Christians claims re the gay agenda

[Wherenextcolumbus]

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.


This is an exemplary way to handle the problem.

I give you another example of when some said to me he wouldn't mind being friends with a gay man as long as they don't speak about being gay with him, I tried to explain why that was homophobic. He then said "so would you be comfortable with a lesbian friend telling you she likes having oral sex with women ?"(he used more pornographic words) I told him that it is obvious that my lesbian friend likes to have sex with women and no, that would not make me feel uncomfortable, If it made me uncomfortable why would I bother being friends with a lesbian for?
He thought he wasn't being homophobic by saying he would allow a gay man the honour of being in his presence but as long as they repress their gayness in front of him. Meanwhile he is allowed to go into graphic detail about his sex life but that is ok because "heterosexuality is natural" -his words.
Was I bullying him? I don't think so

 

[Revoltingest]

I give you another example of when some said to me he wouldn't mind being friends with a gay man as long as they don't speak about being gay with him, I tried to explain why that was homophobic. He then said "so would you be comfortable with a lesbian friend telling you she likes having oral sex with women ?"(he used more pornographic words) I told him that it is obvious that my lesbian friend likes to have sex with women and no, that would not make me feel uncomfortable, If it made me uncomfortable why would I bother being friends with a lesbian for?
He thought he wasn't being homophobic by saying he would allow a gay man the honour of being in his presence but as long as they repress their gayness in front of him. Meanwhile he is allowed to go into graphic detail about his sex life but that is ok because "heterosexuality is natural" -his words.
Was I bullying him? I don't think so

This might very well be a legit example of homophobia. And since you used the term in a productive fashion, I'd say it wasn't bullying or even inappropriate. The term "homophobia" is not itself the problem, but rather the usage in a particular context can be.

Useless parenthetical aside:
I've supported LGBT rights ever since I became aware of the issue nearly half a century ago. But I'm also repulsed by such icky couplings. One could rightly say I'm homophobic. If someone called me "homophobic" for the correct reasons, I'd agree. But if someone called me "homophobic" because of my politics, I'd take offense at the word being used for demonization.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Oh, you poor deluded rascal. You barely even glimpse the surface of the carnage going on inside
my brain. It's worse than you imagine. But I work (albeit imperfectly) at keeping it under control.
Despite my warring against religions & government for most of my life, I'm able to count many
fundies & commies among my good friends. I owe it all to being aware of & managing my ill thoughts.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Useless parenthetical aside:
I've supported LGBT rights ever since I became aware of the issue nearly half a century ago. But I'm also repulsed by such icky couplings. One could rightly say I'm homophobic. If someone called me "homophobic" for the correct reasons, I'd agree. But if someone called me "homophobic" because of my politics, I'd take offense at the word being used for demonization.

Why would someone call you homophobic because of you politics? what do you mean?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why would someone call you homophobic because of you politics? what do you mean?

Since I'm a libertarian, I'll advocate greater freedom in people being able to discriminate in their associations with other people. Some find this a threat to gov imposed anti-discrimination policies. This inspires rancor. The "homophobe" tag doesn't come up very often though. I can't recall the last time. Anyway, if someone is opposed to homosexuality for religious reasons, this could affect their politics without involving "homophobia".

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Since I'm a libertarian, I'll advocate greater freedom in people being able to discriminate in their associations with other people. Some find this a threat to gov imposed anti-discrimination policies. This inspires rancor. The "homophobe" tag doesn't come up very often though. I can't recall the last time. Anyway, if someone is opposed to homosexuality for religious reasons, this could affect their politics without involving "homophobia".

yes, I support the right of a church not to marry gay people if they don't want to for example, as long as gay people can get married secularly.
But I also support the right of people to be able to criticise a religious institution as well. EDIT: May I add, especially for the mental damage it has on a gay person who is raised in such a religious institution.

 

[Revoltingest]

yes, I support the right of a church not to marry gay people if they don't want to for example, as long as gay people can get married secularly.
But I also support the right of people to be able to criticise a religious institution as well.

Agreed!

 

[nilsz]

While I regard this forum as a common ground for people of very different belief systems to congregate and make themselves more or less understood, I hold no illusion about how many of them regard my own opinions as harmful and immoral, just as I view theirs.

With many LGBTQ people growing up needlessly without the sense of safety so many of us take for granted, with rampant hate crimes not given due attention in the media, the offence of calling someone a homophobe seems negligible when a person displays an attitude that passively supports these societal tendencies.

 

[Revoltingest]

While I regard this forum as a common ground for people of very different belief systems to congregate and make themselves more or less understood, I hold no illusion about how many of them regard my own opinions as harmful and immoral, just as I view theirs.
With many LGBTQ people growing up needlessly without the sense of safety so many of us take for granted, with rampant hate crimes not given due attention in the media, the offence of calling someone a homophobe seems negligible when a person displays an attitude that passively supports these societal tendencies.

To call you "immoral" (as you & your foes view each other) is also negligible.
But when intended to demonize, even such "neglibible" barbs are counter-productive.
Every time someone calls me "immoral", "unethical", or other such names, it only tells
me that they are full of rancor & a self-righteous belief that they have "THE TRUTH".
Then I spank'm.

 

[nilsz]

Will you spank me for being so certain that the sky is blue and that the sun is bright?

I don't hide my certainty on what is right out of fear of offending my fellow man.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just to come back to this:

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.

You know, I recently saw someone in another thread give an interesting rebuttal to the sort of complaint you're giving here:

Should people who want to hear the message be banned from listening? Isnt that taking away a persons right to information?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3553697-post17.html

 

[Revoltingest]

Will you spank me for being so certain that the sky is blue and that the sun is bright?

No...so long as you don't dis my manhood or call me a poopy head.

I don't hide my certainty on what is right out of fear of offending my fellow man.

This is a fine goal, one which I share, but there are things which influence how we express ourselves.

Consider:
1) Rule #1: "Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums....
Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other..."
I've managed to survive many posts without being banned (yet), so while I might occasionally fall from grace, I generally observe this rule by leaving some of my 'truths' unuttered.

2) We each affect our relationship with other posters.
- I can foster civil discussion by expressing myself in a way which elaborates on my view & rebuts opposing ones.
- Or I can pointedly detail the personal failings of the other poster, who will respond in kind.
Then, it's "Flame on!". I must resist flame wars, because I like them too much....way too much.

The question becomes: What kind of relationship do you want with your fellow posters?
It might vary. Some I largely ignore, some are my friends, & some relationships are....hmmm....a work in progress.

We each have great power over how others perceive & react to us.
And with great power comes great.....well, you know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

2) We each affect our relationship with other posters.
- I can foster civil discussion by expressing myself in a way which elaborates on my view & rebuts opposing ones.
- Or I can pointedly detail the personal failings of the other poster, who will respond in kind.
Then, it's "Flame on!". I must resist flame wars, because I like them too much....way too much.

The question becomes: What kind of relationship do you want with your fellow posters?
It might vary. Some I largely ignore, some are my friends, & some relationships are....hmmm....a work in progress.

Speaking for myself, there are certain issues where I'm okay with making it clear that my stance on an issue is more important to me than a relationship with someone who holds a view I disagree with.

We each have great power over how others perceive & react to us.
And with great power comes great.....well, you know.

... current and/or voltage?

 

[Revoltingest]

Speaking for myself, there are certain issues where I'm okay with making it clear that my stance on an issue is more important to me than a relationship with someone who holds a view I disagree with.

That's very much in the spirit of RF.
But when the expressed stance is about the poster rather than the issue, that's where trouble arises.

... current and/or voltage?

You very well know what Uncle Ben said!

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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).

Yeah, I agree with you about the use of 'homophobic.' It should be kept mostly out of public discourse. For the past while I've been trying my best to resist using 'bigot' against a certain anti-gay debater. Do I think he's a bigot? Oh, yeah... of the worst sort. But if I'm too free with the name-calling, it does no good for the cause of civil and therefore productive debate.

Same with 'liar.' Lots of liars in debate forums, but better not to say so to their faces.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hey, I am pansexual and transexual too. Well, not quite sure if I meet the definition of transexual but I am at least transgender working on being transexual. Close enough right?

Sure is. Welcome, friend. Nice to have another trans person here. :drunk:

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, I agree with you about the use of 'homophobic.' It should be kept mostly out of public discourse. For the past while I've been trying my best to resist using 'bigot' against a certain anti-gay debater. Do I think he's a bigot? Oh, yeah... of the worst sort. But if I'm too free with the name-calling, it does no good for the cause of civil and therefore productive debate.
Same with 'liar.' Lots of liars in debate forums, but better not to say so to their faces.

Yeah, it seems that most of the time "liar" is employed when there's just disagreement, misunderstanding
or error. It can be hard (though sometimes possible) to tell when someone is actually trying to deceive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's very much in the spirit of RF.
But when the expressed stance is about the poster rather than the issue, that's where trouble arises.

Most of the time, I try to concentrate on the effects of a person's choice instead of their motives for making it. Now... sometimes, it can be effective to shock someone in a way that implies "not only do I disagree with you, but your stance on this issue makes me think less of you as a person"... but this approach is a blunt instrument and shouldn't be used indiscriminately, IMO. A sledgehammer isn't appropriate in every situation, but it can be a useful tool.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm not sure that one can have much productive discussion with those who hold that certain segments of society deserve unequal treatment under the law, on the basis of their gender/sexual preference/race/age/etc. - so what exactly are we losing when we call things that quack and waddle "ducks" here? The problem is that, most of the time, when the anti-gay crowd cry victim for being construed as bigots or homophobes- they are being bigots and/or homophobes. Sometimes diplomacy merely for diplomacy's sake gets you nowhere.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.