Sean.3516 wrote: » 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.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Skin colour is an immutable characteristic. Homosexual acts are voluntary activities that people choose to engage in. (Even if being gay isnt voluntary)
King Mob wrote: » This is deeper hatred you are assuming based on very little to no facts.
King Mob wrote: » 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.
King Mob wrote: » 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?
King Mob wrote: » 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.
King Mob wrote: » Being gay isn't voluntary. There's no "even if" about it. You have also avoided answering the question directly. Please try again: 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?
batgoat wrote: » Eh, so if you hypothetically have an assumption that results in an irrational fear that gay people damage themselves and society. This is not based in fact and the viewpoint is very much so homophobic.
Sean.3516 wrote: » So what are you assuming it based on then? You obviously believe Westboro is homophobic. I don’t see the purpose of arguing this when we both agree Westboro is homophobic.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
Sean.3516 wrote: » They have the right to believe my interpretation is wrong and sinful. I have the right to believe their interpretation is wrong and homophobic.
Sean.3516 wrote: » To answer the question, yes it is rascist. And I went back to edit my post immediately after posting it to insert in brackets that being gay isnt voluntary.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Myself and King Mob were working from the definition of homophobia as: hatred and intolerance of gays, Not the irrational fear definition some people have put forward.
batgoat wrote: » Homophobia can display itself in numerous ways, it can be outright hatred, fear or prejudice etc. Even included a detailed explanation of how the word came about a few weeks back. That did in part relate to irrational fear. I doubt King Mob would disagree and you seem more intent on misrepresentation of the meaning.
Sean.3516 wrote: » 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.
robindch wrote: » Again for the avoidance of doubt, that means that phrases like "I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong" are well within forum rules, while phrases like "Death to gays" are well outside and will be dealt with firmly. Thoughts between these two extremes will be dealt with on an instance-by-instance basis with the presumption that posters are representing their views accurately and intend to manifest no hatred towards their fellow humans.
King Mob wrote: » I, and most rational people, believe that distinguishing between the sin and the sinner is an empty meaningless position.
King Mob wrote: » Further, claims that gay people are sinning for being gay is hateful.
King Mob wrote: » And then theres the fact that believing that gay people will receive torture and deserve it is also pretty hateful.
King Mob wrote: » Again, their beliefs are homophobic for the same reasons yours are.
King Mob wrote: » Then you are in disagreement with many of the people on your side in this thread.
King Mob wrote: » And this looks exactly like you can interpret the bible to mean what ever you'd like, thus it isn't a very good reason to hold homophobic views... You can just interpret it differently so being gay isn't a sin.
DubInMeath wrote: » If being gay is natural as you now state as it's not a voluntarily decision, and sex is a natural act, gay sex is also natural. Unless of course you believe all sex is sinful.
King Mob wrote: » Ok. So how can a position that is inherently racist for one group of people suddenly become not hateful for another group of people. How does there being "gay acts" make it not hateful? If someone invented the notion of "black acts" would it make the other position not racist? Could you define what exactly you mean by "Homosexual acts".
Sean.3516 wrote: » This position is one of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity. When I made this point earlier you said you had no intention of getting into the weeds of theological debate. You said it wasnt appropriate for this thread and We both agreed to leave it aside. So why are you bringing it back up now?
Sean.3516 wrote: » It’s not necessarily hateful to believe that sinning in this world will have reprucussions in the next world. In fact the focus of Christianity is salvation. Trying to ensure people don’t have to be punished in the next world, but alas we must avoid the theology.
Sean.3516 wrote: » We agreed on a definition of what homophobic beliefs are and I explained to you that those were not my beliefs. Unless you would now like to revise the definition we agreed upon and which this entire debate has been based on, then I’d say that’s a dishonest argument.
Sean.3516 wrote: » I conceeded others have the right to interpret the bible in way that differ from my own. But I never conceeded that their interpretations are correct.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Show me where in the Bible it states that the natural predispositions of human beings should be followed.
In medieval Europe, homosexuality was considered sodomy and it was punishable by death. Persecutions reached their height during the Medieval Inquisitions, when the sects of Cathars and Waldensians were accused of fornication and sodomy, alongside accusations of Satanism. In 1307, accusations of sodomy and homosexuality were major charges leveled during the Trial of the Knights Templar. The theologian Thomas Aquinas was influential in linking condemnations of homosexuality with the idea of natural law, arguing that "special sins are against nature, as, for instance, those that run counter to the intercourse of male and female natural to animals, and so are peculiarly qualified as unnatural vices."
Sean.3516 wrote: » It’s racist and bigoted to say that being black is harmful to the individual and society. It would be homophobic to say that being gay is harmful to the individual and society It’s not necesarily bigoted or homophobic to say that homosexual acts are harmful to the individual and society. I said that being black is an immutable characteristic, so is being gay. But gay acts are voluntary
Varta wrote: » He said that gay people will go to a place that doesn't exist, so they have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Sean.3516 wrote: » For example: human males like males of most species are evolved to inseminate as many females as they can. Yet Christianity states you’re only supposed to have sex with one woman in the confines of marriage.
smacl wrote: » If you state being gay is harmful for the individual and society you've made an assertion that demands hard objective support if it is to have any merit. Note that saying 'because the bible said so' or 'because the Koran said so' is not objective, it is subjective and lacks any rational support. If this is the best you can come up with your statement amounts to nothing more than bigoted religious homophobia.
smacl wrote: » Let's flip the argument for a moment. Say I was to state that being a Christian is harmful for the individual and society. For the individual as they're clearly living a lie, and for society because their church was hateful and bigoted. Now say I was a sportsman on the national team and broadcast this on public media. Would you take offense? Would you be upset if I lost my job if I did this against the repeated warnings of my employer to desist? Cynically, I rather doubt it.
smacl wrote: » This is where secularism comes in. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. You can believe what you like but you can't tell me what to believe.
smacl wrote: » You most certainly can't condemn a minority based on your theology.
King Mob wrote: So for the umpteenth time: are their views of gay people hateful? Bigoted? Acceptable? What makes their claims and beliefs invalid that doesnt apply to your guy?
eagle eye wrote: » You haven't shown me any examples of what they have said and the quotes from the bible they use to support this views.
King Mob wrote: » You asked me for the reason why I don't buy the WBC's bull**** about why they aren't homophobic. That's part of the reason.
King Mob wrote: » Saying some one will be tortured for who they are or a circumstance of their birth is hateful. Saying someone will be tortured for engaging in an act linked to the circumstance of their birth, which does not harm anyone and is only considered wrong for arbitrary and supernatural reasons is a round about way of being hateful.
King Mob wrote: » Again, you believe that your position isn't based on hate or intolerance. I think otherwise.
King Mob wrote: » And to an outside obverser, if two people can have equally valid, but completely incompatible interpretations about something, and neither can show either interpretation has a grounding in reality... it looks like neither is true.
King Mob wrote: » You can't just declare all different interpretations of the bible are wrong and yours correct. And you certainly can't do so without bringing your own interpretation into doubt.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Well, you shouldn’t, but I also happen to be a free speech absolutist, so I wouldnt argue that you can’t.
smacl wrote: » It's not biblical AFAIK, it comes from Thomas Aquinas (source),
Yes religion is based in faith.
smacl wrote: » Probably the only point we've a real difference of opinion on so. Free speech in my books needs to be accompanied by tolerance and compassion. I fully support incitement to hatred as a serious crime and shy away from absolutism of all kinds. An absolutist position from the outset is rigid says that you're not listening to the other voice, you're simply pushing your own message. For example, if you look at internet bullying and increasing levels of teen suicide that result, it could all be defended as free speech. We need to consider the harm in what we say might cause. Folau is a good example here, best intentions and blind faith that can lead to considerable harm to many.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Yes, Thomas Aquinas elucidates on this, but it does ultimately come from the bible: Some humans have a natural inclination to be gay,this has been true for virtually all human history. The Bible forbids this. Therefore certain natural inclinations may be forbidden by christianity. Aquinas didnt invent the concept, he simply explicated on it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
