The "alternative parenting" show

Hyperduck

Freak show more like it.

www.alternativeparenting.co.uk

It appears there's no difference between man and woman - just check out the iconography where man and woman are represented as stick figures.

Then there's this idea that those of a homosexual inclination can fully justify their bonding habits by taking children into their care - even use someone else's womb-for-payment if necessary.

Of course this is all a liberal engineering project funded by enthusiastic entrepreneurs who, no doubt, have no conscience whatsoever when it comes to distorting people's natural instincts in pursuit of profit.

Oh, and it's sponsored by the Guardian and some homosexual lifestyle lobby group... Need I say any more...

MrStuffins

Problem with gays have we?

Also, I have to laugh at your use of the term "liberal" in that way that crazy American Republicans use it. I'd love to know when being liberal, being open to others' views and ideas and being free from bigotry, became a dirty word

nickcave

Hyperduck wrote: »

Need I say any more...

No, you need not.

And homosexuals don't have to 'justify their bonding habits' to you or anyone else. As far as I can see that site offers a wide range of resources for all parents who aren't of the status quo, and not just those of the 'freak show' kind either.

Benny_Cake

Here's a suggestion for you - don't go to the show perhaps?

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'd love to know when being liberal, being open to others' views and ideas and being free from bigotry, became a dirty word

It was about the same time that many people who self-proclaim as liberals became just as narrow-minded as those they claim to be better than.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

It was about the same time that many people who self-proclaim as liberals became just as narrow-minded as those they claim to be better than.

I don't necessarily agree with your sentiment, but I agree with my mother when she tells me "two wrongs don't make a right".

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree with your sentiment, but I agree with my mother when she tells me "two wrongs don't make a right".

Too late on a Friday evening to be getting my head around that... :pac: I agree, I think, or maybe my mother does.

Anywho, Alternative Parenting Show, doesn't appeal to me, although I do quite like Modern Family. Swings and roundabouts I suppose.

MrStuffins

Hyperduck wrote: »

It appears there's no difference between man and woman - just check out the iconography where man and woman are represented as stick figures.

It was pretty easy for me to make out which was male and which was female, they used the very well established "Blue for a boy, Pink for a girl" way to differentiate!

I'm not sure how you'd want that conveyed differently. 2 stick figures of the same colour, but one with a penis and the other with breasts?

StanMcConnell

Why did you start this thread in the Christianity forum?
Are you trying to imply some implicit link between homophobia and the Christian faith?

Suggest the mods close or move this thread.

wonderfulname

OP - What are the differences between men and women? In your eyes that is, just curious.

JimiTime

StanMcConnell wrote: »

Why did you start this thread in the Christianity forum?
Are you trying to imply some implicit link between homophobia and the Christian faith?

Suggest the mods close or move this thread.

What is homophobia these days? Someone who doesn't celebrate homosexuality? Someone who has a moral objection to sexual intercourse between members of the same sex? Or is it a hatred of homosexuals? Its hard to tell these days what these kinds of 'phobias' actually are. They usually just become meaningless political mud words in order to silence any dissenting voices and curb discussion.

lmaopml

How many ways to introduce a sexuality thread into Christianity? It seems they appear one a day..lol...

Your guess is as good as mine, and to be honest sometimes the remarks have little to do with the real life, they're usually dominated by people who feel strongly and are offended at the non reality of actual life but like to feel offense.

Even stick figures and crap 'guides to parenting' shows count these days as something to get appalled over on either side -

Meh!

Hyperduck

JimiTime wrote: »

What is homophobia these days? Someone who doesn't celebrate homosexuality? Someone who has a moral objection to sexual intercourse between members of the same sex? Or is it a hatred of homosexuals? Its hard to tell these days what these kinds of 'phobias' actually are. They usually just become meaningless political mud words in order to silence any dissenting voices and curb discussion.

How predictable that all the lefties would start screaming "homophobe". God only knows what kind of a society they want to live in. Brave New World perhaps. To think that they want to live in such a society!

Corkfeen

Hyperduck wrote: »

How predictable that all the lefties would start screaming "homophobe". God only knows what kind of a society they want to live in. Brave New World perhaps. To think that they want to live in such a society!

Ya, an equal society where people aren't morally judged over their sexual preferences sounds godawful. Why would someone choose to be tolerant, it sounds positively absurd. Actually now that I think about it, i'm sure that people made similar arguments as yours against black rights and interracial marriages even the abolition of slavery.... Damn Progress!

Hyperduck

Corkfeen wrote: »

Ya, an equal society where people aren't morally judged over their sexual preferences sounds godawful. Why would someone choose to be tolerant, it sounds positively absurd. Actually now that I think about it, i'm sure that people made similar arguments as yours against black rights and interracial marriages even the abolition of slavery.... Damn Progress!

Are you trying to suggest that the church is anti-black now?

People are born black naturally. Homosexuality, like masturbation, is a self-gratuitous act that serves no role in civilised society.

The use of human organs contrary to their purpose extends to the non-sexual organs too - over-eating, drug-taking, alchoholism, self-harm, etc. And it's not just Catholics who preach this.

laoch na mona

leave the gays have kids they are safer with 2 gay lads then in then in the care of the church.The bible says love your neighbor their sexual orientation is none of your concern

Hyperduck

laoch na mona wrote: »

leave the gays have kids they are safer with 2 gay lads then in then in the care of the church.The bible says love your neighbor their sexual orientation is none of your concern

Actually you're wrong on both points.

Addressing your first sentence: children are safest in the hands of the Church as no other organisation in the country has the same level of child safe-guarding standards.

Also, most abuse occurs in the home - fathers, uncles, "family friends", etc.

Be careful what you wish for.

Corkfeen

Hyperduck wrote: »

Are you trying to suggest that the church is anti-black now?

People are born black naturally. Homosexuality, like masturbation, is a self-gratuitous act that serves no role in civilised society.

Nope, i'm just pointing out that your viewpoint isn't very civilised even though you believe it to be. A person can be naturally gay and masturbation (seriously it won't make you blind )is also perfectly natural and healthy. Just because you claim that they're immoral does not make it so. You do not have the right to deny equality that is deserved. Feel free to justify your viewpoint, i'm assuming that it will become more absurd...i

Hyperduck

Hyperduck wrote: »

no other organisation in the country has the same level of child safe-guarding standards.

yes, but that's not a good thing.

laoch na mona

Hyperduck wrote: »

Actually you're wrong on both points.

Addressing your first sentence: children are safest in the hands of the Church as no other organisation in the country has the same level of child safe-guarding standards.

Also, most abuse occurs in the home - fathers, uncles, "family friends", etc.

Be careful what you wish for.

you didn't address the second point
did the church protect pedophiles? yes the did
did they force mothers to give up their children? yes they did
did they repent? no they did not

lmaopml

Corkfeen wrote: »

Ya, an equal society where people aren't morally judged over their sexual preferences sounds godawful. Why would someone choose to be tolerant, it sounds positively absurd. Actually now that I think about it, i'm sure that people made similar arguments as yours against black rights and interracial marriages even the abolition of slavery.... Damn Progress!

You have no idea about the abolutionists and the part that people played obviously. You think that the only 'offended' people are the ones you choose, but don't even recognise the good people who were heroes during a bygone age?

You should look a little more into Daniel O'Connell, Catholic Emancipation, and also a worldwide renound abolitionist that wouldn't give an inch, not even for freedom in Ireland - for shame you think that people don't care?

Seriously, the stereotyping on this forum is mad - it's like as if some people only see horrible people, and that is not the truth, in fact it's very far from it - and I find it not a little like having a conversation with any 'fundamentalist' on some of these threads.

Hyperduck

Corkfeen wrote: »

Nope, i'm just pointing out that your viewpoint isn't very civilised even though you believe it to be. A person can be naturally gay and masturbation (seriously it won't make you blind )is also perfectly natural. Just because you claim that they're moral does not make it so. You do not have the right to deny equality that is deserved. Feel free to justify your viewpoint, i'm assuming that it will become more absurd...

Ah yes, that old chestnut. "Naturally occurring" is not a sufficient condition to declare a behaviour as morally acceptable.

laoch na mona

lmaopml wrote: »

You have no idea about the abolutionists and the part that people played obviously. You think that the only 'offended' people are the ones you choose, but don't even recognise the good people who were heroes during a bygone age?

You should look a little more into Daniel O'Connell, Catholic Emancipation, and also a worldwide renound abolitionist that wouldn't give an inch, not even for freedom in Ireland - for shame you think that people don't care?

Seriously, the stereotyping on this forum is mad - it's like as if some people only see horrible people, and that is not the truth, in fact it's very far from it - and I find it not a little like having a conversation with any 'fundamentalist' on some of these threads.

I know there are many good Catholics Swiss priests for example help protect humane rights in Columbia but the churches role in Ireland has had some very low points

P.S I'm a catholic

Hyperduck

Hyperduck wrote: »

Ah yes, that old chestnut. "Naturally occurring" is not a sufficient condition to declare a behaviour as morally acceptable.

you were the first one to bring up "naturally occurring" in the thread

distorting people's natural instincts in pursuit of profit.

People are born black naturally.

now that we know it's natural despite your arguments, you're shifting the goalposts

Hyperduck

laoch na mona wrote: »

you didn't address the second point
did the church protect pedophiles? yes the did
did they force mothers to give up their children? yes they did
did they repent? no they did not

Seeing as you're so angry at those who perpetrated abuse, perhaps you should consider posting your passport to the Minister for Foreign Affairs seeing as you don't want anything to do with paedo-protectors.

Your third question: the Church has been very public in their compassion for victims. Did you see Archbishop Martin lying on his stomach at Mass for abuse victims? No, you didn't because you're an ignorant fool who knows nothing about the Catholic Church.

Corkfeen

lmaopml wrote: »

You have no idea about the abolutionists and the part that people played obviously. You think that the only 'offended' people are the ones you choose, but don't even recognise the good people who were heroes during a bygone age?

You should look a little more into Daniel O'Connell, Catholic Emancipation, and also a worldwide renound abolitionist that wouldn't give an inch, not even for freedom in Ireland - for shame you think that people don't care?

Seriously, the stereotyping on this forum is mad - it's like as if some people only see horrible people, and that is not the truth, in fact it's very far from it - and I find it not a little like having a conversation with any 'fundamentalist' on some of these threads.

I actually don't consider anyone except for a minor few in the christian forum to be in anyway homophobic. I'm merely addressing Hyperduck's view while I do view the organisation of Catholic church to be proponents of questionable stances like opposition to homosexuality and contraceptives. I am personally of the belief that the vast majority of Catholics have no issue with either.

Hyperduck wrote: »

Ah yes, that old chestnut. "Naturally occurring" is not a sufficient condition to declare a behaviour as morally acceptable.

Well justify your viewpoint then. Preferably don't base it upon one line from Leviticus. I have an odd feeling that you are incapable of doing so.

francois

Hyperduck wrote: »

like masturbation, is a self-gratuitous act that serves no role in civilised society.

I suggest you take the (no doubt) little fella in hand, move it up and down a bit, you may be surprised by the results

Hyperduck

bluewolf wrote: »

you were the first one to bring up "naturally occurring" in the thread





now that we know it's natural despite your arguments, you're shifting the goalposts

You're being deliberately misleading now.

Eating is natural, as is sleeping. Natural on its own does not make something moral. For example, animals engage in incestuous relationships "naturally". That is immoral in the human domain. You must consider the full range of factors associated with a behaviour in order to take a rational moral stance.

Hyperduck

francois wrote: »

I suggest you take the (no doubt) little fella in hand, move it up and down a bit, you may be surprised by the results

No doubt you've plenty of experience in that department.

Hyperduck

Hyperduck wrote: »

You're being deliberately misleading now.

Eating is natural, as is sleeping. Natural on its own does not make something moral. For example, animals engage in incestuous relationships "naturally". That is immoral in the human domain. You must consider the full range of factors associated with a behaviour in order to take a rational moral stance.

You said it wasn't natural. Now you admit it's natural and are moving on to another argument entirely.
Maybe you should stop putting "natural" in your OP and arguments if you're going to subsequently argue that it's meaningless and sneer at other posters agreeing it's natural.

laoch na mona

Hyperduck wrote: »

Seeing as you're so angry at those who perpetrated abuse, perhaps you should consider posting your passport to the Minister for Foreign Affairs seeing as you don't want anything to do with paedo-protectors.

Your third question: the Church has been very public in their compassion for victims. Did you see Archbishop Martin lying on his stomach at Mass for abuse victims? No, you didn't because you're an ignorant fool who knows nothing about the Catholic Church.

i know the nuns didn't want to cooperate with the state and I know the church was found to have ignored their own child protection guidelines

and please don't insult me i never insulted you

Hyperduck

laoch na mona wrote: »

i no the nuns didn't want to cooperate with the state and I know the church was found to have ignored their own child protection guidelines

and please don't insult me i never insulted you

You've shown your ignorance by casually declaring that the church didn't repent for their sins.

If you want to ignore the facts, I can't help you.

Sonics2k

Hyperduck wrote: »

Are you trying to suggest that the church is anti-black now?

People are born black naturally. Homosexuality, like masturbation, is a self-gratuitous act that serves no role in civilised society.

The use of human organs contrary to their purpose extends to the non-sexual organs too - over-eating, drug-taking, alchoholism, self-harm, etc. And it's not just Catholics who preach this.

Amazing that people still believe this propaganda nonsense.

laoch na mona

Hyperduck wrote: »

You've shown your ignorance by casually declaring that the church didn't repent for their sins.

If you want to ignore the facts, I can't help you.

did the pope apologise

endacl

I like hyperduck. Hyperduck is funny. Welcome to boards, hyperduck. Keep the comedy coming!

lmaopml

Corkfeen wrote: »

I actually don't consider anyone except for a minor few in the christian forum to be in anyway homophobic. I'm merely addressing Hyperduck's view while I do view the organisation of Catholic church to be proponents of questionable stances like opposition to homosexuality and contraceptives. I am personally of the belief that the vast majority of Catholics have no issue with either.

It's not a case of having an 'issue' or what you think Corkfeen- If a person describes themselves as 'Catholic' then they are more than a 'fundamentalist' and perfect in every single way, even they gay Catholics believe it or not are still Catholic, but not perfect, but 'Catholic' - they absolutely have a place in the Church with everybody else.

Does it mean that Catholics are 'perfect', certainly not!

For very many Catholics we have a first and foremost affinity with Christ, his Church, Morality etc. etc. and recognise there is a bar that is set that we all fall far below - we're on a journey, we live, we love, we search for truth, get excited along the way, but Christ is God, and Mass is where his children meet eachother, the good, the bad and the ugly are welcome.

The constant pigeon hole of Catholics and indeed Christians these days, and I'm sorry but the Atheist community seem to be viewed as pretty fundamental and opportunistic too, to the vast majority of people who are looking on, and which perhaps on reflection is deserved to a certain extent, due to the fundamentalist Atheists - is well, daft really. Self defeating.

It says nothing about or to normal people.

imo of course.

wonderfulname

Hyperduck wrote: »

You're being deliberately misleading now.

Eating is natural, as is sleeping. Natural on its own does not make something moral. For example, animals engage in incestuous relationships "naturally". That is immoral in the human domain. You must consider the full range of factors associated with a behaviour in order to take a rational moral stance.

And what is rational about your moral stance? Before you answer, whilst I would respect the position of it merely being your religious belief (although you have already illustrated it is more than that) I would not call such a stance rational.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.