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?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 175 by OpenYourEyes]

Moderator Comment

The picture is somewhat graphic, and can be considered offensive material by those who do not share your views. It is an "in your face" rebuttal and is not appropriate for this forum.

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.

[enviousintheeverafter]

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.

Exactly. The bisexual individual has choice to precisely the same extent that a heterosexual or gay individual does- that is, they can choose how they act on their involuntary sexual attractions.

***

The picture is somewhat graphic

You can't be serious. Its not remotely graphic- its not even explicitly romantic or sexual in any way, just one person resting their head on another person's shoulder.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 170 by otseng]

Danmark wrote:

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.

Considering the body of scientific research (available to us), is your position I put in bold based upon scientific research or religious doctrine?

Either way, I'm asking you to support yourself. I especially am interested in your supporting data/ideas because of your debate skills. As much as this subject comes up between theists and nontheists, the theists' position remains UNfleshed out.

We have a head to head debate going on, where the theist side, supported by OYE, is composed of criticizing whatever scientific evidence the nontheist (Haven) produces. OYE placed the condition on this debate that he need not have a counter-position to defend, as it were. In this way, the theist position gets to avoid presenting a coherent counterargument, except to nickel and dime the evidence presented by Haven. This is hardly debate in any sense of the word.

If anything, it allows OYE's theist position to preserve unsupported religious taboos free and clear of counter-criticism.

If the only 'salient' evidence the theist position has is their holy book and tradition, then let's just admit it fgs. It's not like this is not obvious already.

[Divine Insight]

The picture is somewhat graphic

You can't be serious. Its not remotely graphic- its not even explicitly romantic or sexual in any way, just one person resting their head on another person's shoulder.

Not only that, but these could even be sisters that have no intent to become sexually intimate at all.

If this picture sexually arouses "OpenYourEyes" it can only be because of what he's imagining in his very own mind. There's certainly nothing sexually explicit about this picture. It could easily be in someone's family album.

"Yep, that's a picture of me and my sister, and neither one of us are lesbians."

However, I can see the moderator objection concerning the "implications" that were suggested by the poster of the picture. It seemed to be implying that OpenYourEyes thinks that great looking feminine lesbians are hot and therefore this supposedly vindicates him from any and all homophobia.

[Wootah]

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.

Exactly. The bisexual individual has choice to precisely the same extent that a heterosexual or gay individual does- that is, they can choose how they act on their involuntary sexual attractions.

***

The picture is somewhat graphic

You can't be serious. Its not remotely graphic- its not even explicitly romantic or sexual in any way, just one person resting their head on another person's shoulder.

Moderator Clarification
Please don't challenge mods in thread but send them a PM.

I reported the post - these topics have proven to be far too sensitive in the past.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[Danmark]

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.

[font=Comic Sans MS]I'm still waiting for a reply to my question:
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?
Perhaps Otseng can provide such evidence. Altho' the scientific evidence appears to confirm genetic and epigenetic evidence of innate differences between opposite sex and same sex sexual orientation, to me the the most import issue is choice. Every heterosexual I know has clearly indicated his attraction to members of the opposite sex was not a choice. One would think that empathy alone would be sufficient to prove the point that people who are gay are in the same 'not a choice' category. From there, the application of simple Christian charity and goodwill would be sufficient to concede the point. This is my major problem with some religious doctrines. No matter how logical, no matter how powerful the evidence, "The Bible Tells Me So" seems to trump all reason and sense of fair play.[/font]

[Hamsaka]

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.

[font=Comic Sans MS]I'm still waiting for a reply to my question:
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?
Perhaps Otseng can provide such evidence. Altho' the scientific evidence appears to confirm genetic and epigenetic evidence of innate differences between opposite sex and same sex sexual orientation, to me the the most import issue is choice. Every heterosexual I know has clearly indicated his attraction to members of the opposite sex was not a choice. One would think that empathy alone would be sufficient to prove the point that people who are gay are in the same 'not a choice' category. From there, the application of simple Christian charity and goodwill would be sufficient to concede the point. This is my major problem with some religious doctrines. No matter how logical, no matter how powerful the evidence, "The Bible Tells Me So" seems to trump all reason and sense of fair play.[/font]

Although I would be very interested in a theist's serious rebuttal in support of 'choice', I've yet to encounter one here. If any long-timer remembers a thread where a thoughtful, reasonable pro-'choosing sexual orientation' is presented, it would give me an opportunity to at least SEE one, regardless of my agreement.

At this point, there does not appear to be a pro-'choosing to be gay' argument that a theist is willing to present. Criticizing scientific research is not a 'position', and neither is refusing to grant research one's seal of approval. It is not a remarkable use of brains to criticize a position, but it's remarkable that this is what 'passes' for debate on the current issue.

A person can only conclude that theists holding the 'choose to be gay/choose to have gay sex' are themselves choosing to stand by this position.

Perhaps because religious beliefs are a choice in and of themselves, theists assume one can cherry pick what to believe and what to dismiss based on largely subjective personal sentiments (the method of choosing religious beliefs). The skeptical view dismisses subjective personal sentiments as 'tools' with which to determine truth.

There is no reasonable or logical support for people 'choosing' to be gay. There's no need to disguise this position or pretend it has any basis other than the Bible says so. I realize if the Bible says so that some theists see no legitimate choice for themselves to not accept what the Bible says. Why not just admit that, it's honest, and it's not like it's a big secret.

Maybe once some theists grant themselves this small bit of honesty, an actual dialogue can occur, rather than the pure nonsense going on in the Science and Religion forum lately. If "the Bible says so" is a person's deeply felt position, why not proudly speak up, instead of all this smoke and mirror crap?

[dianaiad]

....There is no reasonable or logical support for people 'choosing' to be gay. There's no need to disguise this position or pretend it has any basis other than the Bible says so....

Whether or not one 'chooses' to be gay or not is irrelevant. It doesn't matter.

Let us, for the sake of....whatever....establish that for many, the sex to whom one is attracted is not a choice; one is attracted to whatever prompts the pheromones. I am not aware, in fact, that the bible addresses this at all, come to think of it.

Most people are 'born heterosexual,' and they did not make that choice. Does that mean that those heterosexuals who commit adultery, or bigamy, or who are irresponsible spreaders of STD's must not be criticized?

If one is 'born homosexual,' does that mean we have to REFRAIN from criticizing those who, say....contract HIV and continue their sexual lifestyle, spreading the disease without notifying their partners?

If one is 'born heterosexual,' does that mean that he is free to do anything he (or she) wants in regard to that 'lack of choice?"

MANY religions have rather strict rules of behavior in terms of heterosexual relationships and marriage. Some restrict marriages between family members, some either mandate--or restrict--numbers of spouses. Some have rather strict rules about divorce. I don't see anybody here criticizing the Catholics, say, for refusing to allow divorced people to remarry in the church, or for saying that those who do remarry are indeed committing adultery and living in sin. No lawsuits against Catholic business people who refuse to deal with weddings in this case. That's just fine.

It's fine with everybody else, too; the GOVERNMENT says these folks are married for the purposes of civil rights, and don't give the Catholics grief for refusing to recognize those marriages.

What's so special, then, about gay marriages? What is so all fired special about gays that THEIR sexual behavior is considered to be above criticism, when it is OK to call heterosexual couples who engage in behavior that violates religious more's 'sinners?'

The double standard here is a bit much.

I don't think that homosexual couples are sinners to any greater degree than heterosexual couples who go against their own religious ideals. I sure as heck don't see why homosexual sexual activity should be considered privileged when similar activity in heterosexuals can be criticized.

I didn't CHOOSE to be a redhead (wish I still were). I didn't CHOOSE to be too fair of skin to be able to play in the sun. I didn't CHOOSE to be a lot of things I ended up being, given everything. However, I DO choose what I do about any and all of those things.

Homosexuals may well not have chosen where their attractions lie. They CAN, however, choose what they do about it. They should choose according to the beliefs and morals they hold. What they should NOT do is force anybody else to go along with them against their own morals and beliefs.

[Danmark]

Whether or not one 'chooses' to be gay or not is irrelevant. It doesn't matter.

Let us, for the sake of....whatever....establish that for many, the sex to whom one is attracted is not a choice; one is attracted to whatever prompts the pheromones. I am not aware, in fact, that the bible addresses this at all, come to think of it.

Most people are 'born heterosexual,' and they did not make that choice. Does that mean that those heterosexuals who commit adultery, or bigamy, or who are irresponsible spreaders of STD's must not be criticized?

If one is 'born homosexual,' does that mean we have to REFRAIN from criticizing those who, say....contract HIV and continue their sexual lifestyle, spreading the disease without notifying their partners?

With all due respect, this completely missed the point. Whether or not one can choose which gender one is attracted to is crucially important if one is going to apply "sin theory."
I have clearly stated, that promiscuity is a completely separate issue. Let's compare apples to apples, so to speak. Assuming both the gay and the straight person are not promiscuous and neither had a choice about what sex they are attracted to, where is the mens rea that supports the "sin" theory from applying to those who do not make a behavior choice and are faithfully monogamous?

This is the crucial point. The 'Golden Rule' and the 10 commandments deal with conduct where one intentionally does wrong. Unless you are going to claim that those, who by no choice of their own are only attracted to those of the same sex, should have to do what monogamous heterosexuals do not have to do and live their lives without satisfying basic human needs and relegating themselves to lonely lives without human intimacy, then there is no basis to distinguish between the two.

UNLESS, you are simply going to rely on "The Bible told me so," without regard to an underlying rationale.

[dianaiad]

Whether or not one 'chooses' to be gay or not is irrelevant. It doesn't matter.

Let us, for the sake of....whatever....establish that for many, the sex to whom one is attracted is not a choice; one is attracted to whatever prompts the pheromones. I am not aware, in fact, that the bible addresses this at all, come to think of it.

Most people are 'born heterosexual,' and they did not make that choice. Does that mean that those heterosexuals who commit adultery, or bigamy, or who are irresponsible spreaders of STD's must not be criticized?

If one is 'born homosexual,' does that mean we have to REFRAIN from criticizing those who, say....contract HIV and continue their sexual lifestyle, spreading the disease without notifying their partners?

With all due respect, this completely missed the point. Whether or not one can choose which gender one is attracted to is crucially important if one is going to apply "sin theory."

What "sin theory?"

While I am aware that there are some folks who think that we are all, already, born sinners, I'm not one of those. "sin" is an ACTION or INACTION that violates one's moral/ethical standards.

It's something one does when one should not, or does not when one should.

So, whether one can choose which gender one is attracted to or not is irrelevant. One may not pick the impulses. One DOES pick what one does about them, and what ethical system one uses to decide whether what one does is appropriate or not.

As for me, if a homosexual couple honestly (and I do mean HONESTLY) doesn't think that their behavior together is sinful, it's not my problem. However, when THEY decide that MY belief system has to change so that it approves of their actions, well....

that's a rather clear line for me to draw.