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

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

Have you ever heard of the Fall? Assuming you have, how could you possibly make such an erroneous statement?

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

How is that relevant?
When planning a holiday, is it your policy to interrogate travel agents about their personal views on homosexuality?

[Deleted User]

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.

This has been addressed:
1. The travel agent does not necessarily have a position on whether or not the policies of the government are good or bad. Folau does and believes they are good. We have not been presented with a good reason to think that he is the type of christian who believes their god is wrong.

2. The advice of the travel agent is based on an unbiased interpretation of clear unambiguous legislation that can be pointed to. Folau's "warning" is based on his interpretation of unclear scripture that other christians interpret differently, thus his interpretation is coloured by his opinions.

3. The advice of the travel agent is based on real tangible threats from a real actual source that can be pointed to.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

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)

You started this thread for some bizarre reason (trolling?) on an atheist forum. The assumption here is that God, fairies and unicorns don't exist.

- majority rule (most Christians)

But you've already said that most people who consider themselves Christian aren't in fact Christian. Most Christians in this country voted for same sex marriage and relaxation of abortion laws. I would strongly suggest that homophobic Christians are very much in the minority.

- 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.

Mood of the times is that Folau is our of a job for preaching religiously inspired homophobic nonsense and proper order too.

You might come back to me as well as what precisely you mean by the term 'homosex'.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

This has been addressed:
1. The travel agent does not necessarily have a position on whether or not the policies of the government are good or bad. Folau does and believes they are good. We have not been presented with a good reason to think that he is the type of christian who believes their god is wrong.

2. The advice of the travel agent is based on an unbiased interpretation of clear unambiguous legislation that can be pointed to. Folau's "warning" is based on his interpretation of unclear scripture that other christians interpret differently, thus his interpretation is coloured by his opinions.

3. The advice of the travel agent is based on real tangible threats from a real actual source that can be pointed to.

I agree. But what you're saying here is that the travel agent's advice is fact-based whereas Folau's advice is belief-based.

You were asked to say why one was hate speech and the other wasn't.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

I agree. But what you're saying here is that the travel agent's advice is fact-based whereas Folau's advice is belief-based.

You were asked to say why one was hate speech and the other wasn't.

But I just did.
One is an unbiased relaying of facts.
The other is a position based entirely from Folau's opinion and that he agrees with the belief that there is something wrong with gay people.
The reasons for this distinction is given above.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

You started this thread for some bizarre reason (trolling?) on an atheist forum. The assumption here is that God, fairies and unicorns don't exist.

That's fine, whether here or anywhere else. The question is whether someone can express from their belief system. You do - in that your worldview is based on beliefs.

Since you can, the assumption is that he can. Unless you can find someway to differentiate. Begging the question ("it's hateful" is a derivation of your belief system) doesn't quite cut it

But you've already said that most people who consider themselves Christian aren't in fact Christian. Most Christians in this country voted for same sex marriage and relaxation of abortion laws.

Can you see the mixing of units there? Christians vs "Christians". Not mixing in your view. But in my view. Again, a clash of belief systems.

I would strongly suggest that homophobic Christians are very much in the minority.

Since we are at root dealing in belief systems, your strong isn't a strong as you think.

Mood of the times is that Folau is our of a job for preaching religiously inspired homophobic nonsense and proper order too.

Mood of the times indeed. Not exactly a strong plank to rest anything.

You might come back to me as well as what precisely you mean by the term 'homosex'.

I've already explained it: a shortening of the term "homosexual sex" based on the presumption that folk would understand what heterosex meant.

I'm happy to desist from using the term (and have, other than to clarify from whence the term came) given Robindch's explanation of homo (insult word) and sex.

His isn't the only viewpoint but for the sake of not causing unwarranted offence (which you with your fairies and goblins speak don't seem to be able to apply yourself)

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

I'm not looking for anything with regards to sinners here as I don't believe the likes of being gay or being an atheist is in anyway wrong. The point was raised in response to Eagle Eye's assertion that Folau "doesn't want to see people suffer either. The s begging people to repent". I don't see any evidence of that

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.

Rubbish. You started this thread in defense of a rant by a religious homophobe, claiming that Folau was being unfairly treated and that this was 'peak LGBT nonsense'. A chance to wave your bible and bigoted arguments in front of the atheists once again. I hope as you read through the thread that it is an illustration of how the world has moved on from blindly accepting religion as an excuse for homophobia. Quoting chapter and verse from some religious text, suggesting you are one of the few true Christians while somehow still being part of a majority doesn't help this argument.

Nor for that matter does making up new words. Again, what precisely is it you mean by 'homosex' or do you even know yourself?

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

How is that relevant?
When planning a holiday, is it your policy to interrogate travel agents about their personal views on homosexuality?

It's a false equivalency and you know that.

Next you will be comparing Folau's tweet to a travel advisory from the Dept. of Foreign Affairs.

Pherekydes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the Fall? Assuming you have, how could you possibly make such an erroneous statement?

I'm sure most of the forum's regulars have heard of the Fall, and reject the idea of it, in the same way we reject the idea of heaven or hell.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

But I just did.
One is an unbiased relaying of facts.
The other is a position based entirely from Folau's opinion and that he agrees with the belief that there is something wrong with gay people.
The reasons for this distinction is given above.

Both are issuing what they believe to be a warning.
The travel agent has no control over the King of Brunei. Whether he agrees or disagrees with the law in Brunei is irrelevant. He still gives the same advice.

Likewise the believer has no control over the laws handed down by his god. Most likely somebody else has put the fear of god into him from an early age. If the believer then gives out advice to others, he believes he is doing them a favour. You are free to ignore Folau's advice.

[Deleted User]

theres an interesting tension in folau believing something and professing that versus folau wishing it to happen or being responsible for it

i dont think its possible to investigate the difference under the circumstances and i dont think it needs to be part of the discussion around whether his club were right to sack him for his behaviour

Bannasidhe

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'm sure most of the forum's regulars have heard of the Fall, and reject the idea of it, in the same way we reject the idea of heaven or hell.

Was never a fan of the Fall. Mark E Smith annoyed me.

As for the other Fall - yeah, just one of the ancient tales told to gullible people I have rejected.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

Both are issuing what they believe to be a warning.
The travel agent has no control over the King of Brunei. Whether he agrees or disagrees with the law in Brunei is irrelevant. He still gives the same advice.

No, it is relevant. That's the point you are missing.
Folau agrees with the idea that there is something wrong with gay people, hence it is hate speech.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Was never a fan of the Fall. Mark E Smith annoyed me.

Ah here, first IKEA, now this? Don't make me post another fruity pizza pic.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

No, it is relevant. That's the point you are missing.
Folau agrees with the idea that there is something wrong with gay people, hence it is hate speech.

If "agreeing with it" was a criteria, then the travel agent would also be guilty of hate speech, but only if he was strict muslim.
But that's not how it works.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Ah here, first IKEA, now this? Don't make me post another fruity pizza pic.

But I like IKEA

They have Rainbows and Unicorns and giant blue bags and meatballs.
AND I bought a huge Queen sized bed there which is perfect for homosex. :pac:

Sardonicat

Bannasidhe wrote: »

smacl wrote: »

Ah here, first IKEA, now this? Don't make me post another fruity pizza pic.

But I like IKEA

They have Rainbows and Unicorns and giant blue bags and meatballs.
AND I bought a huge Queen sized bed there which is perfect for homosex. :pac:

Mark E would have penned a great lyric from that post - uh!

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

If "agreeing with it" was a criteria, then the travel agent would also be guilty of hate speech, but only if he was strict muslim.
But that's not how it works.

But then there's also a few other factors to consider:
1. This travel agent would be giving their advice as part of their job as a travel agent. They would not be giving unsolicited advice on twitter.
2. The advice would be based on fact that can be pointed to and objectively verified. It would not be based on the travel agent's supernatural beliefs and personal interpretation of the bible.

Again, the analogy is rather flawed and silly.

Not sure why you're bringing up Muslims specifically....

antiskeptic

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'm sure most of the forum's regulars have heard of the Fall, and reject the idea of it, in the same way we reject the idea of heaven or hell.

Irrelevant to the point. Read back if you like.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I'm not looking for anything with regards to sinners here as I don't believe the likes of being gay or being an atheist is in anyway wrong. The point was raised in response to Eagle Eye's assertion that Folau "doesn't want to see people suffer either. The s begging people to repent". I don't see any evidence of that

Hence my STOP sign analogy. You're critiquing a stop sign for it's apparent lack of compassion. You don't see compassion in a stop sign because that's not it's purpose.

Rubbish. You started this thread in defense of a rant by a religious homophobe,

That's your starting position. The point of the thread was to query that. Deal with the query, rather than simply repeat your starting position.

Belief vs. belief. That's the starting position. Simply assuming your belief prime doesn't make it so.

I hope as you read through the thread that it is an illustration of how the world has moved on..

There's the ever onwards and upwards worldview. An example of the belief system I've been referring to.

[

from blindly accepting religion as an excuse for homophobia.

Blind belief and considered belief occur in both our belief systems. What's good for the goose.

Quoting chapter and verse from some religious text,

...or philosophical text? It's the basis of your view on all sorts of things, including this subject, afterall.

suggesting you are one of the few true Christians while somehow still being part of a majority doesn't help this argument.

It is as it is. I'm sure there are aspects of your belief system that don't help your argument. The ever onwards and upwards view, for example.

Again, what precisely is it you mean by 'homosex' or do you even know yourself?

Homesex = homosexual (as opposed to heterosexual) sex. Is what I meant.

OMM 0000

I'm a manager.

He had to be punished for this.

It shouldn't be the end of his career.

He should apologise. He should say in hindsight he can see he should not have posted these words online. He recognises he has hurt people, and that is not what he should be doing as a Christian man. He should ask for forgiveness. He should make a donation to a charity.

Note I am not saying he should say his belief is wrong. He's allowed have this belief. But he was wrong and stupid to say it publicly.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

But then there's also a few other factors to consider:
1. This travel agent would be giving their advice as part of their job as a travel agent. They would not be giving unsolicited advice on twitter.
2. The advice would be based on fact that can be pointed to and objectively verified. It would not be based on the travel agent's supernatural beliefs and personal interpretation of the bible.

Again, the analogy is rather flawed and silly.

Not sure why you're bringing up Muslims specifically....

As I said before, "doing it for money" is not a criteria for hate speech.

Fact-based V belief-based is not a criteria either.
You're only saying the analogy is "flawed and silly" now that you have run out of arguments against it.
I mention "muslim" because Sharia Law is the reason for the situation in Brunei. Whether or not a travel agent agrees with sharia is irrelevant to his travel advice for Brunei, or whether it is hate speech or not.

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

theres an interesting tension in folau believing something and professing that versus folau wishing it to happen or being responsible for it

Not saying you're wrong but what brings you to that conclusion?

i dont think its possible to investigate the difference under the circumstances and i dont think it needs to be part of the discussion around whether his club were right to sack him for his behaviour

He got the chop for repeatedly doing something he was told not to do. That he is continuing to profess his beliefs to an audience of 350k followers over instagram, most I'd guess there for his rugby prowess than his religious stance, suggests that he is the one that wants this to be an ongoing discussion. Professing homophobia and intolerance of other people's religious beliefs is going to get him a lot of flak and rightly so. As an atheist kid in primary school in the 70s, I used get lots of people telling me I was going to burn in hell and I can't remember it ever being said with sympathy or compassion, though it was said with sincerity. If we're talking about tension, one that I'd see is Christianity as a religion of love and compassion versus that of hate and intolerance. The latter is starting to rapidly fall from favour in West and IMHO deserving of all the harsh criticism it encounters.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

As I said before, "doing it for money" is not a criteria for hate speech.

I didn't say anyone was doing anything for money...

I was simply pointing out that a travel agent giving advice about travel is their job.
A rugby player giving religious advice or travel advice isn't their job.

So the analogy isn't really applicable in this regard.
I didn't say that it doesn't become not hate speech, just that it's a different situation.

recedite wrote: »

Fact-based V belief-based is not a criteria either.

But it kind of is in this regard.
Folau's belief in danger comes entirely from his personal interpretation of the bible's supernatural aspects. Thus aren't really verifiable. He's not reporting facts.
The travel agent is.
Again the analogy doesn't work.

recedite wrote: »

You're only saying the analogy is "flawed and silly" now that you have run out of arguments against it.

No, I've always said it was silly...
And I've plenty more arguments against it.

recedite wrote: »

I mention "muslim" because Sharia Law is the reason for the situation in Brunei. Whether or not a travel agent agrees with sharia is irrelevant to his travel advice for Brunei, or whether it is hate speech or not.

Ok...?
Still not seeing relevance of bringing up muslims exactly...

ogsjw

antiskeptic wrote: »

is this not a case of LGBT sensitivity gone mad?

Hardly. Aside from the dozen or so obvious arguments, there are gay rugby fans, adult and young alike. Imagine some young fella supporting a team and then having a squad member say everyone like him is going to hell for simply being themselves. He is a public figure. He would be fired if he said a racial minority was going to hell too.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

He was allowed. And then his bosses we're allowed to fire him for being a homophobic twat.

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote: »

Not saying you're wrong but what brings you to that conclusion?

He got the chop for repeatedly doing something he was told not to do. That he is continuing to profess his beliefs to an audience of 350k followers over instagram, most I'd guess there for his rugby prowess than his religious stance, suggests that he is the one that wants this to be an ongoing discussion. Professing homophobia and intolerance of other people's religious beliefs is going to get him a lot of flak and rightly so. As an atheist kid in primary school in the 70s, I used get lots of people telling me I was going to burn in hell and I can't remember it ever being said with sympathy or compassion, though it was said with sincerity. If we're talking about tension, one that I'd see is Christianity as a religion of love and compassion versus that of hate and intolerance. The latter is starting to rapidly fall from favour in West and IMHO deserving of all the harsh criticism it encounters.

youve run a mile with what id thought were fair and concise points there

if you are determined to define this as hatespeech nobody can stop you

i think theres a clear difference between professing sincere beliefs about the eternal result of the practice of homosexuality and wishing, threatening etc these consequences on anyone

nb i dont share these beliefs in any way

nbb his club were entitled to sack him, but not because this is hatespeech

i dont really need this stuff explained to me thanks, we disagree on the leaps you're taking in your post, neither of us is simple

edit- this last bit is maybe crankier than it ought to be :-)

ogsjw

Odhinn wrote: »

Heaven forfend.

Less of that on this sub if your don't mind ;P

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

Ok...?
Still not seeing relevance of bringing up muslims exactly...

You can't see any connection between sharia, muslims, and Brunei?

smacl

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I'm a manager.

He had to be punished for this.

It shouldn't be the end of his career.

He should apologise. He should say in hindsight he can see he should not have posted these words online. He recognises he has hurt people, and that is not what he should be doing as a Christian man. He should ask for forgiveness. He should make a donation to a charity.

Note I am not saying he should say his belief is wrong. He's allowed have this belief. But he was wrong and stupid to say it publicly.

I agree with all of the above, outside of "He recognises he has hurt people, and that is not what he should be doing as a Christian man." Could well be I haven't seen it, but where has he said this? All of the stuff he posted is still on his opening instagram page.