Ian Paisley Junior

Filan

Correct me if this has appeared elsewhere previoulsy..but just in case it hasn't I'll propose the topic here. What are readers opinions on Mr Paisleys, (Junior Minister for Equality) remarks that he 'dosen't hate homosexuals..but hates what they do?' . An oxymoron for me as I believe in freedom of speech...but yet he was promoting intolerance..and for a man with his porfolio..it is questionable.

Untense

It's very odd alright, considering the office he holds a position in has the job of protecting the equality of minority groups in the North, yet he is openly disgusted by some of these people.

It was pointed out to me by someone that there is plenty of legislation to protect against discrimination, and since he hasn't done anything illegal, he shouldn't be penalised for his comments. I find myself in agreement with that.

He's a member of the DUP, and whether I agree or not with his personal views, he has a part to play in NI.

Filan

I agree that he has a right to his opinions... Everyone has...and I think the greatest danger of all to minorities..and even majorities..is a circumvention of that right. The easy thing to do is to jump on the bandwagon and condemn him... I don't....but I question how effective such minset could really be in promoting equality... I have followed mant orders which I didn't believe in..but my output was less effective... I don't believe he should be forced to apologise...but perhaps would he be more effective in a different department? I can see both perspectives

BuffyBot

I don't see how it really matters. You can dislike people for what they do, but still uphold their right to do it, and indeed increase their rights. His actions in office are what will matter, more than his personal views.

Filan

I agree..it would however be useful if Mr. Paisley could perhaps add words to that affect

iBoards

Does it really matter that it's Ian Paisley Junior ?

Almost every religion has the policy of 'dont hate the sinner, hate the sin', catholic church included.
Or at worst total disregard, zero tollerance for homosexuality full stop, Islam, Jehovah's Witness etc...
So in the scheme of things, whats 1 persons bigotry, when nearly all religions are equally as bigotted



EDIT. More Thoughts - Gay Tolerance & Religion


One often hears appeals to be tolerant of intolerance, to accept that people of faith have a right to their monopoly of the truth, and maybe the tolerance will breed tolerance from the intolerant. Is this remotely possible?

The words "religion" and "tolerance" are, of necessity, largely incompatible. It's not that a religion proposes a faith in a deity, it is that the deity of faith has a monopoly on the truth, and with that singular monopoly of the truth, diversity and plurality of thought and practice are heresy, and therefore not subject to tolerance.

Most religions face the dichotomy that: Either (A) their deity is true, and their deity's commands must be followed, or that (B) their deity may be true, and need not be followed. (B), if true, would allow pluralism and diversity; but (B) is rarely claimed. Rather, (A) is nearly always claimed. If (A) is true, tolerance of any belief or behavior disallowed by the deity is heretical, and therefore anathema, or prohibited. Deity has revealed its truth; end of discussion.

Thus, the majority of religious claims are absolute claims, and absolute claims are intolerant of alternative claims, usually identified as "heresy," "sinful," "anathema," etc., giving the deity's monopoly of the truth as the unquestioned reason. If one believes in the deity, and in the deity's claim to the monopoly of the truth, how can one tolerate any counter-claims, without repudiating the deity, its claims to absolute truth, and one's faith in both?

How can one say, "I believe X is divine, and X is the divinely-revealed truth," and then simultaneously affirm any counter-claims, which are by creedal definition false, to the deity, the deity's monopoly of the truth, and the believer's assurance of faith in those truths? It's simply untenable. If it is not strictly applying the principle of non-contradiction, it's very, very close, e.g., (A) and not-(A) cannot be simultaneously true. Or, holding that (A) is absolutely true, but that not-(A) is another possible option, just cannot stand.

Expecting religious tolerance is expecting the near-impossible, as impossible as it is to maintain a contradiction, and we observe that near-impossibility in nearly every religious belief and practice. The liberal principles of tolerance and diversity have their limits in intolerance and any monopoly, including a monopolistic belief: To tolerate intolerance is self-defeating. To hold to a monopoly and espouse diversity is equally self-defeating and untenable.

stovelid

BuffyBot wrote:

I don't see how it really matters. You can dislike people for what they do, but still uphold their right to do it, and indeed increase their rights. His actions in office are what will matter, more than his personal views.

It may be something as prosaic as a placatory gesture to the DUP bible belters. Lets face it, a lot of the DUP are probably homophobic.

If (hopefully) DUP members can impartially represent SF supporting constituents (and vice versa), I hope they can represent other 'deviants' without prejudice as well.

Acid_Violet

i'm not able to quote what he said word for word but it was total crap! Something to do with him 'not liking the way gays/lesbians choose to act and how inconsiderately they act to families'. Doesn't have a ****ing notion about what he's on about.......

Bottle_of_Smoke

iBoards wrote:

Does it really matter that it's Ian Paisley Junior ?

Almost every religion has the policy of 'dont hate the sinner, hate the sin', catholic church included.
Or at worst total disregard, zero tollerance for homosexuality full stop, Islam, Jehovah's Witness etc...
So in the scheme of things, whats 1 persons bigotry, when nearly all religions are equally as bigotted

That's not true about Islam, they also have no problem with someone being gay, just homosexual acts.

Paisley Junior - Read one of the quotes, tbh just seemed like a personal opinion. He said he finds it revolting, fair play to him for giving his honest opinion on such a sensitive issue.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/article2614828.ece wrote:

A Democratic Unionist Party member is under pressure to apologise for allegedly saying he is “repulsed” by gays and lesbians.

Ian Paisley Jr made the comments to Hot Press magazine and is quoted as saying: “I am, unsurprisingly, a straight person and I am repulsed by gays and lesbians.”


He also went on to say “those people harm themselves and – without caring about it – harm society”. However, he said, “that doesn’t mean to say that I hate them. I hate what they do.”


The SDLP’s equality spokeswoman, Dolores Kelly has called on the Assembly to censure Mr Paisley by tabling a motion with the Assembly’s business office urging members to distance themselves from the remarks.


“Ian Paisley is a junior minister in the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister, the department which is charged with promoting equality and bringing forward the Single Equality Bill,” she said.


“Vulnerable groups who are potential victims of discrimination should be able to look to him for help, not attack.


“If he cannot leave his extreme personal views outside his office, he must be kept away from any decisions which may be affected by those views.”


Sinn Féin's Martina Anderson also said all ministers in the executive had “a statutory equality duty and should protect the rights of everyone, regardless of religion, sex, race, disability or sexual orientation.”

I admire him for saying the first bit about being repulsed. Rarely will you see a poilitician with the balls to admit something like that.

The bit about damaging society is going too far because he's not citing it as an opinion, and it's a load of bollocks.

Sapien

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

I admire him for saying the first bit about being repulsed. Rarely will you see a poilitician with the balls to admit something like that.

The bit about damaging society is going too far because he's not citing it as an opinion, and it's a load of bollocks.

I think the fact that he didn't qualify the statement about harming society with the rather pointless prefix "This is only my personal opinion but..." is quite unimportant, and being sufficiently okay with a personal, irrational revulsion such as the one he describes as to advertise it to the nation is a sign of deep immaturity and reckless ill-will.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think it's delusional to suggest a large portion of society don't find homosexuality (particularily male) repulsive. Irrational or not.

No one should have to denounce their opinion because they're in the public eye.

Sapien

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

I think it's delusional to suggest a large portion of society don't find homosexuality (particularily male) repulsive. Irrational or not.

That's not the point. People should realise that such revulsions don't make sense and should be overcome. Not bragged about in national publications as though they're to be proud of.

Bottle_of_Smoke

It was in a hotpress interview, not a political rally, do you think Brian Cowen should have pretended he'd never smoked pot before?

Sure they should overcome irrational views but it doesn't mean they should stay silent in the meantime. I was pretty homophobic before some of my friends came out, was also 16 but I can still understand why someone could be repulsed.

If you just silence people they get pissed off & stand by their logic all the more fervantly.

Boston

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

That's not true about Islam, they also have no problem with someone being gay, just homosexual acts.
.

Theres a recent thread on the islam forum, I suggest you go read it. They painted a picture of zero telorance, no just of gays, but also anyone that accepted homosexuality as find.

Bottle_of_Smoke: He wouldn't say it about Catholics despite probably holding the same view of them. But no i agree with you, I mean the other day I was talking to this guy and it was all grand, then I realised he was a dirty Jew and a wave of repulsion over came me, I immediately rushed around shouting "Jew jew, look at the jew" all the while people around me said "Man I respect that guy, he has the honesty to speak his bigoted little mind, that's so unusual these days".

So yea anyway, who cares what some bigoted fool in NorIron thinks. I mean with all their backwards gob****e, gays still have more civil rights up there then down here, so something must be working.

Hmm_Messiah

I always find the replies to these kind of posts curious.

Some people display I guess what is called " ignorance" despite protesting the "ignorance" of others.

Paisley Jnr is perfectly entitled to be revulsed. Its sad, unenlightened, but not entirely a surprise is it.

In fact what is a surprise is how well (so far) his daddy is participating in what must be difficult new realities.

If Paisley Jnr can carry out his ministerial duties thats fine with me. I just would wonder why some one would commit to ensuring full rights to a groups he despises.

I remember reading the newspaper article and being annoyed, or more, hearing some one in authoirty saying he was repulsed by what I am, or that I harm society.

But then being honest - in the past I would of been close to repulsed by what I saw as " gay behaviour". Even now I sometimes struggle with how my " gayness" conflicts with other aspects of life.

I see my sister have a new baby, plan a wedding etc - and some part of what she experiences is denied to me. I know there are alternative ways of viewing that etc etc - but the plan reality is me and my bf both sometimes see us being together as "less than" what ...I dunno...is the norm. You can see how the edges towards Paisleys thoughts on damaging society.

If I as a gay person can sometimes (the tougher times) hold such sentiments I'm not gonna berate a man for holding stronger ones

Boston

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

I always find the replies to these kind of posts curious.

Some people display I guess what is called " ignorance" despite protesting the "ignorance" of others.

When teaching a child the difference between right and wrong behaviour a parent will often draw on examples of both in an attempt to educate the child. Same thing here. Heres an example of intolerance in a different context which highlights the persons own intolerance.

Rev Hellfire

I'm not sure how you can draw he's intolerant from someone stating that they hate a particular action rather than the people who do it. It would seem to me to be a rather tolerant statement to make.

Rather it could be seen that some gays are intolerant of people who might dare to hold a differing opinion contrary to their own. Pot met kettle.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Boston wrote:

Theres a recent thread on the islam forum, I suggest you go read it. They painted a picture of zero telorance, no just of gays, but also anyone that accepted homosexuality as find.

Do you mean this one How would you react if one of your children was gay?

Fairly tolerant views there, quite obvious which posters are Muslims, none of them suggested a zero tolerance to homosexuality.

Bottle_of_Smoke: He wouldn't say it about Catholics despite probably holding the same view of them. But no i agree with you, I mean the other day I was talking to this guy and it was all grand, then I realised he was a dirty Jew and a wave of repulsion over came me, I immediately rushed around shouting "Jew jew, look at the jew" all the while people around me said "Man I respect that guy, he has the honesty to speak his bigoted little mind, that's so unusual these days".

This is complete nonsense, it was a HOTPRESS interview, he didn't run around shouting "FAG, FAG look at the dirty FAG" he just stated his opinion.
It's a completely different kettle of fish to Catholics, while he probably doesn't like them much, he's probably not revulsed by Catholics.

Good points there by Hmm_Messaiah & Rev Hellfire.

stovelid

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

If Paisley Jnr can carry out his ministerial duties thats fine with me. I just would wonder why some one would commit to ensuring full rights to a groups he despises.

He already is, Messiah.

Like I said, if he can purport to represent SF supporters fairly, representing the gay electorate should be the same thing. Like you say, the proof of the pudding will be in how he handles the brief.

I can't help feeling - ok, hoping - that by going public with his "revulsion" he is having his cake and eating it. Placating the bible belt voters while at the same time, intending to represent the LGB electorate fairly.

@ Rev hellfire...I agree. It's quite tolerant for him, given his views and his voters. The DUP could - and have - said far worse

Boston

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I'm not sure how you can draw he's intolerant from someone stating that they hate a particular action rather than the people who do it. It would seem to me to be a rather tolerant statement to make.

Rather it could be seen that some gays are intolerant of people who might dare to hold a differing opinion contrary to their own. Pot met kettle.

I don't hate jews, I just hate the way they eat cosier food. The separation of homosexuality from homosexual acts is something that really is a fallacy. Oh and yes, I am intolerant of bigoted views I fail to see why I should accept them, let alone praise someone because their views are slightly less bigoted then someone else's. I mean personally, If blacks acted a little more like the rest of us, I'd have no problem with them, aren't I tolerant, where's my bagel.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Do you mean this one How would you react if one of your children was gay?

Fairly tolerant views there, quite obvious which posters are Muslims, none of them suggested a zero tolerance to homosexuality.

Wrong thread, try harder.

stovelid: Praise for being tolerant just because he could have said worse. IS this the level of tolerance we aspire too? Personally I've no problem with travellers, but its the stealing of stuff and incest that's I take issue with.

oh and hmm, cause I didn't point it out earlier, some excellent non-committal non-speak there. It takes real talent to use so many words to say nothing at all.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Boston wrote:

I don't hate jews, I just hate the way they eat cosier food. The separation of homosexuality from homosexual acts is something that really is a fallacy. Oh and yes, I am intolerant of bigoted views I fail to see why I should accept them, let alone praise someone because their views are slightly less bigoted then someone else's. I mean personally, If blacks acted a little more like the rest of us, I'd have no problem with them, aren't I tolerant, where's my bagel.

Try & see it from someone elses point of view. The reason they seperate homosexuality from homosexual acts is they accept some people can't help feeling this way. Just like you should accept they can't help feeling revulsed. Don't get me wrong I can completely understand why it pisses you off, I personally have no issue with people taking part in homosexual acts, but I'm an athiest so it doesn't threaten my beliefs. I have to admit I don't like looking at male homosexual acts, did feel somewhat "weirded out" seeing it in the George but I certainly don't lose any sleep over it.

Wrong thread, try harder.

It's your argument - you link it! You should also note the opinion of posters on the Islam forum does not represent the views of every single Muslim in the world.

oh and hmm, cause I didn't point it out earlier, some excellent non-committal non-speak there. It takes real talent to use so many words to say nothing at all.

Not sure what you mean here - could you elaborate?

Rev Hellfire

Boston wrote:

I don't hate jews, I just hate the way they eat cosier food.

Nothing wrong with that, Sikhs for example are forbitten to eat kosher food due to the cruelty (in their view) involved. Doesn't mean that sikh's therefore hate jews.

Boston wrote:

The separation of homosexuality from homosexual acts is something that really is a fallacy.

In your opinion, there can easily be a separation between the person and their homosexuality. People don''t think ohh there's my homosexual friend, they just think there's my friend.

The sole premises here seems to be 'if you're not with us you're against us' which strikes me as something of siege mentality. I guess I just don't see the world that way.

stovelid

Boston wrote:

stovelid: Praise for being tolerant just because he could have said worse. IS this the level of tolerance we aspire too?

Nope.

I said the statement was relatively tolerant for a DUP member and hinted at an attempt to separate his 'personal' feelings and his duty as a legislator.

My point was not the ignorance and homophobia of IPJ, that's taken for granted; but whether it will adversely affect his political judgments.

Hmm_Messiah

Boston wrote:

When teaching a child the difference between right and wrong behaviour a parent will often draw on examples of both in an attempt to educate the child. Same thing here. Heres an example of intolerance in a different context which highlights the persons own intolerance.

Sorry but i don't understand what that means. At all.
If there is some suggestion to me being intolerant - wow. Am sure there are things I find difficult to tolerate, and on many things I am judgemental . I admit that as freely as Ian Jnr admits his repulsion. That was ,in part, my point.

If the suggestion is I was intolerant of other posts here - I said i found them curious. Big leap being made.

Boston wrote:

oh and hmm, cause I didn't point it out earlier, some excellent non-committal non-speak there. It takes real talent to use so many words to say nothing at all.

I'm wondering was that hmm with a capital H, as in little old me. If it was I'm not sure what non-speak means , but if its close to nonsense then I guess you supplied me with an example.

Again "if" its directed at me - if i said "nothing at all" its a compliment that you still commented - twice. As for saying nothing looking back It looks like I said maybe 8 different things.

As for being noncommittal - just for you - to clear things up-I supported the mans right to say what he felt (committed to ), I admitted to discomfort regarding certain "gay cultural" thingies (committed to acknowledging a fault)
other than that not sure the original post required to much committal

Of course its most likely you were not directing those well chosen words to me,


Getting back to the interview, depending on how much it was lead by the interviewer - it seems to smack of a shrewd politician letting his constituent know " I'm in this new arrangement but I'm still a Free Presbyterian " - but..... don't quote me on that

As for separating homosexuality from homosexual acts - I in my ignorance see a separation. One being "what you are" the other simply an action (and a choice I guess the priest folks would argue). But in real debate these people are tending to separate the humanity, the individual from behavior - to me thats a valid separation and one engaged in by the most enlightened of people . Often of course its just hypocrital nonsense- a way of justifying christian bigotry as if those two words were not diametrically oppsed.

"I have to admit I don't like looking at male homosexual acts, did feel somewhat "weirded out" seeing it in the George"
- you were in a gay bar and "weirded out" what I take was gay folk doing what straight folk do. okie then. Personally I am somewhat "weirded out" seeing ugly people getting it on - or worse - one ugly one cute - my inner voice screaming " you can do so much better". Not that the voices in my head scream..much

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

"I have to admit I don't like looking at male homosexual acts, did feel somewhat "weirded out" seeing it in the George"
- you were in a gay bar and "weirded out" what I take was gay folk doing what straight folk do. okie then. Personally I am somewhat "weirded out" seeing ugly people getting it on - or worse - one ugly one cute - my inner voice screaming " you can do so much better". Not that the voices in my head scream..much

Weirded out was probably the wrong term, it wasn't enough to make me leave or anything! Probably just not used to it. Actually what you said about ugly people is somewhat similar to how I felt. Had a feeling that comment might come back on me.

Boston

Oh my, I'll reply to this full when I'm in a less happy mood. And yes Hmm that was directed at you. The mans a bigot, if you don't agree with him being called that say so, but don't makes posts about some people being ignorant in the face of ignorance, cause it doesn't impress me.

Hmm_Messiah

no one asked me did I think he was or wasn't a bigot.

And as for trying to impress you - like that was really top of my list of things to do.
So don't feel a need to add more for my benefit. The reality is I find IPJ comments no more ignorant, naive etc than yours.

Boston

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

no one asked me did I think he was or wasn't a bigot.

You'll minch your words and water down the issue however.

So don't feel a need to add more for my benefit. The reality is I find IPJ comments no more ignorant, naive etc than yours.

You see thats a more definite answer, maybe if i push a little more I'll find out what those comments are. I doubt it as you dislike being held to account. I suspect you making a reference to my comments on Islam... Bit to much effort for yea to be direct about it at some one in those essays you call posts.

Acid_Violet

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

I admire him for saying the first bit about being repulsed. Rarely will you see a poilitician with the balls to admit something like that.

It's not balls. Look at his father; he's made a career for himself by preaching his hatred and insighting it in others, heck he served a prison sentence for insightment to violence. Ian Paisley Jr. is an extremely weak politician and debater with no views of his own, just a supercilious mindset. I'm not 100% sure what he thought he was doing when he said that but I'm sure he thought he was making a conscious clever move to boost himself up in some way.

philologos

Filan wrote:

Correct me if this has appeared elsewhere previoulsy..but just in case it hasn't I'll propose the topic here. What are readers opinions on Mr Paisleys, (Junior Minister for Equality) remarks that he 'dosen't hate homosexuals..but hates what they do?' . An oxymoron for me as I believe in freedom of speech...but yet he was promoting intolerance..and for a man with his porfolio..it is questionable.

He's open to his personal views. He hasn't incited hatred against homosexuals, nor is he "promoting intolerance". All he is saying is that he finds homosexual activity to be immoral. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Boston

Jakkass wrote:

He's open to his personal views. He hasn't incited hatred against homosexuals, nor is he "promoting intolerance". All he is saying is that he finds homosexual activity to be immoral. I don't see anything wrong with that.

If I said I find mixed race marriages/relationships immoral would you also not see anything wrong with that? Serious question I'd like an answer to.

galwayrush

Jakkass wrote:

He's open to his personal views. He hasn't incited hatred against homosexuals, nor is he "promoting intolerance". All he is saying is that he finds homosexual activity to be immoral. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Well said. We're still allowed freedom of speech i believe, and we're all entitled to our personal views.

Boston

galwayrush wrote:

We're still allowed freedom of speech i believe

You Sir are wrong. You're allowed freedom of expression, with several caveats. I'm sure Hmm Messiah, barrister at law, will back me up on that one.

Marshy

Boston wrote:

If I said I find mixed race marriages/relationships immoral would you also not see anything wrong with that? Serious question I'd like an answer to.

Very true.

Its only because some people agree with his notion that its considered "free speech".

philologos

Boston wrote:

If I said I find mixed race marriages/relationships immoral would you also not see anything wrong with that? Serious question I'd like an answer to.

I wouldn't see anything wrong with that either as long as you weren't causing a serious threat to anyones life. Not that I agree with it however. But it seems that Ian Paisley Jr, has religious reasons for saying that homosexual activity is immoral.

Boston

Everyone has their reasons, and religious reasons are no better then "its the way I was raised", but leaving that aside. So you personally see nothing wrong with either scenario, would you feel that those about whom the views are held should also see nothing wrong with those views? And I want to make the distinction here between not caring/not bothered by and not see somethign as wrong.

Also you seem to have gone to of the view that anything that doesn't promote the taking of life is ok? Do you seriously believe that?

philologos

as long as they aren't actively persecuting these people with violence or otherwise or verbally abusing them to their face people should be encouraged to discuss these things. Religions reasons are not no better than "it's the way I was raised". People genuinely (in the 3 major Abrahamic religions) believe that God intended for man and woman to have sexual relations, and that homosexual activity is immoral it's written both in the Bible and the Qu'ran. So how far are we meant to go on the political correctness, that is the question really isn't it? I'm not homophobic, but I regard homosexual activity as immoral. What can you do to me for it? I really can't see a problem with Ian Paisley Junior there, and perhaps that portrays badly on me I don't know.

stovelid

Boston wrote:

If I said I find mixed race marriages/relationships immoral would you also not see anything wrong with that? .

I'd think you were a bigot but then again, I think that IPJ is one too.

He said that he against 'gay acts' but not 'gay people'. Moronic obviously but he probably thought it an adequate elucidation of the fact that he religiously disagrees with a lifestyle but bears the individuals no malice.

Obviously he is a foolish homophobic bigot but when until he (a) is found to discriminate against gays in the political sphere (b) starts up something like Save Ulster From Sodomy again (c) actively incites hatred against gays; I think that is all he can be called.

philologos

how is this "discriminating against gays in the political sphere", all the man is doing is expressing his view on homosexual activity. Personally I think it's reading too much into it to call him a bigot.

Boston

Jakkass wrote:

as long as they aren't actively persecuting these people with violence or otherwise or verbally abusing them to their face people should be encouraged to discuss these things. Religions reasons are not no better than "it's the way I was raised". People genuinely (in the 3 major Abrahamic religions) believe that God intended for man and woman to have sexual relations, and that homosexual activity is immoral it's written both in the Bible and the Qu'ran.

On this we wil ljust have to disagree. Allah told me doesn't make it any less wrong or better then "I just don't know better".

So how far are we meant to go on the political correctness, that is the question really isn't it? I'm not homophobic, but I regard homosexual activity as immoral. What can you do to me for it? I really can't see a problem with Ian Paisley Junior there, and perhaps that portrays badly on me I don't know.

We're not talking Political correctness. Call a spade a spade, by all means argue that people have a right to their views, racist/sexist/homophobic, I'll even agree, but dont try to sell me it as something it's not. It's homophobic regardless of whether or not you think it's ok to be so.

stovelid

Jakkass wrote:

how is this "discriminating against gays in the political sphere", all the man is doing is expressing his view on homosexual activity. Personally I think it's reading too much into it to call him a bigot.

The department associated with his ministry is involved in enforcing equality.

It's reasonable that some people may fear that somebody like him may not be completely committed to equality for gays.

My feeling is that he will work with the brief fairly but he should definitely be seen to do this.

Also, my feeling is that considering consensual, legal sexual activity between adults immoral is meaningless but that your's and his view. Fair enough.

By choosing to announce it publicly, he is definitely guilty of making bigoted statements. Saying that to Hot Press is not like saying it 'between friends' or even anonymously on a forum.

philologos

Boston wrote:

On this we wil ljust have to disagree. Allah told me doesn't make it any less wrong or better then "I just don't know better".

You're equating faith with ignorance. But when the being that created you passes down a law to say that homosexual activity is a sin. You usually feel obliged to obey it. Spirituality, is a very special thing to people, whereas ignorance isn't special to anyone.

Boston

Jakkass wrote:

You're equating faith with ignorance. But when the being that created you passes down a law to say that homosexual activity is a sin. You usually feel obliged to obey it. Spirituality, is a very special thing to people, whereas ignorance isn't special to anyone.

And when the being that created you passes down a law to say that you should kill the infidel or hang those that dance (Calvinism) people are all too willing to use the blanket of religion to justify abhorrent attitudes and acts. If your guy is telling you that Homosexuality is a sin, why draw the line at killing/Physical abusing gays. If you really believe what you're saying you should be committed to stoping homosexuality, people pick and choose bits of religions to support their bigoted attitudes, not the other way around. I've known devout "Christians" that use and abuse people at will. It's all a morality trip.

Btw you don't need religion to have faith. Don't try to push an argument here that too believe in god you have to be homophobic. Faith isn't ignorance, but you're trying to use it to shield your own ignorance.

philologos

Boston, it's up to whoever is committing homosexual acts to decide for themselves whether they want to reject or accept God. The message is already availiable.

Boston

Jakkass wrote:

Boston, it's up to whoever is committing homosexual acts to decide for themselves whether they want to reject or accept God. The message is already availiable.

Being gay doesn't mean rejecting god. Thats a very arrogant attitude.

philologos

If you are to accept God in full faith, you have to follow by his rulings on sexuality. As I said earlier, it's the act of homosexuality thats the issue, not the people. If two men love eachother, so be it, as long as they abstain from sexual intercourse.

Boston

Jakkass wrote:

If you are to accept God in full faith, you have to follow by his rulings on sexuality. As I said earlier, it's the act of homosexuality thats the issue, not the people. If two men love eachother, so be it, as long as they abstain from sexual intercourse.

Gods rulings? Give me a break, rulings of isolated old men. Next time I have sex with my slave girl I'll remember to beat her. Do you judge people who have pre marital sex as much as you judge homosexuals that have sex? Do you tell these people their actions are wrong or immoral? I doubt it somehow. Pick and choose what parts of religion you follow. And as I said, why stop at not killing gays, I mean the laws of God have been broken, punishment must be swift.

EcoGirl

Jakkass wrote:

If you are to accept God in full faith, you have to follow by his rulings on sexuality.

This would be better phrased as: "If you are to accept certain religions's statements that they're the sole spokesperson for God, you have to follow by what they say are God's rulings on sexuality."

Religions try to have a monopoly on God, and God's thoughts, and God's opinions and God's dogma.

But many people reject that. They can have full faith in God without religions and without man made rules.

And the God I know doesn't care whether people are gay or straight.

Stark

This isn't the Christian forum. According to the charter, we don't discuss Christian dogma. (on the basis that trying to argue with someone whose only response is "God said so" isn't much of a discussion). Thread locked.