Ian McKellen's bible vandalism catches on - Page 4

Simon39759 · 3rd November 2009, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

You don't think there's any meaningful difference between condemning sexual attraction and condemning sexual behavior?
I'm glad you're not my wife; I'd be in serious trouble!

Well; you might still be in trouble, according to Matthew 5:28:

Quote:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

.

Simon39759 · 3rd November 2009, 01:02 PM

Double post, sorry

AvalonXQ · 3rd November 2009, 01:03 PM

I'm not sure what relevance my beliefs have to Leviticus and McKellen, but I'll bite. We can always start a new thread if we go too far off-course.

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Let's cut to the chase. If two consenting, twenty-first century, adult men have sex, have they committed an immoral act? If so, why?

Yes, because according to Christian teachings, sex between two or more individuals is immoral under all but very specific circumstances.

Quote:

Follow up question: Is wearing clothing of mixed fibers immoral? If not, why not?

No, because according to Christian teachings, the Law of Moses is not binding on us today.

ETA for Simon: That passage in Matthew requires considerably more than attraction; it condemns active fantasizing.

Ladewig · 3rd November 2009, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm not sure what relevance my beliefs have to Leviticus and McKellen, but I'll bite. We can always start a new thread if we go too far off-course.

No need to start a new thread. I'm done asking questions of you.

Yoink · 3rd November 2009, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by six7s

OK... I'll try... Its not easy to be objective...

Anyhoo...

I have a hunch (hope?) that such actions work on me because I am prepared to think AND admit that I don't know everything AND I acknowledge that some (much?) of my 'assumptions' are based on bollocks

If you're going to explain how Ian McKellan ripping pages out of Bibles will help turn you from an anti-gay-rights person to a pro-gay-rights person it might help if you used the words "rip" and "bible" somewhere in the "explanation."

joobz · 3rd November 2009, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

hmmm difficult question, does supporting racism make you a racist, I'm gonna have to refrain from answering that until I can get hold of a five year old for a decision

Then you clearly miss the idea of what free speech is all about and the protection of minority rights.

Who gets to decide which ideas are acceptable and which ones are unacceptable to disseminate? Ask your 5 year old that question.

six7s · 3rd November 2009, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Yoink

Originally Posted by me

[OK... I'll try... Its not easy to be objective...

Anyhoo...

I have a hunch (hope?) that such actions work on me because I am prepared to think AND admit that I don't know everything AND I acknowledge that some (much?) of my 'assumptions' are based on bollocks

If you're going to explain how Ian McKellan ripping pages out of Bibles will help turn you from an anti-gay-rights person to a pro-gay-rights person it might help if you used the words "rip" and "bible" somewhere in the "explanation."

OK... for the hard-of-thinking...

<insert>If I was still a cultural homphobe, I imagine that when I heard about the highly-esteemed actor Ian McKellen choosing to publicise his choice to rip pages from the book of Leviticus from copies of the Gideon bible, </insert> I have a hunch (hope?) that such actions would work on me because I am prepared to think AND admit that I don't know everything AND I acknowledge that some (much?) of my 'assumptions' are based on bollocks

Yoink · 3rd November 2009, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

Then you clearly miss the idea of what free speech is all about and the protection of minority rights.

Who gets to decide which ideas are acceptable and which ones are unacceptable to disseminate? Ask your 5 year old that question.

Apparently the ACLU is a racist organization. Who knew?

six7s · 3rd November 2009, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

Originally Posted by Marduk

hmmm difficult question, does supporting racism make you a racist, I'm gonna have to refrain from answering that until I can get hold of a five year old for a decision

Then you clearly miss the idea of what free speech is all about and the protection of minority rights.

Maybe not...

Note the

...

Maybe (hopefully!) Marduk was being ironical

Yoink · 3rd November 2009, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by six7s

OK... for the hard-of-thinking...

If I was still a cultural homphobe, I imagine that when I heard about the highly-esteemed actor Ian McKellen choosing to publicise his choice to rip pages from the book of Leviticus from copies of the Gideon bible, I have a hunch (hope?) that such actions would work on me because I am prepared to think AND admit that I don't know everything AND I acknowledge that some (much?) of my 'assumptions' are based on bollocks

And, once again, you avoid every single specific aspect of the case. Why is that this action in particular (as opposed, for example, to hearing that he had placed a pamphlet in the bible, or hearing that he'd marched in a gay rights march, or simply hearing him give a reasoned defence of gay rights in an interview etc. etc. etc.) would help you move from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights."

What is it in this action that "makes you think"? Once it "makes you think" why are those thoughts more likely to be "why, you know, those pro gay rights people have a point, really, don't they?" Why does it make your previously held belief that gay rights should not be supported suddenly appear to you to be wrong? In what way does this particular action (ripping pages out of bibles in hotel rooms) challenge any beliefs of any kind that you have previously held?

six7s · 3rd November 2009, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Yoink

Apparently the ACLU is a racist organization. Who knew?

Serious question:

How do you know?

Yoink · 3rd November 2009, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by six7s

Serious question:

How do you know?

How do I know what?

joobz · 3rd November 2009, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by six7s

Maybe not...

Note the

...

Maybe (hopefully!) Marduk was being ironical

Possibly. But then it wouldn't jive with his "If you oppose ripping out leviticus, you are a homophobe" argument.

Opposing the censorship of an idea isn't the same as being supportive of that idea. That's the kind of thinking that makes conservatives call the ACLU a godless evil organization.

I am against Ian McKellen's method because it is Nothing more than censorship and vandalism.

Similarly, I would oppose someone who would write "faggot" all over pro-gay rights literature.

six7s · 3rd November 2009, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Yoink

How do I know what?

Oh please...

How do you know that "the ACLU is a racist organization"?

AvalonXQ · 3rd November 2009, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by six7s

How do you know that "the ACLU is a racist organization"?

The ACLU supports the KKK's right to hold rallies and pass out racist literature.
The point was, if this makes someone racist, then the ACLU qualifies.
The real point is that opposing censorship does not imply that you agree with the censored material.

It comes from a common fallacy ("I strongly support X, which helps blacks/women/gays, so anyone who disagrees with X is a racist/sexist/homophobe") that Marduk decided to use on this thread.

joobz · 3rd November 2009, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by six7s

Oh please...

How do you know that "the ACLU is a racist organization"?

he was being sarcastic.

He was pointing out that in the past, the ACLU has defended hate speech. http://www.channel3000.com/news/381962/detail.html

joobz · 3rd November 2009, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

It comes from a common fallacy ("I strongly support X, which helps blacks/women/gays, so anyone who disagrees with X is a racist/sexist/homophobe") that Marduk decided to use on this thread.

Exactly.
It's exactly analogous to saying, "You're either with us, or against us!".

six7s · 3rd November 2009, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Yoink

And, once again, you avoid every single specific aspect of the case.

Please specify the specifics I am avoiding

Originally Posted by Yoink

Why is that this action in particular (as opposed, for example, to hearing that he had placed a pamphlet in the bible, or hearing that he'd marched in a gay rights march, or simply hearing him give a reasoned defence of gay rights in an interview etc. etc. etc.) would help you move from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights."

Erm... it isn't - or, rather, wouldn't be (for the hypothetical 20-year-old-homphobe-me) - this action in particular that "would help me move from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights""... my thoughts, opinions and actions are (I hope) shaped by a wide variety of issues

Originally Posted by Yoink

What is it in this action that "makes you think"?

I think/hope I've answered this

What is it in this action that makes you so bloody minded?

joobz · 3rd November 2009, 02:06 PM

I think it would be more useful to provide an alternate view. Perhaps a sticker on the front cover that highlights the anti-gay passages followed by passagse that outlaw
shrimp, clothes, ...

Yoink · 3rd November 2009, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by six7s

Oh please...

I honestly did not have the faintest idea what you were asking me.

Originally Posted by six7s

How do you know that "the ACLU is a racist organization"?

I don't believe it is. Marduk, however, claimed that anyone who defended the KKK's rights to disseminate their racist ideas must be a racist. The ACLU has defended the KKK's rights to disseminate their racist ideas, therefore, logically, Marduk was claiming that the ACLU is a racist organization. That was my point.

Darat · 3rd November 2009, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

One of the most successful arguments currently used against gay activism is the idea that it seeks to forcibly silence the opposition, making it illegal to speak out against homosexuality and making it mandatory for school-aged children to accept it.

...snip...

Well people have always made up stuff about people they want to get rid off.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

It is this argument, and not any argument about the morality or immorality of homosexuality itself, that has brought the "otherwise blissfully-ignorant middle-ground" to vote against reforms, and emboldened a lot of "live-and-let-live" people to take a position.
Actions like this feed the argument.

Really - so back in the 80s when I was being spat at because I was on a march in a major city in the UK as part of campaign for equal rights for homosexuals that was because people had invented time travel and had read that McKellen, 20 years in the future, would start tearing pages out of a bible that he was given?

Darat · 3rd November 2009, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

...snip...

Yes, because according to Christian teachings, sex between two or more individuals is immoral under all but very specific circumstances.

You missed out the word "some" - not all Christians hold those beliefs.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

...snip...
No, because according to Christian teachings, the Law of Moses is not binding on us today.

Again you missed out "some".

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

...snip...

ETA for Simon: That passage in Matthew requires considerably more than attraction; it condemns active fantasizing.

That is your interpretation - I am sure I can find some Christians that disagree with you.

AvalonXQ · 3rd November 2009, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Really - so back in the 80s when I was being spat at because I was on a march in a major city in the UK as part of campaign for equal rights for homosexuals that was because people had invented time travel and had read that McKellen, 20 years in the future, would start tearing pages out of a bible that he was given?

Generally it's not the middle-ground live-and-let-live types that act that way, so no.

Yoink · 3rd November 2009, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by six7s

Please specify the specifics I am avoiding

Well, not to be repetitive, but:
And, once again, you avoid every single specific aspect of the case. Why is that this action in particular (as opposed, for example, to hearing that he had placed a pamphlet in the bible, or hearing that he'd marched in a gay rights march, or simply hearing him give a reasoned defence of gay rights in an interview etc. etc. etc.) would help you move from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights."

What is it in this action that "makes you think"? Once it "makes you think" why are those thoughts more likely to be "why, you know, those pro gay rights people have a point, really, don't they?" Why does it make your previously held belief that gay rights should not be supported suddenly appear to you to be wrong? In what way does this particular action (ripping pages out of bibles in hotel rooms) challenge any beliefs of any kind that you have previously held?

And to add a little seeing as this didn't seem to help the first time: the argument here is about whether or not Ian McKellan's act of tearing pages out of bibles is helpful or harmful to the cause of equal rights for gay people. I'm asking you to explain how that specific act (tearing pages out of bibles and then publicizing the fact that you do this) could help a person such as yourself move from being anti-gay-rights to being pro-gay-rights.

The act has obvious downsides as a piece of political provocation. It provides wonderful ammunition to the enemy (I'm sure that the yes-on-8 crowd, for example, would love to tell wavering people about how the evil gay actor goes around defacing bibles whenever he can!), to name one self-evident problem. If you're going to argue that overall it's a clever political move, you need to explain how it will overall sway more people from "anti-or-wavering to pro" than it will sway from "pro-or-wavering to anti." As a start you need to explain how it will sway ANYONE from "anti-or-wavering to pro" gay rights. So far you've consistently refused to do that.

Try filling in the blank in this sentence: "I used to be opposed to equal rights for gays, but then I heard that Ian McKellan regularly rips some pages from Leviticus out of every bible he finds in the hotels he stays at._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ made me realize that I was wrong, and that gay people deserved equal rights with straight people."

Originally Posted by six7s

Erm... it isn't - or, rather, wouldn't be (for the hypothetical 20-year-old-homphobe-me) - this action in particular that "would help me move from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights""... my thoughts, opinions and actions are (I hope) shaped by a wide variety of issues

So you don't, in fact, think that this action helps his cause at all?

Originally Posted by six7s

I think/hope I've answered this

No, you certainly haven't.

Originally Posted by six7s

What is it in this action that makes you so bloody minded?

I think it hurts the cause of gay rights. I think that's a really, really, really important cause. I think it's particularly sad and ironic that that cause should be being hurt by a great actor who happens to be gay himself.

Darat · 3rd November 2009, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Generally it's not the middle-ground live-and-let-live types that act that way, so no.

Ah I see - the no-true-middle-ground live-and-let-live-types argument.

Darat · 3rd November 2009, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Yoink

...snip...

I think it hurts the cause of gay rights. I think that's a really, really, really important cause. I think it's particularly sad and ironic that that cause should be being hurt by a great actor who happens to be gay himself.

Any evidence that his action is hurting the cause for gay rights, or rather the cause for rights?

AvalonXQ · 3rd November 2009, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Ah I see - the no-true-middle-ground live-and-let-live-types argument.

What's your point, exactly? That you're in the "us-or-them" camp? Everybody is either a died-in-the-wool rainbow-flag-waving freedom fighter or an epithet-weilding gay-bashing homophobe?
You appear to be missing the point that a lot of people people don't really care, one way or the other, about homosexual behavior in and of itself; that they have to be convinced that the gay agenda is actually an anti-religion agenda in order to be induced to vote against it; and that this is exactly what McKellen helps convince them of.
I assume that all of this may be much less relevant in the UK than it is here in the States.
ETA: I really think that our experiences with Proposition 8 in California this past fall is coloring a lot of the argument here, for me and for Yoink.

Darat · 3rd November 2009, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

What's your point, exactly?

...snip...

Well I've not really made any point in this thread, however your many unsubstantiated claims have piqued my curiosity so if I now have a point it is to see if you can support your claims with actual evidence.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

That you're in the "us-or-them" camp? Everybody is either a died-in-the-wool rainbow-flag-waving freedom fighter or an epithet-weilding gay-bashing homophobe?
...snip...

Well I know I am not in the camp that believes that homosexuality is an abomination, is that good enough for you?

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

You appear to be missing the point that a lot of people people don't really care, one way or the other, about homosexual behavior in and of itself; that they have to be convinced that the gay agenda is actually an anti-religion agenda in order to be induced to vote against it; and that this is exactly what McKellen helps convince them of.

...snip...

Lots of claims again but no evidence to support them - do you have any?

AvalonXQ · 3rd November 2009, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Lots of claims again but no evidence to support them - do you have any?

The best evidence I have is circumstantial -- the passage of Proposition 8 in California, and the main arguments used to pass it, which were exactly these arguments.

AvalonXQ · 3rd November 2009, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Well I know I am not in the camp that...

This seems to support that you DO in fact hold the extremists' "us-or-them" mentality.
I find it's pretty much impossible to get through to folks with this mentality, but I do like to point out that such people almost universally push the people on the fence to the other side.

Darat · 3rd November 2009, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

This seems to support that you DO in fact hold the extremists' "us-or-them" mentality.
...snip...

Wow! However since you believe that someone who does not think homosexual is an abomination is an extremist it does explain some of your claims in this thread.

AvalonXQ · 3rd November 2009, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Wow! However since you believe that someone who does not think homosexual is an abomination is an extremist it does explain some of your claims in this thread.

Note that that's not what I snipped.
I asked you a simple question: do you think everyone is on the extreme, on one side or the other? Or do you accept that some people (most, in my opinion, but I have no hard evidence of that) are in a rather neutral, live-and-let-live mode of thinking? Do you accept that the absence of an affirmative pro-gay belief is not always homophobia, but is often just laissez-faire apathy?

Darat · 3rd November 2009, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Note that that's not what I snipped.
...snip..

Yes it is - what I posted was: "Well I know I am not in the camp that believes that homosexuality is an abomination, is that good enough for you?"

You took that answer and decided that it meant I was an extremist, the logic of your reasoning is therefore that anyone who believes, as I do, that homosexuality is not an abomination is an extremist.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I asked you a simple question: do you think everyone is on the extreme, on one side or the other?

I don't even know what these "extremes" that you are talking about are so it is very hard for me to answer.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Or do you accept that some people (most, in my opinion, but I have no hard evidence of that) are in a rather neutral, live-and-let-live mode of thinking?

Once you have presented your evidence for your claims I can evaluate it and then answer your question. You made the claims you support them.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Do you accept that the absence of an affirmative pro-gay belief is not always homophobia, but is often just laissez-faire apathy?

As above.

Yoink · 3rd November 2009, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Any evidence that his action is hurting the cause for gay rights, or rather the cause for rights?

Not hard to find. Here's a mormon discussion site discussing his actions. Funnily enough it doesn't seem to be making them see the light. Lucky there's no reason for gays to fear riled up Mormons, eh?

Here's an entry on some general Christian topics blog.

Here's a freerepublic thread where the whole thing is red meat for the gay bashers.

Here's a Townhall.com thread on the same topic. Once again, the story being used to rally the troops on the Right.

That was approximately five minutes of looking through just the first two pages of just one Google search using "Ian McKellan bible vandalism"--I'm sure if I had a look at "bible attack" or "bible defacing" or what have you I'd find more.

Oh, and yes, gay rights are rights, just as red walls are also walls. Women's rights are rights, too. I've been actively involved in the struggle for gay rights for over thirty years, Darat; this really isn't about a secret desire to spread the word of Leviticus, for pete's sake. Gay rights are human rights (and hey, human rights are RIGHTS too!); this act of McKellan's can do nothing to further that cause and can, potentially, do a great deal to hurt it.

AvalonXQ · 3rd November 2009, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Yes it is - what I posted was: "Well I know I am not in the camp that believes that homosexuality is an abomination, is that good enough for you?"

And what I snipped was, "Well I know I am not in the camp that..."
What I took from your post is that you believe that there are two "camps" -- the ones I described earlier -- and which one you're in.
That sort of thinking is very extremist: the idea that the only two groups out there are rainbow-flag-waving freedom fighters and epithet-weilding homophobes.
Most people aren't in either "camp". Most people are looking to protect their own interests without hurting anyone else.

Trystero4 · 3rd November 2009, 03:22 PM

I have a hard time supporting censorship regardless of how much I disagree with the message or how vile it is.

I agree with the earlier post that said McKellen should instead leave behind something that explains his point of view.

six7s · 3rd November 2009, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Yoink

Try filling in the blank in this sentence: "I used to be opposed to equal rights for gays, but then I heard that Ian McKellan regularly rips some pages from Leviticus out of every bible he finds in the hotels he stays at._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ made me realize that I was wrong, and that gay people deserved equal rights with straight people."

OK...

I used to be opposed to equal rights for gays, but then I heard that Ian McKellan regularly rips some pages from Leviticus out of every bible he finds in the hotels he stays at. Around this time, I was at a party with a whole bunch of people that I admired and respected... and waddaya know... they were discussing the news of Ian M ripping pages out of the bible... It sure came as a surprise to me to discover that these friends of mine were nodding in some sort of approval, before going on to mention how the underlying reasons (for homosexuality being regarded as 'wrong') are as stupid, harmful and counter-productive as those that oppress people for reasons of gender, ethnicity, age, etc. Luckily, my friends were neither surprised nor annoyed by my obvious ignorance. Instead, they welcomed me into the discussion, which made me think even more, and in turn, this made me realize that I was wrong, and that gay people deserved equal rights with straight people.

How's that?

AvalonXQ · 3rd November 2009, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by six7s

OK...

I used to be opposed to equal rights for gays, but then I heard that Ian McKellan regularly rips some pages from Leviticus out of every bible he finds in the hotels he stays at. Around this time, I was at a party with a whole bunch of people that I admired and respected... and waddaya know... they were discussing the news of Ian M ripping pages out of the bible... It sure came as a surprise to me to discover that these friends of mine were nodding in some sort of approval, before going on to mention how the underlying reasons (for homosexuality being regarded as 'wrong') are as stupid, harmful and counter-productive as those that oppress people for reasons of gender, ethnicity, age, etc. Luckily, my friends were neither surprised nor annoyed by my obvious ignorance. Instead, they welcomed me into the discussion, which made me think even more, and in turn, this made me realize that I was wrong, and that gay people deserved equal rights with straight people.

How's that?

That's excellent.

Yoink · 3rd November 2009, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by six7s

OK...

I used to be opposed to equal rights for gays, but then I heard that Ian McKellan regularly rips some pages from Leviticus out of every bible he finds in the hotels he stays at. Around this time, I was at a party with a whole bunch of people that I admired and respected... and waddaya know... they were discussing the news of Ian M ripping pages out of the bible... It sure came as a surprise to me to discover that these friends of mine were nodding in some sort of approval, before going on to mention how the underlying reasons (for homosexuality being regarded as 'wrong') are as stupid, harmful and counter-productive as those that oppress people for reasons of gender, ethnicity, age, etc. Luckily, my friends were neither surprised nor annoyed by my obvious ignorance. Instead, they welcomed me into the discussion, which made me think even more, and in turn, this made me realize that I was wrong, and that gay people deserved equal rights with straight people.

How's that?

So the act of ripping these pages out of Leviticus, in itself, is completely useless. What helped you change your mind, in this scenario, is finding out that your friends regarded your prejudices as absurd. The only useful part of the Ian McKellan thing was that it got you to bring the topic up with your friends.

So, in other words, a far, far more effective act on McKellan's part would be one that gets as much news coverage (therefore being likely to make people like you bring the topic up with your friends) but which doesn't automatically serve as a red flag to all the gay bashers in the nation AND have the added downside that it serves to offend and alienate people even if they don't, themselves, feel strongly opposed to gay rights and in some cases even if they feel positively disposed to gay rights.

So, in other words, you agree with me that this act in itself can do nothing to sway someone from being opposed/neutral on gay rights to being pro and you must surely agree that the act in itself could sway someone who is pro/neutral on gay rights to being anti? So you must, therefore, agree that all people who hold the cause of equal rights for all dear should hope that Sir Ian stops this foolish practice and thinks up some much smarter strategies for bringing attention to the cause.

Third Eye Open · 3rd November 2009, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Leviticus makes neither of those statements.
God instructs the Israelites to refrain from certain acts. The orientation or other uncontrollable aspects of the individuals in question is never discussed.
But do certain things (wear two-fabric cloth, talk back to your parents, worship Baal, have gay sex, have incestuous sex, have an affair), and you would be put to death. For your ACTIONS. A very different standard.

The people who have had gay sex are certainly a group of people. They are called homosexuals. The verse in Leviticus is a blanket statement that they should all be put to death. I don't understand your point here.

3rd November 2009, 01:00 PM	#121
Simon39759 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,020	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ You don't think there's any meaningful difference between condemning sexual attraction and condemning sexual behavior? I'm glad you're not my wife; I'd be in serious trouble! Well; you might still be in trouble, according to Matthew 5:28: Quote: But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. .
	Last edited by Simon39759; 3rd November 2009 at 01:03 PM.

3rd November 2009, 01:03 PM	#123
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750	I'm not sure what relevance my beliefs have to Leviticus and McKellen, but I'll bite. We can always start a new thread if we go too far off-course. Originally Posted by Ladewig Let's cut to the chase. If two consenting, twenty-first century, adult men have sex, have they committed an immoral act? If so, why? Yes, because according to Christian teachings, sex between two or more individuals is immoral under all but very specific circumstances. Quote: Follow up question: Is wearing clothing of mixed fibers immoral? If not, why not? No, because according to Christian teachings, the Law of Moses is not binding on us today. ETA for Simon: That passage in Matthew requires considerably more than attraction; it condemns active fantasizing.
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750	Last edited by AvalonXQ; 3rd November 2009 at 01:05 PM.

3rd November 2009, 01:05 PM	#124
Ladewig Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 8,561	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I'm not sure what relevance my beliefs have to Leviticus and McKellen, but I'll bite. We can always start a new thread if we go too far off-course. No need to start a new thread. I'm done asking questions of you.
	__________________ When I see all the kooky things posted on the JREF forums, I can't help but think of Max Bialystock's lament: "They come here, they all come here, how do they find us?"

3rd November 2009, 01:12 PM	#125
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508	Originally Posted by six7s OK... I'll try... Its not easy to be objective... Anyhoo... I have a hunch (hope?) that such actions work on me because I am prepared to think AND admit that I don't know everything AND I acknowledge that some (much?) of my 'assumptions' are based on bollocks If you're going to explain how Ian McKellan ripping pages out of Bibles will help turn you from an anti-gay-rights person to a pro-gay-rights person it might help if you used the words "rip" and "bible" somewhere in the "explanation."
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508

3rd November 2009, 01:32 PM	#126
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 11,154	Originally Posted by Marduk hmmm difficult question, does supporting racism make you a racist, I'm gonna have to refrain from answering that until I can get hold of a five year old for a decision Then you clearly miss the idea of what free speech is all about and the protection of minority rights. Who gets to decide which ideas are acceptable and which ones are unacceptable to disseminate? Ask your 5 year old that question.
	__________________ "Joobz you can be something else sometimes."- DOC

3rd November 2009, 01:02 PM	#122
Simon39759 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,020	Double post, sorry

3rd November 2009, 01:34 PM	#127
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 7,768	Originally Posted by Yoink Originally Posted by me [OK... I'll try... Its not easy to be objective... Anyhoo... I have a hunch (hope?) that such actions work on me because I am prepared to think AND admit that I don't know everything AND I acknowledge that some (much?) of my 'assumptions' are based on bollocks If you're going to explain how Ian McKellan ripping pages out of Bibles will help turn you from an anti-gay-rights person to a pro-gay-rights person it might help if you used the words "rip" and "bible" somewhere in the "explanation." OK... for the hard-of-thinking... <insert>If I was still a cultural homphobe, I imagine that when I heard about the highly-esteemed actor Ian McKellen choosing to publicise his choice to rip pages from the book of Leviticus from copies of the Gideon bible, </insert> I have a hunch (hope?) that such actions would work on me because I am prepared to think AND admit that I don't know everything AND I acknowledge that some (much?) of my 'assumptions' are based on bollocks
	__________________ This post is copyleft and may include tyops and/or fallacies and/or grammatical errors like ending a sentence with a preposition - something up with which some will not put Copyright today is a system inflicted on the public, not a system that benefits the public. Richard Stallman - Founder of the GNU Project Last edited by six7s; 3rd November 2009 at 01:36 PM. Reason: tyops and other cock-ups

3rd November 2009, 01:35 PM	#128
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508	Originally Posted by joobz Then you clearly miss the idea of what free speech is all about and the protection of minority rights. Who gets to decide which ideas are acceptable and which ones are unacceptable to disseminate? Ask your 5 year old that question. Apparently the ACLU is a racist organization. Who knew?
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508

3rd November 2009, 01:39 PM	#129
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 7,768	Originally Posted by joobz Originally Posted by Marduk hmmm difficult question, does supporting racism make you a racist, I'm gonna have to refrain from answering that until I can get hold of a five year old for a decision Then you clearly miss the idea of what free speech is all about and the protection of minority rights. Maybe not... Note the ... Maybe (hopefully!) Marduk was being ironical
	__________________ This post is copyleft and may include tyops and/or fallacies and/or grammatical errors like ending a sentence with a preposition - something up with which some will not put Copyright today is a system inflicted on the public, not a system that benefits the public. Richard Stallman - Founder of the GNU Project

3rd November 2009, 01:39 PM	#130
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508	Originally Posted by six7s OK... for the hard-of-thinking... If I was still a cultural homphobe, I imagine that when I heard about the highly-esteemed actor Ian McKellen choosing to publicise his choice to rip pages from the book of Leviticus from copies of the Gideon bible, I have a hunch (hope?) that such actions would work on me because I am prepared to think AND admit that I don't know everything AND I acknowledge that some (much?) of my 'assumptions' are based on bollocks And, once again, you avoid every single specific aspect of the case. Why is that this action in particular (as opposed, for example, to hearing that he had placed a pamphlet in the bible, or hearing that he'd marched in a gay rights march, or simply hearing him give a reasoned defence of gay rights in an interview etc. etc. etc.) would help you move from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights." What is it in this action that "makes you think"? Once it "makes you think" why are those thoughts more likely to be "why, you know, those pro gay rights people have a point, really, don't they?" Why does it make your previously held belief that gay rights should not be supported suddenly appear to you to be wrong? In what way does this particular action (ripping pages out of bibles in hotel rooms) challenge any beliefs of any kind that you have previously held?
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508	Last edited by Yoink; 3rd November 2009 at 01:40 PM. Reason: Fix formatting problems

3rd November 2009, 01:40 PM	#131
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 7,768	Originally Posted by Yoink Apparently the ACLU is a racist organization. Who knew? Serious question: How do you know?
	__________________ This post is copyleft and may include tyops and/or fallacies and/or grammatical errors like ending a sentence with a preposition - something up with which some will not put Copyright today is a system inflicted on the public, not a system that benefits the public. Richard Stallman - Founder of the GNU Project

3rd November 2009, 01:41 PM	#132
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508	Originally Posted by six7s Serious question: How do you know? How do I know what?
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508

3rd November 2009, 01:42 PM	#133
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 11,154	Originally Posted by six7s Maybe not... Note the ... Maybe (hopefully!) Marduk was being ironical Possibly. But then it wouldn't jive with his "If you oppose ripping out leviticus, you are a homophobe" argument. Opposing the censorship of an idea isn't the same as being supportive of that idea. That's the kind of thinking that makes conservatives call the ACLU a godless evil organization. I am against Ian McKellen's method because it is Nothing more than censorship and vandalism. Similarly, I would oppose someone who would write "faggot" all over pro-gay rights literature.
	__________________ "Joobz you can be something else sometimes."- DOC

3rd November 2009, 01:45 PM	#134
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 7,768	Originally Posted by Yoink How do I know what? Oh please... How do you know that "the ACLU is a racist organization"?
	__________________ This post is copyleft and may include tyops and/or fallacies and/or grammatical errors like ending a sentence with a preposition - something up with which some will not put Copyright today is a system inflicted on the public, not a system that benefits the public. Richard Stallman - Founder of the GNU Project

3rd November 2009, 01:48 PM	#135
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750	Originally Posted by six7s How do you know that "the ACLU is a racist organization"? The ACLU supports the KKK's right to hold rallies and pass out racist literature. The point was, if this makes someone racist, then the ACLU qualifies. The real point is that opposing censorship does not imply that you agree with the censored material. It comes from a common fallacy ("I strongly support X, which helps blacks/women/gays, so anyone who disagrees with X is a racist/sexist/homophobe") that Marduk decided to use on this thread.
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750	Last edited by AvalonXQ; 3rd November 2009 at 01:50 PM.

3rd November 2009, 01:52 PM	#136
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 11,154	Originally Posted by six7s Oh please... How do you know that "the ACLU is a racist organization"? he was being sarcastic. He was pointing out that in the past, the ACLU has defended hate speech. http://www.channel3000.com/news/381962/detail.html
	__________________ "Joobz you can be something else sometimes."- DOC

3rd November 2009, 01:54 PM	#137
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 11,154	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ It comes from a common fallacy ("I strongly support X, which helps blacks/women/gays, so anyone who disagrees with X is a racist/sexist/homophobe") that Marduk decided to use on this thread. Exactly. It's exactly analogous to saying, "You're either with us, or against us!".
	__________________ "Joobz you can be something else sometimes."- DOC

3rd November 2009, 02:00 PM	#138
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 7,768	Originally Posted by Yoink And, once again, you avoid every single specific aspect of the case. Please specify the specifics I am avoiding Originally Posted by Yoink Why is that this action in particular (as opposed, for example, to hearing that he had placed a pamphlet in the bible, or hearing that he'd marched in a gay rights march, or simply hearing him give a reasoned defence of gay rights in an interview etc. etc. etc.) would help you move from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights." Erm... it isn't - or, rather, wouldn't be (for the hypothetical 20-year-old-homphobe-me) - this action in particular that "would help me move from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights""... my thoughts, opinions and actions are (I hope) shaped by a wide variety of issues Originally Posted by Yoink What is it in this action that "makes you think"? I think/hope I've answered this What is it in this action that makes you so bloody minded?
	__________________ This post is copyleft and may include tyops and/or fallacies and/or grammatical errors like ending a sentence with a preposition - something up with which some will not put Copyright today is a system inflicted on the public, not a system that benefits the public. Richard Stallman - Founder of the GNU Project

3rd November 2009, 02:06 PM	#139
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 11,154	I think it would be more useful to provide an alternate view. Perhaps a sticker on the front cover that highlights the anti-gay passages followed by passagse that outlaw shrimp, clothes, ...
	__________________ "Joobz you can be something else sometimes."- DOC

3rd November 2009, 02:14 PM	#140
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508	Originally Posted by six7s Oh please... I honestly did not have the faintest idea what you were asking me. Originally Posted by six7s How do you know that "the ACLU is a racist organization"? I don't believe it is. Marduk, however, claimed that anyone who defended the KKK's rights to disseminate their racist ideas must be a racist. The ACLU has defended the KKK's rights to disseminate their racist ideas, therefore, logically, Marduk was claiming that the ACLU is a racist organization. That was my point.
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508

3rd November 2009, 02:20 PM	#141
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,901	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ One of the most successful arguments currently used against gay activism is the idea that it seeks to forcibly silence the opposition, making it illegal to speak out against homosexuality and making it mandatory for school-aged children to accept it. ...snip... Well people have always made up stuff about people they want to get rid off. Originally Posted by AvalonXQ It is this argument, and not any argument about the morality or immorality of homosexuality itself, that has brought the "otherwise blissfully-ignorant middle-ground" to vote against reforms, and emboldened a lot of "live-and-let-live" people to take a position. Actions like this feed the argument. Really - so back in the 80s when I was being spat at because I was on a march in a major city in the UK as part of campaign for equal rights for homosexuals that was because people had invented time travel and had read that McKellen, 20 years in the future, would start tearing pages out of a bible that he was given?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

3rd November 2009, 02:24 PM	#142
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,901	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ ...snip... Yes, because according to Christian teachings, sex between two or more individuals is immoral under all but very specific circumstances. You missed out the word "some" - not all Christians hold those beliefs. Originally Posted by AvalonXQ ...snip... No, because according to Christian teachings, the Law of Moses is not binding on us today. Again you missed out "some". Originally Posted by AvalonXQ ...snip... ETA for Simon: That passage in Matthew requires considerably more than attraction; it condemns active fantasizing. That is your interpretation - I am sure I can find some Christians that disagree with you.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008 Last edited by Darat; 3rd November 2009 at 02:26 PM. Reason: Fixed formatting

3rd November 2009, 02:24 PM	#143
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750	Originally Posted by Darat Really - so back in the 80s when I was being spat at because I was on a march in a major city in the UK as part of campaign for equal rights for homosexuals that was because people had invented time travel and had read that McKellen, 20 years in the future, would start tearing pages out of a bible that he was given? Generally it's not the middle-ground live-and-let-live types that act that way, so no.
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750

3rd November 2009, 02:25 PM	#144
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508	Originally Posted by six7s Please specify the specifics I am avoiding Well, not to be repetitive, but: And, once again, you avoid every single specific aspect of the case. Why is that this action in particular (as opposed, for example, to hearing that he had placed a pamphlet in the bible, or hearing that he'd marched in a gay rights march, or simply hearing him give a reasoned defence of gay rights in an interview etc. etc. etc.) would help you move from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights." What is it in this action that "makes you think"? Once it "makes you think" why are those thoughts more likely to be "why, you know, those pro gay rights people have a point, really, don't they?" Why does it make your previously held belief that gay rights should not be supported suddenly appear to you to be wrong? In what way does this particular action (ripping pages out of bibles in hotel rooms) challenge any beliefs of any kind that you have previously held? And to add a little seeing as this didn't seem to help the first time: the argument here is about whether or not Ian McKellan's act of tearing pages out of bibles is helpful or harmful to the cause of equal rights for gay people. I'm asking you to explain how that specific act (tearing pages out of bibles and then publicizing the fact that you do this) could help a person such as yourself move from being anti-gay-rights to being pro-gay-rights. The act has obvious downsides as a piece of political provocation. It provides wonderful ammunition to the enemy (I'm sure that the yes-on-8 crowd, for example, would love to tell wavering people about how the evil gay actor goes around defacing bibles whenever he can!), to name one self-evident problem. If you're going to argue that overall it's a clever political move, you need to explain how it will overall sway more people from "anti-or-wavering to pro" than it will sway from "pro-or-wavering to anti." As a start you need to explain how it will sway ANYONE from "anti-or-wavering to pro" gay rights. So far you've consistently refused to do that. Try filling in the blank in this sentence: "I used to be opposed to equal rights for gays, but then I heard that Ian McKellan regularly rips some pages from Leviticus out of every bible he finds in the hotels he stays at._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ made me realize that I was wrong, and that gay people deserved equal rights with straight people." Originally Posted by six7s Erm... it isn't - or, rather, wouldn't be (for the hypothetical 20-year-old-homphobe-me) - this action in particular that "would help me move from being "anti gay rights" to "pro gay rights""... my thoughts, opinions and actions are (I hope) shaped by a wide variety of issues So you don't, in fact, think that this action helps his cause at all? Originally Posted by six7s I think/hope I've answered this No, you certainly haven't. Originally Posted by six7s What is it in this action that makes you so bloody minded? I think it hurts the cause of gay rights. I think that's a really, really, really important cause. I think it's particularly sad and ironic that that cause should be being hurt by a great actor who happens to be gay himself.
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508

3rd November 2009, 02:25 PM	#145
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,901	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Generally it's not the middle-ground live-and-let-live types that act that way, so no. Ah I see - the no-true-middle-ground live-and-let-live-types argument.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

3rd November 2009, 02:28 PM	#146
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,901	Originally Posted by Yoink ...snip... I think it hurts the cause of gay rights. I think that's a really, really, really important cause. I think it's particularly sad and ironic that that cause should be being hurt by a great actor who happens to be gay himself. Any evidence that his action is hurting the cause for gay rights, or rather the cause for rights?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

3rd November 2009, 02:32 PM	#147
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750	Originally Posted by Darat Ah I see - the no-true-middle-ground live-and-let-live-types argument. What's your point, exactly? That you're in the "us-or-them" camp? Everybody is either a died-in-the-wool rainbow-flag-waving freedom fighter or an epithet-weilding gay-bashing homophobe? You appear to be missing the point that a lot of people people don't really care, one way or the other, about homosexual behavior in and of itself; that they have to be convinced that the gay agenda is actually an anti-religion agenda in order to be induced to vote against it; and that this is exactly what McKellen helps convince them of. I assume that all of this may be much less relevant in the UK than it is here in the States. ETA: I really think that our experiences with Proposition 8 in California this past fall is coloring a lot of the argument here, for me and for Yoink.
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750	Last edited by AvalonXQ; 3rd November 2009 at 02:33 PM.

3rd November 2009, 02:41 PM	#148
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,901	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ What's your point, exactly? ...snip... Well I've not really made any point in this thread, however your many unsubstantiated claims have piqued my curiosity so if I now have a point it is to see if you can support your claims with actual evidence. Originally Posted by AvalonXQ That you're in the "us-or-them" camp? Everybody is either a died-in-the-wool rainbow-flag-waving freedom fighter or an epithet-weilding gay-bashing homophobe? ...snip... Well I know I am not in the camp that believes that homosexuality is an abomination, is that good enough for you? Originally Posted by AvalonXQ You appear to be missing the point that a lot of people people don't really care, one way or the other, about homosexual behavior in and of itself; that they have to be convinced that the gay agenda is actually an anti-religion agenda in order to be induced to vote against it; and that this is exactly what McKellen helps convince them of. ...snip... Lots of claims again but no evidence to support them - do you have any?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

3rd November 2009, 02:47 PM	#149
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750	Originally Posted by Darat Lots of claims again but no evidence to support them - do you have any? The best evidence I have is circumstantial -- the passage of Proposition 8 in California, and the main arguments used to pass it, which were exactly these arguments.
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750

3rd November 2009, 02:49 PM	#150
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750	Originally Posted by Darat Well I know I am not in the camp that... This seems to support that you DO in fact hold the extremists' "us-or-them" mentality. I find it's pretty much impossible to get through to folks with this mentality, but I do like to point out that such people almost universally push the people on the fence to the other side.
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750

3rd November 2009, 02:58 PM	#151
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,901	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ This seems to support that you DO in fact hold the extremists' "us-or-them" mentality. ...snip... Wow! However since you believe that someone who does not think homosexual is an abomination is an extremist it does explain some of your claims in this thread.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

3rd November 2009, 03:01 PM	#152
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750	Originally Posted by Darat Wow! However since you believe that someone who does not think homosexual is an abomination is an extremist it does explain some of your claims in this thread. Note that that's not what I snipped. I asked you a simple question: do you think everyone is on the extreme, on one side or the other? Or do you accept that some people (most, in my opinion, but I have no hard evidence of that) are in a rather neutral, live-and-let-live mode of thinking? Do you accept that the absence of an affirmative pro-gay belief is not always homophobia, but is often just laissez-faire apathy?
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750

3rd November 2009, 03:12 PM	#153
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,901	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Note that that's not what I snipped. ...snip.. Yes it is - what I posted was: "Well I know I am not in the camp that believes that homosexuality is an abomination, is that good enough for you?" You took that answer and decided that it meant I was an extremist, the logic of your reasoning is therefore that anyone who believes, as I do, that homosexuality is not an abomination is an extremist. Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I asked you a simple question: do you think everyone is on the extreme, on one side or the other? I don't even know what these "extremes" that you are talking about are so it is very hard for me to answer. Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Or do you accept that some people (most, in my opinion, but I have no hard evidence of that) are in a rather neutral, live-and-let-live mode of thinking? Once you have presented your evidence for your claims I can evaluate it and then answer your question. You made the claims you support them. Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Do you accept that the absence of an affirmative pro-gay belief is not always homophobia, but is often just laissez-faire apathy? As above.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

3rd November 2009, 03:14 PM	#154
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508	Originally Posted by Darat Any evidence that his action is hurting the cause for gay rights, or rather the cause for rights? Not hard to find. Here's a mormon discussion site discussing his actions. Funnily enough it doesn't seem to be making them see the light. Lucky there's no reason for gays to fear riled up Mormons, eh? Here's an entry on some general Christian topics blog. Here's a freerepublic thread where the whole thing is red meat for the gay bashers. Here's a Townhall.com thread on the same topic. Once again, the story being used to rally the troops on the Right. That was approximately five minutes of looking through just the first two pages of just one Google search using "Ian McKellan bible vandalism"--I'm sure if I had a look at "bible attack" or "bible defacing" or what have you I'd find more. Oh, and yes, gay rights are rights, just as red walls are also walls. Women's rights are rights, too. I've been actively involved in the struggle for gay rights for over thirty years, Darat; this really isn't about a secret desire to spread the word of Leviticus, for pete's sake. Gay rights are human rights (and hey, human rights are RIGHTS too!); this act of McKellan's can do nothing to further that cause and can, potentially, do a great deal to hurt it.
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508

3rd November 2009, 03:15 PM	#155
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750	Originally Posted by Darat Yes it is - what I posted was: "Well I know I am not in the camp that believes that homosexuality is an abomination, is that good enough for you?" And what I snipped was, "Well I know I am not in the camp that..." What I took from your post is that you believe that there are two "camps" -- the ones I described earlier -- and which one you're in. That sort of thinking is very extremist: the idea that the only two groups out there are rainbow-flag-waving freedom fighters and epithet-weilding homophobes. Most people aren't in either "camp". Most people are looking to protect their own interests without hurting anyone else.
AvalonXQ Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 750