Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[floo]

In the 30-odd years I've been debating the subject - f2f or virtually, I have yet to be shown any evidence that shows this statement to be wrong, wiggi.  After all, God's plan for marriage and family was very clearly expressed from the very beginning as a one man/one woman arrangement. 

Interestingly enough, when I was debating the issue back in the early noughties on a different board, a straw poll was taken of the gay and lesbian members of the board and the result was some 35% were in favour of pushing for gay marriage, and about 65% were not.  That main reason given by the latter was that the two forms of marriage that that would create would never be equal, though they might be equivalent, and that legislators could do what they want but that they could never change the biological natures of the two.

It is a good job decent people have seen sense in the 21st century where this issue is concerned. Homosexuals and heterosexuals should have equal rights in all things.

[Gordon]

In the 30-odd years I've been debating the subject - f2f or virtually, I have yet to be shown any evidence that shows this statement to be wrong, wiggi.

On what basis do you think this statement to be correct?

After all, God's plan for marriage and family was very clearly expressed from the very beginning as a one man/one woman arrangement.

If this is it then it sounds like a fallacious argument from authority. 

Interestingly enough, when I was debating the issue back in the early noughties on a different board, a straw poll was taken of the gay and lesbian members of the board and the result was some 35% were in favour of pushing for gay marriage, and about 65% were not.

This sounds like yet more anecdote - since you mention statistics, have you got any references to support this claim?

That main reason given by the latter was that the two forms of marriage that that would create would never be equal, though they might be equivalent, and that legislators could do what they want but that they could never change the biological natures of the two.

This is your interpretation of what is, at best, your anecdotal recollections: got anything more substantive to cite?

[Hope]

On what basis do you think this statement to be correct?

Reality.  I have never ever seen any convincing, let alone conclusive evidence to that effect.

If this is it then it sounds like a fallacious argument from authority.

Its no more fallacious an argument from authority than an argument for the legality of gay marriage in the UK based on current UK legislation.

This sounds like yet more anecdote - since you mention statistics, have you got any references to support this claim?

Since that particular forum was closed about 9 years ago, no I don't, but then this was not meant to be a scientific piece of evidence but reference to something that was the case nearer 14 years ago.

This is your interpretation of what is, at best, your anecdotal recollections: got anything more substantive to cite?

I would suggest that the opinion of gay and lesbian people on a completely independent internet forum was substantive, even if that was 14-odd years ago.

[Hope]

It is a good job decent people have seen sense in the 21st century where this issue is concerned. Homosexuals and heterosexuals should have equal rights in all things.

Not quite sure that they can, Floo; at least not until such time as one of a homosexual couple can give birth to a child that bears both partners' genes from their own body. 

[Gordon]

Reality.  I have never ever seen any convincing, let alone conclusive evidence to that effect.

Then what we have here is just your opinion on the issue, since 'reality' is a gloriously imprecise 'going nuclear' justification.

Its no more fallacious an argument from authority than an argument for the legality of gay marriage in the UK based on current UK legislation.

Not really, since the UK legislature does have demonstrable binding authority on this matter irrespective of whether you or I approve or disapprove, and in addition all of the details surrounding the exercise of its authority are documented and are attributable: there is provenance. In contrast your claim of 'God's plan' has unknown provenance and isn't binding, since if it were the UK legislature would not have legislated as it did.
 

Since that particular forum was closed about 9 years ago, no I don't, but then this was not meant to be a scientific piece of evidence but reference to something that was the case nearer 14 years ago.

I would suggest that the opinion of gay and lesbian people on a completely independent internet forum was substantive, even if that was 14-odd years ago.

So, no more than your usual anecdotal recollections then: I'd have thought if you were going to quote numbers something more substantive than anecdote based on your recall of internet conversations occurring years ago would be essential.

[Shaker]

Not quite sure that they can, Floo; at least not until such time as one of a homosexual couple can give birth to a child that bears both partners' genes from their own body.

Given that we don't deny any rights to heterosexual infertile people (least of all with regard to marriage - we don't do pre-nuptial fertility tests and don't grill bride and groom to be on their plans for children or lack of them), what grounds are there in what passes for your opinion for doing the same to homosexual people?

To recap: you will recall that Floo absolutely rightly said: "Homosexuals and heterosexuals should have equal rights in all things," to which you responded: "Not quite sure that they can, Floo." So which rights are you "not quite sure" can apply to homosexual people as heterosexual people? What does the ability to "give birth to a child that bears both partners' genes from their own body" - the follow-up to your just-quoted sentence - matter in terms of conferring rights? What is the relevance of this?

[Shaker]

Since that particular forum was closed about 9 years ago ...

Convenient.

[Rhiannon]

'God's perfect plan' for sex and the family includes everything from birth asphyxia to obstetric fistula.

And Hope thinks we are the moral defects for supporting gay relationships.

[floo]

Not quite sure that they can, Floo; at least not until such time as one of a homosexual couple can give birth to a child that bears both partners' genes from their own body.

Why is having kids so important? The world is over populated as it is.

[horsethorn]

After all, God's plan for marriage and family was very clearly expressed from the very beginning as a one man/one woman arrangement. 

Not according to the bible.

Either it wasn't very clear, or the biblical god was quite happy for many of his 'chosen' to wilfully ignore it.

ht

[Shaker]

Hope's resolution not to discuss homosexuality has lasted all of a few days. Still, as Trent pointed put recently, obviously he can't help himself. Ho hum.

[Brownie]

Why is having kids so important? The world is over populated as it is.

Bits of the world floo, there are particular areas that seem to be overpopulated and other areas where the population growth is low and slow.  People will always want to have kids, you and I wouldn't have not wanted to.  Of course in this country most of us don't have six or more as happened in days gone by - but in those days folks often lost children in infancy.

I agree with you that homosexual couples are equal, have equal rights, to heterosexuals but equal doesn't mean the same and obviously a gay couple cannot reproduce.  One of them can have a child or they can adopt.  Those are facts and I imagine that's what Hope meant.

Regarding Hope being obsessed with the H subject, I think we all are :-).  This thread, which was specifically started as an opinion poll, is the most lively one on here!  Every day brings new comments from all of us regulars, I think I need to address myself as to why I am so preoccupied with the private lives of other people  .

[Aruntraveller]

Those are facts and I imagine that's what Hope meant.

Good of you to give him the benefit of the doubt - but as Hope is so fond of reminding us, he did teach English. You would have thought he could have expressed himself with a little more clarity. Or maybe that's not what he meant at all. Who knows?

[Shaker]

I agree with you that homosexual couples are equal, have equal rights, to heterosexuals but equal doesn't mean the same and obviously a gay couple cannot reproduce.  One of them can have a child or they can adopt.  Those are facts and I imagine that's what Hope meant.

It would be nice if Hope was clearer about what he actually means while he's writing, obviating the sort of post hoc scrabbling about and rationalisation that convinces nobody.

Regarding Hope being obsessed with the H subject, I think we all are

I disagree - most, in fact I would say almost all of the discussion about homosexuality here arises purely in reaction against and as a counter to some of the disgraceful opinions voiced here with regard to gay people. Without that I doubt if the subject would crop up any more than once in a blue moon.

[Rhiannon]

I can think of a million and one better things to discuss than sexuality. I'm obsessed with red wine and chocolate.

I do have a bit of a thing about letting people lead their own harmless lives without finger pointing though.

[Bubbles]

It would be nice if Hope was clearer about what he actually means while he's writing, obviating the sort of post hoc scrabbling about and rationalisation that convinces nobody.
I disagree - most, in fact I would say almost all of the discussion about homosexuality here arises purely in reaction against and as a counter to some of the disgraceful opinions voiced here with regard to gay people. Without that I doubt if the subject would crop up any more than once in a blue moon.

No, I think it would crop up because people like debating things that are controversial.

[Bubbles]

I can think of a million and one better things to discuss than sexuality. I'm obsessed with red wine and chocolate.

I do have a bit of a thing about letting people lead their own harmless lives without finger pointing though.

It's easier to drink and eat it though, not much to say after that  . Except how to lose weight perhaps.

Or how wine tends to weaken the willpower about consuming the wrong sorts of foods and other things.

The trouble with wine and chocolate is once sits gone, it's gone 

🍷🍷🍷🍷🍷🍷🍫🍫🍫🍫🍫🍫🍫🍫

[Brownie]

Yes they do Rose.  They are more interesting than things we may talk about in every day life offline.  So we continue :-).

Just saw Rhiannon's and your last post Rose - I like a couple of glasses of red but do get a headache and would even more so combined with chocolate!  I'm a lightweight, a glass or two at weekends only, a nice Merlot or something like that (or what is on offer at the supermarket).

[Shaker]

No, I think it would crop up because people like debating things that are controversial.

I don't see homosexuality as controversial, though. I've no reason to.

[Rhiannon]

I don't see homosexuality as controversial, though. I've no reason to.

Surely the controversy is the fact that people still, in this day and age, talk about knowing what 'God thinks' about homosexuality and expects the rest of us to live accordingly.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Merchant Bankers, ( homophobes, Christian )

The controversy is that we have a mind set which leads to Gods children being tortured, raped, imprisoned, bullied, shunned by society, leads to depression, suicide, that is the real sin.

Gonnagle.

[Bubbles]

People like to discuss other people, especially when they are different to them.

They also gossip.

Nowadays we gossip by remote, because the chances are we don't know our neighbours well enough to gossip about them.

So celebrities, news articles  and groups are common replacements, to gossip about.

 

[Brownie]

I only discuss homosexuality on forums, or this forum to be precise because it's a long time since I've got into a real discussion on any other, I generally just play word games.  Honestly it doesn't come up in real life and I dislike gossip, have done so since an early age, probably because I grew up hearing it from my mother and her family!  Other than forums I don't see homosexuality as controversial though it was some years ago.  Well, that's progress!

[wigginhall]

Surely the controversy is the fact that people still, in this day and age, talk about knowing what 'God thinks' about homosexuality and expects the rest of us to live accordingly.

This is what strikes me.  When a Christian such as Spud expresses his bizarre ramblings about sex, are we supposed to be impressed?  If he has such weird ideas in his own mind, fair enough, but they need not detain us really.   I am not really interested in what other people do in their private lives, and I certainly don't want anyone to comment on mine, or tell me what I should or should not be doing. 

[Bubbles]

This is what strikes me.  When a Christian such as Spud expresses his bizarre ramblings about sex, are we supposed to be impressed?  If he has such weird ideas in his own mind, fair enough, but they need not detain us really.   I am not really interested in what other people do in their private lives, and I certainly don't want anyone to comment on mine, or tell me what I should or should not be doing.

But Rhiannon's link to the penis beaker was hilarious.

People like having a laugh and reading about other peoples little quirks