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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 162:

1.
...

Well said.

But calling someone a homosexual is a slur? Really? I understand Haven has expressed concern about calling people homosexuals and I've tried to respect this, but please don't make it seem like anybody who uses the term is homophobic and please don't suggest that otseng ban the word. That is beyond ridiculous.

Agreed. Some of us are of an age that the term may be used as a slander, or simply as a descriptor. Context should help determine which is which.

Sometimes we use a term in all honesty, with no nefarity, it just happens that we grew up using that term, and find our use of it "now" so innocuous, we don't even think about if it's offensive "today". I'm reminded of the term "retard". I grew up thinking it meant, well, someone whose development had been retarded, and that they're still a human, worthy of love and respect, and all such as that. However, the controversy surrounding that term has been of such volume, and such time, that I have learned to be careful with its use.

I just ain't had me enough time or controversy that when I speak about gay folks, I don't say "homosexual". I don't find the term offensive in the least, especially when I'm not using it to offend. And on that note, how come it is, "gay" is acceptable, but say "angry" ain't, when we refer to gay folks?

I don't mean to be flippant, but who decided singing certain songs now fesses my homosexuality, even as I ain't a homosexual? Who 'ruined' carolling for so many heterosexuals?

Our words should be seen in light of the context in which they're presented, and not just stricken simply 'cause some folks have them a differing definition.

Nigger. Now to some, that's offensive as all get out, and I do my best to not ever say it. I've had that time, that controversy to inform me about it. I've had those history lessons, and I certainly do not say it there just to cause a fuss. But then again, I notice many folks of a certain sort, they call one another that all the time, accents or spelling notwhithstanding.

Absurdely I say it, but this points out the issue of getting upset about calling folks what they call themselves.


So, what if I call someone a "transsexual", through clenched teeth? Ain't I being just a bit insulting to use the term transsexuals want me to use, only my intent is to cause insult?


Words are all we have to communicate, other'n pointing I reckon, and maybe pictures. We shouldn't ban words simply because someone has come along and declared that word offensive. We should ban hatred, insultry, and all such as doesn't provide for civil, respectful discourse.

2. The issue with Caitlyn Jenner is perplexing, but I think we can all agree on the following. It's very sad that she had to live most of her life not feeling comfortable in her own skin, no one can even begin to imagine the psychological torment she must have gone through unless they've actually gone through a similar situation, her coming out will have a positive effect on transgender children and we should accept her personal decision rather than mock her. Having said that, she is not a hero, having a sex reassignment surgery is not in anyway heroic or courageous and this type of thing should not be promoted. It's one thing to accept her decision to have a sex change, but it's something completely different to praise her decision as heroic and courageous.

Considering attempts by Christians here in my state, to have a sex change is akin to being a homosexual. In the state of Georgia, it's legal to terminate, or not hire, anyone based on the mere suspicion of being homosexual.

Considering the many Christians who've disparaged Miss Caitlyn, I find her decision extremely courageous. She's as heroic as the homosexuals who forced the issue of gay marriage onto the Supreme Court. Let's not forget, there are those self-professed Christians who've bombed clinics, murdered doctors, and beat to the death anyone who happened to offend that Christian's "special beliefs".

To consider it otherwise is to stare blankly into the empty space of one's own bubble.

3. It is laughable how pro gay rights advocates on this forum and in real life focus immense amounts of attention on Christians and say virtually nothing about how gay people are being killed by Muslims. While I support gay marriage and have become more and more understanding and compassionate towards gay people, I will never identify with the LGBT movement due to the fact that it's dominated by many insincere liberals who denounce Christians at every possible opportunity but give Muslims a free pass when it comes to brutally killing gays.

I'm just not seeing a lot of Muslims here where I'm at trying to prevent homosexuals from enjoying all the rights and freedoms they hold for themselves.

Perhaps when Christians hop up and set to fussing with the Muslims, they'll have offered an excellent example for others.

Maybe when Christians start moving in great numbers to go fight ISIS and their ilk, Christians'll have an argument about how it is they're being "picked on".


That you'd label folks "insincere liberals", insult and all, is all the evidence I need to conclude you're just another right-wing Christian zealot who has done NOTHING to prevent the spread of ISIS, 'cept to bemoan how it is, folks are a-pickin' on you.


Towels are a great way to sop up tears, water, and all such as that.


(tagularial edit)

[Lion IRC]

On another forum I visit there is a newly-arrived member who is an out and out racist and Neo nazi.
He unashamedly espouses theories about supposed 'racial' inferiority.

And thanks to the free speech policy of that forum, this person's racism is being publically;
- opposed
- dismantled
- ridiculed
- rejected
- marginalised
- scientifically rebutted
- humiliated

It seems to me that censoring people just because they hold certain opinions which others find objectionable actually deprives everyone of the chance to debate.

If people here (atheists in particular) object to my theistic views about sin, why argue for censorship? Either debate or ignore.
But pleading for asymmetric rules of engagement strikes me as lazy or weak. (Or scared?)

And if you don't think God and the soul and the afterlife exist why would
my views about sin "offend" you?

[otseng]

Being a Christian is a choice. Being black is not. Having a same sex or attraction or an opposite sex attraction is not a choice.

Well, I would disagree on several points regarding this. I do not agree that all cases of homosexuality is innate. Some choose to be gay. But, even if it is entirely innate, it doesn't matter either. Just because something is innate does not exclude it from being sinful. I'm not going to give examples here lest someone accuse me of incivility just because I compared homosexuality to other things I consider to be sinful.

Sounds like the "no true Scotsman falacy."

I would disagree. But, it could probably take an entire thread to debate this point.

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm
You really should take the time to look at that site.

I've read some of it. But it made such outlandish claims at the beginning that I dismissed the rest.

You continue to confuse 'race' with 'racism.'

Earlier, I gave my definitions of racism:

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 point is that something can be classified as "racist", yet not be against the rules.

The reason Christian racism and slavery are no longer majority positions or are now illegal is because many good people took a stand against that lie and public policy. Many were Christians. By taking a stand they changed the law and they changed hearts.

Sure. But, as I mentioned, it's not the policy of this forum to take a stand on any position. If individuals on the forum want to, then more power to them.

Being black or being gay are not choices. That's the fundamental difference.

Yes, I agree being black is not a choice (though I guess even that's debateable). I would agree even that for most gays, it's not a choice. But, I'm not convinced it's true for all cases.

Much "common language" that is accepted in certain textbooks and all unabridged dictionaries is not accepted here.

Of course words that are considered uncivil are not allowed. What I'm saying is that we should generally follow generally accepted terminology here. If it's not generally accepted, but only accepted by a few, there's no need to ask everyone here to use that terminology.

But don't we all agree, at least on this forum, it is not civil to use "nigger" or "gook, "beaner" or "wetback?" Accept of course to make this very point.

Of course.

But the essence of my argument is that it does a disservice to both Christianity and the dignity of individuals to call someone with an unalterable characteristic, whether race, height, gender, or sexual orientation a "sinner." It isn't civil.

I would say in general that calling another poster a sinner is not civil, regardless of choice being involved.

[Divine Insight]

Well, I would disagree on several points regarding this. I do not agree that all cases of homosexuality is innate. Some choose to be gay.

I question the validity of the assumption highlighted in red above.

Is it really possible for someone to choose to be attracted to something they genuinely are not attracted to? It would seem to me that the best they could hope to do is to chose to act on something that they are not genuinely attracted to.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Well, I would disagree on several points regarding this. I do not agree that all cases of homosexuality is innate. Some choose to be gay.

I question the validity of the assumption highlighted in red above.

I don't even think "question" is the right word, since that implies that the matter is open or there is some room for dispute. But there isn't, this is just a denial of a well-established scientific/medical fact regarding which both the evidence and the expert consensus is unequivocal.

[Danmark]

Being a Christian is a choice. Being black is not. Having a same sex or attraction or an opposite sex attraction is not a choice.

Well, I would disagree on several points regarding this. I do not agree that all cases of homosexuality is innate. Some choose to be gay. But, even if it is entirely innate, it doesn't matter either. Just because something is innate does not exclude it from being sinful. I'm not going to give examples here lest someone accuse me of incivility just because I compared homosexuality to other things I consider to be sinful.

Sounds like the "no true Scotsman fallacy."

I would disagree. But, it could probably take an entire thread to debate this point.

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm
You really should take the time to look at that site.

I've read some of it. But it made such outlandish claims at the beginning that I dismissed the rest.

You continue to confuse 'race' with 'racism.'

Earlier, I gave my definitions of racism:

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 point is that something can be classified as "racist", yet not be against the rules.

The reason Christian racism and slavery are no longer majority positions or are now illegal is because many good people took a stand against that lie and public policy. Many were Christians. By taking a stand they changed the law and they changed hearts.

Sure. But, as I mentioned, it's not the policy of this forum to take a stand on any position. If individuals on the forum want to, then more power to them.

Being black or being gay are not choices. That's the fundamental difference.

Yes, I agree being black is not a choice (though I guess even that's debateable). I would agree even that for most gays, it's not a choice. But, I'm not convinced it's true for all cases.

Much "common language" that is accepted in certain textbooks and all unabridged dictionaries is not accepted here.

Of course words that are considered uncivil are not allowed. What I'm saying is that we should generally follow generally accepted terminology here. If it's not generally accepted, but only accepted by a few, there's no need to ask everyone here to use that terminology.

But don't we all agree, at least on this forum, it is not civil to use "nigger" or "gook, "beaner" or "wetback?" Accept of course to make this very point.

Of course.

But the essence of my argument is that it does a disservice to both Christianity and the dignity of individuals to call someone with an unalterable characteristic, whether race, height, gender, or sexual orientation a "sinner." It isn't civil.

I would say in general that calling another poster a sinner is not civil, regardless of choice being involved.

You've made many interesting points here. Several deserve their own topics which I may initiate.

For now I'll just focus on the first point, your belief that:

I do not agree that all cases of homosexuality is innate. Some choose to be gay.

What is your basis for believing some choose to be gay? I claimed there was no evidence any heterosexual has ever said he chose to be attracted to the opposite sex instead of the same sex. Do you dispute that? Can you document a single incident where someone chose to be exclusively attracted to the same sex? BTW, I have never defended bisexualism. If someone is attracted to both sexes, then clearly they have a choice. I don't defend promiscuity either. Personally, I confess I have an aversion to even thinking about men having sex with each other. Even seeing men kissing men repulses me. But it's none of my business and I have much greater revulsion at the idea people should be denied civil rights or otherwise made pariahs because they are simply different than me or because we don't share the same appetites.

[Divine Insight]

BTW, I have never defended bisexualism. If someone is attracted to both sexes, then clearly they have a choice.

I would suggest that you need to be very very careful here.

A person who is sexually attracted to either sex does "not" have a choice in that. What they do have a choice in, is who they chose to be with.

In other words, they have the "option" to choose to be with someone of the opposite sex. But that doesn't mean that they can "choose" to not be sexually attracted to the same sex.

Also, you say you have never defended bisexualism. Well, I can certainly understand that if you take that to mean that a person is just going to run around having sex with anyone they meet. But just because a person is bisexually oriented (i.e. find both sexes equally sexually appealing) that doesn't mean that they can't still choose a single mate and become monogamous with that one person.

Being "bisexual" doesn't require that a person actually have multiple partners.

What I've come to understand is that many people who are bi-sexual (or have bi-sexual orientation) simply want the right to chose whomever they wish to be with. And during their courting period (before they make a monogamous commitment to one partner) they may sometimes date someone of their own sex and sometimes date someone of the opposite sex. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are having sex with everyone they date.

They are simply looking for the right PERSON for them.

~~~~

What I have found compelling about these arguments come from bi-sexually-oriented people who simply demand that they should be able to date whoever they so choose without gender or sex even being an issue at all. Because they are indeed seeking the right PERSON.

In fact, for them, it's not even about sex at all. Sex is most likely the furthest thing from their mind. So they are angry with a society that basically "DEMANDS" that sex be the most important factor when choosing a mate.

When all they are interested in is finding the right PERSON for them.

Talk to someone who is seriously passionate about this and you'll see just how justifiably furious they will become over the fact that society is basically placing a demand on their shoulders to place SEX before the PERSON.

Once you see it that way, and truly understand that this is how they genuinely feel about it, you quickly become an advocate of their HUMAN RIGHTS to chose the PERSON of their choice instead of demanding that they live their life based upon SEX.

~~~~~~

I've met some people who are deeply passionate about this so I understand where they are coming from.

But having said all of the above, I too realize that there also exist "perverts" who are willing to have sex with just anything that moves. But for them it's all about sex. And, in fact, it's not even about loving intimacy, it more about just having another orgasm.

I mean let's face it, it's true that there are many people who are just "sex junkies" and that's true whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, or just plain sex maniacs.

There can be no denial that there exist quite a few humans how don't care much about anything but a quick fix, be it an orgasm or whatever.

And unfortunately it's the very existence of those kinds of perverts that bring a bad name to any decent person of any sexual orientation.

But you can't say that just because someone is bisexual this automatically means that they are "just promiscuous". That's jumping to wild unwarranted conclusions right there.

There can indeed exist perfectly respectable, upstanding, monogamous-minded sincere "bisexually-oriented" people who simply want a little respect for their right to choose a PERSON instead of a SEX object.

~~~~

Wow! Looking back over this post I can see where I'm in danger of getting cited for ranting.

But seriously, I've met some bisexual people who have convinced me that they are genuinely sincere in just finding the right person to be with and they find it highly insulting for people to tell them that they need to narrow it down to only people of the opposite sex. From their perspective that seems to have cheapened the whole thing down to being only about sex.

So who's truly standing on the higher ground there?

[OpenYourEyes]

I cant speak for everyone but im definitely not homophobic. My attraction to the picture proves it:

.

So much for blanket statements.

[WinePusher]

I cant speak for everyone but im definitely not homophobic. My attraction to the picture proves it:

.

So much for blanket statements.

Meh, 6.5/10

I guess this means that homosexuality is ok if it involves two attractive lesbians. But if it involves two gay men, or God forbid two unattractive lesbians, then its not ok.

Such logic, much sense.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

You make excellent points and I don't disagree. My point is that promiscuity is an understandable, at least from the religious perspective, concern. I can understand and appreciate the Christian view that monogamy is laudable goal. It's a bit unrealistic of course, particularly in one's youth.

I'm just saying I can be sympathetic to the Christian ethic of discouraging promiscuity. However, the idea that a person should have a sexual partner they are not attracted to or repulsed by is cruel. That their alternative is to live their entire life with out the intimacy of a partner and without satisfying a basic human need is equally cruel, not to mention not minding one's own business. Therefore I consider it horrific and evil to insist someone besides oneself should live that way. The 11th commandment should have been "Thou shalt not stick thy nose into the private life of thy neighbor, or thy neighbor's ass, or anything that is thy neighbor's."