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

digger58

The stance I take is my opinion, MINE, not yours thankfully, we still have the right to state this, I am not trying to impose my views or opinions on anybody merely discuss them. I have never stated or intimated that homosexuals abuse children but what happened in the past and has been proven cannot be denied. Do you state that the abusers were not homosexual, only frustrated? Am I to understand that we have a group here that want all society to embrace gay behavior, indeed to teach it as normal and natural in school as well, we put enough ideas into children's heads without this.

Bannasidhe

digger58 wrote: »

The stance I take is my opinion, MINE, not yours thankfully, we still have the right to state this, I am not trying to impose my views or opinions on anybody merely discuss them. I have never stated or intimated that homosexuals abuse children but what happened in the past and has been proven cannot be denied. Do you state that the abusers were not homosexual, only frustrated? Am I to understand that we have a group here that want all society to embrace gay behavior, indeed to teach it as normal and natural in school as well, we put enough ideas into children's heads without this.

I am not trying to impose my views or opinions on anybody merely discuss them...I have never stated or intimated that homosexuals abuse children but what happened in the past and has been proven cannot be denied...want all society to embrace gay behavior, indeed to teach it as normal and natural in school as well, we put enough ideas into children's heads without this...

You are not 'discussing' anything you are making declarative statements of an offensive nature.

28064212

digger58 wrote: »

I have never stated or intimated that homosexuals abuse children but what happened in the past and has been proven cannot be denied.

To repeat: "What does paedophilia have to do with homosexuality? Why did you introduce the topic to this thread? There's hundreds of threads on the topic on Boards if you want to discuss paedophilia."

digger58 wrote: »

Do you state that the abusers were not homosexual, only frustrated?

I state that the abusers were abusers.

digger58 wrote: »

Am I to understand that we have a group here that want all society to embrace gay behavior, indeed to teach it as normal and natural in school as well, we put enough ideas into children's heads without this.

"Embrace" it? Not particularly. Acknowledge that it is a fact, that there is nothing wrong with it, that it happens, that children are not abnormal for having gay feelings? Yes, that is what I want to happen.

And since you seemed to have missed these questions from my last post, I'll repeat them. See if you're capable of answering them: What makes it not natural? Why is it less natural than, say, you sending digital bits around a worldwide network in a matter of seconds? Or moving a 3 ton metal box through means of an internal combustion engine using the remains of long dead animals? If you can't answer that question, your "not natural" refrain is utter, utter nonsense

NuMarvel

digger58 wrote: »

The stance I take is my opinion, MINE, not yours thankfully, we still have the right to state this, I am not trying to impose my views or opinions on anybody merely discuss them. I have never stated or intimated that homosexuals abuse children but what happened in the past and has been proven cannot be denied. Do you state that the abusers were not homosexual, only frustrated? Am I to understand that we have a group here that want all society to embrace gay behavior, indeed to teach it as normal and natural in school as well, we put enough ideas into children's heads without this.

What about the children who have it in their head that being gay isn't natural? What about the kids who attempt suicide because people like you tell them being gay isn't natural, isn't normal, and who think their families and their friends will reject them if they try to accept who they are?

Don't you dare use children as pawns to justify your phobias and prejudices. That make you no better than the abusers you scorn.

Silvio.Dante

NuMarvel wrote: »

Don't you dare use children as pawns to justify your phobias and prejudices. That make you no better than the abusers you scorn.

Yet more hysterical language...:rolleyes:

philologos

28064212 wrote: »

Well... yes... that is the purpose and function of legislation.

To be used to stifle the freedom of religion? Interesting point of view. I thought legislation was to ensure order and protection for all people in society irrespective of their religious beliefs. Or has this fallen out of the window now too.

Other people that believe in a different God (or the same one with a different interpretation) believe that this is God's work, what He wants to happen, and part of His divine will. Yet others think that we should all be leaving in Puritan enclaves. Which is one of the many reasons God has no place in civil legislation

I'm not going to say much more than obviously I believe there's only one God.

If you want to argue this more in depth go to the other megathread.

All I've said regarding law is that faith groups should be protected. That legislation doesn't do this.

Expect lots of unjust legal disputes going forward.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Expect lots of unjust legal disputes going forward.

I'm sure many members of the gay community have a lot of stories about being treated unjustly over the years.

What's with the persecution complex?

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

I'm sure many members of the gay community have a lot of stories about being treated unjustly over the years.

What's with the persecution complex?

It's not a persecution complex. Its a logical result of passing a bill without sufficient conscience clauses for those who disagree.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

It's not a persecution complex. Its a logical result of passing a bill without sufficient conscience clauses for those who disagree.

Why should a state employee be allowed to opt out of performing a function of his or her job as a state employee on state property? There's nothing logical about letting people pick and choose which aspects of their jobs they can decide to opt out of. I'd get short shrift from my employer, who happens to be the Irish state, if I decided my 'conscience' conflicted with my job requirements. If I feared for my immortal soul or salvation or whatever, I'd find a job more in line with my 'conscience' and let people who don't want to be allowed to discriminate in their line of work to do the job. What would your employer say if you informed it that you could no longer comply with the job requirements because of something your 'conscience' was telling you?

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

Why should a state employee be allowed to opt out of performing a function of his or her job as a state employee on state property . . .

Well, we're going round in circles here - nothing new for this thread, alas - but I think there's a legitimate question to be asked when an employer changes the nature of the job after the employee is in post. Obviously employers have to have the flexibility to do this but, equally obviously, it's not unreasonable to suggest that they pay some regard to the effects on employees in post.

An employer should try to avoid making a change in the job, the result of which will be that existing employees must either resign, face disciplinary proceedings, or do violence to their consciences. I think it's legitimate to expect employers to accommodate the consciences of their employees where this is feasible, and if (as I suspect) only a minority of employees have a problem with the new requirements, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of humanity to devise an arrangement which assures gay people of the right to marry, while affording existing registrars the option of not celebrating those particular marriages, if they really don't want to.

Just to be clear, I'm not personally sympathetic to the registrars who might have such an objection. But we all have an interest in defending freedom of conscience, and my commitment to freedom of conscience doesn't mean very much if it only extends to people whose consciences happen to be aligned with mine.

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, we're going round in circles here - nothing new for this thread, alas - but I think there's a legitimate question to be asked when an employer changes the nature of the job after the employee is in post. Obviously employers have to have the flexibility to do this but, equally obviously, it's not unreasonable to suggest that they pay some regard to the effects on employees in post.

An employer should try to avoid making a change in the job, the result of which will be that existing employees must either resign, face disciplinary proceedings, or do violence to their consciences. I think it's legitimate to expect employers to accommodate the consciences of their employees where this is feasible, and if (as I suspect) only a minority of employees have a problem with the new requirements, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of humanity to devise an arrangement which assures gay people of the right to marry, while affording existing registrars the option of not celebrating those particular marriages, if they really don't want to.

Just to be clear, I'm not personally sympathetic to the registrars who might have such an objection. But we all have an interest in defending freedom of conscience, and my commitment to freedom of conscience doesn't mean very much if it only extends to people whose consciences happen to be aligned with mine.

What if the employee suddenly decides a previous part of the job can no longer be performed by him or her as he or she has converted to a new religion? How accommodating should the State as an employer be when allowing people to refuse to carry out new duties because of their 'conscience'?

NuMarvel

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Yet more hysterical language...:rolleyes:

If having a genuine concern for the welfare of children makes one hysterical, then that's a label I'll happily wear. Better that than being hypocritical like Digger by claiming to be concerned for children, when in reality his way has done, and continues to do, more harm than good.

philologos wrote: »

To be used to stifle the freedom of religion? Interesting point of view. I thought legislation was to ensure order and protection for all people in society irrespective of their religious beliefs. Or has this fallen out of the window now too.

You and everyone else will have the same freedom of religion when this comes into law as you do now. I think the problem is that you believe those rights are currently unlimited, which they are not. UK courts have already put boundaries on those rights, and not just in the area of sexuality or marriage either.

philologos

NuMarvel wrote: »

You and everyone else will have the same freedom of religion when this comes into law as you do now. I think the problem is that you believe those rights are currently unlimited, which they are not. UK courts have already put boundaries on those rights, and not just in the area of sexuality or marriage either.

I've read the whole legislation. If you want to join me and show me where protections exist for chaplains, teachers, foster carers, adoptive parents, and parents who disagree with redefining marriage please show me.

If you can't find it there, then my position is justified.

lazygal: if one is in Christ ultimately being any of the above will not threaten their salvation. That is assured and secure if they have accepted the Gospel.

NuMarvel

philologos wrote: »

I've read the whole legislation. If you want to join me and show me where protections exist for chaplains, teachers, foster carers, adoptive parents, and parents who disagree with redefining marriage please show me.

If you can't find it there, then my position is justified.

Can you show me where these protections already exist in UK law? Marriage has already been redefined from the Church's definition, so surely these protections have already been set out in law?

Zombrex

digger58 wrote: »

Zombrex you are at it again, I DID not say blonde hair was unnatural, You were selective in what you quoted of my post, be adult and put in the FULL post in future if you wish to comment on it, Is a bleached blonde a natural blonde? I submit not, please expand

Why did you say that? We are talking about phenotypes occurring in nature. I said saying homosexuality is unnatural is as nonsensical as saying blonde hair is unnatural. Obviously that refers to blonde hair as a phenotype.

What possible point could you think you are making by saying that some people bleach their hair?

Again you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, with no point or reason. You clearly don't understand how biology works if you think bleaching your hair is the same as being naturally blonde.

philologos

NuMarvel wrote: »

Can you show me where these protections already exist in UK law? Marriage has already been redefined from the Church's definition, so surely these protections have already been set out in law?

Considering that marriage has been regarded as the union between a man and a woman it hasn't been an issue. Now it will become one.

In the absence if clear conscience clauses in the legislation the assurances that you linked to are empty. Considering that David Cameron lied in 2010 by saying he wouldn't redefine marriage in the current Government needless to say there's not much I can trust now. Either way I think living by Christian principles and accepting whatever consequences come is probably the best course of action.

I'm not specifically referring to one church by the by.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Considering that marriage has been regarded as the union between a man and a woman it hasn't been an issue. Now it will become one.

In the absence if clear conscience clauses in the legislation the assurances that you linked to are empty. Considering that David Cameron lied in 2010 by saying he wouldn't redefine marriage in the current Government needless to say there's not much I can trust now. Either way I think living by Christian principles and accepting whatever consequences come is probably the best course of action.

I'm not specifically referring to one church by the by.

By the by what other laws allow Christians to opt out of their duties as state employees?

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, we're going round in circles here - nothing new for this thread, alas - but I think there's a legitimate question to be asked when an employer changes the nature of the job after the employee is in post. Obviously employers have to have the flexibility to do this but, equally obviously, it's not unreasonable to suggest that they pay some regard to the effects on employees in post.

An employer should try to avoid making a change in the job, the result of which will be that existing employees must either resign, face disciplinary proceedings, or do violence to their consciences. I think it's legitimate to expect employers to accommodate the consciences of their employees where this is feasible, and if (as I suspect) only a minority of employees have a problem with the new requirements, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of humanity to devise an arrangement which assures gay people of the right to marry, while affording existing registrars the option of not celebrating those particular marriages, if they really don't want to.

Just to be clear, I'm not personally sympathetic to the registrars who might have such an objection. But we all have an interest in defending freedom of conscience, and my commitment to freedom of conscience doesn't mean very much if it only extends to people whose consciences happen to be aligned with mine.

Those issues are normally effected by how much sympathy one has for the issue of conscience.

For example, I think many would be sympathetic if an employee was required to say serve tea to a war criminal because they are staying in a hotel they work at. Or if they are asked to dissect the brain of a monkey.

The issue here is that I frankly don't think many have that sympathy with the Christian position, at least not to the point that people feel they should stop doing their jobs. Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, it is not the same as objecting to something like the examples above.

If anything this thread demonstrates how difficult it is even for Christians to come up with coherent objections. It comes across as simple bigotry. No one would have sympathy with someone who refused to serve black people in their job because of "objection of conscience", and refusing homosexuals comes across as equally petty and pandering to bigotry.

Or to put it another way, I think the state is probably just going to tell public servants to get over it.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Considering that marriage has been regarded as the union between a man and a woman it hasn't been an issue. Now it will become one.

In the absence if clear conscience clauses in the legislation the assurances that you linked to are empty. Considering that David Cameron lied in 2010 by saying he wouldn't redefine marriage in the current Government needless to say there's not much I can trust now. Either way I think living by Christian principles and accepting whatever consequences come is probably the best course of action.

I'm not specifically referring to one church by the by.

By the by which state employees are entitled to refuse to perform state mandated duties of their employment and under which legislation?

Links234

philologos wrote: »

It's not a persecution complex. Its a logical result of passing a bill without sufficient conscience clauses for those who disagree.

Oh stop with this "disagree" rubbish, it's a complete red herring!

what you're after is special rights so that people can get away with flat out discrimination, so that people don't have to do their jobs if they don't feel like interacting with a person or persons they don't like

it's like those depraved "licence to bully" laws that were proposed in America where they outline that it wouldn't restrict statements of "sincerely held religious beliefs or moral conviction", so that students and even teachers get a free pass to bully, abuse, torment and harass as long as they hide behind their "religious conscience". it was a deplorable piece of hate legislature

And I think that's what your so called conscience clauses would be, "licence to bully" on a societal level, that people are given free reign to discriminate as long as they hide behind a crucifix. it's an ugly, ugly thing indeed

28064212

philologos wrote: »

To be used to stifle the freedom of religion? Interesting point of view. I thought legislation was to ensure order and protection for all people in society irrespective of their religious beliefs. Or has this fallen out of the window now too.

Plenty of people feel tax shouldn't be paid. The function of tax legislation is to be used against people who disagree with it.

philologos wrote: »

I've read the whole legislation. If you want to join me and show me where protections exist for chaplains, teachers, foster carers, adoptive parents, and parents who disagree with redefining marriage please show me.

If you can't find it there, then my position is justified.

Eh, no. You're asking for a negative to be proved. It's up to you to present a case where someone will have their religious rights restricted by this legislation.

And do not point to the C4M nonsense again. Aside from the numerous other problems with it that you haven't repsonded to, it was written before the legislation was drafted. Present your own case, and the specific pieces of legislation that are pertinent

philologos

Disagreement isn't a red herring. Its obvious that if I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman that I disagree with you.

28064212: show me in the legislation where protection exists for teachers, chaplains, foster carers, adoptive parents, or parents who disagree with redefining marriage.

Even excluding the legal opinion which still stands, unless you show me where clear protections exist my position stands on this bill.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Disagreement isn't a red herring. Its obvious that if I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman that I disagree with you.

28064212: show me in the legislation where protection exists for teachers, chaplains, foster carers, adoptive parents, or parents who disagree with redefining marriage.

Even excluding the legal opinion which still stands, unless you show me where clear protections exist my position stands on this bill.

Under what existing legislation will the hightlighted people be prosecuted? And what would the charge(s) be?

28064212

philologos wrote: »

Disagreement isn't a red herring. Its obvious that if I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman that I disagree with you.

28064212: show me in the legislation where protection exists for teachers, chaplains, foster carers, adoptive parents, or parents who disagree with redefining marriage.

Even excluding the legal opinion which still stands, unless you show me where clear protections exist my position stands on this bill.

Show me where in the legislation it protects the right of straight people to play football.

See how nonsensical that is? Once again, you are asking me to prove a negative. You said you have read the legislation. Point out which section can be used to prosecute the groups you're worried about

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Disagreement isn't a red herring. Its obvious that if I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman that I disagree with you.

28064212: show me in the legislation where protection exists for teachers, chaplains, foster carers, adoptive parents, or parents who disagree with redefining marriage.

Even excluding the legal opinion which still stands, unless you show me where clear protections exist my position stands on this bill.

There's plenty of laws I don't agree with, but it doesn't mean I get to opt out because a book I read told me I shouldn't obey them. Your position might stand, but you're still incorrect, State employees shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in the performance of state duties. Suppose someone of a different faith disagrees with the 'right' of Christians to be allowed to discriminate, how should their 'rights' be accommodated?

JimiTime

Great article here about a Christian call to holy living and how watered down the gospel is becoming.

Links234

philologos wrote: »

Disagreement isn't a red herring. Its obvious that if I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman that I disagree with you.

I don't even know how to reply to this drivel

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

There's plenty of laws I don't agree with, but it doesn't mean I get to opt out because a book I read told me I shouldn't obey them. Your position might stand, but you're still incorrect, State employees shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in the performance of state duties. Suppose someone of a different faith disagrees with the 'right' of Christians to be allowed to discriminate, how should their 'rights' be accommodated?

Teachers aren't discriminating by refusing to read story books with propaganda in them.

Foster parents and adoptive parents aren't discriminating by disagreeing as to the definition of marriage.

Chaplains aren't discriminating against anyone they are serving by preaching in their churches that the Bible clearly presents marriage as being between a man and a woman.

What discrimination? There is none and there was none in Britain before this vote.

My main point and one that I've not seen a good argument against is that there isn't sufficient legal protection for those who disagree.

I suspect in the next few years I'll be proven right when one of these cases hits court. But I hope in spite of this many will stand up for what is right.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Teachers aren't discriminating by refusing to read story books with propaganda in them.

Foster parents and adoptive parents aren't discriminating by disagreeing as to the definition of marriage.

Chaplains aren't discriminating against anyone they are serving by preaching in their churches that the Bible clearly presents marriage as being between a man and a woman.

What discrimination? There is none and there was none in Britain before this vote.

My main point and one that I've not seen a good argument against is that there isn't sufficient legal protection for those who disagree.

I suspect in the next few years I'll be proven right when one of these cases hits court. But I hope in spite of this many will stand up for what is right.

How is a book featuring a gay couple propaganda? What a loaded term to use. Would Jesus call it propaganda?
I feel sorry for you, you can't formulate an argument other than 'scripture says so'. That's not legally logical argument, by the by.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Teachers aren't discriminating by refusing to read story books with propaganda in them.

but no-one has shown any example of this "propaganda" existing other than a book which explains to kids about same-sex family units. Should a teacher be allowed to refuse to teach about reproduction because only married people need know about that, and to teach students about it would only promote promiscuity?

Foster parents and adoptive parents aren't discriminating by disagreeing as to the definition of marriage.

Religious beliefs aren't grounds for denying potential foster/adoptive parents a child AFAIK.

Chaplains aren't discriminating against anyone they are serving by preaching in their churches that the Bible clearly presents marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Is there any legislation to say they must preach otherwise?

What discrimination? There is none and there was none in Britain before this vote.

My main point and one that I've not seen a good argument against is that there isn't sufficient legal protection for those who disagree.

I suspect in the next few years I'll be proven right when one of these cases hits court. But I hope in spite of this many will stand up for what is right.

You haven't provided any evidence that people that don't support marriage equality will face legal action for that opinion.