ASA regulator bans advert for mocking Virgin Mary

Post Reply New Topic

I think about this stuff on a spectrum. You’ve got Universalist Unitarianism which is not harmful at all although there may be problems in specific churches. Then you’ve got the Westboro Baptist Church which is on the opposite end of the spectrum and is deemed a hate group. The JW religion isn’t THAT extreme, but I’d definitely place it on the more harmful side of the spectrum. Catholicism is somewhere in the middle although leaning towards more harmful. It can provide one with a sense of community and instill some positive values although the Church is harmful in core ways - their regressive stance on LGBTQ+ issues, women, abortion, pushing purity culture, widespread problems with CSA/CSA coverups, etc. Many churches struggle with similar issues to varying degrees, so the Catholic Church isn’t special in this regard although it does wield a lot of power compared to other Christian denominations and should not be above criticism or ridicule, especially for that reason.

The Lutheran Church (ELCA), of which I have been with for nearly 23 years, is on the progressive end of the spectrum--supportive of LGBTQ+ rights, no strong stance on abortion.

It shaped the political progressivism I support now.

The pushing of purity culture is my primary issue with evangelicals and Catholics.

I thought your question regarding my comment was directed toward the user devoted and not me? Hence my lack of reply.

For LGBTQAI+ Christians, and in particular, LGBTQAI+ Catholic folk, but sometimes other denominations of Christianity - these groups might interpret that acting on homosexual feelings is a sin, as opposed to having homosexual feelings in the first place without acting on those. Some people, out of a belief that they may be committing a sin in the eyes of God, might wish to avoid homosexual acts.

A person can have any kind of feelings towards the same sex, as in homosexuality - and they can suppress those thoughts or ignore them if they want to. For some people, sexual behaviour of any kind is a lifestyle choice, which includes possible celibacy.

For non-Christian LGBTQAI+ folk, this sort of thing usually isn't a problem - especially if LGBTQAI+ folk have homosexual feelings that feel natural to them.

Conceivably, some people might look at the biology of humans and how they work and conclude that there is something 'unnatural' regarding homosexuality, even without any religion that might make them think that, also.

You have likely thought about all of this already, as someone who is an individual who comes under the LGBTQAI+ umbrella, Cornflake.

I just thought I'd explain where I was coming from, since you asked.

Yes, this sums up quite nicely why some religions are incredibly harmful in their stance towards LGBTQ+ issues. They inculcate bigotry in people who might not otherwise struggle with it.
Only if they are extremely uninformed to the point that they’ve been living under a rock and don’t interact with the outside world. Sometimes people go with this line of thought as a justification for their bigotry although it just serves to highlight it in a clear and concise way, but I’ve never encountered it in someone who wasn’t also religious. On occasion, the word “unnatural” is used as a reference to the problematic passage found at Romans 1:26-27.

It was addressed at both I'd quoted, since one provided and the other supported the single statement.

This would be an example of a bigoted and repressive religion, that someone should be forced into feeling guilt for their natural feelings of love, and that those forced into such a position are repressed - with all the harms that come with it.

It's especially hurtful when the repression is against another person who was made in God's image - but apparently not quite.
A common opinion amongst the religious is that God is infallible - but He failed here in some way? Or is it the other cop-out clause that being infallible, He's actually testing someone?

There's nothing quite like bigotry for unearthing any tortuous excuse for maintaining it.

This old chestnut, again, that someone can ignore their "lifestyle choices".
Homosexuality and acting upon it is no more a lifestyle choice than left-handedness or having red hair. Deal with it.

And yet, see the hands thrown up on horror if it's so much as suggested that Christianity is a lifestyle choice. Which of course, it is - no-one is born Christian/Muslim/whatever, quite unlike homosexuals or black people or women.

Ah, victim-blaming.
Homosexual folk have the same sexual feelings, there's a clue in the name; the problem starts not with them for having those feelings - but with religion telling them they mustn't.

The only unnatural parts are the attempts at finding someone is wrong, unnatural. Seeking a biological excuse is about as valid as the racist trope of biological "evidence" that black people are sub-par, or that women are the "weaker" sex, ad nauseam.
It doesn't take much examination to find that homosexuality is ubiquitous among many species.


BTW - your attempted outing, doubtless for an audience of one, is noted with distaste.

^ You have mentioned being under the LGTBQAI+ umbrella before Cornflake, I didn't think it was a secret?

And I mentioned it to remind you that I know of it/recognize that, so that you or anyone else in this thread didn't think I was preaching about being gay to someone without experience of that? I was giving a nod to your experience, it wasn't supposed to be a criticism, so I'm not sure why you are distasteful of my mentioning of that? Although now that you have expressed such distaste - I am happy not to mention it again.

I'm half drunk and haven't read virtually anything relating to this thread.......but strictly (and only related to the context of the quotes you responded to) I think you're taking things out of context.

Blitz seems to be responding in third person, making an overall observation of how many religious people perceive homosexuality and little else.

Conflating it to his personal views seems underhand at best.

^ Nades has it right here, I never intended to imply those views were my views, but I shared them because that is what some Christians believe.

Observations are the biggest weakness of WP. All to often, observations seem to be taken a little too personally and more often than not, wrongly taken as the personal views of the poster.

This happens far to often for my liking here, both by general members and by mods.

Last edited by Nades on 29 Nov 2024, 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Some people get offended when you repeat other people's views despite them not being your own. I see it the same as how adults freak out when a kid repeats a bad word.


"Mommy, Joe said f**k."

Mother freaks out. " Go to your room for saying the bad word. Joe, go to your room too for saying that F word."

I normally try to disguise my personal views and remain impartial on most topics, but I can't help what other people interpret from my posts?

This seems to be the case sadly. Observations and personal opinions are two completely different things.

^^ I don't have any issue with Cornflake or his sexual orientation, just in case anyone is in doubt, reading this thread.

+1

It does not sadden you. Your superior and smarmy attitude is on purpose and it's deplorable. You are perfectly aware that you are intentionally offending every thinking person with your smug and self-important tripe. Shame on you.

You probably should, but not when half drunk.

Then he should make that clearer than he did.
But being a mere transmitter of someone's perception doesn't absolve what's transmitted from criticism, and that's what I addressed.

It's not underhand to take what someone says as their personal observation or opinion - it's what drives much of the discussion here; people tend to speak personally with their own feelings and opinions.

He raised a number of erroneous points, which I addressed. Should I have said nothing instead?

None of them were taken "too seriously" or personally - ignorance is ignorance, nothing more.
Although I can't help but notice that once again, there were no responses.