The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

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.

You despise & have contempt for religionists who live today, because of behavior done during the reign of Charlemagne & similiar past events? To me, that seems the same as black people hating white americans because of how white behaved while slavery existed.

So my question is this...if you despise, & have contempt for, existing religionists, what great tragedy have they commited? They certainly don't organize hunting parties to hunt down homosexuals.

0 Replies

Well, if you look at me and set's question about what is really so bad about Homosexuals after all,

Just because you don't support the actions of someone you consider to be a sinner does not automatically mean that said person is doing something illegal. This is one of the reasons the courts have made decisions over the last century that have been in conflict with popular public opinion; the idea that there is a concept of equality and freedom that is not constrained by the individual beliefs of society's members, but is in fact a universal concept. To many of us, that's what America is: a place where the universal concept of freedom is the driving force behind society.

When we see that universal concept being bound by religious laws, we get wary in the same way as our ancestors who envisioned this country did.

You need to show how Homosexuals cause harm, to society in general, to themselves, and to currently married couples, outside of the religious argument if you feel that the force of law should support your argument. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone's beliefs, much as I may disagree with them, but I don't feel that your beliefs are a good formation for law.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It's good to know Setanta and Cyc deeply despise Osama Bin Laden and all the Muslim zealots that we are battling in the middle East right now.

It makes me wonder why they are so opposed to those actions when they despise religionists so much though.

0 Replies

Two wrongs don't make a right, McG, this isn't the second grade...

Of course, three rights DO make a left....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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

Policy formation should be the prevailing beliefs of an individual society. (Notice I did not say religious beliefs) I think I said it elsewhere on this thread, but maybe it bears repeating.

We all have the right to campaign for laws that will shape the society we live in. My values and faith shape who I am and so what I believe is best for this country is shaped by that. Your values will shape who you are and I am sure you think it best to try to shape the country around those values. As a whole, society will be shaped into the prevailing view. It is then left to everyone to live under those laws but does not mean you cannot continue to try to change them.

Example: Since Roe v Wade, abortion has been legal. I cannot go out and at gunpoint force people not to have abortions. It is the law and so I live under that law. I may disagree with the law, but I am bound to live with it. I am not under any obligation not to voice my opposition to it and work to change it. Just as the GLBT community is now working to change marriage laws. But crying discrimination or unfair or calling us homophobes for opposing them is ridiculous, whether I do so upon religious grounds or for some other reason.

0 Replies

A religionist is someone who promotes the practice of religion. For example, before the Massachusetts Bay Company was dissolved, and it bacame a Crown colony, the law required the attendance upon divine service, and only divine services as approved the the Governor and Selectmen. Only members of recognized congregations were allowed to vote. This was John Winthrop's "shining city on the hill" which was to be a beacon of God's light to the world. It is such institutionalized imposition of specific religious belief on others which i despise.

As far as a belief that homosexuality is "immoral" and ought not to be condoned, one might as well take issue with the light of day, and call for it to be banned. In ancient Egypt, homosexuality was sufficiently common that the act of anal intercourse with a young boy was considered a rite of passage, without which the boy could not achieve full manhood. Among the Greeks of the classic age, a woman who was nearly flat-chested and had wide hips was considered shapely, because her figure resembled that of an adolescent boy. These are not social norms which i would care to see imposed, any more than i care to see someone else's superstitions imposed on my society.

Julius Caesar was bi-sexual, his legionaries used to sing that: "He is every woman's man, and every man's woman." Alexander III of Macedon (falsely called "the Great") was at least bi-sexual, and might have been homosexual, marrying only because it was expected of him. Richard Coeur de Lion (Lionheart) was homosexual, hated women and would not marry, and enjoyed raping adolescent boys--it eventually got him killed. King James I, a devout Christian who organized a new English translation of the Bible, was a homosexual who, when he moved from Scotland to Whitehall palace, put his wife in rooms on the otherside of the palace complex, more than half a mile away, and installed his homosexual lover in the rooms next to his own. Gordon of Khartoum, who became a hero to the English people, and a martyr icon, who was eventually avenged when the English invaded the Sudan, was a homosexual, and preferred adolescent boys. Part of the reason the Mahdi was able to stir up the Sudanese against him was because of the Egyptian teenaged boy prostitutes which he brought with him.

Homosexuality is common throughout history, and to my mind, the conclusion is that it is a normal part of the human make up. Many of the historical examples are extreme, and have therefore drawn attention to vicious or predatory homosexuals. But ethnography done in the 19th and 20th centuries has shown that homosexuality is accepted and present in primitive societies. Quite apart from that, even the perverse or violent proclivities of individuals often do not see the light of day in their lifetimes. Giles de Raïs, who started a fashion of dying one's beard, and was therefore known as Bluebeard, was Constable of France, and supported La Pucelle, Jeanne d'Arc. He recognized her natural military talents and developed them, teaching her much and making her expert in la petite guerre, the constant small warfare which takes between major battles and sieges. He was highly respected and a powerful man in France. It was only later that it came out that he liked to kidnap adolescent peasant boys and keep them in his dungeon, to be raped and tortured. Victorian England was fascinated by him, but was too prudish to admit his true nature, so the legend became that he kidnapped beautiful young girls.

The Protestant Reformation revived and made popular among people such as the Calvinists and their derivatives, the Puritans, the worst aspects of the nomadic semitic culture of the biblical Hebrew. The devotion to sexual repression and the condemnation of homosexuality are hallmarks of Protestant excess.

No, i don't think that your standard applies in a pluralistic society. Precisely who is to define which mores ought to be the foundational basis of the law? Equity can be the only universal basis of law, and gay marriage is in my mind a crucial issue of equity.

You have absolutely no reason to state that you know anything about me, much less than that i am a proponent of drug use, which i am not. Yes, i think opposition to prostitution is another case of pissing into the wind, just as is the case in describing homosexuality as abnormal. The legalization of prostitution could be used to eliminate a host of criminal woes which have always gone hand in glove with prostitution in those cases in which it was outlawed.

I accept that people hold beliefs about what is and what isn't moral. I do not accept that they impose those beliefs on others through the medium of law, except in so far as they can adduce a basis in equity.

Do have the courtesy not to make assumptions about what i believe based on casual statements, and then say that you know this or that about me.

0 Replies

Edited to remove blatant evidence of online incompetence.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, if you look at me and set's question about what is really so bad about Homosexuals after all,

Just because you don't support the actions of someone you consider to be a sinner does not automatically mean that said person is doing something illegal.

And I would not want the "act" of homosexuality to be illegal. I don't think anyone is actively campaigning for that. Government has no business in the bedroom of two consenting adults. In fact, government has no business in a lot of things, but that's another discussion altogether.

People can live their lives anyway they want. I would not take that away from them. Free will is a wonderful thing. If you will excuse the religion being added into this, free will means that when we stand before God some day we will not be able to blame anyone but ourselves for the judgement given. It won't be like here in the US where when you spill hot coffee on yourself you can blame someone else and sue them. Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

But crying discrimination or unfair or calling us homophobes for opposing them is ridiculous, whether I do so upon religious grounds or for some other reason.

Is it ridiculous? After all, there were very good and persuasive arguments (not the least of which are religious in nature, mind you) for keeping slavery around, or for denying women the vote, or for segregation in our society.

In every one of those instances you have people who were opponents of progressive change forwarding the same exact arguments, and they all said the same thing: 'I'm not a bigot. I have reasons for believing what I believe that have nothing to do with bigotry. I just support the system which keeps a certain class of people from enjoying the rights of other people, is all.'

Whether your dislike/disdain for homosexuals is religious or personal in origin, it should carry no more weight than someone's dislike for Mexicans or Blacks or Women when it comes to the formation of policy. This was a difficult pill to swallow for anti-abolitionists, anti-suffragists, anti-abortionists, and it's going to be difficult for our own generation of anti- as well; but it will happen, I hate to tell ya....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Omar de Fati wrote:

You despise & have contempt for religionists who live today, because of behavior done during the reign of Charlemagne & similiar past events? To me, that seems the same as black people hating white americans because of how white behaved while slavery existed.

So my question is this...if you despise, & have contempt for, existing religionists, what great tragedy have they commited? They certainly don't organize hunting parties to hunt down homosexuals.

I despise zealots eternally, because their extremism is always just a step away from the murderous. No, modern religious extremism just leads to a college boy being tied to fence and beaten to death. It just leads to abortion clinic bombings, and the murder of abortion doctors, their bodyguards (whom they apparently need) and their clinic staff. It just leads to the institutionalized abuse of female children in polygamous, outlaw society. It just leads to the denial of medical care for children due to fanatical religious scruple.

I was simply providing blatant examples of the ill effects of zealotry. Have no doubt that it is with us today.

0 Replies

Don't forget flying planes into buildings, decapitating hostages, stoning women to death and driving mobile bombs into crowds of innocent people.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You have absolutely no reason to state that you know anything about me, much less than that i am a proponent of drug use, which i am not.

...

Do have the courtesy not to make assumptions about what i believe based on casual statements, and then say that you know this or that about me.

You just said you have "smoked marijuana casually all of my adult life, and even before."

Setanta wrote:

Having smoked marijuana casually all of my adult life, and even before, i speak from personal experience in saying that the evidence for damage to the lungs is compelling.

And although you stated you recognized the deleterious effects smoking MJ has on your lungs, you never said you ever stopped. I assume you still consider yourself an adult. Thus, it is not really much of an assumption on my part to conclude, assuming you were being both honest and accurate when you made your earlier statement, that you are a proponent of your own continuing drug use. If you are not, it appears you are merely a hypocrite, or were not being honest or accurate.

0 Replies

Oh, I don't think he's insulting anyone who is actually attempting to form an argument; just replying to junk with junk, is all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

I despise zealots eternally, because their extremism is always just a step away from the murderous.

That's your opinion. The facts disagree with your opinion. Apparently, you enjoy coloring religionists as murderers, when they are not. Why?

I believe it's because you hate them. You say you don't. My opinion, which is based solely on your words here, you hate them. You hate them enough to willfully misrepresent their behavior as "a step away from the murderous" when they are not even the same ballpark.

Quote:

No, modern religious extremism just leads to a college boy being tied to fence and beaten to death.

I disagree. Modern religious extremism doesn't lead to that at all. With millions of religious zealots in America, certainly more than 6 homosexual would be murder in a year (and I mention them with respect for them & to their families). But the case is, compared to the number of "supposed" religious zealots, a disproportionately small number of people are murdered because they're homosexual.

No, it's not religious zealotry leading to these murders. It's something else. I believe it's your opinion, only. And how convenient it is to have for you.

Quote:

It just leads to abortion clinic bombings, and the murder of abortion doctors, their bodyguards (whom they apparently need) and their clinic staff. It just leads to the institutionalized abuse of female children in polygamous, outlaw society. It just leads to the denial of medical care for children due to fanatical religious scruple.

You have some very odd stereotypes of religionists. Over the last few posts, you sound dangerously close to white racists who have odd reasons for hating blacks & minorities. How difficult is it for you to say, I despise people who bomb anybody for any reason?

Hell, I have no problem saying I hate people who bomb others for unjustified reasons. If that person claims the bombing is because of their belief, I'm not going to hate (or despise) other people who hold the belief. Especially when I know the belief says just the opposite!

On top of this concern, your argument is a slippery slope. It's like I said earlier, if this type of thinking helps you sleep at night, fine. But the conclusions are wrong.

0 Replies

CY,

You will vehemently disagree with what I am about to say, well type, but I will say it anyway. Give you something more to argue with me about.

Your examples of slavery, etc are discriminations based on the perception of inferiority due to birth. Blacks were slaves and later discriminated against simply because they happened to be born black. Women could not vote simply because they happened to be born a woman.

I believe that a person chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle. (I'm not going to get into a long drawn out argument on this point with you because neither of us will convince the other their view is wrong) Since in my opinion they are choosing their lifestyle, your analogies are not compatible.

That said, even if I were to agree that they are born homosexual, the sexual act with someone of the same sex is sinful. There is still choice involved in decided to act upon their homosexual nature, just as I could choose to act upon my heterosexual nature and have sex with someone outside God's plan of marriage (established, IMO, between a man and a woman).

As I said, let's not waste our time arguing my personal religious beliefs vs your belief that I am dead wrong. It won't get us anywhere. I state the above so that you will be educated in where people of faith are coming from and why your examples hold no water as far as I am concerned.

IF YOU HATE RELIGIONISTS, STOP READING HERE. RELIGIOUS DOGMA BELOW

As for gay marriages eventually happening, it will not surprise me if it does. This world will continue to move away from God just as it has been doing almost from the moment we were created. It will continue to do so until God has had enough and Christ returns. So yeah, it probably will happen some day that gays can marry. But that does not mean I should roll over and let it happen nor does it mean I am homophobic for opposing it.

0 Replies

Tico writes:

Quote:

Set: Do you similarly despise those who follow a moral compass, but who aren't "religionists."

I have read through the last several pages that occurred since I left for my first appointment this morning.

For the record, and I think I speak for most of us on the more conservative side, I don't despise 'religionists' or religious zealots in any way though I do sometimes find them annoying and I tend to avoid prolonged contact when the discussion is religion. And I say this while being Christian myself.

I don't despise gays or gay advocates in any way though I do sometimes find the militant flamers annoying and I tend to avoid prolonged contact when they are in that kind of rant.

For that matter, I tend to find extremists about anything (except horses and chocolate) to be annoying and virtually incapable of reasoned discussion about much in the area in which they are extremist.

So who are the extremists here? The ones who value and wish to preserve traditional marriage while being willing to support formation of other kinds of family groups with similar protections and benefits? Or those who think the marriage traditionalists are religious nuts and homophobic with Nazi tendencies?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Wow. Setanta, here is the link to the exchange I referred to earlier when you were referred to as a level-headed poster not inclined to making personally insulting remarks ...

As my guru Richard Feynman once wrote, nobody is responsible for meeting other people's expectations in him. If those expectations are disappointed, this is just tough luck for those who had false expectations. In particular, Setanta is not responsible for meeting your expectations of level-headedness. And, speaking strictly for myself, levelheadedness is not something I value in an opponent. Levelheaded or not, I value opponents who have something to say -- and Setanta does.

You have every right to continue with that levelheadedness thing, Ticomaya, but I would appreciate it if you drop it.

0 Replies

Yeah, you're right, I do vehemently disagree with what you've written there, but not neccessarily for the reasons you might think. I believe my analogies ARE compatible with the argument, and I'll tell ya why, though I'm sure it won't change yer argument any:

One of my friends who is gay once told me he realized he was different than other kids by the time he was five years old or so. He said to me, I'll never forget it, "I didn't even know what sex was, let alone make a concious choice to alienate myself from my friends, my family, and society. I tried for fifteen years to deny it. I am quite religious and feel that this is the way that god made me, and there's nothing wrong with that at all; because while the bible was written by men, God created me this way, and I'll take his word over theirs."

One of the parts I have trouble with in yer post is this:

Quote:

This world will continue to move away from God just as it has been doing almost from the moment we were created.

Not that this is a thread on religion or anything, but I am forcefully reminded of the rather glaring contradiction present in a religion who on one hand claims that God is all-powerful, yet on the other hand states that we constantly deny his wishes and have been doing so from the moment of creation. Surely you can see the contradiction between the two.

And surely you can see the problems with picking and choosing which passages of the bible to interpret as literal. You know the inevitable question: do you literally interpret the other rules and restrictions from the bible and believe that that is the way our society should be ran today?

Do you believe this should be a theocracy?

Cycloptichorn

ps to McG: quit stirring up trouble lol

0 Replies

Omar de Fati wrote:

That's your opinion. The facts disagree with your opinion. Apparently, you enjoy coloring religionists as murderers, when they are not. Why?

In point of fact, i said that zealotry is a form of extremism always just a step away from the murderous. So it is not at all apparent that i enjoy coloring anyone anything. You also continue to intentionally conflate religionists with anyone who has religious faith, and that contradicts the definition as it is being used, and not just by me, at these fora. You are so vehemently angry, that you here constantly attempt to portray me as hating anyone with religious beliefs. That is not true, and there is nothing in my posts to suggest as much.

Quote:

I believe it's because you hate them. You say you don't. My opinion, which is based solely on your words here, you hate them. You hate them enough to willfully misrepresent their behavior as "a step away from the murderous" when they are not even the same ballpark.

I can assure you that what you choose to believe or not to believe is a matter of complete indifference to me. For some examples of murderous religious zealotry, and leaving aside such charming christians as Eric Rudolph, i refer to McG's recent dyspeptic contributions to this thread.

Quote:

I disagree. Modern religious extremism doesn't lead to that at all. With millions of religious zealots in America, certainly more than 6 homosexual would be murder in a year (and I mention them with respect for them & to their families). But the case is, compared to the number of "supposed" religious zealots, a disproportionately small number of people are murdered because they're homosexual.

No, it's not religious zealotry leading to these murders. It's something else. I believe it's your opinion, only. And how convenient it is to have for you.

I am as indifferent to what you will or will not agree with as i am to what you do or do not believe. You here demonstrate what i've just written earlier, that you are willfully conflating my use of the term religionists with simply the religiously faithful. I have no notion that, and rather doubt that, there are millions of zealots in this country. Were there, i'd be finding a new country to live in pronto. You are so desparate to make a case that i hate anyone with a religious beliefs that your assertions verge on the hysterical. You write of a disproportionately small number of homosexuals murdered each year. How odd. What would you consider a commensurate number of homosexuals to be murdered each year, and just what do you intend to do about it?

Quote:

You have some very odd stereotypes of religionists. Over the last few posts, you sound dangerously close to white racists who have odd reasons for hating blacks & minorities. How difficult is it for you to say, I despise people who bomb anybody for any reason?

I haven't stereotyped everyone who has a religious faith, and once again, that is the implication you are reaching for in your attempt to slur me--i write religionist, and you immediately translate that into anyone who is religious. As for people who bomb "anybody for any reason," there are people all over the world who bomb others for a variety of reasons. I live in America. Here, apart from 9/11, all of our bombings have come from zealous wackos of one description or another, but most frequently have come in the form of abortion clinic bombings. I live here, these are the things which concern me. Certainly the bombers on 9/11 were zealous wackos, but Al Quaeda is a more remote threat than is christian zealotry, as i am not surrounded by Muslims, but i am surrounded by Christians.

Quote:

Hell, I have no problem saying I hate people who bomb others for unjustified reasons. If that person claims the bombing is because of their belief, I'm not going to hate (or despise) other people who hold the belief. Especially when I know the belief says just the opposite!

Interesting turn of phrase again. What would you consider a justified reason for bombing someone? Neither do i despise or hate those who hold beliefs similar to those of the zealot, so long as they are not themselves zealots. Take a large mallet, and pound this into your brain: all religionists are religious, not all of the religious are religionists.

Quote:

On top of this concern, your argument is a slippery slope. It's like I said earlier, if this type of thinking helps you sleep at night, fine. But the conclusions are wrong.

Slippery slope, eh? Did you just like the sound of that and thought you'd fling it out there, or do you actually have a description of the anticipated slide down the slope if once it is entertained? I go to bed each night without the least thought of religion or the professors thereof, and this is no obsession with me. I sleep at night untroubled by thoughts of religion or the religious because it simply is not that important to me. I would take care around a vicious dog, but i do not go through life in fear of a vicious dog, i simply keep in mind the danger. The same goes for religious zealotry.

You care to specify which "conclusions" are wrong, and why it is that this is so? Or are you perhaps just venting your spleen?

0 Replies

I understand your friend thinking that way and I certainly would not presume to argue with him. I will still politely refuse to agree.

Should we live in a theocracy? The answer to that is no and I don't think I have ever seen anyone of faith claim we should.

As to your questions about the literalness of the Bible, I think I will pass on getting into that in this thread. If you wish to discuss my beliefs on your question I think it more appropriate to do so in a different forum.

As always though Cy, I have enjoyed our banter this afternoon.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know