In other words, the difference is between stupidity (racism) and blind servitude (following rules).
“I’d realy like to hear your explaination of how that is possible.”
What’s so difficult to understand about it?
A person can believe that all races were created by God to be equal in every way, shape, and form, each with the full potential to share in (the Christ) God’s divine promise, while also believing that each race was intended to be self-contained, as it were. I will acknowledge that many people who believe that it’s wrong for races to intermarry also possess deep-seated racist beliefs. However, a person need not be racist to subscribe to the former belief. I know a few people personally who fit that description, fervently believing that men and women of all races are created by God to be equal in every manner, who also believe that God specifically instructed that races not intermarry.
I will concede that passing laws pertaining to marriage that stipulate who a person can and cannot marry, are discriminatory, but only in the sense that there is a very good reason for the separation of church and state.
However, that is one thing, that thing being that the ‘state’ should be completely removed from the religious sphere altogether and not base its laws on ANY religious sect; debating whether or not the belief of an individual or a group that it is against God’s law for races to intermarry, is a form of racism, is a different matter.
Iampunha: I will have your verses for you this evening, when I have the time to sit down and do all the cross-referencing.
As temps crossed the century mark here yesterday and Vancouver’s high was 89 degrees F, it seems like a good idea for now. But what is the average low temperature in December and January? When does it start snowing? I’m a wuss about the cold.
“So? If I quote the writings of David Duke to tell black people to go back to Africa, I’m no longer racist? The Bible contains plenty of sexist ideas. It contains, arguably, some homophobic ideas. You either agree with those ideas or you don’t, but I don’t see how anyone could claim that thinking homosexuality is an abomination against nature is not homophobic, no matter where they got the idea or how passionately they believe it. Either this homophobia is justified or not, but it certainly is homophobia.”
Oops. I meant to address this in my previous post.
Anyway, I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one, because I don’t agree that believing homosexuality to be a sin is a symptom of homophobia. In my book, ‘phobia’ suggests unreasonable hatred and/or fear of something. And it is entirely possible for people to regard homosexuality as an abomination WITHOUT hating or fearing the homosexual man or woman.
Oh, agree totally with Nimbrethil.
It’s exactly like how it’s possible for people to regard red-haired, green-eyed people as “the devil’s favourites,” without persecuting the Irish.
Where’s the problem?
Do you smell something burning?
this would be an uncommonly stupid and ignorant position in that it presumes that any such thing as “race” even exists. Your friends who believe as you have described are indeed racist morons.
And the same goes for idiotic religious justifications for denying the right of marriage to gay people.
Bullshit.
Okay, let’s give this the old team try, this time:
Yes, a phobia is an irrational fear. We’re with you there, and are perfectly satisfied with that definition. After that, you get into a bit of trouble.
First, anyone who regards homosexuality as an abomination can not provide a rational argument for their position. Referring to a venerated book in support for this belief is not rational-- it’s a dogmatic appeal to authority. It’s still a phobia, even it is part of an established tradition.
Second, trying to get around things by defining ‘homophobia’ as ‘an irrational fear of homosexuals’, and maintaining that this is qualitively different than an irrational fear of homosexuality is ridiculous.
Traditions, like individuals, are quite capable of overcoming their internal phobias:
Not too long ago, sinistrophobia was almost universally expressed in Christian dogma, and there is plenty of scriptural support for it. It’s all well and good to say that it’s merely a fear of left-handedness, and not of left-handed people, but I’m quite sure that would have been a cold comfort to children who were beaten for naturally favouring their left hands, or adults who were shunned in business and social circles for their “unnatural” orientation.
Thankfully, in recent years, Christianity has matured to the point where most Christians agree that handedness is a quality of no religious significance, and that left-handed people, despite their minority status, aren’t actually abominable, after all. So there is hope.
"Oh, agree totally with Nimbrethil.
It’s exactly like how it’s possible for people to regard red-haired, green-eyed people as “the devil’s favourites,” without persecuting the Irish.
Where’s the problem?"
Eh, you’re going to have to come up with a MUCH better comparison than that to try to make your point.
Yes, I KNOW that there is a long history of racism involving, particularly, whites who believe that blacks are inferior, and that this is ONE–not the only and not the primary–reason for the belief that there should not be intermarriage between races.
HOWEVER,
To repeat myself, there are also those people who believe without any qualms, that all people–Africans, Caucasians, Asians, Jews–every race and every nationality–are equal in the eyes of God and that there is no justification, Biblical or otherwise, for believing that one race is superior over any other. And yet there are still people among this group who believe that it is wrong for people of one race to marry into another. Not because the one race is ‘better’ than the other, but because they believe that the God they follow has given them orders not to do so.
How, praytell, does that scenario–believing that all races are equal, but should not intermarry, equate to your snide quip?
Because it’s a fucking retarded, racist thing to believe. There is no such thing as different “races.” The word has no biological meaning.
Larry Mudd:
First, “nonrational” is not the same as “irrational”. Second, just because one believes that something is a sin does not mean one fears it. According to your logic, it would be valid to call Jews “porciphobe”.
DtC
It’s retarded? What is this, first grade? It’s not racist, either.
What a bunch of left-wing crap. Maybe “race” isn’t a completely accurate term, since it implies more separation than really exists, but there are biological, hereditary differences which matter in this world. Maybe they shouldn’t, but they do.
“Because it’s a fucking retarded, racist thing to believe. There is no such thing as different “races.” The word has no biological meaning.”
Since we’re discussing the merits of what is racist thinking and what is not, your assessment that it is 'a fucking retarded, racist thing to believe" is circular logic, just starting the whole thing over again.
My knowledge of biology is next to nil, so I’m not qualified to comment on your point about there being no such thing as different races, except to say that this is the first I’ve ever heard that, and it leads me to ask what you would call the different groups, such as Caucasians, Africans, etc. If not different races, what is the proper word? Species? And even if it is a matter of semantics, the basic IDEA behind the belief that one group should not intermarry with another remains the same, and arguing over the terminology is just being silly.
Of course, you haven’t done much up to this point but offer emotionally charged retorts, so I now expect you to respond to this post other than to ridicule the point I’m trying to make, which I admit was not expressed as articulately as I would’ve liked, rather than address it logically and explain to me what it is that I’m not understanding about your statement that there is no such thing as ‘race’ in regard to humanity.
Why not: they believe that some nasty magical uncleanliness lives in pigs, and they have to stay away from it or be corrupted by it.
Sin is, by nature, supposed to be something feared and spurned. The problem with thinking homosexuals are being sinful is that there is no reason to fear or hate them or their behavior.
Nimbrethil, before you mire yourself beyond hope, drop back five and define your terms.
First, nobody denies that there are obvious physical distinctions between, say, Michael Jordan and Tricia Yearwood. The term “race” is used by competent ethnologists to distinguish the ethnic characteristics, both physical and cultural, of, e.g., the Yoruba, the Tuareg, or the Buryat Mongol – but they tend to avoid it in favor of alternative language for the quite simple reason that it has been used in the past to produce large and erroneous groupings. A Telegu from Andhra Pradesh with skin darker than Whitney Houston’s is as “Caucasian” as I am, for example; Haile Selassie was ethnically “white.”
It was against this misnomer, unsupported by ethnology or genetics, that people have been arguing. There are some excellent discussions in this board’s archived threads of what “race” does and does not mean, and they’re worth reading.
Second, “homosexuality” has about five dictionary definitions, depending on the dictionary you consult, and Biblical statements could only support the belief about “abomination” for exactly one of them. How, exactly, is someone’s recognition that they find persons of the same sex to be attractive “abominable”?
“Homosexuality” is not a sin. Specific sex acts committed by gay men and Lesbian women may be, supposing you take a particular tack on how Leviticus applies today and/or a particular interpretation of Paul. But until you define what you mean by “homosexuality” you’re going to find some strong hostility.
Fr. Mychal Judge was homosexual in orientation, by his own admission, celibate by vow, and IMHO a greater saint than anyone I’ve ever been privileged to know. Is he “an abomination in the eyes of God”?
Would his opinion be derived from a general sense that women are less able than men to do something not clearly delineated by sex-linked genetic difference?
And whence are these teachings? FTR, IME any time someone who is Christian has been a homophobe/straight supremacist, it almost invariably (I’d exclude the “almost” there but I can’t say for 100% that every single one has said this) comes down to “I believe the Bible says it” or some minute variation thereof.
It’s retarded in that it is intellectully delayed in its presumptions…and yes it is racist. A belief that different “races” shouldn’t marry is racist.
There’s nothing political or “left wing” about it. It’s simple biology. There is no “separation” at all between what is perceived as “races.”. Human beings are not speciated. There is no “division” there is only one long continuum. Skin color is no more biologically significant than eye or hair color. A lot of Scandanavians have blonde hair. that doesn’t mean that blondes are a “race.” The belief that these differences are in anyway significant biologically is stupid. The belief that people with dark skin are forbidden by God to marry people with light skin is stupid and racist.
Not at all. The term “racist” is meaningful even though the term “race” is not. “Racism” describes a mentality which is predicated on the presumption that races exist. It doesn’t matter that the presumption is false. It describes a belief only. The veracity of the belief is unimportant. I can use the word “Satanist” to describe certain people even though I don’t believe that Satan exists. It’s the same with 'racist."
The belief that “races” exist is ignorant. The belief that “races” should not intermarry is racist, hands down.
That’s obvious.
Here are some links that might help to enlighten you:
http://www.crystalinks.com/biorace.html
http://euvolution.com/articles/race03.html
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/01/0906newbiology.html
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/race.htm
There is no word for different groups because there is no such thing as different groups. There is no such thing as a “caucasian” or a "negro.’ These groupings are no longer recognized as meaningful by anthropologists or biologists. Race still exists somewhat as a pure social construct, but to place a religious significance on that construct is to show ignorance at best and outright bigotry at worst.
Look at the cites I posted. There is more genetic variation within so called “racial” groups than there are between them. There is no point of division between 'back" and “white.” The differences really are only skin deep.
Not at all. The term “racist” is meaningful even though the term “race” is not. “Racism” describes a mentality which is predicated on the presumption that races exist. It doesn’t matter that the presumption is false. It describes a belief only. The veracity of the belief is unimportant. I can use the word “Satanist” to describe certain people even though I don’t believe that Satan exists. It’s the same with 'racist."
The belief that “races” exist is ignorant. The belief that “races” should not intermarry is racist, hands down.
That’s obvious.
Here are some links that might help to enlighten you:
http://www.crystalinks.com/biorace.html
http://euvolution.com/articles/race03.html
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/01/0906newbiology.html
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/race.htm
There is no word for different groups because there is no such thing as different groups. There is no such thing as a “caucasian” or a "negro.’ These groupings are no longer recognized as meaningful by anthropologists or biologists. Race still exists somewhat as a pure social construct, but to place a religious significance on that construct is to show ignorance at best and outright bigotry at worst.
Look at the cites I posted. There is more genetic variation within so called “racial” groups than there are between them. There is no point of division between 'back" and “white.” The differences really are only skin deep.
Yes, I agree. That’s why, when I undertook to actually make an argument, rather than contenting myself with pointing-and-laughing at your woeful state of ignorance, I offered the example of sinistrophobia, which bears a much closer isomorphic relationship to inherent homophobia in Christianity.
You present the dubious argument that:
“Homosexuality” and “Left-handedness” are not things in-and-of-themselves. In order to declare either of them “sinful” you have to have people who express the quality of being either “homosexual” or “left-handed.” These people, you will observe, do not wake up one day, and say to themselves, “You know what? I think, just for the sheer hell of it, from this day forward, I’m gonna be left-handed. Naw, even better: If I really want to be persecuted, I think I’ll try that whole ‘gay-boy’ thing on for size. That’ll really piss my parents off.”
In both of these instances, the premise is assumed that an innate quality that a person is born with is “sinful.” Neither of these premises have endured when exposed the rigors of capital-R Reason. You may find the comparison absurd, because the religious persecution of left-handed people was infrequently as severe as that of homosexuals, has largely gone out of fashion, and is hardly a point of controversy any more, since most people can agree that there was very little merit to it, despite its long and storied history. My father showed me the scars, though, so I know that it was pretty bad even well into the last century. Incidentally, at least one of the people responsible for this abuse did not consider the sin to be something that exists apart from the sinner, as the switchings were accompanied by a bizarre sort of chant: “Wicked… (smack!) Little… (smack!) Benjamite! (SMACK!)”
Hopefully, in the course of the natural growth and evolution of the Christian faith, certain people will come to understand they are making exactly the same sort of mistake in viewing homosexuality as “sinful,” and the word “Sodomite” will became as obscure and unremembered as “Benjamite.”
The subtle difference between irrationality and non-rationality has little bearing on the meaning of “phobia.” Someone who fears spiders simply because they intuitively feel that spiders are creepy and best avoided is just as much of an arachnophobe as someone who fears spiders because they believe that spiders like to lay their eggs in people’s ears. It doesn’t matter if the basis for the fear is irrational or merely non-rational. If it ain’t rational, you gotcher self a phobia, there.
One concession that should obviously be made is that someone who avoids gay people because they have a reasoned belief that doing otherwise may cause them to be censured or otherwise inconvenienced by their peers is not necessarily homophobic in the strict sense of the word, but simply conforming to systemic homophobia.
And yes, as it happens, it is valid to say that someone who avoids pork products exclusively because they believe that eating them will emperil their immortal soul is exhibiting phobic behavior. It’s not nearly as likely to meet with any criticism, though, because:[list=a][li]It’s a dietary custom that has its basis and origin in rational thought, the practice of which historically had very tangible health benefits for Jewish people, although its relevance today is slightly more controversial.It’s related purely to the devotee’s personal actions, and has no significant impact on the lives of people who choose not to keep kosher.[/list]Although, as it happens, I (entirely coincidentally) prefer to avoid many things proscribed by kosher laws myself, I have no problem characterizing some of the expressions of them as obviously phobic. I’ve witnessed houseguests’ obvious discomfort at the table, and often been initially mystified. Whoops, the cold-cuts are too close to the cheese tray! Yes, this is perfectly within the realm of phobic behavior, but it’s benign and it doesn’t put me out a bit to move the dairy to another table. While I respect the tradition, since there’s no rational reason to be repulsed by the sight of two otherwise-acceptable foodstuffs within several feet of each other, it’s phobic.[/li]
The thing is, nobody worth mentioning is going to be critical of people following their own dietary customs. You can bet your ass that if there were a significant lobby of people agitating to prevent the sale of pork, shellfish, etc, because it offended their personal sensibilities to know that someone might be having bacon for breakfast next door to them, they would be met with an appropriately derisive response.
Similarly, I have absolutely no argument with guys who ‘choose’ not to suck dick for religious reasons, it doesn’t inconvenience me in the least. Also, I have no problem with a priest that says “No gay marriages in my church.” Whatever floats your boat, buddy. I’ll just go down the road a pace to a church that better matches my understanding of Christianity. “No gay marriages in my country,” however, takes it out of the realm of “You-mind-your-business-and-I’ll-mind-mine” and demands a response in kind.
On preview, I see that parts of this have been made redundant by Apos, Polycarp, iampunha, and Diogenes. Oh well-- at least I don’t have to try to explain what a non-starter ‘race’ is Nimbrethil.
What a relief.