Posted: Jan 11, 2018 1:18 pm
Thommo wrote:Tracer Tong wrote:Thommo wrote:“Should you stop beating your wife even if you really want to continue? YES. Should you not kill someone even if you’re really wanting to go through with it? YES.
Should you get clean if you have a drug problem and are destroying yourself and those who love you even if you still like getting high? YES. Should you stop cheating on your spouse even if you like the attention you’re getting from someone else? YES,”
Should you stop making money by making bigoted videos even if you like it? YES.
Is this guy really too fucking dumb to understand that a list of things that hurt someone else has nothing to do with people's sexuality?
I doubt this video has been made with material gain in mind. And its creator and participants no doubt believe homosexuality is harmful to oneself and others.
That appears to be a quote from Emily Thomes, who it appears is a paid speaker on behalf of such causes. The video is associated with a professionally made site that (like the vast majority of these evangelical ventures) prominently features a "donate" button and that appears to have full time employees who do indeed profit financially from the propagation of their views.
All of which goes to prove that such videos aren’t made for free, yes. But if you’re still thinking this is all just a way of making some people money, a pursuit for which everything else is so much camouflage, you probably aren’t understanding the people you’re criticising.
Thommo wrote:
And whether she believes homosexuality is harmful is hardly the point, I'm not suggesting that she participates in homosexual acts any more than I would myself (rather less in fact, since I never have and never will). The point is that if people shouldn't do something because someone else believes its harmful then she shouldn't make these videos, since other people think they are harmful - which is the very same metric.
Do you think that is a fair characterisation of their argument (to the extent they have one)?
Thommo wrote:
What I do note is that you won't find a lot of these churches crusading against horse riding (definitely harmful) or mountaineering (definitely harmful) or wearing mixed fibre clothing (claimed to be forbidden by the same religious text) or any of a wide variety of other issues. The reason is of course about what modern Christians within certain communities see as sinful, she's not actually trying to prevent harm at all.
Right: it’s about sin, and the harm it causes. In preventing sin, they purport to prevent harm. Of course, that harm is supposed to occur on a plane you’re unlikely to recognise, but nevertheless this is an accurate characterisation of what they believe.
Thommo wrote:
Anyway, I am not at all sanguine about letting people do actual harm (as in the case of conversion therapies connected with films like this one) because they have a religious belief that other people are harming themselves. She isn't educating or informing. She isn't justifying her belief that harm is being done, or even attempting to. Consequently she deserves, in my view, criticism and censure for the actual harm she is involved in when she promotes intolerance.
And you’re quite entitled to that view. But it’s probably a good idea to understand where they’re coming from. Heck, it may even be that in doing that, you may one day be in a position whereby you’ve an opportunity to change someone’s mind.
A radical thought, that!