|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 27, 2016 13:44:59 GMT
Still nothing to do with the definition of homophobia. I couldn't really give a f**k about the cake or images of Mohammed. But words have meanings, and saying, to (fairly imo) paraphrase, 'he isn't homophobic he just thinks homosexuality is wrong,' is a ridiculous statement. Well go on then. Define Homophobia! You could look it up on the internet. You're gonna do that thing where unless the definition is perfect and covers every single nuance and angle, you're gonna pretend it can't apply, aren't you? I think I'll give that a miss.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Oct 27, 2016 13:46:38 GMT
It's an analogy. You are saying that one person is Homophobic because of their religious beliefs. Try another angle......take that same analogy, and make the Muslim printer a Muslim baker? Would the Muslim baker bake the requested cake? The answer is really simple. If you want a cake baked that carries a specific message, then go to a Baker's that you know would bake it. If you want some cartoons of Mohamed printed off, then go to a Printer that would print it. It's called Common Sense, and not some futile, stupid, childish attempt to draw attention to a particular point of view. The Northern Ireland case is just plain stupid anyway, as the Baker's were targeted by 'Homosexual Activists' in a deliberate attempt to provoke the following legal action. A belief in a fictional character such as god is a choice. They do not stand direct comparison. And that is about as ignorant as anything else you can read based purely on your own opinion. Not everyone is agnostic or atheistic, especially when sciences actually supports more evidence of a logical creator than a evolutional soup, big bang and monkey like development theory. But thats a debate for another place. But a fine example of why a religious person who choses to believe in God and the bible should be castigated above those who do not, which is a discrimination in itself.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Oct 27, 2016 13:54:12 GMT
Its not if you have a devout belief in the bible....that makes every Christian, according to your statement, homophobic, from the pope to the queen and paupers in between. The bible has some stuff about homosexuality, but it has loads of stuff about loads of stuff. Loads of people ignore massive swathes of the bible, and really get into other bits. If you really get into the 'homosexuality is wrong' bit (and it's not that much of a bit, actually) and ignore the bits about playing with snakes, or cutting off people's hands, or the stonings, or the unicorn, then that's up to you. But it doesn't effect the definition of homophobia. Agreed, 2 chapters of some 1600 isn't much, but what people think, is the bible says to hate homosexuals and thus, in this day and age, it makes you homophobic. But the bible says nothing about hating people, least of all gay people or anyone of any orientation. And if you think it does, please state where, because I've read the bible countless times across many versions and translations and never found it. And as I said, as a christian, I dont hate gay people. I dont hate anyone based on any form of orientation. So why am I or any other Christian being labeled as homophobic for a Christian belief?
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Oct 27, 2016 13:56:28 GMT
A belief in a fictional character such as god is a choice. They do not stand direct comparison. And that is about as ignorant as anything else you can read based purely on your own opinion. Not everyone is agnostic or atheistic, especially when sciences actually supports more evidence of a logical creator than a evolutional soup, big bang and monkey like development theory. But thats a debate for another place. But a fine example of why a religious person who choses to believe in God and the bible should be castigated above those who do not, which is a discrimination in itself. Science does not support evidence for a creator. Nor does it rule out the possibility of one. Current evidence suggests evolution as the most likely basis for life on earth but because science continues to evaluate its findings based on best evidence this may change in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 13:57:41 GMT
Well go on then. Define Homophobia! You could look it up on the internet. You're gonna do that thing where unless the definition is perfect and covers every single nuance and angle, you're gonna pretend it can't apply, aren't you? I think I'll give that a miss. May I quote you? "Still nothing to do with the definition of homophobia." "What's that got to do with a definition of homophobia?" You seem to know what the definition of Homophobia is. I was just asking you to clarify it. I'm not looking for any angle, just clarification.
|
|
|
Post by althepirate on Oct 27, 2016 14:01:37 GMT
Still nothing to do with the definition of homophobia. I couldn't really give a f**k about the cake or images of Mohammed. But words have meanings, and saying, to (fairly imo) paraphrase, 'he isn't homophobic he just thinks homosexuality is wrong,' is a ridiculous statement. Actually, I don't agree. You can disagree with a gay lifestyle choice without being homophobic. It's only when you a person acts in a discriminatory way towards someone because of your personal beliefs that it becomes a problem. Which in this case they did, thus proving they are homophobic. I would have thought phobic added on denotes a fear. The bakers didn't seem frightened but it conflicted with their beliefs. If I was in their position I would have sub contracted it out to another business who didn't have a problem with it. Hopefully then everyone would be happy and no court case. I worked with Muslim lady who wouldn't cook bacon. In this case we respected her beliefs and someone else did it, but if no one else would do it I have idea what the law would say. I wouldn't say though that she was pigaphobic 😊
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Oct 27, 2016 14:02:49 GMT
And that is about as ignorant as anything else you can read based purely on your own opinion. Not everyone is agnostic or atheistic, especially when sciences actually supports more evidence of a logical creator than a evolutional soup, big bang and monkey like development theory. But thats a debate for another place. But a fine example of why a religious person who choses to believe in God and the bible should be castigated above those who do not, which is a discrimination in itself. Science does not support evidence for a creator. Nor does it rule out the possibility of one. Current evidence suggests evolution as the most likely basis for life on earth but because science continues to evaluate its findings based on best evidence this may change in the future. My coccyx and appendix are gutted to read this. They've always considered themselves to have a right to be treated as valid organs and not to suffer evolutionary discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by 2nd May 1990 on Oct 27, 2016 14:03:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Oct 27, 2016 14:05:16 GMT
Actually, I don't agree. You can disagree with a gay lifestyle choice without being homophobic. It's only when you a person acts in a discriminatory way towards someone because of your personal beliefs that it becomes a problem. Which in this case they did, thus proving they are homophobic. I would have thought phobic added on denotes a fear. The bakers didn't seem frightened but it conflicted with their beliefs. If I was in their position I would have sub contracted it out to another business who didn't have a problem with it. Hopefully then everyone would be happy and no court case. I worked with Muslim lady who wouldn't cook bacon. In this case we respected her beliefs and someone else did it, but if no one else would do it I have idea what the law would say. I wouldn't say though that she was pigaphobic 😊 It's a word that was derived from fear of something but no longer means fear. In the same way that hysteria was derived from the Greek word for Uterus and was originally applied to over emotional women.
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Oct 27, 2016 14:05:32 GMT
So, what happens if someone approaches a Muslim owner of a Printers, and they requested 300 printed copies of a cartoon of Mohamed? No doubt, the owner would refuse...........Are you saying that legally, the Muslim printer SHOULD print off the cartoons? What's that got to do with a definition of homophobia? Indeed. Now if a person approached a Muslim printer and ordered 500 flyers advertising a Gay event in the Queens Shilling and the printer refused you would then have a Homophobic issue. Quite what the authorities would do about that is another issue. It would be quite entertaining to watch the Right-On Avon and Somerset Police and the CPS try and deal with that, together with helpful input from SARI and other thought police institutions. I suspect it would be resolved with a pay out from the authorities to the offended gay event organisers, and I suspect the councils own print rooms would produce the flyers.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Oct 27, 2016 14:06:05 GMT
And that is about as ignorant as anything else you can read based purely on your own opinion. Not everyone is agnostic or atheistic, especially when sciences actually supports more evidence of a logical creator than a evolutional soup, big bang and monkey like development theory. But thats a debate for another place. But a fine example of why a religious person who choses to believe in God and the bible should be castigated above those who do not, which is a discrimination in itself. Science does not support evidence for a creator. Nor does it rule out the possibility of one. Current evidence suggests evolution as the most likely basis for life on earth but because science continues to evaluate its findings based on best evidence this may change in the future. I beg to differ. And you will find most scientists are more creationists than evolutionist. Evolutionists are also desperate for the Darwinian theory to be proven correct and science is the only rule of measurement they have and the fact its pedaled more by mainstream institutions and presenters alike as its the safer option to be less controversial on. But we could debate that until the cows come home and I appreciate its a sensitive subject for most, let alone a football forum and I dont want to upset anyone. Upsetting a creationist is easier than upsetting an evolutionist for fear of a huger backlash and uproar.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Oct 27, 2016 14:06:50 GMT
I am fairly sure that it's the "active discrimination against" part that legally determines homophoba in this country.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Oct 27, 2016 14:10:09 GMT
Ok so while everybody is on their High Horse about this subject can any of you lot explain to me WHY do certain parts of Bristol's community have to keep bring up the involvement of Bristol in the slave trade ?
Its in the past, leave it in the past and Lets MOVE ON !
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Oct 27, 2016 14:10:55 GMT
Science does not support evidence for a creator. Nor does it rule out the possibility of one. Current evidence suggests evolution as the most likely basis for life on earth but because science continues to evaluate its findings based on best evidence this may change in the future. I beg to differ. And you will find most scientists are more creationists than evolutionist. Evolutionists are also desperate for the Darwinian theory to be proven correct and science is the only rule of measurement they have and the fact its pedaled more by mainstream institutions and presenters alike as its the safer option to be less controversial on. But we could debate that until the cows come home and I appreciate its a sensitive subject for most, let alone a football forum and I dont want to upset anyone. Upsetting a creationist is easier than upsetting an evolutionist for fear of a huger backlash and uproar. True enough, this isn't the place. Someone who labels themselves creationist are as misguided as believers imo. I'm even handed in my derision.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Oct 27, 2016 14:12:12 GMT
Ok so while everybody is on their High Horse about this subject can any of you lot explain to me WHY do certain parts of Bristol's community have to keep bring up the involvement of Bristol in the slave trade ? Its in the past, leave it in the past and Lets MOVE ON ! Yeah, f**k history. We can't learn anything from it...
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 27, 2016 14:12:52 GMT
The bible has some stuff about homosexuality, but it has loads of stuff about loads of stuff. Loads of people ignore massive swathes of the bible, and really get into other bits. If you really get into the 'homosexuality is wrong' bit (and it's not that much of a bit, actually) and ignore the bits about playing with snakes, or cutting off people's hands, or the stonings, or the unicorn, then that's up to you. But it doesn't effect the definition of homophobia. Agreed, 2 chapters of some 1600 isn't much, but what people think, is the bible says to hate homosexuals and thus, in this day and age, it makes you homophobic. But the bible says nothing about hating people, least of all gay people or anyone of any orientation. And if you think it does, please state where, because I've read the bible countless times across many versions and translations and never found it. And as I said, as a christian, I dont hate gay people. I dont hate anyone based on any form of orientation. So why am I or any other Christian being labeled as homophobic for a Christian belief? Because you're making a moral judgement about people who have done nothing against you.
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Oct 27, 2016 14:13:51 GMT
Hey this is all getting a little heavy; time to lighten up with some jokes. I'll start the ball rolling with...... Two condoms were walking past a gay bar. One turned to the other and said "Let's go in there and get sh**-faced!" Nah this is just the type of discussion we need as we all have differing opinions on what is acceptable to us. I was interested in your earlier reply and was thinking if you openly expressed your feelings at work you would be technically hung drawn and quartered, however if a colleague said they disliked you because you were hetro then almost nothing would be said The thing is Inee, I was told this joke by a Gay man at work. He just walked up to me and said, "Hey, have you heard this one....." And proceeded to relay it. When he finished he literally collapsed with laughter. I sometimes think we are too eager to take offence on other peoples behalf. I assume that should we play Brighton in the future the usual banter chants will be outlawed?
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 27, 2016 14:15:33 GMT
You could look it up on the internet. You're gonna do that thing where unless the definition is perfect and covers every single nuance and angle, you're gonna pretend it can't apply, aren't you? I think I'll give that a miss. May I quote you? "Still nothing to do with the definition of homophobia." "What's that got to do with a definition of homophobia?" You seem to know what the definition of Homophobia is. I was just asking you to clarify it. I'm not looking for any angle, just clarification. If I put it into google, the first thing that comes up is 'dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.'
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Oct 27, 2016 14:16:51 GMT
GasChat human rights forum, a mine field for all. If I get called out for harming your human rights, the very fact I have been called out harms my human rights !
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Oct 27, 2016 14:17:54 GMT
Ok so while everybody is on their High Horse about this subject can any of you lot explain to me WHY do certain parts of Bristol's community have to keep bring up the involvement of Bristol in the slave trade ? Its in the past, leave it in the past and Lets MOVE ON ! What about the Romans ? They made slaves of us !
|
|