Author Topic: Homosexuality! (Read 119413 times)

Leonard James · « **Reply #175 on:** April 30, 2015, 01:33:50 PM »

Quote from: Rose on April 30, 2015, 06:43:21 AM

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/09/13692/

Here is an example, Leonard.

This women felt she was treated unfairly because her "husband" came out.

She felt being gay gave him rights a heterosexual man would not have received in the same circumstances.

I see entirely what you are getting at, but you are talking about a different thing. You are talking about other behaviour, not homosexuality.

Of course the gay man and the judge were in the wrong ... he was the one that was breaking up the marriage, and should not have been awarded anything but a divorce. His own actions sacrificed his right to the children.

I'm sure you can see this difference ... in the sense that it is no different from hetero breakups and squabbles about custody.

Rhiannon · « **Reply #176 on:** April 30, 2015, 02:04:02 PM »

Len, nothing the man has done takes away the children's right to a relationship with their father. The law has changed in the UK now so that whatever the 'wrong' parent had done, both are entitled to a comparable family home from the proceeds of the house sale, even if it means the resident parent radically having to downsize.

Nearly Sane · « **Reply #177 on:** April 30, 2015, 02:13:27 PM »

In terms of the blog presented by Rose, it is one sides view. I don't have reason to accept it true, and given the writer campaigns against gay marriage, it may be biased.

Leonard James · « **Reply #178 on:** April 30, 2015, 02:14:16 PM »

Quote from: Rhiannon on April 30, 2015, 02:04:02 PM

Len, nothing the man has done takes away the children's right to a relationship with their father. The law has changed in the UK now so that whatever the 'wrong' parent had done, both are entitled to a comparable family home from the proceeds of the house sale, even if it means the resident parent radically having to downsize.

I agree with that. If the children want a relationship with their father, it must be allowed ... but they should remain in the custody of the mother, the injured party. If the law says otherwise it is an ass.

Leonard James · « **Reply #179 on:** April 30, 2015, 02:16:02 PM »

Quote from: Nearly Sane on April 30, 2015, 02:13:27 PM

In terms of the blog presented by Rose, it is one sides view. I don't have reason to accept it true, and given the writer campaigns against gay marriage, it may be biased.

Yes, indeed! We don't know exactly what sort of person she is, or the home she is able to offer.

ippy · « **Reply #180 on:** April 30, 2015, 02:54:12 PM »

Quote from: Leonard James on April 30, 2015, 02:16:02 PM

Quote from: Nearly Sane on April 30, 2015, 02:13:27 PM
In terms of the blog presented by Rose, it is one sides view. I don't have reason to accept it true, and given the writer campaigns against gay marriage, it may be biased.

Yes, indeed! We don't know exactly what sort of person she is, or the home she is able to offer.

There is and has always been a percentage of people we now refer to as gay, it is normal to have this percentage, therefore it's normal to be a gay person that would be representing a part of this normal occurrence.

The actual percentage whatever it is isn't relevant, the principle remains.

I despair of the discrimination, bigotry and general ignorance that gets rolled out whenever and where ever this subject is discussed.

The sheer stupidity of the religious ideas about homosexuality makes me wonder about the sanity of those of you that go along with them.

ippy

floo · « **Reply #181 on:** April 30, 2015, 02:56:54 PM »

I think some Christians like to use the not so good book as an excuse for their bigotry, but they would be bigoted anyway, Bible or no Bible!

Sriram · « **Reply #182 on:** April 30, 2015, 03:44:46 PM »

Hi everyone,

Suddenly its all about defining 'normal'. That's a laugh. Just because some of you keep repeating 'homosexuality is normal'.....'sure its normal'...'of course its normal'....it does not become normal! It is an abnormality and most people around the world think so. And .....before you rush into emotional hyperbole..... that's not the same as condemning homosexuals.

Ok...if their children happen to be gay..people will obviously put up with it and reconcile to the claim that it is 'normal. But if there is a sure way out of it...they would surely prefer to go for it.

Some of you may claim under today's circumstances that you will prefer your children not to change. But if the option is made available....how it will effect peoples preferences cannot be foreseen today. Many homosexuals themselves may prefer to get treated.

Secondly...assuming the option is available....you people are objecting to parents choosing to get their children treated! You actually want the administration to step in and stop the parents! LOL! This is unbelievable.

Ok...I am done for the day.

Cheers.

Sriram

floo · « **Reply #183 on:** April 30, 2015, 03:59:34 PM »

Quote from: Sriram on April 30, 2015, 03:44:46 PM

Hi everyone,

Suddenly its all about defining 'normal'. That's a laugh. Just because some of you keep repeating 'homosexuality is normal'.....'sure its normal'...'of course its normal'....it does not become normal! It is an abnormality and most people around the world think so. And .....before you rush into emotional hyperbole..... that's not the same as condemning homosexuals.

Ok...if their children happen to be gay..people will obviously put up with it and reconcile to the claim that it is 'normal. But if there is a sure way out of it...they would surely prefer to go for it.

Some of you may claim under today's circumstances that you will prefer your children not to change. But if the option is made available....how it will effect peoples preferences cannot be foreseen today. Many homosexuals themselves may prefer to get treated.

Secondly...assuming the option is available....you people are objecting to parents choosing to get their children treated! You actually want the administration to step in and stop the parents! LOL! This is unbelievable.

Ok...I am done for the day.

Cheers.

Sriram

BIGOT. Is being left handed abnormal?

trippymonkey · « **Reply #184 on:** April 30, 2015, 04:45:03 PM »

In HIS opinion & POV, most definately YES ?!!?!?!?!?!

<Ok...if their children happen to be gay..people will obviously put up with it and reconcile to the claim that it is 'normal. But if there is a sure way out of it...they would surely prefer to go for it.>

Put up with it?

Maybe they can find out this 'gay gene' & destroy the foetus before it's born.
Having some PERSONAL problems, are we, Sriram???

Owlswing · « **Reply #185 on:** April 30, 2015, 04:46:10 PM »

Quote from: Sriram on April 30, 2015, 03:44:46 PM

Hi everyone,

Suddenly its all about defining 'normal'. That's a laugh. Just because some of you keep repeating 'homosexuality is normal'.....'sure its normal'...'of course its normal'....it does not become normal! It is an abnormality and most people around the world think so. And .....before you rush into emotional hyperbole..... that's not the same as condemning homosexuals.

Ok...if their children happen to be gay..people will obviously put up with it and reconcile to the claim that it is 'normal. But if there is a sure way out of it...they would surely prefer to go for it.

Some of you may claim under today's circumstances that you will prefer your children not to change. But if the option is made available....how it will effect peoples preferences cannot be foreseen today. Many homosexuals themselves may prefer to get treated.

Secondly...assuming the option is available....you people are objecting to parents choosing to get their children treated! You actually want the administration to step in and stop the parents! LOL! This is unbelievable.

Ok...I am done for the day.

Cheers.

Sriram

A lady on "COUNTDOWN" came up with an eight letter word that fits you to a T! Another item in common usage also aptly describes you - "Swizzel Stick"!

You are also sounding very much like the late and unlamented Recondite Revenant!

trippymonkey · « **Reply #186 on:** April 30, 2015, 04:49:14 PM »

<Many homosexuals themselves may prefer to get treated.>

Well do you know why some 'might'

Cos of people like you treating them like a disease!!

<you people are objecting to parents choosing to get their children treated! You actually want the administration to step in and stop the parents!>

MMM We could well apply this to female infanticide, no??? And why not as THEIR parents might not want a female child !!

ProfessorDavey · « **Reply #187 on:** April 30, 2015, 05:08:32 PM »

Quote from: Leonard James on April 30, 2015, 02:14:16 PM

Quote from: Rhiannon on April 30, 2015, 02:04:02 PM
Len, nothing the man has done takes away the children's right to a relationship with their father. The law has changed in the UK now so that whatever the 'wrong' parent had done, both are entitled to a comparable family home from the proceeds of the house sale, even if it means the resident parent radically having to downsize.

I agree with that. If the children want a relationship with their father, it must be allowed ... but they should remain in the custody of the mother, the injured party. If the law says otherwise it is an ass.

I don't think the law does or should define custody of the children as a kind of consolation prize for being the injured party in a divorce. The law decides on custody in the best interests of the children, not of the parents.

There are countless examples of situations where a woman has been the one who is unfaithful and, therefore, by your definition the man is the injured party, but the woman is granted custody of the children. I can think of three or four examples in my own sphere of friends or family.

Actually what this articles indicates to me is not bias due to sexuality but an assumption of bias in favour of one gender, i.e. a default that the mother always gets custody of the children.

So I wonder whether there would be the same publicity if it was the woman who broke up the marriage by having an affair (whether heterosexual or homosexual) yet was granted custody of the children. I doubt it.

ProfessorDavey · « **Reply #188 on:** April 30, 2015, 05:11:30 PM »

Quote from: Sriram on April 30, 2015, 03:44:46 PM

Hi everyone,

Suddenly its all about defining 'normal'. That's a laugh. Just because some of you keep repeating 'homosexuality is normal'.....'sure its normal'...'of course its normal'....it does not become normal! It is an abnormality and most people around the world think so. And .....before you rush into emotional hyperbole..... that's not the same as condemning homosexuals.

Ok...if their children happen to be gay..people will obviously put up with it and reconcile to the claim that it is 'normal. But if there is a sure way out of it...they would surely prefer to go for it.

Some of you may claim under today's circumstances that you will prefer your children not to change. But if the option is made available....how it will effect peoples preferences cannot be foreseen today. Many homosexuals themselves may prefer to get treated.

Secondly...assuming the option is available....you people are objecting to parents choosing to get their children treated! You actually want the administration to step in and stop the parents! LOL! This is unbelievable.

Ok...I am done for the day.

Cheers.

Sriram

Well unless you are prepared to define normal in an objective manner that can be held up to scrutiny and tested by other examples (such as handedness, church-going etc, etc) your posts are simply hot air.

So come on then, what is your definition of 'normal' that excludes being gay, but includes being left-handed or church-going or any other attribute, feature or preference that you care to mention.

Udayana · « **Reply #189 on:** April 30, 2015, 05:21:55 PM »

PD, further than that .. even if you consider something to be not normal (abnormal) what on earth is the problem with that? Human society only works because everyone is different and change is ubiquitous.

Nearly Sane · « **Reply #190 on:** April 30, 2015, 05:28:08 PM »

I am struggling with Sriram wanting to discuss people rather than ideas here. As noted would it be right if I could epigenetically chose my child's religion or lack of it? How about their politics? Say I could choose to make my child a necrophiliac Nazi with a predisposition for the musicals of Andrew Lloyd Webber? By Sriram' s position it would appear fine for me to do so.

ProfessorDavey · « **Reply #191 on:** April 30, 2015, 05:28:58 PM »

Quote from: Udayana on April 30, 2015, 05:21:55 PM

PD, further than that .. even if you consider something to be not normal (abnormal) what on earth is the problem with that? Human society only works because everyone is different and change is ubiquitous.

Agreed, but you still need to define what you mean by normal.

Siriam's problem is that he fails to define it in objective terms, but that makes an assumption that not normal (in his not defined way) wham relating to homosexuality really means 'wrong'.

Leonard James · « **Reply #192 on:** April 30, 2015, 06:24:33 PM »

Quote from: ProfessorDavey on April 30, 2015, 05:08:32 PM

Quote from: Leonard James on April 30, 2015, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: Rhiannon on April 30, 2015, 02:04:02 PM
Len, nothing the man has done takes away the children's right to a relationship with their father. The law has changed in the UK now so that whatever the 'wrong' parent had done, both are entitled to a comparable family home from the proceeds of the house sale, even if it means the resident parent radically having to downsize.

I agree with that. If the children want a relationship with their father, it must be allowed ... but they should remain in the custody of the mother, the injured party. If the law says otherwise it is an ass.
I don't think the law does or should define custody of the children as a kind of consolation prize for being the injured party in a divorce. The law decides on custody in the best interests of the children, not of the parents.

There are countless examples of situations where a woman has been the one who is unfaithful and, therefore, by your definition the man is the injured party, but the woman is granted custody of the children. I can think of three or four examples in my own sphere of friends or family.

Actually what this articles indicates to me is not bias due to sexuality but an assumption of bias in favour of one gender, i.e. a default that the mother always gets custody of the children.

So I wonder whether there would be the same publicity if it was the woman who broke up the marriage by having an affair (whether heterosexual or homosexual) yet was granted custody of the children. I doubt it.

Custody of the children should not depend on the financial position of the home they are going to ... with the proviso that they are well-fed and cared for, and the atmosphere in the home is one of love. Simply giving them to better off parent is not, imo, the way to go.

ProfessorDavey · « **Reply #193 on:** April 30, 2015, 06:48:59 PM »

Quote from: Leonard James on April 30, 2015, 06:24:33 PM

Quote from: ProfessorDavey on April 30, 2015, 05:08:32 PM
Quote from: Leonard James on April 30, 2015, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: Rhiannon on April 30, 2015, 02:04:02 PM
Len, nothing the man has done takes away the children's right to a relationship with their father. The law has changed in the UK now so that whatever the 'wrong' parent had done, both are entitled to a comparable family home from the proceeds of the house sale, even if it means the resident parent radically having to downsize.

I agree with that. If the children want a relationship with their father, it must be allowed ... but they should remain in the custody of the mother, the injured party. If the law says otherwise it is an ass.
I don't think the law does or should define custody of the children as a kind of consolation prize for being the injured party in a divorce. The law decides on custody in the best interests of the children, not of the parents.

There are countless examples of situations where a woman has been the one who is unfaithful and, therefore, by your definition the man is the injured party, but the woman is granted custody of the children. I can think of three or four examples in my own sphere of friends or family.

Actually what this articles indicates to me is not bias due to sexuality but an assumption of bias in favour of one gender, i.e. a default that the mother always gets custody of the children.

So I wonder whether there would be the same publicity if it was the woman who broke up the marriage by having an affair (whether heterosexual or homosexual) yet was granted custody of the children. I doubt it.

Custody of the children should not depend on the financial position of the home they are going to ... with the proviso that they are well-fed and cared for, and the atmosphere in the home is one of love. Simply giving them to better off parent is not, imo, the way to go.

I don't think I ever mentioned finance, did I?

I said that the best interests of the children was what should determine who has custody. That in no way implies that they should end up with the parent with the most disposable income. That would also be non-sensical in a world where child maintenance is expected from the parent who may not be the one actively looking after the kids. So both parents are expected to contribute to the children financially after divorce. So the financial situation post divorce should reflect the overall financial position of the couple who have now divorced.

ippy · « **Reply #194 on:** April 30, 2015, 06:58:17 PM »

Quote from: Sriram on April 30, 2015, 03:44:46 PM

Hi everyone,

Suddenly its all about defining 'normal'. That's a laugh. Just because some of you keep repeating 'homosexuality is normal'.....'sure its normal'...'of course its normal'....it does not become normal! It is an abnormality and most people around the world think so. And .....before you rush into emotional hyperbole..... that's not the same as condemning homosexuals.

Ok...if their children happen to be gay..people will obviously put up with it and reconcile to the claim that it is 'normal. But if there is a sure way out of it...they would surely prefer to go for it.

Some of you may claim under today's circumstances that you will prefer your children not to change. But if the option is made available....how it will effect peoples preferences cannot be foreseen today. Many homosexuals themselves may prefer to get treated.

Secondly...assuming the option is available....you people are objecting to parents choosing to get their children treated! You actually want the administration to step in and stop the parents! LOL! This is unbelievable.

Ok...I am done for the day.

Cheers.

Sriram

So there isn't a percentage of homosexual people in every population all over the world?

ippy

trippymonkey · « **Reply #195 on:** April 30, 2015, 06:59:52 PM »

Why does Sriram think parents have final & TOTAL control over their kids

??

It's a small step then to child abuse, no?

ippy · « **Reply #196 on:** April 30, 2015, 07:28:31 PM »

Quote from: Nearly Sane on April 30, 2015, 05:28:08 PM

I am struggling with Sriram wanting to discuss people rather than ideas here. As noted would it be right if I could epigenetically chose my child's religion or lack of it? How about their politics? Say I could choose to make my child a necrophiliac Nazi with a predisposition for the musicals of Andrew Lloyd Webber? By Sriram' s position it would appear fine for me to do so.

What a bastard.

ippy

Rhiannon · « **Reply #197 on:** April 30, 2015, 07:44:33 PM »

Quote from: Sriram on April 30, 2015, 03:44:46 PM

Hi everyone,

Suddenly its all about defining 'normal'. That's a laugh. Just because some of you keep repeating 'homosexuality is normal'.....'sure its normal'...'of course its normal'....it does not become normal! It is an abnormality and most people around the world think so. And .....before you rush into emotional hyperbole..... that's not the same as condemning homosexuals.

Ok...if their children happen to be gay..people will obviously put up with it and reconcile to the claim that it is 'normal. But if there is a sure way out of it...they would surely prefer to go for it.

Some of you may claim under today's circumstances that you will prefer your children not to change. But if the option is made available....how it will effect peoples preferences cannot be foreseen today. Many homosexuals themselves may prefer to get treated.

Secondly...assuming the option is available....you people are objecting to parents choosing to get their children treated! You actually want the administration to step in and stop the parents! LOL! This is unbelievable.

Ok...I am done for the day.

Cheers.

Sriram

You still haven't defined 'normal'. If you mean in mathematical terms, then no, homosexuality isn't 'normal'; nor is being left handed, being particularly gifted etc. But they are normal variations in humans - homosexuality is something that has been observed in humans for thousands of years. So this does make being gay a naturally occurring human state and nothing to freak out about. The only reason anyone struggles with being gay is because of the cultural pressures put in them, often from within their own family who are too weak to stand up for their children and instead want them to conform.

Before you so smugly declare that parents who want 'correction' for their children know best, read Naz and Matt's story.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/21/my-boyfriend-killed-himself-because-his-family-couldnt-accept-that-he-was-gay

http://www.nazandmattfoundation.org

Walt Zingmatilder · « **Reply #198 on:** April 30, 2015, 07:45:04 PM »

Quote from: Trentvoyager on April 29, 2015, 11:29:18 PM

Quote from: trippymonkey on April 29, 2015, 11:12:03 PM
Quote from: Hope on April 29, 2015, 10:26:15 PM
Quote from: Nearly Sane on April 29, 2015, 03:50:25 PM
This from someone who has regularly used murder as a comparitor for homosexuality.
Selective memory there NS. I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.

You just shot yourself royally in the foot there, pal.
Reread your 3rd sentence on to the end & then say they're not contradictory, I DARES YA !!!

And furthermore as I understand it Sin is Sin - there are no gradations to a Christian, therefore they are equivalent in some peoples minds.

Sin Is sin and we have all fallen short.
The judgmental Christian is a much loved antitheist lie.
Todays secular Britain lives on judgment and fault finding,
Gradation of sin is a secular invention designed to make people feel better about themselves.
The result of this is a sniffy attitude to the poor and disabled as evidenced by....well the reality of secular Britain.

Rhiannon · « **Reply #199 on:** April 30, 2015, 07:46:48 PM »

Quote from: Doctor Woo on April 30, 2015, 07:45:04 PM

Quote from: Trentvoyager on April 29, 2015, 11:29:18 PM
Quote from: trippymonkey on April 29, 2015, 11:12:03 PM
Quote from: Hope on April 29, 2015, 10:26:15 PM
Quote from: Nearly Sane on April 29, 2015, 03:50:25 PM
This from someone who has regularly used murder as a comparitor for homosexuality.
Selective memory there NS. I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.

You just shot yourself royally in the foot there, pal.
Reread your 3rd sentence on to the end & then say they're not contradictory, I DARES YA !!!

And furthermore as I understand it Sin is Sin - there are no gradations to a Christian, therefore they are equivalent in some peoples minds.
Sin Is sin and we have all fallen short.
The judgmental Christian is a much loved antitheist lie.
Todays secular Britain lives on judgment and fault finding,
Gradation of sin is a secular invention designed to make people feel better about themselves.
The result of this is a sniffy attitude to the poor and disabled as evidenced by....well the reality of secular Britain.

So do you put monogamous, respectful, loving, sexually active gay relationships in the 'sin' bracket then? On what basis?

News:

Author Topic: Homosexuality! (Read 119413 times)

Rhiannon

floo

floo

Rhiannon

Rhiannon