recedite wrote: » So the Catechism of the Catholic church is a hate speech document then. .
recedite wrote: Free speech is all about agreeing to differ. Its the intolerance of Free Speech that I oppose, and that intolerance is something that is slipping into contemporary "progressive" and "liberal" society. Folau was sacked because he directly quoted the bible and expressed a fairly standard religious belief.
Professor Moriarty wrote: It is hate speech.
Deleted User wrote: » What puzzles me is the vitriolic outrage being directed solely against the homosexual aspect.
recedite wrote: » Its the intolerance of Free Speech that I oppose, and that intolerance is something that is slipping into contemporary "progressive" and "liberal" society. .
Deleted User wrote: » I've addressed that and retracted it.
Deleted User wrote: » No. I certainly am not. Unfortunate that you took it that way but I understand how it could happen. I should have simply said "not normal". I was going by this definition: "deviating from the normal or average" but I can see how you could be mistaken and will cheerily agree that abnormal was not the wisest of words to use and clarify that I meant nothing except "not normal".
Merriam-Webster wrote: normal adjective nor·mal | \ ˈnȯr-məl \ Definition of normal (Entry 1 of 3) 1a : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern normal working hours He had a normal childhood. the effect of normal aging b : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle The normal way to pluralize a noun is by adding -s. 2 : occurring naturally normal immunity 3a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development IQs within the normal range b : free from mental illness : mentally sound
smacl wrote: Going by the dictionary definition normal, in what way would you suggest being gay is "not normal"?
smacl wrote: By contrast one could reasonably state that homophobia is not normal in that it fails to conform to our societies standard which is to not discriminate by sexual orientation.
Deleted User wrote: » Because the definition I used was: usual, typical, or expected state or condition Most people are straight. It's most usual, typical and expected.It's not a slight or insult.
Cabaal wrote: » and yet it is, if I call a person abnormal on the street people will see it as an insult and rightly so. No different to calling somebody odd or strange. Your use of the word is insulting and misleading, we wouldn't call women/girls abnormal on the basis that the majority of human's are male. To call gay people abnormal just because they are in a minority is insulting and misleading whatever way you want to twist it.
Deleted User wrote: » I retracted it. What more do you want. I explained my intention and admitted that due to the negative connotations that come with abnormal, I should have phrased it better.
Deleted User wrote: » Because the definition I used was: usual, typical, or expected state or condition Most people are straight. It's most usual, typical and expected. It's not a slight or insult.
Cabaal wrote: » You are still trying to claim it wasn't a slight or insult. I don't think you actually see it as insulting regardless of your comments that you should have phrased it better.
smacl wrote: » Firstly, you might want to give the full definition. Looks like it is part of the Google dictionary definition which reads "conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected." By modern standards there is nothing unusual about being gay. It is quite specifically stated in UN human rights documents and taught in our schools that we do not discriminated based on sexual orientation, or more simply being gay is entirely normal. And telling someone that they're not normal will commonly be taken as an insult. In this thread, I'm of the opinion that it is clearly intended as an insult, albeit not in the same league as comparing homosexuality the pedophilia.
I stated NUMEROUS times that it was not intended as a slight or an insult
smacl wrote: » By modern standards there is nothing unusual about being gay. It is quite specifically stated in UN human rights documents and taught in our schools that we do not discriminated based on sexual orientation, or more simply being gay is entirely normal. And telling someone that they're not normal will commonly be taken as an insult. In this thread, I'm of the opinion that it is clearly intended as an insult, albeit not in the same league as comparing homosexuality the pedophilia.
recedite wrote: » If UN or some other human rights organisation sets out to protect some group of persons, that is not the proof that they are "normal". In fact, the less "normal" the group is, the more likely they are to need some special protection.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » If gay people are persecuted in a society, it is the society that is abnormal not the gay people.
Deleted User wrote: » Lovely sound bite, Means absolutely **** all though. Ireland is extremely tolerant. In what way are gay people persecuted in Ireland?
recedite wrote: » But gay people are not persecuted in western societies. Its the opposite, they are lauded and given every advantage. On the other hand, being an overt Christian is fast becoming abnormal, as Israel Folau has discovered to his cost.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » What makes you think I was talking about Ireland?
recedite wrote: » On the other hand, being an overt Christian is fast becoming abnormal, as Israel Folau has discovered to his cost.
robinph wrote: » You not being allowed to discriminate against others is not discrimination against you.
Deleted User wrote: » Apologies. Yeah, it's **** to be gay in Qatar or any mostly Muslim country. I think we all agree on that. Oh crap.... am I Islamaphobic now!?
robinph wrote: » Which I think brings us back to my initial post on the thread All that I've seen from any christians on this thread essentially boils down to that you used to be allowed to say and do things to certain groups of people on the basis of what is written in the bible, but you can't anymore.
robinph wrote: » Which I think brings us back to my initial post on the thread You not being allowed to discriminate against others is not discrimination against you. All that I've seen from any christians on this thread essentially boils down to that you used to be allowed to say and do things to certain groups of people on the basis of what is written in the bible, but you can't anymore.
You not being allowed to discriminate against others is not discrimination against you.
smacl wrote: Islam in many regions where it predominates, in my opinion, is a deeply homophobic and misogynistic religion. Christianity used to be, but for the most isn't any more in Europe at least. The likes of Folau's sentiments in relation to homosexuals, atheists, drunks etc... aren't representative of most Christians, certainly not those in this part of the world who openly stand up for the likes of same sex marriage. I'd suggest that it is Folau's religious expression that is abnormal here, which is why we're having this discussion.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
