Any fans left?

[Kappa]

Ha ha, well, here you can kiss your male friends, not on the mouth though, that would be a little too much , but cheeks are ok. Of course we kiss female friends too, also on the cheeks lol.

You see, there must be a culture of trust in your country, because in Mexico, people freak out when you do that.

[QueenBee]

freddie, I hope you don't think I'm some kinda preacher now who knocks on doors and tells about homosexuality. It's nearly impossible to convince people, but I'm just saying that it's isn't COMPLETELY impossible, but of course it won't be easy AT ALL.

[shizzo]

Where I live, homophobia is rampant. And it's the intolerance
which is tolerated - even favored.

In fact, I today had two encounters with it at work. The first
comment came from one of the co-workers I think highly of,
and the second came from the guy I've developed a massive
crush on.



I don't know what to think.

To an extent, I tolerate their words. I know that their beliefs
have been influenced by the society and environment here -
I can't blame them for not countering that.
The idea of fear has to be taken into consideration. Just as a
lot of people don't wanna come out because they fear the
consequences to their reputation, friendships, and so forth, I
think that a lot of people also don't wanna go against majority
opinion for similar reasons.

Granted, in an attempt to soften the situation, people know
me for being an open mind - they also are aware that I don't
disapprove of homosexuality. It could be a means of perhaps
coaxing tolerance to the surface.

[But at times, I wonder if the confusion of this situation is just
a complex illusion that the pathological liar inside me has been
able to create. I want the guy I like to feel the same way for
me - it's difficult for me to distinguish motives at the moment.]

Enh.

[haku]

Originally posted by ypsidan04
And what about Carthage? Or the Zulus?

First i'd like to remember that i do not share the view of the christian church obviously. I am not saying that black people never created civilizations, they have, but the christian church did not recognize them as having been built by black people.

Carthaginians were white people, Semites exactly, originally from Phoenicia. North Africa was part of the Roman Empire anyway at the time of christianization and populated by white people.

You have to go to the south of Sahara to find black civilizations.

You mentioned the Zulu nation, it was not known at the time.

One black civilization that was known at the time was the Ethiopian kingdom. The christian church simply dismissed it, it could not have been created by black people themselves, impossible. Let's be clear here, the main reason the christian church would not recognize black people as being human was because they were black! They did not look like god! So every proof of civilization was simply disregarded. In the case of the Ethiopian kingdom, it was simple, the Egyptian civilization was not far away, so it was decided that Egyptian colonists had created the Ethtiopian civilization.

And so on so forth.

Originally posted by darje
You see, there must be a culture of trust in your country, because in Mexico, people freak out when you do that.

Really? I thought kissing among friends was common to all Latinate countries, and i mean, i live in Normandy! We are the Scandinavians of the Latinate area! People in southern France are much more touchy-feely.

[Kappa]

haku, actually, love amongst FRIENDS is strange... boys actually punch or something their friends as a hello, while girls only "say hello" or do a fake cheek kiss. Between strangers, it's even worse.

And yes, southern Frenchpeople have that trait. :P

[luxxi]

Originally posted by haku
Well, in one case the beef is dead, in the other it's still alive. Life being more positive than death, i guess we should go with the Hindu.

So if we agree with Hindus then we should stop raising cows because eating beef is wrong?

[luxxi]

Originally posted by QueenBee
I choose tolerance too. I think people have the right to believe what they want, in this case that homosexuality is disgusting and a big sin, but if they can think so, then I can think that they are stupid disgusting people for thinking so.. Does that make sense? (If they are allowed to criticize homosexuals why am I not allowed to criticize them?)

Are Jews stupid because they believe eating pork is sin? Or Muslims for blieving drinking alcohol is sin?

[Tom Violence]

Originally posted by luxxi
People are free to beleive homosexuality is sin. Nobody should attack them for this. People are free to believe homosexuality is nothing wrong. Nobody should attack them for this.

There is some difference between 'attacking' a belief and questioning it. Likewise, exposing a person to alternative perspectives is hardly a malicious act. Even if I do have a vested interest in winning people over to a position I regard as more commendable, I should be allowed to give voice to this perspective. Many people hold unfavourable beliefs simply because they are unaware of a way in which an alternative viewpoint can be sympathetically incorporated into their overall system of values.

However, I ultimately agree. A person has the right to belief whatever they may.

This was not my earlier point. My point then was that people should not be permitted to use belief alone to justify an action which harms another person or infringes upon their rights. I can't, sadly, do physical damage to Ricky Martin. And those people who believe homosexuality is sinful ought mustn't be allowed to use this as a basis for oppression. Currently, they do.

Originally posted by luxxi
Are Jews stupid because they believe eating pork is sin? Or Muslims for blieving drinking alcohol is sin?

'Stupid' is a devisive choice of words. However, these are both beliefs that have no more basis than the supposed word of God. In that sense, they are irrational, with no evidence to substantiate them.

Of course, it's much less damaging to society that a group of people chose not to eat pork than that a group systematically oppresses another group. A person would come across as abrasive if they hounded Jewish people to start eating omlettes with bacon for breakfast.

[luxxi]

Originally posted by Tom Violence
There is some difference between 'attacking' a belief and questioning it. Likewise, exposing a person to alternative perspectives is hardly a malicious act. Even if I do have a vested interest in winning people over to a position I regard as more commendable, I should be allowed to give voice to this perspective. Many people hold unfavourable beliefs simply because they are unaware of a way in which an alternative viewpoint can be sympathetically incorporated into their overall system of values.

And yet you deny this to peopel who beleive homosexuality is sin. So it's OK for you to try to convince religious people that homosexuality is OK (calling it opening their minds), but not OK if they try to convince you that it's a sin (calling it homophobic intolerance). You know, persusion is two edged sword. If you reserve yourself the right to convince others you have to respect the right to do same.

Originally posted by Tom Violence

However, I ultimately agree. A person has the right to belief whatever they may.

Here we agree.

Originally posted by Tom Violence

This was not my earlier point. My point then was that people should not be permitted to use belief alone to justify an action which harms another person or infringes upon their rights. I can't, sadly, do physical damage to Ricky Martin. And those people who believe homosexuality is sinful ought mustn't be allowed to use this as a basis for oppression. Currently, they do.

They shouln't be allowed to use it as tool to exclude homosexuals from society. They are, however, entitled to their beleivs. Same as everybody else.

Originally posted by Tom Violence


'Stupid' is a devisive choice of words. However, these are both beliefs that have no more basis than the supposed word of God. In that sense, they are irrational, with no evidence to substantiate them.

Of course, it's much less damaging to society that a group of people chose not to eat pork than that a group systematically oppresses another group. A person would come across as abrasive if they hounded Jewish people to start eating omlettes with bacon for breakfast.

You miss my point. I'm agaisnt enforcing ones believs on others. One is entitled to believe that homosexuality is sin. They shouldn't go around beating homosexuals. One is entitled to beleive eating pork is sin. They shouldn't go around torching pig farms.

[Tom Violence]

Originally posted by luxxi
And yet you deny this to peopel who beleive homosexuality is sin. So it's OK for you to try to convince religious people that homosexuality is OK (calling it opening their minds), but not OK if they try to convince you that it's a sin (calling it homophobic intolerance). You know, persusion is two edged sword. If you reserve yourself the right to convince others you have to respect the right to do same.

I never mentioned either opening a person's mind, or intolerance. These are again devisive notions. They were never part of my argument.

And if anyone wants to defend the position that homosexuality is sinful, I'll listen. Dogmatism never helped anyone. However, when a person claims that a perspective is 'right' simply because they suppose it to be God's perspective, that is in itself a dogmatic line of reasoning. And is therefore of no value in claiming a viewpoint to be rational.

[kishkash]

Religious texts have a knack of being grossly misinterpreted to suit a certain persons needs. How can we say that something that occurs naturally in nature is something that 'God' wouldn't want.

The basic principle of any religion is that of love and tolerance. To go against that by quoting ur own religuous text to prove a point that homosexuality is wrong (or any other thing for that matter) is to bastardize ur own religion.

People lost sight of the real meaning of things a long time ago. Religion is used more nowadays (and even in the old days) as a means to regulate society. Moreso laws of living (i.e. 10 commandments, jews not eating pork, muslims not drinking and gambling) before there were any formal laws.

Is it right to enforce the laws created in the name of God by men thousands of years ago...

[freddie]

Originally posted by Tom Violence
'Stupid' is a devisive choice of words. However, these are both beliefs that have no more basis than the supposed word of God. In that sense, they are irrational, with no evidence to substantiate them.

What is important to know is that no "law of god" just came about from nothing. They were all created by men, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes to opress people of different believes which they considered harmful to their reign. The meat prohibitions were probably done cause there were probably problems with massive poisonings with a particular kind of meat. And the only way to tell people not to eat one kind of meat was to tell them that GOD himself told them so. So maybe this was a valid reason for the time in which this dogmas were created. Maybe it saved thousands of lives that didn't eat infected meat?
HOWEVER. When we talk about dogmas that command you to hate homosexuals and thinking of homosexuality as a sin... those dogmas have no other reason but to suppress a minority, that particual part of society didn't like at the point of time that the dogmas were writen. It has no justification. It was just as vicious as slavery or as racism is today.

Originally posted by kishkash
Is it right to enforce the laws created in the name of God by men thousands of years ago...

*high fives*
Exactly! Who knows for what reasons those laws were created. Like I meantioned above the laws might even be jstifiable 2, 3 thousand years ago. But not today. The person who wrote them had absolutely no clue what modern western society would look like. The reasons they had in those days would mostly look completely ridiculous today. Looking at things from this point of view, don't ortodox religious society look completely stupid and obsolete these days? I wouldn't go as har as calling them devil worshipers, but they are certainly people caught in time.. living by the laws created to keep in place simple-minded people who lived 2000-4000 years ago. It's like a time capsule. Not only the Bible. This goes double for the old testament, and al the other religious books.

[QueenBee]

Are Jews stupid because they believe eating pork is sin? Or Muslims for blieving drinking alcohol is sin?

I never said that, did I? Nope!

[Ningyo]

How come a thread about fan status became one of religious beliefs?

[kishkash]

Originally posted by Sullen.Kloun
How come a thread about fan status became one of religious beliefs?

LOL...who knows WHY anything happens anymore

[teeny]

Originally posted by kishkash
LOL...who knows WHY anything happens anymore

at least I know when it happened. And didn't it go wrong at page 2 or so even? It still shows that there are fans left at least. So we're a bit on topic still

[luxxi]

Originally posted by QueenBee
I never said that, did I? Nope!

No, but you said

I think people have the right to believe what they want, in this case that homosexuality is disgusting and a big sin, but if they can think so, then I can think that they are stupid disgusting people for thinking so..

If beleiving that homosexuality is sin is stupid than beleiving eating pork is stupid as well. Both believes ave same roots.

[luxxi]

Originally posted by Sullen.Kloun
How come a thread about fan status became one of religious beliefs?

Because God told us to make this happen.

[Ningyo]

Originally posted by luxxi
Because God told us to make this happen.

Pulling a Jeanne d'Arc here?

[luxxi]

Originally posted by Sullen.Kloun
Pulling a Jeanne d'Arc here?

Contrary to her I never prayed for rain.