Homophobia
In light of the current events, we are re-posting this VP about homophobia by ‘Pax Vobiscum’: “Why is it that if I am against homosexuality I am referred to as a homophobic as if I have some kind of ailment?” This was a question asked by a CNS reader in one of the comments. It sounds like a simple question but in fact delves into conflicting ideas about modern society. We believe in free speech – but at what point does that becomes hate speech? We believe in multiculturalism – but where do we draw the line and say ‘no, you can’t do that’? And who decides these things?
Firstly, to answer the question: homophobia is labelled so because it is a classification of prejudice, like racism, misogyny, Anglophobia, anti-Semitism, and so on. When people are victimised or marginalised or humiliated or in extreme cases brutalised, we (the wider international community) believe this is wrong and that finding an excuse for it in a religious manuscript or ‘traditional values’ is not acceptable.
Here’s an example of a religious practice that is unacceptable to most people across the globe: in a few Muslim countries (note: not all) an interpretation of Sharia law allows them to bury people up to their necks in sand and stone them to death for adultery.
Now it could be argued that this is none of our business, that it is their country, their laws and they can do what they like to maintain their sense of morality. But the cruelty involved repulses us, the injustice outrages us, and whenever such a case is publicised, the international community puts pressure on the country to grant a reprieve; we lobby and campaign and petition for such practices to cease because we believe we have a moral obligation to do so for the sake of the victims.
Yes, I know that these terrible things do not happen here. I am simply establishing the principle of an international moral compass and the right or obligation of people on the outside of a community to ‘interfere’. Does everyone agree so far? Now, to put this in a local context, most people in the Western world, which includes many Christians, see discrimination of homosexuals as wrong, no matter what ‘traditional values’ dictate, and those rallies against gay cruise ships do much damage to these islands.
Historically, Christianity has been no less brutal than other belief systems: the Inquisition burned ‘heretics’ to save their souls and inquisitors believed they had a moral religious duty to light the fires; the “curse of Ham” justified slavery in the minds of the slave traders and slave owners; the Bible was trotted out to denounce movements campaigning for female suffrage; and how can we forget poor old Galileo, forced to retract his conclusions that the earth revolved around the sun because the church leaders of the day said it conflicted with their interpretations of the Bible and was therefore false.
Yes, I know that this was a long time ago and that these things have not happened here. I know that the anti-slavery campaign was championed by Christians (using the same religious text), and I am full of admiration for them. The principle that I am establishing this time is that some Christian beliefs espoused by some Christians, however strongly held, are simply wrong. Within Christianity, no less than in other religions, passionate beliefs feel like God telling you that something is true. But it ain’t necessarily so.
Now, let’s dispense with the comparison, widely used, that homosexuality is comparable with paedophilia. It isn’t. When they’re not going through the Bible to justify their prejudice, homophobes turn to the self-righteous “protecting the children”. But two consenting adults living together, loving each other and/or having sex do not harm anyone (or rather no more or less than heterosexuals in a relationship). Paedophiles hurt children, physically and mentally, and society has an obligation to protect the vulnerable from sexual predators, whether they are hetero or homosexual.
So why should we speak out against homophobia? Because prejudice in all its many dirty colours is mental cruelty.
The person making the comment referred to at the beginning said he/she has nothing against gays, but also writes, “I don’t think being homosexual is a born condition, I believe it is a sickness and even more sickening when they try to promote it as an ‘alternative lifestyle’ which is exactly why Gay cruises are organised.”
Now ask yourself, when someone says you are “sickening”, is that hurtful? If you have to put up with variations of this your whole adult life, how would that make you feel? (The same is true for battered spouses, people on the wrong end of racism, etc.) Quite as awful is the “love the sinner, hate the sin” brigade. Though these people think they are being nicer than the out and out homophobes, this is just name calling (“sinner”) and the real sin here is making someone feel bad about themselves. Stop it.
Then we inevitably come to Sodom and Gomorrah, cities destroyed by God for their wicked ways, and cited whenever those “pious” Christians try to justify their discrimination of any group that holds different lifestyles. A belief system that connects human action with natural forces is a dangerous superstition that can easily lead to persecution (and has done so repeatedly for the last 2,000 years): hurricanes are not forces of nature but God’s wrath because we allow degenerates to live here – and there are plenty of Americans who believe that Katrina was divine retribution on New Orleans.
“The gays are taking over!” – another oft heard piece of nonsense, as silly as saying that women or the disabled or blacks or Jews are masterminding a takeover of the world. People just want their rightful place as equals, a fair chance at happiness. Is that so bad?
Gay bashing is not a fact of life here yet, but it’s only a matter of time. The indoctrination of prejudice that the local churches inflict on young children at Sunday school, coupled with a more aggressive and increasingly violent youth culture makes this inevitable. The hateful, harmful bigotry against gays, spoken with “love” from the bully pulpit, will have consequences as evil as stoning someone for adultery.
And I, for one, will place at least part of the blame at the feet of the local church leaders for stirring up violent emotions and calling it “Christianity”, and political and community leaders for not doing anything about it.
This viewpoint, “Homophobia”, was first published by CNS in 2010 (see here), when it attracted 352 comments. We thought it might be interesting to see if reactions to it have changed since then.
Category: Viewpoint
genetic determination has nothing to do with whether we protect a groups rights. people are not born old, or disabled, or christian, or jewish.
then i suppose opposite sex marriage shouldn’t be recognized by the government either, by your logic?
only if its exactly the same for straights.
You are right. They are not guatanteed a mom and a dad. But at least the government, didn’t cause that to happen to them. That’s why government should stay out of marriage. If two gays want to marry, they can do their own thing without government involvement.
Agreed? 🙂
Again, in a democratic setting, government does not protect the rights of one particular faith over the others? Government does not get involved. Hence, unless for dividing property and children’s rights, government should not get involved with marriage.
Im happy we’re reasoning 🙂
I don’t like the taste of peanut butter. Does that make me peanut butter phobic or just my preference? I’m black and just happened to marry a white guy. Does that make me racist because I didn’t marry a black/Latin/Spanish/Asian/Arab/choose your race person?
I’m a woman and married a man. Does that make me homophobic?
Why is it now that if you don’t agree with the minority/underdogs preference then you are against them or phobic of their interest?
I don’t care for gays but that doesn’t mean I dislike or like the idea. I just wouldn’t vote for it because either way it doesn’t affect my life. Now ignore you’re telling me that voting for gays means that I have less rights because they get preferential treatment, then that’s a different story.
My dog loves peanut butter….
Statements like “I don’t care for gays” do, in fact, make you a bigot against gay people. If you categorically dislike a group based on a characteristic of that group, then, yes, you are bigoted against them.
Gay people are people too. You can like some of them or dislike some of them based on who they are AS PEOPLE. But if you dislike all of them BECAUSE they’re gay, then, sorry, you’re a bigot.
I am so sick of hearing and reading this proposal. Why not get a petition and vote on a referendum? Then once and for all we will know whether the Cayman Islands want this into law.
And why should Cayman even waste resources on such a minority population? That’s almost like having a vote on wanting to decide whether we should only drink Pepsi or Coke. Truly not that many people actually care and if they do, why care on such a small speck of an island? There’s many larger more progressive places in the world to live.
Oh I know why, because in Cayman you can live a very high standard of living and make a 6 figure salary, plus live on the beach with amazing private school education that’s affordable on your 6 figure salary and not worry about crime like the big cities.
I’ve lived both in Cayman and the progressive countries with Cayman being the better choice for finances and standard of living. Being in the exact same job overseas the salary is less than half and the job isn’t secured by the expat mafia. But don’t let that cat out of the bag. Those expats really really don’t want to ever go home. They have never lived such an amazing life until they reached Cayman.
As for the local gays, they can travel just like the rest of us that have niche interests. Marry elsewhere, eat ostrich, swim with whales, go skiing. Cayman is not supposed to provide everything possible. Nowhere does. There is nothing wrong with Cayman being quaint or distinctly different and not just like Anytown, USA.
“A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” — Mahatma Ghandi
@9:29
Okay then, good show Giggles. Youve made your point.
Cns, if the thumbs rating option on your site is inaccurate, are you removing it or fixing it?
Besides, I personally think removing it, will generate more comments and viewpoints.
Too much fictional thumb raters is getting me real upset. I don’t like it. 🙁
The issue here is not sexuality, it’s marriage. Abolish this nonsense and the issue goes away.
Liberalism/leftisim destroys everything, even starting in the womb.
Two can play that dumb game:
Conservatism destroys everything, including everything after you’re born.
But is it “genetically determined”? And if not, why are laws being made to compare their “rights” with a black person’s rights?
Is your religion genetically determined? Why then do we protect your rights to practice whichever faith you choose?
There are valid good reasons why people ought to be homophobic. Laws overreaching and telling people that they must accept a lifestyle and teach their children about it. Hell yea, I’m scared! And I don’t think it is not abnormal to be scared seeing what is happening in the larger countries. Cayman is our small peaceful home. We don’t need this here.
The laws don’t force you to like it
It has absolutely nothing to do with you
and wow big deal telling your kids that grown adults are allowed to like whoever they want – what a scandal, how will they survive??
You act as if homosexuality is a secret or something
So what happens to two people who have been together for many years but don’t believe in he institution of marriage? Are we discriminating against them by not giving them the same legal benefits a spouse would have?
Rediculous! So every union now must have something enforce by law.
When they split, they can apply to the court based on common law marriage to separate their assets.
Well said, Unison 🙂
1. Marriage is instituted from God – between one man and one woman. It is family oriented, it is true fulling love, and is conducive to a well built society!
2. Same-sex marriage is not blessed and is not in accordance to the order of nature, nor the theory of “offspring” evolution.
3. I don’t believe it should be made a law for everybody to recognize it. Like Unison stated that is State control.
4. Same-sex marriage is not a civil right, nor should it be a matter of law! Marriage is purely a religious affair, and the government is involved in traditional marriage solely for what it produces: children!
5. I am not hating you for opposing your gay laws. I am not hating you for speaking my conscience. It is my free speech. And I am telling you what I know is natural truth! If you don’t like it, deal with it (at civilly), because our kind is not going away.
I’m sooo sorry CNS 🙂
I almost stopped reading at “Marriage is instituted from God” because I couldn’t stop laughing. Marriage existed as a social contract long before the Church decided to muscle in. Maybe read some history before you start spouting off.
My mixed-sex marriage contravenes your theory of “offspring” evolution (whatever bogus theory that is): we have decided to not have children. It makes our marriage no more or less valid.
Further down, “Marriage is purely a religious affair” is a blatant lie. Or are you resorting to Trumpian alternative-facts (sic) to try and make your point?
As for “traditional marriage solely for what it produces: children”: as alluded to above, this is not true. Many couples elect to not, or are unable to, have children. Are you saying all these marriages are fruitless?
GT-er, you are full of the stuff one often treads in when walking across cow fields.
Boy you a driftwood for true. I didn’t call you that. You call yourself that name :))
Marriage is instituted by God. The Church is just another phenomena. What are you talking about? Of course it is a social contracted between a man and a woman.
You said, “we have decided to not have children. It makes our marriage no more or less valid.” Your marriage is still not blessed in terms of producing offspring if its a same-sex one! At least a male and female couple can have children, and if not, it is still better than promoting marriages whereby you know all parties can’t have children! How you think nations populated, America became prosperous, or how you think you came here??? It certainly wasn’t by drifting!
And you talk about you know history – Show me, driftwood, where marriage originated from a government??? Since it is not a socio- relio affair, how does it come from the law??? This is new to me 🙂 I noticed you avoided my third point on “state control.”
Maybe its because driftwood, you are here in the business of having a man-made version of marriage enforced on everybody!
Can you imagine? You calling yourself driftwood, and have the audicity to push your lifestyle on everyone. Boy I tell you 🙂
Marriage pre-dates Christianity by thousands of years. The Aboriginal people of Australia have a strong marriage tradition, a society that dates back at least 30,000 years.
In China, the tradition of weddings goes back to about the third century B.C. Here, too, there’s a tradition of gifts and a reception following the wedding. Apparently, Christians didn’t really invent the post-wedding party, either.
Does that mean that all those drunken toasts by the best man and endless plates of chicken alfredo are in the Chinese tradition? No, (although in all fairness it should be noted the Chinese did invent pasta).
More importantly, however, this points out that it’s impossible to answer the question I started with. No one “invented” marriage. It’s not something you can pin a date on, like the creation of the atomic bomb or patenting the typewriter.
Did those Chinese and Aboriginal people carry out and endorse same-sex marriages?
Heck no.
Is it reasonable that they were of the opinion that their “marriages” were essentially 2 individuals joining together, regardless of gender?
Hell no.
(They too were “homophobic” according to modern standards.)
The process of you attempting to make your non-point makes it just that.
Except
1 – Christians did not invent marriage and have no control over it
Do muslims need to have a christian marriage? No
Do nonreligious persons need to have a christian marraige? No
No one needs permission from you or any of your religious authorities to be married
You can pretend otherwise but you are simply uninformed
2 – No one cares whether or not you approve, no one is asking your approval and quite frankly you can shove your approval and your “blessings” where the sun don’t shine for all we care
3 – How braindead can you be The current law preventing one segment of society from being married while the rest can do so is actually the state controlling people’s freedom
The idea that saying “any legal adult can marry any other adult” equals more freedom for everyone not less, but I forgot y’all don’t use common sense or your brains for that matter
4 – Marriage did not originate as a religious ceremony, marriages in ancient times were essentially business arrangements or in the case of the nobility a way to strengthen ties either militarily or diplomatically
The church was not interested in marriage until they realized they could use it to control the peasants and the nobility
5 – Feel free to oppose gay marriage, you can hate gay people too, no one cares about your opinion. Your “natural truth” seems pretty subjective to me
I’m soooo sorry brain dead sheeple
And your not worth the hot air!
You stated, “The current law preventing one segment of society from being married while the rest can do so is actually the state controlling people’s freedom” what a dumb statement!
For your brain food, government has an interest in traditional marriage because it involves children. So the government has to get involve – but same sex marriage couple CAN NEVER have children. Hence for you to enforced it on everyone – you are the real communist! You are the one against freedom!
But if my brain is dead like you say, you don’t have one. 😉
Ignore this one, probably a Kenneth Bryan voter.
Yikes so much stupid in one comment
Unison must have a twin
Indeed. He is right about state control. If same-sex marriage is legislated on everyone, it will conflict with free speech and other rights – especially the right for a child to be guaranteed a mom and a dad. It will be draconian and open a pandora’s box of many negative reforms this government will have to make. I’m always ready for the 1000 thumbs down 🙂
Are children of opposite sex couples guaranteed a mom and a dad? Since when are straight men in Cayman forced to raise their children?
The UK Supreme Court has made a definitive ruling that speaking against a held position is not speaking against those who hold it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-45789759
The UK doesn’t have a “Supreme Court”.
Its good to listen, ask questions, and research before making a reply.
https://www.supremecourt.uk
Homophobia is just a word, a mental constraint. It doesn’t exist other than in our heads. We can choose not to be offended. How could you be offended by something that doesn’t exist? If someone calls you homophobic, choose to ignore. Social media had made us too sensitive, we overreact over everything, including fake news and blown out of proportion news. Things in 90% is not what they look like. Wag the fog is a good movie.
These arguments are tiresome, let’s vote.
Sorry but I think you are completely missing the point regarding the question of “Why is it that if I am against homosexuality I am referred to as a homophobic as if I have some kind of ailment?”
Isn’t it possible to be against something but not actively be doing or being discriminating against it? Not everyone who doesn’t agree with homosexuality is actually out there to fight it, just like not everyone who is pro choice or pro life is actively out there to fight the issue. It is simply an opinion they have on these topics so it doesn’t automatically mean that those are bad people, hateful and discriminatory.
The real issue is that these opinions or free speech is all nice and good as long as it agrees with the more liberal thinking part of society. As soon as this is not the case, it becomes sexist, homophobic, islamophobic etc etc. That’s where in my opinion the discrimination takes place. If it is ok for you to have an opinion, why isn’t it ok for someone else to have an opinion which disagrees with yours?
No one is saying you can’t hold your personal opinion.
The issue comes in when these two innocent ladies want to marry so that a Caymanian can return home with her love, but then the community disallows their marriage to occur legally for petty reasons such as it being against the bible or against YOUR sexual preferences.
I don’t condone drinking and think it’s horrible for society, yet you don’t see me protesting outside of bars. Let adults be adults, sheesh.
but whether those two innocent ladies can legally marry in Cayman is not what is debated here. The question is why someone who is against homosexuality is automatically labeled as homophobic. That’s the topic of the discussion. Someone can be against it but not have a “irrational fear” or “strong aversion” against homosexuals.
Just out of curiosity, why did you feel the need to make a reference to “innocence”? What is that based on and what does that have to do with the discussion?
I don’t like the generalization about Muslim countries and Muslim religion.
Muslim phobia has gone too far.
And no, we don’t have to intervene everytime we “see” injustice being done. Middle east is a mess because of that.
P.S
I don’t practice any religion
I am indifferent to LGBT people, but a woman can’t be called a husband or a man wife.
They could, but reality wouldn’t help them 🙂 lol
Just paraphrasing from above Viewpoint. ” When people are victimised or marginalised or humiliated or in extreme cases brutalised, we (the wider international community) believe this is wrong . therefore: Calling persons who disagree with the homosexual point of view homophobic, is DISCRIMINATION. Trying to make persons feel badly about themselves because they disagree with the homosexual point of view is DISCRIMINATION.’ Causing persons to feel or be marginalized because they disagree with the homosexual viewpoint is DISCRIMINATION.Victimising persons because they disagree with the homosexual point of view is DISCRIMINATION.Think about it.
Maybe this will help:
dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
“victims of racial discrimination”
synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship
The homophobes are the ones perpetrating discrimination. The rest of us are just pointed their medieval bigotry and intolerance.
And finally, here’s a handy list for you to print and carry around:
Things that will happen if gay marriage if permitted:
1. Gay people may get married
Things that won’t happen:
1. Anything else.
The moment you bring up the bible or whatever believe system, you have left the discussion .
What is a “believe system”?
In ABC order:
A theism
B ahai
C hristianity
and their books, etc …
No you cannot argue that stopping actual acts of cruelty as the terrorists love to do is why we need to moderate free speech. It’s either you have free speech or you don’t.
YES, THE LAW SHOULD PROTECT MINORS
Your one statement:
“Homophobes turn to the self-righteous ‘protecting the children,'” to me, discloses your ignorance of how same-sex marriage laws will affect children.
Despite what mere pro-gay statistical studies from random selections reveal, common sense will tell us that if you redefine marriage, you will redefine parenthood, and this will have a negative affect on children.
I will explain 3 ways it causes harm. You may disagree:
#1. It will pave the way for when a woman gives birth to a child, her same-sex partner is treated as the “father” and she is “presumed” by law to be the other parent for that child. This is happening in the U.S. as we speak. The real father is kept out of the picture by the legal system. Same-sex marriage becomes a vehicle for separating children from their natural parents rather than uniting them. It will deliberately THROUGH THE LAW, rob a child from ever having the right of “both” biological parents in his or her life. And instead of dire circumstances causing the break up of homes, strangely, the government becomes the main cause! And don’t mention laws supporting the unethical practice of sperm donation – children brought into the world not knowing their real parents! Is Cayman ready for redefining the family?!
#2. Again, despite gay biased random statistics that will never accurately reflect worldwide populations, commonsense tells us (thank G* for commonsense) that mothers and fathers are not interchangeable! They make unique contributions to the development of children! You would have to close your eyes to purport that a father’s absence does not affects boys differently than girls. Social studies have shown that absence of the father has a huge impact on children – more so, the absence of the mother. Same-sex marriages in Cayman will further marginalize fathers from the family unit!
#3. The same-sex marriage law will most naturally pave the way for disregarding biology as the primary way of defining parenthood. Think about that for a minute ….
In the distant future as population increases, you could have scores of Caymanian children being placed for adoption. And these agencies will determine the fate of our children – not on the basis of NEEDING a biological mom and dad, but on the basis of giving adults the children they desire. Not following biological principles will become a PANDORA’S BOX – children could end up with three or more parents. For e.g., a lesbian couple goes to a friend for sperm to produce a child. The couple and the donor causes the child to have triple parents. Will this happen in Cayman? Who says it won’t when you legislated a law placing a same gender marriage on par with traditional marriage. Of course, it will harm and make a child unstable to know he or she must be placed in a home without one mom or one dad; or worse, a young girl is placed in a home of two adult men. This will be done all by government design.
Right now the Cayman Islands government recognizes parentage between one man and one woman based on biology. There are many other socalled gay laws in the US/UK that are harming children from gender confusion to mutilations of themselves. Are we ready to disregard the biology or bodies if our children for a sexual revolution? A revolution that is all out for assigning or controlling parentage! Same-sex marriage will give the state power as to who counts as parents. To me, thats state control – not good for democracy abd libertarian values.
If gays want to marry and do their thing, why do they need to enforce it on everyone to recognize? Why can’t they do what they do in the privacy of their homes? I am convince it is all about STATE CONTROL AND REDEFINING THE FAMILY, THE BEDROCK OF UPRIGHT HUMAN SOCIETIES.
Unison
God has been invoked to enslave people, prevent blacks from marrying whites, women from having equal rights, etc. especially by Christians and Muslims. So backward. So hateful.
Yes, G* has been used and misrepresented by ungodly people through their religions and religious writings many times.
Sadly, the white slaveowners interpreted the KJV Bible word for “slave” in the Jewish scriptures, to mean “cattle slavery” or the Trans Atlantic Slavery of Africans, when it wasn’t the same.
According to the sages, the slavery G* condemned after His chosen people came out of it in Egypt by the hand of Moses of blessed memory, was slavery by force and against kidnapping.
You investigate for yourself. The KJV word for slave and real Hebrew word, is “bondservant,” which is an voluntary act of service to make an income. And the Jews were instructed via the Mosiac laws on how they treated these servants. There were no banks in those days, so bondservice was how to make an income or pay off a debt. This was instructed through Moses by the wisdom of G*.
Again, sadly, many who don’t understand the Jewish scriptures end up from atheist internet sites, misquoting the Jewish scriptures from KJV and other Bible translated sources on matters of slavery, genocide, and rape against the Most High to spread their philosophies.
G* has been misrepresented terribly by those who hate G* and refuse to love and keep His moral and natural laws.
Peace and Love,
Unison
Who is G*? Is he one of those rappers that you see. You know, those rappers who rap. Those people who run along the handrails by the shopping centre.
Who is G? The one you will have to face when you die.
Presumably you have something to substantiate this, other than a blinkered belief in the giant magical fairy man in the sky?
Threats, very convincing
The Flying spaghetti Monster shall be paying you and yours a visit soon
Fear the supreme pasta, fear the unlimited power of sauce and fear the flying balls of meat
ALL HAIL
Yes embrace the love from his noodly appendages.
The best thing about this post is that over 1,000 Caymanians have downvoted it.
Are you sure of that. I can give you 1000 thumb ups on behalf of him – just watch
Oh really? You don’t know, do you
And just what makes you think we are all Caymanians? Ever heard of the internet?
Unison in a nutshell:
Claims to be libertarian
Argues for state control of private lives of citizens
Argues that adults should not be able to make their own decisions free of state influence
Argues that his beliefs overrides the beliefs of others and that the state should back him up and oppose his opponents
You really don’t get how to be a libertarian despite calling yourself one
How exactly does prohibiting same-sex marriage cause more babies to be born to opposite sex couples, or prevent same-sex couples from raising children?
The Bible, it is a funny read. I enjoy moving it to the “Christian Fiction” section of bookstore weird enough to have a Christian Fiction section.
My fav book in that section is “The Adventures of Super J and the 12 minion”
What amazes me is how you guys label any person who believes in God to hate gays and is a Bible believer. God-fearing and Christian are too different things. And I can tell you, their are alot of God fearing folk that oppose abortion, homosexuality, and all that is against family.
I new it! This isn’t a knew issue at all.
Don’t worry about me, I am just a massive homophone.
Ewe are sew write.
How about just don’t be homophobic? End of conversation. Respect everyone and your life will get easier cause you’re not out there trying to control things that have nothing to do with you.
Missing the point! Someone can be against homosexuality but still treat someone who is homosexual with respect and kindness. The issue here is the incorrect thinking that if someone doesn’t agree they must be automatically bad.
But respect is not fighting for taking away basic human rights. How do you not understand that there is no gray here? If you’re against gay marriage then (say it slowly)…
don’t. get. gay. married.
But don’t act like telling two consenting adults who love each other they can’t marry is tolerant if you do it in a pretty please voice.
Again – it is not just one way or the highway. Just because someone doesn’t actively promote same gender marriage doesn’t mean they are against it and just because someone doesn’t agree with homosexuality doesn’t mean that they demand it is not legalized or fight against it.
Homophobic is “irrational fear, discrimination or aversion”….
For some people it just doesn’t fit into their believe system or world view. It doesn’t mean they are afraid of it or discriminate against homosexuals.
It’s like you disagree with something a woman does and poof you are a sexist!
Marriage is not a human right
I was asked if I was against same sex marriage. I thought about it and decided I don’t care about it, it makes no different to my life, it will not restrict my life in anyway, these two ladies getting married or not won’t pay my bills. Does this make me homophobic? No, I don’t care if they get married or not, if they do they do if they don’t they don’t. Then I was asked that if I was handed a petition to allow it would I sign. Again no, I would abstain from voting or showing any opinion on the matter one way or another. Does that make me homophobic? Although I was told yes, actually I not. You can argue if I’m not for it I’m against it and that’s not true. I’m neither for it or against it why? Because I don’t care either way. Then I was asked if you feel this way why do you have homosexual friends? I replied I don’t judge them, what they do is between them and God if they believe. One of my gay friends plays amazing classical music on the piano and I love classical music. I’m not going to throw away my love of classical music just because a gay woman plays it beautifully on the piano. Bible says homosexuality is a sin but the bible also says only God, not me, can judge. It’s not my place to judge them on what they choose to do behind closed doors, again that’s between them and God. I’m not saying i’m holier than thou, I’m saying I’ve got my own shit to deal with and other’s people shit unless interferes with me directly I could care less about. Does that make me homophobic? No, it means I stay out of other peoples lives and try to live my own.
Pax Vobiscum has introduced Ad Hominem arguments. Why have you dragged religion into this when the original statement was not in the least bit religious?
Pretending the justification for the current system isn’t based almost entirely on religious arguments
Intellectual dishonesty at its finest
The problem really is that if you in anyway disagree with homosexuality, you are instantly labelled ‘homophobic’
If I don’t condone the Jews in Palestine i’m labeled an anti semitic. If I say I wouldn’t date colored people i’m labeled a racist. If I say I don’t like the idea of two men or two women in an intimate relationship i’m a labeled a homophobe. Pretty soon we’ll have a label for everybody just for expressing their own opinion. Too bad we don’t have a deragatory label for the religious yet…. but how about anti-common sense?
These anti PC talking points that have migrated from the US as if they are applicable here
I love it
If you fit the definition of homophobia don’t be surprised when someone calls you homophobic it’s that simple
I disagree with lima beans. It doesn’t mean I have to make others feel like lesser people because they happen to like them. And I certainly don’t have to hide behind any religious text to justify my anti-lima bean belief.
I know how you feel. I disagree with having dark skin and they call me a racist.
Skin color is genetically determined. Homosexuality is not.
You don’t know that. Many have claimed they knew when they were as young as 5.
Let’s avoid the 100 separate threads and end it right here shall we:
****** Ok, if it’s wrong, WHY IS IT WRONG? ******
It isn’t natural and doesn’t allow procreation. – okay, but I’m (heterosexually) married and we chose not to have kids just like gays do. Do we need a divorce?
It goes against the bible – okay, but many people here choose not to be indoctrinated by religion. When I was Christian, I supported my gay friends but chose not to be public with it because I was afraid of being labelled gay too. Define homophobia.
It promotes sin – again, a lot of people are atheists here. If you’re religious, leave the judging for buddh- I mean god.
It’s nasty – um.. for women, I think it’s less nasty. For men, there’s enemas and condoms. Hellooooo.
It’ll teach our kids that it’s ok to be gay. I don’t want my kids to be gay. – My dear, I don’t know if you remember being young, but when a young person wants to do something, they will do it no matter what you say. You’ll just convince them to stay in the closet or hide it from you.
It’ll make more people gay if we accept it – no, more people will simply come out of the closet and not have a reason to hide from the prejudice.
It’s contagious – 2 out of 3 of my roommates in college were gay, co-incidentally.. I didn’t catch the gay. I guess you need my immune system.
It’s curable / a mental disorder – one of said roommates underwent one of those curing classes offered by their church before college and compared it to being tortured. I asked the other for their input and they said they graduated fine, have a great job and function without anti-psychotics.
It promotes pedophilia – pull up the stats on pedos in Cayman with their orientation, can assure you straight middle aged men targeted young girls 99% of the time.
It promotes promiscuity and transmitting STDs – don’t act like Cayman doesn’t have rampant prostitution and has a lack of condoms. STDs are not limited to homosexuals.
I don’t approve of it – I’m vegetarian, yet I don’t have a reason or right to protest against KFC.
It’s “un-caymanian” – I’m born and raised here.
@ CNS,
Please inform us when you are prepared to discuss “homophobia”, gay marriage and such absent from the inclusion of Christianity or religion in general.
This makes it a walk in the park for one side of the debate for modern norms now dictate that anything argued from a religious perspective is doomed to failure in the eyes of the law and “progressive” world.
Nevertheless, proponents on your side are always happy to participate within those rules of engagement.
Low hanging fruit comes to mind.
However, when the conversation is taken to a deeper and braver depth where superstition is removed and science, biology, EVOLUTION and such are embraced – we see greater balancing of the scales.
I trust gays and their petitioners (and Christians / the religious as well) that the common, core, inherent resistance to homosexual unions is NOT borne out of holy scripture but by an essence stronger than even one’s God – imaginary or otherwise.
– Whodatis
*As a crude quick example;
Let us imagine a meteorite was to hit Planet Earth tonight destroying all traces and records of jurisprudence, rule of law, advanced education, science, nations, religion, CNN, FOX News and (heaven forbid), Cayman News Service – and the only people left in the world was a collection of adolescents on a flourishing island.
We can all rest assured, as time goes on this band of survivors would figure out the essence of life after one or two generations, and due to their fashioned societal constructs as a safeguard thereof, the modern definition and accusation of “homophobia” would fully apply.
Jus’ sayin’ …
I believe in evolution too. Smoking is an adult’s choice, and it obviously isn’t natural, is widely accepted as one of the leading causes of death in our society and we didn’t evolve to smoke.
Yet, we allow grown adults the freedom to make that choice – go on, kill yourself with cancer causing tobacco, but don’t love another human.
Furthermore, stop acting like we don’t have 7 billion humans on the planet. If a million choose not to have kids, so what? If gay marriage were to be legalized tomorrow worldwide, our human population would NOT be at risk.
In fact I’d argue that a little bit of population reduction wouldn’t hurt in the long run
God bless gay men, they aren’t looking for women and the best part is they take another man with them
Win, Win
Hmmm…a comparison to smoking and a reference to global population.
Honestly, do you really believe I am about to spend much energy engaging you and your reply?
Anyway, I will consider your refusal or inability to address the actual point of my post for what it is.
– Who
*Btw, kindly refrain from referring to homosexuality in such romanticised and idealistic ways.
I am a heterosexual man who has slept with a fair share of women and can attest; in the minority of incidents was there a case of “loving another human”.
(Sometimes people just wanna f*ck.)
foh
Such pandering and patronising b.s. at times like these.
I trust those that believe people like you have their best interest at heart are starting to see through the foolishness.
As soon as 99.99% of the arguments and justifications for the legal discrimination in Cayman don’t involve arbitrary “christian values” or the Bible, I am sure that the bible will stop being brought up
Religion is only mentioned because your side has been using it for generations, and it is now inconvenient and insufficient to win the debate in the modern world
https://www.caymancompass.com/2016/09/12/thousands-rally-for-family-values-in-george-town/
You wanna pretend that this isn’t an argument almost entirely pushed by the religious right you might want to convince your cohorts to stick to the script
Intellectual dishonesty at its zenith
Nope. Just intellectual.
Welcome.
– Whodatis
Banal verbosity doesn’t make you an intellectual.
I’m glad you are aware.
– Who
Being against homosexuality is like being against women wearing 2 different textiles of clothing. It’s forbidden in the bible, no one adheres to it, and it doesn’t affect you in the slightest.
“Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.”
Deuteronomy 22:9–11
This is Cayman
We only read and acknowledge the parts of the bible that are convenient to us or that we can use to justify our irrational positions didn’t you get the memo?
Yeah. While we’re at it let’s outlaw tattoos…
Tattoos ink contains transient metals that interact with EMF frequencies. So next time you experience a panic attack or anxiety or just feel weird, check your environment, you might be standing next to antenna or any source of man made EMF.
Sounds like yet another unsubstantiated belief.
If you refuse to engage with the Bible on its own terms then YOU are the one choosing to take things out of context. The prohibition of combining textiles, for example, was a very practical regulation aimed clearly and solely at ancient Jewish society. God’s moral laws however, were reiterated by Jesus and/or the apostles as being timeless. I’m sure you have said a sentence once in your life that if I chose to apply it as I wish to make you look bad, would indeed make you look bad. But would that be reasonable or intellectually honest? No.
Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.
Sure, go ahead, quote a regulation that God designed for ancient Jews as if he also meant it for you and think you’re smart. The ceremonial and civil codes were done with – according to the Bible – when Jesus came, whilst he and the apostles reiterated and affirmed the moral code. So stop trotting out those REALLY tired old tropes about shellfish, clothing etc.
Explain why majority of the people, especially SDAs who follow the unclean food teachings in the old testament, also quote Leviticus when speaking against homosexuality as it is written in the old testament?
So a man can wear a bra, lipstick, and walk in high heels? And a woman can take off her t-shirt, expose any part of herself in public?
Why are you disregarding genders? Why do you have a HATE for genders, male and female differences?
Its not the Bible.
You don’t believe in a Moral Lawgiver thats why!