Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Étienne d'Angleterre on April 14, 2016, 02:57:49 PM
-
Here is the relevant quote from Sassy.
"Everyone knows that there is no vile homophobic views held by the Christians at all on this site. Just your false accusations and using such as a rod to beat the Christians. You have proved my point. Because only YOU believe any vile homophobic views actually exist."
-
Here is the relevant quote from Sassy.
"Everyone knows that there is no vile homophobic views held by the Christians at all on this site. Just your false accusations and using such as a rod to beat the Christians. You have proved my point. Because only YOU believe any vile homophobic views actually exist."
Leaving aside non forum stuff, on here I've seen argued that homosexual sex is as the same as murder (Hope), that homosexuals are mentally ill or disordered, (Spud), that you should be able to choose not to teach them, that burning to death is a joke, or that being killed might be defensible (cymrudinnion). Just off top of head
-
I have seen some evil and disgusting anti-gay comments over the years. One 'Christian' poster, now banned, said he would turn a blind eye if a gay was being beaten up. >:(
-
Leaving aside non forum stuff, on here I've seen argued that homosexual sex is as the same as murder (Hope), that homosexuals are mentally ill or disordered, (Spud), that you should be able to choose not to teach them, that burning to death is a joke, or that being killed might be defensible (cymrudinnion). Just off top of head
And that's leaving aside any idea that they shouldn't be allowed to marry which was widespread, though there are a number of honourable exceptions on that.
-
Interesting set of wording, Stephen.
I have never seen a homophobic view expressed here that I would consider vile
This is the equivalent of a double negative!! The very meaning of the word 'homophobic', in the hands of those who use it, is 'vile'.
-
Re: the second option: I couldn't believe that someone could say something so vile about homosexual people.
you don't quote the ''something so vile'' so I don't know what you mean.
-
Re: the second option: I couldn't believe that someone could say something so vile about homosexual people.
you don't quote the ''something so vile'' so I don't know what you mean.
See Nearly Sane's reply #1.
-
Interesting set of wording, Stephen.
This is the equivalent of a double negative!! The very meaning of the word 'homophobic', in the hands of those who use it, is 'vile'.
I don't think that is necessarily true.
I think Gonnagle says he was homophobic and still is uneasy about Gay relitionshipst but has realised that it is his problem (many many apologies if I remember that wrong Gonnagle, but I am sure you said something like that recently). I don't think that is vile.
Calling someone damaged because they are homosexual is vile in my, and I think most peoples, opinion.
How are the replies to the questions on the archbishop thread coming along?
-
Re: the second option: I couldn't believe that someone could say something so vile about homosexual people.
you don't quote the ''something so vile'' so I don't know what you mean.
Simply, have you seen a view against homosexuality expressed on this forum that you consider vile?
-
Yes. From the question, I thought there was one particular thing that had been said recently, perhaps today, that I hadn't seen. Thanksl
-
Interesting set of wording, Stephen.
This is the equivalent of a double negative!! The very meaning of the word 'homophobic', in the hands of those who use it, is 'vile'.
Oh dear. I saw this and thought, hey he is back online!
I nipped over to the Archbishop thread eager to read you replies to the pertinent questions put to you but alas! there were non. :(
I have some academic addresses for you to write to in order to tell them they are wasting their time and that no scientific explanation is possible.
Just let me know when you want them.
-
I really wish you hadn't put "I couldn't believe..." at the start of the second option. I've seen some vile posts about about homosexual people but, unfortunately, I found them unsurprising and all too believable. It's what religion does to some people.
-
I really wish you hadn't put "I couldn't believe..." at the start of the second option. I've seen some vile posts about about homosexual people but, unfortunately, I found them unsurprising and all too believable. It's what religion does to some people.
Fair enough :)
I'll take that as a yes then.
-
Leaving aside non forum stuff, on here I've seen argued that homosexual sex is as the same as murder (Hope), that homosexuals are mentally ill or disordered, (Spud), that you should be able to choose not to teach them, that burning to death is a joke, or that being killed might be defensible (cymrudinnion). Just off top of head
Regarding what I said: How is describing homosexuality as a disorder (of sexual orientation), vile and homophobic?
-
I really wish you hadn't put "I couldn't believe..." at the start of the second option. I've seen some vile posts about about homosexual people but, unfortunately, I found them unsurprising and all too believable. It's what religion does to some people.
I too didn't find anything said on here ''unbelievable''. To find such comments on a forum is all too believable! However some of the things cited as 'vile' are, imo, misunderstood comments or things taken out of context. Others are pretty awful and stem from ignorance.
I've heard far worse, no-one here has called homosexuals, ''Degenerates'' or the like and I've seen that before now on a forum, which was quite shocking. Here on the R&E forum no-one seems to hate anyone because of their sexual orientation.
-
I too didn't find anything said on here ''unbelievable''. To find such comments on a forum is all too believable! However some of the things cited as 'vile' are, imo, misunderstood comments or things taken out of context. Others are pretty awful and stem from ignorance.
I've heard far worse, no-one here has called homosexuals, ''Degenerates'' or the like and I've seen that before now on a forum, which was quite shocking. Here on the R&E forum no-one seems to hate anyone because of their sexual orientation.
If someone says active homosexuality is wrong in the same way as murder, I fail to see the difference between that and 'degenerate' in scale.
-
To be fair, since cymrudinnion was banned with his comments that he didn't see anything wrong about laughing about homosexuals being burned to death, I haven't seen anything I couldn't believe had been said.
Occasionally Vlad gets close when instead of picking up theists who think that homosexuals are mentally disordered, picks up anyone who criticises such a position who isn't a theist for using homosexuality as an stick to beat theists. I don't give a flying duck (sic) what someone's position on theism is generally. I'll criticise any idiots that happen to spread hate against my friends having the same rights as me, and arguing their love is 'mentally disordered'
And I'll add that occasionally I have struggled to believe posters who when I cite the friends whose hospital beds I have visited because they were beaten up by some thug, whose position on the whole god thing I care nary a jot for, shout 'you're just being emotional' as if that is the wrong reaction to seeing someone on a ventilator because they kissed someone of the same sex.
So when someone touts the idea that Trent is 'diseased' as Sriram did, yes, I can 'believe' it but I won't allow it to stay unchallenged.
-
Regarding what I said: How is describing homosexuality as a disorder (of sexual orientation), vile and homophobic?
You said they were 'mentally' disordered., which as I pointed out means the same as 'mentally ill' which you withdrew to then just restate differently. You want to deny the rights of my friends to marry the person they love. You are vile and homophobic
And that's without your frequent pushing of the idea that homosexuality is similar to paedophilia
-
I really wish you hadn't put "I couldn't believe..." at the start of the second option. I've seen some vile posts about about homosexual people but, unfortunately, I found them unsurprising and all too believable. It's what religion does to some people.
That just about sums it up for me as well.
Even Spud's ridiculous suggestion that Russia's intervention in Syria was more effective than Europe's/ the west's, which might be down to the different attitude/ legislation to homosexuality was all too tragically believable.
-
Leaving aside non forum stuff, on here I've seen argued that homosexual sex is as the same as murder (Hope), ...
Except, of course, that I've never ever said that, NS, here or elsewhere. Instead I have pointed out that I believe the Bible to teach that homosexual relationships are sinful - which is also how it describes things like murder, lying, theft, fraud, selfishness, rape, greed, etc., etc. It' a good idea, when making posts like this, to use the full context of others' posts, rather than cherry-picking a single term that conveniently supports your existing prejudices.
-
See Nearly Sane's reply #1.
Precisely, Shakes; a post that displays some horrendous prejudices.
-
If someone says active homosexuality is wrong in the same way as murder, I fail to see the difference between that and 'degenerate' in scale.
Well, NS, in God's eyes, 'sin' is 'sin'. He doesn't go around grading it, as we do as a human society. There is nothing wrong in a human society grading sinful actions, as we need to know how best to punish the perpetrator - both for themselves and for the sake of society. On the other hand, God looks at things from a very different perspective as - for him - the issue is whether or not an action damages the relationship between him and a human being.
-
Oh dear. I saw this and thought, hey he is back online!
I nipped over to the Archbishop thread eager to read you replies to the pertinent questions put to you but alas! there were non. :(
Clearly you haven't been following the thread particularly carefully. I made my position clear on this particular topic in my reply #37 on that thread.
I have some academic addresses for you to write to in order to tell them they are wasting their time and that no scientific explanation is possible.
Just let me know when you want them.
Regarding the latter topic of discussion, I can give you the addresses of academics as well. In fact, the very fact that both you and I could trade academics' addresses shows that there is no scientific or academic consensus - and that applies to both the former and the latter topics.
-
Except, of course, that I've never ever said that, NS, here or elsewhere. Instead I have pointed out that I believe the Bible to teach that homosexual relationships are sinful - which is also how it describes things like murder, lying, theft, fraud, selfishness, rape, greed, etc., etc. It' a good idea, when making posts like this, to use the full context of others' posts, rather than cherry-picking a single term that conveniently supports your existing prejudices.
I'm glad you've responded to this Hope because I remember when it came up a little while ago, at the time I said I couldn't see how you were saying homosexual relationships were the same as murder. I believed I understood what you meant and that what you said was misunderstood by others. So, though I don't agree with you on this particular issue, in my opinion you haven't said anything 'vile'.
If you don't mind me bringing something up from the recent past, which I think is relevant, I'd like to ask you if you said Trentvoyager should see a doctor because of being gay or did you mean he should seek medical advice about something else? Thanks.
-
If you don't mind me bringing something up from the recent past, which I think is relevant, I'd like to ask you if you said Trentvoyager should see a doctor because of being gay or did you mean he should seek medical advice about something else? Thanks.
Not sure I said either, Brownie. If anyone can find what they think is an example of this, I'd be happy to look at it.
-
You said they were 'mentally' disordered., which as I pointed out means the same as 'mentally ill' which you withdrew to then just restate differently. You want to deny the rights of my friends to marry the person they love. You are vile and homophobic
And that's without your frequent pushing of the idea that homosexuality is similar to paedophilia
Answer the question.
-
Answer the question.
I did. Specifically and indeed tangentially.
-
Precisely, Shakes; a post that displays some horrendous prejudices.
Indeed, with the holders of such identified by name.
-
Not sure I said either, Brownie. If anyone can find what they think is an example of this, I'd be happy to look at it.
Yes you did. It was what you were suspended for recently and the post removed - though not, I trust, deleted outright.
-
Well, NS, in God's eyes, 'sin' is 'sin'. He doesn't go around grading it, as we do as a human society. There is nothing wrong in a human society grading sinful actions, as we need to know how best to punish the perpetrator - both for themselves and for the sake of society. On the other hand, God looks at things from a very different perspective as - for him - the issue is whether or not an action damages the relationship between him and a human being.
Yep, so you lying about not comparing such things is the same as child murder, in your opinion
-
Precisely, Shakes; a post that displays some horrendous prejudices.
In what way is it prejudiced given it points out that you think that my friends who are married are like child murderers? I think those are facts, see forum best bits, and of course your idea that Trentvoyager needs medical treatment.
-
Not sure I said either, Brownie. If anyone can find what they think is an example of this, I'd be happy to look at it.
It was a couple of weeks ago Hope but I can't find it, someone else might. I understood that was why you were suspended.
-
Not sure I said either, Brownie. If anyone can find what they think is an example of this, I'd be happy to look at it.
Really, you cannot remember the thing you were banned for? How much lying do you think your Jesus would like? Why is it that you lie so frequently on here? If I hadn't seen you do this do often over such a long time, I would conclude your posts were a sick puppet of someone like Farmer's designed to metaphorically push on some forms of Christianity. After all why lie as continually as you do?
-
Can someone link to the relevant post or at least quote it? Not because I want to drag up something that is done and dusted but because it is relevant to this thread, also I previously said I wanted to ask Hope about it when he returned. I can't find it but it must have been shortly before April 1st.
-
I believe it was removed at the same time as Hope's suspension - which is understandable in one way but in another highly unfortunate, since it gives him the perfect excuse to weasel out of ever having suggested that trentvoyager should see a doctor, not for illness but for his sexuality (which of course Hope regards as a 'disorder').
The prunings and purges of this forum are highly unfortunate in that regard. I've been known to take screen caps of this kind of contemptible material so that the offender can't claim it was never said even after removal, but I missed this one :(
-
I'm sure if we had the post to hand, Hope would explain what he meant. It is a pity it was removed permanently, unless the mods have it in the mod room. Maybe someone else has quoted it somewhere. It seems a ridiculous suggestion that someone see a doctor because they are gay - I mean, if I went to my doctor and said, ''I am gay'', what would she say to me? What would any doctor say? It doesn't ring true. That's why I have my doubts about what Hope meant though he obviously said something about seeing a doctor.
-
I'm sure if we had the post to hand, Hope would explain what he meant. It is a pity it was removed permanently, unless the mods have it in the mod room. Maybe someone else has quoted it somewhere. It seems a ridiculous suggestion that someone see a doctor because they are gay - I mean, if I went to my doctor and said, ''I am gay'', what would she say to me? What would any doctor say? It doesn't ring true. That's why I have my doubts about what Hope meant though he obviously said something about seeing a doctor.
So you would be happy to have a post that said that trentvoyager needed to go to a doctor because he was gat as something on the forum? How about cymrudinnion's joke about people in a gay club burning to death? Should we still have that on the forum?
-
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an explanation from the Artless Dodger, the sheriff of Dodge City, the Dodge of Venice, Roger the Dodger himself.
-
I believe it was removed at the same time as Hope's suspension - which is understandable in one way but in another highly unfortunate, since it gives him the perfect excuse to weasel out of ever having suggested that trentvoyager should see a doctor, not for illness but for his sexuality (which of course Hope regards as a 'disorder').
The prunings and purges of this forum are highly unfortunate in that regard. I've been known to take screen caps of this kind of contemptible material so that the offender can't claim it was never said even after removal, but I missed this one :(
Which the poster in this case has used to his advantage on several occasions in the past to deny things which he regretted posting because others took serious exception! As, ofcourse, so did his friend OMW.
-
Brownie - you may not be aware of the posting style of some on here. I can assure you the meaning was there even if it was couched in what would seem a reasonable way.
As a PS - I at no point asked for the post to be removed, as, like Shaker, I prefer contested things to remain - you can then at least see what was said, rather than indulging in rather pointless debate about withdrawn postings.
-
I'm sure if we had the post to hand, Hope would explain what he meant. It is a pity it was removed permanently, unless the mods have it in the mod room. Maybe someone else has quoted it somewhere. It seems a ridiculous suggestion that someone see a doctor because they are gay - I mean, if I went to my doctor and said, ''I am gay'', what would she say to me? What would any doctor say? It doesn't ring true. That's why I have my doubts about what Hope meant though he obviously said something about seeing a doctor.
So what's your take here? The mods are lying, or wrong, or anyone who saw and reported the post is also lying or wrong?
How about the post I copied into the Best Bits where Hope specifically compares homosexual sex to murder?
-
I'm not calling anyone a liar NS but we all get things wrong sometimes, I merely wondered if Hope meant Trent needed to see a doctor about something else and it was misinterpreted. I believe what Trent says, above.
-
So you would be happy to have a post that said that trentvoyager needed to go to a doctor because he was gat as something on the forum? How about cymrudinnion's joke about people in a gay club burning to death? Should we still have that on the forum?
As foully objectionable as such things are, for them to remain on-forum - in some special holding pen, as it were - would prevent the sort of tactic that Hope is going to employ now, which is to feign innocence and ignorance with the "So where is it then?" shtick, trying to cast doubt that it ever existed at all even though several of us here remember it. We're talking only a few days ago after all.
There's nothing in life quite like a really stinging dollop of Schadenfreude, and in the above scenario to see somebody thoroughly burned, comprehensively skinned, boned, gutted and generally done up like a kipper by showing them the evidence of what they have tried to deny even existed is one of life's great pleasures.
P.S. From memory alone Hope's post (in the context of homosexuality, not illness) ran something like: "You [trentvoyager] are quite free to state that you do not need to see a doctor just as I am free to suggest that perhaps you should."
-
Maybe I should just stay out of this thread....but what the heck, I have time on my hands!
Is it 'vile' to say that homosexuality is an abnormality....and that homosexuality is probably due to epigenetic mechanisms (some good articles are available on this) that are caused by certain lifestyles ....and that scientists are looking at ways by which these epigenetic changes can be reversed??!
-
Maybe I should just stay out of this thread....but what the heck, I have time on my hands!
Is it 'vile' to say that homosexuality is an abnormality....and that homosexuality is probably due to epigenetic mechanisms (some good articles are available on this) that are caused by certain lifestyles ....and that scientists are looking at ways by which these epigenetic changes can be reversed??!
Yes it is!
Spud said much the same thing using different words.
Is any religion that believes in a God figure an abnormality in that there is no physical evidence of the God's existence and therefore all religionists, myself included, are delusional, that is, mentally abnormal?
-
The danger with the research side of things is that partial information can be worse than none if it leads to increased prejudice against so-called 'abnormalities.' And it legitimises the idea that there is a 'problem' to be 'cured'. I don't understand epigenetics all but it's possible it counts for all kinds of things that are a part of our everyday make-up.
I'm not sure why time, effort and resources should be ploughed into finding 'reversal' procedures for homosexuality when the simplest solution is for humanity to accept it and welcome the fact it brings a bit more love into the world. Surely it's no more big a deal than preferring blue eyes or big knockers.
-
Yes it is!
Spud said much the same thing using different words.
Is any religion that believes in a God figure an abnormality in that there is no physical evidence of the God's existence and therefore all religionists, myself included, are delusional, that is, mentally abnormal?
? ? ? ? ?
What God & religion?!! ::)
-
Yes it is!
Spud said much the same thing using different words.
Is any religion that believes in a God figure an abnormality in that there is no physical evidence of the God's existence and therefore all religionists, myself included, are delusional, that is, mentally abnormal?
Quite possibly. Theists have been called mentally abnormal on here - can't remember specifics and can't be bothered to look for them but someone said religious belief was a misfiring of synapses or something along those lines.. I didn't find the comment vile. It didn't automatically make me think of the trauma and persecution faced by theists who were targeted under certain regimes such as Pol Pot's.
I never saw Hope's posts about TV and if he said what Shaker has claimed he said, I don't think Hope should have made it personal about TV , but if someone said homosexuality or theism are mental abnormalities I think it's impossible to have a debate without being allowed to say stuff like that on here. If it reminds certain people of their friends in hospital and they feel upset by it, that's unfortunate, but they are free to label people who hold certain views about homosexuality as abnormal. I also don't see the problem in calling certain sex acts a sin - I don't use that term but it is part of the vocabulary of other theists on here.
-
Maybe I should just stay out of this thread....but what the heck, I have time on my hands!
Is it 'vile' to say that homosexuality is an abnormality....and that homosexuality is probably due to epigenetic mechanisms (some good articles are available on this) that are caused by certain lifestyles ....and that scientists are looking at ways by which these epigenetic changes can be reversed??!
Can you point to studies which refer to 'certain lifestyles' please Sriram? I would be interested to read them as the only ones I could find referring to epigenetic causes of homosexuality are highly theoretical and refer to inherited influences. Also which scientist are looking into reversing such changes - specifically the homosexual ones - as I couldn't find any such specific examples.
-
The danger with the research side of things is that partial information can be worse than none if it leads to increased prejudice against so-called 'abnormalities.' And it legitimises the idea that there is a 'problem' to be 'cured'. I don't understand epigenetics all but it's possible it counts for all kinds of things that are a part of our everyday make-up.
I'm not sure why time, effort and resources should be ploughed into finding 'reversal' procedures for homosexuality when the simplest solution is for humanity to accept it and welcome the fact it brings a bit more love into the world. Surely it's no more big a deal than preferring blue eyes or big knockers.
One should not be a homophobe certainly....but one should not be a homophile either.
If a successful reversal treatment was discovered, I bet many homosexuals will queue up for it....and rightly so IMO.
Some abnormalities do exist in nature....accept them for what they are. And if they can be corrected ...fine! What's the problem?
-
But you don't accept homosexuality, do you, Sriram?
-
Can you point to studies which refer to 'certain lifestyles' please Sriram? I would be interested to read them as the only ones I could find referring to epigenetic causes of homosexuality are highly theoretical and refer to inherited influences. Also which scientist are looking into reversing such changes - specifically the homosexual ones - as I couldn't find any such specific examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality
Epigenetics is about lifestyle and inheritance of acquired traits.
-
Good article here, Maeght, blowing out of the water the idea that epigenetics will give us all the answers - or that this research is even necessary.
Apart from to those seeking to make big bucks from the future 'homosexuality reversal process' of course.
http://mobile.the-scientist.com/article/33773/can-epigenetics-explain-homosexuality
-
But you don't accept homosexuality, do you, Sriram?
What are you talking about? Homosexuality exists...just like so many other abnormalities exist. Who am I to accept or reject them?
I don't have any motherly protective feelings (Oh...he is perfectly normal you know...nothing wrong with him! :'() towards homosexuals or anyone else for that matter....if that's what you mean.
I am not a homophobe. I do not think they are sinners or criminals. For me they are no different from any other abnormal person. But I am not a homophile either and I don't think they should be treated as something.....'above all discussion and debate'.
-
Erm, thinking that there's nothing wrong with gay people is not protective, feminine or motherly. It's just reasonable.
Thinking that homosexuals are abnormal people is not accepting homosexuality, Sriram.
Sometimes this place gets seriously bonkers.
-
Yep, so you lying about not comparing such things is the same as child murder, in your opinion
I read that as Hope believes that is Gods opinion, not his.
-
I read that as Hope believes that is Gods opinion, not his.
Not his?
-
I'm not calling anyone a liar NS but we all get things wrong sometimes, I merely wondered if Hope meant Trent needed to see a doctor about something else and it was misinterpreted. I believe what Trent says, above.
I've had my posts misread here before, and people insisting I've said things I haven't.
I think it's a tactic of wumming, when groups of posters get bored here.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Hope was being misread.
-
I've had my posts misread here before, and people insisting I've said things I haven't.
I think it's a tactic of wumming, when groups of posters get bored here.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Hope was being misread.
So someone who regards being gay as a disorder tells another poster, in the context of homosexuality not illness, that they should perhaps see a doctor, and they're being misinterpreted? Really?
-
Leaving aside non forum stuff, on here I've seen argued that homosexual sex is as the same as murder (Hope), that homosexuals are mentally ill or disordered, (Spud), that you should be able to choose not to teach them, that burning to death is a joke, or that being killed might be defensible (cymrudinnion). Just off top of head
Re: Are sins like homosexuality still condemned in the New Covenant of Christ?
« Reply #214 on: April 02, 2016, 06:10:22 PM »
Quote
As a post script to the above, I would add that I have noticed a change in L-J which I see as being thanks to his friends on this forum. Although he is continuing to practice homosexuality I would say that he is a friendly, intelligent person, so I mean no disrespect to him.
Anticipating a reaction from people to my comment about homosexuals being mentally ill psychologically disordered, this was the diagnosis in medical textbook until it was decided that they were not harmful. My comment is a result of my experience with the person I described above.
As you can see Spud clearly on the 2nd April made it clear was a diagnosis from a medical textbook which he was discussing.
He also points out that it was decided it was not harmful. His comments were the result of something he experienced.
We know that personal experience can change the individuals outlook.
Although he is continuing to practice homosexuality I would say that he is a friendly, intelligent person, so I mean no disrespect to him.
Clearly he states he wished no disrespect to Leonard and hence he explains where he got the information from.
He also explains a difficult experience he had.
I guess it is worst than I thought. Because the 'rod' is used regardless of any truth or explanation given.
As Cymr I cannot remember when he last posted but the Christians here can only be those posting.
What I want to know is how someone namely Stephen Taylor who has been here five minutes so to speak can make a comment as he did based on one person.As we are talking here and now do not troll back over past members they do not count today.
-
Not his?
No, not his.
He has already said he believes humans grade them. (Sins)
I think this bit about God not grading sin or things the bible says is bad, is part of Christian theology.
I've come across this before.
Perhaps Rhiannon would know having looked deeper into theology, I heard it from my ordained friend.
It isn't Hope's opinion, it's what the church seems to believe about Gods Opinion.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality
Epigenetics is about lifestyle and inheritance of acquired traits.
I'm familiar with that Sriram but no mention there of lifestyles that I could see Sriram. Could you explain more about what you were referring to?
-
Not his?
In the quote, Hope sounds like he is saying people will grade things according to their opinion of what is good or bad but his interpretation of Christianity is that God considers all sins damage the relationship with humans equally. I think that is what he means.
So presumably, as Hope is a person and not God, if he had to choose between stopping 2 adults having consensual sex or stopping someone murdering a child, and he didn't have time to deal with both, he would focus his energies on the latter?
-
Good article here, Maeght, blowing out of the water the idea that epigenetics will give us all the answers - or that this research is even necessary.
Apart from to those seeking to make big bucks from the future 'homosexuality reversal process' of course.
http://mobile.the-scientist.com/article/33773/can-epigenetics-explain-homosexuality
Thanks Rhiannon. Yes I am aware of that and the basic principles of epigenetics - I was really asking Sriram to point out the studies which support his comments on 'certain lifestyles' and scientists attempting to reverse epigenetic causes of homosexuality.
I think epigenetics is an interesting area of study but not the answer to everything as Sriram seems to think.
-
I have seen some evil and disgusting anti-gay comments over the years. One 'Christian' poster, now banned, said he would turn a blind eye if a gay was being beaten up. >:(
We are not talking over the years we are talking now the members today.
So if the posters not here then there is no vile homophobic views on this forum.
How long has Stephen Taylor been here. How much is her stirring things already.
My God knows the truth and Stephen Taylor is no friend to atheist, Agnostic or even Christian. (any religion)
When I questioned his comment we all know it can only refer to the time he has been a member March 01, 2016,
11:10:19 AM This is the time and date he registered.
So in just over 6 weeks he thinks he can actually tell the members here that we have 'vile homophobic views' and yet he uses the one person Spud who explained everything and even tells our own LEONARD,
Although he is continuing to practice homosexuality I would say that he is a friendly, intelligent person, so I mean no disrespect to him.
Having also pointed out:-
Anticipating a reaction from people to my comment about homosexuals being mentally ill psychologically disordered, this was the diagnosis in medical textbook until it was decided that they were not harmful. My comment is a result of my experience with the person I described above.
So really that is not an homophobic view at all. It is clearly discussing something from a medical textbook.
Stephen needs to shout about medical textbooks being homophobic not Christians.
He also needs to tell us why the medical textbooks are not homophobic when they then change their minds.
-
In the quote, Hope sounds like he is saying people will grade things according to their opinion of what is good or bad but his interpretation of Christianity is that God considers all sins damage the relationship with humans equally. I think that is what he means.
Sounds like a bit of an arse to say the least.
So presumably, as Hope is a person and not God
To Hope's perpetual disappointment, I'm sure ...
If he had to choose between stopping 2 adults having consensual sex or stopping someone murdering a child, and he didn't have time to deal with both, he would focus his energies on the latter?
Quite rightly so. Though he would still consider the former to be suffering from a disorder and would probably suggest that they see a doctor.
After all, there's form.
-
Leaving aside non forum stuff, on here I've seen argued that homosexual sex is as the same as murder (Hope), that homosexuals are mentally ill or disordered, (Spud), that you should be able to choose not to teach them, that burning to death is a joke, or that being killed might be defensible (cymrudinnion). Just off top of head
We need the posts and they must be members still posting on this site today and since the 1st of March 2016 as Stephen has only been here since then and nothing past counts before then.
For views to be on the forum the poster still has to be here for them to be counted.
Dealt with Spud and dealt with CMYR and so far Stephen has offered nothing by means of his evidence.
So would others please from trying to defend him when only his time here counts and members no longer here do not count.
-
Dashing out the door so the short version is, Hope's views that all sins are equal in God's eyes is claiming to know the mind of God which many other Christians say is unknowable. It's arrogance.
Another view is that pride is the greatest sin. My old pp said that it isn't, it is cruelty, and anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't really got what Jesus was on about.
-
So someone who regards being gay as a disorder tells another poster, in the context of homosexuality not illness, that they should perhaps see a doctor, and they're being misinterpreted? Really?
Old Christianity has an ideal veiw of a designed nature where there is only one true purpose, and body parts have a proper use and an improper use.
Things that fall outside that would be considered as abnormal and as a disorder which may require medical help.
By medical help it also includes help from a Psychatrist as it would be considered a mental disorder.
Some Christians have a narrower view of what Gods design is.
Others are wide enough to include homosexuals without judgement.
It depends on the Christian.
But this idea that the human body and life ( children and sex within marriage only etc) is persistent.
I think Hope is just trying to explain that.
I'm not totally sure where he fits tbh.
I know I have come across a number of Christians who believe God has created a perfect path for them to live God based lives, which means they have to do things like marry, have a family within that, and they have to live set roles for men and women.
I'm going to add the above is not my POV, just an observation.
-
See Nearly Sane's reply #1.
It doesn't count. Spud explained he meant no offence and also told us that it came from a medical textbook.
As for Cymr he does not post here and has not done for a long time.
Stephen only been posting since March 2016 so anything before does not count or past members as their views have long been off the forum when they left.
-
In the quote, Hope sounds like he is saying people will grade things according to their opinion of what is good or bad but his interpretation of Christianity is that God considers all sins damage the relationship with humans equally. I think that is what he means.
So presumably, as Hope is a person and not God, if he had to choose between stopping 2 adults having consensual sex or stopping someone murdering a child, and he didn't have time to deal with both, he would focus his energies on the latter?
He thinks that homosexual activity is as wrong as murder. It's his statement. That means he considers the couple that I just went on holiday with as wrong as murderers.
I find that vile
-
Old Christianity has an ideal veiw of a designed nature where there is only one true purpose, and body parts have a proper use and an improper use.
Things that fall outside that would be considered as abnormal and as a disorder which may require medical help.
By medical help it also includes help from a Psychatrist as it would be considered a mental disorder.
Some Christians have a narrower view of what Gods design is.
Others are wide enough to include homosexuals without judgement.
It depends on the Christian.
But this idea that the human body and life ( children and sex within marriage only etc) is persistent.
I think Hope is just trying to explain that.
I'm not totally sure where he fits tbh.
I know I have come across a number of Christians who believe God has created a perfect path for them to live God based lives, which means they have to do things like marry, have a family within that, and they have to live set roles for men and women.
I'm going to add the above is not my POV, just an observation.
Some parts of 'old Christianity' have just tried to explain that black people are inferior, it find that vile, how about you?
-
No, not his.
He has already said he believes humans grade them. (Sins)
I think this bit about God not grading sin or things the bible says is bad, is part of Christian theology.
I've come across this before.
Perhaps Rhiannon would know having looked deeper into theology, I heard it from my ordained friend.
It isn't Hope's opinion, it's what the church seems to believe about Gods Opinion.
No, it's his opinion. This 'a big god thought it and ran away' excuse is ridiculous. Hope thinks that the couple whose wedding I went to last month are as wrong as child rapists. Seems vile to me.
-
Till Stephen Taylor brings his own evidence since March 1st 2016 then actually he has nothing but relying on the personal bias of others to fall back on. The past members do not count because if members no longer here then neither are their views on this forum. So come on Stephen Taylor bring the evidence from the 1st March. As Spud explained no harm meant and even said where it came from( the medical textbook) you have to prove what you said from the believers here and now.
I said from the beginning what you were. I am not afraid to face those who come as a wolf in sheep's clothing to stir up UNREST.
To bring divide and separation in hope of bringing the forum down.
The others may not see your motive or your heart. In all the years we have been posting together we have a good understanding.
Will I be accused next? My nephew came out he is gay. Do I still love him? Off course I do. Will I protect him and help him through the times when he is unable to handle his sexuality? I will because love is not based on sexuality or any other thing in this world for our family and friends.
I think you need to think about where you are going with this. In the end you will lose because God is good and he alone decides the outcome. My God is here for me. My friends and family who are gay will support me, but who is going to speak out for you.
We discuss the things of the world on here. I am going to ask you... " Are you gay?"
-
I read that as Hope believes that is Gods opinion, not his.
Does Hope believe God is wrong? If not it's his opinion.
-
Rarely, if ever, have I seen something as bizarre as this idea that because someone is just expressing the beliefs of a god they follow, and believe is an omni god, then that makes saying that trentvoyager needs to be treated by a doctor because he's homosexual Ok, because it's not their opinion, it's what they think their god thinks.
-
I believe it was removed at the same time as Hope's suspension - which is understandable in one way but in another highly unfortunate, since it gives him the perfect excuse to weasel out of ever having suggested that trentvoyager should see a doctor, not for illness but for his sexuality (which of course Hope regards as a 'disorder').
The prunings and purges of this forum are highly unfortunate in that regard. I've been known to take screen caps of this kind of contemptible material so that the offender can't claim it was never said even after removal, but I missed this one :(
What about Christians? Haven't they been called 'deluded', mentally ill and psychologically disturbed for the things they have seen and said. Even had thread... Was Jesus Gay.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11350.0
Wasn't that poking the stick/Rod.
Why if the atheistic agnostic thought homosexuality to be right and normal did they ask a question like that?
Was Jesus gay?
« on: December 18, 2015, 12:15:52 PM »
Quote
The gospel of John specifically mentions that there was a disciple whom Jesus loved, presumably male. As Jesus never condemned homosexuality, it is possible he was gay and enjoying a gay relationship with this particular disciple.
There is nothing wrong with being gay, it is NORMAL! If it could be proved Jesus was gay it would be a slap in the face to all the unpleasant bigots who use the Bible as an excuse for their nasty bigotry where homosexuality is concerned.
A question for the Christians on the forum, just supposing it could be established beyond all doubt that Jesus was a homosexual, would it make any difference to your faith?
Why is there a need to ask if it would make any difference to their faith? If the person really thought being homosexual normal then why ask this question. It belies any truth in them thinking it normal.
Maybe there is more hidden in the atheist and agnostic sections of the forum posters than actual Christians.
You see the poster claiming it normal then using it as a rod against believers.
So if Normal and they believe it... why ask such a question?
Nah! it is true people use homosexuality as a rod against Christians. Which belittles their own claim in believing it to be natural and normal.
If you truly believe it is natural and normal why ask Christians such questions?
Loving someone is about loving them for themselves not their sexuality.
But we see you do not have to be a homosexual to find bias and prejudice.
Being a Christian you will find a worst type of bias and prejudice against you and the people with the bias will use anything as a rod against you. Even the things they claim to accept as normal but do not show any belief in such as they use it as a rod.
-
And while we are covering this, I would point out that I think there are similarly vile things touted about Christians which don't get the same attention. The frequent references to people being deluded or indoctrinating children, or on rarer but still noted occasions that someone who brings up their children as religious, as being guilty of child abuse, seem to equivalent of some of the comments on homosexuality made on here.
-
And while we are covering this, I would point out that I think there are similarly vile things touted about Christians which don't get the same attention. The f request references to people being deluded or indoctrinating children, or on rarer but still noted occasions that someone who brings up their children as religious, as being guilty of child abuse, seem to equivalent of some of the comments on homosexuality made on here.
Worried NS.
Worried that the atheist and agnostic are the worst perpetrators on this forum when it comes to vile views about others especially the Christians?
Doing a 180 degrees turn now is not going to score you any brownie points. There is always reason for a Stephen Taylor on forums. But the people here are not stupid enough to walk into his traps. If you dine with the devil use 6ft chop sticks.
I have already proved he is here to cause trouble...
-
Regarding what I said: How is describing homosexuality as a disorder (of sexual orientation), vile and homophobic?
Because describing something perfectly normal and natural as a disorder is VILE! >:( Being left handed was regarded as a disorder once; kids were punished for writing with their left hands, as were my mother and her brother. >:(
-
Because describing something perfectly normal and natural as a disorder is VILE! >:( Being left handed was regarded as a disorder once; kids were punished for writing with their left hands, as were my mother and her brother. >:(
Cancer is perfectly normal, Floo - yet it is regularly referred to as a disorder. Are you suggesting that regarding it as a 'disorder' or 'medical condition' (or some other equally appropriate term) is VILE?
Regarding left-handedness, I'm not sure that it was ever deemed to be 'VILE'.
-
Cancer is perfectly normal, Floo - yet it is regularly referred to as a disorder. Are you suggesting that regarding it as a 'disorder' or 'medical condition' (or some other equally appropriate term) is VILE?
Do you really need to have it explained to you what's wrong with this mess?
-
And while we are covering this, I would point out that I think there are similarly vile things touted about Christians which don't get the same attention. The frequent references to people being deluded or indoctrinating children, or on rarer but still noted occasions that someone who brings up their children as religious, as being guilty of child abuse, seem to equivalent of some of the comments on homosexuality made on here.
Whilst I would agree to a degree, I also believe that any philosophy/world view/lifestyle should be open to challenge. I'm disappointed when people use these discriptions of religion - but not that surprised, since the language suggests that they haven't got any substantive argument to offer. To suggest that attitudes on homosexual relationships should be exempt from challenge is - in my view - ridiculous. As ridiculous as saying that heterosexual relationships should be exempt from challenge - after all, in my view, there are some forms of the latter than are open to challenge.
-
... but I missed this one :(
Suggesting that you either didn't see it, so are working on hearsay; or saw it and saw nothing wrong with it.
-
Suggesting that you either didn't see it, so are working on hearsay; or saw it and saw nothing wrong with it.
I did see it; that's why I was able to quote the most obnoxious part - the bit that led to your suspension, I'm sure - the best of my recollection in #42. I have a pretty good memory so I think that it's tolerably close in terms of exact words used.
-
And while we are covering this, I would point out that I think there are similarly vile things touted about Christians which don't get the same attention. The frequent references to people being deluded or indoctrinating children, or on rarer but still noted occasions that someone who brings up their children as religious, as being guilty of child abuse, seem to equivalent of some of the comments on homosexuality made on here.
I disagree, NS. I don't think you can call someone delusional simply for having faith but you can when they start arguing that God made the pretty flowers solely for people to look at. And we get accused of all kinds of delusional beliefs and ideas around politics, football clubs, the meaning of life - it's a turn of phrase as much as anything else. And teaching children Christian doctrine is, well, indoctrination.
Bear in mind what Christians believe sin to be - something that separates us from all that is good, and to many, something so evil it requires redemption through the Cross. And then add Hope's view - not unique to him - that all sins are equal in that. Sorry NS, there's no comparison.
-
Whilst I would agree to a degree, I also believe that any philosophy/world view/lifestyle should be open to challenge. I'm disappointed when people use these discriptions of religion - but not that surprised, since the language suggests that they haven't got any substantive argument to offer. To suggest that attitudes on homosexual relationships should be exempt from challenge is - in my view - ridiculous. As ridiculous as saying that heterosexual relationships should be exempt from challenge - after all, in my view, there are some forms of the latter than are open to challenge.
And nothing I wrote stated that things shouldn't be open to challenge - I'm talking about tone - we have rules on the forum and I think saying to people that they need treatment or are delusional or are abusing children, in general, breaks those.
-
Some parts of 'old Christianity' have just tried to explain that black people are inferior, it find that vile, how about you?
I suppose it depends on what you define as 'Old Christianity'? Are we talking about Christianity in the Middle Ages/Dark Ages/the 1st-4th centuries AD/... Remember that later periods often turned early church thinking and practice on its head - for instance, celibacy and women's roles in ministry.
-
I disagree, NS. I don't think you can call someone delusional simply for having faith but you can when they start arguing that God made the pretty flowers solely for people to look at. And we get accused of all kinds of delusional beliefs and ideas around politics, football clubs, the meaning of life - it's a turn of phrase as much as anything else. And teaching children Christian doctrine is, well, indoctrination.
Bear in mind what Christians believe sin to be - something that separates us from all that is good, and to many, something so evil it requires redemption through the Cross. And then add Hope's view - not unique to him - that all sins are equal in that. Sorry NS, there's no comparison.
Then teaching children any form of morality is inoctrination so it's a pointless argument. And the point I was making is that if you ban someone for suggesting that a member needs medical treatment then that has to be applied across the board, else the charges that some have made that the mods are biased would be correct
-
Do you really need to have it explained to you what's wrong with this mess?
No, I think it is you (or Floo) who needs to explain why you are so keen to foster this mess.
-
No, I think it is you (or Floo) who needs to explain why you are so keen to foster this mess.
'This mess' is the creation of people like you and your fellow travellers. Floo and I don't regard homosexuality as a disorder - you do - and neither of us have suggested that another member here should perhaps see a doctor, not because they're ill but because they are gay. You have.
-
He thinks that homosexual activity is as wrong as murder. It's his statement. That means he considers the couple that I just went on holiday with as wrong as murderers.
I find that vile
I find the cherry picking of my statements more than VILE, NS.
-
If a successful reversal treatment was discovered, I bet many homosexuals will queue up for it....and rightly so IMO.
Rubbish! Total and complete rubbish!
You wanna bet? I'll take your money!
If that is your opinion then your opinion ain't worth shit! I know, and have known, many homosexuals and the only ones who have wanted to change are thoise who have been targeted for the unpleasant bigotry of and abuse by people like you and Spud.
-
I suppose it depends on what you define as 'Old Christianity'? Are we talking about Christianity in the Middle Ages/Dark Ages/the 1st-4th centuries AD/... Remember that later periods often turned early church thinking and practice on its head - for instance, celibacy and women's roles in ministry.
I was quoting Rose in the term of Old Christinaity, I was using it in the sense of 'good old' with a tinture of irony. The point isn't that Christianity is necessarly good or bad but that saying simply that it's your belief because of Christianity doesn't give any free pass in it being challenged.
-
Cancer is perfectly normal, Floo - yet it is regularly referred to as a disorder. Are you suggesting that regarding it as a 'disorder' or 'medical condition' (or some other equally appropriate term) is VILE?
Regarding left-handedness, I'm not sure that it was ever deemed to be 'VILE'.
Well it was when my parents were young. Even in the 50s when I was a child, an old man told me my parents should beat me for using my left hand. >:(
-
I find the cherry picking of my statements more than VILE, NS.
And since I haven't done that, so what? Stop lying
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=9431.200
-
So someone who regards being gay as a disorder tells another poster, in the context of homosexuality not illness, that they should perhaps see a doctor, and they're being misinterpreted? Really?
And you have the evidence that anyone here made this comment, or are you dealing in hearsay?
-
And you have the evidence that anyone here made this comment, or are you dealing in hearsay?
I'm dealing in memory of a post made a matter of a few days ago. It was apparently removed at the point of your suspension, unfortunately - I wish that Gordon would replace it so that you can't continue to suggest that it never existed.
-
And you have the evidence that anyone here made this comment, or are you dealing in hearsay?
Why are you lying about suggesting trent should seek medical treatment?
-
Why are you lying about suggesting trent should seek medical treatment?
Because until and unless the removed post is reinstated, he can continue to get away with feigning innocence and pretending that it was never said by him.
-
Really, you cannot remember the thing you were banned for?
Well, since all I received was a PM telling me that my suspension had been related to a post that was apparently aimed at a certain poster but which - as far as I was aware - was a generalised statement about homosexual relationships, then, yes I found it odd that I was suspended.
-
Yes, no doubt you actually believe that.
-
And you have the evidence that anyone here made this comment, or are you dealing in hearsay?
Since Shaker saw the post it isn't hearsay - I suggest that in addition to stopping lying about it, you should also stop using terms you don't understand.
-
Since Shaker saw the post it isn't hearsay - I suggest that in addition to stopping lying about it, you should also stop using terms you don't understand.
No NS - without the post being reinstated he can continue to call it hearsay because there's no remaining evidence that it was ever here.
Alas :(
-
Well, since all I received was a PM telling me that my suspension had been related to a post that was apparently aimed at a certain poster but which - as far as I was aware - was a generalised statement about homosexual relationships, then, yes I found it odd that I was suspended.
Yu replied to treant and used the term 'you' in regards to seeking treatment -stop lying
-
Rarely, if ever, have I seen something as bizarre as this idea that because someone is just expressing the beliefs of a god they follow, and believe is an omni god, then that makes saying that trentvoyager needs to be treated by a doctor because he's homosexual Ok, because it's not their opinion, it's what they think their god thinks.
My view is that making it personal about TV is wrong but if someone said Muslims are abnormal and need to be treated by a doctor....sorry but I'm just finding it difficult to get worked up about it.
-
No NS - without the post being reinstated he can continue to call it hearsay because there's no remaining evidence that it was ever here.
Alas :(
Nope, hearsay is about stuff you don't have direct knowledge of. That you saw the post gives you direct knowledge ergo not hearsay
-
Nope, hearsay is about stuff you don't have direct knowledge of. That you saw the post gives you direct knowledge ergo not hearsay
But without said post he can claim that I'm making it up, and I won't be in a position to demonstrate otherwise. In #42 I quoted the worst bit as best as I'm able from memory, but that's all I can do :(
-
But without said post he can claim that I'm making it up, and I won't be in a position to demonstrate otherwise. In #42 I quoted the worst bit as best as I'm able from memory, but that's all I can do :(
He can claim you are making it up, but not that it's hearsay. That you claim to have seen the post means that it isn't a hearsay claim.
-
My view is that making it personal about TV is wrong but if someone said Muslims are abnormal and need to be treated by a doctor....sorry but I'm just finding it difficult to get worked up about it.
I suspect it has moved beyond that Gabby and is more to do with the mendacity now being employed by Hope.
As I previously stated I thought the post should be allowed to remain and then it could be seen and debated if need be. But hey-ho.
Now talking of posts - I'm off to see a man about a fence.
-
My view is that making it personal about TV is wrong but if someone said Muslims are abnormal and need to be treated by a doctor....sorry but I'm just finding it difficult to get worked up about it.
And I think that's clear in the rules but there are plenty of specific posts about people being delusional because of their religious views which have not been treated in the same way.
-
I suspect it has moved beyond that Gabby and is more to do with the mendacity now being employed by Hope.
As I previously stated I thought the post should be allowed to remain and then it could be seen and debated if need be. But hey-ho.
Now - I'm off to see a man about a fence.
I would like to add that I think it regrettable in the extreme that so much of this discussion has to revolve around a specific poster and in my view a highly valued poster at that. Trent might well be wishing for all this to have blown over and blown away by now, and who would blame him.
However, this latter part of the discussion has only come about precisely because it was made personal and specific in the first place, which Hope is now trying to deny.
-
Moderator:
Having just caught up with this thread let me clarify matters.
1. The post by Hope being referred to here, which contained the comment directed at Trent, was originally posted in the 'The N H S Chaplaincy again' started. I'll return to the content presently.
2. As part of our handling of this, having spoken to Trent, we left Hope's post in place.
3. However, the exchanges involving homosexuality continued and became a major derail (eventually there were more posts about homosexuality than about the Chaplaincy topic of the thread) and exchanges became increasingly rancorous, so we decided to split off all the posts about homosexuality so as to drag the thread back on topic: I made a Mod Post to this effect.
4. On looking at the split-off posts on homosexuality we could see no basis to restore these as a new thread given the content of many of the posts.
Turning to Hope's post - since we were originally prepared to leave this post visible, as noted above, we see no reason why the comment at issue can't be quoted here in order to clarify matter. So here it is;
Posted by Hope on: April 01, 2016, 03:37:13 PM in the 'The N H S Chaplaincy again': the post in currently held on the Mod Board.
Trent, you have every right to express your own opinions; I also have that right. You have the right to decide that you need or don't need a doctor; I have every right to suggest that perhaps you do.
-
Thank you big G.
And you have the evidence that anyone here made this comment [i.e. "... someone who regards being gay as a disorder tells another poster, in the context of homosexuality not illness, that they should perhaps see a doctor"]
Not me personally, no.
Gordon did, though ;)
Good enough, Hope?
*wanders off quietly humming 'Let the Heartaches Begin' ...*
-
The other issue with the difference between specific references to posters and, generalised attacks, against a group of people is that not all generalised attacks should be allowed either, imo. If someone wants to post that all Jews should be gassed, I'm not for allowing that.
-
The other issue with the difference between specific references to posters and, generalised attacks, against a group of people is that not all generalised attacks should be allowed either, imo. If someone wants to post that all Jews should be gassed, I'm not for allowing that.
A post I fully endorse and a point I have tried to make re gay people for many years.
It appears the wish to judge a group, of whatever make up, en masse, despite all our experiences as to where that can lead, is still well and truly alive and kicking.
-
A post I fully endorse and a point I have tried to make re gay people for many years.
It appears the wish to judge a group, of whatever make up, en masse, despite all our experiences as to where that can lead, is still well and truly alive and kicking.
As with all such things, it's impossible to write rules that are specific enough to cover all such cases, but, on a personal level being told that parents indulged in child abuse because they brought kids up in a religion is deeply offensive, as well as ludicrously stupid.
-
Since Shaker saw the post it isn't hearsay - I suggest that in addition to stopping lying about it, you should also stop using terms you don't understand.
Well, if his 'from memory' record of the post is what he saw, I'd be interested to see the context. IIRC, I had previously quoted the passage from the 3 Synoptic Gospels where Jesus says "“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matt: 9; Mark: 2; Luke 5). If a poster decides to take this as a personal attack on themselves, that is their look-out, especially when the passage isn't related to sexuality as such.
-
There's a lot of talk on here about the divide between theists/non theists but I think the divide between those who believe in gay rights and those who don't and regard being gay as a disorder is far more significant.
-
Thank you big G.
Not me personally, no.
Gordon did, though ;)
Good enough, Hope?
*wanders off quietly humming 'Let the Heartaches Begin' ...*
Did he have a single post or the context of a series of posts?
-
Well, if his 'from memory' record of the post is what he saw, I'd be interested to see the context. IIRC, I had previously quoted the passage from the 3 Synoptic Gospels where Jesus says "“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matt: 9; Mark: 2; Luke 5). If a poster decides to take this as a personal attack on themselves, that is their look-out, especially when the passage isn't related to sexuality as such.
Lying liar continues to lie
-
I disagree, NS. I don't think you can call someone delusional simply for having faith but you can when they start arguing that God made the pretty flowers solely for people to look at.
Who actually did that? Not an issue in this thread, is it? Poor excuse and not even a starter for 10.
And we get accused of all kinds of delusional beliefs and ideas around politics, football clubs, the meaning of life - it's a turn of phrase as much as anything else. And teaching children Christian doctrine is, well, indoctrination.
Teachings children that vegetables are good for you and burgers bad for you is indoctrination.
But at the end of the day don't we all choose for ourselves? You know in paganism that what you believe has no basis in truth.
So why do you practice it? Why believe anything positive can come out of it?
Who really is in the land of make believe?
Bear in mind what Christians believe sin to be - something that separates us from all that is good,
Rubbish! Sin separates man from God. Where do you get such false beliefs from. Why do you even suggest such things.
and to many, something so evil it requires redemption through the Cross.
Did you forget that God is a God of truth? How can you who believe and practice that which you know to be false make such comments. Sin is evil, but God created everything in the beginning to be Good.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
So mans sin is his own each individual person. Christ died to save mankind from their sins.
And then add Hope's view - not unique to him - that all sins are equal in that. Sorry NS, there's no comparison.
Equal in that all sin leads to death but love greater in that it covers over many sins.
You need to find a way of putting love and truth into what you are trying to imply.
For God so loved the world, (not the flowers etc the human beings) that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have eternal life.
You see sin leads to death. In denying Christ you deny many that might have come to believe through knowing you the knowledge of that truth. Does it bother you that by believing in a lie, you could be responsible for the spiritual death of others and their souls? Everything has a consequence and truth is a must when we claim to believe something.
-
The other issue with the difference between specific references to posters and, generalised attacks, against a group of people is that not all generalised attacks should be allowed either, imo. If someone wants to post that all Jews should be gassed, I'm not for allowing that.
Moderator:
I'd agree, and it would be useful if members reported such posts in future in order that they can be reviewed - I'd say this is essential for consistency reasons.
It may be that there is a need to review the relevant Rule (1.h) in order to clarify the issues here and where the 'line in the sand' should be drawn.
-
You see sin leads to death.
No love, everything leads to death.
-
Well, if his 'from memory' record of the post is what he saw
With the post in question now restored (thanks again Gordon) I was pleasantly surprised to see that my on-the-fly recollection of it in #42 was such a good match to the original.
I'd be interested to see the context.
Everybody watch out for the dodgems!
IIRC, I had previously quoted the passage from the 3 Synoptic Gospels where Jesus says "“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matt: 9; Mark: 2; Luke 5).
Trent is healthy as far as I'm aware and doesn't need a doctor.
If a poster decides to take this as a personal attack on themselves
I mean, fancy using their name and addressing them directly.
that is their look-out, especially when the passage isn't related to sexuality as such.
It was, as Gordon has already pointed out.
-
No love, everything leads to death.
My hat is doffed to your grace.
-
No love, everything leads to death.
Come on Trent.
Read the whole post... Go on, I dare you! ;D
-
I used to think Hope was one of the good Christian posters on this forum, sadly I have been very disappointed. :(
-
There's a lot of talk on here about the divide between theists/non theists but I think the divide between those who believe in gay rights and those who don't and regard being gay as a disorder is far more significant.
In practical terms, in everyday effects on the lives of real people in non-negligible numbers, absolutely.
-
Moderator:
I'd agree, and it would be useful if members reported such posts in future in order that they can be reviewed - I'd say this is essential for consistency reasons.
It may be that there is a need to review the relevant Rule (1.h) in order to clarify the issues here and where the 'line in the sand' should be drawn.
'While it is expected that some exchanges will be ‘robust fair comment’, members are asked to avoid comments (in posts or PMs) that may be considered to be: overtly aggressive or threatening, that are demeaning to others and specifically advocate discrimination solely on the basis of personal taste, that involve questionable sexual content, that involve gratuitous swearing or contains abuse or insults directed towards specified members, or that might reasonably be assumed to imply certain members (such by reference to a 'group') to the extent of causing offense or alarm. Members should report any posts or PMs that involve such content.'
Looking at this I think the question is what amounts to advocating discrimination, I think the idea that gays need treatment or that all religious parents are child abusers fall close to any line that one might use the phrase to draw but, from a purely personal reading. the first crosses it and the second doesn't. That said I'm not sure I feel that in terms of my overall reaction I see them as that different. That someone is accusing me old sainted mother of child abuse seems to cross a line for me. It's not actively advocating discrimination but that me old sainted mother teaching me her beliefs is to be seen as child abuse, as opposed to me teaching my kids that murder is wrong seems to be down the road of suggesting passively that my mother should somehow be punished for her actions.
The other problem, of course, is that which we think should be protected is different. We don't actually mean that anyone who suggests murderers (as wrong as homosexual activity according to Hope) should be locked up, should be stopped from advocating such discrimination on here. It seems to me that the zeigeist of society and indeed the board if it is consistent should protect groupings who act within the boundaries of the law, and within the spirit of the board. If the board is going to allow consistent suggestions that homosexuals are ill. diseased. disordered , then I think I will slowly back away - and that's fair enough in some sense. It's the same as me not wanting to go to a pub in company of people who would say such things. I don't think it crosses the line of where legislation would currently kick in but it does cross a personal line for me. That line also covers the whole theists are delusional, stupid, child abusers schtick.
We each have to consider where that line is drawn, and to an extent the mods are both representatives who work as a coalescence of opinion of that line, and delegates in that they have a duty to reflect in some way the wider membership. I don't envy their position, but then I think each memebr also has a duty to consider what sort of board do they want this place to be. I'm not convinced that it can encompass a full width of opinion, nor do I believe it should, see comments on all Jews should be gassed,
-
For the benefit of Hope (if and when he ever returns to this thread):
Brownie (April 14, 2016 - 10:28:32pm): I'd like to ask you if you said Trentvoyager should see a doctor because of being gay or did you mean he should seek medical advice about something else?
Hope (April 14, 2016 - 10:30:40pm): Not sure I said either, Brownie. If anyone can find what they think is an example of this, I'd be happy to look at it.
Here it is:
Hope (April 01, 2016 - 03:37:13pm): Trent, you have every right to express your own opinions; I also have that right. You have the right to decide that you need or don't need a doctor; I have every right to suggest that perhaps you do.
So having now seen it (happily or otherwise), can you clarify that when you suggested that "perhaps" Trent needs a doctor, you meant that he needs a doctor for some medical issue (certainly unknown to me) or because he is gay?
Much obliged.
-
Hope (April 01, 2016 - 03:37:13pm): Trent, you have every right to express your own opinions; I also have that right. You have the right to decide that you need or don't need a doctor; I have every right to suggest that perhaps you do.
So having now seen it (happily or otherwise), can you clarify that when you suggested that "perhaps" Trent needs a doctor, you meant that he needs a doctor for some medical issue (certainly unknown to me) or because he is gay?
Much obliged.
And the wider context, Shakes? My reference to the Gospel passage about only those who know that they are ill need a doctor - so in no way related to sexuality.
That's the problem with cherry-picking posts or Bible verses in order to make an often prejudiced point.
-
And the wider context, Shakes? My reference to the Gospel passage about only those who know that they are ill need a doctor - so in no way related to sexuality.
That's the problem with cherry-picking posts or Bible verses in order to make an often prejudiced point.
So why did you name me?
-
Dear Sane,
Ah right!! I didn't look at this thread, my humblest apologies, you were calling Hope a liar, carry on ( bloody hell two apologies in the one morning, I am slipping ).
Gonnagle.
-
And the wider context, Shakes? My reference to the Gospel passage about only those who know that they are ill need a doctor - so in no way related to sexuality.
Er, no - Gordon has explained otherwise in #112:
However, the exchanges involving homosexuality continued and became a major derail (eventually there were more posts about homosexuality than about the Chaplaincy topic of the thread)
You were not at that juncture discussing the presence and operation of chaplains within the National Health Service. So I will ask again and keep asking: can you clarify that when you suggested that "perhaps" Trent needs a doctor, you meant that he needs a doctor for some medical issue (certainly unknown to me) or because he is gay?
-
And the wider context, Shakes? My reference to the Gospel passage about only those who know that they are ill need a doctor - so in no way related to sexuality.
That's the problem with cherry-picking posts or Bible verses in order to make an often prejudiced point.
Context is important - in the context of the thread you were talking about sexuality - so stop lying
-
So why did you name me?
Like this you mean?
Trent, you have every right to express your own opinions; I also have that right. You [Trent] have the right to decide that you [Trent] need or don't need a doctor; I have every right to suggest that perhaps you [Trent] do.
-
So why did you name me?
I'm trying to find the post, but it and its context seems to have been removed, but if you look at the post that Shakes quotes, the wording would suggest that I was responding to a post you had made in response to one of mine.
-
Dodge, dodge, squirm, evade, dodgety dodge.
-
Dear Shaker,
He was referring to Trent's hopeless case of wonderfulness, Trent should see a Doctor about that, not for a cure, a way of bottling it and prescribing it free on the NHS.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Shaker,
He was referring to Trent's hopeless case of wonderfulness
If Hope were capable of answering a straight question with a straight answer we might find out, Gonners.
-
Like this you mean?
So, clearly responding to a post TV had made, in response to a post I had made. Shakes - do you have the context to the post you have quoted?
-
Would that make any difference to those words of yours upon which you tried to cast doubt ever existed until Gordon very helpfully reposted them and which are now available for all to see for themselves?
In other words how long do you think you can get away with continuing your dodging and evasion this time with your tedious scratched-record nonsense of 'context'? As NS put it in #135:
in the context of the thread you were talking about sexuality - so stop lying.
Your words have come back to bite you on the arse once already today - bet you didn't expect that ;) - and although he may not do so, we know that removed posts still exist in the back room and Most Excellent and Munificent Gracious Great Helmsman Leader could, if it be his will, provide all the context we could ever need to tuck you up in bed with teddy and blow out the nightlight.
-
I feel I need to apologise to both Hope and Trent for bringing this up when it had been dealt with. I did think about it the other day, asked Hope and then thought better of it and deleted my post before it was seen. I certainly didn't want to cause more trouble - and I'm not being disingenuous here. Phew.
It seems to me that we will never really know what was meant, certainly won't prove it one way or the other.
-
Not unless Who Framed Dodger Rabbit breaks the habit of a lifetime and answers a simple question with a straight answer.
-
Would that make any difference to those words of yours upon which you tried to cast doubt ever existed ...
Yes, it would. If, as I believe I had, I had been talking about sin in general, and quoted the Gospel passage I've repeated in recent posts, then it would become clear that I wasn't referring to homosexual relationships at that point, but sins as whole. Since I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, it would seem unlikely that I would be suggesting that anyone should undergo it.
... until Gordon very helpfully reposted them and which are now available for all to see for themselves?
Oddly enough, what Gordon posted didn't refer in any way to the question that Brownie asked of me.
In other words how long do you think you can away with continuing your dodging and evasion this time with your tedious scratched-record nonsense of 'context'? As NS put it in #135:
Probably as long as people seek to misrepresent me. I am aware that providing such context 'could' damage your pet arguments, but until the full 41.5 hours worth of posts that have been expunged from the thread are made available for checking, I won't regard your single post quotes with much trust.
-
Dear Shaker,
He was referring to Trent's hopeless case of wonderfulness, Trent should see a Doctor about that, not for a cure, a way of bottling it and prescribing it free on the NHS.
Gonnagle.
I'd post this in forum best bits - but modesty prevents me ;)
-
Not unless Who Framed Dodger Rabbit breaks the habit of a lifetime and answers a simple question with a straight answer.
OK, we're waiting!!
-
Yes, it would. If, as I believe I had, I had been talking about sin in general
We have plentiful and crystal-clear evidence today alone that what you believe has next to no correspondence with la vérité:
Brownie (April 14, 2016, 10:28:32pm): I'd like to ask you if you said Trentvoyager should see a doctor because of being gay or did you mean he should seek medical advice about something else?
Hope (April 14, 2016, 10:30:40pm): Not sure I said either, Brownie. If anyone can find what they think is an example of this, I'd be happy to look at it.
We're all now sure that you did ;)
-
OK, we're waiting!!
A third time? Really? OK: can you clarify that when you suggested that "perhaps" Trent needs a doctor, you meant that he needs a doctor for some medical issue (certainly unknown to me) or because he is gay?
-
I feel I need to apologise to both Hope and Trent for bringing this up when it had been dealt with. I did think about it the other day, asked Hope and then thought better of it and deleted my post before it was seen. I certainly didn't want to cause more trouble - and I'm not being disingenuous here. Phew.
It seems to me that we will never really know what was meant, certainly won't prove it one way or the other.
I think it's entirely cleAr what was meant, especially given that Hope thinks and has stated that he thinks homosexual activity is as wrong as murder. I find those who want to Olay down the fairly constant posting that homosexuals are ill, disordered, diseased, are contributing to those who post such things thinking it is ok to do so.
-
We have plentiful and crystal-clear evidence today alone that what you believe has next to no correspondence with la verite:
Brownie (April 14, 2016, 10:28:32pm): I'd like to ask you if you said Trentvoyager should see a doctor because of being gay or did you mean he should seek medical advice about something else?
Hope (April 14, 2016, 10:30:40pm): Not sure I said either, Brownie. If anyone can find what they think is an example of this, I'd be happy to look at it.
Thatnks for that clarification, Shakes. Do you have any contextual evidence that the post of mine that Trent was clearly responding to had anything to do with his being gay? I accept that the wider context of the posts that have been cut was on homosexual relationships, but as we know from other threads, posters will often switch from specific to generalised references to 'sin' within that wider context. Perhaps you can reproduce those 41.5 hours-worth of posts so as to show that I hadn't switched from specific to generalised.
-
Dear Hope,
It is in your face mate, you suggested that Trent needs a Doctor, what for?
Gonnagle.
-
Thatnks for that clarification, Shakes. Do you have any contextual evidence that the post of mine that Trent was clearly responding to had anything to do with his being gay? I accept that the wider context of the posts that have been cut was on homosexual relationships, but as we know from other threads, posters will often switch from specific to generalised references to 'sin' within that wider context. Perhaps you can reproduce those 41.5 hours-worth of posts so as to show that I hadn't switched from specific to generalised.
I can't - that decision rests with The Management, as did the decision earlier to repost the words that you had tried to insinuate never existed.
-
Dear Hope,
It is in your face mate, you suggested that Trent needs a Doctor, what for?
Gonnagle.
Yup, simple as that.
What for?
-
I think it's entirely cleAr what was meant, especially given that Hope thinks and has stated that he thinks homosexual activity is as wrong as murder. I find those who want to Olay down the fairly constant posting that homosexuals are ill, disordered, diseased, are contributing to those who post such things thinking it is ok to do so.
Good to see you playing your scratched record again, NS. As I have pointed out before, God doesn't grade or tier sin. In his eyes, 'sin' is 'sin', whatever it is and as the Bible points out, the wages of sin are death (and it is clear from the context of that passage that he is referring to spiritual death). On the other hand, human societies are obliged to grade them since we have to punish them appropriately (hence to Jewish idea of 'a tooth for a tooth; an eye for an eye').
I think you will find that, if the missing 41.5 hours-worth of poists ever come to light again, it will become clear that I never suggested that homosexuals are 'ill, disordered, diseased' - I wonder whether Gordon will ever be able to resurrect them so that we can check.
-
For what reason did you reserve the right to suggest that perhaps Trentvoyager ought to see a doctor, Hope?
Had you and Trent been discussing the state of Trent's health or was it for some other reason?
-
I think you will find that, if the missing 41.5 hours-worth of poists ever come to light again, it will become clear that I never suggested that homosexuals are 'ill, disordered, diseased' - I wonder whether Gordon will ever be able to resurrect them so that we can check.
We don't need all 41.5 hours' worth; as Gordon stated this morning:
... the exchanges [on 'NHS chaplaincy thread - again'] involving homosexuality continued and became a major derail (eventually there were more posts about homosexuality than about the Chaplaincy topic of the thread)
-
At this juncture I'd like to point out that 'thou shalt not bear false witness' is the ninth commandment. I think I have that right, and to add that sinners who do so are estranged from God. Just like murderers and paedophiles, according to some around here.
-
Good to see you playing your scratched record again, NS. As I have pointed out before, God doesn't grade or tier sin. In his eyes, 'sin' is 'sin', whatever it is and as the Bible points out, the wages of sin are death (and it is clear from the context of that passage that he is referring to spiritual death). On the other hand, human societies are obliged to grade them since we have to punish them appropriately (hence to Jewish idea of 'a tooth for a tooth; an eye for an eye').
I think you will find that, if the missing 41.5 hours-worth of poists ever come to light again, it will become clear that I never suggested that homosexuals are 'ill, disordered, diseased' - I wonder whether Gordon will ever be able to resurrect them so that we can check.
pushing this onto God makes no difference unless in your opinion your god is wrong. Since it isn't and since you have openly posted it, you agree that homosexual activity is as wrong as murder. I will change that record when you realise that you are homophobic.
As to the 'ill,, disordered, diseased' part, we have already seen that you implied Trent was ill, and the other words have been used by Spud and Sriram, and I didn't say you had used them. So nice quote mine, and in line with your general lying.
-
Dear Hope,
It is in your face mate, you suggested that Trent needs a Doctor, what for?
Gonnagle.
Gonners, on a number of threads - some about homosexual relationships, some about other actions and behaviours, I have referred to Jesus' statement that "Those who are well have no need of a doctor, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matt. 9; Mark 2; Luke 5) Since I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, I am unlikely to refer to anyone who is gay needing a doctor for that reason. If, as I believe this was, the post under discussion was in terms of the gospel passage above, then it clearly has no more specific relevance to being gay than it would to being fraudulent.
A third time? Really? OK: can you clarify that when you suggested that "perhaps" Trent needs a doctor, you meant that he needs a doctor for some medical issue (certainly unknown to me) or because he is gay?
Do you have any evidence that the post WAS specific to either Trent's sexuality or his need for a doctor in relation to a medical issue? Simply tossing the one post back at me proves nothing.
-
Hope, please stop. Just stop. You discredit this forum, your faith and yourself in persisting with your lies.
-
Do you have any evidence that the post WAS specific to either Trent's sexuality or his need for a doctor in relation to a medical issue?
That's what I'm asking you to clarify. That's the very question I'm asking you. Can you clarify it and tell us why you suggested that perhaps Trentvoyager should see a doctor?
You [Trentvoyager] have the right to decide that you need or don't need a doctor; I have every right to suggest that perhaps you do.
You couldn't put it much more simply than Gonnagle did: you suggested that perhaps Trent should see a doctor - what for?
Since I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, I am unlikely to refer to anyone who is gay needing a doctor for that reason.
So if that wasn't the reason for suggesting that Trent see a doctor, what was the reason?
Simply tossing the one post back at me proves nothing.
I would tread lightly on the issue of proof if I were you; you never can tell when it's going to pop up from nowhere ;)
-
Dear Hope,
Fair enough old son but as sure as night turns into day ( if you are a Christian ) the apology to Trent will come.
Gonnagle.
-
I wonder whether Gordon will ever be able to resurrect them so that we can check.
Moderator:
I could: they are all there, but I'm not inclined to at this point.
The section I quoted earlier was the complete stand-alone paragraph that was the basis of the subsequent suspension. Your comment, which I've quoted earlier, was made in relation to a comment by Trent that you had quoted immediately beforehand (that presumably you were responding to) - which was Trent's comment;
I just think he should keep his petty, baseless dislikes to himself.
.
Now, since the suspension we applied related to this post of yours specifically I can't see that resurrecting all the preceding posts we felt obliged to remove adds anything more of note given the frequent exchanges on this in various threads, including this one.
That your comment was sufficient to merit a suspension would, I'd have thought, be an indication that now would be a good time to stop digging.
-
pushing this onto God makes no difference unless in your opinion your god is wrong. Since it isn't and since you have openly posted it, you agree that homosexual activity is as wrong as murder. I will change that record when you realise that you are homophobic.
I happen to believe what God teaches about homosexual relationships throughout the Bible - why would he teach it otherwise. With my 'Christian' hat on, I don't believe that grading crimes is of any eternal value; 'sin' is 'sin', full stop. As a human being, however, I understand the need for society to grade them so that they can be punished appropriately and for the protection of society Your view that holding such diverse understandings is tantamount to insanity (no apologies for the pun) is to miss the point. From my understanding of the Bible, homosexual relationships are no different to lying, fraud, greed, selfishness, adultery and a host of other sins, which obviously include actions such as murder and rape. Your cherry-picking the reference to murder (or rape) is simply a way of trying (less than successfully) to make Biblical teaching (not me) out to be irrelevant. You are entitled to believe this to be so, but it doesn't mean that you are necessarily correct.
As to the 'ill,, disordered, diseased' part, we have already seen that you implied Trent was ill, ...
In the same way that Jesus compared those who are ill to those who he was here to work with and save. I appreciate that some here find the concept of metaphor, or parable, of comparison difficult to cope with, but it is a fairly common aspect of language and culture, and probably more so of the Jewish culture than of ours.
-
That your comment was sufficient to merit a suspension would, I'd have thought, be an indication that now would be a good time to stop digging.
Sorted!
http://goo.gl/cQWvdf
-
I happen to believe what God teaches about homosexual relationships throughout the Bible - why would he teach it otherwise. With my 'Christian' hat on, I don't believe that grading crimes is of any eternal value; 'sin' is 'sin', full stop. As a human being, however, I understand the need for society to grade them so that they can be punished appropriately and for the protection of society Your view that holding such diverse understandings is tantamount to insanity (no apologies for the pun) is to miss the point. From my understanding of the Bible, homosexual relationships are no different to lying, fraud, greed, selfishness, adultery and a host of other sins, which obviously include actions such as murder and rape. Your cherry-picking the reference to murder (or rape) is simply a way of trying (less than successfully) to make Biblical teaching (not me) out to be irrelevant. You are entitled to believe this to be so, but it doesn't mean that you are necessarily correct.
In the same way that Jesus compared those who are ill to those who he was here to work with and save. I appreciate that some here find the concept of metaphor, or parable, of comparison difficult to cope with, but it is a fairly common aspect of language and culture, and probably more so of the Jewish culture than of ours.
You believe the bible is correct. You believe that homosexuals activity is as wrong as murder. This isn't cherry picking unlike your dishonest quote mine.
-
Moderator:
Now, since the suspension we applied related to this post of yours specifically I can't see that resurrecting all the preceding posts we felt obliged to remove adds anything more of note given the frequent exchanges on this in various threads, including this one.
That your comment was sufficient to merit a suspension would, I'd have thought, be an indication that now would be a good time to stop digging.
I'm not in a position to confirm or deny that the comment that you have quoted from Trent is his entire post, but it would useful to see what the 'petty, baseless dislikes' he refers to were - something that neither NS nor Shakes have been able to reference. As I have said several times already on this thread, I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, so it is highly unlikely that my comment would have had anything to do with that or related issues.
-
Hope, it would be unloving of me not to point out your sinfulness.
-
You believe the bible is correct. You believe that homosexuals activity is as wrong as murder. This isn't cherry picking unlike your dishonest quote mine.
It is also as wrong as lying, NS.
-
Hope, it would be unloving of me not to point out your sinfulness.
Go on, then.
-
I'm not in a position to confirm or deny that the comment that you have quoted from Trent is his entire post, but it would useful to see what the 'petty, baseless dislikes' he refers to were - something that neither NS nor Shakes have been able to reference. As I have said several times already on this thread, I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, so it is highly unlikely that my comment would have had anything to do with that or related issues.
You keep asserting that that wasn't what your comment about Trent seeing a doctor was about; we would like to know what it was about.
You made the comment and wrote the post - presumably you must know?
-
I'm not in a position to confirm or deny that the comment that you have quoted from Trent is his entire post, but it would useful to see what the 'petty, baseless dislikes' he refers to were - something that neither NS nor Shakes have been able to reference. As I have said several times already on this thread, I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, so it is highly unlikely that my comment would have had anything to do with that or related issues.
Given that Gordon who has access to the posts has confirmed what Shaker and I have been saying then your quibbling about this is yet more lying. Why is it that you feel that you have to continually lie?
-
It is also as wrong as lying, NS.
then I suggest you stop lying all the time.
-
Go on, then.
I have done. So have others on this thread.
-
That your comment was sufficient to merit a suspension would, I'd have thought, be an indication that now would be a good time to stop digging.
Gordon, when other posters seem determined to make a particular post take on a specific meaning and have a specific context, I believe that rules allow me to defend myself from what I would deem to be libellous accusations. If they agree to stop such behaviour, I'll have no accusations to respond to.
-
When I questioned his comment we all know it can only refer to the time he has been a member March 01, 2016,
11:10:19 AM This is the time and date he registered.
So in just over 6 weeks he thinks he can actually tell the members here that we have 'vile homophobic views' and yet he uses the one person Spud who explained everything and even tells our own LEONARD,
Dear oh dear what a muddle. I might have only been registered for 6 weeks but that does not mean that I have only been reading posts for 6 weeks.
In the first message that I used the term vile (remember, the one where you subsequently lied about me), I was referring to Hope's views about Homosexuals.
Vile is a subjective term, what one person considers vile is something someone else might consider reasonable. It is however, clear that I am not the only one who thinks that some (not all) of the views expressed are vile.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
-
Gordon, when other posters seem determined to make a particular post take on a specific meaning and have a specific context, I believe that rules allow me to defend myself from what I would deem to be libellous accusations. If they agree to stop such behaviour, I'll have no accusations to respond to.
What you might deem to be libellous - what specifically are you referring to here? - and what the law deems to be libellous are I suspect greatly at variance.
Nobody has libelled you. You have been asked, repeatedly and politely by multiple posters, to clarify a comment you have made and to explain what you meant by it. Whose fault is it if you refuse to do so?
-
I have done. So have others on this thread.
No, you and others have hinted at certain sinfuness but have failed to produce any evidence other than a single post that may or may not have the meaning you would like it to have. I am quite happy to admit that I'm not perfect and have a variety of flaws (ie that I am a sinful human being) but then becoming a Christian isn't about becoming sinless instantly, its all about working, with Christ's help, towards sinlessness - a process that ends with physical death.
-
Gordon, when other posters seem determined to make a particular post take on a specific meaning and have a specific context, I believe that rules allow me to defend myself from what I would deem to be libellous accusations. If they agree to stop such behaviour, I'll have no accusations to respond to.
You may deem it libel, but you would be wrong. Given your lack of understanding of the concept of hearsay, this isn't a very strong area for you.
-
No, you and others have hinted at certain sinfuness but have failed to produce any evidence other than a single post that may or may not have the meaning you would like it to have.
Why don't you clarify it Hope?
Gordon has said that he has no plans at this point to produce the removed posts from the NHS chaplaincy thread that you say provide "context" for your remarks. I would take note of the "at this point," because Gordon for all we know may or may not change his mind in future, old stick.
-
Nobody has libelled you. You have been asked, repeatedly and politely by multiple posters, to clarify a comment you have made and to explain what you meant by it. Whose fault is it if you refuse to do so?
I have clarified it, I have explained it, I have gone to great lengths to put it into the context I believe it to have been posted in. I don't call that refusing anything.
-
I have clarified it, I have explained it, I have gone to great lengths to put it into the context I believe it to have been posted in. I don't call that refusing anything.
No you haven't. Where is the clarification/explanation for your suggestion that perhaps Trent should see a doctor?
Why did you suggest that perhaps Trent should see a doctor, Hope? Happily I can now quote the relevant post again if need be, should your memory stand in need of refreshment.
-
No, you and others have hinted at certain sinfuness but have failed to produce any evidence other than a single post that may or may not have the meaning you would like it to have. I am quite happy to admit that I'm not perfect and have a variety of flaws (ie that I am a sinful human being) but then becoming a Christian isn't about becoming sinless instantly, its all about working, with Christ's help, towards sinlessness - a process that ends with physical death.
I'm not hinting at anything, Hope, I'm saying you are lying.
Still, glad to hear you're working on it. Perhaps you could start by honestly answering Shaker's question.
-
Being as this is still being discussed, Hope, I really believe it is in your interests to be specific about what you meant. It's quite easy really, did you suggest Hope see a doctor specifically about his homosexuality? I get what you mean about us all needing ''a doctor'', because we are all in need of healing but it looks as though you meant he should see a medical doctor about his homosexuality. I don't think you really meant that, even though it was clumsily phrased, but it wouldn't hurt you to say so. At the moment you are prevaricating.
-
I would so love to post a .gif of the Countdown clock at this point :)
Although given who we're dealing with, this one would probably suit better: https://goo.gl/ccrBR0
-
No you haven't. Where is the clarification/explanation for your suggestion that perhaps Trent should see a doctor?
Posts #117, 131, 145, 156, and 160.
Some of you may have noticed a previous version of this post; I removed it as I felt my response answers this post from Shakes better than the other one.
-
No, you and others have hinted at certain sinfuness but have failed to produce any evidence other than a single post that may or may not have the meaning you would like it to have. I am quite happy to admit that I'm not perfect and have a variety of flaws (ie that I am a sinful human being) but then becoming a Christian isn't about becoming sinless instantly, its all about working, with Christ's help, towards sinlessness - a process that ends with physical death.
Well you have one hell of a long way to go, as your views on homosexuality are totally abhorrent and as bad as those of that very nasty anti-gay member who was banned some while back.
-
Being as this is still being discussed, Hope, I really believe it is in your interests to be specific about what you meant. It's quite easy really, did you suggest Hope see a doctor specifically about his homosexuality? I get what you mean about us all needing ''a doctor'', because we are all in need of healing but it looks as though you meant he should see a medical doctor about his homosexuality. I don't think you really meant that, even though it was clumsily phrased, but it wouldn't hurt you to say so. At the moment you are prevaricating.
Brownie, I have already stated categorically that - since I don't subscribe to the concept of corrective therapy (in this context) - the interpretation that Shakes and others are determined to put on a single post taken out of context is wrong. However, I do believe that, as Jesus suggests in Matthew, Mark and Luke's Gospels, Trent and others here are in need of a 'doctor'. In fact, we are all in need of such a doctor.
-
Posts #117, 131, 145, 156, and 160.
Some of you may have noticed a previous version of this post; I removed it as I felt my response answers this post from Shakes better than the other one.
Let's have a look:
#117: Well, if his 'from memory' record of the post is what he saw, I'd be interested to see the context. IIRC, I had previously quoted the passage from the 3 Synoptic Gospels where Jesus says "“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matt: 9; Mark: 2; Luke 5). If a poster decides to take this as a personal attack on themselves, that is their look-out, especially when the passage isn't related to sexuality as such.
No explanation or clarification there of your suggestion that perhaps Trentvoyager needs to see a doctor.
#131: And the wider context, Shakes? My reference to the Gospel passage about only those who know that they are ill need a doctor - so in no way related to sexuality.
That's the problem with cherry-picking posts or Bible verses in order to make an often prejudiced point.
No explanation or clarification there of your suggestion that perhaps Trentvoyager needs to see a doctor.
#145: Yes, it would. If, as I believe I had, I had been talking about sin in general, and quoted the Gospel passage I've repeated in recent posts, then it would become clear that I wasn't referring to homosexual relationships at that point, but sins as whole. Since I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, it would seem unlikely that I would be suggesting that anyone should undergo it.
No explanation or clarification there of your suggestion that perhaps Trentvoyager needs to see a doctor.
#156 [actually #155 - Shaker]: Good to see you playing your scratched record again, NS. As I have pointed out before, God doesn't grade or tier sin. In his eyes, 'sin' is 'sin', whatever it is and as the Bible points out, the wages of sin are death (and it is clear from the context of that passage that he is referring to spiritual death). On the other hand, human societies are obliged to grade them since we have to punish them appropriately (hence to Jewish idea of 'a tooth for a tooth; an eye for an eye').
I think you will find that, if the missing 41.5 hours-worth of poists ever come to light again, it will become clear that I never suggested that homosexuals are 'ill, disordered, diseased' - I wonder whether Gordon will ever be able to resurrect them so that we can check.
No explanation or clarification there of your suggestion that perhaps Trentvoyager needs to see a doctor.
#160: Gonners, on a number of threads - some about homosexual relationships, some about other actions and behaviours, I have referred to Jesus' statement that "Those who are well have no need of a doctor, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matt. 9; Mark 2; Luke 5) Since I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, I am unlikely to refer to anyone who is gay needing a doctor for that reason. If, as I believe this was, the post under discussion was in terms of the gospel passage above, then it clearly has no more specific relevance to being gay than it would to being fraudulent.
No explanation or clarification there of your suggestion that perhaps Trentvoyager needs to see a doctor.
-
Well you have one hell of a long way to go, as your views on homosexuality are totally abhorrent and as bad as those of that very nasty anti-gay member who was banned some while back.
Only if my views on homosexual relationships are at odds with God's and I have no reason to believe that they are. Note, yet again, that the issue at hand isn't homosexuality.
-
Brownie, I have already stated categorically that - since I don't subscribe to the concept of corrective therapy (in this context) - the interpretation that Shakes and others are determined to put on a single post taken out of context is wrong. However, I do believe that, as Jesus suggests in Matthew, Mark and Luke's Gospels, Trent and others here are in need of a 'doctor'. In fact, we are all in need of such a doctor.
What has that got to do with being gay?
-
Hope, is it ok if it's Lying fur Jesus?
-
Brownie, I have already stated categorically that - since I don't subscribe to the concept of corrective therapy (in this context) - the interpretation that Shakes and others are determined to put on a single post taken out of context is wrong.
So provide what you reckon is the correct one, then.
However, I do believe that, as Jesus suggests in Matthew, Mark and Luke's Gospels, Trent and others here are in need of a 'doctor'. In fact, we are all in need of such a doctor.
Why was that addressed specifically to Trent (a gay member of Religion & Ethics), identified and addressed by name, on a thread which had started about NHS chaplaincy but which by that time has become dominated by homosexuality?
Why didn't the scare quotes around the word doctor which appear in the quoted portion above appear in the post in which you suggested that perhaps Trent needs to see a doctor. Did you suggest that he needs to see a real, actual doctor - his GP, or some kind of specialist, for instance - or imaginary 'doctor' Jesus?
-
Some parts of 'old Christianity' have just tried to explain that black people are inferior, it find that vile, how about you?
Yes I find it vile, but I can discuss it, without appearing to go into meltdown.
-
Only if my views on homosexual relationships are at odds with God's and I have no reason to believe that they are. Note, yet again, that the issue at hand isn't homosexuality.
Claiming to know the mind of God, Hope - such impertinence.
-
Yes I find it vile, but I can discuss it, without appearing to go into meltdown.
Has anyone done so?
-
No explanation or clarification there of your suggestion that perhaps Trentvoyager needs to see a doctor.
Oddly enough, Shakes, those 5 references both explain why your interpretation (and I would suggest the mods' interpretation) is wrong, and explain that the context as I recall the immediate discussion, of which this particular post was one exchange, was not about sexuality of any sort, but was related to the passage that I've quoted from Matthew, mark and Luke's Gospels.
-
Oddly enough, Shakes, those 5 references both explain why your interpretation (and I would suggest the mods' interpretation) is wrong, and explain that the context as I recall the immediate discussion, of which this particular post was one exchange, was not about sexuality of any sort, but was related to the passage that I've quoted from Matthew, mark and Luke's Gospels.
What does this waffle have to do with your suggestion that perhaps Trentvoyager needs to see a doctor, Hope? What kind of doctor did you have in mind when you made that suggestion? I will repeat the most directly relevant portion of my #194:
Why was that addressed specifically to Trent (a gay member of Religion & Ethics), identified and addressed by name, on a thread which had started about NHS chaplaincy but which by that time has become dominated by homosexuality?
Why didn't the scare quotes around the word doctor which appear in the quoted portion above [Hope: "I do believe that, as Jesus suggests in Matthew, Mark and Luke's Gospels, Trent and others here are in need of a 'doctor'. In fact, we are all in need of such a doctor"] appear in the post in which you suggested that perhaps Trent needs to see a doctor. Did you suggest that he needs to see a real, actual doctor - his GP, or some kind of specialist, for instance - or imaginary 'doctor' Jesus?
I put it to you that when suggesting that someone see a doctor, practically every single person will automatically take that to mean an actual medical practitioner of some sort and not that they stand in need of 'doctor Jesus.'
-
Claiming to know the mind of God, Hope - such impertinence.
Actually no, Rhiannon. One of ther things Christians are encouraged to do, by Christ himself, is to become more like him - in other words, to align ones thinking and understanding with his. Its not impertinence, its obedience.
-
Actually no, Rhiannon. One of ther things Christians are encouraged to do, by Christ himself, is to become more like him - in other words, to align ones thinking and understanding with his. Its not impertinence, its obedience.
OMG! Well if Jesus was a decent guy, you are failing miserably with each post! >:(
-
Oddly enough, Shakes, those 5 references both explain why your interpretation (and I would suggest the mods' interpretation) is wrong, and explain that the context as I recall the immediate discussion, of which this particular post was one exchange, was not about sexuality of any sort, but was related to the passage that I've quoted from Matthew, mark and Luke's Gospels.
That's not true, Hope.
-
I would like to add that I think it regrettable in the extreme that so much of this discussion has to revolve around a specific poster and in my view a highly valued poster at that. Trent might well be wishing for all this to have blown over and blown away by now, and who would blame him.
However, this latter part of the discussion has only come about precisely because it was made personal and specific in the first place, which Hope is now trying to deny.
I respect Trent as a poster and can understand why he would get upset.
It's his personal life that is being criticised, even if unintentionally.
Unfortunately any criticism of homosexuality can come across as a personal criticism.
If we want to discuss it at all with a variety of views we need to accept there are those who will never agree with it.
I want to see
Leonard and Trent continue to post here.
I just think we need to find a respectful balance, where people can disagree without it being considered offensive.
-
I know, how about not making personally offensive posts for a start?
-
Only if my views on homosexual relationships are at odds with God's and I have no reason to believe that they are.
"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." - Anne Lamott.
-
So provide what you reckon is the correct one, then.
I've done so already and don't intend to repet it all within a handful of posts. Look back for yourself, rather than trying to score points.
Why was that addressed specifically to Trent (a gay member of Religion & Ethics), identified and addressed by name, on a thread which had started about NHS chaplaincy but which by that time has become dominated by homosexuality?
Again, that one's been answered today, earlier in the thread.
Why didn't the scare quotes around the word doctor which appear in the quoted portion above appear in the post in which you suggested that perhaps Trent needs to see a doctor. Did you suggest that he needs to see a real, actual doctor - his GP, or some kind of specialist, for instance - or imaginary 'doctor' Jesus?
Probably because, in the immediate context of the discussion I'd been having with him, the meaning (as found in the Matthew, Mark and Luke passges) was clear and therefore not needed. It is only when something is taken out of context - as the post you are referencing has been - that quotation marks (where does the phrase 'scare marks' come from) begin to be required.
-
"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." - Anne Lamott.
That assumes, of course, that I (or God) hate anyone.
-
Not true, Hope. That wasn't what the discussion was about.
-
I know, how about not making personally offensive posts for a start?
I didn't, despite what peoiple here are determined to make out.
-
I respect Trent as a poster and can understand why he would get upset.
It's his personal life that is being criticised, even if unintentionally.
Unfortunately any criticism of homosexuality can come across as a personal criticism.
If we want to discuss it at all with a variety of views we need to accept there are those who will never agree with it.
I want to see
Leonard and Trent continue to post here.
I just think we need to find a respectful balance, where people can disagree without it being considered offensive.
Being anti-gay is as WRONG as being racist.
-
I've done so already
No, you have not. All we've seen from you is some meaningless guff from the New Testament and a very great deal of ducking, diving, dodging, evasion and bluster - even more than is customary for you, and that's saying something.
Look back for yourself, rather than trying to score points.
I've looked and nowhere can I see the explanation/clarification of your remark to Trentvoyager that you claim to have provided.
Probably because, in the immediate context of the discussion I'd been having with him ...
Ah - so apparently you know the context now, but didn't an hour or more ago when you said that you would need Gordon to repost all 41.5 hours' worth of posts in order to provide said context? I.e.
Do you have any contextual evidence that the post of mine that Trent was clearly responding to had anything to do with his being gay? I accept that the wider context of the posts that have been cut was on homosexual relationships, but as we know from other threads, posters will often switch from specific to generalised references to 'sin' within that wider context. Perhaps you can reproduce those 41.5 hours-worth of posts so as to show that I hadn't switched from specific to generalised.
(Today: 12:13:14pm).
I think you will find that, if the missing 41.5 hours-worth of poists ever come to light again, it will become clear that I never suggested that homosexuals are 'ill, disordered, diseased' - I wonder whether Gordon will ever be able to resurrect them so that we can check.
(Today: 12:21:54pm).
-
I didn't, despite what peoiple here are determined to make out.
You did. Out of every poster you could have named you chose Trent.
Do you want me to remind you of context? Ive given you enough opportunity to have a rethink. You were discussing how you have both gay and deaf friends but one is regarded as 'damaged' and the other isn't. We weren't discussing Bible passages at all.
Do you want to call me a liar?
-
Claiming to know the mind of God, Hope - such impertinence.
Well if Hope does make that claim he is not the only poster on here to believe they have a hotline to God :-).
However, Hope said:
''.... since I don't subscribe to the concept of corrective therapy (in this context) - the interpretation that Shakes and others are determined to put on a single post taken out of context is wrong. However, I do believe that, as Jesus suggests in Matthew, Mark and Luke's Gospels, Trent and others here are in need of a 'doctor'. In fact, we are all in need of such a doctor.''
That is what I thought Hope meant and I believe him. In view of the furore it has caused, it appears he was unwise to say such a thing to that poster on that thread but no harm was intended. So, whilst I disagree with his stance, in my opinion he hasn't said anything 'vile'.
-
Why? What's so special about homosexuality? If according to someone's beliefs we're all spiritually sick sinners, what's the problem?
A BIG PROBLEM, a pity you can't see it! >:(
-
A BIG PROBLEM, a pity you can't see it! >:(
ok - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
-
According to some posters Hope apparently lies - I have no proof of whether he does or not so can't comment - I'm away a lot.
That would certainly explain why you're unaware of his status as the master of bald assertion (and logical fallacy) and the emperor of evasion.
He has said people have posted evidence of God but never produces any - that much I have witnessed.
I don't know about that. He himself has certainly claimed that in more than one place elsewhere online he has provided a methodology for evaluating supernatural claims (adding that it has "flummoxed" people), but can't present it here and can't provide a link to these alleged other places.
So as far as I can gather from all these back and forth posts - he claims he meant Trent needs to see a spiritual doctor not a medical one because he thinks Christianity teaches that homosexuality is a spiritual sickness as opposed to a medical one.
This is a post hoc construction placed upon it by Hope in the full knowledge that that was not what his original comment aimed at Trentvoyager meant. When someone says "Perhaps you need to see a doctor" it's not generally thought of that it's Dr. Jesus being referred to here.
-
A BIG PROBLEM, a pity you can't see it! >:(
Speaking purely from a Christian perspective....if premarital sex and extramarital sex can be considered a sin....why not homosexuality?
-
Homosexuals can now marry, Sririam! In any case, no Christian says homosexuality is wrong, they say the practice of it wrong which would be in line with pre-marital sex being wrong.
A heck of a lot of us have done things wrong by that reckoning :-[.
-
Speaking purely from a Christian perspective....if premarital sex and extramarital sex can be considered a sin....why not homosexuality?
Nobody is saying that they can't, if they want. I think most of society is moving on though from such antiquated positions, as with usury.
-
Speaking purely from a Christian perspective....if premarital sex and extramarital sex can be considered a sin....why not homosexuality?
Nothing wrong with premarital sex if you are in a consenting adult relationship. Cheating on your partner, gay or straight, is wrong.
-
Moderator:
On the wider issue of conduct/post content and acceptability Nearly Sane has started this thread on Mod & Admin.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11890.0#new
So I'm going to move those posts from here, to there, that are more about what does go on here in general from the point of view of what is and isn't acceptable.
-
Homosexuals can now marry, Sririam! In any case, no Christian says homosexuality is wrong, they say the practice of it wrong which would be in line with pre-marital sex being wrong.
A heck of a lot of us have done things wrong by that reckoning :-[.
The fact that lots of people have done wrong does not mean something cannot still be considered as wrong (sin) from an idealistic religious perspective. Religion is about ideals and about trying to be more disciplined than we now are.
-
Nobody is saying that they can't, if they want. I think most of society is moving on though from such antiquated positions, as with usury.
Not wishing to get all heavy duty technical on anybody's, er, bottom but I think the problem here is that Christianity is a deontological moral framework that sees actions as inherently wrong in and of themselves regardless of specific circumstances, whereas most people are what is known in the trade as consequentialists and evaluate actions according to their consequences - something could be deemed to be right in situation/circumstances A but wrong in a different situation/circumstances B.
For example: an absolute pacifist might say that all killing of any kind is wrong, no ifs, buts and exceptions, whereas most people regard murder as wrong but draw the lines differently in the cases of self-defence, abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia.
-
Nothing wrong with premarital sex if you are in a consenting adult relationship. Cheating on your partner, gay or straight, is wrong.
Why? If we have no ideals...even 'cheating is wrong' is just your personal position. Why should everyone accept your view?
-
The fact that lots of people have done wrong does not mean something cannot still be considered as wrong (sin) from an idealistic religious perspective. Religion is about ideals and about trying to be more disciplined than we now are.
Yes that is very true. I am just saying that we sometimes fail miserably.
-
Not wishing to get all heavy duty technical on anybody's, er, bottom but I think the problem here is that Christianity is a deontological moral framework that sees actions as inherently wrong in and of themselves regardless of specific circumstances, whereas most people are what is known in the trade as consequentialists and evaluate actions according to their consequences - something could be deemed to be right in situation/circumstances A but wrong in a different situation/circumstances B.
For example: an absolute pacifist might say that all killing of any kind is wrong, no ifs, buts and exceptions, whereas most people regard murder as wrong but draw the lines differently in the cases of self-defence, abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia.
Which Christianity? The Episcopalians are far removed from, say, the HTB Alpha crowd, yet both are Anglican. The problem is at least here in the UK is that the liberal churches are dying fastest, so all that's left are the hardliners.
-
Why? If we have no ideals...
Who prior to you said anything about having no ideals?
-
Well if Hope does make that claim he is not the only poster on here to believe they have a hotline to God :-).
However, Hope said:
''.... since I don't subscribe to the concept of corrective therapy (in this context) - the interpretation that Shakes and others are determined to put on a single post taken out of context is wrong. However, I do believe that, as Jesus suggests in Matthew, Mark and Luke's Gospels, Trent and others here are in need of a 'doctor'. In fact, we are all in need of such a doctor.''
That is what I thought Hope meant and I believe him. In view of the furore it has caused, it appears he was unwise to say such a thing to that poster on that thread but no harm was intended. So, whilst I disagree with his stance, in my opinion he hasn't said anything 'vile'.
Then he could have said 'see a priest/vicar/minister': he didn't.
-
Then he could have said 'see a priest/vicar/minister': he didn't.
Quite so, Don Gordione. When people talk about seeing a doctor it's usually construed quite literally - seeing a doctor.
-
I don't believe there was any 'vile' intent in what Hope said. There wouldn't be much point in telling a non-believer to see a priest or minister. I'm sure Hope won't use the word 'doctor' so liberally again.
-
I don't believe there was any 'vile' intent in what Hope said. There wouldn't be much point in telling a non-believer to see a priest or minister.
Or Jesus, who according to Hope now also functions as a spiritual doctor. So what Hope actually meant in his comment to Trent will remain unclarified, given his manifest refusal or inability to explain himself.
-
If you look at it historically, gays had been severely pathologized in British society (and of course, in others) - by the law, by medicine, psychiatry, religion, and so on. However, there has been a counter-movement, so that homosexuality was decriminalized in the UK, and then marriage was equalized, medical attempts to 'convert' gays were banned and so on.
This counter-movement has made great progress in different areas, so that for example, few doctors today would see gays as pathological, or in fact, psychiatrists also. Religion seems to be a backwater, for various reasons. So anyone who supports the acceptance of gays will tend to criticize the C of E and Catholic Churches for their official homophobia.
And of course, there are Christians who do criticize the churches and any homophobic Christians.
-
I don't believe there was any 'vile' intent in what Hope said. There wouldn't be much point in telling a non-believer to see a priest or minister. I'm sure Hope won't use the word 'doctor' so liberally again.
No point at all, as you say, which of course suggests he really did mean a medical doctor - since in his thousands of posts during the lifetime of this Forum I can't recall Hope advancing the idea of a 'spiritual doctor'.
-
No point at all, as you say, which of course suggests he really did mean a medical doctor - since in his thousands of posts during the lifetime of this Forum I can't recall Hope advancing the idea of a 'spiritual doctor'.
Plenty to choose from: I can't for some no doubt technical reason link to it directly but having just searched 'doctor' in posts by Hope there are two pages of results and they all seem to refer pretty unambiguously to medical practitioners.
-
Well I doubt he'll use the word again unless he definitely means a medical doctor. He was suspended for a while but if everyone thought he was that bad, he wouldn't have been allowed back.
Wigginhall, the CofE and the Catholic Church come in for a lot of criticism, from within, for their official attitude. I really wish the powers that be would take more note of what their members think and say. As someone else said, there are many 'wings' of the Anglican church and within the Catholic Church there are some individual parishes that are more traditional than others.
I agree many Christians take issue with the traditional stance on homosexuality, other issues too. We meet some of them on here! It can take time to change attitudes though.
Anyway I am having some technical difficulties with this computer, hoping my husband can sort it when he gets home. He did last time even though he wasn't sure how he did it! I hope it can be fixed in the next couple of days because I want to use it for other things.
-
I said from the beginning what you were. I am not afraid to face those who come as a wolf in sheep's clothing to stir up UNREST.
To bring divide and separation in hope of bringing the forum down.
The others may not see your motive or your heart. In all the years we have been posting together we have a good understanding.
That's very interesting. According to you I am here to bring the forum down.
Wasn't it you who said
May Almighty God, close this forum if someone does not do something about the moderators abusing their powers and being prejudice towards Christians.,..To Gods Glory and in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen,.
The mod team has not changed to my knowledge.
Have you considered that I am here as an answer to your prayers!!!!
Maybe your prayers have been answered and I have been sent by God!
Hallelujah
-
I think Christianity is more consistent than many of you, with regard to sexual practices.
Christianity regards anything except a legitimate marital heterosexual relationship, as wrong and sinful. This includes premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexuality, incest, bestiality etc. Most of you are very supportive of homosexuality but have varied ideas about the other practices. Why?
-
Sririam:
Christianity regards anything except a legitimate marital heterosexual relationship, as wrong and sinful.
I think you will find Christianity (by which I mean 'Christians') are divided on this issue Sririam. I don't have any data to hand but when I last looked at the result of a survey, opinion was 50/50.
Extra-marital sex, bestiality, incest etc all cause hurt and some frequently involve non-consensual sex. What two consenting adults, neither of whom have a commitment to anyone else, do is a different matter.
-
I think Christianity is more consistent than many of you, with regard to sexual practices.
Christianity regards anything except a legitimate marital heterosexual relationship, as wrong and sinful. This includes premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexuality, incest, bestiality etc. Most of you are very supportive of homosexuality but have varied ideas about the other practices. Why?
The OT obviously condoned incest.
-
You did. Out of every poster you could have named you chose Trent.
Do you want me to remind you of context? Ive given you enough opportunity to have a rethink. You were discussing how you have both gay and deaf friends but one is regarded as 'damaged' and the other isn't. We weren't discussing Bible passages at all.
Do you want to call me a liar?
Out of interest which one was the 'damaged' one according to Hope? It doesn't fit in with his theology if only one of them is 'damaged'.
A person who is deaf is physically damaged - their hearing is damaged - and they are also spiritually damaged if we are all miserable sinners - the deaf person has presumably committed sins of some kind. The gay person is not physically damaged, but according to some intrepetations of Christianity they are spiritually damaged because we're all miserable sinners e.g. they are practising (thanks for the correction Brownie).
So which one was the 'damaged' one. And why is the word damaged in scare quote marks?
-
I know, how about not making personally offensive posts for a start?
Anything on any subject, can appear offensive to some people.
-
Sririam:
Christianity regards anything except a legitimate marital heterosexual relationship, as wrong and sinful.
Extra-marital sex, bestiality, incest etc all cause hurt and some frequently involve non-consensual sex. What two consenting adults, neither of whom have a commitment to anyone else, do is a different matter.
Well said
-
It's also about not conflating things, isn't it? Instead of saying that A, B, and C are all sins, it seems better to take each on its own terms. If paedophilia is wrong, that doesn't mean that masturbation is.
-
That would certainly explain why you're unaware of his status as the master of bald assertion (and logical fallacy) and the emperor of evasion.
Yes I usually get here in time to see him being called a liar but can't be bothered to go back and read previous posts to find out why. I have seen evasion though, where he doesn't respond to questions.
I don't know about that. He himself has certainly claimed that in more than one place elsewhere online he has provided a methodology for evaluating supernatural claims (adding that it has "flummoxed" people), but can't present it here and can't provide a link to these alleged other places.
Ok - I stand corrected - that sounds more like what I remember reading.
This is a post hoc construction placed upon it by Hope in the full knowledge that that was not what his original comment aimed at Trentvoyager meant. When someone says "Perhaps you need to see a doctor" it's not generally thought of that it's Dr. Jesus being referred to here.
What did Hope mean in his post by saying Trent was entitled to his opinion - what was Trent's opinion? If Hope had already mentioned the Jesus quote in that thread about the sick needing a doctor and Jesus coming to save the sinners then it gives me reasonable doubt about Hope meaning a medical doctor. Though it's possible the word "doctor" was chosen in this thread because of the double meaning - only Hope knows for sure if he meant to try to wind Trent and a few other posters up or not.
-
Out of interest which one was the 'damaged' one according to Hope? It doesn't fit in with his theology if only one of them is 'damaged'.
A person who is deaf is physically damaged - their hearing is damaged - and they are also spiritually damaged if we are all miserable sinners - the deaf person has presumably committed sins of some kind. The gay person is not physically damaged, but according to some intrepetations of Christianity they are spiritually damaged because we're all miserable sinners e.g. they are practising (thanks for the correction Brownie).
So which one was the 'damaged' one. And why is the word damaged in scare quote marks?
According to Hope both are 'damaged' - not spiritually but medically - but society only regards the deaf person as such. A few posters pointed out that most people regard neither as damaged.
I used quote marks because I was quoting Hope.
-
According to Hope both are 'damaged' - not spiritually but medically - but society only regards the deaf person as such. A few posters pointed out that most people regard neither as damaged.
I used quote marks because I was quoting Hope.
That is correct.
I pointed out that a gay relative lived a happy and fulfilled life. He said that he had a deaf relative who also lived a happy life. However, he stated that only one was regarded as damaged by society and wondered why that was.
It was clear that he thought gay people were also damaged.
Of course most people don't regard either as damaged, but it was a clear example of him medicalising homosexuality.
I'm sure Gordon could reinstate the post if this was challenged.
-
That is correct.
I pointed out that a gay relative lived a happy and fulfilled life. He said that he had a deaf relative who also lived a happy life. However, he stated that only one was regarded as damaged by society and wondered why that was.
It was clear that he thought gay people were also damaged.
Of course most people don't regard either as damaged, but it was a clear example of him medicalising homosexuality.
I'm sure Gordon could reinstate the post if this was challenged.
Ok - well that sounds like he didn't mean spiritually damaged if he was comparing homosexual practice to being unable to hear.
And he has subsequently acknowledged he doesn't agree with therapy to change someone's sexual identity. So if that is true, it sounds like it was a personal insult.
Which takes us back to Nearly Sane's thread about whether people who do things different from the norm can be described as abnormal or damaged on this forum. Such as saying Muslim women have Stockholm syndrome - I've seen that posted on here by posters who think a particular interpretation of Islam is mysogynistic.
-
only Hope knows for sure if he meant to try to wind Trent
I remain, however, resolutely unwound.
-
I think Christianity is more consistent than many of you, with regard to sexual practices.
Christianity regards anything except a legitimate marital heterosexual relationship, as wrong and sinful. This includes premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexuality, incest, bestiality etc. Most of you are very supportive of homosexuality but have varied ideas about the other practices. Why?
Mental competence and informed consent between equal parties.
What you call consistency more often comes across as a one-size-fits-all approach devoid of nuance.
-
I didn't, despite what peoiple here are determined to make out.
You obviously did; otherwise the post would not have been removed and you would not have been suspended.
If you could not see that your suggestion that Trent needed medical attention for a disease (his homosexuality) would offend him you are even less intelligent than even the low value (where religion is part of the discussion) that I gave you credit for.
-
I don't believe there was any 'vile' intent in what Hope said. There wouldn't be much point in telling a non-believer to see a priest or minister. I'm sure Hope won't use the word 'doctor' so liberally again.
Whatever the intent it was vile but Hope excuses it by claiming divine guidance; unforunately Hope seems have no concept of just how vile some Christian values and opinons are to non-Christians.
-
There is a thread in the Moderation Section, started by NS, entitled:
1H - what type of board do we want
You might find Hope's post, 29, interesting, Owlswing.
-
There is a thread in the Moderation Section, started by NS, entitled:
1H - what type of board do we want
You might find Hope's post, 29, interesting, Owlswing.
Read TV's #40 on the same thread - which I found equally interesting.
I am sorry, Brownie, I really am, but your view of the attitudes and posts of our two arch Christian Fundamentalists is vastly different to mine.
And, incidentally, OMW is, in part, at the very least, the reason for my antipathy toward those two people. He used virtually any post that I made in reply to them as a springboard for a series of unpleasnat insults.
Upon friendly (PM - off-board) advice from some posters sympathetic to my situation in this regard I took to ignoring anything that he posted. This worked, for me, for a while, but I would be addressed in posts from OMW telling me that I had to respond as "he knew that really I wanted to" - and if I weakened and responded in kind, he instantly complained to the Mods!
I feel that Sassy and Hope are living breathing demonstrators of all that I find unplesant and unacceptable in the Christian religion - they find my religion totally unacceptable and without merit and are not backward about coming forward to say so. They can describe my beliefs as rubbish, nonsense, etc, etc, but God (theirs, not mine) help anyone who dares to say the same about theirs.
Sassy has frequesntly posted that I know nothing about either the Bible or Christianity despite my having been brought up in the High Anglican Congregation for the first fifteen yerars of my life; for "brought up in" read "indoctrinated with".
Let us, you and I, agree to differ on this subject, please.
One last point - I think that I have discovered exactly who Sassy really is - everthing she posts is directly or indirectly quotes from the bible and she is never ever wrong on anything - there is only one person who can fit these two criteria - God himself - All Hail Sassy!
Brownie
Bright Blessings, Love and Light, and may the Old Ones watch over you, and all those that you hold dear, always.
Owlswing
)O(
-
Very nice post (((Owlswing))), I'm happy to agree to differ about anything but I have to say I fail to see what Sassy has to do with any of this, or OMW who I had virtually forgotten (no offence to him), and who has left this forum anyway. I've never got into PMs about any posters and neither would I. I can only speak as I find and cannot see any comparison at all between Hope and Sassy, they are like chalk and cheese.
You must feel as though you have been talking to a brick wall :D, sorry, but all I did was suggest you look at one of Hope's posts which I felt explained things better than anything else he had said. It obviously didn't strike you the same way, fair enough. I also read the post you mentioned (from TV), and have read all the posts on that thread. Am pleased to note that Trent is not at all wound up, bless him. He probably has more sense than any of us.
-
Dear Hope,
It is in your face mate, you suggested that Trent needs a Doctor, what for?
Gonnagle.
WHERE DID SHAKER GET A POST THAT HAD BEEN DELETED?
WHY CAN'T SHAKER FIND THE FULL POST NOW?
EITHER THE FULL POST IS SHOWN AND SHAKER EXPLAINS WHERE HE GOT HIS QUOTES FROM OR HE DROPS THE MATTER.
Hope has the right to defend himself. So where did you get those quotes from Shaker?
You surely did not think that someone won't pull you on using quotes from a post apparently removed.
WAITING... Don't tell you saved a copy as you would have printed the whole thing not just part to use to condemn Hope in your mind...
-
For what reason did you reserve the right to suggest that perhaps Trentvoyager ought to see a doctor, Hope?
Had you and Trent been discussing the state of Trent's health or was it for some other reason?
Come on! explain where you got the quotes for a 'suggested deleted) post and why haven't you posted the whole thing?
Bring it along....
-
At this juncture I'd like to point out that 'thou shalt not bear false witness' is the ninth commandment. I think I have that right, and to add that sinners who do so are estranged from God. Just like murderers and paedophiles, according to some around here.
As a moderator, you also have the responsibility to show us the post for which you are now using the 9th commandment.
So either show us original post or don't make any statements as even your post could look a false testament against your neighbour.
How do you make yourself and anyone who bears false witness for lack of evidence make yourself the same as murders, paedophiles? Christ died for all no difference but tell me how you believe the sin makes a difference.
If you are going to stir the pot make sure your own hands are clean.
As a moderator you have the responsibility to bring forth the post and tell us how Shaker got hold of quotes from a deleted post.
If it isn't deleted why have you not posted it?
Hope is not answerable to anyone including Shaker, if they cannot produce the whole of the post. Or explain how someone got hold of quotes from a deleted post.
Whole posts or NOTHING you can say will convict. Hearsay and production of quotes which cannot verified as coming from Hope with the whole post is nothing but hearsay...
-
Gonners, on a number of threads - some about homosexual relationships, some about other actions and behaviours, I have referred to Jesus' statement that "Those who are well have no need of a doctor, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matt. 9; Mark 2; Luke 5) Since I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, I am unlikely to refer to anyone who is gay needing a doctor for that reason. If, as I believe this was, the post under discussion was in terms of the gospel passage above, then it clearly has no more specific relevance to being gay than it would to being fraudulent.
Do you have any evidence that the post WAS specific to either Trent's sexuality or his need for a doctor in relation to a medical issue? Simply tossing the one post back at me proves nothing.
Hope till they explain how Shaker got quotes from a 'deleted' post or show us the full deleted post, there is nothing for you to answer. Given moderators have joined this thread and spoke openly and accusatory then do not answer them any longer till the whole posts are posted for us to see. So far there is nothing but quotes from a post which can in itself be taken out of context if whole posts not present. You have nothing to answer to, because they have not brought anything but hearsay because original post deleted. Shaker does not give access to the post itself on forum. So he could have made up what he wrote.
No evidence to say he didn't without actual posts...
-
Hope, please stop. Just stop. You discredit this forum, your faith and yourself in persisting with your lies.
No you and Shaker discredit the forum and yourselves until you bring the full actual posts with references.
How can shaker take excerpts from a deleted post?
Furthermore, the quotes show that they were not taken from an original post from the board could not go to them.
Why haven't you posted the posts.
No actual posts then no right of accusation or personal destruction of the person in question.
You may not know the law but having started a law degree course, and studied law for other purposes.
I know there has been NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. Just accusations which cannot be backed up by source of the things written.
Either you and Shaker bring the whole evidence or no evidence exists. Shaker could have made it up.
If you have deleted the whole posts you cannot back up Shaker or even call Hope any of those things above.
-
WHERE DID SHAKER GET A POST THAT HAD BEEN DELETED?
WHY CAN'T SHAKER FIND THE FULL POST NOW?
EITHER THE FULL POST IS SHOWN AND SHAKER EXPLAINS WHERE HE GOT HIS QUOTES FROM OR HE DROPS THE MATTER.
Hope has the right to defend himself. So where did you get those quotes from Shaker?
You surely did not think that someone won't pull you on using quotes from a post apparently removed.
WAITING... Don't tell you saved a copy as you would have printed the whole thing not just part to use to condemn Hope in your mind...
I didn't 'get' it, I remembered the gist of Hope's post from April 1st - that's only a couple of weeks ago or so. Having mental capacities above those of the average aubergine I'm quite capable of processing and retaining information. Hope's post (originally on the NHS chaplaincy thread) was removed because it contained an offensive personal remark directed against another member of the forum which was primarily the thing that led to Hope's suspension, so it was removed to the Mod Room, although when this discussion arose yesterday Gordon helpfully reposted the actual thing on the present thread (in #112). Although removed from general view, I remembered the salient part which I had earlier paraphrased in #42 to the best of my memory, which you can check against Hope's original in #112.
If you had read the thread, post by post and in order instead of as usual rushing in gob first and capitals a-flying, you would know all this.
I know you're desperate to see underhand methods and dark secrets of skullduggery at work, which says much about you, but it was simply a reasonably good memory on my part, nothing more. Shaker has made up nothing - Hope was insinuating as much while the post remained hidden, but that was only before he was royally tucked up when Gordon reinstated said post.
Feel free to take all this up with Gordon if you wish. I'm sure he can always do with a good laugh.
-
I didn't 'get' it, I remembered the gist of Hope's post from April 1st - that's only a couple of weeks ago or so. Having mental capacities above those of the average aubergine I'm quite capable of processing and retaining information. Hope's post (originally on the NHS chaplaincy thread) was removed because it contained an offensive personal remark directed against another member of the forum which was primarily the thing that led to Hope's suspension, so it was removed to the Mod Room, although when this discussion arose yesterday Gordon helpfully reposted the actual thing on the present thread (in #112). Although removed from general view, I remembered the salient part which I had earlier paraphrased in #42 to the best of my memory, which you can check against Hope's original in #112.
If you had read the thread, post by post and in order instead of as usual rushing in gob first and capitals a-flying, you would know all this.
I know you're desperate to see underhand methods and dark secrets of skullduggery at work, which says much about you, but it was simply a reasonably good memory on my part, nothing more. Shaker has made up nothing - Hope was insinuating as much while the post remained hidden, but that was only before he was royally tucked up when Gordon reinstated said post.
Feel free to take all this up with Gordon if you wish. I'm sure he can always do with a good laugh.
Was it Trent who objected?
Because if it wasn't then you are all being offended on his behalf.
Trent has already said he didn't wish the post to be removed or for hope to be suspended.
I'd suggest objecting on Trents behalf on this occaision is misguided.
Trent is more than capable of standing up for himself, although some support is probably welcome.
-
Can people stop attacking Hope, please?
The discussion has gone beyond discussing views.
-
Was it Trent who objected?
Because if it wasn't then you are all being offended on his behalf.
Trent has already said he didn't wish the post to be removed or for hope to be suspended.
I assume that a collective decision on the part of The Management was taken that Hope's post broke the house rules and that a suspension was called for.
I'd suggest objecting on Trents behalf on this occaision is misguided.
Trent is more than capable of standing up for himself, although some support is probably welcome.
I'm not objecting solely on behalf on Trent - I'm quite capable of objecting in my own name since I find homophobia repugnant and lying about it afterwards contemptible.
-
Dear Shaker,
As Rose suggests, I think the point has been made.
Gonnagle.
-
I didn't 'get' it, I remembered the gist of Hope's post from April 1st - that's only a couple of weeks ago or so. Having mental capacities above those of the average aubergine I'm quite capable of processing and retaining information. Hope's post (originally on the NHS chaplaincy thread) was removed because it contained an offensive personal remark directed against another member of the forum which was primarily the thing that led to Hope's suspension, so it was removed to the Mod Room, although when this discussion arose yesterday Gordon helpfully reposted the actual thing on the present thread (in #112). Although removed from general view, I remembered the salient part which I had earlier paraphrased in #42 to the best of my memory, which you can check against Hope's original in #112.
If you had read the thread, post by post and in order instead of as usual rushing in gob first and capitals a-flying, you would know all this.
I know you're desperate to see underhand methods and dark secrets of skullduggery at work, which says much about you, but it was simply a reasonably good memory on my part, nothing more. Shaker has made up nothing - Hope was insinuating as much while the post remained hidden, but that was only before he was royally tucked up when Gordon reinstated said post.
Feel free to take all this up with Gordon if you wish. I'm sure he can always do with a good laugh.
Without the evidence of the post and without you having proof your memory correct then we have to drop the whole thing because Hope already explained he had not meant what you and others accused him of doing. We have to give him the benefit of the doubt when the rest of the post not available.
-
Was it Trent who objected?
Because if it wasn't then you are all being offended on his behalf.
Trent has already said he didn't wish the post to be removed or for hope to be suspended.
I'd suggest objecting on Trents behalf on this occaision is misguided.
Trent is more than capable of standing up for himself, although some support is probably welcome.
I believe that Trent's wishes should have been heeded.
-
Dear Shaker,
As Rose suggests, I think the point has been made.
Gonnagle.
Seconded...
-
Without the evidence of the post
Now provided in #112.
and without you having proof your memory correct
Now provided in #112, as checked against #42.
then we have to drop the whole thing
Oh no we bloody well don't.
because Hope already explained he had not meant what you and others accused him of doing.
After-the-fact rationalisation once he'd been caught out. Pretty sure he didn't expect Gordon to repost the offending text, but he did.
We have to give him the benefit of the doubt when the rest of the post not available.
You might; I don't.
-
Dear Shaker,
As Rose suggests, I think the point has been made.
Gonnagle.
Not yet ;)
-
I had to laugh this morning, when I saw that Sassy had already done 8 posts, before I'd even brushed my teeth, complaining about something or other about Shaker and deleted posts.
Ah well, so it goes.
-
All part of the magic roundabout ride that is R & E, wiggy ;) Happy Saturday to you and yours.
-
Sass' God saw the laughing and the teeth brushing, Wiggs. You want to be careful.
-
I've stuck this here because Gordon has locked the other thread (temp) and it fits here as well as anywhere. :)
So it's right to call my mother a child abuser because she brought me up in a religion?
No it isn't, but it is ok to say that someone thinks that bringing children up strictly religious, is damaging to their future happiness and life.
Like it's acceptable to say that personally someone thinks Paganism is a deception of the devil and its followers are mislead.
Or that Christians are misguided and follow corrupted books and we should all read the Koran.
Or that Atheists are missing a spiritual ingredient that enables them to comprehend God.
They can all be very offensive.
I think it's when it gets personal it's an issue.
For example if Hope instead of putting
"Trent, you have every right to express your own opinions; I also have that right. You have the right to decide that you need or don't need a doctor; I have every right to suggest that perhaps you do."
Put instead.....
"Trent, you have every right to express your own opinions; I also have that right. You have the right to decide that homosexuals need or don't need a doctor; I have every right to suggest that perhaps they do."
Perhaps the second one would have been better and although it still says the same as the first, its more general and allows a wider range of discussion.
The problem with not allowing more general comments is it will restrict our posts to much.
Perhaps comments should be encouraged into general comments rather than personal ones.
-
Sass' God saw the laughing and the teeth brushing, Wiggs. You want to be careful.
You are right, my toast looked a bit burned this morning, do you think this is a foretaste of Hades?
-
I've stuck this here because Gordon has locked the other thread (temp) and it fits here as well as anywhere. :)
No it isn't, but it is ok to say that someone thinks that bringing children up strictly religious, is damaging to their future happiness and life.
Like it's acceptable to say that personally someone thinks Paganism is a deception of the devil and its followers are mislead.
Or that Christians are misguided and follow corrupted books and we should all read the Koran.
Or that Atheists are missing a spiritual ingredient that enables them to comprehend God.
They can all be very offensive.
I think it's when it gets personal it's an issue.
For example if Hope instead of putting
"Trent, you have every right to express your own opinions; I also have that right. You have the right to decide that you need or don't need a doctor; I have every right to suggest that perhaps you do."
Put instead.....
"Trent, you have every right to express your own opinions; I also have that right. You have the right to decide that homosexuals need or don't need a doctor; I have every right to suggest that perhaps they do."
Perhaps the second one would have been better and although it still says the same as the first, its more general and allows a wider range of discussion.
The problem with not allowing more general comments is it will restrict our posts to much.
Perhaps comments should be encouraged into general comments rather than personal ones.
It's only a temporary lock. I would suggest you copy this back there when it's unlocked and I'll reply there. Taking the discussion here is a derail of this thread.
-
Not yet ;)
Unless you can provide AN actual post then the matter is at AN end. :D
-
Nine.
-
Unless you can provide AN actual post then the matter is at AN end. :D
Firstly, nothing is at an end because you say so.
Secondly, as you would already know if you had the intellectual wherewithal to comprehend what's written, Gordon provided said post in reply #112 on this very thread - that's about half-way down page 5. I suggest you look at it.
-
I had to laugh this morning, when I saw that Sassy had already done 8 posts, before I'd even brushed my teeth, complaining about something or other about Shaker and deleted posts.
Ah well, so it goes.
8 posts and not a single one contained the apology she owes me.
You can imagine my disappointment.:(
-
It's only a temporary lock. I would suggest you copy this back there when it's unlocked and I'll reply there. Taking the discussion here is a derail of this thread.
Ok
I did realise it was that's why I added ( temp) ;)
-
I also second what you said on previous page Rose.
Some seem to really be enjoying themselves here at the expense of others, even petulant. If we asked for an apology every time someone said something nasty to us, or just tactless, we'd be starting senseless threads as long as your arm every few days.
Trent has been sensible about the issue discussed (not the subject of this thread I hasten to add). Three cheers for common sense.
-
I also second what you said on previous page Rose.
Some seem to really be enjoying themselves here at the expense of others, even petulant. If we asked for an apology every time someone said something nasty to us, or just tactless, we'd be starting senseless threads as long as your arm every few days.
Trent has been sensible about the issue discussed (not the subject of this thread I hasten to add). Three cheers for common sense.
Personally I don't care if people say nasty things to me.
Tell lies about me though and damn right I'll go all out for an apology.
-
I also second what you said on previous page Rose.
Some seem to really be enjoying themselves here at the expense of others, even petulant. If we asked for an apology every time someone said something nasty to us, or just tactless, we'd be starting senseless threads as long as your arm every few days.
Trent has been sensible about the issue discussed (not the subject of this thread I hasten to add). Three cheers for common sense.
Oi. I try never to be too sensible!
My whole reaction to the hopey business is basically that a leopard will not change its spots. He generalises about gay people to support is homophobic stance in exactly the way that the press in this country generalise abou t muslims on the basis of ISIS's behaviour.
I previously said i was resolutely unwound up. Thats because ive made a decision not to let him do that for my own reasons. That others wish to challenge him is fine with me. He is a dinosaur who wishes me harm. Im not going to let him affect me.
-
Oi. I try never to be too sensible!
My whole reaction to the hopey business is basically that a leopard will not change its spots. He generalises about gay people to support is homophobic stance in exactly the way that the press in this country generalise abou t muslims on the basis of ISIS's behaviour.
I previously said i was resolutely unwound up. Thats because ive made a decision not to let him do that for my own reasons. That others wish to challenge him is fine with me. He is a dinosaur who wishes me harm. Im not going to let him affect me.
A wonderful attitude TV. :)
However as a heterosexual I will certainly challenge anti-gay nastiness, as it is so very WRONG, especially when the Bible is used as an excuse for bigotry. >:(
-
Firstly, nothing is at an end because you say so.
Secondly, as you would already know if you had the intellectual wherewithal to comprehend what's written, Gordon provided said post in reply #112 on this very thread - that's about half-way down page 5. I suggest you look at it.
I make that three times you've told her. I've often wondered whether English is her first language, but having seen her attempts at a few others, I'm afraid her version of 'English' seems to be the best she can do.
-
Oi. I try never to be too sensible!
My whole reaction to the hopey business is basically that a leopard will not change its spots. He generalises about gay people to support is homophobic stance in exactly the way that the press in this country generalise abou t muslims on the basis of ISIS's behaviour.
I previously said i was resolutely unwound up. Thats because ive made a decision not to let him do that for my own reasons. That others wish to challenge him is fine with me. He is a dinosaur who wishes me harm. Im not going to let him affect me.
I have not entered this thread, mainly because it has been rather and perhaps understandably divisive in tone.
However, I would just like to commend you on what I consider to be a most admirable attitude on your part, Trent. Many years ago I admit to having homophobic feelings which I eventually couldn't justify to myself in any way. I am not going to go into detail, but I changed completely, so that now I happily accept that a person's sexual preferences are a matter for them alone, and fully embrace the idea that a loving relationship between two adults(of whatever gender) is to be admired. That's all, Trent. You have my full support.
-
Clearly you haven't been following the thread particularly carefully. I made my position clear on this particular topic in my reply #37 on that thread.
Regarding the latter topic of discussion, I can give you the addresses of academics as well. In fact, the very fact that both you and I could trade academics' addresses shows that there is no scientific or academic consensus - and that applies to both the former and the latter topics.
Hope,
Sorry this one fell below the radar. I have answered it on the Archbishop thread.
-
I have not entered this thread, mainly because it has been rather and perhaps understandably divisive in tone.
However, I would just like to commend you on what I consider to be a most admirable attitude on your part, Trent. Many years ago I admit to having homophobic feelings which I eventually couldn't justify to myself in any way. I am not going to go into detail, but I changed completely, so that now I happily accept that a person's sexual preferences are a matter for them alone, and fully embrace the idea that a loving relationship between two adults(of whatever gender) is to be admired. That's all, Trent. You have my full support.
Thanks Enki.
Again on the homophobic feelings people experience - it really isn't a surprise given how ingrained homophobia used to be in our society (much less now thankfully) - it affected me when I was younger and there are enough examples of gay people self harming or denying their sexuality to show that many, many people have those feelings regardless of their sexuality. The good thing is many realise it, like yourself, and get over it.
-
I did. Specifically and indeed tangentially.
I think not. As you say I re-worded my post and said that homosexuality is a disorder of sexual orientation. There is nothing vile and homophobic about that. Nothing (in that statement) to suggest that I want to deny anyone anything or compare homosexuality with pedophilia.
-
I think not. As you say I re-worded my post and said that homosexuality is a disorder of sexual orientation. There is nothing vile and homophobic about that. Nothing (in that statement) to suggest that I want to deny anyone anything or compare homosexuality with pedophilia.
I think, Spud, that the word 'disorder' is your problem: what is your authority for stating this?
Perhaps you'd best check what the current thinking is regarding your terminology, since I suspect you'll struggle to support your view using current professional and peer-reviewed medical research. One key aspect would be to identify whether, if this is indeed a 'disorder', as you say it is, if there are established an accredited treatment options for this 'disorder', as you term it.
If not, then you'd clearly be wrong in your choice of terminology and I'm sure you'd hate to be stuck with out-of-date thinking regarding sexual orientation.
-
I think, Spud, that the word 'disorder' is your problem: what is your authority for stating this?
Perhaps you'd best check what the current thinking is regarding your terminology, since I suspect you'll struggle to support your view using current professional and peer-reviewed medical research. One key aspect would be to identify whether, if this is indeed a 'disorder', as you say it is, if there are established an accredited treatment options for this 'disorder', as you term it.
If not, then you'd clearly be wrong in your choice of terminology and I'm sure you'd hate to be stuck with out-of-date thinking regarding sexual orientation.
He's using the Bible as the basis for his views and thus his terminology - how much more out-of-date can you get?
-
Spud is something of an anachronism I fear.
-
Spud is something of an anachronism I fear.
Regrettably he is not the only one!
In some respects I have to admit that my views can, with truth, be described as anachronistic; like the fact that there no longer appear ro be "children's clothes" for girls aged under about 12 - only child sized adult clothes, regardless of how inappropriate such fashions might be for girls of that age. Oxford Street on a Saturday these days is, visually, a paedophiles paradise in this respect.
Rant over!
-
I think, Spud, that the word 'disorder' is your problem: what is your authority for stating this?
Perhaps you'd best check what the current thinking is regarding your terminology, since I suspect you'll struggle to support your view using current professional and peer-reviewed medical research. One key aspect would be to identify whether, if this is indeed a 'disorder', as you say it is, if there are established an accredited treatment options for this 'disorder', as you term it.
If not, then you'd clearly be wrong in your choice of terminology and I'm sure you'd hate to be stuck with out-of-date thinking regarding sexual orientation.
The idea and the authority behind it comes from the idea that men and women were designed by God, with one purpose in mind and everything else is a " disorder"
Because a lot of Christianity sees human beings as having been designed to an ideal by God, everything else falls short, be it pre marital sex or homosexuality.
Many Christians don't worry about being stuck with " out of date" thinking because they see that, as being "part of the world". The moving morality that becomes immoral over time.
They are called not to be a part of that.
Their authority is the bible.
Why some people don't get what they mean is puzzling to me.
🌹
I don't see homosexuality as a disorder, but I do get why a Christian might.
Why should they accept my morality on my say so? Or yours Gordon?
-
The idea and the authority behind it comes from the idea that men and women were designed by God, with one purpose in mind and everything else is a " disorder"
Because a lot of Christianity sees human beings as having been designed to an ideal by God, everything else falls short, be it pre marital sex or homosexuality.
Many Christians don't worry about being stuck with " out of date" thinking because they see that, as being "part of the world". The moving morality that becomes immoral over time.
They are called not to be a part of that.
Their authority is the bible.
Why some people don't get what they mean is puzzling to me.
🌹
I don't see homosexuality as a disorder, but I do get why a Christian might.
Why should they accept my morality on my say so? Or yours Gordon?
So you are saying that we should be living by moral standards that held sway 2,000 years ago?
Surely the changes in morality from the biblical standard, at least in part and in some cases, indicates that people are no longer living in mortal fear of Hellfire or the threats thereof.
-
The idea and the authority behind it comes from the idea that men and women were designed by God, with one purpose in mind and everything else is a " disorder"
Because a lot of Christianity sees human beings as having been designed to an ideal by God, everything else falls short, be it pre marital sex or homosexuality.
Many Christians don't worry about being stuck with " out of date" thinking because they see that, as being "part of the world". The moving morality that becomes immoral over time.
They are called not to be a part of that.
Their authority is the bible.
Why some people don't get what they mean is puzzling to me.
🌹
I don't see homosexuality as a disorder, but I do get why a Christian might.
Why should they accept my morality on my say so? Or yours Gordon?
If Spud's argument that the Bible is authoritative on matters of morality then his argument is a fallacious argument from authority; that is simply his opinion, and no more.
Morality is no more mine that it is Spud's: since it is inherently subjective, isn't fixed, is variable and is subject to change.
-
The problem as I see it is that devotion to a book makes people lose sight of our common humanity. My views on this were the same when I was a believer as they are now - if the Christian God is the God of love then any kind of love that is freely given and life enhancing comes from that. But what you actually get are people who have enjoyed loving relationships throughout their lives telling others that they can't enjoy the same. The lack of compassion staggers me.
-
Aye, same here. What happened to 'God is Love'? When did it get revised to 'God is Love provided you have the right complement of toilet bits'?
-
Aye, same here. What happened to 'God is Love'? When did it get revised to 'God is Love provided you have the right complement of toilet bits'?
There is a story about Willy S Harley arriving at the Pearly Gates to be greeted by an effusive St Peter who announced that the Big G wanted to talk to him as soon as he arrived.
The two walked off together chattiing about the various merits of women and motor-cycles. Willy S opined that there were only three things wrong with women that were not present in motor-cycles - one, the tended to make rather wierd noises at high speed, two, they were excesssively expensive to maintain and three, the exhaust was far too close to the inlet.
God reached into his pocket and pulled out an iPad and keyed something in and waited for the result and, when he got it he showed Willy S the display and said "Sorry, Willy, but the fact is that, despite its faults, there are far more men riding my invention than are riding yours!
-
Dear Mods,
Is that joke sexist, well is it, is it covered in 1h of the forum rules, well is it, bloody funny all the same. ;D
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Mods,
Is that joke sexist, well is it, is it covered in 1h of the forum rules, well is it, bloody funny all the same. ;D
Gonnagle.
I'd say it is fine since, and quite reasonably Owlswing (not Shaker, as I wrongly said pre-edit) is poking fun at Harley Davidson motorcycles: these are truly laughable since they are slow, often have crap brakes, and even worse handling (they don't like going around corners): an under-powered Victoria spongecake would be more fun. :) :) :)
-
I'd say it is fine since, and quite reasonably Shaker is poking fun at Harley Davidson motorcycles: these are truly laughable since they are slow, often have crap brakes, and even worse handling (they don't like going around corners): an under-powered Victoria spongecake would be more fun. :) :) :)
One - the joke was not posted by Shaker.
Two - A Harley is second only to a Bonneville 650.
-
Maybe you guys should start a thread on motorbikes, BORING! ;D
-
One - the joke was not posted by Shaker.
Two - A Harley is second only to a Bonneville 650.
Apologies - I'll amend my post (and avoid further motorcycle derails, even about slow bikes, such as both those you mention) :)
-
Maybe you guys should start a thread on motorbikes, BORING! ;D
Not boring if you are leader of the pack, floo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8UKf65NOzM
-
I'd say it is fine since, and quite reasonably Owlswing (not Shaker, as I wrongly said pre-edit) is poking fun at Harley Davidson motorcycles: these are truly laughable since they are slow, often have crap brakes, and even worse handling (they don't like going around corners): an under-powered Victoria spongecake would be more fun. :) :) :)
Hey!
But they look nice....... All that gleaming chrome .... Going slow gives the riders more scope for showing them off. :D
:)
-
Hey!
But they look nice....... All that gleaming chrome .... Going slow gives the riders more scope for showing them off. :D
:)
The thing is that Harley's never were speed machines. They are built to run on long road trips at a steady pace for hour after hour.
-
I think, Spud, that the word 'disorder' is your problem: what is your authority for stating this?
Perhaps you'd best check what the current thinking is regarding your terminology, since I suspect you'll struggle to support your view using current professional and peer-reviewed medical research. One key aspect would be to identify whether, if this is indeed a 'disorder', as you say it is, if there are established an accredited treatment options for this 'disorder', as you term it.
If not, then you'd clearly be wrong in your choice of terminology and I'm sure you'd hate to be stuck with out-of-date thinking regarding sexual orientation.
I have read what the WHO and Mental Health Act 2007 says about homosexuality. They state that it is not by itself a psychiatric disorder. However, when accompanied by symptoms such as depression or low self esteem caused by things like discrimination or dissatisfaction with one's sexuality, then it is associated with mental disorder.
Perhaps you could compare it with learning disability, which by itself is asymptomatic but which is a manifestation of a disturbance of function.
I have cited the definition of 'disorder' as 'disturbance or abnormality of function' before, and been told (see post 322 of "Are sins like homosexuality still condemned in the New Covenant of Christ?") that this means that a celibate priest or someone using contraception has a disturbance of function, so is similarly disordered. I don't agree. The priest in Shaker's example is attracted to the opposite sex but can choose to be celibate or not, whereas a homosexual is unable to be attracted to the opposite sex whether he wants to be or not, and therefore can be said to have an abnormality or disturbance (ie disorder) of sexual orientation.
Having read through parts of a commentary on the Mental Health act 2007 which amended the 1983 Act, I've seen this:
"Disorders or disabilities of the brain are not mental disorders unless (and only to the extent that) they give rise to a disorder of the mind as well."
(see point 17 here:
http://tinyurl.com/zwfq7qy )
Point 24 says that "sexual orientation (homo, hetero, and bi-sexuality) alone is not regarded as a mental disorder".
Now I may be barking up the wrong tree, but the point of the Mental Health Act is largely to determine the parameters within which someone can be detained for treatment without their consent (see points 4 and 5). It is in this context that homosexuality on its own (i.e. without the presence of mental disorder such as anxiety, depression, feeling uncomfortable about his/her homosexuality etc) is not regarded as a mental disorder.
The "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10)-2015-WHO Version for 2015" states simply, "Sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder" without any further explanation as to why.
So it is apparent to me that the term, 'mental disorder' is linked with the possibility that a condition might need to be treated under compulsion.
I note that, in point 17, the phrase, 'disorders or disabilities of the brain' are differentiated from 'disorders of the mind'.
-
I have read what the WHO and Mental Health Act 2007 says about homosexuality. They state that it is not by itself a psychiatric disorder. However, when accompanied by symptoms such as depression or low self esteem caused by things like discrimination or dissatisfaction with one's sexuality, then it is associated with mental disorder.
Is it? Are you a suitably qualified health professional who has the knowledge and expertise to say this? If not, then you are just adding your unqualified personal opinion, which can be dismissed as irrelevant.
Perhaps you could compare it with learning disability, which by itself is asymptomatic but which is a manifestation of a disturbance of function.
Perhaps you could, but the question is are you qualified to make this comparison?
I have cited the definition of 'disorder' as 'disturbance or abnormality of function' before, and been told (see post 322 of "Are sins like homosexuality still condemned in the New Covenant of Christ?") that this means that a celibate priest or someone using contraception has a disturbance of function, so is similarly disordered. I don't agree. The priest in Shaker's example is attracted to the opposite sex but can choose to be celibate or not, whereas a homosexual is unable to be attracted to the opposite sex whether he wants to be or not, and therefore can be said to have an abnormality or disturbance (ie disorder) of sexual orientation.
Not according to what the relevant health professionals think, as you noted earlier - so you are, quite simply, wrong.
Having read through parts of a commentary on the Mental Health act 2007 which amended the 1983 Act, I've seen this:
"Disorders or disabilities of the brain are not mental disorders unless (and only to the extent that) they give rise to a disorder of the mind as well."
(see point 17 here:
http://tinyurl.com/zwfq7qy )
Point 24 says that "sexual orientation (homo, hetero, and bi-sexuality) alone is not regarded as a mental disorder".
Now I may be barking up the wrong tree, but the point of the Mental Health Act is largely to determine the parameters within which someone can be detained for treatment without their consent (see points 4 and 5). It is in this context that homosexuality on its own (i.e. without the presence of mental disorder such as anxiety, depression, feeling uncomfortable about his/her homosexuality etc) is not regarded as a mental disorder.
The "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10)-2015-WHO Version for 2015" states simply, "Sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder" without any further explanation as to why.
So it is apparent to me that the term, 'mental disorder' is linked with the possibility that a condition might need to be treated under compulsion.
I note that, in point 17, the phrase, 'disorders or disabilities of the brain' are differentiated from 'disorders of the mind'.
Spud, I suggest you give up the amateur psychiatry nonsense and accept that homosexuality is not a 'disorder' of any sort: you are quite simply wrong.
Your attempts to factor in other elements to justify the 'disorder' claim is not only a disingenuous representation of the medical science but it leads to the equally silly conclusion that heterosexual people who may have a propensity to, say, depression are equally 'disordered' since their sexual orientation is accompanied by other mental health issues.
Again you are wrong Spud, so unless you intend to undertake professional training and gain experience in the field of mental health (as I did in the first half of my career, so I have some relevant practical experience here) I suggest you accept that you are just plain wrong and stop referring to people as 'disordered' on the basis of their sexuality and your obvious ignorance.
-
I am not a qualified psychiatrist, no, but I do have a healthcare qualification. I am attempting to understand why homosexuality is no longer regarded as a disorder. I can accept that it may not be specifically a mental disorder. But there is certainly a disturbance/abnormality of function - since the normal function of the sex organs is exhibited in heterosexual sex only - and so 'disorder' seems to describe it accurately.
-
Spud
What's the normal function of a spoon?
For instance you can measure out flour with a spoon for a cake or bread. At that point it is pretty inedible - but the spoon is serving its normal function.
You can then mix the flour with butter and sugar or maybe water and yeast with the spoon and produce something edible - still serving its normal function.
Then you can eat the cake with the spoon and take pleasure from the food - still serving its normal function.
Finally you can lick it clean and I hear that some people stick it up their arse and derive further pleasure from it - still serving its normal fuction.
Plurality of purpose.
-
I am not a qualified psychiatrist, no, but I do have a healthcare qualification. I am attempting to understand why homosexuality is no longer regarded as a disorder. I can accept that it may not be specifically a mental disorder. But there is certainly a disturbance/abnormality of function - since the normal function of the sex organs is exhibited in heterosexual sex only - and so 'disorder' seems to describe it accurately.
Spud
Both society and psychiatry have moved on and you seem, naively, to ignore this so as to maintain a narrative that supports your preferred view: but your preferred view is wrong and is out of step with both current medical thinking and social changes (good ones too) over the last few decades. I'm hoping the penny is dropping for you on this.
'Disorder' is not only plain wrong it doesn't 'describe it accurately' as you seem to think: 'disorder' misrepresents and demeans people and sees people just in terms of their sexuality, which dehumanises them since people are far more than their genitalia. I think you need to review your thinking on this, which doesn't imply you need to abandon your faith since it seems many of your fellow Christian think very differently on this matter, so perhaps you should speak to some of them.
-
I was in the process of replying to your previous post Spud and then saw that Gordon had written:
Your attempts to factor in other elements to justify the 'disorder' claim is not only a disingenuous representation of the medical science but it leads to the equally silly conclusion that heterosexual people who may have a propensity to, say, depression are equally 'disordered' since their sexual orientation is accompanied by other mental health issues.
which was what I was intending to say but Gordon got there first and said it more concisely.
I am not a qualified psychiatrist, no, but I do have a healthcare qualification. I am attempting to understand why homosexuality is no longer regarded as a disorder. I can accept that it may not be specifically a mental disorder. But there is certainly a disturbance/abnormality of function - since the normal function of the sex organs is exhibited in heterosexual sex only - and so 'disorder' seems to describe it accurately.
Plenty of us have tried to explain this to you Spud so I'm not going to go over old ground. However I would like to know why you are so obsessed with this particular issue, to the extent that you are researching it. It is more than a natural interest on your part.
-
I am not a qualified psychiatrist, no, but I do have a healthcare qualification. I am attempting to understand why homosexuality is no longer regarded as a disorder. I can accept that it may not be specifically a mental disorder. But there is certainly a disturbance/abnormality of function - since the normal function of the sex organs is exhibited in heterosexual sex only - and so 'disorder' seems to describe it accurately.
Very few people are.
Years ago they used to force treatment on people who were homosexual, purely because they were homosexual.
Alan Turing for example was chemically castrated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
Things have moved on, thank goodness, and we no longer do that.
Now homosexuals only get treated if they have mental problems and can't cope, just like heterosexuals.
But this is because of an issue an individual has, not because they are homosexual.
Although it might cause them to be depressed depending on their background and experiences.
If memory serves me correctly the only reason for treating someone without their consent under the mental health act , now is either they are a danger to the public or themselves and applies regardless of someone's sexuality.
In the past the act was used not just to imprison homosexual people, but also single mothers and a few were thrown into mental asylums and shockingly forgotten.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/sin-and-the-single-mother-the-history-of-lone-parenthood-7782370.html
Just because they thought these things right in the past, doesn't mean they were.
The only time a homosexual needs to be referred to a doctor because of their homosexuality is if it is causing them a big issue and depression. Given there is still prejudice out there, it's not surprising.
Plus, what about non sexual people?
Not everyone is that fussed with sex, with anyone of any sex.
Should they all be carted off and forcibly treated?
With homosexuals I could understand that someone might find is hard to cope with being " different" along with pressures and what others expect them to be.
I don't doubt some people come apart at the seams.
Hopefully nowadays doctors would be more understanding and would be looking to offer them whatever support they could to come to terms with themselves.
Just like they would with any other depressed or vunerable person.
The point is though, that a happy homosexual doesn't need treatment anymore than a heterosexual.
The only time I would recommend " going to the doctor" for a homosexual would be the same for a heterosexual, if they were in mental anguish which they were unable to resolve or cope with.
🌹
-
I am not a qualified psychiatrist, no, but I do have a healthcare qualification. I am attempting to understand why homosexuality is no longer regarded as a disorder. I can accept that it may not be specifically a mental disorder. But there is certainly a disturbance/abnormality of function - since the normal function of the sex organs is exhibited in heterosexual sex only - and so 'disorder' seems to describe it accurately.
The normal function of the mouth is to eat and drink. Do you consider kissing an abnormal function?
-
Hi everyone,
Any religion is born largely for the local population. The religious leader has only a local influence (these days it is a little different) and all the personal and social behavior the leader prescribes is meant for the local people and based on their local issues and problems.
The leader is also concerned mainly with the stability, progress and future of that specific group to whom he is talking at that time. They probably did not know of and did not care for people in other parts of the world. Its a different matter that over some generations the group migrates elsewhere and then tries to force its memes and behavior patterns on the others. Normal human behavior again....can't be helped.
Forbidding homosexual behavior is quite obviously meant to safe guard the local population and its perpetuation. If for whatever reason at that point of time, people found homosexuality growing or people getting influenced by local youths into homosexual behavior, it would be quite understandable that they would want these people to be out of their society.
In today's world it is quite different. For one thing, we are globalized and local populations do not feel threatened about the extinction of their population, their culture and way of life. Secondly, the huge population explosion is in itself becoming a threat to social order and cohesion. People are refusing to have children (maybe just one) in many societies. In this changed climate, homosexuality may not be perceived as a threat to human perpetuation.
So...the situations under which homosexuals were persecuted in ancient times... and today when they are not seen as a threat are quite different. What is the point in arguing about these two completely different scenarios?!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I am not a qualified psychiatrist, no, but I do have a healthcare qualification. I am attempting to understand why homosexuality is no longer regarded as a disorder. I can accept that it may not be specifically a mental disorder. But there is certainly a disturbance/abnormality of function - since the normal function of the sex organs is exhibited in heterosexual sex only - and so 'disorder' seems to describe it accurately.
In what way do you judge 'normal'? As has been pointed out before; a great deal of heterosexual sex involves using sex organs in ways that don't accord to your narrow and restrictive view of 'normal'.
-
In what way do you judge 'normal'? As has been pointed out before; a great deal of heterosexual sex involves using sex organs in ways that don't accord to your narrow and restrictive view of 'normal'.
Yes and the chances are they would be considered wrong too.
Master bation is considered wrong by some Christian / groups too.
-
Yes and the chances are they would be considered wrong too.
Master bation is considered wrong by some Christian / groups too.
As I have said above, the scenario in ancient times was quite different. Having babies was very important. Any behavior that prevented that was wrong and 'sinful'.
In today's world...masturbation, homosexuality, using either end of the alimentary canal for sex....would all get a thumbs up. Not a sin at all. Good job! Anything to prevent people having babies! ;)
-
Morning Sriram,
So...the situations under which homosexuals were persecuted in ancient times... and today when they are not seen as a threat are quite different. What is the point in arguing about these two completely different scenarios?!
The point is that many people are still locked in the past and refuse to accept the 'normality' of the modern world. They must be reeducated, and that is what we are trying to do.
-
Masturbation is considered wrong by some Christian / groups too.
Years ago, when I was still following the Christian path, I attended a youth group run by our vicar designed to show how Christian ethics and belkiefs fitted into the world outside the church.
One member of the group, during a discussion on whether sin was relevant to the general population outside the church, asked if the viar conbsidewred that, in the outside world, maturbation was still seen as a sin.
His responce has remained with me ever since - "If that is correct then the entire population of the world both outside and inside the church are sinners, divided into two groups - the wankers and the liars.
-
Morning Sriram,
The point is that many people are still locked in the past and refuse to accept the 'normality' of the modern world. They must be reeducated, and that is what we are trying to do.
Homosexuality is not 'normal' even today. Only thing is that it does not pose a threat to the general global population.
Some small communities that may be facing extinction....may even today consider homosexuality within their group as a threat and therefore as a 'sin'.
-
Homosexuality is not 'normal' even today. Only thing is that it does not pose a threat to the general global population.
Some small communities that may be facing extinction....may even today consider homosexuality within their group as a threat and therefore as a 'sin'.
It is a normally and naturally occurring variation in human sexuality. Just like left handedness is a normally occurring variation, and ginger hair is a normally occurring variation. There is nothing not normal about it.
As also there is nothing not normal about stupidity.
-
It is a normally and naturally occurring variation in human sexuality. Just like left handedness is a normally occurring variation, and ginger hair is a normally occurring variation. There is nothing not normal about it.
As also there is nothing not normal about stupidity.
TV
I would have to (kind of) disagree with your late statement above.
Even the most intelligent can demonstrate 'stupidity' in one form or another at some time or another. People, even on this forum, who demonstrate extremely high levels of intelligence come out, sometimes, with the most stupid comments. Stupid as defined by members of the audience.
On the subject under discussion there are extremely intelligent Christians and non-Christians who are making 'stupid' statements with regard to the accepted status of both homosexuality and homosexuals within modern society.
When I lived in Kings Cross (Sydney - their equivalent of London's Soho) one of the first questions a newcomer would be asked was 'do you shake hands. hug or kiss' when introduced to someone of the same sex. It did not take long for your answer to percolate around the denizens of the cross of both sexes and would be accepted and practised by denizens of both sexes. That is, if you answer was 'kiss', you would be greeted with a kiss each time you met someone for the first or the umpteenth time.
Walk a hundred yards outside the Cross and you would expect a thumping if you repeated the process with a non-Crossy.
The mix of the intelligent and the not-so was roughly the same for both areas but the level of stupidity, regrettably, could also be the same, though not necessarily on the same subjects.
It sometimes seems to me that the same applies here.
-
TV
I would have to (kind of) disagree with your late statement above.
Even the most intelligent can demonstrate 'stupidity' in one form or another at some time or another. People, even on this forum, who demonstrate extremely high levels of intelligence come out, sometimes, with the most stupid comments. Stupid as defined by members of the audience.
On the subject under discussion there are extremely intelligent Christians and non-Christians who are making 'stupid' statements with regard to the accepted status of both homosexuality and homosexuals within modern society.
When I lived in Kings Cross (Sydney - their equivalent of London's Soho) one of the first questions a newcomer would be asked was 'do you shake hands. hug or kiss' when introduced to someone of the same sex. It did not take long for your answer to percolate around the denizens of the cross of both sexes and would be accepted and practised by denizens of both sexes. That is, if you answer was 'kiss', you would be greeted with a kiss each time you met someone for the first or the umpteenth time.
Walk a hundred yards outside the Cross and you would expect a thumping if you repeated the process with a non-Crossy.
The mix of the intelligent and the not-so was roughly the same for both areas but the level of stupidity, regrettably, could also be the same, though not necessarily on the same subjects.
It sometimes seems to me that the same applies here.
I'm not sure you are disagreeing with me here. But no worries.
I'm waiting for the day when somebody tells me I'm abnormal for being left handed - it would make a change. ;)
Strange how the pejorative is only used with reference to my being gay and not to other variations I possess.
-
Blue eyes were abnormal once, apparently they are a newer feature to the human race.
New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. Scientists have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6,000-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye color of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm
You get one abnormal person, and see where that leads ;) ;D
-
Blue eyes were abnormal once, apparently they are a newer feature to the human race.
The point is that abnormal has a pejorative connotation.
-
The point is that abnormal has a pejorative connotation.
Yes it does if you use it that way, but there are lots of things considered abnormal, but not in a pejorative way.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/abnormal/abnormal_5.htm
In that one it talks about abnormal sex chromosomes and that it might even be possible to be "abnormal " and not even be aware of it.
If you looked very closely at an individual, we are probably all a bit abnormal somewhere....... It's normal ....
They don't know why one person is gay and another isn't yet.
( or at least I don't think the do, but correct me if I'm wrong)
Perhaps it would be easier if it was something obvious.
-
Yes it does if you use it that way, but there are lots of things considered abnormal, but not in a pejorative way.
Dictionary Definition:
1.deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying:
This would indicate that usually there is a pejorative element to the description. Certainly that is the way it has always been used when others have referred to my sexuality. But never to my left handedness. So there is imo an element of judgement when the term is used.
-
Blue eyes were abnormal once, apparently they are a newer feature to the human race.
You get one abnormal person, and see where that leads ;) ;D
Some people have eyes of different colours, one blue, one green, for instance. I bet that would be regarded by some with suspicion even now, and maybe even fear in the bad old days.
With the help of science we should have moved on from automatically branding people as 'sinful' because they stand out from the crowd.
-
Dictionary Definition:
1.deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying:
This would indicate that usually there is a pejorative element to the description. Certainly that is the way it has always been used when others have referred to my sexuality. But never to my left handedness. So there is imo an element of judgement when the term is used.
I remember at primary school being told we all had to write with our right hand. Any one caught trying to write left handed, felt the ruler come down on it.
It was considered abnormal then. Something unwanted. Something undesired in a person, being left handed was looked on as a handicap, most things were designed for right handed people.
I take your point though, no one likes to think of themselves as abnormal.
But we still need a model of what's normal and what isn't, it's just left handedness and gay is just being redefined as normal, as in the past it wasn't.
However most people think of "the elephant man" as being abnormal, because that isn't how most people are.
Medical science has to have a model of what is considered normal, to differentiate it from what isn't.
Although it's probably better to describe a condition as abnormal rather than an individual person.
I suppose we all have our ideas on what is normal and what isn't, based on our own experiences.
If someone strikes us as abnormal ( which is often seen though behaviour ), then it makes us uncomfortable.
There are people (not homosexuals) who make me very uncomfortable, and finding them worrying is a good term to use.
-
I remember at primary school being told we all had to write with our right hand. Any one caught trying to write left handed, felt the ruler come down on it.
It was considered abnormal then. Something unwanted. Something undesired in a person, being left handed was looked on as a handicap, most things were designed for right handed people.
I take your point though, no one likes to think of themselves as abnormal.
But we still need a model of what's normal and what isn't, it's just left handedness and gay is just being redefined as normal, as in the past it wasn't.
However most people think of "the elephant man" as being abnormal, because that isn't how most people are.
Medical science has to have a model of what is considered normal, to differentiate it from what isn't.
Although it's probably better to describe a condition as abnormal rather than an individual person.
I suppose we all have our ideas on what is normal and what isn't, based on our own experiences.
If someone strikes us as abnormal ( which is often seen though behaviour ), then it makes us uncomfortable.
There are people (not homosexuals) who make me very uncomfortable, and finding them worrying is a good term to use.
The "left-handed" thing was/is another hang-over from Christian belief that the left-side was the Devil's side and left-handedness was a sign of the Devil's influence.
-
I have seen some evil and disgusting anti-gay comments over the years. One 'Christian' poster, now banned, said he would turn a blind eye if a gay was being beaten up. >:(
That was wrong. I didn't see it but take your word for it, the poster is no longer here.
Sass is also suspended for a while. I have no idea what she said (abuse of the PM system or something like that), but she is very ''robust'' in her comments and difficult to understand sometimes. It wouldn't hurt any of us to exercise some compassion, or ignore!
It's my view, and I have no authority here, neither do I want any, that this thread has run its course. We could get back to proper discussions. The thread has brought up some interesting stuff which we could all post and read on a less confrontational thread.
The poll shows that most contributors have seen vile homophobic comments on here, I doubt anyone else will vote.
-
As far as natural laws are concerned, everything is a product of nature and "normal".
"Abnormal" is nothing more than a human conceit to describe something that doesn't fit into our desired pattern
-
Spud
What's the normal function of a spoon?
For instance you can measure out flour with a spoon for a cake or bread. At that point it is pretty inedible - but the spoon is serving its normal function.
You can then mix the flour with butter and sugar or maybe water and yeast with the spoon and produce something edible - still serving its normal function.
Then you can eat the cake with the spoon and take pleasure from the food - still serving its normal function.
Finally you can lick it clean and I hear that some people stick it up their arse and derive further pleasure from it - still serving its normal fuction.
Plurality of purpose.
So the normal function of a spoon is to aid in nutrition, right?
-
That was wrong. I didn't see it but take your word for it, the poster is no longer here.
Sass is also suspended for a while. I have no idea what she said (abuse of the PM system or something like that), but she is very ''robust'' in her comments and difficult to understand sometimes. It wouldn't hurt any of us to exercise some compassion, or ignore!
It's my view, and I have no authority here, neither do I want any, that this thread has run its course. We could get back to proper discussions. The thread has brought up some interesting stuff which we could all post and read on a less confrontational thread.
The poll shows that most contributors have seen vile homophobic comments on here, I doubt anyone else will vote.
The tone of this as I read it, implies that anything Sassy said should not result in a suspension?
-
Quote from: Trentvoyager on April 17, 2016, 11:21:04 PM
Spud
What's the normal function of a spoon?
For instance you can measure out flour with a spoon for a cake or bread. At that point it is pretty inedible - but the spoon is serving its normal function.
You can then mix the flour with butter and sugar or maybe water and yeast with the spoon and produce something edible - still serving its normal function.
Then you can eat the cake with the spoon and take pleasure from the food - still serving its normal function.
Finally you can lick it clean and I hear that some people stick it up their arse and derive further pleasure from it - still serving its normal fuction.
Plurality of purpose.
So the normal function of a spoon is to aid in nutrition, right?
If I thought someone else thought, the normal function of a spoon was to be stuck up their arse, I wouldn't be accepting dinner invitations from them in the future where we were going to be using their cutlery.
:o
-
Dishwashers, on full cycle, work wonders Rose :-).
-
This reminds me of the Mumnet penis beaker thread.
-
This reminds me of the Mumnet penis beaker thread.
???
?
-
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/a1875847-Do-you-dunk-your-penis
-
It was the bit about sticking it in the dishwasher...
-
So the normal function of a spoon is to aid in nutrition, right?
Good grief man of course not.
It is a percussion instrument.
-
It was the bit about sticking it in the dishwasher...
ROTFL
Ah!
-
I hasten to say I've never tried it (I don't mean putting spoons in dishwasher but what was said before), imagine it to be painful as well as unaesthetic - but each to their own. Gives a whole new interpretation of the word, ''Spooning''.
-
Well, I've got one particular large spoon which is used solely as a back scratcher. It's a bit like a Heineken really. It reaches parts of my anatomy which no other spoon can reach. As far as I am concerned, that's its normal function. :)
-
However, I have strong evidence that God is a boob man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDDAa1If-u4
NSFW.
-
Forbidding homosexual behavior is quite obviously meant to safe guard the local population and its perpetuation. If for whatever reason at that point of time, people found homosexuality growing or people getting influenced by local youths into homosexual behavior, it would be quite understandable that they would want these people to be out of their society.
In today's world it is quite different. For one thing, we are globalized and local populations do not feel threatened about the extinction of their population, their culture and way of life. Secondly, the huge population explosion is in itself becoming a threat to social order and cohesion. People are refusing to have children (maybe just one) in many societies. In this changed climate, homosexuality may not be perceived as a threat to human perpetuation.
So...the situations under which homosexuals were persecuted in ancient times... and today when they are not seen as a threat are quite different. What is the point in arguing about these two completely different scenarios?!
Cheers.
Sriram
You could argue that if you have children they can help plant and harvest the crops, and look after you when you get old. Even now with high population density this would make sense. There is plenty of room in the world, if people don't have too many children.
-
In what way do you judge 'normal'? As has been pointed out before; a great deal of heterosexual sex involves using sex organs in ways that don't accord to your narrow and restrictive view of 'normal'.
I'm going by what Wiki says:
Male reproductive system
The male reproductive system consists of a number of sex organs that play a role in the process of human reproduction . These organs are located on the outside of the body and within the pelvis.
The main male sex organs are the penis and the testicles which produce semen and sperm, which, as part of sexual intercourse, fertilize an ovum in the female's body; the fertilized ovum (zygote) develops into a fetus, which is later born as an infant.
-
But you're still trying to get a moral edict from a scattered collection of disparate facts, and furthermore facts that don't apply to the infertile or childless by choice. It can't be done.
-
I'm going by what Wiki says:
Male reproductive system
The male reproductive system consists of a number of sex organs that play a role in the process of human reproduction . These organs are located on the outside of the body and within the pelvis.
The main male sex organs are the penis and the testicles which produce semen and sperm, which, as part of sexual intercourse, fertilize an ovum in the female's body; the fertilized ovum (zygote) develops into a fetus, which is later born as an infant.
And how do you get an ought from an is?
-
Lock these people up immediately for abnormal use of spoons:
https://youtu.be/6TS9ugnarQQ
-
The normal function of the mouth is to eat and drink. Do you consider kissing an abnormal function?
No. There are several other functions:
Articulation of sound and speech
Tactile organ (eg in babies, exploring unknown objects)
Facial expression (smile, etc).
Do you consider the scrotum to be important for anything other than storing sperm?
-
No. There are several other functions:
Articulation of sound and speech
Tactile organ (eg in babies, exploring unknown objects)
Facial expression (smile, etc).
Do you consider the scrotum to be important for anything other than storing sperm?
For scratching? ???
-
Do you consider the scrotum to be important for anything other than storing sperm?
http://goo.gl/ME1ENY
-
Or...
http://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/scrotum-backpack
-
The tone of this as I read it, implies that anything Sassy said should not result in a suspension?
Absolutely not NS, I merely said I had no idea about it. You are reading something else into what I said entirely. I'd never think anyone above suspension, including myself!
-
I'm going by what Wiki says:
Male reproductive system
....
So, to be absolutely clear: do you think that a lot of heterosexual couples, even those who are married and have (or want to have) children, are just as "abnormal" as homosexuals because they don't use their sex organs in the "normal" way...?
-
No. There are several other functions:
Articulation of sound and speech
Tactile organ (eg in babies, exploring unknown objects)
Facial expression (smile, etc).
Do you consider the scrotum to be important for anything other than storing sperm?
Well if kissing is normal why not a blow job? (not that I am saying that you are abnormal if you don't like preforming or receiving one).
I assume you are male and by the sounds of it haven't experienced one as you seem to think them wrong somehow.
I have been active in the bedroom department for coming on 30 years now. In those times I have dated a few ladies who were perfectly happy to perform one and I was more than happy to receive them!
What it the problem? How would the world, the lady or myself have been better off if these activities had not been entered into?
-
http://goo.gl/ME1ENY
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Spud is following Wikimorality.
-
Some people have eyes of different colours, one blue, one green, for instance. I bet that would be regarded by some with suspicion even now, and maybe even fear in the bad old days.
With the help of science we should have moved on from automatically branding people as 'sinful' because they stand out from the crowd.
Yes I think people sometimes have a natural fear of the different, some of that is taken away by scientific discoveries or attitudes in society, but not always.
At one time treating homosexuals for being different was considered justifiable by medical people ....
-
You could argue that if you have children they can help plant and harvest the crops, and look after you when you get old. Even now with high population density this would make sense. There is plenty of room in the world, if people don't have too many children.
So what you are saying is that you can have sex to have children and then, when you have enough children for your needs, you become celibate?
-
Interesting to know who voted no. Spud, was it you?
-
Spud is following Wikimorality.
I like it ;D
-
So what you are saying is that you can have sex to have children and then, when you have enough children for your needs, you become celibate?
No, there is natural family planning. Never tried it myself, but it sounds feasible.
-
Spud, NFP is used by people who don't want conception to happen. They are still using their bits with the intent not to have a child.
-
No, there is natural family planning. Never tried it myself, but it sounds feasible.
"Natural Family Planning"?
The Catholic church's much vaunted "rhythmn method"?
This method has been in use for hundreds of years and had been about as effective as the chocolate teapot!
-
The rhythm method is old hat Owlswing, natural family planning is different and looks quite complicated to me. I found this about it:
http://www.fpa.org.uk/contraception-help/natural-family-planning
I do know a couple of people who used that method quite successfully. However I understand you can now buy something from the chemist which is far simpler, an ovulation predictor. Simples! Would that such a thing was available when I was younger, no pill, no messing about, it would have been wonderful. I'm glad it's available now.
-
The rhythm method is old hat Owlswing, natural family planning is different and looks quite complicated to me. I found this about it:
http://www.fpa.org.uk/contraception-help/natural-family-planning
I do know a couple of people who used that method quite successfully. However I understand you can now buy something from the chemist which is far simpler, an ovulation predictor. Simples! Would that such a thing was available when I was younger, no pill, no messing about, it would have been wonderful. I'm glad it's available now.
There is a new contraceptive pill out for women, especially thos who have trouble swallowing tablets. The pill is two-inches in diameter and one-eighth of an inch thick. To prevent impregnation it is held tightly between the girl's/woman's thighs!
-
I'm sure there is a way around that Wigginhall.....
-
But you're still trying to get a moral edict from a scattered collection of disparate facts, and furthermore facts that don't apply to the infertile or childless by choice. It can't be done.
I believe it can. It isn't easy to explain, but the Catholic church has quite thorough teaching on it which I will post some links to, if you have the time to read them.
-
This quote by Pope Paul VI for example:
The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, 'noble and worthy.' It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws.
-
God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws.
So the fact that homosexuals exist, as God has ordered the incidence of fertility, does not have an effect on the naturally spaced successive births then?
-
This quote by Pope Paul VI for example:
The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, 'noble and worthy.' It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws.
That would be his opinion, but it isn't binding, and other opinions are available - plus I'm not sure the average Pope has much in the way of personal practical experience that might inform his opinion.
-
That would be his opinion, but it isn't binding, and other opinions are available - plus I'm not sure the average Pope has much in the way of personal practical experience that might inform his opinion.
His opinion is quite irrelevant. What sort of sexual activity a couple indulges in is entirely their own business, providing it harms nobody else.
-
This quote by Pope Paul VI for example:
The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, 'noble and worthy.' It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws.
Utter drivel.
-
I believe it can. It isn't easy to explain, but the Catholic church has quite thorough teaching on it which I will post some links to, if you have the time to read them.
Considering the Catholic church has encouraged child abuse by protecting paedophile priests, and treated unmarried mothers in a shameful way, I don't think what they have to say on any topic has an credence. >:(
-
This quote by Pope Paul VI for example:
The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, 'noble and worthy.' It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws.
Absolute GARBAGE! ::)
-
Dear Floo,
Considering the Catholic church has encouraged child abuse by protecting paedophile priests, and treated unmarried mothers in a shameful way, I don't think what they have to say on any topic has an credence. >:(
Aye!! And there in lies the problem, instead of telling homosexuals they are sinners they should look to themselves, fix themselves before they start pontificating about others, I am not talking about ordinary everyday Catholics but the hierarchy.
Matthew 7.
Gonnagle.
-
I find this stuff from the Pope embarrassing to read. You can see the contortions that have to be gone through, in order to permit sex with no kids for some people, while ruling out sex with no kids for others. How anyone intelligent can live their life according to these ideas, baffles me. It's also incredibly pompous.
-
That would be his opinion, but it isn't binding, and other opinions are available - plus I'm not sure the average Pope has much in the way of personal practical experience that might inform his opinion.
Or as Bernard Shaw put it: "If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't."
-
I find this stuff from the Pope embarrassing to read. You can see the contortions that have to be gone through, in order to permit sex with no kids for some people, while ruling out sex with no kids for others. How anyone intelligent can live their life according to these ideas, baffles me. It's also incredibly pompous.
I think it makes people feel special, Wiggs.
-
That Pope died thirty eight years ago, I doubt any Pope would say that sort of stuff now. It wasn't a dogma at the time. Spud, I never guessed you were a Catholic, would never have guessed in a million years. I had you down as an extreme fundamentalist Protestant. Ah well, you may be an extreme fundamentalist Catholic I suppose, they do exist on the fringes of the Church, usually members of a particular sect. Mel Gibson is a good example of one, in theory if not practice, as is his father.
-
Dear Floo,
Aye!! And there in lies the problem, instead of telling homosexuals they are sinners they should look to themselves, fix themselves before they start pontificating about others, I am not talking about ordinary everyday Catholics but the hierarchy.
Matthew 7.
Gonnagle.
Of course this is why the Catholic clergy feel there is no need for contraception/condoms - choirboys don't get pregnant.
-
There could be transgendered choir boys....you wouldn't necessarily know.
Anyway choir masters are in charge of choir boys, or girls come to that. Or choir mistresses I suppose. Not clergy.
The choir master in charge of choir boys and girls at my old church left his wife [who was a choir (adult) soloist], and family and went off with a woman who played the organ sometimes. That is apropos of nothing. Strictly a heterosexual business.
-
This quote by Pope Paul VI for example:
The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, 'noble and worthy.' It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws.
"For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse."
So if the 'natural adaptation' of sex is the 'expression and strengthening of the union', and that 'new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse', in what way does this *not* also apply to same sex relationships?
ht
-
He doesn't actually say it doesn't, Horsethorn. He was merely speaking of heterosexual relationships on that occasion. Anyway he's long since dead, the new one might say something different if asked.
-
The present pope does sound more sympathetic to gays, but the acid test would be if the description of gays as 'objectively disordered' were to be changed. I seriously doubt that this will happen.
Quote, 'there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.' (Amoris Laetitia).
Same old, same old.
-
I think he might change the ''disordered'', it was never a dogmatic statement. Dunno about the rest, "analogous" and all that :o . He could say it is something different to the usual set up and in the light of the findings of recent medical, scientific and psychological research the Church's attitude will be modified. There you are, I've written his script!
There's some controversy over comments made by the Pope on the subject of divorced people and those in irregular relationships, by which I assume he means people living together, perhaps having been divorced or separated...maybe more? Sounds good to me but a few traditionalists have been shaking their heads.
-
"For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse."
So if the 'natural adaptation' of sex is the 'expression and strengthening of the union', and that 'new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse', in what way does this *not* also apply to same sex relationships?
ht
He was as brownie says, talking about heterosexual sex. A homosexual couple could do whatever they do with the intention of strengthening their relationship. But since the acts they would be doing are immoral in themselves, they would be immoral whatever the intentions of the participants.
-
A homosexual couple could do whatever they do with the intention of strengthening their relationship. But since the acts they would be doing are immoral in themselves, they would be immoral whatever the intentions of the participants.
Says this guy, but it is just his opinion and it isn't a binding one - other opinions are available.
-
Spud said: But since the acts they would be doing are immoral in themselves, they would be immoral whatever the intentions of the participants.
In your opinion Spud - I concede, not just your opinion but opinion nonetheless. We don't know the Pope's opinion because he was only talking about man-woman relationships; as I said before, that pope is long since dead so it hardly matters now.
-
He was as brownie says, talking about heterosexual sex. A homosexual couple could do whatever they do with the intention of strengthening their relationship. But since the acts they would be doing are immoral in themselves
No they're not.
-
He was as brownie says, talking about heterosexual sex. A homosexual couple could do whatever they do with the intention of strengthening their relationship. But since the acts they would be doing are immoral in themselves, they would be immoral whatever the intentions of the participants.
Spud
You are living (presumably), breathing (again presumably), proof of all that is wrong, all that is negative, all that is unpleasant, in religious belief!
If it were left to you to sell Christianity it would be doomed to extinction and, in the form which you sell, the sooner the better.
-
A homosexual couple could do whatever they do with the intention of strengthening their relationship. But since the acts they would be doing are immoral in themselves, they would be immoral whatever the intentions of the participants.
Immoral? By what standards are they immoral? Immorality, in most people's book is harming others or the environment. Or tarnishing sombebody's love for another by calling it immoral.
-
He was as brownie says, talking about heterosexual sex. A homosexual couple could do whatever they do with the intention of strengthening their relationship. But since the acts they would be doing are immoral in themselves, they would be immoral whatever the intentions of the participants.
What is immoral about homosexuality? That is a highly unpleasant comment with no evidence to support it. The not so good book isn't evidence. >:(
-
Quote, 'there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.' (Amoris Laetitia).
In the 30-odd years I've been debating the subject - f2f or virtually, I have yet to be shown any evidence that shows this statement to be wrong, wiggi. After all, God's plan for marriage and family was very clearly expressed from the very beginning as a one man/one woman arrangement.
Interestingly enough, when I was debating the issue back in the early noughties on a different board, a straw poll was taken of the gay and lesbian members of the board and the result was some 35% were in favour of pushing for gay marriage, and about 65% were not. That main reason given by the latter was that the two forms of marriage that that would create would never be equal, though they might be equivalent, and that legislators could do what they want but that they could never change the biological natures of the two.
-
In the 30-odd years I've been debating the subject - f2f or virtually, I have yet to be shown any evidence that shows this statement to be wrong, wiggi.
I knew it wouldn't be long.
-
In the 30-odd years I've been debating the subject - f2f or virtually, I have yet to be shown any evidence that shows this statement to be wrong, wiggi. After all, God's plan for marriage and family was very clearly expressed from the very beginning as a one man/one woman arrangement.
Interestingly enough, when I was debating the issue back in the early noughties on a different board, a straw poll was taken of the gay and lesbian members of the board and the result was some 35% were in favour of pushing for gay marriage, and about 65% were not. That main reason given by the latter was that the two forms of marriage that that would create would never be equal, though they might be equivalent, and that legislators could do what they want but that they could never change the biological natures of the two.
It is a good job decent people have seen sense in the 21st century where this issue is concerned. Homosexuals and heterosexuals should have equal rights in all things.
-
In the 30-odd years I've been debating the subject - f2f or virtually, I have yet to be shown any evidence that shows this statement to be wrong, wiggi.
On what basis do you think this statement to be correct?
After all, God's plan for marriage and family was very clearly expressed from the very beginning as a one man/one woman arrangement.
If this is it then it sounds like a fallacious argument from authority.
Interestingly enough, when I was debating the issue back in the early noughties on a different board, a straw poll was taken of the gay and lesbian members of the board and the result was some 35% were in favour of pushing for gay marriage, and about 65% were not.
This sounds like yet more anecdote - since you mention statistics, have you got any references to support this claim?
That main reason given by the latter was that the two forms of marriage that that would create would never be equal, though they might be equivalent, and that legislators could do what they want but that they could never change the biological natures of the two.
This is your interpretation of what is, at best, your anecdotal recollections: got anything more substantive to cite?
-
On what basis do you think this statement to be correct?
Reality. I have never ever seen any convincing, let alone conclusive evidence to that effect.
If this is it then it sounds like a fallacious argument from authority.
Its no more fallacious an argument from authority than an argument for the legality of gay marriage in the UK based on current UK legislation.
This sounds like yet more anecdote - since you mention statistics, have you got any references to support this claim?
Since that particular forum was closed about 9 years ago, no I don't, but then this was not meant to be a scientific piece of evidence but reference to something that was the case nearer 14 years ago.
This is your interpretation of what is, at best, your anecdotal recollections: got anything more substantive to cite?
I would suggest that the opinion of gay and lesbian people on a completely independent internet forum was substantive, even if that was 14-odd years ago.
-
It is a good job decent people have seen sense in the 21st century where this issue is concerned. Homosexuals and heterosexuals should have equal rights in all things.
Not quite sure that they can, Floo; at least not until such time as one of a homosexual couple can give birth to a child that bears both partners' genes from their own body.
-
Reality. I have never ever seen any convincing, let alone conclusive evidence to that effect.
Then what we have here is just your opinion on the issue, since 'reality' is a gloriously imprecise 'going nuclear' justification.
Its no more fallacious an argument from authority than an argument for the legality of gay marriage in the UK based on current UK legislation.
Not really, since the UK legislature does have demonstrable binding authority on this matter irrespective of whether you or I approve or disapprove, and in addition all of the details surrounding the exercise of its authority are documented and are attributable: there is provenance. In contrast your claim of 'God's plan' has unknown provenance and isn't binding, since if it were the UK legislature would not have legislated as it did.
Since that particular forum was closed about 9 years ago, no I don't, but then this was not meant to be a scientific piece of evidence but reference to something that was the case nearer 14 years ago.
I would suggest that the opinion of gay and lesbian people on a completely independent internet forum was substantive, even if that was 14-odd years ago.
So, no more than your usual anecdotal recollections then: I'd have thought if you were going to quote numbers something more substantive than anecdote based on your recall of internet conversations occurring years ago would be essential.
-
Not quite sure that they can, Floo; at least not until such time as one of a homosexual couple can give birth to a child that bears both partners' genes from their own body.
Given that we don't deny any rights to heterosexual infertile people (least of all with regard to marriage - we don't do pre-nuptial fertility tests and don't grill bride and groom to be on their plans for children or lack of them), what grounds are there in what passes for your opinion for doing the same to homosexual people?
To recap: you will recall that Floo absolutely rightly said: "Homosexuals and heterosexuals should have equal rights in all things," to which you responded: "Not quite sure that they can, Floo." So which rights are you "not quite sure" can apply to homosexual people as heterosexual people? What does the ability to "give birth to a child that bears both partners' genes from their own body" - the follow-up to your just-quoted sentence - matter in terms of conferring rights? What is the relevance of this?
-
Since that particular forum was closed about 9 years ago ...
Convenient.
-
'God's perfect plan' for sex and the family includes everything from birth asphyxia to obstetric fistula.
And Hope thinks we are the moral defects for supporting gay relationships.
-
Not quite sure that they can, Floo; at least not until such time as one of a homosexual couple can give birth to a child that bears both partners' genes from their own body.
Why is having kids so important? The world is over populated as it is.
-
After all, God's plan for marriage and family was very clearly expressed from the very beginning as a one man/one woman arrangement.
Not according to the bible.
Either it wasn't very clear, or the biblical god was quite happy for many of his 'chosen' to wilfully ignore it.
ht
-
Hope's resolution not to discuss homosexuality has lasted all of a few days. Still, as Trent pointed put recently, obviously he can't help himself. Ho hum.
-
Why is having kids so important? The world is over populated as it is.
Bits of the world floo, there are particular areas that seem to be overpopulated and other areas where the population growth is low and slow. People will always want to have kids, you and I wouldn't have not wanted to. Of course in this country most of us don't have six or more as happened in days gone by - but in those days folks often lost children in infancy.
I agree with you that homosexual couples are equal, have equal rights, to heterosexuals but equal doesn't mean the same and obviously a gay couple cannot reproduce. One of them can have a child or they can adopt. Those are facts and I imagine that's what Hope meant.
Regarding Hope being obsessed with the H subject, I think we all are :-). This thread, which was specifically started as an opinion poll, is the most lively one on here! Every day brings new comments from all of us regulars, I think I need to address myself as to why I am so preoccupied with the private lives of other people ;D.
-
Those are facts and I imagine that's what Hope meant.
Good of you to give him the benefit of the doubt - but as Hope is so fond of reminding us, he did teach English. You would have thought he could have expressed himself with a little more clarity. Or maybe that's not what he meant at all. Who knows?
-
I agree with you that homosexual couples are equal, have equal rights, to heterosexuals but equal doesn't mean the same and obviously a gay couple cannot reproduce. One of them can have a child or they can adopt. Those are facts and I imagine that's what Hope meant.
It would be nice if Hope was clearer about what he actually means while he's writing, obviating the sort of post hoc scrabbling about and rationalisation that convinces nobody.
Regarding Hope being obsessed with the H subject, I think we all are
I disagree - most, in fact I would say almost all of the discussion about homosexuality here arises purely in reaction against and as a counter to some of the disgraceful opinions voiced here with regard to gay people. Without that I doubt if the subject would crop up any more than once in a blue moon.
-
I can think of a million and one better things to discuss than sexuality. I'm obsessed with red wine and chocolate.
I do have a bit of a thing about letting people lead their own harmless lives without finger pointing though.
-
It would be nice if Hope was clearer about what he actually means while he's writing, obviating the sort of post hoc scrabbling about and rationalisation that convinces nobody.
I disagree - most, in fact I would say almost all of the discussion about homosexuality here arises purely in reaction against and as a counter to some of the disgraceful opinions voiced here with regard to gay people. Without that I doubt if the subject would crop up any more than once in a blue moon.
No, I think it would crop up because people like debating things that are controversial.
-
I can think of a million and one better things to discuss than sexuality. I'm obsessed with red wine and chocolate.
I do have a bit of a thing about letting people lead their own harmless lives without finger pointing though.
It's easier to drink and eat it though, not much to say after that ;). Except how to lose weight perhaps.
Or how wine tends to weaken the willpower about consuming the wrong sorts of foods and other things.
The trouble with wine and chocolate is once sits gone, it's gone :o
🍷🍷🍷🍷🍷🍷🍫🍫🍫🍫🍫🍫🍫🍫
-
Yes they do Rose. They are more interesting than things we may talk about in every day life offline. So we continue :-).
Just saw Rhiannon's and your last post Rose - I like a couple of glasses of red but do get a headache and would even more so combined with chocolate! I'm a lightweight, a glass or two at weekends only, a nice Merlot or something like that (or what is on offer at the supermarket).
-
No, I think it would crop up because people like debating things that are controversial.
I don't see homosexuality as controversial, though. I've no reason to.
-
I don't see homosexuality as controversial, though. I've no reason to.
Surely the controversy is the fact that people still, in this day and age, talk about knowing what 'God thinks' about homosexuality and expects the rest of us to live accordingly.
-
Dear Merchant Bankers, ( homophobes, Christian )
The controversy is that we have a mind set which leads to Gods children being tortured, raped, imprisoned, bullied, shunned by society, leads to depression, suicide, that is the real sin.
Gonnagle.
-
People like to discuss other people, especially when they are different to them.
They also gossip.
Nowadays we gossip by remote, because the chances are we don't know our neighbours well enough to gossip about them.
So celebrities, news articles and groups are common replacements, to gossip about.
;)
-
I only discuss homosexuality on forums, or this forum to be precise because it's a long time since I've got into a real discussion on any other, I generally just play word games. Honestly it doesn't come up in real life and I dislike gossip, have done so since an early age, probably because I grew up hearing it from my mother and her family! Other than forums I don't see homosexuality as controversial though it was some years ago. Well, that's progress!
-
Surely the controversy is the fact that people still, in this day and age, talk about knowing what 'God thinks' about homosexuality and expects the rest of us to live accordingly.
This is what strikes me. When a Christian such as Spud expresses his bizarre ramblings about sex, are we supposed to be impressed? If he has such weird ideas in his own mind, fair enough, but they need not detain us really. I am not really interested in what other people do in their private lives, and I certainly don't want anyone to comment on mine, or tell me what I should or should not be doing.
-
This is what strikes me. When a Christian such as Spud expresses his bizarre ramblings about sex, are we supposed to be impressed? If he has such weird ideas in his own mind, fair enough, but they need not detain us really. I am not really interested in what other people do in their private lives, and I certainly don't want anyone to comment on mine, or tell me what I should or should not be doing.
But Rhiannon's link to the penis beaker was hilarious.
People like having a laugh and reading about other peoples little quirks ;)
-
But Rhiannon's link to the penis beaker was hilarious.
People like having a laugh and reading about other peoples little quirks ;)
I agree, but someone like Spud is saying that X is immoral, and presumably, people doing X, are also immoral. Too intrusive, for my taste. Please get out of my bedroom with your prurient eyes.
-
I doubt Spud says such things outside of the internet. As he obviously feels a need to do so, I would rather he did it here amongst us. We can refute what he says and even tell him to bog off but we aren't going to end up with fisticuffs and we'll all go on with our daily lives.
-
I doubt Spud says such things outside of the internet. As he obviously feels a need to do so, I would rather he did it here amongst us. We can refute what he says and even tell him to bog off but we aren't going to end up with fisticuffs and we'll all go on with our daily lives.
That's all very complacent. Meanwhile people like Spud are trying to jail gays in countries like Uganda, and some Western evangelicals are suspected of egging them on.
One reason that we can go on with our daily lives here, is that this kind of bigotry has been fought against, and in the main, the battle won, although one can never take it for granted.
-
Eternal vigilance ...
-
Eternal vigilance ...
Exactly. You only have to look across the pond to see Republican dominated states trying to pass anti-gay measures, and anti-trans measures, probably desperate that an incoming Democrat president will appoint a liberal Supreme Court judge, and anti-gay bigotry will be put on the rubbish heap.
Of course, it's all in the name of religious freedom (to persecute people).
-
That's all very complacent. Meanwhile people like Spud are trying to jail gays in countries like Uganda, and some Western evangelicals are suspected of egging them on.
One reason that we can go on with our daily lives here, is that this kind of bigotry has been fought against, and in the main, the battle won, although one can never take it for granted.
Given the presence of gay posters, I am quite uncomfortable with the idea of the forum being used as a ballpit for homophobes to let off steam. Does that mean we should have a separate play area fo racists, where the balls are all one colour? Or s exists where there are only bollocks?
-
Given the presence of gay posters, I am quite uncomfortable with the idea of the forum being used as a ballpit for homophobes to let off steam. Does that mean we should have a separate play area fo racists, where the balls are all one colour? Or s exists where there are only bollocks?
Well, some forums just don't allow homophobic stuff. I suppose this one traditionally has, so that Christians get to say that gay f**** is sinful, as their churches do. It has worked in a way, but it also tends to drag on as a sort of dead horse.
-
You all make very good points and I do agree with them. However I was only thinking of Spud, not all homophobes, and he confided something to us a couple of weeks ago which made me very sad indeed. Maybe some of you have forgotten about it and I'm not going to talk about it because he may prefer it not to be talked about.
I will always refute what Spud says about gay people, always have. Perhaps my error, if it is one, is to see him as an individual, not part of a group who go around making the lives of others unpleasant. I could well be wrong in my assessment of him, we'll never know.
-
You all make very good points and I do agree with them. However I was only thinking of Spud, not all homophobes, and he confided something to us a couple of weeks ago which made me very sad indeed. Maybe some of you have forgotten about it and I'm not going to talk about it because he may prefer it not to be talked about.
I will always refute what Spud says about gay people, always have. Perhaps my error, if it is one, is to see him as an individual, not part of a group who go around making the lives of others unpleasant. I could well be wrong in my assessment of him, we'll never know.
I don't see anyone here as part of a group doing the above. And i'm a bit narked at the implication that I do.
-
You all make very good points and I do agree with them. However I was only thinking of Spud, not all homophobes, and he confided something to us a couple of weeks ago which made me very sad indeed. Maybe some of you have forgotten about it and I'm not going to talk about it because he may prefer it not to be talked about.
I will always refute what Spud says about gay people, always have. Perhaps my error, if it is one, is to see him as an individual, not part of a group who go around making the lives of others unpleasant. I could well be wrong in my assessment of him, we'll never know.
Brownie
You seem to be acting as a defender of every theist here, Spud, Hope and Sassy, at various times and on various subjects.
Please, do not set yourself up as an Aunt Sally - people like Hoipe, Sassy and Spud are quite capable of defending their statements that are based upon their religious beliefs and , if they are not, then they should not be making them.
Yes, Spud had a nasty experience in the past, and now he is using that experience as an excuse for his reprehensible views against all homosexuals.
-
I don't see anyone here as part of a group doing the above. And i'm a bit narked at the implication that I do.
NS, why did you think I was implicating you? I was talking about homophobes who make the lives of gays unpleasant. You don't fit into that category and I think you jumped in a bit defensive. My post was thoughtful and gentle, you don't have to agree with me.
Owlswing: You seem to be acting as a defender of every theist here, Spud, Hope and Sassy, at various times and on various subjects.
Not from my perception, Owl. I have crossed swords with all of them and will continue to do so, no doubt. It probably surprises you that occasionally I might agree with one of them. I agree with others too sometimes but I have to speak as I find at the time. I wasn't in any way agreeing with what Spud said, only having some feeling for Spud as an individual. Why mention Sassy when she hasn't been on here for a few days? I frequently disagree with her but I do quite like her. Is that unusual? I'd have thought that was quite normal on a forum actually.
You'll be saying I'm a homophobe next ;D. (Not really.)
I might have a couple of days break, it would do me good, I'll come back with a refreshed and unbiased view (I tend to think I am unbiased usually), and I am fed up with seeing my name at the end of threads when I log in! It gets boring for me and others.
-
NS, why did you think I was implicating you? I was talking about homophobes who make the lives of gays unpleasant. You don't fit into that category and I think you jumped in a bit defensive. My post was thoughtful and gentle, you don't have to agree with me.
I didn't think you were implicating me in that way and my post makes that clear
Rather I was suggesting that myself among others are not treating Spud as an individual but as part of a group making people's lives unpleasant., as per quote following.
' Perhaps my error, if it is one, is to see him as an individual, not part of a group who go around making the lives of others unpleasant. '
I find the idea that I am not treating Spud as an individual an implication that is unjustified.
-
Leonard, in reply to your earlier post,
Acts of lust that treat someone as a pleasure object rather than as a person, and consequently do not measure up to true standards of conjugal love and respect for human dignity, are immoral.
[http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marital-foreplay.htm]
This includes any act other than what is described in a biology text book (not up for discussing these) and comes as a shock to most people.
BTW wigginhall, most of what I've said here is in answer to other peoples' questions. If you don't want to know what people think, don't come on a forum.
-
Leonard, in reply to your earlier post,
Acts of lust that treat someone as a pleasure object rather than as a person, and consequently do not measure up to true standards of conjugal love and respect for human dignity, are immoral. This includes any act other than what is described in a biology text book (not up for discussing these) and comes as a shock to most people.
BTW wigginhall, most of what I've said here is in answer to other peoples' questions. If you don't want to know what people think, don't come on a forum.
Well, you don't just express stuff as your opinion, you express it as a kind of declamation, in fact you are doing in this post - 'acts of lust that treat someone as a pleasure object .... are immoral'.
I assume you have brought down tablets of stone from the mountain, with these statements written on them.
-
I didn't think you were implicating me in that way and my post makes that clear
Rather I was suggesting that myself among others are not treating Spud as an individual but as part of a group making people's lives unpleasant., as per quote following.
' Perhaps my error, if it is one, is to see him as an individual, not part of a group who go around making the lives of others unpleasant. '
I find the idea that I am not treating Spud as an individual an implication that is unjustified.
Sorry NS, I think we have our wires crossed here but I don't go around making assumptions as a general rule. Sometimes I think what I say is not clear (it's clear to me of course ;) ). Pax please.
-
Leonard, in reply to your earlier post,
Acts of lust that treat someone as a pleasure object rather than as a person, and consequently do not measure up to true standards of conjugal love and respect for human dignity, are immoral. This includes any act other than what is described in a biology text book (not up for discussing these) and comes as a shock to most people.
BTW wigginhall, most of what I've said here is in answer to other peoples' questions. If you don't want to know what people think, don't come on a forum.
Don't you think a gay person can love someone who happens just to be the same sex, without lusting after them just as a sex object?
-
Sorry NS, I think we have our wires crossed here but I don't go around making assumptions as a general rule. Sometimes I think what I say is not clear (it's clear to me of course ;) ). Pax please.
No problem
-
Leonard, in reply to your earlier post,
Acts of lust that treat someone as a pleasure object rather than as a person, and consequently do not measure up to true standards of conjugal love and respect for human dignity, are immoral.
Says who, and why are we supposed to care about or take their opinion seriously, bearing in mind what I've dubbed Hitchens's First Law (what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence)?
This includes any act other than what is described in a biology text book (not up for discussing these) and comes as a shock to most people.
Apart from being an argumentum ad populum/ad numerum (which is to say a fallacy), 'things that come as a shock to most people' is an almost infinitely malleable and plastic concept. There are a few basic universals - murder; cruelty to children and so forth - but things like attitudes to sexuality and what are regarded as permissible forms of sexual expression chop and change through history and from one culture to another. In the modern era the thing that we've found often makes the most difference in this regard is the substition of ignorance by knowledge, which is why the expansion of the sphere of tolerance is pretty well a one-way street.
-
Leonard, in reply to your earlier post,
Acts of lust that treat someone as a pleasure object rather than as a person, and consequently do not measure up to true standards of conjugal love and respect for human dignity, are immoral.
What has that got to do with one man loving another and having sex with him? He is treating him exactly the same as a hetero man treats his wife.
This includes any act other than what is described in a biology text book (not up for discussing these) and comes as a shock to most people.
I don't get my love from a text book ... it stems from my heart.
-
What has that got to do with one man loving another and having sex with him? He is treating him exactly the same as a hetero man treats his wife.
Sexual pleasure shared between two men, like non-procreative sex between a man and his wife, is sought for itself, being isolated from its procreative purpose.
http://www.faith.org.uk/article/january-february-2011-the-dehumanisation-of-marital-sex
-
Sexual pleasure shared between two men, like non-procreative sex between a man and his wife, is sought for itself, being isolated from its procreative purpose.
http://www.faith.org.uk/article/january-february-2011-the-dehumanisation-of-marital-sex
CHANGE THE TUNE, spud! ::)
-
Sexual pleasure shared between two men, like non-procreative sex between a man and his wife, is sought for itself, being isolated from its procreative purpose.
http://www.faith.org.uk/article/january-february-2011-the-dehumanisation-of-marital-sex
So what?
-
Sexual pleasure shared between two men, like non-procreative sex between a man and his wife, is sought for itself, being isolated from its procreative purpose.
http://www.faith.org.uk/article/january-february-2011-the-dehumanisation-of-marital-sex
For goodness' sake stop using these daft sites for your 'information', Spud. You must surely realise that it's all just stupid propaganda for their antiquated ideas.
-
Sexual pleasure shared between two men, like non-procreative sex between a man and his wife, is sought for itself, being isolated from its procreative purpose.
http://www.faith.org.uk/article/january-february-2011-the-dehumanisation-of-marital-sex
Spud
I don't think most heterosexuals are thinking about procreation any of the time during sex.
It only comes up if people want to start a family, which is a very small amount of time in their life.:
-
Sexual pleasure shared between two men, like non-procreative sex between a man and his wife, is sought for itself, being isolated from its procreative purpose.
http://www.faith.org.uk/article/january-february-2011-the-dehumanisation-of-marital-sex
Most of that article is attacking contraception. So are you now saying that this is immoral?
-
99% of sex is isolated from the act of procreation, if it crops up at all, it's people avoiding procreating.
Most hetrosexuals only try on average for 2 or 3 children in a lifetime
-
Dear Spud,
What I took from your link, sex, two humans joined in body and soul, so that's nice.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Spud,
What I took from your link, sex, two humans joined in body and soul, so that's nice.
Gonnagle.
Replace 'soul' with 'love' and I'll agree with you, Gonners.
-
What has that got to do with one man loving another and having sex with him? He is treating him exactly the same as a hetero man treats his wife.
I don't get my love from a text book ... it stems from my heart.
Yes there is this unpleasant assumption that somehow the love between two men is purely physical.
Not true though, as you say , it comes from your heart.
Just like with a hetrosexual couple.
-
Yes there is this unpleasant assumption that somehow the love between two men is purely physical.
Not true though, as you say , it comes from your heart.
Just like with a hetrosexual couple.
I think that is what Willy Waggleweapon had in mind when he put these words into Hamlet's mouth :-
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
-
Dear Leonard,
Waggleweapon :P :P :P it took me all of five seconds to get it ;D ;D
Gonnagle.
-
Christians like Spud are obsessed with anatomy, so love is not relevant here. It's a weird kind of Christian reductionism, never mind the heart, where's the willy?
-
Christians like Spud are obsessed with anatomy, so love is not relevant here. It's a weird kind of Christian reductionism, never mind the heart, where's the willy?
I think it's fair to say that from a man's point of view physical attributes are the first things that attract ... love develops later.
-
Spud
I don't think most heterosexuals are thinking about procreation any of the time during sex.
It only comes up if people want to start a family, which is a very small amount of time in their life.:
Exactly.
-
Spud
I don't think most heterosexuals are thinking about procreation any of the time during sex.
It only comes up if people want to start a family, which is a very small amount of time in their life.:
Maybe in Protestant countries, yes. I know Protestants tend to allow contraception, which is probably why they are not thinking about procreation. But in accepting contraception their argument against same sex relationships breaks down. Natural family planning, the Catholic alternative, is morally acceptable, catholics say, because no barrier to conception is involved.
-
Maybe in Protestant countries, yes. I know Protestants tend to allow contraception, which is probably why they are not thinking about procreation. But in accepting contraception their argument against same sex relationships breaks down. Natural family planning, the Catholic alternative, is morally acceptable, catholics say, because no barrier to conception is involved.
So do you think that catholic couples who are practising natural family planning are having sex for pleasure or procreation reasons?
-
Maybe in Protestant countries, yes. I know Protestants tend to allow contraception, which is probably why they are not thinking about procreation. But in accepting contraception their argument against same sex relationships breaks down. Natural family planning, the Catholic alternative, is morally acceptable, catholics say, because no barrier to conception is involved.
The world is OVERPOPULATED therefore it is crazy not to use reliable contraception, which will prevent unwanted pregnancies. I know quite a few Catholics, and none of them have large families so one takes it they have put two fingers up to that crazy doctrine.
-
The world is OVERPOPULATED therefore it is crazy not to use reliable contraception, which will prevent unwanted pregnancies. I know quite a few Catholics, and none of them have large families so one takes it they have put two fingers up to that crazy doctrine.
But isn't that a matter of opinion rather than fact? The world doesn't come with a sticker giving the max carrying capacity.
-
But isn't that a matter of opinion rather than fact? The world doesn't come with a sticker giving the max carrying capacity.
But you don't have to be a genius to work out that if people have more children than they can afford to look after, as happens in many underdeveloped countries, it is going to cause big problems like starvation.
-
So do you think that catholic couples who are practising natural family planning are having sex for pleasure or procreation reasons?
I sincerely hope that they are staring at the picture of the Holy Family above the bed, and trying to ignore the furtive scrabblings going on in under the duvet. God sees all and forgives their lubricity!
-
But you don't have to be a genius to work out that if people have more children than they can afford to look after, as happens in many underdeveloped countries, it is going to cause big problems like starvation.
Quite probably, but that is really another discussion.
Spud's opinion is that, essentially, sex is for creating babies, so should be used for that purpose with other variations discouraged.
So the counter argument is that most people want sex but don't want babies, - not that there are too many babies.
-
Yes, that is the curious reductive approach of the Catholic Church, and apparently, Spud. Let's not start with love, and people loving each other, which you might think was a natural Christian approach. Let's start with tabs and slots, and which goes where, and which combinations are very very naughty and will send you to the fiery oven. And I don't mean Gregg's.
-
One wonders if spud has ever had sex? If he had a sex life he might not be so quick to think it is only useful as a baby making machine. ;D
-
The world is OVERPOPULATED therefore it is crazy not to use reliable contraception, which will prevent unwanted pregnancies. I know quite a few Catholics, and none of them have large families so one takes it they have put two fingers up to that crazy doctrine.
You said that before on this thread, floo, and I replied:
Bits of the world floo, there are particular areas that seem to be overpopulated and other areas where the population growth is low and slow. People will always want to have kids, you and I wouldn't have not wanted to. Of course in this country most of us don't have six or more as happened in days gone by - but in those days folks often lost children in infancy.
Re: what Spud said about contraception, and the responses, etc:
First of all Spud, there's no such thing as a "Protestant country", or a "Catholic country", only people who live there, many of whom practice a particular religion which seems to be prominent.
How many Catholics, and I mean practising Catholics, do you know who do not use contraception? It is a matter for their personal consciences. The only ones I have ever come across are members of fringe organisations, such as Opus Dei. They generally have several children. The rest of the Catholic population do not have more than the average, because they use contraception.
Spud, religions are man made, don't forget that. The Catholic Church bears little resemblance to the church founded by Jesus and the Apostles. I will even tentatively venture to say the same goes for the Orthodox though no doubt Paul and Jonathan, if they are here, will disagree with me. There's nothing wrong with that in itself but we have to be aware that the teachings are not written in tablets of stone.
None of this has much to do with the title of this thread but I'm not sorry it's gone off topic a bit.
-
Maybe in Protestant countries, yes. I know Protestants tend to allow contraception, which is probably why they are not thinking about procreation. But in accepting contraception their argument against same sex relationships breaks down. Natural family planning, the Catholic alternative, is morally acceptable, catholics say, because no barrier to conception is involved.
You do know of course that there's a special term for couples who follow natural family planning - "mum and dad."
-
So do you think that catholic couples who are practising natural family planning are having sex for pleasure or procreation reasons?
For pleasure (that is to say, its unifying significance). I'm not convinced that the morality of natural family planning is what the Catholics say it is. One is still depriving a sexual act of its openness to transmission of life. It would surely be morally 'better' to abstain completely until such time as you are open to the possibility of conception?
-
Why should people have to abstain?
-
For pleasure (that is to say, its unifying significance). I'm not convinced that the morality of natural family planning is what the Catholics say it is. One is still depriving a sexual act of its openness to transmission of life. It would surely be morally 'better' to abstain completely until such time as you are open to the possibility of conception?
Spud
This may shock you, but the RCC has no mandate over sexuality - they can simply be ignored you know.
-
Hare Krishnas don't have sex unless they definitely want to conceive. The one I knew had a drawer full of sex toys instead.
Incidentally, their top guru chap - whose name was Guru Dave - left his wife for another devotee even though they had never so much as brushed fingertips.
-
Why should people have to abstain?
I guess it's incase they are tempted to take their eyes off the serious purpose of it, and have a "norty" thought or two.....or three ;)
They have to lie back and think of procreation
;D ;D ;D
-
Why should people have to abstain?
I've just said something heretical, apparently!!
CANON VIII. "If anyone says that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, 24th Session, On the Sacrament of Matrimony)
Maybe the thing is that a couple should not do NFP for the purpose of not having any children at all, ever.
If they are doing NFP for the purpose of spacing out the kids, then they retain the procreative significance of their sexual acts (sorry wigginhall if that sounds ponsey)
Shaker, abstaining for a period of time enhances 'marital chastity'
-
Spud
This may shock you, but the RCC has no mandate over sexuality - the can simply be ignored you know.
On sexual morality they're ignored by most Catholics never mind anybody else.
-
I've just said something heretical, apparently!!
Good for you. Keep it up.
Shaker, abstaining for a period of time enhances 'marital chastity'
And that is what, exactly, and why does it require scare quotes?
-
I've just said something heretical, apparently!!
CANON VIII. "If anyone says that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, 24th Session, On the Sacrament of Matrimony)
Maybe the thing is that a couple should not do NFP for the purpose of not having any children at all, ever.
If they are doing NFP for the purpose of spacing out the kids, then they retain the procreative significance of their sexual acts (sorry wigginhall if that sounds ponsey)
Shaker, abstaining for a period of time enhances 'marital chastity'
I've no idea what 'ponsey' means (I assume it is a term used in England) but I'd have to say, Spud, that the serial guff from the RCC you are quoting just isn't binding: you are advancing a fallacious argument from authority, so why not just think it through for yourself?
On the 'marital chastity' front - I take it you are qualified, maritally speaking, to comment from experience.
-
Good for you. Keep it up.And that is what, exactly, and why does it require scare quotes?
I know why it's in "scare quotes" it's scary , what puzzles me is why people think it's the way to go ;D
-
I've no idea what 'ponsey' means (I assume it is a term used in England) but I'd have to say, Spud, that the serial guff from the RCC you are quoting just isn't binding: you are advancing a fallacious argument from authority, so why not just think it through for yourself?
On the 'marital chastity' front - I take it you are qualified, maritally speaking, to comment from experience.
poncey (ˈpɒnsɪ) or poncy
adj, -cier or -ciest
derogatory slang chiefly Brit ostentatious, pretentious, or effeminate
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/poncey
If you said someone was a bit ponsey, it could be taken as a bit gay ;D
-
Only a bunch of celibate males could talk about "marital chastity" ;D
-
You do know of course that there's a special term for couples who follow natural family planning - "mum and dad."
Oy! That's an old one Shaker. However there are ovulation predictors nowadays, often 3 for 2 in Boots. Simple and effective.
''Marital chastisy'', from what I remember being told, or read, means mutually desired sexual intercourse between husband and wife.
-
"Marital chastisy'', from what I remember being told, or read, means mutually desired sexual intercourse between husband and wife.
Right - and who doesn't practice that already?
-
Right - and who doesn't practice that already?
Well, men who expect their wives to obey for a start.
I remember when I was around twenty or so watching a debate on daytime tv as to whether the law should be changed so that a man could be charged with raping his wife. The female lawyer on the programme said no, charging him with assault was adequate.
-
Exactly Rhiannon! I well remember the subject of marital rape being aired with many people aghast, as if there was no such thing. However I do believe that a lot had absolutely no idea about rape, the domination and violence of it, so they couldn't imagine it in marriage.
Shaker, decent, caring and respectful couples practice marital chastisy without even having to think about it.
-
What I remember taking from the debate was that the belief was if you'd agreed to spend your life with someone and had sex with them, then if that person then raped you it didn't quite count as rape in some way.
-
Yes I remember people saying stuff like that. It was so unjust, if you think about it a wife would find it quite difficult to rape her husband, not that she would want to. There was also a lot said about the couple being obliged to have sex with eachother if either wanted it; again that would be difficult if a wife wanted sex and her husband wasn't up to it.
Later, when people were prepared to actually talk about it in detail, it became apparent how terrifyingly violent marital rape was so gradually opinion changed, and the law. Thank goodness.
-
For pleasure (that is to say, its unifying significance). I'm not convinced that the morality of natural family planning is what the Catholics say it is. One is still depriving a sexual act of its openness to transmission of life. It would surely be morally 'better' to abstain completely until such time as you are open to the possibility of conception?
Spud your comments are silly, sex is also for PLEASURE, what on earth is wrong with that, providing you are in an adult, in a consensual relationship, not cheating on a partner and taking sensible precautions?
-
Exactly Rhiannon! I well remember the subject of marital rape being aired with many people aghast, as if there was no such thing. However I do believe that a lot had absolutely no idea about rape, the domination and violence of it, so they couldn't imagine it in marriage.
Shaker, decent, caring and respectful couples practice marital chastisy without even having to think about it.
No one should be forced to have sex if they don't wish to have it, even if married.
-
Spud your comments are silly, sex is also for PLEASURE, what on earth is wrong with that, providing you are in an adult, in a consensual relationship, not cheating on a partner and taking sensible precautions?
I agree Floo, I would add though that just being in a consensual relationship isn't enough. There need to be witnesses to the consent being given, to avoid claims of rape and to bind a couple together to prevent cheating. Marriage, in other words.
This bit of the thread started because L-J said that a man having sex with a man he loves is no different from a man and his wife.
Can I quote from from Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Contra Gentiles", Book 3, Chapter 122:
"... every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible"
"...(say, for instance, one chose to walk on his hands, or to use his feet for something usually done with the hands) ... man’s good is not much opposed by such inordinate use. However, the inordinate emission of semen is incompatible with the natural good; namely, the preservation of the species. Hence, after the sin of homicide whereby a human nature already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take next place, for by it the generation of human nature is precluded."
You can love someone without having sex with them.
And it is not possible to justify a man having sex with a man on the grounds that it will enhance the relationship, because it causes harm (in the way Aquinas explains above).
Whilst not directly injuring anyone (neither does theft, for example) homosexual acts, like contraception, deprive the body of its capacity for preservation of mankind and therefore cause a kind of harm.
-
I agree Floo, I would add though that just being in a consensual relationship isn't enough. There need to be witnesses to the consent being given, to avoid claims of rape and to bind a couple together to prevent cheating. Marriage, in other words.
Good grief Spud, you're getting more and more ridiculous. Here you seem to be claiming that marriage is permanent consent - hence martial rape is impossible!
Is there no depth you will not sink to, in order to defend the idiotic and harmful prejudices of your religion?
-
I agree Floo, I would add though that just being in a consensual relationship isn't enough. There need to be witnesses to the consent being given, to avoid claims of rape and to bind a couple together to prevent cheating. Marriage, in other words.
Firstly this assumes that marital rape is impossible, which is a self-evident nonsense.
Secondly, although there are certainly some open marriages/swingers, most couples have sex in private, with nobody in attendance making sure that fully informed consent has been sought and given. This is the case with or without marriage. Do married couples draft in an independent third party plus biro, clipboard and consent forms to ensure consent in this manner?
You really do appear not to have thought any of this through in any way at all.
Can I quote from from Thomas Aquinas
You can, and indeed did, but so what? Why do we need to take his opinion into account, this being a man ignorant even of the existence of spermatozoa and ova? Why are we supposed to lend this individual's opinion any credence?
You can love someone without having sex with them.
And vice versa. What of it?
And it is not possible to justify a man having sex with a man on the grounds that it will enhance the relationship, because it causes harm (in the way Aquinas explains above).
Bullshit. It causes no harm and furthermore causes a positive and active good.
Whilst not directly injuring anyone (neither does theft, for example)
Of course it does - theft involves depriving some agent of their property.
homosexual acts, like contraception, deprive the body of its capacity for preservation of mankind and therefore cause a kind of harm.
This assumes that the preservation of mankind is a good to be striven for, for one thing. Many people do not.
For another, do you see the preservation of mankind as under threat due to low population?
-
I agree Floo, I would add though that just being in a consensual relationship isn't enough. There need to be witnesses to the consent being given, to avoid claims of rape and to bind a couple together to prevent cheating. Marriage, in other words.
This bit of the thread started because L-J said that a man having sex with a man he loves is no different from a man and his wife.
Can I quote from from Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Contra Gentiles", Book 3, Chapter 122:
"... every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible"
"...(say, for instance, one chose to walk on his hands, or to use his feet for something usually done with the hands) ... man’s good is not much opposed by such inordinate use. However, the inordinate emission of semen is incompatible with the natural good; namely, the preservation of the species. Hence, after the sin of homicide whereby a human nature already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take next place, for by it the generation of human nature is precluded."
You can love someone without having sex with them.
And it is not possible to justify a man having sex with a man on the grounds that it will enhance the relationship, because it causes harm (in the way Aquinas explains above).
Whilst not directly injuring anyone (neither does theft, for example) homosexual acts, like contraception, deprive the body of its capacity for preservation of mankind and therefore cause a kind of harm.
Your posts get more and more ridiculous. :o
-
I agree Floo, I would add though that just being in a consensual relationship isn't enough. There need to be witnesses to the consent being given, to avoid claims of rape and to bind a couple together to prevent cheating. Marriage, in other words.
This bit of the thread started because L-J said that a man having sex with a man he loves is no different from a man and his wife.
Can I quote from from Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Contra Gentiles", Book 3, Chapter 122:
"... every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible"
"...(say, for instance, one chose to walk on his hands, or to use his feet for something usually done with the hands) ... man’s good is not much opposed by such inordinate use. However, the inordinate emission of semen is incompatible with the natural good; namely, the preservation of the species. Hence, after the sin of homicide whereby a human nature already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take next place, for by it the generation of human nature is precluded."
You can love someone without having sex with them.
And it is not possible to justify a man having sex with a man on the grounds that it will enhance the relationship, because it causes harm (in the way Aquinas explains above).
Whilst not directly injuring anyone (neither does theft, for example) homosexual acts, like contraception, deprive the body of its capacity for preservation of mankind and therefore cause a kind of harm.
Spud
Aquinus died in 1274 - views have moved on a tad since then, as has knowledge.
-
Good grief Spud, you're getting more and more ridiculous. Here you seem to be claiming that marriage is permanent consent - hence martial rape is impossible!
Martial rape - you mean like the rape the two soldiers were recently acquitted of? ;) ;)
Is there no depth you will not sink to, in order to defend the idiotic and harmful prejudices of your religion?
Oddly enough, SKoS, marriage is something that crosses religious and even non-religious boundaries. As such it would appear to be a cultural prejudice, as opposed to a religious one.
-
Oddly enough, SKoS, marriage is something that crosses religious and even non-religious boundaries. As such it would appear to be a cultural prejudice, as opposed to a religious one.
England and Wales managed to unshackle marriage from religion a smidgin under a hundred and eighty years ago; there are still plenty of places in the world where that process hasn't taken place.
-
Why should people have to abstain?
I can think of people who have had to abstain for medical, even psychological reasons. In fact, before I was discharged from hospital after my angina attack and angioplasty, one of the nurses suggested that I abstain for at least a week.
-
I can think of people who have had to abstain for medical, even psychological reasons. In fact, before I was discharged from hospital after my angina attack and angioplasty, one of the nurses suggested that I abstain for at least a week.
Was abstaining for medical reasons what Spud was referring to?
-
Oddly enough, SKoS, marriage is something that crosses religious and even non-religious boundaries. As such it would appear to be a cultural prejudice, as opposed to a religious one.
Nothing like addressing the point. Do you agree with what Spud appeared to be saying: that marriage was consent - the implication being that marital rape was impossible.
-
Nothing like addressing the point. Do you agree with what Spud appeared to be saying: that marriage was consent - the implication being that marital rape was impossible.
So, you weren't suggesting that Spud's view is specific to his religious beliefs? If not, why the reference to the defence of 'the idiotic and harmful prejudices of your religion'?
-
Was abstaining for medical reasons what Spud was referring to?
Not really concerned. Just enjoying taking a few posts out of context in the same way some of mine are. ;)
-
So, you weren't suggesting that Spud's view is specific to his religious beliefs? If not, why the reference to the defence of 'the idiotic and harmful prejudices of your religion'?
Spud has a habit of marshalling as his "authorities" sundry popes and mediaeval Catholic philosophers. What do you think his so-called arguments are based on?
-
So, you weren't suggesting that Spud's view is specific to his religious beliefs? If not, why the reference to the defence of 'the idiotic and harmful prejudices of your religion'?
You still haven't addressed the point. Do you agree or not?
Spud has been engaged in an increasingly bizarre set of arguments in order to justify his belief that homosexuality is wrong. Many of them are explicitly religious, so, yes, I regard his prejudice as religiously motivated (as well as idiotic and harmful).
-
You haven't asked me and I am not answering for Hope :D but it seems to me that Spud adheres to a type of Vatican ll Catholicism which you don't come across very often. It has an answer to everything, all written down in books, which will reinforce his opinions. I know Spud had a horrible experience many years ago which he has told us about and that has made him quite prejudiced but I would have thought the prejudice might extend to church too: not so, obviously.
Dear Spud, you seem to be sheltering in Olde Catholicism. There is a world outside of it which is not all bad; not all homosexuals, in fact most homosexuals, are going to/not going to come on to you, not all churches have members who will befriend you in order to exploit you. Please get out a bit and lose all the gloom, it is not a true refuge.
-
You haven't asked me and I am not answering for Hope :D but it seems to me that Spud adheres to a type of Vatican ll Catholicism which you don't come across very often. It has an answer to everything, all written down in books, which will reinforce his opinions. I know Spud had a horrible experience many years ago which he has told us about and that has made him quite prejudiced but I would have thought the prejudice might extend to church too: not so, obviously.
Dear Spud, you seem to be sheltering in Olde Catholicism. There is a world outside of it which is not all bad; not all homosexuals, in fact most homosexuals, are going to/not going to come on to you, not all churches have members who will befriend you in order to exploit you. Please get out a bit and lose all the gloom, it is not a true refuge.
Is Spud even a Catholic? He quotes popes and Catholic philosophers, but that doesn't necessarily signify being a Catholic himself. I've noticed that recently he spoke of "the Catholics" which implies a distancing from said group and implies that he doesn't belong to that group since people tend to speak of "the x_________" about groups that they don't belong to. (Amongst racists it's "the darkies" or "the Pakis"; with anti-Semites it's "the Jews"). If they do belong to said groups they're more likely to say: "We x__________" or something similar.
-
I didn't think he was a Catholic, Shaker, but because of what he has said recently, I thought maybe he was. Well I could be wrong. Maybe he will tell us?
-
I'm Anglican. But as you said Brownie, I find that the catholics have expressed in words what many of us were thinking and hadn't reasoned through until gay marriage appeared.
-
I'm Anglican. But as you said Brownie, I find that the catholics have expressed in words what many of us were thinking
Where's the evidence for this?
-
I too wondered that Shaker but I do know the ''High'' Anglicans, eg the Forward in Faith people, are arch Traditionalists; more Catholic than the Catholics.
Anyway thank you for answering the query, Spud.
-
I'm Anglican. But as you said Brownie, I find that the catholics have expressed in words what many of us were thinking and hadn't reasoned through until gay marriage appeared.
I can see no evidence that there was any reasoning involved at all...
-
I'm Anglican. But as you said Brownie, I find that the catholics have expressed in words what many of us were thinking and hadn't reasoned through until gay marriage appeared.
Who is 'us', and I'd have to say that RCC and reason are strange bedfellows indeed.
-
That isn't strictly the case, Gordon, though people who think anyone who believes in a God is barking (up the wrong tree or just plain...), will have their opinions :D. There are different wings of Catholicism, schools of thought, and some are relatively liberal. I'd say that most Catholics in this country are like that. There are also conservatives and some far more so, Traditionals who hark back to pre-Vatican ll. The sort of stuff that Spud quotes is arch-Traditional (the ''High'' Anglicans consider themselves to be Anglo-Catholic). It's quite a broad church.
-
Who is 'us', and I'd have to say that RCC and reason are strange bedfellows indeed.
Most of the 669,000 who signed the coalition for marriage's petition, I should think.
-
Most of the 669,000 who signed the coalition for marriage's petition, I should think.
Do you know how that stacks up against those who positively and actively supported equal marriage? (Literally: I don't just mean the apathetic who had no firm views one way or the other).
-
Most of the 669,000 who signed the coalition for marriage's petition, I should think.
What was the wording of the petition?
-
What was the wording of the petition?
"I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it."
Not that it matters a jot then or especially now, of course ;)
Guess what the legal definition of marriage is now, and why? Because we changed it.
-
The daftest thing was the suggestion that marriage equality would devalue marriage generally.
-
This is still brilliant.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ervtik_7jYQ
-
"I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it."
Not that it matters a jot then or especially now, of course ;)
Yikes - sounds like a bigots charter to me: of course, as you say, they were firmly put in their place (albeit with some chicanery to allow the CofE to remain in the dark ages).
-
Yikes - sounds like a bigots charter to me: of course, as you say, they were firmly put in their place (albeit with some chicanery to allow the CofE to remain in the dark ages).
Still conflicted about that, in the sense that if you are narrow and petty enough to believe that marriage belongs only to this group here and isn't, shouldn't be open to all who want to join in, there's no reason why you should have to conduct such marriages. The conflict comes from the fact that some of those who support(ed) the larger, wider, all-embracing, inclusive sense of marriage were and are prevented from carrying them out.
-
The most terrible injustice is that the CofE doesn't allow freedom of conscience on this. It's appalling. And it's s big reason why liberals are quitting the church.
-
An established state church has a lot to answer for :(
-
There are no vile homophobic views on this forum. There are just people who have not learned to love and who use the suffering of others to stir up a pot of hate and loathing amongst people.
I see that people have different views whether religious or not. Unless the writer of the thread aims his pointed finger at all, atheists and theists alike then really he is just prejudice and singling anyone who religious out.
My nephew John is homosexual. In our family we have no bigoted views in any generation.
My love for God does not make me a bigot and it does not change my love for my nephew who came out not so long ago.
There are no vile homophobic views just difference of opinions.
Because someone believes something to be right or wrong, it does not mean they dislike anyone who believes differently to themselves. Loving others is not a judgment call. We do not love others for anything they believe or do not believe.
We do not love others for their sexuality or even their looks. We love others for themselves and who they are as a person.
Love does not sit in court and judge who can be loved. Christ died for the world. That is everyone who has been or will be since the beginning of time.
I suppose love is too simple and to pure for you to understand that we love no matter what the world is fighting about.
Time to stop throwing stones, Stephen... because only your glass windows are getting broken.
-
The most terrible injustice is that the CofE doesn't allow freedom of conscience on this. It's appalling. And it's s big reason why liberals are quitting the church.
You really mean to say the CofE show that there is no conscience about truth.
The people of the CofE have priests who are gay. They have their own parishes and the people of their parish support them.
What you really mean is that no matter what they do to live and let live, you who are not gay want more and more and that cannot be done because they will not water down the truth of Jesus Christ or become a hypocrites.
Are you saying homosexual priests who enter the church under the same regulations are those who are not homosexual should be allowed to change the rules when they agreed to them when entering?
Would be rather misleading like the Trojan Horse. A way in to try and change things...
I believe those with faith love and understand that somethings cannot be changed otherwise what was no longer exists and it makes less of Christ and Gods Words in the bible. The bible clearly teaches...
King James Bible
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
If someone is loving God, then their sexuality is not what is important. In truth it is Gods love for us in Christ which is the most important thing. Because God is telling us he loves us. Sinners and filthy before Christ washed the sins away. He who is God loved us. I believe there is no difference for those in Christ. God loves us and that love is what makes the difference.
We cannot cause upset and chaos amongst the body of Christ by changing the truth.
-
The most terrible injustice is that the CofE doesn't allow freedom of conscience on this. It's appalling. And it's s big reason why liberals are quitting the church.
RHi, this particular topic comes fairly low down on the list of why liberals are leaving the CofE. Most of them leave because of the theological differences they have with the church over the core issues of Christianity - whether Jesus is God or just a man; did Jesus simply die, or did he rise again on the 3rd day; etc. (eg, all the topics that get discussed her). OK, abortion, the role of women, the status of homosexual relationships, etc. often come into the mix, but then 'freedom of conscience' isn't the issue; its theology.
Incidentally, why should the Church - or any other organisation for that matter - allow 'freedom of conscience' on a fundamental principle, whatever that principle might be? Are you suggesting that the Church, or a secular employer should allow 'freedom of conscience' on the of taking of - say - stationery that the company has paid for.
-
Don't be idiotic, Hope. Stealing is not the same as blessing a loving relationship.
Liberals don't care much about theological differences - that's what makes them liberals to start with. I left the church because of the gay issue. A local vicar did. Some of my friends have. For many it has been the straw that broke the camel's back.
-
Dear Gay Issue,
Get yer Gay Issue here, just finished catching up on Paul O'Grady's excellent little documentary on the Sally Ann, no gays allowed, no sex outside marriage, no smoking, no drinking, so something me, Trent and Leonard have in common, we can't wear the Sally Ann uniform we can't be soldiers of Christ, oh! we can help, we are allowed to get our hands dirty but we can't wear the uniform, sad, as Mr O'Grady points out, they are missing a trick.
On the up side, apart from their stupid rules, what a truly wonderful organisation, onward you Christian Soldiers ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gay Issue,
Get yer Gay Issue here, just finished catching up on Paul O'Grady's excellent little documentary on the Sally Ann, no gays allowed, no sex outside marriage, no smoking, no drinking, so something me, Trent and Leonard have in common, we can't wear the Sally Ann uniform we can't be soldiers of Christ, oh! we can help, we are allowed to get our hands dirty but we can't wear the uniform, sad, as Mr O'Grady points out, they are missing a trick.
On the up side, apart from their stupid rules, what a truly wonderful organisation, onward you Christian Soldiers ;)
Gonnagle.
Yes, Gonners, and to misquote an ancient Lyle's Golden syrup advert, "out of the savage comes forth sweetness".
-
Don't be idiotic, Hope. Stealing is not the same as blessing a loving relationship.
Stealing isn't but murder is, apparently ::)
-
Don't be idiotic, Hope. Stealing is not the same as blessing a loving relationship.
That's an opinion you are perfectly entitled to hold, Rhi. Since there is nothing conclusive on either side of the debate, I'm equally entitled to my opinion that homosexual relationships are sinful - in exactly the same way that many other actions are - either 'serious' or 'minor' from the perspective of human society. To take a direct parallel, I believe that the Bible teaches that a loving heterosexual relationship that takes place outside of marriage is no more or less sinful than a homosexual relationshi - and, that from God's perspective, murder and theft are equally 'sin'. He doesn't delineate seriousness, as they are all serious in his eyes (or so the Bible indicates).
Liberals don't care much about theological differences - that's what makes them liberals to start with. I left the church because of the gay issue. A local vicar did. Some of my friends have. For many it has been the straw that broke the camel's back.
Clearly, you know a very different selection of liberal Christians to that which I know.
-
Stealing isn't but as is murder is, apparently ::)
Corrected to reflect the point that you were clearly trying to make - that this is what Hope understands the Bible to teach.
-
That's an opinion you are perfectly entitled to hold, Rhi. Since there is nothing conclusive on either side of the debate, I'm equally entitled to my opinion that homosexual relationships are sinful - in exactly the same way that many other actions are - either 'serious' or 'minor' from the perspective of human society. To take a direct parallel, I believe that the Bible teaches that a loving heterosexual relationship that takes place outside of marriage is no more or less sinful than a homosexual relationshi - and, that from God's perspective, murder and theft are equally 'sin'. He doesn't delineate seriousness, as they are all serious in his eyes (or so the Bible indicates).
Clearly, you know a very different selection of liberal Christians to that which I know.
And yet I don't see the churches asking for a ban on cohabiting couples being allowed to marry in church. Why is that?
-
Corrected to reflect the point that you were clearly trying to make - that this is what Hope understands the Bible to teach.
And you don't allow for the possibility that your understanding could be wrong?
-
And you don't allow for the possibility that your understanding could be wrong?
Of course I do, but over 30 years of discussing the issue, I've yet to see or hear an argument that gets anywhere near to showing, let alone proving, that it is. I've stated this on more than one occasion, Rhi, and all I get is abuse for saying it.
The nearest I've got to evidence that it is wrong was about 8 years ago on another internet forum I used to belong to when someone I hugely respected explained his understanding as someone who was still not absolutely certain, but was moving towards the idea of homosexual relationships being OK from a moral and ethical (and Christian) position. Sadly, most of what he posted was removed by a moderator who was/is so pro-gay that even that level of understanding was unacceptable to them. Fortunately, my mate and I used to attend Greenbelt together and debate this and other matters deep into the night over glasses of wine, cider and whisky (not necessarily in combination!!). Sadly, my mate died of a heart attack 3 (or is it 4) years ago. I miss him and his wisdom greatly.
-
It's easy, Hope.
The Christian God is the God of love who is merciful and compassionate. Gay relationships are equally loving to straight ones. Therefore they are created by and/or blessed by the God of love. And if it turns out you are wrong about that because you acted from a place of love and compassion for your fellow human beings, and Gid does disapprove, then your compassionate and merciful God will forgive you.
-
It's easy, Hope.
The Christian God is the God of love who is merciful and compassionate. Gay relationships are equally loving to straight ones. Therefore they are created by and/or blessed by the God of love. And if it turns out you are wrong about that because you acted from a place of love and compassion for your fellow human beings, and God does disapprove, then your compassionate and merciful God will forgive you.
Live with it ... it's love, and love rules!
-
It's easy, Hope.
The Christian God is the God of love who is merciful and compassionate. Gay relationships are equally loving to straight ones. Therefore they are created by and/or blessed by the God of love. And if it turns out you are wrong about that because you acted from a place of love and compassion for your fellow human beings, and Gid does disapprove, then your compassionate and merciful God will forgive you.
Your entitled to your opinion, Rhi, but as this same argument is used by polyamorists and others, I'm afraid I take it with a pinch of salt.
-
Your entitled to your opinion, Rhi, but as this same argument is used by polyamorists and others, I'm afraid I take it with a pinch of salt.
If polyamorous relationships are freely entered into and consensual I don't see them as any of my business. But that isn't what we are discussing. We're discussing gay and bi couples who want the same thing that you have been entitled to for your entire adult life - the right to have a loving, faithful, monogamous relationship with or without marriage.
What is it about gay relationships that you think is so different to your own?
-
No 'DIRECT' babies ?!!?!? And isn't this what it's ALL about - BREEDING & spreading !?!?!!?!?
Just look at the religions that oppose gay relationships. Speaks for itself !!!
-
Of course I do, but over 30 years of discussing the issue, I've yet to see or hear an argument that gets anywhere near to showing, let alone proving, that it is.
There's today's NPF.
I've stated this on more than one occasion, Rhi, and all I get is abuse for saying it.
You haven't received abuse because that would be against the rules. What you have received and do receive, consistently, is valid criticism about the ugliness of your obnoxious views with regard to homosexuality (which, lest we forget, have led to your suspension), which is vastly less than you actually deserve.
If you want to play the victim card and call that abuse that's your lookout - the mods clearly don't agree with you.
-
It is people who think homosexuality is abnormal and wrong who are abusive, not those who criticise them for their bigotry.
-
Are there vile homophobic views being expressed on this forum, I would have thought that the answer is of course there are.
What makes it worse, these vile individuals spend so much time trying to, as they think, justify their small minded utterly distasteful views for which they only have excuses, no reasoned or logical reason to be so obnoxious, to other people of equal worth to all. (More, I suspect, of this the superiority of religious views over everything Pov).
ippy
-
Are there vile homophobic views being expressed on this forum, I would have thought that the answer is of course there are.
Not according to Sassy. Apparently I am the only one who thinks so.
-
Oh play another tune. You are beginning to sound petulant.
-
Oh play another tune. You are beginning to sound petulant.
I don't care for people who lie, make factually incorrect statements and then can't admit it when they are shown to be wrong.
You might think that childish but not everyone does.
Modification****************************************************************
Although maybe you are right. I have probably made my point.
-
The only people who think that homosexual sex between two loving adults is wrong are those who have been told it is, and they are too weak-minded to think for themselves about why it should be considered wrong.
-
The only people who think that homosexual sex between two loving adults is wrong are those who have been told it is, and they are too weak-minded to think for themselves about why it should be considered wrong.
But you are quite wrong Len - in my 40 years of posing on message boards I have supplied plenty of evidence as to why staring the one-eyed snake in the face is immoral and damaging to society. I have posted hundreds of links that show that homosexuality; however I am unable to repost them because they have mysteriously gone missing (probably the gay mafia); is the downfall of civilisation and I personally know the gay population of the world and not one of them is in favour of gay marriage and none of them wanted the liberalisation of gay laws. *
* Posted to save someone the bother.
-
Heh ;D
-
Trent, you forgot all the atheist sciencey scientists who have reasons based on sciencey things for thinking that gay people shouldn't be allowed. He knows them too.
-
But you are quite wrong Len - in my 40 years of posing on message boards I have supplied plenty of evidence as to why staring the one-eyed snake in the face is immoral and damaging to society. I have posted hundreds of links that show that homosexuality; however I am unable to repost them because they have mysteriously gone missing (probably the gay mafia); is the downfall of civilisation and I personally know the gay population of the world and not one of them is in favour of gay marriage and none of them wanted the liberalisation of gay laws. *
* Posted to save someone the bother.
I fear your irony will be lost on them, Trent ... they can't see beyond the end of their religious noses. :(
-
Did this one eyed trouser snake sing 'Trust in me, just in me?'?
-
Did this one eyed trouser snake sing 'Trust in me, just in me?'?
Indeed it did. Truly mesmerising ;)
Also reminded me of the vocal talents of Sterling Holloway.
-
Indeed it did. Truly mesmerising ;)
Also reminded me of the vocal talents of Sterling Holloway.
Never a bad thing
-
Trentvoyager
WOWEEE Is it April 1st already ?!?!?! LOL
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyf1-REzosw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49MOcTv3Wgs
-
If polyamorous relationships are freely entered into and consensual I don't see them as any of my business. But that isn't what we are discussing. We're discussing gay and bi couples who want the same thing that you have been entitled to for your entire adult life - the right to have a loving, faithful, monogamous relationship with or without marriage.
What is it about gay relationships that you think is so different to your own?
They don't have the potential for complete physical and spiritual unity that only a monogamous heterosexual relationship has.
-
They don't have the potential for complete physical and spiritual unity that only a monogamous heterosexual relationship has.
Very deep and well thought out Spud, you're amazing.
ippy
-
Maybe he has tried, ippy, and decided he prefers one to the other.
-
They don't have the potential for complete physical and spiritual unity that only a monogamous heterosexual relationship has.
I am sure gays in a long term partnership, like our Leonard James, would agree with you, NOT! ::)
-
They don't have the potential for complete physical and spiritual unity that only a monogamous heterosexual relationship has.
Agreed.
-
Why not?
Isn't that an incredibly ignorant, offensive, just plain damned rude thing to say about somebody's relationship? Would you like it said of yours if the boot was on the other foot?
-
They don't have the potential for complete physical and spiritual unity that only a monogamous heterosexual relationship has.
Says who (assuming for the sake of argument that 'spiritual' is a meaningful term)?
-
Agreed.
Why have you tried?
-
Agreed.
I pity you and Spud. When I meet up with my friends tonight, I won't have to waste my time judging their relationship as wanting in order to feel good.
-
They don't have the potential for complete physical and spiritual unity that only a monogamous heterosexual relationship has.
That's like saying 'they' don't have the potential to be this or that because of the colour of their skin.
-
I pity you and Spud. When I meet up with my friends tonight, I won't have to waste my time judging their relationship as wanting in order to feel good.
I was thinking exactly that, NS. Statements like that say far, far more about those who make them than any 'truths' about relationships.
-
I was thinking exactly that, NS. Statements like that say far, far more about those who make them than any 'truths' about relationships.
When my nephew gets married to his partner, I won't have to think anything more than love and support for them. I can't get over how awful it would be to either attend with the thoughts that Spud and Humph roll out, or possible worse not attend in a tizzy of disapproval. Seems utterly sad to me.
-
They don't know what they are talking about and never will unless they get out more and meet new people instead of merely reading so selectively and being theoretical about the lives of others. 'Armchair pontificating' fits perfectly.
-
Dear Spud,
Good morning ya little wanker, so gay people can't have a physical or spiritual relationship, oh! sorry complete physical and spiritual, what ever that means, I am sure homosexuals have very physical relationships as for spiritual, has that something to do with your small minded little idea of God.
Every homophobic post I have read on this forum, two words are missing, Love and Happiness, you and your idea of God, this small minded little god you profess to worship are a disgrace, this god is stopping you from seeing the hurt and hatred you are spreading, thankfully your god does not exist, it is a product of your tiny little narrow mind, you and anyone who agree's with you ( good morning Humph >:( ) are a great adverts for atheism.
Gonnagle.
-
My father became quite homophobic when the strokes and the Alzheimer's took hold, racist and sexist as well. Was a tragedy seeing the love he had held for people become a burnt out shell filled with bile. How much sadder must it be to live through life like that. Worse having to repeat the empty 'love the sinner, hate the sin' nostrum as if that protects you from your own corrosive little obsession.
-
Sad story NS and a bit scary too. I've heard of that happening before. It seems that things people may have heard throughout their life come out in words as if they mean it. Never mind, as you say he was kind and loving all his life.
No excuse for any of us on here to spout such ignorant nonsense, especially when there is ample evidence to the contrary.
-
That's like saying 'they' don't have the potential to be this or that because of the colour of their skin.
Rhi this is exactly how I see these people too.
They're nothing more than a self appointed, sanctimonious, holier than thou, bunch of shits, no better than racists.
ippy
-
No excuse for any of us on here to spout such ignorant nonsense, especially when there is ample evidence to the contrary.
Evidence to the contrary, ample or not, never stopped anybody from believing what they want to believe; the existence of young earth creationists in the world, for example, should tell you that.
-
Every homophobic post I have read on this forum, two words are missing, Love and Happiness
Got it in one.
Lots of fold up tab A and insert into slot B-type of talk, but nary a word about love, commitment, sharing, respect, togetherness ...
-
Dear Spud,
Good morning ya little wanker, so gay people can't have a physical or spiritual relationship, oh! sorry complete physical and spiritual, what ever that means, I am sure homosexuals have very physical relationships as for spiritual, has that something to do with your small minded little idea of God.
Every homophobic post I have read on this forum, two words are missing, Love and Happiness, you and your idea of God, this small minded little god you profess to worship are a disgrace, this god is stopping you from seeing the hurt and hatred you are spreading, thankfully your god does not exist, it is a product of your tiny little narrow mind, you and anyone who agree's with you ( good morning Humph >:( ) are a great adverts for atheism.
Gonnagle.
I'm entirely with you on this one Gonners, well said.
ippy
-
As Gonzo notes, a god bothering about how people love each other, seems like a puny thing, scared and mewling. Don't be afraid, tiny god thing.
-
And yet I don't see the churches asking for a ban on cohabiting couples being allowed to marry in church. Why is that?
Presumably because they are setting something right and repenting, in the eyes of the church, but that isn't how they see getting married with homosexuality.
With homosexuality, it's celibacy.
Personally, like you I don't think what goes on between consenting adults is any of my business unless it has a negative impact on the lives of me and mine.
Which is unlikely but not impossible.
Trouble is that is also subjective, that concept of harm.
-
Don't be idiotic, Hope. Stealing is not the same as blessing a loving relationship.
Liberals don't care much about theological differences - that's what makes them liberals to start with. I left the church because of the gay issue. A local vicar did. Some of my friends have. For many it has been the straw that broke the camel's back.
Have you a family member who is gay?
Stealing isn't but murder is, apparently ::)
Have you a family member who has been murdered?
I can say yes to both. Do I love God any less? No! If God is real how does a family member being gay or being murdered become Gods doing or fault?
It has always been my knowledge that it is man who hurts man not God - on earth.
Homophobia, theft and murder exist because of man not God.
The first murder when Cain slew Abel...wasn't God but rather jealousy because one provided a better offering to God.
Bickering and arguments are more to do with human beings and their nature.
No one walks away from God because someone is gay or murdered. They walk away from God because they need someone to blame and some excuse to make a stand for the way they feel.
Jesus Christ died for all. So God showing no favouritism to sinners. He is not telling us Jesus died because of one sinners sins.
God is telling us Jesus died for all sinners sins.
Everyone has views on things like theft, murder and even sex outside marrige and homophobia.
But only the atheist twists one size to fit all in the homophobia cases.
What I do not understand is, if everyone loves their neighbour and know God is real then we need to be honest if the way they live their lives could harm them after death. You would tell them stealing, murder and homosexuality are not favoured with God. But does anyone stealing or even committing murder and homosexual acts make them less lovable?
Truth is the first two are acts against another person. But the homosexual acts are just between those people which are not harming others.
Sin is sin but do you love people who murder and steal? God judges our motives rather than our actions.
Love covers many sins. I feel people judge God rather man.
-
That's like saying 'they' don't have the potential to be this or that because of the colour of their skin.
Well said.
-
I have no difficulty in loving someone who does wrong, let's face it I've done wrong myself in the past, and I'm sure God loves us all regardless of what we have done.
We need to look at the whole person, not just a bit of them. There is a lot to love, even like, in most people.
When it comes to our immortal souls, I leave it to God to judge me, and others, and have no doubt that he will look at each of us as individuals, knowing our circumstances and difficulties.
-
Have you a family member who is gay?
Have you a family member who has been murdered?
I can say yes to both. Do I love God any less? No! If God is real how does a family member being gay or being murdered become Gods doing or fault?
It has always been my knowledge that it is man who hurts man not God - on earth.
Homophobia, theft and murder exist because of man not God.
The first murder when Cain slew Abel...wasn't God but rather jealousy because one provided a better offering to God.
Bickering and arguments are more to do with human beings and their nature.
No one walks away from God because someone is gay or murdered. They walk away from God because they need someone to blame and some excuse to make a stand for the way they feel.
Jesus Christ died for all. So God showing no favouritism to sinners. He is not telling us Jesus died because of one sinners sins.
God is telling us Jesus died for all sinners sins.
Everyone has views on things like theft, murder and even sex outside marrige and homophobia.
But only the atheist twists one size to fit all in the homophobia cases.
What I do not understand is, if everyone loves their neighbour and know God is real then we need to be honest if the way they live their lives could harm them after death. You would tell them stealing, murder and homosexuality are not favoured with God. But does anyone stealing or even committing murder and homosexual acts make them less lovable?
Truth is the first two are acts against another person. But the homosexual acts are just between those people which are not harming others.
Sin is sin but do you love people who murder and steal? God judges our motives rather than our actions.
Love covers many sins. I feel people judge God rather man.
Sass it is nasty and sick to equate a loving relationship between two people of the same sex in the same category as people who murder and steal. >:(
-
Sass believes, as do one or two others, that some sexual behaviour is wrong in the eyes of God but that it is not more wrong than anything else, despite the fact that we make a lot out of sexual misdemeanours (a red line has appeared, have I spelt that wrongly?).
Nobody would equate sexual activities between adults with murder, or violence. I cannot imagine there is anyone on this forum who has not done something of a sexual nature which they would consider to be wrong and are ashamed of, or were ashamed of because that fades with time. Well maybe you, floo, being as you and your husband have been in love since you were teenagers, but I'm sure most of us have done something. We're not murderers but what we have in common is the act of wrongdoing, with murder there's no going back and putting things right unfortunately which sets it apart.
We know there are Christians who believe homosexual acts are sinful though they do not hate the person, only the act. They believe they should do all they can to save this person from committing that sin and, embarrassing as it is sometimes (I cringe because of the gay posters we have here and almost feel like saying, ''We're not all like that!''), we're not going to stop them thinking that way. Someone else might, or time, people do change opinions.
I don't know what we are gonna do with them but certainly it could be made clear that it's not right to preach about it on this forum and then not mention it again unless they do, at which time they will be breaching the rules of etiquette of the forum.
-
Why would it be in breach of the etiquette of the forum for anyone to mention homosexuality?
-
I'm trying to reply to you NS and composed something quite long and very clear (to me), but each time I tried to post it I got a 'forbidden/index/error' message. So I have decided it is not meant to be!
Briefly, I didn't mean the mentioning of homosexuality but saying anything negative about it, however well intentioned - mainly because it seems to get everyone riled up and causes so much trouble. I don't expect anyone to take any notice of me though :D
-
It is in breach of any sort of decency to be bigoted where homosexuality is concerned, just as it is to be racist.
-
My take on this, for what it is worth, is that while we can't stop people thinking whatever they think, at the point they then advance their thinking by making statements in the public arena, and especially where this involves issues of public policy, then their thinking and statements are fair game on the same basis that thoughts advanced from a political perspective are: if this doesn't suit then they should simply keep their thoughts to themselves.
Therefore, anyone who advocates that social/legal conventions (such as marriage), or services provided to the public at large, should be restricted based on an intrinsic characteristic of a person then I expect them to not only justify their wish to discriminate but also have their justification to discriminate open to critique. On that basis it seems to me that denial of equality on the basis of sexual orientation is as abhorrent as discrimination based on race, colour or ethnicity, and that this is a religious opinion is an inadequate justification in a secular democracy.
That some, but not all I hasten to add, Christians claim that homosexuality offends their religious views then, to be frank, tough: here in the U.K. we don't live in a theocracy (which should be obvious in view of the legalisation of SSM in most parts of the UK) and your religion is no longer the arbiter of social morality since to a good number of us, based on what we see being said by some elements within organised Christianity, we see you as being irrelevant and retrogressive, hence your influence has declined and will continue to decline.
My advice to those who advocate discrimination on grounds of sexuality is that while you can think what you like you can no longer say what you like on matters where society no longer sees your perspective as having any default authority, and that if you do it is likely to be seen as being on a par with, say, expressing racist views. 'God's Plan' is an opinion and isn't a defense for homophobia, so you can expect a robust response.
-
Briefly, I didn't mean the mentioning of homosexuality but saying anything negative about it, however well intentioned - mainly because it seems to get everyone riled up and causes so much trouble. I don't expect anyone to take any notice of me though :D
As you are one of the more pleasant and less judgmental posters, Brownie, I'm sure that most of us DO take notice of what you say ... whether we agree with it or not. :)
-
My take on this, for what it is worth, is that while we can't stop people thinking whatever they think, at the point they then advance their thinking by making statements in the public arena, and especially where this involves issues of public policy, then their thinking and statements are fair game on the same basis that thoughts advanced from a political perspective are: if this doesn't suit then they should simply keep their thoughts to themselves.
Therefore, anyone who advocates that social/legal conventions (such as marriage), or services provided to the public at large, should be restricted based on an intrinsic characteristic of a person then I expect them to not only justify their wish to discriminate but also have their justification to discriminate open to critique. On that basis it seems to me that denial of equality on the basis of sexual orientation is as abhorrent as discrimination based on race, colour or ethnicity, and that this is a religious opinion is an inadequate justification in a secular democracy.
That some, but not all I hasten to add, Christians claim that homosexuality offends their religious views then, to be frank, tough: here in the U.K. we don't live in a theocracy (which should be obvious in view of the legalisation of SSM in most parts of the UK) and your religion no longer the arbiter of social morality since to a good number of us, based on what we see being said by some elements within organised Christianity, we see you as being irrelevant and retrogressive, hence your influence has declined and will continue to decline.
My advice to those who advocate discrimination on grounds of sexuality is that while you can think what you like you can no longer say what you like on matters where society no longer sees your perspective as having any default authority, and that if you do it is likely to be seen as being on a par with, say, expressing racist views. 'God's Plan' is an opinion and isn't a defense for homophobia, so you can expect a robust response.
Hear, hear!
-
Yeah right Len, there's a compliment in there somewhere I think so ta mate.
What Gordon said above your post seems to be quite sensible.
-
Why stop at homosexuals? Why not include theists, or atheists?
I sort of struggle with the whole idea touted in different ways by yourself, Brownie, and Sassy that we shouldn't mention homosexuality because as it feels you are arguing, because of the mad Christians (and Sriram) in the attic maundering on about disease, disorder, and exactly equating it to murder and paedophilia.
-
Two superb posts on this page from Brownie and Gordon.
-
I dunno about that, I appear to have confused NS! Never mind, Gordon has posted something that seems reasonable to me and sums up what I meant.
-
I'm trying to reply to you NS and composed something quite long and very clear (to me), but each time I tried to post it I got a 'forbidden/index/error' message. So I have decided it is not meant to be!
There's a few words and phrases that the forum software doesn't like. If you use any explicit terms/'rude' words, try starring out one of the letters.
Also, there's a character limit on the size of posts :(
ht
-
I dunno about that, I appear to have confused NS! Never mind, Gordon has posted something that seems reasonable to me and sums up what I meant.
I don't feel confused. It reads to me that you and Sassy don't want people to talk about homosexuality because it shows some Christians and other in a bad light.
-
Oh well, you think what you will NS. Sass and I don't have the same beliefs on this subject and I cannot remember her saying she didn't want it discussed, but if you say she did I accept that and must have forgotten it, or didn't see it. You also mentioned Sririam earlier on and have no idea what he has do with it. He writes a lot of things from a Hindu perspective about meditation and the like which I find deeply interesting, but I've no idea what his opinions on homosexual relationships are and don't care.
I don't know what yours are!!! (You don't have to tell me.)
I always stand alone with my opinions NS, always have, but there is bound to be one person who agrees with me, maybe even thought and wrote it before I did.
-
I don't feel confused. It reads to me that you and Sassy don't want people to talk about homosexuality because it shows some Christians and other in a bad light.
I haven't got that impression from Brownies posts.
I think she might wish we could all talk about something else, but not because of a Christian angle......... More that it's been done to death....... And it spreads into other threads.
-
Do homophobes or any anti-gay person think that the spirit INSIDE us is male or female according to what genitalia they have ????
If they, gays, decide against that in so far as who they're attracted to - sexually or not - are they 'disobeying' God?
Can our 'atma spirit whatever actually BE male or female ?!?!?!!?
Nick
-
Why not?
Isn't that an incredibly ignorant, offensive, just plain damned rude thing to say about somebody's relationship? Would you like it said of yours if the boot was on the other foot?
I would be glad if they said the truth. So if they said that I shouldn't touch my girlfriend's boobs I would be sad, but would agree because that would be the Spirit talking and you can't argue with him. That would not be the same as saying I can't ever touch them, as the opportunity might come if we get married. (Plus I might slip up from time to time). You make it out to be hypocritical to deny homosexuals what they want, when I might one day have it. But the important thing about heterosexual marriage is that it is not pleasure for the sake of pleasure. With it comes the responsibility of family life: raising children, or adopting if you don't have your own, or being honorary parents if you don't literally adopt. A gay partnership carries no such responsibility. So they are not entitled to enjoy sex, the purpose of which is the giving of one's life force to one's spouse, that being what unites them physically and spiritually.
-
As for gonnagle, well I will remember you as someone who swore a lot.
-
A gay partnership carries no such responsibility. So they are not entitled to enjoy sex, the purpose of which is the giving of one's life force to one's spouse, that being what unites them physically and spiritually.
I can't speak for other gay partnerships - but I can for mine.
You are correct by and large we don't have children - except for Lesbians of course who astoundingly quite often do.
But other responsibilities I have had over the years to both my own and my partners family. Responsibilities that have brought both pain and pleasure. The pleasure of new born nephews and nieces coming into the world and the pleasure of watching them grow into loving, warm hearted generous people who look on myself and my partner as Uncles, which we are. You know part of the family, in the family, making the family work, making it better to be a part of for everyone. The pain of loss - of parents, and a brother in law, of various aunts and uncles - and being a part of the family and supporting one another and caring and letting my partner rant and scream with the grief of loss as I hold him.
Now I post this - not because it is exceptional, rather because I imagine most people of a certain age who post here know exactly what I am talking about. Yet you in your off hand way say that because we have no responsibilities we are not "entitled to enjoy sex".
Oh I have responsibilities my friend, which I have carried out as a human being - not bothered by the type of sex any of my relatives or friends have - I carried them out because it was the right, proper, human thing to do.
You might want to think on about what it means to be human - because imo you have some serious work to do.
-
Very serious post, Trent, thank you.
Spud you know not of what you speak.
-
As for gonnagle, well I will remember you as someone who swore a lot.
and is twenty times the Christian you might dream of being
-
' A gay partnership carries no such responsibility. So they are not entitled to enjoy sex, the purpose of which is the giving of one's life force to one's spouse, that being what unites them physically and spiritually. '
Are you bloody serious with this silly attitude ?!!?!?!? Gays can't have kids - EXCUSE ME ?!?!?!
-
and is twenty times the Christian you might dream of being
I didn't mean to quote this NS, but the one from Trippy beneath yours, but as I have I will say, ''Hear hear''.
Trippy, he means that can't have kids with eachother, or eachother's kids. Certainly they can bring up eachother's children who have been conceived with a third party. Also they can adopt, no reason not to in my view and when you think of the number of young children in this country alone who cannot live with a parent or family, that can only be good.
-
Very serious post, Trent, thank you.
Spud you know not of what you speak.
Yep - Trent's post exudes humanity, as opposed to the sterile tosh we see from Spud.
-
I would be glad if they said the truth.
Which is what?
So if they said that I shouldn't touch my girlfriend's boobs I would be sad, but would agree because that would be the Spirit talking and you can't argue with him.
I agree that you can't argue with what doesn't exist.
You make it out to be hypocritical to deny homosexuals what they want, when I might one day have it.
Yes, because it is. In fact, more than hypocritical, it's poisonously selfish and self-serving.
But the important thing about heterosexual marriage is that it is not pleasure for the sake of pleasure. With it comes the responsibility of family life: raising children, or adopting if you don't have your own, or being honorary parents if you don't literally adopt.
I'm at a continuing loss to understand why you're such a mindless slave to biology. Any inherent link between the state of being married and the capacity to bear offspring was broken a very very long time ago - if indeed such a thing ever existed at all.
So they are not entitled to enjoy sex, the purpose of which is the giving of one's life force to one's spouse, that being what unites them physically and spiritually.
"Life force"? OK, this is definitely the point where Spud jumps the shark.
-
Yep - Trent's post exudes humanity, as opposed to the sterile tosh we see from Spud.
He won't like that - it doesn't lead to babies.
-
Quite a thoughtful and moving post from Trent.
Spud seems to see relationships and marriage from some abstract ideal which doesn't always exist in heterosexual marriages either.
Children end up in care, because sometimes responsibilities towards them are not met. No one suggests that because of that, those heterosexual parents are not allowed to enjoy sex.
What matters is that children are looked after and not left vunerable.
Heterosexuals sometimes fail in their responsibilities towards their children and I have never heard from any church anywhere, that this is a reason that they should not be allowed to enjoy sex.
That rule only applies to people who are gay, obviously.
It's just an excuse to discriminate, one of those platitudes people come out with, to justify it.
them and us.
Some of the things in religion can be used negatively to discriminate against those who are different or not part of it.
It's a form of dehumanising people, making out they don't possess the same humanity or human feelings as believers or followers.
You can find it, if you look in Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
It's how some people interpret it.
I think this argument of Spuds, falls into that category.
It makes out groups of people, are less than human and don't have whatever it is believers have.
In this case, homosexuals are being made out to lack the depth and level of feelings of heterosexuals and therefore lack the responsibilities.
It makes them out to be less than someone else.
-
Sass it is nasty and sick to equate a loving relationship between two people of the same sex in the same category as people who murder and steal. >:(
Well show me who has equated and how they could do that.
Truth is you opinion is calling all sins nasty and sick.
When in reality all sins carry the same penalty of death. There is no equality in the sins committed.
One who breaks one commandment would have broken them all if your thinking was correct.
In reality the wages of sin is death. It is the penalty which does not change.
All this rubbish about equality is made up by the atheist. So you thinking as you do is all down to you.
You are the one claiming that all sins are nasty and sick to be able to claim that comparison makes it that way.
Christians don't believe that sin is nasty and sick. They believe sin is against God.
Every sin leads to death. You are the ones in your own minds twisting the truth to make a rod for Christians and falling foul of your own real feelings on the subject.
All over the world there are people who are religious, agnostic and atheist who use such sentences as yours.
Making things nasty and sick that no one is calling nasty and sick but those who create the thoughts in the first instance.
It appears those who smelt it, actually dealt it...
-
It is in breach of any sort of decency to be bigoted where homosexuality is concerned, just as it is to be racist.
What decency?
You make sentences you cannot substantiate and show no real understanding about.
It is a sentence you created to throw stones. It means nothing because you cannot show that bigoted about homosexuality is about decency. People are not indecent because they believe something wrong. They are at best ignorant because they grew up with people who are bigoted like you are towards religion.
Yes! you are a bigot when it comes to Christianity and Christians. You do to Christians what others do to homosexuals.
Take the forest out of your own eye before attempting to remove the splinter out of the eyes of others.
Bigotry is wrong on so many levels. You need understanding and education yourself before you attempt to remove someone elses splinter.
-
That some, but not all I hasten to add, Christians claim that homosexuality offends their religious views then, to be frank, tough: here in the U.K. we don't live in a theocracy (which should be obvious in view of the legalisation of SSM in most parts of the UK) and your religion is no longer the arbiter of social morality since to a good number of us, based on what we see being said by some elements within organised Christianity, we see you as being irrelevant and retrogressive, hence your influence has declined and will continue to decline.
Your attitude is the worse there is...
Christians DO NOT CLAIM that homosexuality offends their religious views.
Why make such a false statement? The truth is the bible tells everyone that homosexuality is not the way of God for his people. It also tells us to love our neighbour.
I guess the truth is not something you like.
-
I would be glad if they said the truth. So if they said that I shouldn't touch my girlfriend's boobs I would be sad, but would agree because that would be the Spirit talking and you can't argue with him. That would not be the same as saying I can't ever touch them, as the opportunity might come if we get married. (Plus I might slip up from time to time). You make it out to be hypocritical to deny homosexuals what they want, when I might one day have it. But the important thing about heterosexual marriage is that it is not pleasure for the sake of pleasure. With it comes the responsibility of family life: raising children, or adopting if you don't have your own, or being honorary parents if you don't literally adopt. A gay partnership carries no such responsibility. So they are not entitled to enjoy sex, the purpose of which is the giving of one's life force to one's spouse, that being what unites them physically and spiritually.
Oh for pity's sake, are you trying to say that people should only have sex in a heterosexual, married relationship so they can have kids? If so you are very sad and deluded, imo.
-
Your attitude is the worse there is...
Christians DO NOT CLAIM that homosexuality offends their religious views.
Why make such a false statement? The truth is the bible tells everyone that homosexuality is not the way of God for his people. It also tells us to love our neighbour.
I guess the truth is not something you like.
Yes Sass - but surely you can see how wrong it is for some Christians to try to influence the law so that it adversely affects me. There is one poster on here who has stated that he thinks the laws have gone too far (gay marriage) and yet this law affects that poster and his religion not one jot - it is civil marriage we are talking about. There are a myriad of other issues where if the laws in this country had not been changed (most of which were opposed by the CoE) I would have been disadvantaged by - that is discriminated against for no other reason than the fact that I am gay. You do see this is wrong? You do see that it is Christians who are doing this based on their understanding of the Bible and their religion - and that in all probability they are doing this because they are in some sense offended by homosexuality because their Bible tells them it is wrong.
-
Yes Sass - but surely you can see how wrong it is for some Christians to try to influence the law so that it adversely affects me.
Surely you can see how that can be turned around. Some wish to influence the law so that is adversely affects the beliefs of others?
What have you been denied in todays world. You have your marriage, homosexuality is now legalised and recognised and rights protected. What is it that you feel has not been done?
But where is the protection for the believer from bigots such as post on this forum.
Do you not believe protection is for all regardless of sexuality, skin colour and beliefs?
But the truth is the atheists keeps harping on about homosexuality. They don't give a damn about people who are really facing the brunt of what it means to be homosexual. My nephew came out and it was difficult for him. He has over forty odd cousins and none prejudicial all with friends who are homosexual.
I get fed up with atheists using homosexuality as a battering rod. Neither floo or the others actually care about those who are homosexual. They are just Christian bigots out to use anything to attack something they do not agree with.
How can they support homosexuals and shout for freedom of beliefs and lives, yet not afford Christians the same rights.
Even as a Christian, I and others have told them we live and let live. We love our neighbours but we still get tarred with this rod of theirs.
Sorry, if they really cared about equality for all, they would not do what they accuse others of doing.
There is one poster on here who has stated that he thinks the laws have gone too far (gay marriage) and yet this law affects that poster and his religion not one jot - it is civil marriage we are talking about. There are a myriad of other issues where if the laws in this country had not been changed (most of which were opposed by the CoE) I would have been disadvantaged by - that is discriminated against for no other reason than the fact that I am gay. You do see this is wrong? You do see that it is Christians who are doing this based on their understanding of the Bible and their religion - and that in all probability they are doing this because they are in some sense offended by homosexuality because their Bible tells them it is wrong.
I believe that poster has not thought things through. Gods marriage is not the same as the law of the land marriage.
Why shouldn't two people who live together have their rights protected. Why should they not have protection.
The Kingdom of God is not about the outward it is the changing from the inward and so within a person.
What the world does will fade away. When Christians who are married die, so the marriage end and no longer man and wife.
Legal marriage on earth is not the same as Christian marriage. They are totally different so what the law of the land does will not change the heavenly Christian marriage because one is from God and the other from man.
No registry office or Churches when Adam and Eve first arrived.
I personally believe the atheist make things worse for the Christian and the Homosexual person.
Because they do not allow us to love one another outside their realm of thinking.
I do not feel any differently about loving an homosexual person to any other. But I do feel for their plight and being used as a soap box issue for atheist in religious matters. Acceptance is about care and love for another not their religion or sexuality. :(
-
Surely you can see how that can be turned around. Some wish to influence the law so that is adversely affects the beliefs of others?
I would simply ask how, in any way, giving homosexuals equal rights in civil and legal matters affects adversely the rights of Christians?
-
I would simply ask how, in any way, giving homosexuals equal rights in civil and legal matters affects adversely the rights of Christians?
I think it's more that they feel that they will be forced to go against their personal integrity in religious matters.
So by treating gay people the same as anyone else, they are in a way signalling their approval.
So by acknowledging gay marriages as equal, they appear to think it is the same as approving the whole thing or to appear to.
So they don't.
I think that is what the problem is.
They think they are taking a stand for the principals they feel the bible stands for.
-
But where is the protection for the believer from bigots such as post on this forum.
Do you not believe protection is for all regardless of sexuality, skin colour and beliefs?
I believe that all should be treated equally under the law regardless of sexuality, skin colour and beliefs. What's the problem?
-
I can't speak for other gay partnerships - but I can for mine.
You are correct by and large we don't have children - except for Lesbians of course who astoundingly quite often do.
But other responsibilities I have had over the years to both my own and my partners family. Responsibilities that have brought both pain and pleasure. The pleasure of new born nephews and nieces coming into the world and the pleasure of watching them grow into loving, warm hearted generous people who look on myself and my partner as Uncles, which we are. You know part of the family, in the family, making the family work, making it better to be a part of for everyone. The pain of loss - of parents, and a brother in law, of various aunts and uncles - and being a part of the family and supporting one another and caring and letting my partner rant and scream with the grief of loss as I hold him.
Now I post this - not because it is exceptional, rather because I imagine most people of a certain age who post here know exactly what I am talking about. Yet you in your off hand way say that because we have no responsibilities we are not "entitled to enjoy sex".
Oh I have responsibilities my friend, which I have carried out as a human being - not bothered by the type of sex any of my relatives or friends have - I carried them out because it was the right, proper, human thing to do.
You might want to think on about what it means to be human - because imo you have some serious work to do.
Children need a mother and a father, not two fathers.
-
Children need a mother and a father, not two fathers.
That is a complete non sequitur to Trentvoyager's post and makes it look as you couldn't even give him the respect of reading it. I suggest you actually read it, you might learn something about responsibility.
-
How much more must Christians like Spud disgrace themselves with this crass and churlish approach to discussion? Nobody needs to get rid of Christianity, it's quite capable itself.
-
In terms of responsibility towards a child, perhaps the greatest responsibility a father has is to love the childs mother.
-
Wigginhall, the fact that you and your friends have to vilify christians in order to add weight to your argument shows how weak it actually is.
-
In terms of responsibility towards a child, perhaps the greatest responsibility a father has is to love the childs mother.
Nonsense - try telling that to the many adoptive parents who really do make a difference to the lives of children (as I know from friends who have adopted). You really do seem very naive.
-
Wigginhall, the fact that you and your friends have to vilify christians in order to add weight to your argument shows how weak it actually is.
It's your loutish attitude to other people which is amazing. Did you actually read trent's post? You showed no signs of having done so. In your hands, Christianity dooms itself, it doesn't need criticism from outside.
-
Wigginhall, the fact that you and your friends have to vilify christians in order to add weight to your argument shows how weak it actually is.
Daftest post of the week - there are many Christians who would put you to shame as regards their compassion, tolerance and decency and who don't subscribe to your concrete thinking.
You do your religion no favours, Spud, and even a grizzled old atheist like me can see this.
-
In terms of responsibility towards a child, perhaps the greatest responsibility a father has is to love the childs mother.
Spud I am gobsmacked, :o parents should SHARE parenting responsibilities, especially in this day and age when both parents usually work.
-
In terms of responsibility towards a child, perhaps the greatest responsibility a father has is to love the childs mother.
Love is not a responsibility, and only someone who has never loved could describe it so.
-
Wigginhall, the fact that you and your friends have to vilify christians in order to add weight to your argument shows how weak it actually is.
No one has to vilify Christians on this board when you are here to do all the work.
-
No one has to vilify Christians on this board when you are here to do all the work.
Satan must be so proud of him! ::)
-
OOH Met Satan, have we ????
-
Came down the chimney with a sackful, trippy.
-
Came down the chimney with a sackful, trippy.
OOH ER MISSUS ?!!?!? ;) ;D ;D
-
It's your loutish attitude to other people which is amazing. Did you actually read trent's post? You showed no signs of having done so. In your hands, Christianity dooms itself, it doesn't need criticism from outside.
Loutish? Are you surprised, considering he says in that post that his partner is (sic) his nephews' and nieces' uncle? Were you expecting me to say, "isn't that lovely"?
-
Loutish? Are you surprised, considering he says in that post that his partner is (sic) his nephews' and nieces' uncle? Were you expecting me to say, "isn't that lovely"?
Why not.
My uncle was gay and lived for over 40 years with my other uncle.
I never thought anything of it as I was a child and did not view them differently, apart from they were great fun and had more time.
Also great presents as they both had good jobs
-
Loutish? Are you surprised, considering he says in that post that his partner is (sic) his nephews' and nieces' uncle? Were you expecting me to say, "isn't that lovely"?
No ... that degree of decency and humanity isn't your thing.
-
Loutish? Are you surprised, considering he says in that post that his partner is (sic) his nephews' and nieces' uncle? Were you expecting me to say, "isn't that lovely"?
In every way we are Uncles.
In this particular instance you are an unreasonable and odious human being who fails to understand very basic things about the way families work.
-
Quite!
Spud, if you have a wife with a niece or nephew, or both, you would be their uncle, they would be aunt to your nieces and nephews. The titles are not just for the blood relative but also for the partner of the blood relative. The same applies to homosexual people and their partners.
But I'm sure you knew that.
-
"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." - Anne Lamott.
Thought I'd revisit this post, Shakes. On the surface, it sounds a really good quote (though since I don't know the context in which it appears in her book I can't be sure that it means what you want it to mean).
However, taking it on face value, I'd suggest that she sums up my belief very well. Humanly speaking, there are a variety of people who I would naturally hate - such as Nazis and Communists, paedophiles, human traffickers, the guys who broke into our house in Nepal and stole a number of items that were mostly of sentiimental value, but also some things that had monetary value as well - such as my wife's rings (including her engagement ring).
It is because of my Christian belief that I don't hate such people. Yes, I hate their actions and want to see them punished for them, but I don't hate the people themselves. Why? Because Jesus instructs us to 'love' the sinner (after all, I am a sinner - just as everyone on this board is a sinner - in God's eyes), but not the sin. Yes, I know that some here find that dichotomy hard to stomach - and perhaps they need to think about where they stand in regard to Anne Lamott's quote.
-
Because Jesus instructs us to 'love' the sinner (after all, I am a sinner - just as everyone on this board is a sinner - in God's eyes), but not the sin. Yes, I know that some here find that dichotomy hard to stomach - and perhaps they need to think about where they stand in regard to Anne Lamott's quote.
It is impossible to love on command. Jesus should have known that.
Unless he meant treat everybody justly, but that would be cheapening the meaning of the word love.
Love is earned, not commanded.
-
Thought I'd revisit this post, Shakes. On the surface, it sounds a really good quote (though since I don't know the context in which it appears in her book I can't be sure that it means what you want it to mean).
However, taking it on face value, I'd suggest that she sums up my belief very well. Humanly speaking, there are a variety of people who I would naturally hate - such as Nazis and Communists, paedophiles, human traffickers, the guys who broke into our house in Nepal and stole a number of items that were mostly of sentiimental value, but also some things that had monetary value as well - such as my wife's rings (including her engagement ring).
It is because of my Christian belief that I don't hate such people. Yes, I hate their actions and want to see them punished for them, but I don't hate the people themselves. Why? Because Jesus instructs us to 'love' the sinner (after all, I am a sinner - just as everyone on this board is a sinner - in God's eyes), but not the sin. Yes, I know that some here find that dichotomy hard to stomach - and perhaps they need to think about where they stand in regard to Anne Lamott's quote.
'Love the sinner, hate the sin' - such weasel words, Hope. I don't find it hard to stomach, I just find it yet another card Christians play in order to excuse their own shameful behaviour. I always have, even when I was a Christian. Because what you are saying here is that you hate Trent's relationship in the same way that you hate paedophillia and thievery. And if you would just engage your brain for half a second you might see why that is so wrong - forget offensive, it's just bloody stupid. But no, because you have closed down your tolerance and compassion and are driven by unthinking prejudice and fear.
You've made a small, petty God, Hope. One who hates what you hate. Don't you know that it's hateful to try to deny to others the right to love? Of course you do. But you don't like it so you cling onto a couple of Bible verses in order to shore up your position whilst ignoring the hypocrisy of doing so. And you say things that are hurtful and cruel and you really don't care and *that* I find inexcusable.
-
Loutish? Are you surprised, considering he says in that post that his partner is (sic) his nephews' and nieces' uncle? Were you expecting me to say, "isn't that lovely"?
Nobody would expect someone with views as ignorant and unkind as yours to say that, Spud. But you are going to have to come out of your bubble and get used to it. It's how the world works. Maybe if you do you'll find the world much brighter and more colourful than they grey existence you currently endure, not to mention more loving.
-
'Love the sinner, hate the sin' - such weasel words, Hope. I don't find it hard to stomach, I just find it yet another card Christians play in order to excuse their own shameful behaviour.
So, are you someone who believes that people who commit crimes should never again be treated as human beings? That is the logical extension of your distaste of the 'love the sinner, hate the sin' principle. If so, as a human being, I find that attitude distasteful; it isn't even my Christian faith that leads me to that feeling.
I always have, even when I was a Christian. Because what you are saying here is that you hate Trent's relationship in the same way that you hate paedophillia and thievery. And if you would just engage your brain for half a second you might see why that is so wrong - forget offensive, it's just bloody stupid. But no, because you have closed down your tolerance and compassion and are driven by unthinking prejudice and fear.
I notice that is people like you who love to dish the 'hate' word out with gay abandon. I accept that the maxim uses the term, but have I ever said that I hate anything? Yes, in a previous post in reply to Shakes' quote from Anne Lamott I said that "Humanly speaking, there are a variety of people who I would naturally hate ...", but I then went on to state that as a Christian I don't 'hate' them at all.
Yes, I believe that they are wrong in their beliefs and/or actions, and I can think of various actions that might be seen to be good when in reality they aren't. For instance, someone buys up a failing company and asset strips it to the value of several Łmillion; a week later, they give half a million to charity. Is that donation 'clean' or 'tarnished'? Has that person done a 'good deed'?
Let's take another example, this time more relational. Over a period of time of becoming friends, 3 heterosexual couples (and it could just as equally be gay couples) decide to live in a polyamorial arrangement. There has been no attempt to enforce the arrangement by any of the individuals, and it has all been mutually agreed. From comments I've read here and elsewhere - from both straight and gay posters - there seems to be a general feeling that this is wrong. The 6 people involved don't see it as wrong, but society does. How does that fit with your "And if you would just engage your brain for half a second you might see why that is so wrong - forget offensive, it's just bloody stupid. But no, because you have closed down your tolerance and compassion and are driven by unthinking prejudice and fear." Is your thinking controlled only by what is acceptable in law?
You've made a small, petty God, Hope. One who hates what you hate.
See my previous post on the thread.
Don't you know that it's hateful to try to deny to others the right to love?
So, what's your take on polyamory? Are in favour of its being legitimised?
Of course you do. But you don't like it so you cling onto a couple of Bible verses in order to shore up your position whilst ignoring the hypocrisy of doing so.
As I've said in the past, my understanding of homosexual relationships is educated as much by scientific research results as it is by the Bibkle. I realise that, by acknowledging that, your argument drops out from underneath your feet, but then does that bother byou?
And you say things that are hurtful and cruel and you really don't care and *that* I find inexcusable.
I express principles, Rhi. Yes, sometimes principles can be hurtful. What I try not to do, unless hugely provoked, is make attacks on individuals.
-
Loutish? Are you surprised, considering he says in that post that his partner is (sic) his nephews' and nieces' uncle? Were you expecting me to say, "isn't that lovely"?
Spud, with each post you make yourself a laughingstock and demean your faith.
-
:-\
So, are you someone who believes that people who commit crimes should never again be treated as human beings? That is the logical extension of your distaste of the 'love the sinner, hate the sin' principle. If so, as a human being, I find that attitude distasteful; it isn't even my Christian faith that leads me to that feeling.
I notice that is people like you who love to dish the 'hate' word out with gay abandon. I accept that the maxim uses the term, but have I ever said that I hate anything? Yes, in a previous post in reply to Shakes' quote from Anne Lamott I said that "Humanly speaking, there are a variety of people who I would naturally hate ...", but I then went on to state that as a Christian I don't 'hate' them at all.
Yes, I believe that they are wrong in their beliefs and/or actions, and I can think of various actions that might be seen to be good when in reality they aren't. For instance, someone buys up a failing company and asset strips it to the value of several Łmillion; a week later, they give half a million to charity. Is that donation 'clean' or 'tarnished'? Has that person done a 'good deed'?
Let's take another example, this time more relational. Over a period of time of becoming friends, 3 heterosexual couples (and it could just as equally be gay couples) decide to live in a polyamorial arrangement. There has been no attempt to enforce the arrangement by any of the individuals, and it has all been mutually agreed. From comments I've read here and elsewhere - from both straight and gay posters - there seems to be a general feeling that this is wrong. The 6 people involved don't see it as wrong, but society does. How does that fit with your "And if you would just engage your brain for half a second you might see why that is so wrong - forget offensive, it's just bloody stupid. But no, because you have closed down your tolerance and compassion and are driven by unthinking prejudice and fear." Is your thinking controlled only by what is acceptable in law?
See my previous post on the thread.
So, what's your take on polyamory? Are in favour of its being legitimised?
As I've said in the past, my understanding of homosexual relationships is educated as much by scientific research results as it is by the Bibkle. I realise that, by acknowledging that, your argument drops out from underneath your feet, but then does that bother byou?
I express principles, Rhi. Yes, sometimes principles can be hurtful. What I try not to do, unless hugely provoked, is make attacks on individuals.
More lies and distortion, Hope. Where did I say that criminals should be dehumanised? It's you who seeks to dehumanise through denying the right to love and be loved. Nothing more dehumanising than that.
You're the one who talks of hating the actions of sinners. You hate love then, no? If it's the wrong kind of love, of course.
Your 'scientific' arguments have never been produced, Hope. As an attempt at and smoke and mirrors it's a pretty poor one.
I have no objection to polyamory if freely and openly entered into. What business is it of mine? Not that we're discussing polyamory, but to quote the OP, 'vile homophobia'.
Principles? Is that what you have? Really? Much of what you say seems pretty unprincipled to me. I do not understand how you can justify hurting other people, Hope. It baffles me.
-
As I've said in the past, my understanding of homosexual relationships is educated as much by scientific research results as it is by the Bibkle. I realise that, by acknowledging that, your argument drops out from underneath your feet, but then does that bother byou?
The you'll be able to provide us with credible references from professional scientists and academic peer-reviews journal - won't you?
-
A fiver says he'll say he's done it already.
-
:-\
More lies and distortion, Hope. Where did I say that criminals should be dehumanised? It's you who seeks to dehumanise through denying the right to love and be loved. Nothing more dehumanising than that.
You're the one who talks of hating the actions of sinners. You hate love then, no? If it's the wrong kind of love, of course.
Your 'scientific' arguments have never been produced, Hope. As an attempt at and smoke and mirrors it's a pretty poor one.
I have no objection to polyamory if freely and openly entered into. What business is it of mine? Not that we're discussing polyamory, but to quote the OP, 'vile homophobia'.
Principles? Is that what you have? Really? Much of what you say seems pretty unprincipled to me. I do not understand how you can justify hurting other people, Hope. It baffles me.
Is Hope hurting other people? Or is he just expressing his POV ?
-
Is Hope hurting other people? Or is he just expressing his POV ?
I think you know the answer to that one.
-
Is Hope hurting other people? Or is he just expressing his POV ?
or both?
-
Not hurting me - but he is a twisty turny hater.
-
I think you know the answer to that one.
Is that because you think there is only one way to read Hope's posts? In a negative way?
I don't think I see the same things in his posts, as some of you do.
I don't agree with what he says, but I just see a different opinion.
-
Is that because you think there is only one way to read Hope's posts? In a negative way?
I don't think I see the same things in his posts, as some of you do.
I don't agree with what he says, but I just see a different opinion.
Is there an alternative way of reading for instance:
Homosexual relationships are bad for society.
Are Homosexuals should be punished for their sins.
He is a twisty turny hater.
-
Not hurting me - but he is a twisty turny hater.
I think he is trying to explain something about the Christian concept of hate the sin love the sinner , and people are just taking hold of the negative concepts they have drawn from it.
I don't see Hopes posts as " hateful" either that or I've read the wrong ones or missed some.
-
I don't see Hopes posts as " hateful" either that or I've read the wrong ones or missed some.
Easily done - the fouler ones tend to be removed.
-
Is there an alternative way of reading for instance:
Homosexual relationships are bad for society.
Are Homosexuals should be punished for their sins.
He is a twisty turny hater.
Yes, I think there are alternative ways of seeing things.
Lots of people think that different things are bad for society.
Being hateful takes a bit more than that.
An example would be a Muslim women wearing a niquab for modesty.
We have quite a few of those, near me.
I could get offended that they think my form of dressing is immodest and it might well be some of them see my values as being bad for society.
That's their opinion.
What people think is bad for society is almost always offensive to the group it is aimed at.
I achieve nothing by hating back. If she holds that opinion but accepts I don't and doesn't take it further it's just an opinion.
If you take out the emotion, the things that matter IMO are that such views are not dictated in society, passed as laws, to the harm of various groups in society.
I guess I'm a bit strange in that I would argue for your right to live as you do without harrassment, but also for Hope to hold his opinion or the Muslim woman to think my dress is immoral and her right to wear a niquab.
I think it more important to choose my battles.
I don't worry because they hold that opinion, I worry more in case they get to victimise groups of people because of it.
Which although I have never argued or really considered the idea for a separation of religion and state, I can see it could be a good idea on some fronts.
I don't believe in making everyone the same, or battling to make people the same.
I think I believe in diversity of opinion rather than one right way of seeing things.
I do see that we do need to protect society and groups within it from becoming persecuted by certain opinions becoming law.
I think because I believe in diversity, rather than conformity, it can often make it seem I always agree with those I appear to be defending, but that isn't always so.
I think that's why I am more tolerant of views others find vile. ???
Conformity is what groups like Isis do.
I'd rather people just agreed to disagree and stopped trying to make everyone else the same and hold the same POV.
We don't need laws to tell us what to think, just to control undesirable behaviour that is hateful.
-
Dear Trent,
Not hurting you.
A very strange thing for a gay man to say, Hope is certainly hurting me, he purports to being a Christian, I am a Christian, so his views are seen as my views.
Oh you are a Christian, then you believe that homosexuality is wrong.
Of course on this forum I hope that no one thinks that about me but in the big wide world I need to explain myself.
What about a homosexual Christian, a man can't be in a sexual relationship with another man and be a Christian, this is a big thing, some Church leaders are saying you can't experience Gods love if you are homosexual, to me that is vile, a human being pointing the finger for God, shameful and against the teachings of Jesus.
Homophobic thought is hurting you and me, it perpetuates the myth that you can be somehow fixed or in extreme circumstances that homosexuals are fair game for bully, rape, murder.
Homophobic thought also takes the focus away from what Christians are all about, spreading the Gospel.
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
Homophobic thought needs to be put under the spotlight, treated as a disease of the mind, it is wrong, we need to stop the disease spreading, education is the way forward.
Gonnagle.
-
Superb post Gonnicles. The first paragraph is especially to the point.
-
Gonners
Not hurting you.
Not hurting me in the same way that we all have a choice to ignore the negatives in this world. And tbh Hope is a very small fly in the ointment that is my life. I have bigger worries than a small minded hypocrite who posts on a MB.
Over years (going back to the Beeb) I've tried to point out to this poor man his mistaken beliefs over gay people. He is immovable on this matter. SO what to do? I have to move on.
He is a twisty turny immovable hater - that's all I need to know from this point on.
I appreciate your thoughtfulness on this matter which I know has not been easy for you - but neither you nor I, nor dare I say it God him/herself (should God exist) is going to change the pathetic sad views that Hope holds.
There is more than religion driving his distaste, hatred, bigotry - I'm not sure which it is - or if it's all three - but me, I think he enjoys it. He is clearly more obsessed with homosexuality than any other poster currently on this board. His knowledge is pre-eminent on the subject - the number of papers he's read, gay people he's known, meetings he's been to, even supporting the changes of laws at one time. All quite astonishing things to have done if one were gay, but if you are not even more astonishing - but then fitting that in around teaching and living in Nepal and building railways and saving the world.
Well what can I say the man wears his underpants over his trousers.
-
Another one appreciating Gonner's post here.
My mother used to be on the board of an AIDS charity; she had to work to win the trust of the people she worked with because she wore a cross and they were used to Christians being foul to them.
-
... and a gold star for trent while we're at it ;D
-
... and a gold star for trent while we're at it ;D
Seconded.
-
Dear Trent,
There is more than religion driving his distaste, hatred, bigotry - I'm not sure which it is - or if it's all three - but me, I think the man has issues.
I have been thinking about the why, now it is only a little theory of mine, but is it that they see it as some kind of attack on their religion, I am remind of the time evolution was put on trial, in America, "I'am no kin to a monkey and a monkey is no kin to me" I am told this was one of the reasons for the rise in fundamentalism, are we seeing something similar.
Only a thought ???
Gonnagle.
-
I don't see how that explains the lack of humanity, Gonners.
-
Is that because you think there is only one way to read Hope's posts? In a negative way?
I don't think I see the same things in his posts, as some of you do.
I don't agree with what he says, but I just see a different opinion.
There is nothing good and positive about his opinions, which can used in an abusive manner by some.
-
Dear Trent,
I have been thinking about the why, now it is only a little theory of mine, but is it that they see it as some kind of attack on their religion, I am remind of the time evolution was put on trial, in America, "I'am no kin to a monkey and a monkey is no kin to me" I am told this was one of the reasons for the rise in fundamentalism, are we seeing something similar.
Only a thought ???
Gonnagle.
I can certainly see how and why evolution threatens a literalistic interpretation of religion - it does -, but the private lives and the human rights of a small section of the population? Strikes me that this is only a threat to the desire and the ability to discriminate in law, surely.
-
It's scapegoating, pure and simple. You can draw parallels with the way some elements within Anglo-Catholicism treated women priests as though they were unclean; in their rage against losing influence they had to dehumanise those that it favoured.
I think that this is what is happening here; as Christianity is pushed farther to the margins on every level in society so some within it vent their fury on those it perceives as benefitting from that.
-
It's scapegoating, pure and simple. You can draw parallels with the way some elements within Anglo-Catholicism treated women priests as though they were unclean; in their rage against losing influence they had to dehumanise those that it favoured.
I think that this is what is happening here; as Christianity is pushed farther to the margins on every level in society so some within it vent their fury on those it perceives as benefitting from that.
Or that society is scapegoating Christians who don't pick up on the cues to conform to what the thought on things, generally are.
An attempt to force everyone to conform ( I've started a thread on ethics and free thought which hopefully be broader than homosexuality) trying to make everyone think alike.
Some people in Religions see it as an attack on their morals and continuance of their values.
To make them '" in the world" I think the jargon goes :)
Some see it as a wedge being put between their faith God, and to entice them into worldly ways.
-
Is Hope hurting other people? Or is he just expressing his POV ?
He's expressing his opinion, imo. I don't see anything hurtful or hateful in Hope's posts and I study them very closely since the last time this came up a short while back. It isn't just because he's not hurtful to me personally either because I think I'm sensitive to the feelings of others. However Shaker says the worst posts are removed - so how can we tell?
Would another poster be hurt if I said I didn't agree with them because of my interpretation of the Christian faith? I sincerely hope not. A fellow Christian would more likely be upset by my opinions, that has happened more than once (not on here).
This is beyond me, I've said it before, and perhaps I ought to leave this subject alone because I've said quite often what my opinions are; Hope would not agree with them but that's fine, he doesn't have to agree with me. This is not a forum for people sharing the same views.
If he's that bad he should be banned, but if that happened others who say stupid, ignorant things - embarrassing to other Christians - would have to be banned too.
-
Or that society is scapegoating Christians who don't pick up on the cues to conform to what the thought on things, generally are.
An attempt to force everyone to conform ( I've started a thread on ethics and free thought which hopefully be broader than homosexuality) trying to make everyone think alike.
Some people in Religions see it as an attack on their morals and continuance of their values.
To make them '" in the world" I think the jargon goes :)
Some see it as a wedge being put between their faith God, and to entice them into worldly ways.
Hope has a choice over whether to express his vile views or not. It doesn't damage him or hurt him in any way to live and let live.
He is incapable of exercising that choice in order to spare not only gay people but his fellow Christians from hate and hurt.
This is a message board for adults. If Hope wishes to exercise his right to
state the views that he holds then others have the right to counter them. And if he lies and distorts the truth and makes claims that he can't substantiate then others have the right to pull him up on it.
-
Hope has a choice over whether to express his vile views or not. It doesn't damage him or hurt him in any way to live and let live.
He is incapable of exercising that choice in order to spare not only gay people but his fellow Christians from hate and hurt.
This is a message board for adults. If Hope wishes to exercise his right to
state the views that he holds then others have the right to counter them. And if he lies and distorts the truth and makes claims that he can't substantiate then others have the right to pull him up on it.
That's very true, but someone's firmly held belief, tactfully put as possible, is just an opinion.
People can hold views that others find vile and also live and let live.
It sounds more like some people here are saying Hope should not be allowed to express a POV, others disagree with.
That's a different matter.
-
That's very true, but someone's firmly held belief, tactfully put as possible, is just an opinion.
It sounds more like some people here are saying Hope should not be allowed to express a POV others disagree with.
That's a different matter.
Could you point to some posts which seem to say that to you?
-
Hope has a choice over whether to express his vile views or not. It doesn't damage him or hurt him in any way to live and let live.
I think it probably does, though; it probably causes the worst imaginable damage and hurt in the world today - that of being offended.
-
Dear Rose,
Or that society is scapegoating Christians who don't pick up on the cues to conform to what the thought on things, generally are.
Can you open that up for me a little, scapegoating Christians, cues to conform, for me and correct me if I am wrong, and I will be apologising but all I have set out to show is the damage homophobic thought can have.
I certainly don't want to pick on Hope or Spud or anyone who shows homophobic thought, although sometimes a post can set the pulse racing and I do let loose, homophobic thought has to be highlighted, it causes great harm.
Homophobic thought is not some will o the wisp, it is a very powerful force, it leads to destruction of human life and I would add to any Christian reading this, remember the early Christians who were put to death for being different.
Gonnagle.
-
Could you point to some posts which seem to say that to you?
Yes
Posts 530 where Hope is defending his POV and the subsequent posts after it.
Some people have a one true way reaction to opinions that differ.
Live and let live, to me anyway, means in part accepting different POV's especially when you don't agree with them.
The general impression I get us that instead of " live at let live" it's more " shut the **** up"
That's the reaction I see to Hope's post.
"Live and let live" is about getting on with those that differ.
I don't see any evidence in Hopes posts that in real life, opinions aside, he doesn't live and let live.
You can live and let live, while disagreeing a lot with someone.
I think it comes down to how you read and understand someone's posts.
I would have an issue with Hopes post if I thought he was advocating " interfering " with others in the real world.
My reading is its just his opinions based on his beliefs.
-
Dear Rose,
Can you open that up for me a little, scapegoating Christians, cues to conform, for me and correct me if I am wrong, and I will be apologising but all I have set out to show is the damage homophobic thought can have.
I certainly don't want to pick on Hope or Spud or anyone who shows homophobic thought, although sometimes a post can set the pulse racing and I do let loose, homophobic thought has to be highlighted, it causes great harm.
Homophobic thought is not some will o the wisp, it is a very powerful force, it leads to destruction of human life and I would add to any Christian reading this, remember the early Christians who were put to death for being different.
Gonnagle.
I take your point Gonnagle, about homophobic thought being a powerful force and it leading to harm, but sometimes suppressing something makes it worse. The person being suppressed just might be pushed into being more entrenched.
If people feel social disapproval and think they are being told what to think, it can cause them to become more radical,
I have been reading your posts with interest as they are very thoughtful and I take on board the points you are making.
-
Yes
Posts 530 where Hope is defending his POV and the subsequent posts after it.
Some people have a one true way reaction to opinions that differ.
Live and let live, to me anyway, means in part accepting different POV's especially when you don't agree with them.
The general impression I get us that instead of " live at let live" it's more " shut the **** up"
That's the reaction I see to Hope's post.
"Live and let live" is about getting on with those that differ.
I don't see any evidence in Hopes posts that in real life, opinions aside, he doesn't live and let live.
You can live and let live, while disagreeing a lot with someone.
I think it comes down to how you read and understand someone's posts.
I would have an issue with Hopes post if I thought he was advocating " interfering " with others in the real world.
My reading is its just his opinions based on his beliefs.
I asked you about which posts say anything like Hope should not be allowed to express an opinion because people disagree with it. Which of the posts by others do you think say that?
-
Quote from: Gonnagle on Today at 01:51:00 PM
Dear Rose,
Can you open that up for me a little, scapegoating Christians, cues to conform, for me and correct me if I am wrong, and I will be apologising but all I have set out to show is the damage homophobic thought can have.
I certainly don't want to pick on Hope or Spud or anyone who shows homophobic thought, although sometimes a post can set the pulse racing and I do let loose, homophobic thought has to be highlighted, it causes great harm.
Homophobic thought is not some will o the wisp, it is a very powerful force, it leads to destruction of human life and I would add to any Christian reading this, remember the early Christians who were put to death for being different.
Gonnagle.
Rose: [/I take your point Gonnagle, about homophobic thought being a powerful force and it leading to harm, but sometimes suppressing something makes it worse. The person being suppressed just might be pushed into being more entrenched.
If people feel social disapproval and think they are being told what to think, it can cause them to become more radical,/]
Like Rose, I take on board what you say, Gonners, and as you know, I am a Christian who has no problem with homosexual relationships. I would really like to change the minds of those who do but am not going to do so if I pounce on them, changes of opinion come about gradually.
Some years ago, which a couple of posters on here may remember, I didn't believe that homosexual couples should marry. I had no problem with civil partnerships which were about to happen or may have just happened but I felt marriage was a step too far. I gave my reasons, too long to elaborate here and now, and no-one jumped on me. They put forward their opinions and I 'listened'. Eventually I changed my mind on that one because I read quite a lot on the subject and discussed it, but it was a gradual process. All the more firm for being gradual, I believe.
There are people who do say vile things about homosexuals, a lot based on ignorance, some on biology ::), and they show anger and personal distaste, backed up by archaic scriptural references. There is definitely no love there. Hope doesn't do that, indeed he might not even raise the subject if no-one else did. He talks about other things, isn't obsessed. Yet the attitude to him is more or less telling him that his opinions are unwelcome because they are different to most others on the board.
-
I asked you about which posts say anything like Hope should not be allowed to express an opinion because people disagree with it. Which of the posts by others do you think say that?
Indirectly a number seem to be heading in that direction.
I don't think me pointing fingers is going to help.
I can definately say one post at least implies Hope is wrong by stating his POV on the messageboard, that he is wrong in posting his views.
I would rather you read back a few pages, than I have to point fingers.
-
There are people who do say vile things about homosexuals, a lot based on ignorance, some on biology ::), and they show anger and personal distaste, backed up by archaic scriptural references. There is definitely no love there. Hope doesn't do that, indeed he might not even raise the subject if no-one else did. He talks about other things, isn't obsessed. Yet the attitude to him is more or less telling him that his opinions are unwelcome because they are different to most others on the board.
No, his opinions are unwelcome because they are vile, hateful and hurtful. I'd much rather not have the debates with him that I do but while he is free to state his opinion - and he is and should be free to do so, however unwelcome I may find it - then others here are free to challenge it.
-
Indirectly a number seem to be heading in that direction.
I don't think me pointing fingers is going to help.
I can definately say one post at least implies Hope is wrong by stating his POV on the messageboard, that he is wrong in posting his views.
I would rather you read back a few pages, than I have to point fingers.
I have read back and see no posts that read as if saying Hope should not be allowed to post because someone disagrees with them, but as you have pointed out we might read things differently. For example, one might read some of your posts as implying that when Trentvoyager has expressed his opinion on Hope, that trentvoyager was comparable to IS. I am pretty sure you don't mean to imply it, but your posts could easily be read that way.
-
Dear Rose,
I take your point Gonnagle, about homophobic thought being a powerful force and it leading to harm, but sometimes suppressing something makes it worse. The person being suppressed just might be pushed into being more entrenched.
If people feel social disapproval and think they are being told what to think, it can cause them to become more radical,
And I agree with your point, this was debated ages ago when Prof Dawkins brought out his God Delusion, on attacking fundamental Christianity it only sought them to become more entrenched, I think one person emailed thanking him for increased Church attendance.
Sorry but I need to mention Hope here again, on various occasions Hope has agreed with me that the Bible needs to be read in context, as in, the when, the who, the why, the where, the what, the how, so why can he not see that any reference to homosexuality in the Bible was for that time, old and new Testament, I think he has also agreed with me that the Bible is not the literal word of God but man's musings on God.
Maybe I have got Hope wrong, his homophobia comes from another source, Spud on the other hand is literal, God sat Moses down and said, take a letter Miss Jones.
Gonnagle.
-
People who are anti-gay, are as bad as those who are racist, and shouldn't be permitted to get away with their nastiness, imo.
-
People who are anti-gay, are as bad as those who are racist, and shouldn't be permitted to get away with their nastiness, imo.
What does 'permitted to get away with it' mean though?
-
I wondered about that too. I suppose floo means (& she will tell me if I'm wrong), they must be challenged. Well, they are challenged. I haven't noticed much in the way of racist, anti-gay views on here though.
-
Overt racism is illegal, and I think anti-gay bigotry should be too.
-
Overt racism is illegal, and I think anti-gay bigotry should be too.
So are you saying that you would like the comments by some on here to be illegal?
-
I have read back and see no posts that read as if saying Hope should not be allowed to post because someone disagrees with them, but as you have pointed out we might read things differently. For example, one might read some of your posts as implying that when Trentvoyager has expressed his opinion on Hope, that trentvoyager was comparable to IS. I am pretty sure you don't mean to imply it, but your posts could easily be read that way.
Yes posts can be read many different ways depending on what the reader picks up on.
I am most definately not saying Trent is comparable to Isis.
I actually think he is more tolerant in some ways than others here.
-
So are you saying that you would like the comments by some on here to be illegal?
This is an example of what I mean NS.
Some posters appear to think some people shouldn't be posting their opinions.
At all.
Also one persons opinion is another persons nastiness.
Where people draw the line is subjective.
I see Hopes views as an opinion ( not one I agree with btw) rather than nastiness.
-
This is an example of what I mean NS.
Some posters appear to think some people shouldn't be posting their opinions.
At all.
But we all think that - there isn't anyone who is arguing that all opinions should be allowed e.g. that all Jews should be gassed
I really don't see anything in Floo's post that says opinions should be banned because she disagrees with them, which was your statement.
-
This is an example of what I mean NS.
Some posters appear to think some people shouldn't be posting their opinions.
At all.
Everyone should be allowed to post their opinions but you have accept that they can be challenged. Live and let live does not mean allowing opinions expressed in the public arena a free pass to go unchallenged.
-
But we all think that - there isn't anyone who is arguing that all opinions should be allowed e.g. that all Jews should be gassed
I really don't see anything in Floo's post that says opinions should be banned because she disagrees with them, which was your statement.
Ok, I think perhaps this is where Floo needs to step in to clarify whether she thinks Hope or anyone else should be able to post what this thread seems to view as " vile homophobic views "
I wouldn't say Hope is expressing " vile homophobic views" I think he is just giving his opinion as he interprets his religion and he has tried to talk generally rather than making it something personal.
-
Everyone should be allowed to post their opinions but you have accept that they can be challenged. Live and let live does not mean allowing opinions expressed in the public arena a free pass to go unchallenged.
Again, I am not sure I agree with this. Free speech is rarely defended as an absolute, and I would argue, that, when it is done that way, it's wrong. (see shouting Fire in a crowded theatre).
We don't allow quite a lot on this forum, and some stuff we wouldn't be allowed to if we wanted to.
-
Ok, I think perhaps this is where Floo needs to step in to clarify whether she thinks Hope or anyone else should be able to post what this thread seems to view as " vile homophobic views "
I wouldn't say Hope is expressing " vile homophobic views" I think he is just giving his opinion as he interprets his religion and he has tried to talk generally rather than making it something personal.
We will see what Floo says but I for one think he clearly expresses homophobic views and I think they are vile. However, as you have said, and I have also said to Sassy, vile is a subjective opinion. I would rather his posts stood and could be shown for what they are. It might not change him but there are other people who look at this forum who are not members.
-
Everyone should be allowed to post their opinions but you have accept that they can be challenged. Live and let live does not mean allowing opinions expressed in the public arena a free pass to go unchallenged.
I don't have an issue with challenging, it's just I question what is counted as vile homophobic posts and the implication they don't belong here.
The trouble is its all subjective, because although I don't see Hopes posts that way, I could see some posts that way.
I just draw the line in a different place.
(That's not to say my POV is the correct one, just that we are all different as shown by Stephen and NS discussing freedom of speech :) )
-
Ok, I think perhaps this is where Floo needs to step in to clarify whether she thinks Hope or anyone else should be able to post what this thread seems to view as " vile homophobic views "
I wouldn't say Hope is expressing " vile homophobic views" I think he is just giving his opinion as he interprets his religion and he has tried to talk generally rather than making it something personal.
I don't get 'just expressing an opinion' as a useful phrase. 'All Jews should be gassed' is just an opinion. You think certain opinions shouldn't be allowed, so does Floo, you draw the line in different places I don't see that makes the charge that Floo just wants to stop all opinions that she disagrees with valid.
-
I don't have an issue with challenging, it's just I question what is counted as vile homophobic posts and the implication they don't belong here.
The trouble is its all subjective, because although I don't see Hopes posts that way, I could see some posts that way.
I just draw the line in a different place.
(That's not to say my POV is the correct one, just that we are all different as shown by Stephen and NS discussing freedom of speech :) )
I don't have a problem with this but then why cover the idea that the people who might draw the line elsewhere from you are then like IS which you did earlier?
-
I don't have an issue with challenging, it's just I question what is counted as vile homophobic posts and the implication they don't belong here.
The trouble is its all subjective, because although I don't see Hopes posts that way, I could see some posts that way.
I just draw the line in a different place.
We agree overall then. We might not agree on the specifics of each case but the forum is a good place to bring them out into the open.
Re my last post, Nearly Sanes post means I would like to modify my previous statement to include opinions which do not incite harm to other members of society. That is my line in the sand. Inciting hatred sits on it. You need to get the views out there in order to challenge them but you don't want people to suffer.
Those which seek to discriminate against people on the grounds of race, sexuality, gender, beliefs etc are those I call vile because they make the target out to be a second rate citizen.
-
I don't get 'just expressing an opinion' as a useful phrase. 'All Jews should be gassed' is just an opinion. You think certain opinions shouldn't be allowed, so does Floo, you draw the line in different places I don't see that makes the charge that Floo just wants to stop all opinions that she disagrees with valid.
I suppose there comes a point when most of us think a view is so distasteful and harmful it needs to be suppressed.
I'm just not convinced that Hope is there yet.
"All Jews should be gassed" isn't "just an opinion", it's an incitement towards a violent action.
Has Hope said that all homosexuals should be killed off?
-
We agree overall then. We might not agree on the specifics of each case but the forum is a good place to bring them out into the open.
Re my last post, Nearly Sanes post means I would like to modify my previous statement to include opinions which do not incite harm to other members of society. That is my line in the sand. Inciting hatred sits on it. You need to get the views out there in order to challenge them but you don't want people to suffer.
Those which seek to discriminate against people on the grounds of race, sexuality, gender, beliefs etc are those I call vile because they make the target out to be a second rate citizen.
Yes, that's where I draw the line too
-
I don't have a problem with this but then why cover the idea that the people who might draw the line elsewhere from you are then like IS which you did earlier?
I was pondering as to whether a lot of problems we humans have, and why atrocities happen is because instead of respecting diversity, we try to get others to conform to our own brand of morality.
It's a sort of tribalism.
Isis are completely conformist and any diverse opinion is killed off.
I wondered if the problem with us humans is we don't live an let live.
So today we are becoming intolerant of viewpoints that differ to our moral norms, as they are perceived to be.
-
Yes, that's where I draw the line too
Then by agreeing with this:
Those which seek to discriminate against people on the grounds of race, sexuality, gender, beliefs etc are those I call vile because they make the target out to be a second rate citizen.
You are saying that Hope holds vile views because he certainly wishes to discriminate against gay people. He opposed both civil partnerships and gay marriage which is an entirely discriminatory position to take.
-
I was pondering as to whether a lot of problems we humans have, and why atrocities happen is because instead of respecting diversity, we try to get others to conform to our own brand of morality.
It's a sort of tribalism.
Isis are completely conformist and any diverse opinion is killed off.
I wondered if the problem with us humans is we don't live an let live.
So today we are becoming intolerant of viewpoints that differ to our moral norms, as they are perceived to be.
And you linked the drawing of the line differently to IS. Given that it's only 25 years or so since the govt tried to stop any postive representation of homosexuality, I think someone being challenged I a message board about a negative representation I very far from an indication that we are becoming more repressive
Going back further there was a time when one might be killed because of expressing religious views not in line with the majority in this country.
It's a complex issue but I suggest that the introduction of IS in the way you did was unhelpful.
-
I suppose there comes a point when most of us think a view is so distasteful and harmful it needs to be suppressed.
I'm just not convinced that Hope is there yet.
"All Jews should be gassed" isn't "just an opinion", it's an incitement towards a violent action.
Has Hope said that all homosexuals should be killed off?
No, and I didn't give any such implication. I also don't think that Hope has said anything that necessitates banning. The point is, as we both agree on, this is subjective. It doesn't matter if something is ;just an opinion' since you don't support allowing opinions
I happen to think advocating discrimination against homosexuals as Hope has done in relation to state marriage is quite vile. I think Spud's frequent attacks on their mental health, and Sriram's take that trentvoyager is disease are vile. I won't argue for that being banned though, and I think going down the route where you conflate challenge with enforced conformity and IS, is simply an unhelpful strawman.
-
I admit bringing in Isis probably didn't help.
-
You see the problem in arguing that All Jews should be gassed, as not being 'just an opinion' is that's just an opinion in the same way that thinking that arguing that homosexuals are diseased might not be acceptable is just an opinion.
I often find those who dabble in the relativism of opinion in regard to others don't see that it applies to their own position.
-
I happen to think advocating discrimination against homosexuals as Hope has done in relation to state marriage is quite vile. I think Spud's frequent attacks on their mental health, and Sriram's take that trentvoyager is disease are vile. I won't argue for that being banned though, and I think going down the route where you conflate challenge with enforced conformity and IS, is simply an unhelpful strawman.
Hear hear, applaud etc etc.
-
Then by agreeing with this:
You are saying that Hope holds vile views because he certainly wishes to discriminate against gay people. He opposed both civil partnerships and gay marriage which is an entirely discriminatory position to take.
I'm saying Hope has the same right to disagree with gay marriage and civil partnerships in the same way he may also disagree with single parent families or sex before marriage.
We all have a right to disagree with him, just the same.
Originally I wasn't sure about the necessity for gay marriage, but have come to the view it doesn't harm anyone IMO.
So why not?
My only concern is forcing it on those who don't want it in their particular church/mosque/synagogue / temple.
If two adults want to commit to each other and have it recognised in law and accepted as a marriage it doesn't really effect anyone else.
Neither does one man with three wives or one wife with three husbands.
If they are all old enough, consenting and happy, does it matter?
I had a hard time online at the old BBC site for saying that ( on the Muslim Board), even one poster threatening violence to me if they could ever find me.... :o
( some people are also Islamaphobic)
Some people think anything other than, one man and one woman, is immoral.
As Rhiannon often says " it's none of my business" ( although usually she is talking about herself).
In some ways debate is good about subjects, but only when different opinions give the logic behind the opinion.
Sometimes it doesn't, it just becomes about insulting people and saying how awful they are.
Sometimes though a gem comes up that puts a POV without all the shock horror hate stuff.
You put good posts Trent, so does Gonnagle and quite a few others.
It's the good arguments that influence people and make a difference, not the ones that just express disgust.
Sometimes threads can be in danger of losing sight of that.
Perhaps we need to try and be more objective.
-
Yes, that's where I draw the line too
The problem is thought that you appear to be backing the wrong side.
We both agree that people should live and let live.
I think Hope should be allowed to marry the person he loves regardless of their sexuality (assuming they consent).
I think all people should be allowed to marry a person they love regardless of their sexuality (assuming they consent).
Hope doesn't live and let live because he wants to deny others the right to marry the person they love (regardless of sexuality).
I say that Hope is entitled to his views, he can marry a consenting person of any sexuality he likes.
That is live and let live.
Hope though thinks that you can't marry the person you love if their sexuality is not what he thinks is right.
That is not live and let live.
He is entitled to his opinion, but if you want to base it on live and let live you are backing the wrong horse, no one is forcing anybody to marry someone of the same sex.
-
I'm saying Hope has the same right to disagree with gay marriage and civil partnerships in the same way he may also disagree with single parent families or sex before marriage.
We all have a right to disagree with him, just the same.
Originally I wasn't sure about the necessity for gay marriage, but have come to the veiw it doesn't harm anyone IMO.
So why not?
My only concern is forcing it on those who don't want it in their particular church.
If two adults want to commit to each other and have it recognised in law and accepted as a marriage it doesn't really effect anyone else.
Neither does one man with three wives or one wife with three husbands.
If they are all consenting and happy, does it matter?
I had a hard time online at the old BBC site for saying that ( on the Muslim Board), even one poster threatening violence to me if they could ever find me.... :o
( some people are also Islamaphobic)
Some people think anything other than, one man and one woman, is immoral.
As Rhiannon often says " it's none of my business" ( although usually she is talking about herself).
In some ways . ebate is good about subjects, but only when different opinions give the logic behind the opinion.
Sometimes it doesn't, it just becomes about insulting people and saying how awful they are.
Sometimes though a gem comes up that puts a POV without all the shock horror hate stuff.
You put good posts Trent, so does Gonnagle and quite a few others.
It's the good arguments that influence people and make a difference, not the ones that just express disgust.
Sometimes threads can be in danger of losing sight of that.
Perhaps we need to try and be more objective.
Right and wrong are not objective though, and my motivation on this is emotional because i've seen what arguing that people are diseased can do.
If, however, your subjective position is that advocating for discrimination against homosexuals is vile, then it would be objectively true that if someone argued for it on here then in your subjective opinion it would be objective to regard that as vile.
-
Hope doesn't live and let live because he wants to deny others the right to marry the person they love (regardless of sexuality).
Where have I even suggested this, let alone said it, Stephen? As I've often said, I use both scientific material and, to a lesser degree, my religious faith to inform my opinion ('belief' if you insist on using a word with religious connotations). In my view, same-sex relationships are bad for society - even if they appear to be 'good' for the individuals concerned. At the same time, there are other - often heterosexual relationships - that I also believe are bad for society. So, rather than "want(ing) to deny others the right... ", I am putting forward what I believe to be best for society. Do individual rights trump what is best for society?
-
Cite your scientific sources and the social studies that show homosexual relationships are bad for society, Hope. Because I don't believe you. I think your beliefs are driven by religious and personal prejudice.
Prove me wrong.
-
The problem is thought that you appear to be backing the wrong side.
We both agree that people should live and let live.
I think Hope should be allowed to marry the person he loves regardless of their sexuality (assuming they consent).
I think all people should be allowed to marry a person they love regardless of their sexuality (assuming they consent).
Hope doesn't live and let live because he wants to deny others the right to marry the person they love (regardless of sexuality).
I say that Hope is entitled to his views, he can marry a consenting person of any sexuality he likes.
That is live and let live.
Hope though thinks that you can't marry the person you love if their sexuality is not what he thinks is right.
That is not live and let live.
He is entitled to his opinion, but if you want to base it on live and let live you are backing the wrong horse, no one is forcing anybody to marry someone of the same sex.
Some Vicars were concerned they may be forced to marry people of the same sex, against their religious conscience.
Forcing them to, isn't live and let live.
Other vicars had no problem with it.
Story of my life, being accused of supporting the wrong side :-\
It's not always true, sometimes I weigh up the arguments on both sides.
Sometimes even though I might agree with the sentiments of the right side, they are expressed in an unfair way, cue I step in.
-
In my view, same-sex relationships are bad for society - even if they appear to be 'good' for the individuals concerned. At the same time, there are other - often heterosexual relationships - that I also believe are bad for society.
What a revelation. I await your decision on how you wish to discriminate against heterosexuals. ::)
Really I've never seen such bollocks.
-
Presumably by heterosexual relationships Hope means one parent families, divorced and unmarried couples.
???
I think in the past they were discriminated against, mental institutions and forced adoptions. ( unmarried mothers)
Hope, what are your thoughts on those things?
-
Where have I even suggested this, let alone said it, Stephen? As I've often said, I use both scientific material and, to a lesser degree, my religious faith to inform my opinion ('belief' if you insist on using a word with religious connotations). In my view, same-sex relationships are bad for society - even if they appear to be 'good' for the individuals concerned. At the same time, there are other - often heterosexual relationships - that I also believe are bad for society. So, rather than "want(ing) to deny others the right... ", I am putting forward what I believe to be best for society. Do individual rights trump what is best for society?
Do you or do you not support same sex marriage as an equal to heterosexual marriage?
Would you oppose a motion to repeal same sex marriage?
I think society owes it to the individuals to allow whatever consenting adults chose to do.
-
Where have I even suggested this, let alone said it, Stephen? As I've often said, I use both scientific material and, to a lesser degree, my religious faith to inform my opinion ('belief' if you insist on using a word with religious connotations). In my view, same-sex relationships are bad for society
What "scientific material" supports this opinion, in your view?
-
As I've often said, I use both scientific material and, to a lesser degree, my religious faith to inform my opinion ('belief' if you insist on using a word with religious connotations).
What 'scientific material' would that be? Since you imply you have some then you'll have the references to hand, presumably.
-
What 'scientific material' would that be? Since you imply you have some then you'll have the references to hand, presumably.
He always give up at this point.
We are still waiting for his citations for academics who work in the field saying we can rule out scientific causes to spontaneous healing.
-
Where have I even suggested this, let alone said it, Stephen?
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11445.msg583116#msg583116
Here.
You make it quite clear that same sex marriages are second rate to heterosexual ones. Hence same sex people can't be "married".
I don't think it would be hard to ask other people or the mods to supply further evidence.
-
People who are anti-gay, are as bad as those who are racist, and shouldn't be permitted to get away with their nastiness, imo.
That's anti- the practice of it, floo.
So let's look at your comparison and the facts.
Skin colour is determined by the amount of the pigment melanin it contains. Melanin's function is to protect the skin from UV light. If a black man moves to live in Canada, he doesn't need such a high amount of melanin, but the point is he does need some, and what he has will still function in the same way, protecting his skin from UV light. So he is not doing anything wrong by living in a country where his melanin is surplus to requirements.
What is the function of sperm? Fertilizing an ovum. So for a gay couple to release their sperm is wrong because they are using it in a way that could never result in its function being carried out. This is actually a perversion of sexual intercourse. A black person living in Canada, however, is still using his melanin in the same way that he would in Africa, so there is no perversion and to be racist on the basis of skin colour is wrong. It is right to be against the practice of homosexuality, though, because that is perversion.
-
Ooh look, someone espousing vile homophobic views.
-
You make it quite clear that same sex marriages are second rate to heterosexual ones. Hence same sex people can't be "married".
I don't think it would be hard to ask other people or the mods to supply further evidence.
Seeing as you mention it, Stephen ...
The Gospel According to Hope: married heterosexuality is superior to any other kind of relationship:
I believe that homosexual relationships and non-monogamous - be that serial or in parallel - and unmarried heterosexual relationships are equal. The only form of relationship I'd regard as being in any way better than any of the above is one man/one woman 'for life' marriage.
http://goo.gl/bGbV6a
... and only heterosexual marriage is 'real' marriage, whereas same-sex marriage is a 'mirage':
Except that the so-called 'equality' of gay marriage is a mirage that some people, gay and straight, are happy to swallow. If you and others are happy to go along with that, that means that real marriage can survive unharmed.
http://goo.gl/Syg3Y9
Notice Hope's record of answering questions put to him about his views on both of those threads ;D
More foulness available on request.
-
That's anti- the practice of it, floo.
So let's look at your comparison and the facts.
Skin colour is determined by the amount of the pigment melanin it contains. Melanin's function is to protect the skin from UV light. If a black man moves to live in Canada, he doesn't need such a high amount of melanin, but the point is he does need some, and what he has will still function in the same way, protecting his skin from UV light. So he is not doing anything wrong by living in a country where his melanin is surplus to requirements.
What is the function of sperm? Fertilizing an ovum. So for a gay couple to release their sperm is wrong because they are using it in a way that could never result in its function being carried out. This is actually a perversion of sexual intercourse. A black person living in Canada, however, is still using his melanin in the same way that he would in Africa, so there is no perversion and to be racist on the basis of skin colour is wrong. It is right to be against the practice of homosexuality, though, because that is perversion.
Telling that you don't mention love or companionship!
-
They never do, Gord.
-
All that stuff about not casting the first stone... Jesus clearly didn't mean that bit.
-
What is the function of sperm? Fertilizing an ovum. So for a gay couple to release their sperm is wrong because they are using it in a way that could never result in its function being carried out.
Yet again, you appear to be condemning a lot of heterosexual acts by your perverted worship of biological function. Is that your intention, is it just desperation to condemn homosexual behaviour...?
It is right to be against the practice of homosexuality, though, because that is perversion.
It is words like these that I regard as perverted - it is a perversion of basic human understanding and decency. You are a disgrace.
-
Dear Hope,
I am putting forward what I believe to be best for society. Do individual rights trump what is best for society?
Best for society, individual rights, I will dwell on those statements, but I do think they are missing the point.
My point, the whole point, homophobia causes misery, injustice, pain, man's inhumanity to man, does God want that, if yes then Floo has it bang on the mark.
Gonnagle.
-
Best for society, individual rights, I will dwell on those statements, but I do think they are missing the point.
My point, the whole point, homophobia causes misery, injustice, pain, man's inhumanity to man, does God want that, if yes then Floo has it bang on the mark.
I wonder why he seems to see individual rights and the good of society as opposed, since equal marriage, while very far from the only example, is to me one of the clearest illustrations of something which is both a positive and unalloyed good to individuals and to the betterment of society alike. For individuals, the good comes from being able to formalise a relationship with legal recognition and in public should they wish to; this has a knock-on effect of helping along the creation of a freer, more diverse society more tolerant, even celebratory of difference and more respecting of individual rights. That's what I think is best for society.
-
Well, indeed. How can it be damaging to have more loving, stable relationships?
-
Well, apparently there's this scientific evidence, see ...
-
Dear Shaker,
Just finished watching Paul O'Grady's excellent time with the Sally Ann, not once did he point the finger, an organisation which denounces his life style, all he did was praise, something else I will dwell on.
Gonnagle.
-
You see the problem in arguing that All Jews should be gassed, as not being 'just an opinion' is that's just an opinion in the same way that thinking that arguing that homosexuals are diseased might not be acceptable is just an opinion.
I often find those who dabble in the relativism of opinion in regard to others don't see that it applies to their own position.
I know it applies to my position, my POV is just that, it's not always right ( I admit it) . It's open to change given enough good discussion and seeing others POV.
I wouldn't want to hurt others with my POV, although I'm a bit impulsive sometimes and it does happen. ( usually when I get a bee in my bonnet :-[ )
For a dainty size 3, I can certainly put my foot in it, in RL
But I'm not very proud of myself when I do :-[
-
I know it applies to my position, my POV is just that, it's not always right ( I admit it) . It's open to change given enough good discussion and seeing others POV.
I wouldn't want to hurt others with my POV, although I'm a bit impulsive sometimes and it does happen.
For a dainty size 3, I can certainly put my foot in it.
But I'm not very proud of myself when it does :-[
I would hope we could all manage the degree of self knowledge of show there, Rose. Not sure I do
It's not so much about being wrong, just by our own standards we could not better.
-
What a revelation. I await your decision on how you wish to discriminate against heterosexuals. ::)
As you know erfectly well, Trent, I have often argued that certain heterosexual relationships are wrong - but I appreciate that it helps your argument for you to forget about those arguments.
-
As you know erfectly well, Trent, I have often argued that certain heterosexual relationships are wrong - but I appreciate that it helps your argument for you to forget about those arguments.
But it seems, from what you've said elsewhere, that your Christian theological objections to relationships in general are only binding on those who define themselves as being Christians so that they aren't binding on the rest of us - correct?
-
As you know erfectly well, Trent, I have often argued that certain heterosexual relationships are wrong - but I appreciate that it helps your argument for you to forget about those arguments.
As you know perfectly well you are evading the point. How do you intend to discriminate against them?
After all if it is right for you to discriminate against gay people - surley you must for equalities sake discriminate against those heterosexuals you don't approve of.
I do wish people who claim to teach English would read for comprehension.
-
As you know perfectly well you are evading the point. How do you intend to discriminate against them?
After all if it is right for you to discriminate against gay people - surley you must for equalities sake discriminate against those heterosexuals you don't approve of.
I do wish people who claim to teach English would read for comprehension.
And I wish people who want to debate with such people would also read for comprehension. As I've said in the poast, the way I 'discriminate' against both heterosexuals and homosexuals who are in relationships that I believe to be wrong is to state that fact - to their faces if necessary - and to seek to get this country's legislators (and those of other countries as well) to recognise the validity of that argument. I don't seek to get the relavant relationships outlawed as I don't believe that is the best way to deal with them; what I do seek to do is stop society making out that such relationships are equivalent or even equal to heterosexual marriage.
-
And I wish people who want to debate with such people would also read for comprehension. As I've said in the poast, the way I 'discriminate' against both heterosexuals and homosexuals who are in relationships that I believe to be wrong is to state that fact - to their faces if necessary - and to seek to get this country's legislators (and those of other countries as well) to recognise the validity of that argument. I don't seek to get the relavant relationships outlawed as I don't believe that is the best way to deal with them; what I do seek to do is stop society making out that such relationships are equivalent or even equal to heterosexual marriage.
Still not answering!
So how will you discriminate against heterosexual people. You have already stated that you would discriminate against gay people because if it was within your power you would deny them the right to marriage (amongst other things). How are you going to be consistent and deny heterosexuals who don't meet your exacting standards the same rights?
-
And I wish people who want to debate with such people would also read for comprehension. As I've said in the poast, the way I 'discriminate' against both heterosexuals and homosexuals who are in relationships that I believe to be wrong is to state that fact - to their faces if necessary - and to seek to get this country's legislators (and those of other countries as well) to recognise the validity of that argument.
Which is what exactly, validity-wise?
I don't seek to get the relavant relationships outlawed as I don't believe that is the best way to deal with them; what I do seek to do is stop society making out that such relationships are equivalent or even equal to heterosexual marriage.
I'm sure legislators everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief - so a) why do you think your view is sufficient to change social views, and b) how would you then propose to 'stop society making out that such relationships are equivalent or even equal to heterosexual marriage'?
Your expectations do seem a tad grandiose for sure, since if you take a look in the stable you'll notice the absence of a horse!
-
As I've said in the poast, the way I 'discriminate' against both heterosexuals and homosexuals who are in relationships that I believe to be wrong is to state that fact - to their faces if necessary - and to seek to get this country's legislators (and those of other countries as well) to recognise the validity of that argument. I don't seek to get the relavant relationships outlawed as I don't believe that is the best way to deal with them; what I do seek to do is stop society making out that such relationships are equivalent or even equal to heterosexual marriage.
I see that that's working out well for you ;D
The arrogance of seeking to influence the legislature/legislation of other countries takes some beating.
(Finland is next, by the way ;) ).
-
I don't seek to get the relavant relationships outlawed as I don't believe that is the best way to deal with them; what I do seek to do is stop society making out that such relationships are equivalent or even equal to heterosexual marriage.
Why? What a pointless thing to do. Of course if you want to present yourself to the outside world as veering between bigotry and absurdity that is up to you; but don't expect anyone to be impressed by your efforts.
-
Given the rate at which countries/territories are adopting equal marriage I'd say nobody is impressed.
One of the next nations to adopt it will be of all places Nepal.
Hope's been there, you know.
-
Given the rate at which countries/territories are adopting equal marriage I'd say nobody is impressed.
One of the next nations to adopt it will be of all places Nepal.
Hope's been there, you know.
He obviously made an impression then. ;)
-
No, his opinions are unwelcome because they are vile, hateful and hurtful. I'd much rather not have the debates with him that I do but while he is free to state his opinion - and he is and should be free to do so, however unwelcome I may find it - then others here are free to challenge it.
Do you not see your own opinions of Christians being homophobic are vile, hateful and hurtful.
Because Christians like the Jews have dealt with persecution and hateful and horrible treatment since the year dot.
You see for me, if you are calling one out and unjustly accusing them then you are no better than the people you accuse.
Truth is that homosexual relations are not for everyone. Are you saying you should be forced into taking part in homosexual activities because you believe it to be normal and okay? Normal is not really an issue. Because it is not normal for everyone as heterosexuality is not normal for everyone.
The truth is you don't live and let live. You want to take a cause a cause you have nothing to do with and make a rod for Christians to beat them up. No matter how much the Christians here tell you they would never hurt a person for being homosexual or treat them differently, you still want to go on about something that does not concern you and is not a problem with believers here. Whether we disagree on a personal level that we are not attracted to the same sex so not our personal bag or not allowed because of religious beliefs. It does not make all Christians or all Atheists homophobic.
You cannot force someone to have sex with someone they are not attracted to. You cannot force someone to believe they are abnormal or prejudice because of that fact.
In truth it is atheists who keep the whole prejudicial and homophobic thing alive. You just won't let the homosexuals in our community live in peace. As for Hope, he is an older man and we know the elderly are more stuck in their ways than anyone else.
I am NOT homophobic and I am NOT scared to tell the truth. Governments love the homophobic card it helps win voters.
Posters on forums love it, it helps them look good if atheists pretending to plead a cause they know absolutely nothing about.
My brother-in-law and my nephew will tell you no one is homophobic in our family. And if pagans and atheists would stick their neck in, this would all blow over. Because the Christians on this forum do not hate anyone.
What is really hateful, vile and hurtful is atheists and pagans attacking Christians and calling them when they know absolutely nothing about real love christians have for others. Hope and people who believe things to be wrong on religious bases are not in any way condoning or giving weight to hurting people. The loonies abroad who go out and preach hatred are themselves far away from Gods love. Because Christianity is for Christian who love as Christ loved. We all want acceptance but not at your prices.
So the only people with vile views is those who are not homosexuals or Christians.
-
People who are anti-gay, are as bad as those who are racist, and shouldn't be permitted to get away with their nastiness, imo.
As those who anti-Christian should not be permitted to get away with their nastiness..
Got a forest in your eye, you have...
-
As those who anti-Christian should not be permitted to get away with their nastiness..
Got a forest in your eye, you have...
As usual Sass you get it all wrong, but nothing new there then!
-
I agree with Sassy that people do tend to be nasty and sneering at Christians and accept that she personally has nothing against homosexuals.
However, having read this from Hope:
"As I've said in the poast, the way I 'discriminate' against both heterosexuals and homosexuals who are in relationships that I believe to be wrong is to state that fact - to their faces if necessary and to seek to get this country's legislators (and those of other countries as well) to recognise the validity of that argument."
I had no idea he would take his opinions that far and I found that quite shocking. It sounds quite militant. I take on board that ''older people'' can be stuck in their way of thinking, don't know how old Hope is (I am an ''older person'' by many standards), however there are so many issues that need to be addressed by society, some legally, I would have considered personal relationships between consenting adults to be low on the list of priorities. So my opinion of Hope's opinions are revised. Not that that will matter to him of course.
(Also saw floo's predictable interjection.)
-
As for Hope, he is an older man and we know the elderly are more stuck in their ways than anyone else.
Far be it from me to defend Hope in any way but I don't think he is what you would call elderly. By which I mean I think both he and I are roughly the same age.
And I am definitely not elderly. ;D
-
Governments love the homophobic card it helps win voters.
Not actually true - again I have to defend someone I wouldn't usually defend - Mr Cameron took a significant risk when he introduced marriage for gay people and there are many in his party who are still extremely angry with him for doing so.
As far as I can see from talking to my gay friends it didn't encourage any gay people to vote for the Tories - except for the ones who already did. So it clearly wasn't for electoral gain.
It really does seem to me to be one of the few times when he has acted out of principle - which in itself I find highly disconcerting.
-
Far be it from me to defend Hope in any way but I don't think he is what you would call elderly. By which I mean I think both he and I are roughly the same age.
And I am definitely not elderly. ;D
Nor am I and I am older than Hope, LOL!
-
Ah well, compared to young Sass, Hope is an ''older person'' ;D. I always tell Sass she is a little young girl compared to me.
-
Truth is that homosexual relations are not for everyone. Are you saying you should be forced into taking part in homosexual activities because you believe it to be normal and okay? Normal is not really an issue. Because it is not normal for everyone as heterosexuality is not normal for everyone.
Who has ever said that people should be forced into taking part in homosexual activities?
All that is being said is that people should be free to marry or be in a relationship with a consenting person of their choice regardless of the sexuality of the people involved.
What' wrong with that.
The truth is you don't live and let live.
No it is people like Hope who don't want to live and let live. He would not agree with the first point above and he is entitled to that opinion.
But as Brownie highlights below his approach is very far from live and let live.
You want to take a cause a cause you have nothing to do with and make a rod for Christians to beat them up.
No I think that wishing to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality, amongst other things, is a bad thing.
I have never been a victim discrimination based on my sexuality. You seem to be saying that therefore I should have no opinion on the matter.
-
There is something sinister (from my perception), in someone going so far as to campaign for legislation against an issue that is not hurting them or theirs, or society in general. It is akin to extreme racism and puts me in mind of the BNP and similar organisations which comprise of glassy eyed, single minded people who think nothing but hate. Not worthy of someone who has any intelligence. Just my opinion.
-
This is an interesting article
Viewpoint: How has marriage changed life for gay people?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36168415
-
I'm a bit stunned by the mental image of some bloke going up to some complete strangers and passing judgment on their relationship
:o
That isn't "living and let live "
I'm in my fifties and I thought that attitude died out forty odd years ago.
It wasn't very nice then.
That sort of thing happened in our village, usually by gossipy old women.
How old is hope?
-
There is something sinister (from my perception), in someone going so far as to campaign for legislation against an issue that is not hurting them or theirs, or society in general.
If that's sinister, trying to do the same in other countries as well as your own is downright loopy.
-
The article was very informative Rose, and well written; I learned quite a bit from it which I'll try to remember if the subject comes up in conversation. Thanks.
-
Which is what exactly, validity-wise?
OK, can you provide us with longitudinal evidence that indicates that homosexual relationships do not create damage within society? I can and have posted links to studies that indicate that such relationships are often unstable and even in the more stable ones one or both partners have additional relationships as well. Here's one from Pink News - http://bit.ly/1Z7ou79
I'm sure legislators everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief -
About what; that they have managed to introduce a social experiment that has little or no supporting evidence for its value to society?
... so a) why do you think your view is sufficient to change social views, and b) how would you then propose to 'stop society making out that such relationships are equivalent or even equal to heterosexual marriage'?
Well, there is the minor matter that there is limited evidence to show that this is a long-term sustainable process. As for your second question, I'd return the gay legislation to what it was pre-2010. I would not outlaw such relationships (which some people argue for) but I would not allow gay marriage and make it clear that relationships outside of heterosexual marriage would not be supported economically in the same way as those within marriage.
Your expectations do seem a tad grandiose for sure, since if you take a look in the stable you'll notice the absence of a horse!
Oddly enough, I see more horses in the stable now than I used to.
-
OK, can you provide us with longitudinal evidence that indicates that homosexual relationships do not create damage within society?
Two negative proof fallacies within twenty minutes - is he having some sort of meltdown?
-
I would not outlaw such relationships (which some people argue for) but I would not allow gay marriage and make it clear that relationships outside of heterosexual marriage would not be supported economically in the same way as those within marriage.
Well there you have it. Hope wishes to economically disadvantage myself and my partner who have been together for 37 years. Who'd have thunk it!
The difference between me and you, Hope, is that I do not seek to put anyone at a disadvantage because of their sexuality, religion, politics, gender.
What gives you the right? Just who do you think you are?
-
He's the mighty Hope of Kathmandu, of course, friend to doctors and dentists and research scientists and economists* everywhere.
* Add every other kind of -ist or -ologist.
-
I can and have posted links to studies that indicate that such relationships are often unstable and even in the more stable ones one or both partners have additional relationships as well.
And?
In the USA reports are already appearing that show that gay marriage improves the stability of and longevity of (particularly) male partnerships. So by trying to ban it - you are actually working against the very thing you claim you think should happen. That is, more stable relationships, which are better for society.
Oh and btw - all the above things can and do apply to married heterosexuals as well.
-
Heterosexual and homosexual marriages should have equal status, imo.
-
Heterosexual and homosexual marriages should have equal status, imo.
In many countries - this one included - they do, thankfully.
More soon ;)
-
And?
In the USA reports are already appearing that show that gay marriage improves the stability of and longevity of (particularly) male partnerships. So by trying to ban it - you are actually working against the very thing you claim you think should happen. That is, more stable relationships, which are better for society.
Hope's Pink News link (don't tell me this is an example of the "scientific material" he was going on about yesterday ;D ) was actually about the proportion of gay men who have open relationships, rather than unstable relationships. I know of no evidence to say that an open relationship is any more (or less) stable than an exclusive one; I know of a couple (of opposite sexes, plus daughter) who are still very happily married in an open marriage now of twenty-plus years.
In any case, whether stable or unstable I generally regard relationships as being the exclusive business of those (of whatever number) who are actually in them. Hope's link, you'll recall, was posted with the intention of demonstrating "damage to society." This claim remains unproven, of course. A link showing the proportion of those surveyed who have or have had open relationships is a link to precisely and exactly that - a link showing the proportion of those surveyed who have or have had open relationships, no more, no less.
Obviously Hope wants to get from this to "damage to society," but for some reason he neglected to show his working. It is a simple matter of basic statistics that given the numerical disparity between the heterosexual section of society and the homosexual section there will be vastly many more open relationships amongst the hets than amongst the stately homos of England. If Hope considers open relationships to be damaging to society, the lion's share of that damage must therefore come from heterosexuals.
We will wait a long, long, long time for him to devote anything like as much time to this as he does to teh gaiz.
Oh and btw - all the above things can and do apply to married heterosexuals as well.
But let's not talk about that ;)
-
Well there you have it. Hope wishes to economically disadvantage myself and my partner who have been together for 37 years. Who'd have thunk it!
The difference between me and you, Hope, is that I do not seek to put anyone at a disadvantage because of their sexuality, religion, politics, gender.
What gives you the right? Just who do you think you are?
He believes that Jesus wants him for a sunbeam, Trent. That gives him the right to shit over anything he doesn't approve of, apparently.
-
... and on the subject of equal marriage, this link shows that the pagans know how to deal with what trent calls twisty turny haters simply and effectively: http://goo.gl/ONp0mi
-
OK, can you provide us with longitudinal evidence that indicates that homosexual relationships do not create damage within society?
Negative proof fallacy, yet again.
I can and have posted links to studies that indicate that such relationships are often unstable and even in the more stable ones one or both partners have additional relationships as well. Here's one from Pink News - http://bit.ly/1Z7ou79
So what - are there no heterosexual couples who behave similarly?
About what; that they have managed to introduce a social experiment that has little or no supporting evidence for its value to society?
That is your opinion: other opinions are available.
Well, there is the minor matter that there is limited evidence to show that this is a long-term sustainable process. As for your second question, I'd return the gay legislation to what it was pre-2010. I would not outlaw such relationships (which some people argue for) but I would not allow gay marriage and make it clear that relationships outside of heterosexual marriage would not be supported economically in the same way as those within marriage.
So you propose another approach in favour of discrimination - you should be utterly ashamed of yourself!
-
Hope thinks his version of god is backing him up!
-
Hope thinks his version of god is backing him up!
This, I think, is the single greatest danger with anybody trying to advance a religious argument on any particular issue.
Human beings are fallible. We often mean well but much of the time we are groping around in a gloomy twilight trying to do the best we can with fragmentary evidence, incomplete pictures and partial data. In things like science, and even in things such as politics with people of good will, we know that there are certain steps we can take to reduce the risk of partiality, interestedness, bias and prejudice to the lowest possible levels we can manage. We can be honestly mistaken; we can (if malicious) explicitly lie; and if not scrupulously careful can fall victim to all manner of wishful thinking. Serious and thoughtful people recognise this and proceed accordingly.
But when somebody comes along and seriously tries to maintain that their belief is not based upon the preceding, but upon what they take to be their interpretation of the will and the wishes of the Almighty Creator of All That Is itself, there's simply no arguing with that pitch of egotism and hubris. There's no arguing not because there's an unanswerable argument on the table, but because anybody who tries to argue from a position of that degree of superhuman arrogance has divorced themselves from any commonly-agreed standards of rational debate and discussion.
-
This, I think, is the single greatest danger with anybody trying to advance a religious argument on any particular issue.
Human beings are fallible. We often mean well but much of the time we are groping around in a gloomy twilight trying to do the best we can with fragmentary evidence, incomplete pictures and partial data. In things like science, and even in things such as politics with people of good will, we know that there are certain steps we can take to reduce the risk of partiality, interestedness, bias and prejudice to the lowest possible levels we can manage. We can be honestly mistaken; we can (if malicious) explicitly lie; and if not scrupulously careful can fall victim to all manner of wishful thinking. Serious and thoughtful people recognise this and proceed accordingly.
But when somebody comes along and seriously tries to maintain that their belief is not based upon the preceding, but upon what they take to be their interpretation of the will and the wishes of the Almighty Creator of All That Is itself, there's simply no arguing with that pitch of egotism and hubris. There's no arguing not because there's an unanswerable argument on the table, but because anybody who tries to argue from a position of that degree of superhuman arrogance has divorced themselves from any commonly-agreed standards of rational debate and discussion.
Well put - the thing is too, that those who espouse the 'going nuclear' approach in arguing from a faith position here in the UK do so while decrying the robustness of science and the social mores of current society - as they sit typing into modern technology, in the comfort of modern homes with food in the fridge, where they have can access to resources that allow lifestyle options, where they have access to healthcare when needed and where they are (aside from encountering criminality) in many ways protected from abuse by individuals and/or organistions: then they tell us that society will in some way suffer just because people who love each but happen to have the same gender want to be together on the same basis as people who have different genders.
Fortunately not all Christians are so minded.
-
Well put - the thing is too, that those who espouse the 'going nuclear' approach in arguing from a faith position here in the UK do so while decrying the robustness of science and the social mores of current society - as they sit typing into modern technology, in the comfort of modern homes with food in the fridge, where they have can access to resources that allow lifestyle options, where they have access to healthcare when needed and where they are (aside from encountering criminality) in many ways protected from abuse by individuals and/or organistions: then they tell us that society will in some way suffer just because people who love each but happen to have the same gender want to be together on the same basis as people who have different genders.
Excellent points.
Fortunately not all Christians are so minded.
Yes, and they will win out in the end.
-
... and on the subject of equal marriage, this link shows that the pagans know how to deal with what trent calls twisty turny haters simply and effectively: http://goo.gl/ONp0mi
I wonder if that is a true story Shaker. Whatever they think of their would-be clients' horrible views, surely anyone performing marriage ceremonies should keep things confidential - and not say f'''k off! I think the story has been made up.
-
I wonder if that is a true story Shaker. Whatever they think of their would-be clients' horrible views, surely anyone performing marriage ceremonies should keep things confidential - and not say f'''k off! I think the story has been made up.
Trying to look into it.
Apparently the couple sent the request to their Facebook page ( pagan federation)
Knowing Facebook I can believe that was their response, what we don't know is if the couple were genuine.
But there are all sorts of white racist ( probably homophobic ) groups in the USA that wouldn't be tolerated here, so maybe.
-
Heterosexual and homosexual marriages should have equal status, imo.
Yes, they do already floo.
-
Trying to look into it.
Apparently the couple sent the request to their Facebook page ( pagan federation)
Knowing Facebook I can believe that was their response, what we don't know is if the couple were genuine.
But there are all sorts of white racist ( probably homophobic ) groups in the USA that wouldn't be tolerated here, so maybe.
I wasn't thinking of the couple who may well have held those opinions but the people who were going to conduct the wedding. Are they not bound by confidentiality?
-
I wasn't thinking of the couple who may well have held those opinions but the people who were going to conduct the wedding. Are they not bound by confidentiality?
No, not if approached on Facebook.
If someone rang up in RL, probably.
But Facebook is a bit public, especially if it was posted so everyone could read it.
-
Horrible people.
-
This, I think, is the single greatest danger with anybody trying to advance a religious argument on any particular issue.
Human beings are fallible. We often mean well but much of the time we are groping around in a gloomy twilight trying to do the best we can with fragmentary evidence, incomplete pictures and partial data. In things like science, and even in things such as politics with people of good will, we know that there are certain steps we can take to reduce the risk of partiality, interestedness, bias and prejudice to the lowest possible levels we can manage. We can be honestly mistaken; we can (if malicious) explicitly lie; and if not scrupulously careful can fall victim to all manner of wishful thinking. Serious and thoughtful people recognise this and proceed accordingly.
But when somebody comes along and seriously tries to maintain that their belief is not based upon the preceding, but upon what they take to be their interpretation of the will and the wishes of the Almighty Creator of All That Is itself, there's simply no arguing with that pitch of egotism and hubris. There's no arguing not because there's an unanswerable argument on the table, but because anybody who tries to argue from a position of that degree of superhuman arrogance has divorced themselves from any commonly-agreed standards of rational debate and discussion.
I would agree with this. There is so much unknown information and so many considerations that it is arrogant to be certain of any single position - especially one that denies consenting adults in a secular society the same rights as other adults, unless there is some proven harm.
The issue of harm is difficult - some people are opposed to polygyny because they feel that women are harmed by it even if they are consenting adults but I have seen no studies to show that polygyny is harmful as opposed to cultural practices that may be abusive.
I know women who like the idea of polygyny because they are really not that into their husbands that they want to have them around every night. Something like an open relationship but the husband has financial obligations to all the wives and any children. So long as the wives have the education to be financially independent and are not prevented from divorcing I am not really seeing the problem.
-
Hope thinks his version of god is backing him up!
Your version of him may be backing you up, Floo; I'm largely using material from beyond the religious sphere to back my argument up.
-
Your version of him may be backing you up, Floo; I'm largely using material from beyond the religious sphere to back my argument up.
Such as?
-
Negative proof fallacy, yet again.
Gordon, a week or 3 ago I posted the findings of a number of surveys and studies into homosexual relationships, that pointed to trends that lead to societal damage. As far as I am aware, no-one has yet provided any rewsponse to those. I was simply asking whether you have any such things. Not 'NPF' at all.
So what - are there no heterosexual couples who behave similarly?
Not the the same extent, proportionately.
That is your opinion: other opinions are available.
I was asked the question.
So you propose another approach in favour of discrimination - you should be utterly ashamed of yourself!
Well, the logical extension of your argument is legalising polyamory, removing adultery from the potential grounds for divorce, polygamy and polyandry - yet I never see you supporting these when we have debates about them. Hypocrisy?
-
Such as?
The various study results I've posted over the years.
-
This, I think, is the single greatest danger with anybody trying to advance a religious argument on any particular issue.
Whereas I's suggest that an equally dangerous process is the ignoring of information gained through scientifiuc methods, when that information disagrees with one's preconceived opinions, Shakes.
-
Gordon, a week or 3 ago I posted the findings of a number of surveys and studies into homosexual relationships, that pointed to trends that lead to societal damage.
Did anyone see these?
-
Whereas I's suggest that an equally dangerous process is the ignoring of information gained through scientifiuc methods, when that information disagrees with one's preconceived opinions, Shakes.
I haven't seen any. And you as sure as shit haven't provided any.
-
Did anyone see these?
I haven't. Perhaps Hope will re-post the links.
-
Gordon, a week or 3 ago I posted the findings of a number of surveys and studies into homosexual relationships, that pointed to trends that lead to societal damage. As far as I am aware, no-one has yet provided any rewsponse to those.
If it was as recently as that it won't be difficult for you to show us all a link to this alleged post.
I trust that these so-called findings are on firmer ground than the Pink News article to which you linked earlier, which merely provided the results of a survey which found the proportion of gay men who had had open relationships. Somehow you forgot to join the dots between this and the "societal damage" you bore on about, "societal damage" not even being defined yet as far as I've seen.
Not the the same extent, proportionately
You're the one who tries to fob us off with the supposed figure that the gay section of the population is 1-2% (on no firm grounds at all, since multiple surveys give widely, even wildly varying results - homophobes, I've noticed over the years, always like to quote the lowest figures and consistently ignore the higher ones). And yet you would have us believe, apparently in all seriousness, that this 1-2% of the population have more unstable relationships and do more "societal damage" (still undefined and undemonstrated) than the 98-99% of heterosexuals.
This indicates to me that you have utterly taken leave of whatever senses you may have started out with.
Well, the logical extension of your argument is legalising polyamory, removing adultery from the potential grounds for divorce, polygamy and polyandry - yet I never see you supporting these when we have debates about them. Hypocrisy?
I've never seen any debates here about polyamory and all the rest of that list as it's only homosexuality with which you and your kind are obsessed - again, you're going to have to provide a pointer to where these debates have been had here. Not somewhere else in another one of your mythical other places; here on R & E.
In any case this is, as Gordon has pointed out, the slippery slope fallacy, although for the record I personally have no issue with any of those things. A mature, diverse, tolerant society, in the matter of emotional attachments and sexual relationships, treats people as competent consenting adults (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) and leaves them alone to act as such. If equal marriage actually was a slippery slope instead of one of your febrile fantasies, if it leads to such a society (more so than at present I mean) then bring it on.
-
I haven't. Perhaps Hope will re-post the links.
Bwahahahahahahahaha.
-
If it was as recently as that it won't be difficult for you to show us all a link to this alleged post.
I've never seen any debates here about polyamory and all the rest of that list as it's only homosexuality with which you and your kind are obsessed - again, you're going to have to provide a pointer to where these debates have been had here. Not somewhere else in another one of your mythical other places; here on R & E.
For the record I personally have no issue with any of those things.
Everyone draws the line at different places though on the issue of consenting adults. As I have stated previously I wouldn't try to stop another consenting adult from changing their skin colour or sexuality if the technology existed to do it safely, but other people might try to legislate against this.
-
The various study results I've posted over the years.
There is an 'Evidence' thread so perhaps you should post links to these various studies there - this would save a lot of time and effort in future.
-
Whereas I's suggest that an equally dangerous process is the ignoring of information gained through scientifiuc methods, when that information disagrees with one's preconceived opinions, Shakes.
Fair enough: so please post the links to the information you refer to in the 'Evidence' thread.
-
Seems fair enough to me - if it's on the 'Evidence' thread we can all see it and can refer back to it as required.
How about it, Hope?
It's here, by the way: http://goo.gl/TP0Uc5
-
Gordon, a week or 3 ago I posted the findings of a number of surveys and studies into homosexual relationships, that pointed to trends that lead to societal damage. As far as I am aware, no-one has yet provided any rewsponse to those. I was simply asking whether you have any such things. Not 'NPF' at all.
Then you'll have no problem re-posting these links in the 'Evidence' thread.
Well, the logical extension of your argument is legalising polyamory, removing adultery from the potential grounds for divorce, polygamy and polyandry - yet I never see you supporting these when we have debates about them. Hypocrisy?
Nope - not logical at all since you've just committed the slippery slope fallacy.
-
Gordon, a week or 3 ago I posted the findings of a number of surveys and studies into homosexual relationships, that pointed to trends that lead to societal damage.
Since you are using these studies and surveys to support you view that society should discriminate against homosexual relationships you will need to.
1) Clearly define what is meant by societal damage, so that we can agree that it is damage.
2) That this damage is caused more so by homosexual relationship than heterosexual ones (your claim).
3) Show that the damage is caused by the inherent sexuality of the people in the relationship, as opposed to the society in which those relationships occur.
NB: regarding point 2, IMO unless you can show that all homosexual relationships lead to societal damage I can't see why they should be discriminated against.
-
Not actually true - again I have to defend someone I wouldn't usually defend - Mr Cameron took a significant risk when he introduced marriage for gay people and there are many in his party who are still extremely angry with him for doing so.
As far as I can see from talking to my gay friends it didn't encourage any gay people to vote for the Tories - except for the ones who already did. So it clearly wasn't for electoral gain.
It really does seem to me to be one of the few times when he has acted out of principle - which in itself I find highly disconcerting.
Would he have been able to change things without being elected?
Why would he change things if it did nothing to help his party get elected.
With respect Trent, surely you are not saying you consider your small group of friends the representative of the whole.
Not everyone votes for someone just help themselves. Just as you cannot defend Cameron or make a statement based just on your personal beliefs and friends in such a minority.
I believe that many who were gay did vote Tory to get the marriage for all included.
Just as the voted Labour to get the law changed about homosexuality being illegal.
We cannot for one moment not think Cameron piggy backed on the Labour election as far back as the 60's.
Cameron knew what he was doing just as the Labour Party leader (and I think it was) Harold Wilson did at the time.
-
Then you'll have no problem re-posting these links in the 'Evidence' thread.
Nope - not logical at all since you've just committed the slippery slope fallacy.
Could you have removed the post without telling him as you have done with mine in recent weeks?
Take the prayer thread I had a post removed there. Could have been another moderator.
So if people removing posts, not telling posters then it could have been removed by a moderator.
So if he did post them, then where are they?
-
Could you have removed the post without telling him as you have done with mine in recent weeks?
Take the prayer thread I had a post removed there. Could have been another moderator.
So if people removing posts, not telling posters then it could have been removed by a moderator.
So if he did post them, then where are they?
Moderator:
It's a theory I suppose, but wrong.
We do remove posts from time to time but we don't immediately delete them: we keep them in a non-public area for a time in case there are any follow-up issues and also because they can be linked to reports made by members, since deleting the post would also delete the related report.
In #782, on 3rd May, Hope says that he posted these links 'a week or 3 ago' and I can confirm that no posts of Hope's that contain links have been removed - so if he did post them they will still be there unless he deleted them himself.
-
I believe that many who were gay did vote Tory to get the marriage for all included.
You are mistaken Sassy.
It was not even a manifesto pledge at the time of the election in 2010. So nobody could vote for a pledge that had not been made.
-
It is words like these that I regard as perverted - it is a perversion of basic human understanding and decency. You are a disgrace.
Okay, the sentence was not sensitively worded. Apologies.
-
Telling that you don't mention love or companionship!
Apart from the fact that love and companionship don't require sex: if gay sox, as well as similar acts between heterosexuals, were not a perversion of sexual intercourse, then circumstances could conceivably arise where they might be used for good.
-
Apart from the fact that love and companionship don't require sex
No, but the full package - love + companionship + sex - is rather nice.
You'll find out one day.
Maybe.
-
Apart from the fact that love and companionship don't require sex: if gay sox, as well as similar acts between heterosexuals, were not a perversion of sexual intercourse, then circumstances could conceivably arise where they might be used for good.
I'm surprised you haven't been headhunted by Relate, Spud.
You really don't have a clue!
-
Is there really ANYTHING a gay couple can do that a so-called straight couple can't or wouldn't ever do.
I say NO !!!
N
-
Is there really ANYTHING a gay couple can do that a so-called straight couple can't or wouldn't ever do.
I say NO !!!
N
Go shopping for soft furnishings together without one of them saying "Look there just cushions. Just get those ones. If you liked the others so much you go back and get them. No, I'll wait here." within half an hour...?
-
LOL I DO like that !!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8)
-
I'm surprised you haven't been headhunted by Relate, Spud.
You really don't have a clue!
Just to clarify. An intrinsically perverted action cannot be justified by good intention.
-
Just to clarify. An intrinsically perverted action cannot be justified by good intention.
There is nothing perverted about homosexuality, there is certainly something perverted about anti-gay bigots!
-
Just to clarify. An intrinsically perverted action cannot be justified by good intention.
Not sure which actions you are talking about, but please be aware that they may also be carried out by heterosexuals as well.
I think you said that you are not sexually active yet, so you may be quite naive.
-
Just to clarify. An intrinsically perverted action cannot be justified by good intention.
On what authority to you assert both the perversion label and the justification assumption?
-
On what authority to you assert both the perversion label and the justification assumption?
British law, perhaps? Assuming that you are using 'perversion' in this sense -
Sexual behaviour that is considered abnormal and unacceptable
there are certain such behaviours that British law still deems to be unacceptable - such as polyamory and bestiality. I'm not judging either, just noting that there are some cultures where one or other is acceptable. This article might surprise people here: http://bit.ly/1RvIgXX
-
There is nothing perverted about homosexuality, there is certainly something perverted about anti-gay bigots!
And your evidence for this claim is ...? Are you treating British (and other jurisdictional) law as the ultimate arbiter of whether or not something is a perversion?
-
British law, perhaps? Assuming that you are using 'perversion' in this sense -
I'm not using the term 'perversion' at all: that would be Spud dishing out the homophobia and not me!
I'm asking him what his authority is for his use of that term: do pay attention.
-
And your evidence for this claim is ...? Are you treating British (and other jurisdictional) law as the ultimate arbiter of whether or not something is a perversion?
People who consider homosexuality abnormal and perverted are the ones who have a problem, especially if they use the Bible as an excuse for their bigotry.
-
People who consider homosexuality abnormal and perverted are the ones who have a problem, especially if they use the Bible as an excuse for their bigotry.
I think you will find that those who use the Koran tend to be rather nastier.
-
I think you will find that those who use the Koran tend to be rather nastier.
Historically that's a rather more recent development.
-
I think you will find that those who use the Koran tend to be rather nastier.
It would be hard to be much nastier than some Christians on the topic of homosexuality, past and present!
-
It would be hard to be much nastier than some Christians on the topic of homosexuality, past and present!
I haven't noticed leaders in Christianity today calling for homosexuals to be thrown off high buildings.
It isn't just Isis, or even just Sunni Islam.
https://pjmedia.com/blog/watch-leading-islamic-scholars-justify-executing-stoning-and-shooting-gays/
-
I haven't noticed leaders in Christianity today calling for homosexuals to be thrown off high buildings.
I am quite sure some Christians would have no problem with that evil suggestion. A now banned Christian R&E poster prided himself of his ghastly anti-gay stance, and stated he would turn a blind eye if he saw a gay being beaten up.
-
I am quite sure some Christians would have no problem with that evil suggestion. A now banned Christian R&E poster prided himself of his ghastly anti-gay stance, and stated he would turn a blind eye if he saw a gay being beaten up.
A lot of Christian leaders would condemn his stance though.
-
... so you may be quite naive.
No shit.
-
It must be quite hard being a gay Muslim too.
Although some of the replies by some Muslims here ( link below) show some good heart.
They sound a bit like Christians.
http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/5686/why-is-homosexuality-a-sin-if-allah-made-me-this-way
( I put that in to show what we hear in the media about various Imams might not reflect all Muslims, other than that, the Islamic reaction otherwise looks quite scary on homosexuality as portrayed by media )
Islam sounds a lot more nasty in its reaction to gay people, Christianity ( apart from Westboro ) looks a lot more relaxed about it.
Perhaps I have faulty perceptions about it?, but that's my impression.
I can see with this link more moderate Muslims sound more like Christians.
Disliking what they see as wrong, while feeling some empathy for another person ( or at least not lobbing them off a building).
It's when religion gets control of the laws it's goes further than just an opinion.
When I feel it's just an opinion it's something that just is, people hold differing opinions all the time.
IMO there is a difference in holding an opinion,and affecting someone else's life for the worst.
It crosses a line
It says a lot for having secular laws.
It allows us the right to be different.
-
A lot of Christian leaders would condemn his stance though.
Yes they would.
-
It must be quite hard being a gay Muslim too.
Although some of the replies by some Muslims here ( link below) show some good heart.
My dear - it's not at all possible to be gay AND a Muslim, sorry !!!
-
Not sure which actions you are talking about, but please be aware that they may also be carried out by heterosexuals as well.
I think you said that you are not sexually active yet, so you may be quite naive.
I would dispute your use of the qualifier "quite" when used in connection with Spud and naďve.
-
Trippy, I have heard some rather extreme Christians say that being a Christian and a homosexual is an oxymoron yet we know there are gay Christians, including gay clergy. So there are gay Muslims.
I accept they have conflict because of their religion but it doesn't stop a person being homosexual and a Muslim (same for Sikhs, Jewish people, Hindus). Gayness happens regardless of religion or social conditioning.
(I think you probably know that and just threw out that comment, probably tongue in cheek. Yet I've no doubt there are those who would agree with the statement.)
-
I've linked to the Naz and Matt foundation before, and I make no apology for doing so again.
https://www.nazandmattfoundation.org
-
I've linked to the Naz and Matt foundation before, and I make no apology for doing so again.
https://www.nazandmattfoundation.org
No apology needed, I've not seen it before and was glad to see it.
“Religion should be all encompassing, but quite often culture, and the religious communities that engulf so many people around us prevent good, honest and beautiful people from being who they are, and living full and happy lives.
Religion is a very good thing, but it should never stop you from your duty as a human being to care for each other, no matter who they are. Everyone should love one another and celebrate diversity and people who are different from themselves.
Naz and I often talked about a leaving a legacy behind, that outlived the both of us. A legacy that would help many people even after we had gone from this world.
Today i would like to announce the launch of a new charity, and charity named with the purpose of immediately letting people know that that two people of the same sex, from different religious beliefs is ok.
The charities goal will be to reduce the number of young people who have to live a lie. Who have to live in the shadow of a community not able to open their eyes to the fact of life that being gay is a natural part of our planet.
So today I would like to announce the launch of the Naz and Matt Foundation.
Our mission will be to educate religious communities to help them open their eyes, to open their eyes just enough to realise that someone in their family might well be gay, lesbian or bisexual or struggling with gender identity issues. The young person might not be strong enough to reach out to you… but if you open your eyes, and hold out your hand you might just be able to help save them.”
Given that this was his partners funeral speech and the reasons for setting up the foundation, I think it very relevant to the thread, Rhiannon.
:)
It certainly should make people think, it made me think.
-
Historically that's a rather more recent development.
More of an issue today than a few instances hundreds of years ago.
-
Trippy, I have heard some rather extreme Christians say that being a Christian and a homosexual is an oxymoron yet we know there are gay Christians, including gay clergy. So there are gay Muslims.
I accept they have conflict because of their religion but it doesn't stop a person being homosexual and a Muslim (same for Sikhs, Jewish people, Hindus). Gayness happens regardless of religion or social conditioning.
(I think you probably know that and just threw out that comment, probably tongue in cheek. Yet I've no doubt there are those who would agree with the statement.)
I DO agree but - if you really KNOW Islam - then you WILL realise one cannot be gay AND Muslim. Oil & water, I'm afraid !!!
You cannot subscribe to such a horrible hate-filled ideology like Islam & be gay whether practising or not, sorry.
Nick
-
You cannot subscribe to such a horrible hate-filled ideology like Islam & be gay whether practising or not, sorry.
And yet I know a couple of people who claim to be both. I mean I don't get it - but they do claim it.
-
Yep It's like being a Hindu AND a Muslim - NOT POSSIBLE !!!!!!
-
A gay Christian? I've heard the same said about those. Even on here! It's the same for religious Orthodox Jewish people who keep their gays under wraps and try to 'treat' them with religion. Thankfully we have laws in this country that do not adhere to the same tenets as extreme religionists on this subject so sucks to the lot of them, mine included.
-
Yep It's like being a Hindu AND a Muslim - NOT POSSIBLE !!!!!!
You sure?
I think Hinduism is quite inclusive.
People can manage to be anything sometimes, not sure I would rule it out altogether.
http://www.indiatimes.com/culture/who-we-are/8-similarities-between-the-teachings-of-hinduism-and-islam-228792.html
-
Rose
I know exactly what you mean but Hinduism would never hold such horrible views expressed in certain parts of Islam. ALL inclusive & all respecting but we really should look at Hinduism in the same way India itself is - as a collection rather than a single block entity.
Nick
-
Rose
I know exactly what you mean but Hinduism would never hold such horrible views expressed in certain parts of Islam. ALL inclusive & all respecting but we really should look at Hinduism in the same way India itself is - as a collection rather than a single block entity.
Nick
Trippy, most religions have a dark side even in Hinduism if you look.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5273336.stm
http://www.pravdareport.com/society/stories/07-06-2006/81664-hindu-0/
All the religions have had horrible views at some point, most of them get those people who support them.
Plus they also get a lot of people who deny them and say their religion ( Islam) doesn't support chopping off heads, stoning people or treating women badly.
-
SATI has been banned for a long while now.
Don't believe it's actually sanctioned in anything I've read in Hinduism, have you ?
-
SATI has been banned for a long while now.
Don't believe it's actually sanctioned in anything I've read in Hinduism, have you ?
My second link
The practice of immolation of a widow on the funeral pyre of her husband existed among higher Hindu casts in the past. The practice stems from the Hindu legend of Sati, one of the reincarnations of Parvati who is the wife of Shiva and the benevolent form of the Mother Goddess. According to the legend, Sati immolated herself because she was unable to tolerate other deities insult her husband. - See more at: http://www.pravdareport.com/society/stories/07-06-2006/81664-hindu-0/#sthash.zVsjGd0u.dpuf
I'm sure Sriram will be along in a moment to tell me how wrong I am ;) but there it is.
-
I agree with Trippy about India and Hindus on the whole, there is certainly more variety of views within Hinduism; Islam is far stricter. However in any religion there will be a few die-hards as Rose has illustrated, certainly in remote places in India, which are extremely sinister. They are very, very unusual though, far from the mainstream.
-
INDEED !!!! Brownie.
Rose
Do you think this quote explains it all away ???
-
Just thought I'd say, as Islam was being talked about in relation to homosexuality, that our new mayor, Sadiq Khan, has a fatwa because he supported same sex marriage. Bless his cottons, I like him more each day, almost makes me proud to be British.
-
Marvellous gent but IS going against Islam here. Hence the fatwa !!!
-
Just thought I'd say, as Islam was being talked about in relation to homosexuality, that our new mayor, Sadiq Khan, has a fatwa because he supported same sex marriage. Bless his cottons, I like him more each day, almost makes me proud to be British.
Good for him. :)
-
I agree that IS is going against Islam here Trippy, though they don't think so due to their warped ideology. That is my opinion and yours but I have come across Christians on the 'net who say that is really what Islam is all about and we are kidding ourselves.
Yes floo he does seem pretty good on many levels. I like him particularly because he is a very ordinary guy who has the interests of Londoners at heart, or seems to, but the proof of the pudding etc. I hope he continues as he has started, we'll see.
-
Brownie
PLEASE read up on Islam's history FROM Muslims if you intend to interact with them too on it.
The Hadiths or the Prophet's Sayings are unreliable too so be careful !!
Muslims claim the Kaabah is the original place of Judaism but we can see how there's never been ANY mention of any place like it in the Bible.
It's very easy to see how Muhammed rounded up anyone he could to take over the place when he was thrown out for trouble making, stirring up unrest between various religious groups there.
Do please read up on what exactly the Kaabah was & what it is now.
Nick
-
Brownie
PLEASE read up on Islam's history FROM Muslims if you intend to interact with them too on it.
The Hadiths or the Prophet's Sayings are unreliable too so be careful !!
Muslims claim the Kaabah is the original place of Judaism but we can see how there's never been ANY mention of any place like it in the Bible.
It's very easy to see how Muhammed rounded up anyone he could to take over the place when he was thrown out for trouble making, stirring up unrest between various religious groups there.
Do please read up on what exactly the Kaabah was & what it is now.
Nick
Nick with sensible head on, today... :D
-
Nick with sensible head on, today... :D
Look out, Trippy, you are in the s-h-one-t now, you are in Sassy's good books!
-
AAAAAGGGGHHHHH !!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
AAAAAGGGGHHHHH !!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
A good belt of Chivas Regal will cure that, you know!