Jerusalem bans Gay Pride - Page 2

Just out of curiosity...in your view (or anyone else I suppose), does believing that homosexual behavior is wrong make one a bigot?

No. Hating gays a priori is bigotry.

Of course it's bigotry. The idea that it's about "behavior" is really a canard, IMO. We're talking about "behaviors" - expressions of love and attraction - that are central to who people are as human beings.

[edit] A question for Chris: If people use religious justification for racism (say, separation of races, being against interracial marriage, etc.), would they be bigots?

I think that the average american has a great deal of wrong behaviors, but I am not a bigot because I don't hate them for it.

If someone believes that the behavior is wrong, do you assume that they also hate the people engaged in it?

So holding a belief that something is wrong is bigotry?


Hmmm...well there is a sexual component as well.


Well, a bigot is "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

It probably hangs on the "intolerant" piece here. Are the people that believe what you suggest (however they justify their belief...religious justification is irrelevant here)...unwilling to tolerate the views and beliefs of others that disagree with their position on race?

( This debate has happened here before with the conclusion that it's "okay" to in intolerant of some things...but what things is the issue of debate. )

No.

No, I don't.

I'm so glad. This sort of reasonableness is rare here.

It seems a common assumption that if I (or someone else) finds a certain thing (attitude, belief, behavior) objectionable or disagree with it that I (or someone else) must hate the person or people that hold the attitude/belief or engage in the behavior.

Back to Jerusalem...

Considering the historical nature of the city in regards to the religions that hold the place important, why worry about holding a parade there?

There are plenty of other places more populous that you can use to get a message out. Is pushing an agenda the most important thing about a parade?

Wouldn't things work better if you could have a parade everywhere else and show Jerusalem for being "backwards"?

It seems that it might be, and further, to be very "in your face" about it., and...to get headlines of course.

That's odd. I thought being proud of something was completely different from being politically motivated. But I guess this is where political correctness came from: being proud of the right things.

Well, I think it is a just a tad disingenuous to suggest that there is no agenda or political motive at all.

Sorry. I was hoping that there was something noble about a parade.

I think their can be. Wasn't implying differently. But let's also not be naive either.

I know what you mean, but we're talking about Jerusalem.
Really... is there a gay political agenda there?
And does such an agenda feel it will get somewhere... anywhere?

They have more important things to worry about.
Even if some folks feel their reasons are based on "mythical" stories.
Peace first, then they can sort out sexual orientation.

I think the argument that a parade is "pushing" an "agenda" is just a recasting of the old "I have no problem with homosexuality as long as they keep it to themselves and have the decency to pretend like they don't exist" line.

The attitude seems to be that any public display of "gayness', be it individual or en mass, represents an aggression against heterosexuality (or public decency, or family values, or whatever) , with the odd corollary that public gayness amounts to "recruitment" or an incitement to be gay, hence the menace (I particularly like this part since it implies that there is something so compelling about being gay that simply seeing homosexuals on display is enough to "turn" little Billie or Susie, which doesn't say much for the inherent sturdiness of heterosexuality).

So you get this horseshit about how gays are all up in everybody's face all the time, forcing us all to confront their disgusting "lifestyle" by insisting on not being invisible, and surely there must be a sinister motive beyond just being "proud" since we all know that isn't really possible and anyway they won't be happy till everybody's gay.

Just totally crap, and the rankest kind of bigotry, and profoundly ignorant about gay people and who they are and how they live their lives.

By the way, in my experience some of the most virulently reactionary "gays make me sick" types turn out to be big ole closeted fags. Just sayin......

That proves not only that God approves of homosexuality according to the Q'uran, but that he himself is a homosexual and uses people for his pornographic pleasure (think about it).

Scriptural interpretation is just that... interpretation. Maybe this passage means God is gay.

No one said all gays. No one said anything about "recruitment" being a motive. No one is suggesting any specific conspiracy either...some organized agenda pushing. Again, I think it is disingenuous and naive to assume there is no other motivation that merely pride. There are a lot of things I am proud of...I don't need to join a parade for any of them. The public display is designed to prove something (minimally) and (possibly) to say something (possibly about those being paraded around in front of).

The agenda is acceptance...or even celebration of...something that some (many?) people believe to be wrong...possibly by those people.

You say "agenda" like it's a slur.

What's wrong with having an agenda, if that agenda is for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals to eventually be considered a normal part of society and to be afforded all rights equally to heterosexuals?

Agendas are a good thing. I have an agenda of promoting tolerance and equality and condemning hatred and bigotry. And I'm willing to shove it down any bigot's throat.

No, not at all. It only couches your interpretation of reality. If you believe that man is capable of validating his sexual existenz in any way, then you can get on board with the gay movement -- and logically many other, less salient, movements.

Otherwise, you have "arbitrary" [by Kanitan or any other humanistic] distinctions to make, regarding sexuality, with equally divisive repercussions. It's only a question of zeitgeist, and where you draw "the line".

My new slogan:

"The 'gay agenda' is an agenda of understanding, acceptance and equality. Got a problem with that?"

Your interpretation. I just said I think there is an agenda.

Where the "wrongness" (in my opinion) of agenda comes in (for anyone) is when it is surreptitious.

I can still disagree with a given agenda. For example, I might not like very much an agenda that takes our country to war unnecessarily.


That just cracks me up.

No, it does not. But to treat someone negatively or deny them rights because their views differ from your own, or because you don't approve of their actions, is bigotry.

When you say, out loud, from the pulpit, "I do not approve of homosexuality. You should not be homosexuals," you are not a bigot.

When you call someone a "faggot", intending to demean or insult them, you are a bigot.

When you deny them rights, like to rent a home or to hold a parade, you are a bigot.

When you (as a lawmaker) pass a law that denies them rights, you are the worst kind of bigot.

When you, as a parent, kick your kid out of the only home he can have, and the only family he will ever have, you are a reprehensible bigot with neither conscience nor any idea whastoever about "what Jesus would do".

You don't have to join parades for random things you are proud of because those things aren't stigmatized or put you in danger of getting your ass kicked or fired your from job or denied housing. Christ. You couldn't possibly not notice the difference, so why the tedious obtuseness?

And yes, "gay pride" has a public component because gay bigotry would precisely seek to silence and make invisible. It means saying "I reject your ugly, inhuman characterization that I live a lonely and desperate life, or that my shame should keep me behind closed doors."

And your phrase "being paraded around in front of" perfectly makes my point about the mere existence of homosexuals being taken as an aggression by, among others, religious bigots.

I don't take it as an aggression.

Last year, the Jerusalem City Hall miserably failed to gain sufficient public support to prevent the annual gay pride parade from taking place, and so claimed the power to decide laid with the police.
The ultra-religious mayor, Mr. Uri Lupoliansky of the Deggel ha-Torah (Banner of the Law) party, was very embarassed in front of his main constituency, and quite a sight it was.
The city's politics are quite complicated, as no segment of the voting public: secular and moderate Jews, ultra-religious Jews, Arab Muslims and Christians (most of whom tend to be what is called socially-conservative Stateside) can hold a majority, but one can say with certainty that while seculars still weild significant electoral weight (when and if they bother to vote, that is) there are more religious conservatives (all persuasions combined) than seculars.

And this year, City Hall was better prepared, and was able to gather sufficient support from conservative groups of the three main religious communities, in a show of interfaith cooperation uncommon in the land.
The parade organisers already appealed to the High Court (equivalent to the Supreme Court in the U.S.) and have more than a probable chance to win there.

I understand the many reservations local religious traditionalists have about such extravaganzas, it's not all that bothersome though. It's not like participation was compulsory. I heard they have those in Rome too, and see no reason why we mustn't have some in Jerusalem, or in Qom, or Mecca and Medinah for that matter.

The Dutch Reform Church of South Africa decided that black people had souls around the turn of the century, I think, and admitted them to their congregations within the last thirty years.

It's all in the Bible in black and white.

edit: no, I'm not saying that Christianity inevitably leads to bigotry, merely that their Book has demonstrably been used by homophobes and racists to lend them licence to act on their prejudices.

This is most certainly true. But isn't this kind of things true about other texts? The Koran and "Jihad" for example. Many claim that "jihad" is a "spiritual" war (intended to be individual in nature as in some kind of personal struggle)...but some have used it as a license to act out their prejudices (and violence).

I think everyone should be more careful...and seperate things a bit. Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean that I am like all other Christians...or, in particular that I (or any other particular individual) "hate gays" (or anyone else for that matter). Just because I believe the Bible and some have used (and still do) use the Bible as a license for bigotry doesn't make me (or any other particular individual) a bigot.

Something else that needs to be kept in mind too is that often the people railing against "bigotry" and "intolerance" are demonstrating the very same sins they decry.

More like an exposure to antebellum cultural styles, some of it of British, some of it of Central-European nature, most of it not formal (long story).


Just as Queen Victoria knew there were no lesbians in the Empire.

And for reasons of self-preservation, individuals of the above-mentioned orientation in Persia and Arabia, make it so it stays the way everyone knows.

**coffee noser**



**goes off to clean keyboard**

Less so than with Yanbu al-Hayat or Dalalat al-Hayirin, but I'm quite familiar nonethless, as it's rather inevitable where I come from, like with the Knights of the Round Table elsewhere.


It tells of the time when it was the Fertile Crescent, which was more libertine and less pious than the barbaric kingdoms which stood on the ruins of the former Roman Empire of Occident. These days much of the region seems to be experiencing some mini Middle-Ages (as in mini ice age).


As I recall he translated the actual book into English and included much commentaries and explanations to make it more accessible to his countryfolks.

Then what makes you any different than any other bigot, Tonton? Because what you feel you are promoting is "right"? I feel that homosexuality is wrong and I believe that I am right but I'm not going to shove it down another person's throat, as you have said here.


Agreed


Well if you don't want them in your house because you donot like that lifestyle that they choose to live then I feel you are well within your rights not to rent them the house. As for the parades, if their proud to be gay fine. But I don't
a parade of "gayness" is necessary.


Some wish to have the definition of marriage remain an agreement between a man and a woman, and I see no problem with this. If you want gay marriage, it is legal in Canada so you're welcome to go there.


Again, if a parent doesn't like the lifestyle you're living they have every right to kick you out. If the parents don't like you drinking, smoking, etc. (all lifestyles choices) then they have every right to kick you to the curb. The same goes for homosexuality. Also there is embarassment as well. Do you know how embarassing it would be for a parent, especially if its the father, to find out that their child is a homosexual? I wouldn't only kick my kid out, I'd disown
him. He would no longer be my son, and I would force him to change his last name (if possible).

Couldn't have said any of that better myself.

I completely agree. I mean, what are people going to think of you if your own kid is a homosexual? Best to just cut your losses.

Alternatively, you could send your progeny off to a camp to cure the homosexuality. It's run by an ex-gay, so he obviously knows what he's doing. And I'm sure that investigation into the fact that they're unlicensed will blow over soon enough.

Careful, there's a chance he may not realize you're being ironic.

In other words, Protostar, what he's hinting at is the question: What's a worse reflection of a parent? That their child is gay, or that they have turned away their own child? The answer is obvious.

There is no gay "lifestyle" in this question. It's gay or not gay, and it's not a choice. Religious fundies and homopobes just don't understand this.

Whatever, tonton. I refuse to believe homosexuality is not a choice. Smoking is a choice. Drinking is a choice. SO is homosexuality. I don't care about the reflection on me. I refuse to acknowledge the existence of my child if he ever chose the homosexual lifestyle. I would no longer deem him worthy to carry the family name.

And this is a belief.

I realize than many people want to believe that this could not possibly be a human behavioral choice (even sub-conciously) it is much easier to accept that it is genetic or in-born.

And, if it is genetic or in-born, then it is wrong to, well, say that it is wrong. Much like it would be wrong to say it's wrong to have blue eyes or red hair or freckles or have dark skin or be a certain gender. This very reasoning is what causes supporters of "gay rights" to link themselves with the civil-rights movement.

I have heard all of the arguments before, the two primary ones being:

1. When did you choose to be a heterosexual?

2. Why would someone choose a "lifestyle" that sets themselves up for such hardship?

Both are fallacious arguments and themselves do not offer a proof of the genetic or in-born nature of homosexuality.

First, even if you can prove that someone has never "chosen" to be heterosexual, doesn't prove that someone else has not "chosen" to be homosexual.

Second, people choose to do lots of things that lead to hardship, ridicule and other ill-effects in their lives.

But, for the moment, let's go with this (unproven) assertion. Let's break this down.

1. People are born with certain traits.

2. People engage in certain behaviors.

The general argument is that there are certain things in #2 (let's homosexual behavior) that are unavoidable or uncontrollable due to certain things in #1.

- Is this true?

- Is is a correct assumption about anything else?

- If it is true, is the behavior made "right" by virtue of the fact that it derives from an in-born trait of some kind?

Let's try some examples:

- Stealing
- Lying
- Violent behaviors
- Sexual predatory behaviors

Let's say that any one of these behaviors derived from some in-born trait. If this is true, would that behavior be "okay"? If so, only for people with that trait?

Now...before anyone gets inflamed...I picked these specific examples exactly because they are behaviors that most people commonly agree to be "wrong".

There are some (many?) that also believe that homosexual behavior is "wrong" also (regardless of any in-born, genetic pre-disposition to it).

We can argue until the cows come home (when is that by the way?) But it all boils down to different beliefs about what is "right" and what is "wrong". Christians (and Jews and Muslims I suspect as well), would say that there is an absolute and independent (of our own personal feelings, ideas and wisdom) source of "rightness" and "wrongness"...God...revealed through scripture.

Now you may not agree with it, but it is superficial and simplistic to dismiss it simply because you don't. All you are saying is that "your view doesn't matter because I don't agree with it."

It is quite interesting to note that those that hold that "homosexuality is just a natural, normal expression of human love, and there is nothing evil, sinful or wrong with it", hold this view/belief with the same fervor and zealousness as do those that hold the opposite view. The certainty that they are absolutely "right".