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…2223252728…54

Comments

  • #722
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    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.

    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.


  • #723
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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)
    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?


  • #724
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    King Mob wrote: »
    This is deeper hatred you are assuming based on very little to no facts.
    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.
    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.
    I thought you werent interested in arguing theology.
    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?
    Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
    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.

    They have the right to believe my interpretation is wrong and sinful.

    I have the right to believe their interpretation is wrong and homophobic.


  • #725
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    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?

    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.


  • #726
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    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.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #727
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.
    I, and most rational people, believe that distinguishing between the sin and the sinner is an empty meaningless position.
    Further, claims that gay people are sinning for being gay is hateful.
    And then theres the fact that believing that gay people will receive torture and deserve it is also pretty hateful.

    Again, their beliefs are homophobic for the same reasons yours are.
    I don't think there is a justifiable or innocent way to hold them.
    Sean.3516 wrote: »
    Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
    Then you are in disagreement with many of the people on your side in this thread.
    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.
    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.


  • #728
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,583 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.
    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.


  • #729
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    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.

    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.


  • #730
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.
    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".


  • #731
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.
    I do not disagree.

    I am only using that specific cut down definition to spare us from pedantry.


  • Advertisement
  • #732
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mod note:

    A number of posters have reported posts for "homophobia" in various forms and manifested in various ways.

    For the avoidance of doubt, forum rules don't prohibit - nor could they - individual posters from hating homosexuality, or hating people who practice homosexuality, or hating people who support people who do not hate homosexuality, or hating people who support people who practice homosexuality - and so on for these and the many other variations which come under the umbrella term "homophobia".

    What posters are not permitted to do, is manifest homophobia in the general sense.

    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.


  • #733
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,919 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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. You most certainly can't condemn a minority based on your theology.


  • #734
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,919 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    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.

    How about 'Homosexuals, Hell Awaits You! Repent!'? Asking for a friend...


  • #735
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    King Mob wrote: »
    I, and most rational people, believe that distinguishing between the sin and the sinner is an empty meaningless position.
    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?

    King Mob wrote: »
    Further, claims that gay people are sinning for being gay is hateful.
    Again, I’ve consistently agreed with you on this.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And then theres the fact that believing that gay people will receive torture and deserve it is also pretty hateful.
    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.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, their beliefs are homophobic for the same reasons yours are.
    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.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Then you are in disagreement with many of the people on your side in this thread.

    So?

    Do I seem like a fellow that’s adverse to disagreement?
    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.

    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.


  • #736
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    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.

    Show me where in the Bible it states that the natural predispositions of human beings should be followed.

    The opposite of this is literally the whole idea of christianity.

    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.


  • #737
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    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".

    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


  • #738
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Again, you believe that your position isn't based on hate or intolerance.
    I think otherwise.

    You were quick to assume that the WBC was basing their position on such hate and intolerance without even looking into their biblical reasoning.
    So...
    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.
    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.

    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.
    If the WBC's version of the bible is wrong, then yours can be too.
    I don't think there's much difference.


  • #739
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,919 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Sean.3516 wrote: »
    Show me where in the Bible it states that the natural predispositions of human beings should be followed.

    It's not biblical AFAIK, it comes from Thomas Aquinas (source),
    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."


  • #740
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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
    Ok.
    First, define a gay act.

    Is it just "sex with a person of the same sex"?
    If so, how can you say such a thing is harmful to a person or a society?


  • #741
    stefanovich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Varta wrote: »
    He said that gay people will go to a place that doesn't exist, so they have absolutely nothing to worry about.

    You should lock up all Christians and Muslim's now for thought crime.. They all think exactly this and only the expression of this belief is not allowed.


  • Advertisement
  • #742
    stefanovich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    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.

    We have complex society where we need families, not single mothers.


  • #743
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    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.
    The key phrase here is “if it is to have any merit”. I never stated that there was merit to this belief. The belief having merit isnt a prerequisite to holding the belief. Again you are making the same logical leap by assuming that anyone who holds this belief does so because they have a hatred and intolerance of gays. You shouldnt assume mal-intent by the other person simply due to lack of good evidence for their belief. I would suggest perhaps asking the person why they believe what they believe and if their intentions turn out to be homophobic then you can condemn them.

    One of the problems with discourse today is that we will be quick to attribute mal-intent instead of sheer stupidity when stupidity is actually far more common.


    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.

    My happiness is not contingent on this person’s approval of my religion, so no I wouldnt be upset. The person has every right to believe that. If they’re still good at scoring trys, I’d see no reason for them to be fired.
    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.
    Now you’re talking my language.
    smacl wrote: »
    You most certainly can't condemn a minority based on your theology.
    Well, you shouldn’t, but I also happen to be a free speech absolutist, so I wouldnt argue that you can’t.


  • #744
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,640 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    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?
    You haven't shown me any examples of what they have said and the quotes from the bible they use to support this views.


  • #745
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.
    You are dodging the point.
    You have been shown exactly that.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109991272&postcount=666

    I've further REPEATEDLY told you, the same passage you claimed supports your guy's position ALSO supports their position.

    That is all you are going to get until you actually engage further the the points you've been presented with.

    If you are unwilling to do that, then your position has been shown to be flawed and hypocritical.
    You know the WBC is intolerant and hateful. You know they are just a supported by the bible. Your argument that you can't be intolerant and hateful if your claims had biblical support is shown to be contradictory.


  • #746
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    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.
    I asked you for a reason because I was perplexed as to why you unlike me needed more evidence than their use of term GodHatesFags to know they were homophobic.
    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.
    Again you’re entire argument relies on the assumption of hateful and intolerant intentions which you have no evidence I hold.

    It doesnt matter that the action was linked to the circumstances of birth if the action and the consequences of the action are the same regardless of circumstance of birth. ie. if a man born straight suddenly started do gay acts, it’s no less sinful than a guy who was born gay doing it.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, you believe that your position isn't based on hate or intolerance.
    I think otherwise.
    Wait! Can you read minds?

    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.
    I never said both could be equally valid. Obviously the validity of one excludes the validity of the other. Yes religion is based in faith. I can’t prove my interpretation is the valid one. But my faith assumes so and excludes the validity of Westboro’s just as their faith assumes theirs is valid, excluding mine.
    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.

    Watch me.


  • #747
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,919 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    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.

    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.


  • #748
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    smacl wrote: »
    It's not biblical AFAIK, it comes from Thomas Aquinas (source),

    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.


  • #749
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Yes religion is based in faith.

    As is KingMob's empiricist/rationalist worldview, its worth noting.

    Things go remarkably silent when an empirical proof for the belief that empiricism is the root of all truth is requested.


  • #750
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    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.


    Well, when we talk about incitement to violence, it’s not actually the speech that there’s a problem with. It’s that there is a call to action there when you call for violence that has extranalities for other people that extend beyond speech. This is why incitement to violence is banned in most countries and isnt an actual abridgement to free speech.

    I don’t believe in incitement to hatred laws because hate is an emotion and emotions shouldnt be criminalised and a human can never be completely responsible for how other human feel.


  • Advertisement
  • #751
    stefanovich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    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.

    You start with the presumption that homosexuality is a static state rather than a disordered state.


Advertisement