Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Aruntraveller]

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.

I can't speak for other gay partnerships - but I can for mine.

You are correct by and large we don't have children - except for Lesbians of course who astoundingly quite often do.

But other responsibilities I have had over the years to both my own and my partners family. Responsibilities that have brought both pain and pleasure. The pleasure of new born nephews and nieces coming into the world and the pleasure of watching them grow into loving, warm hearted generous people who look on myself and my partner as Uncles, which we are. You know part of the family, in the family, making the family work, making it better to be a part of for everyone. The pain of loss - of parents, and a brother in law, of various aunts and uncles - and being a part of the family and supporting one another and caring and letting my partner rant and scream with the grief of loss as I hold him.

Now I post this - not because it is exceptional, rather because I imagine most people of a certain age who post here know exactly what I am talking about. Yet you in your off hand way say that because we have no responsibilities we are not "entitled to enjoy sex".

Oh I have responsibilities my friend, which I have carried out as a human being - not bothered by the type of sex any of my relatives or friends have - I carried them out because it was the right, proper, human thing to do.

You might want to think on about what it means to be human - because imo you have some serious work to do.

[Brownie]

Very serious post, Trent, thank you. 
Spud you know not of what you speak.

[Nearly Sane]

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

and is twenty times the Christian you might dream of being

[trippymonkey]

' 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. '

Are you bloody serious with this silly attitude ?!!?!?!? Gays can't have kids - EXCUSE ME ?!?!?!

[Brownie]

and is twenty times the Christian you might dream of being

I didn't mean to quote this NS, but the one from Trippy beneath yours, but as I have I will say, ''Hear hear''.

Trippy, he means that can't have kids with eachother, or eachother's kids.  Certainly they can bring up eachother's children who have been conceived with a third party.  Also they can adopt, no reason not to in my view and when you think of the number of young children in this country alone who cannot live with a parent or family, that can only be good.

[Gordon]

Very serious post, Trent, thank you. 
Spud you know not of what you speak.

Yep - Trent's post exudes humanity, as opposed to the sterile tosh we see from Spud.

[Shaker]

I would be glad if they said the truth.

Which is what?

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.

I agree that you can't argue with what doesn't exist.

You make it out to be hypocritical to deny homosexuals what they want, when I might one day have it.

Yes, because it is. In fact, more than hypocritical, it's poisonously selfish and self-serving.

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.

I'm at a continuing loss to understand why you're such a mindless slave to biology. Any inherent link between the state of being married and the capacity to bear offspring was broken a very very long time ago - if indeed such a thing ever existed at all.

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.

"Life force"? OK, this is definitely the point where Spud jumps the shark.

[Shaker]

Yep - Trent's post exudes humanity, as opposed to the sterile tosh we see from Spud.

He won't like that - it doesn't lead to babies.

[Bubbles]

Quite a thoughtful and moving post from Trent.

Spud seems to see relationships and marriage from some abstract ideal which doesn't always exist in heterosexual marriages either.

Children end up in care, because sometimes responsibilities towards them are not met. No one suggests that because of that, those heterosexual parents are not allowed to enjoy sex.

What matters is that children are looked after and not left vunerable.

Heterosexuals sometimes fail in their responsibilities towards their children and I have never heard from any church anywhere, that this is a reason that they should not be allowed to enjoy sex.

That rule only applies to people who are gay, obviously.

It's just an excuse to discriminate, one of those platitudes people come out with, to justify it.

them and us.

Some of the things in religion can be used negatively to discriminate against those who are different or not part of it.

It's a form of dehumanising people, making out they don't possess the same humanity or human feelings as believers or followers.

You can find it, if you look in Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

It's how some people interpret it.

I think this argument of Spuds, falls into that category.

It makes out groups of people,  are less than human and don't have whatever it is believers have.


In this case, homosexuals are being made out to  lack the depth and level  of feelings of heterosexuals and therefore lack the responsibilities.


It makes them out to be less than someone else.

[Sassy]

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.

Well show me who has equated and how they could do that.

Truth is you opinion is calling all sins nasty and sick.
When in reality all sins carry the same penalty of death. There is no equality in the sins committed.
One who breaks one commandment would have broken them all if your thinking was correct.

In reality the wages of sin is death. It is the penalty which does not change.
All this rubbish about equality is made up by the atheist. So you thinking as you do is all down to you.
You are the one claiming that all sins are nasty and sick to be able to claim that comparison makes it that way.

Christians don't believe that sin is nasty and sick. They believe sin is against God.
Every sin leads to death. You are the ones in your own minds twisting the truth to make a rod for Christians and falling foul of your own real feelings on the subject.

All over the world there are people who are religious, agnostic and atheist who use such sentences as yours.
Making things nasty and sick that no one is calling nasty and sick but those who create the thoughts in the first instance.

It appears those who smelt it, actually dealt it...

[Sassy]

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

What decency?

You make sentences you cannot substantiate and show no real understanding about.

It is a sentence you created to throw stones. It means nothing because you cannot show that bigoted about homosexuality is about decency. People are not indecent because they believe something wrong. They are at best ignorant because they grew up with people who are bigoted like you are towards religion.

Yes! you are a bigot when it comes to Christianity and Christians. You do to Christians what others do to homosexuals.
Take the forest out of your own eye before attempting to remove the splinter out of the eyes of others.
Bigotry is wrong on so many levels. You need understanding and education yourself before you attempt to remove someone elses splinter.

[Sassy]

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.
   

Your attitude is the worse there is...

Christians DO NOT CLAIM that homosexuality offends their religious views.
Why make such a false statement?  The truth is the bible tells everyone that homosexuality is not the way of God for his people. It also tells us to love our neighbour.

I guess the truth is not something you like.

[floo]

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.

Oh for pity's sake, are you trying to say that people should only have sex in a heterosexual, married relationship so they can have kids? If so you are very sad and deluded, imo.

[Aruntraveller]

Your attitude is the worse there is...

Christians DO NOT CLAIM that homosexuality offends their religious views.
Why make such a false statement?  The truth is the bible tells everyone that homosexuality is not the way of God for his people. It also tells us to love our neighbour.

I guess the truth is not something you like.

Yes Sass - but surely you can see how wrong it is for some Christians to try to influence the law so that it adversely affects me. There is one poster on here who has stated that he thinks the laws have gone too far (gay marriage) and yet this law affects that poster and his religion not one jot - it is civil marriage we are talking about. There are a myriad of other issues where if the laws in this country had not been changed (most of which were opposed by the CoE) I would have been disadvantaged by - that is discriminated against for no other reason than the fact that I am gay. You do see this is wrong? You do see that it is Christians who are doing this based on their understanding of the Bible and their religion - and that in all probability they are doing this because they are in some sense offended by homosexuality because their Bible tells them it is wrong.

[Sassy]

Yes Sass - but surely you can see how wrong it is for some Christians to try to influence the law so that it adversely affects me.

Surely you can see how that can be turned around. Some wish to influence the law so that is adversely affects the beliefs of others?

What have you been denied in todays world. You have your marriage, homosexuality is now legalised and recognised and rights protected. What is it that you feel has not been done?

But where is the protection for the believer from bigots such as post on this forum.
Do you not believe protection is for all regardless of sexuality, skin colour and beliefs?
But the truth is the atheists keeps harping on about homosexuality. They don't give a damn about people who are really facing the brunt of what it means to be homosexual. My nephew came out and it was difficult for him. He has over forty odd cousins and none prejudicial all with friends who are homosexual.

I get fed up with atheists using homosexuality as a battering rod. Neither floo or the others actually care about those who are homosexual. They are just Christian bigots out to use anything to attack something they do not agree with.
How can they support homosexuals and shout for freedom of beliefs and lives, yet not afford Christians the same rights.
Even as a Christian, I and others have told them we live and let live. We love our neighbours but we still get tarred with this rod of theirs.

Sorry, if they really cared about equality for all, they would not do what they accuse others of doing.

There is one poster on here who has stated that he thinks the laws have gone too far (gay marriage) and yet this law affects that poster and his religion not one jot - it is civil marriage we are talking about. There are a myriad of other issues where if the laws in this country had not been changed (most of which were opposed by the CoE) I would have been disadvantaged by - that is discriminated against for no other reason than the fact that I am gay. You do see this is wrong? You do see that it is Christians who are doing this based on their understanding of the Bible and their religion - and that in all probability they are doing this because they are in some sense offended by homosexuality because their Bible tells them it is wrong.

I believe that poster has not thought things through. Gods marriage is not the same as the law of the land marriage.
Why shouldn't two people who live together have their rights protected. Why should they not have protection.

The Kingdom of God is not about the outward it is the changing from the inward and so within a person.
What the world does will fade away. When Christians who are married die, so the marriage end and no longer man and wife.

Legal marriage on earth is not the same as Christian marriage. They are totally different so what the law of the land does will not change the heavenly Christian marriage because one is from God and the other from man.
No registry office or Churches when Adam and Eve first arrived.

I personally believe the atheist make things worse for the Christian and the Homosexual person.
Because they do not allow us to love one another outside their realm of thinking.
I do not feel any differently about loving an homosexual person to any other. But I do feel for their plight and being used as a soap box issue for atheist in religious matters.  Acceptance is about care and love for another not their religion or sexuality.

[Aruntraveller]

Surely you can see how that can be turned around. Some wish to influence the law so that is adversely affects the beliefs of others?

I would simply ask how, in any way, giving homosexuals equal rights in civil and legal matters affects adversely the rights of Christians?

[Bubbles]

I would simply ask how, in any way, giving homosexuals equal rights in civil and legal matters affects adversely the rights of Christians?

I think it's more that they feel that they will be forced to go against their personal integrity in religious matters.

So by treating gay people the same as anyone else, they are in a way signalling their approval.

So by acknowledging gay marriages as equal, they appear to think it  is the same as approving the whole thing or to appear to.

So they don't.

I think that is what the problem is.

They think they are taking a stand for the principals they feel the bible stands for.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

But where is the protection for the believer from bigots such as post on this forum.
Do you not believe protection is for all regardless of sexuality, skin colour and beliefs?

I believe that all should be treated equally under the law regardless of sexuality, skin colour and beliefs. What's the problem?

[Spud]

I can't speak for other gay partnerships - but I can for mine.

You are correct by and large we don't have children - except for Lesbians of course who astoundingly quite often do.

But other responsibilities I have had over the years to both my own and my partners family. Responsibilities that have brought both pain and pleasure. The pleasure of new born nephews and nieces coming into the world and the pleasure of watching them grow into loving, warm hearted generous people who look on myself and my partner as Uncles, which we are. You know part of the family, in the family, making the family work, making it better to be a part of for everyone. The pain of loss - of parents, and a brother in law, of various aunts and uncles - and being a part of the family and supporting one another and caring and letting my partner rant and scream with the grief of loss as I hold him.

Now I post this - not because it is exceptional, rather because I imagine most people of a certain age who post here know exactly what I am talking about. Yet you in your off hand way say that because we have no responsibilities we are not "entitled to enjoy sex".

Oh I have responsibilities my friend, which I have carried out as a human being - not bothered by the type of sex any of my relatives or friends have - I carried them out because it was the right, proper, human thing to do.

You might want to think on about what it means to be human - because imo you have some serious work to do.

Children need a mother and a father, not two fathers.

[Nearly Sane]

Children need a mother and a father, not two fathers.

That is a complete non sequitur to Trentvoyager's post and makes it look as you couldn't even give him the respect of reading it. I suggest you actually read it, you might learn something about responsibility.

[wigginhall]

How much more must Christians like Spud disgrace themselves with this crass and churlish approach to discussion?   Nobody needs to get rid of Christianity, it's quite capable itself.

[Spud]

In terms of responsibility towards a child, perhaps the greatest responsibility a father has is to love the childs mother.

[Spud]

Wigginhall, the fact that you and your friends have to vilify christians in order to add weight to your argument shows how weak it actually is.   

[Gordon]

In terms of responsibility towards a child, perhaps the greatest responsibility a father has is to love the childs mother.

Nonsense - try telling that to the many adoptive parents who really do make a difference to the lives of children (as I know from friends who have adopted). You really do seem very naive.

[wigginhall]

Wigginhall, the fact that you and your friends have to vilify christians in order to add weight to your argument shows how weak it actually is.

It's your loutish attitude to other people which is amazing.  Did you actually read trent's post?   You showed no signs of having done so.   In your hands, Christianity dooms itself, it doesn't need criticism from outside.