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

Kiwi in IE

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s only “tyranny” if it adversely affects people in a significant way, e.g. by preventing them from marrying. And obviously it will only do that if all or nearly all state employees take that view. Which is unlikely, given that support for gay marriage is widespread, and we have no reason to think that the civil service is a bastion of revanchist dominionist Christianity.

I share your concern about civil servants opting out in this way. But I think we need to articulate a better case against it that calling it “tyranny”, because it really doesn’t look a lot like tyranny, and I think that kind of hyperbolic language is likely to be counterproductive.

Assume for a moment that only a small proportion of registrars feel this way, and that they can be accommodated without inconveniencing the same-sex couples who wish to marry. This isn't a wildly unrealistic assumption, since most marriages will still be opposite-sex, so there'll be plenty for work for the scrupulous registrars, and plenty of registrars happy to preside over same-sex marriages.

Right, on that assumption, is it offensive to accommodate the scrupulous registrars? And, if so, why?

As a community nurse I often take clients to church. If I were to refuse, or make it a negative experience for the client because I am an athiest, I would expect to loose my job. And rightly so. If I were working in a residential setting and had a client who was Muslim and wanted to pray at certain times, it would be my job to facilitate that. If I felt this conflicted with my personal beliefs to the point I was unable to provide appropriate service to my clients, I would have to reevaluate my career path.

It is the registrars job to conduct marriages.

It is not acceptable to have state funded public servants who refuse to provide the public service they deliver to a particular minority group, based on prejudice toward that group.

Kiwi in IE

Discrimination does not become 'conscientious objection' simply because those discriminating happen to be doing so on 'religious grounds'.

Marriage is a legal transaction between two people at the end of the day, despite emotion attached to it. A registrar is performing a legal ceremony.

If a hypothetical property lawyer does not like Jewish people, and refuses to sign the necessary documents for property purchase because a couple are Jewish, and to back this up he quotes a historical document that states Jewish people should not be allowed to own property, would this be considered discrimination or 'conscientious objection'? I see little difference between the above and a registrar who refuses to marry gay people due to 'conscientious objection'.

JimiTime

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I would love to be able to spend a day in the mind of someone who thinks that the sexuality and personal relationships of other consenting adults are their business so I could gain some understanding of how and why they have come to think this.

Is that supposed to relevant to me? or indeed, the post you quoted?

tommy2bad

CollardGreens wrote: »

This man has been there, done that - and this is what he says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD5mFQkenqI

Yeah, looks cured to me all right:rolleyes:

Kiwi in IE

JimiTime wrote: »

Is that supposed to relevant to me? or indeed, the post you quoted?

Yes! You obviously were very pleased that a person talking about 'giving up his homosexual life' was trawled up from Utube. Why?

philologos

Was listening to a podcast on John Piper's blog yesterday which I found helpful on this issue.

I don't think it is too helpful in referring to this subject in terms of being "cured". It's more a case that people are tempted by sin of varying sorts and of varying kinds. Myself included. From time to time we're going to fall short of God's standard and we'll need to repent and pick ourselves up again.

However, we are called to repent of sin, to turn away from it. This is true of all sin without exception. That has as much to do with my desire as a heterosexual single male particularly in terms of not lusting after another and in turn committing adultery in my heart and viewing women as less than God created them, and in any other sector of my life, not working to my full ability when I should be glorifying God in my work, not loving my friends and family to the full extent that I should, holding back from sharing the Gospel with others because it might be "embarrassing", not using my money wisely as I should, not treating God with the respect that He deserves, not seeking Him out with a full heart, cheating others, lying to others, not dealing with others honestly, holding another with deep hatred in my heart when I know that I am called to love them and to pray for others even when they persecute me.

I fail miserably in any of the above criteria and more, but thankfully Jesus came to save the lost like me. It is by His death, and by His unfailing love that I can come back into fellowship with Him. This is what I long for others also. Christianity isn't a religion of hate, it is a religion of love and forgiveness. The ball's in your court.

The point where we say that Jesus is more important than our selfish desire is where we will see that following Him is better than anything else we could possibly imagine.

JimiTime

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yes! You obviously were very pleased that a person talking about 'giving up his homosexual life' was trawled up from Utube. Why?

There are plenty of people like that, and I've seen lots of their testimony. Some claiming to have been changed, others claiming that they have rejected their sexual desires on account of Christ, but still have same sex attraction.
My post was a reference to the fact that most people from LGBT quarters are quite horrible to these people, reject their testimony and keep on telling us, based on anecdotes, that 'You cant change and you are born with it. Those people lie' etc etc. The hate from LGBT quarters that such people have to endure is quite shocking. Which is why I sarcastically quipped, that anecdotes are only acceptable if they further LGBT idea's.

I am always pleased when I hear testimony of people turning to Jesus, and away from sin whatever it is. In terms of homosexuals turning to Christ, it takes an extra degree of courage. The hate they endure from the LGBT community combined with the suspicion from a lot of their Christian brethren too means that they have so much working against them. So I admire their courage in the face of it.

DEFTLEFTHAND

It's not natural behaviour though is it? I mean when you properly analyse the situation and leave out all the PC BS. Pope Francis described gay marriage as being a 'real and dire anthropological throwback'.

lazygal

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It's not natural behaviour though is it? I mean when you properly analyse the situation and leave out all the PC BS. Pope Francis described gay marriage as being a 'real and dire anthropological throwback'.

What's natural behavior? Are animals which are gay being unnatural?

DEFTLEFTHAND

lazygal wrote: »

What's natural behavior? Are animals which are gay being unnatural?

Yes, natural behaviour is procreation.

aloyisious

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Yes, natural behaviour is procreation.

Do you write with your left hand?

NuMarvel

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Yes, natural behaviour is procreation.

Stop conflating marriage and procreation. The ability or desire to procreate with your partner is not a prerequisite for marriage and marriage is not a prerequisite for procreation.

DEFTLEFTHAND

NuMarvel wrote: »

Stop conflating marriage and procreation. The ability or desire to procreate with your partner is not a prerequisite for marriage and marriage is not a prerequisite for procreation.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. One of it's functions is to provide the next generation.

NuMarvel

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Marriage is between a man and a woman. One of it's functions is to provide the next generation.

When did nature decide that?

philologos

NuMarvel: What's your intention for posting on this thread. What would you like us to do, or to change?

DEFTLEFTHAND

NuMarvel wrote: »

When did nature decide that?

No no marriage is man made institution, nature dictates that a man and woman copulate. The bond of marriage at the back of it all is to serve this basic function.

Delirium

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Yes, natural behaviour is procreation.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

No no marriage is man made institution, nature dictates that a man and woman copulate. The bond of marriage at the back of it all is to serve this basic function.

then celibacy is unnatural?

DEFTLEFTHAND

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you write with your left hand?

Lol, I'm a descendant of Nero, I spell my name 666.:pac:

DEFTLEFTHAND

koth wrote: »

then celibacy is unnatural?

Yes it is, a stupid church law that should be relaxed.

Delirium

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Yes it is, a stupid church law that should be relaxed.

And is it unnatural to have sex without a man/woman if you know they're sterile as the couple aren't having sex to try and have kids? Are you opposed to condoms?

NuMarvel

philologos wrote: »

NuMarvel: What's your intention for posting on this thread. What would you like us to do, or to change?

I would have thought my posts would have made my intentions quite clear. What do you think my intentions are?

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

No no marriage is man made institution, nature dictates that a man and woman copulate. The bond of marriage at the back of it all is to serve this basic function.

Marriage has many functions other than to facilitate procreation and copulation. If we allow heterosexual couples who don't have the desire or ability to procreate with each other to marry, there can be no valid reasons to bar gay couples from marrying either.

Corkfeen

DEFTLEFTHAND, can you explain to me why homosexuality occurs throughout nature if it's so unnatural? Also by your logic, the infertile should not be allowed marry as they serve no purpose for the progression of society.. :rolleyes:

DEFTLEFTHAND

Corkfeen wrote: »

DEFTLEFTHAND, can you explain to me why homosexuality occurs throughout nature if it's so unnatural? Also by your logic, the infertile should not be allowed marry as they serve no purpose for the progression of society.. :rolleyes:

It's a condition, a defect if you will. A Gay man or woman can't help the way they feel.

Of course the infertile should marry as long as they are male and female, I'm sorry but I just don't agree with gay marriage.

philologos

NuMarvel wrote: »

I would have thought my posts would have made my intentions quite clear. What do you think my intentions are?

Don't be evasive. It's not a trick question.

Corkfeen

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It's a condition, a defect if you will. A Gay man or woman can't help the way they feel.

Of course the infertile should marry as long as they are male and female, I'm sorry but I just don't agree with gay marriage.

So really, the fertility argument doesn't matter to you and you were just using it to mask a rather baseless opposition to it?

Psychology would sort of disagree with you on the front of it being illness or a defect. Your entire basis for your argument is a repulsion that is founded on a prejudice that likes to sound sciencey and reasonable but when your called up on the supposed nature of it being unnatural, you can't prove that it is so it becomes a 'defect' which you can't prove either.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Don't be evasive. It's not a trick question.

Evasive......hmmmmm.

JimiTime

lazygal wrote: »

Evasive......hmmmmm.

Well he's got more class than most of you thats for sure.

philologos

JimiTime wrote: »

Well he's got more class than most of you thats for sure.

It's not about how much or how little class I or anyone else has. Its about a man who hung on a cross for the sins of the world and rose from the dead three days later.

He loved the world, I have to try too.

JimiTime

philologos wrote: »

It's not about how much or how little class I or anyone else has. Its about a man who hung on a cross for the sins of the world and rose from the dead three days later.

He loved the world, I have to try too.

Thats what give you class Philo

Whereas I'd be more like Peter cutting the soldiers ear off

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats what give you class Philo Whereas I'd be more like Peter cutting the soldiers ear off

Do I detect a touch of manlove for Phil here jimi :eek: