The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Omar de Fati wrote:

Ah...I get it now. So he doesn't hate religionists, he just hates what defines who they are, i.e. their religionism. Got it!

no, you still don't get it

0 Replies

Invested as his interest seems to be in asserting that i am hateful, i doubt that he ever will "get it."

Omar displays a vehement reaction to criticism, which i feel justified in describing as hate.

0 Replies

Omar,

You've had some interesting things to say up until this point; why ruin it with Ad Hominem attacks against Setanta?

They don't further the conversation at all and they don't reflect well upon your side of the debate, either.

Let's everyone calm down a little....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Can I help here? Here are the definitions of despise.

1. To regard with contempt or scorn: despised all cowards and flatterers.
2. To dislike intensely; loathe: despised the frigid weather in January.
3. To regard as unworthy of one's interest or concern: despised any thought of their own safety.

Now, if we use DEF #2, then he hates religionists.

But, if you use DEF #3, then Set has a point. I, being a person of faith, will give Set the benefit of the doubt.

Sound like a semantic consideration they aren't willing to extend for an even greater distinction between hating homosexuals & believeing the behavior is morally wrong.

But hey, if you want to cut him some slack on a semantic,go for it. It's obviously to me he hates religionists. It doesn' t matter how he tries to relax the word's contemptuous nature.

0 Replies

I hate it when you start taking the high road Cy. :wink:

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ha! beat ya to the punch.

And even your second definition is not exactly synonymous with the defintion of hate, if we want to get down to it...

Cycloptichorn

If we want to get down to it, CR's second definition of "despise" ...

CR wrote:

To dislike intensely

carries more feelings than the definition of "hate" you supplied ...

Cyclops wrote:

To feel dislike or distaste for

0 Replies

Sickening, ain't it?

Quote:

Religionist \Re*li"gion*ist\, n.
One earnestly devoted or attached to a religion; a religious zealot.

I despise religious Zealotry, as it adds nothing to the proper discourse of reasoning human beings and has ever been a force of repression, hate, and pain for society. I see this situation as little different.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Invested as his interest seems to be in asserting that i am hateful, i doubt that he ever will "get it."

Omar displays a vehement reaction to criticism, which i feel justified in describing as hate.

Semantic word games & waffling aside, your reaction to having your hatred for religionists highlighted is no less than interesting itself.

But let's put the plain truth aside for a moment, for the sake of argument. Knowing you "despise" religionists & you characterize them as making you sick to your stomach, helps when considering your position.

0 Replies

I try to cut some slack whenever I can. I think the word hate is too strong a word for what Set is trying to say. He believes people of faith are trying to force their views on him. While I think he is mistaken, I would agree that having strong feeling about having views forced on you is appropriate.

I think I can honestly say that I despise the lifestyle of homosexuality and their attempt at trying to normalize their lifestyle within society. But I do not hate any individual homosexual, although there are one or two on these threads I would have no desire to ever associate with for fear I may have to admit hating them. Or at least disliking them intensely. Smile

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sickening, ain't it?

Quote:
Religionist \Re*li"gion*ist\, n.
One earnestly devoted or attached to a religion; a religious zealot.

I despise religious Zealotry, as it adds nothing to the proper discourse of reasoning human beings and has ever been a force of repression, hate, and pain for society. I see this situation as little different.

Cycloptichorn

Hey, I'm with you on this definition. I don't hate or despise christians. I believe they are zealots quite often. I pointed this out earlier when addressing the phrase "preserving the sanctity of marriage".

However, despising someone because they are a religionist is despising what defines who they are. And this allegation that religious zealotry has ever been a force of repression, hate & pain, is nonsense. It's essentially the same as calling them homophobe for no apparent reason.

Both sides have their tactics, don't they?

0 Replies

Really?

Why would you say you despise the lifestyle of homosexuality? Have you been harmed in some way by the lifestyle of homosexuality, or is it a general beliefs sort of thing?

Just wondering, feel no pressure to answer as I'm not trying to badger ya or call you out or anything; just trying to broaden the discussion, as that is honestly the exact opposite of how I feel. I mean, there are homosexuals that I dislike b/c they are jerks, but on the whole I have found them to be... no different than anyone else, really.

Once again, just trying to foster discussion, thanks

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

I try to cut some slack whenever I can. I think the word hate is too strong a word for what Set is trying to say. He believes people of faith are trying to force their views on him. While I think he is mistaken, I would agree that having strong feeling about having views forced on you is appropriate.

I think I can honestly say that I despise the lifestyle of homosexuality and their attempt at trying to normalize their lifestyle within society. But I do not hate any individual homosexual, although there are one or two on these threads I would have no desire to ever associate with for fear I may have to admit hating them. Or at least disliking them intensely.

You, my man or woman, have hit on THE very point. If I'm exaggerating his intended meaning, it's at least to show how exaggerating the theme of this thread is. Of course, "they" don't "get it".

0 Replies

Quote:

However, despising someone because they are a religionist is despising what defines who they are. And this allegation that religious zealotry has ever been a force of repression, hate & pain, is nonsense. It's essentially the same as calling them homophobe for no apparent reason.

It is most certainly NOT nonsense. Religious Zealotry has caused some of the greatest tragedies in human history, as I am sure you are well aware. ANY form of zealotry is to be avoided as it invariably leads to bad ends; after all, reason takes a back seat to ideology, what do you expect to happen?

I highly doubt you can point out how Homosexuals have caused some of the greatest tragedies in our world's history, but Religious Zealots no doubt have. You really need to recognize that this is not a criticism of the Religious, only those who would seek to impose their Religious beliefs upon the lives of others; it rarely ends in anything but pain.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

I try to cut some slack whenever I can. I think the word hate is too strong a word for what Set is trying to say. He believes people of faith are trying to force their views on him. While I think he is mistaken, I would agree that having strong feeling about having views forced on you is appropriate.

I think I can honestly say that I despise the lifestyle of homosexuality and their attempt at trying to normalize their lifestyle within society. But I do not hate any individual homosexual, although there are one or two on these threads I would have no desire to ever associate with for fear I may have to admit hating them. Or at least disliking them intensely.

Some people whose "faith" leads them to zealotry, do try to force their beliefs upon others. These are those to whom i refer as religionists. I despise them, but have no emotional response to them as individuals, and hence do not hate them.

I was very interested to read that you despise the "lifestyle of homosexuality." I would be further interested to know what precisely you mean by a homosexual lifestyle. It is simply the sexual act which you despise? Is that because you find the consideration of such acts disgusting? Or do you actually contend that apart from sexual acts, homosexuals live in sufficiently distinct manner to warrant comment and condemnation?

0 Replies

The chronicles of the reign of Charlemagne, those of Einhard, who was educated at and lived at Charlemagne's court, recount that the Franks killed the Saxons in their thousands each year, because they were pagan and would not convert. The Knights of the Teutonic Order would organize hunting parties, and hunt down Balts and Letts because they were pagans--they hunted people as though they were game animals.

I could go on for pages and pages, but the point is made. I believe i am safe in asserting that this is the type of religious zealotry to which Cyc refers. It certainly makes up a large part of the contempt that i feel for religionists.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Really?

Why would you say you despise the lifestyle of homosexuality? Have you been harmed in some way by the lifestyle of homosexuality, or is it a general beliefs sort of thing?

Just wondering, feel no pressure to answer as I'm not trying to badger ya or call you out or anything; just trying to broaden the discussion, as that is honestly the exact opposite of how I feel. I mean, there are homosexuals that I dislike b/c they are jerks, but on the whole I have found them to be... no different than anyone else, really.

Once again, just trying to foster discussion, thanks

Cycloptichorn

Gosh, let me clarify myself. I sure don't want to be misunderstood on this. As a Christian, and based on my study of the Bible, I believe homosexuality is sinful. (No different from lying, stealing, murdering, etc)
As such, I despise as being sinful the homosexual lifestyle. I do not nor have I ever (in my opinion which you can accept or not) despised or hated a person because they were gay.

Like you, I may dislike an individual (gay, straight or whatever) because he is a jerk, but to do so simply because I view something they do is sinful would be ludicrous on my part. Besides, that would lead me to the conclusion that I should despise my children because they have sometimes lied to me, which is just as much a sin (IMO) as homosexuality (IMO).

Does this help? And I am always willing to discuss my beliefs/views/opinions with you Cy because you have this cute little way of disagreeing without insinuating that I am an idiot. We need more of that around here. Of course then it might not be as much fun reading all the posts. Laughing

0 Replies

Set: Do you similarly despise those who follow a moral compass, but who aren't "religionists." What about those who believe homosexuality is immoral and should not be condoned by society?

I know you are a proponent of drug use ... do you similarly believe prostitution should be legal? What about incest? Polygamy? Do you accept that there are folks who believe such things are immoral? Or do you just despise such people, and hold no emotional response to them as individuals?

Should laws not be a representation of societal mores?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
However, despising someone because they are a religionist is despising what defines who they are. And this allegation that religious zealotry has ever been a force of repression, hate & pain, is nonsense. It's essentially the same as calling them homophobe for no apparent reason.

It is most certainly NOT nonsense. Religious Zealotry has caused some of the greatest tragedies in human history, as I am sure you are well aware. ANY form of zealotry is to be avoided as it invariably leads to bad ends; after all, reason takes a back seat to ideology, what do you expect to happen?

I highly doubt you can point out how Homosexuals have caused some of the greatest tragedies in our world's history, but Religious Zealots no doubt have. You really need to recognize that this is not a criticism of the Religious, only those who would seek to impose their Religious beliefs upon the lives of others; it rarely ends in anything but pain.

Cycloptichorn

Oh, we're redefining "zealotry" for our purposes too? The religionists he hates, I mean "despises", who you agreed both of you despise, haven't caused any tradegies.

You two don't despise religionists who cause great tradegies. You despise religionists. Well, you despise them & think he does. He is just made sick by them.

0 Replies

Yeah, that helps a lot!

I can understand the 'hate the sin, love the sinner' angle of the whole thing. It's a little difficult for me to understand (being a moral relativist and all, the new pope prolly 'dislikes' me intensely heh) but I can certainly accept it.

When it comes to a policy formation angle, however, do you believe that the way that we should form policy is by viewing what the prevailing religious beliefs of the population are and then enacting them into law? It would seem to me that this would somewhat conflict with our standard patterns here in America, but I am hardly a legal scholar or historian of law, so I can't say with any certainty that this isn't the way it has always been done.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The chronicles of the reign of Charlemagne, those of Einhard, who was educated at and lived at Charlemagne's court, recount that the Franks killed the Saxons in their thousands each year, because they were pagan and would not convert. The Knights of the Teutonic Order would organize hunting parties, and hunt down Balts and Letts because they were pagans--they hunted people as though they were game animals.

I could go on for pages and pages, but the point is made. I believe i am safe in asserting that this is the type of religious zealotry to which Cyc refers. It certainly makes up a large part of the contempt that i feel for religionists.

I would agree that zealotry can be taken to the extreme. People of faith (or who claim to be people of faith) are subject to sin and mistakes just as everyone else. In their zealotry, they get carried away and commit acts that the mainstream of Christianity would find disgusting. Your examples would be cases in point. Others would include the idiots who claim God told them to kill someone (such as an abortion doctor) in order to keep that person from sinning. That is just as despicable to me and most Christians as it is to you. The test of whether something is right or wrong is always this - how does the action match up with the word of God.

The cases you pointed out does not match up. God gave everyone free will to believe in Him or not. So forcing a belief on someone is wrong. Always will be. Murder is wrong, so killing an abortion doctor for any reason is wrong. Always will be.

As for forcing our views on others, if you are talking about campaigning for (or against, as the case may be) laws that move society closer to our ideals, I don't see how that is forcing anything on anyone. Just as your campaigning for laws that shape society to what you think it should be is not forcing anything upon me. In the long run, society as a whole will decide.

Hope this helps. If not, let me know.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know