Religion, gay artists and homophobia

Sorry for butting in AT. At a guess I'd say that far more non gay people have been tortured, murdered and/or annihilated, where does that argument lead?

[quote]Why did you respond to Polyglide's post

I honestly do not know why I responded to the trash on that post!

Thing is, PG is going on about holding the Christian banner high!!?

Yes I am for capital and corporal punishment - only, and ONLY if the prerpetrator's little anal sphyncter is nailed to the netty door! There HAS to be something done, and the present mish mash since 1964 IMO is not working.

My attitude toward 'gay' people and relationships? - I do not necessarily feel comfortable with the concept, and will only discuss this fleetingly, but people who leave me to my life do not gather my ire. It is when self righteous folk force their ideology at me that I raise my hackles. this can be the anti car mob, anti smoking mob or thon Tatchell guy who really annoys me. To my mind, Tatchell is doing for gay representation, what Scargill did for the Coal Miners of the UK.

How some people can make a simple statement become homophobic I do not know.

We as compassionate creatures should have everyones interests at heart and not just those whose actions and beliefs suit our own particular ideas of right and wrong.

If the scientists are correct and there are certain actions that are predetermined through our DNA then consideration should be given to those affected and not just those who fit into what some feel is right or wrong.

Take a person who cannot help abusing a child, what do you suggest?, he/she being unable to do anything about it and beyond any known cure at the present time, should he/she be locked away from society [not forgetting they have no choice in the matter of being abusers it is in their DNA] or should they be allowed to just abuse the odd child etc;?.

The same applies to a rapist or any other person whose actions are determined by their DNA.

Those who are lucky enough to have no such hangups should not be so quick to judge, the implications are not as simple as hang them, string them up etc; if you give consideration to one then you give consideration to all.

[quote="astra"]

Why did you respond to Polyglide's post

I honestly do not know why I responded to the trash on that post!

Thing is, PG is going on about holding the Christian banner high!!?

Yes I am for capital and corporal punishment - only, and ONLY if the prerpetrator's little anal sphyncter is nailed to the netty door! There HAS to be something done, and the present mish mash since 1964 IMO is not working.

My attitude toward 'gay' people and relationships? - I do not necessarily feel comfortable with the concept, and will only discuss this fleetingly, but people who leave me to my life do not gather my ire. It is when self righteous folk force their ideology at me that I raise my hackles. this can be the anti car mob, anti smoking mob or thon Tatchell guy who really annoys me. To my mind, Tatchell is doing for gay representation, what Scargill did for the Coal Miners of the UK.

Fair enough, I totally respect your view. You have clarified your stance and I am not being sarcastic or ironic at all here.

An article in today's Independent reports on the beginnings of Divorce among gay couples who have decided to split.

Divorce Law is largely unprepared, having been designed principally to safeguard the interest of children.

AwfulTruth. quote

Interesting news : BUT contrary to what you may have been told, I can assure you that the original divorce laws were put in place to protect property and wealth; which normally meant women came off far worst AND with the stigma of being labelled a marked woman.

Just quickly poking my nose in. I thought women were property.

oops back to study.

Divorce Law is largely unprepared, having been designed principally to safeguard the interest of children.

Andrea Yates was the mother of five children. I say "was" because, back in 2001, she put her five children in a car, drove the car into a lake, and let those five children drown. She, herself, swam to safety.

Today, she has two more children to a second husband.

In this country, there are 30 states with anti-gay amendments in their constitutions, forbidding both gay marriage AND civil unions. One of the primary, cornerstone arguments used by anti-gay activists is that we must protect the children.

Really? Then why is a known and convicted child-murderer allowed to have more children? I find this preposterous that gays are such a threat to kids that we need not just laws, but constitutional amendments, to keep their hands of kids, but child-murderers, well, that's fine and jim-dandy as long as she is in a heterosexual relationship.

This just goes to show you the lunacy that is the anti-gay campaign. Hypocrisy and fallacy greets you at every turn of a phrase.

Those who are lucky enough to have no such hangups should not be so quick to judge, the implications are not as simple as hang them, string them up etc; if you give consideration to one then you give consideration to all.

When one does harm to another, it matters not the reason. An animal may react on instinct - it cannot help itself - but if an animal is running around killing children and pets, we shoot it. With humans who may be suffering some sort of mental breakdown and commits violence against another, we haul that person off to jail or a high-security mental institution. Yes, we lock them away. The basic precept concerning "rights" is that a right is only valid until it begins to interfere with someone else's rights. One right cannot trample another.

If you suffer violence at the hands of another, your rights have been violated - and the person violating those rights loses his right to freedom. It matters not if he wasn't in control; the safety and protection of society as a whole is paramount.

On the issue of gays, well, being gay does not harm anyone. Being gay does not violate or trample on anyone else's rights. There is no logical argument anyone can make that justifies the vehement desire to keep gays in the closet. None. You can go ahead and run by me any argument - ANY argument - you wish to. I guarantee that I can refute it legally or logically (and many times, both).

"We all know how witch hunts start"

Certainly anyone who has read all six pages of this thread does.

Quote AT : For your information I only wear underpants made from the Bayeux Tapestry"

(talktalk.co.uk)

" And as if all this isn't bad enough, one day we'll be featured on a pair of Y-Fronts..."

Is it wrong to be part of a minority ? - I think not.

If a man or woman happens to be homosexual, it does not automaticly mean that they are either wrong, perverted or evil in some way, and why should what two consenting adults choose to do in private be any business of any church or busy-body. ?

Who decides that homosexuality is wrong - the Anglican Church perhaps, of which over 80% of the population has no affinity with, or is it the Catholic Church which decides that gay people are all sinners, a Church which less than 10% of the population adhere to.

What if you are gay and athiest ? - what if you are gay and dont realy care what the Churches believe or say or think, who are they to dictate to people how to live their lives or deny what nature intended them to be.

The opinions of the Churches are realy quite irrelevant, all that the Churches are doing is making society divided because not only are they alienating gay people, they are also making enemies of the many hetrosexual people who also believe they are wrong.

The subject of paedophiles is a totaly different subject and has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the issue or topic of LGBT rights or gay people or equality, infact the vast majority of gay people would be highly offended if anyone confused one with the other.

Churches are out of date - out of touch - out of ideas and rapidly losing support.

AT - I would never have mentioned your underwear had you not already brazenly shouted ' Geronimo' whilst dropping your trousers and showing us all a flash of the Norman Conquest.

It's not actually me displayed, but please don't let anyone else know. It looks so much like me (though obviously not quite so handsome) that I simply had to use it as my pic.

My other dark secret is that I am not really a vicar - although I realise that the kindly nature of my postings and my unfailingly forgiving nature make it hard for people to believe...

De gustibus non est disputandum.

(Meaning literally regarding taste, there is no dispute.)

It is a strange fact that people can take the mickey and mock religion but cannot accept that some people have strong ideas of other activities.

Homophobia being such a case.

If a person feels homosexuality to be wrong, then he/she has every right to express their opinion, just as a homosexual has the right to condemn religion etc;

You cannot force a person to change their views by changing the law but by reasoned debate based on fact.

It is a strange fact that people can take the mickey and mock religion but cannot accept that some people have strong ideas of other activities.

I'll be very blunt here.

It's all well and good to express an opinion. It's another ball of wax when you live in my country, where 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same sex marriages. Our various constitutions are designed to GRANT rights, not restrict them. Not since slavery has our state or federal constitutions been used as weapons to persecute a minority group. Perhaps even more to the point, these opinions have been made into LAWS, and those laws are based on RELIGION.

In other words, we are now bound by law to follow the dictates of a specific religious belief whether we're gay or not - this despite the fact that the 1st Amendment prohibits such laws.

As an American, seeing how religion is running roughshod over our freedoms - some of which are supposed to be guaranteed - means that this issue has gone far above simply stating an opinion. Now that the camel's nose is in the tent, the rest of the camel is already on its way in. Banning gay marriage wasn't enough in some states. Now they're trying to allow bullying as long as its done for religious reasons. Some states are trying to make it illegal for private (that's right, private) businesses to provide health benefits to same-sex couples. Many want to prohibit gays from adopting children. And some states even want to make homosexual acts outright illegal (i.e. you can be arrested for it).

All because of your opinion, polyglide. Thus my vehement opposition of it.

In conclusion: If you can show me where 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning religion, then you'll have a worthwhile comparison.

"Power Games" are here to stay.

There is always the debate regarding what is normal and what is not and to what extent any practice may have on the human race as a whole should it not be normal.

To clarify what is and what is not normal.

You use a hammer to knock in nails, you use a paint brush to paint, that is normal.

You would not use a paint brush to knock in nails nor a hammer to paint.
because that would be abnormal.

There must be fears in America that homosexuality could cause the basic fabric of society to break down should it be allowed to become widespread
and fear can cause many problems, as I have said previously, if I were homosexual I would keep a low profile and just get on with my life

All because of your opinion, polyglide. Thus my vehement opposition of it.

While I do not really agree with Polyglides position, I agree that she has a right to express her opinion if she thinks Homosexuality is wrong. To try and label such views as 'Hate crimes' is just a lazy way of saying...'You are not entitiled to your view because it doesn't tally with ours'.

I am neither Gay or Religious, but it seems religions are now fair game for any critisism you want to throw at them. I do not believe that God exists, but that could and probably is as offensive to a Christian and Polyglide saying Homosexuality is not normal

" I am neither Gay or Religious..."

Nor 'literate', it would appear....

Blue

If you say you are not gay then fine - but that is really not the question and your own private life is not up for discussion - or anyone else's. In a civilised society what we do in the bedroom, so to speak, is strictly private.

No it's not the question, but what I was trying to say is that I have no bias either way. I am if anything Anti religion and I hate everything religion stands for....I hate the lies, the dogma and the bigotry, but I will defend anyone's right to express their opinion.....even when that opinion is wrong

With regard to Polyglide, be sure to read all of the post he has posted here: the repetition, the insinuations and, frankly, bullying impulse displayed have nothing whatsoever to do with free speech. I defend free speech but I do not defend the inflammatory goading Polyglide is addicted to.

The only way to respond to people with Polyglides views are to educate them. On the whole society has done a fair job on this with racism and the same should be done with homosexuality. To just shout people down for their views only reinforces their bigoted attitudes

" I am neither Gay or Religious..."

Nor 'literate', it would appear

Yawn Phil, but I guess you're not here for your comedy value

There must be fears in America that homosexuality could cause the basic fabric of society to break down should it be allowed to become widespread

Polyglide....What is the fabric of society in America? And does that 'Fabric of society include: Race hate, Guns, Religious bigotry, a massive wealth divide, illegal wars and torture, inacarceration without trial ect?

Blimey!! blue is begining to sound like a true champion of the Libetarian cause

Im trying Witchfinder....to be a better person

Religion, gay artists and homophobia

Soon to be a major Hollywood blockbuster!!


All life is there.

There must be fears in America that homosexuality could cause the basic fabric of society to break down should it be allowed to become widespread
and fear can cause many problems, as I have said previously, if I were homosexual I would keep a low profile and just get on with my life

Hello, polyglide:

Yes, you are correct in saying that those fears exist. However, like it so often is, this fear is an irrational one. It is akin to someone running away from a kitten in abject terror because he/she fears being scratched. There is no basis for such a fear. Homosexuality has been with us since the beginning, and gays have been conducting their relationships and doing all of those "sinful" things all the while. It seems hardly logical to believe that the fabric of society will break down now if it hasn't already. And it hasn't.

In addition, homosexuality is not some disease that can become "widespread." There is no gay plague and you can't catch it from toilet seats, sneezes, or shaking hands. You are either gay ... or you're not. If it seems that people are "suddenly" becoming gay, the suddenness is an illusion. They were always gay, but they had to hide it because of bigots, hate groups, and "normal" people who choose to ridicule them. Coming out of the closet does not mean a heterosexual suddenly woke up and found him/herself inexplicably desiring the same sex. This sort of irrational fear is primitive, superstitious behavior, hardly befitting anyone who would wish to be enlightened. If one desires to exist in a benighted state, ignorant, afraid, and believing the unreal, then I would suggest believing in vampires or a zombie apocalypse would be a lot more fun. This ridiculous fear of gays isn't even enjoyable.

I have heard it argued that allowing gays to marry would somehow cheapen marriage - this usually said by men. My response has been, and still remains, thus: If you think it cheapens your marriage, then you should walk over to your wife and say, "Honey, I love you, but not as much as I did before gays could marry. You are worth a little less to me now. All of the things I married you for are no longer quite as bright and shiny as they once were, and you aren't even as beautiful in my eyes since gay marriage was legalized." Because that IS what you would be saying if you actually believed in this argument. Do you think your wife would understand and return the sentiment? More likely you would receive a slap in the face and a free trip to divorce court.

Speaking of how the above argument is usually said by men, the entire argument against gays is usually said by men. In fact, in almost every argument I have ever heard, lesbians aren't even mentioned. It is almost unilaterally men hating on gay men. Why is that, do you think? Are we filled to the brim with men insecure with their own masculinity? Is this another example of a patriarchal society enforcing the will of men onto other men? Perhaps what is even more sad - not to mention hypocritical - is how many of these men who scream about homosexuality will happily watch and view pornography showing two women having sex with each other. It is widely known that lesbian erotica is one of the fastest ways to arouse a man. Do you think men love threesomes because they're against homosexuality? How can anyone view this rabid hatred of gayness with a straight face knowing how many of these homophobic men would give their right arm for the opportunity to be in bed with two hot women doing things to himself AND each other?

In addition to all of that, how can gay marriage unravel the fabric of society when we have far more common marital issues like a 56% divorce rate, adultery, spousal abuse, child abandonment, misogyny, and even murdering your husband or wife to get out of a marriage or to collect life insurance? If THESE things have not unraveled the fabric of society, then how in the hell can gay marriage do what these things could not? Can anyone explain this incongruity? No? I didn't think so.

Here's what I see. This hatred of homosexuality has very little to do with religion. It might be for some, but not for most. Religion is merely being used as a weapon to justify an opinion they already had. So what is it about, then? Well, I think the straight community knows and understands that their way of life is in jeopardy. That much I can agree with. But as is so often the case when one makes a mess of their own life, they need a scapegoat. Instead of acknowledging that they are destroying themselves, they would rather blame the gays for their own pathetic, weak-willed mistakes. Yes, you beat your wife or cheat on your husband because the gay community has cheapened your own relationships to the point where you just can't help yourself ... isn't that the excuse?

All of this noise created against gays is just a smokescreen to hide your OWN indiscretions, your OWN contribution to the unraveling of the societal fabric. And when I say "you" or "your," I'm not referring to you, personally, polyglide. That is meant as a collective "you" representing the entire straight lifestyle.

The downside is how many innocent people get caught up in this religious fascism because now, in case you haven't heard, women are being targeted. Oh yes. Over 600 bills introduced to various state legislatures around the country trying to limit or restrict access to women's reproductive health services since 2010, and 90 of them have passed so far. I'm not talking about just abortion here, but reproductive health in general. When a committee was formed to decide the fate of contraception laws, the entire committee was male. That is akin to an all-white jury deciding the fate of a black man. You even have traitors to our own gender like Ann Coulter saying on national television how women should have their voting rights taken away - we should be in the home raising children, don't you know, not mucking about with politics (oh yeah, and it would make it almost impossible to ever elect another Democrat president - funny how this issue cropped up just as the numbers showed Obama ahead of Romney by 19 points among female voters!)

This country is a mess thanks in large part to this backward, quasi-fascist, ultra-religious mindset. We are one of the most high-tech nations on the planet with some of the best scientific minds, yet ideologically and philosophically, we are like 300 million cavemen in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal and a lot of gadgets we barely understand.

It is a strange world when those who express their opinions feel no one else should do so unless they agree with theirs.

I am neither for or against homosexuals and Iam against all forms of abuse in whatever form it may take but the only way to make any matter better is to kick around every aspect that is involved and every opinion expressed even if some may offend others, appeasement never solved any problem.

I have several homosexual friends whom I hold in high regard, they keep a low profile and just get on with their lives, I do not understand their way of life and no doubt they do not understand mine, they cause no trouble that I am aware of and do their share of work in society but my beliefs still think
that there is still something not quite right but I also think the same about smoking and several other matters.

"I am neither for or against homosexuals"

Though some sixty postings from that source might seem to indicate a decided view.

Polonius:
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!


Laertes:
Most humbly do I take my leave, my lord.


Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 78–82

While I do not really agree with Polyglides position, I agree that she has a right to express her opinion if she thinks Homosexuality is wrong. To try and label such views as 'Hate crimes' is just a lazy way of saying...'You are not entitiled to your view because it doesn't tally with ours'.

I never once said Polyglide does not have the right to express his opinions. In fact, I have encouraged him to express them. That does not mean, however, that I forfeit my own right to do the same. In addition, nowhere did I say that his opinions were "hate crimes." I'm not even sure where that accusation comes from. Lightning from the blue?

It is a strange world when those who express their opinions feel no one else should do so unless they agree with theirs.

Okay, I give up.

I won't express MY opinion on this subject ever again.

End of story.