Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Bubbles]

I don't have a problem with this but then why cover the idea that the people who might draw the line elsewhere from you are then like IS which you did earlier?

I was pondering as to whether a lot of problems we humans have, and why atrocities happen  is because instead of respecting diversity, we try to get others to conform to our own brand of morality.

It's a sort of tribalism.

Isis are completely conformist and any diverse opinion is killed off.

I wondered if the problem with us humans is we don't live an let live.

So today we are becoming intolerant of viewpoints that differ to our moral norms, as they are perceived to be.

[Aruntraveller]

Yes, that's where I draw the line too

Then by agreeing with this:

Those which seek to discriminate against people on the grounds of race, sexuality, gender, beliefs etc are those I call vile because they make the target out to be a second rate citizen.

You are saying that Hope holds vile views because he certainly wishes to discriminate against gay people. He opposed both civil partnerships and gay marriage which is an entirely discriminatory position to take.

[Nearly Sane]

I was pondering as to whether a lot of problems we humans have, and why atrocities happen  is because instead of respecting diversity, we try to get others to conform to our own brand of morality.

It's a sort of tribalism.

Isis are completely conformist and any diverse opinion is killed off.

I wondered if the problem with us humans is we don't live an let live.

So today we are becoming intolerant of viewpoints that differ to our moral norms, as they are perceived to be.

And you linked the drawing of the line differently to IS. Given that it's only 25 years or so since the govt tried to stop any postive representation of homosexuality, I think someone being challenged I a message board about a negative representation I very far from an indication that we are becoming more repressive
 Going back further there was a time when one might be killed because of expressing religious views not in line with the majority in this country.


It's a complex issue but I suggest that the introduction of IS in the way you did was unhelpful.

[Nearly Sane]

I suppose there comes a point when most of us think a view is so distasteful and harmful it needs to be suppressed.
I'm just not convinced that Hope is there yet.

"All Jews should be gassed" isn't "just an opinion", it's an incitement towards a violent action.

Has Hope said that all homosexuals should be killed off?

No, and I didn't give any such implication. I also don't think that Hope has said anything that necessitates banning. The point is, as we both agree on, this is subjective. It doesn't matter if something is ;just an opinion' since you don't support allowing opinions

I happen to think advocating discrimination against homosexuals as Hope has done in relation to state marriage is quite vile. I think Spud's frequent attacks on their mental health, and Sriram's take that trentvoyager is disease are vile. I won't argue for that being banned though, and I think going down the route where you conflate challenge with enforced conformity and IS, is simply an unhelpful strawman.


 

[Bubbles]

I admit bringing in Isis probably didn't help.

[Nearly Sane]

You see the problem in arguing that All Jews should be gassed, as not being 'just an opinion' is that's just an opinion in the same way that thinking that arguing that homosexuals are diseased might not be acceptable is just an opinion.


I often find those who dabble in the relativism of opinion in regard to others  don't see that it applies to their own position.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I happen to think advocating discrimination against homosexuals as Hope has done in relation to state marriage is quite vile. I think Spud's frequent attacks on their mental health, and Sriram's take that trentvoyager is disease are vile. I won't argue for that being banned though, and I think going down the route where you conflate challenge with enforced conformity and IS, is simply an unhelpful strawman.

Hear hear, applaud etc etc.

[Bubbles]

Then by agreeing with this:

You are saying that Hope holds vile views because he certainly wishes to discriminate against gay people. He opposed both civil partnerships and gay marriage which is an entirely discriminatory position to take.

I'm saying Hope has the same right to disagree with gay marriage  and civil partnerships in the same way he may also disagree with single parent families or sex before marriage.

We all have a right to disagree with him, just the same.

Originally I wasn't sure about the necessity for gay marriage, but have come to the view it doesn't harm anyone IMO.

So why not?

My only concern is forcing it on those who don't want it in their particular church/mosque/synagogue / temple.

If two adults want to commit to each other and have it recognised in law and accepted as a marriage it doesn't really effect anyone else.

Neither does one man with three wives or one wife with three husbands.

If they are all old enough, consenting and happy, does it matter?

I had a hard time online at the old BBC site for saying that ( on the Muslim Board), even one poster threatening violence to me if they could ever find me....

( some people are also Islamaphobic)

Some people think anything other than,  one man and one woman,  is immoral.

As Rhiannon often says " it's none of my business"  ( although usually she is talking about herself).

In some ways debate is good about subjects, but only when different opinions give the logic behind the opinion.

Sometimes it doesn't, it just becomes about insulting people and saying how awful they are.

Sometimes though a gem comes up that puts a POV without all the shock horror hate stuff.

You put good posts Trent, so does Gonnagle and quite a few others.

It's the good arguments that influence people and make a difference, not the ones that just express disgust.

Sometimes threads can be in danger of losing sight of that.

Perhaps we need to try and be more objective.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Yes, that's where I draw the line too

The problem is thought that you appear to be backing the wrong side.

We both agree that people should live and let live.

I think Hope should be allowed to marry the person he loves regardless of their sexuality (assuming they consent).

I think all people should be allowed to marry a person they love regardless of their sexuality (assuming they consent).

Hope doesn't live and let live because he wants to deny others the right to marry the person they love (regardless of sexuality).

I say that Hope is entitled to his views, he can marry a consenting person of any sexuality he likes.

That is live and let live.

Hope though thinks that you can't marry the person you love if their sexuality is not what he thinks is right.

That is not live and let live.

He is entitled to his opinion, but if you want to base it on live and let live you are backing the wrong horse, no one is forcing anybody to marry someone of the same sex.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm saying Hope has the same right to disagree with gay marriage  and civil partnerships in the same way he may also disagree with single parent families or sex before marriage.

We all have a right to disagree with him, just the same.

Originally I wasn't sure about the necessity for gay marriage, but have come to the veiw it doesn't harm anyone IMO.

So why not?

My only concern is forcing it on those who don't want it in their particular church.

If two adults want to commit to each other and have it recognised in law and accepted as a marriage it doesn't really effect anyone else.

Neither does one man with three wives or one wife with three husbands.

If they are all consenting and happy, does it matter?

I had a hard time online at the old BBC site for saying that ( on the Muslim Board), even one poster threatening violence to me if they could ever find me....

( some people are also Islamaphobic)

Some people think anything other than,  one man and one woman,  is immoral.

As Rhiannon often says " it's none of my business"  ( although usually she is talking about herself).

In some ways . ebate is good about subjects, but only when different opinions give the logic behind the opinion.

Sometimes it doesn't, it just becomes about insulting people and saying how awful they are.

Sometimes though a gem comes up that puts a POV without all the shock horror hate stuff.

You put good posts Trent, so does Gonnagle and quite a few others.

It's the good arguments that influence people and make a difference, not the ones that just express disgust.

Sometimes threads can be in danger of losing sight of that.

Perhaps we need to try and be more objective.

Right and wrong are not objective though, and my motivation on this is emotional because i've seen what arguing that people are diseased can do.


If, however, your subjective position is that advocating for discrimination against homosexuals is vile, then it would be objectively true that if someone argued for it on here then in your subjective opinion it would be objective to regard that as vile. 

[Hope]

Hope doesn't live and let live because he wants to deny others the right to marry the person they love (regardless of sexuality).

Where have I even suggested this, let alone said it, Stephen?  As I've often said, I use both scientific material and, to a lesser degree, my religious faith to inform my opinion ('belief' if you insist on using a word with religious connotations).  In my view, same-sex relationships are bad for society - even if they appear to be 'good' for the individuals concerned.  At the same time, there are other - often heterosexual relationships - that I also believe are bad for society.   So, rather than "want(ing) to deny others the right... ", I am putting forward what I believe to be best for society.  Do individual rights trump what is best for society?

[Rhiannon]

Cite your scientific sources and the social studies that show homosexual relationships are bad for society, Hope. Because I don't believe you. I think your beliefs are driven by religious and personal prejudice.

Prove me wrong.

[Bubbles]

The problem is thought that you appear to be backing the wrong side.

We both agree that people should live and let live.

I think Hope should be allowed to marry the person he loves regardless of their sexuality (assuming they consent).

I think all people should be allowed to marry a person they love regardless of their sexuality (assuming they consent).

Hope doesn't live and let live because he wants to deny others the right to marry the person they love (regardless of sexuality).

I say that Hope is entitled to his views, he can marry a consenting person of any sexuality he likes.

That is live and let live.

Hope though thinks that you can't marry the person you love if their sexuality is not what he thinks is right.

That is not live and let live.

He is entitled to his opinion, but if you want to base it on live and let live you are backing the wrong horse, no one is forcing anybody to marry someone of the same sex.

Some Vicars were concerned they may be forced to marry people of the same sex, against their religious conscience.

Forcing them to, isn't live and let live.

Other vicars had no problem with it.

Story of my life, being accused of supporting the wrong side 

It's not always true, sometimes I weigh up the arguments on both sides.

Sometimes even though I might agree with the sentiments of the right side, they are expressed in an unfair way, cue I step in.

[Aruntraveller]

In my view, same-sex relationships are bad for society - even if they appear to be 'good' for the individuals concerned.  At the same time, there are other - often heterosexual relationships - that I also believe are bad for society.

What a revelation. I await your decision on how you wish to discriminate against heterosexuals.

Really I've never seen such bollocks.

[Bubbles]

Presumably by heterosexual relationships Hope means one parent families, divorced and unmarried couples.

 

I think in the past they were discriminated against, mental institutions and forced adoptions. ( unmarried mothers)

Hope, what are your thoughts on those things?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Where have I even suggested this, let alone said it, Stephen?  As I've often said, I use both scientific material and, to a lesser degree, my religious faith to inform my opinion ('belief' if you insist on using a word with religious connotations).  In my view, same-sex relationships are bad for society - even if they appear to be 'good' for the individuals concerned.  At the same time, there are other - often heterosexual relationships - that I also believe are bad for society.   So, rather than "want(ing) to deny others the right... ", I am putting forward what I believe to be best for society.  Do individual rights trump what is best for society?

Do you or do you not support same sex marriage as an equal to heterosexual marriage?

Would you oppose a motion to repeal same sex marriage?

I think society owes it to the individuals to allow whatever consenting adults chose to do.

[Shaker]

Where have I even suggested this, let alone said it, Stephen?  As I've often said, I use both scientific material and, to a lesser degree, my religious faith to inform my opinion ('belief' if you insist on using a word with religious connotations).  In my view, same-sex relationships are bad for society

What "scientific material" supports this opinion, in your view?

[Gordon]

As I've often said, I use both scientific material and, to a lesser degree, my religious faith to inform my opinion ('belief' if you insist on using a word with religious connotations).

What 'scientific material' would that be? Since you imply you have some then you'll have the references to hand, presumably.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

What 'scientific material' would that be? Since you imply you have some then you'll have the references to hand, presumably.

He always give up at this point.

We are still waiting for his citations for academics who work in the field saying we can rule out scientific causes to spontaneous healing.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Where have I even suggested this, let alone said it, Stephen? 

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11445.msg583116#msg583116

Here.

You make it quite clear that same sex marriages are second rate to heterosexual ones. Hence same sex people can't be "married".


I don't think it would be hard to ask other people or the mods to supply further evidence.

[Spud]

People who are anti-gay, are as bad as those who are racist, and shouldn't be permitted to get away with their nastiness, imo.

That's anti- the practice of it, floo.
So let's look at your comparison and the facts.
Skin colour is determined by the amount of the pigment melanin it contains. Melanin's function is to protect the skin from UV light. If a black man moves to live in Canada, he doesn't need such a high amount of melanin, but the point is he does need some, and what he has will still function in the same way, protecting his skin from UV light. So he is not doing anything wrong by living in a country where his melanin is surplus to requirements.
What is the function of sperm? Fertilizing an ovum. So for a gay couple to release their sperm is wrong because they are using it in a way that could never result in its function being carried out. This is actually a perversion of sexual intercourse. A black person living in Canada, however, is still using his melanin in the same way that he would in Africa, so there is no perversion and to be racist on the basis of skin colour is wrong. It is right to be against the practice of homosexuality, though, because that is perversion.

[Rhiannon]

Ooh look, someone espousing vile homophobic views.

[Shaker]

You make it quite clear that same sex marriages are second rate to heterosexual ones. Hence same sex people can't be "married".


I don't think it would be hard to ask other people or the mods to supply further evidence.

Seeing as you mention it, Stephen ...

The Gospel According to Hope: married heterosexuality is superior to any other kind of relationship:

I believe that homosexual relationships and non-monogamous - be that serial or in parallel - and unmarried heterosexual relationships are equal.  The only form of relationship I'd regard as being in any way better than any of the above is one man/one woman 'for life' marriage.

http://goo.gl/bGbV6a

... and only heterosexual marriage is 'real' marriage, whereas same-sex marriage is a 'mirage':

Except that the so-called 'equality' of gay marriage is a mirage that some people, gay and straight, are happy to swallow.  If you and others are happy to go along with that, that means that real marriage can survive unharmed.

http://goo.gl/Syg3Y9

Notice Hope's record of answering questions put to him about his views on both of those threads

More foulness available on request.

[Gordon]

That's anti- the practice of it, floo.
So let's look at your comparison and the facts.
Skin colour is determined by the amount of the pigment melanin it contains. Melanin's function is to protect the skin from UV light. If a black man moves to live in Canada, he doesn't need such a high amount of melanin, but the point is he does need some, and what he has will still function in the same way, protecting his skin from UV light. So he is not doing anything wrong by living in a country where his melanin is surplus to requirements.
What is the function of sperm? Fertilizing an ovum. So for a gay couple to release their sperm is wrong because they are using it in a way that could never result in its function being carried out. This is actually a perversion of sexual intercourse. A black person living in Canada, however, is still using his melanin in the same way that he would in Africa, so there is no perversion and to be racist on the basis of skin colour is wrong. It is right to be against the practice of homosexuality, though, because that is perversion.

Telling that you don't mention love or companionship!

[Shaker]

They never do, Gord.