Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@ Monster Rain and Manchu.

As both of you are probably aware,I hold you both in high regard and like and respect each of you.

I don't blame all Christians for the views of a few,however at times it can be difficult to sort where lines are drawn.

I do have to admit I was a bit put off by certain post criticising Mr. Takeis manner of response.

FITZZ wrote: @ Monster Rain and Manchu.

As both of you are probably aware,I hold you both in high regard and like and respect each of you.

I don't blame all Christians for the views of a few,however at times it can be difficult to sort where lines are drawn.

I do have to admit I was a bit put off by certain post criticising Mr. Takeis manner of response.

Thanks FITZZ. Likewise, brother!

Your post was directed specifically at one post and not at Christians in general, which is perfectly acceptable! I'm going to give GG the benefit of the doubt and say that I can't imagine that he was saying that gay people should be encouraged to kill themselves. I'll retract that statement if I'm wrong. As for where the lines are drawn, I'm noticing that when someone ends up on the news(Westboro Baptist, the Douchebag mentioned in the OP) it's because they are an aberration from the mainstream. While a lot of the mainstream might disagree with a gay lifestyle, I really can't imagine that the same number of people wish death upon homosexuals. Is it a sin? Yeah. But everyone sins on a daily basis so there's no one who sits in a position where they should be judging anyone for anything, from a spiritual standpoint. I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.

I guess my main point is this: Every group has it's wingnuts.

I feel confident that George Takei's response to such criticism would be along the lines of "Ooooh, get him!!"

Thanks, FITZZ. I know where you stand.

But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote: @ Monster Rain and Manchu.

As both of you are probably aware,I hold you both in high regard and like and respect each of you.

I don't blame all Christians for the views of a few,however at times it can be difficult to sort where lines are drawn.

I do have to admit I was a bit put off by certain post criticising Mr. Takeis manner of response.

Your post was directed specifically at one post and not at Christians in general, which is perfectly acceptable! I'm going to give GG the benefit of the doubt and say that I can't imagine that he was saying that gay people should be encouraged to kill themselves. I'll retract that statement if I'm wrong. As for where the lines are drawn, I'm noticing that when someone ends up on the news(Westboro Baptist, the Douchebag mentioned in the OP) it's because they are an aberration from the mainstream. While a lot of the mainstream might disagree with a gay lifestyle, I really can't imagine that the same number of people wish death upon homosexuals. Is it a sin? Yeah. But everyone sins on a daily basis so there's no one who sits in a position where they should be judging anyone for anything, from a spiritual standpoint. I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.

I guess my main point is this: Every group has it's wingnuts.

I could be wrong but I believe GG's "sigh" was expressing disappointment at the fact that George Takei is homosexual, I don’t think he was in anyway agreeing with McCance’s views (though again I could be wrong, but I hope not).

Manchu wrote:Thanks, FITZZ. I know where you stand.

But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)

I thought Orlanth's main point was expressing annoyance at celebrity spokespeople, actually.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote: @ Monster Rain and Manchu.

As both of you are probably aware,I hold you both in high regard and like and respect each of you.

I don't blame all Christians for the views of a few,however at times it can be difficult to sort where lines are drawn.

I do have to admit I was a bit put off by certain post criticising Mr. Takeis manner of response.

Your post was directed specifically at one post and not at Christians in general, which is perfectly acceptable! I'm going to give GG the benefit of the doubt and say that I can't imagine that he was saying that gay people should be encouraged to kill themselves. I'll retract that statement if I'm wrong. As for where the lines are drawn, I'm noticing that when someone ends up on the news(Westboro Baptist, the Douchebag mentioned in the OP) it's because they are an aberration from the mainstream. While a lot of the mainstream might disagree with a gay lifestyle, I really can't imagine that the same number of people wish death upon homosexuals. Is it a sin? Yeah. But everyone sins on a daily basis so there's no one who sits in a position where they should be judging anyone for anything, from a spiritual standpoint. I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.

I guess my main point is this: Every group has it's wingnuts.

I could be wrong but I believe GG's "sigh" was expressing disappointment at the fact that George Takei is homosexual, I don’t think he was in anyway agreeing with McCance’s views (though again I could be wrong, but I hope not).

I took it the same way,wich...while I don't agree with GG's point of view comcerning Mr.Takei,I certainly don't see as GG advocating McCances views.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Manchu wrote:Thanks, FITZZ. I know where you stand.

But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)

I thought Orlanth's main point was expressing annoyance at celebrity spokespeople, actually.

Your probably correct MR,however I didn't necessarily see Takei so much as a celebrity spokesperson (which of course he is) as I did as a gay individual using his humor to address the subject.

Monster Rain wrote: Is it a sin? Yeah. But everyone sins on a daily basis so there's no one who sits in a position where they should be judging anyone for anything, from a spiritual standpoint. I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.

And I'll pick it up there. In Catholic moral theology, any sexual act outside of sacramental marriage is considered disordered, "disordered" here being less a psychiatric term (although I will not deny that there are Catholics who insist this is the case) and instead a cosmological and moral term. So, for example, if we were to compare extra-marital sexual acts to telling a lie, we're not talking about a pathological liar's falsehoods here. That said, many Catholic moral theologians are not merely troubled by homosexual acts as extra-marital acts generally. At this point, you have to factor in a great deal of historically contingent (that is, non-theological) sentiment into the analysis that has yet to be sorted out. I'd say that the Catholic tradition has very little developed thought on this topic and that Catholics don't have much to go on, as far as their religion is concerned, to form a comprehensive moral analysis of homosexuality. I would say that authentic Christian theology therefore plays very little role in informing homophobic attitudes. More likely, the identification of Christianity with homophobic attitudes is the result of complicated coincidences (I'm using the word in a very strict sense), the most harmful of which in my view is the tendency to confuse one's religion with one's politics.

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Manchu wrote:Thanks, FITZZ. I know where you stand.

But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)

I thought Orlanth's main point was expressing annoyance at celebrity spokespeople, actually.

Your probably correct MR,however I didn't necessarily see Takei so much as a celebrity spokesperson (which of course he is) as I did as a gay individual using his humor to address the subject.

It's difficult, with the proliferation of Youtube, to really discern where it begins and ends anymore.

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Manchu wrote:Thanks, FITZZ. I know where you stand.

But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)

I thought Orlanth's main point was expressing annoyance at celebrity spokespeople, actually.

Your probably correct MR,however I didn't necessarily see Takei so much as a celebrity spokesperson (which of course he is) as I did as a gay individual using his humor to address the subject.

It's difficult, with the proliferation of Youtube, to really discern where it begins and ends anymore.

Once again,I can agree with your point,however I see the statements made as being made by George Takei the man and not so much by George Takei the guy who plays Sulu,now of course his position as a celebrity does grant him a much wider forum in which to voice his position,but I don't see the fact that he is a celebrity as somehow invalidating the crux of the statements he made,nor should his celebrity status somehow overshadow the vile comments made by McCance.

I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.

Too late Monster.
Already needlessly dragged off centre and away from the central issue of bullying gays and the possible tragic consequences that can have on young people.

Manchu
In Britain homosexual acts were a crime punishable by imprisonment and not changed until 1967.
Up to that point although Britain still considered itself a Christian, ie protestant nation, it was by then very secularised.
The Sexual offenses Act 1967 may have overturned much older legislation, but much of the anti-homosexual sentiments were still prevelant in this society.

I have received verbal homophobic abuse myself from kids who I doubt have any associations with religion.
Must be a lonely place for youngsters to be for youngsters that get that sort of treatment all the time.
Well said George Takei

Yeah, I see what you mean.

The thing is that if I went on Youtube and made a video saying the exact same thing it wouldn't make quite as much impact though, you know?

George Takei is a gay man who has experienced homosexual discrimination and has been a member of gay rights organisations for years. Why on earth shouldn't he speak out on this issue?

The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.

Kilkrazy wrote:George Takei is a gay man who has experienced homosexual discrimination and has been a member of gay rights organisations for years. Why on earth shouldn't he speak out on this issue?

The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.

Some people find it annoying when celebrities do this. I'm not saying I do, but it's pretty common.

Actually, I do kind of wish Stephen Baldwin would pipe down a bit sometimes. Okay, you caught me.

I don't think the message would have nearly so much impact if it were delivered by my brother.

I agree with celebrities using their celebrity status to speak out against hate.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.

Too late Monster.
Already needlessly dragged off centre and away from the central issue of bullying gays and the possible tragic consequences that can have on young people.

It's hard to really discuss something that is so obviously true. Cannerus used the phrase "genuine acceptance" in a millennial tone earlier in this thread. I honestly think that genuine acceptance has very much arrived in the post-Baby Boomer generations, at least among white middle-class Americans. Mr Takei's message, in other words, simply isn't controversial in its content, which explains why any unresolved discomfort with it is resolved in criticism about the delivery.

As to your comments directed at me, I think we do indeed see eye-to-eye.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.

As I said, I think that's one explanation. But you could also suggest that it's playing into the idea that being gay is bad so that Takei is getting back at the guy by calling him gay/i.e., insulting him. I know this is supposed to be insulting him from his poiunt of view, but the rest of the message is that his point of view is not only socially unacceptable but more deeply, morally wrong. There's a strange multi-faceted irony at work here that one could object to, but one would have to be very articulate t get the point across.

Manchu wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.

Too late Monster.
Already needlessly dragged off centre and away from the central issue of bullying gays and the possible tragic consequences that can have on young people.

It's hard to really discuss something that is so obviously true.

Exactly.

Is there really a debate about that? I was just responding to an unfortunate comment that I felt needed correcting and the discussion that arose from it.

Manchu wrote:Thanks, FITZZ. I know where you stand.

But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)

The dangerous step is the extra step George Takei made beyond what he needed to say.

Homophobia is wrong, and McCance is a 'douchebag', fair enough, the video only goes downhill when the alarm clock is brought out. You see George Takei is not just criticising homophobia, he is also putting the boot in himself with an allegation that McCance likes rent boys. This single acusation is a triple attack: This may well might not even be a compliment if he was gay, a prostitute scandal is a prostitute scandal, in common parlance a prostitute scandal is assumed to equal 'perversion' and most people wont think beyond that, even if the activities are standard sexual behaviour. Second the allusion that McCance may well be a homosexual is unfair, and third it would also make him out to be a very bad sort of hypocrite with mentasl health issues due to his denial. Again Goerge Takei might know something we dont, in which case the press is already tipped off and the McCance-with-rent-boy story will be aired soon. But we dont know that, it could just be a case of assuming the meme is followed where the most vehement homophobes are closet gays in denial, this may be the case, but often it is not.

There is plenty of ammo against McCance that it is not necessary to make any up, as he has no profile compared to Takei and is already in the dirt so if Takei winked and claimed he was also say an anti-Semite or an Al Quaeda sympathiser people would likely believe it, and the accusation could stick for life. This is what I consider dangerous. For good reason, everyone above me (except possibly GG, who is unclear as to what he thinks) and most posts following saw how 'awesome' the video was and therefore just drank in Takei's accusations. Not only is McCance a homophobe (which is in the press) is also a permenant douchbag, Fair so far. But nowe we also know he is a closet gay, buys his sex and is a Class 1 hypocrite to boot. 'Awesome'? Only if its true, but we won't need to know if its true because its already 'awesome', so it is true forever in the court of public opinion even if it happens not to be so.

So, in essence, you think that McCance used his position to bully people and that Takei is using his position to bully back?

I will say that it does seem somewhat inconsistent to try to piss someone off by implying that they are gay though, doesn't it?

If McChance was secretly gay, is it productive for people like George Takei to tease him about it?

/musing

Manchu wrote:So, in essence, you think that McCance used his position to bully people and that Takei is using his position to bully back?

No McCance was just trolling on Facebook, it was stupid but hardly uncommon.

Takei is using his position to bully back. Criticising homophobia is Takei's just cause, additional accusations against McCance are not just, especially because McCance has no opportunity to refute them. This is due to the timing of the accusations; nothing McCance can say at this time will save himself from having pretty much any accusation stick from a high profile critic, true or not.

Monster Rain wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I like how the Christians put the boot in on the guy who is clearly in the right.

Especially GG.

...

Nice to see you guys are making it so easy for me all the time with your wonderfully kind "Religious" morality.

I'm a Christian.

I don't fit the profile you're describing. You've already established that you're a bigoted troll, so I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just pointing it out so that others can see how ignorant your posts are.



Have a nice day.

Truth hurts eh?

Unlike you Religious chaps however i wont be crying about "attacks" as i enjoy a good chinwag about these things, because the more it gets discussed, the more indefensible your position will become, and about that time you will no doubt complain to a mod and the thread will get locked, but we will all see it.. and we all remember it. And people will start to understand the big picture.

So a few points, first of all, whats the point in saying things you dont mean? If your going to insult me, why end the sentence with have a nice day?

Secondly, its laughable to call me a troll and a bigot when the central issue here is bigotry against gay people and i am against such behaviour.

Thirdly, we only have your word for it that you dont fit the profile your describing. I however have cast iron proof from Christians own vocal chords.

"Sodomy is a graver sin than murder. – Unless there is life there can be no murder." David Trosch

In fact.. no.

I was going to stick a wall of text in, i could probably provide a few thousand from actual Christians, you know.. Billy Graham, J. B Stoner, Jerry Falwell ect etc etc.. but what the hell, you know exactly what im talking about.

Fact - Many Evangelical Christians have a dislike of gay people that is primarily motivated by their Religious belief.

Fact - They ARE Christians by THEIR OWN definition of the word.

The "No True Scotsman" argument holds no water here "brother"

And i dont want you to have a nice day, i am sorry that you appear to require hypocricy from people, but i cannot oblige.

mattyrm wrote:Secondly, its laughable to call me a troll and a bigot when the central issue here is bigotry against gay people and i am against such behaviour.

What's scary is I'm actually starting to think that you don't realize the irony of these things that you say. At fist I thought it was just you being silly, but the truth is starting to seem far stranger.

As for your assessment of my "insults."

mattyrm wrote:Truth hurts eh?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Did everyone on the internet just suddenly learn what a No True Scotsman fallacy is? It seems like every troll on these forums suddenly decided that whenever you say that there are fringe elements of a group that NTS is a "win-button". It's worthy of a serious if I'm being honest. They don't seem to realize that the same thing could be done for atheism(or any group of people) if I could be arsed to make the argument.

mattyrm wrote:Fact - They ARE Christians by THEIR OWN definition of the word.

Sure. Christians can be bigots, no argument. I just don't see any meaningful connection between the Christian religion and homophobia. I have known many Christians of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. And I have known many Christians who have contrary opinions. Again, there's a lot of confusion between political or even moral/ethical opinions and religious beliefs. And someone who thinks that religious beliefs are really just another type of opinion is hardly equipped to sort the issue out. I see where you're coming from, mattyrm. In fact, I've seen it in nearly every thread you've ever posted in. For someone who likes to talk about this issue so much you never seem to learn anything new about it.

mattyrm wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I like how the Christians put the boot in on the guy who is clearly in the right.

Especially GG.

...

Nice to see you guys are making it so easy for me all the time with your wonderfully kind "Religious" morality.

I'm a Christian.

I don't fit the profile you're describing. You've already established that you're a bigoted troll, so I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just pointing it out so that others can see how ignorant your posts are.



Have a nice day.

Truth hurts eh?

Unlike you Religious chaps however i wont be crying about "attacks" as i enjoy a good chinwag about these things, because the more it gets discussed, the more indefensible your position will become, and about that time you will no doubt complain to a mod and the thread will get locked, but we will all see it.. and we all remember it. And people will start to understand the big picture.

So a few points, first of all, whats the point in saying things you dont mean? If your going to insult me, why end the sentence with have a nice day?

Secondly, its laughable to call me a troll and a bigot when the central issue here is bigotry against gay people and i am against such behaviour.

Thirdly, we only have your word for it that you dont fit the profile your describing. I however have cast iron proof from Christians own vocal chords.

"Sodomy is a graver sin than murder. – Unless there is life there can be no murder." David Trosch

In fact.. no.

I was going to stick a wall of text in, i could probably provide a few thousand from actual Christians, you know.. Billy Graham, J. B Stoner, Jerry Falwell ect etc etc.. but what the hell, you know exactly what im talking about.

Fact - Many Evangelical Christians have a dislike of gay people that is primarily motivated by their Religious belief.

Fact - They ARE Christians by THEIR OWN definition of the word.

The "No True Scotsman" argument holds no water here "brother"

And i dont want you to have a nice day, i am sorry that you appear to require hypocricy from people, but i cannot oblige.

Blah blah blah blah'

This refutes all whatever diatribing that was.

Im 1595 posts in, i have been called a "troll" by maybe two people, and that is simply because they are Religious and as usual take massive offense for no apparent reason.

I happily speak with Orlanth, i'm not Religious and this causes friction, but troll because i like to point out percieved hypocricy? Surely you jest?

Clearly i never said "GG wants all gay people to kill themselves either" and no fair minded reader would think so. As Fitz said, his response however was not the expected one from a fair minded observer. You are just being hyper sensitive because you dont want to talk about it. I genuinelly dont see the need to get so upset.

Answer me then, lets get back to the topic at hand.

Was Billy Graham a Christian?

Was Jerry Falwell a Christian?

If the answer is "yes" (it is)

I win.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled, it doesnt refute it, because i didnt say that ALL Christians are homophobic, and clearly old MT was a nice lady, i merely said that your Religious beliefs can have a negative impact on your judgment.

i.e The correct thing to say was "Yes i agree with Sulu" and GG is a nice enough fella who no doubt at all would say that, if it wasnt for the fact he has strong Religious convictions.

Thats merely my point, is there any need to get upset? And is there any way you can make a convincing argument against said point?

mattyrm wrote:
Truth hurts eh?
Unlike you Religious chaps however i wont be crying about "attacks" as i enjoy a good chinwag about these things, because the more it gets discussed, the more indefensible your position will become, and about that time you will no doubt complain to a mod and the thread will get locked, but we will all see it.. and we all remember it. And people will start to understand the big picture.

By your relgious chaps comment this seems to be broad targeted at all Christians on this threat matty. Is this so?
If not true very well, I will leave this between you and what Monster Rain said to you, which qwas a bit rude. If it is true I would like to state for the record that despite giving best efforts to stay on topic on threads where the subject of Christians comes up I do get trolled quite viciously and repeatedly, and the mods do nothing. I think I can speak for most of the Christians here that by and large we receive far more crap than we dish out, and some of us try their best not to dish out any at all. It takes a lot to get me riled, but after a cascade of misquotes taken from misquotes I know that my opinions and many others here are often misrepresented totally.
I would be in a sorry moral state if half of what you misinterpret my posts to mean I actually beleived in, and compared to some you are rather reasonable opponent, and we do get on on other topics.

mattyrm wrote:
Thirdly, we only have your word for it that you dont fit the profile your describing. I however have cast iron proof from Christians own vocal chords.
"Sodomy is a graver sin than murder. – Unless there is life there can be no murder." David Trosch
In fact.. no.

Whis is David Trosch? and why do you think he speaks for us?


Edit: This was a long post to write, with several unanswered replies above what Matty wrote which I have not addressed.

For the love of Star Trek why is this an argument about religion?

BAH!

You're contributing to an argument that is not necessary Mattyrm. The fact that others can be seen to encourage that argument is no reason to carry on with it.

mattyrm wrote:I win.

Kilkrazy wrote:George Takei is a gay man who has experienced homosexual discrimination and has been a member of gay rights organisations for years. Why on earth shouldn't he speak out on this issue?

The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.

Yep. For years. He's gone on numerous talk shows to discuss how he was discriminated against as a Japanese-American during and after WW2, as an Asian-American in Hollywood, and as a gay man. This isn't a recent turn of events.

When he's on the Howard Stern show as guest announcer, I usually listen in. He has a lot of good stories. And he HATES working with William Shatner. He doesn't hate Shatner, just working with him.