• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay marriage a threat to humanity's future: Pope

It's funny when a celibate man says gays are a threat to the future because they don't reproduce.
It is funny when people make comments about beliefs and viewpoints they clearly know little about. A clear understanding of the Catholic Church's position makes your joke rather weak, inaccurate and silly.
 
It's funny when a celibate man says gays are a threat to the future because they don't reproduce.

Lol thats funny

Its actually funny and sad when ANYBODY believes such nonsense.
 
There is nothing wrong with accepting homosexuality as a sin. It's also immature to sling around words like "homophobic" and "bigot."
There is nothing wrong with accepting the use of 'homophobic' and 'bigot' when they are applicable. You have every right to view homosexuality as a sin if that is what you believe. I have every right to call that view homophobic. Freedom of speech and all that.
 
To conservatives and conservatives pretending to be "Centrists" it is incorrect to expose bigotry, racism and homophobia. Instead of qualifying their opinions, they rely on "it's just a different opinion". I agree. They're right. It is different. It is different because it is homophobic, bigotted or racist opinion. Accept the qualifiers that are applicable or change your opinions. The choice is yours.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with accepting homosexuality as a sin. It's also immature to sling around words like "homophobic" and "bigot."

This is because Christianity as a set of beliefs isn't bigoted and homophobic. Right? :roll:
 
There is nothing wrong with accepting the use of 'homophobic' and 'bigot' when they are applicable. You have every right to view homosexuality as a sin if that is what you believe. I have every right to call that view homophobic. Freedom of speech and all that.
And I have every right to point out the pseudo-psychoanalytic, slightly sinister attempt to diagnosis one's opponent implied by the term 'homophobia'.
 
And I have every right to point out the pseudo-psychoanalytic, slightly sinister attempt to diagnosis one's opponent implied by the term 'homophobia'.

The young wannabe philosopher chimes in to tell us about how wrong it is to be called a homophobe.
 
The young wannabe philosopher chimes in to tell us about how wrong it is to be called a homophobe.

Interesting how you constructed a moderately passable sentence to describe what has been said in this thread. You've been practicing haven't you Hatuey. Sooner or later you may well be able to post an argument of your own. We all wait with baited breath for that moment, I'm sure.
 
Interesting how you constructed a moderately passable sentence to describe what has been said in this thread. You've been practicing haven't you Hatuey. Sooner or later you may well be able to post an argument of your own.

Is it my fault your sophistry doesn't really deserve a counter argument? Half the time you're rambling about people your teachers tell you about, the other half you're just rambling incoherently. :shrug:
 
And I have every right to point out the pseudo-psychoanalytic, slightly sinister attempt to diagnosis one's opponent implied by the term 'homophobia'.
Of course you do. I'm not the one here trying to impose martial law on acceptable and unacceptable opinions. You can say whatever hate-driven, fundamentalist religious claptrap comes so easily to mind. Free speech and all that.
 
Is it my fault your sophistry doesn't really deserve a counter argument? Half the time you're rambling about people your teachers tell you about, the other half you're just rambling incoherently. :shrug:
Oh, you cut me with your words Hatuey. How will I survive being insulted by a drooling stoner incapable of constructing either a decent argument or an insult with a modicum of wit, I don't know. All I'll be able to say is at least he didn't praise me, then I'd be really screwed.
 
Last edited:
Of course you do. I'm not the one here trying to impose martial law on acceptable and unacceptable opinions. You can say whatever hate-driven, fundamentalist religious claptrap comes so easily to mind. Free speech and all that.
I find fundamentalism far better than ideology, the former is at least concerned with what matters in life, the latter is just the science of idiocy. The term homophobia fits this science so well, no wonder its students and its scholars (our Hatuey has a doctorate of this science; there was a final exam in driving stoned with children I hear) love it.
 
I find fundamentalism far better than ideology, the former is at least concerned with what matters in life, the latter is just the science of idiocy. The term homophobia fits this science so well, no wonder its students and its scholars (our Hatuey has a doctorate of this science; there was a final exam in driving stoned with children I hear) love it.
Fundamentalism IS an ideology, or hadn't you noticed? It's pretty much the set of ideas (ideology, geddit?) that drives the political and social policies of all sorts of regimes and politicians: the Supreme Leader of the Iranian state, the Pope, Rick Santorum. That list is not exhaustive, btw.
 
Fundamentalism IS an ideology, or hadn't you noticed? It's pretty much the set of ideas (ideology, geddit?) that drives the political and social policies of all sorts of regimes and politicians: the Supreme Leader of the Iranian state, the Pope, Rick Santorum. That list is not exhaustive, btw.
So anyone who has political and social policies is an ideologue? Or just a random and large slice of them?

What about those who diagnose their opponents? Is this the mark of an ideologue? Or just good harmless fun?

Instead of arguing with our opponents here, we could draw up lists of their symptoms and offer cures.
 
Last edited:
So anyone who has political and social policies is an ideologue?

What about those who diagnose their opponents? Is this the mark of an ideologue?
Yes, and no. This is becoming tedious. From the OED:

ideology (ideol|ogy)

Pronunciation: /ˌʌɪdɪˈɒlədʒi, ɪd-/
noun

*1 (plural ideologies) a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy: the ideology of republicanism
*the set of beliefs characteristic of a social group or individual: a critique of bourgeois ideology

ideologue (ideo|logue)

Pronunciation: /ˈʌɪdɪəlɒg, ˈɪd-/
noun

*an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic: a right-wing ideologue
homophobia (homo|pho¦bia)

Pronunciation: /ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə, ˌhəʊmə-/
noun
[mass noun]

*
an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.
Basing your views of people based on fundamentalist religious views, in my opinion, is extreme and irrational. Nothing to do with psychoanalysis, a branch of psychology that has had its own problems with regard to homophobia too.
 
The point is the term homophobia, obviously. It is consciously named so as to imply some sort of disorder in one's opponent. It is pseudo-psychoanalytical and sinister.

The Pope is not a fundamentalist, anyway. Not in any meaningful use of the term.
 
Last edited:
The point is the term homophobia, obviously. It is consciously named so as to imply some sort of disorder in one's opponent. It is pseudo-analytical and sinister.
The term means nothing more or less than the definition I posted.

The Pope is not a fundamentalist, anyway. Not in any meaningful use of the term.
In your opinion.
 
The point is the term homophobia, obviously. It is consciously named so as to imply some sort of disorder in one's opponent. .

Opponent?

it is not a a matter of pugilism.
 
etymology (ety¦mol|ogy)

Pronunciation: /ˌɛtɪˈmɒlədʒi/
noun (plural etymologies)
[mass noun]

* the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history: the decline of etymology as a linguistic discipline
*[count noun] the origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning: the etymology of the word ‘devil’

No, the term fundamentalist is not easily applied to Roman Catholicism. Traditionalist is usually a better term for the more anti-modern elements of Catholicism.
Better according to your ideology.

Opponent?

it is not a a matter of pugilism.
I fear that some posters believe that it is.
 
etymology (ety¦mol|ogy)

Pronunciation: /ˌɛtɪˈmɒlədʒi/
noun (plural etymologies)
[mass noun]

* the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history: the decline of etymology as a linguistic discipline
*[count noun] the origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning: the etymology of the word ‘devil’
See bold, plus I do not have to accept how a word has changed it meaning, particularly such an ideological and silly neologism as 'homophobia'.

Better according to your ideology.
.
No. These are vague terms, but fundamentalism is a reaction to modernism which adapts many of its aspects, it is very narrow, literal and concerned with rather rigid fundamentals. The Pope, as an Augustinian, probably has less of a narrow, literal, fundamentalist way of thinking than Dawkins or Dennett or Stephen Fry or perhaps your good self.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom