Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Rhiannon]

All that stuff about not casting the first stone... Jesus clearly didn't mean that bit.

[Stranger]

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.

Yet again, you appear to be condemning a lot of heterosexual acts by your perverted worship of biological function. Is that your intention, is it just desperation to condemn homosexual behaviour...?

It is right to be against the practice of homosexuality, though, because that is perversion.

It is words like these that I regard as perverted - it is a perversion of basic human understanding and decency. You are a disgrace.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Hope,

I am putting forward what I believe to be best for society.  Do individual rights trump what is best for society?

Best for society, individual rights, I will dwell on those statements, but I do think they are missing the point.

My point, the whole point, homophobia causes misery, injustice, pain, man's inhumanity to man, does God want that, if yes then Floo has it bang on the mark.

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

Best for society, individual rights, I will dwell on those statements, but I do think they are missing the point.

My point, the whole point, homophobia causes misery, injustice, pain, man's inhumanity to man, does God want that, if yes then Floo has it bang on the mark.

I wonder why he seems to see individual rights and the good of society as opposed, since equal marriage, while very far from the only example, is to me one of the clearest illustrations of something which is both a positive and unalloyed good to individuals and to the betterment of society alike. For individuals, the good comes from being able to formalise a relationship with legal recognition and in public should they wish to; this has a knock-on effect of helping along the creation of a freer, more diverse society more tolerant, even celebratory of difference and more respecting of individual rights. That's what I think is best for society.

[Rhiannon]

Well, indeed. How can it be damaging to have more loving, stable relationships?

[Shaker]

Well, apparently there's this scientific evidence, see ...

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker,

Just finished watching Paul O'Grady's excellent time with the Sally Ann, not once did he point the finger, an organisation which denounces his life style, all he did was praise, something else I will dwell on.

Gonnagle.

[Bubbles]

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.

I know it applies to my position, my POV is just that, it's not always right ( I admit it) . It's open to change given enough good discussion and seeing others POV.

I wouldn't want to hurt others with my POV, although I'm a bit impulsive sometimes and it does happen. ( usually when I get a bee in my bonnet  )

For a dainty size 3, I can certainly put my foot in it, in RL

But I'm not very proud of myself when I do 

[Nearly Sane]

I know it applies to my position, my POV is just that, it's not always right ( I admit it) . It's open to change given enough good discussion and seeing others POV.

I wouldn't want to hurt others with my POV, although I'm a bit impulsive sometimes and it does happen.

For a dainty size 3, I can certainly put my foot in it.

But I'm not very proud of myself when it does 

I would hope we could all manage the degree of self knowledge of show there, Rose. Not sure I do


It's not so much about being wrong, just by our own standards we could not better.

[Hope]

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

As you know erfectly well, Trent, I have often argued that certain heterosexual relationships are wrong - but I appreciate that it helps your argument for you to forget about those arguments. 

[Gordon]

As you know erfectly well, Trent, I have often argued that certain heterosexual relationships are wrong - but I appreciate that it helps your argument for you to forget about those arguments.

But it seems, from what you've said elsewhere, that your Christian theological objections to relationships in general are only binding on those who define themselves as being Christians so that they aren't binding on the rest of us - correct?

[Aruntraveller]

As you know erfectly well, Trent, I have often argued that certain heterosexual relationships are wrong - but I appreciate that it helps your argument for you to forget about those arguments.

As you know perfectly well you are evading the point. How do you intend to discriminate against them?

After all if it is right for you to discriminate against gay people - surley you must for equalities sake discriminate against those heterosexuals you don't approve of.

I do wish people who claim to teach English would read for comprehension.

[Hope]

As you know perfectly well you are evading the point. How do you intend to discriminate against them?

After all if it is right for you to discriminate against gay people - surley you must for equalities sake discriminate against those heterosexuals you don't approve of.

I do wish people who claim to teach English would read for comprehension.

And I wish people who want to debate with such people would also read for comprehension.  As I've said in the poast, the way I 'discriminate' against both heterosexuals and homosexuals who are in relationships that I believe to be wrong is to state that fact - to their faces if necessary - and to seek to get this country's legislators (and those of other countries as well) to recognise the validity of that argument.  I don't seek to get the relavant relationships outlawed as I don't believe that is the best way to deal with them; what I do seek to do is stop society making out that such relationships are equivalent or even equal to heterosexual marriage.

[Aruntraveller]

And I wish people who want to debate with such people would also read for comprehension.  As I've said in the poast, the way I 'discriminate' against both heterosexuals and homosexuals who are in relationships that I believe to be wrong is to state that fact - to their faces if necessary - and to seek to get this country's legislators (and those of other countries as well) to recognise the validity of that argument.  I don't seek to get the relavant relationships outlawed as I don't believe that is the best way to deal with them; what I do seek to do is stop society making out that such relationships are equivalent or even equal to heterosexual marriage.

Still not answering!

So how will you discriminate against heterosexual people. You have already stated that you would discriminate against gay people because if it was within your power you would deny them the right to marriage (amongst other things). How are you going to be consistent and deny heterosexuals who don't meet your exacting standards the same rights?

[Gordon]

And I wish people who want to debate with such people would also read for comprehension.  As I've said in the poast, the way I 'discriminate' against both heterosexuals and homosexuals who are in relationships that I believe to be wrong is to state that fact - to their faces if necessary - and to seek to get this country's legislators (and those of other countries as well) to recognise the validity of that argument.

Which is what exactly, validity-wise?

I don't seek to get the relavant relationships outlawed as I don't believe that is the best way to deal with them; what I do seek to do is stop society making out that such relationships are equivalent or even equal to heterosexual marriage.

I'm sure legislators everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief - so a) why do you think your view is sufficient to change social views, and b) how would you then propose to 'stop society making out that such relationships are equivalent or even equal to heterosexual marriage'?

Your expectations do seem a tad grandiose for sure, since if you take a look in the stable you'll notice the absence of a horse!

[Shaker]

As I've said in the poast, the way I 'discriminate' against both heterosexuals and homosexuals who are in relationships that I believe to be wrong is to state that fact - to their faces if necessary - and to seek to get this country's legislators (and those of other countries as well) to recognise the validity of that argument.  I don't seek to get the relavant relationships outlawed as I don't believe that is the best way to deal with them; what I do seek to do is stop society making out that such relationships are equivalent or even equal to heterosexual marriage.

I see that that's working out well for you

The arrogance of seeking to influence the legislature/legislation of other countries takes some beating.

(Finland is next, by the way   ).

[Rhiannon]

  I don't seek to get the relavant relationships outlawed as I don't believe that is the best way to deal with them; what I do seek to do is stop society making out that such relationships are equivalent or even equal to heterosexual marriage.

Why? What a pointless thing to do. Of course if you want to present yourself to the outside world as veering between bigotry and absurdity that is up to you; but don't expect anyone to be impressed by your efforts.

[Shaker]

Given the rate at which countries/territories are adopting equal marriage I'd say nobody is impressed.

One of the next nations to adopt it will be of all places Nepal.

Hope's been there, you know.

[Rhiannon]

Given the rate at which countries/territories are adopting equal marriage I'd say nobody is impressed.

One of the next nations to adopt it will be of all places Nepal.

Hope's been there, you know.

He obviously made an impression then. 

[Sassy]

No, his opinions are unwelcome because they are vile, hateful and hurtful. I'd much rather not have the debates with him that I do but while he is free to state his opinion - and he is and should be free to do so, however unwelcome I may find it - then others here are free to challenge it.

Do you not see your own opinions of Christians being homophobic are vile, hateful and hurtful.
Because Christians like the Jews have dealt with persecution and hateful and horrible treatment since the year dot.

You see for me, if you are calling one out and unjustly accusing them then you are no better than the people you accuse.

Truth is that homosexual relations are not for everyone. Are you saying you should be forced into taking part in homosexual activities because you believe it to be normal and okay?  Normal is not really an issue. Because it is not normal for everyone as heterosexuality is not normal for everyone.

The truth is you don't live and let live. You want to take a cause a cause you have nothing to do with and make a rod for Christians to beat them up. No matter how much the Christians here tell you they would never hurt  a person for being homosexual or treat them differently, you still want to go on about something that does not concern you and is not a problem with believers here. Whether we disagree on a personal level that we are not attracted to the same sex so not our personal bag or not allowed because of religious beliefs. It does not make all Christians or all Atheists homophobic.

You cannot force someone to have sex with someone they are not attracted to. You cannot force someone to believe they are abnormal or prejudice because of that fact.

In truth it is atheists who keep the whole prejudicial and homophobic thing alive. You just won't let the homosexuals in our community live in peace. As for Hope, he is an older man and we know the elderly are more stuck in their ways than anyone else.


I am NOT homophobic and I am NOT scared to tell the truth. Governments love the homophobic card it helps win voters.
Posters on forums love it, it helps them look good if atheists pretending to plead a cause they know absolutely nothing about.
My brother-in-law and my nephew will tell you no one is homophobic in our family. And if pagans and atheists would stick their neck in, this would all blow over. Because the Christians on this forum do not hate anyone.

What is really hateful, vile and hurtful is atheists and pagans attacking Christians and calling them when they know absolutely nothing about real love christians have for others. Hope and people who believe things to be wrong on religious bases are not in any way condoning or giving weight to hurting people. The loonies abroad who go out and preach hatred are themselves far away from Gods love. Because Christianity is for Christian who love as Christ loved. We all want acceptance but not at your prices.

So the only people with vile views is those who are not homosexuals or Christians.

[Sassy]

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.

As those who anti-Christian should not be permitted to get away with their nastiness..

Got a forest in your eye, you have...

[floo]

As those who anti-Christian should not be permitted to get away with their nastiness..

Got a forest in your eye, you have...

As usual Sass you get it all wrong, but nothing new there then!

[Brownie]

I agree with Sassy that people do tend to be nasty and sneering at Christians and accept that she personally has nothing against homosexuals.

However, having read this from Hope:

"As I've said in the poast, the way I 'discriminate' against both heterosexuals and homosexuals who are in relationships that I believe to be wrong is to state that fact - to their faces if necessary and to seek to get this country's legislators (and those of other countries as well) to recognise the validity of that argument."


I had no idea he would take his opinions that far and I found that quite shocking.  It sounds quite militant.  I take on board that ''older people'' can be stuck in their way of thinking, don't know how old Hope is (I am an ''older person'' by many standards), however there are so many issues that need to be addressed by society, some legally, I would have considered personal relationships between consenting adults to be low on the list of priorities.  So my opinion of Hope's opinions are revised.  Not that that will matter to him of course.

(Also saw floo's predictable interjection.)

[Aruntraveller]

As for Hope, he is an older man and we know the elderly are more stuck in their ways than anyone else.

Far be it from me to defend Hope in any way but I don't think he is what you would call elderly. By which I mean I think both he and I are roughly the same age.

And I am definitely not elderly.

[Aruntraveller]

Governments love the homophobic card it helps win voters.

Not actually true - again I have to defend someone I wouldn't usually defend -  Mr Cameron took a significant risk when he introduced marriage for gay people and there are many in his party who are still extremely angry with him for doing so.

As far as I can see from talking to my gay friends it didn't encourage any gay people to vote for the Tories - except for the ones who already did. So it clearly wasn't for electoral gain.

It really does seem to me to be one of the few times when he has acted out of principle - which in itself I find highly disconcerting.