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

JimiTime · 07-02-2013 06:22PM

lazygal wrote: »

I'm still awaiting a definition of 'glorifying' and 'propaganda', by the by.

Propaganda:
information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.

Morbert · 07-02-2013 06:23PM

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

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?

Yes, you are tendering your personal distaste as a moral imperative. You are packaging your phobia as a righteous effort to protect society. I maintain that you are fooling nobody. I maintain that it will ultimately be why you will not succeed in blocking efforts to teach those unfortunate enough to be gay at this point in history that their feelings are no less legitimate than the feeling of their heterosexual peers. It will ultimately be why you will not succeed in characterising the move towards recognition of gay rights as "propaganda".

JimiTime · 07-02-2013 06:32PM

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, you are tendering your personal distaste as a moral imperative. You are packaging your phobia as a righteous effort to protect society. I maintain that you are fooling nobody. I maintain that it will ultimately be why you will not succeed in blocking efforts to teach those unfortunate enough to be gay at this point in history that their feelings are no less legitimate than the feeling of their heterosexual peers. It will ultimately be why you will not succeed in characterising the move towards recognition of gay rights as "propaganda".

You are right that the Christian view will not succeed IMO. As for your assertions about phobias etc, I think thats a rather simple and lazy way to pigeon hole. We are probably all guilty of it at times, so I empathise with your simplification. All I can tell you is that its way off the mark, but sure we could make this a pantomime with this carry on:) 'Jimi is a [insert term of choice]', 'I'm not actually', 'Yes you are'.

I don't think anyone from my side of this argument can enter this debate without expecting to be called names

Sure its how you've been programmed to react :pac:

Benny_Cake · 07-02-2013 06:35PM

JimiTime wrote: »

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?

I've prayed about this because I'm all too aware that we can deceive ourselves on these things when it's convenient (something I know I've been guilty of in the past). However, I find the argument that the passages discussing same-sex relations in the Bible are describing something quite different to a monogamous same-sex relationship as I know it today - prostitution, men sleeping with boys, and other practices which were common in the Greek / Roman world. I've seen it argued from the other side that Romans 1:26-27 is conclusive on the matter and I would agree that it is more credible to apply that to today than the other verses. The question for me is - what would a Roman have made of it, and does it mean the same to me? Still doesn't equate to the selfless love I've seen gay men and women in lifelong relationship give to each other.

So I still can't be certain that I'm right. I very well may not be. But I'd encourage others to make up their own minds. I would add that I don't think that those with more conservative views on this are bigots (although some are) as I've seen many treat gay people with great respect and affection despite not necessarily agreeing that it is moral. I saw the documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So" and I was very touched by the parents of one lesbian girl in it, who although they think that same-sex relations are wrong love their daughter every bit as much and still support her in their life. Exceptional people. I'd recommend it to others on this thread because some of the rhetoric has been pretty hateful and it might cause people to question their stereotypes of gay people or Christians alike.

JimiTime · 07-02-2013 06:43PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I've prayed about this because I'm all too aware that we can deceive ourselves on these things when it's convenient (something I know I've been guilty of in the past). However, I find the argument that the passages discussing same-sex relations in the Bible are describing something quite different to a monogamous same-sex relationship as I know it today - prostitution, men sleeping with boys, and other practices which were common in the Greek / Roman world. I've seen it argued from the other side that Romans 1:26-27 is conclusive on the matter and I would agree that it is more credible to apply that to today than the other verses. The question for me is - what would a Roman have made of it, and does it mean the same to me? Still doesn't equate to the selfless love I've seen gay men and women in lifelong relationship give to each other.

So I still can't be certain that I'm right. I very well may not be. But I'd encourage others to make up their own minds. I would add that I don't think that those with more conservative views on this are bigots (although some are) as I've seen many treat gay people with great respect and affection despite not necessarily agreeing that it is moral. I saw the documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So" and I was very touched by the parents of one lesbian girl in it, who although they think that same-sex relations are wrong love their daughter every bit as much and still support her in their life. Exceptional people. I'd recommend it to others on this thread because some of the rhetoric has been pretty hateful and it might cause people to question their stereotypes of gay people or Christians alike.

Cheers Benny. Would you like to discuss the Bible in this matter? I THINK:), I've heard all the arguments for how homosexuality is not condemned, but it'd be interesting to hear the case that convinced you, and I can give you the case that convinced me. Interested in such a conversation?

Benny_Cake · 07-02-2013 06:48PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Cheers Benny. Would you like to discuss the Bible in this matter? I THINK:), I've heard all the arguments for how homosexuality is not condemned, but it'd be interesting to hear the case that convinced you, and I can give you the case that convinced me. Interested in such a conversation?

It wouldn't be much of a discussion I'd be the first to admit my knowledge of the Bible isn't as it should be, but if you want to state your position go ahead as the thread has hit a wall at this stage.

Zombrex · 07-02-2013 06:50PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Propaganda:
information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.

So it is "misleading" to promote homosexual relationships are perfectly fine and acceptable and nothing to be ashamed about?

You say that allowing and normalising homosexual marriage will harm society, but you seem very short on the details of how exactly.

Is it just a case of I don't know, but its in the Bible as bad so it must be bad, even if I don't know how?

Links234 · 07-02-2013 07:07PM

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.

Ok, first of all I'd like to point out that the word "tranny" is pretty offensive, it's considered a slur, and as someone who's trans I really don't appreciate it being used. At all. Ever. When you've heard that word shouted at you from a moving vehicle, muttered angrily under someone's breath, when you've heard it used to mock, to deride and to insult, you get very annoyed with it.

But what in the hell are you on about with groups wanting kids to "get in contact with their inner ******"? what do you even mean by that?

Am I to guess that in line with your stance on same sex couples, the very existence of people like me should be kept a secret from anyone of school going age, for fear that me and others of my obviously detestable ilk are normalized and seen as regular people?

philologos · 07-02-2013 07:18PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

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?

it's because of stuff like King & King that I even raised this. If propaganda like that wasn't being used and if the parental right to teach their own values regarding relationship structure and sexuality was respected I'd have no issue with this.

Admittedly it's clear that the claim that people support the freedom of others to disagree was a facade.

Links234 · 07-02-2013 07:22PM

philologos wrote: »

Admittedly it's clear that the claim that people support the freedom of others to disagree was a facade.

I support everyone's freedom to disagree! Go disagree with whatever you want, you're entitled to that! You're entitled to have a different opinion, a dissenting view, however you want to put it. but that's all it is and should stay as, a viewpoint, an opinion.

but what's clear is that the word disagree has a totally different meaning in philoland than it does to the rest of the english speaking world.

lazygal · 07-02-2013 07:27PM

philologos wrote: »

it's because of stuff like King & King that I even raised this. If propaganda like that wasn't being used and if the parental right to teach their own values regarding relationship structure and sexuality was respected I'd have no issue with this.

Admittedly it's clear that the claim that people support the freedom of others to disagree was a facade.

How is King and King propaganda? What about the right of the children of gay married couples, do their family units just get glossed over. Still awaiting 'glorifying' definition, by the by.

Delirium · 07-02-2013 08:02PM

philologos wrote: »

it's because of stuff like King & King that I even raised this. If propaganda like that wasn't being used and if the parental right to teach their own values regarding relationship structure and sexuality was respected I'd have no issue with this.

Admittedly it's clear that the claim that people support the freedom of others to disagree was a facade.

So you want a bubble around the children to stop influences contrary to the wishes of the parents seeping through? What if the parents view women as less than men, should equality of the genders be barred from the classroom?

lazygal · 07-02-2013 08:05PM

Philologos, if you're worried about your hypothetical children being exposed to 'biased' material that undermines your family's values, would you consider homeschooling?

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2013 08:38PM

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.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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 -

JimiTime wrote: »

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

No- it's funny that you really seem to think that.

You make my Dad look liberal - and that's saying something.

JimiTime · 07-02-2013 08:55PM

Links234 wrote: »

Ok, first of all I'd like to point out that the word "tranny" is pretty offensive, it's considered a slur, and as someone who's trans I really don't appreciate it being used. At all. Ever. When you've heard that word shouted at you from a moving vehicle, muttered angrily under someone's breath, when you've heard it used to mock, to deride and to insult, you get very annoyed with it.

Links, I certainly don't wish to offend, but I didn't coin the phrase. I hope though, that things like, 'You're a monster', and 'you're a bigot' stay far from your tongue, and you pay the same respect that you are requesting.

My Kindle is on the blink but I'll be fixing it over the weekend, so I'll get the LGBT group who recommended this lesson, and who coined the phrase and let you know. Maybe you could let this LGBT group that you find their terminology offensive.

But what in the hell are you on about with groups wanting kids to "get in contact with their inner ******"? what do you even mean by that?

It was a lesson recommended with the goal being to break down gender.

Am I to guess that in line with your stance on same sex couples, the very existence of people like me should be kept a secret from anyone of school going age, for fear that me and others of my obviously detestable ilk are normalized and seen as regular people?

TBH, we don't learn about all the ailments people suffer in school. Why should Gender Identity Disorder be the exception? And what is it you want to be taught to pupils in relation to it?

NuMarvel · 07-02-2013 09:38PM

philologos wrote: »

it's because of stuff like King & King that I even raised this. If propaganda like that wasn't being used and if the parental right to teach their own values regarding relationship structure and sexuality was respected I'd have no issue with this.

Admittedly it's clear that the claim that people support the freedom of others to disagree was a facade.

The only reason you think its propaganda is because someone online said it was. You should at least read the book yourself before going on about how bad it is for the children. :rolleyes:

philologos · 07-02-2013 09:44PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

The only reason you think its propaganda is because someone online said it was. You should at least read the book yourself before going on about how bad it is for the children. :rolleyes:

If you want to order it for me let me know

NuMarvel · 07-02-2013 09:51PM

philologos wrote: »

If you want to order it for me let me know

Why don't you ask your friends at Coalition for Marriage? They're bound to have a summary of one lying around somewhere

lazygal · 07-02-2013 10:03PM

philologos wrote: »

If you want to order it for me let me know

Maybe if you pray God will lay it upon you to want to purchase a copy in order that you'll be truthful about whether its 'propaganda'.

Sonics2k · 08-02-2013 12:23AM

Jaysus, they teach about fisting in school now?

I thought you had to go for a night course at the College of Commerce for that.

Knew I should have paid more attention in school.

JimiTime · 08-02-2013 01:19AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No- it's funny that you really seem to think that.

You make my Dad look liberal - and that's saying something.

No, the things that you pretend I think make your dad look liberal;) the amount of positions you have attributed to me in the past, I reckon you have me mixed up with this fella

1040323_64d2c3e6-355b-4f33-bcbb-d73bfaf1eedd-nedflanders.jpg

I picked the flanders devil, as it gives the holy joe religious connotation too, which I thought was REALLY clever on my part

JimiTime · 08-02-2013 01:22AM

Sonics2k wrote: »

Jaysus, they teach about fisting in school now?

I thought you had to go for a night course at the College of Commerce for that.

Knew I should have paid more attention in school.

Just in case this is a reference to something I wrote, I didn't say that fisting was thought in school anywhere. Just in case there is any misunderstanding:)

Bannasidhe · 08-02-2013 01:24AM

JimiTime wrote: »

No, the things that you pretend I think make your dad look liberal;)

Jimi - I can only go by what you write, and since you make a big deal about being so honest then those things you say must be your honest opinions.

Or are you telling me you are lying? :eek:

JimiTime · 08-02-2013 01:29AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Jimi - I can only go by what you write, and since you make a big deal about being so honest then those things you say must be your honest opinions.

Or are you telling me you are lying? :eek:

No, just that your literacy skills aint what they should be init:)

lazygal · 08-02-2013 09:17AM

philologos wrote: »

Can we not leave the ad-hominems off this thread? They are really pointless.

Ok.

Now, can I have a definition of 'glorifying' and 'propaganda' please?

philologos · 08-02-2013 09:21AM

lazygal wrote: »

Ok.

Now, can I have a definition of 'glorifying' and 'propaganda' please?

I've already told you what I think a good example is. I've also told you and others much of where I think the line falls. I'm not repeating myself.

lazygal · 08-02-2013 09:22AM

philologos wrote: »

I've already told you what I think a good example is. I've also told you and others much of where I think the line falls. I'm not repeating myself.

I didn't ask for an example, I asked for a definition. Your example, by the by, seems to consist of a book you haven't actually read.

Bannasidhe · 08-02-2013 02:03PM

Matt Moore, and "ex-gay' christian blogger who frequently writes about how he has been cured from a life of homosexual sin, has recently been found on gay dating app Grindr.

http://gcn.ie/Ex-Gay_Christian_Blogger_Found_On_Grindr

So much for being 'cured'....

philologos · 08-02-2013 02:57PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://gcn.ie/Ex-Gay_Christian_Blogger_Found_On_Grindr

So much for being 'cured'....

I agree that if he was claiming that therapies work that's wrong.

But to note there are a number of Christians who have same-sex attraction who are living celibate or indeed are now happily married. I think that your comments are disparaging to people like this.

I also disagree that because someone else has failed in this respect that it gives you the opportunity to gloat. We've all mucked up in one way or another you and I included.

Sierra 117 · 08-02-2013 02:58PM

He'd feel a lot better if he stopped lying to himself and everyone else and just accepted that he was gay. Trying to hide it can't be easy on him.

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

Comments