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

eviltwin

My now 15 yr old had a talk in her school in 6th class by Accord where they were told sex is between a man and a woman and everything else is wrong, this was printed in the literature they gave the kids to take home...now its not as strong a word as abnormal but it was enough for me to complain to the school along with other parents. My daughter is gay, I have gay friends, no one should be telling anyone of 12/13 that its wrong to be gay.

Penn

I attended a Catholic primary school and Christian Brothers secondary school, and apart from a bit on the reproductive organs in Biology, I can't remember ever being taught any sort of sex or relationship education.

Then again, after third year when it stopped becoming an exam subject, religion became "Do your homework and don't make noise" class.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

I certainly wasn't taught that homosexuality was not normal, nor was I thought that heterosexuality was 'The Norm' and I had 3 years of sex and relationship education in a Catholic school, in both biology and religion class. I can't imagine how you would see it as either/or.

Can I ask whether your school acknowledged the existence of homosexuality and, if so, what you were told (briefly)?

I attended a Catholic school and we never received any concerted lessons or teachings on sexuality. As far as I remember, it wasn't mentioned once in any lesson whatsoever. Anything I learned about homosexuality was via parents, informal chats with teachers, friends etc.

To be fair, I attended school before there were many books including gay people. Perhaps coming across such characters in books prompts questioning on the part of the pupil? And that's good thing, right?

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

I certainly wasn't taught that homosexuality was not normal, nor was I thought that heterosexuality was 'The Norm' and I had 3 years of sex and relationship education in a Catholic school, in both biology and religion class. I can't imagine how you would see it as either/or.

I don't see it as either/or. BB intimated that there was something wrong with teaching that heterosexuality is not the norm. That suggests that their view is that the correct way is to teach that heterosexuality is the norm. Hence the confused face

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

Quote: "Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project". Maybe BB meant it as a positive thing, but somehow I doubt it. The only alternative to being taught "heterosexuality not the norm" is "heterosexuality is the norm". Are you advocating the latter?

I certainly wasn't taught that homosexuality was not normal, nor was I thought that heterosexuality was 'The Norm' and I had 3 years of sex and relationship education in a Catholic school, in both biology and religion class. I can't imagine how you would see it as either/or.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/children-to-be-taught-39heterosexuality-not-the-norm39-in-australian-school

While I agree in with what they're trying to accomplish in principle, I think they're going about it the wrong way and perhaps going a bit overboard. Regardless of whether or not it's "normal", it is what the majority of people are, and there's no need to try and diminish that. I'd much rather see more emphasis on teaching children to respect other people's lifestyles and that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

doctoremma

28064212 wrote: »

Quote: "Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project". Maybe BB meant it as a positive thing, but somehow I doubt it. The only alternative to being taught "heterosexuality not the norm" is "heterosexuality is the norm". Are you advocating the latter?

I really dislike use of the word "normal" to describe a group of people. It obviously has that undertone of anything else being abnormal (even if it's not vocalised explicitly). I don't think it's helpful to suggest that anyone in a minority is not "the norm" and I wish newspapers would choose their words more carefully.

If 1/10 people are gay, then 1/10 kid's books should feature a gay couple. If 2/10 people are Muslim, then 2/10 characters in kid's books should be Muslim. The less issue made about it, the less agenda pushing on either side, the more "normal" it will be to children to recognise that we aren't a homogeneous bunch of people.

Of course, I think pulling kids up on spiteful or inappropriate language is appropriate. I think promoting the idea that it doesn't matter whether you're black/white or straight/gay or [insert desired descriptor here] and that the world is made up of lots of different types of people, all worthy of equal respect is all fine. But I'm not sure that making such a major strategy about it is necessary.

Am I being naive? Or is this what's actually happening and the newspapers sensationalise it somewhat?

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

No. Just because you are against schools indoctrinating children with homosexual activist groups' propaganda curriculum, doesn't mean that you are for vilifying homosexuals, or teaching that they are not normal.

Quote: "Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project". Maybe BB meant it as a positive thing, but somehow I doubt it. The only alternative to being taught "heterosexuality not the norm" is "heterosexuality is the norm". Are you advocating the latter?

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

Should they be taught that heterosexuality is the norm, and that if they're gay, they're not normal?

No. Just because you are against schools indoctrinating children with homosexual activist groups' propaganda curriculum, doesn't mean that you are for vilifying homosexuals, or teaching that they are not normal.

28064212

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/children-to-be-taught-39heterosexuality-not-the-norm39-in-australian-school

Should they be taught that heterosexuality is the norm, and that if they're gay, they're not normal?

JimiTime

Below is a link to a rather famous (among activists) piece of homosexual literature fist published in 1987 about the agenda of desensitisation, vilification of dissenters and a whole lot more etc. Worth a read. Gotta hand it to them, its certainly worked/working.

http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm

Brown Bomber

Children to be taught 'heterosexuality not the norm' in Australian schools project

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/children-to-be-taught-39heterosexuality-not-the-norm39-in-australian-school

Juza1973

endacl wrote: »

While there is an apparent logical consistency to your post above. I'll leave it to others to point out the flaws. I'll just remind you that there were gay people long before there were christians. And that there will be gay people long after christianity has given way to whatever comes after it. No matter what belief system people have held throughout history, the only constant has been people.

That's a fact. There is people. And some of them are homosexual.

This does not imply anything.

endacl

Juza1973 wrote: »

Maybe one day society will move in another direction, there is no law of nature that prevents that. Then maybe we will be requested to keep up and see gay dignity being negated without interfering. I will remind then to be serene with that and just go on with my life without interfering with my unrequested Christian opinion.

Hi Juza. I'll be doing as Jimitime says, not as he does on this one. This ain't the thread I posted in. Before I go, I'll respond to you though. Just good manners.

While there is an apparent logical consistency to your post above. I'll leave it to others to point out the flaws. I'll just remind you that there were gay people long before there were christians. And that there will be gay people long after christianity has given way to whatever comes after it. No matter what belief system people have held throughout history, the only constant has been people.

NuMarvel

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, you'll find I'm addressing other things, like showing you how you are not actually dealing with the topic though you say you are. Consider it a public service

So you instead want to make this a discussion on the discussion? No, thanks.

JimiTime

NuMarvel wrote: »

I did see that post. But I also see that you're continuing to post about a topic you claim you're fully avoiding. If don't want to have anything to do with the topic, then I suggest you stop posting.

And in that spirit, I'll address the other part of your post when you make it clear if you're in or out.

Actually, you'll find I'm addressing other things, like showing you how you are not actually dealing with the topic though you say you are. Consider it a public service

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

I know exactly who, and what, you are
MrP

Sure there you go. People don't seem to be able to help themselves when dealing with this topic. Its one of the things that makes me extremely suspicious about the whole thing. People seem to just want to shut down discussion with personal abuse. There is a great, great intolerance of any dissenting voice. More worryingly, is that most of you really don't seem to realise your appalling behaviour.

One can alway hope that a person will change, however.

You pay lip service to such a hope, but your actions defy your words. If I'm to give you the benefit of the doubt though, I'll give you this advice. Abusing people, misrepresenting them, lying about them etc, is not the greatest method to fulfil your alleged hope. In fact, I think what you actually do is actually the opposite of what you say you hope for. You will in fact drive some people to a more extreme view as you just appear as hateful and intolerant. Foaming at the mouth to verbally assault. Thankfully, I'm neither hateful or intolerant. Nor do I care what people do in their bedrooms (This is ironically an obsession of the folk who accuse me of it). I have concerns with where the LGBT agenda is going to bring us as a society however, and no matter how much you guys try to shout me down and lie and abuse, I shall not grow as hateful towards you as you are towards me, nor shall I cower in fear of the abhorrent, disingenuous labels you bestow on dissenters.

Apart from that, your post makes my point more than anything I could say in terms of the absolute waste of time engaging with you over yonder would be.

Juza1973

endacl wrote: »

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.

Maybe one day society will move in another direction, there is no law of nature that prevents that. Then maybe we will be requested to keep up and see gay dignity being negated without interfering. I will remind then to be serene with that and just go on with my life without interfering with my unrequested Christian opinion.

NuMarvel

JimiTime wrote: »

Well I'm avoiding the topic fully in this thread not of my making. In case you missed my earlier post after my thread was moved here:

I'm not into the abomination that is the megathreads so I'm out. Feel free to delete, or you can leave it be for others.

I did see that post. But I also see that you're continuing to post about a topic you claim you're fully avoiding. If don't want to have anything to do with the topic, then I suggest you stop posting.

And in that spirit, I'll address the other part of your post when you make it clear if you're in or out.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

I know exactly who, and what, you are. One can alway hope that a person will change, however.

MrP

JimiTime

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

Well I'm avoiding the topic fully in this thread not of my making. In case you missed my earlier post after my thread was moved here:

I'm not into the abomination that is the megathreads so I'm out. Feel free to delete, or you can leave it be for others.

Also, your post doesn't deal with the topic, but rather says there's more conflicts, and seems to take exception that all the examples I gave were in relation to LGBT rights conflicting. So rather than dealing with the subject, you seem to want to go down the 'Why are you picking on us' route. this is a rabbit hole that just tries take the discussion down a personal route. This may not be your intention, but I hope you see the issue. LGBT rights are very much in vogue in these times, even our own Tanaiste says as much, describing them as the human rights issue of our time. So its current, and has many examples to pick on. Don't take it personal, its more like current affairs.

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.

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.

[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.)

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.

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

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.

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

georgieporgy

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

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.