|
|
Post by The Jacket on Mar 23, 2003 19:22:06 GMT -5
That actually makes alot of sense. Good point.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Mar 23, 2003 19:32:23 GMT -5
Actually, I know homosexuals who hear it, are not offended by it, and use it themselves. I know of NO homosexuals that are offended by the common derogatory use of the word. The example of using the word Christian, I'm afraid is a poor one. If someone was calling something Christian and saying that something bad could be related to Christianity, yes I would be upset, as I would expect a gay person to become upset if someone was relating something (else) bad to homosexuality. But if they just said "That's Christian." And they were making no connection between something bad and what I believe - so be it. So, if someone says gay and is making no connection with it to something (else) bad - there is no problem. Well, I know of NO homosexuals who would NOT offended or made uncomfortable by it. As you are a self-proclaimed bigot regarding homosexuals (see below), I have no reason to accept your word on this matter; it seems highly unlikely to me that anything you have stated in this section of your argument is even remotely true. You are connecting their sexual orientation with slurs, and you honestly think that at least some of them would not be made uncomfortable by it? What you fail to understand in your attempt to counter the Christianity example is that by applying the word in negative ways it was not initially designed to hold, the original concept itself is being attacked. Maybe you wouldn't have a problem with that, although I highly doubt it; many people would. Not so. This change has in fact begun to/already taken place. Obviously, when we say "gay" we are not regarding what it's meaning is. Just as when we say dumb. You've no ground to call one who uses gay in that manner insensitive unless they are making a connection to try and insult gays by relating something (else) bad to homosexuality. I stand by my initial statement. When someone says "dumb" you think "idiotic" without any connection to deafness. When someone says "gay", you may sometimes think stupid (depending on the context), but the connection to homosexuality also immediately pops to mind. That seperation has absolutely not occured as of yet, and as such you are implying through your usage that "gay" deserves to be a slur - that being gay is wrong or idiotic. And that IS offensive. Actually, gay DOES have a negative connotation. Last time I checked my Bible, homosexuality was wrong. Insanity isn't wrong. Neither is being dumb, deaf or crazy. Don't you look at me like that. Whether you believe that Bible or not, it's what your nation was founded on hoss. And even aside from the Bible, back in the day gay had a negative connotations. Normally, I would rant about the infestation of liberal, "mandy-pandy, girl thingy-footin', ear-ticklin', back-scratchin', compromisin'," Christians in America, but I think I'll not. Well, "hoss", if you think that because my nation was "founded on" this book I have to believe everything in it is RIGHT - including such fun and interesting bits such as the support for stoning of women not virgins at marriage and the assertation that bats are birds - sorry, but I think I'll stick to my own beliefs: we have no business judging others based on sexual orientation. The word in this context means "homosexual" and did not originally carry any other meaning except to intolerants. As for our nation being founded on it, I must respectfully disagree. Our founding fathers may have been christians, but the government they created was a secular one. For a government founded on the bible to allow freedom of religion to those d**n demon-worshipping OTHER religions would be rather odd, no? I also don't see any prohibitions on homosexuality or the "right to stone adulterers" brought up anywhere in our founding documents.  Oh, and calling an idea "crazy" does not twist the concept of the word into an insult when it was not originally meant to be, as is the case with "gay". Perhaps if you really believed pop-ups were homosexual as opposed to being useless and irritating your argument would hold some water. Now you've crossed the line into ignorant generalizations. The Nazi emblem (The broken Cross) was created for an uprising of facists in Germany and can be associated with that group, and a bad thing. Unlike the Nazi emblem, the Old South emblem did NOT stand for slavery, segregation or racism. It a variation of the traditional "Stars and Bars" theme. It is ignorance that causes people to associate the flag with the Klan, Segregation, Slavery, and Racism. Whether you like it or not, and no matter what the flag is based on, the simple fact is the Confederacy is linked in the minds of many white supremacists and black people with racism and slavery. Ignoring that slavery was a primary cause of the Confederacy's seccesion is the real "ignorance" here. |
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Mar 23, 2003 23:13:38 GMT -5
Well, I know of NO homosexuals who would NOT offended or made uncomfortable by it. As you are a self-proclaimed bigot regarding homosexuals (see below), I have no reason to accept your word on this matter; it seems highly unlikely to me that anything you have stated in this section of your argument is even remotely true. You are connecting their sexual orientation with slurs, and you honestly think that at least some of them would not be made uncomfortable by it? What you fail to understand in your attempt to counter the Christianity example is that by applying the word in negative ways it was not initially designed to hold, the original concept itself is being attacked. Maybe you wouldn't have a problem with that, although I highly doubt it; many people would. So you know of some who WOULD be offended while I know NONE. What does this prove? Perhaps we live in different areas around different people with different tolerance levels? Gee, what a thought. I saw below and don't see where you come up with the idea that I am a homosexual bigotist. I DO see that there is an enourmous double standard in your post. So you don't believe me - is the tide supposed to turn now and you suddenly have the upper hand because you don't want to believe me? You make it seem as though you have no reason to believe me, but I should believe you. And what YOU fail to understand is that the people here do not consider the homosexual meaning of the term "gay" when it is said. Neither do the homosexuals. Just as you do not think that when you call someone a dork, you are calling them a male reproductive organ, or that when you call someone dumb, you are saying they do not have the ability to speak. I could care less if you believe me or not, but it is I who live in this area and it is I who knows between the two of us how the term "gay" is looked upon. You've really got no choice right now but to take my word for it or assume that the entire gay population exists only where you can see or speak to them. I take your word that the gays you know don't like that, does it make me wrong? Not in the least bit. It proves that those in your area differ from those in mine on the subject. I stand by my initial statement. When someone says "dumb" you think "idiotic" without any connection to deafness. When someone says "gay", you may sometimes think stupid (depending on the context), but the connection to homosexuality also immediately pops to mind. That seperation has absolutely not occured as of yet, and as such you are implying through your usage that "gay" deserves to be a slur - that being gay is wrong or idiotic. And that IS offensive. Someone runs up and takes my ice cream. "That was gay." = "That was not cool." If someone answers a question wrongly in a class - noone is going to say "He is so gay." It's not used in that manner. I and most people know say Homosexuality is wrong. You are trying to say that homosexuality is absolutelty right. You are basing the opinion that using gay as a derogatory term is wrong on the opinion that homosexuality is OK which you are trying to imply as fact. And if someone is offended that I say homosexuality is wrong - their quarrel is not with me - it's with God. Well, "hoss", if you think that because my nation was "founded on" this book I have to believe everything in it is RIGHT - including such fun and interesting bits such as the support for stoning of women not virgins at marriage and the assertation that bats are birds - sorry, but I think I'll stick to my own beliefs: we have no business judging others based on sexual orientation. The word in this context means "homosexual" and did not originally carry any other meaning except to intolerants. If I hear one more agnostic or atheist disregard the crucifixion - I'm going to vomit. Although the stoning of someone for sin can be easily back by "For the wages of sin is death;" we are given GRACE rather than LAW in "but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Funny that you should mention context. You inspired me to make my way to Dictionary.com and type in gay. I found there that one of the uses is: "Dissolute; licentious." Yes, I looked up the other two words and found that they meant lack of/ignoring moral restraint/discipline especially in sexual conduct. This would seem condemning to myself but the word "especially" does not mean "absolutely" nor "only". And so the term "gay" in one context IS a deragatory term. As for our nation being founded on it, I must respectfully disagree. Our founding fathers may have been christians, but the government they created was a secular one. For a government founded on the bible to allow freedom of religion to those d**n demon-worshipping OTHER religions would be rather odd, no? I also don't see any prohibitions on homosexuality or the "right to stone adulterers" brought up anywhere in our founding documents. This paragraph actually started out respectable. I believe that the correct term I'm looking for is "Ad-Hominem" (correct me if I'm wrong SleepyTemplar.) Number one, we never called these "other religions" demon-worshipping. If they were demon worshipping, they would be worshipping something real according to us, no? Second, choice of religion IS biblical. "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.." Unlike some other nations/beliefs, where the mention of Jesus can cause you to be arrested or possibly (I believe) killed, Christianity is not about holding someone at gunpoint or threatening them in order for them to be converted. It's about accepting Christ under your own power. But clearly, the results of the choice of accepting Him is more preferable in this life and the hereafter. Oh, and calling an idea "crazy" does not twist the concept of the word into an insult when it was not originally meant to be, as is the case with "gay". Perhaps if you really believed pop-ups were homosexual as opposed to being useless and irritating your argument would hold some water. Who is to say that I don't think pop-ups are uncivilized? Who is to say I don't think that pop-ups are licentious in that they go against the common belief that pop-ups are not enjoyable? Whether you like it or not, and no matter what the flag is based on, the simple fact is the Confederacy is linked in the minds of many white supremacists and black people with racism and slavery. Ignoring that slavery was a primary cause of the Confederacy's seccesion is the real "ignorance" here. When I read that last sentence I nearly died laughing. is this what they are teaching you all in the north? Slavery was business and nothing more. If you think that the blacks were enslaved because they were seen as inferior, you are sadly mistaken. The inferiority idea was a defence of slavery - no matter how sickening. I suppose that slavery is seen as a primary cause of secession because it was ended to help against the south. The Emancipation Proclamation was not done because of morality - it was a diplomatic tactic. Abraham Lincoln did not have anything against slavery. And you know what he called it? BUSINESS. If you want to associate slavery with the causes of the Secession, you would have to know that a primary cause was the battle over states rights. Rights to what? Many things. AMONG THEM, was to choose whether or not the state would allow slavery. And before you try to differ on based on your opinion - realize that I base what I said on: A college course in U.S. History, weeks of lecture, study and reading, historical documents from both the Confederacy and Union. (Lincoln, Davis, etc.) And not my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Mar 24, 2003 1:13:31 GMT -5
I didn't notice this discussion at first since it probably should be in debates.
First, I do agree with Jacket that the term "gay" has taken on a new meaning, at least in slang, to mean "stupid" or an equivalent to stupid. It's quite easy to observe, and I highly doubt that the context of gay used in the beginning of this thread is an insult to homosexuals, but instead under the slang meaning of stupid. With C's "Christian" example, a new meaning would arise in context: what we label "Christian" would mean of having qualities accepting to Christians, but would mean something different from the standard use of Christian as one who believes in Jesus as the son of god.
In regards to the ad hominem question, Jacket, it's not quite. Ad hominems involve attacking the person, rather than the argument. It's actually more a red herring fallacy by bringing up completely unrelated matters. An ad hominem, for example, would be simply saying "Well, you're too stupid to see that I'm right!", which is the standard abusive ad hominem. An ad hominem circumstancial attacks the person based upon circumstances, such as "Well, of course you say homosexuality is wrong, Jacket. You're a fundamentalist Christian!" in respond to an argument against homosexuality, should you present one. The final version of ad hominem is the tu quoque form, or the hypocrisy attack, which goes "My dad says lying is bad, but I saw him lie to get out of something. Therefore, lying isn't bad, dad just doesn't like it when I lie."
Finally, I agree with Jacket's position on the historic perspective of slavery. If I'm not mistaken myself (correct me if wrong, Jacket), Abraham Lincoln intended to compensate slaveowners until the near end of the war. That much I recollect from the hazy mists of my history class.
I do, however, disagree with Jacket on some matters. Namely, that the United Stated was formed upon Christianity, and that homosexuality is absolutely immoral. I'll detail these in my next post, since I fear I am near the limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thores on Mar 24, 2003 1:28:58 GMT -5
 Wow, I've started a debate. Perhaps we should move this to a different forum? And if I can think of one thing that's total bull about this country, it's the fact that homosexuality is immoral in the US. Free country my sexy buttocks. |
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Mar 24, 2003 1:37:48 GMT -5
Jacket argues that homosexuality is an immoral act, but fails to provide an actual reason for his condemnation. "The Bible says so" may be a reason, but ultimately refutes the moral claim being made. As the "Bible says so" is used to mean "it is the will of god that action X is immoral." The problem arises that if morality is contingent upon the will of god (known as Divine Command Morality), then morality is ultimately subjective. If morality is subjective, *NO* objective moral claims can be made. In which case, if Jacket appeals only to "the Bible says so", he ultimately destroys his own argument by saying "it is this subjective opinion that homosexuality is wrong." If god were to will that homosexuality was right, Jacket would, in all likeliness, believe homosexuality a moral act rather than disagree with his god. Jacket may object saying that god will punish homosexuals, but such an objection is based completely upon an appeal to force fallacy (either accept conclusion X or you will be threathened in some way), and reduces morality even further to "might makes right", and that god, being the most powerful in Christianity, can do whatever he likes. This is a disturbing conclusion, to say the least, for Christians to accept. I can go into the implications in a future post if we care to.
Jacket invokes a strawman by claiming C is trying to defend that homosexuality is absolutely right. At best, Jacket can only point to an objective moral standard, not an absolute one. There is nothing inherently immoral of two consenting adults of the same gender engaging in sexual acts (as such an action, typically, does not create great harm). As a consequentialist, it would be difficult for Jacket to objectively say homosexuality is wrong unless he can support that homosexuality causes more harm than benefit to others via utility calculus (Note: If you claim the wrath of god as a harm, you must first show said god exists, Jacket).
As for the U.S. being formed upon Christianity, this is not quite the case. Granted, some of the Founding Fathers were Christians, there are also several Deists around. Our Constitution is not based upon the Bible, but instead the people (After all, the Preamble is "We the People...", not "We the Christians..."), and as such is a secular government as also shown through the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. There can be no freedom of religion in a theocracy, for one (2nd Corinthians 6:14-15) and that Christianity is not very tolerant of other opinions.
Secondly, the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 states "in no way is the United Stated founded upon the Christian religion." Slogans such as "In God we Trust" and "Under God" did not pop up until much later, and were not based in colonial times. In fact, our original motto was "E Plubrius Unum", or "Out of One, Many".
Oh, and I disregard the crucifixion, Jacket. I'll get you a bowl to start vomiting in. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Mar 24, 2003 10:57:49 GMT -5
Can't talk because I'm at school, but I meant disregard the Crucifixon as in denying the change from Law to grace.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shiguru Wazzat on Mar 24, 2003 12:23:48 GMT -5
I agree with one of the Jackets earlier posts - I'm bisexual, and it doesn't offend me at all when people say 'that's gaaay'. The only thing that bothers me is how people started to use gay as an insult anyway, lol
|
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Mar 24, 2003 13:13:03 GMT -5
That's exactly what I meant Jacket. What you're talking about gets an obscure mention in Hebrews (by an anonymous author, no less!), whereas Jesus himself supposed said "Think not I came to destroy the Law... until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot shall vanish until all is fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18).
Let's not even go into the absurdity of the idea of the need of needing a sacrifice to solve problems: "It is better to do judgment and righteousness than sacrifice in the eyes of the Lord." (Psalms 21:3). Besides the barriers this places on an allegedly omnipotent god, it makes little sense for a god to sacrifice himself to himself to change a rule he made.
There's a lot more we can delve into, but I would prefer you address the two previous points I raised before dealing with this one, if you don't mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Janus on Mar 24, 2003 13:14:33 GMT -5
This seems to be rather off the original topic, and it's strange how one little thing turned into a debate.
The only reason I used "gay" here is because of friends.....I had to like "talk the talk" I felt and it sort of stuck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thores on Mar 25, 2003 9:27:15 GMT -5
This debate actually came to mind when I read this comic (don't worry, Majin, this is more extreme as it's supposed to be humorous).:  Footnote: The register guy is homosexual, which is why he's so pissed off. |
|
|
|
Post by Shiguru Wazzat on Mar 25, 2003 13:28:16 GMT -5
.... BWAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA!
|
|
|
|
Post by Blaise on Apr 20, 2003 23:13:03 GMT -5
Gay should be used as an insult. It always will be. If you don't like move to san francisco you f*g**t pansy.
|
|
Kiel
RPG Townie
Bad to the bone. Heh. Ahem......mwahahahaha!!!
Posts: 362
|
Post by Kiel on Jun 18, 2003 10:07:35 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]If you were in Australia man I would break your f**kin nose. N00bs, register or get lost.[/glow]
[glow=red,2,300]Let's just talk about pop-ups again. I hate em, but I'm used to them now.[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by Chickensoupcheese on Jun 18, 2003 12:33:22 GMT -5
Why did you have to bring this 2 month-old topic up?
It's one that would be preferable to be forgotten.
Locked before anyone else posts.
|
|
