Jodi posted
Please explain to me how someone can be legitimately hurt by something that has no effect on them, happens out of their kenning, does not involve them, and does not in any way require their consent. I do not consider being offended by things one encounters being an invasive, meddling busybody legitimate; if such people do not want to be hurt by the knowledge that people are doing things, they should not seek that information.
I could not have asked for a better example of how astonishingly badly you misconstrue my posts.
If you’ve somehow come to the conclusion that I think gaybashing is funny, I have no way of convincing you that when I say red, I do not mean blue, and when I say love I do not mean hate.
In other words, you’re deliberately being bizarrely obtuse.
Lilairen wrote:
I suppose fitting them with a device that gave them an electrical shock every time a certain gay couple had sex would be cheating.
I’m increasingly enamored of the idea, though.
In hypocrisy he had worn the mask of goodness. – Oscar Wilde
Yep, ya done gone worn that mask.
Well that’s about the crux of the question of the issue, isn’t it - Is calling it a sin anti-gay?
Very succinct.
Esprix
After reading MrVisibles posts I want to beat up gay people. So obviously what he is doing is furthering hate and violence. Which is immoral. So he should stop.
Or…?
There are a large number of Christian groups that proclaim the belief that divorce is a sin. Is a person who holds that belief guilty of an immoral or hateful act against divorced people?
There are a smaller number of people who (for a variety of reasons) believe that eating meat is unethical. Is a person who holds that belief guilty of an immoral or hateful act against people who eat meat?
Could you give me some appropriate contemporary cites of people discriminated against, beaten up, ridiculed, shunned or killed because they were either divorced or they ate meat?
Thanks so much.
Esprix
Why? The difference is exactly the point of my question. I do know people who have been shunned and suffered social ostracization because they had divorced. Carnivores and omnivores are so much the majority that they are in no danger from those who oppose such actions.
The statement has been made that simply holding the belief that homosexuality is sinful is a hateful act. I am curious as to the general logic.
As a Catholic, I am aware that many people consider me a worshipper of idols ('cause Catholic churches use statuary) and a worshipper of false gods ('cause of the RCC approach to the communion of saints). I have, indeed, been subjected to harrassment based on the attitudes of people who believe I am sinning. On the other hand, I know a great number of people who hold those beliefs towards me (and all Catholics) who do not threaten me in any way and who would (and have) actually go (gone) out of their way to do me kindnesses, regardless of their beliefs. (And, stepping back a generation, my parents were actually subjected to genuine harrassment, denial of jobs, difficulty in located housing, etc. because of their Catholicism, yet among the people who were hateful were people who shared the same beliefs who were not hateful.)
In that, I perceive the difference that Jodi was attempting to express. I do understand the logic that proceeds from a general attitude that homosexuality is wrong through various steps to actual support (active or tacit) for genuine abuse. I can see where one would want to draw the line for “support” as close to the original belief as possible. I am just curious as to whether that perception is a universal perception for all such cases, whether those who are arguing that belief equals abuse extend the same equation to all beliefs, or see homosexuality as a unique.
I cannot see how sexual orientation can be sinful, since sin requires volition and orientation does not. From there I do not believe that homosexual activity is more or less sinful than heterosexual activity.
I posed the question simply to discover whether there is a universal rule, or whether the fact that abuse has sprung from within the group that holds those beliefs indicates that any individual who shares those beliefs must be abusive.
In other words, are those who are arguing that belief equals abuse viewing that as true for all beliefs on all topics, or is homosexuality a special case?
I’ve been following this thread and trying to figure out a way to say this constructively. Having not been able to do so, let me try it the only way I can get it across.
Enough with the fucking whining, ok?
Some people are mean to you because they are gay, and it hurts your feelings, because you don’t like their attitude about homosexuality.
Tough shit.
It is inherently unhealthy to be overly concerned about what other people think about your personal choices and preferences.
Sometimes people are mean to gay people, or black people, or catholics, or Jews, or divorcees, or left-handed people. Beleive it or not some people are mean to white guys in suits because they figure they’re the bad guys.
These are assholes.
And, for the record, I think an act of homosexual sex is pretty much a sin. It’s a sin the same way masturbation, oral sex, or even recreational sex is a sin. All of these things fall into the category of using your body as a toy, which I guess is sinful. I don’t mean sinful, in terms of pissing off God, I mean sinful against oneself.
I’d like to think we as human beings exist for a higher purpose than to diddle around playing penis games with each other.
The fact of it is that most of us spend an inordinate of time diddling around with our penises or vaginas, or playing Pokemon, or doing all kinds of other things that really don’t serve a useful purpose (Or so I type, diddling about uselessly on the SDMB.)
One of the favorite pastimes of people who are diddling around not serving a useful purpose it to criticize how other people are choosing to diddle around while not serving a useful purpose.
And, I suppose it’s very post-modern and correct and fashionable from a societal standpoint to take it to the next level and criticize and belittle the people who are criticizing how other people are choosing to diddle around. But it’s all pretty much masturbation.
So, to sum it up:
Most of the time we are not serving a useful purpose, we are just diddling around. A great way to avoid serving a useful purpose is to criticize how other people are diddling around not serving useful purposes. This has the added bonus of distracting one from the fact that they are just diddling around serving no useful purpose. Now those original people who were being criticized for how they were serving no useful purpose can take their minds off the fact that they are serving no useful purpose by criticizing the hypocrisy of those who are criticizing them.
The circle jerk is complete.
Until the day comes when you are going to cure cancer, or solve world hunger with your penis, it really doesn’t matter. It’s just a toy that gives you a few fleeting moments of pleasure.
Grow up and stop focussing so much time and effort on it, and what other people think about it because unless you are going to be using your penis to bring about world peace it just doesn’t matter.
My advice is simple: Try to spend a lot of time serving some kind of useful purpose, because how and with whom you choose to play with your penis isn’t terribly important, and what other people think of it is less so.
Scylla, that was insightful!
…except it wasn’t.
To the extent that there is an abusive atmosphere surrounding people who divorce, who practice a particular religion, who have particular dietary choices, or any of a variety of other things, those who believe that those things are immoral, objectionable, wrong, whatever word you want here, are contributing to the abuse, yes.
Personally, my experience is that cultural abusiveness that is not focused on orientation is primarily on body types, with a lesser manifestation on religion, ethnicity, sex, and whether or not one has certain interests; also, that all of these abusive behaviours go both-or-all ways, often because of backlash overreactions. (I’m young enough that my culture-of-origin does not have divorce as a common category of contempt.)
Yes, and all I am reserving the right to say is that people who think homosexual sex is sinful are being assholes, no matter how good natured they are about it, and not have people tell me that well, it’s their deep held belief so don’t hold it against them. Good for them: it’s still a belief that I think is stupid and wrong and contributes to the lingering fucktardedness of the human race.
Your own theory of “sin” is, unless you extend your condemnation of diddling around to other forms of entertainment (you’re using your eyeballs as a mere toy with which to watch TV!), an even bigger joke. While fucking whining about what you think is fucking whining does not exactly start you off on the right foot, I think the bigger issue is that I like to think that it’s a GOOD thing that, after working my ass off to make sure homeless outreach actually works to help people off the streets and into housing instead of wasting taxpayer money, I’m not so royally fucked up in the head that I think I’m supposed to detest myself because I had the temerity to relax and jerk off this particular night, instead of engaging in some Scylla-approved recreational activity.
Summary: your views are stupid, and I AM serving a useful purpose by giving you the chance to realize it.
LILAIREN –
No, you explain that to me. You are the one defending the idea that a person merely holding a belief – or, God forbid, admitting it – a priori must be hurting someone, and somehow incurring the obligation therefore to stop either holding the belief or admitting it. So let’s apply your “legitimacy” test to the belief in question – leaving aside the issue of what on earth qualifies you to judge the “legitimacy” of someone else’s pain or offense: Has no effect on gay people? Check. (Remember, we’re just talking about having the belief, or admitting it. Nothing else.) Happens out of their knowledge? Check. Does not involve them? Check. Does not require their consent? Check.
So what, in your mind, is the difference? Is it that gay people know some people hold this belief? Well, surprise! The people holding the belief know gay people are having gay sex. So I ask you again: If simply being hurt or offended by a person’s moral belief is grounds enough to demand that the person either quit holding it, or at least quit admitting it, are you going to apply that rule to gay people as well?
(A) I do not consider you to be any judge of when a person’s offense or pain is “legitimate.” Who died and left you in charge of determining whose feelings are important enough to be protected, and whose are trivial enough to be dismissed? The fact that no one is qualified to make such a determination is precisely why it is not reasonable to say that some people get to be honest about what they belief, and some people don’t.
(B) Though if we’re now wading into the quagmire of “legitimacy,” I do not find taking offense or significant hurt from the beliefs of others to be particularly legitimate. Some people don’t like some things you do. If their disapproval is the extent of their negativity where you’re concerned, then get over it. Especially when the nature of their belief would indicate they are probably not people you’re going to respect anyway.
© The means by which the information is acquired regarding the belief or the orientation, is totally irrelevant. The question is, is finding someone else’s morality offensive or hurtful reason enough to muzzle them about it? This is the question I’m asking.
HOW??? How on earth to you go from “Believes X is immoral” to “contributes to the abuse of those doing X”? And in every single case? I mean, I don’t mind you wading into this debate late, but I hope you have something more insightful to add than “because I said so,” because as a rationale, that is absolute crap. Crap.
You can have it one of two ways. a) Words have no effect, so those who call gay sex sinful can go around with their consciences sparkly-clean, or b) words can hurt people, and therefore I’m an asshole, but the straight supremacists of the world have an awful lot to atone for.
Meanwhile, Scylla… you sure do love to hear yourself talk, huh? If I talked purty like that, I guess I would too, whether I was talking out my ass or not.
Next time someone threatens your family’s security, physical or financial, I want to see how well you “grow up and stop focussing so much time and effort on it.”
MR VISIBLE –
Is your world view really this simplistic? How about © Words can have from no effect to a devastating effect, depending on what is said, to whom, and the context in which it is said. Your implication that the universe of possibilities is limited to either “words are meaningless” or “words are abusive,” is therefore obviously incorrect.
Assuming that © is correct, it is perfectly possible that your words had no effect on SHODAN whatsoever, and you are still an asshole for saying them. Get it? At all?
In that case, Jodi, when people tell you that certain words hurt them, and contribute to the oppression of millions, and you spend pages and pages defending those who say them, you might want to consider the possibility that you, too, are an asshole. Of a much larger magnitude than I.
Keep in mind, nobody is arguing to take away your right to say these things. I have the right to do a lot of stuff that I don’t do out of courtesy, decency, or common sense. Just because you have the right, doesn’t mean you have an obligation.
If there’s the slightest chance that saying something will contribute to a culture of hatred and violence towards a minority, and you’ve been made aware of that chance, and you still say these things, then asshole doesn’t begin to describe you.
MR V –
Sure, I’ll consider it.
Nope, I’m still good. See, the way this works is, you have to actually convince me that the words in question – the statement of belief, and nothing else – actually does in fact “contribute to the oppression of millions.” And it is that issue of proof that you have singularly failed to address in any meaningful way. You keep saying that merely admitting to having this belief, without more, “contributes to the oppression of millions,” but you never say how. Except that, hey, it apparently makes some people feel bad. But then, you never explain why the fact that Person B feels bad to know Person A holds a belief, is in any way Person A’s problem. And despite you’re implication, we are not talking here about mere issues of politesse. We are talking about taking away a person’s right to freedom of belief, and freedom to say what they believe.
Which of course brings us to another issue you have singularly failed to address: Whether or not you comprehend that advocating censorship of beliefs and/or censorship of speech regarding beliefs is a spectacularly Bad Idea to be advocated by a gay person. Unless you are in fact so entirely sans clue that you truly don’t see how easily such a weapon could be turned on you.
And if you are offended to know that some people think gay sex is immoral, even if that’s all you know about them, then hey – taking offense is your right. But just because you have the right, doesn’t mean you have an obligation.
It is interesting to note that another of Savage’s “most painful childhood memories” involves being rushed to the hospital for severe anal bleeding, and being convinced it was punishment from God for being gay. It was, in fact, dozens of stress-induced ulcers. He was fourteen at the time.
It is also interesting to note that the phrase “only the homo” would work well when set to the tune from Roy Orbison’s “Only the Lonely.”