| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/03/2010 02:27:32 PM · #5126 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I've never tried avoiding painting myself with the same brush. I'm not one of these people that doesn't believe that people have to be tolerant of EVERYTHING. I don't tolerate intolerance. This is not, however, the paradox people like you love to try and convince people it is.
The difference is, I don't believe that people of faith are 'wrong' or should not exist. I just think they should exist within themselves, and not spread it to others that may not wish to observe or share in their beliefs. The christian couple that refuses to accept homosexuality and could never accept that a child they fostered might have such feelings (especially if they ended up fostering older children that are able to start recognizing such feelings) are not suited to foster. More so than any Joe Dick and Harriet than can just biologically have children, foster parents SHOULD be able to accept -- and be flexible about -- just about anything in regards to the children they are fostering. They need to be able to have compassion and understanding OUTSIDE of their personal belief systems, and if a couple was to be unable to do anything but preach intolerance to a child in their care about something that child may be feeling, they are unfit to foster. It's bad enough that we have generations of parents teaching their children bigotry and hatred, we don't need it in foster parents that are taking in children that are probably already a product of so much negativity.
On the day that someone actually comes up with compelling evidence that homosexuality is ANYTHING but a completely normal and harmless state of humanity (which will be never), there can be no argument that being against it ISN'T bigotry. Any more than saying you don't agree with people of a different colored skin could ever be seen as anything other than bigotry. |
Hehe. I love the argument where people say, "it's ok for you to believe or do what you want as long as it is rendered completely irrelevant to everybody but yourself". Woo hoo! Thanks for the understanding. Maybe the English couple should claim the same thing? Maybe homosexuals should be welcome to do whatever they want in the bedroom as long as they are completely and utterly indistinguishable from everbody else in public in their actions and words? Nah, that doesn't quite sound like something you'd go for, so I don't know why you try to pin it on someone else... |
Like I said, you always have the reasonable sounding, yet completely ridiculous, counter-arguments. Having personal faith and not preaching it to others is NOT the same as sharing the same kind of rights as everyone else in the world when it comes to affection, love, and public display as such. You are not PREACHING your faith when people of the same sex kiss in public. You are not pressing your views and beliefs on people when you hold hands with your same-sex partner while walking down the street. On the same scale, I'm not talking about shutting down churches, or removing religious symbols from places of worship, or taking bibles away from people. I'm saying that when you put yourself in a position where your beliefs can harm someone because you refuse to accept them should they come to you with a problem (in the case of fostering), then that is bigotry. It'd be the same if a foster parent of a non-religious background was to say that they could never accept a christian. They shouldn't be fostering either. A foster parent needs to be able to work with, and around, ANY kind of background or belief or state of being of the children they are fostering. Period.
So, unless you can give me examples of homosexuals going around handing out Gay Literature and pressuring people to live exactly as they do and follow their moral codes, your little argument holds no water. The public fight for EQUALITY is not the same.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2010 02:28:19 PM · #5127 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So just a few thoughts.
Your opinion, as I mentioned to K10, fits the definition of "bigoted" every bit as much as the English couple's. Does it not? |
Ah, right. Well i guess i can't get out of that one. Fair enough. I admit that i am bigoted and prejudiced against homophobes. I think they are wrong and i am right. For the record- i am also bigoted and prejudiced against racists, serial killers and football hooligans. I think they are bang out of order and i believe my position of not being a racist, serial killer or football hooligan is better than theirs.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You honed in on the word "irrational" for the definition of "homophobic", but I would also hone in on the word "extreme" to imply that there are less extreme positions which may not qualify. But your black-and-white mentality doesn't seem to offer a middle ground. |
I was thinking about the 'extreme' part. I can't really think of any apart from the afore mentioned 'hate the sin-love the sinner' nonsense or the 'homosexuality as a disease to be cured' or a 'chosen lifestyle' that can be ignored. I guess my black and white mentality is stopping me from seeing one which is why i asked you to enlighten me which i'm sure you're about to do and i thank you in advance.
So, just to clarify. Can you please tell me your position that considers homosexuality to be abnormal, incorrect and unreasonable in a way that is not "homophobic" or bigoted?
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 14:42:32. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 03:15:11 PM · #5128 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
So, just to clarify. Can you please tell me your position that considers homosexuality to be abnormal, incorrect and unreasonable in a way that is not "homophobic" or bigoted? |
I cannot find the quote, but I'll paraphrase. "True liberty is not only found in our freedoms, but also in our restraints." Homosexuality is likely to be a product of some genetic preconditioning and environmental triggers and is not generally the choice of the individual. Homosexuals should not face discrimination in the workplace or the public square, but cultural norms do not need to be altered to accomodate their minority position (ie. "marriage" versus domestic partnership.) For that specific issue see Washington State. I understand everybody can make their own choices, but my moral framework has practical warnings about such activity (especially in the larger context of sexuality in general) and if someone asks me, I would be amiss not to speak about them. I do not need to go looking for people to have this discussion with, but if asked I am compelled to reply. I am comfortable with going to dinner, playing football, or shooting pictures with someone who is homosexual if they are comfortable doing the same with a devout Christian.
That is the best middle ground I can find. If you want to consider that homophobic and bigoted I guess they are labels I will be forced to bear by those that disagree with me.
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 15:15:36. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 03:32:04 PM · #5129 |
Let me get this straight. Jason is calling someone out for black and white thinking? Should I go back to those threads on worldviews, materialism, etc? Heck, it might even be this thread. Anyway, I seem recall you trying to label each of your oponent's positions no matter how grey it was.
Regardless, lets move away from the notion that being intolerant of the intolerant somehow invalidates the position of tolerance. It doesn't. One can be tolerant of people's behaviors or conditions because they do no harm to others. The validity of the reason is what is most important here not the generic concept in which you latch on to. That's b/w thinking.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2010 04:25:11 PM · #5130 |
The familiar refrain of bigotry...
1919: Women should not face discrimination in the workplace or the public square, but cultural norms do not need to be altered to accomodate their minority position (ie. "women voters"). I understand everybody can make their own choices, but my moral framework has practical warnings about such activity. If I'm being a bigot by refusing to acknowledge the right of women to vote, then others must be equally bigoted for their stubborn refusal to accommodate my religious belief that women are forbidden to have an equal say in political matters. My personal beliefs override their private lives.
1958: African americans should not face discrimination in the workplace or the public square, but cultural norms do not need to be altered to accomodate their minority position (ie. "interracial marriage"). I understand everybody can make their own choices, but my moral framework has practical warnings about such activity. If I'm being a bigot by refusing to acknowledge the right of interracial couples to marry, then others must be equally bigoted for their stubborn refusal to accommodate my religious belief that races must be kept pure. My personal beliefs override their private lives.
2010: Homosexuals should not face discrimination in the workplace or the public square, but cultural norms do not need to be altered to accomodate their minority position (ie. "marriage" versus domestic partnership). I understand everybody can make their own choices, but my moral framework has practical warnings about such activity. If I'm being a bigot by refusing to acknowledge the right of gays to marry, then others must be equally bigoted for their stubborn refusal to accommodate my religious beliefs that marriage is the exclusively reserved for heterosexual couples. My personal beliefs override their private lives. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 04:46:28 PM · #5131 |
As a side note, an article in today's NY Times:
In Iowa, Voters Oust Judges Over Marriage Issue
|
|
|
|
11/03/2010 04:51:03 PM · #5132 |
Just another example that "majority" means nothing when it comes to equality.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2010 05:04:37 PM · #5133 |
So much for following the constitution. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 05:10:22 PM · #5134 |
A fine example of vast amounts of cash being brought in from out of state to skew what is supposed to be a local election.
Message to judges, be afraid, be very afraid. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 05:12:28 PM · #5135 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
So, he's against the beliefs of the:
Pope (Catholic Church worldwide)
Bishop of Tanterbury (Church of England)
Many Christian Denominations
Doesn't seem very mainstream Christian to me.
|
He also rejects the doctrine of the resurrection, and the virgin birth. The question isn't whether or not he is mainstream, but whether or not he is even Christian. This guy must have lost some of his marbles. He thinks it's legitimate to reject Christ and still call himself a Christian, but he argues that those who reject equal rights for gays are not Christian. If belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not required to be called a Christian, then what exactly is a Christian? Ugh... Liberal theology...
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 17:13:12. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 05:24:05 PM · #5136 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The question isn't whether or not he is mainstream, but whether or not he is even Christian. This guy must have lost some of his marbles. |
There is a lot of this sort of thinking lately. He's not a real Republican. That one is not a real American. And this guy is not a real Christian.
I'm only guessing here, but I think the reason he thinks of himself as a Christian is that he believes in Christ's words and teachings. And that while being a rational thinker he might doubt the whole walking on water, raising the dead, loaves and fishes shamanistic thing that others reported Christ did, the essential message of love and equality was one that is worth following.
Just my opinion, if you are without sin, go ahead and cast those stones. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 05:29:12 PM · #5137 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
A fine example of vast amounts of cash being brought in from out of state to skew what is supposed to be a local election.
Message to judges, be afraid, be very afraid. |
I must have received about two dozen letters from Sharron Angle asking me to help her defeat Harry Reid in Nevada and I have never lived there. Local elections are a thing of the past.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2010 05:51:21 PM · #5138 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The question isn't whether or not he is mainstream, but whether or not he is even Christian. This guy must have lost some of his marbles. |
There is a lot of this sort of thinking lately. He's not a real Republican. That one is not a real American. And this guy is not a real Christian.
I'm only guessing here, but I think the reason he thinks of himself as a Christian is that he believes in Christ's words and teachings. And that while being a rational thinker he might doubt the whole walking on water, raising the dead, loaves and fishes shamanistic thing that others reported Christ did, the essential message of love and equality was one that is worth following.
Just my opinion, if you are without sin, go ahead and cast those stones. |
But Christianity is not the only religion the preaches love and equality. So what separates his beliefs from all the other religions? Many Muslims believe that Jesus was a good teacher and a prophet, and live according to his teachings. So how do we know this guy isn't a Muslim?
I'm not one to go around judging who is a Christian and who isn't, but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. If you want to go around calling yourself by the name of Christ, then you should be required to believe what Christ said about himself. Jesus said he was God incarnate and that he would die and be raised again. If you claim to be a follow of Jesus Christ, then shouldn't you believe his own words? If you say that Jesus was not who he himself said he was, then you're calling him a liar. This Bishop is a perfect example of someone who picks and chooses what he wants to believe and what he wants to throw away. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 06:14:39 PM · #5139 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm not one to go around judging who is a Christian and who isn't, but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. If you want to go around calling yourself by the name of Christ, then you should be required to believe what Christ said about himself. Jesus said he was God incarnate and that he would die and be raised again. If you claim to be a follow of Jesus Christ, then shouldn't you believe his own words? If you say that Jesus was not who he himself said he was, then you're calling him a liar. This Bishop is a perfect example of someone who picks and chooses what he wants to believe and what he wants to throw away. |
I was going to list the various Christian variants I could think of that all differ in their beliefs and worship, but on doing a bit of looking I see there are over thirty eight thousand different Christian denominations, each of which has taken something different from the teachings of the Christ.
Which of them is right in your opinion? Which ones are not worthy of being allowed to call themselves Christian? There must be a few thousands of churches in there that would fail any test you might think of. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 06:24:16 PM · #5140 |
This is one of the silly arguments of Rant. Johnny brings up reasonable questions. There are a few core beliefs to every religion that do not vary. The divinity of Christ is, to any reasonable person looking at the question, one of these. Have there been people who reject the divinity of Christ and call themselves Christian? Of course. Have these people ever been accepted by the rest of Christianity as legitimate versions of their faith? No.
I don't think anybody needs to spend another dozen posts arguing something so inane. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 06:25:35 PM · #5141 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm not one to go around judging who is a Christian and who isn't, but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. If you want to go around calling yourself by the name of Christ, then you should be required to believe what Christ said about himself. Jesus said he was God incarnate and that he would die and be raised again. If you claim to be a follow of Jesus Christ, then shouldn't you believe his own words? If you say that Jesus was not who he himself said he was, then you're calling him a liar. This Bishop is a perfect example of someone who picks and chooses what he wants to believe and what he wants to throw away. |
I was going to list the various Christian variants I could think of that all differ in their beliefs and worship, but on doing a bit of looking I see there are over thirty eight thousand different Christian denominations, each of which has taken something different from the teachings of the Christ.
Which of them is right in your opinion? Which ones are not worthy of being allowed to call themselves Christian? There must be a few thousands of churches in there that would fail any test you might think of. |
Yep. The trick is to find the early Christian church. You can do this by finding the early church writings. The church that best fits those writings would be the best church to go with. Check out the Didache. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 06:32:12 PM · #5142 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I was going to list the various Christian variants I could think of that all differ in their beliefs and worship, but on doing a bit of looking I see there are over thirty eight thousand different Christian denominations, each of which has taken something different from the teachings of the Christ.
Which of them is right in your opinion? Which ones are not worthy of being allowed to call themselves Christian? There must be a few thousands of churches in there that would fail any test you might think of. |
Let's not derail the thread. If you really want to know what I think then you can PM me.
Bishop Spong maintains the parts of the Bible that support gay rights (i.e. Jesus' teachings on love) while rejecting everything that opposes gay rights. He rejects some of Jesus' teachings, essentially calling him a liar, but still finds it reasonable to accept other teachings. This is ultimately what happens with all liberal theology. The Bible is picked apart in order to create some new religion that adapts to society and is compatible with social issues. Liberal theology = Bible is compromised in order to stay "relevant". Fundamentalism = "relevancy" is compromised in order to keep the Bible as-is. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 06:38:16 PM · #5143 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
[quote=BrennanOB]
... This is ultimately what happens with all liberal theology. The Bible is picked apart in order to create some new religion that adapts to society and is compatible with social issues. Liberal theology = Bible is compromised in order to stay "relevant". Fundamentalism = "relevancy" is compromised in order to keep the Bible as-is. |
Surely you jest... If anyone is guilty to picking the Bible apart and devising new interpretations of what is said it has to be Christian themselves.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 07:14:45 PM · #5144 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
This is ultimately what happens with all liberal theology. The Bible is picked apart in order to create some new religion that adapts to society and is compatible with social issues. Liberal theology = Bible is compromised in order to stay "relevant". Fundamentalism = "relevancy" is compromised in order to keep the Bible as-is. |
The Curse of Hamm was the primary defense of slavery leading up to the civil war, a biblical defense of an economic desire.
By the end of the Civil War, the Protestant churches in the United States had split into Northern and Southern factions over the issue of slavery. Proslavery clergymen could cite biblical references that sanctioned slavery and particularly the enslaving of the black race. The primary citation was Genesis 9:25-27, in which Noah, upset over an indiscretion of his son Ham, who was supposed to be black, cursed all the descendants of Ham's son Canaan. They were to be slaves for eternity and were to serve the other six-sevenths of the population.
Canaan's descendants were said to have populated Africa, and the clergy had only to point to history to demonstrate that the prophecy had been fulfilled. Therefore, it was supposedly the divine decree of God that gave the black people the liability of being enslaved by white people and justified the degradation of the entire race. Divine law and natural went hand in hand. It was obvious to the clergy that blacks were inferior to whites and that slavery was the black man's natural state. Indeed, slavery was rationalized as beneficial to the black race. White masters, it was said, gave them sustenance, Christianized them, and offered them hope for salvation.
Today there are those who still see this as justification for the return of slavery and as God's wish that we the white man subjegate people of African descent, to restore the natural order of things. These people are active in speaking at churches and other civic organizations, spreading a message that today, is seen as religious hatred and bigotry. In February of 2004, Black History Month no less, Doug Wilson spoke on this at a history conference at the University of Idaho.
However such opinions are in the minority. To most Christians the color of a man's skin ought not bar him from full participation in society, even though 200 years ago their forefathers felt that doing so was God's will. The Bible remains largely as it was, but we read it differently that our ancestors did. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 08:18:53 PM · #5145 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
This is ultimately what happens with all liberal theology. The Bible is picked apart in order to create some new religion that adapts to society and is compatible with social issues. Liberal theology = Bible is compromised in order to stay "relevant". Fundamentalism = "relevancy" is compromised in order to keep the Bible as-is. |
The Curse of Hamm was the primary defense of slavery leading up to the civil war, a biblical defense of an economic desire.
By the end of the Civil War, the Protestant churches in the United States had split into Northern and Southern factions over the issue of slavery. Proslavery clergymen could cite biblical references that sanctioned slavery and particularly the enslaving of the black race. The primary citation was Genesis 9:25-27, in which Noah, upset over an indiscretion of his son Ham, who was supposed to be black, cursed all the descendants of Ham's son Canaan. They were to be slaves for eternity and were to serve the other six-sevenths of the population.
Canaan's descendants were said to have populated Africa, and the clergy had only to point to history to demonstrate that the prophecy had been fulfilled. Therefore, it was supposedly the divine decree of God that gave the black people the liability of being enslaved by white people and justified the degradation of the entire race. Divine law and natural went hand in hand. It was obvious to the clergy that blacks were inferior to whites and that slavery was the black man's natural state. Indeed, slavery was rationalized as beneficial to the black race. White masters, it was said, gave them sustenance, Christianized them, and offered them hope for salvation.
Today there are those who still see this as justification for the return of slavery and as God's wish that we the white man subjegate people of African descent, to restore the natural order of things. These people are active in speaking at churches and other civic organizations, spreading a message that today, is seen as religious hatred and bigotry. In February of 2004, Black History Month no less, Doug Wilson spoke on this at a history conference at the University of Idaho.
However such opinions are in the minority. To most Christians the color of a man's skin ought not bar him from full participation in society, even though 200 years ago their forefathers felt that doing so was God's will. The Bible remains largely as it was, but we read it differently that our ancestors did. |
Yet the driving force to end slavery in England and the United States was Christian. This is such a skewed, once-sided version of events.
Let me just ask what your point for bringing this up is? The only arguments for slavery were Biblical? All Christians or even a majority of Christians were for slavery? Or is it just to show that Christians have had a difference of opinion over things over time? I don't understand what your point is.
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 20:27:33. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 09:00:21 PM · #5146 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yet the driving force to end slavery in England and the United States was Christian. This is such a skewed, once-sided version of events.
Let me just ask what your point for bringing this up is? The only arguments for slavery were Biblical? All Christians or even a majority of Christians were for slavery? Or is it just to show that Christians have had a difference of opinion over things over time? I don't understand what your point is. |
The last, that people can disagree on scripture and still call themselves Christian. That people who thought of themselves as Christians believed different things, and both quoted scripture to bolster their argument; and that what was once a valid argument has been settled. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 09:50:28 PM · #5147 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
But Christianity is not the only religion the preaches love and equality. So what separates his beliefs from all the other religions? Many Muslims believe that Jesus was a good teacher and a prophet, and live according to his teachings. So how do we know this guy isn't a Muslim?
I'm not one to go around judging who is a Christian and who isn't, but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. |
Why exactly does a line need to be drawn? If the religion offers teachings of love and equality, and as one of its adherents, you believe that your religion is right and true, why must a line be drawn between your religion and another? Why must the other guy necessarily be wrong? I feel bad for my Mom, who does indeed see herself as Christian but the more conservative Christians among you do not. Sad, really.
I really do have a problem with this, and I do understand that since I do not see it from the other side, I will never truly understand, so I guess this is a moot post. I'll go ahead and just Yanko myself now, thanks.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2010 10:22:01 PM · #5148 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yet the driving force to end slavery in England and the United States was Christian. This is such a skewed, once-sided version of events.
Let me just ask what your point for bringing this up is? The only arguments for slavery were Biblical? All Christians or even a majority of Christians were for slavery? Or is it just to show that Christians have had a difference of opinion over things over time? I don't understand what your point is. |
The last, that people can disagree on scripture and still call themselves Christian. That people who thought of themselves as Christians believed different things, and both quoted scripture to bolster their argument; and that what was once a valid argument has been settled. |
Well, I would say there have always been disagreements on issues in the church, but there are also issues with virtually no disagreement. The old creeds were built around this and used to keep the Church along the same lines. Really, when you think about it, the core of Christianity is remarkably unchanged for surviving 2,000 years of cultural influence. So I guess I would disagree if you put something like slavery on the same doctrinal level as the divinity of Christ. |
|
|
|
11/04/2010 12:26:41 AM · #5149 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Really, when you think about it, the core of Christianity is remarkably unchanged for surviving 2,000 years of cultural influence. |
Doesn't the "core" of Christianity go back about 5600 years to Old Testament times? You know, stuff like following the Ten Commandments ... |
|
|
|
11/04/2010 07:28:41 AM · #5150 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
So, just to clarify. Can you please tell me your position that considers homosexuality to be abnormal, incorrect and unreasonable in a way that is not "homophobic" or bigoted? |
I cannot find the quote, but I'll paraphrase. "True liberty is not only found in our freedoms, but also in our restraints." Homosexuality is likely to be a product of some genetic preconditioning and environmental triggers and is not generally the choice of the individual. Homosexuals should not face discrimination in the workplace or the public square, but cultural norms do not need to be altered to accomodate their minority position (ie. "marriage" versus domestic partnership.) For that specific issue see Washington State. I understand everybody can make their own choices, but my moral framework has practical warnings about such activity (especially in the larger context of sexuality in general) and if someone asks me, I would be amiss not to speak about them. I do not need to go looking for people to have this discussion with, but if asked I am compelled to reply. I am comfortable with going to dinner, playing football, or shooting pictures with someone who is homosexual if they are comfortable doing the same with a devout Christian.
That is the best middle ground I can find. If you want to consider that homophobic and bigoted I guess they are labels I will be forced to bear by those that disagree with me. |
Thanks for posting your views Doc. Yes, that does seem to be a more moderate middle ground although, as has been pointed out, the prejudice is still there. Why shouldn't cultural norms be altered to protect a minority. It's happened in the past. It used to be a cultural norm to see 'No Blacks. No Irish. No Dogs' signs posted in hotels in London in the 50s and 60s but that was altered and changed to accommodate the minorities it was prejudice against. As has been pointed out, women not being able to vote or people not being able to marry interracially were cultural norms that were altered. You seem to be saying that, of course, homosexuals should not be discriminated against but then again they should also not have the same rights as heterosexuals.
To be honest, if i read your view, out of context of this thread, in a newspaper or article i would still think, 'Wow-what a homophobic bigot'. I know you think this is very naive of me and teenage like in my black and white thinking but what it boils down to is this. You still think i am abnormal, incorrect and unreasonable. You may not believe that i should be discriminated against but you also believe i am inferior and should not have the same rights as you it seems. A kind of third rate citizen perhaps.
You say that you would be comfortable having dinner or shooting pictures with me and i, of course, would be comfortable doing the same with yourself as a devout Christian. But would i be as comfortable knowing that underneath you still thought i was abnormal? That i was incorrect? To be honest i think i would find it quite upsetting and uncomfortable and not a little patronising.
So, what it boils down to is that if i get upset, or angry and think that it is prejudiced and homophobic and bigoted when someone thinks i am inferior and abnormal and incorrect because of my sexuality i am guilty of thinking like a teenager, of concrete black and white thinking. But your rationalisation of being able to think of me as inferior and abnormal and incorrect because of my sexuality is somehow far more sophisticated and intelligent- a model of clear, flexible thinking.
As you say, if i still find these views homophobic and bigoted then those are the labels you will be forced to bear and likewise if i still feel angry and upset by this then i guess i will be forced to bear the labels of black and white, teenage-like concrete thinking.
And, as has been mentioned before, if those foster parents held strong anti semitic views they would also be banned from fostering even though some Christians also hold anti-semitic views. So would the Daily Mail, and  Nullix and johnnyphoto, still jump to their defence and see it as an attack on Christianity? I mean, Mel Gibson is a famous Christian and has made one of the most popular and watched Christian movies of all time and he's also a famous anti-semite.
Message edited by author 2010-11-04 08:30:04. |
|
