doesnt recognize sin within will find it as you do.

Don't obey our rules and burn in hell, obey our rules and go to heaven.

There are no rules as such. Repent, yes. Be transformed as a result, yes. No rules (or else) to follow.

It is a fantastic con to manipulate the masses where their reward or punishment is conveniently promised post-mortem. Convenient because it demands a life time of obedience without actually returning anything tangible.

See above. As an aside, despite you having heard this from me dozens of times you continue to labour under the same old misunderstanding. That's strawmanning.

unsurprising that the vast bulk of Christians reject this and go for an interpretation of the religion that favours love and tolerance.

On the matters of gays or sinners in general. If the latter then do point me to this significant cohort by way of link.

22-04-2019 04:25PM

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I could have held all those views and hated gay people and been intolerant of them, or I might not have. Those two are not mutually exclusive, nor are they synonumous. But you are ASSUMING that I held them because I have a hatred and intolerance of gay people. This is the fallacy in you’re argument.

Cool. Is there any position that states "black people are harmful to themselves and society" that isn't racist?

Is it possible to adhere to that notion and not also be racist?

Sean.3516 · 22-04-2019 04:28PM

batgoat wrote: »

If you believe it's damaging to the individual and society then you've got a pretty irrational fear... So you've answered your own question.

The question was:
Is it possible to believe it’s harmful to the individual and society without having a hatred and intolerance of it.

I hold the exact same position when it comes to smoking weed. I fail to see how this is hard.

I never said I acutally believed it was harmful. I assumed it for the purpose of the thought experiment.

antiskeptic · 22-04-2019 04:29PM

"Slow down or your going to kill yourself or some pedestrian"

It would appear I'm fast motorcyclistphobic. And hate them.

Sean.3516 · 22-04-2019 04:29PM

King Mob wrote: »

Cool. Is there any position that states "black people are harmful to themselves and society" that isn't racist?

Is it possible to adhere to that notion and not also be racist?

Skin colour is an immutable characteristic.

Homosexual acts are voluntary activities that people choose to engage in.

(Even if being gay isnt voluntary)

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

Comments