Christians claims re the gay agenda

[LuisDantas]

I agree with you on this point. But it can be made without using the epithet "homophobic".

You may well have a point, but I need clarification. It is not clear to me why someone would oppose that word. "Photophobia", for instance, isn't a disease so much as a state.

Besides, the way I see it rejection of homosexuality is a social disease and homophoby is just about perfect to describe it.

What is the problem with the word again?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

encourage a tolerant mindset so that the rights and freedoms of homosexual people are not interfered with, yes. Absolutely.

But try to change the opinions of people to make them think that homosexuality is perfectly normal and acceptable? No. That is just as bad as mistreating someone because they are homosexual.

Heh, yeah the same issue exists with races too...Oh no is that an interracial couple on television?

Some of the rhetoric that people use to describe homosexuality can at times be eerily similar to the rhetoric people used when describing other races.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

But try to change the opinions of people to make them think that homosexuality is perfectly normal and acceptable? No. That is just as bad as mistreating someone because they are homosexual.

That is also really ironic, considering it is your saturday job to change peoples opinions.

 

[Mycroft]

Can someone explain to me what the supposed gay agenda is supposed to be? I see it used all the time in anti gay articles and on forum threads. They are always pushing that the gay agenda needs to be fought like it is some huge conspiracy theory to make the world gay or something, but seem to fail in stating what the supposed gay agenda is.

Since I am gay I have the right to point out that if there is any kind of agenda as they say...it is for equality...what else would we possibly want? What reason is there to suspect that it is anything more than that? It seems that the word agenda is used when they want to strike the fear into people.

From what I've seen it's not specifically a christian claim as well as a Right Wing conservative American claim, too. And the agenda is basically: THE GAYS ARE LITERALLY STEAMROLLING AMERICA.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's put it this way Revolt, if a JW came to my door and I told them I am pro-gay trans, whatever, and do not wish to join their organisation because i think it is homophobic and I feel sorry for all the gay people brought up in that from a child, that is not bullying or demonizing.

In this special case, I'd say it's not bullying because your comment is about the organization rather than the people you're with.
But it still smacks of demonization. Is there anything about JW literature which suggests an irrational fear of homos?

If someone is coming to you with their opinion that homosexuality is morally wrong even though it is not hurting anyone and is none of their buisness, the person who they are saying it to can come back with their opinion as well.

We all have our opinions, but it behooves us to express them (or not) in a manner which serves civil discourse (the main goal on RF).
It might not seem so, but I've a plethora of negative opinions which I keep to myself, lest the climate here become even testier.

 

[Revoltingest]

From what I've seen it's not specifically a christian claim as well as a Right Wing conservative American claim, too. And the agenda is basically: THE GAYS ARE LITERALLY STEAMROLLING AMERICA.

Oh, man!
I want a gayroller now!

Perhaps some day.....

 

[Mycroft]

Oh, man!
I want a gayroller now!

Perhaps some day.....

She looks to be a fixer-upper. A bit of rainbow-paint here and there and you'll be good to go!

 

[Revoltingest]

She looks to be a fixer-upper. A bit of rainbow-paint here and there and you'll be good to go!

I prefer me machines to sport original paint....in its "working clothes", as we ironheads say.
A rainbow flag will suffice.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

In this special case, I'd say it's not bullying because your comment is about the organization rather than the people you're with.
But it still smacks of demonization. Is there anything about JW literature which suggests an irrational fear of homos?

We all have our opinions, but it behooves us to express them (or not) in a manner which serves civil discourse (the main goal on RF).
It might not seem so, but I've a plethora of negative opinions which I keep to myself, lest the climate here become even testier.

Well there is the whole "this is an abomination" verse in the Bible, which I think the JW take to be true.

Some opinions are better off thought but not said I suppose.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

In this special case, I'd say it's not bullying because your comment is about the organization rather than the people you're with.
But it still smacks of demonization. Is there anything about JW literature which suggests an irrational fear of homos?

We all have our opinions, but it behooves us to express them (or not) in a manner which serves civil discourse (the main goal on RF).
It might not seem so, but I've a plethora of negative opinions which I keep to myself, lest the climate here become even testier.

Homophobia doesn't have to be an irriational fear, I like social and sociological definitions of homophobia, racism and sexism as opposed to dictionary definions.
Do they deny homosexuals equal rights with in their org? then yes it is homophobia, they can continue to do that if they want to, but I know how damaging it is for a homosexuals to be brought up in that. If it is mentally damaging to homosexuals to repress their orientation it is homophobic

 

[Revoltingest]

Homophobia doesn't have to be an irriational fear, I like social and sociological definitions of homophobia, racism and sexism as opposed to dictionary definions.
Do they deny homosexuals equal rights with in their org? then yes it is homophobia, they can continue to do that if they want to, but I know how damaging it is for a homosexuals to be brought up in that. If it is mentally damaging to homosexuals to repress their orientation it is homophobic

While my take on language is more pedantic (& perhaps out of touch), the reality of using "homophobic" is to offend those with whom you seek discussion. This just isn't productive.
Consider the other side of the coin.
They might believe homosexuality to be a perversion, an abomination, & an affront to God. But most (including Pegg here) don't use the term "pervert" or "abomination" to describe homos. If they keep their language civil & neutral, then they deserve the same courtesy. Otherwise, we see discussions descend into ad hominems, rancor, & meta-discussion (like this one).

 

[Revoltingest]

Well there is the whole "this is an abomination" verse in the Bible, which I think the JW take to be true.

This is an excellent example of a biblical term which is best not invoked in discussions with the loyal opposition. "Abnormal" is another term best avoided, although I'm OK with being abnormal....heckfire, I am abnormal.

Some opinions are better off thought but not said I suppose.

True dat.
Few have any idea of the disgusting & offensive rage whirling around in me noggin.
Thank yer luck stars I keep all (almost) of it bottled up.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

This is an excellent example of a biblical term which is best not invoked in discussions with the loyal opposition. "Abnormal" is another term best avoided, although I'm OK with being abnormal....heckfire, I am abnormal.

True dat.
Few have any idea of the disgusting & offensive rage whirling around in me noggin.
Thank yer luck stars I keep all (almost) of it bottled up.

They float around everyone's head. The difference between the weirdo and the normal is that the weirdo lacks a filter....

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

While my take on language is more pedantic (& perhaps out of touch), the reality of using "homophobic" is to offend those with whom you seek discussion. This just isn't productive.
Consider the other side of the coin.
They might believe homosexuality to be a perversion, an abomination, & an affront to God. But most (including Pegg here) don't use the term "pervert" or "abomination" to describe homos. If they keep their language civil & neutral, then they deserve the same courtesy. Otherwise, we see discussions descend into ad hominems, rancor, & meta-discussion (like this one).

I don't use it to offend people, I use it as a description of an attitude or institution.
I give you an example, I was speaking to someone who said something racist, me and someone else told him it was racist and I explained to him why it was racist, he then apologised saying he didn't realise it was racist and he is the least racist person in the world (clearly not), some people don't realise what they are saying and say things out of ignorance and go through this world wihtout any one challenging them, until they meet someone who is willing to call them out they will never learn and continue to think their opinions are golden and untouchable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

encourage a tolerant mindset so that the rights and freedoms of homosexual people are not interfered with, yes. Absolutely.

But try to change the opinions of people to make them think that homosexuality is perfectly normal and acceptable? No. That is just as bad as mistreating someone because they are homosexual.

So it's free speech you have a problem with. You want the right to express your offense at gay people, but you don't want others to have the right to express their offense at you.

Freedom of speech doesn't include the right to expect that what you say won't be challenged.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't use it to offend people, I use it as a description of an attitude or institution.

I don't doubt your positive motives.
(I will dis the motives of some people though.)
I only notice the effect of using the word.

I give you an example, I was speaking to someone who said something racist, me and someone else told him it was racist and I explained to him why it was racist, he then apologised saying he didn't realise it was racist and he is the least racist person in the world (clearly not), some people don't realise what they are saying and say things out of ignorance and go through this world wihtout any one challenging them, until they meet someone who is willing to call them out they will never learn and continue to think their opinions are golden and untouchable.

This is an exemplary way to handle the problem.

 

[Mycroft]

Homophobia doesn't have to be an irriational fear, I like social and sociological definitions of homophobia, racism and sexism as opposed to dictionary definitions.

Huld it thar, pardner! You make the mistake, as most do, of thinking the dictionary is the supreme authority in matters of meaning and usage.

The dictionary is not a book of authoritative statements about the true meanings of words, but more a record of what words have meant to people and places in the distant or immediate past. The dictionary is a historical record and not the law of language.

Example:

If we had been writing a dictionary in 1890, we would have said that the word 'broadcast' commonly means 'to scatter' (for example seeds) and so on. But by 1921 onward the common meaning if 'broadcast' would be 'to disseminate audible messages eg. by wireless or telephony'. To regard the dictionary as an authority, therefore, is to give credit to the writer with gifts of prophecy which neither he nor anyone else possesses. In choosing to use the dictionary we are merely choosing to be guided by the historical record of meanings of words and not be dictated by an authority of words.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Huld it thar, pardner! You make the mistake, as most do, of thinking the dictionary is the supreme authority in matters of meaning and usage.

[/I]

No I don't think the dictionary is the supreme authority, re-read what I said, I favour the social/sociological definition of homophobia over the dictionary definition.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The gay agenda:

Queers are as human as straights. So sure, we're "normalizing" so that we're not being harassed, attacked, raped, murdered, or tortured and propped up on a fence after we're dead. We're wishing to be "normalized" in societies where we pay the same taxes and work in the same society as others so we can enjoy the same liberties and rights as straights.

If that offends people who would rather see us dead or simply hidden from plain sight than to consider their sensibilities, then I'm ready to offend as many people as possible to ensure the safety, security, and freedom of GLBTQs around the world.

 

[LuisDantas]

It might not seem so, but I've a plethora of negative opinions which I keep to myself, lest the climate here become even testier.

I think you would be surprised. A lot of what we do not say outright (therefore denying the chance for rebuttal or questioning) does find a way of insinuating itself in other ways.

Which is my way of saying that it DOES seem so.