Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Hope]

Nothing like addressing the point. Do you agree with what Spud appeared to be saying: that marriage was consent - the implication being that marital rape was impossible.

So, you weren't suggesting that Spud's view is specific to his religious beliefs?  If not, why the reference to the defence of 'the idiotic and harmful prejudices of your religion'?

[Hope]

Was abstaining for medical reasons what Spud was referring to?

Not really concerned.  Just enjoying taking a few posts out of context in the same way some of mine are. 

[Shaker]

So, you weren't suggesting that Spud's view is specific to his religious beliefs?  If not, why the reference to the defence of 'the idiotic and harmful prejudices of your religion'?

Spud has a habit of marshalling as his "authorities" sundry popes and mediaeval Catholic philosophers. What do you think his so-called arguments are based on?

[Stranger]

So, you weren't suggesting that Spud's view is specific to his religious beliefs?  If not, why the reference to the defence of 'the idiotic and harmful prejudices of your religion'?

You still haven't addressed the point. Do you agree or not?

Spud has been engaged in an increasingly bizarre set of arguments in order to justify his belief that homosexuality is wrong. Many of them are explicitly religious, so, yes, I regard his prejudice as religiously motivated (as well as idiotic and harmful).

[Brownie]

You haven't asked me and I am not answering for Hope  but it seems to me that Spud adheres to a type of Vatican ll Catholicism which you don't come across very often.  It has an answer to everything, all written down in books, which will reinforce his opinions.  I know Spud had a horrible experience many years ago which he has told us about and that has made him quite prejudiced but I would have thought the prejudice might extend to church too:  not so, obviously. 

Dear Spud, you seem to be sheltering in Olde Catholicism.  There is a world outside of it which is not all bad;  not all homosexuals, in fact most homosexuals, are going to/not going to come on to you, not all churches have members who will befriend you in order to exploit you.  Please get out a bit and lose all the gloom, it is not a true refuge.

[Shaker]

You haven't asked me and I am not answering for Hope  but it seems to me that Spud adheres to a type of Vatican ll Catholicism which you don't come across very often.  It has an answer to everything, all written down in books, which will reinforce his opinions.  I know Spud had a horrible experience many years ago which he has told us about and that has made him quite prejudiced but I would have thought the prejudice might extend to church too:  not so, obviously. 

Dear Spud, you seem to be sheltering in Olde Catholicism.  There is a world outside of it which is not all bad; not all homosexuals, in fact most homosexuals, are going to/not going to come on to you, not all churches have members who will befriend you in order to exploit you. Please get out a bit and lose all the gloom, it is not a true refuge.

Is Spud even a Catholic? He quotes popes and Catholic philosophers, but that doesn't necessarily signify being a Catholic himself. I've noticed that recently he spoke of "the Catholics" which implies a distancing from said group and implies that he doesn't belong to that group since people tend to speak of "the x_________" about groups that they don't belong to. (Amongst racists it's "the darkies" or "the Pakis"; with anti-Semites it's "the Jews"). If they do belong to said groups they're more likely to say: "We x__________" or something similar.

[Brownie]

I didn't think he was a Catholic, Shaker, but because of what he has said recently, I thought maybe he was.  Well I could be wrong.  Maybe he will tell us?

[Spud]

I'm Anglican. But as you said Brownie, I find that the catholics have expressed in words what many of us were thinking and hadn't reasoned through until gay marriage appeared.

[Shaker]

I'm Anglican. But as you said Brownie, I find that the catholics have expressed in words what many of us were thinking

Where's the evidence for this?

[Brownie]

I too wondered that Shaker but I do know the ''High'' Anglicans, eg the Forward in Faith people, are arch Traditionalists;  more Catholic than the Catholics.

Anyway thank you for answering the query, Spud.

[Stranger]

I'm Anglican. But as you said Brownie, I find that the catholics have expressed in words what many of us were thinking and hadn't reasoned through until gay marriage appeared.

I can see no evidence that there was any reasoning involved at all...

[Gordon]

I'm Anglican. But as you said Brownie, I find that the catholics have expressed in words what many of us were thinking and hadn't reasoned through until gay marriage appeared.

Who is 'us', and I'd have to say that RCC and reason are strange bedfellows indeed.

[Brownie]

That isn't strictly the case, Gordon, though people who think anyone who believes in a God is barking (up the wrong tree or just plain...), will have their opinions  .  There are different wings of Catholicism, schools of thought, and some are relatively liberal.  I'd say that most Catholics in this country are like that.  There are also conservatives and some far more so, Traditionals who hark back to pre-Vatican ll.  The sort of stuff that Spud quotes is arch-Traditional (the ''High'' Anglicans consider themselves to be Anglo-Catholic).  It's quite a broad church.

[Spud]

Who is 'us', and I'd have to say that RCC and reason are strange bedfellows indeed.

Most of the 669,000 who signed the coalition for marriage's petition, I should think.

[Shaker]

Most of the 669,000 who signed the coalition for marriage's petition, I should think.

Do you know how that stacks up against those who positively and actively supported equal marriage? (Literally: I don't just mean the apathetic who had no firm views one way or the other).

[Gordon]

Most of the 669,000 who signed the coalition for marriage's petition, I should think.

What was the wording of the petition?

[Shaker]

What was the wording of the petition?

"I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it."

Not that it matters a jot then or especially now, of course

Guess what the legal definition of marriage is now, and why? Because we changed it.

[Rhiannon]

The daftest thing was the suggestion that marriage equality would devalue marriage generally.

[Rhiannon]

This is still brilliant.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ervtik_7jYQ

[Gordon]

"I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it."

Not that it matters a jot then or especially now, of course

Yikes - sounds like a bigots charter to me: of course, as you say, they were firmly put in their place (albeit with some chicanery to allow the CofE to remain in the dark ages).

[Shaker]

Yikes - sounds like a bigots charter to me: of course, as you say, they were firmly put in their place (albeit with some chicanery to allow the CofE to remain in the dark ages).

Still conflicted about that, in the sense that if you are narrow and petty enough to believe that marriage belongs only to this group here and isn't, shouldn't be open to all who want to join in, there's no reason why you should have to conduct such marriages. The conflict comes from the fact that some of those who support(ed) the larger, wider, all-embracing, inclusive sense of marriage were and are prevented from carrying them out.

[Rhiannon]

The most terrible injustice is that the CofE doesn't allow freedom of conscience on this. It's appalling. And it's s big reason why liberals are quitting the church.

[Shaker]

An established state church has a lot to answer for

[Sassy]

There are no vile homophobic views on this forum. There are just people who have not learned to love and who use the suffering of others to stir up a pot of hate and loathing amongst people.

I see that people have different views whether religious or not. Unless the writer of the thread aims his pointed finger at all, atheists and theists alike then really he is just prejudice and singling anyone who religious out.

My nephew John is homosexual. In our family we have no bigoted views in any generation.
My love for God does not make me a bigot and it does not change my love for my nephew who came out not so long ago.

There are no vile homophobic views just difference of opinions.

Because someone believes something to be right or wrong, it does not mean they dislike anyone who believes differently to themselves. Loving others is not a judgment call. We do not love others for anything they believe or do not believe.
We do not love others for their sexuality or even their looks. We love others for themselves and who they are as a person.
Love does not sit in court and judge who can be loved. Christ died for the world. That is everyone who has been or will be since the beginning of time.

I suppose love is too simple and to pure for you to understand that we love no matter what  the world is fighting about.
Time to stop throwing stones, Stephen... because only your glass windows are getting broken.

[Sassy]

The most terrible injustice is that the CofE doesn't allow freedom of conscience on this. It's appalling. And it's s big reason why liberals are quitting the church.

You really mean to say the CofE show that there is no conscience about truth.
The people of the CofE have priests who are gay. They have their own parishes and the people of their parish support them.
What you really mean is that no matter what they do to live and let live, you who are not gay want more and more and that cannot be done because they will not water down the truth of Jesus Christ or become a  hypocrites.

Are you saying homosexual priests who enter the church under the same regulations are those who are not homosexual should be allowed to change the rules when they agreed to them when entering?

Would be rather misleading like the Trojan Horse. A way in to try and change things...

I believe those with faith love and understand that somethings cannot be changed otherwise what was no longer exists and it makes less of Christ and Gods Words in the bible.  The bible clearly teaches...

King James Bible
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

If someone is loving God, then their sexuality is not what is important.  In truth it is Gods love for us in Christ which is the most important thing. Because God is telling us he loves us. Sinners and filthy before Christ washed the sins away. He who is God loved us. I believe there is no difference for those in Christ. God loves us and that love is what makes the difference.
We cannot cause upset and chaos amongst the body of Christ by changing the truth.