h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>But I think that Gif's point is that irrespective of modern Christianity's decent anti-racist credentials, historically the faith has not been incompatible with supporting racism.

Sort of. My point was that despite the chequered history of the various churches on this, I don't think anyone would assume that a friend who converted to Christianity was now going to become a racist. I'm contending that this is because there have been prominent anti-racist Christians.

Gif

<< I'm contending that this is because there have been prominent anti-racist Christians.>>

Who have, presently do and always will vastly out-number the racist ones.

Vicky

And, it should be noted, not all of them have been part of the hierarchy. Same with homophobes.

>>Who have, presently do and always will vastly out-number the racist ones.

It's a valid point. But it's also true, isn't it, that there is at least an *association* between Christianity and homophobia*? In fact - and correct me if I'm wrong - I can't recall any organisations other than religious ones (including, perhaps predominantly, Christian), that actively campaign against equality of sexuality.




* Where I'm using 'homophobia' in the commonly used sense. Let's not go there again.

(but I say once again - this is *not* a condemnation of all Christians.)

"Homophobia" and racism cannot possibly be compared!

Vicky

Hi Vicky,

>Who have, presently do and always will vastly out-number the racist ones.

True, unless you mean 'always have'. Most western societies were instiutionally racist for most of history. The church was a part of that, though no more nor less so than any other part. Which is perhaps another good reason why people don't tend to assume Christians are racist.

Gif

>"Homophobia" and racism cannot possibly be compared!

Why not?

Gif

Unlike most people, Vicky has a problem with men being sexually attracted to other men. She makes up reasons, but none of these reasons are inherently *to do with* being a homosexual. So my conclusion is that she just doesn't like them because they are different.

Maybe, if we were take Vicky's idea that homosexuality is a choice (and a de facto wrong one), we might concede that homophobia and racism are dissimilar in some respects. So I guess it rests on:
- Is homosexuality a choice? The evidence from the mouths of gay people suggests not - but if it were - we'd have to wonder about why they chose it. Any theories?
- Does the choice matter? Why would it be wrong? I still don't get that.

Actually - I regret my last couple of posts. Please ignore them. We're playing to Vicky's agenda again, aren't we? Christians tell me that her views are not representative. I see no reason why we should continue to give her a forum for homophobia.

<>

Lots of people are different! Therefore, that's a silly statement.

I've said all I am going to say on the subject... I don't hate homosexuals, I don't wish them ill, but their issues cannot be compared to the real problem of racism. At all.

(By the by, to quote : "Who's she, the cat's mother?" Address me directly, I *am* here...

Vicky

<>
As a matter of interest, which Christians?
<< I see no reason why we should continue to give her a forum for homophobia.>>

's really up to you, I don't care! I am not the only "homophobic Christian, and not even the only one here on Hootoo... I am simply the only one bored enough to play to your ego...

Yes, I'm not sure why I'd choose to be gay, judging by the attitude some people have towards gay people. Plus, if it is a choice, then presumably every person must be capable of being gay? And I think men are aesthetically rather horrible creatures, personally .

Vicky has said this on the subject of homosexuality:
>>Personally speaking, only, it's gross... That'll probably be yikesed, but you did ask. Spiritually, it's no worse, and no better than any other sort of pre-or-extra-marital or adulterous sexual activity. <<

I don't get what it has with spirituality. And the gross argument can of course be ignored.

But it still confuses me that Vicky can say *some* homosexuals do things like 'steal' men from happy marriages, and therefore homosexuality is bad. Because as far as I know (and as I've said before) there is nothing in the definition of homosexuality that says gay people should do these things.

I liken it somewhat to Christianity (which is certainly a choice).
Some Christians are nice, some aren't. But they both claim to follow Christian teachings. Likewise, some gay people might be nice, some might not. But they are both homosexual.
So it seems to make sense to say in both cases this is down to *how the person is* in a broader sense, rather than whether they are gay/Christian. I know a conservative Christian who displays most un-Christian views on tolerance and helping those worse off than oneself, but that's because he developed these views in tandem with being a Christian. He did not develop these views because he was a Christian.

>><>

Lots of people are different! Therefore, that's a silly statement. <<

I'm guessing you know full well what I mean here, but you're just being obtuse. I mean that they are in a minority. It's human nature to be suspicious of people who don't conform to the majority in their characteristics - you just need to look at any playground in any school to see that - but I think most people grow up and realise there is nothing inherently wrong with being different to the accepted norms.

It's still a silly statement...

I have a colleague who is a Syrian, and who is looked at with suspicion, because he's an 'Arab'..

I have worked with people with intellectual disabilities and physical disabilities as well. That different enough for you?

>>"Why do all threads turn into an angry defence of homosexuals?"<<

Perhaps for the same reason so many of your posts in them appear to turn into an angry *attack* on homosexuals, or men, or Americans, or the middle classes, and now apparantly also foster parents.

<>

Oh, my heart bleeds! There's one category there, one, that I *actually* dislike, and it's for what they (generally) do, not what they (generally) are.

I've been talking about adoptive parents and not all of them, if you'd been paying attention, or like so many here, do you only skim?
I am a bit browned off with middle class assumptions, yes, but so what?

What a priggish individual you seem to be with that post!

Not homosexual, or a parent of any sort, and not I believe American, so that leaves - oh, you're middle class!


Poor widdle offended baby!

Define middle-class. It's a pretty meaningless phrase. Once again you are choosing to be childish (evidence: >>Poor widdle offended baby!<&lt and replying to postings which are easy to ridicule rather than the ones that make important points.

<>

Fair enough, but he made me very off-piste... But what important points have I neglected? Yours of course...

Define middle class...

I know it when I see it, and I've no idea of income levels where you are. But here are some defining characteristics.

Middle class people drive SUVs, especially while doing 'the school run' (supposing they have kids), they have two bathrooms in the houses they own, they appreciate "art" (for its investment value primarily), they talk a lot about valuing equality, but they don't want their children to go to state schools where they will mix with uncouth children, they donate to animal charities but not human ones, because obviously if people need help it's because they can't manage their chaotic drug-addled lives, they abhor smoking but love a good glass of , they're dedicated followers of fashion (both clothing and ideas), they ate devotees of groupthink, while abhoring the hoi polloi, the uneducated chavs who think the wrong kind of thing, ("they simply aren't educated, but that's their own fault, they'd rather watch TV, after all, there are plenty of opportunities these days"), they work in advertising, or the media, or social work (where they learned their cynicism about the lower orders), or maybe even local government, they love the Davies (Andrew and Russell T) but they don't like Tolkien, because he was too passionate and credulous, and I could go on, but all this will be used against me...

I almost forgot, they are Green, because we must save the planet, but the people on it are a cancer, unless they're Like Us... and let's face it, who is?

Tom Robinson sang about "middle class kiddies", you remember? If not, google it.