Demonizing people
- Thread starter Sorcerer
- Start date
Condemnation, persecution and intolerance some of the adjectives thrown around by some Christians when describing how they feel by others that disagree with their worldview and their religious belief. Let me make this clear YOU ARE NOT THE VICTIM! Stop YOUR condemnation, YOUR persecution and YOUR intolerance and I can assure you noone here would care less what you believe and how you edify yourselves. Just that simple. People tend to get back what they give and if you give judgement you are going to get it back and for some to call foul when they themselves are guilty and brought it upon themselves is laughable and falls on deaf ears.
This is exactly correct. We have had complaints about 'militant' atheism but the single simple issue is that that it is the religionists who are condemning and persecuting women and minorities, attempting to influence public policy, trying to stop scientific studies in schools and promote creationism and intelligent design, which are lies. I don't care what superstitious nonsense people believe as long as they keep it to themselves. Do it behind closed doors and no one is going to try and persecute you - well, unless you live in Saudi, of course, where Christian worship is banned... but that's the religionists for you: they hate each other even more than they hate atheists and gay people.
At least I'm fortunate that I live in France which, along with most of Europe, is a secular society which allows gay people the same rights as everyone else. We have gay marriage here, which has also been legalised in England, and we can go about our business without the religious fundos on our backs. The US is moving in the direction of equal rights for gay people too, as the 'Gay Fray' thread shows, in spite of people like Ardena.
At least I'm fortunate that I live in France which, along with most of Europe, is a secular society which allows gay people the same rights as everyone else. We have gay marriage here, which has also been legalised in England, and we can go about our business without the religious fundos on our backs. The US is moving in the direction of equal rights for gay people too, as the 'Gay Fray' thread shows, in spite of people like Ardena.
there really isn't..
Jan stated her opinion.
others have stated theirs.
anything else is an attempt to change the others opinion.
how many times has that happened?
quinnsong said:
95% of the time when someone accuses , they themselves are guilty of what they accuse.
and not just the religious, the Religious just make it obvious
(note:there is a distinction between Christian and religious, not all Christians are religious)
Bells
Staff member
You have yet to explain why homosexual is unnatural. Can you please cite some scientific evidence which supports your argument?
Okay...
Where do you think the line should be drawn?
Two consenting adults who are attracted to each other and wish to be together. Why do you think your personal religious views should infringe on their equal human rights? Why should your personal religious beliefs allow you to condemn them for how they are born? God never gave you that right. So why do you judge and condemn? Why do you define it as unnatural when under every single definition, it is not unnatural but as nature intended?
Do you think it is a choice?
Can you control which sex you are attracted to?
Because this is somehow comparable to homosexuality?
Then perhaps you should stop posting as if you are.
When your opinion is based on bigotry and homophobia, and is scientifically and factually incorrect, why are you voicing such opinions?
But why are you concerned about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Why aren't you expressing the same concern about heterosexual couples?
Why should you have a say about how consenting adults have sex and with whom? Is it any of your business?
He is expressing dislike at people using religion as a basis to hate and discriminate and demonize and condemn for their sexuality.
No, you are homophobic because you can't even recognise homosexuals as human beings deserving of equal rights and protection.
Bells,
Nothing that we do is unnatural, so even if there were scientific studies on such matters it would ultimately be based personal opinion. Regarding marriage, it is unnatural according to what marriage represents and has always represented, which is my opinion.
And you are of a different opinion.
Where have I condemned them for how they are born, or whether or not they should be together? I haven't even said they shouldn't get married.
We all have choices.
Yes, and I do.
No. We're talking about women marrying canines.
I don't post as if I do. I express my opinion just like anyone else, on any other subject. Show me where you're any different?
It's quite possible that you think my opinion is based on these traits, because you are biased towards the things I disagree with.
Where have I expressed concern about what people do in their bedrooms, homo or hetero-sexual?
We were talking about women marrying dogs.
Why don't you ask the appropriate question: ''Why should I express my opinion in forum''?, because as far as you're concerned, that's what I'm doing, and forums like this are here for that purpose.
What about people who don't use religion in that way?
That's how you see that post?
jan.
Nothing that we do is unnatural, so even if there were scientific studies on such matters it would ultimately be based personal opinion. Regarding marriage, it is unnatural according to what marriage represents and has always represented, which is my opinion.
And you are of a different opinion.
Where have I condemned them for how they are born, or whether or not they should be together? I haven't even said they shouldn't get married.
We all have choices.
Yes, and I do.
No. We're talking about women marrying canines.
I don't post as if I do. I express my opinion just like anyone else, on any other subject. Show me where you're any different?
It's quite possible that you think my opinion is based on these traits, because you are biased towards the things I disagree with.
Where have I expressed concern about what people do in their bedrooms, homo or hetero-sexual?
We were talking about women marrying dogs.
Why don't you ask the appropriate question: ''Why should I express my opinion in forum''?, because as far as you're concerned, that's what I'm doing, and forums like this are here for that purpose.
What about people who don't use religion in that way?
That's how you see that post?
jan.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Are you kidding? If we took away Christians' right to marry, called their acts of making love an abomination, denied them the right to adopt kids, outlawed Christian sex in all 50 states, committed hatecrimes on them by beating them up and/or vandalizing their property, denied them services just because they were Christian, set up special camps to cure Christian youth from being Christian, and regularly accused them of being childmolesters, unnatural perverts, mental cases, and rebels against God, the outcries of being victims would be so loud and endless it would be unbearable. Just one day of being treated how they treat us would make them realize how immoral and bigoted they are truly being. Ah but then we could always use THEIR comeback: "It's our right to treat you that way. It's what we believe. You're just being too politically correct."
Bells
Staff member
Science is personal opinion?
Marriage has had a bizarre history and what it represented has changed drastically through time, from marrying one's siblings to marrying ghosts and spirits to being solely to protect the financial interest of the parties to ensuring it is all in the family.
So which representation of marriage do you apply this rule to?
By your very posts. By your arguing that it is not natural in response to my discussion with Roger_Pearse. By your comments about how the civil rights movement was to protect human beings while distancing the civil rights movement for homosexual away from that..
Yes we do.
So why did you choose to be a homophobe?
Then you would be the first.Yes, and I do.
Which sex do you choose to not be attracted to?
My question stands. How is it even comparable?
I'm not a homophobe. You are.
Perhaps. Having been on the receiving end of racist bigotry and hatred, I recognise the argument people like you make anywhere. It's blatant. Same shit, different day.
Did you forget your own words?
"Being concerned about what people do, or even expressing concern isn't the same as ''having a say'' in what other people do (unless one expresses it for public consumption). "
Is that what you think you are doing?
When you alluded to paedophiles and rapists in comparison to choice and homosexuality, was that an opinion or further need to denigrate and offend members on this site - straight and gay alike?
You have yet to provide scientific proof that it is a lifestyle choice as you tried to claim earlier in the thread. The thing with you, Jan, is that you never back up your claims or your opinions.
My favourite obscene comment from you was when you claimed that homosexuals would fall under the ''adulterers and sexual perverts of the text" and then in the next sentence claim that you don't think homosexuals are demonised. Tell me, is this how you don't condemn someone for how they are born?
You aren't fooling anyone here Jan. We've all seen you try to play this game too many times to count.
What about them?
You aren't them.
That's how we all saw that post.
And you know that because several asked you about it.
Bells,
No. Which is why your challenge to Roger Pearce, and myself, were totally unreasonable.
I'm not talking about the history of marriage. Marriage has always been understood as a union between male and female.
What marriage represents.
Seeing as your not divulging any information I'll assume you mean this... ''The homosexual is discriminated against purely for his/her lifestyle choice. The AA had absolutely no choice in the matter.'' Am I correct?
If yes where is the condemnation?
I'm not a homophobe, and you've yet to explain why you think I am.
I'd be the first one to control which gender I'm sexually attracted to? No I wouldn't be.
I don't have to choose.
If it was indeed meant to be comparable to homosexuality, then you'd best ask (Q) as he was the one who claimed that women are marrying dogs.
Insubstantial claim which you have failed to back up.
In this case I think you're wrong.
...
I'm still waiting for my concern about what people do in the bedroom. Did you forget your own words?
''But why are you concerned about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Why aren't you expressing the same concern about heterosexual couples?''
Balerion said: Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice, any more than heterosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Sexuality is as immutable a quality as skin color.
Balerion himself narrowed it down to ''Sexuality''. But he put homo and hetero-ysexuality on equal footing, and my question to him was based on the entire point he made. So again, you are incorrect.
Where is the scientific proof that it's not a lifestyle choice?
Well let me ask you. I can vaguely remember the text, but do you think the homosexuality would be classed as a sexual perversion in the Bible?
I didn't condemn them, I said that homosexuality would come under ''sexual perversion'' because that's how it's seen, along with adultery, which I have mentioned before, but you only seem interested in homosexuality.
I'm not playing games.
You just don't like people who disagree with you.
jan.
No. Which is why your challenge to Roger Pearce, and myself, were totally unreasonable.
I'm not talking about the history of marriage. Marriage has always been understood as a union between male and female.
What marriage represents.
Seeing as your not divulging any information I'll assume you mean this... ''The homosexual is discriminated against purely for his/her lifestyle choice. The AA had absolutely no choice in the matter.'' Am I correct?
If yes where is the condemnation?
I'm not a homophobe, and you've yet to explain why you think I am.
I'd be the first one to control which gender I'm sexually attracted to? No I wouldn't be.
I don't have to choose.
If it was indeed meant to be comparable to homosexuality, then you'd best ask (Q) as he was the one who claimed that women are marrying dogs.
Insubstantial claim which you have failed to back up.
In this case I think you're wrong.
...
I'm still waiting for my concern about what people do in the bedroom. Did you forget your own words?
''But why are you concerned about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Why aren't you expressing the same concern about heterosexual couples?''
Balerion said: Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice, any more than heterosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Sexuality is as immutable a quality as skin color.
Balerion himself narrowed it down to ''Sexuality''. But he put homo and hetero-ysexuality on equal footing, and my question to him was based on the entire point he made. So again, you are incorrect.
Where is the scientific proof that it's not a lifestyle choice?
Well let me ask you. I can vaguely remember the text, but do you think the homosexuality would be classed as a sexual perversion in the Bible?
I didn't condemn them, I said that homosexuality would come under ''sexual perversion'' because that's how it's seen, along with adultery, which I have mentioned before, but you only seem interested in homosexuality.
I'm not playing games.
You just don't like people who disagree with you.
jan.
Equating homosexual relationships to bestiality, attempting to claim that judging others for having differing views isn't condemning someone for who they are, claiming you sexual development was a conscious choice, etc
Kittamaru,
1, Where?
2. ???
3. i claimed that I control which gender I'm sexually attracted to.
jan.
1, Where?
2. ???
3. i claimed that I control which gender I'm sexually attracted to.
jan.
Bells
Staff member
Perhaps you think we are too stupid to recognise the role and game you are playing here. But we know you jan. We've seen you pull these trolling stunts so many times.
You aren't that clever.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Wow..You hang around in a science forum and you don't even know THIS?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...esearchers-claim-controversial-new-study.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...s-inherited-through-mens-mothers-1485079.html
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
No..that ISN'T how it's seen.The majority now views homosexuality as totally morally acceptable.
Uh, jan, if you're suggesting that you can go back and forth between being attracted to males or females, I have some news for you...
??You are expressing an opinion on it.
You are free to do so. You can denigrate blacks, gays, women etc. However, you will then (rightly) be labeled a racist, homophobe and/or misogynist. If you don't like that, then your two options are:
1) Stop being racist, homophobic or misogynistic
2) Deal with the fact that other people recognize that in you
No, you are homophobic because you compare gays to dogs.
(emphasis mine)
Then you are talking about the history of marriage. I mean, fucking duh.
What does it represent?
Everyone has explained why you are. You've chosen to pretend they haven't.
You're going to have to explain this one, Jan. How is it you "control" which gender you're attracted to? How does that work, exactly?
You just said you did. You said you control which gender you're attracted to.
There are mounds of scientific studies suggesting that sexuality is innate. You're probably looking for the "gay gene," but I suspect it's not that simple, and what you're asking for amounts to the anti-evolutionist's "croc-a-duck."
So instead of clearing the air and making your own beliefs known, you're going to do this dance instead? Then allow me to cut through the BS and get to the point: Do you consider homosexuality to be a sexual perversion?
People generally seem to be failing to evaluate opinions in their own context. For example:
"attempting to claim that judging others for having differing views isn't condemning someone for who they are"
This seems to assume that behavior cannot be distinguished from identity. This is a reductionist view, in which the whole (identity) is thought to be entirely accounted for by the parts (behaviors). The failure here is that the person (apparently conservative, for lack of a better label) likely does not share such a view. Where the reductionist is likely to assume any comment about behavior is equally about identity, the holist is capable of seeing the behaviors as separate from the irreducible identity.
This seems to be the sole basis on which the reductionist condemns the criticism of behavior as a demonizing of the individual. It is simply a false assumption that their own reductionist context has any real bearing on the holistic opinion. We might surmise that this is an inability to fathom philosophically opposing context or that people are actively "playing dumb" as justification for hyperbolic rhetoric.
"attempting to claim that judging others for having differing views isn't condemning someone for who they are"
This seems to assume that behavior cannot be distinguished from identity. This is a reductionist view, in which the whole (identity) is thought to be entirely accounted for by the parts (behaviors). The failure here is that the person (apparently conservative, for lack of a better label) likely does not share such a view. Where the reductionist is likely to assume any comment about behavior is equally about identity, the holist is capable of seeing the behaviors as separate from the irreducible identity.
This seems to be the sole basis on which the reductionist condemns the criticism of behavior as a demonizing of the individual. It is simply a false assumption that their own reductionist context has any real bearing on the holistic opinion. We might surmise that this is an inability to fathom philosophically opposing context or that people are actively "playing dumb" as justification for hyperbolic rhetoric.