Christians claims re the gay agenda

[Enai de a lukal]

I lack your confidence about what words mean.

Apparently. You seem to think that the ordinary usage of words can be ignored, and the meaning of a word can simply be stipulated to be... well, whatever the hell you happen to fancy at that time. And while "bigot" clearly carries a negative connotation, there's no doubt that it has nothing to do with "hating everything right and good in the world". And the negative connotation is well deserved, because what "bigot" and "bigotry" denote are negative, immoral things.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

negative but not necessarily immoral

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Can you give an example of morally acceptable bigotry then? I can't think of one.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Would Steve and Samantha going out be 'good' (whatever that means), if so how and why? What would distinguish this from Steve and Sam dating? But let me ask you this - do you believe anyone is asking you to 'agree' (whatever that means) with Steve and Samantha going out? Your 'agreement' is without relevance (as is everyone else's if the two are of age) - the same is true if Steve goes out with Sam instead.

Being tolerant isnt the same as being accepting, I recognise this - tolerance merely refers to refraining from obstruction and denigration (acceptance takes this further) - one may for example avoid obstruction but not avoid denigration for example our terminology (in particular with the association of moral terms such as stating you do not agree than their way of life is 'good' infers that you believe the opposite given dualism seems appropriate from former conversations) can be a form of denigration, thus a direct diminishing of tolerance. One does not need to 'agree' with someone's lifestyle to be tolerant, one merely needs to avoid obstruction or denigration.

I may not like Samantha and think the world of Sam. It does not matter what I think, it is what Steve thinks that matters.

I should welcome who ever Steve brings with him to my house for dinner. The same thing for employment. If Sam is the better worker, he should be hired.

Now we come to the "Agenda". For anyone to tell me what my personal thoughts should be and what I should think is normal is wrong. I have no right to judge just as no one should judge me as well.

Who gives a hoot what I think is normal? Does that really change anything so long as I treat people well?

We can tell people how to act but not what to think. Try reversing that and you may see my point.

I try putting the shoe on the other foot from time to time to help guide me in the right direction.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Can you give an example of morally acceptable bigotry then? I can't think of one.

I was referring to amoral bigotry; such as simple ignorance which results in negative behaviors, it is through comprehension that our actions become associated with morality in the same way we do not consider an animal's actions moral or immoral, the ignorance of a human could give rise to amoral bigotry, it is not that they are being immoral but what they are doing is indeed profoundly negative.

Now we come to the "Agenda". For anyone to tell me what my personal thoughts should be and what I should think is normal is wrong. I have no right to judge just as no one should judge me as well.

Who gives a hoot what I think is normal? Does that really change anything so long as I treat people well?

We can tell people how to act but not what to think. Try reversing that and you may see my point.

I try putting the shoe on the other foot from time to time to help guide me in the right direction.

Oh I quite concur, encouraging tolerance is an agenda of sorts - it would be kind of like trying to get people to recognise that black people arent evil or that slavery isnt something we should embrace - there is an agenda there; it just does not seem to be the shadowy conspiracy some people make it out to be. Nor does it appear to be some sort of grant project to be synchronized and controlled from the rainbow control towers, it is merely that there are a significant number of people in many walks of life in many locations looking to encourage tolerance (and for some of these people, this will particularly be true with regards to an area that they personally find important - sexuality)

 

[Pegg]

Would Steve and Samantha going out be 'good' (whatever that means), if so how and why? What would distinguish this from Steve and Sam dating? But let me ask you this - do you believe anyone is asking you to 'agree' (whatever that means) with Steve and Samantha going out? Your 'agreement' is without relevance (as is everyone else's if the two are of age) - the same is true if Steve goes out with Sam instead.

Being tolerant isnt the same as being accepting, I recognise this - tolerance merely refers to refraining from obstruction and denigration (acceptance takes this further) - one may for example avoid obstruction but not avoid denigration for example our terminology (in particular with the association of moral terms such as stating you do not agree than their way of life is 'good' infers that you believe the opposite given dualism seems appropriate from former conversations) can be a form of denigration, thus a direct diminishing of tolerance. One does not need to 'agree' with someone's lifestyle to be tolerant, one merely needs to avoid obstruction or denigration.

yes thankyou, thats right. And this is one thing that really annoys me is that because of not agreeing and accepting homosexuality as normal or good, then you are labelled as intolerant or a bigot or homophobic.

people need to distinguish between tolerance and acceptance. They are not the same thing as you say.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Im sorry, but I only pointed out there WAS a difference (I then put the term acceptance aside for a moment since I did not think it was relevant to the discussion), I merely looked at the two more significant components of tolerance (at the time I omitted destruction because I thought it would be obvious): an absence of both obstruction and denigration; having either of these present would indicate some measure of intolerance (and thus at least limited bigotry) - there are certainly degrees of intolerance, the manifestation of only denigration would be at the lighter end of intolerance but it would be intolerant; while not necessarily homophobic it is certainly homonegativist to suggest that homosexuality is more not 'good' than heterosexuality.

Intolerance to some specific categorisation comprises three main components are as far as I can see:

• Denigration - to disparage or malign a person, group, place or thing as a result of adherence to some categorisation
• Obstruction - to attempt to hinder communication or other behaviors specifically due to their relation to the category
• Destruction - to attempt to target people, groups, places or things associated with the category for forcible intervention (violence, imprisonment etc)

Tolerance is the absence of all three of these with regards to the category, though one can attempt to be tolerant and only be partially successful (if any remain).

Acceptance requires tolerance, but also seems to suggest some incorporation of:

• Reevaluation - a conscious attempt to target the psychological factors that lead to intolerance about the category and to mitigate these factors as best one can
• Promotion - a conscious attempt to ensure espoused positions are no more denigratory regarding the category than for those unrelated to the category
• Facilitation - a conscious attempt to ensure institutional processes are no more obstructive regarding the category than for those unrelated to the category

One could then attempt to take these further towards what was once called positive discrimination or affirmative action, but that would be more than simple acceptance it would be preferential treatment.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

The gay agenda to allow them equal rights under law and protection from bigotry that is often legal under the guise of religious freedom is their agenda.

And the next logical step from there is ******* sheep, incest, pedophillia, WWIII, the return of Satan and the destruction of America as we know it.

 

[LuisDantas]

exactly right. Live and let live.

A nice sentiment for sure. Unfortunately, the nature of this world we live in demands a lot more in the way of choices and planning beyond that.

Were the world population stable, resources never exhausted, and basic personal freedom and dignity givens, I would agree with you.

 

[averageJOE]

yes thankyou, thats right. And this is one thing that really annoys me is that because of not agreeing and accepting homosexuality as normal or good, then you are labelled as intolerant or a bigot or homophobic.

people need to distinguish between tolerance and acceptance. They are not the same thing as you say.

So the "gay agenda" is to force people to agree or accept homosexuality?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Apparently. You seem to think that the ordinary usage of words can be ignored, and the meaning of a word can simply be stipulated to be... well, whatever the hell you happen to fancy at that time.

Yeah. Words are my [female cur dogs]. I do with them what I will.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Too bad. An inability to use words in a meaningful manner is surely one reason why the value of your contributions to discussions is often so limited. Its easy to make claims and arguments when you can arbitrarily re-define words willy-nilly... When you have to try to abide by common linguistic practice, so that what you say is intelligible, its a little trickier.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Too bad. An inability to use words in a meaningful manner is surely one reason why the value of your contributions to discussions is often so limited. Its easy to make claims and arguments when you can arbitrarily re-define words willy-nilly... When you have to try to abide by common linguistic practice, so that what you say is intelligible, its a little trickier.

Oh come on. Try to get over yourself. This is only debate. It's not like I'm maligning your mama or anything. I'm just pushing you around with words. Instead of getting mad about it, see if you can learn enough from me to keep up.

[Image here of cat toying with mouse.]

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Oh come on. Try to get over yourself. This is only debate. It's not like I'm maligning your mama or anything. I'm just pushing you around with words. Instead of getting mad about it, see if you can learn enough from me to keep up.

[Image here of cat toying with mouse.]

Oh dear, this hot air again. I suppose you can pretend I'm getting mad, if it makes you feel better, but as long as your claims and arguments rely on patently false definitions, I'll be watching you in my rear view mirror, waiting for you to catch up. (FYI: these things called "dictionaries" may help alleviate some of your confusion... just a thought)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Oh dear, this hot air again. I suppose you can pretend I'm getting mad, if it makes you feel better, but as long as your claims and arguments rely on patently false definitions, I'll be watching you in my rear view mirror, waiting for you to catch up. (FYI: these things called "dictionaries" may help alleviate some of your confusion... just a thought)

If you'd like to engage me in a direct discussion of language, I'll be glad to accomodate you. It's my area of expertise. Would you like me to start a thread about the fallacy of worshipping dictionaries?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

How about a thread about the problem with stipulating ad hoc re-definitions of words simply to support a (mistaken) point you've tried to make?

I suppose that doesn't interest you. A little too close to home perhaps.

(and BTW, nobody said anything about "worshipping" dictionaries. They are, however, useful tools, for instance in dispelling basic confusion over how a word is used, such as yours over the words "bigot" and "bigotry")

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And BTW, my earlier comment was a joke- probably don't need to get your panties in such a bundle over it, but I'm not entirely surprised... You seem to have no sense of humor where your (inflated) EGO is concerned.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And BTW, my earlier comment was a joke- probably don't need to get your panties in such a bundle over it, but I'm not entirely surprised... You seem to have no sense of humor where your (inflated) EGO is concerned.

Yeah, my earlier comments -- especially my Message 133 -- were jokes, too.

But I was serious about a language thread. I seriously believe you're a bit confused about how language works, and it is the tool which we use here in this place, so examining it closely can't hurt.

Let me know if you're interested.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You do as you like. If its going to be a thread of strawmen burning (e.g. "worshipping dictionaries"), I don't see the point, but if its actually interesting, I'll contribute. Perhaps you'll use the fallacy of ad-hoc definitions as a starting point? Or not, we'll see I guess.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You do as you like. If its going to be a thread of strawmen burning (e.g. "worshipping dictionaries"), I don't see the point, but if its actually interesting, I'll contribute. Perhaps you'll use the fallacy of ad-hoc definitions as a starting point? Or not, we'll see I guess.

Maybe I'll do it and maybe not. Depends on whether the spirit moves me, I guess.

(Don't bother with trying to find my definition of 'spirit' in the dictionary. Just feel me, bro.)