Do religious people have the right to be homophobic?

[TheScotsman]

No, not really. In the same way they don't allow people with imaginary friends to make important decisions, I don't think I'm in any way to take the muddled ramblings of a brain-washed religious person seriously.

And I'm not talking about any specific religion here. The Buddhists are just as full of horse-shit as the rest of them.

 

[Drifterwood]

We're all prejudiced is some way! But to oppress someone's non-malignant beliefs, political, agnostic, atheistic or theistic & their freedom to express their views is wholly undemocratic.

For the tenth and final time, this is not about limiting freedom of speech (except where it becomes incitement, which is that law anyway though you seem to be ignorant of that) it is about discriminatory actions. Until you talk about discriminatory actions, what you are saying is the red herring.

A christian police officer should not be barred from joining the christian police association. He is not trying to get in to fuck them off, he is trying to join because he is a christian.

 

[B_crackoff]

You don't have to define homophobe. What we have done is to give someone the right to allege that they are the victim of homophobic discrimination.

You could be charged with the crime of incitement to violence.

Which means absolutely nothing! However you can't allege heterophobic discrimination, which is of course DISCRIMINATION.

Are you gay?

If so would you have sex with a woman?

If not would you have sex with a gay man.

If not you are a homophobe - fearing gay sex is number one on the homophobic list of sins. You can't pick & choose your areas of discrimination.

Don't talk about personal choice because that clearly is derived from prejudice & envrionmental upbringing.

 

[B_crackoff]

A christian police officer should not be barred from joining the christian police association. He is not trying to get in to fuck them off, he is trying to join because he is a christian.

Bollocks! How can you be a christian & a practicising (i.e having sex)homosexual? They aren't compatible in most denominations - for a start its sex/adultery outside marraige with no remorse, & pretty clearly both Testaments state that marriage is solely between a man & a woman. BTW Eunuchs & transgenders are exempt from this!

Have you tried the Unitarians instead? The Bah'ai faith is pretty open too!

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Which means absolutely nothing! However you can't allege heterophobic discrimination

Yes you can in many jurisdictions.

If so would you have sex with a woman?

If not would you have sex with a gay man.

If not you are a homophobe - fearing gay sex is number one on the homophobic list of sins. You can't pick & choose your areas of discrimination.

Don't talk about personal choice because that clearly is derived from prejudice & envrionmental upbringing.

Not that this particular portion makes much sense buuuuuut there is a fundamental difference between fearing something and simply having no desire to partake in it.

 

[B_crackoff]

For the tenth and final time, this is not about limiting freedom of speech (except where it becomes incitement, which is that law anyway though you seem to be ignorant of that).

Having sat through an amazingly contrived court case last week in which it was clear incitement is a personally & politically subjective tool & weapon, I couldn't agree less.

I'm well up on the law, wasn't it nice that New Labour rushed through more oppresive anti male legislation too last week.

Nothing that happens in the Family Courts can ever be reported, not even if you shot the judge it seems.

There isn't even a separation between the legislature & judiciary anymore.

You should trot along to court one day & see exactly gets thrown out before the case even begins.

The laws an ass, & subjective definitions of any "crime" allow asses to rule & persecute innocent people.

Brrrrraaayyyy!

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

BTW Eunuchs & transgenders are exempt from this!

Not quite true actually, the early church made it pretty clear that castration was both immoral and an insult to god's perfect design of the human body. During the first centuries after Christ there were some who thought that in order to fulfill the early church's obsession with abstinence and sexual self denial castration was an ideal solution (bizarrely), the early church fathers discouraged this practice on the basis that it made self denial too easy, making the individuals self sacrifice not a true repentance.

 

[Drifterwood]

Which means absolutely nothing! However you can't allege heterophobic discrimination, which is of course DISCRIMINATION.

You can and I am sure that almost none of the gay members would deny that it can happen.

 

[B_crackoff]

You can and I am sure that almost none of the gay members would deny that it can happen.

It's not illegal. Check it out. Of course on sites...

Not quite true actually, the early church made it pretty clear that castration was both immoral and an insult to god's perfect design of the human body. During the first centuries after Christ there were some who thought that in order to fulfill the early church's obsession with abstinence and sexual self denial castration was an ideal solution (bizarrely), the early church fathers discouraged this practice on the basis that it made self denial too easy, making the individuals self sacrifice not a true repentance. .

Fair enough but J does mention eunuchs quite specifically, & by extension & as thereby practised by Muslims(!), transgenders are seen as without fault in their actions to change from one gender to another.

 

[dreamer20]

Bollocks! How can you be a christian & a practicising (i.e having sex)homosexual? They aren't compatible in most denominations - for a start its sex/adultery outside marraige with no remorse, & pretty clearly both Testaments state that marriage is solely between a man & a woman. BTW Eunuchs & transgenders are exempt from this!

As Abraham, the founder of their faith, had sex outside of marriage and acted as Sarah's pimp with Yahweh's blessing , I don't see having consensual sex as a valid reason to discriminate against other Christians. The ascetic Latin editors of the Holy Bible were aghast to find sex revered and celebrated by the ancients therein and to an extent disguised the prevailing sexual morality causing some confusion. But cleary in the Old Testament ( and in the New Testament under Roman law) it was lawful for Hebrew men to have sex with concubines, widows, male and female prostitutues and slaves. Adultery was a property crime, where the man's spouse could not have sex with another without his permission.

The ancient Hebrew's formative religion was a phallic cult - thus requiring its males to possess a penis and testes. Hence eunuchs, and men who lost their penises, could not be part of the congregation.
Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

In the New Testament Jesus and Paul view an ascetic life "for the kingdom of heaven's sake" as being commendable, but realize such a life would not be accepted by all. For the latter persons Christ did not discriminate against them, but associated with them. Likewise so should these Christians who are supposed to lead from Christ's example.

Would Jesus discriminate?

Luke 10:27 He answered: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

 

[B_crackoff]

As Abraham, the founder of their faith, had sex outside of marriage and acted as Sarah's pimp with Yahweh's blessing , I don't see having consensual sex as a valid reason to discriminate against other Christians. The ascetic Latin editors of the Holy Bible were aghast to find sex revered and celebrated by the ancients therein and to an extent disguised the prevailing sexual morality causing some confusion. But cleary in the Old Testament ( and in the New Testament under Roman law) it was lawful for Hebrew men to have sex with concubines, widows, male and female prostitutues and slaves. Adultery was a property crime, where the man's spouse could not have sex with another without his permission.

The ancient Hebrew's formative religion was a phallic cult - thus requiring its males to possess a penis and testes. Hence eunuchs, and men who lost their penises, could not be part of the congregation.
Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

In the New Testament Jesus and Paul view an ascetic life "for the kingdom of heaven's sake" as being commendable, but realize such a life would not be accepted by all. For the latter persons Christ did not discriminate against them, but associated with them. Likewise so should these Christians who are supposed to lead from Christ's example.

Reread Matthew, it's quite explicit about eunuchs.

Abraham was pre Moses, only Mosaic Law counts. There are no derivations of this allowed. The Jewish made up untold man made deivations for the Talmud - which is not Christian. Jesus clearly was agin man made laws, that's plastered all over the gospels.

NB any sex outside of marriage is adultery(period in Christianity, of course in Judahism there are innumerable exceptions!), & therefore a sin. Marriage is specifically stated as between a man & a woman.

What the Hebrews or Romans did is irrelevant. What any biblical character did is irrelevant to those laws - including those who went off worshipping Baal etc.

Therein lies the biggest problem.

 

[Drifterwood]

Therein lies the biggest problem.

Not for me :wink:.

 

[dreamer20]

crackoff vs crackoff:

Abraham was pre Moses, only Mosaic Law counts.

What the Hebrews or Romans did is irrelevant.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

crackoff vs crackoff:

I noticed that too, hilarious! :biggrin1:

 

[grandlarson]

I don't understand how you can discriminate against gays seeing as how they're not really people.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Let 'em be homophobic.
And let's hope that in a life or death situation, they have no choice but to turn to a gay or lesbian person for help. We'll see just how opinionated they act then.

 

[Levi]

The original question was, do religious people have the right to be homophobic?, I would say yes they can if they insist, but only as long as I can shoot religious homophobes in the back of the head.

 

[B_crackoff]

crackoff vs crackoff:

crackoff vs crackoff:

Quote:Originally Posted by crackoff http://www.lpsg.org/178107-do-religious-people-have-right-post2711529.html#post2711529

Abraham was pre Moses, only Mosaic Law counts.

Originally Posted by crackoff
http://www.lpsg.org/178107-do-religious-people-have-right-12.html#post2711529
What the Hebrews or Romans did is irrelevant.

Duh, the Word & Law of God - which is only the 10 commandments - rather than the law of men. Thought I'd implied that heavily in the text!