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…2930323435…54

Comments

  • #932
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,244 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Irrelevant to the point. Read back if you like.

    Well, you brought it up, so you must think it was relevant to your point.


  • #933
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    recedite wrote: »
    You can't see any connection between sharia, muslims, and Brunei?

    I do.

    What I don't see is the relevance this has to an Australian employed in a position that makes him a sporting ambassador for his country using Christianity as the basis for publicly declaring his homophobia - despite having been warned to keep his beliefs private while employed or face sanction -now facing sanction.

    We are not talking about extremist Muslim views - no one is defending extremist Muslim views. Most here would view them as appalling, as they would extreme Christian views.

    The person defending extreme religious views here is you.


  • #934
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    recedite wrote: »
    You can't see any connection between sharia, muslims, and Brunei?
    Sure.
    But as Bannasidhe said, not really seeing the relevance to the topic at hand.

    Perhaps you can provide an example of some actual hate speech against gay people (aka homophobic comments) and explain how it is hate speech where Folau's comments are not.


  • #935
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    King Mob wrote: »
    Sure.
    But as Bannasidhe said, not really seeing the relevance to the topic at hand
    You are both being wilfully blind.
    In case you have both forgotten, the relevance goes back to this post.


  • #936
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    recedite wrote: »
    You are both being wilfully blind.
    In case you have both forgotten, the relevance goes back to this post.
    Could you explain it more clearly and directly?
    Still not seeing a point to bringing up muslims.

    Is it to do with the very silly analogy of the travel agent?
    If so, how? Does it make the analogy less silly?

    Shall I take that as a no about you providing an example of real hate speech?


  • Advertisement
  • #937
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    King Mob wrote: »
    Could you explain it more clearly and directly?
    Still not seeing a point to bringing up muslims.

    Is it to do with the very silly analogy of the travel agent?
    If so, how? Does it make the analogy less silly?

    Shall I take that as a no about you providing an example of real hate speech?
    Infantile.


  • #938
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    recedite wrote: »
    Infantile.

    Is that your attempt at a response or your attempt at hate speech? :pac:


  • #939
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    recedite wrote: »
    Infantile.

    Indeed.

    You come up with a ridiculous analogy and resort to spitting out the dummy when it is pointed out that your analogy is ridiculous - and the reasons why - because you want to try and make this about Muslims.

    It's not about Muslims. It's not about Sharia Law. It's about an extreme Christian view not being tolerated in the West. It's about an employer saying to an employee do not associate us with your extremism.

    What is happening here is the very opposite of how Sharia Law operates as that gives carte blanche to extreme views based on religious beliefs. It seems like you wish there was some Christian equivalent to protect the like of Folau.


  • #940
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    smacl wrote: »
    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.

    I'm saying that's what he should have done.

    I'm not saying that's what he did...


  • #941
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    I'm saying that's what he should have done.

    I'm not saying that's what he did...

    Fair enough, what he should do if he's got any sense, though I doubt it is going to happen.


  • Advertisement
  • #942
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Some observations at this stage:

    1. There is an interesting focus on homosexuality as a sin and a leaving aside of the other sin types mentioned by Folau's biblical reference. It's as if folk recognise the morality issue of the rest but take issue with something they feel can't be helped (homosexual attraction). This is laudible since there is an apparent difference.

    2. The problem for the homosexual isn't just the nature of his/her sexual attraction. Homosexuals will have the same gamut of sin as anyone else. The problem isn't their homosexuality. It's their being sinners across the board.

    The problem is a persons unsaved/unrepentent status. Not their being sinners per se. As we know, Hitler (as risk of the Godwins Law Nazis) could be saved.

    3. Biblically its clear that not all sin is equal. A homosexual/heterosexual seeking love is a different kettle of fish (on the sin scale, which focuses on the hearts desire in our actions), to one who seeks the pleasures of the flesh, without regard to the personhood in whom their desire plays out. Similarly, the drunkard who is a reluctant, considerate as he can be in his/her drunkardness is other than the person who is a cruel, inconsiderate let-their-drunkardness hang out kind of drunk.

    If Christianity was a 'religion' of the weighing scales (like Islam perhaps), then you might see the homosexual, lying, drunk adulterer gain heaven and another seemingly 'better' individual obtain hell. In that matter at least, and referring to observation 1. above, the bulk view of those here appear to be Islamist. Weighing scales atheists as it were.

    As it is repentence is the threshold. Not weighing scales.

    4. It is remarkable how many view through the lens of their own belief systems. And how many don't appear to question or realise this is what they do.

    Its somewhat tragic to see 'faith' and 'lack of substantiation' pepper discussion when those doing the peppering look like they haven't the faintest idea that they rest on a belief system inculcated in them no differently than the way they suppose alternative 'faith-heads' were indoctrinated.

    Hands up those who've read the completed works of their guru's. No recrimination here, it's not like I've read every word of the bible

    Presumption and assumption nevertheless seem to undergird the views held.


  • #943
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    recedite wrote: »
    Infantile.

    It's normal - and acceptable - to disagree with posters. It's not acceptable to make personal remarks. Please retract this remark and perhaps consider an apology to the poster?


  • #944
    ogsjw
    Site Banned Posts: 328 ✭✭ogsjw


    Turtwig wrote: »
    It's normal - and acceptable - to disagree with posters.

    I'm not sure how this thread survived two minutes with a thread title like that alone...


  • #945
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Some observations at this stage:

    1. There is an interesting focus on homosexuality as a sin and a leaving aside of the other sin types mentioned by Folau's biblical reference. It's as if folk recognise the morality issue of the rest but take issue with something they feel can't be helped (homosexual attraction). This is laudible since there is an apparent difference.

    2. The problem for the homosexual isn't just the nature of his/her sexual attraction. Homosexuals will have the same gamut of sin as anyone else. The problem isn't their homosexuality. It's their being sinners across the board.

    The problem is a persons unsaved/unrepentent status. Not their being sinners per se. As we know, Hitler (as risk of the Godwins Law Nazis) could be saved.

    3. Biblically its clear that not all sin is equal. A homosexual/heterosexual seeking love is a different kettle of fish (on the sin scale, which focuses on the hearts desire in our actions), to one who seeks the pleasures of the flesh, without regard to the personhood in whom their desire plays out. Similarly, the drunkard who is a reluctant, considerate as he can be in his/her drunkardness is other than the person who is a cruel, inconsiderate let-their-drunkardness hang out kind of drunk.

    If Christianity was a 'religion' of the weighing scales (like Islam perhaps), then you might see the homosexual, lying, drunk adulterer gain heaven and another seemingly 'better' individual obtain hell. In that matter at least, and referring to observation 1. above, the bulk view of those here appear to be Islamist. Weighing scales atheists as it were.

    As it is repentence is the threshold. Not weighing scales.

    4. It is remarkable how many view through the lens of their own belief systems. And how many don't appear to question or realise this is what they do.

    Its somewhat tragic to see 'faith' and 'lack of substantiation' pepper discussion when those doing the peppering look like they haven't the faintest idea that they rest on a belief system inculcated in them no differently than the way they suppose alternative 'faith-heads' were indoctrinated.

    Hands up those who've read the completed works of their guru's. No recrimination here, it's not like I've read every word of the bible

    Presumption and assumption nevertheless seem to undergird the views held.

    Difficult to know where to even start with this. In terms of realising what you do, do you realise just how repugnant your attitude to the gay community comes across. Whatever about preaching to the supposed flock in the Christianity forum, throwing this rather hateful nonsense into the A&A forum seems intentionally incendiary. As an atheist with a number of devout Christian friends, I'd be interested in hearing their opinion on the likelihood of a self declared homophobe making it past the pearly gates would be. Slim to none at a guess.

    I also wonder what is at the root of a religious zealot's utter fascination with sex, debauchery, sin and anything else that doesn't correspond with the rigorous self-deprivation they seem to choose to endure. Not like we don't all enjoy a bit of depravity from time to time, but seriously, the self-flagellation, hell fire, brimstone and finger pointing starts looking like a low rent BSDM gig.

    In a previous post you mentioned that you thought I was evil, you were evil and that we were all intrinsically evil. Here's a shocker for you. A belief that I share with most common or garden Christians is that we are all intrinsically good. You included. How does that work?

    Anyhow, I'm off for a pint. I'll leave you with my thought for the day.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_7kBEwnvlw


  • #946
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ogsjw wrote: »
    I'm not sure how this thread survived two minutes with a thread title like that alone...
    Why not ask the OP why (s)he decided to name it thusly?


  • #947
    ogsjw
    Site Banned Posts: 328 ✭✭ogsjw


    robindch wrote: »
    Why not ask the OP why (s)he decided to name it thusly?

    Because I'm aware of why he made this thread.

    What I'm confused by is why the thread wasn't locked immediately.

    'lgbt nonsense' indeed...


  • #948
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ogsjw wrote: »
    What I'm confused by is why the thread wasn't locked immediately.
    Because many religious people appear to believe that issues related to the LGBT community and sexuality in general are are political rather than biological or psychological and down through the many reasons one may find oneself attracted to one person or another.

    Frankly, it's a strange view to most of us on the non-religious side of the fence, but a fascinating one all the same - it's as though one could choose whom one was attracted to in the same manner in which one is able to choose freely whom one finds amusing and choose freely which foods one enjoys the most.


  • #949
    ogsjw
    Site Banned Posts: 328 ✭✭ogsjw


    robindch wrote: »
    Because many religious people appear to believe that issues related to the LGBT community and sexuality in general are are political rather than biological or psychological and down through the many reasons one may find oneself attracted to one person or another.

    Frankly, it's a strange view to most of us on the non-religious side of the fence, but a fascinating one all the same - it's as though one could choose whom one was attracted to in the same manner in which one is able to choose freely whom one finds amusing and choose freely which foods one enjoys the most.

    I'm an agnostic person myself. Mine, yours, anybody's personal beliefs has very little to do with the fact that a blatantly homophobic thread was posted and allowed to stay open.

    'lgbt nonsense' is literally in the thread title. And the OP's posts are comprised of nothing but handwaving homophobia. Nothing about this thread was to defend the lgbt community from homophobic religious boogiemen, real or imagined. It was to attack 'PC hysteria' or whatever, because apparently people being mad at someone for saying all de gays are going to hell constitutes as that apparently.

    That's why I'm confused. Surely the lgbt community should be able to count atheists and agnostics as allies, considering so much homophobia stems from religion? And yet this thread has stayed open for 64 pages, as if OP presented a perfectly good faith argument?


  • #950
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    ogsjw wrote: »
    Surely the lgbt community should be able to count atheists and agnostics as allies, considering so much homophobia stems from religion?

    With respect, atheism is no more or less than a lack of belief in a god or gods. You can have a homophobic atheist just like you can have a homophobic Christian. Most atheists tend to be secularists however, and modern secularism does stand up for inclusivity and against discrimination. Personally, i think these discusssions are important as they illustrate the range of attitudes out there.


  • #951
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,486 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    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? 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?
    It's from the bible, Corinthians I think. He is not making it up.
    I'm not religious but there are loads of people out there, some stupid, and some that just need to have a higher being in their lives for whatever reason.


  • Advertisement
  • #952
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    To be fair. I think the ops arguments have been soundly defeated.


  • #953
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    ogsjw wrote: »
    Because I'm aware of why he made this thread.

    What I'm confused by is why the thread wasn't locked immediately.

    'lgbt nonsense' indeed...

    Because the best way to test and understand an argument or claim is not to shut it down, but to actually discuss it.
    Yes the OP choose very poor and unhelpful titling and wording, and thus hobbled his own argument from the off, but discussion was achieved none the less.


  • #954
    ogsjw
    Site Banned Posts: 328 ✭✭ogsjw


    smacl wrote: »
    You can have a homophobic atheist just like you can have a homophobic Christian.

    That totally justifies this homophobic thread and original post then.

    And yes, 'very important' that we discuss defending homophobic public figures...

    ... the OP is so confused he posted this in the Atheism sub, DEFENDING this guys bigotry WHICH STEMS FROM A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Incredible.

    "Religion is a-ok if homophobia is also involved" is basically the only argument I can glean from that OP. It would literally make more sense if he'd posted it in After Hours (though it would still be a horribly hateful thing to post, going to bat for a fella who thinks gay people are gonna burn for all eternity).
    Nobelium wrote: »
    Because the best way to test an argument or claim is not to shut it down, but to actually discuss it.

    This argument was 'tested' decades ago. It went down in flames. And I don't see much good faith 'testing' of this argument in this thread, tbh. More 'defending', 'handwaving' and 're-framing'.


  • #955
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    ogsjw wrote: »

    "Religion is a-ok if homophobia is also involved" is basically the only argument I can glean from that OP. It would literally make more sense if he'd posted it in After Hours (though it would still be a horribly hateful thing to post, going to bat for a fella who thinks gay people are gonna burn for all eternity).

    This argument was 'tested' decades ago. It went down in flames. And I don't see much good faith 'testing' of this argument in this thread, tbh. More 'defending', 'handwaving' and 're-framing'.

    The OP's central claim, as badly put as it was, was actually that it's no longer ok to express a belief.
    His claim was demonstrated to be false, not by shutting down the thread but by discussing it. Free speech works both ways.


  • #956
    ogsjw
    Site Banned Posts: 328 ✭✭ogsjw


    Nobelium wrote: »
    The OP's central claim, as badly put as it was, was actually that it's no longer ok to express a belief.


    A hateful, disgusting belief. Sure we knew that. We've always known it. But what is considered hateful and disgusting has changed since the 70's. And so we've known that for a fair while too.


    Nobelium wrote: »
    His claim was demonstrated to be false, not by shutting down the thread but by discussing it.


    You and I read different threads, evidently. Have you got a link to your version?


  • #957
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    smacl wrote: »
    With respect, atheism is no more or less than a lack of belief in a god or gods. You can have a homophobic atheist just like you can have a homophobic Christian. Most atheists tend to be secularists however, and modern secularism does stand up for inclusivity and against discrimination. Personally, i think these discusssions are important as they illustrate the range of attitudes out there.

    Exactly, although some attitudes are thankfully a minority, and the test of true secularism is does it stand up against all forms if unethical discrimination, whether religious or anti religious.


  • #958
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    ogsjw wrote: »

    You and I read different threads, evidently. Have you got a link to your version?

    Are you claiming the OP was successful proving in their claim ? I don't believe he was. In fact the long discussion on this thread stands as the best evidence against it. Free speech works both ways. Shutting it down would have in fact assisted in proving the claim. Given that it's the A&A forum, perhaps the OP was even banking on it would be. If not their claim is even more ironic.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    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.


  • #959
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Some observations at this stage:

    1. There is an interesting focus on homosexuality as a sin and a leaving aside of the other sin types mentioned by Folau's biblical reference. It's as if folk recognise the morality issue of the rest but take issue with something they feel can't be helped (homosexual attraction). This is laudible since there is an apparent difference.
    I think this observation indicates a lot of the problems with your position.

    Firstly, we don't think that homosexuality is something "that can't be helped".
    It's something that doesn't need to be helped. There is nothing wrong with being gay.
    Of all of the other sins, excluding atheism and drunkenness in the case of an alcoholic, involve things that we agree can be bad things. Lying is bad. Adultery (ie. deceptive cheating on a partner.) Fornication depending on how it's defined is bad.

    We, and most people don't think homosexuality is bad. We can't see how it harms the person or others. We can't see why it is a sin.
    And by comparing it to a sin, it looks exactly like you are saying it's wrong and that people who are homosexual are along the same lines as liars and cheats.

    None of the people like yourself can provide a compelling reason for why it is a sin or why we should treat it along the same lines of lying or cheating on a partner.
    Your reasons boil down to "god said so to be arbitrary".

    We don't see the morality issue with homosexuality because there is none.


  • #960
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,486 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    King Mob wrote:
    We don't see the morality issue with homosexuality because there is none.
    Well I've no issue with gay people as I've said all along. I have gay friends, both male and female. I've no issue with religious people either as long as they are not aggressively pushing their faith on me.
    I do believe they have the right to speak about their beliefs in public though, just as I have my right to do the same.
    I don't use names to describe people IRL, I just treat people as I find them, if you are a good person it's highly likely we will get along, it doesn't matter to me what your colour, creed or sexual.preferenxes are, do long as they are legal that is.
    The only issue I have is Israel Folau being accused of being a homophobe and of using hate speech.
    I've only just found out that he was supporter of the Bingham Cup which is a bi-annual gay rugby competition and appeared on the cover of a LGBTI magazine in Australia called the Star Observer.


  • Advertisement
  • #961
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    eagle eye wrote: »
    I do believe they have the right to speak about their beliefs in public though, just as I have my right to do the same.

    ...

    The only issue I have is Israel Folau being accused of being a homophobe and of using hate speech.
    And people have the right to call homophobes and hate speech for what they are.

    Saying that there is something wrong with being gay or engaging in "gay acts" (which we never got a definition for) is homophobic hate speech.
    Saying that gay people are going to be tortured for being gay is homophobic hate speech.
    If people don't want to be called homophobes, then maybe they shouldn't broadcast hate speech on twitter.
    Or better yet, maybe examine and alter their beliefs so as not to be homophobic.


Advertisement