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?

[Haven]

Let me break it down for you because it is actually quite simple. Sexual orientation is NOT entirely an uncontrollable matter. Behavior is also related to sexual orientation and can be a CHOICE unlike race, eye color, skin color, etc. What Christians are tend to attack is the behavioral aspect of sexual orientation.

Got it?

"
What is sexual orientation?

Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment"

- American Psychological Association..
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

To put it bluntly, you're only saying this because of your belief in Christian fundamentalism. If you didn't hold this belief, you wouldn't be making this argument at all: while there are social and psychological influences on sexual orientation and behavior, there are also social and psychological influences on race (itself a social construct), gender, and (especially) religion. Your opinion on this topic expresses bias that originates in your dogmatic belief in fundamental Christianity.

The question is: should this forum run based on fundamentalist Christian principles?

[otseng]

The question is: should this forum run based on fundamentalist Christian principles?

Not sure what you mean by this.

[OpenYourEyes]

Let me break it down for you because it is actually quite simple. Sexual orientation is NOT entirely an uncontrollable matter. Behavior is also related to sexual orientation and can be a CHOICE unlike race, eye color, skin color, etc. What Christians are tend to attack is the behavioral aspect of sexual orientation.

Got it?

"
What is sexual orientation?

Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment"

- American Psychological Association..
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

To put it bluntly, you're only saying this because of your belief in Christian fundamentalism. If you didn't hold this belief, you wouldn't be making this argument at all: while there are social and psychological influences on sexual orientation and behavior, there are also social and psychological influences on race (itself a social construct), gender, and (especially) religion. Your opinion on this topic expresses bias that originates in your dogmatic belief in fundamental Christianity.

The question is: should this forum run based on fundamentalist Christian principles?

I'm not sure what you mean by Christian Fundamentalism. I believe that homosexuality is immoral due to my Christian and personal beliefs but my view of it not being based solely on biology are for rational reasons.

If I were to speculate that you are gay and a gay activist, would that be fair for me to say that that's why you want it to be equated to skin and eye color, so badly? You want people to believe that every aspect of your sexual orientation is beyond your control? Sorry, not buying it and it would help if you could keep the personal comments to yourself if you have nothing good to say.

As for your comments on social and psychological influences on race and gender, I agree with you if you're referring to racial ethnicity and gender roles, but my point has been about skin color and biological gender which do not respond to what I or society thinks of me, especially eye color. I'm not attacking 'sexual attraction'.

Your question about how this site should be ran is a bit nonsensical. You've heard Otseng standard many many times over again, so this is really a waste of time.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 29 by Haven]
Not to put words in your mouth (where did that come from, no slight intended), you are admitting that you have a "CHOICE" whether to engage in sex "members" (sorry again, I'm just putting in the computer what my mind first comes up with, maybe I should interpose "good judgment" not to, but if that applies to me wouldn't it apply to everyone else and it does not seem that it is so, it sure seems TO ME that people here and particularly ELSEWHERE say and write things all the time that would best not be presented) of one's own sex or the opposite sex. (There again, by "opposite" I may be overstepping my proper bounds in this matter--that is, is there a "third sex", what about transgender and transvestitism and further complication.)

I don't know why women and racial minorities let their just claims of real and unavoidable mistreatment get waylaid by a "competing" sex (yes, gay men steal husbands, lovers from women) whose claims to unequal treatment could be self-corrected by "behaving" "hiding in the closet", or "getting even". And as I understand it, very few gays are inclined to lifel-long, faithful monogamy with just one man. Like Tammy Wynette sings in "Stand by your Man", a woman seems naturally inclined to be faithful in spite of how (I readily acknowledge) bad men are. I submit that gay men are no more likely than heterosexual men to be monogamous, indeed studies show them to be even worse in this regard. Maybe a case should be made for only gays being REAL man? Like the Thracian and (Alexander the Great's) Macedonian armies of ancient Greece?

[Korah]

I think it is fair to distinguish between those who may indiscriminately have sexual encounters with members of either sex, and those who felt compelled for many years to 'live a lie' or otherwise make their best efforts to fit in by living a conventional life due to tremendous social pressures.

However so much as I might agree with you, we run even more compellingly into the problem of "reverse discrimination". For starters, what about the guy (or gal) who's a failure at work, never gets promoted. Nobody knew or cared their sexual orientation or even practices. Suddenly s/he "outs" self and sues for lifetime "lost" wages! And back in the 1970's EOC and all, any number of barely (if any significant degree Black at all) of mostly-genetically White people were self-qualifying themselves for the jobs that were supposed to be reserved for Black people! It would be far worse with sexual orientation--just pretend to be homosexual, maybe even practice it (hey, could turn out to be fun!), and there you go, big bucks, great job, whatever your little heart desires=!
It's completely impractical, guarantees endless abuse. Stop this foolishness in its tracks.

[Haven]

The question is: should this forum run based on fundamentalist Christian principles?

Not sure what you mean by this.

By this, I mean that things that aren't offensive to fundamentalist Christians, but are offensive to many people (for example, anti-LGBT comments), are deemed "civil." This essentially shows a preference to conservative Christians by making their morality the standard of civility for this forum.

[otseng]

The question is: should this forum run based on fundamentalist Christian principles?

Not sure what you mean by this.

By this, I mean that things that aren't offensive to fundamentalist Christians, but are offensive to many people (for example, anti-LGBT comments), are deemed "civil." This essentially shows a preference to conservative Christians by making their morality the standard of civility for this forum.

Are you suggesting that the participants should be banned from attacking homosexuality?

[Haven]

Are you suggesting that the participants should be banned from attacking homosexuality?

Yes. Homosexuality should be treated no differently than race, gender, national origin, and other legally protected identities.

[otseng]

Are you suggesting that the participants should be banned from attacking homosexuality?

Yes. Homosexuality should be treated no differently than race, gender, national origin, and other legally protected identities.

Homosexuality will remain a debatable subject here. It's not because the forum is based on "fundamentalist Christian principles". If that were so, then attacking Fundamentalism would also be banned.

Actually, if people want to debate race, gender, or national origin, posters are free to also. Those subjects are not banned here.

Where it would cross the line is when a poster personally judges another because of race, gender, sexuality, etc. That would be off limits.

[Danmark]

Let me break it down for you because it is actually quite simple. Sexual orientation is NOT entirely an uncontrollable matter. Behavior is also related to sexual orientation and can be a CHOICE unlike race, eye color, skin color, etc. What Christians are tend to attack is the behavioral aspect of sexual orientation.

There are many things I don't like about this position, but the core problem with it is that it demonstrates an utter lack of empathy and the triumph of unfairness.

To blithely and with pretense of absolute authority declare some people should be denied intimacy and the joy of sex in a long term, loving, committed, adult relationship because they don't fit your view of which gender they are attracted to, I . . . reject . . . as contrary to the ideals of Christianity.

This is an attitude I find the antithesis of being Christlike.