This is awful

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

Do I actually need to give you a lecture on how thoughts and opinions spread and influence other people in society? The less people that say "Homosexuality is evil!" the less comfortable people will be in committing acts of violence against them. I shouldn't need to explain this.

Zillah, your post does not make sense. I am not advocating violence by holding my views, that's why I think both your statements, and I.J's statements are inappropriate.

Zillah wrote: »

I'm saying that unfortunately if enough bigots vote then we get bigoted laws. I'd like if we had less bigoted laws.

I don't regard disagreeing on gay marriage as being bigotry. You apparently do. You have to be a liberal on these type of issues to not be a "bigot". The same arguments can be made about you in respect to other peoples beliefs.

Zillah wrote: »

No, there isn't. Any opposition to homosexuality being biologically determined comes from homophobes who don't want to accept that it isn't an evil choice. It's a bit like creationists opposing evolution. There is no controversy, only the illusion of one.

No it isn't. There is no absolute proof that sexuality is biologically determined and I find this to be mere dishonesty. I'm willing to say, I don't know, I don't say that it isn't but to claim that there is absolute proof is just wrong scientifically from what research I've done on it. Again, stifling debate where it doesn't suit your opinion.

Zillah wrote: »

Again, we don't share a definition of marriage. The current one in place was put in place by religious conservatives, I want the law to be changed so as to not be discriminatory. You want to keep it discriminatory.

I want to keep the definition, and allow for people of LGBT orientation to explore a different mechanism of formalising their relationships. You don't seem to understand that I am not opposed to people of the LGBT community formalising their relationships legally.

Zillah wrote: »

Out of morbid curiosity, would you please define what the word "immoral" means to you? If the answer is just going to be "What God says it is in the Bible" I'd like you to just admit that instead of a large paragraph of vague dodging.

I believe that God has revealed to us what behaviour is acceptable or unacceptable to live best within His world so that we both honour Him, and honour our role to the rest of society. As for vague dodging, it certainly isn't. To live a Christian lifestyle one should accept Christian moral principles. This does not mean that we advocate hatred to anyone who disagrees with these moral principles. I would have thought that was simple enough to understand.

Zillah wrote: »

Do you not think that "causing harm to others" is a key requirement for immorality? Honestly, I want to understand this. You and I both agree that acting like a dick towards other human beings is at the heart of being a "bad" person. Do you see how really bizarre it is to me that you are condemning something as immoral even though it doesn't hurt anyone? To put things in perspective...how would you feel if I and millions of people around the world told you that drinking a glass of milk was immoral? Would you not find that incredibly weird and ridiculous? Drinking milk doesn't hurt anyone!

It's part of defining what is moral and immoral. It's not the sum of it. Not causing harm to others is a bit simplistic though, we also have responsibilities to each other as human beings. We are all in this life thing together, we should make it as best as possible for our neighbours. I personally believe that God knows what is best for us, that's why I aim to reach His standard. I understand that others do not want to reach His standard, but that is their choice and their choice alone.

Tricity Bendix

Jakkass wrote: »

Tricity Bendix: That's odd, because most of the New Testament teachings are based on Old Testament ones.

Indeed, quite odd. So odd that I came to the conclusion that either the Bible is full of crap, or that the God it describes is unworthy of worship.

KnifeWRENCH

Yikes! That's absolutely horrific if it's true. I'd have thought such brutal forms of torture would have been consigned to the Middle Ages. It's horrifying to think **** like this still happens in the 21st century.

Jakkass wrote:

What is happening in Iraq is completely unacceptable

Now why couldn't you have just said that and let that be the issue instead of dragging civil partnerships and the Bible into it? Not every thread needs to be turned into a militant defence of Christianity, y'know. Especially considering what forum this is. The whole "I love homosexuals but I don't want them married" and "Jesus loves gays as long as there's no shenanigans" thing tends not to go down too well here.

Zillah wrote: »

To put things in perspective...how would you feel if I and millions of people around the world told you that drinking a glass of milk was immoral? Would you not find that incredibly weird and ridiculous? Drinking milk doesn't hurt anyone!

PETA disagrees with you! :pac:

TelePaul

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Yikes! That's absolutely horrific if it's true. I'd have thought such brutal forms of torture would have been consigned to the Middle Ages. It's horrifying to think **** like this still happens in the 21st century.

It's awful if it's true. Maybe it's just me but does this seem far-fetched to anyone? It seems like alot of toruble to go to to punish someone for being gay. And the idea of a solvent that sticks your anus together before diarrhoea is induced seems cartoon-like, a form of torture devised by an eight year old. I mean, why would you need to induce excretion? It's going to happen anyway. Seems a bit far-fetched to me?

philologos

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Now why couldn't you have just said that and let that be the issue instead of dragging civil partnerships and the Bible into it? Not every thread needs to be turned into a militant defence of Christianity, y'know. Especially considering what forum this is. The whole "I love homosexuals but I don't want them married" and "Jesus loves gays as long as there's no shenanigans" thing tends not to go down too well here.

If you read how the conversation went, my main objection to IJ's post was that it tarred all people of faith with the same brush.

Zillah jumped in and launched a personal attack against me for my so called "bigoted" views concerning the LGBT community. To which I retorted that disagreeing with gay marriage doesn't paramount to bigotry, hatred, or intolerance. It merely amounts to a disagreement.

Infact, religion was brought into it from the very beginning. So let's not have any of this nonsense that I brought this into this thread by merely disagreeing with the outrageous statements made on this thread.

I'm starting to feel that I am getting blamed for entering into legitimate discussion based on the nonsense that people have posted. Is that really fair?

As for "not going down too well here". I'm quite aware that my views probably aren't appreciated because people differ with me significantly. However, most mature adults can manage to disagree without getting into ad hominems and slurs.

Boston

I hate these threads, they always bring out the intolerance of the LGBT community towards people of any faith regardless of that persons personal views.

KnifeWRENCH

Jakkass wrote: »

If you read how the conversation went, my main objection to IJ's post was that it tarred all people of faith with the same brush.

Well that's a fair enough objection but I don't think I.J.'s intention was to tar every single person of every single faith with the same brush. I assumed he was just venting against major religions which hate or, at least, disapprove of homosexuals and their lifestyle, which I think is fair enough although perhaps could have been phrased a little better. When you read a story as awful as this torture, it's not unreasonable to respond angrily against what you perceive to be the causing problem.

Zillah jumped in and launched a personal attack against me for my so called "bigoted" views concerning the LGBT community. To which I retorted that disagreeing with gay marriage doesn't paramount to bigotry, hatred, or intolerance. It merely amounts to a disagreement.

Zillah didn't mention anything about gay marriage; you introduced that yourself. (Incidentally, I don't believe it's mere disagreement. I think it does amount to bigotry and intolerance, though not hatred.)
From then on, thread goes offtopic and you post the exact same arguments you've posted a million times before. All I'm saying is that just sometimes you could let comments like that slide and not get yourself involved in a big huge debate.

Infact, religion was brought into it from the very beginning. So let's not have any of this nonsense that I brought this into this thread by merely disagreeing with the outrageous statements made on this thread.

I'm starting to feel that I am getting blamed for entering into legitimate discussion based on the nonsense that people have posted. Is that really fair?

As for "not going down too well here". I'm quite aware that my views probably aren't appreciated because people differ with me significantly. However, most mature adults can manage to disagree without getting into ad hominems and slurs.

OK but you shouldn't be surprised if your views are met with a little hostility here because the faith you follow condemns homosexual lifestyle. When you constantly get defensive about it, it's no wonder that you'll eventually start to feel "blamed". You're entitled to your opinions, I just don't think it's necessary to bludgeon people with them at every oppurtunity.
Also, I can assure you that any post of mine that you'll read here or on similar threads is an attack on your views (which I mostly find abhorrent) but not an attack on you as a person.

Boston wrote:

I hate these threads, they always bring out the intolerance of the LGBT community towards people of any faith regardless of that persons personal views.

A person may not be strictly homophobic but when they follow a faith that regards homosexuals negatively or portrays homosexual acts as "sinful" it's difficult not to be intolerant of such views.

I.J.

Boston wrote: »

I hate these threads, they always bring out the intolerance of the LGBT community towards people of any faith regardless of that persons personal views.

And on the flip side, I hate these threads, they always bring out the intolerance of "Religious advocates" towards people of a different sexuality.

Boston

If you look back through the thread you guys are being far more dismissive and intolerant towards Jackass then he is towards you.

TelePaul

I.J. wrote: »

And on the flip side, I hate these threads, they always bring out the intolerance of "Religious advocates" towards people of a different sexuality.

To be fair, I don't think you could describe anyting that's been put forward here as intolerance.

philologos

I won't comment on this thread any further. However, I am glad that at least some people can understand where I am coming from. I'm just a little unnerved at how people automatically slur all people of different faith when they see one situation of sick attitude.

It's absolutely appalling what happened and what is happening in Iraq. This case is especially sick, not to mention other attacks on other minority groups in the country. Nobody should be subjected to this type of treatment. I agree absolutely with the OP.

I.J.

Boston wrote: »

If you look back through the thread you guys are being far more dismissive and intolerant towards Jackass then he is towards you.

I don't believe I have been dismissive. I have responded to as many of his points as I can and I am tolerant of his faith as long as its private. As I said its when it spills over onto other people, thats where I get involved. He is siding with the side which casts the stones first. Its religions which hate homosexuals for no logical reason, not the reverse. Jakkass has still not answered the question which I asked two times already, to inform me of a religion which embraces homosexuality. If there isn't any, I stand by my original point for people to rebel against religions to create a happier society. He says this is tarring all people of faith with one brush but how you not be anti all religions when they hate you and/or encourage this violence and at least instigate it?

ixoy

Can we try and remove ourselves from another "Christianity vs. Homosexuality" thread? Let's go back to the nub of it all - that the torture in question is sick and that everyone here, devout Christian or not, is sickened by it.

I.J.

ixoy wrote: »

Can we try and remove ourselves from another "Christianity vs. Homosexuality" thread? Let's go back to the nub of it all - that the torture in question is sick and that everyone here, devout Christian or not, is sickened by it.

I'm fine with that. It is sickening. On Facebook there is a "causes" petition which is calling on the UN to support the decriminalisation of homosexuality in such countries. I know its only Facebook but its where I had heard about this story months ago.

Boston

I.J. wrote: »

I don't believe I have been dismissive. I have responded to as many of his points as I can and I am tolerant of his faith as long as its private. As I said its when it spills over onto other people, thats where I get involved.

I don't mind Christians as long as they keep it indoors. It's when they try to influence non-Christians that I get involved.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Anyway, I don't think anyone on this thread is justifying what happened/is happening in Iraq. I bet if you started this thread on the Islam forum it would be roundly condemned also.

shay_562

Boston wrote: »

I hate these threads, they always bring out the intolerance of the LGBT community towards people of any faith regardless of that persons personal views.

Which is, I think, inevitable, given that (as we've gone over already quite a bit) most mainstream religions encourage the vilification and oppression of homosexuality. I think intolerance of religion among the LGBT community is a perfectly understandable reaction to years of persecution and hatred coming from the mainstream religions, particularly when the primary advocates against LGBT people now (for example in the West, those who promote 're-orientation' camps or who are strongly opposed to gay marriage) tend, by and large, to be overtly religious conservatives. I accept that it's probably wrong to tar all people of faith with the same brush, but I'm willing to do it anyway because I have little respect for the people who claim (for example) to be Catholics while ignoring the teachings of the Pope where it suits them. In supporting Catholicism for the most part, they lend their voice (however inadvertently) to a Pope who has categorised gay people as being as much of a threat to the world as global warming. If you're a member of a mainstream religion, even if you're not overtly bigoted yourself (and, without wanting to be too facetious, some of my best friends are Catholics - I recognise that such people do exist) you're a part of a larger organisation that preaches hatred towards gay people, so I think it's fair enough for me, as a gay person, to dislike and argue against people's religions.

As far as the Steinesque idea that "Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry is bigotry, whether it's from religion towards gay people or from the gays towards religion", I don't buy it. I have a really hard time picturing even the most extremist elements of the LGBT community getting together and committing the kind of torture that this thread was initially about on a bunch of Christians, simply because they were Christian. It seems implausible to imagine a bunch of gay people running a "re-education centre" where Christians can be 'cured' of their love of God. Among the more mainstream elements of each religion, most gay people don't advocate a complete end to religious marriage to be replaced solely with civil unions, and a ban on Christian people having children based on spurious non-evidence that suggests kids growing up in conservative religious homes turn out worse (or, horrors, become conservative religious people themselves!), in stark contrast to the legions of hardline Christians in America who support NOM and other organisations like it.

Essentially? Their bigotry seems to be more violent, more oppressive and more all-encompassing than ours. So I'll keep my dislike and distrust of religion, thanks, and I'll abandon it the day that my basic civil rights are no longer being encroached upon by mainstream religions.

I.J.

Boston wrote: »

I don't mind Christians as long as they keep it indoors. It's when they try to influence non-Christians that I get involved.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
.

No, I think we can agree on that statement. I don't mind Christians either as long as they keep it indoors and it is when they try to influence non-Christians that I get involved also.

renraw

Thats just soo sad ...some cultures amaze me (in the wrong kind of way :mad:)

Boston

shay_562 wrote: »

Which is, I think, inevitable, given that (as we've gone over already quite a bit) most mainstream religions encourage the vilification and oppression of homosexuality. I think intolerance of religion among the LGBT community is a perfectly understandable reaction to years of persecution and hatred coming from the mainstream religions, particularly when the primary advocates against LGBT people now (for example in the West, those who promote 're-orientation' camps or who are strongly opposed to gay marriage) tend, by and large, to be overtly religious conservatives. I accept that it's probably wrong to tar all people of faith with the same brush, but I'm willing to do it anyway because I have little respect for the people who claim (for example) to be Catholics while ignoring the teachings of the Pope where it suits them. In supporting Catholicism for the most part, they lend their voice (however inadvertently) to a Pope who has categorised gay people as being as much of a threat to the world as global warming. If you're a member of a mainstream religion, even if you're not overtly bigoted yourself (and, without wanting to be too facetious, some of my best friends are Catholics - I recognise that such people do exist) you're a part of a larger organisation that preaches hatred towards gay people, so I think it's fair enough for me, as a gay person, to dislike and argue against people's religions.

As far as the Steinesque idea that "Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry is bigotry, whether it's from religion towards gay people or from the gays towards religion", I don't buy it. I have a really hard time picturing even the most extremist elements of the LGBT community getting together and committing the kind of torture that this thread was initially about on a bunch of Christians, simply because they were Christian. It seems implausible to imagine a bunch of gay people running a "re-education centre" where Christians can be 'cured' of their love of God. Among the more mainstream elements of each religion, most gay people don't advocate a complete end to religious marriage to be replaced solely with civil unions, and a ban on Christian people having children based on spurious non-evidence that suggests kids growing up in conservative religious homes turn out worse (or, horrors, become conservative religious people themselves!), in stark contrast to the legions of hardline Christians in America who support NOM and other organisations like it.

Essentially? Their bigotry seems to be more violent, more oppressive and more all-encompassing than ours. So I'll keep my dislike and distrust of religion, thanks, and I'll abandon it the day that my basic civil rights are no longer being encroached upon by mainstream religions.

I applaud your moralisation. Ultimately when you cut through all the logical twists and rational loopholes your arguing that its right to be intolerant towards someone just because of there associations. Because we've been wronged by some members of a group it is OK to hold all members of that group accountable, even those who found the wrongs reproachable. The reason you feel its OK to do so is because these people refuse to disassociated and disavow their faith. It's a fundamental fallacy to believe that all Christians subscribe to all Christian doctrine. Faith is all about trying to find comprises and leaving with paradoxes.

WesternNight

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not particularly. I just consider the union of a man and a woman to be a different thing than the union of two of the same gender. I am in agreement that there should be a means of formally recognising both.

And who are you to decide anything about someone else's life? Does it affect you? Would it cheapen your marriage? Why should it be any different?

On the whole gay marriage thing in general: I can't fathom how people expect to even have a vote on it. It's just something that should be (although I do realise that voting on it is the only way to change it at the moment, it seems). It doesn't affect anyone but the people involved and it's so very arrogant of anyone to think they have the right to decide that someone else can't get married.

Religious reasons aren't valid ones for denying someone the right to marry, in my opinion. Because those reasons can't be applied to those who don't believe what you do. You can believe whatever you want, but as soon as you extend your "standards" to everyone else, that's where you lose people.

(I'm not sure that's phrased the way I want it to be, but you get the idea)

shay_562

Boston wrote:

Ultimately when you cut through all the logical twists and rational loopholes your arguing that its right to be intolerant towards someone just because of there associations. Because we've been wronged by some members of a group it is OK to hold all members of that group accountable, even those who found the wrongs reproachable.

Pretty much it in a nutshell, yeah. Unfortunate fact of life #26: You get judged based on the company you keep. If you find the bad actions of a group you're a part of to be so reproachable, either force the group to change or leave. If you can't force the group to change (as is the case with, say, Catholicism - it's very much a top-down religion with little room for the laity to make suggestions or change its views), then you weigh the decision of whether what they're doing is so wrong that you feel you can't conscientiously be part of it any more. People who look at the Catholic Church spewing hatred towards gay people and say "It's bad, but I'm still going to go to Mass every Sunday" clearly don't think it's all that bad, so yes, I feel OK about judging them for their actions. I'm not saying I'd refuse to speak to them or shun them from my life, but I can be their friend and still dislike their religious leanings.

It's a fundamental fallacy to believe that all Christians subscribe to all Christian doctrine. Faith is all about trying to find comprises and leaving with paradoxes.

Actually, I think faith is pretty solid. You can have faith to the level that you personally choose with little external consequence. Plus, your level of faith has no direct impact on anyone else's life - it's the actions that you take as a result of your faith that change things. Being part of an organised religion, that's what comes with compromise and contradiction. I'm fully aware that many Christians don't subscribe to every part of Christian doctrine - the "No sex before marriage" rule is a good example, since most of the young Christians I know ignore that when it suits them. But that doesn't change the fact that when you go to Mass, when you donate to a church fund, when you write your name down on a Census form as "Christian", you lend your voice to that church. You allow the Pope to speak with the authority of "X million Catholics" behind him. Your membership gives the church the power to speak out publicly on moral issues and have governments listen to it. And no one says "Well, the Pope speaks on behalf of X million people, but only Y million of them actually believe any of the crap he's saying" because you can't make that kind of judgement - the nature of religion, as opposed to faith, is that they lay down a set of criteria for what it takes to be a Christian, and you agree to follow them, so when the Pope speaks, the default position is to assume that "X million Catholics" are actually X million voters, with all that that entails for driving government policy. Personally believing that some of those criteria are bigoted or wrong makes no difference when you publicly subscribe to them.

Dublin_Gunner

How terribly sad that a thread made to point out the total disregard for life, and humanity has spiralled down to a pointless debate on ridiculous* religious morals and beliefs.

Like it has anything to do with the fact there are sick bastards in Iraq glueing people's anus's together so they can die a horrible death - just for being gay.\

This has got so little to do with religion, its frightening that people use it to spout their own agenda here on boards. These acts are carried out by sick, evil, cowardly imposters of human beings, who should be locked up and the key thrown away.

How can this be going on in a country that has still quite a high military presence? Surely if the media can find out about these things, the military that are there know.


*ridiculous in comparison to the subject matter of the thread.

I.J.

Boston wrote: »

Because we've been wronged by some members of a group it is OK to hold all members of that group accountable, even those who found the wrongs reproachable.

Although this point isn't directed at me, I think this was something Jakkass was trying to put on me. I want to make it clear I never said anything about individuals of faith. Its the religions I referred to in that original post. Its their writings and what they preach, its leaders and hierachies I refer to, its what they shout out and dictate to their followers, to their sheep. The individuals who follow religions are another story. If the religions turn around tomorrow and said homosexuality is fine, their sexual acts are only a further and wonderful extension of how they express their love and how innocent pleasures ars what human beings should live for, then I'm sure those "with faith" would accept it. However, as this firstly, is not going to happen and secondly, would completely contradict thousands of years of their bigotry, those with little interest must turn their backs on religion and not get sucked into it. As an example, child rape would still be going on in the Catholic Church if we all let ourselves stay sucked into their dogma as happened for at least 70 years. Why do you think nothing was done about the rape in these years, because people stayed with religion and accepted it. It was breaking away from it, that uncovered its evils. The same goes for homosexulity, we would all still be burned at the stake if great numbers of society didn't break away from religion.