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

Links234

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

So you're informed that the word is a pejorative and routinely a term of abuse towards an entire group of people, and your response to that is drag up things from last year that happened in another forum? I'd that's petty, but you'd probably just take that as an excuse to act aggreived and bemoan that I'm calling you petty and ignore any discussion we might be having.

It's like saying "I'll stop calling you ******s and dykes (or insert slur of choice here) as long as you don't say I'm a bigot"
sometimes I wonder how you don't collapse under the weight of your own hubris

But just for some context here, this was in reference to a discussion about a proposed California law that would ban the practice of "reparative therapy" for anyone under 18. I had the radical notion that subjecting children to abusive and harmful "treatments" from quacks and witch doctors was a bad thing, and should be banned. Jimi on the other hand thought it was a great idea for parents to be able to put their kids in the hands of the likes of this guy or this charming fellow.

Never mind that such "therapies" have never been shown to work but has been constantly shown to be extremely harmful, or that George Rekers (NARTH etc) had been shown to have falsified his research, abused the children under his care which resulted in the suicide of former patients (Video exposing Rekers' "therapy"), banning folk of that ilk from practicing on children? "Stop attacking our religious freedom!" Yeah, advocating for that kind of dangerous, harmful and abusive therapy to be practiced on children is utterly monstrous. But not as bad as someone saying you're a bigot. that's far worse

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

I googled the term and couldn't find anything relating to any lesson so I kind of imagine this is something cooked up to scaremonger. but you act as if I shouldn't care about the term because an LGBT group used it? so what? gay people can be some of the most insensitive towards transgender people, it happens.

JimiTime wrote: »

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

and that's a bad thing?

in JimiWorld, should boys only ever play with trucks and GI Joes and girls only ever play with barbie and easy bake ovens and never the twain shall meet?

JimiTime wrote: »

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?

FYI "Gender Identity Disorder" is an obsolete term, and neither is being transgender an "ailment"

And I didn't say anything about what I want or do not want, I am asking you if you think the whole existence of people like me should be kept secret?

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This is for you Phil

This is where you accuse me of doing something or other for pointing out that it's ironic that The Church of England owes it's very existence to a monarch who wanted to 'redefine' marriage...

You might want to look what happened in the English Reformation other than Henry. I've been responding to claims like these for years. The answer is very simple.

Henry VIII was a figure who sped up a Reformation that was already happening in Britain before him. I'd suggest reading up on the English reformers.

That is if you're interested in learning more about it.

Bannasidhe

This is for you Phil

This is where you accuse me of doing something or other for pointing out that it's ironic that The Church of England owes it's very existence to a monarch who wanted to 'redefine' marriage...

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

I'm not as unforgiving.

I think irrespective of the circumstances prior to his repentance I think the very fact that he has done so and that he is turning away from this is a great thing.

As a Christian I'm called to show support to my brothers and sisters in Christ who are tempted by sin not to gloat or mock them.

Again with the attack Phil?

Where did I mock or gloat?
I simply pointed out yet another instance of outspoken critics of homosexuality speaking with forked tongue. Spin it anyway you like Phil. A lie is a Lie.

I have nothing to 'forgive' him for... he lied, he got caught and he will have to face the repercussion of that. He did nothing to me so what exactly should I be 'forgiving' him for....

28064212

philologos wrote: »

saying that same-sex marriage is praiseworthy

Where does the book say that?

philologos wrote: »

I've been very clear about that. Please stop goading me over a point I've already dealt with.

Clear as mud. you haven't dealt with it even slightly. Here's the opposing viewpoint expressed in the manner that you've adopted since you brought up the book:

The book doesn't say that
It doesn't
No really, it doesn't
Look at the book
It doesn't say that
See point 1

That's not a discussion.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

I've answered your post.

I've even told you that my primary issue is advocating a one-sided view of this in the classroom. I.E saying that same-sex marriage is praiseworthy instead of teaching merely that it exists.

I've been very clear about that. Please stop goading me over a point I've already dealt with.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You want schools to mention that same-sex marriage exists and leave it at that - supply no texts that refer to it or comment in anyway. But, as you also believe that opposite sex marriage is the only forum through which humans should express their sexuality that it should be discussed, 'glorified' and texts which extol it's virtues made freely available?

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I've answered your post.

I've even told you that my primary issue is advocating a one-sided view of this in the classroom. I.E saying that same-sex marriage is praiseworthy instead of teaching merely that it exists.

I've been very clear about that. Please stop goading me over a point I've already dealt with.

I'm not goading. You claim a book you haven't read is 'glorifying' something and is 'propaganda', I'm asking you to define what you mean. What do you mean by 'praiseworthy', is straight marriage 'praiseworthy'?

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No he did not see he made a mistake and repent. He was caught - then did he admitted he made a 'mistake' and did the repent thing.

Care to provide examples of where I 'gloated'?

I can provide many examples of where you have used attack as a form of defense if you like.

I feel pity for this man who has been told his sexuality is a sin and is desperately trying to repress who he is.
I feel pity for this man who so at conflict with himself what he lives two different lives.
I feel pity for this man who has to live a lie because of what it says in a book.

I'm not as unforgiving.

I think irrespective of the circumstances prior to his repentance I think the very fact that he has done so and that he is turning away from this is a great thing.

As a Christian I'm called to show support to my brothers and sisters in Christ who are tempted by sin not to gloat or mock them.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

It could be, but that doesn't undermine my original objection nor does it make it any less propaganda.

As yet you've failed to show how the storybook falls under the definition of propaganda.

What do you mean by the social norm?

That the relationship isn't illegal in the state, it's regarded as acceptable within society.

Given the context of my original point this doesn't make much sense. A biased view is still biased even if the State say so.

You started off by saying the book shouldn't be allowed as it seeks to redefine marriage (or promote the redefinition of it), that it's essentially gay propaganda.

Your attempt at explaining how it is biased would exclude all discussion of any religion from the schools as each are biased view of the world. I presume you don't object to the inclusion of other religions in an RE class? Why can't homosexulaity be catered for as heterosexuality is in the classroom?

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

What do you mean by 'glorifying' and 'propaganda', without reference to a book you've never read please?

I've answered your post.

I've even told you that my primary issue is advocating a one-sided view of this in the classroom. I.E saying that same-sex marriage is praiseworthy instead of teaching merely that it exists.

I've been very clear about that. Please stop goading me over a point I've already dealt with.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

You are gloating. I've seen you do this before as well. That's just observation and isn't an ad hominem.

I see that he has clearly made a mistake and has done wrong. He also has clearly repented of it. I.E he acknowledged that he did wrong and he's turning away from this.

I respect that. I believe in a merciful God who loved and indeed loves sinners.

No he did not see he made a mistake and repent. He was caught - then did he admitted he made a 'mistake' and did the repent thing.

Care to provide examples of where I 'gloated'?

I can provide many examples of where you have used attack as a form of defense if you like.

I feel pity for this man who has been told his sexuality is a sin and is desperately trying to repress who he is.
I feel pity for this man who so at conflict with himself what he lives two different lives.
I feel pity for this man who has to live a lie because of what it says in a book.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

It could be, but that doesn't undermine my original objection nor does it make it any less propaganda.

What do you mean by the social norm?

Given the context of my original point this doesn't make much sense. A biased view is still biased even if the State say so.

What do you mean by 'glorifying' and 'propaganda', without reference to a book you've never read please?

philologos

koth wrote: »

But in the UK, a bill has been passed that marriage now includes same-sex couples, so as of now, it could be said that King + King reflects an acceptable relationship. Same-sex marriage is now becoming a social norm in the UK, why couldn't a book that reflects that be allowed into the classroom?

It could be, but that doesn't undermine my original objection nor does it make it any less propaganda.

What do you mean by the social norm?

Given the context of my original point this doesn't make much sense. A biased view is still biased even if the State say so.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

You are gloating. I've seen you do this before as well. That's just observation and isn't an ad hominem.

I see that he has clearly made a mistake and has done wrong. He also has clearly repented of it. I.E he acknowledged that he did wrong and he's turning away from this.

I respect that. I believe in a merciful God who loved and indeed loves sinners.

How come ad hominems aren't ad hominems when you do it? Is there something in scripture that gives you a free pass on online fora?

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Really? You don't see anything a bit off about a man who regularly wrote such things as while at the exact same time opening an account on a gay dating site?

Despite your earlier post where you said 'Can we not leave the ad-hominems off this thread? They are really pointless.' your response is to accuse me of gloating...

Tell me Phil - do you actually ever practice what you preach or are you like Matt Moore and go through life channeling Jean Brodie?

You are gloating. I've seen you do this before as well. That's just observation and isn't an ad hominem.

He should have said what's Biblically accurate. We're all battling sin heterosexuals included and we will be battling sin until we are glorified at the last day.

I see that he has clearly made a mistake and has done wrong. He also has clearly repented of it. I.E he acknowledged that he did wrong and he's turning away from this.

I respect that. I believe in a merciful God who loved and indeed loves sinners.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I've given you a clear example. I've been very clear. Biased advocacy of one point of view on the redefinition of marriage in the classroom is wrong. I've been clear as to the boundaries also.

But in the UK, a bill has been passed that marriage now includes same-sex couples, so as of now, it could be said that King + King reflects an acceptable relationship. Same-sex marriage is now becoming a social norm in the UK, why couldn't a book that reflects that be allowed into the classroom?

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I've given you a clear example. I've been very clear. Biased advocacy of one point of view on the redefinition of marriage in the classroom is wrong. I've been clear as to the boundaries also.

Once again you are choosing to ignore the question. I asked you for your definition of 'glorifying' and 'propaganda'. You haven't read the book you're using as an example, by the by. What's biased about telling children the legal forms of marriage?

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

Any chance of getting those definitions? I forgive you for mucking up if you've forgotten, now you've a chance to redeem yourself.

I've given you a clear example. I've been very clear. Biased advocacy of one point of view on the redefinition of marriage in the classroom is wrong. I've been clear as to the boundaries also.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

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.

Really? You don't see anything a bit off about a man who regularly wrote such things as

"although I have same sex thoughts on a daily basis, I do not, in any way, feel compelled to ever return to a lifestyle of homosexuality."

while at the exact same time opening an account on a gay dating site?

Despite your earlier post where you said 'Can we not leave the ad-hominems off this thread? They are really pointless.' your response is to accuse me of gloating...

Tell me Phil - do you actually ever practice what you preach or are you like Matt Moore and go through life channeling Jean Brodie?

lazygal

Also, why would a straight woman marry a man who knew he was gay? What does scripture say about that?

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

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.

Any chance of getting those definitions? I forgive you for mucking up if you've forgotten, now you've a chance to redeem yourself.

Sierra 117

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.

philologos

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.

Bannasidhe

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'....

lazygal

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.

philologos

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

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?

JimiTime

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:)

Bannasidhe

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

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:)