Religion, gay artists and homophobia

I'm not having a go at you Shirina, please don't think that I was. I've only been here for a short time, but I get a bad feeling everytime I see his name, I can understand 100% why AT feels upset by his use of words. He comes across as a homophobe bully. And I think he means to do just that too. Right, I've had my say on the matter...I really hope that you stay AF, I'd love to get to know you better! please stick around! x

It's in the nature of any Message Board that it will attract the odd Troll from time-to-time.

The standard advice is to ignore the troublemaker. Their intention is to get a reaction out of others, so if that doesn't work they quickly get bored.

AwfulTruth wrote:[-

Stay with us awful truth, as I do not share his views at all. everyone has the right to seek happens no matter what sex you happen to fall in love with. i do hate this sort of thing, as its 2012 and not 1367.

please stay and post i will miss your posts

AwfulTruth wrote:Trevor

So where does all this homophobia fit in? Where is the gospel references that prove that the Pope is right to persecute gay people?

With regards to biblical evidence, I cannot find anything substantial, irrefutable, and cannot even identify a reference that supports the bizarre Catholic and Anglican assertion that their church's both own the fundamental semantics of the word 'marriage. Once again there is absolutely no New or Old Testament scripture that backs up the notion that the church owns or controls marriage. Semantics aside, Jesus Christ did not make any homophobic statements, judgements or condemnations, (he overtly supported sexual abstinence) and he certainly did not proclaim that 'marriage', as we know it, was the preserve of his faith.

We know for sure that what we see as a state codified and registered act of formal commitment, as in 'marriage', was put in place during William the Conqueror's time, in this country, exclusively for the benefit, initially anyway, of the landed and upper social order. During a patriarchal time when powerless females were bought and sold on the marriage market like meat, the act of marriage, as codified, was primarily an act of law that protected in law the area of financial assets such as dowry, inheritance and chattels so as to help prevent fraud and loss of wealth.

Marriage is not and never has been, the sole preserve of the religious, and the idea that gay people are incapable of having a partnership that involved a loving commitment, is ludicrous. Whether we call that commitment a marriage, a partnership, or a dance down the road of happy families, is simply just the discourse of the intellectually pedantic and a fruitless exercise in empty semantics that support a rather pointless lesson in persecution and intolerant religious fascism.

I agree, everyone has the basic right to happyness. to me religion need to grow up with today's world and not spend its time judging others about what was said in some holy book written at the time when every Roman had a male lover. its quite crazy to try and marry religion and gay life together. well it is in my world.

i do find intolerance in today's world uttery immature with all that is going on in the world. you would think the world has stood still too here all of this. when in fact most people would not know a gay person if they fell over them. as they do not walk around with a sign on there backs saying look at me, I am gay. Religion need too spend more time attacking the rich and selfish people within UK and less time judging what some old books meanings and how this fits in today's world. it would do us all a great service if they was to attack what's happening too all the less well off people within the UK and around the world.

Adele Carlyon wrote:I'm not having a go at you Shirina, please don't think that I was. I've only been here for a short time, but I get a bad feeling everytime I see his name, I can understand 100% why AT feels upset by his use of words. He comes across as a homophobe bully. And I think he means to do just that too. Right, I've had my say on the matter...I really hope that you stay AF, I'd love to get to know you better! please stick around! x

Hiya
Adele you speck for me as well on this issue. you sum it up very well x

AwfulTruth wrote:Sorry but fed-up with being called a pervert!

Bye all!

your not at all, please stay Awful truth as you have many friends on here OK. your nothing of the sort my friend. its just one persons views and they are not shared by me at all

Ivan wrote:

Of course words get distorted and the word Gay has been adopted by the homosexuals but that actually changes nothing, a once word used to signify happiness etc is now immediately associated with homosexuals and perversion

polyglide. That's unacceptable on this forum and may even be close to breaking the law. Please keep such prejudices to yourself.

Words can change their meanings, as this cartoon from 'Punch' in 1857 illustrates. 'Gay' is being used as a euphemism for a prostitute. One woman says to the other: "How long have you been gay?" The poster on the wall is for 'La Traviata', an opera about a courtesan:-

Well said Ivan xxxx

This is about equality and respect. It can be compared with women fighting for equal rights as men, or blacks seeking equal opportunities as whites. Why should a homosexual couple be refused the right of marriage? There is no rational reason at all to deny them this right. The prejudices against them stem from centuries of religous dogma........much the same as religion treats women as second class citizens to men.

I suspect polyglide's opinion, since he/she has mentioned the word perversion here more than once, is based primarily on personal distaste of the sexual act/s that a homosexual couple might occur. The idea that a person can be treat as an unequal member of society because of their sex life seems anachronistic - I'm sure some heterosexual couples indulge in sexual acts that polyglide would also label perverse; should they be refused the right to marriage too? Homosexuality is a natural instinct for some people - if God did exist would he condemn nature. The fact is religions, and their rules, are concepts constructed, and imagineered, by men.

Respect.

AwfulTruth,

Please don't leave.

I second both of those posts of yours sickchip! Well said!

Red Cat Woman wrote:

AwfulTruth wrote:Trevor

So where does all this homophobia fit in? Where is the gospel references that prove that the Pope is right to persecute gay people?

With regards to biblical evidence, I cannot find anything substantial, irrefutable, and cannot even identify a reference that supports the bizarre Catholic and Anglican assertion that their church's both own the fundamental semantics of the word 'marriage. Once again there is absolutely no New or Old Testament scripture that backs up the notion that the church owns or controls marriage. Semantics aside, Jesus Christ did not make any homophobic statements, judgements or condemnations, (he overtly supported sexual abstinence) and he certainly did not proclaim that 'marriage', as we know it, was the preserve of his faith.

We know for sure that what we see as a state codified and registered act of formal commitment, as in 'marriage', was put in place during William the Conqueror's time, in this country, exclusively for the benefit, initially anyway, of the landed and upper social order. During a patriarchal time when powerless females were bought and sold on the marriage market like meat, the act of marriage, as codified, was primarily an act of law that protected in law the area of financial assets such as dowry, inheritance and chattels so as to help prevent fraud and loss of wealth.

Marriage is not and never has been, the sole preserve of the religious, and the idea that gay people are incapable of having a partnership that involved a loving commitment, is ludicrous. Whether we call that commitment a marriage, a partnership, or a dance down the road of happy families, is simply just the discourse of the intellectually pedantic and a fruitless exercise in empty semantics that support a rather pointless lesson in persecution and intolerant religious fascism.

I agree, everyone has the basic right to happyness. to me religion need to grow up with today's world and not spend its time judging others about what was said in some holy book written at the time when every Roman had a male lover. its quite crazy to try and marry religion and gay life together. well it is in my world.

i do find intolerance in today's world uttery immature with all that is going on in the world. you would think the world has stood still too here all of this. when in fact most people would not know a gay person if they fell over them. as they do not walk around with a sign on there backs saying look at me, I am gay. Religion need too spend more time attacking the rich and selfish people within UK and less time judging what some old books meanings and how this fits in today's world. it would do us all a great service if they was to attack what's happening too all the less well off people within the UK and around the world.

I just happened to look in briefly and see my name being 'blasphemed'. Oops. AwfulTruth knew my thoughts on the subject. I don't agree with homosexuality, but that is because I don't understand it. I have not condemned anyone. Everyone has a right to be what they are, with the exception of murderers etc:). I don't remember saying anything about 'marriage'. That is not a new concept by 5000+ years. [/color]

It was me, in fact, who pointed out to AwfulTruth an article in the Sunday Times by several senior clergy who said the church should welcome gays, or words to that effect.[/color]

I agree with all that AwfulTruth wrote.

Now back to study. And yah boo sucks to you;)

"Feel free to post your messages in any colour except red, which is the colour used to display that a post has been moderated."

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t391-posting-tips

I cannot uinderstand the remarks made regarding my observations, how on earth can stating facts be any where near breaking the law ?.

Are you saying homosexuality is not a perversion? the dictionary says it is.

Are you saying that most people who hear the word gay do not associate it with homosexuals?.

If you cannot stand the truth then stay out of the kitchen.

As I have said previously I have several homosexual friends, I do not understand their way of life and I am neither for or against, I deal in the truth and if any of my opinions are not based on the truth then I would apologise but not for any other reason.

the dictionary says it is.

Which dictionary? Published when?

Besides - one man's perversion.....etc. It's subjective.

Are you saying homosexuality is not a perversion? the dictionary says it is.

The dictionary does not specifically say that homosexuality is a perversion.

Shirina wrote:

Are you saying homosexuality is not a perversion? the dictionary says it is.

The dictionary does not specifically say that homosexuality is a perversion.

Is the TRUTH going to make any difference to a Rabid Religous Bigot????

astradt1 wrote:

Shirina wrote:

Are you saying homosexuality is not a perversion? the dictionary says it is.

The dictionary does not specifically say that homosexuality is a perversion.

Is the TRUTH going to make any difference to a Rabid Religous Bigot????

Is it not time to end this farce before anyone else gets hurt. To state one's views is acceptable, to continue to hurt is not. The subject has been debated to exhaustion. Being gay is being one's normal self. It has been that way since 'Adam was a lad'. I don't agree with it, but then I don't understand it. What I do know is that being gay does not make one anytheless a human being, and deserving of being treated as anyone else.

But then, what do I know.

Is it not time to end this farce before anyone else gets hurt?

Yes, thank you for saying that, trevor. It certainly is time, and forum staff (along with some other members) are making it quite clear that homophobia will not be tolerated here. A mixed metaphor such as “if you cannot stand the truth then stay out of the kitchen” could be interpreted as gloating that a member may have left us because of what he perceives as homophobic bullying.

Neither is it of much consequence when someone informs us that they “have several homosexual friends”. Many of us have encountered a racist who comes out with the stock lie that “some of my best friends are black”, as if by saying that it somehow justifies their bigotry.

In my opinion, this homophobia was a thinly-veiled attack on one member, and that's against our rules. Either it stops now or I will ask Shirina to discuss with the moderating team whether a ban might be appropriate.

Polyglide

I deal in the truth

but not for any other reason.

Seems to me that Polyglide is in a majority of 1
Keep yer back straight, be proud - of what? I do not know.


Has awful Truth left us or is he having a rest?

The saddest thing about this thread is that posters are now bereft of the input of another human being, AT. His input has given me a greater understanding of the gay community, and for that I am grateful. As one who had a religious upbringing, and I don't regret that, it has taken me many years to come to terms with the fact that we are all equal human beings.

I, personally, hope AT will return with his comments. On all subjects.

trevorw2539 wrote:The saddest thing about this thread is that posters are now bereft of the input of another human being, AT. His input has given me a greater understanding of the gay community, and for that I am grateful. As one who had a religious upbringing, and I don't regret that, it has taken me many years to come to terms with the fact that we are all equal human beings.

I, personally, hope AT will return with his comments. On all subjects.

Well said Trevor. I am pleased you have posted this. as I too hope AT come back. as i miss the posts of AT.

Ivan wrote:

Is it not time to end this farce before anyone else gets hurt?

Yes, thank you for saying that, trevor. It certainly is time, and forum staff (along with some other members) are making it quite clear that homophobia will not be tolerated here. A mixed metaphor such as “if you cannot stand the truth then stay out of the kitchen” could be interpreted as gloating that a member may have left us because of what he perceives as homophobic bullying.

Neither is it of much consequence when someone informs us that they “have several homosexual friends”. Many of us have encountered a racist who comes out with the stock lie that “some of my best friends are black”, as if by saying that it somehow justifies their bigotry.

In my opinion, this homophobia was a thinly-veiled attack on one member, and that's against our rules. Either it stops now or I will ask Shirina to discuss with the moderating team whether a ban might be appropriate.

Well said Ivan. x

Of course the answer is to ban that to which you do not agree, in particular if you have no reply other than to misinterpret what is actualy stated.

You doubt I have homosexual friends, you think I am homophobic, what you do not say is exactly what I have said is wrong and on what grounds you make your assumptions.

The only thing I have done is point out the truth, what you and others are attempting to do is change the truth.

You are what you are, that goes for everyone but to attempt to change what you are by changing names etc; fools no one.

I have never said, nor believe, that a homosexual is less of a person than anyone else, what I do say is his way of life is different and it appears to me that they are not willing to accept this and want to be classed as the same as hetrosexuals which they are not. Not all but many.

polyglide,

I have never said, nor believe, that a homosexual is less of a person than anyone else, what I do say is his way of life is different and it appears to me that they are not willing to accept this and want to be classed as the same as hetrosexuals which they are not.

....and one heterosexual person might have a vastly different lifestyle to the next - there are an infinite number of ways to live one's life. It's not about differences between homosexuality or heterosexuality - this is about everybody being subject to the same rights/rules.....marriage included. A persons sexuality/preferences should not omit them from those rights.

Couldn't have put it better myself Sickchip

To a certain degree I agree but if you take this one step further you are in trouble.

If you say anyone can lead the life they wish so long as it does not affect anyone else and is done behind closed doors etc;

What about drug addicts and those who look at child abuse and produce pornography all behind closed doors and they are not affecting anyone else
or partners knocking three bells out of each other etc; where do you stop?.

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/800fe478-87e5-11e0-a6de-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1tdSgISip



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/800fe478-87e5-11e0-a6de-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1tdSTX3DD

Polyglide quote.

The only thing I have done is point out the truth, what you and others are attempting to do is change the truth.



If you are happy that you have the truth, fair enough. Why not leave it there?

I suggest that we all agree to differ and move on. But then I'm not a moderator.

And AT we would welcome you back.

Ooops. Perhaps 'outlived' my welcome here.

To a certain degree I agree but if you take this one step further you are in trouble.

Ah yes, the classic "slippery slope" argument.

Well, let's rewind the tape a bit further. Suppose somewhere in our distant past when people were deciding what should be accepted, one of those people said, "Yes, but if we allow men and women to have sex, what if it goes one step further and men want to have sex with themselves?"

And one of the other people said, "By George, you're right! So to prevent men from having sex with themselves, we should nip it in the bud early and simply ban sex altogether ... shouldn't we?"

And yet a third person said, "Yes, let's ban heterosexual sex because once we open Pandora's Box, people will want to have homosexual sex, too!"

Fortunately, that didn't happen. However, it illustrates the weakness of the "slippery slope" argument. We, as a society, have to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior where it is logical, not necessarily where it is comfortable. No one says you have to like homosexuality - or understand it - but arguing that by accepting homosexuality we will suddenly have millions of people claiming we should also allow child abuse is patently absurd. The only way to stop this particular slippery slope is to ban sex completely.

What about drug addicts and those who look at child abuse and produce pornography all behind closed doors and they are not affecting anyone else
or partners knocking three bells out of each other etc; where do you stop?

How do any of these things compare to homosexuality? First, we can eliminate child abuse and partners knocking "three bells" out of each other straight away because we already established one of the parameters as being unable to cause harm to someone else. We can then eliminate pornography because, frankly, who cares. If people want to waste their time looking at naked people having sex, why should anyone else be concerned about it? It's not MY time they're wasting ... and not YOURS. As long as they keep it behind closed doors, it does not affect me and no one is forcing me to look at it. Selling drugs could be seen as doing harm to others whilst doing drugs could be construed as doing harm to yourself. As such, those two things fall into a grayer area, but the big difference here is that one CHOOSES to be a drug addict. Another issue with drugs is that, while the actual act of taking the drugs may remain behind closed doors, the effects of those drugs are often taken into the wider world. For instance, no one has ever caused a fatal car accident because someone was homosexual nor does being homosexual impair your ability to drive a car, pilot a plane, captain a ship, or otherwise perform a job safely. That cannot be said of drug abuse.

Personally, I don't know why people like yourself worry so much about what two consenting adults do with their sexuality. Do you have the same worry regarding couples who engage in strange fetishes such as skat fetishes or shoe fetishes? I'm betting you don't. There is no logical reason to be so worried about homosexuality except because you believe in lunatic religious propaganda which has no basis in fact ... or because you simply don't like it. Neither are good enough reasons - in a free society, at least - to take action against it.

I deal in the truth and if any of my opinions are not based on the truth then I would apologise but not for any other reason.

Except you don't deal in truth, Polyglide. You deal in fallacy. For instance, you consistently preach the Etymological Fallacy by refusing to acknowledge that the word "pervert" carries a much harsher, offensive meaning than what the dictionary claims. You just dealt us the Slippery Slope Fallacy by intimating that accepting homosexuality would cause society to also accept child and spousal abuse. You have handed us the Appeal to Tradition Fallacy by claiming that marriage has been between men and women for thousands of years. Need I go on?

All of your arguments are based on fluff and fallacy, and if I were you, I'd be irritated with whatever source gave you these views since it was feeding you lies, propaganda, and Kool-Aid. I have no dog in this fight. Whether gays receive rights or not will have no effect on my life. But I recognize unjustified discrimination, persecution, and religious fascism when I see it, and my opposition to such things is a fight I very much want to win.

I suggest that we all agree to differ and move on. But then I'm not a moderator.

Hello, Trevor:

I'm not going to make any discussion topics "off limits" because almost certainly there will be major disagreements, even fights, about other topics as time goes on. If I were to ban or discourage such topics, we would be left with talking about the weather in Lancashire and what we had for dinner last night in a very short time. If I were to ban the discussion of homosexuality, it would set an *official* precedent on how to handle all future arguments, and I would rather not form such a precedent.

In addition, the disagreement here has kept the thread going ... just look at how many pages this thread has as opposed to most others. Forums thrive on disagreement and, to an extent, controversy. I would even argue that controversy is what draws in new members. Even for me, personally, I have ended up registering for forums simply because someone posted something I disagreed with so vehemently that I just HAD to write a something in response.

I will be watching, though, and I will ensure that discussions stay civil even if they are impassioned.

"men want to have sex with themselves."

Always have, always will.


Don't knock masturbation, it's sex with someone I
love.
Woodie Allen

Shirina. I agree with you to a certain degree. However there comes a time when 'a discussion' becomes personal and we tread a fine line between discussion, abuse and the law. A certain poster who has left has felt 'threatened' as the only known gay person on here. I know what it is to be subject to such treatment. My experience was as a Christian. In my early years I served in the RAF and when I prayed and read the Bible I was subject to much 'jollity' among the other men in the billet. I was able to see it through. My views have changed over the years but I still remember.

What the 'certain poster' went through is only known to him.

To 'disagree' with people's politics, views on almost all subjects, is debate. Personal 'circumstances' are different.

Still, you are Moderator and I respect your judgement.

As near as I can tell, AT's issue with Polyglide was the repeated use of the word "pervert," not the discussion topic itself. I can certainly moderate the use of certain words, but I would be doing the forum a disservice if I began moderating which topics are allowed to be discussed and telling others when a discussion is over. I'm a moderator, not a parent.

What happened with AT is unfortunate, and all of the staff here have tried to coax him back. I still hope he eventually changes his mind and at least drops in once in awhile. However, I do believe that AT wanted to leave and just needed a good reason. That's NOT to say that he wasn't genuinely offended, but I also know he has all kinds of other commitments going on in his life, and participation here was distracting him from more important matters. We have assured AT left and right that we, the staff, would protect him from further abuses yet he still would not return despite the connection he has made with folks here. Exactly how much of his decision was based upon Polyglide and how much was based upon his other commitments is something we will probably never know. One thing is for certain, and that is stopping the discussion topic won't bring AT back.

Good posts, Shirina.

I also commend you on your sensible approach to your role as moderator - and for explaining your decisions.

Keep up the good work.


I do hope Awfultruth recognises that he has allies on these boards, reconsiders his decision, and returns to the forum.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/23/law-against-homophobic-hatred-comes-into-effect/

Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill said: “The newly-extended criminal offence of incitement to hatred will go some way towards addressing the hatred and violence directed towards lesbians, gay men and bisexuals in Britain at a time when homophobic attacks are on the increase.

“It sends a strong signal that such behaviour is unacceptable in a civilised society. Just like race, a person’s sexual orientation is an intrinsic characteristic for which no citizen should ever feel under threat of verbal or physical violence.”

blueturando wrote:Couldn't have put it better myself Sickchip

on this issue i am with you both Sickchip and Blue

Shirina wrote:As near as I can tell, AT's issue with Polyglide was the repeated use of the word "pervert," not the discussion topic itself. I can certainly moderate the use of certain words, but I would be doing the forum a disservice if I began moderating which topics are allowed to be discussed and telling others when a discussion is over. I'm a moderator, not a parent.

What happened with AT is unfortunate, and all of the staff here have tried to coax him back. I still hope he eventually changes his mind and at least drops in once in awhile. However, I do believe that AT wanted to leave and just needed a good reason. That's NOT to say that he wasn't genuinely offended, but I also know he has all kinds of other commitments going on in his life, and participation here was distracting him from more important matters. We have assured AT left and right that we, the staff, would protect him from further abuses yet he still would not return despite the connection he has made with folks here. Exactly how much of his decision was based upon Polyglide and how much was based upon his other commitments is something we will probably never know. One thing is for certain, and that is stopping the discussion topic won't bring AT back.

The real problem with any this issue is that it always ends in a personal way. its just never any good. i have seen it far to many times and just never like it

Come on AT come back on, you have many good friends on here mate

You tread a very thin line when you say this that and the other cause problems to outsiders and do not include the actions of homosexuals I will not persue this angle but believe me I could on very sound grounds.

I will not persue this angle but believe me I could on very sound grounds.

LOL! No you couldn't.

Trust me, I can smash any argument you could make. I know this because I've already heard all of the arguments and soundly refuted them.

polyglide wrote:You tread a very thin line when you say this that and the other cause problems to outsiders and do not include the actions of homosexuals I will not persue this angle but believe me I could on very sound grounds.

Oh Good! We've been let off this time.

OW quote. Oh Good! We've been let off this time.

STOP PUSHING YOUR LUCK