Re: Religion, gay artists and homophobia

by Papaumau Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:55 pm

First topic message reminder :

I have found that the stance against homosexuality - and in many other "biblical sins" - in almost all of the religions of the world is based on writings in their holy books.

As the word that is accepted as the word of their Gods is either said to be spoken directly to the humans that report it, ( and in many of these cases these "conduits" from the Gods are found to simply be schizophrenic ), then the word that is written by the fallible human scribes of old into these holy books is at risk of being seen as the flawed interpretation of what these scribes and prophets said they know and found to be true.

The faithful - as in all of the details surrounding faith - believe in their faith because faith requires no proof and when they act on what they find in their holy books, ( although none of the contents of these books has ever been proven to be right or accurate in fact ), their behaviour, as a result, is based on myth rather than even on secular laws. In other words, because their faith dictates that everything that is in these holy books must be true, what they find there that connects to "sin" must also be true.

I have always felt that as far as the laws of the land that I live in should never be based on religious faith, I can only take the stance that if these laws ARE in any way influenced by religion then they are not laws that can apply to everybody or that can be applied to any kind of secular rules or regulations.

Regards.....

Papaumau.

by polyglide Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:40 am

What a relief it is to have a moderator with common sense and an understanding of what is written rather than a misguided and utterly irrelevant response by someone obviously lacking in many quarters.

You can take any religion or other activity and you will find every type of person involved, those who are there for all the right reasons and those for many wrong reasons.

The many churches have their fair share of deviants, you only have to look at our MPs amongst which we know there are a number of thieves, liars and perverts and they are the ones who should be setting the proper standard of behavior and there is no doubt there will be a number that we do not know about.

In nearly all other activities the same will apply in one form or another.

I do not agree with homosexual bashing I just wish they would accept what they are and not pretend to be something they are not.

As for homosexual pride, I cannot for the life of me see anything to be proud of, perhaps I am missing something they do that warrants acclamation by the population as a whole.

There is no injustice involved in a person who feels homosexuality is unacceptable, just as there is no injustice in homosexuals thinking it is.

by blueturando Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:52 am

I am neither Gay or religious, so I really cannot speak for either side in this debate.....but I will put my penny worth in anyway

To be brutally honest I don't really understand homosexuality and I'm left with the thought that if it was normal and all the world was homosexual, then the human race would have been a non starter. Saying that I have no problem with people living the life they want to lead (within the law) and people being homosexual does me no harm what so ever....Like most people, I know and have friends who are Gay and they dont flaunt their sexuality in an offensive way and for want of a better phrase, dont force their issues or sexuality down my throat.... Rolling Eyes

If Gay people want to get married who am I to say they cannot. Not so long ago the Christian right was saying all homosexuals were all promiscuous and speading Aids around the world...God was punishing them.....So it's a bit rich to complain when a loving couple of whatever sexual persuasion wishes to settle down and cement their relationship in marraige.

Polyglide said many religions 'abhor' homosexuality.....well that maybe the case, but many people also abhor religion....so maybe we could ban religion it and make it illegal too

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:39 pm

polyglide wrote:

I do not agree with homosexual bashing I just wish they would accept what they are and not pretend to be something they are not.

As for homosexual pride, I cannot for the life of me see anything to be proud of, perhaps I am missing something they do that warrants acclamation by the population as a whole.

There is no injustice involved in a person who feels homosexuality is unacceptable, just as there is no injustice in homosexuals thinking it is.

For the sake of common sense where is the logic in your diatribe? I actually think you have one hell of a cheek to even pretend to be knowledgeable enough to comment on any gay issue or gay person you do not know or do not wish to know.

Polyglide, believe all the dogma, misinformation and stereotypical nonsense if you wish, but please be aware that there is absolutely no academic or objective judgement present in your thinking. It smacks more of bigoted mantra that like ground-hog day is just repeated and repeated, over and over again.

Clearly your intellectual grasp of 'difference'; the animal kingdom where single sex couples exist in huge numbers; the historical abuse and persecution of gay people and your facile depth of understanding is nothing to boast about, so probably best you keep quiet for fear of being labelled yourself?

Frankly, your grasp of the serious issues is about as constructive as a chocolate teapot. Very disturbing. The following video will always remind me of your attitude...

[youtube][/youtube]

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:47 pm

blueturando wrote:I am neither Gay or religious, so I really cannot speak for either side in this debate.....but I will put my penny worth in anyway

To be brutally honest I don't really understand homosexuality and I'm left with the thought that if it was normal and all the world was homosexual, then the human race would have been a non starter. Saying that I have no problem with people living the life they want to lead (within the law) and people being homosexual does me no harm what so ever....Like most people, I know and have friends who are Gay and they dont flaunt their sexuality in an offensive way and for want of a better phrase, dont force their issues or sexuality down my throat....

If Gay people want to get married who am I to say they cannot. Not so long ago the Christian right was saying all homosexuals were all promiscuous and speading Aids around the world...God was punishing them.....So it's a bit rich to complain when a loving couple of whatever sexual persuasion wishes to settle down and cement their relationship in marraige.

Polyglide said many religions 'abhor' homosexuality.....well that maybe the case, but many people also abhor religion....so maybe we could ban religion it and make it illegal too

Good post Blue, you may find this of interest as regards the incidents of primary same-sex relationships throughout the animal kingdom. Scientific evidence, prima facie and irrefutable is helping to neutralize the fevered homophobia that religious organizations promulgate so enthusiastically.

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:13 pm

There is also the seriously constructive notion that in the wild, including human beings, the incidents of non-breeders (gay people and animals) helps to create a check on population numbers and can prevent, in some instances, a population explosion.

That human beings should and must be encouraged to come out and not feel compelled to 'breed' with members of the opposite sex, is actually a very healthy concept based on pragmatic assessment rather than some kind of useless dogma.

The ideology of the study of human nature should include the acceptance that human beings are far too complex to be labelled as just 'gay, straight or bisexual', and that sexual proclivity is not a matter of morality or choice, but rather a predisposed proto-genetic imperative, that transcends human philosophy, religious tenets, hostile dogma, or any other mumbo jumbo that negates the reality of the human condition and sacrifices scientific truth on the altar of homophobia.

I rest my case.

by Guest Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:37 pm

polyglide wrote:
I do not agree with homosexual bashing I just wish they would accept what they are and not pretend to be something they are not.

As for homosexual pride, I cannot for the life of me see anything to be proud of, perhaps I am missing something they do that warrants acclamation by the population as a whole.

There is no injustice involved in a person who feels homosexuality is unacceptable, just as there is no injustice in homosexuals thinking it is.

AwfulTruth wrote:
For the sake of common sense where is the logic in your diatribe?

Polyglide has posted no “diatribe.”

AwfulTruth wrote:
I actually think you have one hell of a cheek to even pretend to be knowledgeable enough to comment…

Polyglide, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed by law, has the right to comment independent of your opinion as to how knowledgeable he might and might not be.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… on any gay issue or gay person you do not know or do not wish to know.

Polyglide, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed by law, can comment on any issue upon which he chooses to comment.

AwfulTruth wrote:
Polyglide, believe all the dogma, misinformation and stereotypical nonsense if you wish…

Polyglide has not testified to any belief in “dogma”, “misinformation”, or “stereotypical nonsense” on this thread.

AwfulTruth wrote:
It smacks more of bigoted mantra…

Polyglide has posted nothing that “smacks… of bigoted mantra” on this thread.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… best you keep quiet for fear of being labelled yourself?

Polyglide, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed by law, need “keep quiet” when and if he chooses, and only when and if he chooses.

by oftenwrong Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:19 pm

[quote="RockOnBrother"]

polyglide wrote:

Polyglide, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed by law, need “keep quiet” when and if he chooses, and only when and if he chooses.

Can we just establish which Administration's Law is referred to?

Law should ideally be Universal, but in fact it depends where you are in the World whether an action (including speech) is legal or sanctionable. Simply crossing an international border can render something you are carrying illegal. (Try taking an apple through US Customs).

Freedom of speech is by no means a worldwide concept.

by **astradt1** Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:36 pm

Full quote by AT
Polyglide, believe all the dogma, misinformation and stereotypical nonsense if you wish, but please be aware that there is absolutely no academic or objective judgement present in your thinking

Edited quote by Roc
AwfulTruth wrote:
Polyglide, believe all the dogma, misinformation and stereotypical nonsense if you wish…

And Roc's response
Polyglide has not testified to any belief in “dogma”, “misinformation”, or “stereotypical nonsense” on this thread.

As can be seen when a quote is edited by a responder the original meaning and intent can be lost...This makes the responder and thier response look meaningless..

This one of the dangers of the line by line style of dissection and response to any post.....

Perhaps the poster feels it makes them look scholarly but I would beg to differ from that idea........

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:26 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
polyglide wrote:
I do not agree with homosexual bashing I just wish they would accept what they are and not pretend to be something they are not.

As for homosexual pride, I cannot for the life of me see anything to be proud of, perhaps I am missing something they do that warrants acclamation by the population as a whole.

There is no injustice involved in a person who feels homosexuality is unacceptable, just as there is no injustice in homosexuals thinking it is.
AwfulTruth wrote:
For the sake of common sense where is the logic in your diatribe?

Polyglide has posted no “diatribe.”

AwfulTruth wrote:
I actually think you have one hell of a cheek to even pretend to be knowledgeable enough to comment…

Polyglide, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed by law, has the right to comment independent of your opinion as to how knowledgeable he might and might not be.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… on any gay issue or gay person you do not know or do not wish to know.

Polyglide, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed by law, can comment on any issue upon which he chooses to comment.

AwfulTruth wrote:
Polyglide, believe all the dogma, misinformation and stereotypical nonsense if you wish…

Polyglide has not testified to any belief in “dogma”, “misinformation”, or “stereotypical nonsense” on this thread.

AwfulTruth wrote:
It smacks more of bigoted mantra…

Polyglide has posted nothing that “smacks… of bigoted mantra” on this thread.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… best you keep quiet for fear of being labelled yourself?

Polyglide, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed by law, need “keep quiet” when and if he chooses, and only when and if he chooses.

As the moderator why are you entering into this type of dialogue with a member anyway? what is the point?

For the record I am human rights activist and I ALWAYS defend free speech - without exception. That means sometimes disagreeing with other people's views even if they have just insulted one.

If you cannot see that your intervention is rather odd - perhaps you better explain?????? Basketball

by Guest Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:39 pm

AwfulTruth wrote:
For the record I am human rights activist and I ALWAYS defend free speech - without exception.

All posters hereon, without exception, including Polyglide, possess the unalienable human right to freedom of speech. I am heartened that you join me in supporting, without exception, Polyglide's unalienable human right to freedom of speech.

by astra Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:06 am

unalienable human right to freedom of speech.

Will you lot stop making that noise in the kitchen, I am listening to the neighbours having a fight next door!

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:18 am

To the Moderator Rock:

If you read the posts properly and stopped patronizing me with gusto then maybe you would start exhibiting the free speech and STOP trolling me?

I am serious: your inane and inappropriate trolling under the guise of 'moderator' is a complete subversion of your roll. In fact, you could be accused of on-line bullying via constantly repeating a message that is not required or appropriate.

For the very last time here I shall state that I do not need to be lectured by you or anyone else what free speech is, and as I have said before, I support free speech. Period

I really am not a moron and really resent being treated like one...

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:26 am

MOOT POINT

Why doesn't Polyglide ever reply to posts? Why instead do they enlist the 'moderator' to fight their own battles?

If that is not poor etiquette I do not know what is.

It is essential that people do not hide behind moderators instead of engaging with the fall-out of something they have posted! Otherwise this negates the whole ethos of Cutting Edge - does it not? Unless this is a family issue? :affraid:

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:19 am

astra wrote:
unalienable human right to freedom of speech.

Will you lot stop making that noise in the kitchen, I am listening to the neighbours having a fight next door!

Who won?

by Shirina Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:37 am

Why doesn't Polyglide ever reply to posts? Why instead do they enlist the 'moderator' to fight their own battles?

Hey there, Awful Truth:

Actually, witchfinder and I moderate this particular topic. Rock doesn't even have access to basic moderation forum controls on this thread, so for all intents and purposes, he's just another poster. Since I believe in moderating only as a last resort, I allow people to work out their own differences (as they often do). Hopefully you and Rock can do the same.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:52 am

Shirina wrote:
Why doesn't Polyglide ever reply to posts? Why instead do they enlist the 'moderator' to fight their own battles?
Hey there, Awful Truth:

Actually, witchfinder and I moderate this particular topic. Rock doesn't even have access to basic moderation forum controls on this thread, so for all intents and purposes, he's just another poster. Since I believe in moderating only as a last resort, I allow people to work out their own differences (as they often do). Hopefully you and Rock can do the same.

Thanks for that, Shirina- appreciated that you were able to clarify swiftly. OK Basketball

It's just a pity that some people seem to not wish to engage with/entertain the notion that a person might be offended by a personal remark; a homophobic remark (however bald or dressed-up it may be) which some gay/straight people may find deeply offensive. In that respect I really do think the best thing for people with strong views, of the negative variety regarding gay people, should probably keep quite rather than antagonize and lose the plot. It's, to me, a question of diplomacy that recognises that the offended party should have their sensibilities respected in order to avoid a figurative incident of whatever/wherever.

If someone is ever offended, then it should be regular etiquette to have the right to express their feelings of 'offence'; hopefully getting an apology to diffuse the situation. Certainly, my own ethos is that if someone is deeply offended by anything I have posted, then they must tell me and I would, likewise, apologize, rather than have them go off on one. Problem solved!

I do not think that homophobia, as manifested by any homophobe (this is not meant as a term of abuse but as a de facto adjective), is something that can be talked out overnight, in that most homophobes are died-in-the-wool and simply find it impossible to change their opinions. Which is cool - no problem with that at all; I accept that.

Some people do change their views over time and express this sea-change, but others continue to express their dislike of gay people.

All I can say, finally, is that if homophobic comments offend people, then like sexism comments against women, or ageism (any ism!) is probably best left unsaid for the sake of etiquette.

That does not mean that such a line would or should stifle free speech or the imperative of Cutting Edge to promulgate free expression, ad hoc.

As I have said before, people like politicians and the clergy may be seen as fair game.

by Guest Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:13 pm

AwfulTruth wrote:
To the Moderator Rock:

I am not a moderator on this thread.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:25 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
AwfulTruth wrote:
To the Moderator Rock:
I am not a moderator on this thread.

Fair enough Rock, but I would like to suggest that you reconsider posting consecutive quotes that may have been taken out of context?

Just a thought! Smile

by polyglide Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:14 pm

I can assure you I do not need anyone to stand my corner but it is encouraging to know that there are some people who actually understand what is written and unfortunately others who read with no actual understanding and I have no intention of attempting to educate the latter.

It is a fact that if every deviant was taken out of the human race there would be very few ,if any, humans left.

If Awful Truth had anything of sense to say he would not have to protest in such an aggresive manner to the ideas and opinions of others.

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:53 pm

polyglide wrote:I can assure you I do not need anyone to stand my corner but it is encouraging to know that there are some people who actually understand what is written and unfortunately others who read with no actual understanding and I have no intention of attempting to educate the latter.

It is a fact that if every deviant was taken out of the human race there would be very few ,if any, humans left.

If Awful Truth had anything of sense to say he would not have to protest in such an aggressive manner to the ideas and opinions of others.

Polyglide

Let us set the record straight: You have accused me of being a 'deviant' and a 'pervert' and you think I do not read your posts? How can you possibly accuse ME of being aggressive? I am perfectly willing to argue with people who have other views but please do not expect me not to be offended by your usage of offensive adjective words, which you use with all the sincerely of someone who takes their own views very seriously indeed. That's fine.

I once again find myself having to firmly affirm that I am a defender of free speech. If I were not, I would be constantly angling for certain posts to be expunged and forever complaining to the moderators. I do not do that kind of thing because I think it is cowardly and undermines the essence of free speech.

However, there is a real line drawn between insults and hate crime. I see the difference and I wish people would stop winging and just get on with it.

Let us agree to disagree and move on. You have, finally, made your opinion of me absolutely crystal clear - period! I will bear you no ill feeling. flower

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:03 pm

On the subject of famous gay people (aka perverts, deviants and evil scum - according to some others), some of whom have made a huge contribution to the world and its people:

Alexander the Great
*Macedonian Ruler, 300 B.C.
Socrates
*Greek Philosopher, 400 B.C.
Sappho
*Greek Woman Poet, 600 B.C.
Hadrian
*Roman Emperor, 1st-2nd c.
Richard the Lionhearted
*English King, 12th c.
Saladin
*Sultan of Egypt and Syria
Desiderius Erasmus
*Dutch Monk, Philosopher
Francis Bacon
*English statesman, author
Frederick the Great
*King of Prussia
Lord Byron
*English poet, 18th c.
Walt Whitman
*U.S. poet, author, 19th c.
Oscar Wilde
*Irish author, 19th c.
Marcel Proust
*French author, 20th c.
Colette
*French author, 20th c.
Gertrude Stein
*U.S. poet, author, 20th c.
Alice B. Toklas
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Federico Garcia Lorca
*Spanish author, 20th c.
Cole Porter
*U.S. composer, 20th c.
Virginia Woolf
*English author, 20th c.
Leonard Bernstein
*U.S. composer, 20th c.
Pope Julius III
*1550-1555
T.E. Lawrence
*English soldier, author, 20th c.
Jean Cocteau
*French writer, director, 20th c.
Charles Laughton
*English actor, 20th c.
Marguerite Yourcenar
*Belgian author, 20th c.
Tennessee Williams
*U.S. Playwright, 20th c.
James Baldwin
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Andy Warhol
*U.S. artist, 20th c.
Michelangelo
*Italian artist, 15th c.
Leonardo Da Vinci
*Ital. Artist, scientist, 15th c.
Christopher Marlowe
*Eng. Playwright, 16th c.
Herman Melville
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Horatio Alger, Jr.
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Tchaikovsky
*Russian composer, 19th c.
Willa Cather
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Amy Lowell
*U.S. author, 19th & 20th c.
E.M. Forster
*English author, 20th c.
John M. Keynes
*English economist, 20th c.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
*Australian mathematician, 20th c.
Bessie Smith
*U.S. singer, 20th c.
Noel Coward
*English playwright, 20th c.
Christopher Isherwood
*English author, 20th c.
Pier Paolo Pasolini
*Italian film director, 20th c.
Yukio Mishima
*Japanese author, 20th c.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*U.S. stateswoman, 20th c.
Julius Caesar
*Roman Emperor, 100-44 B.C.
Augustus Caesar
*Roman Emperor
Harvey Milk
*U.S. politician, 20th c.
Bayard Rustin
*U.S. Civil Rights activist, 20th c.
James I
*English King, 16th-17th c.
Queen Anne
*English Queen, 18th c.
Marie Antoinette
*French Empress, 18th c.
Melissa Etheridge
*U.S. Rock Star, 20th c.
Pope Benedict IX
*1032-1044
May Sarton
*U.S. author, (1912 - 1995)
Edna Ferber
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Elton John
*English Rock Star, 20th c.
Margaret Fuller
*U.S. writer, educator, 20th c.
Montezuma II
*Aztec ruler, 16th c.
Peter the Great
*Russian Czar, 17th-18th c.
Langston Hughes
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Pope John XII
*955-964
Madame de Stael
*French writer, 17th-18th c.
Martina Navratilova
*U.S. tennis star, 20th c.
Greg Louganis
*U.S. Olympic swimmer, 20th c.
Billie Jean King
*U.S. tennis star, 20th c.
Roberta Achtenburg
*U.S. politician, 20th c.
Barney Frank
*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.
Gerry Studds
*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.
Hans Christian Andersen
*Danish author, 19th c.
Tom Dooley
*U.S. M.D. missionary, 20th c.
J. Edgar Hoover
*U.S. director of the FBI., 20th c.
Frida Kahlo
*Mexican artist, 20th c.
Suleiman the Magnificent
*Ottoman ruler, 15th c.
Rock Hudson
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz
*Mexican author, 16th c.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Candace Gingrich
*Gay Rights activist, 20th c.
Margarethe Cammermeyer
*U.S. Army Colonel, 20th c.
Zoe Dunning
*U.S. Military Reservist, 20th c.
Tom Waddel
*U.S. M.D., Olympic star, 20th c.
Kate Millet
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Janis Joplin
*U.S. singer, 20th c.
Rudolf Nuryev
*Russian dancer, 20th c.
Waslaw Nijinsky
*Russian dancer, 20th c.
Ernst Röhm
*German Nazi leader, 20th c.
Dag Hammerskjold
*Swedish UN Secretary, 209th c.
Aristotle
*Greek philosopher, 384-322 B.C.
Paula Gunn Allen
*Native American author, 20th c.
Angela Davis
*U.S. political activist, 20th c.
June Jordan
*U.S. author, activist, 20th c.
Rainer Maria Rilke
*German poet, 20th c.
James Dean
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Montgomery Clift
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Baron VonSteuben
*German General, Valley Forge
Edward II
*English King, 14th c.
Beethoven
Composer

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:37 pm

Awfultruth.

Shame on you. I can only see 3 Roman Emperors, and no Nero, who had a public wedding to ? forgotten. In fact he had two 'wives'. Most of the early Emperors, the first dozen or so, were either homosexual or bisexual from what we know of them.

Suleiman the Great? Not sure about that. He astounded everyone by marrying a girl from his harem with whom he fell in love, and she bore him children. In fact she held a place as his wife more than the normal practice.

Lot of the others never heard of. But then History was never my strong point. All those boring Kings and Queens and dates and............Ugh

Queen Anne wasn't. Went out with her a couple of times. Ooops wrong Anne;)

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:07 pm

Trevor (my avatar is the gay Alexander the Great)

It's a moot area.

What I will say is that I fundamentally believe we are all far too complex to be just labelled as either gay, straight or bisexual, simply because our bedroom proclivities are really only a very tiny part of our overall lives and personalities.

If we added up the minutes we spent having sex, in our entire lifetimes, it would probably be a few weeks or so? If you get my drift.

What is important is how we behave/act as people; what we do, say and think and how we transmute the manifestations of our natures into accomplishments, achievements and the getting of wisdom. In short, people with ginger hair are still human beings.

That is really what many people are about, rather than just what they did sexually as consenting adults.

Regards.

by polyglide Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:32 pm

I am truly sorry if Awful Truth thinks I hate or dislike homosexuals, There are thousands of people I dislike far more, rapists, child abusers, murderers,
wife beaters, etc; homosexuals are way down the list.

I do not hate anyone, life on earth is far too short to waste time doing so and we should be spending time making matters better for all.

But I do beleive we should accept what we are and not try to say we are something we are not, I have, like everyone else, faults that I wish I had not and have to live with them.

Kind regards.

by AwfulTruth Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:32 am

You have your view - that's OK with me.

I just happen to conclude that you are quite wrong.

I simply find being labelled as a 'pervert' or 'deviant' as abusive. It is offensive - that's all. Very Happy

by **Ivan** Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:31 pm

I am truly sorry if Awful Truth thinks I hate or dislike homosexuals. There are thousands of people I dislike far more……we should be spending time making matters better for all…..I have, like everyone else, faults that I wish I had not and have to live with them.

polyglide. So you do dislike homosexuals, it’s just that you dislike criminals far more! And are you saying that homosexuality is a 'fault', or have I misunderstood you?

I’m not a homosexual, but as I’m not weighed down by religious baggage, I don’t give a damn what consenting adults do in private, as long as it doesn’t involve children or animals. I agree with you that we should be trying to improve matters for everyone, which is why I spend as much time as possible opposing our evil government, which as ‘The Independent’ pointed out yesterday, is determined to destroy every facet of social democracy in this country by 2015. It’s also why I hate prejudice and discrimination directed at anyone on account of their age, creed, colour, gender or sexual orientation.

by polyglide Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:48 pm

I am afraid you misunderstand what I feel, or what I mean.

If you look in the dictionary the meaning of homosexuality, then you cannot deny after also reading what pervert means, that a homosexual is a pervert.and as for deviant a vegitarian is a deviant, he/she deviates from what most people eat etc;

So I can see no reason for complaint regarding the use of either, we use the dictionary to establish the meaning of words and the above is a correct
interpretation.

What other word in the dictionary describes a homosexual.

Dislike may be a wrong expression a more fitting way I feel may be to say I do not understand the way in which homosexuals decide to spend their lives.

by **Ivan** Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:44 pm

a homosexual is a pervert

polyglide. Words sometimes change their principal meanings over time, and ‘pervert’ is one such case. That word used to refer primarily to an apostate, someone who abandoned their religious beliefs. Nowadays it’s usually associated with paedophiles, stalkers, flashers and voyeurs, all of whom pursue activities which are illegal. Homosexuality has been legal in the UK for 45 years and to refer to it as a perversion, thereby bracketing it with those sexual offences that I’ve mentioned, is not only very insulting but quite possibly a crime.

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:52 pm

Could Intolerance be described as a perversion?
Just askin'

by Shirina Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:23 pm

In the early 20th Century, psychologists used the term "idiot" to describe someone with an IQ below 30 or someone with the mental development of a child 3 years old or less. An "imbecile" had the mental development of a child three to seven years old, and a "moron" had the mental development of a child seven to ten years old. These were legitimate scientific terms that carried no insult or derision.

Now, a century later, calling someone any of these terms, even children who ARE within these age groups, would be classified by *everyone* as an insult.

When I lived in New York, there was a special program called BOCES (pronounced BOH-sees) which stood for Board of Cooperative Educational Services. BOCES involved special classes, or even entire schools, designed to help the "slow" students gain their high school diplomas.

And while the term BOCES is merely an acronym for a specific branch of the New York educational system, it quickly became an insult among kids. If someone calls you a "BOH-see," then you've just been insulted. Those who are not from New York may not even be aware of the insult, so if someone from Texas moved to New York and asked a neighbor, "Oh, so your son is a 'BOH-see?'" Well, that former Texan might be given a tongue-lashing ... even if the son really *is* a part of the BOCES program.

The point here is that dictionary definitions are often not enough when determining whether a word is the appropriate one to use. There are connotations, innuendos, implications, multiple meanings, and even local variations that have to be considered before selecting a word to use - especially if that word is generally negative in all of its variations. Awful Truth is spot on when he says that words like "pervert" or "deviant" no longer simply mean being outside of the mainstream; those words today carry the very heavy implication of being a criminal or just plain sick and twisted.

I do not understand the way in which homosexuals decide to spend their lives.

I don't really understand it either. At the same time, I also do not understand the culture of the ultra-rich, either. Did you know Hugh Hefner of Playboy fame has his servants hand-select potato chips out of the bag so that only unbroken chips are brought to him? I would regard that kind of persnickety behavior "deviant" ... but with the modern definition of the word, calling him such would be far too harsh and lends the wrong implication. Perhaps "spoiled," "entitled," or "eccentric" would be better choices.

Take care, polyglide.

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:34 pm

Words can wound. Something which children pick up in the Playground. Anyone who claims to be unaware of how hurtful we can be to each other simply by the use of speech is a LIAR, or sub-normal.

Geddit?

by polyglide Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:11 pm

When the dictionary redefines the words homoxesual and pervert, then I will agree, until such times then there is no need or reason to dispute the matter.

As for being an offence to use the terminology accepted by the dictionary and the vast majority of people who would immediately recognise both, then that is tantemount to deceipt.

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:21 pm

This may help someone to avoid trouble ....

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/DiscriminationAtWork/DG_10026540

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:30 pm

Polyglide

I am not sure what outdated, antediluvian dictionary you have been sticking your proboscis into lately, but no modern dictionary, due to the laws surrounding 'abuse' as in a 'hate crime', carries such a definition.

To call a gay man a 'pervert', repeatedly, for example, is not only highly offensive, but also dangerously close to active verbal abuse.

That you believe gay people (notice the word 'people'!) to be perverts, and that you keep repeating this so gratuitously and with such gusto, shows that you intend the accusation to be offensive, even after very clear guidance on repeating such inflammatory, crass and insulting language.

I remain offended, you remain unrepentant and the situation is now clouded by the definition of what a hate crime actually is.

I will not be using abusive language against you, simply because I would never wander onto such territory; I leave verbal abuse to the small minded brigade...

Finally, please do not hide behind semantics, jargon or any kind of outdated dictionary, as you may find it tripping you up, as in a metaphorical a banana skin, sending you crashing to the ground with all the gravitas of a Roman Catholic mother superior caught eating a big fat pork sausage on a Friday. elephant

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:36 pm

oftenwrong wrote:This may help someone to avoid trouble ....

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/DiscriminationAtWork/DG_10026540

Good one mate!

Can you imagine what people would say if, for example, I started verbally abusing a woman with sexist expletives? Or started referring to people with darker skins as 'wxgs' or worse, or whatever? It is the same thing.

Polyglide is so wrong on this issue! Beggars belief that she/he is NOT doing this deliberately!

by Shirina Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:44 pm

When the dictionary redefines the words homoxesual and pervert, then I will agree, until such times then there is no need or reason to dispute the matter.

The word "pervert" is a pejorative term, polyglide, and it's up to me to decide whether using it should be disputed. Since Awful Truth did say that usage of the word borders on verbal abuse, it may become necessary to ask you to refrain from using it in reference to homosexuals - of whom we have at least one posting on this board. I've known a number of people who have tried to hide behind the dictionary in the mistaken belief that doing so allows them to throw around insults, but rest assured I'm not fooled by that.

Whatever your beliefs are concerning homosexuality, and by all means, you have the right to express them here, always keep respect for your fellow posters tantamount.

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:48 pm

Well said.

Again, free speech is paramount. Having said that, I choose to let Polyglide off with a slap on the...(no that's physical abuse!) on the table!
clown

by Shirina Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Again, free speech is paramount. Having said that, I choose to let Polyglide off with a slap on the...(no that's physical abuse!) on the table!

LOL! Physical abuse on a forum ... now that's a case that would be interesting in court!

Yep, free speech is something I am a strong supporter of which is why I didn't tell polyglide he couldn't use the word "pervert." Having freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean one should always exercise it. While freedom of speech is necessary for a free society, learning how to use that freedom responsibly is necessary for a peaceful society.

It kind of reminds me of "guy talk" at a bar or pub. Listening to them talk about a woman's more salient features would make a sailor blush. That's fine when hanging out with the guys, but if the same kind of talk was used on a woman - especially while on a date - the vast majority of females would be none too pleased. Having one's breasts referred to as "jugs" and being told, "I'd do you in a heartbeat" is pretty disrespectful. It's all about knowing what to say and when to say it ... and to whom. Pretty simple stuff. Very Happy

by blueturando Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:30 pm

Again, free speech is paramount

Please lets not pretend we have Free Speech anymore because we don't.

Polyglide has an opinion which she should be allowed to express and then we are in the best position to explain to him/her on how she is a million %wrong....She/he may learn something!!!

by blueturando Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:32 pm

Having one's breasts referred to as "jugs" and being told, "I'd do you in a heartbeat" is pretty disrespectful. It's all about knowing what to say and when to say it ... and to whom. Pretty simple stuff.

Shirina.....you've heard my chat up lines...have we met before Shocked

by Shirina Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:49 pm

Polyglide has an opinion which she should be allowed to express

I totally agree.

Shirina.....you've heard my chat up lines...have we met before

That's because I have infiltrated those chat-up lines which means you never know if the girl whose "jugs" you're admiring isn't actually me. Twisted Evil

by Sponsored content