- This topic has 206 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Some fairly unbelievable, and offensive, posts here on this one!
Mesh – homosexuality is not confined to humans and can be found (fairly widely actually) in nature also. In addition, quite how you hope to avoid being termed homophobic when you say you ‘don’t like homosexuality’ and that you’re ‘firmly against gays bringing up children’ is beyond comprehension.
Same sex couples who want to live together and commit to each other should have every right to the same civil/legal ‘priviliges’ that such a commitment entitles stright couples. There is no logical reason why they shouldn’t.
The religious aspect of ‘marriage’ should be treated separately to the civil aspects of ‘partnership’ and is a different debate entirely.<br>
(Edited by cormack15 at 3:53 pm on Dec. 6, 2005)
More common sense from Corm.
The religious aspect of ‘marriage’ should be treated separately to the civil aspects of ‘partnership’ and is a different debate entirely.
The argument that marriage is somehow inherently linked with religion is nonsense anyway.
Firstly, you could ask "who’s religion?" as there is more than one.
Secondly, non-believers such as I can be married without pretending to be doing something "with god".
For those who are all bent out of shape over gay marriage, I’d suggest you just get over yourselves.
Just because your sexuality is the majority doesn’t give you the right to control how other consenting adults choose to commit to each other.
Steve
Attempting to suggest what is ‘normal’ or ‘what nature intended’ is a silly business. It implies that there was a creative design behind the existence of life, in which case you are lining up behind George Dubya and Pat Robertson in the loony corner.
Christianity and homosexuality. Tricky one. As far as I am aware, Jesus had nothing to say on the subject. The main objections are that there should be no sex outside marriage and up until now, there was no same sex marriage. Once this is legal, the sex outside marriage problem is resolved. The message of the Bible, from what I can remember seemed to be about monogamy. But that’s a different debate
Grasshopper – I can’t believe the blatant hypocrisy of your post. You advocate tolerance of homosexuality yet you’re lambasting me and others for holding Christian beliefs? That’s intolerance in itself.
Corm – the word "homophobic" is grossly overused and most often out of context. I have a real phobia and it’s not pleasant. I have never been and never will have a phobia of homosexuals. I’ve known a few in my lifetime and I judge them as people, not on their sexuality! What they do is their business. However it is the concept and the act of homosexuality that is a turn off with me and I’ll still stand by my belief that I don’t think it’s the right way to bring up children.
civil partnerships sound like a very good idea.
i think the most regrettable thing here is that the option has not (yet) been extended to heterosexual partners who don’t want to get married.
common sense indicates this extension of the scheme would be a good thing, although it might upset certain church bigwigs.
arguments around the ‘phobia’ part of ‘homophobia’ are a bit silly really. no, the word doesn’t make proper sense, but is a composite and in widespread use due to the lack of a suitable alternatives (gayist?). the ‘aholic’ part of ‘workaholic’ is stolen and nonsensical, but we all understand the sense and spirit (sic) of the word.
mesh, to say that you ‘don’t really like homosexuality’ suggests that it might be ok if there is nothing (or no-one) better to do.
i think what you really mean is you don’t like the idea of homosexuality – and i’d say this was a prejudice, but then i guess you’d kind of guess i would say that, wouldn’t i?
I’m not terribly keen on commenting on religious issues ~ I come from quite a devout Catholic background, but became involved in what could broadly be termed the ecumenical movement when I came to London. I’ve seen enough hypocrisy in Christian circles to scunder me thoroughly, but I find that ex-christians are even more intolerable, so I refuse to row in there.
However, I’d like to simplify the New Testament down to the following statements from the bould boyo himself:
"why doesn’t everybody just love one another?" <br>"if you’re not against me, you’re for me" (how often is that quoted in reverse?)<br>"stop being such a self righteous c***" <br>"Yes, you’re forgiven you big lummox"<br>"if something’s good, then good will come of it" <br>"oh ~ bugger the bloomin’ law"
Always worth bearing these in mind when working out if things are wrong or not.
This topic has nothing to do with religion Grasshopper, so dont try to twist its main point as you normally do. The main topic, as you seem to have missed (again) is about wether kids would be brought up happy and secure. You suggest that bumming might be natuers way. Have you ever seen a pidgeon lying on her back whilst her lady friend pecks at her bits. Back to basic nature says its not right. You must tell me what zoo you take your kids to, and I will not visit it!<br> Ordinary people like me and mesh seem to think not, and thats because we might have been brought up thinking it was okay to play kiss chase with the opposite sex, and have a little snog with your girlfriend behind the bike shed. Thats what kids instinctively did in my days at school. I never saw 2 boys or 2 girls doing the kissing thing. If I did then they would have been picked on. Without doubt!
Mesh. You might not like it, but you are the same wavelength as me on this one.
Peaty Sandy.
Direct and to the point. I like that.<br> Its so much better than all this waffle and story twisting.
So as I said, I think most of us believe that this is wrong.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
As I mentioned earlier in the thread homosexuality is not confined to the human species but is relatively widespread among a variety of species. It is common within nature, Lolly’s Mate and Meshasheer, common enough to make it unremarkable in our species.
Terrific post, rory.
Surely Grasshopper is right, the quality of parenting is far more important than the gender, or relationship, of the parents?
WWI and II led to many children living in all-female households (cared for by grandparents, sisters and aunts) and many separated parents have complicated living arrangements for children.  If the family is loving, stable and sensible there is no reason why the children should be damaged.
I don’t have a problem with gays at all.
Won’t the kids who are being adopted be saved from growing up in state-run homes. And as Grasshopper says, there are delinquent parents who are allowed to have kids and I don’t hear any of you anti-gays moaning about them (which is a far bigger problem).
There are plenty of hetero parents who aren’t fit to look after a budgie, far less a human child.
Presumably gays will continue to be discriminated against in adoption. They’ll continue to be (perhaps rightly?) put behind straight couples in the queue.
So, if they end up adopting, they’ll be looking after kids who’d otherwise not have families.
If you are heterosexual, white, employed, law-abiding Christian, with no alcohol or drug dependancy, then I’m afraid this ain’t the country for you. ÂÂÂ
Perhaps.
But if you’re a heterosexual, white, employed, law-abiding, non-prejudiced agnostic, with no alcohol or drug dependancy (like me), its a ******* great place to live.
Steve
(Edited by stevedvg at 2:17 pm on Dec. 7, 2005)
Good post Steve
I am always surprised at how many self-proclaimed Christians are quite happy to jettison the key tenets of not judging others, turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbour. Clearly some bits of the New Testament are preferred to others.
In other words, for those who are Christian, it is God who ultimately judges what is right or wrong and all that individual humans should do is try to live a good life, not spend their time criticising others and pontificating on what lifestyles are acceptable or not.
<br>
The good book says
The good book? Timeform’s "Chasers and Hurdlers" said this?
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Tha’s bad news for straight girls. I guess they better lie with females instead….
BTW, is the bible against a guy lying with a female as males lie with each other, if you know what I mean?
Steve
And of course, no good follower of the Old Testament would dream of borrowing money or eating shellfish. If mould grows anywhere in your dwelling, burn it down and if children dishonour their parents, they should be stoned to death.
Christianity implies following the teachings of Jesus, who had very little to say on the subject of homosexuality. He did have quite a lot to say on judging others and loving thy neighbour.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.