You Hate Me! You Really Hate Me!

[lilpixieofterror]

Looks like you just got Starlighted. Poor Adrift.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I've been doing some checking anyway on the source given. Will Roscoe is actually an LGBTQ activist and it looks like he's bought into some pretty bizarre ideas. You only need to look at this here: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Shamani...nic#nav-subnav

Which from what I've seen depends on, yep, Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark. Hard for me to think that I should take his other work seriously if he buys into something largely rejected by scholars across the board and seen as a hoax now.

And it looks like Starlight can't even get homophobia right with Adrift.

Kind of making me think it's not worth the bother.

[RumTumTugger]

I've been doing some checking anyway on the source given. Will Roscoe is actually an LGBTQ activist and it looks like he's bought into some pretty bizarre ideas. You only need to look at this here: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Shamani...nic#nav-subnav

Which from what I've seen depends on, yep, Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark. Hard for me to think that I should take his other work seriously if he buys into something largely rejected by scholars across the board and seen as a hoax now.

And it looks like Starlight can't even get homophobia right with Adrift.

Kind of making me think it's not worth the bother.

He just doesn't want to admit that his side is the intolerant side misusing words like homophobe and bigot to try and shut up those who disagree with their view. To bad he and his side are constantly being shown up as being the true intolerant people they falsely accuse others of being. he just found out it won't work here and is trying to spin it any way he can to safe face.

btw his deconversion story reminds me of Paul's writing to Timothy about how folks will not want to hear sound doctrine only those things that tickle their ear. When he found out what the bible really taught about the Worldly views he holds to he wanted nothing to do with any of it. No wonder he refuses to do proper homework and is constantly being shown for the no nothing he is he only goes to those places that will tickle his ears with what he wants to hear no matter how much on the fringe they are.

You may be right Nick he isn't worth it being so entrenched in his false view and feeling that only the fringe do not see it as he does. But there are those reading what he posts that are worth it and need to be shown how he goes to any source no matter how much on the fringe they are to get his ears tickled with what he wants to hear.

[fm93]

He just doesn't want to admit that his side is the intolerant side

May I ask what makes you apparently think there is only one specific side being intolerant, instead of intolerance existing in all sides?

To bad he and his side are constantly being shown up as being the true intolerant people they falsely accuse others of being.

Some people on his side may be intolerant, but what exactly makes you think the people they accuse of being intolerant aren't also intolerant?

btw his deconversion story reminds me of Paul's writing to Timothy about how folks will not want to hear sound doctrine only those things that tickle their ear. When he found out what the bible really taught about the Worldly views he holds to he wanted nothing to do with any of it.

Eh...this seems to be quite a bit of psychoanalysis.

No wonder he refuses to do proper homework and is constantly being shown for the no nothing he is

The "no nothing?"

You may be right Nick he isn't worth it being so entrenched in his false view and feeling that only the fringe do not see it as he does. But there are those reading what he posts that are worth it and need to be shown how he goes to any source no matter how much on the fringe they are to get his ears tickled with what he wants to hear.

Could you please explain what leads you to conclude that "arguing about the meaning of 'homophobia'" constitutes "getting your ears tickled?" I'm not following that line of logic.

[Starlight]

I've been doing some checking anyway on the source given. Will Roscoe is actually an LGBTQ activist and it looks like he's bought into some pretty bizarre ideas. You only need to look at this here: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Shamani...nic#nav-subnav

Which from what I've seen depends on, yep, Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark. Hard for me to think that I should take his other work seriously if he buys into something largely rejected by scholars across the board and seen as a hoax now.

And it looks like Starlight can't even get homophobia right with Adrift.

Kind of making me think it's not worth the bother.

So you're actively looking for reasons to stick your head in the sand? And having found some that you're happy with, you plan to do that?

Wow.

[Starlight]

Eh...this seems to be quite a bit of psychoanalysis.

The "no nothing?"

This site is gorgeous for its complete idiots who like to do psychoanalysis. It's a hidden gem.

As I've mentioned before, one of my best friends (who is a Christian) helps run church services for LGBTQ+ people, and I've personally talked to hundreds of LGBTQ+ people in half a dozen or so different LGBTQ+ groups because I've sought them out to talk to them about their issues because I am interested in politics. And yet in the past two weeks it's been alleged here by various posters that:
- I'm simply out of my depth on this topic and have no idea what I'm talking about, like other topics on this forum.
- I've never in my life talked to an asexual person, and don't have any idea about what they want or why they want it.
- I don't know as many gay people as another poster does, who has multiple gay friends.
- I don't know what gay people think the meaning of homophobia is.
It's been hilarious.
This forum is pretty good for the LOLz.


Incidentally, my poll in an LGBT facebook group asking them the meaning of the word "homophobia" is now showing:
Fear of gay people - 8%
Hatred or disgust of homosexuality or same-sex behavior - 6%
Any kind of opposition to homosexuality or same-sex romantic or sexual behavior - 85%
An insult with no meaning - 0%

I guess I was totally wrong and it can all be explained by my upbringing, or my deconversion story, or something something.

[Apologiaphoenix]

So you're actively looking for reasons to stick your head in the sand? And having found some that you're happy with, you plan to do that?

Wow.

No. I'm just not convinced you're doing the best research when you rely on people who buy into Secret Mark and when you can't accept the usage of homophobia even when Adrift points to specific examples.

[RumTumTugger]

May I ask what makes you apparently think there is only one specific side being intolerant, instead of intolerance existing in all sides?


Some people on his side may be intolerant, but what exactly makes you think the people they accuse of being intolerant aren't also intolerant?


Eh...this seems to be quite a bit of psychoanalysis.


The "no nothing?"


Could you please explain what leads you to conclude that "arguing about the meaning of 'homophobia'" constitutes "getting your ears tickled?" I'm not following that line of logic.

FM93 to answer your questions.

Starlight brought up a source who said what he wanted to hear and Nick on looking into that source found out how on the fringe the Guy was and called Starlight out on his use of a fringe source. As seen below.

I've been doing some checking anyway on the source given. Will Roscoe is actually an LGBTQ activist and it looks like he's bought into some pretty bizarre ideas. You only need to look at this here: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Shamani...nic#nav-subnav

Which from what I've seen depends on, yep, Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark. Hard for me to think that I should take his other work seriously if he buys into something largely rejected by scholars across the board and seen as a hoax now.

And it looks like Starlight can't even get homophobia right with Adrift.

Kind of making me think it's not worth the bother.

Starlight then accuses Nick of doing something he(Starlight) guilty of.

So you're actively looking for reasons to stick your head in the sand? And having found some that you're happy with, you plan to do that?

Wow.

FM93 this is what I'm talking about he goes to someone who is on the fringe because that person says what he wants to hear(tickled his ears.) Then falsely accuses the person who points it out what he is doing i.e. sticking his head into the sand so he doesn't have to really hear what he doesn't want to.

As for your accusation of psychoanalyzing. Nope not doing that. I'm pointing out how much Starlight has shown on this board he is like those Paul told Timothy about in 2 Timothy 4

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 2Ti 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. NIV

[Starlight]

No. I'm just not convinced you're doing the best research when you rely on people who buy into Secret Mark

He believes Secret Mark could be authentic... therefore his quotations from early European explorers of Africa are false?

I don't understand how someone having one belief that is slightly unusual invalidates everything else they've ever said or done.

you can't accept the usage of homophobia even when Adrift points to specific examples.

I have said that it is clear that a small minority of people do appear to see homophobia as being about "fear" of gay people. Around 8% apparently, from my poll. Adrift did find a few sources that used it that way. But both he and I found multiple sources that attest to a much wider meaning of the word "homophobia", that can include any kind of opposition to, discrimination against, or disagreement with homosexuality. According to my poll, this is the predominant meaning that gay people see it having, with 85% of gay people in my poll endorsing such a meaning, as do numerous sources and discussions online.

What you can take away from this, is that when you see gay people accusing you or Christians in general of "homophobia", then in their minds most of them are not claiming that you "fear" them, they are merely saying you oppose homosexual behavior or oppose same-sex marriage. They're not trying to insult you. They're not trying to psychoanalyze you. They're merely using what they see as a basic descriptive word to indicate you have some kind of anti-gay stance of some sort.

[Apologiaphoenix]

He believes Secret Mark could be authentic... therefore his quotations from early European explorers of Africa are false?

I don't understand how someone having one belief that is slightly unusual invalidates everything else they've ever said or done.

No. It means suspect. Secret Mark is known to be a hoax today quite likely put forward by Morton Smith today to advance homosexuality. Treating it as a serious possibility leads me to suspicion.

I have said that it is clear that a small minority of people do appear to see homophobia as being about "fear" of gay people. Around 8% apparently, from my poll. Adrift did find a few sources that used it that way. But both he and I found multiple sources that attest to a much wider meaning of the word "homophobia", that can include any kind of opposition to, discrimination against, or disagreement with homosexuality. According to my poll, this is the predominant meaning that gay people see it having, with 85% of gay people in my poll endorsing such a meaning, as do numerous sources and discussions online.

What you can take away from this, is that when you see gay people accusing you or Christians in general of "homophobia", then in their minds most of them are not claiming that you "fear" them, they are merely saying you oppose homosexual behavior or oppose same-sex marriage. They're not trying to insult you. They're not trying to psychoanalyze you. They're merely using what they see as a basic descriptive word to indicate you have some kind of anti-gay stance of some sort.

Um. No. It is an insult. If they want to discuss the issue, I do not need to be brought up in it. Talk about the issue. The left though tends to go after the person instead. It's a lot easier to score emotional points that way.

[RumTumTugger]

He believes Secret Mark could be authentic... therefore his quotations from early European explorers of Africa are false?

I don't understand how someone having one belief that is slightly unusual invalidates everything else they've ever said or done.

I have said that it is clear that a small minority of people do appear to see homophobia as being about "fear" of gay people. Around 8% apparently, from my poll. Adrift did find a few sources that used it that way. But both he and I found multiple sources that attest to a much wider meaning of the word "homophobia", that can include any kind of opposition to, discrimination against, or disagreement with homosexuality. According to my poll, this is the predominant meaning that gay people see it having, with 85% of gay people in my poll endorsing such a meaning, as do numerous sources and discussions online.

What you can take away from this, is that when you see gay people accusing you or Christians in general of "homophobia", then in their minds most of them are not claiming that you "fear" them, they are merely saying you oppose homosexual behavior or oppose same-sex marriage. They're not trying to insult you. They're not trying to psychoanalyze you. They're merely using what they see as a basic descriptive word to indicate you have some kind of anti-gay stance of some sort.

We aren't accusing them of psychoanalyzing Starlight we are accusing them of what they are actually doing purposelymisusing words that are emotionally charged in ad hominem attacks to shut their opponent up because they have no true arguments to bring to the table. If they wanted discussion they would not misuse words like homophobia they would bring arguments to the table if they had such arguments

[Starlight]

Secret Mark is known to be a hoax today quite likely put forward by Morton Smith today to advance homosexuality. Treating it as a serious possibility leads me to suspicion.

Secret Mark is widely believed to be a hoax. But I think a lot of those who believe on the balance of probability that it's a hoax would still says there's a serious possibility that it isn't.

I still don't really see how you can dismiss someone's work in unrelated areas because you view them as having made one mistake in scholarly judgement of a source in another area. It makes it seem like you're searching for reasons to dismiss their work.

It's not like homosexuality in pre-Christian African cultures is somehow hugely implausible, and it's not as if we're reliant solely on his work to know about it. The wiki link about Siwa, for example, had plenty of quotes from early explorers about homosexuality in Siwa similar to those that his book on other African cultures gives about those cultures.

No. It is an insult.

I don't really understand why you insist on interpreting it as an insult. I assume you must feel insulted when you see the word used in your direction? Okay. But you realize that what you feel when you hear or read a word, isn't necessarily what the user of the word meant to convey, right? Not a single person in the multi-hundred member LGBT facebook group I'm polling on the meaning of homophobia has yet clicked the poll option "an insult". They don't see it as an insult.

Just because you feel bad when you hear/read the word, or feel like it's an insult, doesn't actually make it an insult in the mind of the person using it.

The left though tends to go after the person instead. It's a lot easier to score emotional points that way.

Dude, I'm on the liberal-left and I get psychoanalyzed out the wazoo in this forum by right-wing conservative Christians. Multiple times in this thread alone. They usually go after the person and not the ideas.

I suspect this happens to lots of people on the internet - the internet in general likes to attack the person and not the ideas. But you make a mistake when you interpret it being some sort of thing "the left" likes to do.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Secret Mark is widely believed to be a hoax. But I think a lot of those who believe on the balance of probability that it's a hoax would still says there's a serious possibility that it isn't.

I still don't really see how you can dismiss someone's work in unrelated areas because you view them as having made one mistake in scholarly judgement of a source in another area. It makes it seem like you're searching for reasons to dismiss their work.

It's not like homosexuality in pre-Christian African cultures is somehow hugely implausible, and it's not as if we're reliant solely on his work to know about it. The wiki link about Siwa, for example, had plenty of quotes from early explorers about homosexuality in Siwa similar to those that his book on other African cultures gives about those cultures.

I do it for the same reason I don't take someone seriously when I see the Pope Leo X quote. As for it not being a hoax, we have no manuscripts of Secret Mark. We have no quotes of it. All we have is one reference in Clement of Alexandria and he was in fact known for being naive and gullible. There are enough indications that the claim of it that Smith found is a forgery and one done by Smith himself.

Now if you have some original writings for the timeframe that Roscoe and his co-writer write about, feel free to show it, but right now I have a huge suspicion. I have plenty of books here on my to read list and so if you want to present a claim that I can check, do so.

I don't really understand why you insist on interpreting it as an insult. I assume you must feel insulted when you see the word used in your direction? Okay. But you realize that what you feel when you hear or read a word, isn't necessarily what the user of the word meant to convey, right? Not a single person in the multi-hundred member LGBT facebook group I'm polling on the meaning of homophobia has yet clicked the poll option "an insult". They don't see it as an insult.

Feel. Right. Sorry, but I don't go by feelings. A lot of people do plainly insult me. It doesn't make me feel bad at all. It actually makes me laugh. When it comes with terms like 'hater' and everything else, it's an insult.

Just because you feel bad when you hear/read the word, or feel like it's an insult, doesn't actually make it an insult in the mind of the person using it.

See above.

Dude, I'm on the liberal-left and I get psychoanalyzed out the wazoo in this forum by right-wing conservative Christians. Multiple times in this thread alone. They usually go after the person and not the ideas.

I suspect this happens to lots of people on the internet - the internet in general likes to attack the person and not the ideas. But you make a mistake when you interpret it being some sort of thing "the left" likes to do.

Yes. A lot of people on the right do it. I'm not talking about them.

[Starlight]

We aren't accusing them of psychoanalyzing Starlight we are accusing them of what they are actually doing purposelymisusing words that are emotionally charged in ad hominem attacks to shut their opponent up because they have no true arguments to bring to the table. If they wanted discussion they would not misuse words like homophobia they would bring arguments to the table if they had such arguments

That's quite an amusing analysis, because there's a widespread perception among gay people of religious conservatives having precisely that problem.

Gay people in general would like religious conservatives to have a really serious and lengthy look at the issue of how discrimination, prejudice, and Jim-Crow laws harm stigmatized groups and how religiously motivated discrimination against gay people causes stress, anxiety, depression, and suicidal tendencies. Gay people would like religious people to honestly and openly confront the level of health damage they are causing to gay people, and actually look at, acknowledge, and take seriously the testimony from major health organisations around the world (such as the AMA, APA etc) on the subject. Because the effects of such discrimination are something gay people have to live with their entire lives, so are something they regularly think about and which they are always ready to discuss, and which they tend to desperately wish religious people would pay attention to.

Meanwhile religious people have their head in the sand/bible, and have no interest in actually discussing the issues of the harm they are doing to gay people. They just don't want to know about what harm they're causing because it makes them uncomfortable to believe they could be doing anything wrong. Anytime someone forces them anywhere near the issues they veer away into playing sillybeggers with word definitions. They misuse words and then start manufacturing fake outrage about other people misusing words. And this, very conveniently for them, gets them away from ever having to deal with the actual issues.

[Starlight]

Now if you have some original writings for the timeframe that Roscoe and his co-writer write about, feel free to show it, but right now I have a huge suspicion. I have plenty of books here on my to read list and so if you want to present a claim that I can check, do so.

They are the editors btw, not the authors. The chapters on each cultural group are by different anthropologists.

Here's an extract (from here):

...first published by Samuel Purchas in his 1625 collection of travel accounts. Purchas also published an account from the Portuguese Jesuit João dos Santos from the area of Luanda, within Queen Nzinga’s kingdom, Dos.

Santos described “certayne Chibadi, which are Men attyred like Women, and behave themselves womanly, ashamed to be called men; are also married to men, and esteeme that unnatural damnation an honor” (Purchas 1625, vol. 2, bk. IX, chap. 12, sec. 5, p. 1558).

The priests Gaspar Azevereduc and Antonius Sequerius also encountered men called chibados, who dressed, sat, and spoke like women, and who married men “to unite in wrongful male lust with them.” Even more shocking to them was the fact that these marriages were honored and prized ( Jarric 1616: 482).

Similarly, in 1680, Cardonega noted: “Sodomy is rampant among the people of Angola. They pursue their impudent and filthy practices dressed as women. Their own name for those [of the same sex] who have carnal relations with each other is quimbanda. Some quimbandas are powerful wizards, who are much esteemed by most Angolans” (1680: 86, translation— S.O.M).

.....
This role was described in more detail by Carlos Estermann in the 1970s. According to Estermann, Ambo diviners are called kimbanda. The highest order, the ovatikili, are “recruited exclusively among men [who] are few and feared and their activity is surrounded by profound mystery” (1976: 197). Although Estermann did not say that all ovatkili are possessed by female spirits, he notes that a large number of the owners of a certain musical instrument called omakola (big gourd) were males called omasenge, who dressed as women, did women’s work, and contracted marriage with other men (who might also have female wives).

“In a general way,” he suggests, “this aberration is to be interpreted by the spiritism or spiritist belief of these people. An esenge [sing. of omasenge] is essentially a man who has been possessed since childhood by a spirit of female sex, which has been drawing out of him, little by little, the taste for everything that is masculine and virile.”

That sort of cultural pattern of the ability of males to change their gender to a third gender, a gender that is viewed as somewhat feminine and magically inclined, and which can marry and have sex with people of the male gender, is strikingly similar to the Two-Spirit pattern present among native american tribes. Polynesian tribes in the pacific also had, and to some extent still have, a similar practice called fa'afafine in Samoa, fakaleiti in Tonga, mahu in Hawaii, mahu or rae rae in Tahiti, akava'ine or laelae in the Cook Islands, vaka sa lewa lewa in Fiji and fiafifine in Niue. So it seems quite a widespread cultural pattern.

That particular book is quite dense. If you want a more general and easy to read introduction about homosexuality throughout history in various cultures, then I would recommend starting with Louis Crompton's book Homosexuality and Civilization, a highly readable and highly regarded work that looks at how various major civilizations over the last 2000 years have treated homosexuality.

A lot of people do plainly insult me.

I'm beginning to see why they might. Obstinacy and an unwillingness to change one's position are key attributes for any apologist. I should know, I used to be one.

A lot of people on the right do it. I'm not talking about them.

There are, of course, a few Feminazis on the left, who I ignore in much the same way most Christians ignore the Westboro baptist church. In general, though, I find that most people on the left love talking about issues, and will talk your arm and leg off given half a chance.