What are homosexual values?

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I still have one word for you: Bigot.

He may be a bigot, but he raises an interesting point. A thread emerged, on Easter Sunday no less, that made fairly sweeping generalizations against Christianity, as stated in the OP of that thread:

You'd think the Church would be an important moral voice in society, but it seems that the various christian churches are mostly obsessed with sex and what others are doing in the privacy of their bedrooms. According to mainstream conservative christian/ Republican ideology, morality in public policy involves barring gays from marriage, securing enormous tax cuts for the wealthy, and preventing women from having abortions. How did Jesus' message become so twisted in the hands of these people?

Christianity comes in numerous sects and manifestations, such that not all Christians condone or otherwise associate their belief structure with the Vatican. Similarly, not all Christians associate themselves with the politically motivated and active far right in America.

Christianity, or any organized religion for that matter, is a human construct...and as a human construct, it is as inherently flawed as those who created it...but to dismiss or criticize all of Christianity because you don't agree with the values of politically active Republican Christians is intellectually dishonest.

This thread illustrated a point...that many in this forum seemingly had no problem with a post making sweeping accusations against Christianity, yet were outraged by a similarly phrased thread about homosexuality.

The hypocricy is obvious to the point of ridiculous...and for the record, I consider myself a proponent of deism.

Your inability to read/comprehend is ridiculous. The quote does not make vast generalizations about all of christianity. That is obvious. He said "various christian churches" not "all christian churches" as you seem to think. He said "mainstream conservative christian/republican ideology" not "all christians" as you seem to think.

The language is clear. You severely misread the quote.

 

[BenWilliams]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
He may be a bigot, but he raises an interesting point. A thread emerged, on Easter Sunday no less, that made fairly sweeping generalizations against Christianity, as stated in the OP of that thread:
...
This thread illustrated a point...that many in this forum seemingly had no problem with a post making sweeping accusations against Christianity, yet were outraged by a similarly phrased thread about homosexuality.

The hypocricy is obvious to the point of ridiculous.

I do agree that sweeping generalizations aren't good and that not all Christianity is aligned with the current conservative political structure, but hypocrisy isn't the right word nor is the contrast ridiculous.

There are a lot of variables you (and the resident "experiment-maker") are brushing aside.

Within those variables is an explanation for tolerance of barbs at Christianity (perhaps misdirected!) and a seeming lack of tolerance of barbs directed at gays.

To make a rough analogy - watching a bully beat up the kid who isn't bothering anyone makes a crowd sympathetic and angry. Then watching the bully get a licking isn't going to break as many hearts.

I very much agree that it isn't "all Christians" who are causing problems in government or who deserve harsh words for their conduct. Not all Christians are "the bully" and not all gays are "the victim", absolutely for sure.

In the same way people need to educate themselves about the wide array of gays before mouthing off about gays (not all are promiscous, limp-wristed, et al), people need to educate themselves about the wide array of Christians before mouthing off about them (not all are bigots, obsessed with sex, corrupted, etc).

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: BenWilliams
[snip]

In the same way people need to educate themselves about the wide array of gays before mouthing off about gays (not all are promiscous, limp-wristed, et al), people need to educate themselves about the wide array of Christians before mouthing off about them (not all are bigots, obsessed with sex, corrupted, etc).

Just for the record, the post you are referencing used specific language targetted at a specific subset of christianity. It did NOT "mouth off" about all christians. Read where it says "various churches" and more specifically "conservative christian/ Republican ideology"

I think it is important to base our discussions in reality.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Your inability to read/comprehend is ridiculous. The quote does not make vast generalizations about all of christianity. That is obvious. He said "various christian churches" not "all christian churches" as you seem to think. He said "mainstream conservative christian/republican ideology" not "all christians" as you seem to think.

I will point it out for you.

According to mainstream conservative christian/ Republican ideology, morality in public policy involves barring gays from marriage, securing enormous tax cuts for the wealthy, and preventing women from having abortions.

What exactly is mainstream Christianity, if there is such a thing? Such a sweeping generalization is meaningless and hence useless. The OP associates mainstream Christianity to Republican ideology...the former does not exist, and the latter only applies to the NeoCons, not Republicans at large...so again, you are willing to tolerate sweeping generalizations against those you don't particularly agree with.

The language is clear. You severely misread the quote.

Or perhaps your bias is preventing you from seeing what is obvious.

To make a rough analogy - watching a bully beat up the kid who isn't bothering anyone makes a crowd sympathetic and angry. Then watching the bully get a licking isn't going to break as many hearts.

Yet there is bias in your analogy, as you are representing Christianity as the bully. Not all Christians are opposed to homosexuality and abortion. All special interest and political lobby groups have a capacity for thuggish behavior...this analogy does not apply to fundamentalist Christians alone...every political or cultural movement, even those with the best intentions, attract a counter-productive fringe element.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Why have you people let Cyclo get away with his farse? It is so beyond obvious that this was not an "experiment"... His "experiment" post was just made up to try to save face.

Haha, what a joke. The lack of logic in the OP was jolting and disturbing and extremely out there, in my opinion, for this poster and I implied as much in my rebuttal. That he was putting one over is the only thing that makes any sense

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Not trying to stereotype

Too late. You already stereotyped Christians. It's obvious in this and many other threads that you practice the very intollerance you believe they represent. [/you]

 

[Legend]

I don't think homosexuals ever tried to push a self righteous superior morality argument. That was the Religious Right.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Why have you people let Cyclo get away with his farse? It is so beyond obvious that this was not an "experiment"... His "experiment" post was just made up to try to save face.

If a troll is not entertaining, why does it deserve to be fed anything but junk food?

Narrowing down what is defined by 'Christian' in the OP makes new points and adds new holes. On top of that, did you read the linked article? Ugh.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don't think homosexuals ever tried to push a self righteous superior morality argument. That was the Religious Right.

Yet the response of attacking the beliefs of all Christians is a justified response?

I don't understand the whole argument against homosexuality from a Christian perspective. The Bible does not provide a compelling argument against homosexuality, save for some minor references in the Old Testament. At the time most of the Bible was written, ancient cultures and societies had a completely different mindset towards sexuality.

For the politically active Christian right, homosexuality has become the battle ground for what they perceive as being the moral deterioration of society.

I believe that our society has an unhealthy fascination with violence and sexuality, as reflected in our popular culture and media...I do not agree with the religious right in terms of the reasonable response to this problem, nor do I think homosexuality is a subset or even relevant to this topic.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I don't think homosexuals ever tried to push a self righteous superior morality argument. That was the Religious Right.

Yet the response of attacking the beliefs of all Christians is a justified response?

I didn't attack all of Christianity. I attacked the Pat Robertsons of Christianity. And similar extremes of other beliefs.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
[snip]
What exactly is mainstream Christianity, if there is such a thing?
[snip]

Your ability to be misread continues to amaze me. By removing half of a phrase, you are changing its meaning dramatically. Stick to what the words say. "mainstream conservative christian/republican" does not mean simply "mainstream christiantiy." That is clear. Your are reading it wrong. You can't just pick and choose which words you want to include in your interpration.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
many in this forum seemingly had no problem with a post making sweeping accusations against Christianity

My statements were actually **carefully qualified** - they certainly were not sweeping generalisations.

Note my use of words like

-mostly

and

-mainstream conservative christian/ Republican ideology

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The hypocricy is obvious to the point of ridiculous...and for the record, I consider myself a proponent of deism.

What is ridiculous is the poor English comprehension demonstrated on this forum.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I didn't attack all of Christianity. I attacked the Pat Robertsons of Christianity. And similar extremes of other beliefs.

Most in this thread and others are not making this distinction.

Similarly, what is to gain by isolating fundamentalist Christians, pointing your finger and calling them bigots? Social change only occurs when you break down the perceptions and antiquated belief structures that result in discriminatory beliefs. Dismissing fundamentalist Christians as bigots demonstrates a lack of interest in understanding their perspective, and only seems to motivate and energize them further...driving them even deeper into the behaviors you wish to change.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
What exactly is mainstream Christianity, if there is such a thing?

mainstream conservative christian/ Republican ideology is the ideology of the religious right. the people who worked hard to get Bush elected. Fallwell, Dobson, etc.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Stick to what the words say. "mainstream conservative christian/republican" does not mean simply "mainstream christiantiy." That is clear. Your are reading it wrong. You can't just pick and choose which words you want to include in your interpration.

I was simply pointing out that there is no such thing as a mainstream conservative christian/republican...you are turning this into a game of semantics...instead of responding to my talking points, you are attacking my reading comprehension? Sounds like a NeoCon tactic.

Note my use of words like -mostly and -mainstream conservative christian/ Republican ideology

People use words like "mostly" when they ARE making sweeping generalizations, and generally lack evidence or statistics to support their arguments.

Perhaps a more reasonable response would be for you to define what a mainstream conservative christian/Republican is. That is a fairly broad brush stroke to define a particular ideology. I contend that such a boogey man does not exist.

EDIT: You must have followed up your post as I was writing this, as you qualified your statement to a specific group...the Fallwell, Dobson, Robertson devout, etc. I would content that there is nothing mainstream or particularly Christian about any of those people.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I didn't attack all of Christianity. I attacked the Pat Robertsons of Christianity. And similar extremes of other beliefs.

Most in this thread and others are not making this distinction.

Similarly, what is to gain by isolating fundamentalist Christians, pointing your finger and calling them bigots? Social change only occurs when you break down the perceptions and antiquated belief structures that result in discriminatory beliefs. Dismissing fundamentalist Christians as bigots demonstrates a lack of interest in understanding their perspective, and only seems to motivate and energize them further...driving them even deeper into the behaviors you wish to change.

No, the guy's a bigot, and I'll dismiss it as that. You can see the bullshit in his argument in the first few sentences, which basically said: "I believe in ethics...mkay. Homosexuals don't, mkay. Homosexuals are sexually promiscious, mkay, and have STDs and stuff, mkay." This has been on these forums for a while, and I'm sure people have already called him out on this. But he refuses to acknowledge it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No, the guy's a bigot, and I'll dismiss it as that. You can see the bullshit in his argument in the first few sentences, which basically said: "I believe in ethics...mkay. Homosexuals don't, mkay. Homosexuals are sexually promiscious, mkay, and have STDs and stuff, mkay." This has been on these forums for a while, and I'm sure people have already called him out on this. But he refuses to acknowledge it.

No argument there...I never supported the OP of this thread, or his talking points against homosexuality.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Perhaps a more reasonable response would be for you to define what a mainstream conservative christian/Republican is. That is a fairly broad brush stroke to define a particular ideology. I contend that such a boogey man does not exist.

I spoke of ideology, not people. Have you been under a fvcking ROCK for the past 6 years???? What is James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, etc.? And their legions of doting followers. The RELIGIOUS RIGHT. Fundamentalists. Who play an active role in politics, supporting the Republican Party, and in return receiving certain favors from the politicans they support.

 

[spunkz]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
What exactly is mainstream Christianity, if there is such a thing?

mainstream conservative christian/ Republican ideology is the ideology of the religious right. the people who worked hard to get Bush elected. Fallwell, Dobson, etc.

sorry but fallwell and dobson don't belong in the same category. fallwell goes with robertson as extreme. dobson is 100 times closer to mainstream thought.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I spoke of ideology, not people. Have you been under a fvcking ROCK for the past 6 years???? What is James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, etc.? And their legions of doting followers. The RELIGIOUS RIGHT. Fundamentalists. Who play an active role in politics, supporting the Republican Party, and in return receiving certain favors from the politicans they support.

Again you play semantics...what is an ideology without followers or leaders to preach said ideology? Religious right fundamentalists are no different then any other narrowly focused special interest in this country...a group of people who elevate to primary concern issues that don't effect a majority of Americans, yet they have the numbers and the finances to impose their will on the political machina.

sorry but fallwell and dobson don't belong in the same category. fallwell goes with robertson as extreme. dobson is 100 times closer to mainstream thought.

Which only further illustrates my point that attempting to group them all together in one convenient basket to take pot shots at is not a reasonable response.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer
Homosexuals are of no value

Of no value to who (whom)?

Is there an obligation for any given citizen to be of value to you or the government or any other authority?

America

Really? My openly gay brother is a doctor who saves a few hundred lives per year - what the hell are you doing that can compare for society? BTW - his mentor in his medical practice is also gay, and upon retiring this year (imagine - 60 years old, and gay, and still alive!) will have saved thousands of lives over the course of his career...and is a gourmet chef and a highly skilled pianist on the side.

You are a bumbling buffoon in comparison...

Future Shock

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Thanks to all for participating in my little experiment. The experiment was to determine how much outrage there would be if I made asinine sweeping, baseless generalizations about homosexuality relative to how much outrage aidanjm caused by doing the exact same thing about Christianity in this thread.

What are the results of my experiment? That the members of this forum are much, much more willing to tolerate intolerance towards Christians than towards homosexuals.

Perhaps because we have proof that gays exist, and absolutely no proof that Christ existed? And that therefore we actually have some issue with the former, but could really care a rat's ass about the latter?

Future Shock

 

[SlitheryDee]

I'm wondering what the point of this thread is. Was it a demonstration of how how ungodly and lenient to hedonism this forum is? There had to be some goal other that to see, "for scientific, experimental purposes", what the community's reaction would be. I think it was to demonstrate to us that we are not primarily composed of christians, and that we are sympathetic to the gay population, a question that could have easily been answered by simply asking.

 

[Drift3r]

The best strippers and pornstars come from homes with strong "Religous Conservative family values".

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
I'm wondering what the point of this thread is... There had to be some goal other that to see, "for scientific, experimental purposes"

Actually, if CycloWizard had done this thing at a university, he would be in majo trouble, as he is essentially conducting psychological or sociological research without gaining permission or consent from his subjects (a very big no no within academia and the sciences). I doubt very much that he has run this "experiment" through an ethics committee, either. Tut tut.