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

PDN wrote: »

No, but I am going to pull up posters who give distorted parodies of what their opponents believe. No-one has stated or suggested that all heterosexual acts are moral, or that only gays engage in immoral activities.

You do your cause no favours by such over the top stuff. Reducing yourself to Actor's level simply plays into his hands.

Except that Actor didn't make any claim that only gays are immoral.

If I were to correct every poster that repeats themself then I would be a very busy poster indeed.

Oh stop farting about for goodness sake! You asked me if there was a single Christian poster who had mentioned that heterosexuals can be and are sexually promiscuous. So I looked at the first page of the thread and saw one straight away. And that is the point.

My 'cause' as you put it is won PDN. Gay marriage will happen in Ireland. The vast majority of Irish people view homosexuality as perfectly normal. They do not think gay people have sex is a sin (if they think about it at all).

It is the likes of Actor who are fighting a lost cause and doing it no favours.

You and I and everyone who has participated in this thread knows that Actor has an issue with gay people having sex, he has been asked repeatedly if his disgust at certain sexual acts extends to heterosexuals and failed to respond. It is therefore not outside the realms of possibility that Actor does indeed believe that Gay people are inherently immoral. But if you feel the need to defend him after you have banned him for trolling go ahead.

Thank you for the critique of my posting style - I shall give your comments all the attention they deserve just as soon as I have finished 'farting about'.

nozzferrahhtoo

JimiTime wrote: »

I gave up on yee, because yee were all too preoccupied with gay people, when I was trying to talk about mammies and daddies. though I suppose it is the gay megathread so I'll let it slide.;)

And yet you still have not attempted to answer the question I asked you multiple times now about "mammies and daddies". When you say "I was trying to talk about mammies and daddies" is it possible you forgot the word "not" just after "trying"?

aloyisious

With regard to the issue of marriage and straight and gay couples, it seem's to me that there is no such thing as the generic "ideal family". It's more how people see other people who seem to have the traditional ideal family inclusive of an opposite-sex married partner and child/children. The idea that the ideal family consists of two married opposite-sex adults with children is that fostered by tradition and religious belief. The fact is that traditional marriage can be faulty and not ideal is a fact of life.

The view on gay civil marriage seem's linked to "morals". It depends solely on how one defines what's moral. If a same-sex couple can raise children in the way a traditional opposite-sex couple should and treat other people in a morally well-grounded manner with respect, then it seem's to me that the opposition to the same-sex couple getting married comes from tradition, not morals.

The major pushers for the retention of the traditional view on marriage here, the churches and religions, don't (IMO) have any moral right to use morality or tradition as grounds to stop gay couples getting civil-marriage. They have been proven to have disregarded the protection and care of the nation's children, the very reason they put forward in opposition to gay civil marriage.

As for actual parenting, that depends on the parents. There'd be no getting away from the fact that (as humans) gays may well be as useless as straights as parents: but on the same basis that straight couples may raise children, that should apply to gay couples. It doesn't take two opposite-sex parents to successfully raise children to the expected traditional standard, as many a case of single-parent raising of children here has proved.

Actor

"Gay Daddy" is on tonight at 9:30 (past the watershed, thank God).

What do ye Christians think of homosexuals adopting children? Personally, I think this programme is nothing more than a grand social engineering project where its makers are attempting to push nature in a way it wasn't designed to go in.

I saw a gay man feeding a child and wiping bums in the commercial. I feel this info-tainment show is all about the two gays themselves and them trying to drum up public acclamation of their union in advance of the upcoming constitutional convention. The poor child is caught in the middle of all this - its mother ought to be ashamed of herself.

Benny_Cake

Actor wrote: »

"Gay Daddy" is on tonight at 9:30 (past the watershed, thank God).

What do ye Christians think of homosexuals adopting children? Personally, I think this programme is nothing more than a grand social engineering project where its makers are attempting to push nature in a way it wasn't designed to go in.

I saw a gay man feeding a child and wiping bums in the commercial. I feel this info-tainment show is all about the two gays themselves and them trying to drum up public acclamation of their union in advance of the upcoming constitutional convention. The poor child is caught in the middle of all this - its mother ought to be ashamed of herself.

How can you say what the makers are attempting to do when the programme hasn't even been aired yet?! As for changing nappies and feeding...can't see the problem myself.

In my opinion, yet another cheaply made reality show, which have become very popular with RTE as they don't cost a lot of money to make and fill time. While it may shed some light on whether the two men themselves are suited to being parents, by it's very nature it can't say a lot about the suitability of other gay men and women to be parents. Everyone is different.

Actor

Benny_Cake wrote: »

How can you say what the makers are attempting to do when the programme hasn't even been aired yet?! As for changing nappies and feeding...can't see the problem myself.

In my opinion, yet another cheaply made reality show, which have become very popular with RTE as they don't cost a lot of money to make and fill time. While it may shed some light on whether the two men themselves are suited to being parents, by it's very nature it can't say a lot about the suitability of other gay men and women to be parents. Everyone is different.

It amounts to nothing more than child abuse AFAIC.

doctoremma

Actor wrote: »

It amounts to nothing more than child abuse AFAIC.

Perhaps you could offer that opinion to those suffering genuine child abuse. You know, the children being raped by their uncle and beaten to a pulp by an alcoholic father. Those ones.

Actor

doctoremma wrote: »

Perhaps you could offer that opinion to those suffering genuine child abuse. You know, the children being raped by their uncle and beaten to a pulp by an alcoholic father. Those ones.

Child abuse is child abuse.

Corkfeen

Actor wrote: »

Child abuse is child abuse.

And this does not fall into category of child abuse. How exactly is it affecting them negatively? Give me one real example.

doctoremma

Corkfeen wrote: »

And this does not fall into category of child abuse. How exactly is it affecting them negatively? Give me one real example.

He won't answer until later, glued to the sodomy at the moment.

KittyKat1979

I'm sorry this is not a gay thing, its just a been done already thing! We were talking about Maia Dunphys documentary on teh same series a few months ago and this show just ripped off the same show but made the presenter a gay man rather than a straight woman asking the Qs. Very lazy RTE.

Sin City

Actor wrote: »

It amounts to nothing more than child abuse AFAIC.

Peado priests amount to child abuse

Parents wanting to give a child a loving home and a decent upbringing is in fact the opposite of child abuse

face1990

Actor wrote: »

I saw a gay man feeding a child and wiping bums in the commercial.

Shocking! :eek:

One time I saw a gay man walking a dog. Animal abuse, pure and simple!

JimiTime

There is a great clash that is brewing for religious folk in terms of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, versus the rights of those with sexual preferences at odds with God. For example, the cases recently in the UK where Catholic adoption agencies closed because they they held to the belief that children should be given to nuclear households. Or the case where a housing officer stated that homosexual weddings in church is an equality too far being demoted. Or the case of the B & B owners who had a policy of not allowing unmarried couples have a double room being sued sucessfully by a homosexual couple. Or the case in the states recently where a woman who was the diversity officer in a university being suspended for signing a petition at her church that sought for marriage to stay with its traditional definition recognising the unparalleled and unique relationship between a man and a woman. Or the case in Boston where parents are given no choice to exclude children (From Kindergarten up), from the instilling of a pro-gay syllabus with books like, 'Jimi has two daddies' and the likes, as well as cross gendering games etc. All of this is in the name of promoting LGBT rights, and encouraging diversity in terms of sex and gender.

It is becoming increasingly obvious, that these things cannot co-exist peacefully. As the definition of bigot, and homophobe etc become increasingly manipulated to mean 'anyone who doesn't agree with us', then there will be absolutely no denying that an eye will be thrown (and already is thrown) on Christianity as homophobic and bigoted., and it can only lead to the doors of organisations who identify as Christian.

So, what do Christians believe should be done, shouldn't be done and indeed can be done? Is it something we should care about at all? is it even an issue?

Like to hear Christian opinion on this.

endacl

Oh, there's a loaded thread title if ever there was one...

I'm afraid I don't fit the demographic you're looking for answers from OP, but in the rights 'war', I certainly anticipate a loss for your team.

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

JimiTime

Lets not get personal endacl. There is a discussion to be had here without talking about what people do in bedrooms. I don't know why when anything to do with this topic comes up, people obsess about bedroom antics. This is a thread to do with rights that seem to conflict at times. In fact, the idea for the thread came from a thread on the A & A board, specifically Mr Puddings post:

Freedom of religion versus freedom not to be discriminated against. This is a very interesting area and the ensuing conflicts raise interesting questions.

BTW, I'd love for once for this to be kept civil. Don't know if the mods have the inclination to ensure this, or indeed the good posters on boards have the decency to do this without mod intervention, but it'd be great.

endacl

JimiTime wrote: »

Lets not get personal endacl. There is a discussion to be had here without talking about what people do in bedrooms. I don't know why when anything to do with this topic comes up, people obsess about bedroom antics. This is a thread to do with rights that seem to conflict at times. In fact, the idea for the thread came from a thread on the A & A board, specifically Mr Puddings post:

Freedom of religion versus freedom not to be discriminated against. This is a very interesting area and the ensuing conflicts raise interesting questions.

BTW, I'd love for once for this to be kept civil. Don't know if the mods can do this, or indeed the good posters on boards have the decency to do this without mod intervention, but it'd be great.

I was drawn in by your implication that the rights you mention aren't in fact rights at all. Being neither a big scary gay nor a christian, I'm a bit of a bystander here, but I am a believer in inherent rights. Those that I hold are held by everybody. This of course includes the right to express daft opinions (depending on who's reading, this may be you or me...).

The conflict between individual rights you mention above isn't really a conflict at all. If you offer a service to the public you have to offer it to all. If you felt uncomfortable having a big scary gay couple stay in your b&b, then avoid this by not running a b&b. Then you will be quite within your rights in not having them to stay in your private residence. That would be your business. Likewise, if you felt it to be wrong marrying a big scary gay couple, then civil registrar is probably not the job for you. Conflict easily avoided. Your personal beliefs are just that. Personal.

As to 'bedroom antics'... I suppose I was commenting on the fact that of all the things people interpret god to hate, homosexuality is over represented here on boards. What about all the other stuff? I mean, what about 'thou shalt not steal'? It even got to be a commandment! There's people nicking stuff left, right and centre all over the place, yet online christians are lamentably silent on the issue.

And don't even get me started on idolatry...

Benny_Cake

Jimi, I hope you don't mind but I've merged your thread with the gay megathread. Although it would be possible to have a discussion about conflict between religious minorities and secular society without bringing the issue of homosexuality into it, the examples you gave are quite specific to this area.

JimiTime

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Jimi, I hope you don't mind but I've merged your thread with the gay megathread. Although it would be possible to have a discussion about conflict between religious minorities and secular society without bringing the issue of homosexuality into it, the examples you gave are quite specific to this area.

No bother, not into the abomination that is the megathreads so I'm out. Feel free to delete, or you can leave it be for others.
Cheers.

PS. You know mods, you could just do your job rather than set these megathreads up. Just an idea like

Benny_Cake

JimiTime wrote: »

No bother, not into the abomination that is the megathreads so I'm out. Feel free to delete, or you can leave it be for others.
Cheers.

PS. You know mods, you could just do your job rather than set these megathreads up. Just an idea like

I'll leave it here if anyone wants to discuss.

Regarding the megathreads, they are still moderated so I don't see how their existence implies that mods aren't doing any work. The reason they were set up is because the same topics were constantly being raised, usually by the same people. Others may want to moderate a forum with nothing but flamewars about homosexuality, atheism and Catholic vs Protestants - but not me.

If anyone has any issues with moderation they are welcome to raise them via PM.

JimiTime

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'll leave it here if anyone wants to discuss.

Regarding the megathreads, they are still moderated so I don't see how their existence implies that mods aren't doing any work. The reason they were set up is because the same topics were constantly being raised, usually by the same people. Others may want to moderate a forum with nothing but flamewars about homosexuality, atheism and Catholic vs Protestants - but not me.

If anyone has any issues with moderation they are welcome to raise them via PM.

I didn't say mods wren't doing any work, I said there would be no need for these abominations if mods did their job. You yourself recognised the flame wars. You don't actually solve anything by just telling everyone to flame in a megathread. If people are hijacking unrelated threads constantly by making it about catholics and protestants, or homosexuals etc, then they should be dealt with, and not just moved to a megathread.

Talk about Adam and Eve, off to the evolution megathread.
Talk about 'The biggest rights issue of our time' (As described by our Tanaiste) and its off to the gay megathread.
Talk about differences in doctrine between catholics and others, its off to the catholic protestant megathread.

There are those that want to have a reasonable discussion, and those that don't. Its a mods job to distinguish this and deal appropriately. The megathreads are an absolute mess, and an awful indictment on this forum and IMO its mods (though I empathise with the reasoning, its still not justified IMO). It would be nice to be able to talk about specific issues relating to the things that get lazily thrown into the megathreads. Not only that, but they are an implicit disapproval of raising such topics. A kind of 'here we go again'.

IMO, proper moderation is whats needed and not megathreads.

Benny_Cake

Jimi, I am not going to get into a discussion here regarding the megathreads - this simply isn't the place for it. If you wish to take it further you can open a thread about it in the Feedback forum.

georgieporgy

...........then the world ended. And they all lived happily ever after.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

[...]Or the case in the states recently where a woman who was the diversity officer in a university being suspended for signing a petition at her church that sought for marriage to stay with its traditional definition recognising the unparalleled and unique relationship between a man and a woman.

Hi Jimi,

Can you not see the irony in this one?

Perhaps you might try this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056775014

I think it is exactly what you are looking for, and I would agree that it is a very interesting area.

MrP

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

Hi Jimi,

Can you not see the irony in this one?

Not really, but i know why you'd say it. If we say that irony is at work, its a two way street, and actually exemplifies the conflict rather well.

Perhaps you might try this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056775014

I think it is exactly what you are looking for, and I would agree that it is a very interesting area.

MrP

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

NuMarvel

JimiTime wrote: »

Lets not get personal endacl. There is a discussion to be had here without talking about what people do in bedrooms. I don't know why when anything to do with this topic comes up, people obsess about bedroom antics.

Then perhaps you should have been clearer in stating that you the issue you wanted to discuss related to sexual orientation, and not sexual preferences.

It's curious that all the examples you gave related to sexual orientation. There are plenty of other circumstances where there could be a conflict between someone's belief and the people they provide a service to. For example, why not talk about civil registrars being forced to marry divorced people? That would make them party to adultery.

Or what about the obstetrician who delivers a child whose parents aren't married? Should that doctor have the right to turn the parents away?

But, for some reason, you seem to believe the conflict only arises because of LGBT rights. There are plenty of other groups whose behaviours run contrary to Christian beliefs. If the world hasn't erupted up to this point, then I wonder why you think there's a clash on the horizon now.

JimiTime

NuMarvel wrote: »

Then perhaps you should have been clearer in stating that you the issue you wanted to discuss related to sexual orientation, and not sexual preferences.

It's curious that all the examples you gave related to sexual orientation. There are plenty of other circumstances where there could be a conflict between someone's belief and the people they provide a service to. For example, why not talk about civil registrars being forced to marry divorced people? That would make them party to adultery.

Or what about the obstetrician who delivers a child whose parents aren't married? Should that doctor have the right to turn the parents away?

But, for some reason, you seem to believe the conflict only arises because of LGBT rights. There are plenty of other groups whose behaviours run contrary to Christian beliefs. If the world hasn't erupted up to this point, then I wonder why you think there's a clash on the horizon now.

There ye go Mr P. a case in point

So many rabbit holes, so little time. There are too many pre-conceptions that some posters have to get over. It just turns into me trying to correct misconceptions and misrepresentations, and false accusations and personal abuse, and everything else but actually dealing with the subject matter.

[Deleted User]

Jimi, A&A and Christianity are not the only forums suitable for discussions about conflict of rights, for example, even if the discussion is based in a religious context. You can try the Humanities forum, which has extremely high discussion standards and lots of posters who, I'm sure, would be interested in such a discussion. There's also the Philosophy forum if you'd like to discuss the topic at a more fundamental level. So, don't feel confined to A&A or Christianity, there are other suitable forums for discussion. Just a tip.

(P.S. If you're going to post in Humanities or Philosophy have a read of their respective charters; both forums have stricter discussion standards than here or A&A.)

NuMarvel

JimiTime wrote: »

There ye go Mr P. a case in point So many rabbit holes, so little time. There are too many pre-conceptions that some posters have to get over. It just turns into me trying to correct misconceptions and misrepresentations, and false accusations and personal abuse, and everything else but actually dealing with the subject matter.

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

The only one avoiding the subject matter is you.

JimiTime

gvn wrote: »

Jimi, A&A and Christianity are not the only forums suitable for discussions about conflict of rights, for example, even if the discussion is based in a religious context. You can try the Humanities forum, which has extremely high discussion standards and lots of posters who, I'm sure, would be interested in such a discussion. There's also the Philosophy forum if you'd like to discuss the topic at a more fundamental level. So, don't feel confined to A&A or Christianity, there are other suitable forums for discussion. Just a tip. (P.S. If you're going to post in Humanities or Philosophy have a read of their respective charters; both forums have stricter discussion standards than here or A&A.)

Thanks GVN, I appreciate the advice. The context of my question, as you alluded to, is the context of how a Christian deals with the issue, or if there is in fact an issue for Christians. It also asks, if it is an issue, should Christians get involved politically etc.