Veteran actor Lee Tien-chu says ’Homosexuality is a huge curse to the future generation'
After winning a Golden Bell Award, Taiwan’s most prestigious TV awards, 59-year-old Lee Tien-chu told reporters backstage that he often rejected TV productions that did not share his Christian values.
“I’ll be open about it,” he told Apple Daily. “I will not support homosexuality because it’s going to lead to the end of humanity. I do not hate gay people, I love them, I have compassion for them, but I have to say this is wrong.”
“This is why I’ve said no to so many gay productions that approached me for acting,” he added. “I will not betray my faith just for a bit of money. Homosexuality is a huge curse to the future generation.”
Before the backstage comments, Lee openly talked about his Christian faith in his acceptance speech, and even recited the lord’s prayer.
His words were condemned by other showbiz names, according to The Shanghaiist.
Renowned graphic designer Aaron Nieh wrote on his Facebook page, "You may be a very good actor and win awards, but you're just acting. You don't have a part in other people's reality, their nature, their love and their values in life... Homosexuality will not lead to the destruction of mankind, but ignorance will."
Singer Aaron Yan wrote ”It has always been the fate of gay people to be oppressed by a straight majority and to live on the margins of society. You can disagree with homosexuality, but stop oppressing them in the name of religion and on the media!"
Watch the rant below:
After winning a Golden Bell Award, Taiwan’s most prestigious TV awards, 59-year-old Lee Tien-chu told reporters backstage that he often rejected TV productions that did not share his Christian values.
“I’ll be open about it,” he told Apple Daily. “I will not support homosexuality because it’s going to lead to the end of humanity. I do not hate gay people, I love them, I have compassion for them, but I have to say this is wrong.”
“This is why I’ve said no to so many gay productions that approached me for acting,” he added. “I will not betray my faith just for a bit of money. Homosexuality is a huge curse to the future generation.”
Before the backstage comments, Lee openly talked about his Christian faith in his acceptance speech, and even recited the lord’s prayer.
His words were condemned by other showbiz names, according to The Shanghaiist.
Renowned graphic designer Aaron Nieh wrote on his Facebook page, "You may be a very good actor and win awards, but you're just acting. You don't have a part in other people's reality, their nature, their love and their values in life... Homosexuality will not lead to the destruction of mankind, but ignorance will."
Singer Aaron Yan wrote ”It has always been the fate of gay people to be oppressed by a straight majority and to live on the margins of society. You can disagree with homosexuality, but stop oppressing them in the name of religion and on the media!"
In fact, religion is the huge curse to future generations. And past generations, and people who live in the world now. One has only to look around the world to see that.
If that's his belief you have to respect it. He respects gay people after all. Well done him for speaking his mind. I'm sure he respects my freedom to think him wrong.
No, I disagree with GTiLad. Beliefs should be well-founded. Superstitions are also beliefs. So if someone says we should sacrifice virgins to sea monsters to appease them so that we can have calm seas or throw humans down volcanic vents to stop volcanic eruptions, should we "respect" their beliefs and their freedom to practise such beliefs too?
GTiLad, we do not expect him to take up gay roles. I mentioned volcanoes as an analogy of unfounded beliefs which we should not be entertaining. While we cannot stop people's beliefs, you did mention "respect" his belief. Why should such a negative belief be "respected"? And why do you say there's no harm? Can't you see the harm is indirect? It is precisely because homophobes hate us because of their ignorance, it has led to age-old discrimination, taunting and bullying against gays, some of whom are driven to self rejection and even suicide. So do you call such a belief "harmless"?
" I do not hate gay people, I love them, I have compassion for them"
Well, this is mere hypocrisy. How to love the person and hate his personal behaviour when both are intertwined with each other? It's just like I love single people but I hate the fact that they are not married.
And so, does indirect means nothing? Smoking indirectly contributes to cancer & many other ailments. Does it mean we should "respect" someone who promotes smoking then, since it is an indirect cause? Yes, pollution causes asthma but what percentage of the population actually are inflicted with asthma so as to warrant punishment like jailing?
Yes, freedom of discussion is the only way but discussion without founded logic is not true discussion at all, let alone bestowing "respect" to the illogical speaker.
People may be well educated in many things but many well educated straights do not understand the nature of homosexuality. So when they base their ignorance to spout negative comments about us, I don't see why we should "respect" their views. So what if Nazis or Wahabists are well-educated? If they espouse extremism, do we also have to "respect" their beliefs in the name of freedom?
Give it up nightingale. GTiLad knows all. Present him with a pointed end of a stick and he'd claim it wasn't pointy enough.
I think respect is too strong a term. I can listen to someone, learn their views and even accept them but respect those views? Nope. Had a neighbor once back in FL that hated black people. Had all sorts of crazy theories where they came from. The curse of Ham, sex with apes, etc. Now, as a person, he was fun, caring (as long as you weren't black), and a good husband as far as his wife was concerned. I liked him and respected him in many ways. But his views on black people? No respect was given to that.
Yes, I agree with Americanbear that "respect" is too strong a word. And I disagree with GTiLad that my points are off topic. You don't have to wait for someone to advocate violence before you point out that his views are misguided or misleading. Donald Trump's sexist statements e.g. grabbing pussies are also non-violent. So does that mean his socially inappropriate sentences should be respectable? Challenging that Taiwanese actor's bigoted view? Certainly. Discuss? Sure. But respect? Does his reasoning merit that? You can respect people with different opinions provided their arguments are sound.
Grabbing pussies would certainly be an act of violence in my book.
If you can't be bothered to understand why someone has a view it's going to be difficult to point out to them why you think they are wrong. You could always ask him.
So if another person comes to touch your dick, you call that "violent" too? It's you who do not understand the word "respect", which means "hold in esteem or honour, show deference" in layman language. So when the actor says it is wrong for gays not to procreate, why should you think his unfair judgement should be "respectable" or "deserves our respect"?
admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
"she was respected by everyone she worked with"
synonyms:esteem, admire, think highly of, have a high opinion of, hold in high regard, hold in (high) esteem, think much of, approve of, appreciate, cherish, value, set (great) store by, prize, treasure, look up to, pay homage to, venerate, revere, reverence, adulate, worship, idolize, put on a pedestal, lionize, hero-worship,honour, applaud, praise, favour
"as a teacher he was highly respected for his industry and patience"
2.
have due regard for (someone's feelings, wishes, or rights).
"I respected his views"
synonyms:show consideration for, show regard for, take into consideration, take into account, make allowances for,take cognizance of, observe, pay heed/attention to, bear in mind, be mindful of, be heedful of, remember;
You can list as many synonyms as possible but ultimately we are using a layman website and we understand common language. The dictionary explains "violent" as
intense in force;
acting with strong,
rough force,
furious in energy
Hence, if someone grabs or touches your genitals, that is not "violence". "Violation of modesty" is an outrage, whereas "violent" acts refer to "battery, assault, physical attack" Violation is not the same as violence.
Sure, everyone is entitled to his own thoughts and I did not say we should jail him for his beliefs. Neither am I suggesting violence on him. But I am questioning why you used the word "respect" when in layman terms it means "showing deference"?
Whether he is an actor or a butcher makes no difference. An occupation is an occupation. There is no occupation that entitles one to spout unfair accusations against others as this does not deserve our "respect". And because there is no value in his utterances (as you have said), I don't see where "respect" comes in as "show consideration for", "show regard for", "take into consideration", "admire", "honour" etc. We can only "ignore" his prejudiced statements but not "respect" his belief.
So you always understand grabbing as non violent? Interesting.
And respect never means to take into consideration? You're free to have these understandings of course. I just hope you get around to understanding the word: hypocrite.
Judging by both your means of reasoning you'd probably get on very well with this actor.
I'm laughing at you both as it's too sad not to. Have a great day.
You are too loose with words. Let me show you 3 gifs to depict violence:
http://9gag.com/gag/aB17Pzx
http://9gag.com/gag/an16wpE
http://9gag.com/gag/aEn3Ndp
As for groping genitals, the layman meaning is depicted as below:
http://9gag.com/gag/ajDoQR1
So may I ask where the violence is? You can violate someone's privacy, outrage someone's modesty, violate a rule etc. WITHOUT resorting to violence. Hence, the difference between "violence" and "violation". But whether violence or violation is involved, the act should not warrant our "respect".
As for hypocrisy, I've already said that straight homophobes often like to use the hypocritical phrase "Love the person but hates his behavior." Is that possible and sincere?
If you judge my reasoning by lumping him and me together, it's up to you. Laugh all you want to. But to ask us to respect the belief of someone who is ignorant, misled and misguided is ludicrous. It's like saying "That fellow has (non-violently) insulted your mother and father, in fact, your whole family. But we must respect his belief because he is being non-violent."
I simply see no logic in giving our respect (honor / deference) to a prejudiced ignoramus. His beliefs may appear to be harmless and non-violent on the surface but when such beliefs are perpetuated, they encourage other straight homophobes to continue persecuting us and justifying their acts of violence against us (as seen in Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq etc.) Hence, I am irked by the suggestion that such a belief (that being gay is wrong and not pro-creating is immoral) should be "respected" or is "respectable".
So you really do advocate thought police. Most people read 1984 and see it as a horrific possible future. You seem to be in favour of everyone being made to think the same way as yourself.
As long as there is no action or incitement to act we should be tolerant and respectful of people's thoughts.
p.s. You might want to look up the definition of layman also.
No, am not advocating thought police. When you speak of tolerance, then the relevant beliefs should be fair, altruistic and not prejudicial or causing disharmony. So if you talk about respecting Buddhist or Hindu beliefs which you do not share, it is alright. There is mutual respect and tolerance. But when someone speaks ill unfairly, then whatever he says or believes does not warrant our respect. We can choose to either challenge him or ignore him but not respect him from the bottom of our hearts. If you say you want to respect someone's malicious thoughts even though no violence has been committed yet, then that is hypocrisy.
Look at the root of world terrorism today. The root lies in religious fundamentalism including Wahabism. No violence at first but when overzealous assholes want to exploit the beliefs to resort to violence, there is harm. You can see violence inflicted on religious and ethnic minorities, gays etc in many parts of the world both developed and developing. If you do not want to do something to counter wrong ideology, then you have September 11th Incident repeated. If you want to respect homophobic beliefs just because they are non violent, suit yourself but don't expect the others to follow suit because granting unreasonable homophobes honour or respect is illogical and ludicrous.
And there you have it:"then the relevant beliefs should be fair, altruistic and not prejudicial or causing disharmony".
Who are you to decide what is fair, altruistic and not prejudicial or causing disharmony?
If I said I don't want to drink in a gay bar it could be seen as homophobia by some.
Everyone is different and so may it continue. You can't just gag people. Especially when they are seen to change their mind and the good example to others that can be.
You have to wonder at some "advocates" stirring things up when there are much more important things to report and address.
Isn't it obvious what is fair and not prejudicial lies in our hearts? If someone unreasonably insults your family, don't you know it is causing disharmony? Do we need to respect his insults then? And if someone should call your mum a whore (a non-violent insult), should you hesitate by saying, "Now what is insulting to me may not be insulting to others."?
If you don't want to drink in a gay bar, then fine. How is it construed to be homophobic? If you like to eat pizza with straights but hate eating pizzas with gays, then that shows your discrimination. Of course you can continue to show such behaviour but is such prejudice worthy of respect?
Of course we cannot gag people. They can spout whatever rubbish they want just like Trump. But why should we respect rubbish? They can spout nonsense but we can counter their nonsense instead of showing our respect for their nonsense, can't we? So are you saying we should respect all unfounded homophobic statements? The actor says homosexuality is wrong and you say "Respect him". If that suits your mentality, then fine. As the Bible says, "Someone slaps you in the cheek and you turn the other cheek for him to slap." It's a metaphor but it's up to you if you want to show your respect this way. But I also have the freedom to say no way.
What is there to stir if you did not stir things up in the first place by using an inappropriate word? Americanbear already agrees with this.
The word "respect" is entirely appropriate. He has the right to his views. Otherwise you are advocating thought police.
You are free to counter anyone's views and beliefs. It's a two way street. If you say people can't hold a certain view, it is very easy for them to do likewise. Which is the fundamentalism you referred to earlier.
Scientific method works on the principle I have outlined. And that has progressed humanity more than anything else in history.
Of course people can hold any view they like if you are talking about freedom of speech. He has his so-called "right" to any views including incest, bestiality, patricide, terrorism etc. but is it appropriate to say that we should "respect" such beliefs or views? I am not talking about thought police but our actions. You don't have to do anything but to show "honour" or "respect" is unreasonable. If you insist that "respect" is the correct word instead of "ignore", then I disagree. No scientific method is necessary.
Not a native speaker? What makes you assume so? And suppose that I am not, are you aware that there are many many non-native speakers who know their English much better than native speakers?
Your ideas are getting more and more incoherent and illogical. What do eschewing from gay bars and the scientific method have to do with "respect"?
Of course there are various meanings to most single words. But to use it in the context of what you wrote, that is outrageous.
If you share a different religion, I respect your religious belief (as it does not intrude into me or causes disharmony).
I respect your position as a manager (as you are my superior in work life and the work system demands that).
I respect your private space (as you are entitled to it, unlike animals in a cage)
I respect your rights to food and water even though you are my prisoner-of-war (as that is the humanitarian thing to do).
But why should I respect your belief which is insulting and unfair?
"Your mother is a whore and your father is a pig!"
Now that I have insulted you, given your arguments about freedom of speech without being the thought police, I now expect you to respect my belief and respect me as a person. Do declare that my belief is respectable.
There is no incoherence. Don't you know the difference from one who practices religion peacefully from one who uses religion to discriminate and accuse others unfairly?
Unfair people twists religious beliefs to suit their homophobic agenda and can resort to violence in the worst scenario. So where is the incoherence?
You still fail to answer the question: Is the actor's belief that "homosexuals are wrong because they do not procreate" deserve our respect if it deserves your respect? What is the rationale? Just freedom of speech?
You mentioned first language, didn't you?
You are entitled to your happiness in your world because you have not suffered the outrage of discrimination but don't expect others to follow your style of respecting unreasonable people's beliefs which do not merit any respect at all.
You're already respecting his point of view. It exists. You've taken it on-board.
I know the difference between peaceful religion and fundamentalism. However, you seem to have the idea that religions should be banned as they aren't based on logic or on proven fact.
1. You acknowledge it.
2. My position mirrors scientific method, i.e. understanding others points of view,
theories, etc, is key.
3. Read the end of your comment 29. My extrapolation is fair. And the end of comment 22. Or are you saying the basis of religions are sound?
1. You are the one who claimed you respect the actor's homophobic rants while wanting others to follow suit. How could I have acknowledged it? You are out of your mind.
2. You don't know what scientific method entails. You are just a troll uttering rubbish.
3. What kind of extrapolation is this? You are absurd. But it's ok. You will respect whatever I say about you, right?
1. Look up the definition of the word. I'm perfectly sane. Maybe look up the meaning of that word also.
2. As an engineer with close links to science, it's part of my training and career. You're second sentence is simple unfounded name calling. I guess your argument is null.
3. I've taken it onboard so, yeah, I respect it. It's quite obviously wrong but hey, what can I do?
I have already looked up and even gave you the meanings of the word, from which I picked the correct one to fit your sentence in context. Even Americanbear agrees that your word is inappropriate. What more is there to say?
Most massive acts of violence are based on warped beliefs based on religion, race, etc. Millions of Jews had been murdered because of the belief that the Aryan was the superior race. Thousands of people were massacred because the Muslim extremists believe that non-Muslims are infidels or other fellow Muslims are not “Muslim” enough. The same went for the Spanish Inquisition. Warped beliefs have been responsible for so many lives and miseries.
Similarly, homophobia is responsible for the pathetic situation we are in until today. Without homophobia, we can walk down public streets holding hands with our loved ones. Without homophobia, you can post your face pics in your profiles. But with homophobia, millions of gays remain closeted and many are forced to marry due to social pressure in order to escape detection of our true nature. Homophobia is a warped belief based on ignorance and unfounded fears. Beliefs remain fundamental. From beliefs, people can justify their actions against others be they violent or non-violent. Why respect a warped belief just because it has not been exploited by people for violence yet?
Non-violent homophobia is enough to drive teens to suicides due to self rejection, ostracisation by peers and very low self esteem. And violent homophobia has prompted acts against gays like throwing them from high buildings in the Middle East and killings in Russia (like those in “Brokeback Mountain” movie) This Taiwanese actor thinks it wrong for homosexuality to exist because we fail to procreate. Others use religion to brand us as sinners and hate us for not “converting” ourselves back to straight because they believe homosexuality is convertible. Warped beliefs regarding human nature may be non-violent in the beginning but the negative impact is there. Should we then respect such warped beliefs?
And you bring in incoherent unrelated phrase “scientific method” (which you failed to link to our discussion) and unfoundedly assuming that English is not my First Language. What other unfounded beliefs do you harbour? Oh, the Earth is flat? Unicorns exist? Yes, respect these as they are non-violent in nature – just because you can’t differentiate the usages of the terms “respect” and “ignore” in layman terms.
"Even Americanbear agrees that your word is inappropriate. What more is there to say?"
Indeed. If you're happy with his endorsement I'll try not to laugh.
I clearly said:
"I guess English isn't your first language."
That is not the same as: "unfoundedly assuming that English is not my First Language. "
It's actually an enquiry as it would explain your lack of knowledge as to what the word means. Again, another example of scientific method. Put forward a hypothesis and then test it. Your comprehension is flawed. Whether that is willful or not is not my problem.
Good luck in your "head in the sand" approach to life. I'll make another guess that you either live, or aspire to live, in a ghetto comprised of entirely like-minded people.
Feel free to reply but don't be surprised if I don't.
Printable Version
RSS Feed: 
Reader's Comments
If that's his belief you have to respect it. He respects gay people after all. Well done him for speaking his mind. I'm sure he respects my freedom to think him wrong.
He's not advocating any harm either. What are you going to do? Force him to take gay acting roles?
Sacrificing virgins....hmmmm... Let's think if anyone is at harm......same with volcanic vents.....
You can't stop people's beliefs. Change them maybe.
I drive my car. Pollution causes asthma. Indirectly I'm killing people by driving my car. No one is going to gaol me.
Gay people hide away their sexuality and don't discuss it with straight people. Are they indirectly guilty too?
Even this site peddles fear at time.
Freedom of discussion is the only way to solve these problems along with mutual respect.
" I do not hate gay people, I love them, I have compassion for them"
Well, this is mere hypocrisy. How to love the person and hate his personal behaviour when both are intertwined with each other? It's just like I love single people but I hate the fact that they are not married.
And so, does indirect means nothing? Smoking indirectly contributes to cancer & many other ailments. Does it mean we should "respect" someone who promotes smoking then, since it is an indirect cause? Yes, pollution causes asthma but what percentage of the population actually are inflicted with asthma so as to warrant punishment like jailing?
Yes, freedom of discussion is the only way but discussion without founded logic is not true discussion at all, let alone bestowing "respect" to the illogical speaker.
The Nazis had this line of thought early 1900s. Quite a lot were gay also.
This actor isn't advocating violence. So, why not respect his view? You can always challenge it, discuss it, etc...
I think respect is too strong a term. I can listen to someone, learn their views and even accept them but respect those views? Nope. Had a neighbor once back in FL that hated black people. Had all sorts of crazy theories where they came from. The curse of Ham, sex with apes, etc. Now, as a person, he was fun, caring (as long as you weren't black), and a good husband as far as his wife was concerned. I liked him and respected him in many ways. But his views on black people? No respect was given to that.
Grabbing pussies would certainly be an act of violence in my book.
If you can't be bothered to understand why someone has a view it's going to be difficult to point out to them why you think they are wrong. You could always ask him.
Touch is not grab. It would be a violation of my private space however.
Also, from Google "define respect":
respect
rɪˈspɛkt/
noun
1.
a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
"the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor"
synonyms:esteem, regard, high regard, high opinion, acclaim, admiration, approbation, approval, appreciation,estimation, favour, popularity, recognition, veneration, awe, reverence, deference, honour, praise, homage
"the respect due to a great artist"
2.
due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.
"young people's lack of respect for their parents"
synonyms:due regard, consideration, thoughtfulness, attentiveness, politeness, courtesy, civility, deference
"he speaks to the old lady with respect"
verb
1.
admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
"she was respected by everyone she worked with"
synonyms:esteem, admire, think highly of, have a high opinion of, hold in high regard, hold in (high) esteem, think much of, approve of, appreciate, cherish, value, set (great) store by, prize, treasure, look up to, pay homage to, venerate, revere, reverence, adulate, worship, idolize, put on a pedestal, lionize, hero-worship,honour, applaud, praise, favour
"as a teacher he was highly respected for his industry and patience"
2.
have due regard for (someone's feelings, wishes, or rights).
"I respected his views"
synonyms:show consideration for, show regard for, take into consideration, take into account, make allowances for,take cognizance of, observe, pay heed/attention to, bear in mind, be mindful of, be heedful of, remember;
archaicregard
"at least they respect your privacy"
You do that, you gaol yourself.
You're free to point out your views. Respect and those rights.
He's an actor. Plays at make believe all day. Why on earth are you giving any value to his utterances?
intense in force;
acting with strong,
rough force,
furious in energy
Hence, if someone grabs or touches your genitals, that is not "violence". "Violation of modesty" is an outrage, whereas "violent" acts refer to "battery, assault, physical attack" Violation is not the same as violence.
Sure, everyone is entitled to his own thoughts and I did not say we should jail him for his beliefs. Neither am I suggesting violence on him. But I am questioning why you used the word "respect" when in layman terms it means "showing deference"?
Whether he is an actor or a butcher makes no difference. An occupation is an occupation. There is no occupation that entitles one to spout unfair accusations against others as this does not deserve our "respect". And because there is no value in his utterances (as you have said), I don't see where "respect" comes in as "show consideration for", "show regard for", "take into consideration", "admire", "honour" etc. We can only "ignore" his prejudiced statements but not "respect" his belief.
And respect never means to take into consideration? You're free to have these understandings of course. I just hope you get around to understanding the word: hypocrite.
Judging by both your means of reasoning you'd probably get on very well with this actor.
I'm laughing at you both as it's too sad not to. Have a great day.
http://9gag.com/gag/aB17Pzx
http://9gag.com/gag/an16wpE
http://9gag.com/gag/aEn3Ndp
As for groping genitals, the layman meaning is depicted as below:
http://9gag.com/gag/ajDoQR1
So may I ask where the violence is? You can violate someone's privacy, outrage someone's modesty, violate a rule etc. WITHOUT resorting to violence. Hence, the difference between "violence" and "violation". But whether violence or violation is involved, the act should not warrant our "respect".
As for hypocrisy, I've already said that straight homophobes often like to use the hypocritical phrase "Love the person but hates his behavior." Is that possible and sincere?
If you judge my reasoning by lumping him and me together, it's up to you. Laugh all you want to. But to ask us to respect the belief of someone who is ignorant, misled and misguided is ludicrous. It's like saying "That fellow has (non-violently) insulted your mother and father, in fact, your whole family. But we must respect his belief because he is being non-violent."
I simply see no logic in giving our respect (honor / deference) to a prejudiced ignoramus. His beliefs may appear to be harmless and non-violent on the surface but when such beliefs are perpetuated, they encourage other straight homophobes to continue persecuting us and justifying their acts of violence against us (as seen in Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq etc.) Hence, I am irked by the suggestion that such a belief (that being gay is wrong and not pro-creating is immoral) should be "respected" or is "respectable".
As long as there is no action or incitement to act we should be tolerant and respectful of people's thoughts.
p.s. You might want to look up the definition of layman also.
Look at the root of world terrorism today. The root lies in religious fundamentalism including Wahabism. No violence at first but when overzealous assholes want to exploit the beliefs to resort to violence, there is harm. You can see violence inflicted on religious and ethnic minorities, gays etc in many parts of the world both developed and developing. If you do not want to do something to counter wrong ideology, then you have September 11th Incident repeated. If you want to respect homophobic beliefs just because they are non violent, suit yourself but don't expect the others to follow suit because granting unreasonable homophobes honour or respect is illogical and ludicrous.
Who are you to decide what is fair, altruistic and not prejudicial or causing disharmony?
If I said I don't want to drink in a gay bar it could be seen as homophobia by some.
Everyone is different and so may it continue. You can't just gag people. Especially when they are seen to change their mind and the good example to others that can be.
You have to wonder at some "advocates" stirring things up when there are much more important things to report and address.
If you don't want to drink in a gay bar, then fine. How is it construed to be homophobic? If you like to eat pizza with straights but hate eating pizzas with gays, then that shows your discrimination. Of course you can continue to show such behaviour but is such prejudice worthy of respect?
Of course we cannot gag people. They can spout whatever rubbish they want just like Trump. But why should we respect rubbish? They can spout nonsense but we can counter their nonsense instead of showing our respect for their nonsense, can't we? So are you saying we should respect all unfounded homophobic statements? The actor says homosexuality is wrong and you say "Respect him". If that suits your mentality, then fine. As the Bible says, "Someone slaps you in the cheek and you turn the other cheek for him to slap." It's a metaphor but it's up to you if you want to show your respect this way. But I also have the freedom to say no way.
What is there to stir if you did not stir things up in the first place by using an inappropriate word? Americanbear already agrees with this.
You are free to counter anyone's views and beliefs. It's a two way street. If you say people can't hold a certain view, it is very easy for them to do likewise. Which is the fundamentalism you referred to earlier.
Scientific method works on the principle I have outlined. And that has progressed humanity more than anything else in history.
Your ideas are getting more and more incoherent and illogical. What do eschewing from gay bars and the scientific method have to do with "respect"?
Of course there are various meanings to most single words. But to use it in the context of what you wrote, that is outrageous.
If you share a different religion, I respect your religious belief (as it does not intrude into me or causes disharmony).
I respect your position as a manager (as you are my superior in work life and the work system demands that).
I respect your private space (as you are entitled to it, unlike animals in a cage)
I respect your rights to food and water even though you are my prisoner-of-war (as that is the humanitarian thing to do).
But why should I respect your belief which is insulting and unfair?
"Your mother is a whore and your father is a pig!"
Now that I have insulted you, given your arguments about freedom of speech without being the thought police, I now expect you to respect my belief and respect me as a person. Do declare that my belief is respectable.
However, I do respect your freedom to have that belief.
You just stated: "If you share a different religion, I respect your religious belief (as it does not intrude into me or causes disharmony)."
Yet earlier:". You can see violence inflicted on religious and ethnic minorities, gays etc in many parts of the world both developed and developing."
Then you talk of being "incoherent and illogical".
And who said anything about native speaker? :)
You seem to fill in the blanks incorrectly for your own rant. Good luck with your thought police but I'm happy in my world.
Unfair people twists religious beliefs to suit their homophobic agenda and can resort to violence in the worst scenario. So where is the incoherence?
You still fail to answer the question: Is the actor's belief that "homosexuals are wrong because they do not procreate" deserve our respect if it deserves your respect? What is the rationale? Just freedom of speech?
You mentioned first language, didn't you?
You are entitled to your happiness in your world because you have not suffered the outrage of discrimination but don't expect others to follow your style of respecting unreasonable people's beliefs which do not merit any respect at all.
I know the difference between peaceful religion and fundamentalism. However, you seem to have the idea that religions should be banned as they aren't based on logic or on proven fact.
How does scientific method comes in to our discussion? Do explain.
Where or how did I tarnish all religions with the same brush, thinking that all religions should be banned? Do explain.
2. My position mirrors scientific method, i.e. understanding others points of view,
theories, etc, is key.
3. Read the end of your comment 29. My extrapolation is fair. And the end of comment 22. Or are you saying the basis of religions are sound?
2. You don't know what scientific method entails. You are just a troll uttering rubbish.
3. What kind of extrapolation is this? You are absurd. But it's ok. You will respect whatever I say about you, right?
2. As an engineer with close links to science, it's part of my training and career. You're second sentence is simple unfounded name calling. I guess your argument is null.
3. I've taken it onboard so, yeah, I respect it. It's quite obviously wrong but hey, what can I do?
Oh. That's right. Call you names. :)
Most massive acts of violence are based on warped beliefs based on religion, race, etc. Millions of Jews had been murdered because of the belief that the Aryan was the superior race. Thousands of people were massacred because the Muslim extremists believe that non-Muslims are infidels or other fellow Muslims are not “Muslim” enough. The same went for the Spanish Inquisition. Warped beliefs have been responsible for so many lives and miseries.
Similarly, homophobia is responsible for the pathetic situation we are in until today. Without homophobia, we can walk down public streets holding hands with our loved ones. Without homophobia, you can post your face pics in your profiles. But with homophobia, millions of gays remain closeted and many are forced to marry due to social pressure in order to escape detection of our true nature. Homophobia is a warped belief based on ignorance and unfounded fears. Beliefs remain fundamental. From beliefs, people can justify their actions against others be they violent or non-violent. Why respect a warped belief just because it has not been exploited by people for violence yet?
Non-violent homophobia is enough to drive teens to suicides due to self rejection, ostracisation by peers and very low self esteem. And violent homophobia has prompted acts against gays like throwing them from high buildings in the Middle East and killings in Russia (like those in “Brokeback Mountain” movie) This Taiwanese actor thinks it wrong for homosexuality to exist because we fail to procreate. Others use religion to brand us as sinners and hate us for not “converting” ourselves back to straight because they believe homosexuality is convertible. Warped beliefs regarding human nature may be non-violent in the beginning but the negative impact is there. Should we then respect such warped beliefs?
And you bring in incoherent unrelated phrase “scientific method” (which you failed to link to our discussion) and unfoundedly assuming that English is not my First Language. What other unfounded beliefs do you harbour? Oh, the Earth is flat? Unicorns exist? Yes, respect these as they are non-violent in nature – just because you can’t differentiate the usages of the terms “respect” and “ignore” in layman terms.
Indeed. If you're happy with his endorsement I'll try not to laugh.
I clearly said:
"I guess English isn't your first language."
That is not the same as: "unfoundedly assuming that English is not my First Language. "
It's actually an enquiry as it would explain your lack of knowledge as to what the word means. Again, another example of scientific method. Put forward a hypothesis and then test it. Your comprehension is flawed. Whether that is willful or not is not my problem.
Good luck in your "head in the sand" approach to life. I'll make another guess that you either live, or aspire to live, in a ghetto comprised of entirely like-minded people.
Feel free to reply but don't be surprised if I don't.
Please log in to use this feature.