nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

PDN

Certain individuals seem to be somewhat obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. To avoid the Forum being over-run with numerous threads on this subject, I am launching a MegaThread similar to the ones we already have on other subjects.

Please note that the Forum Charter still applies to megathreads - so try to treat each other with respect and courtesy, even if the subject is one that makes you hot and bothered.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

By the by, it's not just the liberty of the child to have free access to their biological parents, it should be the liberty of the biological parents to have access to their child if they desire it.

It must also be acknowledged that sometimes a biological parents abdicates their responsibilities and has no desire to have access to their child. This sadly can occur even when the children were the result of a marriage.

Bloodwing

philologos wrote: »

Mother and a father, versus two parents no mother or two parents no father.

Yes, there's a difference. It's dishonest to compare this to race.

I am not comparing homosexuality to race, I'm comparing the arguments of the anti gay marriage groups to the arguments of the anti interracial marriage groups. Take a look here and tell me you don't see the similarities?

I have a friend who never knew his father, he grew up to be a perfectly happy adult granted he was bullied by some idiots when he was younger but that wasn't the fault of his mother, it was the fault of the idiots parents who failed to educate their children that everyone is different and not all backgrounds are the same. I'll say it again, the threats to society are not those who are different the threats come from those who fear and cannot accept difference.

I'd be interested in hearing your answer to my previous question so I'll ask it again. I'm asking any of the anti gay marriage or anti gay adoption people here to tell us exactly how YOUR life will be negatively affected if this becomes legal and standard practice?

doctoremma

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Did you choose to be straight?

Phil, this was directed to you. Care to answer?

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

Phil, this was directed to you. Care to answer?

I've answered such clichés before.

Firstly, I wasn't discussing choice. I was discussing biological determination. I'm not convinced that sexuality is 100% immutable as many describe though.

Even if it were immutable, there is a difference between feeling one way or another and acting on those feelings. It isn't always appropriate to do so. Much in the same way as a single heterosexual male, it isn't appropriate for me to have sex outside of a marriage from a Christian perspective.

Mod Edit. Reference to deleted off-topic post removed

Silvics

qrrgprgua wrote: »

1. Lets not forget the Bible during this discussion.

2. Lets not forget its the ACTS that are a sin.. Its not having a homosexual tendency. Sexuality is not a Sin.

21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
1:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death

If you have kids, and they have disobeyed you, why are they still alive?
One can go on forever with the bible..................................

philologos

Silvics wrote: »

21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
1:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death

If you have kids, and they have disobeyed you, why are they still alive?
One can go on forever with the bible..................................

One can go on forever with the Bible, or one could try and understand how Christians have read the Old Testament in the light of Jesus Christ from the first century to the present. This has already been covered. Read back in the thread.

In short: Sin deserves death (Romans 1:32), all have sinned (Romans 3:23), Christ came to die for us while we were yet sinners so that we would be spared God's wrath (Romans 5:8-9).

Now, if Jesus has done this for me, how can I expect this penalty for others? (Matthew 18).

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

Did you catch this story from the UK?

http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/1056

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/25/exclusive-catholic-school-urged-pupils-as-young-as-11-to-sign-anti-gay-marriage-petition/

The Catholic Education Service confirmed to PinkNews.co.uk that it had written to at least 359 Catholic state secondary schools in England and Wales last month asking them to draw attention to a letter by senior archbishops which told Catholics of their “duty” to do “all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations”.

And, once again, I ask you where is anyone being dictated to? The archbishops are stating their views. The fact that a large number of people might give great credence to those views does not equate to coercion or dictation.

It's democracy in action. The AA does it when legislation is proposed that affects motorists. Political parties do it. Trade unions do it. There is nothing untoward about groups of voters organising around common interests.

Who is dictating anything?

PDN

Silvics wrote: »

21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
1:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death

If you have kids, and they have disobeyed you, why are they still alive?
One can go on forever with the bible..................................

Moderating Instruction
You can, particularly if you quote it out of context often enough.

Please note that this is the Christianity Forum, devoted to discussion of Christian issues - not to how Jews behaved 3000+ years ago.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

So your objection to religious leaders expressing their views is based on the fact that a large number of people might actually listen to those views? That is very democratic of you. Maybe you should try harder in putting forth your point of view and thus wage a war of ideas, rather than one of restricting free speech.

Out of interest, does your religious organization allow equal time to opposing points of view? Or does it generally tend to restrict free speech to religious opinions with which you collectively happen to agree?

And, more generally, are you also saying that religious flocks do not believe their religious leaders are inspired by their deity?

marienbad

I think I am correct in saying that the Catholic church does not recognise as marriage those second marriages of divorced people .

So that is already a huge chink in the monolithic christian definition of marriage.

So am I correct in saying that the original Christian definition of marriage has already undergone radical change ?

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

I've answered such clichés before.

Firstly, I wasn't discussing choice. I was discussing biological determination. I'm not convinced that sexuality is 100% immutable as many describe though.

Even if it were immutable, there is a difference between feeling one way or another and acting on those feelings. It isn't always appropriate to do so. Much in the same way as a single heterosexual male, it isn't appropriate for me to have sex outside of a marriage from a Christian perspective.

It's still not clear to me whether or not you feel your heterosexuality is "natural and instinctive" or "chosen deliberately".

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

And, once again, I ask you where is anyone being dictated to? The archbishops are stating their views. The fact that a large number of people might give great credence to those views does not equate to coercion or dictation.

It's democracy in action. The AA does it when legislation is proposed that affects motorists. Political parties do it. Trade unions do it. There is nothing untoward about groups of voters organising around common interests.

Who is dictating anything?

http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/1033
Sections 406-7 of the Education Act 1996 forbids ‘the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school’, and requires balanced treatment of political issues. In March, the CES wrote to all Catholic secondary schools in England and Wales, asking them to draw attention to a letter against same sex marriage from the Archbishops of Westminster and Southwark which was read out at Sunday Mass on 11 March, and to a petition against same sex marriage from the Coalition for Marriage.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/25/exclusive-catholic-school-urged-pupils-as-young-as-11-to-sign-anti-gay-marriage-petition/
Responding on the school’s behalf, the Catholic Education Service said St Philomena’s itself had designed the presentation which is said to have encouraged minors to add their names to that campaign.
It confirmed the presentations for all age groups had consisted of the Archbishops’ letter and ended with a slide displaying the Coalition for Marriage’s website and the words: “Sign the petition”.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, does your religious organization allow equal time to opposing points of view? Or does it generally tend to restrict free speech to religious opinions with which you collectively happen to agree?

No. My religious organisation is not a secular nation state. :rolleyes:

And, more generally, are you also saying that religious flocks do not believe their religious leaders are inspired by their deity?

Not unless you've been reading my posts in Martian rather than English.

I have made no comment on whether flocks believe that or not. Some do, and some don't. If a leader in my denomination expresses an opinion on a religious or civic matter then I sometimes agree and sometimes I don't. The same holds true for most members of non-Catholic churches and (depending on how broadly you define 'Catholic') the same may well hold true for a majority of Catholics.

My point, as you well know, is that the issue of whether flocks believe their leaders to be inspired or not is irrelevant when it comes to granting freedom of speech in a democratic secular society.

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/1033
Sections 406-7 of the Education Act 1996 forbids ‘the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school’, and requires balanced treatment of political issues. In March, the CES wrote to all Catholic secondary schools in England and Wales, asking them to draw attention to a letter against same sex marriage from the Archbishops of Westminster and Southwark which was read out at Sunday Mass on 11 March, and to a petition against same sex marriage from the Coalition for Marriage.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/25/exclusive-catholic-school-urged-pupils-as-young-as-11-to-sign-anti-gay-marriage-petition/
Responding on the school’s behalf, the Catholic Education Service said St Philomena’s itself had designed the presentation which is said to have encouraged minors to add their names to that campaign.
It confirmed the presentations for all age groups had consisted of the Archbishops’ letter and ended with a slide displaying the Coalition for Marriage’s website and the words: “Sign the petition”.

And, once again I ask you, where has anyone dictated how others can or cannot live?

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

And, once again I ask you, where has anyone dictated how others can or cannot live?

You previously said: Really? Then why can't he point to a single instance where, in respect to gay marriage, religious leaders have done anything other than express their views?

I gave you what I think is a very good example where religious leaders have gone beyond simply stating their opinion to encourage, in the imperative, impressionable young adults (although applying that term to 11 year olds is stretching it a bit) to sign a petition against the State introducing civil same-sex marriage.

Now you say: And, once again I ask you, where has anyone dictated how others can or cannot live?

Apologies for the pause while I try to refocus on the new position of the goalposts.

This petition encourages, in the imperative, impressionable young adults (although applying that term to 11 year olds is stretching it a bit) to sign a petition against the State introducing civil same-sex marriage which would very definitely dictate how others outside of their group can or cannot live their lives.

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

You previously said: Really? Then why can't he point to a single instance where, in respect to gay marriage, religious leaders have done anything other than express their views?

I gave you what I think is a very good example where religious leaders have gone beyond simply stating their opinion to encourage, in the imperative, impressionable young adults (although applying that term to 11 year olds is stretching it a bit) to sign a petition against the State introducing civil same-sex marriage.

Now you say: And, once again I ask you, where has anyone dictated how others can or cannot live?

Apologies for the pause while I try to refocus on the new position of the goalposts.

This petition encourages, in the imperative, impressionable young adults (although applying that term to 11 year olds is stretching it a bit) to sign a petition against the State introducing civil same-sex marriage which would very definitely dictate how others outside of their group can or cannot live their lives.

There is no repositioning of goal posts. From the very first page of this thread I have been asking for someone to back up the claim that religious leaders are dictating anything.

You might not like the Catholic Church's lobbying tactics - I'm not crazy about them either - but they certainly do not constitute dictating anything to the rest of society.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

You might not like the Catholic Church's lobbying tactics - I'm not crazy about them either - but they certainly do not constitute dictating anything to the rest of society.

Apart from the dictat to schoolchildren to sign a petition? A petition which, if successful (which it won't be) would dictate how non-Catholics should live their lives?

dic·tate /ˈdiktāt/: Lay down authoritatively; prescribe.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/07/26/catholic-church-in-scotland-society-should-not-facilitate-gay-relationships/

Peter Kearney, spokesman for the Catholic Church, told Scotland Tonight yesterday there was “a link between same-sex sexual practice and early death”. Appearing on the Shelagh Fogarty programme on BBC Radio 5 yesterday he said gay couples should not be entitled even to civil partnerships.

He told host Dominic Laurie: “That same-sex couples should be able to enter into relationships solemnised or recognised by the state? Well no, we would believe that same-sex relationships are profoundly harmful both physically, biologically, mentally, emotionally and I have to say spiritually to those involved.

“No society should facilitate or encourage anyone to enter into a same-sex relationship."

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

Apart from the dictat to schoolchildren to sign a petition? A petition which, if successful (which it won't be) would dictate how non-Catholics should live their lives?

dic·tate /ˈdiktāt/: Lay down authoritatively; prescribe.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/07/26/catholic-church-in-scotland-society-should-not-facilitate-gay-relationships/

Peter Kearney, spokesman for the Catholic Church, told Scotland Tonight yesterday there was “a link between same-sex sexual practice and early death”. Appearing on the Shelagh Fogarty programme on BBC Radio 5 yesterday he said gay couples should not be entitled even to civil partnerships.

He told host Dominic Laurie: “That same-sex couples should be able to enter into relationships solemnised or recognised by the state? Well no, we would believe that same-sex relationships are profoundly harmful both physically, biologically, mentally, emotionally and I have to say spiritually to those involved.

“No society should facilitate or encourage anyone to enter into a same-sex relationship."

And how does signing a petition dictate anything to the rest of society? Only the State has the power to dictate.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

And how does signing a petition dictate anything to the rest of society? Only the State has the power to dictate.

So nothing to say about the Catholic spokesperson dictating that gay people should not even have civil partnerships?

Can we clarify, as I'm not sure we're using "dictate" in the same way: in your view, is a position/viewpoint only dictated if it is actually enacted? Or can a position be unsuccessfully dictated?

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

So nothing to say about the Catholic spokesperson dictating that gay people should not even have civil partnerships?

Can we clarify, as I'm not sure we're using "dictate" in the same way: in your view, is a position/viewpoint only dictated if it is actually enacted? Or can a position be unsuccessfully dictated?

If you don't have the power to dictate anything then all you are doing is voicing an opinion.

The Catholic spokesperson cannot dictate anything to non-Catholics (nor indeed to any Catholics who choose to ignore him).

If someone says, "The law should be changed to legalise cannabis" then it would be butchering the English language to say, "Ah, you're dictating to the rest of the nation that cannabis must be legalised."

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Irrespective Zombrex, there is a difference between sexuality and race, and it is unhelpful for people like dfolnep to blur the lines particularly when there is no good reason to do so.

The good reason to is to point out that people used to think interracial marriages were unnatural and damaging to society but these reasons were discredited in the same way that your reasons have also been discredited.

philologos wrote: »

dfolnep is also ignoring the reality that structurally a family with a mother and a father is a different kettle of fish from a family with two of the same gender.

No he isn't. He is not accepting your claim that it is better in a significant way. Structurally a white father and a black mother are different to a white father and a white mother. And people used to argue, seriously, that the latter was better than the former because it was more natural and that the children raised in the mixed race couple would end being confused and lacking ethnic identity.

You think that sounds stupid now. Well guess what, this is what your arguments sound like to the rest of us too.

philologos wrote: »

The question comes down to whether or not a man can truly replace a mother, or a woman truly replace a father. I don't think so.

No it doesn't come down to that, any more than the question on mixed race couples came down to the question of whether a white father could ever truly replace a black father (er no would be the answer I think since he can't make himself back or go through the experience of being a black man).

The question is does it matter for the development of the children. The evidence so far says no.

philologos wrote: »

There is no structural difference when it comes to race. There is when it comes to gender roles in child development.

There are structural differences when it comes to race (a black man is not the same as a white man). But we know now that these differences don't adversely effect the development of children in these relationships, as had previously been argued.

The analogy is apt, you are just choosing to ignore this because you are the wrong side of history.

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

The Catholic spokesperson cannot dictate anything to non-Catholics (nor indeed to any Catholics who choose to ignore him).

I'm not convinced the Catholic Church know that.

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not convinced the Catholic Church know that.

Again it goes back to how much power the Church has over its followers. My family has personal experience with this, a Catholic priest told his flock not to associate with a CoI relative of mine because of something he did. This has a significant effect on his personal life and his business. In fairness this was in the 1940s, I think this would not happen these days simply due to the collapse of the Catholic power in this country. But again it would be naive to view the this purely in terms of free speech.

doctoremma

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not convinced the Catholic Church know that.

Agreed, as evidenced by my earlier post:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/07/26/catholic-church-in-scotland-society-should-not-facilitate-gay-relationships/

Peter Kearney, spokesman for the Catholic Church....
“No society should facilitate or encourage anyone to enter into a same-sex relationship."

PDN - as you do not view this as a dictat for how society outside of the Catholic Church should conduct itself (I'm not sure I agree but I'll address your reply in a moment), how do you feel non-Catholics should respond? Keep quiet in the realisation that this church has no power but therefore allow such speech to be freely touted? Object to this type of talk and be accused of trying to suppress religious opinion?

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

PDN - as you do not view this as a dictat for how society outside of the Catholic Church should conduct itself (I'm not sure I agree but I'll address your reply in a moment), how do you feel non-Catholics should respond? Keep quiet in the realisation that this church has no power but therefore allow such speech to be freely touted? Object to this type of talk and be accused of trying to suppress religious opinion?

We should respond by utilising our free speech to express our views.

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

We should respond by utilising our free speech to express our views.

Which is what we are doing.

Spokesperson for religious organisation says via TV/newsmedia/radio/press release ' blah blah end of the world as we know it blah blah going to hell blah blah blah'
Opponents say 'rubbish! How dare you try and dictate how we live our lives and publicly condemn and vilify us.'

They expressed their views.

We responded by expressing our views of their views.

as to how we are being intolerant when obviously we are actually responding by utilising our free speech to express our views...?

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

We should respond by utilising our free speech to express our views.

Person 1: Same sex marriage is against god's law/sinful/etc and shouldn't be allowed in society. I advocate shipping gay people off to some kind of Gay Island as such people shouldn't be even allowed to participate in "normal" society (see A&A board for this gem). Furthermore, children shouldn't be brought up by two men/women, it's bad for them.

Person 2: Same sex marriage in a civil context is simply about equality. I won't force a church to marry gay people. And actually, there is plenty of evidence that children brought up by two men/women are perfectly fine. Oh, and suggesting that gay people be shipped off somewhere is really nasty and bigotted, why don't you think they have a place in society?

Person 1: *whine* I have the right to say what I want. You're trying to stop me expressing my opinion, effing dicatator lefty liberal. You don't think anyone who thinks differently should get a say. *more whine*

Person 2: *sigh*

Now, obviously this is an extreme anti position (well, I hope nobody seriously thinks that gay people should be forcibly removed from society). But honestly, the number of times an objection to an apparently unsupported or thoroughly rebutted position has been counted as "suppression of free speech" is remarkable.

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which is what we are doing.

Spokesperson for religious organisation says via TV/newsmedia/radio/press release ' blah blah end of the world as we know it blah blah going to hell blah blah blah'
Opponents say 'rubbish! How dare you try and dictate how we live our lives and publicly condemn and vilify us.'

They expressed their views.

We responded by expressing our views of their views.

as to how we are being intolerant when obviously we are actually responding by utilising our free speech to express our views...?

Who accused you of being intolerant by expressing your views on whether gay marriage should be legal. I certainly didn't.

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

Person 1: Same sex marriage is against god's law/sinful/etc and shouldn't be allowed in society. I advocate shipping gay people off to some kind of Gay Island as such people shouldn't be even allowed to participate in "normal" society (see A&A board for this gem). Furthermore, children shouldn't be brought up by two men/women, it's bad for them.

Person 2: Same sex marriage in a civil context is simply about equality. I won't force a church to marry gay people. And actually, there is plenty of evidence that children brought up by two men/women are perfectly fine. Oh, and suggesting that gay people be shipped off somewhere is really nasty and bigotted, why don't you think they have a place in society?

Person 1: *whine* I have the right to say what I want. You're trying to stop me expressing my opinion, effing dicatator lefty liberal. You don't think anyone who thinks differently should get a say. *more whine*

Person 2: *sigh*

Now, obviously this is an extreme anti position (well, I hope nobody seriously thinks that gay people should be forcibly removed from society). But honestly, the number of times an objection to an apparently unsupported or thoroughly rebutted position has been counted as "suppression of free speech" is remarkable.

Sorry, what has this straw man got to do with anything in this thread?

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, what has this straw man got to do with anything in this thread?

Yeah, thanks for the courtesy. If you read what I wrote, you'll see it outlines exactly the same position as Bannasidhe above. Yet no objection to her point?

Honestly PDN, I could think that was personal.