There's a lot to unpick right there...The only difference to 30 years ago is that instead of people mindlessly attacking homosexuality, they're mindlessly defending it.
There's a lot to unpick right there...The only difference to 30 years ago is that instead of people mindlessly attacking homosexuality, they're mindlessly defending it.
There's a lot to unpick right there...
No you're using faux intelligence to defend bigotry. You say you condemn stuff but that condemn us for condemning it. And the fact you use statement like "mindlessly defending" when people have an extremely detailed discussion that's 22 pages just shows your true colours. I've been round the blocks enough times to know a false actor when I see one.There's really not.
I'm not saying that it's wrong to defend peoples' right to be homosexual. I have said the exact opposite.
What I'm criticising - as is very clear from my posts - is people waging into create a conflict in an illogical mindless way, just as those who used to vilify people for their sexuality used to do.
No you're using faux intelligence to defend bigotry. You say you condemn stuff but that condemn us for condemning it. And the fact you use statement like "mindlessly defending" when people have an extremely detailed discussion that's 22 pages just shows your true colours. I've been round the blocks enough times to know a false actor when I see one.
people need to be tolerant, and to discuss issues in a considered, reasonable and mature manner. they still don't just as they didn't then. there's just a different bad guy than there was before.
Yeah thats a bit difficult when you are dealing with someone who belongs to a messed up Religious cult.
Attitudes like Folau's have no place in a modern society and they shouldn't be indulged. We don't except racist or sexist opinions so why would we discuss homophobic ones. If you want to live somewhere where no one is gay, drinks, fornicates, or doesn't believe there's a big person in the sky then sod off and join ISIS but don't put your crap on social media then get upset when you lose your job.
My original point was that I think it's likely that he hasn't posted the comment for the purpose of offending people. It's even possible that he posted it because he was trying to help people. Unfortunately trying to establish this appears to have been deemed irrelevant, so we don't know. Assuming though that it wasn't intended to offend, but merely represtented what he passionately believed, then whilst I agree he should be sacked for embarrassing his employer or whatever, I don't think it should turn into a public crusade against him as an individual. What should be under investigation and subject to criticisim, should be the misguided teaching that has led him to think like this. That's the underlieing problem that needs to be addressed and discussed, even if that means reviewing the appropriateness of religious texts. It needs a mature conversation about the place for religious teachings in today's society, not a free for all against one guy whose doing what he believes is right.
I'd put good money btw on the fact that the majority of people who passionately defend homosexuality at the slightest oportunity today, would have been homophobic bigots 20-30 years ago. Trotting out trite illogical arguments that purport to be morally virtuous, whoever you're persecuting, is 2 sides of the same coin, and requires exactly the same character set.
My social warrior medal cabinet remains bare. I wasn't homophobic then, and I don't blindly wade into to arguments for the sake of trying to be recognised as some kind of virtuous hero now. If that makes me faux intelligent, then sobeit !
Geez, We're not all old farts here.
30 years ago I was 4 years old FFS! The only bigotry I had at that stage was with regards to the kind of sweets I was getting.
No sorry hes a grown man who should know right from wrong. The excuse of "oh its what I have told" doesn't stack up and is frankly a cop out.
If he honestly thinks that he was trying to save people by saying they would go to hell unless they change shows a very very immature mindset and if he is supposed to be a good Christian then he shouldn't judge what others do.
As for Religion is society, not sure what there is to discuss. Religion should be a private thing and should have no bearing on a liberal Western Society. If anything Society is too indulgent of religious beliefs.
Im not sure I follow. We currently have a society where hate speech is not acceptable.
It's called most western societies.
This is not discriminating, it's saying discriminating based on who someone is is not ok.
This has none of the connotations you are suggesting.
Lawmakers are simply saying everyone in the society is ok, except those who think others in the society are not ok. Pretty obvious basis for a society.
Imagine some ancient people back in the day. If there were 5 people who could live in an area, and 4 of them thought everyone was ok people, but person 5 thought person 3 was immoral and liked to point it out all the time this offending person 3, person 3 wouldn't want to live with person 5. Persons 1,2,and 4 would then have to decide whether they wanted to live with person 3 or person 5. Who would they choose? It's a pretty safe bet.
Only took 22 pages!OK, now we're getting somewhere. At least we are starting to have the right conversation now.
Man 300 years ago most of us would of been pro-slavery.
So deep, so intellectual....
Geez, We're not all old farts here.
30 years ago I was 4 years old FFS! The only bigotry I had at that stage was with regards to the kind of sweets I was getting.
And how are you going to go about that? And how long is that going to take?My original point was that I think it's likely that he hasn't posted the comment for the purpose of offending people. It's even possible that he posted it because he was trying to help people. Unfortunately trying to establish this appears to have been deemed irrelevant, so we don't know. Assuming though that it wasn't intended to offend, but merely represtented what he passionately believed, then whilst I agree he should be sacked for embarrassing his employer or whatever, I don't think it should turn into a public crusade against him as an individual. What should be under investigation and subject to criticisim, should be the misguided teaching that has led him to think like this. That's the underlieing problem that needs to be addressed and discussed, even if that means reviewing the appropriateness of religious texts. It needs a mature conversation about the place for religious teachings in today's society, not a free for all against one guy whose doing what he believes is right.