Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[SteveH]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm!

Why not admit you were wrong for once?

[ProfessorDavey]

I was concerned at first but decided not to mention sexuality.

Why on earth would you be concerned that a work colleague is gay. Can you not see how bizarre and frankly concerning that comment is to most right thinking people. Perhaps you can understand how awful that comment is by changing the nature of the concern.

How would you feel if someone said they were concerned that their work colleague was black - I think you'd undoubtedly think they were horribly prejudiced and racist. The same applies to you expect it isn't racism but homophobia.

[Outrider]

My work mate is not really important here.

Your attitude towards them is, though.

I am mainly interested in addressing the issue from a moral perspective.

And yet you keep making reference to religion instead...

Btw, God is outside time.

And so, in terms of having an effect, meaningless.

O.

[Roses]

My work mate is not really important here. I am mainly interested in addressing the issue from a moral perspective. Btw, God is outside time.

Your anti-gay bigotry in IMMORAL, each post you make shows what an unpleasant little creep you are. You use your highly unpleasant take on Christianity as an excuse for your nastiness.  

[SteveH]

Your anti-gay bigotry in IMMORAL, each post you make shows what an unpleasant little creep you are. You use your highly unpleasant take on Christianity as an excuse for your nastiness.

Whatever else you can say about Spud - and I don't like his attitude towards gays, nor his fundamentalist version of Christianity, either - he is always unfailingly polite, unlike some others.

[Nearly Sane]

Whatever else you can say about Spud - and I don't like his attitude towards gays, nor his fundamentalist version of Christianity, either - he is always unfailingly polite, unlike some others.

Except in touting his homophobic views he is not being polite to anyone who is gay.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except in touting his homophobic views he is not being polite to anyone who is gay.

So politeness matters on this board now? What complete humbug.

[Nearly Sane]

So politeness matters on this board now? What complete humbug.

My post doesn't say that.

Anyway here's a link to the forum rules which lay out what is and isn't allowed.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=7765.0

[Roses]

Whatever else you can say about Spud - and I don't like his attitude towards gays, nor his fundamentalist version of Christianity, either - he is always unfailingly polite, unlike some others.

POLITE? Spud's attitude towards gays is far from polite, as is yours!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

POLITE? Spud's attitude towards gays is far from polite, as is yours!

I very rarely comment on Gay issues. I did mention it once and was instantly accused of supporting the murder of Gays, itself a prime example of how atheists sometimes weaponise homosexuality. How do you mean therefore how I am far from polite specifically toward Gay people?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I very rarely comment on Gay issues. I did mention it once and was instantly accused of supporting the murder of Gays, itself a prime example of how atheists sometimes weaponise homosexuality. How do you mean therefore how I am far from polite specifically toward Gay people?

Just out of interest, is there any subject at all into which you wouldn't drag bloody atheists/antitheists (you wrongly use these terms interchangeably)? A recipe for scones maybe? An exchange of views on the mating habits of skylarks? Anything?

Pointing out Spud's/Steve's homophobia has nothing to do with atheism. A cleric possessed of a moral compass could say the same. But then again, you knew that already didn't you.     

[Roses]

Vlad speak, translated into English is gobbledegook! 

[Owlswing]

Why not admit you were wrong for once?

Maybe she is waiting for you to do so first. Or do you consider that you have never been wrong, if so your arrogance is truly mind-blowing!

[Owlswing]

Why on earth would you be concerned that a work colleague is gay. Can you not see how bizarre and frankly concerning that comment is to most right thinking people. Perhaps you can understand how awful that comment is by changing the nature of the concern.

How would you feel if someone said they were concerned that their work colleague was black - I think you'd undoubtedly think they were horribly prejudiced and racist. The same applies to you expect it isn't racism but homophobia.

Black!?

It would be a damn sight worse if he were Christian!

[Roses]

Maybe she is waiting for you to do so first. Or do you consider that you have never been wrong, if so your arrogance is truly mind-blowing!

Steve thinks he is right about most things, which would be quite amusing if it wasn't so irritating.

[Owlswing]

Whatever else you can say about Spud - and I don't like his attitude towards gays, nor his fundamentalist version of Christianity, either - he is always unfailingly polite, unlike some others.

I hope you do not consider yourself not to be one of the "some others".

[SteveH]

POLITE? Spud's attitude towards gays is far from polite, as is yours!

You don't understnad the meaning of simple words like "polite".

[Nearly Sane]

I very rarely comment on Gay issues. I did mention it once and was instantly accused of supporting the murder of Gays, itself a prime example of how atheists sometimes weaponise homosexuality. How do you mean therefore how I am far from polite specifically toward Gay people?

Vlad you are not Spud

[Roses]

You don't understnad the meaning of simple words like "polite".

You don't know the meaning of that word if your posts are an indication of your general attitude.

[SteveH]

You don't know the meaning of that word if your posts are an indication of your general attitude.

I don't pretend to be polite all the time. Fewer childish ripostes and more attention to what people actually post would be welcome from you.

[Roses]

I don't pretend to be polite all the time. Fewer childish ripostes and more attention to what people actually post would be welcome from you.

What you post is often like a small kiddie have a temper tantrum, so don't try to tell others how to behave. You have not done yourself any favours at all on this thread.
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve,

I don't pretend to be polite all the time. Fewer childish ripostes and more attention to what people actually post would be welcome from you.

I think your problem here is that people have been paying attention to what you actually post, and they're appalled by it – rightly so in my view.

[Outrider]

I don't pretend to be polite all the time. Fewer childish ripostes and more attention to what people actually post would be welcome from you.

I paid attention.  You think that marriage between two gay people should be viewed as somehow lesser than marriage between two straight people.  I think you should, therefore, be looked upon as somehow lesser based upon your opinions of people's relationships.  Others would seem to share my view.

How polite they are about it varies, but it doesn't change the message.  Where your outlook comes from doesn't matter, it doesn't change the message, which is bigotry.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

You don't understnad the meaning of simple words like "polite".

I'm struggling to understand this 'politeness' argument.

If someone says something deeply intolerant and offensive I don't see it as any better if they do so using polite language rather than being ranty.

In some respects it is worse - the most dangerous people, in my view, are those that promulgate deeply extreme and offensive views while seeming superficially polite and reasonable. They are much more likely to garner supporters to their extremist views if they aren't coming across as a swivel-eyed loon.

[Spud]

Spud,

To the contrary. If you're going to make contemptible and unpleasant statements like "I treat him like a heterosexual" then you must expect to be criticised for it.

Sure. The statement will need to be explained as it does appear unpleasant, I know. 

What moral perspective? What on earth has someone else's sexual orientation go to to do with you, let alone with morality?

 
I am talking about the morality of acting on one's sexual orientation. I notice that no-one has addressed my point in #1206. It can be made without reference to God.
Homosexual acts are unnatural. Steve has already explained why, but to expand a bit, the man and the woman have different sexual roles. The man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. Homosexual acts reverse those roles, so that men play the role of the female and vice versa. This is what makes the acts dishonoring, and thus, morally wrong.