Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[wigginhall]

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

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

I agree, but someone like Spud is saying that X is immoral, and presumably, people doing X, are also immoral.  Too intrusive, for my taste.   Please get out of my bedroom with your prurient eyes.

[Brownie]

I doubt Spud says such things outside of the internet.  As he obviously feels a need to do so, I would rather he did it here amongst us.  We can refute what he says and even tell him to bog off but we aren't going to end up with fisticuffs and we'll all go on with our daily lives.

[wigginhall]

I doubt Spud says such things outside of the internet.  As he obviously feels a need to do so, I would rather he did it here amongst us.  We can refute what he says and even tell him to bog off but we aren't going to end up with fisticuffs and we'll all go on with our daily lives.

That's all very complacent.   Meanwhile people like Spud are trying to jail gays in countries like Uganda, and some Western evangelicals are suspected of egging them on.

One reason that we can go on with our daily lives here, is that this kind of bigotry has been fought against, and in the main, the battle won, although one can never take it for granted. 

[Shaker]

Eternal vigilance ...

[wigginhall]

Eternal vigilance ...

Exactly.  You only have to look across the pond to see Republican dominated states trying to pass anti-gay measures, and anti-trans measures, probably desperate that an incoming Democrat president will appoint a liberal Supreme Court judge, and anti-gay bigotry will be put on the rubbish heap.   

Of course, it's all in the name of religious freedom (to persecute people). 

[Nearly Sane]

That's all very complacent.   Meanwhile people like Spud are trying to jail gays in countries like Uganda, and some Western evangelicals are suspected of egging them on.

One reason that we can go on with our daily lives here, is that this kind of bigotry has been fought against, and in the main, the battle won, although one can never take it for granted.

Given the presence of gay posters, I am quite uncomfortable with the idea of the forum being used as a ballpit for homophobes to let off steam. Does that mean we should have a separate play area fo racists, where the balls are all one colour? Or s exists where there are only bollocks?

[wigginhall]

Given the presence of gay posters, I am quite uncomfortable with the idea of the forum being used as a ballpit for homophobes to let off steam. Does that mean we should have a separate play area fo racists, where the balls are all one colour? Or s exists where there are only bollocks?

Well, some forums just don't allow homophobic stuff.   I suppose this one traditionally has, so that Christians get to say that gay f**** is sinful, as their churches do.   It has worked in a way, but it also tends to drag on as a sort of dead horse. 

[Brownie]

You all make very good points and I do agree with them.  However I was only thinking of Spud, not all homophobes, and he confided something to us a couple of weeks ago which made me very sad indeed.  Maybe some of you have forgotten about it and I'm not going to talk about it because he may prefer it not to be talked about.

I will always refute what Spud says about gay people, always have.  Perhaps my error, if it is one, is to see him as an individual, not part of a group who go around making the lives of others unpleasant.  I could well be wrong in my assessment of him, we'll never know.

[Nearly Sane]

You all make very good points and I do agree with them.  However I was only thinking of Spud, not all homophobes, and he confided something to us a couple of weeks ago which made me very sad indeed.  Maybe some of you have forgotten about it and I'm not going to talk about it because he may prefer it not to be talked about.

I will always refute what Spud says about gay people, always have.  Perhaps my error, if it is one, is to see him as an individual, not part of a group who go around making the lives of others unpleasant.  I could well be wrong in my assessment of him, we'll never know.

I don't see anyone here as part of a group doing the above. And i'm a bit narked at the implication that I do.

[Owlswing]

You all make very good points and I do agree with them.  However I was only thinking of Spud, not all homophobes, and he confided something to us a couple of weeks ago which made me very sad indeed.  Maybe some of you have forgotten about it and I'm not going to talk about it because he may prefer it not to be talked about.

I will always refute what Spud says about gay people, always have.  Perhaps my error, if it is one, is to see him as an individual, not part of a group who go around making the lives of others unpleasant.  I could well be wrong in my assessment of him, we'll never know.

Brownie

You seem to be acting as a defender of every theist here, Spud, Hope and Sassy, at various times and on various subjects.

Please, do not set yourself up as an Aunt Sally - people like Hoipe, Sassy and Spud are quite capable of defending their statements that are based upon their religious beliefs and , if they are not, then they should not be making them.

Yes, Spud had a nasty experience in the past, and now he is using that experience as an excuse for his reprehensible views against all homosexuals.

[Brownie]

I don't see anyone here as part of a group doing the above. And i'm a bit narked at the implication that I do.

NS, why did you think I was implicating you?  I was talking about homophobes who make the lives of gays unpleasant.  You don't fit into that category and I think you jumped in a bit defensive.  My post was thoughtful and gentle, you don't have to agree with me.

Owlswing: You seem to be acting as a defender of every theist here, Spud, Hope and Sassy, at various times and on various subjects.

Not from my perception, Owl.  I have crossed swords with all of them and will continue to do so, no doubt.  It probably surprises you that occasionally I might agree with one of them.  I agree with others too sometimes but I have to speak as I find at the time.  I wasn't in any way agreeing with what Spud said, only having some feeling for Spud as an individual.  Why mention Sassy when she hasn't been on here for a few days?  I frequently disagree with her but I do quite like her. Is that unusual?  I'd have thought that was quite normal on a forum actually.
You'll be saying I'm a homophobe next  .  (Not really.)
I might have a couple of days break, it would do me good, I'll come back with a refreshed and unbiased view (I tend to think I am unbiased usually), and I am fed up with seeing my name at the end of threads when I log in!  It gets boring for me and others.

[Nearly Sane]

NS, why did you think I was implicating you?  I was talking about homophobes who make the lives of gays unpleasant.  You don't fit into that category and I think you jumped in a bit defensive.  My post was thoughtful and gentle, you don't have to agree with me.

I didn't think you were implicating me in that way and my post makes that clear


Rather I was suggesting that myself among others are not treating Spud as an individual but as part of a group making people's lives unpleasant., as per quote following.

 ' Perhaps my error, if it is one, is to see him as an individual, not part of a group who go around making the lives of others unpleasant. '

I find the idea that I am not treating Spud as an individual an implication that is unjustified.

[Spud]

Leonard, in reply to your earlier post,
Acts of lust that treat someone as a pleasure object rather than as a person, and consequently do not measure up to true standards of conjugal love and respect for human dignity, are immoral.
[http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marital-foreplay.htm]
This includes any act other than what is described in a biology text book (not up for discussing these) and comes as a shock to most people.
BTW wigginhall, most of what I've said here is in answer to other peoples' questions. If you don't want to know what people think, don't come on a forum.

[wigginhall]

Leonard, in reply to your earlier post,
Acts of lust that treat someone as a pleasure object rather than as a person, and consequently do not measure up to true standards of conjugal love and respect for human dignity, are immoral. This includes any act other than what is described in a biology text book (not up for discussing these) and comes as a shock to most people.
BTW wigginhall, most of what I've said here is in answer to other peoples' questions. If you don't want to know what people think, don't come on a forum.

Well, you don't just express stuff as your opinion, you express it as a kind of declamation, in fact you are doing in this post - 'acts of lust that treat someone as a pleasure object .... are immoral'.

I assume you have brought down tablets of stone from the mountain, with these statements written on them. 

[Brownie]

I didn't think you were implicating me in that way and my post makes that clear


Rather I was suggesting that myself among others are not treating Spud as an individual but as part of a group making people's lives unpleasant., as per quote following.

 ' Perhaps my error, if it is one, is to see him as an individual, not part of a group who go around making the lives of others unpleasant. '

I find the idea that I am not treating Spud as an individual an implication that is unjustified.

Sorry NS, I think we have our wires crossed here but I don't go around making assumptions as a general rule.  Sometimes I think what I say is not clear (it's clear to me of course ). Pax please. 

[Bubbles]

Leonard, in reply to your earlier post,
Acts of lust that treat someone as a pleasure object rather than as a person, and consequently do not measure up to true standards of conjugal love and respect for human dignity, are immoral. This includes any act other than what is described in a biology text book (not up for discussing these) and comes as a shock to most people.
BTW wigginhall, most of what I've said here is in answer to other peoples' questions. If you don't want to know what people think, don't come on a forum.

Don't you think a gay person can love someone who happens just to be the same sex, without lusting after them just as a sex object?

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry NS, I think we have our wires crossed here but I don't go around making assumptions as a general rule.  Sometimes I think what I say is not clear (it's clear to me of course ). Pax please.

No problem

[Shaker]

Leonard, in reply to your earlier post,
Acts of lust that treat someone as a pleasure object rather than as a person, and consequently do not measure up to true standards of conjugal love and respect for human dignity, are immoral.

Says who, and why are we supposed to care about or take their opinion seriously, bearing in mind what I've dubbed Hitchens's First Law (what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence)?

This includes any act other than what is described in a biology text book (not up for discussing these) and comes as a shock to most people.

Apart from being an argumentum ad populum/ad numerum (which is to say a fallacy), 'things that come as a shock to most people' is an almost infinitely malleable and plastic concept. There are a few basic universals - murder; cruelty to children and so forth - but things like attitudes to sexuality and what are regarded as permissible forms of sexual expression chop and change through history and from one culture to another. In the modern era the thing that we've found often makes the most difference in this regard is the substition of ignorance by knowledge, which is why the expansion of the sphere of tolerance is pretty well a one-way street.

[Leonard James]

Leonard, in reply to your earlier post,
Acts of lust that treat someone as a pleasure object rather than as a person, and consequently do not measure up to true standards of conjugal love and respect for human dignity, are immoral.

What has that got to do with one man loving another and having sex with him? He is treating him exactly the same as a hetero man treats his wife.

This includes any act other than what is described in a biology text book (not up for discussing these) and comes as a shock to most people.

I don't get my love from a text book ... it stems from my heart.

[Spud]

What has that got to do with one man loving another and having sex with him? He is treating him exactly the same as a hetero man treats his wife.

Sexual pleasure shared between two men, like non-procreative sex between a man and his wife, is sought for itself, being isolated from its procreative purpose.
http://www.faith.org.uk/article/january-february-2011-the-dehumanisation-of-marital-sex

[floo]

Sexual pleasure shared between two men, like non-procreative sex between a man and his wife, is sought for itself, being isolated from its procreative purpose.
http://www.faith.org.uk/article/january-february-2011-the-dehumanisation-of-marital-sex

CHANGE THE TUNE, spud!

[Gordon]

Sexual pleasure shared between two men, like non-procreative sex between a man and his wife, is sought for itself, being isolated from its procreative purpose.
http://www.faith.org.uk/article/january-february-2011-the-dehumanisation-of-marital-sex

So what?

[Leonard James]

Sexual pleasure shared between two men, like non-procreative sex between a man and his wife, is sought for itself, being isolated from its procreative purpose.
http://www.faith.org.uk/article/january-february-2011-the-dehumanisation-of-marital-sex

For goodness' sake stop using these daft sites for your 'information', Spud. You must surely realise that it's all just stupid propaganda for their antiquated ideas.

[Bubbles]

Sexual pleasure shared between two men, like non-procreative sex between a man and his wife, is sought for itself, being isolated from its procreative purpose.
http://www.faith.org.uk/article/january-february-2011-the-dehumanisation-of-marital-sex

Spud

I don't think most heterosexuals are thinking about procreation any of the time during sex.
It only comes up if people want to start a family, which is a very small amount of time in their life.:

[wigginhall]

Sexual pleasure shared between two men, like non-procreative sex between a man and his wife, is sought for itself, being isolated from its procreative purpose.
http://www.faith.org.uk/article/january-february-2011-the-dehumanisation-of-marital-sex

Most of that article is attacking contraception.   So are you now saying that this is immoral?