Bible Sued For Homophobia

This is why I hate reading Christian vs. atheist debates. They both just twist each others' words into utter crap and both sides end up looking retarded...

I'm Christian, and I have no shame in admitting that. Though I don't bash homosexuals. It's none of my business what others do with their free will. Don't force me to wave the homosexual banner, and I won't force my opinions about God and religion on you.

That's something that annoys me about the world. If you aren't marching in the streets for the cause of same-sex marriage, some people like to make you out to be "close-minded" or homophobic or whatever...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
This is why I hate reading Christian vs. atheist debates. They both just twist each others' words into utter crap and both sides end up looking retarded...

I'm Christian, and I have no shame in admitting that. Though I don't bash homosexuals. It's none of my business what others do with their free will. Don't force me to wave the homosexual banner, and I won't force my opinions about God and religion on you.

That's something that annoys me about the world. If you aren't marching in the streets for the cause of same-sex marriage, some people like to make you out to be "close-minded" or homophobic or whatever...

But no one is asking you to wave the banner of homosexuality so I don't really see how that's relevant. All people really care about is that you ultimately support their side, and it sounds like you do so there's no reason to complain.

I think most people would be happy if idiots didn't make comparisons between child rape and homosexuality.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But no one is asking you to wave the banner of homosexuality so I don't really see how that's relevant. All people really care about is that you ultimately support their side, and it sounds like you do so there's no reason to complain.

I was just referring to the unofficial agreement between myself and the homosexual movement.

wow. you guys got from someone simply suing some bible publishers to a debate between someone who... um, disagrees about homosexuality and... yeah.

I guess it's bound to come up some time. haha.

The problem is the paedophile comment, as I understand.

Other than that, I think people would agree that if one disagrees with homosexuality, they have the right to their opinion.

These types of opinions are difficult to change, if at all.

i dont really understand where ignorance comes into play when saying that homosexuality is [in his opinion] as disgusting as pedophilia. 😕

can someone explain it to me? if possible via pm would be nice. i dont want to start any great disruptions in the thread y'know?

wait?

since when did conservative Christians start using Post-Modernism to dodge?

I wonder if Tattoos and Scars or Ms. Marvel would think it discrimination if one took a stance against, oh, slavery, radical Islam or, genocide, as each of those are positions and opinions. One can't discriminate against the fascists.

/lol

im not quite sure what discrimination has to do with anything ive said in this thread. out of curiosity... why are you curious? D:

its like an infinite regression

I think I used your name hastily, as you are more asking why hating gays is bad but hating bigots isn't, which, well, cool...

its the issue of saying it is discrimination to attack hateful opinions. If it is discrimination to say that comparing-homosexuality-to-pedophilia is ignorant, simply because a person has the right to hold opinions, it is also then discrimination to say that being against fascism is ignorant, because that is a person's right, apparently, to believe whatever they want and have nobody question or challenge or put down that belief.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
im not quite sure what discrimination has to do with anything ive said in this thread. out of curiosity... why are you curious? D:

ya, I skimmed the thread, put your name in the wrong place 🙂

I'm pretty sure I said that already.

Only I took a lot longer to say it and never actually said it (but I did imply it!) and I didn't say it as well.

so... yeah

Originally posted by inimalist
wait?

since when did conservative Christians start using Post-Modernism to dodge?

I wonder if Tattoos and Scars or Ms. Marvel would think it discrimination if one took a stance against, oh, slavery, radical Islam or, genocide, as each of those are positions and opinions. One can't discriminate against the fascists.

/lol

I must say, I don't get what you're saying, either. It would make more sense if you said, "I wonder if Tattoos and Scars or Ms. Marvel would think it discrimination if one took a stance [for], oh, slavery, radical Islam or, genocide, as each of those are positions and opinions."

or

"I wonder if Tattoos and Scars or Ms. Marvel would think it opinion if one took a stance in favor of, oh, slavery, radical Islam or, genocide, as each of those are positions and opinions."

or

"I wonder if Tattoos and Scars or Ms. Marvel would think it opinion if one took a stance against, oh, slavery, radical Islam or, genocide, as each of those are positions and opinions."

Scars opinion is that homosexuality is disgusting. No doubt, though, that he would have voted for Prop 8, so his opinion would lead to discrimination. I, on the other hand, find it also gross, but I would fight against B.S. like Prop 8. So I'm not too sure what your point is up there. Their points were that one can have an opinion on something. My point is that opinions can and do lead to discrimination. Your point is also correct in that, if someone did discriminate against someone else who thought slavery should be allowed, it would require some sort of discriminatory action against the pro-slaver. (I think...that's your point, right?)

I think the word "discriminate" is not being used correctly (you are using it correctly, though) That implies action. It is needed in order for it to be discrimination. I think what they are looking for is prejudice. That would make sense if the word "discrimination" was replaced by "prejudice."

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm pretty sure I said that already.

Only I took a lot longer to say it and never actually said it (but I did imply it!) and I didn't say it as well.

so... yeah

its weird, it comes up every now and then and always surprises me

Christians probably shouldn't be using such appeals to relativism, as it might make their hatred less... hateful? (maybe in their own eyes I guess?...) but totally undermines a lot of the other things they hold fairly strongly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I must say, I don't get what you're saying, either.

Originally posted by inimalist
its like an infinite regression

...

its the issue of saying it is discrimination to attack hateful opinions. If it is discrimination to say that comparing-homosexuality-to-pedophilia is ignorant, simply because a person has the right to hold opinions, it is also then discrimination to say that being against fascism is ignorant, because that is a person's right, apparently, to believe whatever they want and have nobody question or challenge or put down that belief.

I'm more questioning the logic, not the conclusions.

Their point is entirely valid, were they post-moderists and believed that there is no real or absolute truth and all things were a matter of perspective, which undermines positions their faith is, assumedly, built on. I guess I have met nihilistic christians before, so maybe I'm jumping the gun.

If they can both say they wouldn't discriminate against a radical muslims right to preach suicide bombings, hey, then I'm mistaken and have a bunch of other questions...

Originally posted by inimalist
[B]its like an infinite regression

I think I used your name hastily, as you are more asking why hating gays is bad but hating bigots isn't, which, well, cool...

well i just feel it works both ways. i grew up in a house hold where black people (my family) openly detest white people and feel that theyre an inferior race. AKA theyre racist. they get away with being racist because of that whole slavery and racial movement thing in the 50's... which i feel is not okay.

its the issue of saying it is discrimination to attack hateful opinions. If it is discrimination to say that comparing-homosexuality-to-pedophilia is ignorant, simply because a person has the right to hold opinions, it is also then discrimination to say that being against fascism is ignorant, because that is a person's right, apparently, to believe whatever they want and have nobody question or challenge or put down that belief.

but i never mentioned discrimination. in fact that doesnt really have anything to do with my posts in this thread. maybe scars did i wouldnt know because i havent read a lot of his posts because i dont think theyre rational.

as for my question, i dont understand how what he said has anything to do with ignorance. thats pretty much the entire intent of that question.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
well i just feel it works both ways. i grew up in a house hold where black people (my family) openly detest white people and feel that theyre an inferior race. AKA theyre racist. they get away with being racist because of that whole slavery and racial movement thing in the 50's... which i feel is not okay.

cool, though you said that you didn't think anyone in this thread was guilty of that on page 3

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
but i never mentioned discrimination. in fact that doesnt really have anything to do with my posts in this thread. maybe scars did i wouldnt know because i havent read a lot of his posts because i dont think theyre rational.

indeed, my previous post mentioned that I used your name incorrectly twice... I now formally apologize. these things happen

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
as for my question, i dont understand how what he said has anything to do with ignorance. thats pretty much the entire intent of that question.

fair enough, you have a different definition of ignorance than others. I'm not really interested in pointing fingers, more in the logic that leads christians to relativism

my feelings mirror yours in that i dont want to point fingers and cause any potential ill will.

things happen its all good. 😛

my definition for ignorance is very similar to these, and going by those definitions nothing he said in the post that sparked this discussion shows any ignorance that i can see, hence my confusion.

Originally posted by inimalist
its weird, it comes up every now and then and always surprises me

Christians probably shouldn't be using such appeals to relativism, as it might make their hatred less... hateful? (maybe in their own eyes I guess?...) but totally undermines a lot of the other things they hold fairly strongly.

I'm more questioning the logic, not the conclusions.

Their point is entirely valid, were they post-moderists and believed that there is no real or absolute truth and all things were a matter of perspective, which undermines positions their faith is, assumedly, built on. I guess I have met nihilistic christians before, so maybe I'm jumping the gun.

If they can both say they wouldn't discriminate against a radical muslims right to preach suicide bombings, hey, then I'm mistaken and have a bunch of other questions...

An argument of unintentional hypocrisy or rather, that they are being illogical and subjective. GASPITY! NO WAY! 😆 Double standards exist all the time for the religious. ✅

However, Christianity has it covered: they are not supposed to judge others. A common way of that is "hate the sin, not the sinner." I think this is why a Mormon can think homosexuality is a sin, but fully believe in and vote for gay rights. (I.e. yours truly.)

I may be taking our conversation off track, but it is more on subject.

Opinions on anything are fine, as long as those opinions don't lead to unreasonable discrimination. (Discrminate against rapists and pedophiles. That's cool. But not against two men who want to share their lives together, legeally, and emotionally....unless they are both pedophile rapists. AHA! 😆 )

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
so you dont think a homosexual could be prejudiced against heterosexuals and intolerant of their views?

imo a gay basher isnt any worse than a gay who bashes a hetero stance. just like i feel "defensive racism" is just as bad as...ya know... regular racism.

im not accusing anyone here of being attributed to either party, but in general if someone says "i think homosexuality is disgusting" and someone replies "youre an ignorant idiot for thinking that", i consider the latter poster to be just as much in the wrong.

Of course I think that is possible. Homosexuals are just as likely as anyone to show traits such as bigotry; maybe an argument can be made that as a minority group they are more likely in society to be victim than offender but people are still people. But that's massively irrelevant- homosexuals showing anger at intolerance against them is NOT in turn intolerant; it is a reasonable response. The actual other way around would be if homosexuals said that being straight was wrong, which you sure as hell don't see much. The intolerance is coming from the heterosexual side.

The 'ignorance' comment comes from the idea of explaining that someone holds offensive views because they do not know of what they are talking about (and presumably are just parroting what they have been told instead of actually thinking about the subject), as opposed to them being actively vile people.

And if that geuinely is your opinion then I am afraid that puts you in an unpleasant group. Intolerance against someone's private sexual practices that bring no harm to anyone is a worthy subject of attack. Such intolerance (which breeds hatred) should be pointed out as being wrong. If you equate those who dislike such intolerance with those who attack people's private lives, you are doing a very silly thing.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible IS Homophobic; everyone knows it. The idea behind this claim that this was somehow altered my messing around with one passage is very odd.

The 'ignorance' comment comes from the idea of explaining that someone holds offensive views because they do not know of what they are talking about (and presumably are just parroting what they have been told instead of actually thinking about the subject), as opposed to them being actively vile people.

thats a pretty hefty assumption dont you think? nothing in that one specific post points to him not understanding the concept hes talking about, or having very little knowledge about it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Of course I think that is possible. Homosexuals are just as likely as anyone to show traits such as bigotry; maybe an argument can be made that as a minority group they are more likely in society to be victim than offender but people are still people. But that's massively irrelevant- homosexuals showing anger at intolerance against them is NOT in turn intolerant; it is a reasonable response. The actual other way around would be if homosexuals said that being straight was wrong, which you sure as hell don't see much. The intolerance is coming from the heterosexual side.

And if that geuinely is your opinion then I am afraid that puts you in an unpleasant group. Intolerance against someone's private sexual practices that bring no harm to anyone is a worthy subject of attack. Such intolerance (which breeds hatred) should be pointed out as being wrong. If you equate those who dislike such intolerance with those who attack people's private lives, you are doing a very silly thing.

im not talking about intolerance though. saying that something disgusts you isnt necessarily intolerant its just your feelings on the matter. when all youre doing is just tossing out your personal opinion i dont see it as being intolerant or discriminatory. those two things are only results of actions imo. i dont approve of homosexuality and the thought of performing homosexual acts disturbs me a bit but i have zero problem with people who are homosexual and choose that lifestyle... if it makes them happy then more power to them. so yes the concept of loving another woman somewhat disgusts me. do you think that i am intolerant or that im showing intolerance by feeling that way and voicing that opinion?

and by the way im only going off of how im interpreting what youre saying. if im off the mark i apologize in advance and feel free to correct me.

The ignorance accusation may well be a hefty assumption. It is simply more pleasant than the alternative.

I would actually certainly challenge the view that disgust of homosexuality is not rooted in intolerance, and nor would I give any weight to yuor opinion on the matter. Nearly all intolerant people justify their behaviour in such a way.

But that is all by the by- the original comment in this thread that it was almost as digusting as pedophilia is, in any reasonable terms (by linking a private and hamrless sexual behaviour with the principle of child abuse), an outright bigoted and intolerant attack, and the criticism of it is highly justified. Saying the criticism of such an attack could be in any way itself intolerant is simply wrong. His comment goes way beyond mere disapproval- so whether you are talking about intolerance or not doesn't matter. Everyone else is, and his comment was intolerant.

I'm making no direct accusations at you about homophobia. But I do criticise you for trying to defend the indefensible, and for your ill-thought equating of attacks on intolerance with intolerance itself.