Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Brownie]

Heterosexual and homosexual marriages should have equal status, imo.

Yes, they do already floo.

[Brownie]

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.

I wasn't thinking of the couple who may well have held those opinions but the people who were going to conduct the wedding.  Are they not bound by confidentiality? 

[Bubbles]

I wasn't thinking of the couple who may well have held those opinions but the people who were going to conduct the wedding.  Are they not bound by confidentiality?

No, not if approached on Facebook.

If someone rang up in RL, probably.

But Facebook is a bit public, especially if it was posted so everyone could read it.

[Brownie]

Horrible people.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

I would agree with this. There is so much unknown information and so many considerations that it is arrogant to be certain of any single position - especially one that denies consenting adults in a secular society the same rights as other adults, unless there is some proven harm.

The issue of harm is difficult - some people are opposed to polygyny because they feel that women are harmed by it even if they are consenting adults but I have seen no studies to show that polygyny is harmful as opposed to cultural practices that may be abusive.

I know women who like the idea of polygyny because they are really not that into their husbands that they want to have them around every night. Something like an open relationship but the husband has financial obligations to all the wives and any children. So long as the wives have the education to be financially independent and are not prevented from divorcing I am not really seeing the problem.

[Hope]

Hope thinks his version of god is backing him up!

Your version of him may be backing you up, Floo; I'm largely using material from beyond the religious sphere to back my argument up.

[Gordon]

Your version of him may be backing you up, Floo; I'm largely using material from beyond the religious sphere to back my argument up.

Such as?

[Hope]

Negative proof fallacy, yet again.

Gordon, a week or 3 ago I posted the findings of a number of surveys and studies into homosexual relationships, that pointed to trends that lead to societal damage.  As far as I am aware, no-one has yet provided any rewsponse to those.  I was simply asking whether you have any such things.  Not 'NPF' at all.

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

Not the the same extent, proportionately.

That is your opinion: other opinions are available.

I was asked the question.

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

Well, the logical extension of your argument is legalising polyamory, removing adultery from the potential grounds for divorce, polygamy and polyandry - yet I never see you supporting these when we have debates about them.  Hypocrisy?

[Hope]

Such as?

The various study results I've posted over the years.

[Hope]

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

Whereas I's suggest that an equally dangerous process is the ignoring of information gained through scientifiuc methods, when that information disagrees with one's preconceived opinions, Shakes.

[Aruntraveller]

Gordon, a week or 3 ago I posted the findings of a number of surveys and studies into homosexual relationships, that pointed to trends that lead to societal damage.

Did anyone see these?

[Shaker]

Whereas I's suggest that an equally dangerous process is the ignoring of information gained through scientifiuc methods, when that information disagrees with one's preconceived opinions, Shakes.

I haven't seen any. And you as sure as shit haven't provided any.

[Brownie]

Did anyone see these?

I haven't. Perhaps Hope will re-post the links.

[Shaker]

Gordon, a week or 3 ago I posted the findings of a number of surveys and studies into homosexual relationships, that pointed to trends that lead to societal damage.  As far as I am aware, no-one has yet provided any rewsponse to those.

If it was as recently as that it won't be difficult for you to show us all a link to this alleged post.

I trust that these so-called findings are on firmer ground than the Pink News article to which you linked earlier, which merely provided the results of a survey which found the proportion of gay men who had had open relationships. Somehow you forgot to join the dots between this and the "societal damage" you bore on about, "societal damage" not even being defined yet as far as I've seen.

Not the the same extent, proportionately

You're the one who tries to fob us off with the supposed figure that the gay section of the population is 1-2% (on no firm grounds at all, since multiple surveys give widely, even wildly varying results - homophobes, I've noticed over the years, always like to quote the lowest figures and consistently ignore the higher ones). And yet you would have us believe, apparently in all seriousness, that this 1-2% of the population have more unstable relationships and do more "societal damage" (still undefined and undemonstrated) than the 98-99% of heterosexuals.

This indicates to me that you have utterly taken leave of whatever senses you may have started out with.

Well, the logical extension of your argument is legalising polyamory, removing adultery from the potential grounds for divorce, polygamy and polyandry - yet I never see you supporting these when we have debates about them. Hypocrisy?

I've never seen any debates here about polyamory and all the rest of that list as it's only homosexuality with which you and your kind are obsessed - again, you're going to have to provide a pointer to where these debates have been had here. Not somewhere else in another one of your mythical other places; here on R & E.

In any case this is, as Gordon has pointed out, the slippery slope fallacy, although for the record I personally have no issue with any of those things. A mature, diverse, tolerant society, in the matter of emotional attachments and sexual relationships, treats people as competent consenting adults (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) and leaves them alone to act as such. If equal marriage actually  was a slippery slope instead of one of your febrile fantasies, if it leads to such a society (more so than at present I mean) then bring it on.

[Shaker]

I haven't. Perhaps Hope will re-post the links.

Bwahahahahahahahaha.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If it was as recently as that it won't be difficult for you to show us all a link to this alleged post.
I've never seen any debates here about polyamory and all the rest of that list as it's only homosexuality with which you and your kind are obsessed - again, you're going to have to provide a pointer to where these debates have been had here. Not somewhere else in another one of your mythical other places; here on R & E.

For the record I personally have no issue with any of those things.

Everyone draws the line at different places though on the issue of consenting adults. As I have stated previously I wouldn't try to stop another consenting adult from changing their skin colour or sexuality if the technology existed to do it safely, but other people might try to legislate against this.

[Gordon]

The various study results I've posted over the years.

There is an 'Evidence' thread so perhaps you should post links to these various studies there - this would save a lot of time and effort in future.

[Gordon]

Whereas I's suggest that an equally dangerous process is the ignoring of information gained through scientifiuc methods, when that information disagrees with one's preconceived opinions, Shakes.

Fair enough: so please post the links to the information you refer to in the 'Evidence' thread.

[Shaker]

Seems fair enough to me - if it's on the 'Evidence' thread we can all see it and can refer back to it as required.

How about it, Hope?

It's here, by the way: http://goo.gl/TP0Uc5

[Gordon]

Gordon, a week or 3 ago I posted the findings of a number of surveys and studies into homosexual relationships, that pointed to trends that lead to societal damage.  As far as I am aware, no-one has yet provided any rewsponse to those.  I was simply asking whether you have any such things.  Not 'NPF' at all.

Then you'll have no problem re-posting these links in the 'Evidence' thread.

Well, the logical extension of your argument is legalising polyamory, removing adultery from the potential grounds for divorce, polygamy and polyandry - yet I never see you supporting these when we have debates about them.  Hypocrisy?

Nope - not logical at all since you've just committed the slippery slope fallacy.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Gordon, a week or 3 ago I posted the findings of a number of surveys and studies into homosexual relationships, that pointed to trends that lead to societal damage. 

Since you are using these studies and surveys to support you view that society should discriminate against homosexual relationships you will need to.

1) Clearly define what is meant by societal damage, so that we can agree that it is damage.

2) That this damage is caused more so by homosexual relationship than heterosexual ones (your claim).

3) Show that the damage is caused by the inherent sexuality of the people in the relationship, as opposed to the society in which those relationships occur.

NB: regarding point 2, IMO unless you can show that all homosexual relationships lead to societal damage I can't see why they should be discriminated against.

[Sassy]

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.

Would he have been able to change things without being elected?
Why would he change things if it did nothing to help his party get elected.
With respect Trent, surely you are not saying you consider your small group of friends the representative of the whole.
Not everyone votes for someone just help themselves. Just as you cannot defend Cameron or  make a statement based just on your personal beliefs and friends in such a minority.

I believe that many who were gay did vote Tory to get the marriage for all included.
Just as the voted Labour to get the law changed about homosexuality being illegal.

We cannot for one moment not think Cameron piggy backed on the Labour election as far back as the 60's.
Cameron knew what he was doing just as the Labour Party leader (and I think it was) Harold Wilson did at the time.

[Sassy]

Then you'll have no problem re-posting these links in the 'Evidence' thread.

Nope - not logical at all since you've just committed the slippery slope fallacy.

Could you have removed the post without telling him as you have done with mine in recent weeks?
Take the prayer thread I had a post removed there. Could have been another moderator.
So if people removing posts, not telling posters then it could have been removed by a moderator.

So if he did post them, then where are they?

[Gordon]

Could you have removed the post without telling him as you have done with mine in recent weeks?
Take the prayer thread I had a post removed there. Could have been another moderator.
So if people removing posts, not telling posters then it could have been removed by a moderator.

So if he did post them, then where are they?

Moderator:

It's a theory I suppose, but wrong.

We do remove posts from time to time but we don't immediately delete them: we keep them in a non-public area for a time in case there are any follow-up issues and also because they can be linked to reports made by members, since deleting the post would also delete the related report.

In #782, on 3rd May, Hope says that he posted these links 'a week or 3 ago' and I can confirm that no posts of Hope's that contain links have been removed - so if he did post them they will still be there unless he deleted them himself.

[Aruntraveller]

I believe that many who were gay did vote Tory to get the marriage for all included.

You are mistaken Sassy.

It was not even a manifesto pledge at the time of the election in 2010. So nobody could vote for a pledge that had not been made.