Therefore comparing him to Nazis as you think his beliefs shouldn't be tolerated like theirs, A lot of accusing him of being a hypocrite and here you go.
Don't worry I plan to
Last edited:
Using the word 'gay' as a slur
- Thread starter Doran
- Start date
Now you're confusing modern British society with every human society that has ever existed ever, not all societies have condemned homosexuality as ours has done, past and present..
I expected it sooner to be honest. Arhh well.
In what respect am I confusing anything? ...I live in modern British society, so do the majority of the participants in this debate I would imagine.
Last edited:
Therefore comparing him to Nazis as you think his beliefs should be ignored like theirs.
Don't worry I plan to
Actually that doesn't therefore mean I am comparing him to Nazis... and even if I was, so what?
Last edited:
Yes it does. You're comparing his beliefs to theirs as an example of what should be tolerated; whether you call it comparing or not.
Because the base of your arguement is: it existed this way in 19th century Britain so must have existed the same way for every human that exists or has ever existed in the past. The British Empire was impressive, but not that impressive to have imprinted itself on the peoples around before its conception.
Explain how someone being gay has impeded your way of life so much that you have become morally and ethically against it.
Last edited:
Where did I explicitly say that? ...the evolution of the human race argument may have implied it but I never actually said it. I am a product of British society, no doubt the society I live in and have been largely bought up in will have impacted my views/beliefs. Besides many other societies, and I mean most of them who's traditional views on the subject I have knowledge of have held similar ideas to British society in the past. Certainly most if not all of Western Europe and it's colonies and the newer countries that have risen from those empires. I would say all of the Muslim world and pretty well anywhere that Christianity has had much of an impact have or still hold similar ideas to me with regards to homosexuality.
I hasten to add, that it is in no way a religious line of thinking with me. But I can not rule out the possibility that Christian thought (that which predominates around me) has influenced me to some degree. For the record I am not a religious person. Although I do realise it is probably one of the main driving forces behind why large numbers of people have come to hold similar beliefs in the past. Although what prompted religious writers and prophets and so on, to spread such ideas in the first place I do not know. Logic surely isn't a tool commonly associated with religion, so no good me suggesting that. Who knows.
I never said that a homosexual person had impeded my way of life and thus had been the root cause of why I think the way I do. As far as I know, they haven't. However that does not change the fact that I think the way I do.
Last edited:
*sigh* you cite a specific example in British law as the basis for your moral and ethical anti-gay stance ... I know you're having a lot of issues with misunderstandings of some basic concepts, but surely you see how not all humans and the societies they exist within are subject to British law, even at the height of it's empire and certainly not before it existed at all. So using one particular law from one particular period of one particular society as a basis for determining your moral and ethical stance upon a natural phenomenon doesn't strike you as a tad flawed?
So you irrationally think the way you do then if it has no reason behind it? text book homophobe alert!
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 1,390
So how do you justify your beliefs? Where's the logic? Is there actually any reason beyond your personal, subjective irrational disgust of homosexuality?
We are waiting for Moeks to break down and come out.
It was an example is all, would you like a complete set of referances? ...which of course I don't have. I used that example because I knew it to be fact off the top of my head. This is general discussion remember, not exactly a blue print for 'the academic process' ...sometimes you get 'nutjobs' like me screaming heretical ideas from the top of soap boxes.
I have my own logic and reason for it, which I have tried to explain. Once you have dismissed that, no, there isn't ...does there have to be?
Or the way I see it, can you explain your irrational acceptance and apparent approval of homosexual practices? Because I just can't understand what on Earth could make you think or believe that it is in anyway 'ok' or 'natural'.
Last edited:
Intelligent, no. Enlightened, yes.
I am not nitpicking. I was demonstrating that your "natural order" argument fails because you don't even believe it yourself.
You have now confirmed that you are using another classic tool of people who have no argument and know it - an irrelevant appeal to an unchallengable and unverifiable authority. Some use their god for that, some use nature. You're using nature. Whatever you approve of is the natural order, whatever you disapprove of is against the natural order. A classic lack of rational argument.
It's made even worse by the fact that homosexual activity is quite widespread in nature, across many species. But, of course, when you talk about "the natural order", you aren't referring to nature. You're referring to your own opinions.
Yes there has to be some justifiable reason to it, or its just a phobia... which then deeming your arguements as irrational, defeats you by default.
In answer to your question, quite simple: I follow the belief that anyone should be able to do whatever they want, aslong as at no point does it impede anyone elses ability to do whatever it is they want.
Someone being gay doesn't stop me from getting on with my life therefore the only thought I should have about it is to be happy that they are doing what they want to do and aren't stopping me doing what I want to do.
Also it should be noted that being gay is natural as it occurs outside the intellectually fabricated realms of human society.. IE you don't have two male dogs bumming whilst discussing hair product and what time they should meet up in G.A.Y. that night.
Last edited:
In any case, I could construct a "survival of the fittest" argument for homosexuality in humans, based on human society in the far past when it applied much more strongly because they were routinely fighting for their lives.
Well the natural order of my own opinions are a law unto themselves, who knows what I might come up with next. I'm going to find the 'pro guns' and 'selective anti-immigration' threads next.
I notice the word homophobia has been mentioned many times, although I might add, not by me. Well if you accuse me of being a homophobe then I embrace that accusation with open arms. I don't so much have a fear of them as an aversion to them. I find I am possessed of feelings of repugnance and disgust by the whole idea of it.
Homophobia is not a bad thing in my books. It is a possitive trait, and to be encouraged.
I've been defeated by default because I can not rationalise myself to your satisfaction? ...I could say exactly the same thing to you. Infact I am defeating you by deafault because you can't rationalise yourself to me, to my satisfaction
I think this may have gone somewhat off topic now, or the original topic at least. Still, threads evolve. (Don't say it!)
Last edited:
That's a different point entirely. You can call your mates anything you like, including things that would be offensive in a different context. It's not an insult, and in any case it's nothing to me if you are insulting your mates. If you were saying that being Chinese is bad and wrong, then it would be like the point of this thread.
That is where we disagree. I think a person can consider irrational prejudice something offensive, regardless of whether or not they happen to be in the group it's targetted against.
Not necessarily, no. If he says it's offensive, he is speaking for himself. If he says the woman find it offensive, he's speaking for her. Two different things.
It would be if it was, but it would be equally offensive for exactly the same reason if another woman did it.
If you don't see why, then you're lumping all women together as a single person, which is not a good thing.
He doesn't need her permission to have his own opinion.
In the first scenario, the man was defending his own opinion. It has nothing to do with the woman - she has her own mind, he has his.
Not in this context - if, as you argue, a person should only be allowed to object to sexism against one sex, the only people who should be allowed to object to sexism are those who are both sexes.
That was the beginning of this thread.
How is it not meant to be offensive to people who are labelled as being gay to use 'gay' to mean wrong and bad because of the connection with homosexuality?
Unless you're arguing that people are using the word that way without giving the slightest thought to why they are, which would be a point.
Last edited:
I may have stepped over it, but atleast I didn't spit on it as I went running past it with hateful and fascist remarks... GD is pretty renound for 'isms of all kind being accepted so you probably won't be banned, but you should be.