Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Bubbles]

Dear Rose,

Can you open that up for me a little, scapegoating Christians, cues to conform, for me and correct me if I am wrong, and I will be apologising but all I have set out to show is the damage homophobic thought can have.

I certainly don't want to pick on Hope or Spud or anyone who shows homophobic thought, although sometimes a post can set the pulse racing and I do let loose, homophobic thought has to be highlighted, it causes great harm.

Homophobic thought is not some will o the wisp, it is a very powerful force, it leads to destruction of human life and I would add to any Christian reading this, remember the early Christians who were put to death for being different.

Gonnagle.

I take your point Gonnagle, about homophobic thought being a powerful force and it leading to harm, but sometimes suppressing something makes it worse. The person being suppressed just might be pushed into being more entrenched.

If people feel social disapproval and think they are being told what to think, it can cause them to become more radical,

I have been reading your posts with interest as they are very thoughtful and I take on board the points you are making.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes

Posts 530 where Hope is defending his POV and the subsequent posts after it.

Some people have a one true way reaction to opinions that differ.

Live and let live, to me anyway,  means in part accepting different POV's especially when you don't agree with them.

The general impression I get us that instead of " live at let live" it's more " shut the **** up"

That's the reaction I see to Hope's post.

"Live and let live"  is about getting on with those that differ.

I don't see any evidence in Hopes posts that in real life, opinions aside, he doesn't live and let live.

You can live and let live, while disagreeing a lot with someone.

I think it comes down to how you read and understand someone's posts.

I would have an issue with Hopes post if I thought he was advocating " interfering " with others in the real world.

My reading is its just his opinions based on his beliefs.

I asked you about which posts say anything like Hope should not be allowed to express an opinion because people disagree with it. Which of the posts by others do you think say that?

[Brownie]

Quote from: Gonnagle on Today at 01:51:00 PM
Dear Rose,

Can you open that up for me a little, scapegoating Christians, cues to conform, for me and correct me if I am wrong, and I will be apologising but all I have set out to show is the damage homophobic thought can have.

I certainly don't want to pick on Hope or Spud or anyone who shows homophobic thought, although sometimes a post can set the pulse racing and I do let loose, homophobic thought has to be highlighted, it causes great harm.

Homophobic thought is not some will o the wisp, it is a very powerful force, it leads to destruction of human life and I would add to any Christian reading this, remember the early Christians who were put to death for being different.

Gonnagle.



Rose: [/I take your point Gonnagle, about homophobic thought being a powerful force and it leading to harm, but sometimes suppressing something makes it worse. The person being suppressed just might be pushed into being more entrenched.

If people feel social disapproval and think they are being told what to think, it can cause them to become more radical,/]

Like Rose, I take on board what you say, Gonners, and as you know, I am a Christian who has no problem with homosexual relationships.   I would really like to change the minds of those who do but am not going to do so if I pounce on them, changes of opinion come about gradually. 

Some years ago, which a couple of posters on here may remember, I didn't believe that homosexual couples should marry.  I had no problem with civil partnerships which were about to happen or may have just happened but I felt marriage was a step too far.  I gave my reasons, too long to elaborate here and now, and no-one jumped on me.  They put forward their opinions and I 'listened'.  Eventually I changed my mind on that one because I read quite a lot on the subject and discussed it, but it was a gradual process.  All the more firm for being gradual, I believe.

There are people who do say vile things about homosexuals, a lot based on ignorance, some on biology  , and they show anger and personal distaste, backed up by archaic scriptural references.  There is definitely no love there.   Hope doesn't do that, indeed he might not even raise the subject if no-one else did.  He talks about other things, isn't obsessed.  Yet the attitude to him is more or less telling him that his opinions are unwelcome because they are different to most others on the board.

[Bubbles]

I asked you about which posts say anything like Hope should not be allowed to express an opinion because people disagree with it. Which of the posts by others do you think say that?

Indirectly a number seem to be heading in that direction.

I don't think me pointing fingers is going to help.

I can definately say one post  at least implies Hope is wrong by stating his POV on the messageboard, that he is wrong in posting his views.

I would rather you read back a few pages, than I have to point fingers.

[Rhiannon]

There are people who do say vile things about homosexuals, a lot based on ignorance, some on biology  , and they show anger and personal distaste, backed up by archaic scriptural references.  There is definitely no love there.   Hope doesn't do that, indeed he might not even raise the subject if no-one else did.  He talks about other things, isn't obsessed.  Yet the attitude to him is more or less telling him that his opinions are unwelcome because they are different to most others on the board.

No, his opinions are unwelcome because they are vile, hateful and hurtful. I'd much rather not have the debates with him that I do but while he is free to state his opinion - and he is and should be free to do so, however unwelcome I may find it - then others here are free to challenge it.

[Nearly Sane]

Indirectly a number seem to be heading in that direction.

I don't think me pointing fingers is going to help.

I can definately say one post  at least implies Hope is wrong by stating his POV on the messageboard, that he is wrong in posting his views.

I would rather you read back a few pages, than I have to point fingers.

I have read back and see no posts that read as if saying Hope should not be allowed to post because someone disagrees with them, but as you have pointed out we might  read things differently. For example, one might read some of your posts as implying that when Trentvoyager has expressed his opinion on Hope, that trentvoyager was comparable to IS. I am pretty sure you don't mean to imply it, but your posts could easily be read that way. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rose,

I take your point Gonnagle, about homophobic thought being a powerful force and it leading to harm, but sometimes suppressing something makes it worse. The person being suppressed just might be pushed into being more entrenched.

If people feel social disapproval and think they are being told what to think, it can cause them to become more radical,

And I agree with your point, this was debated ages ago when Prof Dawkins brought out his God Delusion, on attacking fundamental Christianity it only sought them to become more entrenched, I think one person emailed thanking him for increased Church attendance.

Sorry but I need to mention Hope here again, on various occasions Hope has agreed with me that the Bible needs to be read in context, as in, the when, the who, the why, the where, the what, the how, so why can he not see that any reference to homosexuality in the Bible was for that time, old and new Testament, I think he has also agreed with me that the Bible is not the literal word of God but man's musings on God.

Maybe I have got Hope wrong, his homophobia comes from another source, Spud on the other hand is literal, God sat Moses down and said, take a letter Miss Jones.

Gonnagle.

[floo]

People who are anti-gay, are as bad as those who are racist, and shouldn't be permitted to get away with their nastiness, imo.

[Nearly Sane]

People who are anti-gay, are as bad as those who are racist, and shouldn't be permitted to get away with their nastiness, imo.

What does 'permitted to get away with it' mean though? 

[Brownie]

I wondered about that too.  I suppose floo means (& she will tell me if I'm wrong), they must be challenged.  Well, they are challenged.  I haven't noticed much in the way of racist, anti-gay views on here though.

[floo]

Overt racism is illegal, and I think anti-gay bigotry should be too.

[Nearly Sane]

Overt racism is illegal, and I think anti-gay bigotry should be too.

So are you saying that you would like the comments by some on here to be illegal?

[Bubbles]

I have read back and see no posts that read as if saying Hope should not be allowed to post because someone disagrees with them, but as you have pointed out we might  read things differently. For example, one might read some of your posts as implying that when Trentvoyager has expressed his opinion on Hope, that trentvoyager was comparable to IS. I am pretty sure you don't mean to imply it, but your posts could easily be read that way.

Yes posts can be read many different ways depending on what the reader picks up on.

I am most definately not saying Trent is comparable to Isis.

I actually think he is more tolerant in some ways than others here.

[Bubbles]

So are you saying that you would like the comments by some on here to be illegal?

This is an example of what I mean NS.

Some posters appear to think some people shouldn't be posting their opinions.

At all.

Also one persons opinion is another persons nastiness.

Where people draw the line is subjective.

I see Hopes views as an opinion ( not one I agree with btw) rather than nastiness.

[Nearly Sane]

This is an example of what I mean NS.

Some posters appear to think some people shouldn't be posting their opinions.

At all.

But we all think that - there isn't anyone who is arguing that all opinions should be allowed e.g. that all Jews should be gassed

I really don't see anything in Floo's post that says opinions should be banned because she disagrees with them, which was your statement.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

This is an example of what I mean NS.

Some posters appear to think some people shouldn't be posting their opinions.

At all.

Everyone should be allowed to post their opinions but you have accept that they can be challenged. Live and let live does not mean allowing opinions expressed in the public arena a free pass to go unchallenged.

[Bubbles]

But we all think that - there isn't anyone who is arguing that all opinions should be allowed e.g. that all Jews should be gassed

I really don't see anything in Floo's post that says opinions should be banned because she disagrees with them, which was your statement.

Ok, I think perhaps this is where Floo needs to step in to clarify whether she thinks Hope or anyone else should be able to post what this thread seems to view as " vile homophobic views "

I wouldn't say Hope is expressing " vile homophobic views"  I think he is just giving his opinion as he interprets his religion and he has tried to talk generally rather than making it something personal.

[Nearly Sane]

Everyone should be allowed to post their opinions but you have accept that they can be challenged. Live and let live does not mean allowing opinions expressed in the public arena a free pass to go unchallenged.

Again, I am not sure I agree with this. Free speech is rarely defended as an absolute, and I would argue, that, when it is done that way, it's wrong. (see shouting Fire in a crowded theatre).
We don't allow quite a lot on this forum, and some stuff we wouldn't be allowed to if we wanted to.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Ok, I think perhaps this is where Floo needs to step in to clarify whether she thinks Hope or anyone else should be able to post what this thread seems to view as " vile homophobic views "

I wouldn't say Hope is expressing " vile homophobic views"  I think he is just giving his opinion as he interprets his religion and he has tried to talk generally rather than making it something personal.

We will see what Floo says but I for one think he clearly expresses homophobic views and I think they are vile. However, as you have said, and I have also said to Sassy, vile is a subjective opinion. I would rather his posts stood and could be shown for what they are. It might not change him but there are other people who look at this forum who are not members.

[Bubbles]

Everyone should be allowed to post their opinions but you have accept that they can be challenged. Live and let live does not mean allowing opinions expressed in the public arena a free pass to go unchallenged.

I don't have an issue with challenging, it's just I question what is counted as vile homophobic posts and the implication they don't belong here.

The trouble is its all subjective, because although I don't see Hopes posts that way, I could see some posts that way.

I just draw the line in a different place. 

(That's not to say my POV is the correct one, just that we are all different as shown by Stephen and NS discussing freedom of speech  )

[Nearly Sane]

Ok, I think perhaps this is where Floo needs to step in to clarify whether she thinks Hope or anyone else should be able to post what this thread seems to view as " vile homophobic views "

I wouldn't say Hope is expressing " vile homophobic views"  I think he is just giving his opinion as he interprets his religion and he has tried to talk generally rather than making it something personal.

I don't get 'just expressing an opinion' as a useful phrase. 'All Jews should be gassed' is just an opinion. You think certain opinions shouldn't be allowed, so does Floo, you draw the line in different places I don't see that makes the charge that Floo just wants to stop all opinions that she disagrees with valid.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't have an issue with challenging, it's just I question what is counted as vile homophobic posts and the implication they don't belong here.

The trouble is its all subjective, because although I don't see Hopes posts that way, I could see some posts that way.

I just draw the line in a different place. 

(That's not to say my POV is the correct one, just that we are all different as shown by Stephen and NS discussing freedom of speech  )

I don't have a problem with this but then why cover the idea that the people who might draw the line elsewhere from you are then like IS which you did earlier?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I don't have an issue with challenging, it's just I question what is counted as vile homophobic posts and the implication they don't belong here.

The trouble is its all subjective, because although I don't see Hopes posts that way, I could see some posts that way.

I just draw the line in a different place.

We agree overall then. We might not agree on the specifics of each case but the forum is a good place to bring them out into the open.

Re my last post, Nearly Sanes post means I would like to modify my previous statement to include opinions which do not incite harm to other members of society. That is my line in the sand. Inciting hatred sits on it. You need to get the views out there in order to challenge them but you don't want people to suffer.

Those which seek to discriminate against people on the grounds of race, sexuality, gender, beliefs etc are those I call vile because they make the target out to be a second rate citizen.

[Bubbles]

I don't get 'just expressing an opinion' as a useful phrase. 'All Jews should be gassed' is just an opinion. You think certain opinions shouldn't be allowed, so does Floo, you draw the line in different places I don't see that makes the charge that Floo just wants to stop all opinions that she disagrees with valid.

I suppose there comes a point when most of us think a view is so distasteful and harmful it needs to be suppressed.
I'm just not convinced that Hope is there yet.

"All Jews should be gassed" isn't "just an opinion", it's an incitement towards a violent action.

Has Hope said that all homosexuals should be killed off?

[Bubbles]

We agree overall then. We might not agree on the specifics of each case but the forum is a good place to bring them out into the open.

Re my last post, Nearly Sanes post means I would like to modify my previous statement to include opinions which do not incite harm to other members of society. That is my line in the sand. Inciting hatred sits on it. You need to get the views out there in order to challenge them but you don't want people to suffer.

Those which seek to discriminate against people on the grounds of race, sexuality, gender, beliefs etc are those I call vile because they make the target out to be a second rate citizen.

Yes, that's where I draw the line too