quote:

Originally posted by Peewee:
Hudson --
1. Oh come on, you're not that alive are you!!!??? The claim of the Christian right that they do not condemn homosexuals, but homosexual acts, is just a dishonest way of framing their hatred of gay people. You actually buy that???!!!

2. Second, you make the sweeping statement that in America most people who disapprove of homosexuality do not condemn the person but the act. Qualifying your statement by saying
"most" doesn't mean it is not a generalization. A generalization is not a statement of definitive fact that is true in every case, it is a statement about the GENERAL tendency of something to be true. To say that MOST people think a certain way is just as much a generalization as anything anyone else said.

3. Your argument that we should "tolerate" homophobia because, after all, it is just the view of people about a moral issue and there is no proof homosexuality is biologically based is bogus.

If someone made an anti-Semitic statement, would you say no one should challenge them, we should all "tolerate" it? Of course not. Yet religion is absolutely a cultural and learned behaviour and obviously has no biological origin.


Of course people should be "allowed" to say what they want. No one is questioning that. But if "tolerating" such a statement means not even challenging it, and just letting an anti-Semitic comment pass without a response (after all, it's just an opinion!), then I have to disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by grabblegarrr:
But really, the problem I have is that you seem to be ok with those who discriminate against others, but you are against people who get pissed about them doing that.

Everyone is entitled to think what they want, but that doesn't mean what they think isn't wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by hudson:

Ok.

Point 1: The Christian religion is based upon the teachings of the New Testament and the life of Jesus. Nowhere in the New Testement or in any of Jesus' teaching are people condemned. Jesus himself said "I come into the world not to condemn it, but to save it..."

It is in fact the sin or the behaviors that are condemned. The whole basis of Christianity is Christ's death for all of mankind's sin. That means that mankind is not condemned for sin. That's just basic Christianity 101.

So I stand by my comment 100%. I strongly believe that most Christians hold that they should not hate the person, rather the sin.

Point 2: Relates to point 1. Christians, in general, are taught to look down upon the sin, not the sinner. I think if you had more experience with Christianity, you would realize that this is the case.

Point 3: If someone were to make racial slurs against anyone, I would definitely say something to them. That doesn't mean I want to take away their right to freedom of speech and freedom of belief.

If someone is out on the street corner preaching against homosexuality, I may attempt to engage him in a discussion to find the logic behind his beliefs, but I would remain tolerant of his right to voice his beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by Peewee:

1. What Christianity is about, and what message it preaches, is a very different thing from what the people who make up the Christian right actually believe.

And how do you know what experience of Christianity I have had?????

The world would be a much better place if the Christian right actually practiced and believed in what Christianity actually is.

2. This whole debate started because you said I was being intolerant by challenging someone's views on homosexuality. I acknowledged, oh, about 8 or 9 times, that people have the right to think and believe what they want. But I also said I have the right to challenge them on their beliefs.

Now you admit that you would do exactly the same thing as I did if you were faced with someone making racial slurs or preaching against homosexuality.

You have now made a 180 degree turn in your position.

quote:

Originally posted by Peewee:
As usual, Hudson, you selectively quote what someone said and thereby misrepresent what happened to support your argument.

I did not ever use the word tolerance or intolerance in my original posts. I raised issues and concerns about the views that were expressed that people could not appreciate fully Rufus Wainwright's songs because they were about gay relationships.

You were the one who first used the word intolerance when you accused me of it.

I then responded to you very explicitly in my post of Dec. 13 at 11:30 am that I support people being allowed to say what they want but that also have the right to challenge it. In that context, I then said I do not "tolerate" (using the word in quotes to signify that it was your word) homophobia or racism or sexism, clearly in a context where, by "tolerance", I was obviously referring to challenging people on their beliefs and statements in a spirit of discussion. To characterize this as me admitting I am intolerant is rather inaccurate.

Context is everything, dude.

quote:

Originally posted by Peewee:
Well I thought it was fun while it lasted!!

quote:

Originally posted by /\/\1X3:
Jesus, I'm missing all the fun on these forums.

quote:

Originally posted by EricG75:
No, "Fourth Sex" means you're attracted to asexual organisms. Like amoebas. Morrisey's in fact been in a serious relationship with an ameoba for many years now.

quote:

Originally posted by lavender lonesome:
Ya don't forget the most famous artist Bob Dylan