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

Jimmy_oc1998

King Mob wrote: »

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?

My point is that this is all just a money decision made because sponsors would pull funding due to the twitter mob abusing them.

Hate speech is hate speech whether there's a history of hatred or not.

[Deleted User]

Jimmy_oc1998 wrote: »

My point is that this is all just a money decision made because sponsors would pull funding due to the twitter mob abusing them.

Hate speech is hate speech whether there's a history of hatred or not.

Ok, and who is arguing for the converse?
I just told you that I think the other examples are hate speech.

I also explained a reason why the "twitter mob" was "abusing" sponsors: There is a long history of hatred against gay people.

Are you arguing that he didn't engage in hate speech? That he shouldn't have lost his job?

Mark Hamill

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.

From Folau's self written article explaining his views on sin and homosexuality:

I was asked a question by somebody about what God’s plan is for gay people.

My response to the question is what I believe God’s plan is for all sinners, according to my understanding of my Bible teachings, specifically 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10:

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 the drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I do not know the person who asked the question, but that didn’t matter. I believed he was looking for guidance and I answered him honestly and from the heart. I know a lot of people will find that difficult to understand, but I believe the Bible is the truth and sometimes the truth can be difficult to hear.

I have faith that God’s path is the right one and that path is outlined in the Bible

I trust that [GOD] knows what is best for me. He knows the future. He knows how it is all meant to play out.

Not really seeing any disagreement with God here.

smacl

Jimmy_oc1998 wrote: »

My point is that this is all just a money decision made because sponsors would pull funding due to the twitter mob abusing them.

Hate speech is hate speech whether there's a history of hatred or not.

There's a bit more to it than that. Most large sporting bodies have policies of inclusivity where discrimination on grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation are very clearly prohibited. For private clubs that don't have such rules, sponsorship is an issue, but that's because the sponsors in turn make their money from Joe public who also want their sports to be inclusive. If the public didn't care, the sponsors wouldn't either, but the public clearly does. If Folau wants to make a point of being a religiously homophobic bigot after being repeatedly asked not to, that's his choice, but he's seriously limiting his prospects of playing at a high level again in doing so. Maybe he should convert to Islam and see if Brunei are hiring

Bannasidhe

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont have homosex. I have sex.

Me too.
But with a different gender to you.

eagle eye

Bannasidhe wrote:

Me too. But with a different gender to you.

How do you know that? Why do you feel the need to point it out?

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

How do you know that? Why do you feel the need to point it out?

homojoke.

Annasopra

eagle eye wrote: »

How do you know that? Why do you feel the need to point it out?

Why is there a need to insultingly label the sex we have "homosex" ffs

batgoat

eagle eye wrote: »

How do you know that? Why do you feel the need to point it out?

You're getting a bit emotional about this tbh, it's merely a statement of fact in a humorous way, haven't you got a dictionary definition to dispute?

eagle eye

batgoat wrote:

You're getting a bit emotional about this tbh, it's merely a statement of fact in a humorous way, haven't you got a dictionary definition to dispute?

I'm only asking the question. Not emotional about it at all.
I'll do that dictionary by myself, deffo going to try and get involved with an argument over the changing of the meaning of words and not just one word, there are many.

eagle eye

Joeytheparrot wrote:

Why is there a need to insultingly label the sex we have "homosex" ffs

Why are you quoting me and saying that? I just posted that earlier on.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm only asking the question. Not emotional about it at all.
I'll do that dictionary by myself, deffo going to try and get involved with an argument over the changing of the meaning of words and not just one word, there are many.

No offence, but the likelihood of you ever getting the meaning of a well defined and well understood word changed because you would prefer it to mean something different is zero. Homophobia doesn't mean an irrational fear of gay people, because by and large people aren't afraid of gay people. Many however do discriminate against them and display prejudice and irrational hatred, not least because they're mandated to do so by their religion.

antiskeptic

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why is there a need to insultingly label the sex we have "homosex" ffs

The term heterosex (sex that heterosexuals have) exists. It isn't a reach to refer to the sex homosexuals have as homosex.

There doesn't appear to be any track record for the term "homosex" being considered insulting.

Robindch pointed out that despite the above reasoning, the term "homosex" could be construed as insulting, given it's proximity to the term "homo" which has a track record of being used as an insult. Homo (insult) sex .. in other words. It is reasonable to avoid use of the term since offence can reasonably be taken.

There is a need to differentiate homosexual sex and heterosexual sex in the context of this and other discussions since the, legitimacy (let's call it) of the one is being questioned. In this case with reference to the biblical position on sex.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The term heterosex (sex that heterosexuals have) exists.

It exists, but only in the narrow context of the medical profession, it is not in general usage beyond that.

It isn't a reach to refer to the sex homosexuals have as homosex.

There doesn't appear to be any track record for the term "homosex" being considered insulting.

Robindch pointed out that despite the above reasoning, the term "homosex" could be construed as insulting, given it's proximity to the term "homo" which has a track record of being used as an insult. Homo (insult) sex .. in other words. It is reasonable to avoid use of the term since offence can reasonably be taken.

There is a need to differentiate homosexual sex and heterosexual sex in the context of this and other discussions since the, legitimacy (let's call it) of the one is being questioned. In this case with reference to the biblical position on sex.

The only people that seem to need to make this distinction for some reason also seem to be putting forward homophobic arguments, which makes me believe that this is a term used in an attempt to defend the indefensible. Given it is a made-up term it is also entirely ambiguous. Do you mean one man having anal sex with another, or would say fellatio between men also work for you? How about mutual masturbation between men, or mutual masturbation between women for that matter? Does oral sex between women meet you needs, or is a strap on required for the ladies, in which case are we back to needing anal intercourse or will vaginal suffice? Where do you stand with toys?

We have a language of words with well defined meanings for a reason. You making up words in the hope of us guessing your intent doesn't really make a great basis for conversation.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is a need to differentiate homosexual sex and heterosexual sex in the context of this and other discussions since the, legitimacy (let's call it) of the one is being questioned. In this case with reference to the biblical position on sex.

So, Homosexual sex.
No need to use "homosex".
Never was.

Bannasidhe

King Mob wrote: »

So, Homosexual sex.
No need to use "homosex".
Never was.

Or just sex.

[Deleted User]

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or just sex.

Well there's a difference apparently. We're just waiting to hear what it is.

Bannasidhe

King Mob wrote: »

Well there's a difference apparently. We're just waiting to hear what it is.

My guess it that one kind is the kind the posters who can't stop thinking about other people having the other kind have.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

Well there's a difference apparently. We're just waiting to hear what it is.

One difference is death by stoning in Brunei.
I'm still waiting to hear why some people think a travel agent warning about that is not hate speech, but when Folau warns about what he thinks awaits in hell it is hate speech.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

One difference is death by stoning in Brunei.
I'm still waiting to hear why some people think a travel agent warning about that is not hate speech, but when Folau warns about what he thinks awaits in hell it is hate speech.

The travel agent isn't a worshiper of the King of Brunei. It is Folau's God, who he worships, that is sending undesirables to the pit for an eternity of torture. As Stephen Fry would say, who would worship such a monster?

recedite

smacl wrote: »

The travel agent isn't a worshiper of the King of Brunei. It is Folau's God, who he worships, that is sending undesirables to the pit for an eternity of torture. As Stephen Fry would say, who would worship such a monster?

Either one is dispensing what he believes to be sound advice.
I don't see how being "a worshipper" is worse than doing it for the money.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Either one is dispensing what he believes to be sound advice.
I don't see how being "a worshipper" is worse than doing it for the money.

Because the Travel Agent is simply advising their customer of the situation in Brunei - not agreeing with it, they could, in fact, completely disagree with it.

There is no indication that Folau disagrees. Quite the opposite. He believes homosexuals are sinners (not the act of having sex) and unless they repent they will burn for eternity.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Either one is dispensing what he believes to be sound advice.
I don't see how being "a worshipper" is worse than doing it for the money.

Put it this way, the difference between the King of Brunei and Folau is as follows. The former is a nasty homophobic bollox that not only wants to see gay people suffer terribly for the crime of being a homosexual, he has the means to do this. The latter doesn't have the means.

eagle eye

smacl wrote:

Put it this way, the difference between the King of Brunei and Folau is as follows. The former is a nasty homophobic bollox that not only wants to see gay people suffer terribly for the crime of being a homosexual, he has the means to do this. The latter doesn't have the means.

And doesn't want to see people suffer either. The s begging people to repent.

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

And doesn't want to see people suffer either. The s begging people to repent.

Begging people to "repent" and change the way they were born.
Or as he would have it - they way they were made by his god.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

The only people that seem to need to make this distinction for some reason also seem to be putting forward homophobic arguments, which makes me believe that this is a term used in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

The "indefensibility" of the position seems to rest on ideas such as:

- the rejection of the existence of God. Which is a belief system (belief in the authority of the means of assessment of the matter. That authority concluding about the unlikelihood of God's existence)

- majority rule (most Christians)

- mood of the times (again a belief system at work which includes some kind of ever onwards and upwards notion of the trajactory of mankind).

You would appreciate that your calling it indefensible is a question appears to be a question-begging kind of statement.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

And doesn't want to see people suffer either. The s begging people to repent.

Which part of
Warning. Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolators. Hell Awaits. Repent!
comes across as begging or anyway compassionate to the groups he lists? It reads like a threat from where I'm sitting. FWIW, those are his exact word and relative text sizes and colours.

That aside, who on earth would want to join such a clearly hateful religion?

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or as he would have it - they way they were made by his god.

He probably wouldn't have it that way, unless his knowledge of his position was at the same kind of kindergaarten level as your own.

Don't tell me that after all this time you have never heard of the concept and consequences of The Fall?

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

He probably wouldn't have it that way, unless his knowledge of his position was at the same kind of kindergaarten level as your own.

If you wish me to engage in debate with you kindly desist from kindergaarten yard tactics.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Which part of
Warning. Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolators. Hell Awaits. Repent!
comes across as begging or anyway compassionate to the groups he lists?

If you want compassion in regards to sinners (both the suffering of their existence and their potential destination and what compassion has done to attempt to rectify things) read the Bible.

You seem to be wanting a STOP sign to express compassion.

That aside, who on earth would want to join such a clearly hateful religion?

A truly Dawkinsian-level of shallowness. It's hard to believe you've engaged for years in this topic and cannot rise any further in your appreciation of the whole of the argument that this.

Strawmanning of a supreme kind.