Important notice: Understanding attacks on homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

OK I admit I am more than a little confused.
Some who unreservedly and apologetically says that he believes homosexuals are a perversion gets a free pass to his hate speech and homosexual people or people that are offended and rightly so get censored and edited and accused of hate speech themselves for coming in and defending it.
Moreso the person in question then threatens legal action....and that is OK too. It is a "support site" and therefore he is supported there as well.
They people defending their being are labeled troublemakers and trolls. Well why wouldn't they. Damn homosexuals not knowing their place evidently.

Rule 1.

The following activities are unacceptable on WrongPlanet:

1. Posting offensive language, comments, video, or images.
Unacceptable content includes swearing; racist, sexist, homophobic language; behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members; violent or sexually demeaning content; sexual fetish; and discussion of excretory function. Posting graphic images or videos of people or animals being harmed is prohibited.

But enough of delicate sensitivities here. Let's examine what has been put to us about attacking a belief ok an attacking a person not OK (and conveniently forget about the obvious and blatant infraction of the rules above).

Homosexual = a person who is gay. Homosexuality = a belief structure? Right?

Wrong. Homosexuality is not a belief and never was. It is a point of being a homosexual person. The same as being Autistic is to be a person on the Autism spectrum.

So this person calling homosexuals perversions or espousing this "belief" is not attacking a belief he is attacking homosexual people singularly and collectively and then hiding behind the conceept of only attacking THEIR beliefs and is BACKED in his hate speech by the moderators here.

Fair? Right? Moral? Supportive?

Wrong on all scores and anyone with a brain and sense of decency would know this.

So why do I care? Am I homosexual? Nope (I don't care who would say so though and I certainly would not threaten legal action. Why because I am comnfortable with my sexuality and see no threat in the gay person or gays in general)

So why make a case for this? Why defend gay people and bring this up? Before you all go running off screaming troll. there is something you should read.

This German Pastor, Martin Niemoller (Google him) said something quite profound and I have accepted as the way to look at life.


When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Time to speak out people and stop protecting people who would seek to use bigotry in passive-aggressive ways and to belittle and condemn and seek to gain protection from condemnation.

Actually a little disgusted I ought to have to point all this out.

Moreso that last I saw that same person was as yet basically uncensored or infracted and continues to threaten legal action at all those who he disagrees with.

Why the hell does he get away with it on a Support site?

... and I think your point of your point of confusion can be seen right there ... and if I might elaborate just a bit ...

Personally, I was raised to believe homosexuality, as in the title of your thread here, is a perversion, and that homosexuality is therefore judged/considered as perverse activity ...

... but then neither then nor now could/can I possibly understand how anyone could think/believe someone saying such a thing would/could at the same time also be saying homosexuals themselves are a perversion ... unless, of course, the second party might first happen to believe "the creator" of all actually could/would be capable of creating any human being as an actual perversion himself or herself ... and so then ...

Question: Is it your contention that "the creator" could have actually "set the stage" himself for someone else to much later then declare homosexuals, themselves, as perversions?

If not, then possibly we have just found the source of your personal confusion here ... and as a close friend once reported to me for consideration of my own self: "My alleged mind is out to get me!"

Please ponder.

There is a fine line drawn here that is the same one drawn when calling religion a mental disease. I can say that a belief in God is a symptom of mass hysteria and demonstrates a lack of good judgement and personal responsibility, but I cannot say that Member X is mentally diseased and lacks good judgement because he believes in God.

That being said, if there are posts that seem to be walking that fine line and someone wishes for a judgement to be made as to whether or not they crossed it, please feel free to send a PM to me and I will be more than happy to review, and act if the line has been crossed. That's what I am here for.

I haven't read all the homosexuality posts involved in this current dust-up as it was already quite involved by the time I became aware of it and merely skimmed the passages. I think all sides are in an understanding as to what is acceptable and what isn't and I ask that we please move forward.

Yes!

@leejosepho
Calling homosexuality a perversion implies homosexuals are a perversion because homosexuality is part of what that person is. In the same way that saying being black is a perversion would imply black people are a perversion. People either are homosexual or they aren't. It cannot be serparated from the person themselves.
Also, it should be added that homosexuality is not an "act"

@midlifeaspie
Calling religious belief a mental illness is different as following a religion says more about who you are as a person, whereas being homosexual says nothing about who they are, merely what they are. Religious belief is similar to political ideology, whereas sexual orientation is comparible to ethnicity, sex or age

Last edited by Dorris on 22 Feb 2011, 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dorris -

You are correct. My analogy is imperfect at best but was the closest thing I could come up with at the moment. We are working behind the scenes to improve the definition of a personal attack in this area.

Thank you! =)

I hear you there, and I can at least accept that as one's own viewpoint commonly shared by many people ...

... but I have yet to be able to see "black" and "homosexual" as being in the same category as I believe you have portrayed since there is no such thing as "elective other-colorism" (choice of color) where a mere practitioner of homosexuality actually *is* possible by someone who is *not* homosexual ...

I think.

Choosing to have sex with another man (or another woman in the case of women) does not make that person gay, any more than a gay man choosing to get married and have kids with a woman is straight.

There were also cases of lightly-coloured African-Americans pretending to be white to escape persecution btw. Many mixed-race people could do this easily.

Race and sexuality are the same in that they are both part of what the person is and cannot be chosen.

Perhaps a comparison you would find easier would be to autism. An autistic person could pretend not to be autistic, but does that make it ok to claim autistic people are perverted or inferior in any way? Would that not also be hate speech?

Just out of curiosity, do you still subscribe to the above view?

Race, sexuality and Autism are aspects of the person topic

Thus, to attack the person because of these aspects is reprehensible, and a reason for being either strongly cautioned, or the other thing that the moderators know about.

Agreed.


Sure, and just as some homosexuals are "obvious", so to speak (and maybe please forgive me there), while others might never show up on the "gaydar".


Agreed. However, virtually anyone of any color could fake "gay" for whatever reason where I would assume (based on my own limited experience) few "full-blooded" blacks could "fake it" as being of any other color.

To argue with myself a bit, however, and in concert with you own argument ...

I am quite convinced I was born "alcoholic" and that I would still be just as alcoholic as then even if now I had never ever taken my first drink of alcohol ... and if I might digress just a bit -- here I go, Merle -- today's AA seems largely filled with people who are really nothing "worse" that what I know to be "heavy drinkers" and I am not welcomed there. But now getting back to the even previous matter:

The moralist would say my gay friends and I might well have been born as we were/are, yet that we must each nevertheless still learn to live differently if we might expect to ever receive whatever might be available for doing so. And on that, and if I might here be allowed to suggest *active* alcoholism is an abomination in the face of either my personal existence or of "God" ...

If the moralist's abomination and the individual "abominator" (practitioner) are the same thing, then what am I now that I no longer drink?

I have no personal position or view on the matter at all.

How can you not have an opinion on something at all? Surely you at least view it as either immoral or ok for example, even if you don't feel strongly about it?

I have no need for any opinion or view or whatever. We each do what we believe is right or just or best or whatever ... and who would I be to be concerned about the "opinion, belief or philosophy" of another? Therefore, I find it most profitable to just do whatever I do while waiting/watching until I might happen to see my own "birds of a feather" flock either overhead or pecking at the ground.

That would actually be a matter of opinion. I think faith is much more like a nationality than a political opinion. It has quite a lot to do with the culture and circumstances in which you were born and raised. And while I personally believe sexual orientation is something you are born with, that isn't really set up as a fact; sexual orientation can be influenced by choices, as many who are gay will tell you; kind of depends on where on the sexuality spectrum one sits (yes, I believe it is a spectrum).

Gets more gray all the time, doesn't it?

I'm personally in the realm of believing that a person should attack neither. Never say Christians believe in a sky fairy, and never say being gay is a horrible thing. If you want to debate the fine points in PPR choose your language very carefully.

The official position of my church, btw, is that orientation is not a matter of choice and, thus, has no "wrong" to it, but that actually engaging in sexual activity is a matter of choice and, thus, can be sinful. Given that everyone sins all the time, just "how" sinful is a matter of personal conscious. I personally figure that since it didn't make the Big 10, it's not that big a deal; just one of those, "your life is likely to run smoother if you don'ts." And maybe the whole problem could be solved by allowing gay marriage