Are You a "Bigot" If You Don't Think Homosexuality Should Be Celebrated?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Maybe we should stop with the mandated virtue signaling.

Would the mandated virtue signaling wrt the singing of the National Anthem, the support of the troops, and breast cancer awareness also be stopped under your idea?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

I think the vast majority of patrons at these games don't give a fig about the pre-game sexual-social-justice message. It is not popular and has now been done to death at the expense of fun at the game.

Let me just make something up quick too. I got it! The vast majority of patrons at any sporting event don't give a **** about anything pre-game. That's why you never see the stands full until after the game has started. So it has nothing to do with this "sexual" whatever the **** you came up with.

Next, every sport has annual event days. Have those been done to death? I just watched another Star Wars Miami Heat event. Do you have the same emotions regarding that dumb **** I'm forced to suffer through in order to watch the basketball game?

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Stick to youth sports engagement, or some issue relatable to the audience which might have actual impact.

Yeah, youth sports engagement has done wonders for hockey, that's why hockey has been gaining a massive following in the US lately....er wait. It's the lowest paid, lowest watched, lowest cared about sport in the US. They should engage with anything and anyone that can handle watching the game long enough to become a fan.

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Even better: do a super fun pre-game show, and then just play the damn game.

Ah, yes. The "just shut up and dribble the ball" portion of the anti-LGBT rant.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by plague311

Ah, yes. The "just shut up and dribble the ball" portion of the anti-LGBT rant.

The vitriol in this post is odd given that I support LGB rights, fully, and without reservation. Sports teams also have the right to have any pre game show they like. That is capitalism and free speech and all that.
I just think that inserting messages into every facet of public entertainment may have gone too far.
/that is all /my opinion

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Robin

Yeah, they make the Australian cricket team wear pink to raise money for improving care and research into breast cancer.

They should stop all that virtue signalling.

I dont know much about Australian values and law regarding Free Speech.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

The vitriol in this post is odd given that I support LGB rights, fully, and without reservation. Sports teams also have the right to have any pre game show they like. That is capitalism and free speech and all that.
I just think that inserting messages into every facet of public entertainment may have gone too far.
/that is all /my opinion

There was no vitriol and I never said you do or don't support LGBT+ rights. I addressed each one of your statements in order and I felt I was clear about it. You seemed to pick out "sexual-social-justice" specifically as something people don't care about. I corrected you and said they don't care about any pre-game, sexual or not.

If it helps, your entire post reads as the "shut up and dribble the ball" anti-LGBT rant, which is exactly how it read, whether you're an ally or not. If you didn't want it to sound that way, I don't know what to tell you because it's clear I'm not the only one that got that impression.

I disagree with you either way in that I think community outreach and support is part of being a sports athlete. The people that make up that community are diverse. In the NHL they don't force anyone to wear the jerseys, this guy didn't and it appears the only people getting butthurt about it are on the right. No one else seems to really give a ****. This is the first I'm hearing about it and I'm a pretty avid sports fan.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Is this even a politics issue? Feels more Culture War-y.

Pretty hard to tell them apart, nowdays.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

The OP's hyperbole about the viciousness of the reaction to said hockey player aside, I think the answer to the question is "yes". Religious dogma informing someone that homosexuality is a sin seems no different to me than finding the same justification for opposing interracial marriage or allowing women to vote and own property. I'm sure examples could be found of people being excessively vitriolic in criticizing his position on homosexuality, but histrionics about how mean people are don't change the fact that thinking gay people should be denigrated as "wrong" is essentially bigoted.

No differenty then religious Dogam saying that some races were created by God to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water..ie,slaves..for God
s Chosen Race......

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Maybe we should stop with the mandated virtue signaling.

What mandate?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

What mandate?

Solid point, no one was mandated. It was just a request.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Argumentum ad populum? Really?

"Vox Populi,Vox Humbug"

William Techumseh Sherman.

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by varwoche

He belongs to a church that is homophobic, and he stands behind the homophobic beliefs of his church. That makes him a homophobe.

It seems you define "homophobe" as anyone who does not think that homosexuality is a good thing, never mind if they don't attack gays as people, never mind if they don't persecute gays, never mind if they treat gays with the same respect they treat others. Nope, sorry. If you refuse to say that you think homosexuality is a good thing, you are automatically a "homophobe." That is not what the word "homophobe" means by any rational definition.

Someone else said that if a church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, it is guilty of homophobia. This is another misuse of the word. So if a church teaches that serial adultery/swinging is a sin, does that make the church adulterophobic? Does it mean the church "hates" people who commit serial adultery/swing? No, of course not. But that's the extreme illogic that you and others here are peddling, while you ignore the meaning of the terms "phobic" and "phobia."

Ever heard of the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin"? I had a son who lived the gay lifestyle for several years. I was disappointed with him and believed he was making mistake, but my wife and I never stopped loving him and never stopped helping him with college, rent, etc. By the way, after several years, he decided that homosexuality was not for him and abandoned it.

[dudalb]

Problem is the religious fundies try to force their opinions on the whole society, and then get angry when people tell them to mind their own buisness.
of course, this same guy wants to get rid of public education and turn education over to the churhes.....welcome back to the Dark Ages....

[mgidm86]

Hockey is a quickly growing sport in the USA.

https://soundofhockey.com/2022/06/09...up-20-percent/

The hockey facility in San Jose just had a massive 200,000 expansion. They added 2 rinks (for a total of 6) and one is like a medium sized arena. It's big. I don't know how many thousands it seats. I'm talking about a place where youth and other people can play in hockey leagues. They had to make a bigger parking lot too. And it does not snow here

https://www.sharksiceatsanjose.com/a...ets%20to%20six.

Someone mentioned the national anthem. I don't know anybody who wants it played before any sporting event. I don't. It's stupid and a waste of time, and it usually sounds awful.

Only good rendition I ever heard at sporting events was in the NHL (SJ Sharks). Dennis Leach belted that song out for years exactly as it should be done: quick, no lags and no BS.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

It seems you define "homophobe" as anyone who does not think that homosexuality is a good thing, never mind if they don't attack gays as people, never mind if they don't persecute gays, never mind if they treat gays with the same respect they treat others. Nope, sorry. If you refuse to say that you think homosexuality is a good thing, you are automatically a "homophobe." That is not what the word "homophobe" means by any rational definition.

Someone else said that if a church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, it is guilty of homophobia. This is another misuse of the word. So if a church teaches that serial adultery/swinging is a sin, does that make the church adulterophobic? Does it mean the church "hates" people who commit serial adultery/swing? No, of course not. But that's the extreme illogic that you and others here are peddling, while you ignore the meaning of the terms "phobic" and "phobia."

Ever heard of the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin"? I had a son who lived the gay lifestyle for several years. I was disappointed with him and believed he was making mistake, but my wife and I never stopped loving him and never stopped helping him with college, rent, etc. By the way, after several years, he decided that homosexuality was not for him and abandoned it.

Yes, it is homophobic to consider homosexuals and homosexual relationships to be "sinful". Sorry but the Bible is chock full of bigots.

And no true homosexual can simply "abandon" the lifestyle and emotions.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

It seems you define "homophobe" as anyone who does not think that homosexuality is a good thing, never mind if they don't attack gays as people, never mind if they don't persecute gays, never mind if they treat gays with the same respect they treat others.

I'm pretty sure you can be homophobic without having previously attacked homosexuals or even having had the theoretical opportunity to do so. For someone talking about "rational" definitions yours are clearly way, way out of the mainstream.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

I'm pretty sure you can be homophobic without having previously attacked homosexuals or even having had the theoretical opportunity to do so. For someone talking about "rational" definitions yours are clearly way, way out of the mainstream.

I would like to think so, but sadly cannot at leas tin the US. We have far too many religious bigots who want to turn this country into the Republic Of Gilead or the America of Nathanial Scudder in Heinlein's "If This Goes On".
If it was just a case of disaaproving the gay life style it would not be a big deal. But they campaign against it and want legal discrimination agains gays.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Hockey is a quickly growing sport in the USA.

https://soundofhockey.com/2022/06/09...up-20-percent/

The hockey facility in San Jose just had a massive 200,000 expansion. They added 2 rinks (for a total of 6) and one is like a medium sized arena. It's big. I don't know how many thousands it seats. I'm talking about a place where youth and other people can play in hockey leagues. They had to make a bigger parking lot too. And it does not snow here

https://www.sharksiceatsanjose.com/a...ets%20to%20six.

Someone mentioned the national anthem. I don't know anybody who wants it played before any sporting event. I don't. It's stupid and a waste of time, and it usually sounds awful.

Only good rendition I ever heard at sporting events was in the NHL (SJ Sharks). Dennis Leach belted that song out for years exactly as it should be done: quick, no lags and no BS.

Somewhat off topI have been hearing that for over 20 years, but Hockey has yet to get with striking distance of the Big 3 (Baseball, Football,Basketball" in terms of populairty.
Of course at hockey days if a Canadian Team is playing you have to sit through two natonal anthems...

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by plague311

I don't care what this guy does or what the NHL decides to do with him, if I'm being honest. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy that this only seems to come about when it's related to Gay marriage. The NHL is knee-deep in gambling, it's a relatively violent game, and so on. None of those seem to be against his religion? Granted, I am not Russian or Religious but that would be the first religion I've heard of that condones gambling and violence.

That's my biggest complaint about religious douchebags like this guy. His religion is only important when he deems it so and it's convenient for him.

He's russian orthodox. Given the kinds of stuff that church is endorsing, gay marriage or even gay rights in general are not even a drop in a bucket on the side of good compared to the evils his god is telling him to cheer for.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Let's say a Muslim player (from Canada) is supportive of USA but wont wear the pride jersey.
??? Bigoted villian? or diversity hero?

Nazem Kadri
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...yers-1.6563099

Bigot every day of the week. Now how about a post that's not a straw man for once?

[dudalb]

Bigots come in all colors and relgious groups.
Next question.....

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Bigot every day of the week. Now how about a post that's not a straw man for once?

It's a thought experiment. I consider them once in a while as an if/then.
Ignore me if you like.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

It seems you define "homophobe" as anyone who does not think that homosexuality is a good thing, never mind if they don't attack gays as people, never mind if they don't persecute gays, never mind if they treat gays with the same respect they treat others. Nope, sorry. If you refuse to say that you think homosexuality is a good thing, you are automatically a "homophobe." That is not what the word "homophobe" means by any rational definition.

Homosexuality, lesbianism, fill in the blank sexuality are neither a good thing nor bad thing as long as they're between consenting adults. They simply 'are' just as heterosexuality is neither good nor bad and simply 'is'. It's like trying to say having blue or brown or a green eyes is a 'good' or 'bad' ]thing.

Quote:

Someone else said that if a church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, it is guilty of homophobia. This is another misuse of the word.

No, it's not.

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

So if a church teaches that serial adultery/swinging is a sin, does that make the church adulterophobic? Does it mean the church "hates" people who commit serial adultery/swing? No, of course not. But that's the extreme illogic that you and others here are peddling, while you ignore the meaning of the terms "phobic" and "phobia.

"

No, because adultery is not a state of being, it is an act. One is not born "adulterous": It is a clear choice. And please, do NOT give me this crap that being completely non-heterosexual is a 'choice'. Why on earth would anyone choose to be socially ostracized, possibly outcast from one's family, beaten up, arrested, and even killed?

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Ever heard of the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin"? I had a son who lived the gay lifestyle for several years. I was disappointed with him and believed he was making mistake, but my wife and I never stopped loving him and never stopped helping him with college, rent, etc. By the way, after several years, he decided that homosexuality was not for him and abandoned it.

Sure...it's used by religious people and churches all the time in an attempt to reconcile the fact that non-heterosexuality is not a choice. It allows them to continue claiming their religious doctrine is correct while giving them a loophole to claim they aren't bigots. "We don't hate who you are; we just hate what you do!"

Your son is either lying to himself and/or to you. Hell, my late BIL lied to all of us for years and to himself for years...until he was literally dying of AIDS. The sad part was...we all knew he was gay and didn't give a rat's arse.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Bigoted villian? or diversity hero?

I'm pretty sure those aren't our only two options. Bigotry runs a broad spectrum. It's not like someone has to be a queer bashing neo-Nazi to qualify for bigotry. It's possible to think that the values someone has been indoctrinated with are wrong without portraying that person as a cartoon super-villain.

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Ever heard of the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin"? I had a son who lived the gay lifestyle for several years. I was disappointed with him and believed he was making mistake, but my wife and I never stopped loving him and never stopped helping him with college, rent, etc. By the way, after several years, he decided that homosexuality was not for him and abandoned it.

Yep we have heard the cliche "Love the sinner, hate the sin" and it is largely a total crock.

In the past we have had people who have hated the "sin" of heresy but "loved" the heretic. And out of that "love" and "concern" for the heretic, they arrested, imprisoned and tortured heretics and those that persisted in their heresy they burned to death. They of course were motivated by hate not of the heretic, who they actually "loved", but hatred of the sin of heresy. Whatever.

Since today, and in the past, Gay people were subjected to brutal "Conversion" therapy, ostracized by their families etc. And further so many so-called Christian groups want to criminalize same-sex behavior again and are fighting very hard for the right to discriminate etc., and also groups like Focus on the Family have made it so very clear that they want to make the lives of Gay people more difficult this is obviously a very special sort of "love".

Since it is obvious they, A lot of Fundie types, want to make some peoples lives more difficult ity is very clear that "love the sinner, hate the sin", is bogus nonsense all too often used to cloak the desire to punish others for alleged "sin".

As for the rest - cool story. May I point out that someone has same sex desires or one does not. Not having same sex doesn't make someone not Gay.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

It seems you define "homophobe" as anyone who does not think that homosexuality is a good thing, never mind if they don't attack gays as people, never mind if they don't persecute gays, never mind if they treat gays with the same respect they treat others. Nope, sorry. If you refuse to say that you think homosexuality is a good thing, you are automatically a "homophobe." That is not what the word "homophobe" means by any rational definition.

Someone doesn't need to scream "fag!" in someone's face, or kick a gay person to death in the street to be a homophobe, just like someone doesn't need to burn a cross on someone's lawn or lynch a kid found walking home after dark to be a racist.

Quote:

Someone else said that if a church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, it is guilty of homophobia.

Sounds about right to me. Just like if a church taught that women shouldn't be allowed to run their own lives and should be subordinate to men it would be guilty of misogyny. Or if a church taught that people with "white and delightsome skin" were superior to people with darker skin, they'd be guilty of racism.

Quote:

This is another misuse of the word. So if a church teaches that serial adultery/swinging is a sin, does that make the church adulterophobic? Does it mean the church "hates" people who commit serial adultery/swing? No, of course not. But that's the extreme illogic that you and others here are peddling, while you ignore the meaning of the terms "phobic" and "phobia."

Adultery and "swinging" are not the same thing. Adultery implies an extramarital relationship without the spouse's knowledge or consent. Swinging implies that both partners are willingly participating with one another's full knowledge. Under most circumstances, I don't condone the former, because lying to a spouse who thinks you have a mutual commitment to monogamy is just being an *******. Under most circumstances I have no problem with the latter because I think consenting adults should do whatever makes them happy.

But again, you don't have to hate someone to be a bigot. I've known people who thought that black people were intellectually inferior to white people, but who bristled at the notion that they were racist because they "never used the n-word".

Quote:

Ever heard of the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin"? I had a son who lived the gay lifestyle for several years. I was disappointed with him and believed he was making mistake, but my wife and I never stopped loving him and never stopped helping him with college, rent, etc. By the way, after several years, he decided that homosexuality was not for him and abandoned it.

I'm not buying it. People don't just decide to change their sexual orientation the way they change brands of toothpaste. I can distinctly remember being attracted to girls when I was a young boy, long before I even knew what sex was. Gay people I've talked to or corresponded with on the internet have described the same thing, but with the same sex. They didn't even know what sex was yet, and they didn't make any conscious decision to be attractive a certain gender (or both).

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Someone doesn't need to scream "fag!" in someone's face, or kick a gay person to death in the street to be a homophobe, just like someone doesn't need to burn a cross on someone's lawn or lynch a kid found walking home after dark to be a racist.


Sounds about right to me. Just like if a church taught that women shouldn't be allowed to run their own lives and should be subordinate to men would be guilty of misogyny. Or if a church taught that people with "white and delightsome skin" were superior to people with darker skin, they'd be guilty of racism.


Adultery and "swinging" are not the same thing. Adultery implies an extramarital relationship without the spouse's knowledge or consent. Swinging implies that both partners are willingly participating with one another's full knowledge.

But again, you don't have to hate someone to be a bigot. I've known white people who thought that black people were intellectually inferior to white people, but who bristled at the notion that they were racist because they "never used the n-word".


I'm not buying it. People don't just decide to change their sexual orientation they way they change brands of toothpaste. I can distinctly remember being attracted to girls when I was a young boy, long before I even knew what sex was. Gay people I've talked to or corresponded with on the internet have described the same thing, but with the same sex. They didn't even know what sex was yet, and they didn't make any conscious decision to be attractive a certain gender (or both).

Women were both reviled and exalted at the same time by religion: Eve was reviled for tempting Adam to eat the apple in the Garden of Eden; she brought the expulsion from Eden and original sin. At the same time, Mary was exalted as the "Mother of God". Women were supposedly put on some kind of pedestal and seen as 'pure' (until they had sex) and the 'fairer sex' but they're also whores and temptresses. The contradictions are endless. But religion has never had a problem with being contradictory...or hypocritical.

[dudalb]

I repeat the problem is people like the OP want to force their views on everybody else cause Gawd told them to.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Ever heard of the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin"?

Of course I have. It has always been nonsense.

If someone says they love me but hate my loving relationships then what exactly are they loving? My fingernails? My big toe? My glands? My oesophagus?

Our loving relationships is what brings joy and meaning into our lives. Hate that and you hate me.

I have no problem with anybody hating me, but I would rather they be honest about it.

[Robin]

How do you abandon being a homosexual?

Are there really people who can decide to not be attracted to people they were previously attracted to?

Can a heterosexual decide one day that they are no longer going to find anyone of the opposite sex attractive? How would they go about that?

[Silly Green Monkey]

I sympathize with the son, I'm not really out to my parents either. For a phase, it's sure lasted a long time. I hope one day we all can be honest about ourselves with our parents.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Someone else said that if a church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, it is guilty of homophobia.

If a church teaches that the thing that brings happiness, joy and meaning into some people's lives is an abomination, making them deserving of death and eternal torture, you don't think that this is teaching people to hate?

If they taught that a racially mixed marriage was an abomination would they not be considered racist?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

I sympathize with the son, I'm not really out to my parents either. For a phase, it's sure lasted a long time. I hope one day we all can be honest about ourselves with our parents.

I was never out to my parents either, but they knew because my Mum used to read my diary. To the end of her life she made little cutting comments, little digs, little contemptuous remarks about how awful it is to be homosexual.

People say "suck it up" but this relentless chipping away hurts.

[Robin]

Any happily married person who allegedly loved the sinner but hates the sin should imagine someone saying to them "I hate your marriage, your marriage is an abomination, your love for your wife makes you deserving of death and eternal torture your marriage is intrinsically evil. .. but I love you"

Would you really believe they loved you?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Robin

I was never out to my parents either, but they knew because my Mum used to read my diary. To the end of her life she made little cutting comments, little digs, little contemptuous remarks about how awful it is to be homosexual.

People say "suck it up" but this relentless chipping away hurts.

Sorry to hear that, Robin. I can't even imagine how much that must have hurt...death by a thousand small cuts. Cruel. But, ya know...you chose that, right?

[Parsman]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

What mandate?

Hercules was on a man date?

[Carrot Flower King]

Dear OP, how about the idea that most folk use terms like "homophobe" or "homophobia" as shorthands to indicate the people who are prejudiced against homosexuality, want to do harm to homosexuals, want to legislate against homsexuals, want to condemn them to hellfire and all the rest, rather than having to churn out the whole list of things?

Y'know, language evolving (pacé some other discussions in another thread)?

And, yes, many of us know what an actual clinical phobia is, thank you.

This rapidly becomes one of those "But it isn't an assault rifle!" nitpicks that regularly derail discussions about mass ("But that 's not big enough to count as a mass shooting!") shootings and weapons used.

Give us a better term and it might be used.

[Resume]

Quote:

"love the sinner, hate the sin?"

Is just an excuse, a rationalization, to marginalize or otherwise subjugate and control behavior. The in-group "loves" the sinner in much the same way some folks use the term "Well bless your heart!"

You know what would be a good sin to hate? Slavery. But I can't find it in that book.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

Dear OP, how about the idea that most folk use terms like "homophobe" or "homophobia" as shorthands to indicate the people who are prejudiced against homosexuality, want to do harm to homosexuals, want to legislate against homsexuals, want to condemn them to hellfire and all the rest, rather than having to churn out the whole list of things?

One good thing from this discussion is that I realize I’ve been glossing over the nomenclature. From context, I always understood the difference between the bigotry use and the clinical use of the word “homophobe”. It never occurred to me that people would shift between those definitions as a way to avoid addressing their own prejudices. But here we are.

So, what would an accurate term for “prejudiced against LGBT+ people” (with the understanding that it would probably require breaking down for each sub community)? IOW, what is the gay version of “racist”?

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

It seems you define "homophobe" as anyone who does not think that homosexuality is a good thing, never mind if they don't attack gays as people, never mind if they don't persecute gays, never mind if they treat gays with the same respect they treat others. Nope, sorry. If you refuse to say that you think homosexuality is a good thing, you are automatically a "homophobe." That is not what the word "homophobe" means by any rational definition.

Someone else said that if a church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, it is guilty of homophobia. This is another misuse of the word. So if a church teaches that serial adultery/swinging is a sin, does that make the church adulterophobic? Does it mean the church "hates" people who commit serial adultery/swing? No, of course not. But that's the extreme illogic that you and others here are peddling, while you ignore the meaning of the terms "phobic" and "phobia."

Ever heard of the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin"? I had a son who lived the gay lifestyle for several years. I was disappointed with him and believed he was making mistake, but my wife and I never stopped loving him and never stopped helping him with college, rent, etc. By the way, after several years, he decided that homosexuality was not for him and abandoned it.

You're minimizing the activist, homophobic positions of the Russian Orthodox Church.

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

...I had a son who lived the gay lifestyle for several years. I was disappointed with him and believed he was making mistake, but my wife and I never stopped loving him and never stopped helping him with college, rent, etc. By the way, after several years, he decided that homosexuality was not for him and abandoned it.

How convenient...