pope made homophobic slur

[Rival]

Okay, I get you and I don't consider you any of those negative words and yet, your position can cause harm to other humans.

Not getting what one wants isn't really harm. One can live without sex or marriage.

 

[Rival]

What "standard conservative beliefs" do you think are being labelled homophobic but should be considered acceptable?



But hurting other people is something that should be stopped.



The Golden Rule is "liberal social morals" now?



Why would it be "definitionally useless"?

In what way is it hurting people? I'm not shooting them.

Yes, the West is known for being socially liberal, not sure this is controversial.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In what way is it hurting people? I'm not shooting them.

At this point, I'm not sure what your views actually are.

I talked about things that the Catholic Church does that do hurt people in real ways (e.g. lobbying against same-sex marriage, driving intolerance, opposing anti-bullying measures, etc.). You said that you agreed with the Church and considered my criticism of them criticism of you.

Was that incorrect?

 

[Secret Chief]

Okay, I get you and I don't consider you any of those negative words and yet, your position can cause harm to other humans.

Apparently only shooting others is classed as harm.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not getting what one wants isn't really harm. One can live without sex or marriage.

Well, it is the broad situation that you overlook for how a religion can work in practice.
Right now my home life is calling, so it will have to wait for later.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Apparently only shooting others is classed as harm.

And calling people "homophobic."

But not calling them "barbaric."

 

[Rival]

At this point, I'm not sure what your views actually are.

I talked about things that the Catholic Church does that do hurt people in real ways (e.g. lobbying against same-sex marriage, driving intolerance, opposing anti-bullying measures, etc.). You said that you agreed with the Church and considered my criticism of them criticism of you.

Was that incorrect?

I think you have conflated some things.

I agree we should not bully anyone for any reason, but I explained to you that where I am the Church is not advocating this kind of bullying and is actively against it, so yes I agree with the Church(es). I do not agree with SSM, so I agree. There is nuance here as I don't believe lack of SSM is intolerant.

My views are fairly standard Christian views, but your view of Christianity seems to be very American and I don't recognize it, as I've said before. The Church you describe is not the Church I agree with. Where I am, no Church is interfering with healthcare, judges, or anything else. Priests in the C of E have been allowed gay civil unions since 2005. So I am not seeing the apparent intolerance or bullying here.

 

[Rival]

And calling people "homophobic."

But not calling them "barbaric."

You totally missed my point here, as I explained to Salix.

Not getting what you want but don't need isn't harm. The end.

 

[Alien826]

Exactly! Its a personal attack.

If someone doesn't like homosexuality they are called a homophobe.
Its BS because the person isn't saying they don't like the person.

Bob doesn't like Bill's chevy truck.
Therefore Bob is a chevyphobe.
Bob isn't saying he doesn't like Bill.

Sexual preference is much more tied into what a person IS than what automobile he chooses. So much so that it's very difficult to separate the two, emotionally. If I say to Bill "I prefer Ford trucks", he probably won't get offended. If I say to (gay) John "I don't like homosexuality" he probably will, because you are criticizing something that is an essential part of him. Imagine saying to a dwarf (Mary) "I don't like shortness". Do you think Mary will immediately take it that you are not attacking her personally?

 

[Secret Chief]

The Church you describe is not the Church I agree with. Where I am, no Church is interfering with healthcare, judges, or anything else.

Perhaps non-Brits, like you, are not aware that the UK Parliament has up to 26 members there simply by courtesy of them being bishops (known as the Lords Spiritual). Democracy in action folks!

 

[Rival]

Perhaps non-Brits, like you, are not aware that the UK Parliament has up to 26 members there simply by courtesy of them being bishops (known as the Lords Spiritual). Democracy in action folks!

Err excuse me?

I am British.

Yes, we have Bishops. I haven't seem them overturning SSM or abortion laws lately, as is being complained about re the SCOTUS. They are there as a formality, much like the King. In my 28 years I have not seen any interference from them, especially not given how liberal the C of E is.

 

[Secret Chief]

Err excuse me?

I am British.

Yes, we have Bishops. I haven't seem them overturning SSM or abortion laws lately, as is being complained about re the SCOTUS. They are there as a formality, much like the King. In my 28 years I have not seen any interference from them, especially not given how liberal the C of E is.

I know you're British. If they have no influence why do they take up their seats? Why do they attend? Why do they speak? Why do they vote? All just a formality is it?

 

[Secret Chief]

Not getting what one wants isn't really harm. One can live without sex or marriage.

One can live without being entitled to vote too. There's more to harm than shooting.

 

[Rival]

I know you're British. If they have no influence why do they take up their seats? Why do they attend? Why do they speak? Why do they vote? All just a formality is it?

Yes, it is, and they can vote how they please. Bishops are not a monolith of opinion.

Not sure how you're unaware that the country we live in has lots of formalities and pageantry. We're well-known for that.

I mean, I'm also not bothered there are Bishops there, being an Anglican. I wouldn't care if they interfered in ways I agreed with, obviously. But as far as I am aware, they don't. For a contrast, the 19th c. Parliament had debates about the Book of Common Prayer revisions. I haven't seen that in a while.

 

[Alien826]

I don't care for the word homophobe either.

This is me. Examples...

-if you are religious, don't push your religion on me
-if you are racist, don't push your racisim on me
-if you are a transgender, don't push your transgenderism on me
-etc etc

If I don't like or agree with religion, racism or transgenderism. It simply means I don't like it. It doesn't mean I hate the people.

Its up to me to decide what I like or don't like. Personal attacks by name calling doesn't make me look at things in a better light, it probably worsens the light.

Don't you think though, that there's a dimension that goes beyond personal likes or agreements? What I mean is where an attitude is accompanied by actions or encouragement of actions that is in addition to simply how someone feels. Sure, if someone doesn't like homosexuality but allows homosexuals to be what they are its pretty much harmless, but let's say someone is so against homosexuals that they advocate locking all homosexuals up in prison (not too far fetched, it was common at one time). While it may sound nice for me to say "love the sinner, hate the sin" in that case it's not true. I really do hate (or strongly dislike) that person and "homophobe" might be mild compared to some things I would call them.

 

[Secret Chief]

Yes, it is, and they can vote how they please. Bishops are not a monolith of opinion.

Not sure how you're unaware that the country we live in has lots of formalities and pageantry. We're well-known for that.

I mean, I'm also not bothered there are Bishops there, being an Anglican. I wouldn't care if they interfered in ways I agreed with, obviously. But as far as I am aware, they don't. For a contrast, the 19th c. Parliament had debates about the Book of Common Prayer revisions. I haven't seen that in a while.

The HoL is just a formality? No it isn't. What it is, is an unelected half of the UK parliament. It influences legislation. You should check your own awareness, mine comes from getting an A in A Level Government & Politics and active membership of a political party.

 

[Rival]

The HoL is just a formality? No it isn't. What it is, is an unelected half of the UK parliament. It influences legislation. You should check your own awareness, mine comes from getting an A in A Level Government & Politics and membership of a political party.

Okay, but mine comes from my experience living here as a citizen.

I gather we have different priorities. Not much at this level bothers me and I am not voting this year (or presumably any year, now).

I'm just one of those people Stuff just happens around me and unless it relates to my religion or such it passes me by.

 

[Alien826]

I'm talking about the RCC and their marriage rules, which is the focus of the thread.

It has various rules on who can and can't marry, and it's not just homosexuals. So for this subgroup to feel particularly offended is rather bizarre.

You think certain rules are silly, granted, I obviously disagree; the RCC is allowed to set its own standards and if you wish to marry in this Church you must meet those standards.

It is not up to me or you what these standards are, no matter what you think of them.

Secular marriage is not a marriage imo so it's not meaningful to me.

I personally don't disagree that organizations may, in general, set rules that apply to their own members. After all, people are free to find another church (in this case).

Same-sex marriage was not a thing, legally, and people tried to get that changed. Many churches (including the RCC) strongly opposed changing the law, which went far beyond "[setting] its own standards".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you realize this word [homophobia] normalizes the idea that standard conservative beliefs are unacceptable?

Disagree. The word refers to a negative attitude about homosexuals and homosexuality. It's use implies that that is unfair, irrational, and destructive.

The word itself only has a meaning in a world where liberal social morals are taken as the standard. I do not have this is a standard, so the word is a meaningless name-calling attack on my beliefs.

OK. That's fine.

I am being namecalled and labelled for espousing beliefs my Church has held since its inception.

Yes, you are being called homophobic for expressing your religious beliefs. The god of Abraham as described is homophobic as are those who accept and repeat its opinions about gays.

You seem to consider religious beliefs off-limits to moral judgment. Is that correct? It would be an amazing double standard. We're talking about a religion that judges those engaging in homosexuality immoral, a judgment that harms its target. It marginalizes and demonizes them while making their lives more difficult and dangerous. Some are convinced of the message themselves and become self-loathing and guilt-wracked.

I don't accept that. That's not OK. I don't care how old the religion

I don't think homosexuals are demonic or such. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with being gay.

Christianity teaches that homosexuality is sin against a good and just god deserving of damnation.

trying to chase me out with slur words designed to shut me up are going to do the opposite.

The purpose isn't to chase you. Ideally, you reflect on what is said and that it has a mitigating influence on you. It's acceptable if all it does is to cause you to be a little more selective in the opinions you express. It's helpful if when you don't that you be publicly rebuked. And it's helpful for those not indoctrinated in an Abrahamic religion to see why they should reject such religions and such doctrine. Altogether, this will be the most effective means of diminishing homophobia.

I offer the example of racism again. After decades of rebuking the expression of racism, first, such opinions were expressed less frequently in mixed groups of people. Later, the opinion was less prevalent. Mixed race couples were no longer gawked at, and nobody felt comfortable saying the n-word except with other racists.

Trump normalized this behavior again. He gave the bigots permission to be openly bigoted, and a surge of racism followed.

It won't make my views go away, it will just mean you don't hear them

OK. That's better than hearing them.

I reject all this 'phobic' terminology as being borderline meaningless and having no effect on those against whom it is thrown save to harden them in their beliefs.

OK. I see it differently.

I just don't believe they should be given the same privilege of marriage. That's it. It's not compatible with Christian theology.

That's homophobia. There is no good reason for that.

I do not believe it is the way God planned it, it is not found within my Tradition and it is not part of my worldview.

And that's a reason for you to object to same sex marriage? That's a problem with Abrahamic religion. It's manifesting in the American culture wars over abortion, IVF, and contraceptives, which make the church un-American and a problem for those who support enabling people with options and who support church-state separation.

I call liberals Woke as that is the name they gave themselves.

Most people who use that word use it to demean liberals expressing their inclusivity and empathy. It's a term of derision.

you put Traditionalists in a mute jail.

Calling yourselves traditionalists doesn't justify the homophobia.

Not getting what one wants isn't really harm. One can live without sex or marriage.

One can live without being free to express his bigotries, or as you called it, being in mute jail.

 

[Rival]

Disagree. The word refers to a negative attitude about homosexuals and homosexuality. It's use implies that that is unfair, irrational, and destructive.

OK. That's fine.

Yes, you are being called homophobic for expressing your religious beliefs. The god of Abraham as described is homophobic as are those who accept and repeat its opinions about gays.

You seem to consider religious beliefs off-limits to moral judgment. Is that correct? It would be an amazing double standard. We're talking about a religion that judges those engaging in homosexuality immoral, a judgment that harms its target. It marginalizes and demonizes them while making their lives more difficult and dangerous. Some are convinced of the message themselves and become self-loathing and guilt-wracked.

I don't accept that. That's not OK. I don't care how old the religion

Christianity teaches that homosexuality is sin against a good and just god deserving of damnation.

The purpose isn't to chase you. Ideally, you reflect on what is said and that it has a mitigating influence on you. It's acceptable if all it does is to cause you to be a little more selective in the opinions you express. It's helpful if when you don't that you be publicly rebuked. And it's helpful for those not indoctrinated in an Abrahamic religion to see why they should reject such religions and such doctrine. Altogether, this will be the most effective means of diminishing homophobia.

I offer the example of racism again. After decades of rebuking the expression of racism, first, such opinions were expressed less frequently in mixed groups of people. Later, the opinion was less prevalent. Mixed race couples were no longer gawked at, and nobody felt comfortable saying the n-word except with other racists.

Trump normalized this behavior again. He gave the bigots permission to be openly bigoted, and a surge of racism followed.

OK. That's better than hearing them.

OK. I see it differently.

That's homophobia. There is no good reason for that.

And that's a reason for you to object to same sex marriage? That's a problem with Abrahamic religion. It's manifesting in the American culture wars over abortion, IVF, and contraceptives, which make the church un-American and a problem for those who support enabling people with options and who support church-state separation.

Most people who use that word use it to demean liberals expressing their inclusivity and empathy. It's a term of derision.

Calling yourselves traditionalists doesn't justify the homophobia.

One can live without being free to express his bigotries, or as you called it, being in mute jail.

So you have fascist views and wish to shut people up in the name of moral progressivism.

I define this as fascism. Trying to stop people from airing their views and putting them in mute jail because you dislike their views.

Got it.

You think I'm homophobic unless I'm Woke, basically.

You seem to hate my religion too.

So we're done.