I am not sure why that would offend, considering that I also make it clear that I am pro the right to be gay, gay rights, and that I have also made it clear that I don't hate homosexuals and that I don't approve of persecution/prejudice/hatred towards homosexuals. If I did offend, I certainly had no intention of offending.
Not being a homosexual myself, I'm making a bit of an assumption here. But if you were to say that you disapprove of the life I lead, I'd probably be offended.
It makes you sound like the parent lecturing a petulant teen.
Warb
I know not all Christians are for killing homosexuals, however most do read the book (thought to be the word of the God you worship) as saying He thinks this should happen (only you have to be without sin to cast the first stone).
Or at least he thought it at one point and if he changed his mind neglected to tell anyone.
I doubt most war era Germans would be personally happy to burn Jewish children but they failed for a variety of reasons to intervene in the wholesale murder of Jewish children by the regime run by the chap they turned out in thousands to see and cheer.
The murder of homosexuals in the West Indies, Africa and Middle East have religious backdrops.
The murder of most homosexuals in the West are usually down to the sort of attitudes put about by religious people (it's not natural, it's dirty).
Now I didn't chose to be mostly homosexual and I did give heterosexuality a good try but I felt it dishonest to myself and to any woman who would be saddled with me to do anything other than what I have in my life.
I've been mostly homosexual for as long as I can remember.
I'm not gay because my parents are or most of the people in my country are.
I'm not gay because I think it's better than not being gay.
I'm not gay because of something I believe in or to be hip or anti-establishment.
I'm just gay and biologists can back up much of what I'm saying with evidence drawn from study.
It's frequently inconvenient, it often creates situations which are awkward.
Some aspects of my homosexuality are hilariously silly but all human actions have a degree of silliness about it.
There is however nothing holy or unholy about my sexual orientation.
As for the parallel you don't understand, religions are organised, funded, community processes.
There is a difference between an individual believing in an invisible spirit with whom he has a friendship and being part of a church with a rule book and a collection plate that can lobby politicians.
That's where the militant gay night club comes in.
They could organise events, have songs and a dress code and lobby politicians.
I don't belong to a club like that either.
Now do you get it?
TV's Frink said:
Not being a homosexual myself, I'm making a bit of an assumption here. But if you were to say that you disapprove of the life I lead, I'd probably be offended.
It makes you sound like the parent lecturing a petulant teen.
that is not how I want to sound at all. And would I really sound like if while saying I did not approve, I made it clear I would defend your right to live that life and that I'd be against those that would persecute you and that I do not hate you for living that life. Also saying that would not approve is not the same as saying that I would lecture you. Finally, what is the big deal about my approval, one does not need my approval to live whatever life you want.
And again, just to be clear, no offense was intended.
Bingowings said:
Warb
I know not all Christians are for killing homosexuals, however most do read the book (thought to be the word of the God you worship) as saying He thinks this should happen (only you have to be without sin to cast the first stone).
keep in mind that same book makes it clear that only one human was/is without sin: Jesus. Since none of rest us are without sin, none of the us can cast the first stone. Only Jesus could cast that stone, and he didn't. And I would not be casting any stones.
Bingowings said:
I doubt most war era Germans would be personally happy to burn Jewish children but they failed for a variety of reasons to intervene in the wholesale murder of Jewish children by the regime run by the chap they turned out in thousands to see and cheer.
I would never cheer that thing, nor would I murder any children. If I lived back then, I would hope I'd have the courage to stand up and fight against the persecution of the Jews, even die in the fight if necessary. Of course, I really don't know if I'd be brave enough to do it. It is easy to say, but quite another to do.
Bingowings said:
The murder of homosexuals in the West Indies, Africa and Middle East have religious backdrops.
The murder of most homosexuals in the West are usually down to the sort of attitudes put about by religious people (it's not natural, it's dirty).
but again, not all religions/religious people approve of murder.
Bingowings said:
Now I didn't chose to be mostly homosexual and I did give heterosexuality a good try but I felt it dishonest to myself and to any woman who would be saddled with me to do anything other than what I have in my life.
I've been mostly homosexual for as long as I can remember.
I'm not gay because my parents are or most of the people in my country are.
I'm not gay because I think it's better than not being gay.
I'm not gay because of something I believe in or to be hip or anti-establishment.
I'm just gay and biologists can back up much of what I'm saying with evidence drawn from study.
It's frequently inconvenient, it often creates situations which are awkward.
Some aspects of my homosexuality are hilariously silly but all human actions have a degree of silliness about it.
There is however nothing holy or unholy about my sexual orientation.
As for the parallel you don't understand, religions are organised, funded, community processes.
There is a difference between an individual believing in an invisible spirit with whom he has a friendship and being part of a church with a rule book and a collection plate that can lobby politicians.
That's where the militant gay night club comes in.
They could organise events, have songs and a dress code and lobby politicians.
I don't belong to a club like that either.
Now do you get it?
not sure, but my church is more than just a club or a lobbyist group to me. As far as I know, none of the money from the collection plate of my church, goes to lobbyists.
I'm sure there are gay club patrons who see their special place as more than just a gay club.
If an organisation plays a large part of your life you will remember it for being the place where you met friends or the place where you raised a large amount of money for charity or the place where you fell over in an amusing way.
That doesn't stop it from having a different flavour from one person doing things in a unique individual way.
Almost every religion is anti-gay to some degree and almost every scripture includes some call for physical violence against homosexuals ( remarkable amendments like those of Jesus have historically and frequently been ignored).
Homosexuals are called faggots because they were seen as good fire fuel.
It's more remarkable that there are so many religious homosexuals (both in and out of the closet) than there is so much religious based anti-gay violence.
Warbler said:
If I found out that a family member of mine were homosexual, while I may not approve....
I've never understood the disapproval. Nobody wanted less to be gay than my friend. Being homosexual doesn't hurt anyone, and it's how you're born. Why would God make certain people that way, and then inform his prophets that it's an abomination? What makes it bad?
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
The usual response is that it is a choice, and the wrong one at that. I've always found that viewpoint extremely silly, not to mention scientifically disproved.
I think it's possible for people to be "born straight", grow up, have changing sexual desires or affilitations, etc. Of course it has been demonstrated this comes from a genetic predisposition, and I agree with this. But I guess anything's possible.
At the same time I personally don't like how the "born with it" classification is sometimes used. Let me clarify. I obviously support gay marriage, have never had any hatred or disapproval toward homosexuality (other than the regrettable cultural norm of teenage boys calling each other 'gay' at every immature opportunity).
It just seems sometimes people have to apologize for being homosexual to avoid further scrutiny. "I didn't choose this, I was born with it." I know that's not what people on here mean in this discussion, but I've gotten the impression from random conversations with people that this logic is used more to rationalize.
To use the racial example from earlier, it'd be like a black individual saying, "I didn't choose to be black, I was born this way." Then someone else says, "Oh, okay, you didn't choose to be black. I guess it's okay that you are black, then, because if you chose to be black that would be a cause for concern." It certainly sounds awful in that context, right?
I guess I'm saying that hopefully in the future people become less concerned with why homosexuality exists, and just accept that it does exist just like any other human quality or trait does. But I understand why this discussion arises frequently.
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
Warbler said:
If I found out that a family member of mine were homosexual, while I may not approve, I would not bar them from my life nor would I bar the person they chose as their partner. My family is my family I love them no matter what they do.I've never understood the disapproval. Nobody wanted less to be gay than my friend. Being homosexual doesn't hurt anyone, and it's how you're born. Why would God make certain people that way, and then inform his prophets that it's an abomination? What makes it bad?
fixed. Way to slice my post and change the meaning, Puggo. Now I know how Mrebo feels.
As to what makes it bad, I really am not sure. My religion says its a sin. Maybe it is that it might be unnatural or that maybe sex should be about procreation and that can't happen naturally between gays. Just so you know, saying this stuff leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
I really didn't want to go here, but I think I have to now. I apologize in advance for any offense.
TV's Frink said:
The usual response is that it is a choice, and the wrong one at that. I've always found that viewpoint extremely silly, not to mention scientifically disproved.
could one not argue that while it is not a choice to have homosexual desires, is it a choice to act on them?
Warbler said
As to what makes it bad, I really am not sure. My religion says its a sin. Maybe it is that it might be unnatural or that maybe sex should be about procreation and that can't happen naturally between gays.
That's it. And you know why? For the same reason Jews or Muslims can't eat pork or drink alcohol: they lived in rough conditions. And for a population to live in the desert or any other harsh habitat, you have to really concentrate your energy towards being productive. So masturbation and any waste of seed (that includes homosexuality because it isn't used for procreation) is put under the stigma of taboo, and it becomes bad.
Just so you know, saying this stuff leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
That's because you're thinking with your own head, and you know it's bullshit.
if you say so.
I love the excuse that because someone belongs to a group that has been historically persecuted, they have the right to be offended. Is it because persecuting Christians is more of a rising phenomenon that we do not have the right to be offended yet? What about the fact that Christians were horribly mistreated and executed by the Romans 2000 years ago? Perhaps I get a "Get Offended for Free" pass for that. Or what about young, thin, white males who still get bullied? Do they get no such card because they don't fit any approved demographic? What about the fact that Mormons have historically been persecuted, even killed and illegally evicted from Missouri by the governor or had their property liquidated by the US government because they practiced an "alternative lifestyle" of plural marriage (illegalized after the practice was already going), and to this day are branded as non-Christians/cultists by the a large portion of believers? Even though my personal persecution has not been so harsh, do I have a special right thanks to the historical persecution of Mormons? Or does the fact that I was often criticized and even threatened as a Mormon missionary in a very Protestant part of the country give me enough leeway to get offended? What about the fact that Christians are still persecuted in Islamic countries? Surely that guarantees the right to get offended on the Internet. Or what about the fact that in the most populous country in the world where (shockingly) atheism/agnosticism holds the highest number of affiliates, there is institutionalized suppression of religion? Surely I can get offended by proxy.
I see no problem with asking for a greater level of consideration to others' feelings. I've seen it done a lot around here. In fact, if I were to point my finger at one person who stands far above the rest in urging restraint when it appears that tempers may be rising, a fellow who goes by Bing O'Wings (you'd think he's Irish with a name like that, but he's actually a Scotsman) seems to often be the one making calls for kindness.
No, I'm afraid that I and everyone else have the right to be offended on the Internet. I think I've read most who are presently participating in this conversation getting offended at someone else. You know, it's just one of those things that still matters, even if we are hundreds or thousands of miles apart, even if we never see each other's faces. I still respect each of you, no matter your distance or how depersonalized the Internet has made you. Therefore I'd expect to attempt to engage with each of you in a respectful conversation. I hope you will all agree with me.
I was justifying my defense of my none chosen sexual orientation against the comparison a chosen religious philosophy (which is part of the family of faiths that attacks me for my none chose sexual orientation).
I am offended that by nature of existence I am persecuted by people with the choice not to persecute me.
The amount of people who follow a faith other than their parents is probably about the same as the amount of people with a different sexual orientation to their parents.
Which says something to me.
Just as the discovery of supposed new branches of the Abrahamic faith tree where ever there is money to be made (like stealing a continent from first peoples).
Organised religion is not the same as personal faith.
It's an international political entity and I have as much right to mock it as I have to mock Communism, Consumerism or Fascism.
If you are painfully offended perhaps you take the religion aspects of your lifestyle too seriously and the faith not seriously enough.
If the deity of your choice really formulated every subatomic structure in the cosmos he. she, it or they are much more powerful than I and will be your ultimate defense against anything I say.
Have I come off as painfully offended? Or have I perhaps come off as simply suggesting that we need not offend, because I assure you, the latter is my intent? I assure you, it is not your mocking of Christianity that has bothered me, and my initial comments were directed primarily at Puggo, with CP3S as a secondary thought, and at the time you had not entered my mind. What now bothers me is your feeling of entitlement to criticize using whatever language you desire, and then, it doesn't even exceptionally bug me--more like a mild annoyance. So let me get this straight: it is your theory that one may be insensitive and critique anyone else as long as the actions one engages in are by choice rather than by biological tendency? If so, I've already got a number of holes to poke in it.
And let me encourage you not to interpret everyone who disagrees with your sexual orientation as an attack. People can disagree with each other without attacking each other. I know there are Christians and other faiths that strongly condemn or persecute or even kill homosexuals. But there are also many (especially Christians) who perhaps oppose the practice while embracing the practitioner as a fellow sinner. Just because our sins are different doesn't make me a better person than you. I honestly consider you one of my favorite posters on this site, and I would be pleased if we ever had the opportunity to personally meet.
I'm not sure if I have said anything that offends anyone... looking back, I think I've made it clear that I don't believe in any of the current religions, and that I oppose religion being used as the basis for law. But I don't disapprove of anyone's right to follow whatever religion they want, as long as they don't impinge upon other people's freedoms.
Religion could be right - and I could be wrong. I don't think so, but it could be.
By contrast, it is some religious members who have made it clear that they disapprove of some folk's lifestyle. I imagine that public disapproval would be more offensive than believing something different, or opting for a different personal lifestyle. So I would not be surprised if Bingowing, for example, was offended.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
Bingowings said:
Organised religion is not the same as personal faith.
but they can be connected.
Bingowings said:
It's an international political entity and I have as much right to mock it as I have to mock Communism, Consumerism or Fascism.
you have to right to mock anything you want, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Can't you criticize without mocking?
At the top of the page, Domino's is offering me 50% off a pizza. I think I'm gonna take them up on that offer, watch some basketball, and chill out. After all, pizza and basketball, that's my religion. ;-)
I want that ad :(
A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em
Of course I'm entitled do say what I wish on the subject.
And it is an attack to say it's wrong for me to be a homosexual.
I don't belong to any of your clubs so I am outside the rules of your clubs. My initial burst of indignation came as a response to Trooperman claiming I was afflicted and without morals.
Trooperman invaded the Star Wars boards to announce that the current Pope is Jesus Christ.
Gay sex is not for everyone. I wouldn't force it on anyone so why should I have heterosexuality or abstinence pushed my way by people I have no romantic attachment to?
There are lots of reasons why I don't have sex every time the thought of it pops into my head that have nothing to do with religion or biology.
I can't stop people from getting their political rocks off by reading the demented writings of Hitler.
But I can mock them.
If the Biblical references to laying with a man as a woman and stoning to death aren't essential reading why keep them? Just put it in the weird stuff we used to believe drawer (like the flat Earth being the center of the universe) and stop going on about it.
People might be more drawn to the positive aspects of some religious thought if the vile ugly side was sanded off.
All the while those passages are selectively chosen, dusted off and used to limit my political freedoms or justify some act of violence against someone in a similar situation to myself I will feel entitled to critique and mock and I will.
I'm glad it's just a mild irritation though.
Warbler said:
Bingowings said:
Organised religion is not the same as personal faith.
but they can be connected.
They are as connected as the Pope is to Spock's brother.
Bingowings said:
Warbler said:
Bingowings said:
Organised religion is not the same as personal faith.
but they can be connected.
They are as connected as the Pope is to Spock's brother.
whatever.
Bingowings said:
Of course I'm entitled do say what I wish on the subject.
And it is an attack to say it's wrong for me to be a homosexual.
I don't belong to any of your clubs so I am outside the rules of your clubs.
of course no one is forcing you obey the rules of 'my club', and I'd be against that. But the rules of 'my club' are believed to be handed by God, so they therefore apply to anyone.
Bingowings said:
My initial burst of indignation came as a response to Trooperman claiming I was afflicted and without morals.
I didn't see that he said that.
Bingowings said:
Trooperman invaded the Star Wars boards to announce that the current Pope is Jesus Christ.
yeah, that was stupid.
Bingowings said:
Gay sex is not for everyone. I wouldn't force it on anyone so why should I have heterosexuality or abstinence pushed my way by people I have no romantic attachment to?
I am not pushing anything your way. I was merely saying what I believe. Live your life how you want, do as you will. You don't answer to me, but if God doesn't like what you do well, that is between you and him.
Bingowings said:
There are lots of reasons why I don't have sex every time the thought of it pops into my head that have nothing to do with religion or biology.
of course, but I am not sure what that has to do with anything.
Bingowings said:
I can't stop people from getting their political rocks off by reading the demented writings of Hitler.
But I can mock them.
If the Biblical references to laying with a man as a woman and stoning to death aren't essential reading why keep them? Just put it in the weird stuff we used to believe drawer (like the flat Earth being the center of the universe) and stop going on about it.
People might be more drawn to the positive aspects of some religious thought if the vile ugly side was sanded off.
All the while those passages are selectively chosen, dusted off and used to limit my political freedoms or justify some act of violence against someone in a similar situation to myself I will feel entitled to critique and mock and I will.
sorry, but while I would not do or believe everything in that Book, and I not just going to rip out passages of it willy-nilly.
I am sorry that some passages of the Bible are used/abused to justify limiting your political freedoms and to justify violence towards those like you. All I can say is that I do not do that and I am opposed to it. Read my posts in the political thread if you don't believe me.
mock the people that do that if you want, but could you leave what I and other hold sacred out of it?
Try and tone down the rhetoric and look what happens. I was even providing compliments. As much as I have to say (and as many posts as I would like to reply to), I think I'm better off sticking to my original plan for now and resuming my vow of silence. I use my time better when I do.