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

JimiTime

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. I asked why you focused solely on LGBT rights when there are other examples of freedom of conscience vs personal liberties and civil rights. So far, you haven't responded.

The only one avoiding the subject matter is you.

Well I'm avoiding the topic fully in this thread not of my making. In case you missed my earlier post after my thread was moved here:

I'm not into the abomination that is the megathreads so I'm out. Feel free to delete, or you can leave it be for others.

Also, your post doesn't deal with the topic, but rather says there's more conflicts, and seems to take exception that all the examples I gave were in relation to LGBT rights conflicting. So rather than dealing with the subject, you seem to want to go down the 'Why are you picking on us' route. this is a rabbit hole that just tries take the discussion down a personal route. This may not be your intention, but I hope you see the issue. LGBT rights are very much in vogue in these times, even our own Tanaiste says as much, describing them as the human rights issue of our time. So its current, and has many examples to pick on. Don't take it personal, its more like current affairs.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

Unfortunately I'm a tarnished poster over yonder, if I enter the thread, it'll go to a bad place fast.Some posters follow me about like a bad smell there. To give you my full title over there, I'm The repressed homosexual, rampant homophopic, bigotted monster who believes homosexuals are child abusers, and that 5 year old children who display effeminate behaviour should be beaten. So I don't think my input would be welcome Mr P:) Thanks for the invite though.

I know exactly who, and what, you are. One can alway hope that a person will change, however.

MrP

NuMarvel

JimiTime wrote: »

Well I'm avoiding the topic fully in this thread not of my making. In case you missed my earlier post after my thread was moved here:

I'm not into the abomination that is the megathreads so I'm out. Feel free to delete, or you can leave it be for others.

I did see that post. But I also see that you're continuing to post about a topic you claim you're fully avoiding. If don't want to have anything to do with the topic, then I suggest you stop posting.

And in that spirit, I'll address the other part of your post when you make it clear if you're in or out.

Juza1973

endacl wrote: »

Society moves on. Do try to keep up. It might not be as scary as you imagine. If you can't keep up, at least try to have 'the serenity to accept the things you cannot change'. This might help you with the obsessional thoughts about other peoples bedrooms.

Maybe one day society will move in another direction, there is no law of nature that prevents that. Then maybe we will be requested to keep up and see gay dignity being negated without interfering. I will remind then to be serene with that and just go on with my life without interfering with my unrequested Christian opinion.

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

I know exactly who, and what, you are
MrP

Sure there you go. People don't seem to be able to help themselves when dealing with this topic. Its one of the things that makes me extremely suspicious about the whole thing. People seem to just want to shut down discussion with personal abuse. There is a great, great intolerance of any dissenting voice. More worryingly, is that most of you really don't seem to realise your appalling behaviour.

One can alway hope that a person will change, however.

You pay lip service to such a hope, but your actions defy your words. If I'm to give you the benefit of the doubt though, I'll give you this advice. Abusing people, misrepresenting them, lying about them etc, is not the greatest method to fulfil your alleged hope. In fact, I think what you actually do is actually the opposite of what you say you hope for. You will in fact drive some people to a more extreme view as you just appear as hateful and intolerant. Foaming at the mouth to verbally assault. Thankfully, I'm neither hateful or intolerant. Nor do I care what people do in their bedrooms (This is ironically an obsession of the folk who accuse me of it). I have concerns with where the LGBT agenda is going to bring us as a society however, and no matter how much you guys try to shout me down and lie and abuse, I shall not grow as hateful towards you as you are towards me, nor shall I cower in fear of the abhorrent, disingenuous labels you bestow on dissenters.

Apart from that, your post makes my point more than anything I could say in terms of the absolute waste of time engaging with you over yonder would be.

JimiTime

NuMarvel wrote: »

I did see that post. But I also see that you're continuing to post about a topic you claim you're fully avoiding. If don't want to have anything to do with the topic, then I suggest you stop posting.

And in that spirit, I'll address the other part of your post when you make it clear if you're in or out.

Actually, you'll find I'm addressing other things, like showing you how you are not actually dealing with the topic though you say you are. Consider it a public service

NuMarvel

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, you'll find I'm addressing other things, like showing you how you are not actually dealing with the topic though you say you are. Consider it a public service

So you instead want to make this a discussion on the discussion? No, thanks.

endacl

Juza1973 wrote: »

Maybe one day society will move in another direction, there is no law of nature that prevents that. Then maybe we will be requested to keep up and see gay dignity being negated without interfering. I will remind then to be serene with that and just go on with my life without interfering with my unrequested Christian opinion.

Hi Juza. I'll be doing as Jimitime says, not as he does on this one. This ain't the thread I posted in. Before I go, I'll respond to you though. Just good manners.

While there is an apparent logical consistency to your post above. I'll leave it to others to point out the flaws. I'll just remind you that there were gay people long before there were christians. And that there will be gay people long after christianity has given way to whatever comes after it. No matter what belief system people have held throughout history, the only constant has been people.

Juza1973

endacl wrote: »

While there is an apparent logical consistency to your post above. I'll leave it to others to point out the flaws. I'll just remind you that there were gay people long before there were christians. And that there will be gay people long after christianity has given way to whatever comes after it. No matter what belief system people have held throughout history, the only constant has been people.

That's a fact. There is people. And some of them are homosexual.

This does not imply anything.

Brown Bomber

Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/children-to-be-taught-39heterosexuality-not-the-norm39-in-australian-school

JimiTime

Below is a link to a rather famous (among activists) piece of homosexual literature fist published in 1987 about the agenda of desensitisation, vilification of dissenters and a whole lot more etc. Worth a read. Gotta hand it to them, its certainly worked/working.

http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm

28064212

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/children-to-be-taught-39heterosexuality-not-the-norm39-in-australian-school

Should they be taught that heterosexuality is the norm, and that if they're gay, they're not normal?

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

Should they be taught that heterosexuality is the norm, and that if they're gay, they're not normal?

No. Just because you are against schools indoctrinating children with homosexual activist groups' propaganda curriculum, doesn't mean that you are for vilifying homosexuals, or teaching that they are not normal.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

No. Just because you are against schools indoctrinating children with homosexual activist groups' propaganda curriculum, doesn't mean that you are for vilifying homosexuals, or teaching that they are not normal.

Quote: "Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project". Maybe BB meant it as a positive thing, but somehow I doubt it. The only alternative to being taught "heterosexuality not the norm" is "heterosexuality is the norm". Are you advocating the latter?

doctoremma

28064212 wrote: »

Quote: "Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project". Maybe BB meant it as a positive thing, but somehow I doubt it. The only alternative to being taught "heterosexuality not the norm" is "heterosexuality is the norm". Are you advocating the latter?

I really dislike use of the word "normal" to describe a group of people. It obviously has that undertone of anything else being abnormal (even if it's not vocalised explicitly). I don't think it's helpful to suggest that anyone in a minority is not "the norm" and I wish newspapers would choose their words more carefully.

If 1/10 people are gay, then 1/10 kid's books should feature a gay couple. If 2/10 people are Muslim, then 2/10 characters in kid's books should be Muslim. The less issue made about it, the less agenda pushing on either side, the more "normal" it will be to children to recognise that we aren't a homogeneous bunch of people.

Of course, I think pulling kids up on spiteful or inappropriate language is appropriate. I think promoting the idea that it doesn't matter whether you're black/white or straight/gay or [insert desired descriptor here] and that the world is made up of lots of different types of people, all worthy of equal respect is all fine. But I'm not sure that making such a major strategy about it is necessary.

Am I being naive? Or is this what's actually happening and the newspapers sensationalise it somewhat?

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/children-to-be-taught-39heterosexuality-not-the-norm39-in-australian-school

While I agree in with what they're trying to accomplish in principle, I think they're going about it the wrong way and perhaps going a bit overboard. Regardless of whether or not it's "normal", it is what the majority of people are, and there's no need to try and diminish that. I'd much rather see more emphasis on teaching children to respect other people's lifestyles and that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

Quote: "Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project". Maybe BB meant it as a positive thing, but somehow I doubt it. The only alternative to being taught "heterosexuality not the norm" is "heterosexuality is the norm". Are you advocating the latter?

I certainly wasn't taught that homosexuality was not normal, nor was I thought that heterosexuality was 'The Norm' and I had 3 years of sex and relationship education in a Catholic school, in both biology and religion class. I can't imagine how you would see it as either/or.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

I certainly wasn't taught that homosexuality was not normal, nor was I thought that heterosexuality was 'The Norm' and I had 3 years of sex and relationship education in a Catholic school, in both biology and religion class. I can't imagine how you would see it as either/or.

I don't see it as either/or. BB intimated that there was something wrong with teaching that heterosexuality is not the norm. That suggests that their view is that the correct way is to teach that heterosexuality is the norm. Hence the confused face

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

I certainly wasn't taught that homosexuality was not normal, nor was I thought that heterosexuality was 'The Norm' and I had 3 years of sex and relationship education in a Catholic school, in both biology and religion class. I can't imagine how you would see it as either/or.

Can I ask whether your school acknowledged the existence of homosexuality and, if so, what you were told (briefly)?

I attended a Catholic school and we never received any concerted lessons or teachings on sexuality. As far as I remember, it wasn't mentioned once in any lesson whatsoever. Anything I learned about homosexuality was via parents, informal chats with teachers, friends etc.

To be fair, I attended school before there were many books including gay people. Perhaps coming across such characters in books prompts questioning on the part of the pupil? And that's good thing, right?

Penn

I attended a Catholic primary school and Christian Brothers secondary school, and apart from a bit on the reproductive organs in Biology, I can't remember ever being taught any sort of sex or relationship education.

Then again, after third year when it stopped becoming an exam subject, religion became "Do your homework and don't make noise" class.

eviltwin

My now 15 yr old had a talk in her school in 6th class by Accord where they were told sex is between a man and a woman and everything else is wrong, this was printed in the literature they gave the kids to take home...now its not as strong a word as abnormal but it was enough for me to complain to the school along with other parents. My daughter is gay, I have gay friends, no one should be telling anyone of 12/13 that its wrong to be gay.

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

Can I ask whether your school acknowledged the existence of homosexuality and, if so, what you were told (briefly)?

Not that I recall. Biology, obviously dealt with the science of reproduction, so there was no homosexual context. The sex ed in religion class dealt with things like consequences, contraception, relationships, love, marriage etc.

To be fair, I attended school before there were many books including gay people. Perhaps coming across such characters in books prompts questioning on the part of the pupil? And that's good thing, right?

I'd say pupils today are more in tune with gay issues alright. As for it being a good thing, well curious minds asking questions is certainly to be encouraged. Pushing a gay propaganda curriculum on both teachers and children however, is most certainly objectionable.
As a non-catholic in a catholic school, religion was my favourite class, as it wasn't as shackled as most other classes. The fact that it wasn't about passing an exam I think led to a much more interesting class that allowed both the teacher and the pupil express themselves. English was probably the closest thing to it, but even English was shackled. Since my day, I believe religion is now an exam subject, which I think is a real shame.

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

Note: this answer is going to contain a lots of "you"s but it's not directed at YOU personally.

So how would you word the issue of homosexual acts and religious belief?

I favour the manner you've suggested - "Catholic people believe that homosexual acts are a sin" (of course, I wouldn't bring it up apropos of nothing). But that's speaking as an atheist.

If I were Catholic myself, I could probably sanction "I believe that homosexual acts are a sin". After all, I do have beliefs (albeit not religious) and would be happy to convey them honestly to anyone who asked.

What I simply cannot think appropriate is teaching "Homosexual acts are a sin", as if it were a statement of universal truth. I understand you might well believe it to be a universal truth but don't you have a duty to your child, who may be struggling with their sexual identity, to at least be tactful about it? Forgetting even if it's "proper" or "allowed by the State" or whatever, making such a bald statement has the power to hurt someone, especially those younger than you, who view you as the ultimate authority of the world.

I think that by teaching your child "homosexual acts are sinful and will be punished", when you know that your child will believe you with few (if any) questions, is nothing other than indoctrination. You might be doing your duty - in most cases, it's your right to do so - but it shouldn't be forgotten that this statement represents YOUR belief and YOUR belief only. As such, you are almost lying to your child if you don't acknowledge this?

TBH, I wouldn't get into the topic of homosexuality with my children unless asked by them, and what I said would depend on the question and its context.

e_e

JimiTime wrote: »

Pushing a gay propaganda curriculum on both teachers and children however, is most certainly objectionable.

What do you define as propaganda? Just acknowledging that gay people exist and are not to be marginalized for what they are?

Brown Bomber

28064212 wrote: »

I don't see it as either/or. BB intimated that there was something wrong with teaching that heterosexuality is not the norm. That suggests that their view is that the correct way is to teach that heterosexuality is the norm. Hence the confused face

Heterosexuality is the norm. FWIW my views generally mirror Penn's here so no need to re-state.

On a personal level I am glad that these kind of views weren't pushed into my consciousness as a teen. In my mid-teens in the 90's I was big into the drug scene as were a lot of homosexual men and my path would converge with theirs in parties etc more often than not.

I was then an awkward, boyish looking 15-year-old who looked a lot younger who was at these parties off my head on drugs and alcohol. I was propositioned on numerous occasions by predaratory middle-aged to elderly gay men at these parties in very direct and sometimes aggressive manners.

I hate to imagine what might have happened if I was left under the impression that their behaviour was somehow normal because of what I was thought at school.

nozzferrahhtoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I was then an awkward, boyish looking 15-year-old who looked a lot younger who was at these parties off my head on drugs and alcohol. I was propositioned on numerous occasions by predaratory middle-aged to elderly gay men at these parties in very direct and sometimes aggressive manners.

I hate to imagine what might have happened if I was left under the impression that their behaviour was somehow normal because of what I was thought at school.

Had you however been a girlish looking 15 year old girl who looked a lot younger who was at those parties off your head on drugs and alcohol you may very well have been propositioned on numerous occasions by predatory middle-aged to elderly straight men in very direct and sometimes aggressive manners.

Alas gay men far from have a monopoly on being predatory towards vulnerable people who fit into their sexual tastes and very little anyone is taught, or not taught, in our schools is going to change that fact any time soon If girls experiencing that are taught heterosexuality is the norm, I am not sure how you being taught homosexuality was normal would have changed much in regards your experience or how it affected you.

Sin City

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Heterosexuality is the norm. FWIW my views generally mirror Penn's here so no need to re-state.

On a personal level I am glad that these kind of views weren't pushed into my consciousness as a teen. In my mid-teens in the 90's I was big into the drug scene as were a lot of homosexual men and my path would converge with theirs in parties etc more often than not.

I was then an awkward, boyish looking 15-year-old who looked a lot younger who was at these parties off my head on drugs and alcohol. I was propositioned on numerous occasions by predaratory middle-aged to elderly gay men at these parties in very direct and sometimes aggressive manners.

I hate to imagine what might have happened if I was left under the impression that their behaviour was somehow normal because of what I was thought at school.

Surely you weretaught informed that drugs were bad and you still went and did them .

Secondly you met these men while at drug parties, so lets just assume that most of the attendies would be fairly shady charecters

Hetrosexuals can be preditory too, its not a homosexual trait.

That behaviour wasnt normal by most people standards, you just met with pervs and peadoes who just happened to be homosexuals

Sin City

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Mod note: Just to warn people, if you wish to discuss homosexuality specifically, the place to do that is the megathread. This thread is about the children's referendum, and the conflict (if any) between the provisions of this referendum and religious freedom. While there is no problem in mentioning homosexuality in connection with the this, let's not make this thread about that issue specifically.

Is this not the mega thread? (It said it is on the title)

Benny_Cake

Sin City wrote: »

Is this not the mega thread? (It said it is on the title)

Yes, it is. Which goes to show the limitations of using boards on a phone, especially when the user in question is having one of those days. I'll repost on the correct thread (makes embarrassed retreat)..

Work away, everyone!

28064212

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Heterosexuality is the norm. FWIW my views generally mirror Penn's here so no need to re-state.

What does "the norm" mean, in your opinion? Are homosexuals abnormal?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

On a personal level I am glad that these kind of views weren't pushed into my consciousness as a teen. In my mid-teens in the 90's I was big into the drug scene as were a lot of homosexual men and my path would converge with theirs in parties etc more often than not.

I was then an awkward, boyish looking 15-year-old who looked a lot younger who was at these parties off my head on drugs and alcohol. I was propositioned on numerous occasions by predaratory middle-aged to elderly gay men at these parties in very direct and sometimes aggressive manners.

I hate to imagine what might have happened if I was left under the impression that their behaviour was somehow normal because of what I was thought at school.

That's some remarkably bizarre reasoning. Is teaching heterosexuality as the norm responsible for statutory rape?