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

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2013 04:18PM

lazygal wrote: »

Ahhhh I see, when Philologos is condemning something its fair enough because he's got god in his corner, but when someone else is condemning something, like say the lack of marriage equality, they shouldn't be allowed to do that because god said it wasn't ok.

Yes.

philologos · 07-02-2013 04:33PM

lazygal wrote: »

Ahhhh I see, when Philologos is condemning something its fair enough because he's got god in his corner, but when someone else is condemning something, like say the lack of marriage equality, they shouldn't be allowed to do that because god said it wasn't ok.

People can say whatever they want. I don't endorse ramming one philosophy on this issue into the education system when many people disagree.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2013 04:36PM

philologos wrote: »

People can say whatever they want. I don't endorse ramming one philosophy on this issue into the education system when many people disagree.

Like a particular religion for example?

JimiTime · 07-02-2013 04:54PM

Morbert wrote: »

I guess I was wrong. You do hold a reprehensible position.

And you are entitled to that opinion. I find it reprehensible, that there are groups out there that want kids to 'get in contact with their inner tranny', that will explain to same sex attracted young teens how to fist each other etc. That so many people think being chaste is out dated and laughable, and that we should just teach kids to use condoms rather than try to encourage them to be morally minded etc.

You are objecting to the fact that homosexual relationships are being legitimised in literature.

No. Objecting that this literature is been introduced to children with a view to making them sympathetic to LGBT politic, and trying to make it perfectly normal to the child. Its propaganda, plain and simple. That you happen to agree with the propaganda is where the disagreement really is.

That is as odious as objecting to any literature that legitimises equal rights for people of different races.

No, not even close. There are moral implications to actions. There are no moral implications to a person being of a certain race.

07-02-2013 04:57PM

JimiTime wrote: »

And you are entitled to that opinion. I find it reprehensible, that there are groups out there that want kids to 'get in contact with their inner tranny', that will explain to same sex attracted young teens how to fist each other etc. That so many people think being chaste is out dated and laughable, and that we should just teach kids to use condoms rather than try to encourage them to be morally minded etc.

Not going to touch this one with a barge-pole. The fact that you even think in these terms show how incredibly broken your take on this subject is

JimiTime wrote: »

No. Objecting that this literature is been introduced to children with a view to making them sympathetic to LGBT politic, and trying to make it perfectly normal to the child. Its propaganda, plain and simple. That you happen to agree with the propaganda is where the disagreement really is.

And what makes it propaganda, exactly? If it was "King and Queen", would it be straight propaganda?

Delirium · 07-02-2013 04:58PM

philologos wrote: »

People can say whatever they want. I don't endorse ramming one philosophy on this issue into the education system when many people disagree.

How is it one philosophy? The schools aren't excluding heterosexual relationships in the discussion. You want to reduce the allowed opinions that can be covered in a classroom.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2013 05:04PM

28064212 wrote: »

Not going to touch this one with a barge-pole. The fact that you even think in these terms show how incredibly broken your take on this subject is

Indeed, it's well known that fellatio, fisting, sodomy, cunnilingus and B&D currently form part of the sex education for heterosexuals in schools. :rolleyes:

JimiTime · 07-02-2013 05:05PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It's truly amazing how worked up people get about these things. According to Wiki, in Oklahoma:

All over what sounds like a fairly run of the mill children's story, which would probably be largely unheard of if it wasn't for all the moral outrage. They never learn.

Are you interested in presenting your case for your Christianity being compatible with your views on the topic at hand? Would be a lot more interesting topic than all this butting of heads that is going on. I think its of grave concern that professing Christians are affirming these things because if you are wrong, not only are you stumbling others, but you are heaping coals on your own head. Similarly, if I am wrong, then I am bringing reproach on Christ. You fancy discussing it?

Morbert · 07-02-2013 05:09PM

JimiTime wrote: »

And you are entitled to that opinion. I find it reprehensible, that there are groups out there that want kids to 'get in contact with their inner tranny', that will explain to same sex attracted young teens how to fist each other etc. That so many people think being chaste is out dated and laughable, and that we should just teach kids to use condoms rather than try to encourage them to be morally minded etc.

You are bordering on hysteria.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjnrLt3VuSM

No. Objecting that this literature is been introduced to children with a view to making them sympathetic to the non-white politic, and trying to make it perfectly normal to the child. Its propaganda, plain and simple. That you happen to agree with the propaganda is where the disagreement really is.

No, not even close. There are moral implications to actions. There are no moral implications to a person being of the same race.

Fixed.

Morbert · 07-02-2013 05:10PM

I might add, Jimi, that if you want to simply argue that your religion says so, then that is a battle you are not going to win, considering the recent trend in the West, and even in some developing countries, towards equal rights for homosexuals.

JimiTime · 07-02-2013 05:22PM

28064212 wrote: »

And what makes it propaganda, exactly? If it was "King and Queen", would it be straight propaganda?

Propaganda is usually insidious. There is nothing insidious about books that happen to contain societal norms, with no ulterior motives. Introducing books to children containing homosexual relationships with a view to influencing their perceptions on said relationships is the issue.

As I said, the disagreement occurs in the fact that you want children to be influenced in this manner.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2013 05:26PM

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said, the disagreement occurs in the fact that you want children to be influenced in this manner.

No. The disagreement occurs because people like you want to continue to impose your religious bigotry (yes - I used the B word and I liked it) on society.

JimiTime · 07-02-2013 05:26PM

Morbert wrote: »

You are bordering on hysteria.

I have no desire to introduce terms like reprehensible, my point was to bring your attention to how worthless it is to bring in these subjective terms, and just engage without going on at Phil, or whoever about their view being reprehensible or whatever.

07-02-2013 05:31PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Propaganda is usually insidious. There is nothing insidious about books that happen to contain societal norms, with no ulterior motives. Introducing books to children containing homosexual relationships with a view to influencing their perceptions on said relationships is the issue.

As I said, the disagreement occurs in the fact that you want children to be influenced in this manner.

It contains monarchies. Is that propaganda preparing the way for a return to the feudal system? If it was "King and Queen", but the Queen was black, is that propaganda for inter-racial marriages?

Morbert · 07-02-2013 05:33PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I have no desire to introduce terms like reprehensible, my point was to bring your attention to how worthless it is to bring in these subjective terms, and just engage without going on at Phil, or whoever about their view being reprehensible or whatever.

And therein lies the greatest irony. You object to my use of subjective terms, when really what is happening is you are enshrining your personal distaste in a shiny theological package and expecting us to take it seriously.

Let's face it. Let's have a moment of honesty. You showed a glimmer of it in your last post. You are not against homosexual acts because of some grand universal narrative of sin and redemption. You are against it because you find it reprehensible. Homosexual unions are unions of the Other, of the Different. You find them gross and alien and unclean. That is the real reason. You can thump your Holy book of choice all you want.

You are fooling nobody.

JimiTime · 07-02-2013 05:37PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. The disagreement occurs because people like you want to continue to impose your religious bigotry (yes - I used the B word and I liked it) on society.

True to form Bannasidhe, true to form

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2013 05:39PM

JimiTime wrote: »

True to form Bannasidhe, true to form

Yes Jimi, You are. But I am surprised to hear you admit it.

JimiTime · 07-02-2013 05:39PM

28064212 wrote: »

It contains monarchies. Is that propaganda preparing the way for a return to the feudal system? If it was "King and Queen", but the Queen was black, is that propaganda for inter-racial marriages?

If there were a group of monarchists introducing books with the intent of molding kids into monarchists then YES it would be propaganda.

JimiTime · 07-02-2013 05:40PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes Jimi, You are. But I am surprised to hear you admit it.

Oh I do love our little games Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2013 05:42PM

JimiTime wrote: »

If there were a group of monarchists introducing books with the intent of molding kids into monarchists then YES it would be propaganda.

LOLZ

Jimi thinks if kids read books with a positive message about homosexuality they will catch the ghey!!!

Funny how I didn't catch the schtraight from Wuthering Heights -

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2013 05:44PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Oh I do love our little games Bannasidhe

So do I Jimi - it's so rare that I encounter a pre-Enlightenment mindset. You are a fascinating study.

07-02-2013 05:44PM

JimiTime wrote: »

If there were a group of monarchists introducing books with the intent of molding kids into monarchists then YES it would be propaganda.

So the author, publishers, legislators, Boards of Education and teachers are all homosexuals, and created this book with the intent of molding kids into homosexuals? Like your comments about "inner tranny" and fisting, this just shows how out of touch with reality you are

JimiTime · 07-02-2013 05:59PM

Morbert wrote: »

And therein lies the greatest irony. You object to my use of subjective terms, when really what is happening is you are enshrining your personal distaste in a shiny theological package and expecting us to take it seriously.

I didn't object, I just showed you how worthless it was in the discussion to start having a go at Phil for what YOU saw as reprehensible. Leave the hyperbole out, and you could still make your point.

Let's face it. Let's have a moment of honesty. You showed a glimmer of it in your last post. You are not against homosexual acts because of some grand universal narrative of sin and redemption. You are against it because you find it reprehensible. Homosexual unions are unions of the Other, of the Different. You find them gross and alien and unclean. That is the real reason. You can thump your Holy book of choice all you want.

You are fooling nobody.

I am nothing but honest Morbert. All my moments are honest. I'm not looking to fool anyone, so its no surprise that I'm not fooling anyone neither

You are correct, and I haven't try hide the fact that the thought of two men together disgusts me, as it does many people who would be pro-LGBT. I know many people who would make the vomit gesture, but proceed with, 'but whatever you're into, who am I to say....' In general, I'd be of the 'whatever you are into yourself' kinda guys myself. However, when I see issues arise that are not simply, 'whatever you're into yourself'. For example, many people have sex outside of wedlock, and while I morally object I'm very much, 'Its up to yourself'. If however, there were Christians trying to push the idea that its morally ok, and political groups trying to push it as fine and dandy in schools, I would perk up. No different in terms of homosexuality. There are groups campaigning for things that I believe that will effect society etc, so its now not just a case of 'Whatever you're into'.

While disagreeing, do you comprehend what I am telling you?

Benny_Cake · 07-02-2013 06:05PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Are you interested in presenting your case for your Christianity being compatible with your views on the topic at hand? Would be a lot more interesting topic than all this butting of heads that is going on. I think its of grave concern that professing Christians are affirming these things because if you are wrong, not only are you stumbling others, but you are heaping coals on your own head. Similarly, if I am wrong, then I am bringing reproach on Christ. You fancy discussing it?

I think that others are more than capable of making up their own minds on this issue and anyone who would make up their own minds based solely on what I thought or said would have bigger questions to answer quite frankly. You're entitled to your view Jimi, I've no interest in changing your mind, and in all honestly, I don't think anyone's mind would be changed by any of the contributions on this thread, particularly now that we're reduced to bringing exotic sexual practices into the discussion.

My own views regarding monogamous same-sex relationships have been influenced by the gay people I've been lucky enough to have met, and the blessing that I know many gay people and same-sex couples are to their families, their communities, and in some cases, their fellow churchgoers. Writers such as Brian McLaren and Jay Bakker have made some good points regarding how the small few passages in the Bible relating to same-sex relations can be interpreted in the light of the Gospel. The Biblical arguments are nuanced, and can be read a number of ways I think.

In any case,even if I was shown to be wrong, I'd still support the right of same-sex couples to access civil marriage on the same basis as everyone else, while protecting the right of religious communities to decide who can and can't be married under their auspices.

I've never claimed to have all the answers on this subject so as regards coals being heaped on my head over this, well, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

JimiTime · 07-02-2013 06:05PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

LOLZ

Jimi thinks if kids read books with a positive message about homosexuality they will catch the ghey!!!

Ha ha. It would be funny if I said that wouldn't it:)

philologos · 07-02-2013 06:06PM

I think in a nutshell what I'm saying is that people shouldn't be forced to accept one philosophy on redefining marriage in schools and that people should have the right to disagree with you.

Clearly you don't think people should have the freedom to disagree with you and to raise their families with Christian values.

JimiTime · 07-02-2013 06:08PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So do I Jimi - it's so rare that I encounter a pre-Enlightenment mindset. You are a fascinating study.

And its so rare I encounter the angry lesbian stereotype too. Its nice that we can get ths mutual benefit from each other

lazygal · 07-02-2013 06:11PM

philologos wrote: »

I think in a nutshell what I'm saying is that people shouldn't be forced to accept one philosophy on redefining marriage in schools and that people should have the right to disagree with you.

Clearly you don't think people should have the freedom to disagree with you and to raise their families with Christian values.

People can raise their families with whatever values they like. State schools should teach children about all types of families, without 'glorifying' one specific unit with 'propaganda'. If tolerance doesn't suit a Christian teacher, he or she should find a job more suited to his or her 'conscience'. I'm still awaiting a definition of 'glorifying' and 'propaganda', by the by.

JimiTime · 07-02-2013 06:17PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I think that others are more than capable of making up their own minds on this issue and anyone who would make up their own minds based solely on what I thought or said would have bigger questions to answer quite frankly. You're entitled to your view Jimi, I've no interest in changing your mind, and in all honestly, I don't think anyone's mind would be changed by any of the contributions on this thread, particularly now that we're reduced to bringing exotic sexual practices into the discussion.

My own views regarding monogamous same-sex relationships have been influenced by the gay people I've been lucky enough to have met, and the blessing that I know many gay people and same-sex couples are to their families, their communities, and in some cases, their fellow churchgoers. Writers such as Brian McLaren and Jay Bakker have made some good points regarding how the small few passages in the Bible relating to same-sex relations can be interpreted in the light of the Gospel. The Biblical arguments are nuanced, and can be read a number of ways I think.

In any case,even if I was shown to be wrong, I'd still support the right of same-sex couples to access civil marriage on the same basis as everyone else, while protecting the right of religious communities to decide who can and can't be married under their auspices.

I've never claimed to have all the answers on this subject so as regards coals being heaped on my head over this, well, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

I'm not saying you have all the answers, I'm just wondering if there is anything more than a desire to be friends with gay people behind your view that Christianity and homosexual union is compatible? I know some really nice gay people, just the same as I know lots of people into sleeping around who are sound people, and we mind each others kids at times etc etc. Knowing these people does not mean I disregard Gods will, or ignore it. I'm interested in how YOU square it? YOUR testimony on it if you are willing to give it?

Benny_Cake · 07-02-2013 06:18PM

philologos wrote: »

I think in a nutshell what I'm saying is that people shouldn't be forced to accept one philosophy on redefining marriage in schools and that people should have the right to disagree with you.

Clearly you don't think people should have the freedom to disagree with you and to raise their families with Christian values.

I'm not familiar enough with the education system to know for sure, but how is the subject of (heterosexual) marriage discussed in class as things stand? Because (leaving aside King & King!) if it's simply talking about the existence of marriage, it seems to as if the structure is being described without any value judgement being attached to it. How would that be any different to the existence of same-sex marriage being talked about?

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

Comments