Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[ippy]

Dear Spud,

Good morning ya little wanker, so gay people can't have a physical or spiritual relationship, oh! sorry complete physical and spiritual, what ever that means, I am sure homosexuals have very physical relationships as for spiritual, has that something to do with your small minded little idea of God.

Every homophobic post I have read on this forum, two words are missing, Love and Happiness, you and your idea of God, this small minded little god you profess to worship are a disgrace, this god is stopping you from seeing the hurt and hatred you are spreading, thankfully your god does not exist, it is a product of your tiny little narrow mind, you and anyone who agree's with you ( good morning Humph ) are a great adverts for atheism.

Gonnagle.

I'm entirely with you on this one Gonners, well said.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

As Gonzo notes, a god bothering about how people love each other, seems like a puny thing, scared and mewling. Don't be afraid, tiny god thing.

[Bubbles]

And yet I don't see the churches asking for a ban on cohabiting couples being allowed to marry in church. Why is that?

Presumably because they are setting something right and repenting, in the eyes of the church, but that isn't how they see getting married with homosexuality.
With homosexuality, it's celibacy.
Personally, like you I don't think what goes on between consenting adults is any of my business unless it has a negative impact on the lives of me and mine.

Which is unlikely but not impossible.

Trouble is that is also subjective, that concept of harm.

[Sassy]

Don't be idiotic, Hope. Stealing is not the same as blessing a loving relationship.

Liberals don't care much about theological differences - that's what makes them liberals to start with. I left the church because of the gay issue. A local vicar did. Some of my friends have. For many it has been the straw that broke the camel's back.

Have you a family member who is gay?

Stealing isn't but murder is, apparently

Have you a family member who has been murdered?

I can say yes to both. Do I love God any less? No! If God is real how does a family member being gay or being murdered become Gods doing or fault?

It has always been my knowledge that it is man who hurts man not God - on earth.

Homophobia, theft and murder exist because of man not God.

The first murder when Cain slew Abel...wasn't God but rather jealousy because one provided a better offering to God.

Bickering and arguments are more to do with human beings and their nature.

No one walks away from God because someone is gay or murdered. They walk away from God because they need someone to blame and some excuse to make a stand for the way they feel.

Jesus Christ died for all. So God showing no favouritism to sinners. He is not telling us Jesus died because of one sinners sins.
God is telling us Jesus died for all sinners sins.

Everyone has views on things like theft, murder and even sex outside marrige and homophobia.
But only the atheist twists one size to fit all in the homophobia cases.

What I do not understand is, if everyone loves their neighbour and know God is real then we need to be honest if the way they live their lives could harm them after death. You would tell them stealing, murder and homosexuality are not favoured with God. But does anyone stealing or even committing murder and homosexual acts make them less lovable?
Truth is the first two are acts against another person. But the homosexual acts are just between those people which are not harming others.

Sin is sin but do you love people who murder and steal? God judges our motives rather than our actions.
Love covers many sins. I feel people judge God rather man.

[floo]

That's like saying 'they' don't have the potential to be this or that because of the colour of their skin.

Well said.

[Brownie]

I have no difficulty in loving someone who does wrong, let's face it I've done wrong myself in the past, and I'm sure God loves us all regardless of what we have done. 

We need to look at the whole person, not just a bit of them.  There is a lot to love, even like, in most people.

When it comes to our immortal souls, I leave it to God to judge me, and others, and have no doubt that he will look at each of us as individuals, knowing our circumstances and difficulties.

[floo]

Have you a family member who is gay?




Have you a family member who has been murdered?

I can say yes to both. Do I love God any less? No! If God is real how does a family member being gay or being murdered become Gods doing or fault?

It has always been my knowledge that it is man who hurts man not God - on earth.

Homophobia, theft and murder exist because of man not God.

The first murder when Cain slew Abel...wasn't God but rather jealousy because one provided a better offering to God.

Bickering and arguments are more to do with human beings and their nature.

No one walks away from God because someone is gay or murdered. They walk away from God because they need someone to blame and some excuse to make a stand for the way they feel.

Jesus Christ died for all. So God showing no favouritism to sinners. He is not telling us Jesus died because of one sinners sins.
God is telling us Jesus died for all sinners sins.

Everyone has views on things like theft, murder and even sex outside marrige and homophobia.
But only the atheist twists one size to fit all in the homophobia cases.

What I do not understand is, if everyone loves their neighbour and know God is real then we need to be honest if the way they live their lives could harm them after death. You would tell them stealing, murder and homosexuality are not favoured with God. But does anyone stealing or even committing murder and homosexual acts make them less lovable?
Truth is the first two are acts against another person. But the homosexual acts are just between those people which are not harming others.

Sin is sin but do you love people who murder and steal? God judges our motives rather than our actions.
Love covers many sins. I feel people judge God rather man.

Sass it is nasty and sick to equate a loving relationship between two people of the same sex in the same category as people who murder and steal.

[Brownie]

Sass believes, as do one or two others, that some sexual behaviour is wrong in the eyes of God but that it is not more wrong than anything else, despite the fact that we make a lot out of sexual misdemeanours (a red line has appeared, have I spelt that wrongly?).

Nobody would equate sexual activities between adults with murder, or violence.  I cannot imagine there is anyone on this forum who has not done something of a sexual nature which they would consider to be wrong and are ashamed of, or were ashamed of because that fades with time.  Well maybe you, floo, being as you and your husband have been in love since you were teenagers, but I'm sure most of us have done something.  We're not murderers but what we have in common is the act of wrongdoing, with murder there's no going back and putting things right unfortunately which sets it apart.

We know there are Christians who believe homosexual acts are sinful though they do not hate the person, only the act. They believe they should do all they can to save this person from committing that sin and, embarrassing as it is sometimes (I cringe because of the gay posters we have here and almost feel like saying, ''We're not all like that!''), we're not going to stop them thinking that way.  Someone else might, or time, people do change opinions.

I don't know what we are gonna do with them but certainly it could be made clear that it's not right to preach about it on this forum and then not mention it again unless they do, at which time they will be breaching the rules of etiquette of the forum.

[Nearly Sane]

Why would it be in breach of the etiquette of the forum for anyone to mention homosexuality?

[Brownie]

I'm trying to reply to you NS and composed something quite long and very clear (to me), but each time I tried to post it I got a 'forbidden/index/error' message.  So I have decided it is not meant to be!

Briefly, I didn't mean the mentioning of homosexuality but saying anything negative about it, however well intentioned - mainly because it seems to get everyone riled up and causes so much trouble.  I don't expect anyone to take any notice of me though 

[floo]

It is in breach of any sort of decency to be bigoted where homosexuality is concerned, just as it is to be racist.

[Gordon]

My take on this, for what it is worth, is that while we can't stop people thinking whatever they think, at the point they then advance their thinking by making statements in the public arena, and especially where this involves issues of public policy, then their thinking and statements are fair game on the same basis that thoughts advanced from a political perspective are: if this doesn't suit then they should simply keep their thoughts to themselves.

Therefore, anyone who advocates that social/legal conventions (such as marriage), or services provided to the public at large, should be restricted based on an intrinsic characteristic of a person then I expect them to not only justify their wish to discriminate but also have their justification to discriminate open to critique. On that basis it seems to me that denial of equality on the basis of sexual orientation is as abhorrent as discrimination based on race, colour or ethnicity, and that this is a religious opinion is an inadequate justification in a secular democracy.

That some, but not all I hasten to add, Christians claim that homosexuality offends their religious views then, to be frank, tough: here in the U.K. we don't live in a theocracy (which should be obvious in view of the legalisation of SSM in most parts of the UK) and your religion is no longer the arbiter of social morality since to a good number of us, based on what we see being said by some elements within organised Christianity, we see you as being irrelevant and retrogressive, hence your influence has declined and will continue to decline.

My advice to those who advocate discrimination on grounds of sexuality is that while you can think what you like you can no longer say what you like on matters where society no longer sees your perspective as having any default authority, and that if you do it is likely to be seen as being on a par with, say, expressing racist views. 'God's Plan' is an opinion and isn't a defense for homophobia, so you can expect a robust response.



     
     

[Leonard James]

Briefly, I didn't mean the mentioning of homosexuality but saying anything negative about it, however well intentioned - mainly because it seems to get everyone riled up and causes so much trouble.  I don't expect anyone to take any notice of me though 

As you are one of the more pleasant and less judgmental posters, Brownie, I'm sure that most of us DO take notice of what you say ... whether we agree with it or not. 

[Leonard James]

My take on this, for what it is worth, is that while we can't stop people thinking whatever they think, at the point they then advance their thinking by making statements in the public arena, and especially where this involves issues of public policy, then their thinking and statements are fair game on the same basis that thoughts advanced from a political perspective are: if this doesn't suit then they should simply keep their thoughts to themselves.

Therefore, anyone who advocates that social/legal conventions (such as marriage), or services provided to the public at large, should be restricted based on an intrinsic characteristic of a person then I expect them to not only justify their wish to discriminate but also have their justification to discriminate open to critique. On that basis it seems to me that denial of equality on the basis of sexual orientation is as abhorrent as discrimination based on race, colour or ethnicity, and that this is a religious opinion is an inadequate justification in a secular democracy.

That some, but not all I hasten to add, Christians claim that homosexuality offends their religious views then, to be frank, tough: here in the U.K. we don't live in a theocracy (which should be obvious in view of the legalisation of SSM in most parts of the UK) and your religion no longer the arbiter of social morality since to a good number of us, based on what we see being said by some elements within organised Christianity, we see you as being irrelevant and retrogressive, hence your influence has declined and will continue to decline.

My advice to those who advocate discrimination on grounds of sexuality is that while you can think what you like you can no longer say what you like on matters where society no longer sees your perspective as having any default authority, and that if you do it is likely to be seen as being on a par with, say, expressing racist views. 'God's Plan' is an opinion and isn't a defense for homophobia, so you can expect a robust response.

Hear, hear!

[Brownie]

Yeah right Len, there's a compliment in there somewhere I think so ta mate.
What Gordon said above your post seems to be quite sensible.

[Nearly Sane]

Why stop at homosexuals? Why not include theists, or atheists?

I sort of struggle with the whole idea touted in different ways by yourself, Brownie, and Sassy that we shouldn't mention homosexuality because as it feels you are arguing, because of the mad Christians (and Sriram) in the attic maundering on about disease, disorder, and exactly equating it to murder and paedophilia.

[Shaker]

Two superb posts on this page from Brownie and Gordon.

[Brownie]

I dunno about that, I appear to have confused NS!  Never mind, Gordon has posted something that seems reasonable to me and sums up what I meant.

[horsethorn]

I'm trying to reply to you NS and composed something quite long and very clear (to me), but each time I tried to post it I got a 'forbidden/index/error' message.  So I have decided it is not meant to be!

There's a few words and phrases that the forum software doesn't like. If you use any explicit terms/'rude' words, try starring out one of the letters.

Also, there's a character limit on the size of posts

ht

[Nearly Sane]

I dunno about that, I appear to have confused NS!  Never mind, Gordon has posted something that seems reasonable to me and sums up what I meant.

I don't feel confused. It reads to me that you and Sassy don't want people to talk about homosexuality because it shows some Christians and other in a bad light.

[Brownie]

Oh well, you think what you will NS.   Sass and I don't have the same beliefs on this subject and I cannot remember her saying she didn't want it discussed, but if you say she did I accept that and must have forgotten it, or didn't see it.  You also mentioned Sririam earlier on and have no idea what he has do with it. He writes a lot of things from a Hindu perspective about meditation and the like which I find deeply interesting, but I've no idea what his opinions on homosexual relationships are and don't care.

I don't know what yours are!!!  (You don't have to tell me.)

I always stand alone with my opinions NS, always have, but there is bound to be one person who agrees with me, maybe even thought and wrote it before I did.

[Bubbles]

I don't feel confused. It reads to me that you and Sassy don't want people to talk about homosexuality because it shows some Christians and other in a bad light.

I haven't got that impression from Brownies posts.

I think she might wish we could all talk about something else, but not  because of a Christian angle......... More that it's been done to death....... And it spreads into other threads.

[trippymonkey]

Do homophobes or any anti-gay person think that the spirit INSIDE us is male or female according to what genitalia they have ?
If they, gays, decide against that in so far as who they're attracted to - sexually or not - are they 'disobeying' God?
Can our 'atma spirit whatever actually BE male or female ?!?!?!!?

Nick

[Spud]

Why not?

Isn't that an incredibly ignorant, offensive, just plain damned rude thing to say about somebody's relationship? Would you like it said of yours if the boot was on the other foot?

I would be glad if they said the truth. So if they said that I shouldn't touch my girlfriend's boobs I would be sad, but would agree because that would be the Spirit talking and you can't argue with him. That would not be the same as saying I can't ever touch them, as the opportunity might come if we get married. (Plus I might slip up from time to time). You make it out to be hypocritical to deny homosexuals what they want, when I might one day have it. But the important thing about heterosexual marriage is that it is not pleasure for the sake of pleasure. With it comes the responsibility of family life: raising children, or adopting if you don't have your own, or being honorary parents if you don't literally adopt. A gay partnership carries no such responsibility. So they are not entitled to enjoy sex, the purpose of which is the giving of one's life force to one's spouse, that being what unites them physically and spiritually.

[Spud]

As for gonnagle, well I will remember you as someone who swore a lot.