The Last Acceptable Prejudice?

[80sU2isBest]

you're not a homosexual -- how could you possibly know "why" people are homosexuals?

Good grief. So I worded it wrong. I don't "know" why. It's a belief. But you knew that's what I meant.

 

[saltwaterkiss26]

Nonsense, Irvine. Utter and complete nonsense.

I have never treated any homosexual with contempt, have never commited violence against any homosexual, and do not treat homsexuals as "2nd class citizens"; nor have I ever urged anyone to treat homosexuals that way. My belief that homosexuality is wrong doesn't contribute to any of the above. If you want to blame someone, blame those who commit those acts against you, not me.

You want to have your belief that homosexuality is not wrong, but if anyone has a dissenting opinion, you blame them for the wrongs done against homosexuals.

If you can really be totally objective in all issues related to homosexuality and simultaneously believe that homosexuality is wrong, I salute you. But I think many people do and say many more hurtful things than they mean to because of that sort of internalized prejudice. I'm sure you never meant to be contemptuous or derisive towards a gay person. But are you sure you really haven't hurt anyone in any way? Couldn't just stating your believe that homosexuality is wrong make gay people feel like you're putting them on a lower level than you?

[/butts into argument she doesn't really belong in]

 

[Do Miss America]

Nonsense, Irvine. Utter and complete nonsense.

I have never treated any homosexual with contempt, have never commited violence against any homosexual, and do not treat homsexuals as "2nd class citizens"; nor have I ever urged anyone to treat homosexuals that way. My belief that homosexuality is wrong doesn't contribute to any of the above. If you want to blame someone, blame those who commit those acts against you, not me.

No I agree, it does make a difference. This is our nature. It's just as if I and many others stated very boldly that we think fat is wrong and a sin. We don't have to act out against them, just us stating fat people are wrong creates an environment. I may not act out against fat people but I may influence someone who is naturally someone who does act out against people to act out against fat people. And then somewhere along the line a politician who grew up believing being fat is a sin and pushes to ban marriage between fat people.

 

[anitram]

Oh blah blah blah. When Catholicism apologizes for calling homosexuals "objectively disordered" and an "intrinsic evil," then I'll start feeling sorry for it.

How can an intangible organization apologize?

Plenty of Catholics have no issue with homosexuals and speak out about it over and over and over again.

I resent being lumped in with the remainder, thanks.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I think I'll just go to a programmer to get this horrible, violence-causing belief out of my head.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Plenty of Catholics have no issue with homosexuals and speak out about it over and over and over again.

I agree, I resent being lumped in too honestly. But I certainly understand why Melon is angry about it.

I think more accurately, certain people in the Catholic church could be asked to apologize.

Sometimes I do feel there is prejudice against me because I'm Catholic and some people assume I have certain beliefs and am a certain type of person. But I never feel that prejudice even comes close to what minorities, gay people, etc experience.

 

[YellowKite]

However, I also don't think that God made anyone gay.

I was lucky enough to spend some time with some sheep ranchers when I visited Australia. While I was there they were castrating the young sheep and the process included separating the sheep as they came through a gate into female sheep and the young with the male sheep in another enclosure. I don't know why this was the way they broke down the sorting, but I do recall a very vigorous romance between two of the male sheep. I didn't know they were both male until the rancher told us and he pointed out to the group of us that these two males had been lifelong partners and they were useless as breeders because they were so clearly homosexual. They apparently kept them because they produced superior fleece. I had the impression that had there been any reason to kill them, this guy was for it.

If that isn't the strongest example of the natural occurence of homosexuality in nature, then I have no idea what would convince you that people by and large DO NOT choose to be different, they just ARE.

 

[YellowKite]

How can an intangible organization apologize?

Yet, didn't Pope John Paul II apologize for the Catholic Church's actions [or lack there of] towards Jews during the Holocaust? So clearly, the head of an intangible organization can make apologies on the behalf of the group they represent.

 

[anitram]

He apologized for the complicity of the Church during WWII and he was absolutely right to do so. He did not apologize for individual Catholics.

Therefore, IMO, the new Pope can and should apologize for his hateful statements. I would be largely impressed if he or other leading clergy would do that.

I do not want him to apologize on behalf of the group he represents, because I owe no apology to any gay man, woman or child personally. I have had gay friends, close ones and acquaintances. I have supported their causes actively. I have spoken out against hate speech. I've never voted for a single political party which is not fully, 100% supportive of gay rights. Therefore, the Pope has no reason to apologize on my behalf. He should apologize for his own ass, and that of the other old farts who share his views - leave the rest of us out of it. We haven't shared his views, and never will.

 

[Do Miss America]

I think I'll just go to a programmer to get this horrible, violence-causing belief out of my head.

Well I was expecting a much more thoughtful response but whatever.

 

[JessicaAnn]

If that isn't the strongest example of the natural occurence of homosexuality in nature, then I have no idea what would convince you that people by and large DO NOT choose to be different, they just ARE.

There have been other examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom (most recently, there have been stories about gay penguins http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp ).

They apparently kept them because they produced superior fleece.

Of course the gay sheep would have the superior fleece [/sarcasm]

 

[80sU2isBest]

Well I was expecting a much more thoughtful response but whatever.

I wrote that to make a point - it symbolizes my frustration with people who think that people are entitled to their beliefs as long as that belief isn't that homosexuality is wrong; that having that belief contributes to homosexuals being beaten.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Couldn't just stating your believe that homosexuality is wrong make gay people feel like you're putting them on a lower level than you?

Quite frankly, if they think that, it is their problem, not mine.

If I said "I never sin, and the fact that you are a homosexual and do commit sin makes you lower than me and devalues you as a human being", then they would have cause to think that way.

But as it is, I sin also. As does everyone. I don't place myself above anyone.

 

[YellowKite]

He apologized for the complicity of the Church during WWII and he was absolutely right to do so. He did not apologize for individual Catholics.

Therefore, IMO, the new Pope can and should apologize for his hateful statements. I would be largely impressed if he or other leading clergy would do that.

I do not want him to apologize on behalf of the group he represents, because I owe no apology to any gay man, woman or child personally. I have had gay friends, close ones and acquaintances. I have supported their causes actively. I have spoken out against hate speech. I've never voted for a single political party which is not fully, 100% supportive of gay rights. Therefore, the Pope has no reason to apologize on my behalf. He should apologize for his own ass, and that of the other old farts who share his views - leave the rest of us out of it. We haven't shared his views, and never will.

I think that when the Pope apologized for the actions of the Church towards Jews during WWII, he was in fact doing so on behalf of Catholics. To me, the way that the Church has treated homosexuals historically requires an apology by its representative - i.e. The Pope - and were that to occur, he would once again be a representative of the group he leads - Catholics.

I don't want to argue against the way you perceive The Pope's actions or statements as leader of the Church, but for me it is like when the President speaks. He is representing Americans and when the Pope speaks he does so for Catholics. I am anti-Bush and resent every stupid thing that he does, or says, that tarnishes our image, but hopefully non-Americans understand that though he speaks as our representative, he doesn't have 100% agreement, as hopefully non-Catholics will realize that though The Pope speaks as their representative, he also doesn't have 100% agreement.

[that was my best example - so hopefully the Bush arguement doesn't detract from what I was trying to say.]

Anyway, no offense meant - I hope none taken.

 

[melon]

How can an intangible organization apologize?

It all starts with Pope Benedict XVI.

I'm waiting.

Melon

 

[beli]

The Last Acceptable Prejudice is not a church, not in my opinon anyway. Some last acceptable preduices:

* naturally skinny females. "You are anorexic. You are so vain and selfish".

* very pale skinned people and/or people with freckles. Please name one media figure considered beautiful who has multitudes of freckles.

* red heads. I'm not personally red but they cop it too

etc.

At least with the issue of homosexuality some people know its not an issue. The media, despite its campy portrayals of gay people, actually does feature gay people occasionally.

The not socially acceptable slandering eg"You're fat" type of slander, the equivalent occurs with pale people. Daily. I'm not gay so I don't know how often gay people are pubicly slandered by people who have deemed themselves fit to judge others. Probably daily too.

If a person dyed their hair green and then copped abuse, (although its never appropriate) if the abuse gets too much they have the option to change.

Not an option with fair skinned people or freckled people or red heads (or gay people)

 

[Do Miss America]

I wrote that to make a point - it symbolizes my frustration with people who think that people are entitled to their beliefs as long as that belief isn't that homosexuality is wrong; that having that belief contributes to homosexuals being beaten.

So if my church starts a movement that being overweight is a sin, they'd be entitled to that "belief" and you would just leave it at that?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Your church can believe whatever they want to; it's your right. I have a right to disagree. But i don't care if you say I'm sinning because I'm overweight - makes no difference to me what you think about my weight. When you start beating up and degrading fat people, then there's a problem.

 

[Irvine511]

Nonsense, Irvine. Utter and complete nonsense.

I have never treated any homosexual with contempt, have never commited violence against any homosexual, and do not treat homsexuals as "2nd class citizens"; nor have I ever urged anyone to treat homosexuals that way. My belief that homosexuality is wrong doesn't contribute to any of the above. If you want to blame someone, blame those who commit those acts against you, not me.

You want to have your belief that homosexuality is not wrong, but if anyone has a dissenting opinion, you blame them for the wrongs done against homosexuals.

do you have a belief on left-handedness? how about having red hair?

what you don't get is that it is unacceptable to have an "opinion" on a naturally occurring orientation. it's perfectly legitimate to think that homosexuality is, to you as a heterosexual, gross. or at least unappetizing. but that's worlds away from saying that it's wrong.

your belief that it's "wrong" contributes to a culture that treats homosexuals like 2nd class citiznes.

shall we begin to list the ways? marriage is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Irvine511]

If you can really be totally objective in all issues related to homosexuality and simultaneously believe that homosexuality is wrong, I salute you. But I think many people do and say many more hurtful things than they mean to because of that sort of internalized prejudice. I'm sure you never meant to be contemptuous or derisive towards a gay person. But are you sure you really haven't hurt anyone in any way? Couldn't just stating your believe that homosexuality is wrong make gay people feel like you're putting them on a lower level than you?

[/butts into argument she doesn't really belong in]

absolutely.

i would say the #1 disfuction in the gay community is self-loathing. from self-loathing comes a whole host of social problems -- alcoholism, drug abuse, reckless behavior, suicide, etc.

it is my job, my duty, my calling, to be out and visible and to let everyone know that such attitudes have real consequences for real people. it's not about tolerance, it's not even about acceptance, it's about understanding that there is no moral difference between a heteroseuxal relationship and a homosexual relationship. one is not definitionally better than the other, each relationship is as strong, worthy, and moral as the participants.

you can say whatever you want, you can believe whatever you want -- but if i hear something i disagree with to the depths of my soul, i am not going to nod and respect your opinion. i will respect your right to that opinion, but not the opinion itself.

 

[Irvine511]

I think I'll just go to a programmer to get this horrible, violence-causing belief out of my head.

let's have coffee or a beer sometime. i'm sure meeting real, live gay people and getting to know them as human beings and not thinking of them as sex acts, and then seeing how they fuction, so utterly and throughly normally, in their relationships that are every bit as boring and quotidian as your run-of-the-mill straight relationship would go a long way.

 

[80sU2isBest]

let's have coffee or a beer sometime. i'm sure meeting real, live gay people and getting to know them as human beings and not thinking of them as sex acts, and then seeing how they fuction, so utterly and throughly normally, in their relationships that are every bit as boring and quotidian as your run-of-the-mill straight relationship would go a long way.

I've had gay friends. And as I've said before, I don't view gay people as any less valuable than anyone else, so you can take your condescension elsewhere.

 

[80sU2isBest]

you can say whatever you want, you can believe whatever you want -- but if i hear something i disagree with to the depths of my soul, i am not going to nod and respect your opinion. i will respect your right to that opinion, but not the opinion itself.

I'm the one respecting your view in this whole thing, Irvine. You have not respected mine. You have insinuated that I look upon gay people as lower than me, and you have accused my belief of fueling the evil that exists when people beat up gays. You preach tolerance, but you aren't very tolerant.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm the one respecting your view in this whole thing, Irvine. You have not respected mine. You have insinuated that I look upon gay people as lower than me, and you have accused my belief of fueling the evil that exists when people beat up gays. You preach tolerance, but you aren't very tolerant.

i'll ask you again: is it wrong to be a red head? is it against nature to be left-handed?

when you label something as intimate as well as complex as homosexuality "wrong," and that "God didn't make anyone gay" you do contribute to a climate that makes gay people less safe. i'm certain you wouldn't intend to do this, but biblical justifications tend to do a really good job excusing violence -- you know, the way religion drives airplanes into buildilngs.

put yourself in someone else's shoes and see how it feels. you claim that christians are stereotyped on TV. well take that feeling, and remember that we live with that every single day of our lives -- only these people operating under such stereotypes aren't on TV, they're in Congress.

there's too much as stake -- both in the lives of gay people, and in the fact that, since gays aren't going anywhere, WE SHOULD WORRY ABOUT OTHER THINGS -- for me to quietly agree to disagree with you. i will defend your right to say that homosexality is immoral. i know you say you are a sinner, but how would you feel if that sin was as basic and as essential for life as how you loved another person?

 

[80sU2isBest]

i'll ask you again: is it wrong to be a red head? is it against nature to be left-handed?

No, it's sure not.

when you label something as intimate as well as complex as homosexuality "wrong," and that "God didn't make anyone gay" you do contribute to a climate that makes gay people less safe.

I've said it before, and i'll say it again: nonsense. People are responsible for their own actions. I'm not, unless I fuel the hate. And having a non-hateful opinion doesn't fuel hateful actions.

i'm certain you wouldn't intend to do this, but biblical justifications tend to do a really good job excusing violence -- you know, the way religion drives airplanes into buildilngs.

PEOPLE drive airplanes into buildings, not religion. People are responsible for their own actions. People who claim to be Christians who beat up gays are at fault, not Christianity itself, especially since Christ spoke against hatred.

put yourself in someone else's shoes and see how it feels. you claim that christians are stereotyped on TV. well take that feeling, and remember that we live with that every single day of our lives -- only these people operating under such stereotypes aren't on TV, they're in Congress.

If you think that I am happy that gay people are mistreated, you are wrong. However, I am not going to say that something is right when I think it is wrong, just because some people who claim Christianity treat gay people horribly. And yes, if I saw someone treating a gay person badly, I'd object to it.

there's too much as stake -- both in the lives of gay people, and in the fact that, since gays aren't going anywhere, WE SHOULD WORRY ABOUT OTHER THINGS -- for me to quietly agree to disagree with you. i will defend your right to say that homosexality is immoral. i know you say you are a sinner, but how would you feel if that sin was as basic and as essential for life as how you loved another person?

I do not think it's a sin to be tempted by homosexual thoughts. Everyone is tempted by something. What I think is a sin is to act on it. But I think anyone who succumbs to temptation is committing sin.

It's not essential for anyone to have sex, homosexual or heterosexual. I am not married, so I do not have sex. If I did, that would be sin.

 

[BonosSaint]

Back to the original thread topic, I don't see an exceptional amount of Catholic follower bashing. I see Catholic heirarchy bashing. During the pedophilia scandal, no one was coming down on the Catholics, but on the pedophile priests and the higher ups who covered it up. No one is blaming the parishioners.
Many people, including American Catholics, take issue with the doctrines of the church, but on a whole, I think that the Catholic followers are among the more respected of the Christian groups.
They get great songs, great books, great theological debate. At least in my experience. So are you saying that Catholics are the last acceptable prejudice or the Catholic heirarchy is? Not being Catholic, I'm a little confused here. On a whole, I respect the Catholic philosophy of prolife as it is down the line consistent--no
birth control, no abortion, minimal war, no death penalty. I may not agree with the particulars, but I can respect their position. i think the evangelicals are much more criticized (and much easier targets )

Sin? Isn't sin defined as that which separates you from God? (or hurts someone else?) I cannot see homosexuality as doing that. It is morally neutral. It just is. I see spending more time judging other people for their perceived sins than worrying about the status of your own behavior as separating from God (You are not included in this, 80'sU2. You seem to follow your own moral code and have the ability to question your own thoughts) Why is it so many religious followers concentrate on the "don't" aspects of their religion, instead of the "do"? I also don't think it is psychologically common to hate the sin and love the sinner. I think hating the sinner starts to creep in subconsciously. If I hate pedophilia, I hate the pedophiliac. If I hate murder, I hate the murderer. If I hate rape, I hate the rapist.

 

[Angela Harlem]

The Last Acceptable Prejudice is not a church, not in my opinon anyway. Some last acceptable preduices:

* naturally skinny females. "You are anorexic. You are so vain and selfish".

* very pale skinned people and/or people with freckles. Please name one media figure considered beautiful who has multitudes of freckles.

* red heads. I'm not personally red but they cop it too

etc.

At least with the issue of homosexuality some people know its not an issue. The media, despite its campy portrayals of gay people, actually does feature gay people occasionally.

The not socially acceptable slandering eg"You're fat" type of slander, the equivalent occurs with pale people. Daily. I'm not gay so I don't know how often gay people are pubicly slandered by people who have deemed themselves fit to judge others. Probably daily too.

If a person dyed their hair green and then copped abuse, (although its never appropriate) if the abuse gets too much they have the option to change.

Not an option with fair skinned people or freckled people or red heads (or gay people)

Nicole Kidman. I know you watched BMX Bandits and know how pale, skinny and freckled she is. You also wrote 'pubicly'. And forgot your mate from Vicar of Dibley.




Sincerely,
Fellow glow in the dark white skip


PS I do agree with you though

 

[beli]

Well, we could discuss the persecution of fair haired people pubicly, but thats another thread.

Nicole Kidman no longer has freckles. Shes Jackoed her skin, or something. That's my point. There are no Hollywood beautiful people with freckles.

 

[Anthony]

Lucy Liu has a few.

Hey, that rhymes.

Ant.

 

[beli]

lol. She doesnt really count.

I mean people with thousands of freckles. I just googled "freckles beauty" and received a tonne of links to sites about how to remove/cover/bleach/ or otherwise get rid of freckles.

Which is exactly my point. Why can't they be beautiful? :woe: