Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Spud on October 04, 2018, 06:41:02 PM
-
I can't see a problem with a second referendum personally, given that the first one was called for the wrong reasons
I recalled something the other day that might be relevant. When the Tories forced same sex marriage through I have a feeling some people voted UKIP in the election that followed, because that party was opposed to ssm. The high number of ukip votes could have led David Cameron to call the referendum. I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of ssm just suggesting how it may have caused confusion.
Moderator:
These posts on the subject of Same Sex Marriage we originally a derail on the main 'Brexit' thread and have been split into this thread at the request of Spud in order that discussion can continue.
-
I recalled something the other day that might be relevant. When the Tories forced same sex marriage through I have a feeling some people voted UKIP in the election that followed, because that party was opposed to ssm. The high number of ukip votes could have led David Cameron to call the referendum. I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of ssm just suggesting how it may have caused confusion.
He was trying to deal with Euroscepticism within his own party as much as anything else.
-
When the Tories forced same sex marriage through ...
What on earth do mean by 'forced same sex marriage through' - surely you mean received a huge majority (366 to 161) in the commons.
And it was a free vote so MPs weren't whipped so could vote freely accordingly to their conscience.
-
I recalled something the other day that might be relevant. When the Tories forced same sex marriage through I have a feeling some people voted UKIP in the election that followed, because that party was opposed to ssm. The high number of ukip votes could have led David Cameron to call the referendum. I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of ssm just suggesting how it may have caused confusion.
Cameron didn't call a referendum he put a Bill before Parliament which was passed by the House of Commons at a ratio of 6-1.
-
What on earth do mean by 'forced same sex marriage through' - surely you mean received a huge majority (366 to 161) in the commons.
And it was a free vote so MPs weren't whipped so could vote freely accordingly to their conscience.
I mean that 669444 people signed a petition to stop SSM, and an MP's conscience isn't the conscience of his constituents..
People who didn't agree with same sex marriage may have voted UKIP in protest, and then voted for Brexit thinking that if UKIP were right about SSM then they might also be right about Brexit.
-
I mean that 669444 people signed a petition to stop SSM, and an MP's conscience isn't the conscience of his constituents..
People who didn't agree with same sex marriage may have voted UKIP in protest, and then voted for Brexit thinking that if UKIP were right about SSM then they might also be right about Brexit.
None of that backs up the idea that Cameron forced it through.
-
I mean that 669444 people signed a petition to stop SSM, and an MP's conscience isn't the conscience of his constituents.
700k represents just over 1% of the population. Poll after poll at the time showed very strong support amongst the public - typically by about 2 to one.
So public opinion was on the side of extending marriage to include same sex couples so those MPs who supported the bill were aligning with the views of his or her constituents.
So same sex marriage wasn't 'forced through' at it - it was a measure with strong majority support from the public, was subject to strong support by MPs and in the Lords and in neither case were the members whipped so they could vote whichever way their conscience dictated.
-
I recalled something the other day that might be relevant. When the Tories forced same sex marriage through I have a feeling some people voted UKIP in the election that followed, because that party was opposed to ssm. The high number of ukip votes could have led David Cameron to call the referendum. I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of ssm just suggesting how it may have caused confusion.
When did the Tories 'force' SSM through?
After all, Cameron's government had a majority, given that SNP MPs would not vote on this issue (SSM being the province of the Scottish Parliament), and most SLAB and Scottish Lib Dems likewise would not vote?
There was no 'force' involved. Even had hlf the Tories in Westminster voted against it, the Labour and Lib Dems would have supported him.
-
When did the Tories 'force' SSM through?
After all, Cameron's government had a majority, given that SNP MPs would not vote on this issue (SSM being the province of the Scottish Parliament), and most SLAB and Scottish Lib Dems likewise would not vote?
There was no 'force' involved. Even had hlf the Tories in Westminster voted against it, the Labour and Lib Dems would have supported him.
And it was a free vote.
Actually if any vote passed the test for being a great example of democracy, this is it. A proposal with strong majority support amongst the general public, receiving equally strong support in both houses of parliament in a free vote, so no MP or peer is 'forced' to vote other than in the manner they think to be right. And to cap it all the legislation has made us a more equal society and also has extended basic human rights. Win, win, win.
History will be very harsh on Cameron, both for his austerity programme and for unleashing Brexit which may still end up as an existential threat to the UK. But amongst that entirely justified criticism, extending marriage to same sex couples will be a shining beacon - future generations will no doubt be astonished and appalled that there once was a time when gay couples were banned from marrying, in much the same way we are astonished and appalled that women once were banned from voting. That a Conservative PM had the guts to do the right thing - well good on him, but other than that his record is disastrous - I'd go so far as to say the worse record of any PM in living memory.
-
Labour introduced the important change, civil partnerships, which gave gay couples the same legal rights as married couples. Gay marriage was just cynical "me too"ism on Cameron's part, trying to get a reputation for advanced social attitudes on the cheap, and Labour's coat-tails.
-
Labour introduced the important change, civil partnerships, which gave gay couples the same legal rights as married couples. Gay marriage was just cynical "me too"ism on Cameron's part, trying to get a reputation for advanced social attitudes on the cheap, and Labour's coat-tails.
Or you could argue that Labour failed to properly grasp the nettle through cowardice.
Same sex marriage was the one good thing the Cameron government did. Whatever their motives were, they did it.
-
Or you could argue that Labour failed to properly grasp the nettle through cowardice.
Same sex marriage was the one good thing the Cameron government did. Whatever their motives were, they did it.
Yes, Blair could have introduced marriage equality. Thevsuspicion is that he didn’t because of his religious beliefs and s desire to please the churches.
I can’t think of a single reason that Cameron introduced marriage equality other than personal conviction. It cost him popularity within his party and outside that it didn’t make a lot of difference.
-
Yes, Blair could have introduced marriage equality. Thevsuspicion is that he didn’t because of his religious beliefs and s desire to please the churches.
I don't think so - it was more that going straight from nothing to gay marriage was too great a step in 2005, hence the introduction of civil partnerships. He got huge criticism from the churches (in fact probably more than happened when gay marriage was ultimately introduced) - were he concerned about that he wouldn't have done anything.
I can’t think of a single reason that Cameron introduced marriage equality other than personal conviction. It cost him popularity within his party and outside that it didn’t make a lot of difference.
I agree - this was, as far as I'm concerned, personal conviction from Cameron - and good on him, its just about the only good thing he did.
-
When did the Tories 'force' SSM through?
After all, Cameron's government had a majority, given that SNP MPs would not vote on this issue (SSM being the province of the Scottish Parliament), and most SLAB and Scottish Lib Dems likewise would not vote?
There was no 'force' involved. Even had hlf the Tories in Westminster voted against it, the Labour and Lib Dems would have supported him.
Jim. If the number of homosexuals who wanted marriage re-defined was greater than the number of people who petitioned for it not to be, then it would have been democratic for the re-definition to take place. As far as I am aware, far fewer same sex marriages have so far taken place than signatures on the petition. Thus it appears the redefinition was undemocratic.
The EU has recently ordered Romania to grant automatic residency to the American so-called husband of a Romanian man, even though Romania does not allow same sex marriages. The actions of the EU in ordering Romania to recognize that same sex marriage before consulting the people of Romania (who, it appears, aren't that bothered - see results of yesterday's referendum) appear undemocratic.
To quote Eyore: "I don't like to mention it, but... I just, do mention it".
-
Jim. If the number of homosexuals who wanted marriage re-defined was greater than the number of people who petitioned for it not to be, then it would have been democratic for the re-definition to take place. As far as I am aware, far fewer same sex marriages have so far taken place than signatures on the petition. Thus it appears the redefinition was undemocratic.
It isn't just gay people who support extending marriage to allow same sex couples to marry - millions of heterosexual people (including me) do too.
-
Jim. If the number of homosexuals who wanted marriage re-defined was greater than the number of people who petitioned for it not to be, then it would have been democratic for the re-definition to take place. As far as I am aware, far fewer same sex marriages have so far taken place than signatures on the petition. Thus it appears the redefinition was undemocratic.
Bizarre logic.
-
It isn't just gay people who support extending marriage to allow same sex couples to marry - millions of heterosexual people (including me) do too.
Fair enough. Is it true that a minority of homosexuals supported it?
-
Fair enough. Is it true that a minority of homosexuals supported it?
I imagine that the vast, vast majority of gay and lesbian people supported the proposals and certainly across the whole population there was strong majority support as evidenced in poll after poll.
-
Jim. If the number of homosexuals who wanted marriage re-defined was greater than the number of people who petitioned for it not to be, then it would have been democratic for the re-definition to take place. As far as I am aware, far fewer same sex marriages have so far taken place than signatures on the petition. Thus it appears the redefinition was undemocratic. The EU has recently ordered Romania to grant automatic residency to the American so-called husband of a Romanian man, even though Romania does not allow same sex marriages. The actions of the EU in ordering Romania to recognize that same sex marriage before consulting the people of Romania (who, it appears, aren't that bothered - see results of yesterday's referendum) appear undemocratic. To quote Eyore: "I don't like to mention it, but... I just, do mention it".
I'm not going to enter into the SSM debate, though I have no issues with secular SSM, since it does not affect my faith. i do,ofcourse, have issues with SSM for Christians, but that's a different thread. My point was that the issue was not forced through in Westminster, sincethere was no viable opposition to the measure;and that the issue affected only England and Wales, being adevolvedmatter in Scotland and the somewhat intransigent Northern Ireland.
-
I imagine that the vast, vast majority of gay and lesbian people supported the proposals...
I'm looking at this, which suggests differently:
"In 2012, only gay activists (a minority group within a minority group) fought for same-sex marriage. It became clear from polls, radio phone-ins, newspaper essays written by gay people, and open discussions that there was no clear majority amongst the gay community pushing for the changes.
Most said their ‘equal rights’ as relating to marriage were comfortably satisfied by civil partnerships. Indeed, they generally expressed the same amazement, shared by the public as a whole, that the issue was apparently a priority for David Cameron and the coalition."
https://www.ukipdaily.com/warnings-ignored-sex-marriage/
-
I'm not going to enter into the SSM debate, though I have no issues with secular SSM, since it does not affect my faith. i do,ofcourse, have issues with SSM for Christians, but that's a different thread. My point was that the issue was not forced through in Westminster, sincethere was no viable opposition to the measure;and that the issue affected only England and Wales, being adevolvedmatter in Scotland and the somewhat intransigent Northern Ireland.
The viable opposition you mention. In having a state religion (Christianity), you would think that the church's advice would be heeded on such a decision.
-
The viable opposition you mention. In having a state religion (Christianity), you would think that the church's advice would be heeded on such a decision.
Fortunately, my nation has no state religion - nor does the national Church - CofS - want one.
-
Fortunately, my nation has no state religion - nor does the national Church - CofS - want one.
Agreed.
My point was that the issue was not forced through in Westminster,
Ok
-
https://www.ukipdaily.com/warnings-ignored-sex-marriage/
Using a UKIP party opinion piece as 'evidence' - don't make me laugh.
-
"In 2012, only gay activists (a minority group within a minority group) fought for same-sex marriage.
The very year that this poll was carried out:
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/poll-gay-marriage
Which demonstrated that public supported same sex marriage by a huge majority - 73% to 24%. So equating that to the UK population, I make that 43 million people in the UK supporting same sex marriage, hardly a minority of a minority is it Spud.
-
It isn't just gay people who support extending marriage to allow same sex couples to marry - millions of heterosexual people (including me) do too.
I prefer:
"It isn't just gay people who support lifting the restrictions on marriage to allow same sex couples to marry".
I think that isn a fairer description of the moral, if not the legal position.
-
Fair enough. Is it true that a minority of homosexuals supported it?
You talk about it as though it were compulsory.
-
I prefer:
"It isn't just gay people who support lifting the restrictions on marriage to allow same sex couples to marry".
I think that isn a fairer description of the moral, if not the legal position.
True enough
-
Moderator:
We seem to have wandered well off topic since I don't think SSM is all that germane to Brexit.
Spud.
If you want to continue this, and assuming others have a appetite for yet another thread on SSM, let me know by PM and I'll create a new thread comprising the recent SSM posts in this thread.
Meantime, in this thread, can we all please return to the thorny issue of Brexit.
-
Marriage equality is less depressing.
-
Moderator:
These posts on the subject of Same Sex Marriage were originally a derail on the main 'Brexit' thread and have been split into this thread at the request of Spud in order that discussion can continue.
-
Thanks Gordon.
The very year that this poll was carried out:
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/poll-gay-marriage
Which demonstrated that public supported same sex marriage by a huge majority - 73% to 24%. So equating that to the UK population, I make that 43 million people in the UK supporting same sex marriage, hardly a minority of a minority is it Spud.
Was just wondering whether interviewing just over 1,000 people is very significant - of course that may be one of many similar polls, but on its own it doesn't beat the coalition for marriage's petition.
-
What I find tragic in this day and age is that some people think being gay is wrong or abnormal. Gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals, including the right to marry, if they so wish.
-
Thanks Gordon.
Was just wondering whether interviewing just over 1,000 people is very significant - of course that may be one of many similar polls, but on its own it doesn't beat the coalition for marriage's petition.
If you want to play a numbers game then what beats the petition is the number of people who didn't sign it!
-
Thanks Gordon.
Was just wondering whether interviewing just over 1,000 people is very significant - of course that may be one of many similar polls, but on its own it doesn't beat the coalition for marriage's petition.
It was a survey by a reputable agency using a sampling method: in the link they say 'Ipsos MORI interviewed a representative sample of 1,023 adults aged 18+ across Great Britain. Interviews were conducted by telephone 8th to 10th December 2012. Data are weighted to match the profile of the population.', and they also provide a link showing the questions asked and associated responses.
As surveys go it does seem likely to be a reasonable summary of opinion back in 2012.
-
The EU has recently ordered Romania to grant automatic residency to the American so-called husband of a Romanian man, even though Romania does not allow same sex marriages. The actions of the EU in ordering Romania to recognize that same sex marriage before consulting the people of Romania (who, it appears, aren't that bothered - see results of yesterday's referendum) appear undemocratic.
To quote Eyore: "I don't like to mention it, but... I just, do mention it".
It is not unknown for Romania to hold referendums and then to void them through lack of turnout, although usually those are attempts to oust government figures.
-
So to cut a long story short... we don't think ssm caused Brexit!
-
So to cut a long story short... we don't think ssm caused Brexit!
I don't think anyone ever did think that.
-
I don't think anyone ever did think that.
I think what Spud is trying to say is that SSM was not in anybody's manifesto, there was no referendum on the same, and that conservative anger at the same became manifested into the "Out" campaign.
It would make an interesting newspaper article.
-
I think what Spud is trying to say is that SSM was not in anybody's manifesto, there was no referendum on the same, and that conservative anger at the same became manifested into the "Out" campaign.
It would make an interesting newspaper article.
As far as I'm aware referenda are only used for major constitutional proposals and that changes to marriage laws are within the remit of UK parliaments. I'd be surprised if anybody conflated SSM and Brexit since they are clearly different issues: one dealing with marriage equality and the other with political governance arrangements.
-
As far as I'm aware referenda are only used for major constitutional proposals and that changes to marriage laws are within the remit of UK parliaments. I'd be surprised if anybody conflated SSM and Brexit since they are clearly different issues: one dealing with marriage equality and the other with political governance arrangements.
That is being sensible, and not everybody is sensible.
-
What I find tragic in this day and age is that some people think being gay is wrong or abnormal. Gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals, including the right to marry, if they so wish.
I agree with all of this, except for "...or abnormal". Homosexuality is abnormal, whether "normal" is defined as "average" or "perfect". Only about 2% of people are gay, so it clearly isn't average, and anatomically it is pretty obvious that men and women complement each other in a way that two men or two women don't. By all means give gays equal rights, including marriage, but don't pretend that it is normal. What matters is that it is harmless to others and fulfilling for gays themselves.
-
I agree with all of this, except for "...or abnormal". Homosexuality is abnormal, whether "normal" is defined as "average" or "perfect". Only about 2% of people are gay, so it clearly isn't average, and anatomically it is pretty obvious that men and women complement each other in a way that two men or two women don't. By all means give gays equal rights, including marriage, but don't pretend that it is normal. What matters is that it is harmless to others and fulfilling for gays themselves.
You are confusing abnormal with minority.
By your definition all sorts of human attributes and aspects of behaviour are abnormal - including people with blue eyes, or red hair or white, or buddhist, or left-handed etc, etc.
That an attribute or behaviour or belief is only demonstrated by a minority doesn't make it abnormal, which has a pejorative meaning.
-
I agree with all of this, except for "...or abnormal". Homosexuality is abnormal, whether "normal" is defined as "average" or "perfect". Only about 2% of people are gay, so it clearly isn't average, and anatomically it is pretty obvious that men and women complement each other in a way that two men or two women don't. By all means give gays equal rights, including marriage, but don't pretend that it is normal. What matters is that it is harmless to others and fulfilling for gays themselves.
Even if there are less gay people than straight, it doesn't mean homosexuality is an abnormality. Would you say people who are left handed are abnormal because they are in the minority?
-
You are confusing abnormal with minority.
By your definition all sorts of human attributes and aspects of behaviour are abnormal - including people with blue eyes, or red hair or white, or buddhist, or left-handed etc, etc.
That an attribute or behaviour or belief is only demonstrated by a minority doesn't make it abnormal, which has a pejorative meaning.
No.
Abnormal behaviour simply means that it is a behaviour practised by a minority.
Steve H is correct, you are wrong.
-
No.
Abnormal behaviour simply means that it is a behaviour practised by a minority.
Steve H is correct, you are wrong.
I am in a minority of people who ride motorcycles regularly: does this mean I am abnormal?
-
You have the statistics to prove that statement?
-
No.
Abnormal behaviour simply means that it is a behaviour practised by a minority.
Steve H is correct, you are wrong.
Wrong - virtually any definition of abnormal you choose includes a pejorative, and negative slant. So for example:
'different from what is usual or average, especially in a way that is bad: (Cambridge Dictionary)
'Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying' (Oxford English Dictionary)
The neutral, non-pejorative term is uncommon, which doesn't carry any negative, pejorative connotations.
So, sorry I'm right, Steve and you are wrong.
By the way, by Steve's view being an Orthodox Christian is abnormal (I think that's what you are Humph - please correct me if I'm wrong), with only perhaps a few % of the world population being so. Would you feel comfortable with being described as abnormal Humph on that basis - I suspect you might.
-
You have the statistics to prove that statement?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/312594/motorcycle-and-car-registrations-in-the-united-kingdom/
Currently there are 31.2 million registered cars compared to 1.2 million motorcycles.
-
Thank you. :)
-
Wrong - virtually any definition of abnormal you choose includes a pejorative, and negative slant. So for example:
'different from what is usual or average, especially in a way that is bad: (Cambridge Dictionary)
'Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying' (Oxford English Dictionary)
The neutral, non-pejorative term is uncommon, which doesn't carry any negative, pejorative connotations.
So, sorry I'm right, Steve and you are wrong.
By the way, by Steve's view being an Orthodox Christian is abnormal (I think that's what you are Humph - please correct me if I'm wrong), with only perhaps a few % of the world population being so. Would you feel comfortable with being described as abnormal Humph on that basis - I suspect you might.
Your argument is like a member of "the tribe" being offended at being described as a "Jew", but considering being described as "Jewish" to be acceptable!
I appreciate that membership of the Orthodox Church is "abnormal" in western Europe, but it that term does not bother me unduly.
-
No.
Abnormal behaviour simply means that it is a behaviour practised by a minority.
Steve H is correct, you are wrong.
It is you who is WRONG. Are you saying that people who are left handed are abnormal?
-
It is you who is WRONG. Are you saying that people who are left handed are abnormal?
Oh dear.
Please see above.
-
Oh dear.
Please see above.
Abnormal usually means deviant and undesirable.
-
Abnormal usually means deviant and undesirable.
I think that you will find that "abnormal" means out of the usual/majority.
-
I think that you will find that "abnormal" means out of the usual/majority.
I think most would not agree with your definition.
-
I think most would not agree with your definition.
Certainly not the Oxford Dictionary, nor the Cambridge Dictionary.
Nor Collins:
Someone or something that is abnormal is unusual, especially in a way that is worrying.
Nor Websters:
deviating from the normal or average; unusual in an unwelcome or problematic way
-
I think that you will find that "abnormal" means out of the usual/majority.
Not according to standard dictionary definitions, which indicate that to be abnormal isn't just unusual, but bad, unwelcoming, worrying, undesirable.
Abnormal carries negative connotations in the way that uncommon or rare do not, although both of those also mean unusual.
-
Thanks PD.
-
Not according to standard dictionary definitions, which indicate that to be abnormal isn't just unusual, but bad, unwelcoming, worrying, undesirable.
Abnormal carries negative connotations in the way that uncommon or rare do not, although both of those also mean unusual.
I do not worry about being considered to be "abnormal"
I doubt if Ad O worries about being "abnormal "either.
-
I do not worry about being considered to be "abnormal"
I doubt if Ad O worries about being "abnormal "either.
So you don't worry about you being considered:
'bad'
'unwelcome'
'undesirable'
'problematic'
due to your belief, as per standard dictionary definitions of abnormal.
-
"Abnormal" can have different meanings - "undesirable" is one meaning, eg a scoliotic spine; "different" is another, eg a person who swims across the Hudson river to work.
The real issue is that "Same-sex marriage legalised the idea that things which are demonstrably different are the same," see link in #19
-
The real issue is that "Same-sex marriage legalised the idea that things which are demonstrably different are the same," see link in #19
Or not all that different: you know, people deciding who they wish to have a formally recognised relationship with without undue interference.
Have to say, Spud, that you are clearly having a laugh here: earlier on you bemoaned that the views of the CofE weren't regarded as authoritative (which they aren't, for various reasons) and now you cite UKIP as an authority - just no, Spud.
-
"Abnormal" can have different meanings - "undesirable" is one meaning, eg a scoliotic spine; "different" is another, eg a person who swims across the Hudson river to work.
The real issue is that "Same-sex marriage legalised the idea that things which are demonstrably different are the same," see link in #19
Do people marry because they love each other or solely because they are of different gender?
-
Do people marry because they love each other or solely because they are of different gender?
The former
-
"Abnormal" can have different meanings - "undesirable" is one meaning, eg a scoliotic spine; "different" is another, eg a person who swims across the Hudson river to work.
Not according to the most reputable dictionaries:
Collins:
Someone or something that is abnormal is unusual, especially in a way that is worrying.
Websters:
deviating from the normal or average; unusual in an unwelcome or problematic way
Cambridge:
different from what is usual or average, especially in a way that is bad
Oxford
Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying
The real issue is that "Same-sex marriage legalised the idea that things which are demonstrably different are the same," see link in #19
Nope - they key point about marriage is that it is a consensual commitment between two people who love each other.
-
Even if there are less gay people than straight, it doesn't mean homosexuality is an abnormality. Would you say people who are left handed are abnormal because they are in the minority?
In a sense they are (and I speak as a leftie). But being not the same as most people is no justification for discrimination.
One of the problems is that "abnormal" is often associated with negative connotations. Although it is technically right to say left handers, gay people, Christians, participants in the Great British Bake Off and Andy Murray are abnormal (because they all are different from most of us in some significant way), it's a bad idea to use that word in those contexts.
-
No.
Abnormal behaviour simply means that it is a behaviour practised by a minority.
How do Christians feel about being labelled abnormal?
-
I think that you will find that "abnormal" means out of the usual/majority.
Here's a tip. Don't use the word abnormal unless you mean it in a bad way. OK?
-
OK, I'll concede the "small minority equals abnormal", but what about "abnormal equals imperfect, not according to intended use"? Riding a bike backwards, sitting on the handlebars, is abnormal, because it's not what bikes were designed for; having anal sex is abnormal, because it's not what bottoms and penises were evolved for. That's not to say that either activity is wrong (though riding a bike backwards is not a good idea in traffic). I agree that "abnormal" usually has negative connotations, but what other word is there?
-
In a sense they are (and I speak as a leftie). But being not the same as most people is no justification for discrimination.
One of the problems is that "abnormal" is often associated with negative connotations. Although it is technically right to say left handers, gay people, Christians, participants in the Great British Bake Off and Andy Murray are abnormal (because they all are different from most of us in some significant way), it's a bad idea to use that word in those contexts.
People using their left hands in the bad old days were treated as abnormal and deviants. When I was a kid an old man suggested my parents should beat me, when he saw me writing with my left hand. :o
-
People using their left hands in the bad old days were treated as abnormal and deviants. When I was a kid an old man suggested my parents should beat me, when he saw me writing with my left hand. :o
Interestingly, the Latin for left is sinister.
Do people marry because they love each other or solely because they are of different gender?
Both
Or not all that different: you know, people deciding who they wish to have a formally recognised relationship with without undue interference.
In that case my relationship with my cat could be formally recognized. The only reason for including same sex couples is that more and more people wanted to. If millions of people wanted to marry their relatives or their pets then I'm sure the law would be changed again, I should think with restrictions.
Have to say, Spud, that you are clearly having a laugh here: earlier on you bemoaned that the views of the CofE weren't regarded as authoritative (which they aren't, for various reasons) and now you cite UKIP as an authority - just no, Spud.
I admit I did laugh at the thought of someone swimming to work (one guy in New York actually does). I intended to say the Bible claims authority and the church is the people who try to follow its authority: if we claim to be a Christian country (in the sense that various people claim we are, and in the sense that they call one particular religion the national religion) then the law should reflect the Bible's authority.
As for UKIP being just: at the end of the day it is a matter of justice. At the time of the 2015 election UKIP said they would not reverse ssm but said they would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs. To me that seemed just.
What the article is saying is that it's a nonsensical policy (no matter how many people want it)
-
Both
Leaving aside the business contract of arranged marriage, how many "traditional" marriages are solely of the "I'm a guy, you're a girl, we don't love each other, lets get married" kind?
-
Interestingly, the Latin for left is sinister.
Both
In that case my relationship with my cat could be formally recognized. The only reason for including same sex couples is that more and more people wanted to. If millions of people wanted to marry their relatives or their pets then I'm sure the law would be changed again, I should think with restrictions.
I admit I did laugh at the thought of someone swimming to work (one guy in New York actually does). I intended to say the Bible claims authority and the church is the people who try to follow its authority: if we claim to be a Christian country (in the sense that various people claim we are, and in the sense that they call one particular religion the national religion) then the law should reflect the Bible's authority.
As for UKIP being just: at the end of the day it is a matter of justice. At the time of the 2015 election UKIP said they would not reverse ssm but said they would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs. To me that seemed just.
What the article is saying is that it's a nonsensical policy (no matter how many people want it)
The Bible is WRONG where homosexuality is concerned!
-
Leaving aside the business contract of arranged marriage, how many "traditional" marriages are solely of the "I'm a guy, you're a girl, we don't love each other, lets get married" kind?
Have you not heard of a "Shotgun" wedding?
-
Leaving aside the business contract of arranged marriage, how many "traditional" marriages are solely of the "I'm a guy, you're a girl, we don't love each other, lets get married" kind?
I'm not sure what you are saying. That article in #19 also talks about blurring the distinction between male and female. An example is how their roles differ: men are supposed to look after women- they are made that way. This means that one of each can be joined, which I think is what the word 'marry' means- joining together. So when you see a picture of a male hand holding another male's hand, you know there is something not right.
-
That article in #19 also talks about blurring the distinction between male and female. An example is how their roles differ: men are supposed to look after women- they are made that way. As AT Still said, "structure governs function". This means that one of each can be joined, which I think is what the word 'marry' means- joining together. So when you see a picture of a male hand holding another male's hand, you know there is something not right.
What a disgusting sexist comment! :o My husband and I are EQUAL, I would divorce him if he treated me like the 'little woman'. Fortunately for him he believes in the equality of the sexes and never treated our daughters any differently to the way he would have treated them if they had been lads. Admittedly our youngest girl would often scream, 'Child Line' when they were arm wrestling, as he doesn't know his own strength. ;D
-
I don't think equality is possible while we still continue to condition people from childhood to think certain ideas about men and women being treated differently e.g. "women and children first" in a rescue situation, or that if a woman hits a man it's not justified for a man to hit her back.
-
Interestingly, the Latin for left is sinister.
I intended to say the Bible claims authority and the church is the people who try to follow its authority: if we claim to be a Christian country (in the sense that various people claim we are, and in the sense that they call one particular religion the national religion) then the law should reflect the Bible's authority.
Since 'we' don't claim to be a 'Christian country', and since 'we' don't have a national religion, then at best organised Christianity is just one group among many expressing a point of view - they aren't, however, authoritative in any binding sense across society at large although they are free to express their opinion. The CofE does have some anachronistic privileges that do need to be removed at some point, and of course in UK terms not all Christians are English or are aligned to the CofE.
Those of us who aren't Christian should certainly listen to what organised Christianity says but we don't have to agree with them or feel in any sense bound by their views.
As for UKIP being just: at the end of the day it is a matter of justice. At the time of the 2015 election UKIP said they would not reverse ssm but said they would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs. To me that seemed just.
What the article is saying is that it's a nonsensical policy (no matter how many people want it)
UKIP can say what they like of course but they are unlikely to ever be in a position where they can act with any authority anyway - I'm surprised that you value their opinion as much as it seems you do.
-
Since 'we' don't claim to be a 'Christian country', and since 'we' don't have a national religion, then at best organised Christianity is just one group among many expressing a point of view - they aren't, however, authoritative in any binding sense across society at large although they are free to express their opinion. The CofE does have some anachronistic privileges that do need to be removed at some point, and of course in UK terms not all Christians are are English or are aligned to the CofE.
Those of us who aren't Christian should certainly listen to what organised Christianity says but we don't have to agree with them or feel in any sense bound by their views.
UKIP can say what the like of course but they are unlikely to ever be in a position where they can act with any authority anyway - I'm surprised that you value their opinion as much as it seems you do.
I fervently hope that highly unpleasant mob never get into a position of power in the UK, which would be hell on earth, imo. :o
-
Have you not heard of a "Shotgun" wedding?
Yes.
Some of those will involve mutual love though and some will not.
My question still stands.
-
I'm not sure what you are saying.
I'm asking you, how many loveless marriages are there compared to the normal loving ones?
-
Yes.
Some of those will involve mutual love though and some will not.
My question still stands.
You have been given an answer.
You don't like it, but you have been given an answer. The fact that the answer does not suit your narrative is neither here nor there.
-
You have been given an answer.
You don't like it, but you have been given an answer. The fact that the answer does not suit your narrative is neither here nor there.
My question was "how many?".
None of the replies have addressed that request.
If you want to engage with that fine, if you don't, equally fine by me.
My question still stands.
-
My husband and I are EQUAL,
Equal but different
-
I'm asking you, how many loveless marriages are there compared to the normal loving ones?
Quite a few I should imagine. Why?
-
Quite a few I should imagine. Why?
Really? That’s easily fixed: easier divorce.
-
I'm asking you, how many loveless marriages are there compared to the normal loving ones?
I see your point - people don't get married solely because they are the opposite sex, but because they love each other. That doesn't mean a same-sex couple can be joined in the way a hetero couple can.
-
I'm not sure what you are saying. That article in #19 also talks about blurring the distinction between male and female. An example is how their roles differ: men are supposed to look after women- they are made that way. This means that one of each can be joined, which I think is what the word 'marry' means- joining together. So when you see a picture of a male hand holding another male's hand, you know there is something not right.
What do you mean by 'look after' exactly?
-
That doesn't mean a same-sex couple can be joined in the way a hetero couple can.
Yes they can - I fail to see what in a civil marriage ceremony and vows means that a same-sex couple cannot be joined in the way a hetero couple.
-
Equal but different
That is the usual weasel-worded formula beloved of conservative Christians, usually when defending their opposition to female ordination. If they really believed it, they would not need to ban female ordination, as men and women could be allowed to find their own levels, as it were. The question to ask them is "what roles in the church do you think should be reserved exclusively for women, and men banned from?".
I realise this is getting a bit off-topic, but I wanted to refute that tiresome and deceitful phrase. To bring it back on topic, one could use thesame level-finding argument against them regarding same-sex marriage. In any case, religious ssm is not allowed, and presumably a conservative Christian regards a civil marriage as no marriage at all, so they've really nothing to complain about.
-
Equal but different
Different in what way?
-
Different in what way?
In the not-equal way.
-
It bugs me that so many Christians throw a wobbly as soon as SSM is mentioned. Marriage has meant different things to different cultures down through the ages - even Christian marriage. Scripture does not tell us what marriage should be, only that - according to the New Testament, Christians should be married in a one-man, onee woman marriage, and that, for Christians, sex outside that bond is sin - whether gay, straight or whatever. Scripture says absolutly nothing about gay marriage....so why do so many Christians condemn two people who do not accept the Christian faith getting married? It is not affecting them, nor is it affecting the church or the spreading of the Gospel. Indeed it could be argued that, in formalising an already existing bond, a gay marriage stabilises the couple, and indirectly benefits those around them. No, I'm not advocating gay marriage in Church - I cannot see any way round that in Scripture - but I am arguing that, amongst two consenting adults who are not Christian, nor contemplating marriage as Christian, it's none of my business.
-
It bugs me that so many Christians throw a wobbly as soon as SSM is mentioned. Marriage has meant different things to different cultures down through the ages - even Christian marriage. Scripture does not tell us what marriage should be, only that - according to the New Testament, Christians should be married in a one-man, onee woman marriage, and that, for Christians, sex outside that bond is sin - whether gay, straight or whatever. Scripture says absolutly nothing about gay marriage....so why do so many Christians condemn two people who do not accept the Christian faith getting married? It is not affecting them, nor is it affecting the church or the spreading of the Gospel. Indeed it could be argued that, in formalising an already existing bond, a gay marriage stabilises the couple, and indirectly benefits those around them. No, I'm not advocating gay marriage in Church - I cannot see any way round that in Scripture - but I am arguing that, amongst two consenting adults who are not Christian, nor contemplating marriage as Christian, it's none of my business.
Quite - and Christians do not have a monopoly on defining what marriage is, and is not, nor who can and cannot get marriage.
Ultimately marriage is, and always has been, a civic construct. Religions have often added their own layer of belief on to that civic construct, but without the latter there is no marriage. This is very clearly the case in the UK (and I think most other countries) - if you fulfil the civil element of marriage then you are married, regardless of any additional religious element. The reverse isn't true - If you fulfil the religious element of marriage, but don't completely the civil element then you aren't married.
-
It's shame then that so many Christians condemn gay Christians fir seeking equal relationships as their straight counterparts. I cant think of a better example than why Evangelical Christianity ruins lives than the pious 'but Scripture clearly says...' and so condemning people lives of misery and shame.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-manchester-45615029/didsbury-church-s-radical-change-after-gay-girl-s-suicide
Anyone not in tears after watching that, anyone not determined to do away with all this shit, should be ashamed.
-
It's shame then that so many Christians condemn gay Christians fir seeking equal relationships as their straight counterparts. I cant think of a better example than why Evangelical Christianity ruins lives than the pious 'but Scripture clearly says...' and so condemning people lives of misery and shame.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-manchester-45615029/didsbury-church-s-radical-change-after-gay-girl-s-suicide
Anyone not in tears after watching that, anyone not determined to do away with all this shit, should be ashamed.
I agree - it's a weird attitude. Effectively that marriage is a good thing, an expected thing ... except if you are gay.
I think Cameron made an equivalent point in the context of the established Tory view that they are the party of marriage. His line being that if they were the party of marriage then surely they should be in favour of allowing more people to get married.
-
I agree - it's a weird attitude. Effectively that marriage is a good thing, an expected thing ... except if you are gay.
I think Cameron made an equivalent point in the context of the established Tory view that they are the party of marriage. His line being that if they were the party of marriage then surely they should be in favour of allowing more people to get married.
It's this whole exclusive 'children of God' thing... that if you are one of God's saved (unlike us heathen) you can't have gay relationships or marriage equality. It doesn't matter for the rest of us since we are going to the burny burny place anyway.
Quite noxious really.
-
It's this whole exclusive 'children of God' thing... that if you are one of God's saved (unlike us heathen) you can't have gay relationships or marriage equality. It doesn't matter for the rest of us since we are going to the burny burny place anyway.
Quite noxious really.
I think it links to the obsession of some religions with children and, lets face it, sex.
out in the 'real' world we consider marriage to be about a consensual and public commitment to each other by two people who love each other. It is decoupled from sex (we don't accept the notion that sex should only occur in marriage) and from children (married couples choose not to have children, unmarried couples have children, couples already with children decide to get married.
-
It's not that. The N.T. specifically mentions the criteria for Christians to marry. There are many ways to interpret many Scriptures, but I can;t see any other way than that for confessing Christians to marry, that marriage to be recognised by the church can only be man and woman. Again, that is not preventing secular marriage in any way.
-
It's not that. The N.T. specifically mentions the criteria for Christians to marry. There are many ways to interpret many Scriptures, but I can;t see any other way than that for confessing Christians to marry, that marriage to be recognised by the church can only be man and woman. Again, that is not preventing secular marriage in any way.
Which raises an interesting question:
Does the church recognise couples married in a civil wedding - so would they consider a couple who marry in a register office to be a married couple?
-
It's not that. The N.T. specifically mentions the criteria for Christians to marry. There are many ways to interpret many Scriptures, but I can;t see any other way than that for confessing Christians to marry, that marriage to be recognised by the church can only be man and woman. Again, that is not preventing secular marriage in any way.
Which is my point. You fetishise words in a book over the needs of real flesh and blood people. Tell me how that is different to the wedded-ness of Tories to benefit cuts that lead to misery and suicide.
You don't worship God, you worship a book. It's idolatry.
-
Which raises an interesting question:
Does the church recognise couples married in a civil wedding - so would they consider a couple who marry in a register office to be a married couple?
I can't speak for all denominations, but at the moment, for all matters relating to the practice and procedure of the Kirk, The CofS doesn't recognise gay marriage as Christian.
-
Which is my point. You fetishise words in a book over the needs of real flesh and blood people. Tell me how that is different to the wedded-ness of Tories to benefit cuts that lead to misery and suicide.
You don't worship God, you worship a book. It's idolatry.
Nope. I accept the God who gave us the book, and try to live by it.
-
I can't speak for all denominations, but at the moment, for all matters relating to the practice and procedure of the Kirk, The CofS doesn't recognise gay marriage as Christian.
Would the church recognise, as married, a couple who have a marriage certificate gained from a civil wedding?
-
Would the church recognise, as married, a couple who have a marriage certificate gained from a civil wedding?
Yes.
However, the Kirk will not at present recognise a gay secular marriage as being compatable with the Christian faith.
That comes up - again - at the General Assembly next year. If, as I suspect it will, the Kirk changes its law, more congregations and members will leave.
Seven congregations have joined other denominations, five more independent. At least eight thousand mwembers have 'lifted their lines' and gone to other denominations so far.
At the present rate of decline, the Free Church which is increasing quite rapidly in both members and congregations, could eclipse the CofS in ten years time - which would be a pity.
-
I can't speak for all denominations, but at the moment, for all matters relating to the practice and procedure of the Kirk, The CofS doesn't recognise gay marriage as Christian.
Gay marriage isn't Christian, because religious ceremonies are specifically excluded. Gay marriage can only be civil to be legally recognised. What, then, is the church whingeing about?
-
Nope. I accept the God who gave us the book, and try to live by it.
yes, but you don't live by it do you. There's quite a lot of stuff in that book that you claim God gave you that nobody in the modern world would try to live by.
-
Gay marriage isn't Christian, because religious ceremonies are specifically excluded. Gay marriage can only be civil to be legally recognised. What, then, is the church whingeing about?
Haven't seen anything from Anchorman opposing civil SSM, so not sure what you think he's supposed to justify here?
-
Yes.
However, the Kirk will not at present recognise a gay secular marriage as being compatable with the Christian faith.
That comes up - again - at the General Assembly next year. If, as I suspect it will, the Kirk changes its law, more congregations and members will leave.
Seven congregations have joined other denominations, five more independent. At least eight thousand mwembers have 'lifted their lines' and gone to other denominations so far.
At the present rate of decline, the Free Church which is increasing quite rapidly in both members and congregations, could eclipse the CofS in ten years time - which would be a pity.
Reminds me of the DUP eclipsing the UUP, and Sinn Fein eclipsing the SDLP. :-(
-
I can't speak for all denominations, but at the moment, for all matters relating to the practice and procedure of the Kirk, The CofS doesn't recognise gay marriage as Christian.
That isn't answering the question.
Does the church consider a couple (let's say they are heterosexual) as married if that marriage was a civil wedding?
-
Reminds me of the DUP eclipsing the UUP, and Sinn Fein eclipsing the SDLP. :-(
Not really; HWB.
The CofS has tried to be very inclusive as far as the spectrum of Christian thought goes; from very progressive liberal to very evangelical.
There have been tensions in thr Kirk for years over this, and other issuers.
It appears that the string is breaking and that that all-inclusive label may no longer apply in the near future.
-
That isn't answering the question.
Does the church consider a couple (let's say they are heterosexual) as married if that marriage was a civil wedding?
Yes.
-
yes, but you don't live by it do you. There's quite a lot of stuff in that book that you claim God gave you that nobody in the modern world would try to live by.
Slavery?
-
Nope. I accept the God who gave us the book, and try to live by it.
If you truly accept that god then you would accept that if he is supposed to be the god of love, and that judgement is his and his alone, then you have no right to say who can and cannot live with others and marry others, regardless of what else is in your book.
Supposing you are wrong. Supposing your god doesn't exist. The actions and beliefs of people like you are causing young people to take their lives, self harm and for others to live in self-hating misery. And supposing your god is real and he doesn't care about gay relationships, being the god of love and all? How do you think he would view those who worship the Biblical homophobia?
-
Yes.
How about if that marriage involved divorced individuals and the church didn't recognise divorce (for example the RCC)?
-
If you truly accept that god then you would accept that if he is supposed to be the god of love, and that judgement is his and his alone, then you have no right to say who can and cannot live with others and marry others, regardless of what else is in your book.
As a minister, though, and along with most other Christian ministers, Anchorman is free to decline to marry a couple if that would be against his conscience. He would not say that they could not have a civil ceremony.
-
As a minister, though, and along with most other Christian ministers, Anchorman is free to decline to marry a couple if that would be against his conscience. He would not say that they could not have a civil ceremony.
He would if they were Christian.
Incidentally, no minister in the CofE is permitted to conduct a same sex marriage even if their conscience tells them that it is ok to do so. Last I knew they could get in huge trouble for blessing civil marriages of gay couples too.
-
If you truly accept that god then you would accept that if he is supposed to be the god of love, and that judgement is his and his alone, then you have no right to say who can and cannot live with others and marry others, regardless of what else is in your book.
Supposing you are wrong. Supposing your god doesn't exist. The actions and beliefs of people like you are causing young people to take their lives, self harm and for others to live in self-hating misery. And supposing your god is real and he doesn't care about gay relationships, being the god of love and all? How do you think he would view those who worship the Biblical homophobia?
I believe other denominations are more liberal where accepting the Message is concerned.
They may accept same-sex Christian marriage.
Should those who claim Christ as Lord wish to have such a marriage, then they may find a home there.
It's a matter of interpretation.
I haaprn to go with Paul...sex outside the bond of male-female marriage is simply not on.
Such an activity is sin and can only be removed on repentence.
-
As a minister, though, and along with most other Christian ministers, Anchorman is free to decline to marry a couple if that would be against his conscience. He would not say that they could not have a civil ceremony.
Haud the bus! I'm a reader - still studying for the Ordained Local Ministry!
It'll be a while before I'm let loos as a registrar!
-
I believe other denominations are more liberal where accepting the Message is concerned.
They may accept same-sex Christian marriage.
Should those who claim Christ as Lord wish to have such a marriage, then they may find a home there.
It's a matter of interpretation.
I haaprn to go with Paul...sex outside the bond of male-female marriage is simply not on.
Such an activity is sin and can only be removed on repentence.
You happen to go with a fallible human being? Really?
Let' space it, if what you do is tell Christians to go elsewhere your church deserves to die.
-
You happen to go with a fallible human being? Really?
Let' space it, if what you do is tell Christians to go elsewhere your church deserves to die.
I don't 'tell' anyone to do anything.
I simply give them my view of the situation, and willingly debate with them.
I have never laid down the law - in the pulpit or outside it.
But yes, there are lines that, as a result of my reading of Scripture, which the Chuch of Scotland has as its "subordinate standard" (daft kirk speak)
its' "Supreme rule for faith and life".
Should the Kirk stray much further than it already has on this, I won't have a problem when interpreting Kirk law in the light of Scripture - because I won;'t be there.
-
Slavery?
That's certainly on the list.
-
That's certainly on the list.
If w are looking at the NT - which I believe we are - then that is probably the biggie. That and divorce.
-
He would if they were Christian.
Incidentally, no minister in the CofE is permitted to conduct a same sex marriage even if their conscience tells them that it is ok to do so. Last I knew they could get in huge trouble for blessing civil marriages of gay couples too.
I think he would tell them what he believes the bible teaches and leave it at that. I recently had some chats with a friend I've known for a long time who is gay, and I know he has liberal views but didn't talk about them. If he asked my view I would tell him but wouldn't expect him to share my view. The problem I have is when people are expected to promote promiscuity, homosexuality, gambling, alcohol or smoking in the work place. I am not responsible for someone taking offense if I decline to endorse a particular lifestyle.
-
I think he would tell them what he believes the bible teaches and leave it at that. I recently had some chats with a friend I've known for a long time who is gay, and I know he has liberal views but didn't talk about them. If he asked my view I would tell him but wouldn't expect him to share my view. The problem I have is when people are expected to promote promiscuity, homosexuality, gambling, alcohol or smoking in the work place. I am not responsible for someone self harming if I decline to endorse a particular lifestyle.
What? Why have you put homosexuality in with gambling etc and who promotes smoking in the workplace?
-
They are all things I've encountered- how exactly is not important. I just wanted to make the point that if I for example decline to sell cigarettes on a regular basis at the shop where I sometimes work, it's not my responsibility if someone takes offense at that.
-
They are all things I've encountered- how exactly is not important. I just wanted to make the point that if I for example decline to sell cigarettes on a regular basis at the shop where I sometimes work, it's not my responsibility if someone takes offense at that.
Gibberish
-
I think he would tell them what he believes the bible teaches and leave it at that. I recently had some chats with a friend I've known for a long time who is gay, and I know he has liberal views but didn't talk about them. If he asked my view I would tell him but wouldn't expect him to share my view. The problem I have is when people are expected to promote promiscuity, homosexuality, gambling, alcohol or smoking in the work place. I am not responsible for someone self harming* if I decline to endorse a particular lifestyle.
* I'm refering to your mention of suicide
Spud
Have you tried actually thinking about what you post before pressing 'post'? I think you should give it a go in order to avoid car crashes like the above.
-
Sorry. Message modified.
-
Sorry. Message modified.
So you have: unfortunately it is still a car crash.
-
Gibberish
Is someone asking him to sell gay sex? I'm confused.
-
. The problem I have is when people are expected to promote promiscuity, homosexuality, gambling, alcohol or smoking in the work place.
Surely you missed heterosexuality from this list?
That is you missed it if you wish to continue your misclassification of issues.
Homosexuality is an orientation.
Gambling, alcohol and smoking - can have aspects of addiction. Promiscuity can be a choice or an addiction.
Your statement makes about as much sense as saying apples taste better than a granite worktop.
-
The problem I have is when people are expected to promote promiscuity, homosexuality, gambling, alcohol or smoking in the work place. I am not responsible for someone taking offense if I decline to endorse a particular lifestyle.
Come to my workplace. You are not expected to promote any of those things there, but you are also not expected to promote heterosexuality, celibacy, abstinence from gambling, temperance, or not smoking. Also, promoting your religion is definitely banned.
-
The problem I have is when people are expected to promote promiscuity, homosexuality, gambling, alcohol or smoking in the work place.
What kind of workplaces do that? Certainly not any I've worked in which are completely neutral on sexuality, on the basis that it is a private matter and nothing to do with them as an employer.
There are certain workplaces however that promote the view that homosexuality is wrong - in other words bringing a private matter into the workplace - these workplaces are many faith schools and churches.
-
OK would you care to be in this workplace?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6270855/BBC-issues-badges-staff-promote-LGBT-issues-bid-tackle-heteronormative-culture.html
-
OK would you care to be in this workplace?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6270855/BBC-issues-badges-staff-promote-LGBT-issues-bid-tackle-heteronormative-culture.html
Why not?
It would have been much better for me in my work life, rather than having to confront bigotry on my own earlier in my career. But sure lets have a workplace where it is ok to verbally abuse gay people, so much better for morale dont you know.
-
Is someone asking him to sell gay sex? I'm confused.
What kind of workplaces do that? Certainly not any I've worked in which are completely neutral on sexuality, on the basis that it is a private matter and nothing to do with them as an employer.
There are certain workplaces however that promote the view that homosexuality is wrong - in other words bringing a private matter into the workplace - these workplaces are many faith schools and churches.
Unfortunately you can't leave your conscience at home when you go to work.
Once my boss got seriously cross because I refused to regularly deliver a gay magazine to a customer on my paper round. I objected to the content of the magazine, I hadn't even met the customer, so why did my boss go mental?
If I was a taxi driver and a customer asked if I would take him to a gay night club every Tuesday, I would do it the first time but decline to make it a regular contract. Currently it appears that anyone in this position could be sued for discrimination in cases like this (of which there could be many). This is what I was thinking in my previous message.
The reason I included smoking and alcohol is because I occasionally help out on a shop till where I have to be prepared to sell both. Over the years I have seen customers lose most of their teeth from smoking, I have also seen someone lose their memory while addicted to wine. The law is more geared towards preventing addiction though the Challenge 25 system, but I hate when someone wants 2 packets of cigs or a six-pack of lager, as I know what it will do to them.
Pornography is also available at the shop, as are the National Lottery and instant lottery tickets. Needless to say I rarely work on the till and stick to other roles.
What I said still stands: if someone doesn't want to provide a service on grounds of conscience, they are not responsible for someone else taking offence. The intention is not to offend but to keep one's own conscience clear.
-
Spud,
Being homosexual doesn't make people' teeth fall out.
Just saying...
-
Unfortunately you can't leave your conscience at home when you go to work.
No, but then your active disapproval of stuff doesn't necessarily belong in the workplace.
Once my boss got seriously cross because I refused to regularly deliver a gay magazine to a customer on my paper round. I objected to the content of the magazine, I hadn't even met the customer, so why did my boss go mental?
Might it be because you weren't doing your job properly by not just getting on with the job of delivering magazines as required and paid for by customers?
If I was a taxi driver and a customer asked if I would take him to a gay night club every Tuesday, I would do it the first time but decline to make it a regular contract. Currently it appears that anyone in this position could be sued for discrimination in cases like this (of which there could be many). This is what I was thinking in my previous message.
The reason I included smoking and alcohol is because I occasionally help out on a shop till where I have to be prepared to sell both. Over the years I have seen customers lose most of their teeth from smoking, I have also seen someone lose their memory while addicted to wine. The law is more geared towards preventing addiction though the Challenge 25 system, but I hate when someone wants 2 packets of cigs or a six-pack of lager, as I know what it will do to them.
Pornography is also available at the shop, as are the National Lottery and instant lottery tickets. Needless to say I rarely work on the till and stick to other roles.
What I said still stands: if someone doesn't want to provide a service on grounds of conscience, they are not responsible for someone else taking offence. The intention is not to offend but to keep one's own conscience clear.
Perhaps you are in the wrong job, Spud: perhaps you should apply for the post of Gatekeeper at Cloud Cuckoo Land! Alternatively you could mind your own business and do your job without passing judgment on others. Just out of interest, what does your conscience say about your own intolerance?
-
Enough of this fuckshittery.
Spud are you willing to allow a gay doctor to withhold life saving treatment for you on their moral grounds, because they have read your posts on here equating homosexuality with addiction.
If not, STFU.
-
Once my boss got seriously cross because I refused to regularly deliver a gay magazine to a customer on my paper round. I objected to the content of the magazine,
So you read it then.
I hadn't even met the customer, so why did my boss go mental?
1. Reading your customers' magazines.
2. Refusing to do your job.
If I was a taxi driver and a customer asked if I would take him to a gay night club every Tuesday, I would do it the first time but decline to make it a regular contract. Currently it appears that anyone in this position could be sued for discrimination in cases like this (of which there could be many). This is what I was thinking in my previous message.
Don't know if this is true everywhere, but in one taxi I've been in, the driver said he would lose his licence if he refused to take me where I wanted to go, within the area covered by it.
What I said still stands: if someone doesn't want to provide a service on grounds of conscience, they are not responsible for someone else taking offence. The intention is not to offend but to keep one's own conscience clear.
Back in the day, a Roman governor by the name of Pliny the Younger wrote some letters to his emperor describing how frustrated he was by Christians. Apparently, rather than acknowledge the aforementioned emperor as a deity, they'd rather go to their deaths. Think about that: they'd rather die than give in on a matter of conscience.
Today's Christians think it's an outrage that they should even resign their jobs over a matter of conscience. If you can't do the duties reasonably expected of you in your job: quit. Second century Christians would be rolling in their graves at the spinelessness of the modern shower.
-
Jeremy,
Christians in those days had met the messiah, were more braver because of this
-
Jeremy,
Christians in those days had met the messiah, were more braver because of this
There is no evidence Jesus was anymore than a mere human being like the rest of us. If he was the long awaited messiah why didn't all the Jews recognise the guy as such, instead of a few sycophants?
-
Jeremy,
Christians in those days had met the messiah, were more braver because of this
Excuses, excuses. ::)
And more braver? Just braver, or at a push more brave.
-
Spud you have a mental block on this subject. Think outside the box.
-
Why not?
It would have been much better for me in my work life, rather than having to confront bigotry on my own earlier in my career. But sure lets have a workplace where it is ok to verbally abuse gay people, so much better for morale dont you know.
Do you really want to submerge your own identity within the transsexuals agenda?
Fair enough, that is another discussion. I am not entirely unsympathetic to the point that you make, I remember the former CPSA carrying out a members survey of sexual harrassment in the eighties, when the results were processed, the majority of complaints were from gay men complaining about their rude female colleagues making derogatory comments about their sexuality. It did make the leadership stop, think, and reassess their approach to the issue.
-
Jeremy,
Christians in those days had met the messiah, were more braver because of this
No they hadn't. The incident to which I refer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger_on_Christians) happened in around 112.
In any case, I thought all you Christians have met Christ.
-
No they hadn't. The incident to which I refer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger_on_Christians) happened in around 112.
In any case, I thought all you Christians have met Christ.
I think that you will find that Christians have come to know Christ, rather than to have met him.
-
I think that you will find that Christians have come to know Christ, rather than to have met him.
All the same, surely that would give you enough bravery to resign a job you couldn't perform correctly due to a matter of conscience.
-
I think that you will find that Christians have come to know Christ, rather than to have met him.
It is hard to know a character who is only featured in a storybook.
-
It is hard to know a character who is only featured in a storybook.
This is true. Fortunately, Christ is much more than that.
-
This is true. Fortunately, Christ is much more than that.
Not enough for Christians to be prepared to make sacrifices for their principles apparently.
-
Excuses, excuses. ::)
And more braver? Just braver, or at a push more brave.
Sorry Trent, had just been reading a long list of YouTube comments in which American and Russian warplanes were being compared. I think the style in which the Russian posters were speaking English rubbed off on me.
-
All the same, surely that would give you enough bravery to resign a job you couldn't perform correctly due to a matter of conscience.
Such as?
-
This is true. Fortunately, Christ is much more than that.
He is a character in the Bible that is all. Even though believers think he is around somewhere in the ether, there is no evidence to support that idea.
-
All the same, surely that would give you enough bravery to resign a job you couldn't perform correctly due to a matter of conscience.
I was quite brave because three of the staff were angry but I still went back the next morning.
-
He is a character in the Bible that is all. Even though believers think he is around somewhere in the ether, there is no evidence to support that idea.
He is also mentioned within Jewish writings, and some Roman writings. we have done this before.
-
He is a character in the Bible that is all. Even though believers think he is around somewhere in the ether, there is no evidence to support that idea.
There is evidence, it just isn't the kind of evidence you are looking for
-
I was quite brave because three of the staff were angry but I still went back the next morning.
Why do you think they were angry?
-
There is evidence, it just isn't the kind of evidence you are looking for
Well present your 'evidence' then.
-
Well present your 'evidence' then.
I think I should have said, "that [the Bible] is evidence", rather than "there is evidence".
-
I think I should have said, "that [the Bible] is evidence", rather than "there is evidence".
Of course the Bible isn't evidence, that is a silly thing to say.
-
Of course the Bible isn't evidence, that is a silly thing to say.
Why not?
Have you ever read about Arius?
Are you claiming that he never existed?
-
Why not?
Have you ever read about Arius?
Are you claiming that he never existed?
What has he got to do with whether the Bible has any credence?
-
Well present your 'evidence' then.
Oh, 'eck........
Er.....how often have folk asked YOU to back up ideas with evidence, and waited..and waited....and waited?
-
What has he got to do with whether the Bible has any credence?
Bits of the Bible - well, quite a lot, really, can be anchored in history.
Archaeology confirms a lot of the later Old Testament.
There are fragments of stuff from the late first century - not al ot, but we wouldn't expect much anyway - that confirm bits of the New.
To dismiss the entire corpus of Scripture out of hand would be an error: even atheist scholars admit that!
-
Bits of the Bible - well, quite a lot, really, can be anchored in history.
Archaeology confirms a lot of the later Old Testament.
There are fragments of stuff from the late first century - not al ot, but we wouldn't expect much anyway - that confirm bits of the New.
To dismiss the entire corpus of Scripture out of hand would be an error: even atheist scholars admit that!
I dismiss the less than credible stories in the Bible like the creation story, Noah's Flood and the things accredited to Jesus.
-
I dismiss the less than credible stories in the Bible like the creation story, Noah's Flood and the things accredited to Jesus.
Fairy 'nuff....
As you know, I regard the Pentateuch as theology rather than history, and can provide evidence as to whay I do this.
Equally, since there is virtually nothing outside the Gospels to verify Christ's miracles, history has nothing to either confirm or deny them.
That brings it down to faith and trust.
We've done the Resurrection bit....there are a tantalising few bits outside Scripture which allude to it, but again, it's a faith thing.
-
Fairy 'nuff....
As you know, I regard the Pentateuch as theology rather than history, and can provide evidence as to whay I do this.
Equally, since there is virtually nothing outside the Gospels to verify Christ's miracles, history has nothing to either confirm or deny them.
That brings it down to faith and trust.
We've done the Resurrection bit....there are a tantalising few bits outside Scripture which allude to it, but again, it's a faith thing.
If Jesus did resurrect why was he supposedly seen by a few of his followers, not those who demanded his execution?
-
Why not?
Have you ever read about Arius?
Are you claiming that he never existed?
In what way is the existence of Arius relevant?
That he had an interpretation that others disagreed with and regarded as heretical would, I'd have thought, be an indication that whatever the Bible says beyond what is trivially true (such as placenames) can be problematic where subjectivity and possible biases are involved.
-
In what way is the existence of Arius relevant?
That he had an interpretation that others disagreed with and regarded as heretical would, I'd have thought, be an indication that whatever the Bible says beyond what is trivially true (such as placenames) can be problematic where subjectivity and possible biases are involved.
Erm ..are you claiming that Arius never existed?
-
Erm ..are you claiming that Arius never existed?
Nope - just wondering why you think the existence of Arius is a relevant point.
-
If Jesus did resurrect why was he supposedly seen by a few of his followers, not those who demanded his execution?
Why should he, and how do you know he didn't? He appeared to 200 people on a single occasion, most of whom were still alive when it was recorded in what became the New Testament.
-
If Jesus did resurrect why was he supposedly seen by a few of his followers, not those who demanded his execution?
Why not? Why wasn't the death of Tutankhamun better recorded? Why wasn't the suicide of Cleopatra recorded by more than one source? Why is there only one account of Cearsar's first invasion of britain? Because that's all we have. That does not mean that there were more accounts - all it means is that those accounts are all we have.
-
Why not? Why wasn't the death of Tutankhamun better recorded? Why wasn't the suicide of Cleopatra recorded by more than one source? Why is there only one account of Cearsar's first invasion of britain? Because that's all we have. That does not mean that there were more accounts - all it means is that those accounts are all we have.
Your reply doesn't answer my question.
-
Moderator While much of this is a path we have oft travelled, little to do with same sex marriage, so please shuffle back to vaguely on topic.
-
Such as?
Well Spud’s paper round where he refused to deliver gay magazines springs immediately to mind.
-
He is a character in the Bible that is all. Even though believers think he is around somewhere in the ether, there is no evidence to support that idea.
Yes, I agree, but please let it go. This thread is not about whether Christ is still alive or not.
-
I was quite brave because three of the staff were angry but I still went back the next morning.
Bravery would have been resigning from your job because your conscience wouldn’t let you do it. Making other people angtry because they have to pick up the slack from you refusing to do your jobs is not brave.
-
Moderator While much of this is a path we have oft travelled, little to do with same sex marriage, so please shuffle back to vaguely on topic.
Thank you. You have just saved me from writing a potentially ban worthy post.
-
Bravery would have been resigning from your job because your conscience wouldn’t let you do it. Making other people angtry because they have to pick up the slack from you refusing to do your jobs is not brave.
So do you think Ashers bakery should have closed, and ministers should resign from conducting marriage ceremonies?
-
If they had insisted that I kept delivering it, I would probably have resigned.
-
If they had insisted that I kept delivering it, I would probably have resigned.
Why did you refuse to deliver it?
-
Why did you refuse to deliver it?
Because I did not want to encourage the customer to practice homosexuality.
-
Because I did not want to encourage the customer to practice homosexuality.
Their sexual orientation is none of your business, Spud: you're just the paper-boy!
-
Because I did not want to encourage the customer to practice homosexuality.
You see you could have refused to have delivered the Daily Mail. Much more effective - it would have helped eradicate the practice of bigotry. Oh sorry, forgot that's not what you are working towards.
-
Because I did not want to encourage the customer to practice homosexuality.
You wouldn't be doing that though, would you? People don't buy a magazine about cars to find out if they like cars, it's because they already drive them.
You don't know much about sexuality, do you?
-
You wouldn't be doing that though, would you? People don't buy a magazine about cars to find out if they like cars, it's because they already drive them.
You don't know much about sexuality, do you?
Ok Rhia, what if Spud was a female who did not want to deliver a copy of Playboy?
-
Ok Rhia, what if Spud was a female who did not want to deliver a copy of Playboy?
He/she should get on with it and do his/her job.
Although that is a fair point. Did Spud deliver porn mags? Don’t they encourage sinful behaviour too?
-
Because I did not want to encourage the customer to practice homosexuality.
What a pathetic statement. >:( What if someone tried to discourage you from being a heterosexual, which I presume you are, unless of course you are a gay in denial?.
-
He/she should get on with it and do his/her job.
Although that is a fair point. Did Spud deliver porn mags? Don’t they encourage sinful behaviour too?
Although he could have been refusing to deliver a gay publication that wasn't porn - Gay Times, Attitude, Pink News etc.
-
Although he could have been refusing to deliver a gay publication that wasn't porn - Gay Times, Attitude, Pink News etc.
Talk to Humph. He's the one equating gay mags with Playboy.
-
Although he could have been refusing to deliver a gay publication that wasn't porn - Gay Times, Attitude, Pink News etc.
It was indeed one of those. I haven't heard from jeremy re: #181 yet. Should all Christians resign and become gardeners when asked to support the practise of homosexuality at work.
-
It was indeed one of those. I haven't heard from jeremy re: #181 yet. Should all Christians resign and become gardeners when asked to support the practise of homosexuality at work.
I suspect your word order may cause confusion here, Spud, since I doubt there are few places where people who are 'at work' are asked to support the practice of any form of sexuality, aside obviously from those involved in the sex industry.
If you mean that while in the course of your job that you should be able to decline to deliver or sell newspapers and magazines you personally disapprove of then you are clearly in the wrong job: tell me Spud, would you decline to sell me my usual Saturday copy of The Racing Post?
-
It was indeed one of those. I haven't heard from jeremy re: #181 yet. Should all Christians resign and become gardeners when asked to support the practise of homosexuality at work.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'supporting the practice of homosexuality at work', unless you mean 'not discriminating against gay people'. But you don't seem to be aware that many Christians, if not most, don't care if someone is gay, don't care if they have a partner and view marriage equality as a chance to go to more parties. It's only a minority who can't accept it. But yes, if you can't not discriminate then you shouldn't be in a job that deals with customers or clients.
-
So do you think Ashers bakery should have closed, and ministers should resign from conducting marriage ceremonies?
No, I think Ashers bakery were within their rights to refuse this business. They took the decision not to take the customer's money. You, on the other hand, took the decision to accept your employer's money, so you should do the job you were contracted to.
-
Talk to Humph. He's the one equating gay mags with Playboy.
That is a bit of a leap, but since I derailed your football hooligan thread I will forgive you ;)
-
I am aware of three openly gay Christian clergy.
-
I am aware of three openly gay Christian clergy.
Which isn't a problem - unless they want to have sex.
-
Which isn't a problem - unless they want to have sex.
They are in relationships.
-
They are in relationships.
I'm sure they are, but are they having sex? They can be married; it's tabs and slots that the church objects to.
-
They are in relationships.
But are they having gay sex?
If they are then they are breaking their own rules. It would be like joining the Temperance Society and downing Scotch on the quiet.
-
But are they having gay sex?
If they are then they are breaking their own rules. It would be like joining the Temperance Society and downing Scotch on the quiet.
Don't be so ridiculous, there is nothing wrong with gay or straight sex in an adult consenting relationship. It is only bigots who thinks there is anything wrong with gay sexual relationships. I do hope Jesus was gay and having it off with the disciple he reputedly loved. There is no indication he condemned homosexuality, nor is it featured in the Commandments.
-
Don't be so ridiculous, there is nothing wrong with gay or straight sex in an adult consenting relationship. It is only bigots who thinks there is anything wrong with gay sexual relationships. I do hope Jesus was gay and having it off with the disciple he reputedly loved. There is no indication he condemned homosexuality, nor is it featured in the Commandments.
You aren't understanding what Humph is saying. The CofE prohibits its clergy from having gay sex. It is a rule. If they are in sexual relationships then they are breaking that rule and will most likely be disciplined by the church for it. It's load of old cobblers, I agree, but Humph is right about the rules of the church.
-
You aren't understanding what Humph is saying. The CofE prohibits its clergy from having gay sex. It is a rule. If they are in sexual relationships then they are breaking that rule and will most likely be disciplined by the church for it. It's load of old cobblers, I agree, but Humph is right about the rules of the church.
:)
-
I suspect your word order may cause confusion here, Spud, since I doubt there are few places where people who are 'at work' are asked to support the practice of any form of sexuality, aside obviously from those involved in the sex industry.
If you mean that while in the course of your job that you should be able to decline to deliver or sell newspapers and magazines you personally disapprove of then you are clearly in the wrong job: tell me Spud, would you decline to sell me my usual Saturday copy of The Racing Post?
Ashers bakery is an example. Or the B&B owners who are asked to provide a double room, the dating website asked to extend its service to same-sex-attracted people. I suspect most Christians in business could face this dilemma in some way.
Re: the Racing Post. To be honest I haven't thought about it - a friend of mine who bets on horses says the money is well spent as it keeps the horses fit (interesting logic). I do occasionally take money for a Racing Post at the till, but I have said that I won't do till work for this shop regularly because of the amount of cigarettes, alcohol, lottery and porn that is available. So I stick to paper delivery. I would recommend you don't bet large amounts or regularly.
The agreement was to deliver national newspapers and other magazines such as Radio Times; I had one that I think was called "Woman". If there was more of the trashy stuff I would definitely move on. I never thought I'd be asked to deliver something like the one in question.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'supporting the practice of homosexuality at work', unless you mean 'not discriminating against gay people'. But you don't seem to be aware that many Christians, if not most, don't care if someone is gay, don't care if they have a partner and view marriage equality as a chance to go to more parties. It's only a minority who can't accept it. But yes, if you can't not discriminate then you shouldn't be in a job that deals with customers or clients.
I would happily deliver a newspaper to a gay person. But if a gay magazine's primary purpose is advising the reader about sexual relationships with someone of the same sex, then I would be condoning that by delivering it.
All paid work involves dealing with customers or clients. What you have suggested amounts to, don't work for money. How does one pay for food or clothes, then? What about the useful aspects of the job such as helping the elderly lady who can't get to the paper shop?
No, I think Ashers bakery were within their rights to refuse this business. They took the decision not to take the customer's money. You, on the other hand, took the decision to accept your employer's money, so you should do the job you were contracted to.
I agree about Ashers.
When I accepted the job I was not told I might be asked to deliver gay magazines. When I was asked to deliver them I said no - they were then free to sack me; they decided to keep me on.
-
You aren't understanding what Humph is saying. The CofE prohibits its clergy from having gay sex. It is a rule. If they are in sexual relationships then they are breaking that rule and will most likely be disciplined by the church for it. It's load of old cobblers, I agree, but Humph is right about the rules of the church.
It is a good job then that many Christians, including some clergy, ignore those particular rules.
-
It is a good job then that many Christians, including some clergy, ignore those particular rules.
Until those clergy get sacked and lose their livelihoods and their communities lose and often much-loved parish priest.
You know back in the day I nearly became a priest? This is why I stopped the process and eventually left the church. I would have to make promises of obedience to my bishop and I knew I couldn't keep them (in my case it would have been that I would have openly wanted to bless same sex unions). One thing that clergy shouldn't be is hypocritical, and if you make a promise in that context you should keep it, not make it with your fingers crossed and hope that the Bish never finds out. The clergy isn't for everyone; very often it isn't for those who want to be able to live with their own consciences.
-
Until those clergy get sacked and lose their livelihoods and their communities lose and often much-loved parish priest.
You know back in the day I nearly became a priest? This is why I stopped the process and eventually left the church. I would have to make promises of obedience to my bishop and I knew I couldn't keep them (in my case it would have been that I would have openly wanted to bless same sex unions). One thing that clergy shouldn't be is hypocritical, and if you make a promise in that context you should keep it, not make it with your fingers crossed and hope that the Bish never finds out. The clergy isn't for everyone; very often it isn't for those who want to be able to live with their own consciences.
The people concerned have been in the job for a good while, it isn't a secret, so presumably the powers that be are turning a blind eye.
-
The people concerned have been in the job for a good while, it isn't a secret, so presumably the powers that be are turning a blind eye.
Hypocrites. If they are then they are disobeying their bishop. That chain of command goes up to Welby.
Although I'm mildly alarmed by how interested the 'powers that be' are in the bedroom lives of others. Or maybe you are wrong, and their relationships are celibate. After all, it isn't really any of your business.
-
Hypocrites. If they are then they are disobeying their bishop. That chain of command goes up to Welby.
Although I'm mildly alarmed by how interested the 'powers that be' are in the bedroom lives of others. Or maybe you are wrong, and their relationships are celibate. After all, it isn't really any of your business.
I was presuming this was a sort of Don't Ask, Don't Tell approach. It is as you say hypocritical but is often a halfway house on the road.
-
I was presuming this was a sort of Don't Ask, Don't Tell approach. It is as you say hypocritical but is often a halfway house on the road.
That's how the CofE used to operate. Since the rise of the Evangelical wing of the church and the Jeffrey John tragedy the Church was forced to state its position. You have to vow as a member of the clergy to obey your bishop and your bishop will instruct you not to have gay sex, as well as not blessing same sex unions, marriages and civil partnerships, even if you do it is someone's front room and not church. On this there are no grey areas. People will ask and they will tell.
-
Don't be so ridiculous, there is nothing wrong with gay or straight sex in an adult consenting relationship. It is only bigots who thinks there is anything wrong with gay sexual relationships. I do hope Jesus was gay and having it off with the disciple he reputedly loved. There is no indication he condemned homosexuality, nor is it featured in the Commandments.
The point is that it's against church rules for the clergy. It shouldn't be, but it is. Your childish attempt to be shocking with your comment on Jesus impresses, much less shocks, no-one.
-
That's how the CofE used to operate. Since the rise of the Evangelical wing of the church and the Jeffrey John tragedy the Church was forced to state its position. You have to vow as a member of the clergy to obey your bishop and your bishop will instruct you not to have gay sex, as well as not blessing same sex unions, marriages and civil partnerships, even if you do it is someone's front room and not church. On this there are no grey areas. People will ask and they will tell.
Same situation (roughly) in the CofS.
A parish minister cannot conduct gay weddings (even if that minister is a registrar); they cannot, as a church minister, bless gay weddings either in private or in public, without being subject to the discipline of Presbytery, and ultimately, General Assembly.
-
Apparently there’s a move to allow the blessing of civil partnerships in the CofE. You don’t make things right by adding another layer of fudge.
-
Apparently there’s a move to allow the blessing of civil partnerships in the CofE. You don’t make things right by adding another layer of fudge.
It's a step in the right direction.
-
It's a step in the right direction.
Not really. If a gay couple want a church blessing they are forced to opt for a CP instead of a wedding. It’s still a form of segregation and says that a relationship is inferior in the eyes of the church. And it still doesn’t allow for the freedom of conscience of clergy to bless same sex marriages, let alone conduct them. It’s insulting, frankly.
-
Not really. If a gay couple want a church blessing they are forced to opt for a CP instead of a wedding. It’s still a form of segregation and says that a relationship is inferior in the eyes of the church. And it still doesn’t allow for the freedom of conscience of clergy to bless same sex marriages, let alone conduct them. It’s insulting, frankly.
Yes - but it's still a step in the right direction. You do understand the meaning of that phrase, I take it?
-
Yes - but it's still a step in the right direction. You do understand the meaning of that phrase, I take it?
I agree.
-
Not really. If a gay couple want a church blessing they are forced to opt for a CP instead of a wedding. It’s still a form of segregation and says that a relationship is inferior in the eyes of the church. And it still doesn’t allow for the freedom of conscience of clergy to bless same sex marriages, let alone conduct them. It’s insulting, frankly.
Sorry, Rhi, but if the Church claims the New Testament as its' rule book - and most do...it cannot sanctify a marriage which it cannot recognise.
I don't see any wriggle room in this.
-
Yes - but it's still a step in the right direction. You do understand the meaning of that phrase, I take it?
Please don't patronise me. I am disagreeing with you, not misunderstanding you. I don't see it as a 'step in the right direction' at all; at best it is a sideways step because it still treats gay partnerships as second class and outside of 'God's plan' for what marriage is. At worst it is a 'but look, we've done something' get out clause for not taking proper action.
I'm still not sure how you can see an insult as 'a step in the right direction' but I guess that if you are an Anglican that is often the best you can hope for.
-
Sorry, Rhi, but if the Church claims the New Testament as its' rule book - and most do...it cannot sanctify a marriage which it cannot recognise.
I don't see any wriggle room in this.
Your version of your chuch worships a book, or collection of writings by very fallible and sometimes unkind human beings, yes, I know. Chilling really when you think what that does to the souls of people.
-
Your version of your chuch worships a book, or collection of writings by very fallible and sometimes unkind human beings, yes, I know. Chilling really when you think what that does to the souls of people.
Would you prefer I drop some trinket at a clootie well and hope for the best?
Sorry, Rhi; we have been given the New Testament, and on it the basis of our faith is founded.
I cannot perceive a way to reconcile the teaching of both the Lord and Paul wityh the modernity of t of the prevailing society.
I'll stay anchored on the Rock, thanks.
-
Would you prefer I drop some trinket at a clootie well and hope for the best?
Sorry, Rhi; we have been given the New Testament, and on it the basis of our faith is founded.
I cannot perceive a way to reconcile the teaching of both the Lord and Paul wityh the modernity of t of the prevailing society.
I'll stay anchored on the Rock, thanks.
I really don't care what anyone does, so long as what they practice doesn't hurt others. What you practice does. It devastates. It takes lives. And if you are wrong about salvation - and I believe that you are - then people will have suffered at the hands of your church and your beliefs and there is no redemption and no relief from it. It is all for nothing. And all because your church prefers a book to love.
-
Sorry, Rhi, but if the Church claims the New Testament as its' rule book
And yet sometimes the church seems able to bend or break its rules:
1 Corinthians 14: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
PS I am sure some special exemption for this will be found. If so explain why written this way in the first place (other than it being the result of patriarchal society)
-
And yet sometimes the church seems able to bend or break its rules:
1 Corinthians 14: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
PS I am sure some special exemption for this will be found. If so explain why written this way in the first place (other than it being the result of patriarchal society)
Good post. The idea of women priests like my daughter, would have been inconceivable when I was young.
-
And yet sometimes the church seems able to bend or break its rules:
1 Corinthians 14: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
PS I am sure some special exemption for this will be found. If so explain why written this way in the first place (other than it being the result of patriarchal society)
Imagine that someone in the congregation interrupts Paul while he is preaching about God's sovereign choice, saying, "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" and he answers "who are you O man to talk back to God?" (Romans 9:20). Or in an extreme scenario, he might need to tell someone to sit down and shut up. He could not really talk in that way to a lady, in church. This may be why Paul tells women to be silent in the churches and ask their husbands at home. He doesn't want women arguing with men in the church.
-
Imagine that someone in Paul's congregation interrupts him while he is preaching about God's sovereign choice, saying, "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" and he answers "who are you O man to talk back to God?" (Romans 9:20). Or in an extreme scenario, he might need to tell someone to sit down and shut up. He could not really talk in that way to a lady, in church. This may be why Paul tells women to be silent in the churches and ask their husbands at home. He doesn't want women arguing with men in the church.
So why are there women priests and bishops? Leaving aside the unlikely scenario that Paul had any concept of women being ‘ladies’.
-
Because there aren't enough men to do the job? Maybe they all got so fed up wi all them women arguing?
-
Don't be so ridiculous, there is nothing wrong with gay or straight sex in an adult consenting relationship. It is only bigots who thinks there is anything wrong with gay sexual relationships.
Earlier in the thread I was giving Spud a hard time for refusing to do his job properly. Unfortunately, this is the same thing. The CofE rules state a gay priest in the church cannot have sex with their partner. Since this rule is apparently legal (I think it should not be), if the couple is unable to keep to it, they should really resign, as Spud should have done from his paper round.
-
Please don't patronise me. I am disagreeing with you, not misunderstanding you.
Yes but by most people's definition it clearly is a step in the right direction. It goes from no official recognition of same sex relationships to recognising one particular official form of it. It's a fudge and it still isn't an acceptable situation but it does make things slightly better than they were before.
-
When I accepted the job I was not told I might be asked to deliver gay magazines. When I was asked to deliver them I said no - they were then free to sack me; they decided to keep me on.
Bullshit. You were asked to deliver the magazines that the shop's customers ordered, not pick and choose. It may not have occurred to you when you took the job that that might include gay magazines, but when you found out that it would, your responsible courses of action consisted of:
1. suck it up and do your job
2. offer your resignation
-
Ashers bakery is an example. Or the B&B owners who are asked to provide a double room, the dating website asked to extend its service to same-sex-attracted people. I suspect most Christians in business could face this dilemma in some way.
The Ashers situation is fundamentally different to the other cases you bring up. The Ashers bakery refused to bake a cake with a certain message on it. It didn't matter who ordered it or which way they swung, the problem was the message on the cake, which is a free speech issue.
The B&B people and the dating web site refused to extend a service to people because they were gay. Ashers Bakery did not refuse to bake a cake because the customer was gay.
-
He doesn't want women arguing with men in the church.
That would never do.
The very thought of it is bringing on a fit of the vapours.
-
Yes but by most people's definition it clearly is a step in the right direction. It goes from no official recognition of same sex relationships to recognising one particular official form of it. It's a fudge and it still isn't an acceptable situation but it does make things slightly better than they were before.
But it doesn't. It's just replacing one form of discrimination and shaming with other.
-
Bullshit. You were asked to deliver the magazines that the shop's customers ordered, not pick and choose. It may not have occurred to you when you took the job that that might include gay magazines, but when you found out that it would, your responsible courses of action consisted of:
1. suck it up and do your job
2. offer your resignation
In the same post I said, "What about the useful aspects of the job such as helping the elderly lady who can't get to the paper shop?" I will add, the elderly lady who is grateful to know that someone's been. Or the kid who looks forward to his Beano every Thursday.
Money's not the only reason for working. And you can find a similar scenario for every job, where a homosexual could accuse someone of discrimination. So you basically are saying that Christians can't do paid work.
-
The Ashers situation is fundamentally different to the other cases you bring up. The Ashers bakery refused to bake a cake with a certain message on it. It didn't matter who ordered it or which way they swung, the problem was the message on the cake, which is a free speech issue.
The B&B people and the dating web site refused to extend a service to people because they were gay. Ashers Bakery did not refuse to bake a cake because the customer was gay.
No, if the b&b would allow them single rooms instead they would be extending their service to them. If the dating website allowed people to search for people of the opposite sex only they would likewise not be withholding the service.
-
No, if the b&b would allow them single rooms instead they would be extending their service to them.
Not on the same terms as for heterosexuals though. Hence discrimination.
-
Imagine that someone in the congregation interrupts Paul while he is preaching about God's sovereign choice, saying, "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" and he answers "who are you O man to talk back to God?" (Romans 9:20). Or in an extreme scenario, he might need to tell someone to sit down and shut up. He could not really talk in that way to a lady, in church. This may be why Paul tells women to be silent in the churches and ask their husbands at home. He doesn't want women arguing with men in the church.
This doesn't answer the question of Christians picking and choosing which edicts to follow.
Surely all the rules apply or none do?
-
But it doesn't. It's just replacing one form of discrimination and shaming with other.
But it's a fractionally less bad form of discrimination. Some people who were discriminated against before are not discriminated against now - or at least, not as badly.
-
In the same post I said, "What about the useful aspects of the job such as helping the elderly lady who can't get to the paper shop?"
But that service could have been performed by somebody else quite easily.
So you basically are saying that Christians can't do paid work.
Don't be stupid. You couldn't do the job you were contracted to but that doesn't mean that Christians generally can't do paid work.
-
No, if the b&b would allow them single rooms instead they would be extending their service to them. If the dating website allowed people to search for people of the opposite sex only they would likewise not be withholding the service.
The B&B couple booked a double room. The owners said the only allowed double rooms to people who were married. They lost the case because the couple was in a civil partnership, which was the only form of marriage available at the time and legally equivalent according to the judge. The owners lost the case because they refused to accept that the gay couple had the same rights as a married heterosexual couple. In other words they discriminated against the gay couple because they were gay.
The dating site was there to match couples. If they only match people with members of the opposite sex, they are not doing their job for gay people. They are discriminating against people because they are gay.
-
But it's a fractionally less bad form of discrimination. Some people who were discriminated against before are not discriminated against now - or at least, not as badly.
I really don't see it as that. It's just discrimination in presented in a different form. But I guess that others see it differently.
-
But that service could have been performed by somebody else quite easily.
Don't be stupid. You couldn't do the job you were contracted to but that doesn't mean that Christians generally can't do paid work.
It means that no job they do is secure. Think about it.
-
It means that no job they do is secure. Think about it.
Cobblers. I think you'll find quite a lot in your Bible about not judging others. If you abide by that rule then paid work generally isn't an issue.
My mother is a Christian and had had a variety of jobs including shop work and working for the civil service... and a voluntary one supporting gay people with HIV/AIDS. Guess which one of you I think is the true Christian here.
-
It means that no job they do is secure. Think about it.
You've still not answered my point upthread about a gay doctor who doesn't want to treat you because of your obvious willingness to discriminate against gay people. Is he allowed to refuse to treat you on his moral grounds? Do you accept that?
-
Your version of your chuch worships a book, or collection of writings by very fallible and sometimes unkind human beings, yes, I know. Chilling really when you think what that does to the souls of people.
No orthodox Christian, however conservative, worships the bible.
-
No orthodox Christian, however conservative, worships the bible.
No, I know that. Evangelicalism though puts so much emphasis on words in a book that it is a form of idolatry.
-
No orthodox Christian, however conservative, worships the bible.
They worship the characters within that storybook.
-
You've still not answered my point upthread about a gay doctor who doesn't want to treat you because of your obvious willingness to discriminate against gay people. Is he allowed to refuse to treat you on his moral grounds? Do you accept that?
I don't discriminate against gay people. I would treat him if I were a doctor.
-
I do discriminate between straight and gay sexual relationships because they are different.
How very Christian of you, Spud.
-
I think someone’s been doing some crafty editing.
-
How very Christian of you, Spud.
Explain
-
I think someone’s been doing some crafty editing.
Why crafty?
-
They worship the characters within that storybook.
Well, obviously they worship God, and Christ as God, but what's that to the purpose? Your statement is even more fatuous than usual, and I suspect that you only made it in order to refer to the bible as "a storybook", in a feeble attempt to be shocking. Grow up!
-
Well, obviously they worship God, and Christ as God, but what's that to the purpose? Your statement is even more fatuous than usual, and I suspect that you only made it in order to refer to the bible as "a storybook", in a feeble attempt to be shocking. Grow up!
You have no evidence to back up any of the less than credible stories in that book, like the existence of god and the stories attributed to Jesus. That is not shocking but a fact.
No doubt we will get our wrists slapped for straying so far off the topic of this thread.
-
It means that no job they do is secure. Think about it.
As long as you have the attitude that you are not going to fulfil the terms of your contract, of course your job is not secure.
-
No orthodox Christian, however conservative, worships the bible.
Actually, I think they do
-
Actually, I think they do
Not if they're orthodox, they don't. (small-o orthodox, that is.)
-
I don't discriminate against gay people. I would treat him if I were a doctor.
That wasn't my point. Are you happy that someone should discriminate against you because of the prejudiced views you hold against people in gay relationships?
-
Explain
I was being sarcastic, Spud - I'm sure if you think about it for a while, or perhaps ask an adult to explain it to you, the penny will eventually drop.
-
I don't discriminate against gay people. I would treat him if I were a doctor.
So you think gays need 'curing'? It is anti-gay bigots who require a doctor to cure them of their sick infirmity! >:(
-
So you think gays need 'curing'? It is anti-gay bigots who require a doctor to cure them of their sick infirmity! >:(
I think you need to turn the stick around!
-
So you think gays need 'curing'? It is anti-gay bigots who require a doctor to cure them of their sick infirmity! >:(
If he was sick. You're reading things into his statement that aren't there.
-
LittleRoses if you read back a few posts you will see that Spud was saying he would not refuse to treat a gay patient if he was a doctor, not that he would treat a gay person for being gay.
-
LittleRoses if you read back a few posts you will see that Spud was saying he would not refuse to treat a gay patient if he was a doctor, not that he would treat a gay person for being gay.
LR quite often contributes this posting....and then berates Trent when he disagrees with her on something else, seemingly thinking that because he is gay, he must support her on each and every issue ;D
-
Very likely, I hadn't noticed that but on this occasion she just made a mistake. I will say it does help to read back a bit rather than just the last post or two, before commenting.
-
LR quite often contributes this posting....and then berates Trent when he disagrees with her on something else, seemingly thinking that because he is gay, he must support her on each and every issue ;D
Don't be so silly, what a daft ascertain! >:( Of course I don't expect TV to agree with me because I think homosexuality is as normal at heterosexuality.
-
Very likely, I hadn't noticed that but on this occasion she just made a mistake. I will say it does help to read back a bit rather than just the last post or two, before commenting.
How wonderful of that anti-gay bigot, spud to suggest he would have been gracious enough to treat him if he was a medic. No doubt he would have tried to cure him of being gay too! >:(
-
How wonderful of that anti-gay bigot, spud to suggest he would have been gracious enough to treat him if he was a medic. No doubt he would have tried to cure him of being gay too! >:(
But that wasn't what Spud said, was it?
-
But that wasn't what Spud said, was it?
True. But that wasn't an answer to my original question.
-
I hope the time will come when it will be one's personality which counts, not race, creed, gender or sexuality.
-
I hope the time will come when it will be one's personality which counts, not race, creed, gender or sexuality.
what do you mean by gender?
-
what do you mean by gender?
female, male, transgender
-
I hope the time will come when it will be one's personality which counts, not race, creed, gender or sexuality.
"Counts" for what?
-
"Counts" for what?
For whether you are acceptable to others.
-
For whether you are acceptable to others.
What's an 'acceptable' personality?
-
What's an 'acceptable' personality?
If you are decent honest person or low life trash who have no scruples.
-
female, male, transgender
Two of those are sexes, not gender.
-
Two of those are sexes, not gender.
According to the dictionary gender refers to being male or female.
-
According to the dictionary gender refers to being male or female.
In relation to social constructs, not as regards biology. There is a difference between sex and gender.
-
In relation to social constructs, not as regards biology. There is a difference between sex and gender.
If you say so.
-
If you say so.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender
-
If you are decent honest person or low life trash who have no scruples.
So who gets to judge this? What makes someone ‘decent’ and what makes them ‘low life’, whilst makes a person ‘trash’ and what is ‘honesty’? And when you’ve defined all that, what should happen to the unacceptable?
-
If you say so.
He isn’t just saying so. He knows more about it than you.
-
That wasn't my point. Are you happy that someone should discriminate against you because of the prejudiced views you hold against people in gay relationships?
Prejudice means a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. My opinion is not preconceived and is based on both reason and experience. Homosexual relationships cannot fulfill people. As Anchorman says, the right place for sex is within marriage between a male and a female.
-
Homosexual relationships cannot fulfill people.
Fullfills me, so you are wrong. Therefore your prejudice is based on false reasoning.
The right place for sex is in any number of places.
You do know life isn't exactly the same for everybody?
-
Prejudice means a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. My opinion is not preconceived and is based on both reason and experience. Homosexual relationships cannot fulfill people. As Anchorman says, the right place for sex is within marriage between a male and a female.
you have shown no reason or experience here. I am just popping out to see my friends David and James and they have just told me their relationship is deeply fulfilling. So you are by their experience wrong, and by that reason talking mince.
-
Prejudice means a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. My opinion is not preconceived and is based on both reason and experience. Homosexual relationships cannot fulfill people. As Anchorman says, the right place for sex is within marriage between a male and a female.
You don't half talk some nonsense, of course a gay relationship can be a fulfilling as a straight one.
-
Prejudice means a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. My opinion is not preconceived and is based on both reason and experience. Homosexual relationships cannot fulfill people. As Anchorman says, the right place for sex is within marriage between a male and a female.
Spud, whatever you base your judgements on, it definitely isn’t experience.
-
I hope the time will come when it will be one's personality which counts, not race, creed, gender or sexuality.
You have a dream?
-
You have a dream?
It probably is a dream, but one I wish would come true.
-
That vision isn't a dream, it's a nightmare of subjective values and judgements.
A world where we are all treated equal will do. Because some personalities will always be viewed as more equal than others.
-
That vision isn't a dream, it's a nightmare of subjective values and judgements.
A world where we are all treated equal will do. Because some personalities will always be viewed as more equal than others.
I could comment but probably better if I don't. ::)
-
I could comment but probably better if I don't. ::)
Why? Equality not your thing then?
-
Why? Equality not your thing then?
It depends on your definition of equality.
-
It depends on your definition of equality.
So who falls outside your idea of equality?
-
So who falls outside your idea of equality?
Are people like Hindley and Brady equal to a good decent person who has spent their lives helping others?
-
Rhiannon has started a thread in the Philosophy section, about the worth of human life. There is a link to an article about the late Michael Young, sociologist and politician. You might find it interesting LR.
-
Rhiannon has started a thread in the Philosophy section, about the worth of human life. There is a link to an article about the late Michael Young, sociologist and politician. You might find it interesting LR.
I have seen it.
-
Are people like Hindley and Brady equal to a good decent person who has spent their lives helping others?
Define 'decent person'.
-
Define 'decent person'.
I did.
-
Homosexual relationships cannot fulfill people
Yeah, that's bullshit.
As Anchorman says, the right place for sex is within marriage between a male and a female.
Gay people can now marry each other, so that's OK then.
-
I did.
Remind me.
-
Spud, whatever you base your judgements on, it definitely isn’t experience.
Rather not say. However, when the good book says the two shall become one flesh, it is talking about a husband and wife.
-
Rather not say. However, when the good book says the two shall become one flesh, it is talking about a husband and wife.
Not in my experience.
-
Rather not say. However, when the good book says the two shall become one flesh, it is talking about a husband and wife.
So the people who wrote the Bible were as wrong as you are. At least they have the excuse of living in less enlightened times.
-
I did.
Just for once, she's right. She said "...who spends theor life helping others". It is helpful if you read a person's post properly before replying.
-
Just for once, she's right. She said "...who spends theor life helping others". It is helpful if you read a person's post properly before replying.
I read it, and it’s such a crock of shite I was hoping she’d come up with something better when she repeated it.
-
Methinks you're in for a long wait :D.
-
You don't half talk some nonsense, of course a gay relationship can be a fulfilling as a straight one.
Sure, people can have fulfilling friendships with the same sex, but I meant that sexual activity outside male-female marriage (public lifelong commitment) is not fulfilling and would add that this is true despite some marriages not working out.
-
Sure, people can have fulfilling friendships with the same sex, but I meant that sexual activity outside male-female marriage (public lifelong commitment) is not fulfilling and would add that this is true despite some marriages not working out.
And your reason for dismissing people with first hand experience of fulfilling gay sex (not to mention fulfilling sex outside marriage), in order to make this laughable assertion (apart from blind faith in a primitive superstition) is what, exactly?
-
And your reason for dismissing people with first hand experience of fulfilling gay sex (not to mention fulfilling sex outside marriage), in order to make this laughable assertion (apart from blind faith in a primitive superstition) is what, exactly?
Again, it's not something I am up for discussing, though I don't think the conclusion can be avoided by anyone who's done sex education at school.
-
Again, it's not something I am up for discussing, though I don't think the conclusion can be avoided by anyone who's done sex education at school.
And that conclusion is?
Thank goodness homosexuality, as well as heterosexuality, is being discussed in sex education classes these days.
-
Sure, people can have fulfilling friendships with the same sex, but I meant that sexual activity outside male-female marriage (public lifelong commitment) is not fulfilling and would add that this is true despite some marriages not working out.
Oh but it is, Spud, trust me.
-
Again, it's not something I am up for discussing, though I don't think the conclusion can be avoided by anyone who's done sex education at school.
That's tabs and slots, not technique.
-
Again, it's not something I am up for discussing, though I don't think the conclusion can be avoided by anyone who's done sex education at school.
Whatever your own personal experience is, it cannot support your general assertion, which is obviously prejudiced. I'm 100% sure that people who have done sex education would dispute your daft claim as many of them are in fulfilling, same sex relationships.
You seem to be living in your own little, rather nasty and bigoted world.
-
Sure, people can have fulfilling friendships with the same sex, but I meant that sexual activity outside male-female marriage (public lifelong commitment) is not fulfilling and would add that this is true despite some marriages not working out.
You can think what you like, of course, but I see no reason to agree with you. Certainly, from a personal point of view, I can vouchsafe that sex outside marriage was as fulfilling as sex inside marriage(having experienced both). As regards gay sex, I have no reason at all to disbelieve Trent. I find your conclusions laughable and rather sad at the same time. Certainly they don't have anything of any significance in relating to sex education in schools, a subject which I have actually taught to 9-13 year olds in the past.
-
I meant that sexual activity outside male-female marriage (public lifelong commitment) is not fulfilling
And you know this how...?
In fact, I know for a fact that is false.
-
I think that if you have convinced yourself that sex is only permissible within marriage, and you haven't actually got married yourself, then believing that people who are having sex outside of marriage are really having a miserable time must be a way of seeking consolation for what you are missing out on.
-
Again, it's not something I am up for discussing, though I don't think the conclusion can be avoided by anyone who's done sex education at school.
Have you had gay sex that wasn't fulfilling? Perhaps it wasn't fulfilling because you are not gay.
By the way, I did sex education at school (back in the early 80's). I don't think it told me anything about what sex is really like for either gay people or straight people.
-
Have you had gay sex that wasn't fulfilling? Perhaps it wasn't fulfilling because you are not gay.
By the way, I did sex education at school (back in the early 80's). I don't think it told me anything about what sex is really like for either gay people or straight people.
I got my sex ed mostly from Just 17 magazine circa 1985 and they definitely said it was fulfilling for both. Although I do remember the school showing a Disney film about gonorrhoea.
-
I think that if you have convinced yourself that sex is only permissible within marriage, and you haven't actually got married yourself, then believing that people who are having sex outside of marriage are really having a miserable time must be a way of seeking consolation for what you are missing out on.
Or alternatively if you have convinced yourself that sex is only permissible within marriage, and you haven't actually got married yourself but you have had sex with somebody, the guilt you feel cuts into the experience and ruins it for you.
I think either of our hypothesis could explain Spud's attitude.
-
I got my sex ed mostly from Just 17 magazine circa 1985 and they definitely said it was fulfilling for both. Although I do remember the school showing a Disney film about gonorrhoea.
Disney made a film about gonorrhoea??????
-
Disney made a film about gonorrhoea??????
Seriously. You can find on Youtube.
-
Although I do remember the school showing a Disney film about gonorrhoea.
Morning Rhiannon
STD is surely evidence that strikes dumb anyone who says that sex outside a monogamous male-female relationship (marriage) is fulfilling?
-
Morning Rhiannon
STD is surely evidence that strikes dumb anyone who says that sex outside a monogamous male-female relationship (marriage) is fulfilling?
What about monogamous same sex relationships?
Don't they count as fulfilling?
-
Morning Rhiannon
STD is surely evidence that strikes dumb anyone who says that sex outside a monogamous male-female relationship (marriage) is fulfilling?
No it isn't. I've had very fulfilling sex outside of marriage and I didn't get an STD because it is possible to do one without risking the other.
STDs aren't gender exclusive, you know.
-
Morning Rhiannon
STD is surely evidence that strikes dumb anyone who says that sex outside a monogamous male-female relationship (marriage) is fulfilling?
You aren't likely to get an STD if you are in a gay or straight monogamous relationship, married or unmarried.
-
STD is surely evidence that strikes dumb anyone who says that sex outside a monogamous male-female relationship (marriage) is fulfilling?
Are you actually suggesting that the chance of catching some sort of infection during the course of an interaction, automatically makes it unfulfilling?
That's pretty much all face to face human contact ruled out then...
-
Are you actually suggesting that the chance of catching some sort of infection during the course of an interaction, automatically makes it unfulfilling?
That's pretty much all face to face human contact ruled out then...
I was thinking that. Are colds evidence that we should all just stay in our rooms?
-
Morning Rhiannon
STD is surely evidence that strikes dumb anyone who says that sex outside a monogamous male-female relationship (marriage) is fulfilling?
STD's are nothing more than evidence that bugs and viruses can affect all areas of the body. They should not be used as some sort of judgement based on 'moral' grounds. They are passed on during sexual activity. This can happen on the first occasion you have sex with someone else (eg Florence Foster Jenkins) or with the 400 th person you sleep with. STD infections are indiscriminate and arbitrary. Moral judgements made on that basis are lazy, wrong and themself immoral.
That said, clearly there is a correaltion between promiscuity and risky sexual behaviour with a higher chance of being infected. I fully acknowwledge that those behaviour patterns exist in the gay community, but that does not mean that being gay is any kind of indication that you will get STD's.
To summarise, it's the behaviour, not the sexuality.
-
There seems to be a judgement that STIs are a morally worse form of illness to get than, say, a stomach bug caused by poor hygiene. We all indulge in 'risky behaviour' - having the odd drink, eating chips, even driving - far more likely to result in a fatality than unprotected sex. Yes, there are some behaviours that are riskier than others but that is about personal responsibility, not moral judgement. Makes no sense to me.
-
Morning Rhiannon
STD is surely evidence that strikes dumb anyone who says that sex outside a monogamous male-female relationship (marriage) is fulfilling?
Did you not know that, the probability of getting an STD in a monogamous same sex relationship is about the same as for a different sex relationship? (Assuming that neither partner had the STD when they started.)
And, of course, your chance of getting an STD in what you perceive to be a monogamous heterosexual marriage is not zero.
-
There seems to be a judgement that STIs are a morally worse form of illness to get than, say, a stomach bug caused by poor hygiene. We all indulge in 'risky behaviour' - having the odd drink, eating chips, even driving - far more likely to result in a fatality than unprotected sex. Yes, there are some behaviours that are riskier than others but that is about personal responsibility, not moral judgement. Makes no sense to me.
All of this is entirely irrelevant to the idea that a same sex relationship cannot be fulfilling. It's a pointles distraction from Spud's claim about that. And his mention of STIs should just be ignored as an egregious non sequitur.
-
There seems to be a judgement that STIs are a morally worse form of illness to get than, say, a stomach bug caused by poor hygiene. We all indulge in 'risky behaviour' - having the odd drink, eating chips, even driving - far more likely to result in a fatality than unprotected sex. Yes, there are some behaviours that are riskier than others but that is about personal responsibility, not moral judgement. Makes no sense to me.
STIs are much more likely if people sleep around, which is a daft thing to do, imo.
-
All of this is entirely irrelevant to the idea that a same sex relationship cannot be fulfilling. It's a pointles distraction from Spud's claim about that. And his mention of STIs should just be ignored as an egregious non sequitur.
But not irrelevant given that the discussion has moved on to what is and isn’t risky behaviour. And please don’t tell me what I should and shouldn’t ignore.
-
All of this is entirely irrelevant to the idea that a same sex relationship cannot be fulfilling. It's a pointles distraction from Spud's claim about that. And his mention of STIs should just be ignored as an egregious non sequitur.
Yes but it's not irrelevant to the subject of same sex marriage. If we accept the idea that monogamous relationships reduce the incidence of STI's, which I think seems reasonable, then encouraging monogamous relationships is a good idea and if marriage helps promote monogamous relationships, surely we should all be happy that gay people can now have marriage.
One of the facts of life that religious people don't seem to be able to understand is that people will have sex. You can try to ban it as much as you like but you really can't stop it. The tragic example of child abuse by priests in the Catholic church should be enough to make that obvious.
Spud might as well be morally outraged at the tide coming in as be morally outraged at the fact of people having sex except within marriage.
-
But not irrelevant given that the discussion has moved on to what is and isn’t risky behaviour. And please don’t tell me what I should and shouldn’t ignore.
It's only moved on because people have engaged with a non sequitur. It let's him off the hook for his original statement. If you want to do that, find but it's just playing his game.
-
Yes but it's not irrelevant to the subject of same sex marriage. If we accept the idea that monogamous relationships reduce the incidence of STI's, which I think seems reasonable, then encouraging monogamous relationships is a good idea and if marriage helps promote monogamous relationships, surely we should all be happy that gay people can now have marriage.
One of the facts of life that religious people don't seem to be able to understand is that people will have sex. You can try to ban it as much as you like but you really can't stop it. The tragic example of child abuse by priests in the Catholic church should be enough to make that obvious.
Spud might as well be morally outraged at the tide coming in as be morally outraged at the fact of people having sex except within marriage.
Except his initial claim was abouf the relationship being fulfilling. If you want to follow the Gish gallop with his non sequitur, off you go. It just means the next comment can be a further irrelevance and you go off down rabbit hole.
-
It's only moved on because people have engaged with a non sequitur. It let's him off the hook for his original statement. If you want to do that, find but it's just playing his game.
But Spud's POV is that sex outside of marriage results in STIs which therefore make the relationship unfulfilling. Not that sex outside of marriage is unfulfilling because of the risk of STIs. In other words how can you enjoy a fulfilling sexual relationship if it makes you sick. I really think that Spud is naive enough to think this a thing.
-
Except his initial claim was abouf the relationship being fulfilling. If you want to follow the Gish gallop with his non sequitur, off you go. It just means the next comment can be a further irrelevance and you go off down rabbit hole.
This is a message board. There's no time limit and that fact renders the Gish gallop tactic pointless. There's nothing to stop us from moving on to other aspects of same sex marriage and also keep on about Spud's "fulfilling" comment.
Not that continuing to hold his feet to the fire on that subject will get a straight answer out of him. You can go on for a thousand pagers and you won't get a concession out of him that his remarks on fulfilling sex outside heterosexual marriage are wrong (and offensive to some).
-
There seems to be a judgement that STIs are a morally worse form of illness to get than, say, a stomach bug caused by poor hygiene. We all indulge in 'risky behaviour' - having the odd drink, eating chips, even driving - far more likely to result in a fatality than unprotected sex. Yes, there are some behaviours that are riskier than others but that is about personal responsibility, not moral judgement. Makes no sense to me.
I am not saying that sexual behaviour outside monogamous hetero marriage is morally worse, just that STD's are as Flu says associated with such behaviour. This suggests that the ideal for sex is within a monogamous relationship. I doubt there are many who haven't contravened that ideal, but the ideal is there.
Did you not know that, the probability of getting an STD in a monogamous same sex relationship is about the same as for a different sex relationship? (Assuming that neither partner had the STD when they started.)
Yes. Sex within monogamous same sex relationships may be better insofar as there is less chance of disease transmission. However, there are some activities that can be risky in themselves. The fact is that the body is designed (whether by God or by chance) for heterosexual intercourse.
And, of course, your chance of getting an STD in what you perceive to be a monogamous heterosexual marriage is not zero.
True but the fact remains that STDs are significantly associated with sleeping around.
-
I am not saying that sexual behaviour outside monogamous hetero marriage is morally worse, just that STD's are as Flu says associated with such behaviour. This suggests that the ideal for sex is within a monogamous relationship. I doubt there are many who haven't contravened that ideal, but the ideal is there.
Yes. Sex within monogamous same sex relationships may be better insofar as there is less chance of disease transmission. However, there are some activities that can be risky in themselves. The fact is that the body is designed (whether by God or by chance) for heterosexual intercourse.
True but the fact remains that STDs are significantly associated with sleeping around.
No, Spud, sex outside of monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is not associated with STDs. Why do you think that they are?
-
The more people with whom you have a sexual relationship, the more likely you are to get a STI.
-
However, there are some activities that can be risky in themselves. The fact is that the body is designed (whether by God or by chance) for heterosexual intercourse.
Activities?
What activities?
-
The fact is that the body is designed (whether by God or by chance) for heterosexual intercourse.
Leaving aside the interesting concept of designing by chance.
This God of yours seems spectacularly bad at design. For example until modern healthcare women were at an uncomfortably high risk of dying in childbirth. Why did God design women that way?
You seem to be straying close to an unnatural=wrong equation. I dont see the issue myself. God appears to have made it perfectly possible for 2 men to have intercourse. Just because you have an issue with the type of intercourse is no reason to discount or deny it.
-
The more people with whom you have a sexual relationship, the more likely you are to get a STI.
Not if you practice safe sex.
-
Not if you practice safe sex.
Yes but something could go wrong like the condom bursting, for instance.
This is a bit off topic, but I have heard that Sainsburys is going to sell sex toys in its stores! :o
-
This is a bit off topic, but I have heard that Sainsburys is going to sell sex toys in its stores! :o
Don’t worry, LR, you can use the self service checkout.
-
No, Spud, sex outside of monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is not associated with STDs. Why do you think that they are?
He thinks that everybody who has sex outside of marriage is promiscuous and would sleep with anything that moves.
-
Yes but something could go wrong like the condom bursting, for instance.
This is a bit off topic, but I have heard that Sainsburys is going to sell sex toys in its stores! :o
You find all the tit bits in the news! Where did you see that one? I'll never look a German sausage in the face again.
-
Don’t worry, LR, you can use the self service checkout.
Unexpected item in the bagging area :D
-
Unexpected item in the bagging area :D
:D
-
Nooooo..........I sent you to get dill and dough!!!!
:o :o
-
Unexpected item in the bagging area :D
I’ve never heard it called that before.
-
Oh dear! ;D
-
Leaving aside the interesting concept of designing by chance.
This God of yours seems spectacularly bad at design. For example until modern healthcare women were at an uncomfortably high risk of dying in childbirth. Why did God design women that way?
I don't have the answer, if I were a woman I might have tried to find it. Being a bloke I have been more interested in the other side of the curse on the ground (Genesis 3) - painful toil, in particular back pain. I was very grateful to Rhiannon for suggesting that I wear gloves to reduce the problem of "thorns and thistles" but I've also looked at back pain from a mechanical perspective. I've concluded that it is possible to avoid serious back injury. The spine is subject to the same forces that any upright column is. Repetitive forward flexion movements, for example, put stresses on the rear part of the spine which build up over time causing injury. But we also have pain sensation which warns us when this stress is building up. Arching backwards counters this. Theologically we can say that God designed the world so that we think of him as being above us (although this is only symbolic in the sense that he has authority "over" us). So once we start to look up towards God we are countering the stresses put on the spine through hard labour. I've found that looking into the sky directly above actually halts the onset of lower back pain.
This is of course to do with the force applied on the spine by the head, which weighs more than we think. Poor posture or excessive forward bending puts the head well in front of the body's center of gravity. Looking up at the sky (like a heffalump about to fall into a trap) moves the head over the center of gravity and relieves the spinal joints.
As well as this I think I've found a mechanical cure, or at least a preventative cure, for the common cold. I'm in the testing stage, so watch this space.
If we trust that God made everything "very good" (Genesis 1) it follows that he has designed us for a long and healthy life and there may be a way in which labor and childbirth can be done safely and without the pain that most women experience. Again, being a single bloke I haven't focused on a remedy for this problem yet. But I read that the native American Indians were observed to have much less difficulty giving birth. Apparently they used to stand up and let the baby fall into a pile of leaves.... Well that apparently increases the pelvic diameter...
You seem to be straying close to an unnatural=wrong equation. I dont see the issue myself. God appears to have made it perfectly possible for 2 men to have intercourse. Just because you have an issue with the type of intercourse is no reason to discount or deny it.
If you say so. I understand how it might be possible to be attracted to the same sex, and that this leads to the need to relieve sexual tension. This is again not something I can relate to and so I haven't focused on how someone can change their sexual orientation so that their reproductive organs can function be used for that purpose (I've been more preoccupied with back pain and cold viruses). But I'm sure that this must begin with trust that God made us for a certain purpose, in this case to be fruitfly and multiple. Please don't take offence at any of this, I am as imperfect as anyone else. I just wanted to answer your point.
-
I don't have the answer, if I were a woman I might have tried to find it. Being a bloke I have been more interested in the other side of the curse on the ground (Genesis 3) - painful toil, in particular back pain. I was very grateful to Rhiannon for suggesting that I wear gloves to reduce the problem of "thorns and thistles" but I've also looked at back pain from a mechanical perspective. I've concluded that it is possible to avoid serious back injury. The spine is subject to the same forces that any upright column is. Repetitive forward flexion movements, for example, put stresses on the rear part of the spine which build up over time causing injury. But we also have pain sensation which warns us when this stress is building up. Arching backwards counters this. Theologically we can say that God designed the world so that we think of him as being above us (although this is only symbolic in the sense that he has authority "over" us). So once we start to look upwards we are countering the stresses put on the spine through hard labour. I've found that looking into the sky directly above actually halts the onset of lower back pain.
This is of course to do with the force applied on the spine by the head, which weighs more than we think. Poor posture or excessive forward bending puts the head well in front of the body's center of gravity. Looking up at the sky (like a heffalump about to fall into a trap) moves the head over the center of gravity and relieves the spinal joints.
As well as this I think I've found a cure for the common cold. I'm in the testing stage, so watch this space.
If we trust that God made everything "very good" (Genesis 1) it follows that he has designed us for a long and healthy life and there may be a way in which labor and childbirth can be done safely and without the pain that most women experience. Again, being a single bloke I haven't focused on a remedy for this problem yet. But I read that the native American Indians were observed to have much less difficulty giving birth. Apparently they used to stand up and let the baby fall into a pile of leaves.... Well that apparently increases the pelvic diameter...
If you say so. I understand how it might be possible to be attracted to the same sex, and that this leads to the need to relieve sexual tension. This is again not something I can relate to and so I haven't focused on how someone can change their sexual orientation so that their reproductive organs can function be used for that purpose (I've been more preoccupied with back pain and cold viruses). But I'm sure that this must begin with trust that God made us for a certain purpose, in this case to be fruitfly and multiple. Please don't take offence at any of this, I am as imperfect as anyone else. I just wanted to answer your point.
None of this is at all relevant to you saying trent can't be fulfilled being gay, and is lying by stating he is fulfilled in a relationship. Stick to the point.
-
I don't have the answer, if I were a woman I might have tried to find it. Being a bloke I have been more interested in the other side of the curse on the ground (Genesis 3) - painful toil, in particular back pain. I was very grateful to Rhiannon for suggesting that I wear gloves to reduce the problem of "thorns and thistles" but I've also looked at back pain from a mechanical perspective. I've concluded that it is possible to avoid serious back injury. The spine is subject to the same forces that any upright column is. Repetitive forward flexion movements, for example, put stresses on the rear part of the spine which build up over time causing injury. But we also have pain sensation which warns us when this stress is building up. Arching backwards counters this. Theologically we can say that God designed the world so that we think of him as being above us (although this is only symbolic in the sense that he has authority "over" us). So once we start to look upwards we are countering the stresses put on the spine through hard labour. I've found that looking into the sky directly above actually halts the onset of lower back pain.
This is of course to do with the force applied on the spine by the head, which weighs more than we think. Poor posture or excessive forward bending puts the head well in front of the body's center of gravity. Looking up at the sky (like a heffalump about to fall into a trap) moves the head over the center of gravity and relieves the spinal joints.
As well as this I think I've found a cure for the common cold. I'm in the testing stage, so watch this space.
If we trust that God made everything "very good" (Genesis 1) it follows that he has designed us for a long and healthy life and there may be a way in which labor and childbirth can be done safely and without the pain that most women experience. Again, being a single bloke I haven't focused on a remedy for this problem yet. But I read that the native American Indians were observed to have much less difficulty giving birth. Apparently they used to stand up and let the baby fall into a pile of leaves.... Well that apparently increases the pelvic diameter...
If you say so. I understand how it might be possible to be attracted to the same sex, and that this leads to the need to relieve sexual tension. This is again not something I can relate to and so I haven't focused on how someone can change their sexual orientation so that their reproductive organs can function be used for that purpose (I've been more preoccupied with back pain and cold viruses). But I'm sure that this must begin with trust that God made us for a certain purpose, in this case to be fruitfly and multiple. Please don't take offence at any of this, I am as imperfect as anyone else. I just wanted to answer your point.
WOW I never ever thought god wanted me to be a fruit fly! ;D
-
But I'm sure that this must begin with trust that God made us for a certain purpose,
Yes, that was to tend his garden according to Genesis.
-
Good luck with the cold cure thingy Spud.
Remember to patent it because if it works you will make millions I reckon!
-
I understand how it might be possible to be attracted to the same sex, and that this leads to the need to relieve sexual tension. This is again not something I can relate to and so I haven't focused on how someone can change their sexual orientation so that their reproductive organs can function be used for that purpose
That is a heck of a mess of a statement.
Firstly, you seem to be saying that I changed my sexual orientation, can I assure you I didn't.
Secondly, you are reducing my relationship to the level of relieving sexual tension. Yet again, wrong. I have two hands quite capable of fulfilling that particular function, thank you. My relationship with my partner is about a great many more things than sexual tension and the relief thereof.
As to your backache, due in most part to the fact that we now walk erect whereas our ancestors used to go around on all fours. God obviously wasn't bright enough to make changes to help us out.
-
That is a heck of a mess of a statement.
Firstly, you seem to be saying that I changed my sexual orientation, can I assure you I didn't.
Secondly, you are reducing my relationship to the level of relieving sexual tension. Yet again, wrong. I have two hands quite capable of fulfilling that particular function, thank you. My relationship with my partner is about a great many more things than sexual tension and the relief thereof.
As to your backache, due in most part to the fact that we now walk erect whereas our ancestors used to go around on all fours. God obviously wasn't bright enough to make changes to help us out.
I was replying to what you said. Sex with a man would be a consequence of sexual attraction to him, right? That doesn't mean you don't have a good relationship with him.
I added that I'm not same sex attracted and so haven't thought much about how one could change from same-sex to opposite-sex attraction. If I was gay, and I then changed orientation, I would be able to use my body in the way it was designed to be used. That's what would make sex fulfilling. Assuming it was part of a loving monogamous relationship of course.
The reference to healing of backache was to demonstrate that the body can put itself right given one takes the right action. I believe this would apply with childbirth and with same-sex attraction, which causes the reproductive organs to respond to people of the same sex rather than opposite sex.
There is no evidence that we are related to quadrupedal animals.
-
I was replying to what you said. Sex with a man would be a consequence of sexual attraction to him, right? That doesn't mean you don't have a good relationship with him.
I added that I'm not same sex attracted and so haven't thought much about how one could change from same-sex to opposite-sex attraction. If I was gay, and I then changed orientation, I would be able to use my body in the way it was designed to be used. That's what would make sex fulfilling. Assuming it was part of a loving monogamous relationship of course.
The reference to healing of backache was to demonstrate that the body can put itself right given one takes the right action. I believe this would apply with childbirth and with same-sex attraction, which causes the reproductive organs to respond to people of the same sex rather than opposite sex.
There is no evidence that we are related to quadrupedal animals.
You have said Trent cannot having a fulfilling relationship with his partner. Everything else here is just decoration around that ignorant piece of shite remark.
-
I was replying to what you said. Sex with a man would be a consequence of sexual attraction to him, right? That doesn't mean you don't have a good relationship with him.
I added that I'm not same sex attracted and so haven't thought much about how one could change from same-sex to opposite-sex attraction. If I was gay, and I then changed orientation, I would be able to use my body in the way it was designed to be used. That's what would make sex fulfilling. Assuming it was part of a loving monogamous relationship of course.
The reference to healing of backache was to demonstrate that the body can put itself right given one takes the right action. I believe this would apply with childbirth and with same-sex attraction, which causes the reproductive organs to respond to people of the same sex rather than opposite sex.
There is no evidence that we are related to quadrupedal animals.
YE GODS, you don't half talk some silly nonsense! >:(
Sex is fulfilling in a good relationship, be it gay or straight, you don't seem to get that! You seem to think it is only for the procreation of children. Not everyone wants kids, like my youngest sister (60), an Anglican Priest, and her husband have a good marriage but had no wish to have any offspring.
Homosexuality is NOT an illness, so it doesn't need to be cured.
-
I added that I'm not same sex attracted and so haven't thought much about how one could change from same-sex to opposite-sex attraction.
Look this is nonsense. Have you thought about changing from opposite sex attraction to same sex attraction?
I bet you haven't. Because that is not the way sexuality works. You can't suddenly decide to be gay or straight. You just are. (And for others, I know it's not a binary choice here).
I can no more change my sexuality than I can my left handedness or any other immutable characteristics I have.
-
I was replying to what you said. Sex with a man would be a consequence of sexual attraction to him, right? That doesn't mean you don't have a good relationship with him. I added that I'm not same sex attracted and so haven't thought much about how one could change from same-sex to opposite-sex attraction. If I was gay, and I then changed orientation, I would be able to use my body in the way it was designed to be used. That's what would make sex fulfilling. Assuming it was part of a loving monogamous relationship of course. The reference to healing of backache was to demonstrate that the body can put itself right given one takes the right action. I believe this would apply with childbirth and with same-sex attraction, which causes the reproductive organs to respond to people of the same sex rather than opposite sex. There is no evidence that we are related to quadrupedal animals.
First; there's plenty of evidence to suggest we are related to quadrapedal animals. Heck, there's plenty of evidence to syggest we're related to radishes. It's called DNA. That does not negate the Christian position on sex outside the male-female bond ....for the Christian, Spud. It's not on...whether with a man, woman, chicken oy lamp post. It is, indeed, sin. So are a lot of things. But suggesting it can be a lifestyle choice, or can be 'cured' is on a par with suggesting I can cure the fact that I don't have a left eye. I can't. I can, however deal with it. I get really fed up with my fellow evangelicals who throw a wobbly every time the gay thing comes up. It happens in the animal kingdom as well; not a disability, not a lifestyle choice; just a thing. That's where faith comes in; faith to cope with the situation in the light of Scripture. You know as well as I do the attitude in most ancient cultures - Israel included - to disability in general, and blindness in particular. It was a mark of shame; some thought it was a mark of sin...though Jesus told them where to go as far as that went. Yet many, myself included, believe that Paul himself was suffering from extremely poor eyesight at the time of his trial before the Sanhedrin and his subsequent imprisonment...yet God chos to continue to use him in ways which changed, and still change,lives. Did God remove his visual impairment? Not that we can discern. Did this 'mark of shame' stop him in any way? Not a bit of it! Did he learn to live with it in the light of Scripture? Look for yourself. Same with sexuality, whether homosexual, heterosexual or promiscuity. Faith is the answer...not condemnation.
-
First; there's plenty of evidence to suggest we are related to quadrapedal animals. Heck, there's plenty of evidence to syggest we're related to radishes. It's called DNA. That does not negate the Christian position on sex outside the male-female bond ....for the Christian, Spud. It's not on...whether with a man, woman, chicken oy lamp post. It is, indeed, sin. So are a lot of things. But suggesting it can be a lifestyle choice, or can be 'cured' is on a par with suggesting I can cure the fact that I don't have a left eye. I can't. I can, however deal with it. I get really fed up with my fellow evangelicals who throw a wobbly every time the gay thing comes up. It happens in the animal kingdom as well; not a disability, not a lifestyle choice; just a thing. That's where faith comes in; faith to cope with the situation in the light of Scripture. You know as well as I do the attitude in most ancient cultures - Israel included - to disability in general, and blindness in particular. It was a mark of shame; some thought it was a mark of sin...though Jesus told them where to go as far as that went. Yet many, myself included, believe that Paul himself was suffering from extremely poor eyesight at the time of his trial before the Sanhedrin and his subsequent imprisonment...yet God chos to continue to use him in ways which changed, and still change,lives. Did God remove his visual impairment? Not that we can discern. Did this 'mark of shame' stop him in any way? Not a bit of it! Did he learn to live with it in the light of Scripture? Look for yourself. Same with sexuality, whether homosexual, heterosexual or promiscuity. Faith is the answer...not condemnation.
I love so much of throat but you just need to make the jump that if your God or the book of your God says that my friends in long term living homosexual relationships are sinning, then it makes no sense.
-
I am beginning to wonder if spud is a gay in denial. Maybe he thinks if he disses homosexuality in the way he is doing, god will look favourably on him and 'cure' him. ::)
-
I am beginning to wonder if spud is a gay in denial. Maybe he thinks if he disses homosexuality in the way he is doing, god will look favourably on him and 'cure' him. ::)
The whole gay in denial schtick is very boring. I dislike the monarchy intensely, does that make me a king in denial?
-
The whole gay in denial schtick is very boring. I dislike the monarchy intensely, does that make me a king in denial?
But some gays are in denial, especially if they are very religious.
-
I am beginning to wonder if spud is a gay in denial. Maybe he thinks if he disses homosexuality in the way he is doing, god will look favourably on him and 'cure' him. ::)
Spare us the second-hand psycho-babble. I'm sure Spud is simply a fundy Christian who believes homosexuality to be wrong for that reason.
BTW, I thought it was your daughter who was the anglican priest.
-
Spare us the second-hand psycho-babble. I'm sure Spud is simply a fundy Christian who believes homosexuality to be wrong for that reason.
BTW, I thought it was your daughter who was the anglican priest.
I have TWO anglican priests in my family, my daughter and baby sister.
-
I am beginning to wonder if spud is a gay in denial. Maybe he thinks if he disses homosexuality in the way he is doing, god will look favourably on him and 'cure' him. ::)
'A gay' sounds like something out of the 1960's.
-
First; there's plenty of evidence to suggest we are related to quadrapedal animals. Heck, there's plenty of evidence to syggest we're related to radishes. It's called DNA. That does not negate the Christian position on sex outside the male-female bond ....for the Christian, Spud. It's not on...whether with a man, woman, chicken oy lamp post. It is, indeed, sin. So are a lot of things. But suggesting it can be a lifestyle choice, or can be 'cured' is on a par with suggesting I can cure the fact that I don't have a left eye. I can't. I can, however deal with it. I get really fed up with my fellow evangelicals who throw a wobbly every time the gay thing comes up. It happens in the animal kingdom as well; not a disability, not a lifestyle choice; just a thing. That's where faith comes in; faith to cope with the situation in the light of Scripture. You know as well as I do the attitude in most ancient cultures - Israel included - to disability in general, and blindness in particular. It was a mark of shame; some thought it was a mark of sin...though Jesus told them where to go as far as that went. Yet many, myself included, believe that Paul himself was suffering from extremely poor eyesight at the time of his trial before the Sanhedrin and his subsequent imprisonment...yet God chos to continue to use him in ways which changed, and still change,lives. Did God remove his visual impairment? Not that we can discern. Did this 'mark of shame' stop him in any way? Not a bit of it! Did he learn to live with it in the light of Scripture? Look for yourself. Same with sexuality, whether homosexual, heterosexual or promiscuity. Faith is the answer...not condemnation.
So why then has your god created something natural and then said that two people who want to celebrate what their natural God-given inclination is through commitment, love, sex and marriage are sinning and deserve to be damned? You loving god stops being so loving at that point.
-
'A gay' sounds like something out of the 1960's.
What do you mean?
-
What do you mean?
It's disrespectful. Someone can be gay, or they can be a gay person.
-
So why then has your god created something natural and then said that two people who want to celebrate what their natural God-given inclination is through commitment, love, sex and marriage are sinning and deserve to be damned? You loving god stops being so loving at that point.
While love has no limits, society has.
Again, I hae neber condembned gat marriage - secular marriage; nor do I do so now.
However sex outside marriage - for the Christian - is sin - regardless of gender.
And Christian marriage is between man and woman.
I cannot see any other way of defining Christian marriage in accordance with New Testament values.
-
While love has no limits, society has.
Again, I hae neber condembned gat marriage - secular marriage; nor do I do so now.
However sex outside marriage - for the Christian - is sin - regardless of gender.
And Christian marriage is between man and woman.
I cannot see any other way of defining Christian marriage in accordance with New Testament values.
And yet, slavery, women in church, you tell me your god is the god of love. Your beliefs mock that.
I'm glad your church is dividing and dying. The truth is, you are right, love has no limits. It will be a relief when Christianity stops imposing them.
-
While love has no limits, society has.
Again, I hae neber condembned gat marriage - secular marriage; nor do I do so now.
However sex outside marriage - for the Christian - is sin - regardless of gender.
And Christian marriage is between man and woman.
I cannot see any other way of defining Christian marriage in accordance with New Testament values.
But surely you can see that two people loving each other isn't necessarily a bad thing? Doesn't that make you pause in your belief that your god doesn't see that?
-
While love has no limits, society has.
Again, I hae neber condembned gat marriage - secular marriage; nor do I do so now.
However sex outside marriage - for the Christian - is sin - regardless of gender.
And Christian marriage is between man and woman.
I cannot see any other way of defining Christian marriage in accordance with New Testament values.
God had no compunction about getting Mary up the duff, but it wasn't married to her, if that crazy tale has any credibility!
-
First; there's plenty of evidence to suggest we are related to quadrapedal animals. Heck, there's plenty of evidence to syggest we're related to radishes. It's called DNA. That does not negate the Christian position on sex outside the male-female bond ....for the Christian, Spud. It's not on...whether with a man, woman, chicken oy lamp post. It is, indeed, sin. So are a lot of things. But suggesting it can be a lifestyle choice, or can be 'cured' is on a par with suggesting I can cure the fact that I don't have a left eye. I can't. I can, however deal with it. I get really fed up with my fellow evangelicals who throw a wobbly every time the gay thing comes up. It happens in the animal kingdom as well; not a disability, not a lifestyle choice; just a thing. That's where faith comes in; faith to cope with the situation in the light of Scripture. You know as well as I do the attitude in most ancient cultures - Israel included - to disability in general, and blindness in particular. It was a mark of shame; some thought it was a mark of sin...though Jesus told them where to go as far as that went. Yet many, myself included, believe that Paul himself was suffering from extremely poor eyesight at the time of his trial before the Sanhedrin and his subsequent imprisonment...yet God chos to continue to use him in ways which changed, and still change,lives. Did God remove his visual impairment? Not that we can discern. Did this 'mark of shame' stop him in any way? Not a bit of it! Did he learn to live with it in the light of Scripture? Look for yourself. Same with sexuality, whether homosexual, heterosexual or promiscuity. Faith is the answer...not condemnation.
Thanks.
In case you think that same sex attraction is unchangeable: I know someone who has been open with me about having same-sex attraction in the past, but recently told me that a friend of his has unwittingly said something that enabled him to change his orientation.
I note that this person I know hasn't practiced homosexuality, except once as a teen. This makes me think it's possible that those who do practice it may in time become less able to change orientation later on. At some point I may be able to ask him what was said. I just thought I would mention it, as it may be that same sex attraction is not unchangeable, despite the insistence of many that it is.
You are right that for the Christian, sex should be between a husband and wife. People other than Christians also believe this, though, simply out of respect for it as the bond on which the family is based or just through knowledge of anatomy and physiology.
-
As there is nothing wrong with being gay, why should anyone wish to change to being a heterosexual? There are many gay Christians, and some churches will conduct gay marriage. If god was a good entity it would have no problem with people being gay.
-
Thanks.
In case you think that same sex attraction is unchangeable: I know someone who has been open with me about having same-sex attraction in the past, but recently told me that a friend of his has unwittingly said something that enabled him to change his orientation.
I note that this person I know hasn't practiced homosexuality, except once as a teen. This makes me think it's possible that those who do practice it may in time become less able to change orientation later on. At some point I may be able to ask him what was said. I just thought I would mention it, as it may be that same sex attraction is not unchangeable, despite the insistence of many that it is.
You are right that for the Christian, sex should be between a husband and wife. People other than Christians also believe this, though, simply out of respect for it as the bond on which the family is based or just through knowledge of anatomy and physiology.
Or, Spud, you could just stop worrying about homosexuality, mind your own business, treat people as individuals, respect their individuality and privacy and simply let people live their lives as they see fit without reference to your personal preferences.
-
People other than Christians also believe this, though, simply out of respect for it as the bond on which the family is based or just through knowledge of anatomy and physiology.
Sweeping generalisation or lie?
Just stop being fucking insulting. Stop endorsing gay conversion therapy and just go and clean your teeth.
-
Yes, spud, stop being so nasty about gays. Your posts on this are quite sick.
-
Let's be honest all sorts of people are trying to convert all sorts of people all the time. What do you think Dawkins and Graham are/were about.
Yes you get horror stories about people dispensing these services and yes you get surgeons botching buttock lifts.
The big dilemma is how do you approach someone who wants these services.
-
Let's be honest all sorts of people are trying to convert all sorts of people all the time. What do you think Dawkins and Graham are/were about.
Yes you get horror stories about people dispensing these services and yes you get surgeons botching buttock lifts.
The big dilemma is how do you approach someone who wants these services.
I'm not going to get into this with you. It's harmful. It's wrong. It does not belong in a civilised society. Do not get me started on this one.
-
As there is nothing wrong with being gay, why should anyone wish to change to being a heterosexual?
Why should anyone wish to change from being a man to being a woman?
-
I'm not going to get into this with you. It's harmful. It's wrong. It does not belong in a civilised society. Do not get me started on this one.
No.....How do you approach someone who wants this service particularly if you are both strongly against it yet agreed with Gordon about leaving people be.
-
No.....How do you approach someone who wants this service particularly if you are both strongly against it yet agreed with Gordon about leaving people be.
Create a level playing field first where gay people are treated equally and are respected.
https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy
Please read and digest and pay particular notice to this part:
The potential risks of “reparative therapy” are great and include depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone “reparative therapy” relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian are not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed...
-
Create a level playing field first where gay people are treated equally and are respected.
As laudable as that may be, how does it answer what I am saying?
-
What about the person who thinks it is right to support someone in assisted dying, but heinous to support someone who wants these services?
-
As laudable as that may be, how does it answer what I am saying?
You seem to be going down a slippery slope route, Vlad: my comment of respecting individuality and privacy in matters of personal sexuality does not imply approval for particular approaches that might be harmful unless properly assessed and supervised, such as medical interventions - and there are concerns about so-called 'reparative' therapy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44686374
-
As laudable as that may be, how does it answer what I am saying?
Because Conversion Therapy doesn't assume or even acknowledge that there should be a level playing field. Therefore it is the strong abusing the weak.
I'm not playing your word games - I don't care about your fucking obsession with Dawkins. He hasn't made people sick by forcing them to take drugs or by applying electric shocks to their testicles. I really do suggest you STFU about this area. You know nothing about it. To even suggest supporting it or allowing it, is supporting abuse.
-
What about the person who thinks it is right to support someone in assisted dying, but heinous to support someone who wants these services?
This is, as you note yourself, an example of whataboutery on your part.
-
I really do suggest you STFU about this area.
Charming.
Wanting to shut down ethical questions on a forum with "ethics' in the title.......we're done I suggest.
-
Charming.
Wanting to shut down ethical questions on a forum with "ethics' in the title.......we're done I suggest.
There's fuck all that is 'ethical' about your behaviour on this thread.
-
There's fuck all that is 'ethical' about your behaviour on this thread.
Really? Like what?
-
Charming.
Wanting to shut down ethical questions on a forum with "ethics' in the title.......we're done I suggest.
Nope - not done.
Not an ethical question is it? Gay conversion therapy. It's damaging and horrific. The real ethical question is why you feel the need to play your little game with this horrible topic. Save it for your love affair with Dawkins et al. You can ramble on in your usual fashion, trying to play from both sides of the fence but in the end make up your mind whether it's acceptable in a civilised society. Once you've worked that out, your responses should fall firmly one side of the net. Hopefully the human side rather the pedantic, shitty, lets play a jolly game with this.
Now I'm done.
-
Nope - not done.
Not an ethical question is it? Gay conversion therapy. It's damaging and horrific. The real ethical question is why you feel the need to play your little game with this horrible topic. Save it for your love affair with Dawkins et al. You can ramble on in your usual fashion, trying to play from both sides of the fence but in the end make up your mind whether it's acceptable in a civilised society. Once you've worked that out, your responses should fall firmly one side of the net. Hopefully the human side rather the pedantic, shitty, lets play a jolly game with this.
Now I'm done.
Sorry, you're mistaking me for someone who should be galvanised by your ill informed comments.
The questions are this how should you approach someone who wants this treatment.
Secondly, why is gender reassignment acceptable for some yet for the same sexuality reassignment isn't
And thirdly, the same question to people who think life to death reassignment is acceptable.
All reasonable questions for a supposed ethics forum met with what looks suspiciously like intellectual fascism......that's a fancy equivalent of your phrase STFU.
-
The questions are this how should you approach someone who wants this treatment.
You advise them to take professional advice (unless of course you are qualified to give informed advice on the spot). The links posted earlier should give you a clue as to what this advice might be.
Secondly, why is gender reassignment acceptable for some yet for the same sexuality reassignment isn't
I'd advise you to find out about more about 'gender' and 'sexuality' before you conflate them further.
And thirdly, the same question to people who think life to death reassignment is acceptable.
If you mean voluntary euthanasia there is ample information about that from various perspectives: so, again (unless you are qualified to give expert advice) you advise that expert advice should be sought - I'd have thought you'd be able to work that out for yourself!
All reasonable questions for a supposed ethics forum met with what looks suspiciously like intellectual fascism......that's a fancy equivalent of your phrase STFU.
Perhaps you'd be better advised to learn a little more about the issues themselves first, such as understanding the differences between the terms 'gender' and 'sexuality', before cogitating on any ethical perspectives - and no, I'm not going to do the work for you.
-
As there is nothing wrong with being gay, why should anyone wish to change to being a heterosexual? There are many gay Christians, and some churches will conduct gay marriage. If god was a good entity it would have no problem with people being gay.
1. - Whether there's anything wrong with being gay is the question being debated, so your firsr sentence is a circular argument.
2. - churches are not allowed to conduct gay marriages.
3. - who the hell do you think you are, presuming to know the mind of God?
-
You advise them to take professional advice (unless of course you are qualified to give informed advice on the spot). The links posted earlier should give you a clue as to what this advice might be.
I'd advise you to find out about more about 'gender' and 'sexuality' before you conflate them further.
If you mean voluntary euthanasia there is ample information about that from various perspectives: so, again (unless you are qualified to give expert advice) you advise that expert advice should be sought - I'd have thought you'd be able to work that out for yourself!
Perhaps you'd be better advised to learn a little more about the issues themselves first, such as understanding the differences between the terms 'gender' and 'sexuality', before cogitating on any ethical perspectives - and no, I'm not going to do the work for you.
I don't expect you to since you strike me as someone who has other people collect the condensate from your vapours in silver bowls.
Look Gordon it is straight forward why is choosing to pursue having gender reassignment ok but choosing to pursue sexuality reassignment a bad thing or facial tattoos for that matter.?
-
I don't expect you to since you strike me as someone who has other people collect the condensate from your vapours in silver bowls.
Look Gordon it is straight forward why is choosing to pursue having gender reassignment ok but choosing to pursue sexuality reassignment a bad thing or facial tattoos for that matter.?
Because there's no such thing as sexuality reassignment - it doesn't work, and it does do a lot of harm.
-
Because there's no such thing as sexuality reassignment - it doesn't work, and it does do a lot of harm.
Thank you for putting that in much more temperate language than I was going to use.
-
Because there's no such thing as sexuality reassignment - it doesn't work, and it does do a lot of harm.
See folks.......that's how it's done.
-
I don't expect you to since you strike me as someone who has other people collect the condensate from your vapours in silver bowls.
Look Gordon it is straight forward why is choosing to pursue having gender reassignment ok but choosing to pursue sexuality reassignment a bad thing or facial tattoos for that matter.?
Leaving aside the issue of tattoos, which is a specious comparison with the other issues mentioned, your ability to conflate these things is either mischievous or due to ignorance (or possibly both). That you will struggle to find 'sexuality reassignment' treatment in professional UK health provision might give you a clue as to why the comparison you make with gender reassignment is a pointless one.
-
The questions are this how should you approach someone who wants this treatment.
So if someone approaches you and says I want to take poison because it's good for me, you'll do your best to facilitate their wish?
Or will you simply state actually taking poison isn't good for you and you shouldn't do it.
This is not fucking rocket science.
As to gender reassignment - I'm not an expert on that, but I understand from what I have read that a lot of people who undergo such assignment actually benefit from the process. Unlike gay conversion therapy.
If you want to talk about end of life choices I'd suggest you start another thread on that.
As to the charge of intellectual fascism
I thank you for the recognition of intellectual but fascism had nothing to do with it. Just a response to you wishing to suggest that there is any justification for conversion therapy. I've seen what it does to someone, you really wouldn't be so fucking blasé if you had witnessed the effect it has on a person.
PS When I said I was done, I was of course, using the patented Vlad method of leaving a topic and then immediately returning to it.
A vladerang if you will.
-
So if someone approaches you and says I want to take poison because it's good for me, you'll do your best to facilitate their wish?
Or will you simply state actually taking poison isn't good for you and you shouldn't do it.
This is not fucking rocket science.
As to gender reassignment - I'm not an expert on that, but I understand from what I have read that a lot of people who undergo such assignment actually benefit from the process. Unlike gay conversion therapy.
If you want to talk about end of life choices I'd suggest you start another thread on that.
As to the charge of I thank you for the recognition of intellectual but fascism had nothing to do with it. Just a response to you wishing to suggest that there is any justification for conversion therapy. I've seen what it does to someone, you really wouldn't be so fucking blasé if you had witnessed the effect it has on a person.
PS When I said I was done, I was of course, using the patented Vlad method of leaving a topic and then immediately returning to it.
A vladerang if you will.
I have just laid out the libertarian argument namely If you want something then you should be allowed to have it and if it isnt available then effort should be made to make it so.
That doesnt mean that I am a libertarian.
Those who usually take the libertarian approach yet suspend it for particular situations must have particular reasons.
-
I have just laid out the libertarian argument namely If you want something then you should be allowed to have it and if it isnt available then effort should be made to make it so.
That doesnt mean that I am a libertarian.
Those who usually take the libertarian approach yet suspend it for particular situations must have particular reasons.
Aye well. Libertarian seems an unusually vague term to me. The fact that Ayn Rand (altho Rand herself denied this - but as she is considered by other right wing libertarians to be a guiding light I think I'd allow the definition to apply) and Arlo Guthrie are considered libertarians, makes the concept quite a remarkable "broad church".
So I think before you use the term it would be useful to define what you mean by it. As I am not, by any of the definitions I've seen, a true libertarian you may need to take this up with someone else. (Where's Shaker?)
-
I have just laid out the libertarian argument namely If you want something then you should be allowed to have it and if it isnt available then effort should be made to make it so.
That doesnt mean that I am a libertarian.
Those who usually take the libertarian approach yet suspend it for particular situations must have particular reasons.
You seem to be confusing being libertarian in outlook with encouraging ill-informed recklessness.
-
Aye well. Libertarian seems an unusually vague term to me. The fact that Ayn Rand (altho Rand herself denied this - but as she is considered by other right wing libertarians to be a guiding light I think I'd allow the definition to apply) and Arlo Guthrie are considered libertarians, makes the concept quite a remarkable "broad church".
So I think before you use the term it would be useful to define what you mean by it. As I am not, by any of the definitions I've seen, a true libertarian you may need to take this up with someone else. (Where's Shaker?)
I defined what I meant.as the belief that If you want something it should be available or effort put in to make it available.
Those who regularly subscribe to this and suspend it for certain reasons must have particular reasons to do this.
Let me punt another example.
Is it desirable for men to bear children
Yes if people want it.
But it is not possible medically
Then efforts should be allowed to make it possible
.....that is imho the libertarian argument exemplified.
What I have not done is endorse this argument
Or gay conversion. I have not made any moral judgments whatsoever.
-
I defined what I meant.as the belief that If you want something it should be available or effort put in to make it available.
Those who regularly subscribe to this and suspend it for certain reasons must have particular reasons to do this.
Let me punt another example.
Is it desirable for men to bear children
Yes if people want it.
But it is not possible medically
Then efforts should be allowed to make it possible
.....that is imho the libertarian argument exemplified.
What I have not done is endorse this argument
Or gay conversion. I have not made any moral judgments whatsoever.
Instead you've just decided to misrepresent libertarianism by conflating it with enabling reckless choices using examples you know to be spurious.
-
Instead you've just decided to misrepresent libertarianism by conflating it with enabling reckless choices using examples you know to be spurious.
Eh?
How is illustrating libertarianism with gender reassignment,
Assisted dying, and male birth spurious when they adequately demonstrate the principles of libertarianism?
-
Eh?
How is illustrating libertarianism with gender reassignment,
Assisted dying, and male birth spurious when they adequately demonstrate the principles of libertarianism?
You forgot to mention the 'sexuality reassignment' that you raised earlier.
-
You forgot to mention the 'sexuality reassignment' that you raised earlier.
Why do you think that the libertarian argument might not work there?
-
Why do you think that the libertarian argument might not work there?
Try reading previous replies and links.
-
Try reading previous replies and links.
I have.Conflating the statement of an argument with endorsement of it has never been a good look for someone who considers themselves a master logician.
-
1. - Whether there's anything wrong with being gay is the question being debated, so your firsr sentence is a circular argument.
2. - churches are not allowed to conduct gay marriages.
3. - who the hell do you think you are, presuming to know the mind of God?
There is nothing wrong with being gay, it is only sick bigots who wish to believe it is unnatural.
Some churches have conducted gay wedding ceremonies and blessings.
If the Bible is a reflection of the mind of god, should it exist, I have a perfect right to state my opinion.
-
I think SteveH made a grammatical mistake in his point 1.
Agree that some churches do conduct same sex weddings but it's not allowed in CofE, Catholic & I presume Orthodox. Within the CofE there are some ministers who will do it, separate from the register office ceremony, but because of the rules they don't 'advertise' it.
-
Or, Spud, you could just stop worrying about homosexuality, mind your own business, treat people as individuals, respect their individuality and privacy and simply let people live their lives as they see fit without reference to your personal preferences.
For the record, I did all the above; the person I was referring to brought up the subject and volunteered the information about himself.
-
Sweeping generalisation or lie?
Just stop being fucking insulting. Stop endorsing gay conversion therapy and just go and clean your teeth.
I was questioning the assertion that same-sex attraction is irreversible, that's all.
-
Nope - not done.
Not an ethical question is it? Gay conversion therapy. It's damaging and horrific.
It is an ethical question, but it is one with a fairly obvious answer. I don't think there is any doubt that it can be damaging and horrific, as you say and is, therefore, ethically wrong.
-
The questions are this how should you approach someone who wants this treatment.
If somebody wants conversion therapy, I'd say, ultimately, it is their choice. However, before they go through with it, I think their motivations need to be explored thoroughly. If they are doing it only because they have been told that God hates them for who they are, I think counselling might be more productive and less dangerous.
-
Conversion therapy is banned by all reputable psychological disciplines and training organizations. If someone wants to visit a dodgy outfit, you can't stop them. Although the govt is supposed to be planning a ban, although I don't see how it would work, as it's very vague.
But therapists often work with clients with confused sexuality. The thing that distinguished the conversion people is that they said being gay was a bad thing, and probably results from abuse. Immediately, this is unethical conduct, and you would be disbarred for it. But again, there are dodgy people who don't care about ethics.
Actually, I think the Royal College of Psychiatrists supports a total ban.
-
Conversion therapy is banned by all reputable psychological disciplines and training organizations. If someone wants to visit a dodgy outfit, you can't stop them. Although the govt is supposed to be planning a ban, although I don't see how it would work, as it's very vague.
But therapists often work with clients with confused sexuality. The thing that distinguished the conversion people is that they said being gay was a bad thing, and probably results from abuse. Immediately, this is unethical conduct, and you would be disbarred for it. But again, there are dodgy people who don't care about ethics.
Actually, I think the Royal College of Psychiatrists supports a total ban.
What about somebody who wants some kind of therapy so as to reduce a fetishistic longing?
-
What about somebody who wants some kind of therapy so as to reduce a fetishistic longing?
Are you saying that same sex attraction is a fetish?
-
Are you saying that same sex attraction is a fetish?
No, he didn't say that. I don't know whether there is any effective therapy for fetishes, but they are generally harmless.
-
No, he didn't say that. I don't know whether there is any effective therapy for fetishes, but they are generally harmless.
He can answer for himself. He does seem to be linking the two, otherwise it's just whataboutery.
-
He can answer for himself. He does seem to be linking the two, otherwise it's just whataboutery.
I agree.
-
Conversion therapy is banned by all reputable psychological disciplines and training organizations. If someone wants to visit a dodgy outfit, you can't stop them. Although the govt is supposed to be planning a ban, although I don't see how it would work, as it's very vague.
But therapists often work with clients with confused sexuality. The thing that distinguished the conversion people is that they said being gay was a bad thing,
I have taken part in this discussion on the basis that there is a person wanting Conversion therapy.
So. For whatever reason the person seeking this thinks that being gay is a bad thing.
How are they to be approached?
What if they do not think that being gay is a bad thing....but it is not for them?
What if those offering Conversion therapy do not say that being gay is a bad thing?
After all those offering gender reassignment do not say to a man seeking to become a woman that men are bad?
-
I have taken part in this discussion on the basis that there is a person wanting Conversion therapy.
So. For whatever reason the person seeking this thinks that being gay is a bad thing.
How are they to be approached?
What if they do not think that being gay is a bad thing....but it is not for them?
What if those offering Conversion therapy do not say that being gay is a bad thing?
After all those offering gender reassignment do not say to a man seeking to become a woman that men are bad?
And what if the moon were made of cheese?
Conversion therapy for gay people is ineffective. That is, it doesn't work. The evidence is it does harm to those who receive it, and to those around them such as women who marry gay men who have undergone conversion therapy and find out 5, 10, 15 years down the line that whoops, hubby is playing hide the sausage with their best friend.
The motives of the people involved don't matter. It doesn't work and it causes harm. What are you not getting?
-
Yes, as Trent said. Why are you defending conversion therapy, Vlad? And I worked with a number of married people, where the husband went straight, and it causes much unhappiness down the line. You can't become straight, or become gay.
-
And what if the moon were made of cheese?
Conversion therapy for gay people is ineffective. That is, it doesn't work. The evidence is it does harm to those who receive it, and to those around them such as women who marry gay men who have undergone conversion therapy and find out 5, 10, 15 years down the line that whoops, hubby is playing hide the sausage with their best friend.
The motives of the people involved don't matter. It doesn't work and it causes harm. What are you not getting?
But the Libertarian argument which you are arguing in the face of might say that as long as it is wanted people are entitled to continue to try to make it work.
Also Trent I would move that "not working" is a poor thing to argue because of the Libertarian argument about getting things to work.
Also objections to a therapy not working argument are that you may only have the same revulsion for at as we all have for medieval barber surgery namely it didn't work, was barbaric and performed by the superstitious......remove those and we love surgery.
Your better argument is not trying one from clever reasoning but a moral/ emotional/ community argument. Own up to that and you won't make yourself look such an intellectual totalitarian when discussing with dispassionate philosophy.
-
Yes, as Trent said. Why are you defending conversion therapy, Vlad? And I worked with a number of married people, where the husband went straight, and it causes much unhappiness down the line. You can't become straight, or become gay.
I have not made any endorsement of Conversion therapy since my approach is Socratic.
But if you are hassling me into some conclusion without answering my questions,here it is.
Trent argues from a deep emotional concern for his own community......that seems laudable.
He also is acting most effectively from a moral standpoint.....that seems laudable too. He can't though
Convince anybody that he is a moral relativist.
Such an expression of wishing to protect your community is the basis of not wanting to marry out and fear of apostasy.
Imho attempts on here to shut down discussion on this thread are intellectual fascism.
Gordon took the Libertarian position and that's why I have challenged and questioned it.
Finall you have attacked me but not Jeremy. Explain or it looks like you are merely indulging in a bit of specific Antichristian on Christian action.
-
He can answer for himself. He does seem to be linking the two, otherwise it's just whataboutery.
No I was not linking the two, I was asking a question. As Steve H has written, some fetishes are harmless, somebody with a stiletto fetish can probably go through life without offending anybody. But somebody with a fetish for looking up skirts on escalators may welcome some kind of therapy, what does Wiggy or anybody else think of that situation?
-
No I was not linking the two, I was asking a question. As Steve H has written, some fetishes are harmless, somebody with a stiletto fetish can probably go through life without offending anybody. But somebody with a fetish for looking up skirts on escalators may welcome some kind of therapy, what does Wiggy or anybody else think of that situation?
This thread is about homosexuality, which is not a fetish, and same sex marriage, not inappropriate sexual behaviour like up skirting.
-
Lots of therapists deal with sexual issues, and of course, there are sex therapists, such as Pamela Stephenson. You just have to avoid cranks, I think Relate offer it, and NHS, and Tavistock..
-
Gordon took the Libertarian position and that's why I have challenged and questioned it.
Gordon also qualified this by pointing out that being libertarian in outlook does not imply recklessness or that 'anything goes', and noted that those considering radical options should seek qualified advice.
Try reading for comprehension in future.
-
Gordon also qualified this by pointing out that being libertarian in outlook does not imply recklessness or that 'anything goes', and noted that those considering radical options should seek qualified advice.
I don't believe I expressed support for 'recklessness or anything goes or disagreement with your last statement.
-
I don't believe I expressed support for 'recklessness or anything goes or disagreement with your last statement.
Super - so why are you banging on about it still?
-
He can't though
Convince anybody that he is a moral relativist.
I wasn't aware I was trying to - but thanks for the heads up.
And for your information homosexuality is not a religious or political belief/principle.
-
I wasn't aware I was trying to - but thanks for the heads up.
And for your information homosexuality is not a religious or political belief/principle.
What bearing do you feel that has on anything I've said?
-
No I was not linking the two, I was asking a question. As Steve H has written, some fetishes are harmless, somebody with a stiletto fetish can probably go through life without offending anybody. But somebody with a fetish for looking up skirts on escalators may welcome some kind of therapy, what does Wiggy or anybody else think of that situation?
I don't think up-skirting counts as a fetish. Sexual fetishes are sexual attraction to specific body parts, such as feet or hair, or to amputation stumps or deformities or disabilities, or to obesity, or to substances such as leather or rubber. Fetishists do not, on the whole, make a nuisance of themselves.
-
What bearing do you feel that has on anything I've said?
The reference to apostasy
-
The reference to apostasy
As in this
Trent argues from a deep emotional concern for his own community......that seems laudable.
………….Such an expression of wishing to protect your community is the basis of not wanting to marry out and fear of apostasy.
-
As in this
Indeed. Apologies I misread it somehow.