Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Nearly Sane]

I've stuck this here because Gordon has locked the other thread (temp) and it fits here as well as anywhere. 


No it isn't, but it is ok to say that someone thinks that bringing  children up strictly religious,  is damaging to their future happiness and life.


Like it's acceptable to say that personally someone thinks Paganism is a deception of the devil and its followers are mislead.

Or that Christians are misguided and follow corrupted books and we should all read the Koran.

Or that Atheists are missing a spiritual ingredient that enables them to comprehend God.

They can all be very offensive.

I think it's when it gets personal it's an issue.

For example if Hope instead of putting

"Trent, you have every right to express your own opinions; I also have that right.  You have the right to decide that you need or don't need a doctor; I have every right to suggest that perhaps you do."

Put instead.....

"Trent, you have every right to express your own opinions; I also have that right.  You have the right to decide that homosexuals need or don't need a doctor; I have every right to suggest that perhaps they do."

Perhaps the second one would have been better and although it still says the same as the first, its more general and allows a wider range of discussion.

The problem with not allowing more general comments is it will restrict our posts to much.

Perhaps comments should be encouraged into general comments rather than personal ones.

It's only a temporary lock. I would suggest you copy this back there when it's unlocked and I'll reply there. Taking the discussion here is a derail of this thread.

[Sassy]

Not yet

Unless you can provide AN actual post then the matter is at AN end.

[wigginhall]

Nine.

[Shaker]

Unless you can provide AN actual post then the matter is at AN end.

Firstly, nothing is at an end because you say so.

Secondly, as you would already know if you had the intellectual wherewithal to comprehend what's written, Gordon provided said post in reply #112 on this very thread - that's about half-way down page 5. I suggest you look at it.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I had to laugh this morning, when I saw that Sassy had already done 8 posts, before I'd even brushed my teeth, complaining about something or other about Shaker and deleted posts.   

Ah well, so it goes.

8 posts and not a single one contained the apology she owes me.

You can imagine my disappointment.

[Bubbles]

It's only a temporary lock. I would suggest you copy this back there when it's unlocked and I'll reply there. Taking the discussion here is a derail of this thread.

Ok

I did realise it was that's why I added ( temp) 

[Brownie]

I also second what you said on previous page Rose.
Some seem to really be enjoying themselves here at the expense of others, even petulant.   If we asked for an apology every time someone said something nasty to us, or just tactless, we'd be starting senseless threads as long as your arm every few days.
Trent has been sensible about the issue discussed (not the subject of this thread I hasten to add).  Three cheers for common sense.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I also second what you said on previous page Rose.
Some seem to really be enjoying themselves here at the expense of others, even petulant.   If we asked for an apology every time someone said something nasty to us, or just tactless, we'd be starting senseless threads as long as your arm every few days.
Trent has been sensible about the issue discussed (not the subject of this thread I hasten to add).  Three cheers for common sense.

Personally I don't care if people say nasty things to me.

Tell lies about me though and damn right I'll go all out for an apology.

[Aruntraveller]

I also second what you said on previous page Rose.
Some seem to really be enjoying themselves here at the expense of others, even petulant.   If we asked for an apology every time someone said something nasty to us, or just tactless, we'd be starting senseless threads as long as your arm every few days.
Trent has been sensible about the issue discussed (not the subject of this thread I hasten to add).  Three cheers for common sense.

Oi. I try never to be too sensible!

My whole reaction to the hopey business is basically that a leopard will not change its spots. He generalises about gay people to support is homophobic stance in exactly the way that the press in this country generalise abou t muslims on the basis of ISIS's behaviour.

I previously said i was resolutely unwound up. Thats because ive made a decision not to let him do that for my own reasons. That others wish to challenge him is fine with me. He is a dinosaur who wishes me harm. Im not going to let him affect me.

[floo]

Oi. I try never to be too sensible!

My whole reaction to the hopey business is basically that a leopard will not change its spots. He generalises about gay people to support is homophobic stance in exactly the way that the press in this country generalise abou t muslims on the basis of ISIS's behaviour.

I previously said i was resolutely unwound up. Thats because ive made a decision not to let him do that for my own reasons. That others wish to challenge him is fine with me. He is a dinosaur who wishes me harm. Im not going to let him affect me.

A wonderful attitude TV. 

However as a heterosexual I will certainly challenge anti-gay nastiness, as it is so very WRONG, especially when the Bible is used as an excuse for bigotry.

[Dicky Underpants]

Firstly, nothing is at an end because you say so.

Secondly, as you would already know if you had the intellectual wherewithal to comprehend what's written, Gordon provided said post in reply #112 on this very thread - that's about half-way down page 5. I suggest you look at it.

I make that three times you've told her. I've often wondered whether English is her first language, but having seen her attempts at a few others, I'm afraid her version of 'English' seems to be the best she can do.

[Enki]

Oi. I try never to be too sensible!

My whole reaction to the hopey business is basically that a leopard will not change its spots. He generalises about gay people to support is homophobic stance in exactly the way that the press in this country generalise abou t muslims on the basis of ISIS's behaviour.

I previously said i was resolutely unwound up. Thats because ive made a decision not to let him do that for my own reasons. That others wish to challenge him is fine with me. He is a dinosaur who wishes me harm. Im not going to let him affect me.

I have not entered this thread, mainly because it has been rather and perhaps understandably divisive in tone.

However, I would just like to commend you on what I consider to be a most admirable attitude on your part, Trent. Many years ago I admit to having homophobic feelings which I eventually couldn't justify to myself in any way. I am not going to go into detail, but I changed completely, so that now I happily accept that a person's sexual preferences are a matter for them alone, and fully embrace the idea that a loving relationship between two adults(of whatever gender) is to be admired. That's all, Trent. You have my full support.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Clearly you haven't been following the thread particularly carefully.  I made my position clear on this particular topic in my reply #37 on that thread.
Regarding the latter topic of discussion, I can give you the addresses of academics as well.  In fact, the very fact that both you and I could trade academics' addresses shows that there is no scientific or academic consensus - and that applies to both the former and the latter topics.

Hope,

Sorry this one fell below the radar. I have answered it on the Archbishop thread.

[Aruntraveller]

I have not entered this thread, mainly because it has been rather and perhaps understandably divisive in tone.

However, I would just like to commend you on what I consider to be a most admirable attitude on your part, Trent. Many years ago I admit to having homophobic feelings which I eventually couldn't justify to myself in any way. I am not going to go into detail, but I changed completely, so that now I happily accept that a person's sexual preferences are a matter for them alone, and fully embrace the idea that a loving relationship between two adults(of whatever gender) is to be admired. That's all, Trent. You have my full support.

Thanks Enki.

Again on the homophobic feelings people experience - it really isn't a surprise given how ingrained homophobia used to be in our society (much less now thankfully) - it affected me when I was younger and there are enough examples of gay people self harming or denying their sexuality to show that many, many people have those feelings regardless of their sexuality. The good thing is many realise it, like yourself, and get over it. 

[Spud]

I did. Specifically and indeed tangentially.

I think not. As you say I re-worded my post and said that homosexuality is a disorder of sexual orientation. There is nothing vile and homophobic about that. Nothing (in that statement) to suggest that I want to deny anyone anything or compare homosexuality with pedophilia.

[Gordon]

I think not. As you say I re-worded my post and said that homosexuality is a disorder of sexual orientation. There is nothing vile and homophobic about that. Nothing (in that statement) to suggest that I want to deny anyone anything or compare homosexuality with pedophilia.

I think, Spud, that the word 'disorder' is your problem: what is your authority for stating this?

Perhaps you'd best check what the current thinking is regarding your terminology, since I suspect you'll struggle to support your view using current professional and peer-reviewed medical research. One key aspect would be to identify whether, if this is indeed a 'disorder', as you say it is, if there are established an accredited treatment options for this 'disorder', as you term it.

If not, then you'd clearly be wrong in your choice of terminology and I'm sure you'd hate to be stuck with out-of-date thinking regarding sexual orientation.

[Owlswing]

I think, Spud, that the word 'disorder' is your problem: what is your authority for stating this?

Perhaps you'd best check what the current thinking is regarding your terminology, since I suspect you'll struggle to support your view using current professional and peer-reviewed medical research. One key aspect would be to identify whether, if this is indeed a 'disorder', as you say it is, if there are established an accredited treatment options for this 'disorder', as you term it.

If not, then you'd clearly be wrong in your choice of terminology and I'm sure you'd hate to be stuck with out-of-date thinking regarding sexual orientation.

He's using the Bible as the basis for his views and thus his terminology - how much more out-of-date can you get?

[Brownie]

Spud is something of an anachronism I fear.

[Owlswing]

Spud is something of an anachronism I fear.

Regrettably he is not the only one!

In some respects I have to admit that my views can, with truth, be described as anachronistic; like the fact that there no longer appear ro be "children's clothes" for girls aged under about 12 - only child sized adult clothes, regardless of how inappropriate such fashions might be for girls of that age. Oxford Street on a Saturday these days is, visually, a paedophiles paradise in this respect.

Rant over!

[Bubbles]

I think, Spud, that the word 'disorder' is your problem: what is your authority for stating this?

Perhaps you'd best check what the current thinking is regarding your terminology, since I suspect you'll struggle to support your view using current professional and peer-reviewed medical research. One key aspect would be to identify whether, if this is indeed a 'disorder', as you say it is, if there are established an accredited treatment options for this 'disorder', as you term it.

If not, then you'd clearly be wrong in your choice of terminology and I'm sure you'd hate to be stuck with out-of-date thinking regarding sexual orientation.

The idea and the authority behind it comes from the idea that men and women were designed by God, with one purpose in mind and everything else is a " disorder"

Because a lot of Christianity sees human beings as having been designed to an ideal by God, everything else falls short, be it pre marital sex or homosexuality.

Many Christians don't worry about being stuck with " out of date" thinking because they see that,  as being "part of the world". The moving morality that becomes immoral over time.

They are called not to be a part of that.

Their authority is the bible.

Why some people don't get what they mean is puzzling to me.

🌹

I don't see homosexuality as a disorder, but I do get why a Christian might.

Why should they accept my morality on my say so? Or yours Gordon?

[Owlswing]

The idea and the authority behind it comes from the idea that men and women were designed by God, with one purpose in mind and everything else is a " disorder"

Because a lot of Christianity sees human beings as having been designed to an ideal by God, everything else falls short, be it pre marital sex or homosexuality.

Many Christians don't worry about being stuck with " out of date" thinking because they see that,  as being "part of the world". The moving morality that becomes immoral over time.

They are called not to be a part of that.

Their authority is the bible.

Why some people don't get what they mean is puzzling to me.

🌹

I don't see homosexuality as a disorder, but I do get why a Christian might.

Why should they accept my morality on my say so? Or yours Gordon?

So you are saying that we should be living by moral standards that held sway 2,000 years ago?

Surely the changes in morality from the biblical standard, at least in part and in some cases, indicates that people are no longer living in mortal fear of Hellfire or the threats thereof.

[Gordon]

The idea and the authority behind it comes from the idea that men and women were designed by God, with one purpose in mind and everything else is a " disorder"

Because a lot of Christianity sees human beings as having been designed to an ideal by God, everything else falls short, be it pre marital sex or homosexuality.

Many Christians don't worry about being stuck with " out of date" thinking because they see that,  as being "part of the world". The moving morality that becomes immoral over time.

They are called not to be a part of that.

Their authority is the bible.

Why some people don't get what they mean is puzzling to me.

🌹

I don't see homosexuality as a disorder, but I do get why a Christian might.

Why should they accept my morality on my say so? Or yours Gordon?

If Spud's argument that the Bible is authoritative on matters of morality then his argument is a fallacious argument from authority; that is simply his opinion, and no more.

Morality is no more mine that it is Spud's: since it is inherently subjective, isn't fixed, is variable and is subject to change.

[Rhiannon]

The problem as I see it is that devotion to a book makes people lose sight of our common humanity. My views on this were the same when I was a believer as they are now - if the Christian God is the God of love then any kind of love that is freely given and life enhancing comes from that. But what you actually get are people who have enjoyed loving relationships throughout their lives telling others that they can't enjoy the same. The lack of compassion staggers me.

[Shaker]

Aye, same here. What happened to 'God is Love'? When did it get revised to 'God is Love provided you have the right complement of toilet bits'?

[Owlswing]

Aye, same here. What happened to 'God is Love'? When did it get revised to 'God is Love provided you have the right complement of toilet bits'?

There is a story about Willy S Harley arriving at the Pearly Gates to be greeted by an effusive St Peter who announced that the Big G wanted to talk to him as soon as he arrived.

The two walked off together chattiing about the various merits of women and motor-cycles. Willy S opined that there were only three things wrong with women that were not present in motor-cycles - one, the tended to make rather wierd noises at high speed, two, they were excesssively expensive to maintain and three, the exhaust was far too close to the inlet.

God reached into his pocket and pulled out an iPad and keyed something in and waited for the result and, when he got it he showed Willy S the display and said "Sorry, Willy, but the fact is that, despite its faults, there are far more men riding my invention than are riding yours!