Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

What is ~fair's fair~ in religion and sexual issues in SE?

Feb 29, 2004 9:29PM PST

8 days ago I received an email from a very highly respected person suggesting that my postings about sexuality and religion did not accord with my stated beliefs about love as the core of an acceptable God, and the logical extensions of this into earthly relations.

My riposte to Jonah about his experience with teenagers etc was taken as being an unfair case in point. That is, that it was OK for Jonah to raise his experience as a denigration of my experience, but the riposte was not a good thing. I can live with that, but I was surprised.

I like Cindi, and Greg, though its probably a year or so since I talked to them on the 'phone. Cindi has gone from atheist to agnostic to committed Christian in the time I've been reading her posts. I can understand that, people under sentence of pain or death tend to look beyond the physical to the spiritual to maintain the flagging spirits.

But, in terms of Speakeasy, it goes way beyond Cindi's conversion. I find SE becoming more and more homophobix, more and more influenced by intense CHRISTIAN beliefs, more and more intolerant of those who believe in alternatives.

How do you see it?

Ian Clark
Gladstone QLD
Australia
AKA IanC/OZ

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Ian, Clearly your post is not intended for me, but can I just say that ...
Feb 29, 2004 10:38PM PST

All of us currently posting to the Forum have so many different regligious and political standpoints that I think it is pretty much impossible for the one or the other to "take over". That is my view, and I welcome the diversity of views expressed.

It is clearly (IMO) quite unreasonable for any one to try to override another's views, but at the same time, this does work in both directions.

I personally enjoy your non-contentious posts and apposite reactions. It is not for me to comment, but I hope some of these apparently underlying issues can be laid to rest - from whatever source they arise - after all, if people all held the same views, there wouldn't be a lot of point in logging in.

Regards
Mo

- Collapse -
You hit the nail on the head, Ian.
Feb 29, 2004 10:39PM PST

This group is not very accepting or welcoming of divergent viewpoints.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:You hit the nail on the head, Ian.
Feb 29, 2004 11:03PM PST

Dear Dan,

Do you see this as a group? because I see it as an open forum for all and I enjoy being a part of it on that basis.

Regards
Mo

- Collapse -
Re:Re:You hit the nail on the head, Ian.
Mar 1, 2004 12:58AM PST

It is a group of people who choose to be here. There are individuals and subgroups, of course. I was speaking of the flavor of the forum as a whole.

Dan

- Collapse -
Clarification
Mar 1, 2004 12:28AM PST

Hi Ian,

I just wanted to state for the record that I wasn't the one who wrote the email you're speaking of, I have NEVER been an atheist, and my acceptance of Jesus was not borne of grasping at anything to help with my illness, as it seems to me your post suggests.

Cindi

- Collapse -
Re:Clarification
Mar 1, 2004 9:19PM PST

I do respect you, but, no, you are not the person who sent me the email.

OK, I'm sorry, as I must acknowledge that part of my nemesis' post in that regard. Atheist was preobably too strong a description, but "not a practicing believer in Christianity" would certainly be justified.

I didn't say grasping etc, I said "tend to look beyond the physical to the spiritual".

As always, I wish you all the best my blessings could bear. These are not the blessings of Christ, but only my human wishes for your success, happiness and life. For those are the blessings I believe humans may bestow.

Regards to you, Greg and all whom you adore,

Ian

- Collapse -
NT Thank you, Ian.
Mar 2, 2004 12:35AM PST

.

- Collapse -
I'm not sure what you expect.
Mar 1, 2004 1:00AM PST

Are you saying that people should express some beliefs, but not others? Are you saying that people should accept your view as 'true' even though their own view conflicts with yours? Is that your view of tolerance? Are you saying people should not say what they think is true?

- Collapse -
Re: I'm not sure what you expect.
Mar 1, 2004 4:34AM PST

Hi, KP.

There a difference between accepting as true and accepting as a valid opinion. The problem is that many posts here are of the "my opinion is right and if you disagree you're evil" variety. We see that most at the moment with regard to homosexuality. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuals were burned at the stake in the name of religion in the West, and apparently that's still going on:
Human Rights Watch Says Egypt Entraps, Tortures Gays.
It leads me to ask "where's the greater evil?"

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I agree that we should not call people evil just because they disagree with us. I also
Mar 1, 2004 5:11AM PST

agree that no one should be tortured. However, a person's argument may be called wrong or harmful without calling the person evil. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall seeing the word used here. I do think there are evil people like a Hitler or Stalin, but we don't know enough about each other to say that. Tolerance means that you tolerate a person even though you disagree. Tolerating a person does not mean that you can't tell a person you think they're wrong. It also doesn't prevent you from attempting to 'defeat' their opinion in the world of ideas. It means you give them the right to hold their opinion without disparaging them.

- Collapse -
Re: I agree that we should not call people evil just because they disagree with us. I also
Mar 1, 2004 12:49PM PST

Hi, KP.

I think we're in agreement here (!) But there have been some recent posts in the various gay marriage threads speaking about people "supporting abominations" and the like that don't seem to fit with that leel of respect.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Why tell me about it? I didn't say it. (NT)
Mar 1, 2004 3:25PM PST

.

- Collapse -
(NT) Neither does the pervasive inappropriate use of the word homophobe :(
Mar 1, 2004 8:03PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re: pervasive inappropriate use of the word homophobe :( Why inappropriate?
Mar 1, 2004 9:48PM PST

Hi, Evie.

The word's definition (from Webster) is one displaying "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

As far as I can see, the only possible debate is about the word "irrational," and as far as I'm concerned, debating that is exactly like trying to defend one's aversion to or discrimination against Jews or Blacks as being rational or religiously based.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Here's why.
Mar 2, 2004 2:26AM PST

Considering a particular behaviour as immoral does not require '"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against..."'. For example, if I say murder is wrong, it do not thereby become a homicidaphobe. The word is usually used as an emotional put-down with the objective of stopping criticism of homosexuality, and forcing its acceptance. It is a means of avoiding the discussion of the issues. At least, that's been my experience with the term.

- Collapse -
Re:Here's why.
Mar 2, 2004 2:48AM PST

Hi, KP.

Not a good analogy at all -- there's a big difference between homocidal tendancies and homosexual tendencies, not least to the casual passers-by!

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
It's good to see that, as usual, you've skipped right past the major point.
Mar 2, 2004 1:12PM PST

which was not to equate homicide and homosexuality

- Collapse -
OH? Tell us the 'differences'...
Mar 2, 2004 10:17PM PST

because just as there are "studies" that try to indicate and 'prove' that homosexuality is genetic, so too are there many "studies" that try to 'prove' that criminals in general and homicide in particular are genetic--something to do with an extra Y ...

- Collapse -
Re:something to do with an extra Y ...
Mar 3, 2004 12:35AM PST

as in "why did you shoot him?"

Wink

- Collapse -
Still inappropriate ...
Mar 2, 2004 8:11AM PST

... I suspect some PC has crept into Webster's to redefine a word. According to the same source, a phobia is an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation. There is a HUGE difference between having an aversion to something and being afraid of it. Some expand the definition to include hatred of homosexuals. Again, there is a huge difference, and not just a semantic one, between those who consider it immoral and those who would hate someone for engaging in such behavior.

I haven't seen fear or hatred. As to your cop out over the term irrational, that too is up for debate. Because to use the term appropriately according to your definition you feel any who do not hold your view are irrational. I don't necessarily agree with some of the opinions expressed against homosexuality here, but they are well thought out beliefs often based on widely held beliefs. Who is to say that the Heather Has Two Mommies gang has any more right to dictate what is right, proper, fair, etc. than a group of Catholics or Druids who happen to think it is absurd to merge organs that weren't intended for that which Mother Nature intended.

Homosexuality, like ALL sexuality Dave is a BEHAVIOR. If anyone disapproves of homosexuality they get labeled an intolerant homophobic bigot -- in a derogatory sense. So when someone disapproves of porn are they a pornophobe? How about the person who disapproves of sex between an 21 y.o. male and a 13 y.o. female -- are they just pedophobes or at least predatoraphobes? (This one is key. In some of those countries that are considered more "advanced" in their views towards homosexuality, "enlightened" if you will, there is also far more acceptance of such sexual unions). Is someone who disapproves of drug usage accused of being afraid of them? How about prostitution? The list could go on, and ALL appropriate as ALL are behaviors just like sexuality is.

What separates us from the animals is a conscience and what makes our society civil is excercising self-control and a society that doesn't promote or accept irresponsible or selfish behavior.

I haven't seen nastiness thrown at the non-believers and homosexual advocates here except in response to the sometimes brutal and baseless accusations and twisting of words done by same. Ian again threw out the dagger first in this thread -- his discussion of Christian beliefs was certainly not a flattering one. Dan's been the king of late in other threads.

When push comes to shove, most Americans are far less accepting of outwardly flaunted homosexuality than the current PC culture/indoctrination would lead you to believe. While it may make them feel less prone to denigration to respond to a survey that they approve of homosexuality. They might even go so far as to say gay Scoutmasters (as an example of a common poll question) are OK. Ask the same man as Father of a 13 y.o. boy if he feels comfortable with his son on an overnight with that gay Scoutmaster and you will get a different answer most of the time.

Nobody here fears homosexuals or homosexuality based on what they have posted. So the term homophobe is inappropriate. And in the manner in which it is used, it's repetition in the face of even the slightest criticism of the lifestyle is merely a diversionary tactic to smear the person for what they RATIONALLY believe.

Evie.

- Collapse -
Re: Still inappropriate ...
Mar 2, 2004 11:06PM PST

Hi, Evie.

I'm probably not any more comfortable around overt homosexual behavior than are you. But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether there should be legal discrimination because of sexual preference. The comparison between homosexuality and pedophelia is odious -- do you really believe there's no difference between consensual relations between two consenting adults and predatory beahvior between an adult and a child. That's based on an incorrect stereotype. This whole issue boils down to the same thing as many of the other issues discussed here -- whether one person's view of right and wrong is to be forced on another. Obviously, that must happen in some instances for civilization to exist -- a religion involving human sacrifice cannot be tolerated, regardless of the First Amendment. But you use "tolerance" as a perjorative, when in fact it's the summation of the Bill of Rights.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Still inappropriate ...
Mar 3, 2004 9:55PM PST

Hi Dave,

We were discussing whether or not the term is appropriate, not discrimination.

No, I don't see an exact equivalence between pedophilia and homosexuality, but if someone finds that a penchant for such is genetic, will we see a push to 'normalize' that behavior too? Re-read and you will see that I chose my example carefully, because the age of consent is as low as 12 or 13 I believe in some "progressive" European countries. I personally dissapprove of this, does that make me phobic or afraid of the behavior? THAT was my point. Nobody is afraid of the behavior, and I would pretty much bet my IRA that I am more comfortable around open homosexuality than you as I am exposed to it on an almost daily basis. Doesn't phase me. Doesn't mean I think we should re-define marriage either.

How about my other examples. Do you approve of promiscuity? If not, are you a slutophobe? Doubtful you fear the promiscuous, and surely you don't hate them. But I'm assuming you dissapprove of such behavior and believe it to be amoral. How about prostitution? Or how about other objectionable non-sexual behaviors? Just because two adults consent to anything, or one adult has an urge for something, doesn't make it right and doesn't mean it needs be supported by society.

BTW, if these unions are about loving couples committing for the sake of obtaining some benefit, and not about sex/sexuality/reproduction, then why can't I marry my sister or my Dad or my Mom. Not that I would want to, but there is no argument against extending the definition if we are going to redefine marriage to be either than husband and wife.

If we didn't have government social engineering this wouldn't even be an issue. Everyone pay a per capita tax or convert to total consumption tax, privitize SS entirely so I can leave my money to whoever I want, and be done with it.

As to imposing one's views, again I ask who's to say that the "Heather Has Two Mommies" crowd has the "right" position they can force onto everyone else and not the other way around? Societal mores and norms are governed by society. By that standard, homosexuality which is practiced by only a small percentage of adults (2%, not the 10% inflated and totally unsubstantiated guesstimate used to promote the agenda of normalizing homosexuality) is, has, and will always be outside the norm, and considered amoral according to the tenets of the religion held by most members of major religions.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re: Still inappropriate ...
Mar 3, 2004 10:28PM PST

Hi, Evie.

America has a pluralistic society, based on individual rights and freedoms. The "Heather has two mommies crowd," as you put it, is forcing nothing on anyone -- they're merely demanding the same rights as you and I have. And that's what America is supposed to be about. Iran, on the other hand, is a perfect example of a society where there's a proscribed, religiously-based moral code enshrined in the law, and those who disobey are jailed or worse.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
The "Heather has two mommies crowd," IS attempting to force their agenda on us.
Mar 4, 2004 5:41AM PST

They're trying to force the material into the schools so that young children will be taught about homosexuality. It's outrageous that you're attempting to deny this! I can't believe that you're not well aware of that effort.

- Collapse -
Re:The
Mar 4, 2004 6:05AM PST

You apparently don't grasp the difference between Iran and the US Dave, and also seem to be naive on the school/homosexual influence. Lets envision the "PC" crap when the kids get older.

- Collapse -
A lot of that material is in the schools
Mar 4, 2004 6:09AM PST

so that the children of hate filled, sanctimonious, hypocritical, narrow minded parents will stop beating up Heather, spitting on her, and telling her she and her parents are going to burn in hell. Those would be good things to stop.

Dan

- Collapse -
Gee Dan, the children I know, my daughter included, don't engage in
Mar 4, 2004 6:23AM PST

beatings, spitting, and telling people they're going to hell. First, they haven't been taught to treat ANYONE that way. Second, they know they'ld get their bottoms tanned if they tried. Third, the couldn't care less who the parents of their school mates are. Thus, the ONLY purpose of teaching them the subject is to begin the indoctrination process!

I guess you're OK with indoctrination as long as its your indoctrination huh? After all, you've got to rescue the kids from their 'hate filled, sanctimonious, hypocritical, narrow minded parents'! Spoken like a true liberal!

Dan, most, if not all, of kids that are 'beating up Heather, spitting on her, and telling her she and her parents are going to burn in hell' are children of parents who haven't taught them to respect God's image bearers.

- Collapse -
How would you know?
Mar 4, 2004 6:28AM PST

"The children you know" don't do those things. Don't admit ignorance on a topic and then follow it right up with an unsupported declaration of fact.

Dan

- Collapse -
Excuse me?
Mar 4, 2004 6:49AM PST

When did I say I was ignorant about the children I know?

If you mean the gay scene, then they wouldn't be beating Heather up if they were into the gay scene would they?

BTW, I didn't mean I've had no experience with gays. I've known several quite well. I do know almost nothing about the gay 'scene'.

- Collapse -
Always such overstatement. [nt]
Mar 4, 2004 7:50AM PST

.