Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[floo]

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.

Nor am I and I am older than Hope, LOL!

[Brownie]

Ah well, compared to young Sass, Hope is an ''older person''  .  I always tell Sass she is a little young girl compared to me.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

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.

Who has ever said that people should be forced into taking part in homosexual activities?

All that is being said is that people should be free to marry or be in a relationship with a consenting person of their choice regardless of the sexuality of the people involved.

What' wrong with that.

The truth is you don't live and let live.

No it is people like Hope who don't want to live and let live. He would not agree with the first point above and he is entitled to that opinion.

But as Brownie highlights below his approach is very far from 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 I think that wishing to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality, amongst other things, is a bad thing.

I have never been a victim discrimination based on my sexuality. You seem to be saying that therefore I should have no opinion on the matter.

[Brownie]

There is something sinister (from my perception), in someone going so far as to campaign for legislation against an issue that is not hurting them or theirs, or society in general.  It is akin to extreme racism and puts me in mind of the BNP and similar organisations which comprise of glassy eyed, single minded people who think nothing but hate.  Not worthy of someone who has any intelligence.  Just my opinion.

[Bubbles]

This is an interesting article

Viewpoint: How has marriage changed life for gay people?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36168415

[Bubbles]

I'm a bit stunned by the mental image of some bloke going up to some complete strangers and passing judgment on their relationship

 

That isn't "living and let live "

I'm in my fifties and I thought that attitude died out forty odd years ago.

It wasn't very nice then.

That sort of thing happened in our village, usually by gossipy old women.

How old is hope?

[Shaker]

There is something sinister (from my perception), in someone going so far as to campaign for legislation against an issue that is not hurting them or theirs, or society in general.

If that's sinister, trying to do the same in other countries as well as your own is downright loopy.

[Brownie]

The article was very informative Rose, and well written;  I learned quite a bit from it which I'll try to remember if the subject comes up in conversation.  Thanks.

[Hope]

Which is what exactly, validity-wise?

OK, can you provide us with longitudinal evidence that indicates that homosexual relationships do not create damage within society?  I can and have posted links to studies that indicate that such relationships are often unstable and even in the more stable ones one or both partners have additional relationships as well.  Here's one from Pink News - http://bit.ly/1Z7ou79

I'm sure legislators everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief -

About what; that they have managed to introduce a social experiment that has little or no supporting evidence for its value to society? 

... 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'?

Well, there is the minor matter that there is limited evidence to show that this is a long-term sustainable process.  As for your second question, I'd return the gay legislation to what it was pre-2010.  I would not outlaw such relationships (which some people argue for) but I would not allow gay marriage and make it clear that relationships outside of heterosexual marriage would not be supported economically in the same way as those within 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!

Oddly enough, I see more horses in the stable now than I used to.

[Shaker]

OK, can you provide us with longitudinal evidence that indicates that homosexual relationships do not create damage within society?

Two negative proof fallacies within twenty minutes - is he having some sort of meltdown?

[Aruntraveller]

I would not outlaw such relationships (which some people argue for) but I would not allow gay marriage and make it clear that relationships outside of heterosexual marriage would not be supported economically in the same way as those within marriage.

Well there you have it. Hope wishes to economically disadvantage myself and my partner who have been together for 37 years. Who'd have thunk it!

The difference between me and you, Hope, is that I do not seek to put anyone at a disadvantage because of their sexuality, religion, politics, gender.

What gives you the right? Just who do you think you are?

[Shaker]

He's the mighty Hope of Kathmandu, of course, friend to doctors and dentists and research scientists and economists* everywhere.

* Add every other kind of -ist or -ologist.

[Aruntraveller]

I can and have posted links to studies that indicate that such relationships are often unstable and even in the more stable ones one or both partners have additional relationships as well. 

And?

In the USA reports are already appearing that show that gay marriage improves the stability of and longevity of (particularly) male partnerships. So by trying to ban it - you are actually working against the very thing you claim you think should happen. That is, more stable relationships, which are better for society.

Oh and btw - all the above things can and do apply to married heterosexuals as well.

[floo]

Heterosexual and homosexual marriages should have equal status, imo.

[Shaker]

Heterosexual and homosexual marriages should have equal status, imo.

In many countries - this one included - they do, thankfully.

More soon

[Shaker]

And?

In the USA reports are already appearing that show that gay marriage improves the stability of and longevity of (particularly) male partnerships. So by trying to ban it - you are actually working against the very thing you claim you think should happen. That is, more stable relationships, which are better for society.

Hope's Pink News link (don't tell me this is an example of the "scientific material" he was going on about yesterday ) was actually about the proportion of gay men who have open relationships, rather than unstable relationships. I know of no evidence to say that an open relationship is any more (or less) stable than an exclusive one; I know of a couple (of opposite sexes, plus daughter) who are still very happily married in an open marriage now of twenty-plus years.

In any case, whether stable or unstable I generally regard relationships as being the exclusive business of those (of whatever number) who are actually in them. Hope's link, you'll recall, was posted with the intention of demonstrating "damage to society." This claim remains unproven, of course. A link showing the proportion of those surveyed who have or have had open relationships is a link to precisely and exactly that - a link showing the proportion of those surveyed who have or have had open relationships, no more, no less.

Obviously Hope wants to get from this to "damage to society," but for some reason he neglected to show his working. It is a simple matter of basic statistics that given the numerical disparity between the heterosexual section of society and the homosexual section there will be vastly many more open relationships amongst the hets than amongst the stately homos of England. If Hope considers open relationships to be damaging to society, the lion's share of that damage must therefore come from heterosexuals.

We will wait a long, long, long time for him to devote anything like as much time to this as he does to teh gaiz.

Oh and btw - all the above things can and do apply to married heterosexuals as well.

But let's not talk about that

[Rhiannon]

Well there you have it. Hope wishes to economically disadvantage myself and my partner who have been together for 37 years. Who'd have thunk it!

The difference between me and you, Hope, is that I do not seek to put anyone at a disadvantage because of their sexuality, religion, politics, gender.

What gives you the right? Just who do you think you are?

He believes that Jesus wants him for a sunbeam, Trent. That gives him the right to shit over anything he doesn't approve of, apparently.

[Shaker]

... and on the subject of equal marriage, this link shows that the pagans know how to deal with what trent calls twisty turny haters simply and effectively: http://goo.gl/ONp0mi

[Gordon]

OK, can you provide us with longitudinal evidence that indicates that homosexual relationships do not create damage within society?

Negative proof fallacy, yet again.

I can and have posted links to studies that indicate that such relationships are often unstable and even in the more stable ones one or both partners have additional relationships as well.  Here's one from Pink News - http://bit.ly/1Z7ou79

So what - are there no heterosexual couples who behave similarly?

About what; that they have managed to introduce a social experiment that has little or no supporting evidence for its value to society?

That is your opinion: other opinions are available.

Well, there is the minor matter that there is limited evidence to show that this is a long-term sustainable process.  As for your second question, I'd return the gay legislation to what it was pre-2010.  I would not outlaw such relationships (which some people argue for) but I would not allow gay marriage and make it clear that relationships outside of heterosexual marriage would not be supported economically in the same way as those within marriage.

So you propose another approach in favour of discrimination - you should be utterly ashamed of yourself!

[floo]

Hope thinks his version of god is backing him up!

[Shaker]

Hope thinks his version of god is backing him up!

This, I think, is the single greatest danger with anybody trying to advance a religious argument on any particular issue.

Human beings are fallible. We often mean well but much of the time we are groping around in a gloomy twilight trying to do the best we can with fragmentary evidence, incomplete pictures and partial data. In things like science, and even in things such as politics with people of good will, we know that there are certain steps we can take to reduce the risk of partiality, interestedness, bias and prejudice to the lowest possible levels we can manage. We can be honestly mistaken; we can (if malicious) explicitly lie; and if not scrupulously careful can fall victim to all manner of wishful thinking. Serious and thoughtful people recognise this and proceed accordingly.

But when somebody comes along and seriously tries to maintain that their belief is not based upon the preceding, but upon what they take to be their interpretation of the will and the wishes of the Almighty Creator of All That Is itself, there's simply no arguing with that pitch of egotism and hubris. There's no arguing not because there's an unanswerable argument on the table, but because anybody who tries to argue from a position of that degree of superhuman arrogance has divorced themselves from any commonly-agreed standards of rational debate and discussion.

[Gordon]

This, I think, is the single greatest danger with anybody trying to advance a religious argument on any particular issue.

Human beings are fallible. We often mean well but much of the time we are groping around in a gloomy twilight trying to do the best we can with fragmentary evidence, incomplete pictures and partial data. In things like science, and even in things such as politics with people of good will, we know that there are certain steps we can take to reduce the risk of partiality, interestedness, bias and prejudice to the lowest possible levels we can manage. We can be honestly mistaken; we can (if malicious) explicitly lie; and if not scrupulously careful can fall victim to all manner of wishful thinking. Serious and thoughtful people recognise this and proceed accordingly.

But when somebody comes along and seriously tries to maintain that their belief is not based upon the preceding, but upon what they take to be their interpretation of the will and the wishes of the Almighty Creator of All That Is itself, there's simply no arguing with that pitch of egotism and hubris. There's no arguing not because there's an unanswerable argument on the table, but because anybody who tries to argue from a position of that degree of superhuman arrogance has divorced themselves from any commonly-agreed standards of rational debate and discussion.

Well put - the thing is too, that those who espouse the 'going nuclear' approach in arguing from a faith position here in the UK do so while decrying the robustness of science and the social mores of current society - as they sit typing into modern technology, in the comfort of modern homes with food in the fridge, where they have can access to resources that allow lifestyle options, where they have access to healthcare when needed and where they are (aside from encountering criminality) in many ways protected from abuse by individuals and/or organistions: then they tell us that society will in some way suffer just because people who love each but happen to have the same gender want to be together on the same basis as people who have different genders.

Fortunately not all Christians are so minded.

 

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Well put - the thing is too, that those who espouse the 'going nuclear' approach in arguing from a faith position here in the UK do so while decrying the robustness of science and the social mores of current society - as they sit typing into modern technology, in the comfort of modern homes with food in the fridge, where they have can access to resources that allow lifestyle options, where they have access to healthcare when needed and where they are (aside from encountering criminality) in many ways protected from abuse by individuals and/or organistions: then they tell us that society will in some way suffer just because people who love each but happen to have the same gender want to be together on the same basis as people who have different genders.

Excellent points.

Fortunately not all Christians are so minded.

Yes, and they will win out in the end.

[Brownie]

... and on the subject of equal marriage, this link shows that the pagans know how to deal with what trent calls twisty turny haters simply and effectively: http://goo.gl/ONp0mi

I wonder if that is a true story Shaker.  Whatever they think of their would-be clients' horrible views, surely anyone performing marriage ceremonies should keep things confidential - and not say f'''k off!  I think the story has been made up.

[Bubbles]

I wonder if that is a true story Shaker.  Whatever they think of their would-be clients' horrible views, surely anyone performing marriage ceremonies should keep things confidential - and not say f'''k off!  I think the story has been made up.

Trying to look into it.

Apparently the couple sent the request to their Facebook page ( pagan federation)

Knowing Facebook I can believe that was their response, what we don't know is if the couple were genuine.

But there are all sorts of white racist ( probably homophobic ) groups in the USA that wouldn't be tolerated here, so maybe.