Australian rugby star/known moron again tells everyone that Jesus says gay people are going to hell. Turns into a much bigger stink than anticipated.

WaltzingMatilda

racist on the way to being banned
Nov 29, 2015
1,153
349
Sydney “Orstralia”
Not all sections of the church are supporting Izzy :




This church is notorious for being left of centre, good on them

There used to be a pub & a church on broadway Sydney that constantly had funny little digs at each other on notice boards, they were opposite each other, I’m sure people had accidents reading one sign & quickly spinning their head the other way to find the response


 
Last edited:

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
13,115
3,791
New York City
Good, evening Stevie.

You keep moving the goal posts here. You got an example of the altered meaning of phobia. You asked for more examples. I gave you another one. You retorted that ..."You've come up with exactly two terms out of the entire known language , neologisms at that, to make some sort of point."

The number of examples is NOT the point here, Stevie.
(There are more, BTW. xenophobia (a noun-neologism whose meaning has altered with time) which means dislike of, or prejudice against people from other countries.)
Setenta, just about every original definition of xenophobia involved actual fear. This actually works against the point that you are trying to make, as society has not only altered root word meanings, but has actually gone as far as to create entire neological terminologies and THEN alter the meaning of those neologisms over time.

Today homophobia means dislike of homosexuals... to some people. To others, it can mean the simple expression of biblical views. And ten years from now, it can mean something that is even more restrictive against opposing viewpoints. That's a problem.
The point is that regardless of etymology, the word homophobe today means someone with a dislike of homosexuals.
And what if someone disliked not the homosexual, but the acts of homosexuality in and of itself?
You can decry the existence of the word or dispute its proper usage, but it is incontravertabile that the word has come into common usage today and means someone who dislikes homosexuals.
This point is simply incorrect; there are obviously people who don't dislike gay people, yet are labeled homophobes. There is actually LOTS of controversy at work any time you slur someone with a blanket term.
Your gripe appears to be that it is used (incorrectly) against folks who don't dislike homosexuals, and you perhaps feel that the term gets used to shut down heart-felt religious expression that would condemn homosexuality.
Religious or otherwise. My religion condemns homosexuality no more than it does adultery, fornication. And before I became religious, I regarded homosexuality as something that was clearly wrong from a purely scientific perspective.
Both legitimate concerns, but you appear to be stating, however obliquely, that homophobia (in the generally accepted sense of the word, hatred of homosexuals) does not exist, based on the etymology of a now-altered word.

And we know with certainty that it does, and that homosexuals have been beaten up and murdered on account of their homosexuality. This is what we mean by homophobia.
Incorrect. I made no such contention. My argument is that not everyone who is labeled as a homophobe actually deserves to be grouped with others who have beaten up and murdered homosexual individuals.

This is an entirely subjective and personal take on the evolution of language. It is neither better nor worse.
It has just evolved with changes in technology, knowledge and societal norms and mores.
If something changes, it's either for the better or for the worse. "Norms" and "mores" are reflective of societal trends. Emojis are norms. Smiley. Memes. And slurs. That's what we do today. It is much more difficult to pick up literature from the 1700s and 1800s and know WTF is going on because we keep dumbing down -generation after generation- something that was downright extraordinary.
There were always linguistic tools that could be used to degrade.

Eg. You could call someone a liar. That was degrading.

They may not have actually been a liar, but you could bandy the term about.

It did not mean that liars did not exist. They did. But misapplication of the term occasionally occurred.
And this works in your favor... because? It is always wrong to degrade someone undeservingly. Just as it is wrong to call someone who is telling the truth a liar, it is also wrong to call someone who doesn't hate, fear, dislike, or have an aversion to gay individuals a homophobe.
Just like homophobe today. Someone may be termed a homophobe who has no ill will against homosexuals, just on account of some other incorrect inference. Maybe their religious stance.
Exactly my point.
But despite that misapplication, there are people who loathe homosexuals for no other reason than their orientation, and some of those people have attacked, tortured, and murdered homosexuals. Current society terms such people homophobes.
Stop saying "society", as if society only has one voice.
This is the world in which we live. If you think differently, you can be termed homophobic.


A poster in this very thread was called a homophobe for simply expressing views against homosexuality, and, far as I know, he hadn't attacked, tortured, or murdered any homosexuals.

There are numerous reasons for new words popping up in the language.

Lots of neologisms are born of the necessity to describe something that may not have been present before.



The evolution of language has very little to do with such motivation, or lack of effort. It's often on an as-and-when needed basis, as things change.
Great. Why do we need to call people stating their opinion homophobes?
You appear to be reading too much into it all and seeing it as a personal affront and insult.
Incorrect. If you guys are uncomfortable discussing certain things, that's fine with me, though.
The term RACIST was not coined to be used as a slur to hurl at non-racists just to shut down dialogue and debate. And yet the word occasionally gets used for just that purpose.

Likewise, Homophobe did not come about just so as to be used as a slur against folks with religious convictions who did not hate homosexuals.
...And yet the word occasionally gets used for just that purpose.
Homophobia is real and homophobes exist.

By whatever name you choose to call it.
You've missed the entire point, somehow, after three days of discussion...
 
Last edited:

DB Cooper

peel me a grape
May 17, 2013
17,455
4,380
False prophet.

Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1:26-27

Lots of people being led astray... actually, his entire sermon laughably inaccurate, from beginning to end. This is why Christians must read.
A 2000 year old 'user manual' being used blindly, and without question, on a current day product is way beyond laughable.

Just to add to the hilarity, the manual was originally written in Hebrew and many question how much of the meaning has been diluted, or even lost, in translation.
 

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
13,115
3,791
New York City
A 2000 year old 'user manual' being used blindly, and without question, on a current day product is way beyond laughable.

Just to add to the hilarity, the manual was originally written in Hebrew and many question how much of the meaning has been diluted, or even lost, in translation.
I mean, that's your opinion, but that dude is just flat out wrong if he's going to stand there and try to preach from that same manual. Even the part about believers not being taken up is an outright lie. The dead in Christ WILL rise. That is scripture. The kindgom on earth will transpire after the rapture, but it will last for only a millennia and then cease to exist. In the end, we WILL be called up to meet him.

This is clearly stated in the book of Revelation.

Laughable pandering, just to get himself doomed to eternal hell in the end.
 

Setanta

BAD MOTHERFUCKER
May 24, 2013
6,501
2,083
Emain Macha
Setenta, just about every original definition of xenophobia involved actual fear. This actually works against the point that you are trying to make, as society has not only altered root word meanings, but has actually gone as far as to create entire neological terminologies and THEN alter the meaning of those neologisms over time.

Today homophobia means dislike of homosexuals... to some people. To others, it can mean the simple expression of biblical views. And ten years from now, it can mean something that is even more restrictive against opposing viewpoints. That's a problem.

And what if someone disliked not the homosexual, but the acts of homosexuality in and of itself?

This point is simply incorrect; there are obviously people who don't dislike gay people, yet are labeled homophobes. There is actually LOTS of controversy at work any time you slur someone with a blanket term.

Religious or otherwise. My religion condemns homosexuality no more than it does adultery, fornication. And before I became religious, I regarded homosexuality as something that was clearly wrong from a purely scientific perspective.

Incorrect. I made no such contention. My argument is that not everyone who is labeled as a homophobe actually deserves to be grouped with others who have beaten up and murdered homosexual individuals.


If something changes, it's either for the better or for the worse. "Norms" and "mores" are reflective of societal trends. Emojis are norms. Smiley. Memes. And slurs. That's what we do today. It is much more difficult to pick up literature from the 1700s and 1800s and know WTF is going on because we keep dumbing down -generation after generation- something that was downright extraordinary.

And this works in your favor... because? It is always wrong to degrade someone undeservingly. Just as it is wrong to call someone who is telling the truth a liar, it is also wrong to call someone who doesn't hate, fear, dislike, or have an aversion to gay individuals a homophobe.

Exactly my point.

Stop saying "society", as if society only has one voice.
This is the world in which we live. If you think differently, you can be termed homophobic.


A poster in this very thread was called a homophobe for simply expressing views against homosexuality, and, far as I know, he hadn't attacked, tortured, or murdered any homosexuals.


Great. Why do we need to call people stating their opinion homophobes?

Incorrect. If you guys are uncomfortable discussing certain things, that's fine with me, though.

...And yet the word occasionally gets used for just that purpose.

You've missed the entire point, somehow, after three days of discussion...

I believe it is you, Stevie, who completely misses the point, first by getting caught up in semantics and etymology and such.

And then, failing to understand my original point.

Which I will state. again:

Some people hate homosexuals.
This is not in any doubt.

Whether they hate them for their nature or their behaviour is of little difference to those hated.

Current usage terms such folks homophobes.

Therefore, some people are homophobes by the currently common understanding of the word.



And yes, it is pretty evident that much of your denial of the existence of homophobes stems from your own defensive reaction to possibly being labeled a homophobe.

I don't believe you to be homophobic, nor do I believe that all people who hold fervent views that homosexuality is morally wrong are necessarily homophobic.


But it is a fact that SOME people are homophobic and loathe homosexuals as well as homosexuality.

To question the foregoing sentence is simply futile.
 

WaltzingMatilda

racist on the way to being banned
Nov 29, 2015
1,153
349
Sydney “Orstralia”
Setenta, just about every original definition of xenophobia involved actual fear. This actually works against the point that you are trying to make, as society has not only altered root word meanings, but has actually gone as far as to create entire neological terminologies and THEN alter the meaning of those neologisms over time.

Today homophobia means dislike of homosexuals... to some people. To others, it can mean the simple expression of biblical views. And ten years from now, it can mean something that is even more restrictive against opposing viewpoints. That's a problem.

And what if someone disliked not the homosexual, but the acts of homosexuality in and of itself?

This point is simply incorrect; there are obviously people who don't dislike gay people, yet are labeled homophobes. There is actually LOTS of controversy at work any time you slur someone with a blanket term.

Religious or otherwise. My religion condemns homosexuality no more than it does adultery, fornication. And before I became religious, I regarded homosexuality as something that was clearly wrong from a purely scientific perspective.

Incorrect. I made no such contention. My argument is that not everyone who is labeled as a homophobe actually deserves to be grouped with others who have beaten up and murdered homosexual individuals.


If something changes, it's either for the better or for the worse. "Norms" and "mores" are reflective of societal trends. Emojis are norms. Smiley. Memes. And slurs. That's what we do today. It is much more difficult to pick up literature from the 1700s and 1800s and know WTF is going on because we keep dumbing down -generation after generation- something that was downright extraordinary.

And this works in your favor... because? It is always wrong to degrade someone undeservingly. Just as it is wrong to call someone who is telling the truth a liar, it is also wrong to call someone who doesn't hate, fear, dislike, or have an aversion to gay individuals a homophobe.

Exactly my point.

Stop saying "society", as if society only has one voice.
This is the world in which we live. If you think differently, you can be termed homophobic.


A poster in this very thread was called a homophobe for simply expressing views against homosexuality, and, far as I know, he hadn't attacked, tortured, or murdered any homosexuals.


Great. Why do we need to call people stating their opinion homophobes?

Incorrect. If you guys are uncomfortable discussing certain things, that's fine with me, though.

...And yet the word occasionally gets used for just that purpose.

You've missed the entire point, somehow, after three days of discussion...

The acts of homosexuality? There’s a secret handshake?
 

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
13,115
3,791
New York City
I believe it is you, Stevie, who completely misses the point, first by getting caught up in semantics and etymology and such.

And then, failing to understand my original point.

Which I will state. again:

Some people hate homosexuals.
This is not in any doubt.

Whether they hate them for their nature or their behaviour is of little difference to those hated.

Current usage terms such folks homophobes.

Therefore, some people are homophobes by the currently common understanding of the word.



And yes, it is pretty evident that much of your denial of the existence of homophobes stems from your own defensive reaction to possibly being labeled a homophobe.

I don't believe you to be homophobic, nor do I believe that all people who hold fervent views that homosexuality is morally wrong are necessarily homophobic.


But it is a fact that SOME people are homophobic and loathe homosexuals as well as homosexuality.

To question the foregoing sentence is simply futile.
You didn't have an original point. Your post was in response to my own point, and you have mostly missed the mark. I attacked the root definition of the word because it had no real eytomoligical basis. It is a purely societal construct, completely dependent upon one's own feelings (as you have clearly demonstrated).

My argument had nothing to do with me, personally, as I was responding to ANOTHER POSTER being called a homophobe. And you should know by now that I don't lose any sleep over what you guys think. I have never tried to win any popularity contests here.

Yes, some people hate homosexuals. Some people don't hate homosexuals, but hate the acts of homosexuality. Some aren't impassioned either way, but simply disagree with the lifestyles of homosexuals, in general.

It is nice that you don't regard me as a homophobe, but your definition/POV is not the same as everyone else's. There is no universal definiton, well... because it isn't a truly definitive terminology.

Israel Folau today is regarded by many as a homophobe. Has he expressed hate for gays? Has he beaten up or murdered anyone, as far as you know?

...Are you really not understanding why such labels do not work?
 
Nov 14, 2015
8,979
8,987
You didn't have an original point. Your post was in response to my own point, and you have mostly missed the mark. I attacked the root definition of the word because it had no real eytomoligical basis. It is a purely societal construct, completely dependent upon one's own feelings (as you have clearly demonstrated).

My argument had nothing to do with me, personally, as I was responding to ANOTHER POSTER being called a homophobe. And you should know by now that I don't lose any sleep over what you guys think. I have never tried to win any popularity contests here.

Yes, some people hate homosexuals. Some people don't hate homosexuals, but hate the acts of homosexuality. Some aren't impassioned either way, but simply disagree with the lifestyles of homosexuals, in general.

It is nice that you don't regard me as a homophobe, but your definition/POV is not the same as everyone else's. There is no universal definiton, well... because it isn't a truly definitive terminology.

Israel Folau today is regarded by many as a homophobe. Has he expressed hate for gays? Has he beaten up or murdered anyone, as far as you know?

...Are you really not understanding why such labels do not work?
Stevie, you're trying to talk sense to a full-blown racist.

Don't waste your time. He's an old dude from a different generation whose prejudices are ingrained.
 
Reactions: DBerry

DB Cooper

peel me a grape
May 17, 2013
17,455
4,380
Labor senator Penny Wong has used Q&A to deliver an emotional response to Israel Folau's social media commentary, saying:

"I wish that public figures, politicians, sporting stars etc. might consider for a moment … where their words land in vulnerable Australians before they speak them."

Senator Wong was responding to a question from an audience member about whether the response to Folau's comments would be different if he were a Muslim rather than a Christian.

"He is entitled to his beliefs. I disagree with them, and I think we ought to remember he doesn't speak for all Christians."

Human rights lawyer Diana Sayed told the panel the Morrison Government — which is expected to table a religious discrimination bill later this year — must not "give people a licence to discriminate".

"It is really important that this bill strikes a balance that people who are free to practice their religion are not granted a licence to discriminate," she said.

Liberal senator Scott Ryan said legislation could not "peer into people's souls".

"I don't like laws going to motive. I like laws looking at actions."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-09/penny-wong-delivers-an-emotional-message-to-israel-folau-on-q&a/11290650

:yep
 
Reactions: Royal Watcher

Setanta

BAD MOTHERFUCKER
May 24, 2013
6,501
2,083
Emain Macha
I see what you did there.

I believe we have reached an impasse, Stevie, and are talking pst each other at this point.

We each believe that the other has " missed the point."

So be it.

Maybe we'll have more common ground on a boxing or tennis topic.


Hopefully...oops again...I hope you don't put too much credence into that remark from that witless twit above.

If memory serves, you've had sufficient interaction with him over the years to come to your own assessment of what he's about.
 
Reactions: DBerry

DB Cooper

peel me a grape
May 17, 2013
17,455
4,380
Penny Wong and Diana Sayed applying a lot of commonsense to the argument.

"It is really important that this bill strikes a balance that people who are free to practice their religion are not granted a licence to discriminate."

Could anybody really disagree with that?
 

WaltzingMatilda

racist on the way to being banned
Nov 29, 2015
1,153
349
Sydney “Orstralia”
False prophet.

Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1:26-27

Lots of people being led astray... actually, his entire sermon laughably inaccurate, from beginning to end. This is why Christians must read.


It’s a fantastic sermon

It’s accurate, this isn’t fucking Islam where there is no room for interpretation

This is Christianity, nobody is the boss, you can interpret it any way you want, you can say anything you want, which makes what Israel said a load of shit, if I was gay, I could stand up &say I believe Jesus was a raging homosexual who fucked John the Baptist & god loves gays, who would say I’m wrong? Who’s arrogant enough to disagree?
 

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
13,115
3,791
New York City
It’s a fantastic sermon

It’s accurate, this isn’t fucking Islam where there is no room for interpretation

This is Christianity, nobody is the boss, you can interpret it any way you want, you can say anything you want, which makes what Israel said a load of shit, if I was gay, I could stand up &say I believe Jesus was a raging homosexual who fucked John the Baptist & god loves gays, who would say I’m wrong? Who’s arrogant enough to disagree?
It's just flat out wrong on so many levels. You are really not worth any more of my time, though. Become a serious poster, as opposed to being an unfunny troll, and we can talk a bit more in the future.