ASA regulator bans advert for mocking Virgin Mary

Post Reply New Topic

As a matter of conscience, anyone is free to believe what they wish. People are free to mould their own moral compass in whatever way they see fit.

The only problem with different standards when it comes to gay relationships versus straight ones would be discrimination law or equality law, in which case people, even those religious people that you deem to be homophobic, are supposed to treat everyone equally, in practice and via their actions. That doesn't that mean people cannot disagree on a moral level, or as part of their conscience, with what they are obliged to do as part of a society that strives towards equality and as a matter of lawful rights.

If LGBTQAI+ folk are treated unfavourably due to their protected characteristics, then those people have a case to raise if they want to via the appropriate channels, whether via employment tribunal or whichever place they feel that they are being disadvantaged in.



In your opinion. For some people it is indeed a moral issue.



You don't find the Christian deity to be reasonable as an ex-Christian and as an atheist? I never would have guessed! /s



Regardless of however the term "lifestyle choice" has been twisted in terms of its meaning/as a political tool, the dictionary definition of lifestyle simply means "a way of life or living as a person or group." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

Having homosexual feelings is a cognitive process or processes - having homosexual sex is a way of living as a person. That isn't limited to homosexuality either - having any kind of sex, even heterosexual sex is a way of living, since a person is not obliged to have sex in the first place. It is an act. In this sense, the words lifestyle and choice are perfectly valid. The connotations of a word are not the same as the etymology of a word.




I agree that sexual orientation is not a choice. Acting upon sexual feelings of any kind if by definition, a lifestyle choice and is not limited to homosexual acts. Perhaps this word has been weaponized by certain political actors? I just go by the elemental dictionary definition, not the connotations of the word.

And I am free to criticize it.

Sometimes people beat their kids with rods because that’s what their conscience tells them to do based on Proverbs 23:13. Obviously, people are free to think what they want, but it comes down to behavior. As with racism, promoting or spreading homophobia or raising children with these beliefs are all inherently harmful. If kids are indoctrinated to believe that being gay/having gay relationships/gay marriage are somehow less valid, less moral, or could bar them from salvation, as some denominations do, it’s abusive. As per the research I cited previously, religious homophobia leads to depression, suicidal ideation, suicide or just unnecessarily limits a person’s ability to achieve happiness.

Organizations which promote homophobia, sexism, transphobia, etc. should expect to receive whatever backlash, criticism, ridicule they do because they are causing serious harm. The beliefs and holy books are worthy of the same.

I’m thankful that WP allows us to have these conversations because they are important ones to be having. It’s a problem when people strive to put religion above scrutiny, criticism, and even ridicule, especially when warranted.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 30 Nov 2024, 8:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

You can't just invent meanings for words. Words have history and context and they mean what they have come to mean through usage. Calling being gay and living one's life as a gay person a "lifestyle" is deeply offensive, and that's not something that you get to decide.

I quoted the dictionary definition of what lifestyle means and I used the word as per the dictionary definition. I didn't 'invent' that definition.

Context matters. Words can change meanings depending on context. The historical context is crucial here.

Gay and lifestyle together is homophobic.

"Gay lifestyle" doesn't have to be homophobic.

It just means a gay way of living. What is homophobic about that?

The historical context/the way the term has often been used is critical here. I already cited research about it, but there’s a lot more out there if you’re interested.

People do not say “heterosexual lifestyle.” The say “gay lifestyle” as a means to dismiss and delegitimize same sex relationships. Even if that wasn’t your intent and even if you used it in conjunction with “straight lifestyle”, it’s best to avoid this phrase for that reason. It’s a loaded term.

^ Fair play.

I shall avoid using the term here on WP, as a matter of good will.

You understand how delegitimizing homosexual relationships and desires as inherently immoral is inherently homophobic, yes?

Those people can insist homosexuality is a moral issue, but it's hard to view that belief as anything but a moral issue unto itself.

Morality is often very subjective. I was simply acknowledging this fact with my comment.

^ Have you ever considered going into politics?

I'm just saying we don't have to take all understandings of morality as equally valid.

Religious fundamentalists often have understandings of morality that are harmful to others and to the societies they participate in. Standing up to those people and the harms they'd inflict isn't a bad thing; letting them run roughshod over the rest of society should be seen as a moral failing.

^^ I doubt that I would have the energy for real time/real life politics.

But what you already have is the moral ambiguity of a politician.

A lot of these Christians that may rightfully rail against society's institutions attacking them also allowed that to happen, sort of.

Here’s the rest of that post which I’m sure was too inconvenient for some of y’all to engage with:

This is true. Some beliefs are harmful/cause harm which is why going with the “all understandings of morality are valid” line of thinking is not a good one and why pushback is so important.
Yes!

It shouldn’t be deemed a valid stance, especially considering the fact that it often leads to problems that extend beyond one’s own thoughts despite some seeming to suggest otherwise. As this thread has made clear, homophobia is promoted in churches, indoctrinated in children, and espoused in forums as a valid worldview. When data about the harm it causes is presented, it goes ignored.

Historically, religion has promoted as a “moral issue” racism and segregation (which is also racist), including the notion that interracial relationships are wrong. I could cite scriptures which people have referenced to support such BS, but I’m not feeling that motivated. Perhaps most people these days know that racism is wrong and would be offended by the idea of a church promoting it. Some churches’ stance on the LGBTQ+ community is comparable. Religious bigotry is still bigotry, and as such, it can and does have devastating consequences.