"Homophobia is not permitted"...

Post Reply New Topic

Tequila, i can't advise you in advance of every thread or topic that will or will not be acceptable. but here is a guideline: if you substitute the words ''Asian person'' or ''male'' and the topic looks unacceptable, then it probably would not be acceptable to post a similar thread about homosexual people. it's not a cut and dried thing by any means though. basically it's a good idea to stop and think about how a thread or topic will feel to a person of that group.

That's not what I said. I said they can't breed with one another.


Jesus, I don't know everything, but I'm not that ignorant.

so if a woman cannot breed with her husband because he is sterile, is that also wrong? how about a wife who cannot have children because she had ovarian cancer? after all, they cannot breed with each other, so according to your definition they must be somehow wrong.

You're misreading, or misinterpreting what I said/meant.

I DO NOT VIEW HOMOSEXUALITY AS MORALLY WRONG. I am all for gay rights, I believe homosexuals should be permitted to marry, etc.

But, two men cannot produce a child, nor can two women. They are, for reproductive purposes, incompatible. I was actually trying to defend homosexuals with my post, not attack them...

... and i am showing you the error in your thinking. no matter how you approach the reproduction argument, homosexuals are no more ''incompatible'' than some straight people. if you want to support people, trying to find things wrong with them is not a helpful way to go about it.

Last edited by hyperlexian on 09 Dec 2011, 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE WRONG! As far as that goes, there is no error in my thinking!


I should've used the word incompatible to begin with, because that is what I meant. (And that they are reproductively incompatible is a fact, as I'm sure you're aware.)

so some straight people are also ''reproductively incompatible'' too, then.

If they're sterile/impotent, sure. How else should I put it, so that it would not sound offensive?

My point was that if I said that I disliked homosexuality and wished to criminalise it (without saying I disliked homosexuals) would that be alright?

i already answered that as fully as i can, as we are speaking in hypotheticals. the rules cover more than personal attacks, which seems to be what you are asking about. homosexuality is not an idea or concept - it is an integral part of a person as much as race or gender, and it is protected in the rules.


well, MarsCoban, it might be worth considering why people feel that it needs to be said at all. not really just directed at you, but at all people who point out that homosexual people can't have children together. if you talk for a moment about a sterile couple, nobody would take the time to say "a sterile couple is biologically incompatible because they cannot reproduce together". i mean, it a given and it's not important. it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with that couple, just that they will need to find alternate means to have kids if they want. i don't know if what you said was offensive or anything, it was just not really relevant.

It was relevant because I was pointing out that reproductive incompatibility does not equal moral offense.

Is there anyone who feels any sympathy at all for a person who is not allowed to express his or her hatred of homosexuals?

I know that there are many Christians who sincerely believe that expressing hatred, contempt, and disdain for anything remotely "gay" in nature or appearance is their solely God-given right and privilege, but does this form of self-assured ignorance merit any sympathy at all?

In the future, the way that Christians view homosexuals today will be looked down upon just as much as the way most whites used to view blacks. My answer is no, they don't deserve sympathy, although they do have the right to hold their opinion. But, if it leads to bullying, or an incitement to bullying, that's not okay.

"In the future"?

News Flash: That future is NOW. The way that Christians view homosexuals today is already being looked down upon by rationally-thinking people. There is hope, however; many people who call themselves "Christians" are embracing the idea that an individual's sexual identity is no one else's business, and that this applies to gays, trans-genders, and even straights!

A new Age of Enlightenment is upon us.

Will this mean the end of Gay Pride parades then? They've no need to be so obnoxious about pushing it (excuse the pun) if they are integrated fully into society and have all the legal protections they need.

"I want to recriminalise homosexuality, so I can feel dirty when I do it." -Frankie Boyle

If you make that sort of argument, it's fine, I think...