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

JimiTime

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.

No protection can exist in reality. The fact will be, that a homosexual union will not be distinguished in law from an actual marriage. As Links234 has already shown, there will be new terms, 'License to bully' etc on the way too.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

The fact will be, that a homosexual union will not be distinguished in law from an actual marriage.

Correct. And at the moment, I have the right to believe that a heterosexual marriage is wrong. I have the right to preach that it is wrong. I can not be fired from my job because of that belief. Those are protections. And they will apply equally after this legislation is passed.

I don't have the right to teach children in a school my personal beliefs, but that's not a protection I or anybody else should have

JimiTime

lazygal wrote: »

How is a book featuring a gay couple propaganda?

Its aim is to get kids used to the idea of having two 'daddies' etc. It is looking at ridding the child of any instinct they may have. Normalising something that is not normal. Just because you agree with the propaganda, does not mean its not propaganda.

I feel sorry for you,

No you don't, thats just a passive aggressive response. You may as well just say, 'I think you're a d1ckhead' as it means the same thing.

you can't formulate an argument other than 'scripture says so'. That's not legally logical argument, by the by.

As the state recognises God, then its wholly reasonable to ask the state to look at his views on the subject.
Also, arguments for the sake of childrens welfare, and the slippery slope have been outlined and not repelled at all.

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

I don't have the right to teach children in a school my personal beliefs, but that's not a protection I or anybody else should have

A more appropriate comparison, would be you, as someone who is against marriage, being forced to teach chldren that its ok.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Its aim is to get kids used to the idea of having two 'daddies' etc. It is looking at ridding the child of any instinct they may have. Normalising something that is not normal. Just because you agree with the propaganda, does not mean its not propaganda.

You think children are born with the prejudices you hold so dear?

No Jimi - they learn them.
They learn them from people like you.

Now, you are just annoyed that people like you are no longer allowed to spread your hate message so you are moaning.

Is teaching Children the Bible not religious propaganda? You don't seem to have an issue with that.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

A more appropriate comparison, would be you, as someone who is against marriage, being forced to teach chldren that its ok.

That's exactly the same thing. I don't get to refuse to read a book on the syllabus just because it contains a heterosexual marriage. That's me forcing my belief into the classroom. Which nobody has the right to do

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

A more appropriate comparison, would be you, as someone who is against marriage, being forced to teach chldren that its ok.

Have a teacher refuse to teach about suffragettes as a positive movement in a history course, or a civics class, because he doesn't want to "normalize" the idea that women should be treated the same as a man with voting rights, and see how far that teacher gets with their objection of conscience.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You think children are born with the prejudices you hold so dear?

Not prejudice, but a natural instinct. I gurantee you, that if children are not inculcated with LGBT propaganda, or indeed any religious view, they would see the issue in terms of two 'daddies' etc. I received no instruction in terms of morality, or lessons in how homosexuality was wrong etc. I remember however, my natural instinct of disgust, at about 12 years old, when I first became aware that there were men who 'liked' other men.

My 2 nephews are being raised by atheists who are very much pro-LGBT. One of them is 13, the other 8. The parents were watching Eastenders one night, and there was a gay kissing scene. Both of the boys shouted, YUCH! with contorted faces. They then got a lecture from mommy about homosexuality being ok etc. I still remember their look of perplexion and confusion.

No Jimi - they learn them.
They learn them from people like you.

You may want to believe that, but I really don't think the reality is so.

Now, you are just annoyed that people like you are no longer allowed to spread your hate message so you are moaning.

You'll see no hate here, but you will find objection and no fear in expressing it, whatever names I'm met with.

Is teaching Children the Bible not religious propaganda? You don't seem to have an issue with that.

Depends what the motive is. If its done for political means, then yes it is propaganda.

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

Not prejudice, but a natural instinct. I gurantee you, that if children are not inculcated with LGBT propaganda, or indeed any religious view, they would see the issue in terms of two 'daddies' etc. I received no instruction in terms of morality, or lessons in how homosexuality was wrong etc. I remember however, my natural instinct of disgust, at about 12 years old, when I first became aware that there were men who 'liked' other men.

Not a natural instinct as many kids grow up without experiencing the feeling of disgust you describe.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Not prejudice, but a natural instinct. I gurantee you, that if children are not inculcated with LGBT propaganda, or indeed any religious view, they would see the issue in terms of two 'daddies' etc. I received no instruction in terms of morality, or lessons in how homosexuality was wrong etc. I remember however, my natural instinct of disgust, at about 12 years old, when I first became aware that there were men who 'liked' other men.

My 2 nephews are being raised by atheists who are very much pro-LGBT. One of them is 13, the other 8. The parents were watching Eastenders one night, and there was a gay kissing scene. Both of the boys shouted, YUCH! with contorted faces. They then got a lecture from mommy about homosexuality being ok etc. I still remember their look of perplexion and confusion.

Find me a 12 year old who doesn't go 'yuch' at the sight of 2 adults -of any gender - kissing.

You may want to believe that, but I really don't think the reality is so.



You'll see no hate here, but you will find objection and no fear in expressing it, whatever names I'm met with.

Yes, I do see hate. I see you write about how we must stop the attempt to 'normalize' homosexuality, complain that any not negative message is 'propaganda'.

You are trying to Normalize bigotry, discrimination and hate and are proud of that.

Depends what the motive is. If its done for political means, then yes it is propaganda.

You mean like using passages from the Bible to justify lobbying the civil State to try force it to deny equal rights to all it's citizens?

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

Not prejudice, but a natural instinct. I gurantee you, that if children are not inculcated with LGBT propaganda, or indeed any religious view, they would see the issue in terms of two 'daddies' etc. I received no instruction in terms of morality, or lessons in how homosexuality was wrong etc. I remember however, my natural instinct of disgust, at about 12 years old, when I first became aware that there were men who 'liked' other men.

So how did homosexuality arise Jimi? If every-one's natural instinct is disgust, how could it ever have arisen?

JimiTime wrote: »

My 2 nephews are being raised by atheists who are very much pro-LGBT. One of them is 13, the other 8. The parents were watching Eastenders one night, and there was a gay kissing scene. Both of the boys shouted, YUCH! with contorted faces. They then got a lecture from mommy about homosexuality being ok etc. I still remember their look of perplexion and confusion.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I expressed disgust at straight couples kissing when I was 8

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You think children are born with the prejudices you hold so dear?

No Jimi - they learn them.
They learn them from people like you.

Now, you are just annoyed that people like you are no longer allowed to spread your hate message so you are moaning.

Is teaching Children the Bible not religious propaganda? You don't seem to have an issue with that.

What hate message?

Nowhere in the Gospel does it give me or any Christian justification to hate you or anyone else.

What it may do is cause me to disagree with you on marriage. That isn't homophobic it's a genuine disagreement about the nature of marriage.

There is no hate by me.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

What hate message?

Nowhere in the Gospel does it give me or any Christian justification to hate you or anyone else.

What it may do is cause me to disagree with you on marriage. That isn't homophobic it's a genuine disagreement about the nature of marriage.

There is no hate by me.

I was responding to Jimi.

As for you - oh you don't 'hate' homosexuals, you just don't want them to have the same legal rights as you. Same meat different gravy Phil.

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

That's exactly the same thing.

There IS a HUGE difference between being silent on what you believe, therefore not influencing your pupils, and teaching something. I can't believe you'd see them as the same

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

There IS a HUGE difference between being silent on what you believe, therefore not influencing your pupils, and teaching something. I can't believe you'd see them as the same

Refusing to read a syllabus book because of your personal belief? That's exactly the same thing, regardless of whether it's heterosexual or homosexual marriage

JimiTime

koth wrote: »

Not a natural instinct as many kids grow up without experiencing the feeling of disgust you describe.

Well, Bannisidhe asserted that its learned. I didn't learn it, nor did anyone I've asked or in the case of my nephews and my friends kids seen.

Zombrex

koth wrote: »

Not a natural instinct as many kids grow up without experiencing the feeling of disgust you describe.

Jimi inadvertently raises the exact issue why "normalising" homosexuality is important.

Straight children will have a natural instinct to find homosexuality odd, freakish, or even disgusting. Left to their own devices this can, and most likely will, turn into bigotry and bullying.

It is healthy for both the gay teenagers and the straight children themselves, that children at thought that despite their own instinctive feelings on the matter, that there is nothing wrong with being gay, being in a gay couple, or expressing homosexual effection publicly. That there is nothing wrong with not wanting to engage in that activity yourself, but that if others do there is nothing wrong with that either.

One point that is largely ignored is that these "normalising" courses are more often than not attached to anti-bullying and self esteem courses, that both promote self worth among gay children, and acceptance among other children.

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was responding to Jimi.

As for you - oh you don't 'hate' homosexuals, you just don't want them to have the same legal rights as you. Same meat different gravy Phil.

They already had the same legal rights as me before this was even debated.

So where did you pull that argument from?

There's no evidence of the hatred claim whatsoever and it's fundamentally unhelpful to this discussion.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Find me a 12 year old who doesn't go 'yuch' at the sight of 2 adults -of any gender - kissing.

Certainly never been an issue here, or with anyone I ever knew. It was definitely a disgust at the man on man kiss. No doubt about it. Same as me.

Yes, I do see hate.

I know. You see alot of things that aren't there:pac: All I can tell you is that you are wrong. I certainly do not Love you as I should, but I certainly do not hate you.

I see you write about how we must stop the attempt to 'normalize' homosexuality, complain that any not negative message is 'propaganda'.

And how is that hateful?

You mean like using passages from the Bible to justify lobbying the civil State to try force it to deny equal rights to all it's citizens?

Appealing to the state to look to the God IT RECOGNISES is not propaganda. I'm confused how a person, especially a university educated person, would think it is

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

There IS a HUGE difference between being silent on what you believe, therefore not influencing your pupils, and teaching something. I can't believe you'd see them as the same

I lecture in history. At no point are my students aware of what I do and do not believe. My personal beliefs are simply not relevant to the subject.

In all my years studying/lecturing only twice has a lecturer made reference to their personal beliefs, and each time it was outside the classroom environment. One joking about the fact that he was a philosophy professor and a Calvinist and how he had to constantly question if he was allowing his religious beliefs to impact on his teaching of philosophy. The other joking that she was considered a world authority on Catholic iconography while also being a devout Lutheran, but she reckoned her religion allowed her to step back from the images and consider them objectively and her Bible reading gave her a solid foundation for determining which parts of scripture various images were referring to.

Any teacher/lecturer who cannot teach their subject without interjecting their personal beliefs shouldn't be teaching. It is as simple as that.

Crouch it in any terms you want Jimi, but it boils down to the fact that you do not think homosexuality is 'normal' and that homosexuals should not be treated equally and that is what you want children taught.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, Bannisidhe asserted that its learned. I didn't learn it, nor did anyone I've asked or in the case of my nephews and my friends kids seen.

You think children are born hating??

Of course it is learned - they learn what is 'normal' from those around them. Just like they learn religion.

efb

Jimi it is a learned behaviour from the influences in their lives. It doesn't require textbooks to be learned

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I lecture in history. At no point are my students aware of what I do and do not believe. My personal beliefs are simply not relevant to the subject.


In all my years studying/lecturing only twice has a lecturer made reference to their personal beliefs, and each time it was outside the classroom environment. One joking about the fact that he was a philosophy professor and a Calvinist and how he had to constantly question if he was allowing his religious beliefs to impact on his teaching of philosophy. The other joking that she was considered a world authority on Catholic iconography while also being a devout Lutheran, but she reckoned her religion allowed her to step back from the images and consider them objectively and her Bible reading gave her a solid foundation for determining which parts of scripture various images were referring to.

Any teacher/lecturer who cannot teach their subject without interjecting their personal beliefs shouldn't be teaching. It is as simple as that.

the issue here is not the matter of fact teaching that homosexuals can 'marry' each other. If it comes to pass, then that would simply be a fact. No problem. Like your history class. You may not like that certain parts of history happened, but you teach that they did. No problem.

Crouch it in any terms you want Jimi, but it boils down to the fact that you do not think homosexuality is 'normal'

Have I hid that? I don't think its normal. Just like I don't thing that a man wanting to be a woman is normal, or BID is normal, or being sexually attracted to all manner of things is normal. It doesn't mean I hate homosexuals, any more than I'd hate someone with Bodily Integrity Disorder.

and that homosexuals should not be treated equally and that is what you want children taught.

Not at all. I believe schools should leave the topic alone. Neither positive nor negative. By all means, if it comes to pass, discuss the topic of marriage and all its forms in secondary school, but don't inculcate them either way on the subject.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You think children are born hating??

Of course it is learned - they learn what is 'normal' from those around them. Just like they learn religion.

Hating? Certainly Not!

Being disgusted by certain things as they get older? Yes.

JimiTime

efb wrote: »

Jimi it is a learned behaviour from the influences in their lives. It doesn't require textbooks to be learned

A very strong possibility. The fact that homosexuality only occurs in 3% of the population, and the amount of 2 'daddies' etc would be exceptionally rare, they will not see it in their lives, and so need the textbook to influence them into seeing these things as normal. The thing is, that I don't recall it being just, 'Oh thats unusual', when first seeing/hearing about it. It was a genuine revulsion, from ignorance I.E. I had never been told it was wrong, or told ANYTHING about it etc. Nor had my Nephews etc. In fact, I know many pro-LGBT folk who are still disgusted at it, but are simply, 'If thats what they're into, who am I.....etc'.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

the issue here is not the matter of fact teaching that homosexuals can 'marry' each other. If it comes to pass, then that would simply be a fact. No problem. Like your history class. You may not like that certain parts of history happened, but you teach that they did. No problem.

So what exactly is your problem?

That children will be taught there are gay people, and that they are legally equal in every respect to straight people?

Have I hid that? I don't think its normal. Just like I don't thing that a man wanting to be a woman is normal, or BID is normal, or being sexually attracted to all manner of things is normal. It doesn't mean I hate homosexuals, any more than I'd hate someone with Bodily Integrity Disorder.

Homosexuality is not a disorder Jimi - no matter how much you want it to be. The fact that you see it in those terms speaks volumes about you, not homosexuality.

Not at all. I believe schools should leave the topic alone. Neither positive nor negative. By all means, if it comes to pass, discuss the topic of marriage and all its forms in secondary school, but don't inculcate them either way on the subject.

Do you object to Sex Education?
Do you think Sex Education should only discuss heterosexuality?

JimiTime wrote: »

Hating? Certainly Not!

Being disgusted by certain things as they get older? Yes.

and where do they learn that disgust?

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Nor had my Nephews etc.

I thought their parents were pro-LGBT - yet they have 12 year olds who had never heard of homosexuality???

I can't help but notice we are back to your 'personal observations'.

Corkfeen

I really dislike how Jimi uses unverifiable and anecdotal evidence as proof of an instinctual revulsion towards homosexuality. I have memories of being revolted by men and women kissing as a child, can we classify this as an instinctual revulsion to heterosexuality? It's worth pointing out that this was pretty much copying the behaviour of my age group rather than something that is truly instinctual.

But Jimi, can you provide any psychological studies that illustrate humans naturally find homosexuality to be abhorrent from birth? You continue to equate homosexuality with mental illness but you can't prove that it's a mental illness. The reason you don't like studies and prefer anecdotes is because you know that none of them will actually prove your claims.

NuMarvel

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.

The thing about freedom of conscience is that it’s based on a person’s personal belief, not their membership of any religion. I could be an atheist who believes people under 18 shouldn't be allowed to marry without parental consent, and as long as I can show that’s a belief I genuinely and deeply hold, then I can invoke freedom of conscience. I don’t have to prove why I believe that, I don’t have to prove that it’s right, I just have to show that it’s a belief that I hold deeply and genuinely.

We then have to evaluate my right to my personal belief, and weigh it against my employer’s right to have me fulfil the terms of my employment contract. There is also the public’s right to whatever service my employer offers, particularly if it’s a public service. If I’m employed as a registrar of marriages, then my employer has a reasonable expectation that I will perform those duties.

So let's go back to my example at the start. UK law currently states those aged 16 or 17 can only marry with parental consent, so there's no conflict as things stand. But if that law changes to say those aged 17 can marry without consent, what happens? The terms of my job haven't changed; I'm still marrying people in accordance with the law. But I now have a personal objection to some people getting married.

If the terms of my job are clear, in this case to perform marriages, should I really have the right to pick and choose who I offer my employer’s service to? Is my personal objection allowed to trump the contract I have with my employer? I honestly don't think so.

If it’s a case of a material change in someone’s duties or job description there might be a case, but more on employment and contract grounds than freedom of conscience. For example, many registrars of marriage in the UK also took on the role of registrar of civil partnerships when that was introduced. I would view that as a change in duties because it’s an additional service. But when this law is passed, same sex marriage will be the equivalent of heterosexual marriage. All that has changed is that a new group of people will have the right to marry. My job itself hasn't changed; I'm still performing marriages. I may not think they are marriages, but unless it’s in the terms of my contract, I’m not the ultimate arbitrator of what is or isn't marriage. At most, all I can determine is if an application to marry is in accordance with the law. Once I've done that, my duties are clear.

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

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

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, you have not shown us a legal opinion. You have shown us a non-legal interpretation of a legal opinion, and as such, it is worthless.

JimiTime wrote: »

No protection can exist in reality. The fact will be, that a homosexual union will not be distinguished in law from an actual marriage.

It will be an actual marriage, why would there be a need to distinguish it?

MrP