Ole Miss, some mainly Christians, the whole gays aren't equal thing

[Hope]

I'm over thirty and most of my peers don't have a problem.

My childrens' generation don't even notice the differences. All they see are relationships of various kinds.

Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.

Why, what business is it of theirs?

If they don't want a same sex relationship then no one is forcing them to have one.

[Hope]

Hope, your views about gay people are vile.

ippy

But, by no means uncommon.  I and others - including some non religious people - would regard your views about religion and religious people, as vile.

[Hope]

Non-religious homophobia really is a puzzle, since the non-religious (unlike the religious) don't even have the pseudo-excuse of so-called sacred scripture to hide behind.

They don't need to, Shaker - they use scientific and other objective arguments, which many religious people use as well.

[Aruntraveller]

They don't need to, Shaker - they use scientific and other objective arguments, which many religious people use as well.

Oh no they don't.

[Gordon]

They don't need to, Shaker - they use scientific and other objective arguments, which many religious people use as well.

Such as?

[Shaker]

Cohort replacement isn't always the best thing.  For instance, the loss of the cohort who can spell and use grammar correctly isn't helping society communicate.

No, that's perfectly true. But in this case ... much as my inner spelling/grammar/punctuation/syntax Nazi fulminates, I can let a few people go who mix up you're and your and who don't know the difference between uninterested and disinterested over homophobes.

[Shaker]

They don't need to, Shaker - they use scientific and other objective arguments, which many religious people use as well.

And what might these be then?

[Shaker]

But, by no means uncommon.

That's not an argument. "Lots of vile people with despicable views," even if true (and in this case it isn't), is no recommendation.

A Rizla away from the argumentum ad populum/ad numerum, however.

[Shaker]

Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.

Apples not falling far from the same despicable tree there, I see.

[Aruntraveller]

Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.

Congratulations on spreading your misery and bigotry to your children. You must be proud.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.

I simply cannot understand this.

What is it that is not to be celebrated about loving relationships?

I recently attending a ruby wedding. Under no circumstances would I have wanted to have sex with the wife, at any age in her life. However, it wasn't about me, it was to celebrate a happy and fulfilling life together.

Good on them and good luck in the future, is what I toasted.

Presumably if they had been a same sex couple you would have wished them bad luck for the future.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

But, by no means uncommon.  I and others - including some non religious people - would regard your views about religion and religious people, as vile.

Such as?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Cohort replacement isn't always the best thing.  For instance, the loss of the cohort who can spell and use grammar correctly isn't helping society communicate.

Well we all know your God is the absolute pits when it comes to getting it's message across clearly. Maybe you should take it up with him?

[Shaker]

Such as?

You're the third to have asked that question.

That doesn't mean third time lucky - this is Hope the notorious question-dodger we're dealing with here, after all - but I'm very interested to see if he even makes a stab at outlining what these supposedly "scientific and objective arguments" are.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

You're the third to have asked that question.

That doesn't mean third time lucky - this is Hope the notorious question-dodger we're dealing with here, after all - but I'm very interested to see if he even makes a stab at outlining what these supposedly "scientific and objective arguments" are.

It is absolutely beyond me. We can't raise a glass to two people who have a loving relationship


However, I have to say since joining I have been delighted and uplifted by the attitude of other Christians, namely Gonnagle and Brownie. I might not share their faith but their attitudes to their fellow man are to be applauded.

[Brownie]

Our views are more common than you think, Stephen.  The anti brigade are far less common.
(Now I will stand back and see what Sririam makes of my use of the word ''common''  )

[ippy]

Hope, you've made writing about almost everything you would like to express on the forum considerably more difficult for yourself, the absence of the well known evidence you say you have and especially now you have added these foul comments about ordinary decent gay people to your repertoire.

You've condemned yourself to be doing some pretty elaborate dance steps when you write here in future, in order to circumvent yourself around both of these pretty serious inadequacies you have exposed about yourself.

Looks to me you've got some very hard rides ahead of you Hope, all your own fault, I can't say you don't deserve it.

ippy   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ok but let's face it - being given a rough ride on an anonymous Internet forum is like being attacked by marshmellows - at least it is if you grew up in an era that was pre-social media and mostly socialised in the real world.

 If I am discussing something that is not connected to Islam with JP, his views on Islam are irrelevant. Similarly if I discuss something with Hope his views on unrelated topics - LGBT or otherwise don't have a bearing. If you want to bring LGBT into every discussion - if that is a meaningful occupation for you on this forum - that's your call. My impression is that Hope seems more than capable of brushing off the consequences of not falling in line with other posters about LGBT.

[floo]

Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.

How awful, I would be disgusted if any of my children (40+) regarded such relationships as unacceptable. It is in the same category as regarding Black people as lesser mortals!

[ippy]

How awful, I would be disgusted if any of my children (40+) regarded such relationships as unacceptable. It is in the same category as regarding Black people as lesser mortals!

Yes Floo, Hope's attitude on this is exactly similar to racism, it doesn't sit that well with his generally holier than thou persona.

ippy

[jeremyp]

Cohort replacement isn't always the best thing.  For instance, the loss of the cohort who can spell and use grammar correctly isn't helping society communicate.

With respect, that is a really infantile argument.

[jeremyp]

Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.

I find your children's attitude non-acceptable.

[Rhiannon]

Whilst my children, who are both 30+, regard such relationships as non-acceptable.

Yes well you raised them on your interpretation of your Big Book of Bigotry, didn't you?

[Rhiannon]

With respect, that is a really infantile argument.

Well done on the respect there, Jeremy. I was going to say that Hope's argument is such a load of complete and utter shite so cringeworthy to read that you want to chew your own fist off in embarrassment.