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

Odhinn

antiskeptic wrote: »

Gay/Straight tend towards slang. The proper terms are homosexual and heterosexual.

What's offensive about homosex (given it's equivalent: heterosex?)?

Given the baiting manner with which you've employed it since objections were raised, I'd say you were well capable of answering your own question.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Gay/Straight tend towards slang. The proper terms are homosexual and heterosexual.

What's offensive about homosex (given it's equivalent: heterosex?)?

Because "hetero" hasn't been used as a slur. :rolleyes:

Why keep insisting on using it?

And just to confirm, you believe that it's just between two men and that lesbian sex is entirely ok?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's offensive about homosex (given it's equivalent: heterosex?)?

You might be aware that many of your fellow-religionists refer to homosexual men as "homos" and the open disgust and insulting tone conveyed that word can easily be found in the very similar word "homosex". There is no similar connotation to the term "hetero", as you know very well.

It's unclear to me why you're having such a hard time grasping what is, frankly, a fairly simple point.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Forgive the error. Since heterosex exists, it's not a stretch to assume homosex exists. Indeed, it won't be long now probably until it does. Equality drive being what it is.

Prejudicial. Show how.

Heterosex exists as a word in some dictionaries as a medical term, but it doesn't mean "the act of engaging in heterosexual intercourse" as you would seem to imply. It simply means "heterosexuality". So from Merriam-Webster we get

heterosex noun
het·ero·sex | \ ˈhet-ə-rō-ˌseks \
Medical Definition of heterosex
: HETEROSEXUALITY

If we the look at Heterosexuality we get

heterosexuality noun
het·ero·sex·u·al·i·ty | \ -sek-shə-ˈwal-ət-ē \
plural heterosexualities
Medical Definition of heterosexuality
: the quality or state of being heterosexual

So if we take the non-existent word "Homosex" as being its antonym, were it to exist it would mean "the quality or state of being homosexual". You seem a bit confused here.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

He's not commenting on the merits or otherwise of the legislation.

And this is the legislation that comes from God...
The thing he has to believe is inerrant and entirely just, who's words become law and define what is good and proper and righteous?

I'm sure he has no opinion on the legislation he has to pass on as God's minister for tourism....

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

It probably comes down to what language is - a system shared between individuals with differing beliefs concerning what exactly each word means, and what political implications arise from the use of each word, in the context within which each is used.

In the case of your use of the term "homosex", we have - for example - this post which ridicules your use of the term and a second post which informs you that it's a prejudicial term and requests, politely, that you don't use it.

From the perspective of forum moderation, I'm happy that fourteen of your fellow posters agreeing with the ridiculing amounts to fairly conclusive proof that the word doesn't mean what you claim it means.

It has been explained by me that homosex equates exactly with heterosex (both shortened version of homosexual sex and heterosexual sex, neither of which, I presume, are to be considered offensive terms).

Not a single word has been said by any of the 14 posters as to why they would find homosex offensive or prejudicial. Nothing to counter the fairly straightforward explanation above.

Perhaps you could update your faulty understanding of the word in the light of the reaction from your fellow posters?

Unlike yourself, I don't consider something proved conclusively just because 14 posters with generally opposing views to my own say (but cannot even begin to show) so. That would make something "faulty" by mere majority view. Heaven forbid!

But if the mod says so, then so be it.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

You might be aware that many of your fellow-religionists refer to homosexual men as "homos" and the open disgust and insulting tone conveyed that word can easily be found in the very similar word "homosex". There is no similar connotation to the term "hetero", as you know very well.

It's unclear to me why you're having such a hard time grasping what is, frankly, a fairly simple point.

I didn't consider it that way. Understood now. I will desist.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

It has been explained by me that homosex equates exactly with heterosex

And in the privacy of your own home, you can define and use words as you wish regardless of how they sound to everybody else.

Here in a public space, and in life generally, you'll find it useful to listen to people you're trying to have a conversation with. Conversation - unlike sermonizing - is a two-way street.

I'm happy to see that you've been able to take this point on board graciously.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

And this is the legislation that comes from God...
The thing he has to believe is inerrant and entirely just, who's words become law and define what is good and proper and righteous?

I'm sure he has no opinion on the legislation he has to pass on as God's minister for tourism....

This view arises, I think, from your cardboard cut out view of believers. Believers can't believe that God is unjust and unfair (they can). They can't get angry with God and curse him from a height (they can).

They can do this, whilst at the same time accepting that the lawgiver is the lawgiver and that whether they like it or not, understand it or not or agree with it or not, it is as it is.

Just like the dept of tourism.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

This view arises, I think, from your cardboard cut out view of believers. Believers can't believe that God is unjust and unfair (they can). They can't get angry with God and curse him from a height (they can).

And Folau said that... where?

Odhinn

antiskeptic wrote: »

This view arises, I think, from your cardboard cut out view of believers. Believers can't believe that God is unjust and unfair (they can). They can't get angry with God and curse him from a height (they can).

They can do this, whilst at the same time accepting that the lawgiver is the lawgiver and that whether they like it or not, understand it or not or agree with it or not, it is as it is.

Just like the dept of tourism.

Isn't there some admonishment for presuming to know the mind of God in the Bible...?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

It has been explained by me that homosex equates exactly with heterosex (both shortened version of homosexual sex and heterosexual sex, neither of which, I presume, are to be considered offensive terms).

But you've got your words wrong, that isn't what heterosex means and homosex isn't a word to begin with. Given that you've disparaged the terms 'gay sex' and 'straight sex' it seems disingenuous to then start using your own invented words that don't even mean what you imply they mean.

Not a single word has been said by any of the 14 posters as to why they would find homosex offensive or prejudicial. Nothing to counter the fairly straightforward explanation above.

Unlike yourself, I don't consider something proved conclusively just because 14 posters with generally opposing views to my own say (but cannot even begin to show) so. That would make something "faulty" by mere majority view. Heaven forbid!

But if the mod says so, then so be it.

I linked the urban dictionary entry, but given you clearly haven't bothered to read it here's the content you're implying

homosex
Sexual intercourse between two homo's
They had wild homosex last night while the cow said moo!

Referring to gay people as homo's is offensive as I'm sure you're aware. Perhaps an apology to the forum for you offensive ignorance might be in order?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

And Folau said that... where?

He doesn't have to say it.

You, in making the charge of hate speech are assuming your cardboard cut out version.

Imagine your the prosecutor and Folau is in the dock. The defence pull references from all over the place showing something quite other than the cardboard cut out version of Christianity you espouse.

You, in turn, pull out WBC, for example, to show how hate infiltrates the person.

The charge is innocent until proven guilty. You, the prosecutor, are in trouble.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

He doesn't have to say it.

Ok. So you are now arguing that he wasn't engaging in hate speech because it's not hate speech to say gay people will be tortured. You argue that he actually doesn't agree with his god (who he has to believe is all knowing and all good) and he doesn't believe that being gay or having sex with someone of the same sex is wrong. But he didn't say this as it was all obvious...

Right...

Oh speaking of WBC, didn't someone argue that they were obviously homophobic because they used a homophobic slur repeatedly and obviously...

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. So you are now arguing that he wasn't engaging in hate speech because it's not hate speech to say gay people will be tortured.

It's hate speech when it's shown to be hate speech. I've given well established, demonstrable context by way of defence.

You argue that he actually doesn't agree with his god

I haven't said whether or not he agrees (since I don't know what his view is). But believers certainly don't agree with God at every point/point in time. You can accept sovereignty (as one might with a forum mod) without agreeing on every point a mod makes

Calvinists have this problem with the sovereignty of God. They believe God predestines some people to salvation and others to damnation, without it having anything to do with the act or will of the person. This conflicts with a sense of what is just. But they accept the sovereignty of God even though they disagree that it's just as they understand justice.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Heterosex exists as a word in some dictionaries as a medical term, but it doesn't mean "the act of engaging in heterosexual intercourse" as you would seem to imply.

It seems it does mean the act of engaging in hetrosexual intercourse. In this case, heterosexual anal intercourse.

From the British Medical Journal

"Anal heterosex among young people and implications for health promotion: a qualitative study in the UK"

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/8/e004996

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's hate speech when it's shown to be hate speech. I've given well established, demonstrable context by way of defence.

No, you've desperately clutched at straws to try and justify hate speech.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I haven't said whether or not he agrees (since I don't know what his view is). But believers certainly don't agree with God at every point/point in time. You can accept sovereignty (as one might with a forum mod) without agreeing on every point a mod makes

So when god says that gay sex is wrong, you disagree with him?

eagle eye

antiskeptic wrote:

It has been explained by me that homosex equates exactly with heterosex (both shortened version of homosexual sex and heterosexual sex, neither of which, I presume, are to be considered offensive terms).

Why do you need to distinguish between two men, two women or a man and a woman having sex? It's just sex as long as it's consensual. Same as people ravng about racism when you call somebody black or brown. We don't need to use any terms. Just say your name and if you are a good guy that's fine and if you are an ahole then I want nothing to do with you. It's not about your skin colour, or sexual preferences or religion, it's just whether or not you are a good guy and a likeable person. It's become very evident to me that you are anti-gay or a windup merchant. You are coming up with ridiculous words just to try and upset people. Heterosex, homosex, stupid unnecessary words. It's just sex.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

No, you've desperately clutched at straws to try and justify hate speech.

You've suddenly departed from the notion of rigorous argument because of the trouble rigour causes you. M'lud, Prosecution is engaging in irrelevancies.

So when god says that gay sex is wrong, you disagree with him?

What I think is irrelevant to your charge against Folau. It's what he thinks that matters. Your charge, you sustain it ... against him.

(I have no problem outlining my view but to do so, with you, would be sure to produce misdirection on your part - such as you are likely to do with what I've said in these parentheses. Some other time, when we've dispensed with this particular case)

Jimmy_oc1998

ted1 wrote: »

He represents his club. Odds are there’s is s gay person in his team. He deserves what happened to him.

How odd! I don't see any players getting sacked for shagging their team mates wives or cheating on their missus?

So what if there's a guy on the team who is gay? Maybe there's an atheist or alcoholic on the team too yet all the outrage has been about the gay part of his post.

Jimmy_oc1998

King Mob wrote: »

That moral view being "Hey, maybe gay people don't deserve to be tortured forever and saying that they do is a bit not ok..."

But it's ok for atheists and drunks to be tortured? Because no one has mentioned the other part of his post, it's all been about gays.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've suddenly departed from the notion of rigorous argument because of the trouble rigour causes you. M'lud, Prosecution is engaging in irrelevancies.

No, just realised there was little point in addressing your argument when it became "He's god's department of tourism"

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I think is irrelevant to your charge against Folau. It's what he thinks that matters. Your charge, you sustain it ... against him.

(I have no problem outlining my view but to do so, with you, would be sure to produce misdirection on your part - such as you are likely to do with what I've said in these parentheses. Some other time, when we've dispensed with this particular case)

So then, no you don't disagree with him.

You are arguing that he couldn't possibly be using hate speech because he might disagree with the all knowing, all good, perfect creator he believes in. (A position you don't hold.)

I tell you what, if you can actually show that he every once said anything that could hint at this, then I'll grant you have a point.
If however he is like most christians, (Yourself included) then the assumption is he's in agreement with the all knowing perfect being he believes in.

Also, to clarify, all of these arguments apply just as well to the WBC. I can only assume you also don't think they engage in hate speech.

[Deleted User]

Jimmy_oc1998 wrote: »

But it's ok for atheists and drunks to be tortured? Because no one has mentioned the other part of his post, it's all been about gays.

He shouldn't have said it about either.
I specifically pointed out earlier in the thread that it is equally hateful if he is referring to alcoholics, but also stated that it was hard to tell if he meant people who drink to excess or people who just drink in general. "Drunks" is a very judgey, but vague term.

I don't think anyone here has claimed it was ok for him to say that about drunks or atheists.

What point are you trying to make exactly?

seamus

Jimmy_oc1998 wrote: »

But it's ok for atheists and drunks to be tortured? Because no one has mentioned the other part of his post, it's all been about gays.

Mainly because being gay is what someone is.

Being a drunk or an atheist (or an idolator or an adulterer or a heretic or a muslim or a christian) is a choice.

There is a hard and obvious line here that is drawn. But it can be missed if you're not thinking about it.

Disagreeing with, or hating other people for the choices they make in their own lives, is "fine". A complete waste of your energy, and absolutely none of your business, but whatevs.

Hating other people for what they are, for things which they cannot or did not choose, is not OK.

This is why he's getting pilloried for hating gay people. It's like hating people for being disabled. Or tall.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

No, just realised there was little point in addressing your argument when it became "He's god's department of tourism"

Whether the personnel of the dept of tourism in Brunei personally thinks the legislation is a good thing or not has nothing to do with their role as warning agents.

I'm sure you understand the division between duty to uphold/warn of the law as it is and the personal views of the upholder (whether pro or against the law)?

You are arguing that he couldn't possibly be using hate speech because he might disagree with the all knowing, all good, perfect creator he believes in.

You forget your role. You are the prosecutor. You have to overcome the problem that believers accept sovereignty (as a police officer upholds the law of the land) without necessarily either understanding why it is or agreeing with it themselves.

You have two problems:

- separation of duty and personal view

- demonstrating personal view is even in agreement with the law (lesser relevance given the above point)

antiskeptic

eagle eye wrote: »

Why do you need to distinguish between two men, two women or a man and a woman having sex? It's just sex as long as it's consensual. Same as people ravng about racism when you call somebody black or brown. We don't need to use any terms. Just say your name and if you are a good guy that's fine and if you are an ahole then I want nothing to do with you. It's not about your skin colour, or sexual preferences or religion, it's just whether or not you are a good guy and a likeable person. It's become very evident to me that you are anti-gay or a windup merchant. You are coming up with ridiculous words just to try and upset people. Heterosex, homosex, stupid unnecessary words. It's just sex.

The context was Brunei. Just sex doesn't work in that context since the sex is viewed differently.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whether the personnel of the dept of tourism in Brunei personally thinks the legislation is a good thing or not has nothing to do with their role as warning agents.

I'm sure you understand the division between duty to uphold/warn of the law as it is and the personal views of the upholder (whether pro or against the law)?

And that's a very silly argument.
One issue of it would be how there's so many different interpretations of that "legislation".
Some departments interpret it differently. Some interpret it to mean that you should shoot gay people on site. Others interpret it to mean that there is nothing at all different or wrong with gay people and you shouldn't do anything at all to them.

So there's some factor leading to people having different, and often diametrically opposed opinions on the legislation.
You have argued that that factor is people's personal interpretation of that legislation.
So if you and Forlau are concluding that the legislation means that gay people are going to be tortured, and others conclude otherwise, then than interpretation comes from you.
It's entirely personal. You just then also claim the authority from the legislation and declare other interpretations as invalid.

In the case where an actual government is actually persecuting gay people, there's only one interpretation of the legislation, that legistlation can be pointed to and it's set out in very clear terms.
Also, there's the fact that such legislation was put in place by a very clearly homophobic agenda and government.
So unless you're going to argue that God is also homophobic... It's not really comparable at all.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You have two problems:

- separation of duty and personal view

But you agree with god in that gay sex is wrong.
There's nothing to suggest that Forlau disagrees other than the slight possibility that he's a rare example of a christian who disagrees with his all knowing, all righteous creator. Nothing about Forlau's comments, current or previous, lead me or anyone to believe he is one of them.

It's a very silly straw you're clutching at.

Jimmy_oc1998

King Mob wrote: »

He shouldn't have said it about either.
I specifically pointed out earlier in the thread that it is equally hateful if he is referring to alcoholics, but also stated that it was hard to tell if he meant people who drink to excess or people who just drink in general. "Drunks" is a very judgey, but vague term.

I don't think anyone here has claimed it was ok for him to say that about drunks or atheists.

What point are you trying to make exactly?

Not a peep would have been said if he didn't have Gays in his list.

[Deleted User]

Jimmy_oc1998 wrote: »

Not a peep would have been said if he didn't have Gays in his list.

Ok.
I think that he should also be pulled up on his comments about alcoholics, but that's not as clear cut and alcoholics aren't a group of people who are commonly targeted for direct hatred, violence and persecution.

Still not seeing much of a point. Could you be a little more detailed and clear about what your issue is and who are you actually directing the point to?

Annasopra

antiskeptic wrote: »

No insult intended. In these fluid times some clarity is needed. Had I said a homosexual would be advised to refrain from sex on fear of stoning in Brunei, someone would have got on to say that a homosexual might well have hetrosex.

I'm at a loss as to why homosex would be considered insulting. Heterosex doesnt strike me as insulting either.

I dont have homosex. I have sex.