Lets discuss: Homophobia

[Arakhor]

And now you're assuming that all heterosexuals disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. That's an obvious fallacy.

 

[SG-17]

No, I mean a sub-set of society (around 3 to 5 percent) that exhibits a behavior that the vast majority (95% or so) doesnt. Said small percentage wants to change the other 95% over to their viewpoint that what they do is 'normal'. Other 95% tend to disagree.

Here is what I don't think that you get.

IT IS natural. Nature does not make a distinction in sexuality. I'll take two examples that are relatively close to humans (in intelligence), bonobos and dolphins. Both have recreational sex and both do not make a distinction between males and females.

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, again, nice catch phrases, nice attempt to pull those strings. But I dont bye it. Neither do a lot of other people who know full well this isnt about 'freedom' anymore than it is about puppy chow.

But I like the 'anyone who opposes freedom oppose it' Very McCarthy-esqe of the movement.

But freedom remains the only issue.

 

[MobBoss]

And now you're assuming that all heterosexuals disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. That's an obvious fallacy.

Likewise, I think you assume all homosexuals agree with gay marriage. They dont.

But no, I was merely speaking generally, and not trying to offer 'fallacy' as you allege.

Here is what I don't think that you get.

IT IS natural. Nature does not make a distinction in sexuality. I'll take two examples that are relatively close to humans (in intelligence), bonobos and dolphins. Both have recreational sex and both do not make a distinction between males and females.

I dont really care what bonobos and dolphins do. Nor is it a compelling argument to me on the issue as I see man as a higher being, able to overcome his more base (i.e. natural) instincts. Man engages in myriad behaviors that, while perfectly natural, are also abhorrent, so that particular argument doesnt mean much to me.

 

[Perfection]

No, I mean a sub-set of society (around 3 to 5 percent) that exhibits a behavior that the vast majority (95% or so) doesnt. Said small percentage wants to change the other 95% over to their viewpoint that what they do is 'normal'. Other 95% tend to disagree.

So the 2% of the world that are redheads should dye their hair?

 

[MobBoss]

So the 2% of the world that are redheads should dye their hair?

Are those redheads trying to change something like marriage which has remained unchanged since the inception of our nation?

No?

Ok then. Maybe you should offer up relative and meaningful comparisons if you really want to discuss this.

 

[Perfection]

Are those redheads trying to change something like marriage which has remained unchanged since the inception of our nation?

They won the right to marry black people.

 

[El_Machinae]

Except, very few of those other sins are innate to the marriage itself. I may be a thief, but that's quite apart from my identity or duties as a hypothetical husband. But if I'm a husband with a husband, then the sin is pretty much essential to the marriage bond -- thus nullifying it.

Or, the marriage can cleanse the act (which is my take on it). I've gone through this before. The apostles Paul and Peter set up this work around, where there's an idea that the Spirit can negate the strict Judaic laws. The best, clearest, example is the belief that dietary laws no longer had to be followed, because Acts quotes Peter as having a vision. I can mentioned snared rabbits, and no one bats an eye, because Christians choose to believe that the prohibition against rabbits and the prohibition against strangled meats no longer applies (despite Paul's prohibition on eating strangled meats!). Exegesis!, will be the answer. Why? Well, the exegesis is decent, mainly. But we also like eating rabbits!

Galatians 5, which I've shown before, talks about how the Spirit can abrogate the law for individuals. And like the convenience of Peter's wildly binding annulment of the dietary laws, the Spirit can abrogate all types of laws.

So when a homosexual couple gets married, and believes that marriages is a sacrament and lives as if it is so, you have to wonder if the marriage actually was cleansed and is a holy union.

The urge is to deny that it is not, but if it WAS cleansed, how would you know? No one would tell you either way, just like no spirit told you snared rabbits weren't anethema

 

[civ_king]

2011. http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...Death-for-Homosexuality-Police-118243719.html

Looks like the guy is setting himself up for an insanity plea. He's the sole executor to the dead guy's estate and knew how much the guy was worth. Really it sounds like greed that he tried to wrap in religion not dissimilar from Al Qaeda using Islam as a cover.

Is that really the best you can do, Civking? You asked a hasty question, were handed your answer and then respond with a bunch of useless rejections of equations that no one was making.

How many people on that list were stoned for being homosexual?

The point is that hate leads to murder and persecution. The point is that claiming that people should be discriminated against because they are different justifies, in the minds of the bad people of the world, murder and persecution.
The point is that by pretending there is some moral justification for discrimination, you create a "moral justification" for persecution and murder.
The point is that people die because you won't allow them to be free.

Yes hatred leads to murder and persecution, this is known. Not agreeing with≠hate

persecuting and murdering people=no bueno

Freedom is the only thing it has even been about. The people who support freedom support gay marriage. The people who oppose freedom oppose it.

Freedom is the only issue.

The people who support freedom support the United States of America. The people who oppose freedom oppose it.

That sounds like McCarthyism...

So the 2% of the world that are redheads should dye their hair?

Is being a redhead an action that they can control with willpower?

They won the right to marry black people.

AFAIK anti-miscegenation laws were not universal

 

[Elrohir]

Holy wall of text Batman!

While a sect of a religion can consider homosexuality sinful, unless its contained within that community, it's an overreach. It would be like jewish folks suggesting to YOU that YOU cannot eat bacon. Or islamic folks suggesting YOU need to pray five times a day.

It's an overreach. You do what you must to please your god as it pertains to you. Once you start discussing other people, and how god will judge them, that's between them and god. The state has no business interfering, and frankly, religious groups have no business harassing them about it.

So let's talk about sin. What's left to discuss? How is it a sin? I know how it's considered a sin, and why, and I disagree that it is a sin. I agree that it's fine for people to think things are sins, but trying to push that onto others, I don't agree with, outside of passive and non-harassing proselytizing.

It's not an overreach unless it's enforced by law. I'm quite fine with Jewish folks telling me that it's wrong for me to eat bacon, or Islamic peoples telling me I should pray five times a day. I'm not offended by it, nor would I be even if I was told that I'd burn in hell if I didn't. We agree that the state has no business interfering, but then, that's not what we were discussing to beegin with. So I'm not sure what exactly we're talking about -- aggressive, unwanted, continued proselytization? Well, I think that's a jerk move regardless of the truth value of their claims. That's an entirely separate issue, and belongs to another discussion entirely. Honestly, I don't think think there's much relevant in this entire section of your post.

The next section I'm going to break up more.

Actually, the Bible discusses two kinds of sin, the unforgiveable kind, (there are very few, either one or two, mentioned in the Bible) and the forgiveable kind.

There's actually only one unforgivable sin mentioned, and it's not entirely clear what it was. And there are multiple "kinds" of sins mentioned: of the flesh, of the spirit, sexual sins, financial sins, etc. You can divide them all many ways if you like. It's not a clear cut division into only two completely different groups like you seem to think.

After that, it says LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE.

It also says, can't mention where exactly, that all sin is the same in the eyes of God. So those who consider themselves less sinful than others are prideful, which is also a sin.

It also says JUDGE NOT, LEST YE BE JUDGED.

So tell me: are you judging me at the moment? There are different ways of judging. Simply saying something is wrong maybe judging according to that definition, but that's not what Christ was talking about at the time. (Or else, no one could ever express an opinion on morality without doing something wrong!) And no, it actually doesn't say that all sin is the same in the eyes of God. It's a common misconception. It says that all have fallen short of the glory of God, and none deserve salvation. That's very true. But that's not the same as saying all have led equally sinful lives. If that were true, then a child who stole a candy bar would be just as sinful as a serial killer -- who ate that child. Is that really the position that you're taking? Please actually answer this question.

Apparently, the message isn't getting through to people. They consider their sins lesser, not leaving it up to God to judge these people, and consider it their place to condemn homosexuals or homosexuality or prevent them from being able to freely sin. Guess what? That's not what the Bible tells you to do. Not the current one, anyway. The OT might call for murder and slaughter and torture and stoning, but the NT abolishes all of that.

I'm really not quite sure what you're going on about, so I'm just going to ignore this bit.

So, let's talk about sin. What makes theirs so bad, and yours (rhetorical "yours") so great?

Sin, by definition, cannot be "great." Some sin may be worse than others, though, just as some immoral actions can be worse than others. Or do you think all things that are wrong are equally wrong? I think the same reasoning applies.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say a thief who doesn't repent will get off easier than a gay person who doesn't repent.


You're putting your own opinions into the matter. And once you do that, outside the defined parameters of sin in religion, then we're talking about morality and ethics, not sin.

Once you do that, it's a different discussion. And let's talk about morality and ethics. You'll have to show me what is so darned immoral or unethical about two people falling in love, not hurting anyone, and living together. Or, having the right to see each other in the hospital the same as anyone else.

Explain it to me. No one ever has.

So you're saying when my supposed opinion enters the discussion, then we have to move from religion to secular ethics? Is that correct?

There are other sins which involve marriage
Those other sins are not condemned, they're tolerated
Those other sins are even allowed to happen by certain churches
Those other sins are legal
There are arguments put forth which suggest in some situations its not sinful

1. Intrinsically or accidentally?
2. All sins are condemned.
3. That's not an argument that those things aren't sins, just that those churches are either mistaken or imperfect. Not exactly shocking.
4. Why do you keep going back to legality? It's irrelevant.
5. I'm not sure what you mean here. You really need to be clearer.

Further, marriage is not a religious institution. I'm an atheist, and I can get married, and I will be extremely offended if you suggest that unless I believe in a higher power, my marriage is any less valid or meaningful than anyone else's.

So I'm tired of religious people claiming a monopoly on marriage (or morality for that matter) because it's not true, never was true, and is wholly bogus in its entirety.

You can have religion-based marriages, but it's not a requirement. Legal marriages involve the state. The state is secular for a reason.

OK? That's not actually addressing anything I said in the slightest.

But this isn't even a gay marriage thread. This is about homophobia. What is homophobic? Treating this particular sin like it's the worst sin, the only sin that matters, or worse, the sin that's threatening the family.

What's your reasoning for why this should serve as our definition of homophobia?

That's nonsense. You can call it a sin if you like (that's your opinion) but there's no rational cause to suggest it's a threat to you or anyone else anywhere, anytime, ever. And there's a really big case as to why it's not such a bad thing, because it doesn't harm people, like I dunno.... adultery, or stealing, or fraud, or bombing people.

1. So wait, sin is now a matter of opinion? I thought opinion made it a matter of morality/ethics. (Your idea, not mine.)
2. I never said that it was a "threat" to me. Once again, you're reading things into my posts that simply aren't there.

Where's the crusade to end adultery? Where's the consistency? Why are the gays the only sinners that warrant billions spent suppressing their activities or rights?

Explain that to me.

Don't most people think adultery is bad? It's less in the public mind because it's, well, commonly accepted to be bad. Less controversial things get less airtime.

I've already shown where religious arguments are null and void and internally inconsistent with regard to legality. That's done. You won't even challenge me on that point, so we agree.

You really haven't, but I would like to move on, yes.

Let's talk about morality, which is a secular issue. I can challenge you until the day I die that homosexuality is immoral at all, or any more immoral than anything you do every single day. And in the end, we may disagree. But you've certainly got no authoritative argument which has ended the debate on homosexuality even being immoral. I can point out how outrageously and fundamentally hypocritical it is to persecute homosexual behavior as immoral, without so much as typing a complete sentence. I won't even have to try, you already know, it's entirely hypocritical.

Morality can be a secular issue. Or it can be a religious one. It's not exclusively one or another.

What do you mean by "authoritative argument"? Do you mean a purely secular one that you'll most likely accept? Then no, I don't. But then, I never claimed that I did. My reasons for thinking gay sex is wrong are pretty much entirely religious and I've never claimed otherwise.

So, let's talk about ethics. Ethics is entirely on the side of the homosexual couple's rights in this situation, because there is no ethical reason to deny them visitation rights, or civil union-type rights that other couples enjoy, barring the taxation argument for now, as it's a separate topic.

I'm talking about how is it ethical to deny them basic, rational privileges family members and spouses enjoy? It's not.

"Ethics" is hardly a homogenous thing that moves from side to side in debates.

I'll agree that visitation rights, in hospitals and so on, should be changed -- but they should be changed for everyone, as you shouldn't have to be married in order to give someone priority visitation rights. Gay marriage would only partially fix this problem; I'd rather let unmarried people of all orientations designate certain visitors with extra rights.

And I thought we weren't going to re-argue the legality bit? Well, regardless, I would prefer that the government not provide any sort of benefits based on marriages, gay or straight. So I'm not sure where I fit into your argument/tangent.

Ethics? There is no argument.
Religion? Can't touch the law, and doesn't apply to them.
Morality? Bring on the rational argument. I want to see it.

Once again, you're being terribly unclear. Are you talking about banning gay marriage or stripping homosexuals of certain rights, or thinking gay sex is sinful, or what? It's really extremely unclear what you're talking about, so it's almost impossible to respond. Please stop moving so unclearly from topic to topic and interspersing them so much; this is complicated enough as it is. Are we talking about legal issues, moral ideas, scientific definitions of homophobia -- what? What are you trying to get at? I really and honestly have no idea.

 

[Cutlass]

The people who support freedom support the United States of America. The people who oppose freedom oppose it.

That sounds like McCarthyism...

That is about as deliberate a characterization of what I said that is physically possible.....

 

[civ_king]

That is about as deliberate a characterization of what I said that is physically possible.....

Since me and MobBoss appear to have come to similar conclusions could you please explain?

 

[choxorn]

Holy wall of text Batman!

Elrohir, do the words Pot, Kettle, and Black mean anything to you?

Moderator Action: Not really all that polite.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Cutlass]

Since me and MobBoss appear to have come to similar conclusions could you please explain?

The simple fact that I never said that. That should be enough for you.

 

[civ_king]

The simple fact that I never said that. That should be enough for you.

I can almost perfectly substitute gay marriage with the United States of America and the substitution is McCarthyism.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, I mean a sub-set of society (around 3 to 5 percent) that exhibits a behavior that the vast majority (95% or so) doesnt. Said small percentage wants to change the other 95% over to their viewpoint that what they do is 'normal'. Other 95% tend to disagree.

I was unaware that objective norms could be determined democratically...

I can almost perfectly substitute gay marriage with the United States of America and the substitution is McCarthyism.

Yes, because if there's one group in the United States that has historically drawn a short straw, it's homophobic straight people.

 

[Cutlass]

I can almost perfectly substitute gay marriage with the United States of America and the substitution is McCarthyism.

Where the hell does that even come from?

 

[SG-17]

I dont really care what bonobos and dolphins do. Nor is it a compelling argument to me on the issue as I see man as a higher being, able to overcome his more base (i.e. natural) instincts. Man engages in myriad behaviors that, while perfectly natural, are also abhorrent, so that particular argument doesnt mean much to me.

Humans aren't higher beings. We are animals, we are subject to the same natural laws as everything else. Our intelligence, our reasoning is a byproduct of our instincts.

 

[civ_king]

Where the hell does that even come from?

The people who support freedom support gay marriage. The people who oppose freedom oppose it.

The people who support freedom support the United States of America. The people who oppose freedom oppose it.

really it sounds like is "Why do you hate freedom?" (well more like only people who hate freedom are against gay marriage)

Humans aren't higher beings. We are animals, we are subject to the same natural laws as everything else. Our intelligence, our reasoning is a byproduct of our instincts.

Humans have formed civilizations, traveled to the moon, harness electricity and most of all invented the Civilization series

 

[Cutlass]

The people who support freedom support gay marriage. The people who oppose freedom oppose it.

The people who support freedom support the United States of America. The people who oppose freedom oppose it.

really it sounds like is "Why do you hate freedom?" (well more like only people who hate freedom are against gay marriage)

I suppose it's possible to support freedom and not like the US much. However, no one and this is in about 300 threads in OT in recent years, has come up with a reason for blocking gay marriage other than that you cannot accept them having the same freedom that you do.