PDN wrote: » However, after people started accusing anyone who disagreed with them of being bigots and homophobes, any reasonable Christian posters have left the thread, and that is unfortunate.
28064212 wrote: » Other than JimiTime (who was openly trolling), what posters have been called bigots or homophobes? And if people were making false accusations, why weren't they moderated? Since JimiTime entered the thread with his nonsense, all possibility of a reasonable discussion stopped. But that is the fault of one poster, which is no surprise, since it was his stated intention.
JimiTime wrote: » Baseless insults?? Here?? Well I never! Way to go for exemplifying what PDN described btw.:) So now, as well as bigoted and laughable I can add nonsense to the views expressed here if someone believes a mother and a father are not inconsequential to a child. What a strange world we are entering into.
JimiTime wrote: » So now, as well as bigoted and laughable I can add nonsense to the views expressed here if someone believes a mother and a father are not inconsequential to a child. What a strange world we are entering into.
28064212 wrote: » Nope, wrong again Jimi. I said you brought nonsense to this thread, I didn't say anything about a particular viewpoint being nonsensical
doctoremma wrote: » I don't think that's a very fair comment. Particular posters have only attracted such labels when they have consistently failed to offer any rational defence of their position. If that doesn't make one a bigot, what does?
JimiTime wrote: » Don't make me laugh! Rational?? The whole concept of burden of proof has been twisted by people so that they can rest in their positions. The burden is on YOU to tell us that mothers and fathers are no longer of consequence
JimiTime wrote: » Don't make me laugh! Rational?? The whole concept of burden of proof has been twisted by people so that they can rest in their positions. The burden is on YOU to tell us that mothers and fathers are no longer of consequence, and as there is not even near a relevant sample population to study, you can't. However, because you hold a certain political ideology (which is fair enough), you want to be able to have an objective source to add weight to your ideology. It is dishonest to start saying that this view is based on 'science' though.
28064212 wrote: » Lol, how? Every single study that disagrees with you is biased,
In fact you won't even read the studies.
You talk about shifting the burden of proof? You've already said you won't accept anything we do that addresses that burden.
And once again, the thread is totally derailed and reasonable discussion is impossible. And it's not by anybody using labels like bigotry
JimiTime wrote: » Don't make me laugh! Rational?? The whole concept of burden of proof has been twisted by people so that they can rest in their positions. The burden is on YOU to tell us that mothers and fathers are no longer of consequence, and as there is not even near a relevant sample population to study, you can't. However, because you hold a certain political ideology (which is fair enough), you want to be able to have an objective source to add weight to your ideology. It is dishonest to start saying that this view is based on 'science' though. As I've said from the start, which everyone threw their toys out of their pram about, is that the answer really needs to arise from yourselves. You have already made the leap into believing this is an equal rights issue etc, so its more difficult for you. The only way your skewed views will be healed is if you look around and realise that implicitly and explicitly men and women effect their children differently. Good parents are invaluable, and if we are able to give a child to good parents that will provide both male and female role models THAT is an undeniable ideal.
JimiTime wrote: » Indeed, its derailed by the pretence that your side of the argument is arrived at by scientific research, when in reality its a political ideology.
Jernal wrote: » In the society I grew up in. Most girls were handed baby dolls, cookery and arts sets. The boys were given action figures, video games, remote controls cars etc.
Actor wrote: » Exactly. To these people scientific understanding is their god. If they can't reproduce something in a laboratory, they dismiss its relevance to their lives. Of course when it comes to homosexuals and children, science doesn't offer them any solutions. So they have to paste over the gaping hole (no pun intended) in their rationale by forcing gay "marriage" to be a socio-political issue. Anyone who disagrees with them is a "bigot", "right wing" or a "religious nut".
NuMarvel wrote: » Science can provide plenty of solutions to couples who can't have children through traditional means. And if science is unable to help, there's adoption.
Actor wrote: » Science doesn't create new life. Nor does it create babies to be given up for adoption.
JimiTime wrote: » That is a facsimile of what I said.
JimiTime wrote: » What study convinced you? Which particular details made you think, 'I'm convinced now that mothers and fathers are inconsequential'? What did you think of the sample group and can you detail it? Were you happy that it was statistically relevant? Was/is there any doubts about the accuracy of it in your mind? How did they define 'happiness'? Were you happy at what counted for well rounded and could you detail how this was assertained?
JimiTime wrote: » it is easy to see that being reasonable is indeed a challenge.
Benny_Cake wrote: » When it comes to gay marriage / civil partnerships, I find it amazing how the public mood has shifted in such a short space of time. I don't think that any previous movement of a similar nature (female suffrage, racial equality) made such progress in such a short space of time. It's also worth noting that polls show younger evangelical Christians differ from their elders in that they are far more likely to favour recognition of same sex marriage. So despite the fact that some posters here persist in posts that begin with "Christians believe..." there is no uniform Christian position on this. I think there are few bigots in this forum, in that I believe that one can read the Bible and reach a conscientious decision that homosexual relationships are wrong, provided that you don't seek to deny civil liberties to others. For what it's worth, I've read plenty to persuade me that the Bible has little or nothing to say about committed and loving same-sex relationships as they exist today.
ShooterSF wrote: » I don't think this thread started out much better than it is now. I went back and read the first two (40 posts pp) pages and it's discussions over leviticus (not that religion has any place in civil marriage) and the two other repeated points; Marriage means you need to be able to reproduce (no response made to the usual points of infertile parents etc.) and adopted children need a mother and father again without any further explanation than Jimitime has offered to be fair to him. Heck even a mod on the forum could see some bigotry within those first 2 pages so it's not just us. And to be fair to him he was responding to a poster who used the phrase and I'd also like to take the time to point out his entire post is quite refreshing.
ShooterSF wrote: » Heck even a mod on the forum could see some bigotry within those first 2 pages so it's not just us. And to be fair to him he was responding to a poster who used the phrase and I'd also like to take the time to point out his entire post is quite refreshing.
PDN wrote: » There is also a legitimate debate about how the Old Testament passages )eg Leviticus) should be read by Christians today, as well as the exegesis of New Testament passages that refer to homosexuality.
So, this thread has largely become an echo chamber where a number of non-Christian advocates of gay marriage interact with the occasional drive-by troll and enthusiastically thank each other's posts. Enjoy yourself.
MadsL wrote: » Is there now? That's funny, as you and I had quite an interesting exchange recently about that where you said "The New Testament speaks against homosexuality in no uncertain terms." and I said pretty much what you have said above. I'm happy see you are learning something in this debate.
If you will permit me to discuss this thread and moderation for a second as you bring it up. This thread is I fear a ghetto of your own making, how about allowing reasonable discussion of 'progressive' views in other threads? The problem at the moment is that any discussion of homosexuality is deleted, including the exegesis of what Paul was talking about, or is binned to this thread, the After Hours of Christianity.
To be honest, I wonder why you don't follow Soccer's example and make access private, it might suit you better.
PDN wrote: » The NT does speak against homosexual acts in no uncertain terms. And there could be an interesting debate about the exegesis involved in that. But that's unlikely where posters are more interested in twisting one another's words than they are in listening to each other.
Unfortunately, minority groups have a tendency to make everything all about them. therefore we need specific threads to stop the whole forum being hijacked. The same thing occurred with Creationists, atheists, Catholic/Protestant fundamentalists, and those who always wanted to turn everything into a discussion of clerical child abuse.
PDN wrote: » You greatly overestimate my powers and influence.
doctoremma wrote: » So, given that there are Christians who support gay marriage (or, at least, recognise its legitimacy), and given the apparent explicit sanctions against homosexuality in both the OT and NT, how do those Christians justify their stance? A simple matter of not making others live by your own rules? How might that change when talking with a gay Christian?
A new report from the Public Religion Research Institute suggests a majority of Catholics are supportive of gay and lesbian rights. The report, which was released today, found that 43 percent of Catholics favored allowing gay and lesbian people to marry; 31 percent favored allowing them to form civil unions. 22 percent said there should be no legal recognition of a gay relationship. Here are a few more findings from the report: — Only 39 percent of Catholics give their church top marks for its treatment of the issue of homosexuality. — 56 percent of Catholics believe that homosexual sex is not a sin. — When marriage is defined as a civil marriage “like you get at city hall,” 71 percent of Catholics support it.
MadsL wrote: » In the US a growing majority of Catholics support gay rights.http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/american-catholics-support-gay-marriage/
doctoremma wrote: » So, given that there are Christians who support gay marriage (or, at least, recognise its legitimacy), and given the apparent explicit sanctions against homosexuality in both the OT and NT, how do those Christians justify their stance? A simple matter of not making others live by your own rules?
PDN wrote: » Basically yes. Most Christians, and particularly those who take a more conservative view of the Bible, believe that homosexual acts are incompatible with being a practising follower of Jesus Christ. However, most Christians also recognise that they live in secular pluralist societies, and that it is not the place of the law to enforce Christian moral standards upon others. It might be easier to grasp this point if we think of a subject that is less emotionally charged than homosexuality. Christians believe that the worship of false gods is sinful and contrary to the Ten Commandments. Therefore, it would be incompatible for a practising Christian to participate in prayers that involve burning incense and praying to Krishna or Vishnu. However, no Christian (other than a real nutjob of a zealot) would argue that Hinduism should be illegal or that Hindu weddings should be banned by the State.
PDN wrote: » You're missing my point. No-one is denying that bigots exist (on both sides of the debate IMHO), or that they pop up in this forum now and again. And have you stopped to wonder where such 'refreshing posts' have gone? There are a large number of Christians, including many who post regularly in this forum, who would love to engage in a reasonable discussion on this whole subject. Most of them see homosexual acts as incompatible with being a practising Christian - but others don't see a problem there. Some were opposed to the Civil Partnership Bill, while others were very vocal and public in supporting it. Some oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage - others support it in all but name but would prefer it if another term was used. Others have no problem with same-sex marriage. There is also a legitimate debate about how the Old Testament passages )eg Leviticus) should be read by Christians today, as well as the exegesis of New Testament passages that refer to homosexuality. However, those Christian posters who might take a more nuanced view have long departed this thread. I can't speak for others, but I can explain why I have no interest in participating in this thread as a poster. I had said in essence, "I support same-sex civil unions with the exact same legal status as marriage, but I would prefer to keep a linguistic distinction between that and what Christians refer to when they use the word 'marriage'. I also think same-sex couples wishing to adopt should be treated the same as heterosexual couples." Because of this I was, among other things, callled homophobic. While I enjoy discussing Christian issues, I have better things to do with my time than to expose myself to that kind of unpleasantness from fundamentalists of any persuasion. So, what has happened as a natural progression, is that anyone with any kind of nuanced appproach has gone. That leaves us with those who don't want to give an inch in their position and a straightforward shouting match along the lines of "Two legs bad - four legs good." So, this thread has largely become an echo chamber where a number of non-Christian advocates of gay marriage interact with the occasional drive-by troll and enthusiastically thank each other's posts. Enjoy yourself.
Benny_Cake wrote: » Thanks for the compliment, I should probably point out that I wasn't a mod when I made that post! Looking back, I'm a little uncomfortable with using the word "bigot", I certainly don't think that everyone who holds to the more conservative Christian view necessarily does so out of bigotry (although some may). All I was trying to say is that there are a number of perspectives which Christians have on the issue, which isn't something which we should feel too uncomfortable about. It does seem that the thread has largely become a case of several posters chasing JimiTime around in circles though, with the odd outrageous and offensive remark thrown in by a passer by, which is why I've tended to step back a bit from it though!
Jernal wrote: » Or are you one of those people who won't get an RC car or electronics kit for their daughter?
In the society I grew up in. Most girls were handed baby dolls, cookery and arts sets. The boys were given action figures, video games, remote controls cars etc. So it's not really all that surprising to me that gender influences would appear different. The boy's upbringing was markedly different from the girl. So the boy that grows up to be a father would likely have very different influences, experiences and interests than the girl would have. Now, I'm sure you'd probably agree that if you swapped the roles and gave a girl completely 'boy' toys. You'd still end up with a girl being a girl. Only this girl, experience wise and interest wise would be likely be very different. Would this 'Tomboy' of a girl be the ideal mother? Would she have the stuff in her, even when married to a man, to be the ideal parent? I'm going to ask you now to be very specific. How much of a parents' gender is actually relevant to the child's upbringing? If the toys can be different, why1 not the parents?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
