Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-06-2013, 07:51 PM   #81
jthig32
Lazy Moderator
 
jthig32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
jthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr View Post
Jthig, your comments here and elsewhere on this subject are pretty moderate, and while I sincerely appreciate that, I think you're falling into the trap of 'false equivalence'. That's not a dead horse-argument you're beating, it's more of a jackass's argument, and frankly you seem a lot more intelligent than that. I'm going to disagree that Broussard's comments don't reveal underlying bigotry. Here's why.

If someone says to you: "I think it's a sin for people of different races to get married.", or "I believe it goes against biblical teaching for a woman to work outside the home, or for a woman to have a position of authority over a man.", do you fail to understand what they're saying and where they're coming from? Do you reserve judgment about such a person's racial bigotry or religious sexism, and assume that they have a reasoned basis for their views, even if they don't go on to explain that basis to you?

I can't believe that you would. In fact, I think that most people, whether they agree with such views or not, understand immediately what the person saying such things thinks about matters of race and gender equality. And I also think that most people today would regard such views as racially bigoted and sexually chauvinistic, whether the speaker grounds the views in scripture or not.

Same with Broussard's comments. True, he didn't equate homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality or polygamy as bigots of old would have (and as many still do). He has moderated his views for public consumption such that he only equates homosexuality with the lighter, milder 'sins' of sex outside marriage, adultery, and whatever he understands 'fornication' to mean. (According to some fundamentalists, he could've added the sins of contraception and masturbation, but he might've been laughed off the public stage.) But he still couches the rationale for his views as being from a religious perspective, by saying "As a Christian....", and by condemning homosexuality as "unrepentant sin" and "living in open rebellion to God". He doesn't nuance his opinion as to whether it was based on Old Testament Levitical law, or New Testament (just to make things interesting), but it doesn't matter--either way, resorting to religious texts as a justification for condemning social behavior just makes the bigotry religiously-grounded bigotry. And as we all know, that's the most traditional kind. (FYI: I imagine you know this already, but the origin of the term 'bigot' in 16th-century France referred to people who held particularly sanctimonious religious views, and who observed them hypocritically; thus bigotry, religion and hypocrisy have long been intimately intertwined in a kind of vile three-way.)

So you say, "Okay, big deal. He made an ill-advised, ill-timed comment. You say it's bigotry, I say it's not. No harm, no foul. We'll just have to agree to disagree." And to a point, I can agree. In the bigger scheme of things, Broussard's comments probably only added to the list of slurs and hateful comments that closeted gay teens endure every day, and because they came from a distance, the sting was probably minimal, or at least one among many for the day. Broussard's comments, while repugnant, probably don't shift the public debate in anti-gay bigots' favor. His comments only resonated with the shrinking audience of anti-gay fundamentalist evangelical bigots, and he looked like such an utter fool, that in the big picture he probably turned off more neutral people. ESPN apologizes (sort of) and Broussard tries to sidestep the blowback by fake-apologizing (sort of).

But as you point out, Jthig, public condemnations of homosexuality as 'sin', 'evil' and 'disordered' DO have consequences, sometimes violent, sometimes fatal. In the recent marriage equality debate in France, the archbishop of Paris observed that extending marriage rights to homosexuals would be how "..a violent society develops...". About the same time, the leader of the main political group opposing the impending marriage equality legislation threatened French President Hollande by saying: "Hollande wants blood, and he will get it." Bullets and gunpowder were mailed to some French legislators, and shortly thereafter there occurred in France a spate of extremely violent gay bashings in which gay men were attacked, and had their faces beaten into bloody pulp while having anti-gay slurs shouted at them. An as of Friday, the Archbishop of San Francisco (and convicted drunk driver) Salvatore Cordileone published a response to passage of marriage equality in Rhode Island in which he asserted that secular law can mean nothing over church tradition and teaching. A religious leader stacks the kindling, a political extremist pours the gas, and thugs on the street light the match.

Even worse, are the involvements of Western anti-gay fundamentalist groups in countries like Uganda and Ethiopia, who go and stir up hatred against gays and lesbians, and help anti-gay politicians in these countries craft legislation criminalizing homosexuality (not homosexual acts, homosexual EXISTENCE), punishable by death. And this is not just something from years back, it's ongoing, and going on today.

And it makes you wonder, whether some of the proud and unabashed bigots posting here (Dude?) would vote for such legislation in their state, or in the United States, if they thought they could get by with it, if they thought they had the support for it. Is the only thing holding people like this back broader public support? Will they just resort to individual acts of violence against individual gays or lesbians instead? I'm not that concerned about a guy like Dude. He sounds like he's too old to be very dangerous, even if he wanted to. But what about his impressionable teen-aged son(s), with still-developing impulse control? What about the kids he indoctrinates in Sunday School, or in his Boy Scout troop, or the ones he coaches on a youth basketball team? How will the teen-aged kids react to the derogatory slurs that you can be sure he throws around in their presence? Will it make them think it's okay to bully that gay kid at school? Or if they get a little alcohol in them when they're older, will they go beat up a gay man somewhere? Just for kicks?

Words matter. Just dressing up your bigoted views to make them more respectable for public airing doesn't obviate the underlying bigotry. And bigotry (or even just the dissemination of negative attitudes towards gays and lesbians, if that's what you want to call it) breeds hate. Hate corrodes, sometimes slowly, sometimes explosively. I can't imagine that a truly decent person of whatever faith would want to stand by while words like 'sin' and 'evil' and 'disordered' get rained down on gay teens, or on impressionable young teens who might grow up to harm them.
This is well thought out and reasoned post. But the issue I have with tying bigotry to belief and not to attitude and actions is that you leave no room for disagreement. Where is the room for one's personal belief system? You're basically saying that society decides which core issue are foundational and are not allowed to be disagreed with. And I just flatly disagree.

Christians also believe that being married to more than one woman is a sin. Are they all bigoted against the polygamist community? Some sects of Christianity believe that consuming alcohol is a sin. Mormons believe that consuming coffee and tea is forbidden. Are all these people bigots?

Having a belief system doesn't make someone a bigot. How you express those opinions and what actions those opinions cause are what determine whether you have hate in your heart towards those that you disagree with.

I wholeheartedly agree that public condemnation of homosexuality is a dangerous issue, because of our unfortunate history and the fundamentalistic Christian's all-too-frequent inability to following Jesus' teaching of loving the sinner and hating the sin. Which is why I cringe when someone like Broussard takes to the airways and says the things he said. But I cringe just as much when people who are simply trying to live the life they have chosen and express the views they believe in are accused of being hateful and bigoted for daring to have an opinion that doesn't match the majority of society.

When you compare homophobia to racism, I think you miss the mark (and not because of the choice vs biology debate). I think you miss the mark because racism, by its very nature, was always presented in actions and hatred. No one would ever try to make the argument that being black is "wrong", unless they were also attaching to that to an action of hatred or violence. No one ever had an opportunity to try to convince an African American that they should change...because that was impossible. So the issue of belief vs hatred/judgement was never there.

However, with homosexuality (as with all other actions that some consider sins), you have what some view as a choice. And even with the evidence of biology, many Christians would argue that many people are biologically disposed to other "harmful lifestyles" such as drug addiction or alcoholism. So some Christians, based on their chosen faith, will take the opportunity to express their desire for change without attaching hate or prejudice with it. And those that would peacefully do so should be allowed without being accused of being bigoted.
__________________
Current Mavs Salary outlook (with my own possibly incorrect math and assumptions)

Mavs Net Ratings By Game
(Using BRef.com calculations for possessions, so numbers are slightly different than what you'll see on NBA.com and ESPN.com
jthig32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 05-06-2013, 08:17 PM   #82
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
I know you're a really religious, and that is fine. That is your right. But just for future reference there is something called science, which has proven sexuality to be congenital. So comparing it to aldutery is not only offensive but ignorant. But I expect no less from a fundie
You don't know me from squat. Haven't been religious since I was about 10 years old. I just happen to respect folks who are and do not respect people who are bigoted towards them, especially folks who get up on their soapbox thinking that its their way or you are a racist way.

liberal bigots do not get to define morality.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 08:21 PM   #83
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
You don't know me from squat. Haven't been religious since I was about 10 years old. I just happen to respect folks who are and do not respect people who are bigoted towards them, especially folks who get up on their soapbox thinking that its their way or you are a racist way.

liberal bigots do not get to define morality.
And yet here you are making some pretty ignorant and religiously inspired arguments.

And what you consider showing respect for religious people is very bizarre. Demeaning the gay community is a very strange way of showing that respect.

Last edited by SeanL; 05-06-2013 at 08:22 PM.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 09:20 PM   #84
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
And yet here you are making some pretty ignorant and religiously inspired arguments.

And what you consider showing respect for religious people is very bizarre. Demeaning the gay community is a very strange way of showing that respect.
I'm not demeaning anyone but you and the other folks on this thread who are so obviously bigoted towards Christians.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 11:15 PM   #85
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
I'm not demeaning anyone but you and the other folks on this thread who are so obviously bigoted towards Christians.
Likening lgbt community to adulterers is not demeaning? Heh. Sorry, but that is not a very convincing argument.

So calling someone a bigot for saying bigoted things (like you did) is being a bigot? LOL! It is the whole I'm rubber your glue defense. It may have worked when you were five, but it is not very convincing now either.

Last edited by SeanL; 05-07-2013 at 07:34 AM.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2013, 08:25 AM   #86
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Brick
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 11:48 AM   #87
Thespiralgoeson
Guru
 
Thespiralgoeson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Denton, TX
Posts: 10,289
Thespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Chris Broussard can suck my d*ck.
Thespiralgoeson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 12:43 PM   #88
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default Personal Belief Systems and Bigotry as Belief v. Bigotry as Actions

Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32 View Post
...the issue I have with tying bigotry to belief and not to attitude and actions is that you leave no room for disagreement. Where is the room for one's personal belief system? ....Having a belief system doesn't make someone a bigot. How you express those opinions and what actions those opinions cause are what determine whether you have hate in your heart towards those that you disagree with.....But I cringe just as much when people who are simply trying to live the life they have chosen and express the views they believe in are accused of being hateful and bigoted for daring to have an opinion that doesn't match the majority of society.

However, with homosexuality (as with all other actions that some consider sins), you have what some view as a choice. And even with the evidence of biology, many Christians would argue that many people are biologically disposed to other "harmful lifestyles" such as drug addiction or alcoholism. So some Christians, based on their chosen faith, will take the opportunity to express their desire for change without attaching hate or prejudice with it. And those that would peacefully do so should be allowed without being accused of being bigoted.
You covered a lot of ground thoughtfully in your post, and I am thinking about several things that you said. I'm not addressing all of the points that you made here, but I may later. Excerpted above (for space) are the ideas I wanted to respond to.

I think we agree that bigotry doesn’t always manifest in actions, let alone violence. But you seem to want to separate belief from action by saying that if a belief doesn’t result in an overt expression, that the belief itself isn’t bigoted. Having a belief system doesn't make a person a bigot; having a bigoted belief system is what makes a person a bigot.

A person can just as easily be bigoted against a specific racial or ethnic group by considering them as ‘inferior’ (or ‘undeserving’ or ‘sinful’). A bigoted belief can just as easily manifest itself in a condescension toward groups (e.g., the tag line of Dubya’s NCLB “…soft bigotry of lowered expectations…” alludes to that); or in an unwilllingness to act (e.g., unwillingness to fund social, educational or healthcare programs, unwillingness to recognize equal legal rights). These are beliefs that don’t necessarily always get translated into actions. But even if people who hold these beliefs don’t act overtly on the belief, isn’t the belief itself still bigoted? So what’s the difference in a person who commits bigoted acts and a person who holds bigoted beliefs? (Opportunity? Time?)

I suppose it becomes easier to see the bigotry when people articulate those opinions socially, and easier still when they act in a hostile or condescending manner to the people they consider inferior (or sinful). But does being patronizingly polite to someone whom you consider inferior because of their race (or culture, or sexual identity) mean you aren’t a bigot? “Some of my best friends are….!” (Or Broussard: “But I’m not bigoted! I even play basketball with a sinful gay-sinning sinner!”) It may be bigotry of lesser degree, but it’s still rooted in bigoted belief. Call it what you will.

So I don’t really agree that you need to see overt expressions of negativity or hostility in order to recognize the bigotedness of a belief. Bigotry at its core is about holding on to irrationally negative beliefs about a specific group; and about judging similar actions of two groups differently based on those beliefs; beliefs which may or may not result in overt acts. It’s not just the motivation of the believer, it’s the rationality of the belief. This is where religiously motivated people (fundamentalist evangelicals, for example) fool themselves into believing that they are acting out of love sometimes, when in fact, they’re acting out of irrational disapproval.

I think that you are discussing these questions in good faith, without trying to be offensive, and I respect that. But I’ll give you a case in point: “….even with the evidence of biology, many Christians would argue that many people are biologically disposed to other "harmful lifestyles" such as drug addiction or alcoholism.” Why compare homosexuality to drug addiction or alcoholism; why compare sexuality to a disease or a disorder? Same-sex attraction is not a disorder like sexual compulsion or sexual addiction. Even if the biological evidence is only strongly compelling and not conclusive, for a long time now, mainstream psychiatry and mental health experts have characterized homosexuality as a normal (if numerically distinctive minority) expression of sexuality. What’s more, with all of the highly visible gays and lesbians living productive, successful lives as contributing members of society, living happily and successfully in long-term, stable relationships, raising happy, well-adjusted children, why make a comparison like that? It flies in the face of reality and rationality.

Maybe there was a time, maybe 50 or even as recently as 30 years ago, when gays and lesbians were forced to live more out of sight, that it would be more understandable (not excusable) for a person who didn’t know any gays or lesbians (or didn’t KNOW that they knew them) to continue to hold negative views about them, particularly if the person holding the views were religious and had been exposed to religious teachings characterizing homosexuality as ‘sinful’. But today? In 2013? With so many examples of gays and lesbians openly living normal lives? The negative prejudice is a lot harder to justify, and even harder to overlook.

I know that there are some Christians, some Christian denominations even, (and even some fundamentalist evangelicals as individuals) who have been able to change their view on this, and who regard same sex attraction not as a sinful choice, but as the natural expression of an individual’s sexuality. I can sympathize to a degree that this isn’t necessarily a quick or easy transition, in the same way that it can take an individual many years to come to grips with his/her sexual identity. But there comes a point where it becomes a sort of willful blindness or irrational ignorance of the reality that gays and lesbians have always existed, have always been contributing members of society, and are due the same respect and rights as anyone else.

Holding on to archaic, unjustified, irrational religiously-based tropes in the face of so much evidence about the normalcy and decency of homosexuals is, at best, holding onto a bigoted belief. Publicly condemning homosexuals as sinners; falsely equating them to criminals, psychopaths, and people with diseases or mental disorders; and acting to trying to criminalize homosexuality, or deny legal rights and recognition to gays and lesbians really can’t be called anything other than bigotry.

I think the day will eventually come when condemning homosexuals as sinners will carry about as much social weight/stigma as condemning people who divorce as sinners, or condemning single parents as sinners, or condemning people who consume alcohol as sinners. The condemnation will say more about the person doing the condemning than it will about the target. But as things currently stand, the fact that gays and lesbians still have a lot of legal rights in play in this country, and the fact that homosexuals in other parts of the world are subjected to violence and death makes bigoted comments like Broussard’s too dangerous to ignore, and bigoted beliefs manifested in public language too dangerous to be left unengaged.

Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 05-08-2013 at 12:47 PM.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 04:24 PM   #89
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I thought the Christian doctrine was that everyone was a sinner. So although heterosexual relationships are not categorically forbidden in the same sense homosexual ones are, such lifestyles only served to put homosexuals in the same boat as everyone else, rather than make them inferior. Of course, the bottom line shows historically they have not been treated as such.

Heck, it would even make sense for one to support gay rights even if one believed homosexuality was wrong, to retain the spirit of free will which we are all supposedly endowed. But for some reason the fundamentalists don't seem to get that either.

Whatever. I find the religious angle to be pretty useless anyway, and moreover a dying breed. This is just another one of those growing pains that will eventually lead us into a more enlightened, accepting society.

Last edited by Dirkadirkastan; 05-08-2013 at 04:26 PM.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 09:38 PM   #90
Thespiralgoeson
Guru
 
Thespiralgoeson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Denton, TX
Posts: 10,289
Thespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond reputeThespiralgoeson has a reputation beyond repute
Default

My irreverence and twisted sense of humor aside, I'd like to give serious kudos to jack.kerr for everything he's said on this thread.

Thank you for being the voice of reason and good, and articulating everything I feel better than I ever could. Thanks for having the superhuman patience to thoughtfully engage in a debate that I normally stay away from because it makes my head explode. The world needs more people like you.
Thespiralgoeson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 10:10 PM   #91
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
I thought the Christian doctrine was that everyone was a sinner. So although heterosexual relationships are not categorically forbidden in the same sense homosexual ones are, such lifestyles only served to put homosexuals in the same boat as everyone else, rather than make them inferior. Of course, the bottom line shows historically they have not been treated as such.

Heck, it would even make sense for one to support gay rights even if one believed homosexuality was wrong, to retain the spirit of free will which we are all supposedly endowed. But for some reason the fundamentalists don't seem to get that either.

Whatever. I find the religious angle to be pretty useless anyway, and moreover a dying breed. This is just another one of those growing pains that will eventually lead us into a more enlightened, accepting society.
Not all sins are created equal though. Some sins are mortal sins, such as homosexuality.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 03:09 AM   #92
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
Not all sins are created equal though. Some sins are mortal sins, such as homosexuality.
I thought they were all like that though. So once little Johnny lies about who knocked over the Lego tower, he's doomed to a punishment of hellfire and damnation for all eternity. Unless he fills up his soul with some Jesus, of course.

As if that wasn't comprehensive enough, they go on to say we were all born sinners before we even have the capacity to do anything. So to say homosexuals are the exception because they were born in sin... well, I don't think I need to point out the cognitive dissonance here.

This is probably looking at it from the wrong angle though. The part about everyone being born sinners probably stems from the religion's own goal to convince everyone they just have to have it, and the part about homosexuals being condemned probably stems from the fact they just don't like them very much. The mental gymnastics required to justify both positions simultaneously can be entertaining to watch one attempt.

Last edited by Dirkadirkastan; 05-09-2013 at 11:27 AM.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 09:20 AM   #93
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

After reading through this - all I can say is what an enlightened Roman way of thinking. Good Luck
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 10:42 AM   #94
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr View Post
Maybe there was a time, maybe 50 or even as recently as 30 years ago, when gays and lesbians were forced to live more out of sight, that it would be more understandable (not excusable) for a person who didn’t know any gays or lesbians (or didn’t KNOW that they knew them) to continue to hold negative views about them, particularly if the person holding the views were religious and had been exposed to religious teachings characterizing homosexuality as ‘sinful’. But today? In 2013?
...
Holding on to archaic, unjustified, irrational religiously-based tropes in the face of so much evidence about the normalcy and decency of homosexuals is, at best, holding onto a bigoted belief.
...
I think the day will eventually come when condemning homosexuals as sinners will carry about as much social weight/stigma as condemning people who divorce as sinners, or condemning single parents as sinners, or condemning people who consume alcohol as sinners. The condemnation will say more about the person doing the condemning than it will about the target.
Do you propose rewriting the Bible or censoring the Church? Does the government get to dictate what religious teachings are now acceptable and which are forbidden? Or are you hoping everyone outgrows the need for Christ entirely? (There is also the extension into other religions, but I won't speculate on their texts.)

It seems like you pine for a world in which pretty much everyone agrees with your viewpoint. Yet you also acknowledge that, not too long ago, pretty much everyone disagreed with your viewpoint. The past world you view as bigoted and needing to be abandoned; yet, your proposed future is portrayed as somehow idyllic.

Why wouldn't it just be a differently-bigoted world? Perhaps you're okay with that, as I suspect quite a few secretly (or not so secretly) would be. But then it seems odd to complain that those you wish to discriminate against aren't excited to help you build your new world order.

Tolerance is simply a flawed foundation for harmony. You either have to tolerate intolerance (and thus never reach harmony), or you fall short of pure tolerance. And trying to force harmony (even under the guise of tolerance) will inevitably risk authoritarianism; if you want everyone singing the same song, you have to mandate the music sheet or silence the ones who differ.

A final point, which I doubt will go over well based on the previous posts, there used to be a PSA on TV where a person watches from a dock as their friend drowns in the lake. The message was something like true friends don't let their friends suffer without saying/doing something. I think it was about smoking or drugs. True Christians believe that the choices we make in life affect our immortal souls. If we love our neighbors as Christ loves us, we can't silently let them ruin their immortal souls out of what we see as a short-sighted desire to enjoy life; death is a certainty and eternity outlasts 120 years of self-fulfillment. Now the proper language isn't Westboro-ish; that is not loving and likely risks the speaker's soul just as much. But it is also not silence or acceptance of the choice.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??

Last edited by DirkFTW; 05-09-2013 at 10:59 AM.
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 11:11 AM   #95
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
Why wouldn't it just be a differently-bigoted world?
There is a stark difference between targeting a demographic and targeting a belief system.

A demographic describes a trait one is born with and cannot (easily) change (i.e. gender, skin color, orientation, etc.) while a belief system is something you are free to change at any moment (i.e. religion, ideology, etc.). There is nothing wrong with voicing dissent toward a belief system one believes to be backward or unenlightened, and it certainly bears no likeness to bigotry against a demographic.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 11:12 AM   #96
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
There is a stark difference between targeting a demographic and targeting a belief system.

A demographic describes a trait one is born with and cannot (easily) change (i.e. gender, skin color, orientation, etc.) while a belief system is something you are free to change at any moment (i.e. religion, ideology, etc.). There is nothing wrong with voicing dissent toward a belief system one believes to be backward or unenlightened, and it certainly bears no likeness to bigotry against a demographic.
So, acceptable bigotry?

Just so we're all on the same page for definitions:

Demographics: the statistical characteristics of human populations (did you mean genetics instead?)

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.

If these are unacceptable, please propose alternatives.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??

Last edited by DirkFTW; 05-09-2013 at 11:23 AM.
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 11:14 AM   #97
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
So, acceptable bigotry?
No, it's not bigotry. You can't hide your beliefs behind that word just because you don't understand the difference.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 11:25 AM   #98
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
No, it's not bigotry. You can't hide your beliefs behind that word just because you don't understand the difference.
So it's impossible to be bigoted against Muslims? I think some parts of the US immediately post-9/11 belie that.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 11:34 AM   #99
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
So it's impossible to be bigoted against Muslims? I think some parts of the US immediately post-9/11 belie that.
Are you equating vocal dissent to violent behavior?
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 11:44 AM   #100
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
Are you equating vocal dissent to violent behavior?
No.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 11:50 AM   #101
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
No.
Then what are you referring to? I thought the 9-11 backlash was racially motivated as much as anything.

Islam contains some pretty stupid, backward, and dangerous ideas. Am I not allowed to point this out just because they're an organized religion?
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 12:41 PM   #102
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
Then what are you referring to? I thought the 9-11 backlash was racially motivated as much as anything.

Islam contains some pretty stupid, backward, and dangerous ideas. Am I not allowed to point this out just because they're an organized religion?
I think we're not connecting here... You originally said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan
There is a stark difference between targeting a demographic and targeting a belief system.

A demographic describes a trait one is born with and cannot (easily) change (i.e. gender, skin color, orientation, etc.) while a belief system is something you are free to change at any moment (i.e. religion, ideology, etc.).
Islam is a belief system, not a race or nationality. Religious belief (and other choices such as married/single, what car you drive, etc.) is a demographic marker, but I think you mean genetics rather than demographics. If you can't be bigoted against a belief system because it is not genetic (or "a trait one is born with"), you can't ever be bigoted against Islam (violently or non-violently).

You can believe whatever you want about Islam (and other religions)... just know that you might be viewed as a bigot.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??

Last edited by DirkFTW; 05-09-2013 at 12:42 PM.
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 12:48 PM   #103
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

There are lots of stupid ideas out there, and lots of communities that buy into said stupid ideas.

But if you organize enough and gain enough political power, you can avoid criticism by labeling anyone who points out your stupid ideas as a bigot.

Got it.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 04:04 PM   #104
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
There are lots of stupid ideas out there, and lots of communities that buy into said stupid ideas.

But if you organize enough and gain enough political power, you can avoid criticism by labeling anyone who points out your stupid ideas as a bigot.

Got it.
I think both sides of every contentious political issue (like this one) could levy those charges against their opponents. That's the problem with bigotry/intolerance accusations... they invariably cut both ways because pure tolerance must tolerate intolerance. Otherwise, we're just dealing with differently-bigoted worldviews.

But really, your concerns of 'avoiding criticism' don't really reach fruition until you try to ban/silence what you deem to be bigotry, whether through shaming, intimidation, or force (legal or otherwise). Without that aspect to the equation, you'd just have competing interests in the political realm. Perhaps censorship is the true evil we can agree to avoid.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 07:37 PM   #105
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
I think both sides of every contentious political issue (like this one) could levy those charges against their opponents. That's the problem with bigotry/intolerance accusations... they invariably cut both ways because pure tolerance must tolerate intolerance. Otherwise, we're just dealing with differently-bigoted worldviews.
I see what you're trying to do, but it doesn't hold water. Pointing out the inherently violent and dangerous teachings of Islam is not akin to claiming homosexuals are perverts.

Do you denounce the KKK? If so, does that make you a bigot?

Quote:
But really, your concerns of 'avoiding criticism' don't really reach fruition until you try to ban/silence what you deem to be bigotry, whether through shaming, intimidation, or force (legal or otherwise). Without that aspect to the equation, you'd just have competing interests in the political realm. Perhaps censorship is the true evil we can agree to avoid.
No one's trying to censor anything. What led you to that conclusion? Here's what Sean said early on:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. He can say whatever bigoted hateful things he wants to, but I have a first amendment right to call him out on his bigotry.
I still have the impression that the word "bigot" has simply been thrown back at the original accuser in a meager effort to divert attention and criticism. But it's not a comparable situation.

Last edited by Dirkadirkastan; 05-09-2013 at 09:45 PM.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 10:07 AM   #106
jthig32
Lazy Moderator
 
jthig32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
jthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

If I state that I believe abortion to be wrong, am I being hateful? Or am I just stating a belief? Am I implicitly expressing hatred to anyone condoning or practicing abortion? Or am I just simply expressing my opinion in the hopes that someone will hear it?

Is it wrong of me to believe something that is so clearly the minority opinion within society? Has societal acceptance reached the point that I am simply not allowed to express this belief without being labeled as hateful?

What if I hold and express this belief, and yet it never affects my societal relationships? What if I hold no ill-will towards those around me that openly support it? What if I engage in lively, open, and friendly (although sometimes heated) debate with those I love that support it?

On the flip side, what if I support abortion? Abortion is heavily accepted within society, so clearly I'm not hateful. But what if I have a deep seeded level of disgust at those that don't support it? What if I chalk up their beliefs as irrational and archaic. No intelligent and rational person could ever not support it, right? So anyone that doesn't should be written off as hateful and bigoted, a male chauvinist who has no use for women's rights. I won't even listen to their points and I will make it clear when they're around that I have no use for them or any others of their ilk.

Now, who in this scenario is close minded and hateful, and who is not?

(And just for the record, I am most certainly not arguing that this is the case with Broussard or most Christians with their views. I don't know what Broussard has in his heart or how his beliefs affect his relationships. I'm simply showing that being in the majority doesn't mean you're the beacon of openness and equality that you claim to be)
__________________
Current Mavs Salary outlook (with my own possibly incorrect math and assumptions)

Mavs Net Ratings By Game
(Using BRef.com calculations for possessions, so numbers are slightly different than what you'll see on NBA.com and ESPN.com

Last edited by jthig32; 05-10-2013 at 10:09 AM.
jthig32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 10:14 AM   #107
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32 View Post
If I state that I believe abortion to be wrong, am I being hateful? Or am I just stating a belief? Am I implicitly expressing hatred to anyone condoning or practicing abortion? Or am I just simply expressing my opinion in the hopes that someone will hear it?

Is it wrong of me to believe something that is so clearly the minority opinion within society? Has societal acceptance reached the point that I am simply not allowed to express this belief without being labeled as hateful?

What if I hold and express this belief, and yet it never affects my societal relationships? What if I hold no ill-will towards those around me that openly support it? What if I engage in lively, open, and friendly (although sometimes heated) debate with those I love that support it?

On the flip side, what if I support abortion? Abortion is heavily accepted within society, so clearly I'm not hateful. But what if I have a deep seeded level of disgust at those that don't support it? What if I chalk up their beliefs as irrational and archaic. No intelligent and rational person could ever not support it, right? So anyone that doesn't should be written off as hateful and bigoted, a male chauvinist who has no use for women's rights. I won't even listen to their points and I will make it clear when they're around that I have no use for them or any others of their ilk.

Now, who in this scenario is close minded and hateful, and who is not?

(And just for the record, I am most certainly not arguing that this is the case with Broussard or most Christians with their views. I don't know what Broussard has in his heart or how his beliefs affect his relationships. I'm simply showing that being in the majority doesn't mean you're the beacon of openness and equality that you claim to be)
If the folks replying to this were truthful, the answer would be yes, you are a hateful bigot because you do not think the right way. And you need to be shouted down, ostracized and minimized at all costs.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 10:33 AM   #108
spreedom
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hudson, WI
Posts: 3,938
spreedom has a reputation beyond reputespreedom has a reputation beyond reputespreedom has a reputation beyond reputespreedom has a reputation beyond reputespreedom has a reputation beyond reputespreedom has a reputation beyond reputespreedom has a reputation beyond reputespreedom has a reputation beyond reputespreedom has a reputation beyond reputespreedom has a reputation beyond reputespreedom has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I support concepts that:

1.) Don't hurt others
2.) Grant people more rights

I believe that Broussard legally should have the right to say the stuff that he did, but that also means that I have every right to call him out if I feel like he's being an asshole about his opinion. And to say "I don't have a problem with gay people" in one breath and "Being gay is an abomination and open disobedience to God" makes you an asshole.
spreedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 10:54 AM   #109
jthig32
Lazy Moderator
 
jthig32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
jthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spreedom View Post
I support concepts that:

1.) Don't hurt others
2.) Grant people more rights

I believe that Broussard legally should have the right to say the stuff that he did, but that also means that I have every right to call him out if I feel like he's being an asshole about his opinion. And to say "I don't have a problem with gay people" in one breath and "Being gay is an abomination and open disobedience to God" makes you an asshole.
So what you're really saying is he can't hold that opinion without being an asshole, correct?

He also didn't say abomination, I don't believe. He said that he believes homosexuality and pre-marital heterosexual sex is a sin.
__________________
Current Mavs Salary outlook (with my own possibly incorrect math and assumptions)

Mavs Net Ratings By Game
(Using BRef.com calculations for possessions, so numbers are slightly different than what you'll see on NBA.com and ESPN.com

Last edited by jthig32; 05-10-2013 at 10:56 AM.
jthig32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 11:04 AM   #110
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
I see what you're trying to do, but it doesn't hold water. Pointing out the inherently violent and dangerous teachings of Islam is not akin to claiming homosexuals are perverts.
Don't you see how this could just as easily be phrased by someone else as "taking statements in religious texts in isolation and out of context in order to paint a billion people as dangerous fanatics is not akin to explaining that someone's conduct has placed them at odds with the God of the universe?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
No one's trying to censor anything. What led you to that conclusion?
That seems quite naive given that many have publicly been calling for Broussard to be fired. Your own comment in an earlier post was "if you organize enough and gain enough political power, you can avoid criticism by labeling anyone who points out your stupid ideas as a bigot." How can you avoid criticism without censorship--i.e., bigoted statements are not permitted?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
I still have the impression that the word "bigot" has simply been thrown back at the original accuser in a meager effort to divert attention and criticism. But it's not a comparable situation.
So whether something is bigotry or not depends on subjective impressions? The other side feels the same way that bigotry accusations are being used to divert attention and criticism from attacks on their constitutionally protected right to hold and practice religious beliefs.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??

Last edited by DirkFTW; 05-10-2013 at 11:21 AM.
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 11:28 AM   #111
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32 View Post
If I state that I believe abortion to be wrong, am I being hateful? Or am I just stating a belief? Am I implicitly expressing hatred to anyone condoning or practicing abortion? Or am I just simply expressing my opinion in the hopes that someone will hear it?

Is it wrong of me to believe something that is so clearly the minority opinion within society? Has societal acceptance reached the point that I am simply not allowed to express this belief without being labeled as hateful?

What if I hold and express this belief, and yet it never affects my societal relationships? What if I hold no ill-will towards those around me that openly support it? What if I engage in lively, open, and friendly (although sometimes heated) debate with those I love that support it?

On the flip side, what if I support abortion? Abortion is heavily accepted within society, so clearly I'm not hateful. But what if I have a deep seeded level of disgust at those that don't support it? What if I chalk up their beliefs as irrational and archaic. No intelligent and rational person could ever not support it, right? So anyone that doesn't should be written off as hateful and bigoted, a male chauvinist who has no use for women's rights. I won't even listen to their points and I will make it clear when they're around that I have no use for them or any others of their ilk.

Now, who in this scenario is close minded and hateful, and who is not?

(And just for the record, I am most certainly not arguing that this is the case with Broussard or most Christians with their views. I don't know what Broussard has in his heart or how his beliefs affect his relationships. I'm simply showing that being in the majority doesn't mean you're the beacon of openness and equality that you claim to be)
All Collins said was that he was gay. That's it. He didn't say he was engaging in homosexual sex, just that he was gay.

So to respond by claiming that being gay is wrong is an attack on his identity, not his actions. Abortion is an action, not a part of one's identity. So a better analogy would be to compare the claim "being gay is wrong" to the claim "black people are inferior." I'm not saying that for shock value or guilt by association. I'm saying the two are similar, and dissimilar from the abortion claim, because they classify a genetic trait as inferior.

Explaining this difference time and time again to deaf ears gets tiresome.

Last edited by Dirkadirkastan; 05-10-2013 at 12:17 PM.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 11:52 AM   #112
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32 View Post
So what you're really saying is he can't hold that opinion without being an asshole, correct?

He also didn't say abomination, I don't believe. He said that he believes homosexuality and pre-marital heterosexual sex is a sin.
When did sin become a nice word?
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 12:04 PM   #113
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
Don't you see how this could just as easily be phrased by someone else as "taking statements in religious texts in isolation and out of context in order to paint a billion people as dangerous fanatics is not akin to explaining that someone's conduct has placed them at odds with the God of the universe?"
Do you understand the difference between "your belief is stupid" and "you are stupid because you hold that belief?" Only the former is present here, but your quote here is trying to twist it into the latter.

No one has a right to have their ideas go unchallenged.

Quote:
That seems quite naive given that many have publicly been calling for Broussard to be fired. Your own comment in an earlier post was "if you organize enough and gain enough political power, you can avoid criticism by labeling anyone who points out your stupid ideas as a bigot." How can you avoid criticism without censorship--i.e., bigoted statements are not permitted?
I'm not sure you understood what I meant when I said that. Let me try again:

If I believe that it is my destiny to rule over my own planetary system one day, you might feel justified in calling me an idiot.

If I also believe that black people are cursed with their dark skin due to their neutrality in the battle between good and evil, you might feel justified in calling me a bigot.

If I believe all this because Joseph Smith successfully organized a large enough religion, then suddenly you are the bigot instead because you spoke ill of Mormonism.

See how that works? Why am I suddenly able to turn around and point the finger at you? Just because enough people believe the same thing I do?

Quote:
So whether something is bigotry or not depends on subjective impressions? The other side feels the same way that bigotry accusations are being used to divert attention and criticism from attacks on their constitutionally protected right to hold and practice religious beliefs.
I'm talking about what specifically happened in this thread. The real issue to discuss is why speaking out against homosexuality itself is bigotry, and people are trying to divert attention away from that by pretending calling out questionable religious beliefs is somehow the same thing. It's a lame tactic and it doesn't work.

Last edited by Dirkadirkastan; 05-10-2013 at 12:07 PM.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 12:59 PM   #114
jthig32
Lazy Moderator
 
jthig32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
jthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
When did sin become a nice word?
A nice word? It's not a nice word, I suppose. But it's not necessarily a hateful word, either. By most interpretations of the Bible, lots of people sin every day. You and I both do. So is it hateful for me to say that I think something is a sin?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
All Collins said was that he was gay. That's it. He didn't say he was engaging in homosexual sex, just that he was gay.

So to respond by claiming that being gay is wrong is an attack on his identity, not his actions. Abortion is an action, not a part of one's identity. So a better analogy would be to compare the claim "being gay is wrong" to the claim "black people are inferior." I'm not saying that for shock value or guilt by association. I'm saying the two are similar, and dissimilar from the abortion claim, because they classify a genetic trait as inferior.

Explaining this difference time and time again to deaf ears gets tiresome.
Broussard said that he thought living a homosexual lifestyle was a sin. That clearly assumes that sex is not being abstained, and takes away the argument of identity, at least in this context. Which brings the abortion analogy right back in play.
__________________
Current Mavs Salary outlook (with my own possibly incorrect math and assumptions)

Mavs Net Ratings By Game
(Using BRef.com calculations for possessions, so numbers are slightly different than what you'll see on NBA.com and ESPN.com
jthig32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 01:28 PM   #115
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Chris Broussard is a sinner for making this the most popular thread on this forum right now... At this rate, the only way we're going to talk about Chris Paul and Dwight Howard again is if they kiss each other.
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.

Last edited by Underdog; 05-10-2013 at 01:29 PM.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 01:50 PM   #116
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32 View Post
Broussard said that he thought living a homosexual lifestyle was a sin. That clearly assumes that sex is not being abstained, and takes away the argument of identity, at least in this context. Which brings the abortion analogy right back in play.
Why then, were any of his comments appropriate?
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 02:04 PM   #117
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
Do you understand the difference between "your belief is stupid" and "you are stupid because you hold that belief?" Only the former is present here, but your quote here is trying to twist it into the latter.
Perhaps I am being too subtle, but I'm pointing out how rephrasing the choice as "nice-sounding A v. horrible-sounding B" doesn't carry much weight. It's a game everyone can play to paint the other side negatively while ignoring the underlying disagreement.

And I think your dichotomy should more properly be "your belief is bigoted" vs. "you are bigoted because you hold that belief." Frankly that seems like trying to split hairs or starting off a really offensive comment with "no offense but..." I mean, look at the thread title and your attempt to discredit Mormonism as crazy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
No one has a right to have their ideas go unchallenged.
... But no one can challenge as bigotry the idea that religion is "stupid," "backward," and "questionable"? You have a lot of great statements on freedom of speech... you just choose to make them one-way streets which undermines the intellectual honesty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
The real issue to discuss is why speaking out against homosexuality itself is bigotry, and people are trying to divert attention away from that by pretending calling out questionable religious beliefs is somehow the same thing. It's a lame tactic and it doesn't work.
Let's start from here: It's not pretend.

My ultimate response to the real issue you identify is that labeling something as 'bigotry' has no real intellectual value and doesn't contribute anything. And if you go further by using bigotry labels as a means for classifying permissible and impermissible views, you risk swapping one intolerance for another--a differently-bigoted world.

In a world with diverse and diametrically opposed views, pure tolerance will be dissonant, not harmonious. So why would truly tolerant people be surprised or offended to hear intolerance?
__________________


Is this ghost ball??
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 03:27 PM   #118
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW View Post
Perhaps I am being too subtle, but I'm pointing out how rephrasing the choice as "nice-sounding A v. horrible-sounding B" doesn't carry much weight. It's a game everyone can play to paint the other side negatively while ignoring the underlying disagreement.

And I think your dichotomy should more properly be "your belief is bigoted" vs. "you are bigoted because you hold that belief." Frankly that seems like trying to split hairs or starting off a really offensive comment with "no offense but..." I mean, look at the thread title and your attempt to discredit Mormonism as crazy.
It's not "splitting hairs," it's the key to the whole thing.

Mormonism does indeed contain the doctrine that black people are descendants of Cain, and their skin color is a curse. Regardless of how any individual member may view blacks, do you think the belief system itself should go forever unchallenged because opposing any belief system is bigotry against its members?

Quote:
... But no one can challenge as bigotry the idea that religion is "stupid," "backward," and "questionable"? You have a lot of great statements on freedom of speech... you just choose to make them one-way streets which undermines the intellectual honesty.
You can certainly challenge the idea itself, my response is that the "bigot" label isn't valid. You can't be bigoted toward a religion (or any belief system) any more than you can find the square root of a pork chop. It's because you're applying incompatible terminology.

Quote:
Let's start from here: It's not pretend.
I noticed you dodged my question about the KKK. You really think that anyone who stands up to them is no more than an intolerant hypocritical bigot? Or at the very least, is just as worthy of the label as a KKK member?

Quote:
My ultimate response to the real issue you identify is that labeling something as 'bigotry' has no real intellectual value and doesn't contribute anything. And if you go further by using bigotry labels as a means for classifying permissible and impermissible views, you risk swapping one intolerance for another--a differently-bigoted world.

In a world with diverse and diametrically opposed views, pure tolerance will be dissonant, not harmonious. So why would truly tolerant people be surprised or offended to hear intolerance?
You are equating belief systems to genetic identity. It's such an obvious error that I've spent too much time trying to point out over and over. Why are you having such a hard time with this?
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 03:30 PM   #119
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32 View Post
A nice word? It's not a nice word, I suppose. But it's not necessarily a hateful word, either. By most interpretations of the Bible, lots of people sin every day. You and I both do. So is it hateful for me to say that I think something is a sin?



Broussard said that he thought living a homosexual lifestyle was a sin. That clearly assumes that sex is not being abstained, and takes away the argument of identity, at least in this context. Which brings the abortion analogy right back in play.
So saying someone is sinful for loving their partner is not hateful? Forgive me if I'm not buying what you are selling.

And according to most Christian doctrines not every sin is a mortal sin (i.e. a sin that would condemn you to an eternity of torture). Homosexuality is considered a mortal sin.

Last edited by SeanL; 05-10-2013 at 03:33 PM.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 05:50 PM   #120
jthig32
Lazy Moderator
 
jthig32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
jthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond reputejthig32 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
So saying someone is sinful for loving their partner is not hateful? Forgive me if I'm not buying what you are selling.

And according to most Christian doctrines not every sin is a mortal sin (i.e. a sin that would condemn you to an eternity of torture). Homosexuality is considered a mortal sin.
Most Christian doctrines don't even believe in mortal sin. That's a Catholic thing.
__________________
Current Mavs Salary outlook (with my own possibly incorrect math and assumptions)

Mavs Net Ratings By Game
(Using BRef.com calculations for possessions, so numbers are slightly different than what you'll see on NBA.com and ESPN.com
jthig32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bigots hating bigots, gay jesus, i hate because "jesus", i love because of jesus, i'm thankful for jesus, jesus bottomed., john 3:16

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.