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

Bannasidhe · 18-03-2013 08:45PM

marienbad wrote: »

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

I believe the technical term is Bromance.

Kiwi in IE · 18-03-2013 09:00PM

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.

Or perhaps due to the lack of scientific and medical knowledge 2000 years ago, he was thought dead, but was actually unconscious, hence why he 'rose again'? The fact coffins fitted with bells were used as late as the 19th century indicates that death wasn't always accurately assessed, even 1800+ years after Jesus's time! It seems quite obvious. Along with a woman making up a story about angels visiting to explain why she was pregnant when she wasn't supposed to be, for whatever reason.

Benny_Cake · 18-03-2013 09:06PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Or perhaps due to the lack of scientific and medical knowledge 2000 years ago, he was thought dead, but was actually unconscious, hence why he 'rose again'? The fact coffins fitted with bells were used as late as the 19th century indicates that death wasn't always accurately assessed, even 1800+ years after Jesus's time! It seems quite obvious. Along with a woman making up a story about angels visiting to explain why she was pregnant when she wasn't supposed to be, for whatever reason.

Off-topic here, take it to the Atheism/Existence of God thread.

doctoremma · 19-03-2013 01:15PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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.

And news in from the European Court of Human Rights:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/christian-woman-wins-landmark-religious-discrimination-caseover-wearing-cross-at-work-but-echr-rules-rights-of-three-other-christians-were-not-violated-8451747.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-loss-for-the-christian-lobby-the-echr-ruling-reinforces-the-crucial-point-that-religious-rights-dont-automatically-trump-the-rights-of-others-8452458.html

In a controversial landmark case, the ECHR ruled British Airways had breached Nadia Eweida’s human rights, in particular her right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, when it banned her from wearing a crucifix before changing its uniform policy to accommodate the 60-year-old.

Ms Eweida, a Coptic Christian from Twickenham in south-west London, said she felt “vindicated” after the court decided she had been caused “considerably anxiety, frustration and distress” and ordered the Government to pay her £26,600 in damages and costs. However, judges ruled the rights of three other Christians were not violated by their employers. They included NHS nurse Shirley Chaplin, 57, banned from wearing a cross on health and safety grounds, as well as marriage counsellor Gary McFarlane and registrar Lillian Ladele, who both said their religious values prevented them from dealing with same-sex couples.

NuMarvel · 19-03-2013 03:13PM

doctoremma wrote: »

And news in from the European Court of Human Rights:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/christian-woman-wins-landmark-religious-discrimination-caseover-wearing-cross-at-work-but-echr-rules-rights-of-three-other-christians-were-not-violated-8451747.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-loss-for-the-christian-lobby-the-echr-ruling-reinforces-the-crucial-point-that-religious-rights-dont-automatically-trump-the-rights-of-others-8452458.html

In a controversial landmark case, the ECHR ruled British Airways had breached Nadia Eweida’s human rights, in particular her right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, when it banned her from wearing a crucifix before changing its uniform policy to accommodate the 60-year-old.

Ms Eweida, a Coptic Christian from Twickenham in south-west London, said she felt “vindicated” after the court decided she had been caused “considerably anxiety, frustration and distress” and ordered the Government to pay her £26,600 in damages and costs. However, judges ruled the rights of three other Christians were not violated by their employers. They included NHS nurse Shirley Chaplin, 57, banned from wearing a cross on health and safety grounds, as well as marriage counsellor Gary McFarlane and registrar Lillian Ladele, who both said their religious values prevented them from dealing with same-sex couples.

There was some interesting analysis in the second link:

"At the heart of this legal and moral debate is the question of competing rights. Religious freedom is a vital human right recognised by both UK and European law. But it is not an absolute right. That’s because occasionally the religious views of one person may impinge upon the equally valid rights of another group of people."

"The court has effectively reinforced a point it has made many times before but it’s an important one to restate again and again: religious rights don't trump rights of others unless there is a very good reason. A balance has to be struck and in these cases, the ECHR ruled, the British courts did the right thing."

"But the Christian lobby shouldn’t feel too down because there is a silver lining. The legal point that competing rights don’t automatically trump each other might protect them one day. After all, if a gay B&B owner refuses to accommodate a Christian because of their beliefs; or refuses to marry a Christian couple; or provide them relationship counselling – there’s a strong chance they’d win their case in the courts for the same reasons."

What's important to remember here is that the rulings aren't stopping McFarlane and Ladele from holding their views and personal beliefs. But, if they wished to disregard the terms of their employment contracts, they needed to have very sound and valid reasons for it.

philologos · 20-03-2013 12:04AM

philologos wrote: »

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

Can anybody touch on this?

marienbad · 20-03-2013 12:14AM

philologos wrote: »

Can anybody touch on this?

In what way Phil ?

philologos · 20-03-2013 08:54AM

The question would be an interesting aside:
What do you hope to achieve from posting on this thread?
What would you like for those to disagree to do or to change?

It wasn't a trick question.

Peregrinus · 20-03-2013 09:26AM

People who take part in a discussion don’t necessarily want their interlocutors to do or change anything, do they? You can take part in a discussion for lots of reasons - you hope to come to a better understanding of other people’s positions; you hope to bring others to a better understanding of yours; you hope to learn something; you hope to find common ground with people; you hope to find out what separates people; you hope to have your present thinking challenged; you hope to let off steam; you hope to gratify yourself by proving how much better/more tolerant/more intelligent/more faithful/more rational you are than everyone else on the thread; you hope to give witness and you don’t really care how it’s received; you hope to give witness and you care passionately about how it’s received; you simply hope to enjoy interacting with other people who share some of your interests and concerns.

In a thread with three thousand posts, I’m guessing you’ll find all of these motivations, and more.

philologos · 20-03-2013 10:03AM

That's one possibility. It was a genuine question and I'd be interested to see what answers people have and it would be an interesting aside to a circular discussion.

JimiTime · 20-03-2013 09:59PM

Theres a fightback happening in the courts of California at the moment in relation to a recent bill passed that outlawed people under 18 having counseling for unwanted same sex attraction, unless that counseling is affirming their same sex attraction. The LGBT lobby is a powerful one, and one that has been steadily getting stronger since it pressured the APA (American Psychological Association) to vote on changing the status of homosexuality from a disorder (This wasn't a scientific process. It wasn't based on any new evidence etc, but rather political pressure. It was a polling of its membership, and the vote was 5800 to remove it from the list of disorders,and 3800 to keep it there). The bill is non specific, in that it does not pick on any particular methods, therapies, practices etc. Rather, it simply declares that a person under 18 has no right to professional intervention unless its for the purpose of affirming their unwanted same sex attraction.

http://www.comingoutloved.com/legislativepetition

One of the guys starting this petition (He himself claiming that he has transitioned from homo to heterosexual) will be on an online radioshow discussing this. The recording of which should be available for listening to later on this evening, and defo tomoro here

Its an interesting situation, in that there have been methods used over the years by people that should be rightly outlawed, like negative reinforcement therapy on children etc, yet they just went ahead and said 'No professional can counsel a person under 18 in relation to their sexuality, who has unwanted same sex attraction unless its in terms of their sexuality being affirmed'. Many people have claimed that abuse, or bad/no relationship with a father etc have caused their SSA, and skewed their views of relationships with men etc and that counseling in relation to this has helped them change. Its an interesting political war afoot, and it'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei · 20-03-2013 10:04PM

Bum "sex" and cigarettes are as dangerous as each other, yet only one vice comes with a government health warning.

Benny_Cake · 20-03-2013 10:30PM

I'll say this once and once only - feelings may run unusually high on this issue but crass phrases sure as "bum sex" will not be tolerated, and if you need to know why, read the name of this forum. That goes for everyone.

NuMarvel · 20-03-2013 11:02PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Theres a fightback happening in the courts of California at the moment in relation to a recent bill passed that outlawed people under 18 having counseling for unwanted same sex attraction, unless that counseling is affirming their same sex attraction. The LGBT lobby is a powerful one, and one that has been steadily getting stronger since it pressured the APA (American Psychological Association) to vote on changing the status of homosexuality from a disorder (This wasn't a scientific process. It wasn't based on any new evidence etc, but rather political pressure. It was a polling of its membership, and the vote was 5800 to remove it from the list of disorders,and 3800 to keep it there). The bill is non specific, in that it does not pick on any particular methods, therapies, practices etc. Rather, it simply declares that a person under 18 has no right to professional intervention unless its for the purpose of affirming their unwanted same sex attraction.

http://www.comingoutloved.com/legislativepetition

One of the guys starting this petition (He himself claiming that he has transitioned from homo to heterosexual) will be on an online radioshow discussing this. The recording of which should be available for listening to later on this evening, and defo tomoro here

Its an interesting situation, in that there have been methods used over the years by people that should be rightly outlawed, like negative reinforcement therapy on children etc, yet they just went ahead and said 'No professional can counsel a person under 18 in relation to their sexuality, who has unwanted same sex attraction unless its in terms of their sexuality being affirmed'. Many people have claimed that abuse, or bad/no relationship with a father etc have caused their SSA, and skewed their views of relationships with men etc and that counseling in relation to this has helped them change. Its an interesting political war afoot, and it'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

I think a more pertinent question would be why is the attraction unwanted in the first place? With homosexuality being a natural and normal part of sexuality, why is it that we only hear of unwanted same sex attraction, and not unwanted heterosexual attraction? Statistically, there should surely be more cases of the latter than the former, so there are obviously external factors in place. And the most likely candidate is the prejudice, and sometimes even violence, that gay men and women encounter. Those kinds of environments make it very hard for a child to accept their sexuality, so is it any wonder that some of them would prefer to bury it instead of confronting the prejudice?

We don't have to look that far for comparable situations. If a black child said they don't want to be black any more (and I read of at least a few cases of that happening), we focus on why they think that and address their worries and concerns. Everyone accepts that a person's race is an intrinsic part of who they are, and there's absolutely nothing to be ashamed of for being black. We wouldn't send them off to hospital to "fix" their unwanted racial origins.

So why don't we apply the same thinking to same sex attraction? Let's concentrate first on why it's unwanted and resolve those issues before trying to "cure" something that isn't even an illness.

NuMarvel · 20-03-2013 11:26PM

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Bum "sex" and cigarettes are as dangerous as each other, yet only one vice comes with a government health warning.

But what does that have to do with homosexuality? By sheer numbers alone, it's probable that more heterosexual couples than homosexual couples engage in that kind of sexual activity. So if it's the general public's health you're worried about, you're targeting the wrong audience.

Kiwi in IE · 21-03-2013 12:36AM

JimiTime wrote: »

The LGBT lobby is a powerful one, and one that has been steadily getting stronger since it pressured the APA (American Psychological Association) to vote on changing the status of homosexuality from a disorder (This wasn't a scientific process. It wasn't based on any new evidence etc, but rather political pressure. It was a polling of its membership, and the vote was 5800 to remove it from the list of disorders,and 3800 to keep it there).

What was the 'scientific evidence' for having it classified as a 'mental disorder' in the first place? Or was it based on religious ideas?

"The LGBT lobby is a powerful one". Isn't it awful when those who have been historically oppressed, based on religious ideation, assert their rights and religious organisations are no longer able to actively discriminate!

marienbad · 21-03-2013 12:40AM

philologos wrote: »

That's one possibility. It was a genuine question and I'd be interested to see what answers people have and it would be an interesting aside to a circular discussion.

So why do you post here ?

JimiTime · 21-03-2013 01:10AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

What was the 'scientific evidence' for having it classified as a 'mental disorder' in the first place? Or was it based on religious ideas?

Do you care?

"The LGBT lobby is a powerful one". Isn't it awful when those who have been historically oppressed, based on religious ideation, assert their rights and religious organisations are no longer able to actively discriminate!

This is about ex-gays and those with unwanted same sex attraction feeling discriminated against and marginalised. In light of your feelings about what you perceive as a rights struggle, you might empathise with their plight.

tommy2bad · 21-03-2013 01:22AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Do you care?

So no answer then?

This is about ex-gays and those with unwanted same sex attraction feeling discriminated against and marginalised. In light of your feelings about what you perceive as a rights struggle, you might empathise with their plight.

Thing is, their unwanted sexual attraction wouldn't be that unwanted if they weren't made to feel it was wrong or disordered by our crowd.

NuMarvel · 21-03-2013 01:30AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Do you care?

It's responses like this that keep the discussion going around in circles.

Kiwi's question is relevant. If you don't know the answer, then just say so.

JimiTime · 21-03-2013 01:30AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think a more pertinent question would be why is the attraction unwanted in the first place?

Desire to have a natural family. A desire to fulfill what they see as their biological and emotional potential. A desire to be rid of a desire they see as sinful.

These are a few of the things I've heard being said.

With homosexuality being a natural and normal part of sexuality

Thats a discussion of itself.

, why is it that we only hear of unwanted same sex attraction, and not unwanted heterosexual attraction?

There probably is.

Statistically, there should surely be more cases of the latter than the former, so there are obviously external factors in place. And the most likely candidate is the prejudice, and sometimes even violence, that gay men and women encounter. Those kinds of environments make it very hard for a child to accept their sexuality, so is it any wonder that some of them would prefer to bury it instead of confronting the prejudice?

No doubt that the above applies in SOME cases, but certainly not in others.

Let's concentrate first on why it's unwanted

I agree.

and resolve those issues

By resolve, do you genuinely mean resolve, or do you mean, 'lets try affirm in them that they are wrong to reject same sex attraction'?

before trying to "cure" something that isn't even an illness.

To some it is illness of sorts. A disorder that prevents them from fulfilling their biological potential etc (The best thing to do, is ask, or look up those who have unwanted same sex attraction). To others, its all A OK and those folk are unaffected. The aforementioned legislation says 'Its ok for you to be ok with same sex attraction, and to have professionals affirm it with you if thats what you need or desire. But if you are under 18, and you have unwanted same sex attraction, you have not got the right to help from a profesional other than those that will get you to affirm this attraction'

JimiTime · 21-03-2013 01:40AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Thing is, their unwanted sexual attraction wouldn't be that unwanted if they weren't made to feel it was wrong or disordered by our crowd.

OUR crowd? I don't know what crowd you mean, but its nothing I'm part of. Second of all, you are way too presumptuous in your attempts to be the hand reaching out to homosexuals. You don't seem to have any heart for the hate and suspicion those who testify to being changed, or who wish to be changed suffer.

Kiwi in IE · 21-03-2013 01:42AM

I would be highly concerned for a 15, 16 or 17 year old gay kid, who has been brought up in a religious household and indoctrinated with the idea that homosexuality is a 'sin' and 'abomination', who goes to a religious counsellor with their 'unwanted same sexual attraction' to have the religious indoctrination reaffirmed. I can certainly see the reasoning behind such legislation.

Kiwi in IE · 21-03-2013 01:46AM

JimiTime wrote: »

OUR crowd? I don't know what crowd you mean, but its nothing I'm part of. Second of all, you are way too presumptuous in your attempts to be the hand reaching out to homosexuals. You don't seem to have any heart for the hate and suspicion those who testify to being changed, or who wish to be changed suffer.

Jimi you are very much on your high horse at the moment about the supposed 'hate and suspicion' from the LGBT community toward 'ex gays' who have 'found Jesus'.

What are your thoughts on the centuries of hate, abuse and oppression that LGBT people have been subjected to in the name of religion?

tommy2bad · 21-03-2013 01:48AM

Jimi, by our crowd I mean heterosexuals.

JimiTime · 21-03-2013 01:53AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's responses like this that keep the discussion going around in circles.

I disagree. I believe lack of honesty is the culprit you allude to, but we coul go into another discussion about that. So I suppose, all thats left to say is that I'll respond how I see fit, and people are free to take it whichever way they wish. I will guarantee one thing, I'll be honest. I try not to beat around the bush, or purposely offend (Well, I do like to take the pee out of people I consider to be playing to galleries or acting the eejit

)

JimiTime · 21-03-2013 01:56AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I would be highly concerned for a 15, 16 or 17 year old gay kid, who has been brought up in a religious household and indoctrinated with the idea that homosexuality is a 'sin' and 'abomination', who goes to a religious counsellor with their 'unwanted same sexual attraction' to have the religious indoctrination reaffirmed. I can certainly see the reasoning behind such legislation.

Well, the legislation does nothing for them. In fact, it will probably accentuate that as there wont be anywhere else to turn. For the record, I don't really respect this field anyway, I just find the politics behind all of this interesting.

JimiTime · 21-03-2013 02:01AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Jimi, by our crowd I mean heterosexuals.

I'd hardly call being heterosexual as part of being a crowd

There are plenty, more than plenty of gay affirming heterosexuals

Kiwi in IE · 21-03-2013 02:05AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, the legislation does nothing for them. In fact, it will probably accentuate that as there wont be anywhere else to turn. For the record, I don't really respect this field anyway, I just find the politics behind all of this interesting.

Usually 15, 16 and 17 year old kids would be under the influence of their parents. If they need counselling it would more often than not, be their parents who pays for it. I think the legislation would do quite a lot to protect the child in my hypothetical situation.

A very religious family who are homophobic and their child has come out gay, are unlikely to attempt to have said child seen by a secular, liberal counsellor now are they?

JimiTime · 21-03-2013 02:06AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Jimi you are very much on your high horse at the moment about the supposed 'hate and suspicion' from the LGBT community toward 'ex gays' who have 'found Jesus'.

Just listening to the victim speech so much, and all the rights talk etc from certain quarters, while at the same time seeing the hate and venom directed at such people, I think it needs to be said. Thats not high-horsery. Its saying, 'extend your thoughts to these people, and don't make them figures to be detested'. You can choose to be how you want to be, and they can choose how they want to be.

What are your thoughts on the centuries of hate, abuse and oppression that LGBT people have been subjected to in the name of religion?

Firstly, I don't represent religion, nor does 'religion' represent me. I am specifically a bible-believing Christian. As such, I believe any hate perpetrated by my brethren (or anyone) on homosexuals etc is to be wholeheartedly condemned.

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

Comments