Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

Anteayer wrote: »

So all I'm saying is be careful when you post. This is a real world issue for plenty of people potentially reading this thread.

Society is always drifting. The present drift sees a move towards the normalisation of LBGTetc. Some will see this as a good and thing (and not without good reason, given the historical persecution of people).

However, it is a real world issue for people who don't want their children being taught to normalise the idea of say, fluidity of gender. If they simply don't think that such a thing is normal, whatever about tolerance, then they are perfectly entitled to hold and express that view.

It's not like the drift happens perchance. It is driven by people with an interest in drifting society in the way they think it should go. That right, insofar at it is a right, is to be enjoyed by everyone. Including the right to resist the direction of drift, indeed, causing drift in the direction they think things ought to go.

King Mob wrote: »

Firstly, torture is a bad thing. Not sure how some people can argue that it's not, but there you are...

The torture is an existence which involves precisely what you didn't want: God and all that he represents.

I'm not sure how giving someone their hearts desire (for it is a heart desire) is a bad thing.

Seems you can argue the point.

Secondly, hell not being real doesn't really apply here as the sentiment is what is the issue.

I understand there was no sentiment as such. He was merely stating what he believes is the biblical case.

Hell either does or doesn't await sinners who don't repent. I see no issue stating your belief whichever of the possibilities you believe. It's not really relevant whether society happens to consider this or that not a sin.

Saying/believing that gay people deserve punishment for the crime of being gay, whether or not that punishment is real, is not a good thing.
It's still based on the idea that gay people are somehow flawed, evil or lesser.

I think you'll find that he holds that all sinners who don't repent face hell. Did he say that he thought sinners deserve punishment? Or was he stating the pretty mainstream idea that all unrepentant sinners will be separated from God for ever (a.k.a. Hell).

Did he elaborate on what his model of Hell was? Or are you simply inserting your own burning fires version?

Ok, then please explain why do you believe that having or expressing racist ideas is unacceptable?

If the bible stated that those of other races where lesser then I would have no particular issue with it. Not because the bible states it / I believe it / that settles it. Rather, the case the bible makes for it's positions are, I find logical and compelling.

In the case of homosexuals, it's not the homosexuality that's the problem, its the unrepentant element that matter. Heaven will be filled with drunks, adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals and all the rest.


What's the difference between those and homophobic (ie hateful against gay people) beliefs that make them acceptable and defensible?

Could you quote something hateful he said? Merely quoting the biblical destination for unrepentant sinners (of any hue) isn't in itself hateful.

Your position rests on large dollops of supposition: chief of which is that the bible isn't true.

King Mob wrote: »

You seem to be assuming that he subscribes to you personal, rather strange and unique version of hell.
I see nothing to justify that assumption, so I sill assume the version that the vast majority people refer to.

Assuming the (assumed) majority view appears to be a modus operendi of yours. The mood of the times is right: whether a view of hell or a view of human sexuality.

If he didn't mean the version of hell that resulted in torture, perhaps he should clarify that and then understand why people think he is saying that it is torture and why they think that saying gay people deserve torture for being gay is bad.

Hell is torture. But all is altered by it being self-administered. This isn't innocents being tortured by an evil regieme.

As for deserving. Nothing too controversial there either: unrepentant sinners deserve to be separated from God. It's not being gay that matters, it's being unrepentant.

There are many people who use and have used the bible in an equally valid way to justify racist ideas as well as homophobic ones.
Those interpretations are not more valid than yours and yours no more valid than those.

You asked me and I gave you my view.

Declaring that you have the one true correct and true interpretation of the bible is silly.

As is you supposing your interpretation (the nature of Hell/torture (as in the torture of innocents). All I am doing is positing not very controversial views of things to counter your somewhat caricatured view.

Your getting your knickers in a twist when it needn't necessarily be.

Well the above quote is a good example of why you are stating that gay people are lesser. Being gay is not equivalent to having an alcohol problem or being deceptively unfaithful to your partner.

Gay people aren't lesser. They are just like everyone else in that that sin inhabits every cell of their being. They are dealt the sin-hand they are dealt just like everyone else is dealt the sin-hand they are dealt. We all have our own propensities and our own baggage. There is no one who can stand and say they are more than another.

What you seem to be saying is that being born gay (which assumes that is what occurs, or occurs in all cases) ought absolve someone from sin. As distinct from the person who chooses in such a way as to become an alcoholic.

Except that the person becoming an alcoholic isn't necessarily a free agent. Inhabiting a world of pain and anxiety (the source of which can well lie in the environment of the womb) they come to self-medicate.

By saying that being gay is a sin, you are saying gay people are lesser or broken or somehow less worthy than you.
That's hateful.
You can believe it's not, but to most people, it looks exactly like it is.

I'm saying that God exists. What he says about the matter is his affair. And as far as I can tell, he doesn't particularly rate one sinner above another so I don't see how you arrive at your lesser-conclusion.

Sexual sin does appear to rank as more significant in terms of the damage it can do us: he has given sex a spiritually more significant role in things.

The supernatural claims of the bible are not true and indistinguishable from fiction.

...to you.

Somewhere before you start declaring the some people are lesser than you due to the circumstances of their birth.

DIVISION!!. Presumption about how people come to be gay. Presumption that all homosex occurs between homosexuals.

You've dodged the point however.
Why is it acceptable to you for parents to be opposed to their children being taught that gay people are normal and not abhorrent?

Do you mean abhorrent or aberrant?

Its* acceptable to me because of my worldview. My worldview is formed by psychology, experience, Christianity

It's* is a little more subtle than your simple sledgehammer. But since the world works in sledgehammer fashion (tending towards polar views) I would tend towards the viewpoint that homosex-isn't-to-be-normalized in school. I'm not saying the world view of homosexuality ought be that of past times. Neither do I think the headlong plunge into everything-is-normal is warranted.

Why then would some parents being likewise opposed to teaching acceptance of race mixing be an unacceptable thing for you?

Because it runs counter to the above worldview.

What's the difference? Why should one set of parent's bigotry be coddled, yet the other rejected?

You forgot to include your own set of parents in there. Why should parents who think homosex-is-normal have their views coddled by schools.

It's as if you assume your position the default and suppose others have to prove your wrong on something. Convenient!

King Mob wrote: »

Do you have anything to show that the person in question shares your unique interpretation of hell?

There's nothing unique in my view. Attempt to assume some kind of higher, populist ground noted however

So gay people get tortured.
Some people think that's kind of a hurtful idea.

The question is whether their basis for being hurt involves a full understanding of the position. Or whether it's one based on ignorance. If based on ignorance, then the hurt, whilst understandable, isn't valid.

You are almost contradicting yourself in single sentences.
Saying that being gay is a sin (or however you'd like to split that hair) is saying that gay people are lesser.

I didn't say that being gay was a sin. It's worth noting that you are splitting hairs yourself. Sinners have sin coursing through every cell in their bodies. It's you who focus on homosexuality as if there isn't a thousand and one other aspects of a person through which sin can express.

I'm sure YOU don't see it that way. And you tell yourself it's a completely innocuous idea. But you are not all people and to someone else who doesn't share your particular religious viewpoint such a position might be offensive and hurtful because of how it sounds.

It's called "the offence of the cross". The whole idea of our being sinners to our core, that everything we do is tinged and tainted with sin is an utterly objectionable concept to all who don't see it as true. Some folk truly do think mankind is fundamentally good and is on an ever upward trajectory. Especially when it comes to themselves.

The core of the Christian message is offensive. It strikes at the heart of the sinner and calls him out. Now a person can take that message and, via their own sinful heart, amplify the natural offence and make it offensive (Phelps for example)

But merely pointing out the offence of the cross, isn't in itself problematic.

But alcoholism is a disease that results in physical and psychological harm. That's not comparable to being gay.

I'm afraid you're not in a position to know what harm is caused by sin. You can't look into anothers life. Nor know the intricate ways harm manifests.

I've a friend in a psychiatric hospital at the moment. Even though he's had insights into how his childhood harm experiences have grown and manifested in adult ways, he can't still see how his harmful adult behaviours connect back. Logically he should - for there is the connection in plain sight. Emotionally he can't however and it's emotion that see's him located in a hospital.

All of which is indistinguishable from something you've made up.
And which is in indistinguishable from the same claims made by a christian who believes that interracial marriage is also sinful.
Your argument isn't convincing.

To you. And yours not to me. The question is whether all ought hold their peace until all others are convinced by the argument presented.

Since LGBT agenda isn't exactly silent, it's a bit hypocritical of you to suppose a rugby player ought hold his peace.

Not presumption. It's based on the most up to date and current knowledge in the matter.

Fine if your faith in science is as unwavering as yours. Me? I'd have my doubts. The current editor of the Lancet and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine 9 (about as establishment as you can get) issue excoriating views on the state of modern scientific research. The self interest, the corruption, the plain twisting of the facts.

Science has become like football: once a simple enough game of sport. Now very big business and subject to inflluences by vested interests and movements.

Let me guess: you read The Guardian or the Irish Times and suppose you're reading the actual news?

If there is one thing that is sure beyond all doubt is that the world ploughs ahead into things without knowing nthe consequences - only to have unknown negative consequences arrive further down the line.

Who would have thunk that joyful consumerism would have brought the planet to it's knees. Who would have thought that finite resources would one day run out. Who would have thought that the internet would have brought hardcore porn-on-demand into the hands of children or have 12 people sitting at a restaurant table all staring into their phones. We have a habit of shooting first and asking questions later.

You're going to have to explain your position more clearly here.
Some people object to the idea that mixing races should be normalised. How is such a position different from yours?

My position is that there is no issue with mixed races per se (although I would have a problem with the unrestrained and unmanaged diluting a nations culture (for reasons that has nothing to do with supposing one race better than another). I have no reason to see a problem with it.

You might as well ask why I prefer Japanese cars over German ones. The only connection between gay and race is in your own head. There needn't be one.

Because there is no evidenced detriment to normalising it. If your objection relies on an unprovable arbitrary consequence from an entity that is indistinguishable from fiction, then you don't have a valid objection.

a) You would have to demonstrate that the lack of current evidence is proof that no evidence will ever arise.

b) You would have to show that the suit of evidences you cite fully incorporate all the ways in which detriment can out. Good luck with that.

b) You would have to demonstrate why an empirically evidenced viewpoint is the optimal way to base your viewpoints. You already know that that is a philosophical viewpoint. And that that philosophical viewpoint can't be established by your gold-standard metric, empiricalism

Emprically demonstrate that empiricism is the supreme measure. Can you see the bootstrap?

Because not normalising it, and normalising offensive hurtful opinions (such as gay people are bad/gay people deserve to be in hell) results in actual, real provable harm.

I point you to the above - the reliance on empircism to as the gold standard.

Anteayer wrote: »

We just managed to utterly oppress them and push them into the shadows for absolutely no reason other than religiously inspired bigotry and hatred. Exactly the same way as we shunned and punished single mothers and so on. It's a shameful and very unenlightened period of human history that really should be consigned to the Dark Ages.

There's a bit of a false dilemma going on here. To suppose that the only way to deal with one form of sinful behaviour (bigotry and hatred) is to normalize another form of sinful behaviour.