pope made homophobic slur

[setarcos]

Being proud and standing uo for yourself and embracing yourself when not even a century ago it meant off to asylum to be tortured is anything but ludicrous.

Pride goes before the fall and is not always a virtuous thing to hold. How many dictators and megalomaniacs are so proud of themselves that by anyone else's standards should be ashamed? Having pride in a sexuality is ludicrous in my estimation. The celebration of how someone prefers to have sex is just as ludicrous. As soon as you mention a pride in relation to sexuality you've diminished the person to sexual preference. What is prideful about how one has sex?

You find it distasteful? That's a term of moral judgement.

Is it? I find pudding distasteful too. I can't stand the texture. Would that be a moral judgement?

Like a parent finding modern music distasteful just because the style is different from what the parents grew up with.

Not liking a particular form of music has nothing to do with morality. Peers often disagree on what they like to listen to. Ever go on a car trip and argue over who gets control of the radio with your friends? It happens. And without moral judgement. These kinds of distaste may have more to do with how someone neurologically processes certain rhythms or what kinds of sounds they find most psychologically comfortable.
That being said, it can be argued that certain types of songs or musical genres statistically corollate with certain kinds of expected behaviors and or lifestyles, which may leave open questions of moral judgement depending on how morality is understood.

Like people who call it distatsteful for women to wear revealing clothing.

I find it distasteful for women to wear clothing which reveals, by their cultures standards, sexually arousing indicators but then complain about themselves attracting normal sexual interest from others. Human beings can be so ridiculously contradictory.

Don't look or obsess is if it bothers you.

I don't look and I'm not obsessed. Here is another example of what I've ran into a couple of times here. This thread has evolved into a discussion of sexuality, specifically homosexuality because of the op's opening remarks. I came across it and was interested in discussing my opinions that is all.
It is a discussion of sexuality on which I have shared my thoughts. That can be no more of an obsession than anyone else's obsession with anything anyone has ever debated. I suppose then we might say that anyone who discusses anything is obsessed with that thing. That doesn't seem quite right. Like I mentioned...I don't like pudding but I'm not obsessed with not liking pudding. It might bother me though if someone accuses me of being obsessed with pudding simply because I've said I don't like pudding. Would that then be an obsession with being accused of obsessing?

Incidentally, why are you posting in this thread? Are you obsessed with homosexuality or the pope?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Pride goes before the fall and is not always a virtuous thing to hold. How many dictators and megalomaniacs are so proud of themselves that by anyone else's standards should be ashamed? Having pride in a sexuality is ludicrous in my estimation. The celebration of how someone prefers to have sex is just as ludicrous. As soon as you mention a pride in relation to sexuality you've diminished the person to sexual preference. What is prideful about how one has sex?

I just told what you the pride is about and you ignored that to post a fallacy. The pride isn't in the sexuality itself, it's standing up to a society that wants to hate us, discriminate against us, repress us and throw us back in the closet.

Is it? I find pudding distasteful too. I can't stand the texture. Would that be a moral judgement?

It's very unusual as distasteful isn't applied to food that much. We usually just say we don't like it. Like someone learning English, well, yes, it works but it's not how we'd normally say it and not how the word is normally used.
Or think of it this way. I am personally repulsed by feet. However I don't project that onto those who have a foot fetish. That's thier thing. There's nothing distasteful about it, only my own personal aversion to feet. It's not on me to make such judgments.

Not liking a particular form of music has nothing to do with morality. Peers often disagree on what they like to listen to. Ever go on a car trip and argue over who gets control of the radio with your friends? It happens. And without moral judgement. These kinds of distaste may have more to do with how someone neurologically processes certain rhythms or what kinds of sounds they find most psychologically comfortable.
That being said, it can be argued that certain types of songs or musical genres statistically corollate with certain kinds of expected behaviors and or lifestyles, which may leave open questions of moral judgement depending on how morality is understood.

It kind of is. Kiss, Led Zeppelin, Alice Cooper, Ozzy Osborne, Judas Priest, Marilyn Manson, they have been called distasteful amd Satanic. But that's all in the past now and people have forgotten.
Amd what about the last paragraph? What kind of lifestyle do fans of horrorcore have? What kind of people are metalheads? What sort of people love horror movies? Sounds more like how people want to judge those who cuss, usually as stupid even though people way smarter than them curse like sailors.

I find it distasteful for women to wear clothing which reveals, by their cultures standards, sexually arousing indicators but then complain about themselves attracting normal sexual interest from others. Human beings can be so ridiculously contradictory.

Sounds like you're interested in judging people.

I don't look and I'm not obsessed. Here is another example of what I've ran into a couple of times here. This thread has evolved into a discussion of sexuality, specifically homosexuality because of the op's opening remarks. I came across it and was interested in discussing my opinions that is all.
It is a discussion of sexuality on which I have shared my thoughts. That can be no more of an obsession than anyone else's obsession with anything anyone has ever debated. I suppose then we might say that anyone who discusses anything is obsessed with that thing. That doesn't seem quite right. Like I mentioned...I don't like pudding but I'm not obsessed with not liking pudding. It might bother me though if someone accuses me of being obsessed with pudding simply because I've said I don't like pudding. Would that then be an obsession with being accused of obsessing?

Incidentally, why are you posting in this thread? Are you obsessed with homosexuality or the pope?

It didn't evolve into a discussion of homosexuality as from the start the topic of the thread overlaps into it.

 

[Argentbear]

Good. The term homophobe has been politicized to death, misapplied, and manipulated to serve the agendas of those crusaders who think their championing the "gay cause". Whatever that might mean to them.
Should you take the time to read some of what I've said, if so inclined, you'll see the term has been misapplied to me simply because I find the practice of homosexuality distasteful and its embrace as something to celebrate ludicrous.

No the word was applied to what you are posting because what you post is homophobic

Homophobia - an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It includes antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and hatred of homosexuals

 

[Argentbear]

Its JUST their business only if your a shallow and indifferent thinker concerning its potential public effects.
Consenting adults private business is only THEIR private business until it is not. The fact that private business can and often does become a public concern, eventually, requires intelligent people to follow certain "healthy" criteria by which they conduct their "private" business. The old adage -don't do anything in private you wouldn't like becoming public knowledge- is near impossible to achieve by human beings but is still a wise ideal to strive for. Of course one can argue that it might be healthy to conduct business in private whos public knowledge might get one killed or cause some other form of suffering. And yet, one persons unjustified suffering is another's justified applied penology. So, how are we to assure public safety and progress while allowing business to take place privately when some private business between consenting adults might be harmful to themselves or others? The simple criteria of "consenting adults" when conducting private business just isn't reasonably adequate.
There must be a public consensus of what business can be conducted in private "healthily". Which brings us back to public debate upon the old adage. Go figure. I think the kryptonite here is the fact that entire societies can adopt unhealthy practices as a healthy thing to do because of the innate limitations of our ability to visualize future consequences.

what public safety issues are you wanting to apply? DO you have anything to back that up that isn't form a hate group or your own personal prejudices?

 

[Argentbear]

Pride goes before the fall and is not always a virtuous thing to hold. How many dictators and megalomaniacs are so proud of themselves that by anyone else's standards should be ashamed? Having pride in a sexuality is ludicrous in my estimation. The celebration of how someone prefers to have sex is just as ludicrous. As soon as you mention a pride in relation to sexuality you've diminished the person to sexual preference. What is prideful about how one has sex?

Reducing people to nothing but a sex is not just ludicrous it is bigoted.

Is it? I find pudding distasteful too. I can't stand the texture. Would that be a moral judgement?

Do you speak of those who like pudding in the same wit the same prejudice you show LGBT people?

Not liking a particular form of music has nothing to do with morality. Peers often disagree on what they like to listen to. Ever go on a car trip and argue over who gets control of the radio with your friends? It happens. And without moral judgement. These kinds of distaste may have more to do with how someone neurologically processes certain rhythms or what kinds of sounds they find most psychologically comfortable.
That being said, it can be argued that certain types of songs or musical genres statistically corollate with certain kinds of expected behaviors and or lifestyles, which may leave open questions of moral judgement depending on how morality is understood.

and what statistical correlates concerning LGBT people are you morally judging?

I find it distasteful for women to wear clothing which reveals, by their cultures standards, sexually arousing indicators but then complain about themselves attracting normal sexual interest from others. Human beings can be so ridiculously contradictory.

I don't look and I'm not obsessed. Here is another example of what I've ran into a couple of times here. This thread has evolved into a discussion of sexuality, specifically homosexuality because of the op's opening remarks. I came across it and was interested in discussing my opinions that is all.
It is a discussion of sexuality on which I have shared my thoughts. That can be no more of an obsession than anyone else's obsession with anything anyone has ever debated. I suppose then we might say that anyone who discusses anything is obsessed with that thing. That doesn't seem quite right. Like I mentioned...I don't like pudding but I'm not obsessed with not liking pudding. It might bother me though if someone accuses me of being obsessed with pudding simply because I've said I don't like pudding. Would that then be an obsession with being accused of obsessing?

If you posted about pudding eaters the same way post about gays then yeah

 

[setarcos]

I just told what you the pride is about and you ignored that to post a fallacy.

I'm sorry you feel I ignored what you said.
If you noticed something you felt I ignored it was not intentional. I do not ignore. I reply to.

Let me be clear. I am here to debate issues. I do not claim to be absolutely right and I hope not to be absolutely wrong. Somewhere between those two extremes may lay a modicum of truth and that is what I wish to resolve a debate with. I hold no ill will towards homosexuals and do not intentionally seek to insult them. I'm here only to debate how I honestly, currently feel about the subject. I have no reason to lie, fabricate, prevaricate, or equivocate anything I feel is true and relevant to the subject. Should it seem that I have, it wasn't intentional and I fully expect to be called to account?

The pride isn't in the sexuality itself, it's standing up to a society that wants to hate us, discriminate against us, repress us and throw us back in the closet.

That's an argument concerning the rights of homosexuals and is hardly unique to homosexuals. I've been discussing my feelings about homosexuality not homosexual persons. In that regard, I wasn't commenting on pride in self though I don't believe in such a thing. But that's a discussion for another thread. I see now, you were arguing oranges, I am arguing apples as I show below.


You should be mindful of what it is you’re actually standing up for as that can be more conducive to a successful conclusion. If your opposition thinks you’re standing up for one thing but you are standing up for another thing entirely that can only feed the fires of confusion and antagonism rather than starve them.

Society used to and still does, to a goodly extent, discriminate against the "mentally ill" and physically deformed. They were discriminated against, had their rights repressed, and were indiscriminately thrown into asylums to be abused with little hope of having any quality of life.

Society has come a long way in reducing such atrocities and I suppose those that have championed such progress can take pride in their achievements. However giving human dignity and humanity back to the downtrodden does not equate to being prideful about their mental illness as well. The two things are separate issues. I would be proud to fight for the rights of the mentally ill to have dignity and be treated humanely in consideration of their disposition. I would take no pride in fighting for the rights of the mentally ill to be mentally ill.

For instance, many ignorant people think that homosexuality is a mental illness. Consequently many people see homosexuals fighting for and taking joy in their mental illness. That being the case it makes little sense for you to argue for the humane rights of homosexuals if those you’re arguing against think your arguing for the right of homosexuals to be mentally ill. You have to meet the people where they are at in their arguments.

I don't think those people see homosexual persons. They see homosexual acts defined by homosexuality. Specifically sexually related acts. That is their repression, hatred, and persecution and that is where your arguments need to go. You have to argue that sexual acts between like genders is normal and healthy and should be joyously celebrated as the pride movement seems to promote.



NOTE: The above is a hyperbolic comparison only relative to proving a point. I am in no way here arguing that homosexuality is a mental disease. The medical powers that be have been down that road and it’s not my intention to retread that road here.



My point is to ask you what you are taking pride in. Are you prideful of fighting for the rights of your homosexuality or are you prideful of fighting for your rights as a human being? These things are not the same thing.



If it’s your homosexuality then it IS about the sexuality. Let’s be honest. How you prefer to have sex is the precipitator for the things you described above since that is the only distinguishing qualifier for a sexuality. One does not nor cannot identify a person as a homosexual unless their homosexuality has been identified. Otherwise they would just be another Jack or Jill in the crowd. Your argument against discrimination, hate, and repression is necessarily an argument for how you prefer to express yourself sexually in that regard.

Now I absolutely disagree with how homosexuals have been treated. I also disagree with treating any human being in such ways.

Unfortunately human beings are really good at taking the wrong approach to things when their instinctual drives overrule their reasoning ability.

I believe instinctual hatred exists in humans and is all too often expressed through violence. I also believe there is reasonable hatred which can be peacefully resolved. Both kinds of hatred can be misplaced. The one through instinctual perversion, the other through mistaking the unreasonable for the reasonable.

I think most homosexuals are battling the former while ignoring the latter.

It's very unusual as distasteful isn't applied to food that much. We usually just say we don't like it. Like someone learning English, well, yes, it works but it's not how we'd normally say it and not how the word is normally used.

I'm somewhat literate in the proper semantic use of words. "I don't like it" doesn't have the forceful implications that using "distasteful" does.
Eating pudding can literally make me vomit. Finding something distasteful is more likely to indicate a visceral reaction than merely "not liking" something does.

Or think of it this way. I am personally repulsed by feet. However I don't project that onto those who have a foot fetish. That's thier thing. There's nothing distasteful about it, only my own personal aversion to feet. It's not on me to make such judgments.

I have thought about this and discussed the implications before.


Consider, you are repulsed by feet but presumably not by people in general even though feet are a part of being a healthy person. You’re not repulsed by those who have a foot fetish ONLY because their foot fetish is not a mental consideration of yours when thinking about them as a person, not particularly as a person with a foot fetish. You've compartmentalized them as a person from them having a foot fetish.

You have to compartmentalize them in this way because feet repulse you and if you consistently associated them with something you are repulsed by it would color the way you see them as a person. This is typically how all people handle such information and it is how we tolerate each other. So far fair enough, it’s how things need to be.

You can claim there is nothing distasteful about their fetish only in so much as it is their fetish and not yours. You are not thinking about your foot repulsion nor associating their foot fetish when you are interacting with them and thus can say there is nothing distasteful about their fetish....but only in so much as you do not have to think about it. If you think about it, it still repulses you.

This is called theory of mind. Basically what we find repulsive or attractive can only happen when we recreate the experience within our mind which then determines that response. That is why we do not have to literally have the experience again in order to be repulsed or attracted to it.

To sum up, we separate the person from the particulars in such cases and thus can argue a love for the person while separately arguing a repulsion of that persons particulars. Two different arguments.

Let’s say someone claims pudding should be celebrated as normal and healthy and can't understand why pudding should bother me and so they lead me into defending why pudding repulses me which then leads into an argument of what is normal and healthy or unhealthy and what should be celebrated or not and why about pudding. Of course I could be indifferent to such things and not care to discuss it which many people are perfectly fine with doing as long as their own personal comfort and prosperity is not effected which might lead them into a reactive response. I personally think that those people often find themselves at a disadvantage when those that take a more proactive approach to thought and action involve them.

Let’s consider now discussing puddings particulars and why I do not like it. We might discuss my particulars such as puddings viscosity and my aversion to that etc. which might then lead into the general of whether or not pudding is healthy for you in consideration of its contents etc. and whose eating is perfectly normal or not for humans to partake of - if pudding were poo I think we might conclude that it is not normal for people to eat in consideration of its function for instance. Incidentally there are people who actually take pleasure in eating poo. Now there's an argument to be had.

Now we might find that my particulars aren't normal to the society we live in, aren't natural to the world we live in, or aren't healthy for me, in which case some intervention may be in order. Or we might find that pudding is in general not healthy, normal, or natural. We might even find that pudding is not healthy but generally normal for the society we live in. Like junk/fast food in America.

The point being that all of the above is established by discussion, debate, or argumentation but not about the people involved in general. It’s about the subject (pudding) in particular.

It’s not for us to judge our fellow human beings. We can however judge our fellow human beings actions, dispositions, and opinions. You HAVE made a judgement. You've judged foot fetishes as not distasteful in general, only specifically to yourself, which you cannot, except by indifference to yourself concerning the general case, do unless you apply the above process. Otherwise you’re just sticking your head in the sand and taking the equivalent stance of...whatever dude, just don't bother me. That's fine but it certainly doesn't prove the case that other people’s foot fetishes aren't generally distasteful for a reason.

 

[setarcos]

Kiss, Led Zeppelin, Alice Cooper, Ozzy Osborne, Judas Priest, Marilyn Manson, they have been called distasteful amd Satanic. But that's all in the past now and people have forgotten.

And arguments have been made as to why. Not all but many religious people are very good at judging their fellow human beings - almost as good as many secular people. Their zealousness is often misplaced. My religion teaches that judgement is reserved for God alone. We are not to judge others since we haven't the subjective perfection to understand the redemptive possibilities of an individual.

As I mentioned, what we can judge is actions, opinions, and dispositions. If a person embraces what has been argued to be unhealthy then that person can get swept up in the judgement. IF the judgement is sound then getting swept up in it is on the person not the judgement.

Some people haven't forgotten. It just seems that way because the world is evolving the way my religion expects it to.

Amd what about the last paragraph? What kind of lifestyle do fans of horrorcore have? What kind of people are metalheads? What sort of people love horror movies?

Those are discussions which can be had. I believe there are studies doing just that. Stay tuned....

You've heard the adage…do not judge a book by its cover? Well generally speaking, unless you’re deliberately trying to be deceptive, a book wears the cover it wishes to promote about its story. And it doesn't simply involve fashion or musical taste but how you present yourself and your tastes to the world. Whether or not that story is good or bad is another discussion one might have.

Sounds more like how people want to judge those who cuss, usually as stupid even though people way smarter than them curse like sailors.

Again, arguments that can be had. What does cursing mean to you? What is it supposed to convey if anything? My experience has taught me that cursing used to convey extreme emotional angst or anger. It as a sign of loss of control of the reasoning faculties. Men almost never cursed in front of ladies. Intelligent people even less so. Ladies rarely cursed. Children never cursed in front of adults. Not cursing was a sign of respect and control. Today it’s a meaningless mish mash of drooling drivel. Kids curse, ladies curse, men curse...it’s funny, its empowering, its natural, its…whatever dude. Another shining example of human progress. A never ending spout of disrespect and meaningless poo. It’s so meaninglessly pervasive in our general conversations nowadays that even those who drum on about why we should curtail our cursing find themselves naturally cursing quite often...like myself unfortunately.

Sounds like you're interested in judging people.

And it sounds like your focusing solely on the bus while ignoring its destination. The bus is merely a means to an end. It’s not the end in itself.


That was an analysis of natural human tendencies regarding human sexuality and how it functions. Again...it’s not a judgement of the people, it’s an analysis and judgement of the action.

Sure we can all walk around naked and learn to be indifferent to the sexual indicators like our ancient ancestors did but then again our ancient ancestors generally took mates when, where, and if they could when their base natures felt like it. Sex was a primary motivator and consistently on their radar. Is that what we should want for a modern, supposedly evolved society? Complex progressive societies cannot succeed without some governance of our base natures. Otherwise sex may be more available but it would also be less meaningful beyond its utilitarian usefulness and less emotionally pleasurable.

In most "advanced"/ complex societies and cultures dressing appropriately for the occasion is a governing of instinct. The more culturally provocative one dresses the more it is normally indicative of being sexually receptive.

I think it’s pretty darn ridiculous to sow corn but expect to reap beans.

And it’s sad that the advertising industry knows sex sells for a reason but wanna be individualists think they can express their sexuality any way they wish without expectations of having some effective response.

Now we got crusaders dressing provocatively just to prove a point. And what is that point? That attraction to the female or male sexual characteristics should be like a switch only turned on when one feels like it? Or perhaps it’s to get media attention knowing full well what the effects they are utilizing to do so will have, as so many of our entertainers do today. You either make sexuality meaningless by dressing provocatively whenever however you want. Or you give your sexuality meaning through intention. We can't have it both ways.

It’s a tragedy that so many people just don't think through what they are crusading about and why. Or they don't care. That's even sadder.

It didn't evolve into a discussion of homosexuality as from the start the topic of the thread overlaps into it.

Out of all that you quoted from what I said here, this is what you chose to point out? Okay. I won't argue this point with you. Perhaps overlap into is a more appropriate phrase than evolve into.

I hope you have a wonderful weekend.

 

[Argentbear]

I hold no ill will towards homosexuals and do not intentionally seek to insult them.

I find the practice of homosexuality distasteful and its embrace as something to celebrate ludicrous

It has no more to do with hate than my natural inclination to avoid certain foods that make me sick.

Am I supposed to tolerate sexual acts between men? ... My intolerance involves some amount of involvement. .. asking for respectful refraining from doing those things in my presence or removing myself from the circumstance, whichever is most productively achievable.

And once again I've consistently said I do tolerate homosexuals as human beings. But not as people

I do lovingly tolerate homosexuals. You define them solely in terms of sex rejecting every other facet of their lives. That is dehumanizing and certainly not love

I am not a qualified psychoanalyst here but I suspect you are not repulsed by them because you are not thinking about or being asked to approve of their preferences for how they get sexual gratification. And you aren't being asked to either but still you are repulsed.

I do not hate homosexuals. I'm opposed to the celebration of a sexuality. I'm opposed to being asked to tolerate, celebrate, or joyously accept its sexual practices. When you reduce people to nothing more than a sexual act that is hate

there is nothing else to emphasize but their sexuality.

bombarded with ravings about how some people’s sexual preferences should be celebrated. Its complete and total ignorance and lunacy. Yah…let’s celebrate sex instead of being a decent human being that treats other human beings morally.

They’re claims against those specific and increasing expressions of homosexuality that are popping up even where they don't make sense where we have an estimated 1.2 to 6.xx% of the adult population being members of the LGBTQ++ population but we have an unrealistic 90% increase in their representation of their sexuality in every media available from commercials, tv, movies, and even kids cartoons, to national holidays and the renaming of streets or removal of street signs in some cities in order to honor “queerness”.

Why do I have to be reminded of someone's sexual preferences every time I go to the damn grocery store or turn on the television?

by observing pride day celebrations the obvious fact is...it’s become a twisted way of celebrating specific ways of getting sexual gratification

Pride is making a perverse mockery

.what does "positive representation" mean as related to homosexuals?

 

[setarcos]

No the word was applied to what you are posting because what you post is homophobic

Yeah...sure. I think we've been over this.
However, I'm willing to continue listening to and replying to what you have to say. If its important to you in this discussion I will treat it as important.

Homophobia - an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It includes antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and hatred of homosexuals

Follow with me on my reasoning...
I do not fear homosexuality by definition. If I'm misinterpreting the word fear then tell me how I am exhibiting that fear.
My aversion to homosexuality is not irrational. I've given rational reasons for why I have that aversion.
Discrimination has been added to the definition of homophobia over the years in order to serve a political agenda that being said...
Lets look at discrimination rationally here.
Discrimination can mean 1 of 2 things.
1) to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality
2) to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately
I think we can discard definition 2 since applying it here would render the term "distinction" in the homophobia definition pretty moot do to its applicability to anything we make distinctions between.
The first definition of the word is much more in keeping with the gist of the rest of the definition of homophobia so lets dissect definition 1 and see if it applies to me.
...to make a distinction
We both know it is self evident that I have made a distinction. However since distinction alone applies only to definition 2 which we've discarded we must look at distinction in conjunction with the rest of definition 1.
...in favor of or against a person
I am neither in favor of nor against any homosexual person in general. This discussion concerns homosexuality not homosexual persons. There is a distinction which we established in our earlier discussions.
…or thing
The "thing" here that is relevant to the discussion is homosexuality. Specifically distinctive homosexual practices. If you forgot what I mean by that peruse our earlier discussion again.
…on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the...thing belongs rather than according to actual merit
This last part is important. The whole definition hinges upon one word. That word is merit.
Which is ….: character or conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem.
Now, in relation to me and my heterosexuality I find no merit in homosexuality and I have rational reasons as to why.
We may disregard the last half of the definition of homophobia since no matter how much you would like me to...I do not have antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred of homosexuals, only homosexual practices.
Okay...I've shown you step by step why homophobia does not aptly describe my condition.
Now its on you to give me counterpoints to what I have shown.

what public safety issues are you wanting to apply?

Apply to what? Homosexuality? You missed my point. Can we not agree that it is in the best interests of society to come to a consensus of what private business can be done that does not potentially harm the individual or the society before that private business is carried out?
We must go beyond simply saying "If there's consent between the participants and its done in private" its okay.
A few applicable examples would be, terrorism, sexploitation, sanitary practices, dangerous biological or chemical experimentation without oversite, spousal abuse, child abuse, criminal planning, the list could go on and on.
The simple criteria of allowing whatever as long as it involves consenting individuals conducting private business is just inadequate if one wants to live in a safe and morally progressive society. The arguments for or against private conduct should be made in public debate.

DO you have anything to back that up that isn't form a hate group or your own personal prejudices?

Back what up? It was a reasoned opinion based on logical observation.
I'm beginning to think the only hate and prejudice being exhibited here is your own and its blinding you to what's actually being said.

Reducing people to nothing but a sex is not just ludicrous it is bigoted.

I agree. And that is what celebration of a sexuality does. I didn't do it. The Pride parades and Juneteenth holiday are examples of what reducing a person to little more than their sexuality looks like.

Do you speak of those who like pudding in the same wit the same prejudice you show LGBT people?

I didn't speak about people in general that like pudding. I spoke about pudding and why I specifically don't like it.
How am I prejudiced against LGBT people? By refusing to celebrate how they prefer to express themselves sexually? By finding a particular sexual act they might do distasteful?
Your so full of the hate and prejudice that you so readily accuse me of that its made you blind to what I've actually said and what it relates to. Your the only person that can get past that I'm afraid. Until you do your attempts at reasoning are going to miss the mark.
I shouldn't have to like how anyone expresses themselves sexually and I certainly shouldn't be expected to celebrate it or else be called derogatory names. It's irrelevant if anyone can or cannot force me to do those things. What's relevant is the expectations of what I should do.
Do sexualities merit celebrating? Should I like how any human sexuality is expressed, or at least not dislike how specific sexualities expresses itself? I've argued no, and no. What do you say?

and what statistical correlates concerning LGBT people are you morally judging?

I'm not morally judging LGBT people. Statistically I'd say that if your LGBT your less likely to have sex with a heterosexual or more likely to have sex with someone other than a heterosexual. Is that what your looking for in statistical correlates?

This is what I said and believe about judging others....
"My religion teaches that judgement is reserved for God alone. We are not to judge others since we haven't the subjective perfection to understand the redemptive possibilities of an individual."

If you posted about pudding eaters the same way post about gays then yeah

Yep...your stuck in your OWN prejudice and hatred.
I'm sorry but your not going to get the same from me. The very words you quoted of mine in your next post testify to that. Apparently you don't or cant realize that. No matter how you try to twist what I've said to suit your need to prove your misunderstanding about me the fact remains, I don't hate homosexual persons and I'm not irrationally discriminating against them. Nor do I persecute them.
I've come across your kind before. You offer little in counter argument so you focus instead on defaming.
Pick whatever you think proves your point that I've said. Don't just quote what I've said, tell me why you think its hatred or judgmental towards homosexual people and I'll explain to you why it is not. If your not willing to do that then you shouldn't be discussing the issue here.
Of course don't waste your time quoting things I've said like "And once again I've consistently said I do tolerate homosexuals as human beings." or "I do lovingly tolerate homosexuals." or "I do not hate homosexuals." etc. Those statements don't quite make your case. Of course you may attempt to show that those statements are lies but you haven't done that yet. The only thing you've done is misinterpret, misrepresent, or ignore what I've said in defense of those statements.
For instance, I've consistently distinguished the homosexual person from their homosexuality. And I've given reasons why they must be distinguished. Yet you ignore that fact and continually insist on claiming that I equate the two things.
There's a person behind the homosexuality and there's a persons sexuality which is defined by their preferences of sexual expression. It might behoove you to understand the distinction if you wish to understand my reasonings here.

 

[Argentbear]

Yeah...sure. I think we've been over this.

Yeah you deny it and go on to make homophobic posts and when you get called out on you. Start whining about how you are the victim.

However, I'm willing to continue listening to and replying to what you have to say. If its important to you in this discussion I will treat it as important.

Continue?

Follow with me on my reasoning...
I do not fear homosexuality by definition. If I'm misinterpreting the word fear then tell me how I am exhibiting that fear

You continue to misrepresent the word homophobic

Homophobia - an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It includes antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and hatred of homosexuals

and your quote above about the dismay at being pushed to watch two homosexuals having sex is irrational. No one is demanding that you watch anyone have sex.

My aversion to homosexuality is not irrational. I've given rational reasons for why I have that aversion.

You reasons are irrational.
you aren't being forced to watch anyone having sex
Your claim that this minority wants your approval for "How they achieve sexual gratification" is irrational
The fact that you seem to think anyone who doesn't share your "revulsion" must means something is wrong with them is irrational
Gays don't make you sick,
You are not being bombarded with ravings
Media is not 90% saturated with "queerness"
You are not reminded of anyone "sexual preference" when you go to the grocery store

Discrimination has been added to the definition of homophobia over the years in order to serve a political agenda that being said...
Lets look at discrimination rationally here.
Discrimination can mean 1 of 2 things.
1) to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality
2) to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately
I think we can discard definition 2 since applying it here would render the term "distinction" in the homophobia definition pretty moot do to its applicability to anything we make distinctions between.
The first definition of the word is much more in keeping with the gist of the rest of the definition of homophobia so lets dissect definition 1 and see if it applies to me.
...to make a distinction
We both know it is self evident that I have made a distinction. However since distinction alone applies only to definition 2 which we've discarded we must look at distinction in conjunction with the rest of definition 1.
...in favor of or against a person
I am neither in favor of nor against any homosexual person in general.

I just put up a post of some of your quotes and your words say it all

This discussion concerns homosexuality not homosexual persons. There is a distinction which we established in our earlier discussions.

there is nothing else to emphasize but their sexuality.

…or thing
The "thing" here that is relevant to the discussion is homosexuality. Specifically distinctive homosexual practices. If you forgot what I mean by that peruse our earlier discussion again.
…on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the...thing belongs rather than according to actual merit
This last part is important. The whole definition hinges upon one word. That word is merit.
Which is ….: character or conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem.
Now, in relation to me and my heterosexuality I find no merit in homosexuality and I have rational reasons as to why.

Racists find no merit in being black either.

We may disregard the last half of the definition of homophobia since no matter how much you would like me to...I do not have antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred of homosexuals, only homosexual practices.

There is a whole post of quotes from you saying otherwise

Okay...I've shown you step by step why homophobia does not aptly describe my condition.
Now its on you to give me counterpoints to what I have shown.

Apply to what? Homosexuality? You missed my point. Can we not agree that it is in the best interests of society to come to a consensus of what private business can be done that does not potentially harm the individual or the society before that private business is carried out?

I asked you before just what harm you are talking about.

Still waiting.

We must go beyond simply saying "If there's consent between the participants and its done in private" its okay.
A few applicable examples would be, terrorism, sexploitation, sanitary practices, dangerous biological or chemical experimentation without oversite, spousal abuse, child abuse, criminal planning, the list could go on and on.
The simple criteria of allowing whatever as long as it involves consenting individuals conducting private business is just inadequate if one wants to live in a safe and morally progressive society. The arguments for or against private conduct should be made in public debate.

How many of these things happen with consent?

Child abuse is done with consent? really?

Back what up? It was a reasoned opinion based on logical observation.
I'm beginning to think the only hate and prejudice being exhibited here is your own and its blinding you to what's actually being said.

did I misquote you?

I agree. And that is what celebration of a sexuality does. I didn't do it. The Pride parades and Juneteenth holiday are examples of what reducing a person to little more than their sexuality looks like.

All you have done here is try to reduce people to sex acts

I didn't speak about people in general that like pudding. I spoke about pudding and why I specifically don't like it
How am I prejudiced against LGBT people? By refusing to celebrate how they prefer to express themselves sexually? By finding a particular sexual act they might do distasteful?

Prejudice? how about when you dehumanize gay people by reducing them and their lives to a sex act.

Your so full of the hate and prejudice that you so readily accuse me of that its made you blind to what I've actually said and what it relates to. Your the only person that can get past that I'm afraid. Until you do your attempts at reasoning are going to miss the mark.
I shouldn't have to like how anyone expresses themselves sexually

No one is asking you to.

and I certainly shouldn't be expected to celebrate it

No one is asking you to.

or else be called derogatory names. It's irrelevant if anyone can or cannot force me to do those things.

who is forcing you to do anything?

What's relevant is the expectations of what I should do.
Do sexualities merit celebrating? Should I like how any human sexuality is expressed, or at least not dislike how specific sexualities expresses itself? I've argued no, and no. What do you say?

Do weddings merit celebrations? anniversaries? families?

Oh wait you choose to only view this particular minority as a sexual act.

I'm not morally judging LGBT people.

Your own words say different

Statistically I'd say that if your LGBT your less likely to have sex with a heterosexual or more likely to have sex with someone other than a heterosexual. Is that what your looking for in statistical correlates?

you are the one who brought up statistical corelates as relating to "behaviors and or lifestyles, which may leave open questions of moral judgement.
I just asked what statistical correlates concerning LGBT people are you morally judging?

This is what I said and believe about judging others....
"My religion teaches that judgement is reserved for God alone. We are not to judge others since we haven't the subjective perfection to understand the redemptive possibilities of an individual."

Yep...your stuck in your OWN prejudice and hatred.
I'm sorry but your not going to get the same from me. The very words you quoted of mine in your next post testify to that. Apparently you don't or cant realize that. No matter how you try to twist what I've said to suit your need to prove your misunderstanding about me the fact remains, I don't hate homosexual persons and I'm not irrationally discriminating against them. Nor do I persecute them.
I've come across your kind before. You offer little in counter argument so you focus instead on defaming.
Pick whatever you think proves your point that I've said. Don't just quote what I've said, tell me why you think its hatred or judgmental towards homosexual people and I'll explain to you why it is not. If your not willing to do that then you shouldn't be discussing the issue here.
Of course don't waste your time quoting things I've said like "And once again I've consistently said I do tolerate homosexuals as human beings." or "I do lovingly tolerate homosexuals." or "I do not hate homosexuals." etc. Those statements don't quite make your case.

and racists are happy to say "some of my best friends are..."

 

[Maninthemiddle]

I am sorry but I disagree. I am a Roman Catholic but my decisions are for me alone. The Pope's are too unless he is speaking ex cathedra.

So you disagree with the Bible, what are you following then.
The parts that suit you.

 

[Maninthemiddle]

That last part especially is probably why you get called a homophobe. Being proud and standing uo for yourself and embracing yourself when not even a century ago it meant off to asylum to be tortured is anything but ludicrous.
You find it distasteful? That's a term of moral judgement. Like a parent finding modern music distasteful just because the style is different from what the parents grew up with. Like people who call it distatsteful for women to wear revealing clothing. Don't look or obsess is if it bothers you.

He probably would not if it wasn’t forced upon him at every turn, he is constantly told he must agree.
We don’t shout out to anyone about our sexual preferences, or demand a Heterosexual sexual month when far more important things get only a day.
We don’t demand people follow a Religion but disregard the parts in the texts about sexuality that don’t suit us.
I don’t care what people do sexually, it’s none of my business, but I don’t have to like it.

 

[Maninthemiddle]

There is a big difference between hating the sin and hating the sinner

If you disagree don’t follow the Religion.

 

[Argentbear]

He probably would not if it wasn’t forced upon him at every turn, he is constantly told he must agree.

What exactly is being forced?

We don’t shout out to anyone about our sexual preferences,

When you consider just how many television showers there are about brides, shows about dating, divorce, paternity suits, wedding dresses
and family pictures in workspaces and wedding rings and anniversary announcements
it starts to get a little loud

or demand a Heterosexual sexual month when far more important things get only a day.

Old anecdote: A child asks his mother "why is there a mother's day and a father's day but no kid's day? She replied, "every day is kid's day."

We don’t demand people follow a Religion but disregard the parts in the texts about sexuality that don’t suit us.

Who is demanding this?

I don’t care what people do sexually, it’s none of my business, but I don’t have to like it.

I'm sure no one likes to think about you having sex either.

 

[Maninthemiddle]

What exactly is being forced?


When you consider just how many television showers there are about brides, shows about dating, divorce, paternity suits, wedding dresses
and family pictures in workspaces and wedding rings and anniversary announcements
it starts to get a little loud


Old anecdote: A child asks his mother "why is there a mother's day and a father's day but no kid's day? She replied, "every day is kid's day."

Who is demanding this?

I'm sure no one likes to think about you having sex either.

If I express my opinion on Homosexuality at work to a friend, and we were overheard we would be fired.
We express an opinion we are homophobic, that is force.
Homosexuals can have photographs and all the things you mentioned but we are the majority so naturally there will be more.
Everyday is not kids day is it, to refer to a saying rather then a reality is a lie.
People are demanding Religious change, that’s the very reason this thread started, the pope expressed his opinion which if he really cut loose the first testament commands Homosexuals be put to death.
We have many days in honour of many things but the LGQBT community gets an entire month name after 1 of the 7 deadly sins.
A rugby player lost his contract for expressing his opinion which was asked of him, so don’t you think that forced others to lie in order to keep their position, how is it not forced.
If you read the Bible, it’s a Sin, it is not welcome, the belief is in the Church it’s the word of God.
If the Bible is not to a persons liking don’t follow it.
The pope had his say, don’t follow it, but he should not be forced to be quiet.

 

[Argentbear]

If I express my opinion on Homosexuality at work to a friend, and we were overheard we would be fired.

Maybe, if you say bigoted things.
But the same woudl be true if you said bigoted things about black people, or Jewish people, or the handicapped.

We express an opinion we are homophobic, that is force.

if your opinion is homophobic

Why are you expressing homophobic opinions?

Homosexuals can have photographs and all the things you mentioned but we are the majority so naturally there will be more.

More what?

Everyday is not kids day is it, to refer to a saying rather then a reality is a lie.
People are demanding Religious change, that’s the very reason this thread started, the pope expressed his opinion which if he really cut loose the first testament commands Homosexuals be put to death.

So would non-Christians
and people who put up Christmas trees
and anyone who reads their daily horoscope
women who had sex before marriage
Any man who doesn't circumcise his son.
People who work on Sunday's
Fat people
Alcoholics
rape victiums

We have many days in honour of many things but the LGQBT community gets an entire month name after 1 of the 7 deadly sins.

The term "pride" is used in the LGBTQ+ community to represent solidarity, identity, and resistance to discrimination and violence. It's also used as an antonym for "shame" and as an affirmation of self and community.

A rugby player lost his contract for expressing his opinion which was asked of him, so don’t you think that forced others to lie in order to keep their position, how is it not forced.

He wasn't asked he went on a homophobic rant on Twitter.

Words have consequences.

If you read the Bible, it’s a Sin, it is not welcome, the belief is in the Church it’s the word of God.

Just like eating shellfish or having a tattoo or wearing a poly cotton blend shirt

If the Bible is not to a persons liking don’t follow it.
The pope had his say, don’t follow it, but he should not be forced to be quiet.

there are consequences to saying hateful things

 

[Kathryn]

So you disagree with the Bible, what are you following then.
The parts that suit you.

I am following the bible and the pope's words when he speaks ex cathedra.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He probably would not if it wasn’t forced upon him at every turn, he is constantly told he must agree.
We don’t shout out to anyone about our sexual preferences, or demand a Heterosexual sexual month when far more important things get only a day.
We don’t demand people follow a Religion but disregard the parts in the texts about sexuality that don’t suit us.
I don’t care what people do sexually, it’s none of my business, but I don’t have to like it

Actually lots of Far Right Christians are trying to force their religion on America.
There is no hetero month as it's the default.
And no one is forcing it on him. What is forced upon us is a homogonized outlook that revolves around Christians and white men. We have pride, as do other minorities such as black people, because history is a very different story when you include that we were there to.
Or think of it this way. It should be that Alan Turing being a gay man is totally irrelevant. But it's not because he was crucial in winning WWII for the Allies and harshly punished by having gender dysphoria forced on him. He was punished to chemical castration and his body feminized, including growing breasts. He killed himself. So that's why his story is important. His other story is really only relevant for computer geeks and Jeopardy contestants.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

The pope made an horrendous homophobic slur

Vatican remains silent over Pope's alleged homophonic comments

The Pope (pictured today at a World Children's Day event in Rome) has not broken his silence after reports claimed he denounced the 'air of f*****ry' in the church

www.dailymail.co.uk

I'm not angry I'm disappointed

It sends out the wrong message, that such language is acceptable

He should have known better

Shame on him!

Pope isn't perfect. Why be disappointed in him? Ok I will give you this...show me a living perfect person...me withstanding. In Catholicism the Pope can have opinions just like I has a Catholic can have opinions so I don't understand the problem. Pope Francis is a great pastor and theologian, so what is the problem?

 

[Eddi]

Pope isn't perfect. Why be disappointed in him? Ok I will give you this...show me a living perfect person...me withstanding. In Catholicism the Pope can have opinions just like I has a Catholic can have opinions so I don't understand the problem. Pope Francis is a great pastor and theologian, so what is the problem?

Isn't he supposed to be infallible??????