Why is homophobia tolerated here?

[Haven]

If a person were to join this forum making racist comments, using and implying racial slurs, and saying that racial minorities were disgusting, evil, and inherently inferior, they would certainly be swiftly banned (and rightly so!). This person could say the same things about women, people from certain countries, people with disabilities, and the reaction would be the same -- a swift ban.

However, on this forum -- which prides itself on civility -- people can make bigoted and untrue comments about lesbians, gays, and bisexuals with absolutely no consequences. Not so much as a warning. Certain members have been making blatantly homophobic statements for years without even a moderator comment.

Why the double standard? Why is racism banned, but homophobia and heterosexual supremacy tolerated? Are LGB people somehow a less-deserving minority?

[Haven]

[Replying to post 137 by otseng]

All I'm asking for is fairness. If homosexuality may be attacked, then religious fundamentalism (and the bigotry it supports) should also be allowed to be attacked. If anti-gay people may call homosexuality "sin," then those who support LGBT rights should be allowed to call religious fundamentalism "delusion" and "inanity" and opposition to gay rights "bigotry" and "hatred." If one is allowed, the other should be as well.

[Danmark]

I didn't ask if "race" could be discussed. I asked if 'racism' should be tolerated.

Example:
"Europeans are intellectually inferior to Asians."

We might start with a common question in America these days: Do Asians have higher I.Q.s than whites? The answer is probably yes....

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1208 ... ve-excerpt

Couldn't your example, "Do Asians have higher IQs than whites?" qualify as a racist statement? Couldn't whites be offended by such a statement?

That was the point. Of course it's racist. That's why I put it in quotes. You asked for an example.

As for racism, by itself, it is not against the rules either. If it's defined as "the belief that all members of a race possess characteristics specific to that race" (as in your example above), then it's not against the rules. If it's defined as "hatred directed against someone of a different race", then it would be against the rules.

"My religion says being of African descent makes one an animal; therefore it is a sin for them to procreate or call themselves human."

What religion says that?

I'd like to go back to my earlier post:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 341#722341

Homosexuality will remain a debatable subject here. It's not because the forum is based on "fundamentalist Christian principles". If that were so, then attacking Fundamentalism would also be banned.

Actually, if people want to debate race, gender, or national origin, posters are free to also. Those subjects are not banned here.

Where it would cross the line is when a poster personally judges another because of race, gender, sexuality, etc. That would be off limits.

I'm still not clear what exactly are you and Haven asking for on this forum. That participants cannot attack homosexuality whatsoever? If that's the case, then I've already stated that's not possible. Pretty much any topic is fair game on this forum.

Now, I would agree that all people, regardless of gender identification should be treated civilly and respectfully. But, there is no need to agree with that person in order to be respectful.

Certain beliefs do not deserve respect. Any respect. Dishonesty should not be respected and it should not be allowed.
'Racism' is not just some academic belief that some races have different characteristics. Racism is the belief in the inferiority of people from a different 'race.'
It's actually a very stupid idea that has no basis in reality, at least as applied to the 3 traditional 'races.' The variation within a 'race' is much greater within each of these classic and artificial distinctions than between them. Think pygmies vs. Watusi, or a sub group in Sicily vs. a subgroup in Scandinavia of tall blue eyed blonds.

BTW, the religion that believes Africans are animals and should not breed with 'whites' is called Christianity, or rather a variant of it.
See:
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finis_Jennings_Dake

The Dake Bible is still being published today.
http://www.dake.com/
http://www.equip.org/article/dakes-dangerous-doctrine/
Christians claimed, and many still do, that 'negroes' were beasts. They based this on the 'curse of Cain' and on Noah's curse of Canaan.

Christian abolitionists took a stand against racism.
So should this forum.
The Free Methodist Church, the church I grew up in, broke from the Methodists on the issue of slavery, among other doctrinal disputes.
This forum should take a stand against racism and against homophobia.
That's what I want. Racism and homophobia are simply not civil.
And as I've pointed out, these views directly contradict the rule against blanket statements.
The forum should also take a stand against dishonest debating.
For a debater to be allowed to declare "homosexuality is a sin" and then be supported by moderators in his "O! No! You can't bring up my bias! [Even tho' he's publicly confessed it] is coddling deceit and protecting the censorship.

Is the Coon Chicken Inn avatar offensive? Is it inflammatory? I think so. It shouldn't be allowed.* And that is exactly how I feel about allowing homophobes to spread their poison here. They do a great disservice to true Christianity.

___________________
*Just tell me you agree and I'll remove it.
Of course,
I'll remove it anyway, as soon as the point is made.

[Danmark]

BTW, regarding the similarity of racism and homophobia in terms of both hate/fear ideologies involving innate characteristics, see Haven's opening statement in his 'Head-to-Head' debate:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 899#731899

[dianaiad]

Certain beliefs do not deserve respect. Any respect. Dishonesty should not be respected and it should not be allowed....

That's very 'newspeak' of you, Danmark.

While I agree with you that certain beliefs don't deserve my respect, I need to know what they ARE before I can determine whether they deserve my respect. I don't want anybody else deciding that I shouldn't be bothered with the problem.

I'm sure that others would prefer to express their own opinions regarding beliefs that they do not think deserve respect, and not have someone express their opinions for them by not allowing them expression.

That's sorta what the First Amendment is all about; it's not about making certain that those you agree with may speak. It's about making certain that those you do NOT agree with may speak. That's a good thing; it allows people to expose their own prejudices, biases and bigotry.

All I ask is that people refrain from getting personally insulting, that if they are going to get all hot and bothered about a position, they refer to the POSITION, not the person holding it, and yes, that means that people just might be allowed to say things that you...or I...consider reprehensible, bigoted, imbecilic, incredibly stupid and wildly against any decent code of morals or ethics.

I figure that our response should be, as posters, to issue our opinion in turn.

Civilly, of course.

Personally, I rather enjoy seeing someone say something really bigoted (in my view, anyway) and then responding. That way everybody sees how uninformed and childish s/he is, and how mature, responsible and erudite I am. I enjoy that part.

[Divine Insight]

Personally, I rather enjoy seeing someone say something really bigoted (in my view, anyway) and then responding. That way everybody sees how uninformed and childish s/he is, and how mature, responsible and erudite I am. I enjoy that part.

I think there is something to be said for this. I think those who are constantly attempting to bash homosexuality only make themselves look bad. Moreover, anyone who thinks they look good isn't any better.

The world is full of people who love to hate. Apparently that's just a fact of life.

I was very encouraged just a few moments ago when I watched this video asking teens to voice their thoughts on Bruce Jenner's decision to "come out" as Caitlin Jenner:

[youtube][/youtube]

If this is any indication of the attitude of American teens then we should see all bigotry end within a single generation. These teens seem to be far more mature than some of the people who debate on these forums.

[Danmark]

That's very 'newspeak' of you, Danmark.

While I agree with you that certain beliefs don't deserve my respect, I need to know what they ARE before I can determine whether they deserve my respect. I don't want anybody else deciding that I shouldn't be bothered with the problem.

I'm sure that others would prefer to express their own opinions regarding beliefs that they do not think deserve respect, and not have someone express their opinions for them by not allowing them expression.

That's sorta what the First Amendment is all about; it's not about making certain that those you agree with may speak. It's about making certain that those you do NOT agree with may speak. That's a good thing; it allows people to expose their own prejudices, biases and bigotry.

All I ask is that people refrain from getting personally insulting, that if they are going to get all hot and bothered about a position, they refer to the POSITION, not the person holding it, and yes, that means that people just might be allowed to say things that you...or I...consider reprehensible, bigoted, imbecilic, incredibly stupid and wildly against any decent code of morals or ethics.

I figure that our response should be, as posters, to issue our opinion in turn.

Civilly, of course.

Personally, I rather enjoy seeing someone say something really bigoted (in my view, anyway) and then responding. That way everybody sees how uninformed and childish s/he is, and how mature, responsible and erudite I am. I enjoy that part.

I don't have a clue what 'newspeak' is and don't care much for labels, but I agree with much of your post. However, certain hateful ideas that are sanctified by religious doctrine seem to claim a kind of immunity that is blessed here, or at least protected by the rules. Oliver asked, "What religion" would say that Africans are subhuman? Let's set aside the claim that this has been done in the name of Christianity.

I'd like to look at the broader picture, at the nature of religion in general. Religion asks something that science and logic and common sense do not ask. Religion demands that certain absolutes be accepted on the basis of authority, not reason, or logic, or general principles of fundamental fairness.

It is only religion that can come up with absurdities like the idea that some people are predestined to go to hell while others should go to eternal paradise. No one would agree with such nonsense, unless it came from some presumed absolute source of 'divine' and arbitrary judgment.

It is only religion that can say certain people are unworthy of the 'Priesthood' on one day, then later say the opposite. It takes religious belief to overcome our own sense of fair play and common decency. Religion can inspire us to the greatest heights of nobility and self sacrifice. But it can also reduce us to automatons who agree to follow rules we otherwise would reject as abhorrent.

I think we all agree that killing entire groups of people simply because they are the 'wrong' color or speak the 'wrong' language, or were born into the 'wrong' tribe is a despicable evil. But with religious belief such genocide is commended as a good thing.

Ironically enough it was Jesus of Nazareth, according to the Gospel accounts, who famously argued against this kind of religiosity.

[dianaiad]

I don't have a clue what 'newspeak' is[/quote]

Ever read 1984?

and don't care much for labels, but I agree with much of your post. However, certain hateful ideas that are sanctified by religious doctrine seem to claim a kind of immunity that is blessed here, or at least protected by the rules. Oliver asked, "What religion" would say that Africans are subhuman? Let's set aside the claim that this has been done in the name of Christianity.

I'd like to look at the broader picture, at the nature of religion in general. Religion asks something that science and logic and common sense do not ask. Religion demands that certain absolutes be accepted on the basis of authority, not reason, or logic, or general principles of fundamental fairness.

It is only religion that can come up with absurdities like the idea that some people are predestined to go to hell while others should go to eternal paradise. No one would agree with such nonsense, unless it came from some presumed absolute source of 'divine' and arbitrary judgment.

It is only religion that can say certain people are unworthy of the 'Priesthood' on one day, then later say the opposite. It takes religious belief to overcome our own sense of fair play and common decency. Religion can inspire us to the greatest heights of nobility and self sacrifice. But it can also reduce us to automatons who agree to follow rules we otherwise would reject as abhorrent.

I think we all agree that killing entire groups of people simply because they are the 'wrong' color or speak the 'wrong' language, or were born into the 'wrong' tribe is a despicable evil. But with religious belief such genocide is commended as a good thing.

Ironically enough it was Jesus of Nazareth, according to the Gospel accounts, who famously argued against this kind of religiosity.

So...your problem is that you don't believe that theists have the right to write about what their beliefs are, because you don't like 'em?

Well, I don't much like the idea that abortion is not ending a human life, or that homosexual BEHAVIOR should be a protected class in a way that heterosexual behavior is not, and that it is perfectly acceptable for someone to object to...and sue...to keep from having to participate in a religious event to which they object (school prayer) but it is NOT acceptable for a theist to refuse to participate in a religious event that is politically correct...like a gay wedding.

That doesn't mean I have the right to force those who disagree with me to shut up, or that I have the right to prevent their opinions from being voiced.

The solution, as long as those who express these opinions using civil debate rules, is to argue back and show them, by reason and rhetoric, just how wrong they are.

You may not ever change their minds. However, those who are paying attention to the conversation can then make their own decisions. I really don't like it when someone attempts to 'save' me from having to make up my own mind about such things.

[Danmark]

So...your problem is that you don't believe that theists have the right to write about what their beliefs are, because you don't like 'em?

Well, I don't much like the idea that abortion is not ending a human life, or that homosexual BEHAVIOR should be a protected class in a way that heterosexual behavior is not, and that it is perfectly acceptable for someone to object to...and sue...to keep from having to participate in a religious event to which they object (school prayer) but it is NOT acceptable for a theist to refuse to participate in a religious event that is politically correct...like a gay wedding.

That doesn't mean I have the right to force those who disagree with me to shut up, or that I have the right to prevent their opinions from being voiced.

The solution, as long as those who express these opinions using civil debate rules, is to argue back and show them, by reason and rhetoric, just how wrong they are.

You may not ever change their minds. However, those who are paying attention to the conversation can then make their own decisions. I really don't like it when someone attempts to 'save' me from having to make up my own mind about such things.

I read 1984 about 50 years ago, and have even quoted from it in a legal brief to the Court of Appeals, but your application to anything I wrote is inapposite. That's the problem with just throwing out labels as a substitute for analysis. If you think I am engaging in "newspeak" please explain, if you can do so within the rules of this forum.

It's not appropriate, or particularly civil to claim "Your problem is...." I don't say theists do not have a right to express their beliefs in general; however the expression of execrable beliefs should not be tolerated simply because they are cloaked in religion. Am I allowed to violate the rules of this forum because I claim religious exemption? No. If my religion sanctions personal attack or uncivil behavior, am I immune from the rules of the forum? No.

Belief in abortion and the opposition to it are legitimate arguments. Telling someone their very nature, their innermost being is evil is not, even tho' that is a religious viewpoint. Is lying for the Lord acceptable because it is blessed by religion?

I made a claim that has gone unanswered. I'll repeat it. Is there anyone here who agrees with killing babies because of the color of their skin or who their parents are? However, if we add religion to the equation, it becomes not only acceptable, but it becomes a duty.

Who would agree that a man is right to kill his son? But if a 'god' commands it, it becomes laudable. I have no problem with religion being used as a shield to prevent evil. But when religion is used as a sword to do evil, to hurt others, to justify condemning people simply because of an inherited condition or characteristic, I have a great problem with it and with the expression of such irrational hatred and harm.

Is it really too much to ask that this forum not allow racist remarks?

[Lion IRC]

I will agree to a ban on homophobic remarks IF you let me decide what is and is not homophobic. Deal?

I would ban all stereotyping/labelling of people on the basis of their perceived attitudes, preferences, beliefs about sexuality. And as my first decree I would ban the word homophobe - because it's offensive.

Same goes for racism. I would ban any any all use of the words "black", " colored", "white", "negro", "caucasian" etc etc - in relation to categories of people.

[dianaiad]

It's not appropriate, or particularly civil to claim "Your problem is...." I don't say theists do not have a right to express their beliefs in general; however the expression of execrable beliefs should not be tolerated simply because they are cloaked in religion. Am I allowed to violate the rules of this forum because I claim religious exemption? No. If my religion sanctions personal attack or uncivil behavior, am I immune from the rules of the forum? No.

You remind me of those who say that the law can regulate and punish any action or speech that the folks in charge don't like because 'we don't dictate what anybody THINKS."

Certain issues need to be danced around and approached with extreme formal civility in order to examine them. However, they NEED to be examined. Examined, not 'agreed with.'

You are a lawyer. You should understand the nature of an adversarial process; one cannot examine and judge both sides of an issue if one side isn't allowed expression.

You claim to have read 1984. You don't like the concept of 'newspeak.'

But that's EXACTLY what it is when the powers that be decide that certain opinions MUST NOT BE EXPRESSED because said powers that be find those opinions distasteful.

Perhaps it is because I am so often the target of exactly those sorts of distasteful comments. The opinions given of my religion and my opinions have been, and continue to be, every inch as distasteful and uncivil as anything that the gay community has to deal with....and frankly, so have the actions against those of my own faith. I, personally, have been the target of physical discrimination and even violence because of my belief system.

Yet you don't see me telling anybody that they MUST NOT SPEAK EVILLY OF MORMONS or theists. Given my own experiences in life, I have little patience for this stuff, frankly. The true victory for those who object to negative opinions regarding them isn't to shut the other guy up so that he cannot speak; the true victory is to persuade others, and to live, so that the other guy doesn't want to speak evil.