Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

We know how deep this rabbit hole goes. It's definitely true that gays are really treated right.

But I also hate the anti-homophobes. NOT because of what they do. Because they think being terrible solves the problem.

Here's what I mean: Stupid debate

TL;DR: This guy made an animation about 2 people, Minx and KrismPro. He made a comment attacking homophobes (for the record, I understand, but that's no excuse). I told him that he shouldn't have done that, and after a month, he blocked me.

I can see why people hate gays, and I see why people hate homophobes. But actually talking instead of insulting the problem.

I really didn't see anything in that log except you being an asshole to everyone. What am I supposed to be looking at?

Assholes being assholes to other assholes seems to be an applicable problem solving tactic for everything in this world.

The thing is there isn't a gay vs anti-gay debate. There are people who accept that they don't have the right to tell other people what they can do with another consenting adult, and people who think they have the right to dictate your lives because they're bigoted.

Point. Very good one. I should probably rename this, if it was possible.

Okay, I read the entire debate you linked to. To be very blunt, you were a poor ambassador for your cause. Calling people idiots, telling them to shut up, and blocking them while simultaneously criticizing the video maker for being rude and blocking people made you look like a hypocrite.

Otherwise, I can agree with the point you were making near the end of the debate, i.e. how only love can drive out hate and so on. Being radically anti-homophobic, I am aware of how easily intolerance – even justified intolerance – can blow up in one's face. Don't give bigots an opportunity to use tu quoque.

I see.

Why do I feel like I've seen this same scene play out several times before in almost the exact same way?

I don't know.

I have a friend who's a devout Christian, and I recently found out he's anti-homosexuality (he used to be bi himself). Honestly, the thought that in him, he thinks that an aspect of who I am, something I was born with, is inherently wrong makes me upset, and I'm a little uncomfortable with him because of it.

Now that LGBT rights have gotten to the point where they have a legitimate voice in society, it's hardly surprising that some people abuse the platform they're given. Look at this site's general disdain for "SJWs." It's not "social justice" that people on this site hate, it's raving dogmatists who reduce everyone to a set of convenient labels.

I find it frustrating that "allies" nowadays seem to jump on social justice bandwagons to find new things to be outraged about: straight people being outraged for LGBT people, white people being outraged for black people, and so on and so forth. It's not that these "allies" want to combat social ills and improve the human condition, it's that they want an outlet for their righteous indignation and meaningless bluster. They want to shout down people they childishly view as "evil" without listening to the argument.

If you're looking at a cause from the outside, the best thing you can do is to approach the cause in an even headed way and listen to people rather than jump to conclusions and start shouting. The "FCKH8" group is notorious for this sort of behavior. The LGBT struggle for solidarity and equality is a solemn and difficult issue and it's not something that can be reduced to a "good-vs-evil/us-vs-them" pissing contest.

In the same way I'll never know what it's like to be a black person and I'll never know what it's like to be brutalized by police officers on the sole basis of my skin color, I'll never know what it's like to be ostracized because of my sexuality. I'll never know what it's like to be a transsexual person who gets called a "monster" because of their struggles with gender identity. No matter how many books I read and stories I hear, their reality will never be my reality and so I should never get outraged as if I were suffering like they are. The role of the "ally" is to listen and seek to understand, to rectify one's own behavior in order not to participate in hurtful behavior, not to get outraged and yell at people.

From the other side, I have an issue with the American conception of religion that makes it seem like every religion is like one of the theologically impoverished Protestant offshoots and that everyone who opposes LGBT marriage is an evil bigot. In its purest form, religious apologism is about defending something that comes down from on high. While TV Evangelists rail about how "gays are an abomination," Catholics (at least the ones who haven't muddied their faith with various American Protestant misreadings and misunderstandings) defend the institution of marriage because marriage is an inherently religious concept that comes down from above. Church teaching makes it very clear that it is the act of sin, not someone's identity, that needs to be challenged, and furthermore that hate speech is not the way to defend higher truth.

"I can see why people hate gays"
-OP

…Okay.

But I don't actually hate them. I see why others do. People aren't really used to them yet.

Well, the way I see it, there's two types of bigots in this world.

One the one hand, you have those who dislike/distrust people who are in a different category of some protected class. These individuals are often in favor of discrimination based upon one or more protected classes which benefits whatever category they fit into. This is the domain of your basic racist, sexist, what have you.

On the other hand, you have those who dislike/distrust those with differing beliefs, opinions, and worldviews. Individuals who fall here tend to be against freedom of speech/expression for those whose viewpoints some issue(s) differ from their own. This is less prejudice against people, and more prejudice against ideas. Note that this category does not include all those who argue against a particular belief, only those who would try to prevent the belief from being expressed.

Now, it is entirely possible for an individual to fit both of these categories. The much-maligned SJWs are a good example, given their prejudice against white males and their constant efforts to silence rhetoric that disagrees with their ideology.

As for this particular example of Christains and gays and what have you, I say that no Christian is obligated to support gay rights or homosexual behavior, because I believe in freedom of religion. However, this religious freedom also necessarily allows a homosexual to not practice Christianity if they do not believe in it. A devout Christian who is homosexual might remain celibate/chaste or whatever you call it, if they view homosexual intercourse to be a sin. I believe in that legal marriage should be possible for same-sex couples, but not a Christian ceremony because Christian marriage is between a man and woman by definition.

but not a Christian ceremony because Christian marriage is between a man and woman by definition.

That's actually not entirely true. While many denominations do believe this, others are more open to the idea of homosexuality and gay marriage. I think a better alternative would be to let people have whatever ceremony they want with the caveat that preists have the right to refuse to marry whoever they want.

To add to this: it is an oversimplification to assert that Biblical scripture supports monogamous heterosexual marriage solely. Indeed, the Bible gives many examples of "acceptable" forms of marriage; a Biblical literalist would technically have to accept all of these forms as valid in order to be consistent in their worldview.

Obviously, literalism is not the only available approach to scripture. A historical-critical (i.e. "liberal") approach, however, would lead to the conclusion that the Bible rejects neither homosexuality nor gay marriage.

In short, not only is it possible for a Christian to support or be neutral on gay marriage, it is obligatory. The only way for a Christian to reject gay marriage on scriptural grounds would be for him/her to also embrace all of the forms of marriage present in the image above.

@Particle Mare

>all those examples are from the jewish parts

Oy gevalt! It's a conspiracy, man!

Back to the serious discussion, I was thinking of the part in Matthew something:something when Jesus talked about how marriage is between one man and one woman as God made them in the beginning and let them not divorce, or something to that effect.

@Dr. Coolface

The belief that homosexual intercourse is a sin is almost entirely derived from the "Jewish parts" (especially Leviticus) of the Bible.

In Matthew, Christ compares divorce to adultery. There is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality; omission is not evidence.

>_"but Christ clearly makes heterosexual marriage out to be spiritually important"_

Perhaps, but this in itself is not a condemnation of gay marriage either. Furthermore, this passage gives the (false) impression that a man-woman marriage is in some way the pinnacle of spiritual wholesomeness, when indeed the New Testament asserts that marriage is actually the lesser of two paths:

"…I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband…"
1 Corinthians 7

In other words: get married if you can't control your libido, but try to stay single. Marriage isn't as spiritually important as some assert it is. The case for the New Testament rejecting gay marriage is pretty flimsy.

I can't see how not being used to gay people is a reason to hate them, sorry.

And even then, that's BS anyway. Gays didn't just pop up suddenly last year or so.

Gays aren't notorious for being bothersome to people, so people hating gays hate them purely for the fact that they're gay, or because of their religious beliefs. So if you can see how others hate them, you somehow can see some logic in how bigots and assholes look at gays?

I don't get how you can see why others hate them. Shouldn't these reasons be incomprehensible?

Or maybe I'm missing something. At least, I don't get it.

Well, take how a baby sees something they don't know. If they can't figure it out, they get scared.

Except with adults.

The thing one has to remember in situations like this is that this "debate" isn't just an intellectual discussion people have for fun on the internet, it has a real effect on people's lives. If something/someone is causing actual significant harm to your life and/or the lives of people you love (particularly if there's no rational basis for it), you're going to feel very strongly about the issue.

Whilst you may very well be right that being pleasant and diplomatic to people is in the long run a better approach (hence why I attempt to do that), I don't think you can really judge people for not being inclined to do that when their lives have been made hell by said people. Intellectualizing stuff on an internet site is easy, dealing with actual tangible discrimination and violence is not.

I can't speak for what Christianity says when concerning gay marriage but I can speak about what Islam says.One of the main arguments against homosexuality is when Lut (as) approached his people saying:

"Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people."
-Quran (7:81)
translator: sahih international.

Now, there are Muslims who say Islam allows gay marriage and that the people of lut raped men instead of consensual sex.Now the quote i mentioned is what i will use to debunk this claim because if Lut(as) was objecting to just rape it would have suggested "don't rape the men, rape the women" and in Islam the punishment for rape is death.It is very likely that the Quran suggested they did it both ways.

In conclusion Islam prohibits gay marriage by a mile.

Now don't jump on my throat because of this and as the famous phrase goes "don't shoot the messenger".I am not responsible for what they say.