Christians claims re the gay agenda

[Kilgore Trout]

The agenda of most of the gay people I know is to try to live productive, happy lives, while given the same rights and opportunities as everyone else, and to minimize their exposure to hatred and bigotry aimed at them - basically, the same as heterosexual people. Of course, I understand that many people have a mindset which causes them to intepret others' equality as somehow lessening their own. There's really not much you can do to change these peoples' minds.

The best we can hope for is that they eventually come to personally know some homosexuals, and come to the realization that bigotry is destructive and harmful, not only to the target of the bigotry, but to themselves as well. I've known a number of people throughout my life who overcame their initially bigoted views by coming to know people as individuals. We can only hope that those with bigoted views on this forum eventually are fortunate enough to have the opportunity to see others' humanity, and overcome their own, harmful biases.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree that there is such a thing as too much diplomacy. While understanding is certainly necessary, it is just as important not to feed expectations of acceptance that one finds undue. Particularly when it is acceptance of unfounded discrimination.

Do you believe that rule #1 is wrong?
For reference....

Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I don't see how describing homophobia or bigotry as homophobia or bigotry would constitute a personal attack, any more than describing racism as racism would. And if the shoe fits...

 

[nilsz]

Like any set of rules that deals with the complexities of human interaction, it could always be more nuanced.

Sometimes there is due condemnation. For an extreme example - when a person is defending genocide. Such a person is rightfully called a horrible person.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you believe that rule #1 is wrong?
For reference....

No, I don't. Then again, that doesn't really connect to the matter at hand, now does it?

I would be really interested in understanding which connection, if any, you do see.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, I don't. Then again, that doesn't really connect to the matter at hand, now does it?

I would be really interested in understanding which connection, if any, you do see.

I think that to call someone a bigot or liar is to curse them, in the same way as calling them an SOB, except worse. Same with 'racist' usually. It sure seems like a personal attack to me when people do that, but it depends on the wording. Within earshot of an anti-gay bigot, I'll talk about how terrible anti-gay bigotry is, but I will rarely call the guy a bigot to his face. Or a liar. I usually won't even accuse someone one lying, though I might imply it.

I'm interested in changing people's views, and I don't think I can do that by poisoning the dialogue.

 

[Mycroft]

I've said it many times: Homophobia is just the fear of being treated by other men the way men treat women.

 

[Ingledsva]

Christians can believe whatever they want. The issue is with enforcing their religious views as fact on the general public.

we can believe it, but we cant express it without being vilified and branded as homophobic when its not homophobia at all.

Its a conscience matter for me, so im not going to be told I can't express how I feel about a certain matter. i personally dont care what people choose to do...i just dont want to be told that I have to agree with it.

So you sanction the likes of Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church group?

As dgirl said - you can have the beliefs, and talk about them with people. The problem is when you try to push such prejudices onto the mainstream; withholding housing, jobs, adoption of kids, etc, and try to change secular law to YOUR religion's laws.


*

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've said it many times: Homophobia is just the fear of being treated by other men the way men treat women.

So how does homophobia regarding lesbians play into this scenario?

 

[Mycroft]

So you sanction the likes of Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church group?

As dgirl said - you can have the beliefs, and talk about them with people. The problem is when you try to push such prejudices onto the mainstream; withholding housing, jobs, adoption of kids, etc, and try to change secular law to YOUR religion's laws.


*

There common misconception is this mythical one must respect one's beliefs. Which is not true. One only has to respect ones right to a belief. However ridiculous it may be.

Fred Phelps has the right to his belief and I respect that right. But what he believes is so treacherous it should be, at every turn, suppressed and ridiculed.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I don't. Then again, that doesn't really connect to the matter at hand, now does it?

It most certainly does.
If one poster describes another as "homophobic", this violates rule #1.
If one poster describes another as "stupid", this....you see where this is going.
If you disagree with someone's views on an issue, then tis best to explain why,
rather than diagnosing the poster's moral or intellectual shortcomings.

 

[Pegg]

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.

i'm not offended by gay people in the slightest.

But if you ask me what I think of the practice, i'll be very forward in expressing my disapproval of it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think that to call someone a bigot or liar is to curse them, in the same way as calling them an SOB, except worse. Same with 'racist' usually. It sure seems like a personal attack to me when people do that, but it depends on the wording. Within earshot of an anti-gay bigot, I'll talk about how terrible anti-gay bigotry is, but I will rarely call the guy a bigot to his face. Or a liar. I usually won't even accuse someone one lying, though I might imply it.

I'm interested in changing people's views, and I don't think I can do that by poisoning the dialogue.

I see your point, and it sure makes sense. Realistically, making someone feel insulted (justifiably or otherwise) simply does not earn one cooperation.

All the same, just like so many other approaches, even that very sensible one isn't always the best one to use. People must sometimes be faced with the full impact of their stances, and there is a place for using blunt shock.

In fact, such a place must exist if we are to have means of defending ourselves from attempts at twisting good will and diplomacy into weapons against decency. One must have a way of getting away from the role of a Schlemazl.

 

[LuisDantas]

It most certainly does.
If one poster describes another as "homophobic", this violates rule #1.

Not seeing it.

If one poster describes another as "stupid", this....you see where this is going.

Not really.

If you disagree with someone's views on an issue, then tis best to explain why, rather than diagnosing the poster's moral or intellectual shortcomings.

This I agree with, for what it is worth. With the proviso of my previous post, which should be right above this one.

 

[LuisDantas]

i'm not offended by gay people in the slightest.

But if you ask me what I think of the practice, i'll be very forward in expressing my disapproval of it.

Then I guess it comes down to deciding how forward one can be while still respecting the human and civil rights of others.

How would you feel if somehow homosexuals decided that they disapprove your heterosexuality and were just as forward about it? I think that can be a good mental exercise to engage on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i'm not offended by gay people in the slightest.

But if you ask me what I think of the practice, i'll be very forward in expressing my disapproval of it.

Ah. When you said it was "not acceptable" for people to try to convince you on gay rights issues, I took this to mean that you didn't want them to be allowed to do it.

 

[Pegg]

No it's as bad as mistreating someone for being homosexual.
It's slowly starting to happen and I personally can not wait when homosexuality is taught as normal in highschools.
Saying something is homophobic is not a bullying tactic it's being honest. The homophobes are slowly loosing there will be more and more gay people being represented on TV and whether they like it or not their children are going to be taught through television or their school that homosexuality is normal. Give it another decade or two and Soon the homophobes in my country will have to throw anyway their TV and home school their children. I really can't wait.

there is no problem with homosexuals having a place in public life...we have had a few openly homosexuals in leadership positions in government and they are every bit respected as others.

What you say is 'going' to happen has already happened. They have a very active and prominent share in public life. Schools are already teaching kids that homosexuality is normal and thats fine if it makes life better for homosexuals.

But I still dont agree that homosexuality is a normal or natural practice because conscientiously I don't believe it is.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

But I still dont agree that homosexuality is a normal or natural practice because conscientiously I don't believe it is.

I didn't realize the terms "normal" and "natural" were matters of conscience.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't see how describing homophobia or bigotry as homophobia or bigotry would constitute a personal attack, any more than describing racism as racism would. And if the shoe fits...

I think the key difference is whether you call someone a homophobe or bigot, as compared to describing what they say as homophobic or bigoted. In the first case, you're attacking the person - in the second, you're attacking their ideas. Of course, there's often a fine line between the two, and the reality is that it's often splitting hairs. In the case of homophobia and bigotry, rightfully so.

 

[LuisDantas]

I didn't realize the terms "normal" and "natural" were matters of conscience.

They are for one who feels responsible for other people's behavior and its consequences. To an extent that is a good thing, albeit tricky to balance.