The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

aloyisious

I don't know if anyone's seen the Christian "Not Alone" video: https://youtu.be/I6PPk2NOQXs. I can only hope the people in it don't realise how silly they appear with the script they are reading. This mimicking others won't be taken as a reverse compliment, just an hypocritical insult.

Otheres have rapidly made and posted a parody version as well: https://youtu.be/h1UxAH9FMY0

tommy2bad

Being blunt or if you prefer, telling the truth with love, the video is a mess. I'd go as far as offensive.
Once you have to qualify you message with " a lot of my friends are..." you should have enough cop on to just hit delete.
What were they hoping to achieve? Some kind of victim status? Because welcoming, inclusive or in any way other than offensive is not what this video exudes.
Fail!

Greaney

Is this a joke??

I was driving to work yesterday listening to the radio....

Lesbian Peppa Pig?

jobbridge4life

Greaney wrote: »

Is this a joke??

I was driving to work yesterday listening to the radio....

Lesbian Peppa Pig?

What do you find funny about it?

aloyisious

Greaney wrote: »

Is this a joke??

I was driving to work yesterday listening to the radio....

Lesbian Peppa Pig?

Apparently not. The out TD Gerry Buttimer reportedly made a comment yesterday (picked up by some media hawk) that it would be good for use to let school children know about other children/children being gay.

antiskeptic

For the sake of argument let's assume that:

a) God prohibits gay marriage

b) God prohibits discrimination (overt/conscious, covert/unconscious) experienced by gays (although a society prohibiting gay marriage wouldn't be seen by God as discriminating given a) above).

Could permitting gay marriage, as a way of normalizing gayness (in the sense of increasing acceptance of gays by society, leading to reduced general discrimination) be seen by God as the lesser of two 'evils'?

Greaney

Since this is in the Christian section I guess you want a biblical answer? I'll give it a go.


Romans 3 v 23
..'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'

God doesn't 'rank' sin, man does.

Now this I used to find this quiet challenging before I became a believer, because gossip, sexual sin, and boasting are all seen as equally wrong....

Romans 1:26-32New International Version (NIV)

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


Basically that's why Jesus sacrifice is so key to the entire Christian belief system, this is the kind of stuff we ALL get up to, we ALL need to be forgiven. We are saved by Grace, not Works

antiskeptic

Greaney wrote: »

Since this is in the Christian section I guess you want a biblical answer? I'll give it a go.


Romans 3 v 23
..'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'

God doesn't 'rank' sin, man does.

The link is the first article Googled under "which is the greater sin". It starts out with Jesus telling sinful Pilate (who was condemning a man he reckoned to be innocent) that "He who delivers me unto you has the greater sin" (John 19:11) and goes on to detail many other occasions of sin ranking.

So I'd disagree with you on that front.

Now this I used to find this quiet challenging before I became a believer, because gossip, sexual sin, and boasting are all seen as equally wrong....

Not equally wrong (at least not stated as being equally wrong) but wrong in the sense of belonging to the same category. Adultery (actual) is an example from the stable of adulterous possibilities. Adultery (lusting after, but not actually acting on the lust, a neighbours wife) belongs to the same stable. The former is eminently more damaging than the latter.

I'm not quite sure (in an economy where there is greater or lesser heavenly reward) how Hitler's (assuming he wasn't saved) condemnation wouldn't exceed that of someone with less on their .. er.. account.

Romans 1:26-32New International Version (NIV)

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


Basically that's why Jesus sacrifice is so key to the entire Christian belief system, this is the kind of stuff we ALL get up to, we ALL need to be forgiven. We are saved by Grace, not Works

I'm not sure how this answers the question asked.

Overheal

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

For the sake of argument let's assume that:

a) God prohibits gay marriage

b) God prohibits discrimination (overt/conscious, covert/unconscious) experienced by gays (although a society prohibiting gay marriage wouldn't be seen by God as discriminating given a) above).

Could permitting gay marriage, as a way of normalizing gayness (in the sense of increasing acceptance of gays by society, leading to reduced general discrimination) be seen by God as the lesser of two 'evils'?

Well, there is an analogy with prostitution. (Again, run with this for the sake of argument. I am not equating homosexuality and prostitution.)

In general, the Christian tradition condemns prostitution.

But lots of explicitly Christian societies have legalised, regulated, etc prostituion as a way of mitigating its evil consequences.

It's fair to say that there have always been divided opinions within Christianity about this, some arguing that controlling prostitution is the best way of minimising its evil, and others arguing that because of its intrinsic immorality any kind of endorsement or ligitimation works to magnify its evil. So I think you could say that both of these are authentic Christian perspectives, even though they are irreconcilable. As a crude generalisation, the "legalisation is best" opinion is more likely to be held by Catholic moralists, the opposite opinion by Protestants. But there are many exceptions on both sides.

So, is it possible to take the view that (a) homosexual relationships are inherently immoral, but (b) nevertheless it is permissible, or even required, for the state to recognise them? Yes, it absolutely is. In fact, I seem to recall a Catholic bishop (sorry, no names are springing to mind) arguing in favour of legislation for civil partnerships precisely on the grounds that they were a requirement of justice.

White man speak with forked tongue, you might think. He said it was a requirement of justice, but was his attitude to civil partnerships really motivated by the hope that they would help to hold the line against yer actual full-blooded gay marriage? Well, that would be an unworthy and uncharitable suspicion. And, in the present context, irrelevant. The very fact that a bishop would publicly advance a justice-based argument for the recognition of same-sex civil partnerships and not have the Vatican drop a planeload of bricks on him shows that the argument is, indeed, compatible with Christianity.

OK. If justice requires the official, administrative recognition of and support for committed conjugal same-sex relationships, I can't see an argument for saying that this must be done under the name "civil partnership" and may not be done under the name "marriage". After all, the state already assigns the name "marriage" to relationships which are not, in the view of Christians or of certain Christians, marriages at all. You might take the view that using the name "marriage" isn't the optimal way to recognise same-sex relationships, but it's certainly a way of doing what, it is already conceded, justice requires to be done.

So, yes, it seems to me that it's possible to make a credible Christian argument for the acceptance of civil gay marriage. And I'd go further; you could make the argument that civil recognition of same-sex conjugal relationships under some name is morally required.

This wouldn't be a "lesser of two evils" argument, though. In so far as it's a response to the demands of justice it's an argument from positive good.

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, there is an analogy with prostitution. (Again, run with this for the sake of argument. I am not equating homosexuality and prostitution.)

In general, the Christian tradition condemns prostitution.

But lots of explicitly Christian societies have legalised, regulated, etc prostituion as a way of mitigating its evil consequences.

It's fair to say that there have always been divided opinions within Christianity about this, some arguing that controlling prostitution is the best way of minimising its evil, and others arguing that because of its intrinsic immorality any kind of endorsement or ligitimation works to magnify its evil. So I think you could say that both of these are authentic Christian perspectives, even though they are irreconcilable. As a crude generalisation, the "legalisation is best" opinion is more likely to be held by Catholic moralists, the opposite opinion by Protestants. But there are many exceptions on both sides.

So, is it possible to take the view that (a) homosexual relationships are inherently immoral, but (b) nevertheless it is permissible, or even required, for the state to recognise them? Yes, it absolutely is. In fact, I seem to recall a Catholic bishop (sorry, no names are springing to mind) arguing in favour of legislation for civil partnerships precisely on the grounds that they were a requirement of justice.

White man speak with forked tongue, you might think. He said it was a requirement of justice, but was his attitude to civil partnerships really motivated by the hope that they would help to hold the line against yer actual full-blooded gay marriage? Well, that would be an unworthy and uncharitable suspicion. And, in the present context, irrelevant. The very fact that a bishop would publicly advance a justice-based argument for the recognition of same-sex civil partnerships and not have the Vatican drop a planeload of bricks on him shows that the argument is, indeed, compatible with Christianity.

OK. If justice requires the official, administrative recognition of and support for committed conjugal same-sex relationships, I can't see an argument for saying that this must be done under the name "civil partnership" and may not be done under the name "marriage". After all, the state already assigns the name "marriage" to relationships which are not, in the view of Christians or of certain Christians, marriages at all. You might take the view that using the name "marriage" isn't the optimal way to recognise same-sex relationships, but it's certainly a way of doing what, it is already conceded, justice requires to be done.

So, yes, it seems to me that it's possible to make a credible Christian argument for the acceptance of civil gay marriage. And I'd go further; you could make the argument that civil recognition of same-sex conjugal relationships under some name is morally required.

This wouldn't be a "lesser of two evils" argument, though. In so far as it's a response to the demands of justice it's an argument from positive good.

What was the argument from justice that the bishop put forth?

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

What was the argument from justice that the bishop put forth?

Sorry, I'm a bit vague on this; it was a few years about that I read about it. My memory is of either an Irish or a US bishop, but a bit of googling brings up this piece about (then) Archbishop (of Birmingham) Vincent Nicholls. This may be what I was half-recalling, or it may be that more than one bishop has addressed this.

The piece I have linked to is an opinion piece by William Oddie, seeking to clarify the implications of Nicholls' remarks. It contains a link through to the remarks themselves but, sadly, that link is dead, so all I've found so far are the bits that Oddie quotes. But they include:

"We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision… As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life. The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give . . ."

Then there's this report of further comments by Nicholls, made following a reaction to his first comments. In this report, he's quoted as saying:

The [English] bishops have tried “to recognize the reality of the legal provision in our country of an agreement, a partnership, with many of the same legal safeguards as in marriage.” He further explained that while the bishops recognize the existence of civil partnerships, they also “believe that that is sufficient,” and that they should not be placed on par with marriage.

“Clearly, respect must be shown to those who in the situation in England use a civil partnership to bring stability to a relationship,” the archbishop said, qualifying that while “equality is very important and there should be no unjust discrimination,” that “commitment plus equality do not equal marriage.”

Right. All he is doing here is "respecting" the existence of civil partnerships, not asserting that they are required. But he does assert that civil partnership is "sufficient", indicating I think that there is some requirement for a legal framework or recognition; otherwise what could "sufficient" refer to?

To be honest, I found this by googling; I think it was in fact a different bishop that I was remembering earlier. But I hope it's some help.

Peregrinus

Further on that, this page, although from Thinking Anglicans, has a link to a statement from the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales. The statement mainly addressed the question of whether, now that the UK has gay marriage, existing civil partnerships should be automatically "upgraded" to marriage, or whether this should only happen if the partners choose it. (The bishops think they should not be upgraded automatically.) It includes the following:

"In terms of the Equality Act framework, it is important that those who share the protected characteristics of sexuality and religion continue to be able to manifest their religious beliefs whilst not being denied the legal protections that are offered by a civil partnership . . ."

"As explained above the continued legal right of lesbian and gay couples to enter into civil partnerships is important to them. Preventing new civil partnerships from being entered would deny them those rights and provide little or no benefit elsewhere."

So, though it doesn't directly address the question, again you have material there for a rights-based argument for legal recognition of same-sex relations that the bishops evidently take seriously.

Black Menorca

The homosexualising of Western society has gone to such extremes.

A strong young man is put to the back of the bus for the Gay man.

In jobs, wishing to provide for his family, he's second class citizen to the Gay man who is king.

Political Correct Liberalism is supreme and its war on traditional, noble family values has brought the straight man to his knees, where he sees the only way he can advance or have a shot in life is to decide to turn gay.

We should hang our heads in shame.

The Randy Riverbeast

Wat?

katydid

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Wat?

Let him have his rant. Obviously he needs to get it out of his system.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

The homosexualising of Western society has gone to such extremes.

Really? Countries deciding that homosexuals should be equal under law is 'extreme'?

A strong young man is put to the back of the bus for the Gay man.

In jobs, wishing to provide for his family, he's second class citizen to the Gay man who is king.

Homophobic nonsense, and I say that a not-so young heterosexual male.

Political Correct Liberalism is supreme and its war on traditional, noble family values has brought the straight man to his knees, where he sees the only way he can advance or have a shot in life is to decide to turn gay.

had to deactivate an addin to read that as posted. With regards to your 'decide to turn gay' comment, what length of time did you 'turn gay' to advance yourself? Or was it just a stupid comment about homosexual men? That they use some sort of 'gay activation mode' that puts them at increased risk of being assault if they should hold their boyfriends hand or kiss him in public. Not something the average heterosexual male has to concern himself with.

The Randy Riverbeast

katydid wrote: »

Let him have his rant. Obviously he needs to get it out of his system.

It can be stressful to have to lose out on a job and then the guy takes the only free seat left on the bus.

Keep looking BM. I'm sure you'll get a job soon and then you can buy a car.

Black Menorca

The heterosexual male is the biggest threat to the Liberal strategy of destroying the family.

Target the young male, discriminate against him in all aspects of his life in favour of the gay lifestyle choice, and he is broken.

Left with the only conclusion that if he is to progress, he has to turn gay.

The Randy Riverbeast

Black Menorca wrote: »

The heterosexual male is the biggest threat to the Liberal strategy of destroying the family.

Target the young male, discriminate against him in all aspects of his life in favour of the gay lifestyle choice, and he is broken.

Left with the only conclusion that if he is to progress, he has to turn gay.

Would these families being destroyed be the same ones people attempted to prevent existing by voting no?

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

The heterosexual male is the biggest threat to the Liberal strategy of destroying the family.

Target the young male, discriminate against him in all aspects of his life in favour of the gay lifestyle choice, and he is broken.

Left with the only conclusion that if he is to progress, he has to turn gay.

Have you any examples of where young men are asked if they are homsexual/bisexual/heterosexual as part of a job interviews? I imagine you don't, so I'd love to know how young men (which incidentally includes homosexual men) are being passed over in favour of homsexual men??

katydid

Delirium wrote: »

Have you any examples of where young men are asked if they are homsexual/bisexual/heterosexual as part of a job interviews? I imagine you don't, so I'd love to know how young men (which incidentally includes homosexual men) are being passed over in favour of homsexual men??

Just ignore him, he's on an irrational rant.

marienbad

Black Menorca wrote: »

The heterosexual male is the biggest threat to the Liberal strategy of destroying the family.

Target the young male, discriminate against him in all aspects of his life in favour of the gay lifestyle choice, and he is broken.

Left with the only conclusion that if he is to progress, he has to turn gay.

You lost, get over it.

PopePalpatine

katydid wrote: »

Just ignore him, he's on an irrational rant.

Salt is tasty, don't you agree?

katydid

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Salt is tasty, don't you agree?

?

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

The heterosexual male is the biggest threat to the Liberal strategy of destroying the family.

Target the young male, discriminate against him in all aspects of his life in favour of the gay lifestyle choice, and he is broken.

Left with the only conclusion that if he is to progress, he has to turn gay.

What about gay women? They're ok, right?

MrPudding

Delirium wrote: »

Have you any examples of where young men are asked if they are homsexual/bisexual/heterosexual as part of a job interviews? I imagine you don't, so I'd love to know how young men (which incidentally includes homosexual men) are being passed over in favour of homsexual men??

I suspect initially we will begin to see job interviews taking place in very long rooms. The interviewee will enter the room at the opposite end to the table where the panel will be and will have to walk all the way across the room. Initial assessment will be on mincing and general fabulousness. Stage two of this, according to a super secret Gay Agenda (tm) memo I managed to get a hold of, is that ALL job interviews, irrespective of the industry or position, will be carried out by the panel from Britain and Ireland's Next Top Model.

MrP

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

What about gay women? They're ok, right?

The target of the anti-family agenda is men. Force them to turn them gay and watch the family unit crumble.

umop apisdn

MrPudding wrote: »

I suspect initially we will begin to see job interviews taking place in very long rooms. The interviewee will enter the room at the opposite end to the table where the panel will be and will have to walk all the way across the room. Initial assessment will be on mincing and general fabulousness. Stage two of this, according to a super secret Gay Agenda (tm) memo I managed to get a hold of, is that ALL job interviews, irrespective of the industry or position, will be carried out by the panel from Britain and Ireland's Next Top Model.

MrP

You're so moneysupermaket.com

marienbad

Black Menorca wrote: »

The target of the anti-family agenda is men. Force them to turn them gay and watch the family unit crumble.

Do you really believe this ? How is it possible to be an educated adult and believe such hokum ?