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?

[dianaiad]

[quote="arian"]
Analogy/example;

A black boy with black family growing up in a real tough city like Detroit, in a real tough and dangerous all black neighborhood, but always wanted to be white. Always dreaming to live in the upper white suburbs, to go to a mostly white safe school, get a white mans job with white mans pay and marry a white girl.

One day the mother says "That's it! Come on boy, we're moving!" She gets a housecleaning job with some rich white folk who just love her.
So they move on up to the East side,
get a deluxe apartment way up in the sky,
thinking "we finally got a piece of the pie."
Nice new stove where the fish don't burn in the kitchen,
the beans don't burn on the grill,
graduated from an all white good school, went to get a job in an all white company.

He sits down to fill out the application, and where it asks 'Gender', he puts 'white/Caucasian'.

Why not?

If men can put on a dress over their hairy body, and demand to be referred to as a 'lady', then why can't a black man be accepted as a white man? Not be treated equally, but looked upon as a white man. To be referred to as a white man at golfing clubs.


Moderator Warning


Having a difference of opinion regarding what 'sin' is may be one thing, but this post is absolutely uncivil, racist, bigoted and designed to inflame and be divisive.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

I think this is relevant for this thread:

No, it's not bigoted to label someone who is bigoted a "bigot".

On this forum, name calling is not allowed, including calling someone else a bigot. And even if you can prove someone is a bigot, it is still not allowed. The only circumstance I can think of where I would allow it is if someone called himself a bigot, then you are free to call him one.

However, you are allowed to assemble the facts that show someone is a liar or a bigot, or obsessed. You are just not permitted to apply the label to him.

For example, it is fair to demonstrate that 99% of a person's posts have to do with homosexuality. The reader may conclude the person is obsessed with the subject, or with condemning homosexuality as a sin; but the writer is not allowed to actually label him a bigot, or homophobe, or call him "obsessed."

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 47 by arian]

Notwithstanding the Mod note about your razor sharp parody going one-bridge-too-far, I think you make a fair point about consistency and breaking down the various artificial barriers of discrimination which exist in many areas of society.

I accept that certain high profile celebrities may themselves want to look in a mirror and see a different gender than the one which doctors (with medical degrees) put on their birth certificate. But to what extent must I agree with their autogynefilia? I'm increasingly baffled by the apparent philosophical double-standard being applied to the use of language in this area. You can change your gender but you can't change your sexuality????

I've heard many people attack the biblical use of the words bat/bird because they say taxonomy matters. (Never mind that Carl Linnaeus and the word mammal came thousands of years after the bible.) And we don't call Pluto a planet if it's not really a planet. And I personally dont "identify" closet atheists or closet pedophiles hiding in the clergy as actual priests - I think they are just fakes and impersonators with no right to be designated "clergy".

But why is it politically correct and necessary to accept transgender self-identification but not politically correct to accept cultural self-identification such that a so-called 'white' person desires to identify themselves as 'black'. And by what warrant can one human being impose on another human being the need to accept and affirm someone else's claims about their own self-identity?

Must I really censor and prohibit my own self-expression in an age where others are proclaiming the doctrine of free self-expression and tolerance uber alles?

[Lion IRC]

Not sure if Arian can see this post if zhe is on probation.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 47 by arian]

Notwithstanding the Mod note about your razor sharp parody going one-bridge-too-far, I think you make a fair point about consistency and breaking down the various artificial barriers of discrimination which exist in many areas of society.

I accept that certain high profile celebrities may themselves want to look in a mirror and see a different gender than the one which doctors (with medical degrees) put on their birth certificate. But to what extent must I agree with their autogynefilia? I'm increasingly baffled by the apparent philosophical double-standard being applied to the use of language in this area. You can change your gender but you can't change your sexuality????

I've heard many people attack the biblical use of the words bat/bird because they say taxonomy matters. (Never mind that Carl Linnaeus and the word mammal came thousands of years after the bible.) And we don't call Pluto a planet if it's not really a planet. And I personally dont "identify" closet atheists or closet pedophiles hiding in the clergy as actual priests - I think they are just fakes and impersonators with no right to be designated "clergy".

But why is it politically correct and necessary to accept transgender self-identification but not politically correct to accept cultural self-identification such that a so-called 'white' person desires to identify themselves as 'black'. And by what warrant can one human being impose on another human being the need to accept and affirm someone else's claims about their own self-identity?

Must I really censor and prohibit my own self-expression in an age where others are proclaiming the doctrine of free self-expression and tolerance uber alles?

I won't pretend to understand what any of that meant. I do think it is important to treat each other as if we are all members of the same race [we are]. For Christians Jesus answered all of this 2000 years ago when he battled the Pharisees and reduced all the law and all the prophets to two Great Commandments:
Love God and love your neighbor.

Why self identified 'Christians' have to spend so much time on LGBT issues is beyond me. Just love your neighbor or quit calling yourself "Christians."

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 47 by arian]

Notwithstanding the Mod note about your razor sharp parody going one-bridge-too-far, I think you make a fair point about consistency and breaking down the various artificial barriers of discrimination which exist in many areas of society.

I accept that certain high profile celebrities may themselves want to look in a mirror and see a different gender than the one which doctors (with medical degrees) put on their birth certificate. But to what extent must I agree with their autogynefilia? I'm increasingly baffled by the apparent philosophical double-standard being applied to the use of language in this area. You can change your gender but you can't change your sexuality????

I've heard many people attack the biblical use of the words bat/bird because they say taxonomy matters. (Never mind that Carl Linnaeus and the word mammal came thousands of years after the bible.) And we don't call Pluto a planet if it's not really a planet. And I personally dont "identify" closet atheists or closet pedophiles hiding in the clergy as actual priests - I think they are just fakes and impersonators with no right to be designated "clergy".

But why is it politically correct and necessary to accept transgender self-identification but not politically correct to accept cultural self-identification such that a so-called 'white' person desires to identify themselves as 'black'. And by what warrant can one human being impose on another human being the need to accept and affirm someone else's claims about their own self-identity?

Must I really censor and prohibit my own self-expression in an age where others are proclaiming the doctrine of free self-expression and tolerance uber alles?

I won't pretend to understand what any of that meant. I do think it is important to treat each other as if we are all members of the same race [we are]. For Christians Jesus answered all of this 2000 years ago when he battled the Pharisees and reduced all the law and all the prophets to two Great Commandments:
Love God and love your neighbor.

Why self identified 'Christians' have to spend so much time on LGBT issues is beyond me. Just love your neighbor or quit calling yourself "Christians."

Yeah, funny how Jesus says to love everyone but then sends many to Hell. That shows His love has some standard! Please be willing to quote ALL of the relevant Bible data or don't quote it at all.

[Danmark]

Yeah, funny how Jesus says to love everyone but then sends many to Hell.

Jesus sends people to Hell you say. There are many Christians who will dispute you on that sour point. Perhaps they will.

Are you suggesting Jesus does not tell everyone to love one another? Are you claiming that loving God and loving your neighbor are not the core messages he preached? Why focus on condemnation and sending people to Hell instead of loving and becoming part of the Kingdom of God?

In what way is this approach not like that of the Pharisees who Jesus spoke out against?

[OpenYourEyes]

Yeah, funny how Jesus says to love everyone but then sends many to Hell.

Jesus sends people to Hell you say. There are many Christians who will dispute you on that sour point. Perhaps they will.

Are you suggesting Jesus does not tell everyone to love one another? Are you claiming that loving God and loving your neighbor are not the core messages he preached? Why focus on condemnation and sending people to Hell instead of loving and becoming part of the Kingdom of God?

In what way is this approach not like that of the Pharisees who Jesus spoke out against?

I don't see that you have any disagreement with me when it comes to the facts of what the Bible says. What I choose to focus on and the facts of the Bible's message are two separate issues. God says to love everyone and He also says that some are going to Hell and to avoid sinning.

Seeing that you're an atheist, i'd leave the evangelizing (or focus) to the Christians that know how to win over atheists. Clearly it failed to convince you.

[Lion IRC]

I won't pretend to understand what any of that meant.

Sorry about that. ESL????

Let me know if I can help in any way.

...I do think it is important to treat each other as if we are all members of the same race [we are].

Agreed. Well said!

...For Christians Jesus answered all of this 2000 years ago when he battled the Pharisees and reduced all the law and all the prophets to two Great Commandments:
Love God and love your neighbor.

Amen

...Why self identified 'Christians' have to spend so much time on LGBT issues is beyond me.

Well, I agree.

But for the record, it wasn't a Christian who started this thread. My personal approach is not to instigate the topic or pick fights but I will always respond with a vigorous defense if accused of homophobia or have my moral values publicly attacked.

I won't accept limits placed on my free-thought by people who call themselves free-thinkers. The people who demand the right to freedom of expression can't be allowed to apply asymmetric rules of engagement in the public square.

Someone expects tolerance of their sexuality. Well I want the same tolerance of my spirituality. And if it's a contest of ideas then your subjective opinion is no more or less 'protected' than mine - assuming God is neutral on the question.

....Just love your neighbor or quit calling yourself "Christians."

I detect a false dilemma fallacy.

[Danmark]

Yeah, funny how Jesus says to love everyone but then sends many to Hell.

Jesus sends people to Hell you say. There are many Christians who will dispute you on that sour point. Perhaps they will.

Are you suggesting Jesus does not tell everyone to love one another? Are you claiming that loving God and loving your neighbor are not the core messages he preached? Why focus on condemnation and sending people to Hell instead of loving and becoming part of the Kingdom of God?

In what way is this approach not like that of the Pharisees who Jesus spoke out against?

I don't see that you have any disagreement with me when it comes to the facts of what the Bible says. What I choose to focus on and the facts of the Bible's message are two separate issues. God says to love everyone and He also says that some are going to Hell and to avoid sinning.

Seeing that you're an atheist, i'd leave the evangelizing (or focus) to the Christians that know how to win over atheists. Clearly it failed to convince you.

This is a hopelessly naive approach and bias. I don't refer to myself as an 'atheist,' but that is beside the point. It's been my experience that non theists and others who don't agree with your version of Christianity, frequently appear to know not only the Bible, but Jesus Christ himself much better than those who claim to be Christians.

No one can rightfully claim to have a 'relationship with Jesus' that is superior to that of someone else. And no one can rightfully claim to know what another's relationship with Jesus is.

One thing we know for certain. You do not speak for him.