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?

[OpenYourEyes]

This is an excellent example of what I am talking about. It is one of those almost mindless silly rules that have nothing to do with bad intent. No matter what the religion I call these "no blended fabrics" rules. They have nothing to do with causing anyone harm. They are just rules for the sake of having rules and are in a completely different class than assault, murder, dishonesty, child molestation or other evils we all agree with.

I think Dianaids point is on topic. I also disagree with your characterization of her beliefs as being "mindless" and "silly". Please, carry on.

[OpenYourEyes]

[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.

Haven, you are on a Christian apolegetics site, for the most part, so you should expect some Christian beliefs in the discussions, including on homosexuality.

[OpenYourEyes]

Calling homosexuality a sin violates the guidelines on ranting.
"4. Avoid posting blanket -- particularly derogatory -- statements against any belief system or group of people."
That is one more reason why neither homophobia nor racism should be tolerated here.

When a debater calls homosexuality a sin, and then starts three topics claiming science supports his position, and then tries to structure those debates so that his hatred for this particular 'sin' cannot be discussed, it is unfair censorship, and in this case unfair censoring that has been protected by moderator rulings.

Who has opened up 3 topics using science to support the idea that homosexuality is a sin? Thats a bit of a stretch. I am aware of people using science to debunk certain pro-LGBT claims but hardly anyone now is using science to prove something is a sin.

The problem here is not as big as youre describing which is why im a bit skeptical.

Its refreshing that im also not the only one focusing on homosexuality afterall. Please, carry on!

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 194 by Danmark]

Moderator Comment

Please do not refer to the tennant of another's Faith as "mindless and silly" just because the intent and purpose of the given observance may not be apparent to the outsider, does not mean there is no rational reason behind it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 192 by dianaiad]

Let's use a different example here; one I have used before. As a Mormon, if I were to drive through Starbucks and order a chocolate chai caramel vanilla hazelnut white mocha caramel sauce classic syrup mocha cookie crumble frappuccino, (somebody actually ordered one of those. Sheesh)..I would, quite literally, be sinning. It's against my religion to drink coffee.

This is an excellent example of what I am talking about. It is one of those almost mindless silly rules that have nothing to do with bad intent. No matter what the religion I call these "no blended fabrics" rules. They have nothing to do with causing anyone harm. They are just rules for the sake of having rules and are in a completely different class than assault, murder, dishonesty, child molestation or other evils we all agree with.

Danmark, with all due respect, you don't get to decide what MY religion calls sinful. You don't get to pass judgment on it. You don't have a clue WHY I don't drink coffee, or tea, or alcohol, or use tobacco.

You have no right whatsoever to decide that my rules are silly because you like yours better, and you have NO right to decide that because you don't like my religion/rules, you can make me change them, or violate them.

......any more than I have the right to force you to stand in a classroom while someone up front says a prayer you don't agree with. Whether or not *I* think it is utterly insane for an atheist who doesn't believe in a deity to have a moral/ethical problem with standing quietly by while SOMEONE ELSE PRAYS, some atheists DO feel very strongly about that, and they should not be forced to participate--even to the point of standing quietly by while someone else does the praying.

You talk about 'no harm.' Why, certainly if I drink a cuppa, I'm doing no physical harm to anybody. Shoot, everybody drinks coffee. However, I promised not to do so. It's not about the coffee, in other words. It's about the promise, and if you make me BREAK MY PROMISE, you are DOING HARM to me. If I break my promise knowing that I am doing so, then I am doing harm to my own character, because I happen to think that keeping promises is far more important than whether you approve of what that promise was about.

So...a gay couple forces a fundamentalist business man to participate in a religious event that violates his faith, and causes him to break a promise. How is that NOT doing him harm, exactly the way that forcing someone to stay in a room while someone prays according to a different religious system 'does harm?" SCOTUS has already decided that this is harm. How is forcing a fundamentalist to participate in a gay wedding NOT doing him harm in PRECISELY the same way?

In law school I had a friend, Gordon Smith, now a United States Senator. Gordy once confessed to me that the only thing that eased his headaches was Excedrin, which contained a small amount of caffeine. He said something about knowing it was 'wrong,' but he took it anyway when he had a migraine. Does this really compare to adultery or theft or bearing false witness? Of course not. It's a "no blended fabrics" rule that is the epitome of silliness.

So you have the right to decide his morals and his ethical system for him because YOU THINK IT IS SILLY?

BTW, it's not about the caffiene; never has been. His taking exedrin for his headache was perfectly fine, and I'm quite sure he's figured that out.

Not a gram of caffeine or an ounce of wine, but hundreds of pounds of sugar. Talk about straining at gnats while swallowing camels!

We didn't promise to abstain from sugar.

And our morals are not yours to judge, just as yours are not mine to judge. I can't....and would not...force you to abide by the rules I have promised to follow, and you have NO RIGHT to force anybody else to march to your drum because YOU think that your moral code is 'less silly' than mine.

Sure, I can judge them. It just doesn't matter what my judgment is. "Your religion" is confused about what it believes. Polygamy was a duty, now it's forbidden. I expect one day same sex marriage will be approved.
Mormon rules and beliefs change so much even Mormons can't keep up.

This week's clarification on caffeine "is long overdue," said Matthew Jorgensen, a Mormon and longtime Mountain Dew drinker.

Jorgensen, who is doing a two-year research fellowship in Germany, grew up "in a devout Mormon household, in a small, devout Mormon town," where his neighbors and church leaders viewed "drinking a Coca-Cola as so close to drinking coffee that it made your worthiness ... questionable."

That view was magnified when the late LDS church President Gordon B. Hinckley offhandedly told "60 Minutes" that Mormons avoid caffeine. Several earlier LDS leaders, including apostle Bruce R. McConkie, considered imbibing Coke as a violation of the "spirit" of the Word of Wisdom.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/0 ... 48098.html
BTW, my friend's statement was made in 1978. I guess he was just as wrong as Hinckley and McConkie. You know full well that Mormon culture includes a large grey area that changes over time. It is hard to distinguish this grey area from official doctrine. This includes the church's YEC views.

Doctrine and Covenants 77:6 mentions "the seven thousand years of [the earth's] continuance, or its temporal existence", which has been interpreted by Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and other Latter-day Saint leaders as a convincing statement that the earth is no more than about six thousand years old (the seventh thousand-year period being the future millennium).

However, in relation to this verse, the manual for seminary teachers explains: "It may be helpful to explain that the 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation."

Church Educational System (2013). Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual. Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. p. 280.
There's a reason for the old saying, "Arguing about Mormonism is like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall."

Adhering to coffee laws don't hurt anyone except the coffee industry. Discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation does.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 191 by dianaiad]

Do you believe that one should be able to similarly discriminate on the basis of race, provided only that it is done on the grounds of one's religious beliefs? Suppose I run a wedding shop and my religion forbids interracial marriage- am I obliged to serve interracial couples? Is it wrong for anyone to force me to do so?

Absolutely yes. Unequivocally yes. Without a doubt, YES.

It is WRONG to force someone to go against his religious beliefs. It is NOT wrong, however, to vocally object to such things, to picket, to publish, to demonstrate or to boycott. Indeed, I would probably do all of the above.

However, it's not just wrong, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, to force, by law or the courts, someone to violate his/her religious beliefs and force him/her to bow to someone ELSE'S religious opinions.

If a business owner has a RELIGIOUS objection to serving interracial marriage, then...he has the right to refuse to deal with interracial couples. That couple can...and should...take their business elsewhere. Everybody who is offended by their exclusion should take their business elsewhere. That business owner should stand alone in his empty store because nobody will do business with him.

I would not...but then he wouldn't have handled my wedding in the first place.

Or consider this; if its acceptable for businesses to discriminate against LGBT individuals or couples on the basis of their religion in cases like wedding cakes and so on, where do you draw the line?

You don't draw a line.

Could a business refuse to provide tuxedos?

yes.

What if a gay man is trying to purchase dress socks for their wedding at JC Penny's- would it be acceptable to refuse service in such a case?

No. JC Penneys is a corporation owned by many, many stockholders; there is not a single owner or group of owners with a single religious viewpoint.

If not, why not? Or what about the gas station- could they refuse to provide gas for a gay couple on the basis of religious beliefs? Where, exactly, does this end?

It ends with the individual...and that also goes for the business owner, who doesn't become unworthy of his civil rights simply because he owns a business.

And how do we justify this given that its obviously in violation of both constitutional protections and established legal precedent?

You are begging the question. This isn't about whether it is LEGAL and has precedent. It's about whether it is RIGHT. Legal precedents and legalities do not determine this; such precedents are overturned all the time.

It seems to me the saying about your rights ending where mine begin is especially applicable here; your right to freedom of religion does not trump other people's right to be free from discrimination, right to equal protection, etc. And if you foresee a conflict between your religious beliefs and doing your job in accordance with the law, perhaps you should consider other career options?

So...in spite of the First amendment, which mentions freedom of religion not only first, but twice (something no other civil right mentioned in the Bill of Rights does), you think that your right to force someone to do what you want supercedes their freedom of religion?

NOBODY has the right to force someone else to abide by their own religious views. I don't have the right to force a fundamentalist Christian school to hire me in spite of the fact that they really don't like Mormons, and no gay couple has the right, in my opinion, to force a fundamentalist Christian who objects to participate in a religious event so fundamentally against their beliefs.

Look: nobody would THINK of forcing a Kosher catering company to 'do' a Hawaiian Luau complete with the roast pork. Nobody would consider suing a Kosher deli because it did not sell ham sandwiches. Nobody would sue a Mormon owned grocery store because it did not open on Sunday, or sell liquor. Nobody is suing or forcing any of the many "gay only" wedding businesses here in California to serve...or advertise services for...heterosexuals.

If the objection is religious...whether that objection is to having to be present while a prayer is being said in a school classroom, or to photographing a gay wedding, or allowing a divorced couple to marry in a Catholic church, or whatever it is, then that's it. Atheist, Deist, Theist...doesn't matter. One's religious viewpoints are PROTECTED. Not the beliefs...the ACTIONS.

A business owner who refuses wedding services that are against his faith is not harming anybody; those customers can (and should) go elsewhere. However, FORCING that business owner to violate his own religion, no matter how silly YOU think his beliefs are, IS harming him.

One can (and should) attempt to persuade him, and provide unpleasant SOCIAL and CULTURAL consequences, but not LEGAL ones.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Absolutely yes. Unequivocally yes. Without a doubt, YES.

It is WRONG to force someone to go against his religious beliefs.

Why? And even when what the religious beliefs dictate is itself wrong? (as in the present case)

However, it's not just wrong, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, to force, by law or the courts, someone to violate his/her religious beliefs and force him/her to bow to someone ELSE'S religious opinions.

Well no, not exactly. As noted, religious freedoms are curtailed by force/law/the courts in virtue of constitutional protections of other rights.

If a business owner has a RELIGIOUS objection to serving interracial marriage, then...he has the right to refuse to deal with interracial couples.

So, why does his right to religious freedom trump their right to be free from discrimination, equal protection and all that? Your decision here seems arbitrary.

You don't draw a line.

So in other words, you essentially endorse categorical discrimination, provided only its on the basis of religios beliefs. Scary.

No. JC Penneys is a corporation owned by many, many stockholders; there is not a single owner or group of owners with a single religious viewpoint.

Well but suppose they did all share a single religious viewpoint- then I take it it would be acceptable?

It ends with the individual...and that also goes for the business owner, who doesn't become unworthy of his civil rights simply because he owns a business.

But homosexuals, or interracial couples, lose theirs because other people's religions say its ok. Gotcha.

(scary)

You are begging the question.

Obviously not, since I was asking a question.

This isn't about whether it is LEGAL and has precedent. It's about whether it is RIGHT. Legal precedents and legalities do not determine this; such precedents are overturned all the time.

Sure. But I assume (perhaps without warrant) that most people regard the fundamental constitutional protections such as due process, equal protection, etc. as being "right" as well.

So...in spite of the First amendment, which mentions freedom of religion not only first, but twice (something no other civil right mentioned in the Bill of Rights does), you think that your right to force someone to do what you want supercedes their freedom of religion?

It happens all the time. Other peoples right to not be murdered would supercede anyones freedom to participate in a religion involving human sacrifice. Our rights are curtailed by the rights of others. On the other hand, you're trying to say that freedom of religion inexplicably trumps other people rights... what, because it was mentioned first, or twice? Gimme a break.

NOBODY has the right to force someone else to abide by their own religious views. I don't have the right to force a fundamentalist Christian school to hire me in spite of the fact that they really don't like Mormons, and no gay couple has the right, in my opinion, to force a fundamentalist Christian who objects to participate in a religious event so fundamentally against their beliefs.

I understand that you feel this way, I'm more interested in why you might think this, or what possible rational justification there could be. Again, why is freedom of religion so important that it categorically trumps other rights?

Look: nobody would THINK of forcing a Kosher catering company to 'do' a Hawaiian Luau complete with the roast pork. Nobody would consider suing a Kosher deli because it did not sell ham sandwiches. Nobody would sue a Mormon owned grocery store because it did not open on Sunday, or sell liquor.

And none of those cases are comparable, since there is no conflict between constitutional rights and protections, as there is in the present case.

A business owner who refuses wedding services that are against his faith is not harming anybody

(except the people who have been refused)

those customers can (and should) go elsewhere.

(unless they can't)

However, FORCING that business owner to violate his own religion, no matter how silly YOU think his beliefs are, IS harming him.

(not obviously any more than unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion harms those individuals)

One can (and should) attempt to persuade him, and provide unpleasant SOCIAL and CULTURAL consequences, but not LEGAL ones.

Ok. Why?

[enviousintheeverafter]

I am aware of people using science to debunk certain pro-LGBT claims

Really? Where/when has that happened? Or perhaps you were referring to your own threads and forgot to include the crucial term- i.e "trying to use science to debunk pro-LGBT claims"...

[otseng]

OK, closing this thread. Too many reports, too much debating, and I think I've already made my point in allowing attacks on homosexuality on this forum.

For reference, see these posts:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 341#722341
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 010#732010
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 613#732613

If someone wants to debate that being homosexuality does not involve choice and is completely innate, feel free to create that thread. I'll see if I can have time to participate in that.