This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Why are people NOT homophobic??
Scroll to see replies
Original post by RoyalBeams
Why did you decide to challenge it if you felt it was not relevant to the topic?
So when you realised you could not provide the proof that religious character and issues are not far less represented/prominent on TV than homosexual characters and issues is when you realised "it is not relevant"?
Well, it is relevant because it shows that anything pro-homosexuality is acceptable & promoted, while anything anti-homosexuality is suppressed as the OP stated.
So when you realised you could not provide the proof that religious character and issues are not far less represented/prominent on TV than homosexual characters and issues is when you realised "it is not relevant"?
Well, it is relevant because it shows that anything pro-homosexuality is acceptable & promoted, while anything anti-homosexuality is suppressed as the OP stated.
You've yet to give any examples of your own, even of poor representation of religion, or to dispute the article I sent; please address some of these if you wish to continue the debate, or this isn't going to get anywhere.
Original post by Robby2312
I'm not saying religious people are crazy just that if anyone could be considered to have a mental illness it is the religious.Obviously most of them are sane.They just do mad things.
And societies attitudes towards gay people has varied.In ancient greece and in ancient japan and rome it was considered socially acceptable. Hadrians wall was built by the emperor Hadrian who was famously Homosexual as was the Emperor Nero.Alexander the great went into prolonged morning when his lover Hephaestion died which he didn't do when his wife died FYI.In the early middle ages in england also acceptable.We had a king who was gay and nobody batted an eyelid.Its Christianity which is the driving force behind the past persecution of gays.
And societies attitudes towards gay people has varied.In ancient greece and in ancient japan and rome it was considered socially acceptable. Hadrians wall was built by the emperor Hadrian who was famously Homosexual as was the Emperor Nero.Alexander the great went into prolonged morning when his lover Hephaestion died which he didn't do when his wife died FYI.In the early middle ages in england also acceptable.We had a king who was gay and nobody batted an eyelid.Its Christianity which is the driving force behind the past persecution of gays.
I can't speak for Japan but my understanding of Ancient Greece and Rome was that it was considered a perfectly normal part of growing up but to remain a homosexual and not settle down with a women was deeply frowned on. although i think i should qualify that being bisexual was perfectly acceptable throughout life.
Which king are you reffering to? I mean from my understanding the general consensus is that what hapened in private [for the royals] was their business so long as you produced an heir at some point.
Well considering the Jews have historically been the real standard bearers of gay persecution i would dispute the christian point on that.
Original post by shadowdweller
You've yet to give any examples of your own, even of poor representation of religion, or to dispute the article I sent; please address some of these if you wish to continue the debate, or this isn't going to get anywhere.
Examples of what?
What kind of evidence do you want me to provide to show poor representation of religion? That is almost like telling me to show proof there are no aliens on Earth? What kind of ridiculous request do some of you make when you realise you have no arguments and want to deflect your failure from that fact?
What article?
Original post by RoyalBeams
Examples of what?
What kind of evidence do you want me to provide to show poor representation of religion? That is almost like telling me to show proof there are no aliens on Earth? What kind of ridiculous request do some of you make when you realise you have no arguments and want to deflect your failure from that fact?
What article?
What kind of evidence do you want me to provide to show poor representation of religion? That is almost like telling me to show proof there are no aliens on Earth? What kind of ridiculous request do some of you make when you realise you have no arguments and want to deflect your failure from that fact?
What article?
Examples of poor representation of religion, as I stated previously. It's not really a ridiculous request, just point me to a character who was portrayed negatively because of their faith.
The article I linked to you a few posts back.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Texxers
Honestly, I don't see why people actually support the LGBT community. I don't see why it's so frowned upon for me to express my opinions on this issue. Just wanted to see what other TSR members thought of it..
And no I don't hide myself under Anon ever when it comes to controversial topics.
And no I don't hide myself under Anon ever when it comes to controversial topics.
In short? Because you’re wrong.
Its comparable to racism. We as humans are evolving, and realising old views on racism and homophobic issues aren’t okay. The way you think, and being anti LBGT, is outdated and will fade out. Not to mention it’s a crime to be homophobic.
Original post by shadowdweller
Examples of poor representation of religion, as I stated previously. It's not really a ridiculous request, just point me to a character who was portrayed negatively because of their faith.
The article I linked to you a few posts back.
Posted from TSR Mobile
The article I linked to you a few posts back.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I am saying they are not many religious characters being put on TV and their presence is prominent and represented in a positive light, why do you think I need to show you they are portrayed negatively? Did I claim they are portrayed negatively? You don't get the core of the argument is that they are "not many"? The quantity? Relative to homosexuals?
What article?
The real reason is that 1. who someone chooses to have consensual sex with is generally regarded to be outside the scope of what the law should control , and 2. that there is objective evidence that you cannot choose sexuality. Legal homophobia should be answered by 1 and personal homophobia by 2.
Original post by RoyalBeams
I am saying they are not many religious characters being put on TV and their presence is prominent and represented in a positive light, why do you think I need to show you they are portrayed negatively? Did I claim they are portrayed negatively? You don't get the core of the argument is that they are "not many"? The quantity? Relative to homosexuals?
What article?
What article?
You asked for Religious characters that fulfilled your given criteria, suggesting you didn't believe there to be many that did, and moreover that there were some that didn't, or what would be the benefit to having asked the question? So please do give me some that don't fulfil the criteria you outlined?
The one I linked earlier, as I stated. The 'Unseen on Screen' report, that you've not addressed, it should only be a few posts back at this point.
Original post by shadowdweller
You asked for Religious characters that fulfilled your given criteria, suggesting you didn't believe there to be many that did, and moreover that there were some that didn't, or what would be the benefit to having asked the question? So please do give me some that don't fulfil the criteria you outlined?
How does it suggest there is [moreover] some that didn't?
Strawman much?
Original post by shadowdweller
The one I linked earlier, as I stated. The 'Unseen on Screen' report, that you've not addressed, it should only be a few posts back at this point.
The one I linked earlier, as I stated. The 'Unseen on Screen' report, that you've not addressed, it should only be a few posts back at this point.
It would be much easier for you to have just reposted your link.
That said, when did I start debating under-representation of homosexuality on TV with you?
Let me remind you of my response (post #420):
Original post by RoyalBeams
What don't you understand about the statement "homosexual characters with their issues are by far more prominent on TV than religious characters and their issues"?
How does that in any way lead to your desperation to switch the debate to "homosexuals are under-represented on TV" instead of disproving the statement?
How does that in any way lead to your desperation to switch the debate to "homosexuals are under-represented on TV" instead of disproving the statement?
Don't try and distract me with a debate I was not having in the first place.
Your strawmans and distractions would never work in a debate with me, sorry.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by LibertyMan
The real reason is that 1. who someone chooses to have consensual sex with is generally regarded to be outside the scope of what the law should control , and 2. that there is objective evidence that you cannot choose sexuality. Legal homophobia should be answered by 1 and personal homophobia by 2.
That is not true.
1) Incest is generally illegal in virtually all countries.
2) Sex outside marriage is illegal in some countries.
3) Even marrying someone of a different religion is illegal in 1 or 2 countries.
No 1 is the strongest argument against your assertion.
Original post by RoyalBeams
How does it suggest there is [moreover] some that didn't?
It would be much easier for you to have just reposted your link.
That said, when did I start debating under-representation of homosexuality on TV with you?
It would be much easier for you to have just reposted your link.
That said, when did I start debating under-representation of homosexuality on TV with you?
As I stated in the post you quoted, if they all met the criteria in your eyes, then what would be the point in asking the question?
You stated that the representation is primarily positive, or something to that affect, so I'm directing you to something saying it's not.
What do u mean? For me, it's completely natural to support homosexuality or trans people (and the rest of the LGBT community), because it's a part of nature! Usually, people are made one way, but sometimes people are just born different! To me, supporting the LGBT community is akin to supporting left-handedness, and being homophobic is like saying left-handed people are evil/satan's spawn.
Also, I don't really see why people would be homophobic, I mean - they're not doing anything wrong or hurting people, at least no more than straight people murder, rape, and thieve.
Also, I don't really see why people would be homophobic, I mean - they're not doing anything wrong or hurting people, at least no more than straight people murder, rape, and thieve.
Original post by shadowdweller
As I stated in the post you quoted, if they all met the criteria in your eyes, then what would be the point in asking the question?
You stated that the representation is primarily positive, or something to that affect, so I'm directing you to something saying it's not.
You stated that the representation is primarily positive, or something to that affect, so I'm directing you to something saying it's not.
I don't understand either of your two lines. I am lost.
Review and repost, ensuring they answer my questions.
Original post by RoyalBeams
I don't understand either of your two lines. I am lost.
Review and repost, ensuring they answer my questions.
Review and repost, ensuring they answer my questions.
You asked if the characters I mentioned met the criteria. Unless some religious characters do not, why would you have needed to ask?
The article shows most of lgbt representation is not positive, which you disagree with.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Texxers
Honestly, I don't see why people actually support the LGBT community. I don't see why it's so frowned upon for me to express my opinions on this issue. Just wanted to see what other TSR members thought of it..
And no I don't hide myself under Anon ever when it comes to controversial topics.
And no I don't hide myself under Anon ever when it comes to controversial topics.
there's nothing wrong with not being up every LGBT person's ass or constantly trying to seem totally pc (ie those annoying Tumblr girls who wanna make every gay guy their bff to show they're accepting)
however what is wrong is INTOLERANCE. simply saying "I hate you because you're gay" is wrong and on the same level as racism and sexism because you're hating a person because of a characteristic they cannot control
Even if you are religious, religion isn't supposed to teach against homosexuals as people but rather the act of homosexuality itself (hate sin not sinner kinda thing)
Moral off the story: you don't have to LOVE gay people just don't be intolerant.
Original post by Schoolquestions
Even if you are religious, religion isn't supposed to teach against homosexuals as people but rather the act of homosexuality itself (hate sin not sinner kinda thing)
I agree with most of what you said, but not this.
Religion isn't 'supposed' to teach - it indoctrinates. Whilst some may say that it doesn't demonise a gay person, throwing them off a building IS an act against the person. Some religions preach hate simply because someone is of another religion, or an Atheist ("those that disbelieve" ).
If you hate someone because of something they do or believe, that has ZERO impact on you, you're plain nasty IMO.
(edited 6 years ago)
very true but I feel like it depends on individuals still
like people forget that religion isnt something which has to indoctrinate because it doesn't HAVE to take over your life. It should also be personal yet the main problem is that institutions ie the Catholic Church, refuse to allow for a secular state (ironic since the Bible instructs Christians to "be no part of the world")
For example I'm religious but I don't hate gays because like you said that ain't my business
however would I "encourage" the gay lifestyle? no, because of my beliefs but I still don't care.
I guess my point is technically anything could be "indoctrination" but not all people can be indoctrinated. Many who are are either uneducated or had some sort of tragic past which at a point left them hopeless and relying on some sort of higher force for comfort.Theoretically it can work but practically there's always Gona be that one guy who takes it too far.
like people forget that religion isnt something which has to indoctrinate because it doesn't HAVE to take over your life. It should also be personal yet the main problem is that institutions ie the Catholic Church, refuse to allow for a secular state (ironic since the Bible instructs Christians to "be no part of the world")
For example I'm religious but I don't hate gays because like you said that ain't my business
however would I "encourage" the gay lifestyle? no, because of my beliefs but I still don't care.
I guess my point is technically anything could be "indoctrination" but not all people can be indoctrinated. Many who are are either uneducated or had some sort of tragic past which at a point left them hopeless and relying on some sort of higher force for comfort.Theoretically it can work but practically there's always Gona be that one guy who takes it too far.
Original post by shadowdweller
You asked if the characters I mentioned met the criteria. Unless some religious characters do not, why would you have needed to ask?
After like a week, you really don't get that my argument is that less religious characters [than homosexual characterss] meet the criteria, and that is why I asked the question?
Original post by shadowdweller
The article shows most of lgbt representation is not positive, which you disagree with.
Posted from TSR Mobile
The article shows most of lgbt representation is not positive, which you disagree with.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Most?
Then article is written by a lunatic or a f****** fraud.
Pure lie!
Original post by RoyalBeams
After like a week, you really don't get that my argument is that less religious characters [than homosexual characterss] meet the criteria, and that is why I asked the question?
Most?
Then article is written by a lunatic or a f****** fraud.
Pure lie!
Most?
Then article is written by a lunatic or a f****** fraud.
Pure lie!
Excellent, so we're agreed you think some religious characters don't meet the criteria then. Please direct me to them?
Read the report, then get back to me about it.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
