Demonizing people

[Sorcerer]

Mod note: Thread split from http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140861-Faith-Healing-and-Government-s-role-in-religious-belief&p=3164737#post3164737

I never said religion was. Religious notions of morality are just as made-up as secular notions of morality. There is no objective right or wrong.
There is, however, social stability; best secured by the government ensuring the welfare of the people. Which, to me, includes the ability of individuals and groups to do as they please so long as they avoid harming others. This is clearly an instance where someone gets hurt, so yes it's proper for the state to be involved. But if it were not such a clear-cut case of someone getting hurt, I would figure that religious freedom is good for social stability.

I suppose you could say that religion demonising gay people might be good for social stability. After all, hating a small minority draws everyone together, no? The fact that some people might take matters into their own hands and attack or kill said gay people is not a clear-cut case, so that's all right then?

 

[Hapsburg]

I suppose you could say that religion demonising gay people might be good for social stability. After all, hating a small minority draws everyone together, no? The fact that some people might take matters into their own hands and attack or kill said gay people is not a clear-cut case, so that's all right then?

I don't where you could get that interpretation from. Hatred of minorities is always harmful. Doubly so if you're, yanno, hurting them. That's about as clear-cut as it gets.

 

[Sorcerer]

I don't where you could get that interpretation from. Hatred of minorities is always harmful. Doubly so if you're, yanno, hurting them. That's about as clear-cut as it gets.

So that puts quite a few religious groups on the wrong side of the morality debate. Islam of every shade and colour, the Catholic church, and a wide range of US fundamentalist Christian groups, Evangelicals, and fundamentalist Jews too. Probably others as well, but I'm no expert on religion so I couldn't say. So these people shouldn't be allowed to do as they please, because if they do they will be harming others. So you agree that the government should take action to prevent them demonising gay people or other minorities, and women in the case of some of them?

 

[Syne]

False dilemma there, Sorcerer.

That is equivalent to saying that law promotes vigilantism, since criminals are demonized and some people take to meting out punishment themselves. People can have views without breaking the law, and those who do break the law do not necessarily reflect on the morality of some opinion. Just like vigilantism does not condemn the law for telling us that criminals are bad.

 

[Sorcerer]

False dilemma there, Sorcerer.

That is equivalent to saying that law promotes vigilantism, since criminals are demonized and some people take to meting out punishment themselves. People can have views without breaking the law, and those who do break the law do not necessarily reflect on the morality of some opinion. Just like vigilantism does not condemn the law for telling us that criminals are bad.

Are you conflating criminals and gay people? You'd better not be since gays are not breaking the law.

To get back to the proposal, should the demonisation of women and gays which can cause harm be an issue that the government should be concerned with? In my view probably yes, but there should be a debate about it.

I don't have any issue with people holding particular views, for example racism and sexism, but I object to people saying that blacks and women are inferior in status to everyone else, or less worthy, or trying to demonise them. The same thing in my mind relates to other minorities too.

 

[spidergoat]

So that puts quite a few religious groups on the wrong side of the morality debate. Islam of every shade and colour, the Catholic church, and a wide range of US fundamentalist Christian groups, Evangelicals, and fundamentalist Jews too. Probably others as well, but I'm no expert on religion so I couldn't say. So these people shouldn't be allowed to do as they please, because if they do they will be harming others. So you agree that the government should take action to prevent them demonising gay people or other minorities, and women in the case of some of them?

Obviously, it's called secularism.

 

[Syne]

Are you conflating criminals and gay people? You'd better not be since gays are not breaking the law.

To get back to the proposal, should the demonisation of women and gays which can cause harm be an issue that the government should be concerned with? In my view probably yes, but there should be a debate about it.

I don't have any issue with people holding particular views, for example racism and sexism, but I object to people saying that blacks and women are inferior in status to everyone else, or less worthy, or trying to demonise them. The same thing in my mind relates to other minorities too.

It is called an analogy, not conflating anything. And in both cases people can refrain from demonizing the person while condemning the behavior. Saying a behavior is wrong, immoral, etc. does not necessarily reflect on the basic nature of the person, as many well-meaning people do questionable things.

 

[Bells]

It is called an analogy, not conflating anything. And in both cases people can refrain from demonizing the person while condemning the behavior. Saying a behavior is wrong, immoral, etc. does not necessarily reflect on the basic nature of the person, as many well-meaning people do questionable things.

Pretty bad analogy. And in the next sentence to suggest that homosexuality is a "behaviour", somehow comparable to be condemned along with criminal behaviour - or did you mean something else when you said "in both cases"?

 

[Syne]

Pretty bad analogy. And in the next sentence to suggest that homosexuality is a "behaviour", somehow comparable to be condemned along with criminal behaviour - or did you mean something else when you said "in both cases"?

Engaging in homosexual activities (i.e. sexual activity with the same gender) IS behavior, only comparable because both are obviously condemned by some people. This should be readily obvious. The only problem with the analogy seems to be that some people do not readily distinguish their appraisals of actions from their appraisals of the people themselves, hence they equate disapproval of one as demonizing of the other.

 

[Kittamaru]

Engaging in homosexual activities (i.e. sexual activity with the same gender) IS behavior, only comparable because both are obviously condemned by some people. This should be readily obvious. The only problem with the analogy seems to be that some people do not readily distinguish their appraisals of actions from their appraisals of the people themselves, hence they equate disapproval of one as demonizing of the other.

Full Definition of BEHAVIOR

1
a : the manner of conducting oneself
b : anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation
c : the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment
2
: the way in which someone behaves; also : an instance of such behavior
3
: the way in which something functions or operates

Technically speaking, one could label homosexuality as a behavior... though I would dare say it is using a different meaning of the term behavior than the type used to describe a child's temper tantrum or the willful choice a criminal makes in engaging in illegal activity. Homosexuality isn't a choice... it's just what comes naturally to some people.

A friend of mine, who is bisexual, and I were talking, and I asked him... how do you like both? I explained that it didn't matter to me and I held no contempt because of it, but was merely curious - as a straight guy, I didn't have any reference point on the matter; sure, I can look at a guy and go damn... he's hot... I wouldn't mind looking like that (Heath Ledger), but there was no romantic or sexual desire there.

He looked at me and grinned, and asked "Do you like McDonalds?" And I'm like, yeah. then he said "Do you like Wendy's" and I said Yeah.

He laughed and said "then you're bi"

Apparently it's really that simple - it isn't a "choice", it's just how one innately feels. In this case, how a homosexual or bisexual (or even transgender or other) feels is NOT hurting anyone... so why are we condemning it at all? What right do we have to state that what they honestly feel is "wrong"? One could use the same argument for child rapists and jihadists... but there is a major difference. Child rapists and jihadists HURT others and violate THEIR rights. A gay/bi/et al person DOES NOT.

 

[Sorcerer]

Technically speaking, one could label homosexuality as a behavior... though I would dare say it is using a different meaning of the term behavior than the type used to describe a child's temper tantrum or the willful choice a criminal makes in engaging in illegal activity. Homosexuality isn't a choice... it's just what comes naturally to some people.

A friend of mine, who is bisexual, and I were talking, and I asked him... how do you like both? I explained that it didn't matter to me and I held no contempt because of it, but was merely curious - as a straight guy, I didn't have any reference point on the matter; sure, I can look at a guy and go damn... he's hot... I wouldn't mind looking like that (Heath Ledger), but there was no romantic or sexual desire there.

He looked at me and grinned, and asked "Do you like McDonalds?" And I'm like, yeah. then he said "Do you like Wendy's" and I said Yeah.

He laughed and said "then you're bi"

Apparently it's really that simple - it isn't a "choice", it's just how one innately feels. In this case, how a homosexual or bisexual (or even transgender or other) feels is NOT hurting anyone... so why are we condemning it at all? What right do we have to state that what they honestly feel is "wrong"? One could use the same argument for child rapists and jihadists... but there is a major difference. Child rapists and jihadists HURT others and violate THEIR rights. A gay/bi/et al person DOES NOT.

Well said Kittamaru. I couldn't have put it better.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

A gay/bi/et al person DOES NOT.

Homophobes typically believe that homosexuality is a choice, rather than a trait one is born with. Thus in their world view, there comes a time in (some/many/all?) people's lives when they/you/we are required to choose their sexuality.

They also believe that, deep down inside, gay people are unhappy because their sexuality conflicts with nature.

If there are gay people walking around with the same freedoms and opportunities that everyone else has, then according to the homophobes, these people will serve as role models who will make it easier for the rest of us to choose homosexuality. Particularly children, since the majority of homophobes seem to believe that this is the stage of life during which one chooses one's sexuality.

Therefore, openly gay people, in a society that allows them to be openly gay, give children the idea that it's okay for them to choose to be homosexual. This sets them up for a lifetime of unhappiness because of the aforementioned alleged conflict with nature.

If, on the other hand, gay people are forced by law and custom to avoid letting their sexuality be known, children will believe that everyone is heterosexual. So the idea of being homosexual will not occur to them, and they will have happy lives.

Of course there's a logical fallacy here. According to the homophobes, preventing gay people from making their sexuality known will prevent children from choosing to be homosexual. So the question remains: Where, then, did all the gay people come from?

 

[Syne]

Engaging in homosexual activities (i.e. sexual activity with the same gender) IS behavior, only comparable because both are obviously condemned by some people. This should be readily obvious. The only problem with the analogy seems to be that some people do not readily distinguish their appraisals of actions from their appraisals of the people themselves, hence they equate disapproval of one as demonizing of the other.

Technically speaking, one could label homosexuality as a behavior... though I would dare say it is using a different meaning of the term behavior than the type used to describe a child's temper tantrum or the willful choice a criminal makes in engaging in illegal activity. Homosexuality isn't a choice... it's just what comes naturally to some people.

Um, where did I mention orientation? I specified "homosexual activities (i.e. sexual activity with the same gender)", which is an action indicative of behavior. And since when is behavior strictly "willful"? Even your definition includes "response to stimulation" which can encompass involuntary reaction.

Apparently it's really that simple - it isn't a "choice", it's just how one innately feels. In this case, how a homosexual or bisexual (or even transgender or other) feels is NOT hurting anyone... so why are we condemning it at all? What right do we have to state that what they honestly feel is "wrong"? One could use the same argument for child rapists and jihadists... but there is a major difference. Child rapists and jihadists HURT others and violate THEIR rights. A gay/bi/et al person DOES NOT.

A gambling addict does not necessarily hurt anyone, break the law, or feel they have a "choice" either. Is that behavior then beyond reproach? They will even often identify themselves as gamblers, as an innate part of their identity. It is who they are and what they do.

My point is that you can condemn the actions without demonizing the person. You may consider it none of anyone's business, but then you are condemning behavior that is not necessarily hurting anyone as well. Like I said earlier, I can see why you would have a problem with it, but only if you conflate condemning behavior with demonizing the person.

Everyone has a right to their opinion (barring the advent of thought-police ala 1984), including the capacity to disagree about what is "right". This is because they feel it is "wrong", and if you lend credence to one person's subjective feeling you are obliged to do so of the other. Most people who hold a moral opinion of something also do not feel that they have a choice in the matter, short of willful immorality.

 

[Balerion]

Oh, right, I totally forgot Syne's anti-gay position.

Congrats on the hire again, guys!

 

[paddoboy]

Oh, right, I totally forgot Syne's anti-gay position.

Congrats on the hire again, guys!

The Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras on in Sydney tonight. [Have never watched it at all :shrug: ]

I like being gay....as in "happy" and what it meant when I was a young bloke.

 

[Bells]

The Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras on in Sydney tonight. [Have never watched it at all :shrug: ]

I like being gay....as in "happy" and what it meant when I was a young bloke.

I would have loved to have taken the kids again this year. Alas, was unable to. Hopefully next year!

---

Engaging in homosexual activities (i.e. sexual activity with the same gender) IS behavior, only comparable because both are obviously condemned by some people. This should be readily obvious. The only problem with the analogy seems to be that some people do not readily distinguish their appraisals of actions from their appraisals of the people themselves, hence they equate disapproval of one as demonizing of the other.

What do you mean by homosexual activities?

How do you define what is a homosexual activity?

Have sex? Kiss? Hold hands? Fall in love? Get married? Have kids? And all that comes inbetween? Heterosexual people do that as well, so it can hardly be deemed to be a "homosexual activity", since the "activity" is performed by the greater majority, so to determine that it only applies to a group of people is setting them apart and to compare it to a criminal activity, as per your example, is offensive in nature.

Um, where did I mention orientation? I specified "homosexual activities (i.e. sexual activity with the same gender)", which is an action indicative of behavior.

Wow.

A gambling addict does not necessarily hurt anyone, break the law, or feel they have a "choice" either. Is that behavior then beyond reproach? They will even often identify themselves as gamblers, as an innate part of their identity. It is who they are and what they do.

My point is that you can condemn the actions without demonizing the person. You may consider it none of anyone's business, but then you are condemning behavior that is not necessarily hurting anyone as well. Like I said earlier, I can see why you would have a problem with it, but only if you conflate condemning behavior with demonizing the person.

What homosexual behaviour requires condemnation?

Everyone has a right to their opinion (barring the advent of thought-police ala 1984), including the capacity to disagree about what is "right". This is because they feel it is "wrong", and of you lend credence to one person's subjective feeling you are obliged to do so of the other. Most people who hold a moral opinion of something also do not feel that they have a choice in the matter, sort of willful immorality.

But there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, or as you put it, "homosexual behaviour".

It is not immoral and is not harmful. Thus I fail to see how or why it should be set apart and condemned or compared to criminal activity.

 

[Syne]

What do you mean by homosexual activities?

How do you define what is a homosexual activity?

Have sex? Kiss? Hold hands? Fall in love? Get married? Have kids? And all that comes inbetween? Heterosexual people do that as well, so it can hardly be deemed to be a "homosexual activity", since the "activity" is performed by the greater majority, so to determine that it only applies to a group of people is setting them apart and to compare it to a criminal activity, as per your example, is offensive in nature.

Already defined in the parentheses.

What homosexual behaviour requires condemnation?

Where did I say anything "requires" condemnation?

But there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, or as you put it, "homosexual behaviour".

It is not immoral and is not harmful. Thus I fail to see how or why it should be set apart and condemned or compared to criminal activity.

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to.

 

[TheHun]

I would have loved to have taken the kids again this year. Alas, was unable to. Hopefully next year!

---

What do you mean by homosexual activities?

How do you define what is a homosexual activity?

Well, you know, it’s the equivalent of heterosexual behavior: living, loving, marrying, kids, in-laws, taxes, that whole thing.

Have sex? Kiss? Hold hands? Fall in love? Get married? Have kids? And all that comes inbetween? Heterosexual people do that as well, so it can hardly be deemed to be a "homosexual activity", since the "activity" is performed by the greater majority, so to determine that it only applies to a group of people is setting them apart and to compare it to a criminal activity, as per your example, is offensive in nature.

Wow.

Yeah, isn’t it just horrible what those heterosexual people do? Seriously, how offensive and on top of that it happens in public, on TV, in movies, just gross that we have to see that.

What homosexual behaviour requires condemnation?

But there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, or as you put it, "homosexual behaviour".

It is not immoral and is not harmful. Thus I fail to see how or why it should be set apart and condemned or compared to criminal activity.

Grow up, all that “behavior ” needs to be condemned in total. Gee, do you really want to be thrown out of the robot league for all that humanish behavior? We all know that feelings and emotions don’t belong in a sexless robot world. Shame on all you hetero-homo-metrosexuals, acting like people.

 

[Magical Realist]

A gambling addict does not necessarily hurt anyone, break the law, or feel they have a "choice" either. Is that behavior then beyond reproach? They will even often identify themselves as gamblers, as an innate part of their identity. It is who they are and what they do.

So now we're comparing gay people to gambling addicts? As if their behavior doesn't in fact spring from precisely who they are and their own natures as same-sex oriented human beings. The old "gayness as a disease or sickness of the mind" ploy. As if gay people are really straight people who have somehow become addicted to being gay. What a complete load of homophobic crap. I personally find this very offensive being gay myself. Should I report it in line with the "no vilification of groups of people based on their sexual orientation" rule? Only if I thought it'd do any good.

 

[quinnsong]

So now we're comparing gay people to gambling addicts? As if their behavior doesn't in fact spring from precisely who they are and their own natures as same-sex oriented human beings. The old "gayness as a disease or sickness of the mind" ploy. As if gay people are really straight people who have somehow become addicted to being gay. What a complete load of homophobic crap. I personally find this very offensive being gay myself. Should I report it in line with the "no vilification of groups of people based on their sexual orientation" rule? Only if I thought it'd do any good.

Yes! Why not say that being hetero is comparable to gambliing addicts or criminal behavior, after all it is sexual behavior too.