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?

[Hamsaka]

....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?

What is the real question here? What is the connection between 'born heterosexual' and irresponsibility, adultery or bigamy? The reason I ask is that you are implying a connection but I'm not clear on what it is, or what you mean by it. Just asking for clarification.

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?

OK, maybe I'm getting that 'connection'. Heterosexual people do wrong or harmful things with their sexual behavior. LGBT people do all the same kind of wrong and harmful stuff with their sexual behavior.

The sexual orientation in itself is just a thing, it's neutral, neither good or bad. Criticizing bad behavior (harmful to self and others) is an important dialogue on societies.

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?"

And here it is; one sexual orientation or another, that's one thing. Bad harmful-to-others behavior is . . . just bad harmful behavior, and no group ought to be exempt. If you perceive one group dismisses it's bad behavior and screams "Discrimination!", do you have an example? I realize this is a common theist assumption. Now that open discrimination has social consequences, what, are we just supposed to keep our lips zipped and never say ANYTHING? That's a cop out that a person can think through on their own. Is it so very important to have a green light to criticize whatever you don't agree with? (generic you).

You are conflating discriminatory speech with natural, normal social 'dialogues'. Maybe the distinction is not very clear yet -- I'll get on board with that, especially in the past few years, this issue has become front and center and is emotionally charged. But that will ebb like it did with racism. We'll get used to it. Hell, I've had to learn a whole new lexicon just to speak with my kids' generation. It's been a bit odd, especially the pronouns, but what's the big deal with calling people what they want to be called? Just to offer some support and respect? The sky won't fall. We can keep our heads, here -- it's not a big deal, unless people want to make it one (which, unfortunately, they do).

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.

Maybe because as a society, the issue of re-marriage is no big deal, whatever the Bible says? Maybe because it's nobody's business but the individuals (and their consciences) involved? Perhaps there is a clarifying moral to be had here. People don't care what Catholics do. Nonreligious people don't care what religious people do until they start legislating public law and policy in accordance with religious beliefs, which are not the 'baseline' anymore.

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?'

Because they have been REFUSED some of the basic social benefits everyone else takes for granted. Other than that, it's not special at all. Once this current hullabaloo dies down and people get over themselves, just like they did when racism was hitting the public conscience, it WON'T be anything special at all.

The giant 'deal' LGBT have had to generate is in direct response (and proportion) to the discrimination and religious judgment they've had to live with since forever.

The double standard here is a bit much.

The only double standard I see is that religionists are being whacked with the other end of the stick they've been whacking (nearly) everyone else with since forever. There's no double standard. The tables have been turned, and they'll be turned again and again until religionists accept a more appropriate role. They no longer have the talking stick, and it makes a lot of them angry, even feeling persecuted. It's just the other end of the same stick.

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.

Who are you (the generic you) to dictate what homosexuals choose to do about their homosexuality? Since when is a person's private life (like, their religion, for instance) a matter of public focus, criticism, and moralizing? You don't get to do it for them. They'll do it themselves. It's no one's business but theirs.

And if you still feel FORCED after all this time, to accept this, I wish I could say it just right and put your fears to rest. You DON'T have to accept it, ever. In the privacy of your home (where most homosexual activities also occur), you can dictate til the cows come home. LGBT people out in public, being flaming or butch or whatever is NOT forcing anyone to accept them, because the alternative is for them to hide themselves at home, which I doubt most theists would be willing to do themselves. Just because its in your face isn't FORCING anything. You (the generic) are just accustomed to calling the shots about morality, and have never been on the other end of that 'stick'. It must feel very uncomfortable indeed.

Theist's 'discomfort' with LGBT is not their problem, it's the theists' problem. LGBT folks are not required to fix it for theists against them. That they are is evidence of that old religionist entitlement, which is thankfully diminishing from the public front. It should be no more important than any other ideology or lifestyle. Religion already has so many 'special add ons' AS WELL AS being a protected class, don't y'all (generic) think you have enough? Do you have to have the whole enchilada, or can you spare some dignity for people who aren't like you (generic )?

It will be interesting to see how far religionists will go with 'proving' LGBT should not be a protected class (it's not biological like skin color!!) . . . when they are a protected class without a whit of biological support.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Whether or not one 'chooses' to be gay or not is irrelevant.

The exact opposite of what you just said is the case. Otseng had replied to Danmark that he didn't agree that race and sexual orientation were comparable, (at least partly) because sexual orientation is a matter of choice. So whether its a matter of choice was explicitly the item that was in dispute here.

And the reason should be obvious; race and sexual orientation are similar in that they are both features/traits of a person over which they have no control/choice, but in virtue of which they have often been judged/criticized/oppressed/discriminated against/etc.

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?

Their homosexuality wouldn't have anything to do with it. But no, it wouldn't mean you have to refrain from criticizing people who have unprotected sex and don't tell their partners they have a serious STD- that's not a good thing to do. But it would mean that you have to refrain for criticizing them for something irrelevant to what you're actually criticizing them about. But that's just a good general rule, nothing unique to homosexuality.

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?'

I guess your confusion here owes to your previous confusion as to the relevance of choice. The answer, of course, is that one can choose, or not, to belong to any particular religious denomination, or accept any particular sexual norms one wishes. But one cannot choose, or not, to be attracted to members of the same sex.

[Danmark]

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.

"Sin theory" is the idea that what is in a person's heart counts. That they have an intent to do wrong, or an intent to do an ACTION that they know harms another. Or that by their INACTION they they knowingly harm another when they had a duty to act.

Most, if not all of the Ten Commandments involve such a mens rea; that is, a guilty knowledge.
Where you, and others go wrong about certain Biblical proscriptions, is the acceptance of a blind obedience to some supposed rule without any thought about the spirit of law, morality, or a mens rea.

Jesus, in his many parables and other battles with the Pharisees, makes this point elegantly. To use a phrase of His, too many religionists "strain at gnats and swallow camels."

I don't think they are saying anything to provoke "However, when THEY decide that MY belief system has to change so that it approves of their actions...." However I am saying your belief system is wrong, uncharitable, and illogical. This is hardly a demand that you change. It is a plea that someone as thoughtful, intelligent, and moral as you are, consider being more empathetic and open to change and to follow what I consider to be the true spirit of Christ. This is a matter of individual conscience. Hopefully each of us looks deeply into our hearts rather than just plugging in some phrase from an 'authority.'

[dianaiad]

....

Who are you (the generic you) to dictate what homosexuals choose to do about their homosexuality? Since when is a person's private life (like, their religion, for instance) a matter of public focus, criticism, and moralizing? You don't get to do it for them. They'll do it themselves. It's no one's business but theirs.

...and I personally have no problem with that. My problem comes in when they (gay couple) sue me because I refuse to participate in their religious ceremony.

.......generic 'I' here, because I'd bake the cake and do the photography. I have done so. However, I do believe that nobody should be able to compel another to violate his or her own religious beliefs because someone else thinks that those beliefs are strange, weird, or politically incorrect.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, has the right to make someone else violate his or her religious beliefs in order to have a wedding.

I have been against gay marriage...because 'marriage' is a religious concept first, and it has always been a religious/cultural concept long before some government attached laws and rights to it. I have always been FOR a system that allows government civil rights to be given to relationships, gay or straight, that religions might end up blessing as marriage, but I have always figured that the government should stay the heck out of marriage...and religion should stay the heck out of the government granted civil rights that seem attached to it.

What I absolutely do not support is the right of gay couples (or heterosexual couples, for that matter) to force under color of authority any person to participate in a religious event to which they are opposed...religiously. I don't support mandatory school prayer for exactly the same reason.

Forcing people to publicly approve of gay marriages on pain of financial and legal punishment is WRONG.

I, a Mormon, absolutely will not be allowed to marry in St. Paul's Cathedral unless I convert and marry a Catholic. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to sue over it, either. My daughter's boss, a (sorta) Orthodox Jew who has a service to place elderly Jewish people in assisted living facilities that allow them to live their religions and 'keep kosher,' should NOT be sued if she refuses to place an old Mormon in a Jewish assisted living facility.

.......and if some religious fanatic wants to call a gay man a 'sinner' because he has a gay partner, then....that's his right. That gay man has every right to say 'I'm not, but you are..."

And neither has the right to force the other to approve of the opposing viewpoint.

THAT is my position on this issue.

[dianaiad]

....
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.

"Sin theory" is the idea that what is in a person's heart counts.

I do believe that I, though using less elegant and precise language than you are using, just said that. That's what the 'honestly doesn't thinkg that their behavior together is sinful" was about.

That they have an intent to do wrong, or an intent to do an ACTION that they know harms another. Or that by their INACTION they they knowingly harm another when they had a duty to act.

Most, if not all of the Ten Commandments involve such a mens rea; that is, a guilty knowledge.
Where you, and others go wrong about certain Biblical proscriptions, is the acceptance of a blind obedience to some supposed rule without any thought about the spirit of law, morality, or a mens rea.

Well, given that I was rather clear about this, I don't think this applies. At least not to me.

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.

You, however, would not be sinning if you ordered this. perhaps a little, er....ambitious, but not sinning.

However, if you, having purchased this confection, decided that I have no right to object to joining you in drinking it, and thus, either through the law or through social pressure, force me to do so, THAT is wrong.

Same thing, different level. If a gay couple honestly believes that their behavior and marriage is NOT sinful, then it's not. However, if they decide that those for whom homosexual relationships ARE sinful have no right to disapprove of them, have no right to think so, and it is therefore permissible to force them to participate in an event that violates their religious beliefs....

No matter how stupid YOU think those beliefs are....

That's not only wrong, it is a very, very dangerous path to go down.

[Danmark]

I have been against gay marriage...because 'marriage' is a religious concept first, and it has always been a religious/cultural concept long before some government attached laws and rights to it.

Poppycock. This is just plain false.
'"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage," (Penguin Books, 2006). "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force."

But as family plots of land gave way to market economies and Kings ceded power to democracies, the notion of marriage transformed.
....
Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. '
http://www.livescience.com/37777-histor ... riage.html

[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.

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.

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

[dianaiad]

[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.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[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?

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? Could a business refuse to provide tuxedos? 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? 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? And how do we justify this given that its obviously in violation of both constitutional protections and established legal precedent? 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?

[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.

[font=Comic Sans MS]We are getting far from the topic of "Why homophobia is tolerated here."

For that reason, I think this particular issue should be diverted elsewhere, such as "The Greater Law,"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 122#733122

For now let me just say I agree I don't get to decide what your religion calls sinful. However, I do presume to follow and advocate a principle Jesus made clear in Matthew 23 when told the Pharisees they strained at gnats and swallowed camels. That principle is that when a "Coffee law" overrides a "Love Law" the latter trumps the former.[/font]