Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

oscarBravo

JimiTime wrote: »

Believe me, I acknowledge the unfortunate view that people of your view insist on calling God and all his followers bigots or whatever explicit names you choose.

I don't call God a bigot for the same reason I don't call the tooth fairy a bigot. As for all his followers being bigots, that's not true either. You might be amazed just how many Christians don't feel the need to be dicks towards people who don't share their sexual preferences.

Your constant message is that it's not OK to be gay. Try firing a teacher for telling kids it's OK to be black or female, and come back to me.

It is OK with you if a teacher tells kids it's OK to be black or female, isn't it?

JimiTime

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for all his followers being bigots, that's not true either. You might be amazed just how many Christians don't feel the need to be dicks towards people who don't share their sexual preferences.

Expletives and subjective observations aside, followers of Christ will follow Christ in reaching out to all with the good news of the kingdom, and just as he preached repentance when he reached out to the sinners and said 'Go and sin no more', so do his followers do.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Your constant message is that it's not OK to be gay.

Actually, you'll find my message has been that its not ok to try to abuse ones position as a school teacher to further your political goal of promoting the idea to primary school pupils that homosexuality is good. If a parent wishes to broach the subject of sexuality with their child and preach such a message, then fine.

Try firing a teacher for telling kids it's OK to be black or female, and come back to me.

It is OK with you if a teacher tells kids it's OK to be black or female, isn't it?

Do you believe it reasonable that a person can have no problem with the colour of a persons skin, but can have issue with, lets say, thievery? I would dare to say that its actually ridiculous to believe that the two can be compared. After all, one thing is simply the colour of a persons skin, and the other is an action which a person indulges in.

So yes, of course its ok to teach that its ok to be white or black or female or male, but the actions of these black/white men and women is a whole different ball game.

_Redzer_

JimiTime wrote: »

Petty insults aside, but whether you like it or not, the fact of sex being an action is not really up for discussion. And yes, deciding to have sex is in fact a choice.

Ugh yeah, but you can't decide who you're attracted to before choosing to have sex. That's the point.

By your logic straight people choose to be straight because they choose to have sex with the opposite sex.

Turtwig

Jeez Louise folks!

I've had to delete a few posts in this thread and probably should have deleted more. Implying a poster supports Nazi policies is not on. Calling them a simpleton is not on and for the love of God if you feel peeved by posts don't respond in kind!



Try to keep things civil. Flaming words boths ways isn't going to resolve anything. It's clear you have diverging opinions on this. So please, try to respect the other person's character. If you can't do that then take a break and come back when you post a civil post.

JimiTime

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Ugh yeah, but you can't decide who you're attracted to before choosing to have sex. That's the point.

By your logic straight people choose to be straight because they choose to have sex with the opposite sex.

Actually, thats not the point. The point is that a previous poster insinuated that the colour or gender of a person, is comparable to the actions of a person.

_Redzer_

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, thats not the point. The point is that a previous poster insinuated that the colour or gender of a person, is comparable to the actions of a person.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT AN ACTION, ACTION IMPLIES CHOICE!

Since both skin colour and sexual orientation cannot be chosen, bigotry and racism are the same thing as they share the same central premise.

JimiTime

Jernal wrote: »

Jeez Louise folks!

I've had to delete a few posts in this thread and probably should have deleted more. Implying a poster supports Nazi policies is not on. Calling them a simpleton is not on and for the love of God if you feel peeved by posts don't respond in kind!



Try to keep things civil. Flaming words boths ways isn't going to resolve anything. It's clear you have diverging opinions on this. So please, try to respect the other person's character. If you can't do that then take a break and come back when you post a civil post.

Don't mean to be pedantic, but as the only member of the other side, and my amazing powers of deduction, I can't help but see that "Flaming words boths ways" and "don't respond in kind!" implicate me in this warning. I don't believe that you warning fairly represents what happened. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel offended by the insults etc, but I really don't see how you can say that there were 2 sides at fault tbh. I understand my views are the anti-thesis to your own in this subject, but I don't belive your implication is fair. I called nobody names in the face of being called a nazi and a simpleton.
Respectfully,
Jimi.

JimiTime

_Redzer_ wrote: »

SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT AN ACTION, ACTION IMPLIES CHOICE!

Since both skin colour and sexual orientation cannot be chosen, bigotry and racism are the same thing as they share the same central premise.

Race is not a choice, having sex is. You said so yourself:
"you can't decide who you're attracted to before choosing to have sex"

The fact that sex is an action is the very reason why comparing matters of sexual intercourse to race or gender is so ludicrous.

_Redzer_

Tbh, I never called you a simpleton. I said that was such a simpleton post.

Attack the post, not the poster. And technically I never directly called you anything. Any offence you may have experienced from that was self inferred.

Technically, I'm off scot free.

_Redzer_

JimiTime wrote: »

Race is not a choice, having sex is. You said so yourself:
"you can't decide who you're attracted to before choosing to have sex"

The fact that sex is an action is the very reason why comparing matters of sexual intercourse to race or gender is so ludicrous.

Sexual orientation is not the same as sexual intercourse. I keep making that distinction but you keep ignoring it and derailing it.

So tell me, what's the difference between discriminating against skin colour and sexual orientation -baring in mind that sexual orientation deals with which gender you're attracted to.

No mention of sex because that's a different argument. For example I had a fairly good idea I was gay before I had sex, you see, I understood and realised my attractions so I was better able to conclude my sexual orientation

JimiTime

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Tbh, I never called you a simpleton. I said that was such a simpleton post.

Attack the post, not the poster. And technically I never directly called you anything. Any offence you may have experienced from that was self inferred.

Technically, I'm off scot free.

No offence experienced here, though your 'technicality'? Come off it

Corkfeen

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, there was no need to announce that he is sexually attracted to men to his students in assembly. You spin it as 'he was honest enough', but really, the amount of times people go on about how a persons sexual habits are no-one elses business, yet you applaud a person who decides to announce it and make it into a big deal. However, the bigger issue is that he is looking to promote his sexual behaviour as acceptable. Now I understand that this is perfectly fine with those who agree with what he is promoting, but it is not ok for many, and the teacher knew this. It really does come down to the teacher using his position to promote his views to the children in his school. How would you feel if the teacher in your educate together school decided to use their position to promote Christianity?

He added: ‘I came out at school in an assembly after a group of 11-year-olds held up a poster they made headed “Gay is good”.

Yep,perfectly legitimate circumstances to come out under. Just because insufferably bigoted individuals view it to be unacceptable should not mean he should hide away when his students are more tolerant than many fully grown fools.

JimiTime wrote: »

Believe me, I acknowledge the unfortunate view that people of your view insist on calling God and all his followers bigots or whatever explicit names you choose. Even more unfortunate, is that many people still don't believe that LGBT activism will continue to turn its gaze towards people of faith and demand they assimilate to their views. The question is, what will be the punishment that you eventually demand for those who do not neglect God in favour of your views.

Curse them and their expectation to be viewed as the very normal people that they are.

JimiTime wrote: »

His sexual activity is irrelevant. If he has orgies nightly or is completely celibate it has no bearing. The issue is the promotion of homosexuality as perfectly fine and good. Like I said, that seems perfectly acceptable to those who agree with it, but there are many parents who do not want their childrens school being used as a platform to promote such an idea. Would you like to see primary schools being used to promote the idea that gay is not good?

Tolerance should be encouraged in schools. You've highlighted the need for tolerance in schools tbh when you are so obsessed with expecting a teacher to hide his orientation away while the students are being millions of times more tolerant than you.

JimiTime wrote: »

Race is not a choice, having sex is. You said so yourself:
"you can't decide who you're attracted to before choosing to have sex"

The fact that sex is an action is the very reason why comparing matters of sexual intercourse to race or gender is so ludicrous.

The method you encourage is to deny your sexual orientation,pretend your straight and marry a woman. You've claimed for an age that sleeping with someone of the same orientation is immoral but you can't show any reason for it being immoral besides the bible telling you so. One does not choose their sexual orientation,your method of reparative therapy or denial is far more damaging for a person. You'll now claim you don't have any major opinion on reparative therapy but you really do...

You find it to be more of an issue that a minor in certain states in America can't receive reparative therapy than a person being honest about their sexual orientation. If this is what you consider to be the moral backbone of Christianity,it's pretty damn warped. Thankfully,most that I know who call themselves Christians would not endorse such warped viewpoints on subjects.

robindch

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Tbh, I never called you a simpleton. I said that was such a simpleton post.

[...]

Technically, I'm off scot free.

"Simpleton" is a noun which describes a person, not an adjective which describes a quality, so it's completely reasonable to conclude that your post was insulting.

Technically, that's a cardable offence, so off your high-horse please and stick to the rules.

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

If people want to have sex with whatever, thats their prerogative. Thats not the issue. The issue is demanding that we all agree that its perfectly fine, and in the context here, insist that they teach our children that its perfectly fine. You will notice that the man in questions sexual behaviour is not my issue, but rather his insistance on preaching to children that its perfectly fine. I am fully aware that I live in a world of various views and beliefs, some I agree with, others I don't. Being a tolerant guy, I accept it. However, there is a difference between accepting that a teachers sexual preference is his business, and a teacher insisting on teaching pupils that his sexual behaviour is perfectly fine.

JimiTime wrote: »

His sexual activity is irrelevant. If he has orgies nightly or is completely celibate it has no bearing. The issue is the promotion of homosexuality as perfectly fine and good. Like I said, that seems perfectly acceptable to those who agree with it, but there are many parents who do not want their childrens school being used as a platform to promote such an idea. Would you like to see primary schools being used to promote the idea that gay is not good?

Why do you believe homosexuality is wrong?

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

More spin I see



And people still insist that gay marriage will just mean gay people will get married.

I don't understand the above. Do you think that people - presumably heterosexual - other than gay people, will avail of gay marriage, when they already have the right to marry in a church or civil registry office? How peculiar.

Edit:in your other post - to which I posted a question - included a mention of difference between a teachers sexual preferences and a teachers sexual practices, the second of which your post distinctly stated that the teacher was telling the pupils/children about. You specifically mentioned both his sexual preference and his sexual practice, do you stand by that?

I see you put up the question: would you like to see primary schools being used to promote the idea that gay sex is not ok? I find that question to be an oxymoron when posted in relation to a teacher being fired by his school for telling his pupils he's gay and (according to you) telling them about gay sex, practices you seem opposed to from your other posts, and that you seem to approve of the school's act in firing him
.
Please pardon me for my getting excited by JimiTime, I've got the bit between my teeth so I can type up question-responses.

PopePalpatine

Meanwhile, in the Land of the So Brave:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/07/linda-harvey-homeless-gay-teens-have-only-themselves-to-blame/

(credit to aloyisious for posting this in the Politics forum)

aloyisious

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Meanwhile, in the Land of the So Brave:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/07/linda-harvey-homeless-gay-teens-have-only-themselves-to-blame/

(credit to aloyisious for posting this in the Politics forum)

Woo.... reddner much

Bannasidhe

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Meanwhile, in the Land of the So Brave:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/07/linda-harvey-homeless-gay-teens-have-only-themselves-to-blame/

(credit to aloyisious for posting this in the Politics forum)

Just like it was all the fault of a close friend of mine that she ended up at being dragged to a psychiatrist aged 15 to be 'cured'.

Same woman is now aged 30 with a high powered job in the UK and about to 'Gay' marry her been together 8 years partner and her mother is wondering why she isn't invited..

old hippy

JimiTime wrote: »

Race is not a choice, having sex is. You said so yourself:
"you can't decide who you're attracted to before choosing to have sex"

The fact that sex is an action is the very reason why comparing matters of sexual intercourse to race or gender is so ludicrous.

Sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice.You're born that way. It's normal. Sexual intercourse, however, can be a behavioral choice. The only lifestyle choice is choosing to be out and comfortable with who you are, seeking equality and all that or choosing to stay in the closet.

Telling people that being gay is ok and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it is not promoting homosexuality. It's promoting equality.

gaynorvader

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Just like it was all the fault of a close friend of mine that she ended up at being dragged to a psychiatrist aged 15 to be 'cured'.

Same woman is now aged 30 with a high powered job in the UK and about to 'Gay' marry her been together 8 years partner and her mother is wondering why she isn't invited..

That's a sad story.

Delirium

old hippy wrote: »

Sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice.You're born that way. It's normal. Sexual intercourse, however, can be a behavioral choice. The only lifestyle choice is choosing to be out and comfortable with who you are, seeking equality and all that or choosing to stay in the closet.

Telling people that being gay is ok and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it is not promoting homosexuality. It's promoting equality.

That's the problem though. Some groups don't want homosexuals being considered equal in schools, be it as employees or a topic in a lesson.

Brian Shanahan

Just came across this game about our gay friend Vlad, from this article here.

Just one question, should we have a boardsies competition?

Links234

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Just came across this game about our gay friend Vlad, from this article here.

Just one question, should we have a boardsies competition?

http://www.putingaydressup.com/putin/32260

:pac:

Brian Shanahan

Links234 wrote: »

http://www.putingaydressup.com/putin/32260

:pac:

My attempt.

Delirium

South Carolina Senator Convinces University To Cancel Play, Says It Was ‘Recruiting’ Lesbians

South Carolina state Sen. Mike Fair (R), who believes homosexuality is “not normal,” has convinced the University of South Carolina Upstate to cancel a satirical one-woman show called, “How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less”:

FAIR: It’s just not normal and then you glorify, or it seems to me, that the promotion at USC is a glorification of same sex orientation… That’s not an explanation of ‘I was born this way.’ It’s recruiting.

That's right, a one-woman show about life as a lesbian is "recruiting". :rolleyes:

PopePalpatine

That's probably the seventh stupidest thing I've read in this thread today. The other 6...well, you can probably guess.

Obliq

Could not resist. http://www.putingaydressup.com/putin/32269

I went for a sensibly mainstream look with some added accessories. Couldn't get the right boots though, but I think the beard/tash suits him.

Obliq

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

My attempt.

Ooooh, I didn't spot the crocodile clips! My bad...

FouxDaFaFa

I mean, I would wear this. He think he looks stylish.

Obliq

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

I mean, I would wear this. He think he looks stylish.

Mmmm, yup. Funky green leggings!

Damn! I've missed the chihuahua this time. That's all my next attempt needed! (plus a better background) I'm actually just playing dress-up now....no attempt to ridicule made. Clearly didn't have enough dolls as a child
http://www.putingaydressup.com/putin/32277