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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I can appreciate not being particularly interested or bothered about most comments made on line, we had a poster on this forum that said he was a football trainer he only trained youngsters, and he said that he enjoyed his work but wouldn't train any of these youngsters if he found that that they were gay, I don't need to hear anything more from people like him, whoever was doing the moderation at the time banned him from the forum, good decision from my pov, not needed on journey thank you very much.

Hope is tending to go in this direction, he's not as bad as that trainer yet, whilst I like your not so serious, not quite light and fluffy but going in that direction approach, there are some things that go that bit to far and need something done about them, homophobia so parallels with racism and any decent and fair minded person wouldn't want anything to do with racism.

ippy


PS Boot nose.

I think we draw the line in different places. I personally don't want this forum to be a place where people can advocate killing people for self-identifying in a way that is different from others - whether they are self-identifying at a particular point on the spectrum of sexuality or self-identifying on a particular point on the spectrum of gender or self-identifying at a particular point on the spectrum of Christianity. Cym was banned for making an ambiguous comment about burning down a gay club - supporting violence to someone for expressing a part of their identity.

I don't think supporting that kind of violence is even remotely in the same category as expressing disapproval on a forum of how someone behaves when they are expressing their identity - whether that is their sexual identity, gender identity or their religiosity identity.

Also, I don't see the point of an anonymous internet forum if it is not to be able to discuss views that you wouldn't normally be able to discuss with a wide range of people in real life for fear of causing a person to feel under threat. The Internet allows for a degree of detachment that you can't get in real life, where the physical proximity of the person saying something controversial, offensive or insulting might make the listener feel threatened.

There are a significant number of people who don't advocate a liberal approach to sexual behaviour regardless of orientation, and would want more social pressure brought to bear on people to conform in terms of public behaviour, and who don't take the approach that the behaviour of consenting adults is none of their business, on the basis that they do feel uncomfortable about increasing sexual freedom. They shun the openness in media, advertising etc and would also shun their children if they publicly exhibited sexual freedom as part of their identity.

It would be weird and not representative of the population if some of those type of people weren't expressing their views on this forum - so I would want them on this journey as much as I want people who want to control Muslim behaviour or Christian behaviour or any other behaviour where people are expressing or making a statement about what they believe is their identity.

ETA: PS. Forgot - I know you are, but what am I.

[john]

Bryan Adams has now refused to perform in protest against this law too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36013468

[Sassy]

Bryan Adams has now refused to perform in protest against this law too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36013468

I believe no one should refuse a service to another simply because of their sexuality.
This a politically correctiveness which is way beyond the pale when it comes to faith and God.
If they did this to all wrong doers then they would not be able to deliver to themselves.
Rather ironic that no one is really thinking and ticking the proper boxes.

We appear to go backwards in time and with very little learning from the way prejudice can cause harm.

Everyone needs to eat and buy and sell. I do not believe sexuality or anything of that nature should be a deciding factor.

I worry about the future of the world whilst people are making life difficult for others.

I can see how soon people will need a mark to buy and sell.

[Sebastian Toe]

I can see how soon people will need a mark to buy and sell.

How will that work then? 

Oh and how soon is 'soon'?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Bryan Adams has now refused to perform in protest against this law too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36013468

He does not make their laws, he is not even from their country. All he has done is upset his fans.

[Aruntraveller]

He does not make their laws, he is not even from their country. All he has done is upset his fans.

Not seeing your point. So performers who didn't go to South Africa under the apartheid regime should just have carried on against their own principles?

[Shaker]

He does not make their laws, he is not even from their country.

Straw man. Nobody even stated this. Nevertheless he's free to exercise his choice as to where he plays and doesn't play, which is exactly what he has done.

All he has done is upset his fans.

Some of them may be upset; others, being aware of his motivation for doing what he has done, may well be in support of him.

[Owlswing]

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.

. . . and just who are you referring to in this comment, please?

. . . and don't say no-one in particular, it is just a general comment, because if you do, I will tell you in advance, that I would say that you would be lying in your teeth!

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Not seeing your point. So performers who didn't go to South Africa under the apartheid regime should just have carried on against their own principles?

Queen played in South Africa in 1984. Surely Sud Afrika was rather nastier than this Mississippi law?

[Shaker]

Queen played in South Africa in 1984. Surely Sud Afrika was rather nastier than this Mississippi law?

Certainly was, at that time.

Never been myself but I gather it's hardly paradise even now.

Nevertheless, that was then and this is now; and even if apartheid-era South Africa was nastier, this is still nasty enough that people feel entitled to make a principled moral stand over it.

[Bubbles]

In some aspects I think there is a need to respect someone's right not to participate in an action that runs against their conscience.

For example, the right to say you think it is wrong to terminate a life, and perform an abortion for example.

Or to practice euthanasia on patients if you don't agree with it.

But I do think there should be something in place to cope with that so people are not discriminated against because of it.

If you give a baby up for adoption you should be able to make choices to ensure a good start in life for that baby.

It could be anything, for example you might decide you don't want the baby to be indoctrinated with religion.

We should have some say, but overall it shouldn't prevent any groups from adopting another baby.

It's about having a limited personal say, and we are all different in what we think is important.

Ok so we can't discriminate in business, but we all discriminate in our private lives.

I think there should be some areas where we do get some say in our own actions and our right to abstain within certain limits.

Gay people should be able to adopt, if a few people wish to object against that or the idea of a single parent, so be it.

But it doesn't mean society should discriminate.

The choice of individuals, is just that.

Society should support the choices of individuals while being non discriminatory itself.

IMO adoption should be totally non discriminatory unless an central  individual indicates otherwise.

An example would be a black couple who are unable to support another baby but want their baby brought up by a black couple of similar culture.

Or an atheist couple that want their baby brought up with an open mind and not a strictly religious background.

IMO that's OK to say so.

[Hope]

Being prejudiced against homosexuality makes a person a nasty bigot, as would it make god too. Bigotry is WRONG!

Saying that something is wrong, or bad for society as a whole isn't being prejudiced, Floo.  I realise that you (and others) like to use the term because of its emotive nature. 

[Gordon]

Saying that something is wrong, or bad for society as a whole isn't being prejudiced, Floo.  I realise that you (and others) like to use the term because of its emotive nature.

It is if: a) you can't provide good grounds for the 'wrongness/badness' you assert, b) you're not in a position to speak for 'society as a whole' and c) you seek to use prejudice to discriminate on the basis of a human characteristic that isn't legally or socially proscribed.

That you don't approve personally is merely your personal opinion, and your opinion isn't binding on 'society as a whole', as must be obvious in view of the legislative changes in most parts of the UK.

[Hope]

. . . and just who are you referring to in this comment, please?

Those of us who went to school in the 50s, 60s and 70s were taught (almost put 'learnt'  ) grammar and the rules of spelling.  In the 70s, the Government decided that the teaching of grammar was not important, and that the concentration on spelling could be down-graded.  This continued until the mid-to late-90s, meaning that those now aged between their   early 20s and their mid-40s struggle with these elements of the English language - something that many schools and school headteachers have highlighted over the years.  In fact, this was pointed out in the media back in 2014 - this from the Daily Mail highlights the knock-on nature of the issue - http://dailym.ai/1xbfiFc

. . . and don't say no-one in particular, it is just a general comment, because if you do, I will tell you in advance, that I would say that you would be lying in your teeth!

I have been learning such tricks of the trade from you, Owls, but I try hard to avoid falling into them as much as I can.

[Owlswing]

Those of us who went to school in the 50s, 60s and 70s were taught (almost put 'learnt'  ) grammar and the rules of spelling.  In the 70s, the Government decided that the teaching of grammar was not important, and that the concentration on spelling could be down-graded.  This continued until the mid-to late-90s, meaning that those now aged between their   early 20s and their mid-40s struggle with these elements of the English language - something that many schools and school headteachers have highlighted over the years.  In fact, this was pointed out in the media back in 2014 - this from the Daily Mail highlights the knock-on nature of the issue - http://dailym.ai/1xbfiFc
I have been learning such tricks of the trade from you, Owls, but I try hard to avoid falling into them as much as I can.

So who PRECISELY was the comment "the loss of the cohort who can spell and use grammar correctly isn't helping society communicate" aimed at or referring to - which cohort who "can spell and use grammar correctly" have we lost!

Over the years you have made as many spelling and grammatical cock-ups as I have - so who were you talking about?

[jeremyp]

Bryan Adams has now refused to perform in protest against this law too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36013468

I understand why he is doing this but I think Cindi Lauper's response to the NC law was more constructive.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/7333165/cyndi-lauper-donate-north-carolina-concert-lgbt-charity

Her concert went ahead but all the proceeds were donated to charities fighting against the bigoted laws.

[Sassy]

How will that work then? 

Oh and how soon is 'soon'?

Don't pay much attention to anything but the chip as a way of explanation.
Just googled to give you an idea. I know nothing about the person it is an explanation of they might chip and what has been suggested so far for animals etc.

Take a look and see for yourself.


http://www.michaeljournal.org/chipcattle.htm


It is a time when things will change and will be frightening for a lot of people.
Though there is things like the above in the pipe line, we can see why the Government want to remain within the EU.


I am afraid for the rest you will have to study Daniel and Revelations.

[Sassy]

I can appreciate not being particularly interested or bothered about most comments made on line, we had a poster on this forum that said he was a football trainer he only trained youngsters, and he said that he enjoyed his work but wouldn't train any of these youngsters if he found that that they were gay, I don't need to hear anything more from people like him, whoever was doing the moderation at the time banned him from the forum, good decision from my pov, not needed on journey thank you very much.

Hope is tending to go in this direction, he's not as bad as that trainer yet, whilst I like your not so serious, not quite light and fluffy but going in that direction approach, there are some things that go that bit to far and need something done about them, homophobia so parallels with racism and any decent and fair minded person wouldn't want anything to do with racism.

ippy


PS Boot nose.

I feel sometimes people are more drawn to debates on topics which divide.
Where is the person who once made those remarks and what age were those boys?
We live in a world which is divided a world where right and wrong has become so faint in the limitations lines drawn that we are
unable to reason about what is good.

A world of proud people who through pride do not take responsibility for their own lives and decisions.
Someone on her said they don't give a flying fig about what others are doing.
When it is terrorist and those that kill for causes not worthy of killing for then we should all give a flying fig.

Too much judge and jury rather than live and let live.
We all make our own decisions. Christs way is peace and love one another. That is what God wants.
But life isn't that simple for those without faith. We see strife over abortion and nuclear missiles.
We have a world where evil is becoming global.

The divisions on here are like a personality contest the 'likes' and 'no likes' more about the 'faith' and the 'no faith'.
My question is when did we cease to become humans? When did our likes and dislikes become about faith rather than the individual? A strange world where people divide because of faith. I see no reason for people to ditch their humanity for their beliefs about religion. Maybe a little strong... not suggesting all feelings ditched. But I would not see the faith or no faith issue when a person needed help. Just the need the person has.

[Sassy]

Just FYI, holding Christians to the same standards and rules as everybody else does not count as discrimination.

That isn't right is it... Because swopping one prejudice for another one discrimination for another is a no win situation.
Who made you and your beliefs the right ones or the only ones to enforce on others.


Get my point now....

There has always been a right and a wrong way.
Sometimes the wrong ways condemn people to death. Do you propose to make murder legal for those who psychopathic killers etc. That is the problem isn't it. Because what feels right to another is wrong for us. You cannot make it go away by saying no one must do it. You cannot make it legal because it feels right for some.

We have lived since time began with some of the things man has done. But eventually we all know what is right and wrong for ourselves. The best we can do is obey the Laws of the Land if they do not impede the right to faith and good treatment of all and live and let live.

[Sebastian Toe]

I am afraid for the rest you will have to study Daniel and Revelations.

Why?