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

Bannasidhe · 09-02-2013 10:40AM

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't think you even bother reading.
Firstly, I have already told you the capitals are for emphasis. Second of all, Why are you changing the subject? Is it so that you don't have to admit you lied?

I did not lie. This man claimed to have left the so-called 'homosexual lifestyle' behind him due to the power of prayer. If he had left the homosexual lifestyle behind he was claiming to be cured. He lied.

But it's impressive that you have climbed on that high horse on his behalf given that you have told gay posters here on this thread that we are not normal, that some of us suffer from disorders, you have described our families as lesser and compared our sexual relations with consenting adults to having sex with animals.

Where is your apology for the offense you have caused Jimi?

Links in particular deserves an abject apology from you and not the bluff and bluster you responded with when called to task by her.

Practice what you preach Jimi and concern yourself with your own faults before attempting to judge me on what you perceive are mine.

Isn't that what it says to do in your Holy Book?

It may have escaped your notice but it is generally agreed that the use of capitals = shouting. For emphasis there is underlining, bold or italics.

JimiTime · 09-02-2013 10:49AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I did not lie. This man claimed to have left the so-called 'homosexual lifestyle' behind him due to the power of prayer. If he had left the homosexual lifestyle behind he was claiming to be cured. He lied.

Yes he did lie, as has been repeatedly said, no-one doubts that. He NEVER SAID HE WAS CURED THOUGH.

You have persistently said that he claimed he was CURED of homosexuality. And it has been pointed out persistently using the evidence available that that was NOT ACTUALLY WHAT HE CLAIMED. Even the evidence YOU presented was evidence AGAINST your claim.
What he DID say, was that he left his homosexual lifestyle, i.e. sleeping with men, behind, but that he continued to struggle with his homosexual desires. THAT IS NOT A CLAIM OF BEING CURED OF HOMOSEXUALITY. If he continued to sleep with men shows his dishonesty, but it certainly does nothing to back up your claim that he said he was CURED. He lied about not desiring the homosexual lifestyle he once lived, but he NEVER said that he was CURED of same sex attraction. On the contrary, he said that he struggled with it ON A DAILY BASIS. To quote the man himself:

"Most of the media posting about me, had not actually read anything that I've written to any measurable degree. They assume that I'm telling people they need to turn "straight" to be loved by God, which is not a message I proclaim. He did not know that I was open with the fact that I still experience same-sex attraction on a daily basis, something that I've been extremely public with."

You get it yet?

philologos · 09-02-2013 10:53AM

Sin City wrote: »

So he is still gay , so no one can be cured of being homosexual, but you just want them to be celibate?

How would you like to be forced to be celibate because others dont like who your attracted to.

How ridiculous would it be for you to have a wife/girlfried/partner who your friends and family didnt like but would accept ye as long as ye both remained celibate and showed no emotion towards each other just to make them feel better?

PS

Caps is views as shouting
The bold function should be used to emphasis a point

1) Everyone has temptations or inclinations to sin. That doesn't mean that I should just do whatever I'm inclined to.

2) It's not about what I or anyone else wants to do. It's about what God has revealed to mankind about the place of sexual expression. From a Biblical point of view the appropriate place for this is the union between a man and a woman. As a result Christians strive and aim for this goal.

3) It's not about disliking anyone. In the event that I had a family member who was in a relationship with another of the same-sex I wouldn't use this as an opportunity or a license to mistreat anyone. Fair enough, I may believe that the union between two of the same gender is wrong, but that doesn't give me a carte blanche to mistreat others, nor does it mean that I shouldn't love them as Christ has called me to.

Your post is a good example of many of the misconceptions bandied around about Christians on this issue.

Benny_Cake · 09-02-2013 11:05AM

OK, let's leave it out with the block caps/shouting please, before this thread starts to resemble the comments on a YouTube video.

JimiTime · 09-02-2013 11:09AM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

OK, let's leave it out with the block caps/shouting please, before this thread starts to resemble the comments on a YouTube video.

Was that reported?

If so, just to let you know, it has already been pointed out a number of times that the capitals are for EMPHASIS thats all. Its quicker than using bold. Is it against the charter or something to use capitals in such a manner? If its not, I think there should be a degree of tolerance to the diversity of posting styles

Benny_Cake · 09-02-2013 11:36AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Was that reSet you know, it has already been pointed out a number of times that the capitals are for EMPHASIS thats all. Its quicker than using bold. Is it against the charter or something to use capitals in such a manner? If its not, I think there should be a degree of tolerance to the diversity of posting styles

Internet 101 - caps indicate shouting.So take an extra second or two and use bold for emphasis.

Bannasidhe · 09-02-2013 12:00PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes he did lie, as has been repeatedly said, no-one doubts that. He NEVER SAID HE WAS CURED THOUGH.

You have persistently said that he claimed he was CURED of homosexuality. And it has been pointed out persistently using the evidence available that that was NOT ACTUALLY WHAT HE CLAIMED. Even the evidence YOU presented was evidence AGAINST your claim.
What he DID say, was that he left his homosexual lifestyle, i.e. sleeping with men, behind, but that he continued to struggle with his homosexual desires. THAT IS NOT A CLAIM OF BEING CURED OF HOMOSEXUALITY. If he continued to sleep with men shows his dishonesty, but it certainly does nothing to back up your claim that he said he was CURED. He lied about not desiring the homosexual lifestyle he once lived, but he NEVER said that he was CURED of same sex attraction. On the contrary, he said that he struggled with it ON A DAILY BASIS. To quote the man himself:

"Most of the media posting about me, had not actually read anything that I've written to any measurable degree. They assume that I'm telling people they need to turn "straight" to be loved by God, which is not a message I proclaim. He did not know that I was open with the fact that I still experience same-sex attraction on a daily basis, something that I've been extremely public with."

You get it yet?

You going to apologise for the offensive comments you have made on this thread Jimi?

Bannasidhe · 09-02-2013 12:22PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I'll move onto your other concerns as soon as you deal with what we've been talking about. Below is a reminder.

You have persistently said that he claimed he was CURED of homosexuality. And it has been pointed out persistently using the evidence available that that was NOT ACTUALLY WHAT HE CLAIMED. Even the evidence YOU presented was evidence AGAINST your claim.
What he DID say, was that he left his homosexual lifestyle, i.e. sleeping with men, behind, but that he continued to struggle with his homosexual desires. THAT IS NOT A CLAIM OF BEING CURED OF HOMOSEXUALITY. If he continued to sleep with men shows his dishonesty, but it certainly does nothing to back up your claim that he said he was CURED. He lied about not desiring the homosexual lifestyle he once lived, but he NEVER said that he was CURED of same sex attraction. On the contrary, he said that he struggled with it ON A DAILY BASIS. To quote the man himself:

"Most of the media posting about me, had not actually read anything that I've written to any measurable degree. They assume that I'm telling people they need to turn "straight" to be loved by God, which is not a message I proclaim. He did not know that I was open with the fact that I still experience same-sex attraction on a daily basis, something that I've been extremely public with."

You get it yet?

No I have not persistently said he was cured. How can he have been 'cured' when he was trawling gay dating sites?

I said he was obviously not cured - mainly because this is impossible.

Not Cured =/= Cured.

There is no cure.

Going to apologies for the offense you have caused Jimi?

philologos · 09-02-2013 12:30PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No I have not persistently said he was cured. How can he have been 'cured' when he was trawling gay dating sites?

I said he was obviously not cured - mainly because this is impossible.

Not Cured =/= Cured.

There is no cure.

Going to apologies for the offense you have caused Jimi?

I'm not all that surprised to be honest. I still have inclination to sin, it's not gone, and it's not cured. Yet I do have a responsibility to look towards doing what God has desired me, to live in light of the grace I have received by Jesus. Some things that I have struggled with were relatively simpler to put away than others. I'm still battling with sin, and sometimes I fail. I'm not perfect, and I won't be perfect until Jesus is done His work in me.

That's the Biblical point of view of sin. We're told that insofar as the battle is still raging that God is truly at work in us through His Spirit (Romans 6 - 8).

I agree, there is no cure to our inclination towards sin. However we can become better at grappling with it. I don't treat any sin as any more important than another. The battle that I have with sin in numerous areas in my life is no worse nor no better than the struggle that other Christians have with it.

Yet, I trust God that one day I will be free from this. Why? - Because Jesus was crucified, and He was resurrected.

The worry arises when people are unrepentant and unwilling to see that they have sinned and done what is evil rather than what is good.

If Jesus forgave me, forgives me, and will forgive me again, in respect to others I mustn't be harsh hearted, and I must be willing to help my brother and sister in Christ in the church when they need me.

Bannasidhe · 09-02-2013 12:31PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Buhwah ha ha ha ha. Will ye go away with yourself. You KNOW I didn't say you said he was cured. You said that HE SAID he was cured

Let me emphasise some other parts of the previous post to help you with your latest diversion:

You have persistently said that he claimed he was CURED of homosexuality. And it has been pointed out persistently using the evidence available that that was NOT ACTUALLY WHAT HE CLAIMED. Even the evidence YOU presented was evidence AGAINST your claim.
What he DID say, was that he left his homosexual lifestyle, i.e. sleeping with men, behind, but that he continued to struggle with his homosexual desires. THAT IS NOT A CLAIM OF BEING CURED OF HOMOSEXUALITY. If he continued to sleep with men shows his dishonesty, but it certainly does nothing to back up your claim that he said he was CURED. He lied about not desiring the homosexual lifestyle he once lived, but he NEVER said that he was CURED of same sex attraction. On the contrary, he said that he struggled with it ON A DAILY BASIS. To quote the man himself:

"Most of the media posting about me, had not actually read anything that I've written to any measurable degree. They assume that I'm telling people they need to turn "straight" to be loved by God, which is not a message I proclaim. He did not know that I was open with the fact that I still experience same-sex attraction on a daily basis, something that I've been extremely public with."

So you get it yet?

Don't engage with people who shout at me.

And no, I did not report your shouting.

Benny_Cake · 09-02-2013 12:32PM

OK, I've had to ban Jimi for a week. Now, he isn't the only offender, so a tough line is going to be taken with users who are only seeking to goad others. To call much of the recent activity on this thread infantile would be offensive to infants.

Silvio.Dante · 09-02-2013 12:35PM

You're wasting your breath Jimi. The liberalistas will squirm and twist things, all in an attempt to deflect people of moral courage to stand up for traditional values...

Bannasidhe · 09-02-2013 12:36PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

OK, I've had to ban Jimi for a week. Now, he isn't the only offender, so a tough line is going to be taken with users who are only seeking to goad others. To call much of the recent activity on this thread infantile would be offensive to infants.

I apologise for any part I played in infantile activity.

Silvio.Dante · 09-02-2013 07:29PM

Vatican official: legal protection for same-sex couples does not require marriage

The president of the Pontifical Council for the Family has said that governments should find ways to protect the legitimate legal rights of unmarried couples without recognizing same-sex marriage.

Acknowledging that a growing number of couples—heterosexual and homosexual--live together outside marriage, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia said that laws can be crafted “to prevent injustice and make their lives easier.” But he insisted that an unmarried couple should not be recognized as a family.

Archbishop Paglia’s words were interpreted by some reporters as a step toward Vatican acceptance of same-sex unions. In fact the archbishop was emphasizing that homosexual partnerships are not the same as marriage. “The Church must defend the truth,” he said, “and the truth is that a marriage is only between a man and a woman.”

NuMarvel · 09-02-2013 08:38PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Vatican official: legal protection for same-sex couples does not require marriage

The president of the Pontifical Council for the Family has said that governments should find ways to protect the legitimate legal rights of unmarried couples without recognizing same-sex marriage.

Acknowledging that a growing number of couples—heterosexual and homosexual--live together outside marriage, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia said that laws can be crafted “to prevent injustice and make their lives easier.” But he insisted that an unmarried couple should not be recognized as a family.

Laws concerning couples and families where the couple/parents choose not to marry would be worth looking into (I think the Law Reform Commission made some proposals a few years back), but they wouldn't be adequate substitutions for marriage equality. At the end of the day, the same imbalance would exist; heterosexual couples would still have the option to marry and avail of the rights and responsibilities that confers, gay couples wouldn't.

tommy2bad · 09-02-2013 09:33PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Vatican official: legal protection for same-sex couples does not require marriage

The president of the Pontifical Council for the Family has said that governments should find ways to protect the legitimate legal rights of unmarried couples without recognizing same-sex marriage.

Acknowledging that a growing number of couples—heterosexual and homosexual--live together outside marriage, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia said that laws can be crafted “to prevent injustice and make their lives easier.” But he insisted that an unmarried couple should not be recognized as a family.

Archbishop Paglia’s words were interpreted by some reporters as a step toward Vatican acceptance of same-sex unions. In fact the archbishop was emphasizing that homosexual partnerships are not the same as marriage. “The Church must defend the truth,” he said, “and the truth is that a marriage is only between a man and a woman.”

Unmarried couples have the right to remain unmarried, forcing some sort of default marriage on them is not the answer for couples who do want to be married anymore than giving them some form of marriage 'lite'.

Silvio.Dante · 10-02-2013 01:50AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Laws concerning couples and families where the couple/parents choose not to marry would be worth looking into (I think the Law Reform Commission made some proposals a few years back), but they wouldn't be adequate substitutions for marriage equality. At the end of the day, the same imbalance would exist; heterosexual couples would still have the option to marry and avail of the rights and responsibilities that confers, gay couples wouldn't.

Correct. I can live with that quite happily...

NuMarvel · 10-02-2013 08:08AM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Correct. I can live with that quite happily...

Yes, I'm sure you can. However, that's not sufficient reason for maintaining the status quo.

Silvio.Dante · 10-02-2013 10:19AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure you can. However, that's not sufficient reason for maintaining the status quo.

Why the irrational need to change the law..?

Delirium · 10-02-2013 10:25AM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Why the irrational need to change the law..?

It's not irrational as there are many logical reasons to extend marriage to same-sex couples, not discriminating on who can or can't get married based on their sexuality would one such example.

NuMarvel · 10-02-2013 11:16AM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Why the irrational need to change the law..?

The positive benefits of changing the law have already been set out in the thread. Repeatedly. So far, no one has put forward any valid reasons that counter those benefits.

If you would like to contribute to the discussion by setting your considerations, I'd be happy to debate and discuss.

Silvio.Dante · 10-02-2013 12:26PM

koth wrote: »

It's not irrational as there are many logical reasons to extend marriage to same-sex couples, not discriminating on who can or can't get married based on their sexuality would one such example.

Not only is it irrational but its illogical...

Delirium · 10-02-2013 12:32PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Not only is it irrational but its illogical...

feel free to explain how that is so. Otherwise your meaningless soundbite shall remain, well, meaningless tbh.

philologos · 10-02-2013 12:39PM

koth wrote: »

It's not irrational as there are many logical reasons to extend marriage to same-sex couples, not discriminating on who can or can't get married based on their sexuality would one such example.

What I don't understand is why is it wrong to regard different relationship structures as different?

However, we're going to be going round and round in circles on that I suspect.

Delirium · 10-02-2013 12:45PM

philologos wrote: »

What I don't understand is why is it wrong to regard different relationship structures as different?

However, we're going to be going round and round in circles on that I suspect.

That's because you've only one acceptable definition of marriage as per your religious beliefs. Doesn't mean society has to be as restrictive.

Bannasidhe · 10-02-2013 12:50PM

koth wrote: »

That's because you've only one acceptable definition of marriage as per your religious beliefs. Doesn't mean society has to be as restrictive.

Plus society can accept different religious structures as equal.

NuMarvel · 10-02-2013 01:22PM

philologos wrote: »

What I don't understand is why is it wrong to regard different relationship structures as different?

However, we're going to be going round and round in circles on that I suspect.

I'm happy to give it one more shot if you are. So, let's draw a line under the previous discussion and try again.

Can you set out why you think the relationship structure between any given heterosexual couple is different from any given gay couple? And following on from that, can you tell us why those differences, if any, are sufficient reason to justify different treatment in the area of civil marriage.

aloyisious · 10-02-2013 01:31PM

What is the point in having a state in which the citizens can choose what rules govern that state's social concept's, when in reality the head of state of another state can actually have a controlling interest and say (by proxy) in what the former state actually has listed in it's constitution?

I doubt very much if the citizens of this state would like the Supreme Leader, Imam Ali Khamenei of Iran, to behave in said manner.

It's quite understandable, admirable and legal for citizens of our country to put forward publicly what they view as a good way for the country to advance as a socially-integrated society. However, I do not believe that one should issue proclamations to others citizens of one's own country, and present them as one's own thoughts on how the country should advance in it's citizens rights, when in reality they are not one's intellectual property.

lazygal · 10-02-2013 03:45PM

philologos wrote: »

What I don't understand is why is it wrong to regard different relationship structures as different?

However, we're going to be going round and round in circles on that I suspect.

Marriage is the same structure for heterosexual as homosexual couples in the eyes of the state. What I don't understand is why its right to base modern marriage laws on what one sect follows in a book that's two thousand years old, and dress up discrimination as concern about 'propaganda' and 'glorifying' unions.

marienbad · 10-02-2013 06:48PM

philologos wrote: »

What I don't understand is why is it wrong to regard different relationship structures as different?

However, we're going to be going round and round in circles on that I suspect.

Quite simply philologos because you are defining Christian marriage and we are talking about civil marriage , and you know this.

Depending on ones definition of christian marriage the following marriages are void- between divorced couples , marriage to a divorced person, civil marriage, common law marriage - the list is endless .

So why not just defend your right to Christian Marriage for yourself as you define it , (Even though other christian groups may not accept it as marriage by their definition ) and let others get on with their own arrangement for civil marriage ? Why should it be any of your business at all ?

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

Comments