Off Topix: Embrace the Unexpected in Every Discussion
Off Topix is a well established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public way back in 2009! We provide a laid back atmosphere and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register & become a member of our awesome community.
Anti-Gay Remarks
- Thread starter Jazzy
- Start date
Indeed, but there's a difference between a guy in a bar muttering about "those damn dicklovers" and a world-recognized sports star pronouncing it on live TV. Besides, if offensive words are censored, why aren't offensive opinions?
Princess Alexandros XVII said:
May I ask the chapter and verse on that?
DrLeftover said:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Adds a bit of back story to it doesn't it?
(and your quote was from the NIV)
In that society, at that time, and under Jewish Law, the man has defiled a virgin and robbed the father of the price of a bride. For which he must pay restitution, and he is sentenced to live the rest of his life paying for it. A hell of a deterrent to the crime, because his other choice considerably shortened his expected lifespan.
But it is a lot cooler to say "the bible says she must marry her rapist".
You may now continue your current debate.
(and your quote was from the NIV)
In that society, at that time, and under Jewish Law, the man has defiled a virgin and robbed the father of the price of a bride. For which he must pay restitution, and he is sentenced to live the rest of his life paying for it. A hell of a deterrent to the crime, because his other choice considerably shortened his expected lifespan.
But it is a lot cooler to say "the bible says she must marry her rapist".
You may now continue your current debate.
Well, either way it's still a pretty horrible thing, and is unthinkable in current society. So for someone to make a claim using that same book as the sole proof just doesn't sit right with me. There's tons of awful stuff in the bible that we'd consider terrible now, but as it is supposedly the word of God, it should apply 100% to the present day, no? Because if it didn't, that would imply God is imperfect, which cannot be. It's self-defeating.
The book has to be taken in context, and applied to the people of the time.
"In The Day" it was tradition for the King to lead his troops into battle. And sometimes I think there would be a lot fewer conflicts if it were done that way today. But still. I'm not sure I'd want to follow most of our politicians into a war zone at present.
It also mentions slavery in the New Testament.
That too, is frowned on today. Does that invalidate the Message as a whole?
"In The Day" it was tradition for the King to lead his troops into battle. And sometimes I think there would be a lot fewer conflicts if it were done that way today. But still. I'm not sure I'd want to follow most of our politicians into a war zone at present.
It also mentions slavery in the New Testament.
That too, is frowned on today. Does that invalidate the Message as a whole?
Honestly? Yes. From what I remember, God is all-knowing. He would have known about the advancements we have obtained, and I assume would have planned accordingly in his holy word. The message, no matter how noble it appears, is written in the blood of the innocent. That alone makes me skeptical of its relevancy.
Then again, the whole "love thy neighbour" thing doesn't seem to work for lots of religious people (that I've met) so it's not surprising that I have a disdain for it. XD
Then again, the whole "love thy neighbour" thing doesn't seem to work for lots of religious people (that I've met) so it's not surprising that I have a disdain for it. XD
Thank you, you've made my point.
I'll close with this:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
I'll close with this:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
HUH???Princess Alexandros XVII said:
I think his comments aren't really saying anything negative or positive about it as he just said it didn't feel normal to him and if you are a straight person then it won't feel normal because it is contrary to how you feel in regards to sexual attraction.
Why would anyone expect a straight man to see homosexuality as normal to them when they feel instinctively driven to be heterosexual because that's what is normal to them?
I don't feel people should be censored as that just shuts down discussion and keeps the hate going. Open discussion and letting people air their viewpoints means we can possibly get somewhere. Otherwise, one side or the other will feel oppressed and that can lead to hatred and condemnation towards that which they feel is oppressing them. It's not so much about eliminating the people who hold a viewpoint but learning to live with others who think and are different from you. That can and will be more likely to stop the hate then simply censoring the crowd whose opinion you dislike.
Why would anyone expect a straight man to see homosexuality as normal to them when they feel instinctively driven to be heterosexual because that's what is normal to them?
I don't feel people should be censored as that just shuts down discussion and keeps the hate going. Open discussion and letting people air their viewpoints means we can possibly get somewhere. Otherwise, one side or the other will feel oppressed and that can lead to hatred and condemnation towards that which they feel is oppressing them. It's not so much about eliminating the people who hold a viewpoint but learning to live with others who think and are different from you. That can and will be more likely to stop the hate then simply censoring the crowd whose opinion you dislike.
I don't know the context, but I would ask your meaning of the word disciplined. If you mean legal discipline (detention, prosecution) then - aside from things like defamation (which are usually settled privately between two parties anyway) - I don't think anyone should face legal persecution for voicing their opinion. Disciplinary action in the form of repercussions for actions (like losing sponsorship) is different, however. Reading some of the articles online, it seems to be the case that he was informed prior that saying this could get him into trouble:
I don't see what he said as terribly offensive, though. It seems the two (Zissman and Holyfield) were having an honest conversation. She voiced her opinion, he voiced his. Just because a large majority agrees with it does not give one person's opinion any more validity over another's. Like Bluezone explained, the intention of freedom of speech is largely to prevent giving too much power to one voice over another.
I don't see what he said as terribly offensive, though. It seems the two (Zissman and Holyfield) were having an honest conversation. She voiced her opinion, he voiced his. Just because a large majority agrees with it does not give one person's opinion any more validity over another's. Like Bluezone explained, the intention of freedom of speech is largely to prevent giving too much power to one voice over another.
And that my friend, is a shining example of the Double Standard used for the Protected Classes.
"WE" must be "tolerant" of them, to the point of subsidizing their behavior with our tax money, and if we object, we risk running afoul of those that enforce said rule.
"WE" must be "tolerant" of them, to the point of subsidizing their behavior with our tax money, and if we object, we risk running afoul of those that enforce said rule.
Similar threads
