nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

antiskeptic

Haven't read the detail but in essence a rugby players career called a halt to because he said gays and various other sinners will go to hell.

Leaving aside his dodgy theology (if God was in the business of excluding sinners from heaven then nobody would "get there"), is this not a case of LGBT sensitivity gone mad?

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

I can understand that some in A&A might rejoice but surely many can see the deeper ramifications: that at another time and place, their own expression of belief might not be of the moment and be condemned for mere expression.

Thin end of a thick wedge, this one.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Again you’re entire argument relies on the assumption of hateful and intolerant intentions which you have no evidence I hold.

And the evidence you had that the WBC were homophobic?
You don't seem convinced when you were told they had a really really good biblical reason for using that slur and holding their position.
Yet, without looking into them at all, you declared them homophobic...

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.

So then why say that homosexuals are going to hell?
A straight person who has sex with another person of the same sex doesn't become gay.

And i thought the sin was that it was fornication, since it was sex out of wedlock.

Are we now saying the gay sex is it's own separate sin?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Wait! Can you read minds?

Nope, just experience in these types of religious mental gymnastics.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.

So how is this different to an outside observer than from them being equally valid?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Watch me.

Go ahead. I will take it just as seriously as when folks like the WBC declare it.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

Nope. Just unwilling to go down that bizarre rabbit hole with you.

eagle eye

King Mob wrote:

You are dodging the point. You have been shown exactly that.

Not by you. This was only out up recently. No mention of Corinthians there either which is clearly what Folau is referring to.

King Mob wrote:

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

As I said, no mention of Corinthians there and I'm not sure they would use it because it might just mean they are sinners themselves.

King Mob wrote:

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.

They are a pack of idiots at best and full of hate speech from what I can see.
Folau is nothing like these people.

Sean.3516

King Mob wrote: »

And the evidence you had that the WBC were homophobic.
You don't seem convinced when you were told they had a really really good biblical reason for using that slur and holding their position.
Yet, without lookign into them at all, you declared them homophobic...

Again you’ll have to explain to me why having a website called GodHatesFags is not homophobic.
I’ve actually read the bible and I’m pretty sure there’s no instruction to use that slur.

King Mob wrote: »

So then why say that homosexuals are going to hell?
A straight person who has sex with another person of the same sex doesn't become gay.

And i thought the sin was that it was fornication, since it was sex out of wedlock.

Are we now saying the gay sex is it's own separate sin?

I don’t say homosexuals go to hell for being homosexual. It’s the act that makes it a sin.

One could view sodomy as a subset of fornication.

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, just experience in these types of religious mental gymnastics.

So now you’re assuming that because other religious people you’ve encountered who have made my arguments were homophobes, that therefore I must also be a homophobe. You keep going with all these logical fallacies. It means I don’t have to work too hard.

King Mob wrote: »

So how is this different to an outside observer than from them being equally valid?

to the outside observer, it’s meaningless since they don’t accept either of our premises.

[Deleted User]

eagle eye wrote: »

Not by you. This was only out up recently.

That makes it invalid...?

eagle eye wrote: »

No mention of Corinthians there either which is clearly what Folau is referring to.

As I said, no mention of Corinthians there and I'm not sure they would use it because it might just mean they are sinners themselves.

Um... where does Folau reference corinthians, first off?
Second, the same passage still supports them both.
Third:
Here's their FAQ. It's disgusting. I tried to find some choice specific quotes but got too depressed reading it.
They lay out all of their biblical references that support their positions. They are numerous.

I think the slogan in the top left corner is particularly interesting.

eagle eye wrote: »

They are a pack of idiots at best and full of hate speech from what I can see.
Folau is nothing like these people.

But they are supported by the bible. All of their positions are bible based.
Are you saying that it's possible to do hate speech even if it's supported by the bible?
If so, then your argument falls apart.

eagle eye

King Mob wrote:

But they are supported by the bible. All of their positions are bible based. Are you saying that it's possible to do hate speech even if it's supported by the bible? If so, then your argument falls apart.

It's not reasonably supported by the bible. Sure some of it us but they've added to it which means it's not supported by the bible.

The below appears to me what Folau is using from Corinthians,

'Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)'

[Deleted User]

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Again you’ll have to explain to me why having a website called GodHatesFags is not homophobic.
I’ve actually read the bible and I’m pretty sure there’s no instruction to use that slur.

I'm not saying it's not homophobic. It is very homophobic.

However I am pointing out that they have a biblical argument for using it.
This doesn't convince me, as the bible is not a valid source for an argument of that nature.

You seem to just dismiss it out of hand without even knowing what it is, and thus conclude that they are being homophobic.

Yet, had I done this with your arguments and position...

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I don’t say homosexuals go to hell for being homosexual. It’s the act that makes it a sin.

One could view sodomy as a subset of fornication.

So, why single out homosexuals?
Is it just sodomy that is a gay act, or are other sexual acts between two people of the same gender also "gay acts"
How about been two women?
What about sodomy with a married couple?

Why not just allow gay people to be married and skip over the whole sin entirely?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

So now you’re assuming that because other religious people you’ve encountered who have made my arguments were homophobes, that therefore I must also be a homophobe. You keep going with all these logical fallacies. It means I don’t have to work too hard.

Where did I say you were a homophobe?

My point was that you base your position on the bible.
The bible is inherently homophobic (among other things) hence your position is based on hatred and intolerance, just not your personal hatred or intolerance.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

to the outside observer, it’s meaningless since they don’t accept either of our premises.

So to an outside observer, they are equally valid.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

Nope. Just unwilling to go down that bizarre rabbit hole with you.

You appear more than willing. Every time you say the religious faith position has no objective substantiation.

Bewilderingly, you appear to exclude your own faith position in this.

Convenient. But bewildering.

smacl

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.

Hate is incredibly easily stirred and causes immense damage. Those that purposefully incite it for any reason are every bit as guilty as those who act on it. Compassion, compromise and understanding take quite a bit more work. This is the underlying aim of secularism as I understand it. Religion and absolutism struggle with compromise, to their collective loss. Society less so.

antiskeptic

KingMob wrote:

This doesn't convince me, as the bible is not a valid source for an argument of that nature.

What is a valid source? And by which means is it's validity objectively established?

eagle eye

King Mob wrote:

However I am pointing out that they have a biblical argument for using it. This doesn't convince me, as the bible is not a valid source for an argument of that nature.

You see here is the key point. You are obviously not religious like myself but not believing is a belief of sorts and all that goes with it.
A person who believes in God fully believes the teachings in the bible are the way to live life. You have to accept that they'll have many views that differ to your views. As I've said all along I don't agree with Folau's views but he is entitled to have them and preach them.

[Deleted User]

eagle eye wrote: »

It's not reasonably supported by the bible. Sure some of it us but they've added to it which means it's not supported by the bible.

What do you mean by "reasonably" supported.

This is just blatant moving of the goalposts.

eagle eye wrote: »

The below appears to me what Folau is using from Corinthians,

'Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)'

http://www.godhatesfags.com/faq.html

What does the bible say about gender and sexual relations?

At the beginning, God made them male and female. If He made you a male, then you are a male. If He made you a female, then you are a female. Transgender rebellion is a sin against God.

Jesus defined the only acceptable sexual relationship as that between one man and one woman for one lifetime, in the bond of marriage. No homosexuality; no bisexuality; no pansexuality; no premarital sex; no extramarital sex - everything else is a sin.

See also Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:24, Romans 1:24-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-20, 1 Corinthians 10:8, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8, 1 Timothy 1:9-11, and Jude 7.

There you go.
There they are, using exactly the same biblical reference.

So either, they are bigots and your argument is nonsense.
Or you are about to defend them.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Convenient. But bewildering.

A familiar and completely discredited trope which you've been rolling out for years whenever the going gets a little sticky - like a leaky bladder on a stick which you try to honk from time to time to distract the audience from the fact that your debating trousers are down around your ankles again :rolleyes:

FYI - not believing stories is different from believing stories.

By your own splendidly flaky logic, you've proved (indeed, you also assume), that all beliefs are created equal - and therefore, that christianity is no more believable than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

In this, we can certainly agree.

[Deleted User]

eagle eye wrote: »

You see here is the key point. You are obviously not religious like myself but not believing is a belief of sorts and all that goes with it.
A person who believes in God fully believes the teachings in the bible are the way to live life. You have to accept that they'll have many views that differ to your views. As I've said all along I don't agree with Folau's views but he is entitled to have them and preach them.

And where have I once argued that he wasn't entitled to have them or preach them?
I'm just arguing that we should and should be allowed to call it what it is.
Hate.

eagle eye

King Mob wrote:

There you go. There they are, using exactly the same biblical reference.

So either, they are bigots and your argument is nonsense. Or you are about to defend them.

They have no quotes to support their position. I'm not defending them.
I'm saying that Israel Folau has a right to air his views and that they are not homophobic or hate speech and that's by any definition if homophobic.

[Deleted User]

eagle eye wrote: »

They have no quotes to support their position.

I just posted the exact quote to you.
I showed you exactly where on their own site they specifically pointed to the exact passage you just asked for.

This is just bizarre now...

Here it is again in case somehow you missed it:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/faq.html

What does the bible say about gender and sexual relations?

At the beginning, God made them male and female. If He made you a male, then you are a male. If He made you a female, then you are a female. Transgender rebellion is a sin against God.

Jesus defined the only acceptable sexual relationship as that between one man and one woman for one lifetime, in the bond of marriage. No homosexuality; no bisexuality; no pansexuality; no premarital sex; no extramarital sex - everything else is a sin.

See also Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:24, Romans 1:24-32, >>>>1 Corinthians 6:9-20<<<<, 1 Corinthians 10:8, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8, 1 Timothy 1:9-11, and Jude 7.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Convenient. But bewildering.

A familiar and completely discredited trope which you've been rolling out for years whenever the going gets a little sticky - like a leaky bladder on a stick which you try to honk from time to time to distract the audience from the fact that your debating trousers are down around your ankles again :rolleyes:

FYI - not believing stories is different from believing stories.

By your own splendidly flaky logic, you've proved (indeed, you also assume), that all beliefs are created equal - and therefore, that christianity is no more believable than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

In this, we can certainly agree.

The story I had in mind was empiricism macht frei. In it you most sincerely trust.

WinnyThePoo

eagle eye wrote: »

King Mob wrote:

There you go. There they are, using exactly the same biblical reference.

So either, they are bigots and your argument is nonsense. Or you are about to defend them.

They have no quotes to support their position. I'm not defending them.
I'm saying that Israel Folau has a right to air his views and that they are not homophobic or hate speech and that's by any definition if homophobic.

And we've read your views. Yours views are incorrect. You can try as much as you can, it doesn't change folaus stupidity(and the stupidity of people defending his stupidity).

splinter65

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

And we've read your views. Yours views are incorrect. You can try as much as you can, it doesn't change folaus stupidity(and the stupidity of people defending his stupidity).

Hard Left wing bigotry in one sentence, 4 words . “Your views are incorrect”. It can’t be any more blatant then that.

eagle eye

WinnyThePoo wrote:

And we've read your views. Yours views are incorrect. You can try as much as you can, it doesn't change folaus stupidity(and the stupidity of people defending his stupidity).

No your views are incorrect.

eagle eye

King Mob wrote:

Here it is again in case somehow you missed it:

They just throw up references to quotes which don't prove their points. Nowhere do they show the quotes and explain how they are reason for their beliefs.

WinnyThePoo

splinter65 wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

And we've read your views. Yours views are incorrect. You can try as much as you can, it doesn't change folaus stupidity(and the stupidity of people defending his stupidity).

Hard Left wing bigotry in one sentence, 4 words . “Your views are incorrect”. It can’t be any more blatant then that.

Laughable. Hard left left lol.

WinnyThePoo

eagle eye wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote:

And we've read your views. Yours views are incorrect. You can try as much as you can, it doesn't change folaus stupidity(and the stupidity of people defending his stupidity).

No your views are incorrect.

Swing and a miss.

I, and like the rest of the adults have had to read you and your buddies try and redefine what homophobia, screech 'free speech' (without having a clue about consequences to free speech) and just general nonsense.

eagle eye

WinnyThePoo wrote:

Swing and a miss

I, and like the rest of the adults have had to read you and your buddies try and redefine what homophobia, screech 'free speech' (without having a clue about consequences to free speech) and just general nonsense.

Well you haven't read many of my posts so.
I'm all for free speech and then conversation. You can change minds through conversation. You won't change minds by trying to make the world a place where you better not dare say that. All that achieves is forcing people underground and their kids turn into real haters, some of whom become active in vicious ways.

WinnyThePoo

eagle eye wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote:

Swing and a miss

I, and like the rest of the adults have had to read you and your buddies try and redefine what homophobia, screech 'free speech' (without having a clue about consequences to free speech) and just general nonsense.

Well you haven't read many of my posts so.
I'm all for free speech and then conversation. You can change minds through conversation. You won't change minds by trying to make the world a place where you better not dare say that. All that achieves is forcing people underground and their kids turn into real haters, some of whom become active in vicious ways.

I've read your posts from the beginning. Nonsense from the beginning.

You and your buddies have tried and failed at redefining homophobia.

Fair play to the poster's replying to this nonsense.

[Deleted User]

eagle eye wrote: »

They just throw up references to quotes which don't prove their points. Nowhere do they show the quotes and explain how they are reason for their beliefs.

Lol.
I just pointed out exactly where they do that.
The section I quoted specifically is them explaining their position then using many quotes from the bible to support it.

Where exactly did Folau do all of that? Post the link please.

This honestly has to to be one of the most desperate tactics I've seen...

eagle eye

WinnyThePoo wrote:

I've read your posts from the beginning. Nonsense from the beginning.
You and your buddies have tried and failed at redefining homophobia.
Fair play to the poster's replying to this nonsense.

I've no buddies posting on this site let alone this thread
I'm a calm, happy person IRL, lots of good friends both hetero and homo.
I also have friends who are religious and I respect that even though I'm not.
The biggest difference between me and you and your cronies is that I'm open about things and willing to.listen and try to change a person's opinion through conversation.
You are just hanging out waiting for any opportunity to shout at somebody who is politically incorrect in your mind and then shout and shout all day long until your throat can't take it anymore. Take a few days off then and back at again and again. It's a sad life, I pity you.

eagle eye

King Mob wrote:

Lol. I just pointed out exactly where they do that. The section I quoted specifically is them explaining their position then using many quotes from the bible to support it.
Where exactly did Folau do all of that? Post the link please.
This honestly has to to be one of the most desperate tactics I've seen...

I've grown tired if this rubbish.
I have no interest in a stupid church like that. I don't see where you are trying to go with it.
I've made it very clear what my stance is on things, both Folau and that stupid church.
Enough is enough.
If you are not happy with my view so be it. I'm not going to change my mind about things.

[Deleted User]

eagle eye wrote: »

I've grown tired if this rubbish.
I have no interest in a stupid church like that. I don't see where you are trying to go with it.
I've made it very clear what my stance is on things, both Folau and that stupid church.
Enough is enough.
If you are not happy with my view so be it. I'm not going to change my mind about things.

Lol.
I brought them up to illustrate how silly your point was.
There are plenty of people out ther who are bigoted hateful and intolerant. The fact they claim and/or have biblical support doesn't stop them from being hateful or intolerant or in this case homophobic.
You claim that Folau cant be homophobic/hateful/whatever as he is only stating what the bible says.
Despite your very lame and desperate denial and deflection, the WBC are doing exactly the same. They use the exact same passage to support their beliefs about gay people as you said supported Folau. They use other passages to suport the same thing. They use other passages to support their other beliefs. They actually do explain how those passages support their beliefs contray to your bizarre claim they don't. Folau does not.
They share the same belief on gay people and use the same support. The only difference is that the WBCs hatred is more overt and more difficult to excuse and hand wave away.

You cannot dismiss the WBC as the bigots they are while also saying theres no way Folau can be intolerant because he has biblical support. Its a contradiction to do so. Hence why youve dodged and ignored, tried desperately to pretend you werent given evidence you asked for and now why you are trying to back away from the point.

Having biblical support does not preclude you or your views from being bigoted/hateful/homophobic/whatever.

WinnyThePoo

eagle eye wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote:

I've read your posts from the beginning. Nonsense from the beginning.
You and your buddies have tried and failed at redefining homophobia.
Fair play to the poster's replying to this nonsense.

I've no buddies posting on this site let alone this thread
I'm a calm, happy person IRL, lots of good friends both hetero and homo.
I also have friends who are religious and I respect that even though I'm not.
The biggest difference between me and you and your cronies is that I'm open about things and willing to.listen and try to change a person's opinion through conversation.
You are just hanging out waiting for any opportunity to shout at somebody who is politically incorrect in your mind and then shout and shout all day long until your throat can't take it anymore. Take a few days off then and back at again and again. It's a sad life, I pity you.

Hahaha

You have to spent days on here trying to redefine what homophobia is. You have failed,though you never had a logical boot to stand on.

For the most you and the other 'homophobia redefiners' posts are read as satire, how can they not be.