Re: Religion, gay artists and homophobia

by Papaumau Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:55 pm

First topic message reminder :

I have found that the stance against homosexuality - and in many other "biblical sins" - in almost all of the religions of the world is based on writings in their holy books.

As the word that is accepted as the word of their Gods is either said to be spoken directly to the humans that report it, ( and in many of these cases these "conduits" from the Gods are found to simply be schizophrenic ), then the word that is written by the fallible human scribes of old into these holy books is at risk of being seen as the flawed interpretation of what these scribes and prophets said they know and found to be true.

The faithful - as in all of the details surrounding faith - believe in their faith because faith requires no proof and when they act on what they find in their holy books, ( although none of the contents of these books has ever been proven to be right or accurate in fact ), their behaviour, as a result, is based on myth rather than even on secular laws. In other words, because their faith dictates that everything that is in these holy books must be true, what they find there that connects to "sin" must also be true.

I have always felt that as far as the laws of the land that I live in should never be based on religious faith, I can only take the stance that if these laws ARE in any way influenced by religion then they are not laws that can apply to everybody or that can be applied to any kind of secular rules or regulations.

Regards.....

Papaumau.

by Papaumau Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:46 pm

Yes, this is certainly a "hot" topic in and out of America and even although it might be right and proper for individuals to have and to hold their "anti-homosexual" stance I think that it is totally wrong that large religious bodies should be allowed to use their churches and temples to amplify this "hate cause" against people who do what they need to do in privacy and as consenting adults.

I think that the use of the word "marriage", in this context, is where it all starts to go wrong, both here in Britain and over in The States. I also think that the people of faith, who normally support that faith by what they read in their holy books - backed up by their priests, ministers and mullahs - are pressurised to carry out these teachings and in so-doing actually commit prejudices against minority groups like this.

I personally see nothing wrong in a same-sex couple feeling the need to "marry" so that they can celebrate their love for one-another in public and I see no good reason for the "antis" to terrorise people who follow a life-style that is just different from their own.

I do not know how the laws in America work, to this end, by allowing - or not - these ceremonies in churches or temples but I do know that in Britain we allow such marriages in some of the more enlightened churches and that civil marriages between same-gender couples have been allowed, carried out and enjoyed like any other marriages, with few difficulties here for quite some time now.

Regards.....

Papaumau.

by ROB Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:32 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Because Irish are an ethnic/cultural group.

Shirina wrote:
It could easily be argued that homosexuality is a cultural group ... regardless of how others feel about their culture.

Irish are an ethnicity, associated with a country, Ireland, a language, and a myriad of other indicators of an ethnicity/culture. Homosexuals are not.

RockOnBrother wrote:
No one in the United States of America is “writing laws and constitutional amendments banning or restricting the rights of gays.”

Shirina wrote:
The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) (also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would have limited marriage in the United States to unions of one man and one woman.

Please examine all Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, Amendments 1 through 27, and tell me exactly which one of the twenty-seven Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America is entitled “The Federal Marriage Amendment”, or “FMA”, or “the Marriage Protection Amendment.”

Please point out in your quoted text, “… which would have limited marriage in the United States to unions of one man and one woman”, exactly where it states that anyone in the United States of America is “writing laws and constitutional amendments banning or restricting the rights of gays.”

Shirina wrote:
Thirty states have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Please point out in your quoted text, “…defining marriage as being between one man and one woman”, exactly where it states that anyone in the United States of America is “writing laws and constitutional amendments banning or restricting the rights of gays.”

Shirina wrote:
And let's not pretend that these amendments are not restricting the rights of gays.

These amendments are restricting the rights of no one.

Shirina wrote:
Just because gays are not specifically mentioned in these amendments doesn't mean anyone should be fooled as to what the true intent of these fascistic amendments actually is.

The true intent of this Amendment to the Constitution of the Sovereign State of Texas, “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman”, is exactly what it states, to confirm that, in Texas, marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

by Shirina Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:07 pm

Rock, seriously ... stop being obtuse. I find it extremely frustrating and makes any serious discussion pointless.

Texas has existed for over 200 years without needing to explain what marriage is in the form of a constitutional amendment. Even when Texas was a sovereign nation unto itself, it felt no need to create a LAW remanding marriage to ONLY one man and one woman.

So why do they need one NOW? Why did they wait until 2005 before they said, "Hell's Bells, Margaret, we sure do need a definition of marriage amendment!" Gee, isn't it a coincidence that all of these states began passing these amendments just as the issue of gay rights began to flare up. Why are ALL of these state amendments modern amendments? Are you seriously going to sit here and say it had NOTHING to do with preventing gays from getting married?

And WHY would they need to put it into the state CONSTITUTION? Why not just pass a standard law? You don't suppose it's because they knew overturning an amendment is much more difficult? Just in case, some years later, Texas actually bred a more progressive populace and wanted to take marriage laws off the books?

Notice how, if you read the proposals for amendments slated to be voted on in 2012, almost ALL of them are very pragmatic amendments. Most of them deal with how Texas is allowed to spend its money. Then, out of nowhere, comes this "cultural" amendment that has NOTHING to do with pragmatism. It sticks out like Mt. Everest in the middle of Kansas.

And you're going to tell me it has NOTHING to do with restricting gay rights?

I'm not even going to belabor the point any further. You said no one was writing constitutions restricting the rights of gays. I gave you one federal amendment (which someone wrote even if it failed) and thirty state constitutional amendments that DID pass ... all of which restrict the rights of gays.

That's end game, as far as I'm concerned, and semantic-ing your way out of it just won't work on me. I know what's what.

by astra Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:22 pm

So why do they need one NOW?

Shirina

Could it be in respect of the number of peoples coming from lands where men having more than one "Wife" is the norm?

If the definition is not laid in Granite, these people will seek to change any law for their own grandisment. It is already starting here.

by Shirina Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:39 pm

Could it be in respect of the number of peoples coming from lands where men having more than one "Wife" is the norm?

Nope.

And here's proof:

Here is a clause in the Texas marriage amendment:

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

This isn't just about marriage. It's about banning ANYTHING that has to do with gay rights, including civil unions. Here's more:

Shackelford said the clause was designed to be broad enough to prevent the creation of domestic partnerships, civil unions or other arrangements that would give same-sex couples many of the benefits of marriage.

Oh, but if you believe Rock, the amendment had NOTHING to do with restricting gays even when there's a clause right in the amendment that does exactly that.

What I think is funny is that some weird Democratic Texas senate nominee is arguing the clause bans all marriage in Texas, but the only way amendment supporters can argue against this claim is to admit, "Oh no, no, it only applies to gays!"

LOL!

LINK

by astra Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:55 pm

Seems to me they are up to their waists in treacle (molasses to you lot) Very Happy

by Guest Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:11 pm

Shirina wrote:
Rock, seriously ... stop being obtuse.

I cannot stop being what I have not started being.

Shirina wrote:
Texas has existed for over 200 years without needing to explain what marriage is in the form of a constitutional amendment.

Marriage has existed for nearly two hundred years in Texas only as a union between one man and one woman.

Shirina wrote:
Even when Texas was a sovereign nation unto itself, it felt no need to create a LAW remanding marriage to ONLY one man and one woman.

When Texas was a sovereign nation, marriage in Texas consisted only of a union between one man and one woman.

Shirina wrote:
You said no one was writing constitutions restricting the rights of gays.

No one is “writing constitutions restricting the rights of gays” in the United States of America.

Shirina wrote:
I gave you one federal amendment (which someone wrote even if it failed)…

There are twenty-seven Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. You gave me none of the twenty-seven Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America; thus, you gave me no “federal amendment.”

Shirina wrote:
… and thirty state constitutional amendments that DID pass all of which restrict the rights of gays.

The Amendment to the Constitution of the Sovereign State of Texas confirming marriage as only a union between a man and a woman is provided above. This Amendment to the Constitution of the Sovereign State of Texas does not “restrict the rights of gays.”

by Shirina Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:21 pm

Whatever, Rock.

I've proven my case. I don't have to say anything further about it. Simply denying the factual information sitting right in front of you does not rebut or refute anything I have said.

by ROB Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:29 pm

Shirina wrote:
I've proven my case.

No you have not.

Shirina wrote:
… denying the factual information sitting right in front of you…

I have not denied “the factual information sitting right in front of [me]”

by **astradt1** Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:31 pm

Yet again there seems to be another copy/paste of the us constitution....

To some posters this seems to be the only argument they can put forward...

They seem to be unable to form their own opinion and then argue it.......

I'm sure there must be a forum some where on the web where the only topic is the constitution......

by Shirina Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:33 pm

No you have not.

Uh huh!

by astra Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:37 pm

can't resist this!

Keep going Shirina!!

Religion, gay artists and homophobia - Page 2 Cid_41407BD7208442D1B329561EACA8B4B9homedogkitten

by Shirina Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:47 pm

LOL! Love the picture, astra! lol!

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:32 pm

And then they tell us Britain needs a constitution.

There's only one vow that any Briton/prospective Briton should make. 'I vow by all that I hold dear I will never vote Tory.'

never,

never.

But then, what do I know.

by astra Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:43 pm

It's an odds on bet that a "Flare up" with Argentina is in the offing.

I want Cameron to state "Categorically" and "Very Clearly" that immigrants who have been here for more than 5 years will be expected to join up!

YEAH!!

A Bard during the Highland Clearances said to Pitt "If sheep are so favourable on your land, then you can have sheep to fight your battles" the way that the immigration thing is going is just out of hand. Indeed, if Sarcozy is complaining something MUST be wrong. It is he, after all is said and done who puts HIS immigrants to Sangat so they can be freeloaded to us in UK!

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:29 pm

Quote Astra.

I want Cameron to state "Categorically" and "Very Clearly" that immigrants who have been here for more than 5 years will be expected to join up!

Mrs Aakanksha Chanda presents her compliments but feels that at 81 years of age forced marching is a bit difficult for her Laughing

Most certainly immigration should be stopped, and immediate repatriation for illegal immigrants to stop them disappearing into our cities etc. This is not racialism. It is commonsense.

by witchfinder Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:38 pm

polyglide - has clearly forgotten one simple, basic fact with regards to gay or homosexual people, and that is that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, just as been hetrosexual is also not a choice, you are what you are by an act of nature, the majority of people are born hetrosexual, but a minority are born homosexual.

The mistake that polyglide makes is a common mistake, there is nothing either moral or immoral about homosexuality, its just a simple fact of life.
People who are backward enough to class homosexuality as immoral or unacceptable are no different to the witch burners of the 17th and 18th centuries, no different to those that imprisoned young pregnant girls in lunatic assylums.

I am afraid that homosexual people have been around an awful long time, they aint going to go away, and they are going to be around for as long as the earth is inhabited by humans.

by bobby Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:18 pm

All this fuss the gays are making, to get married in a Church, who’s teachings (the bible) tells them that, what they are doing is against the will of God. Or do they want a church wedding for no other reason but to prove a point, and that is that they can. I will be honest and say I dislike poofery and dykery and expect will never accept them as the norm.

by astra Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:38 pm

Bobby, I don't mind Dykes!

Just that, unlike the wee boy in Holland,

I would not stick my finger in one! Evil or Very Mad

Mrs Aakanksha Chanda presents her compliments but feels that at 81 years of age forced marching is a bit difficult for her

Why not Trevor

It is said by you English lot, that it is the unfair intervention of the levies, wives and cooks that won the Battle of Bannockburn for us Scots!

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:06 pm

Quote Astra

Why not Trevor

It is said by you English lot, that it is the unfair intervention of the levies, wives and cooks that won the Battle of Bannockburn for us Scots!

Religion, gay artists and homophobia - Page 2 9-59

Religion, gay artists and homophobia - Page 2 9-59

astra

Posts: 1342
Join date: 2011-10-07
Age: 58
Location: North East England.

Religion, gay artists and homophobia - Page 2 Empty

She says she would go as a cook. But I'm not sure whether hot Indian curries are the right thing to fight on. Wind in the wrong direction might give our troops positions away. Smile

Bannockburn. It was the Scotch Porridge Oats and whisky that did it for the Scots. The English Snap, Crackle and Pop and unpasteurised milk was no match for it. Laughing

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:19 pm

AwfulTruth

America is indeed a land of extremes like any other country but the historical religious and secular topography is quite unlike anywhere else. This has led to a quasi-fundamentalist, fascistic dogma-centred bible belt, which incidentally has an extraordinary high level of incest and child abuse cases, within bible-thumping territory; which kind of surprises one

These fascistic reactionary, condemnatory, fire and brimstones spewing religious behemoths, are the fearful bane of 'difference' including gay, black and other 'others' who are the object of their base hatred and often abject disingenuous cant.

While I agree with much of what you say it should be pointed out that there are a great many sincere people in the Bible Belt who accept differences. We tend to lump the whole of the population as being 'Bible Belt' christians as though they are all bigotted. I know from contact with some of them that this is not true.

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:31 pm

By definition, an adherent to one Religion is bigotted in relation to all other Religions. It's not a "God" thing, it's a "them or us" attitude.

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:26 pm

Re: Religion, gay artists and homophobia
by oftenwrong Today at 7:31 pm

By definition, an adherent to one Religion is bigotted in relation to all other Religions. It's not a "God" thing, it's a "them or us" attitude.

No. The very fact that in the UK we sometimes have inter-faith services, and faiths have joint ventures proves that things are changing. Gradually people are coming to realise that all faiths have paths that have the same aim. To 'reach God', the creator.
At the latest royal wedding, invited religious officials included Rabbi's, Imam's and others.
I've probably put that badly, but you get the gist of what I'm saying - I hope.
Although if you look at even the US there are many interfaith ventures in each state. But I'm sure Shirina or RoB will know more than I do about the Us. They are more erudite than I - and have the gift of explaining better than I have. Sad

I went to Oxford University - but only to visit my son studying there. Crying or Very sad

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:38 pm

Of course there inter-denominational activities from time-to-time, but the numbers involved are derisory. The Council of Christians and Jews - http://www.ccj.org.uk/
performs valuable tasks, but is not known to all Christians or all Jews.

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:12 pm

by oftenwrong Today at 10:38 pm

Of course there inter-denominational activities from time-to-time, but the numbers involved are derisory. The Council of Christians and Jews - http://www.ccj.org.uk/
performs valuable tasks, but is not known to all Christians or all Jews

I don't know your particular position on religion but I think you would be very surprised if you were to join me occasionally and talk to 'ordinary' Christians, and see their acceptance of other faiths. One particular village group I interact with has about a dozen regulars, and not one would disagree with what I have posted. Other groups have almost all the same attitude, with few dissenters.
Yes, it's true there are those who don't agree. But they are becoming fewer.

by AwfulTruth Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:58 am

bobby wrote:All this fuss the gays are making, to get married in a Church, who's teachings (the bible) tells them that, what they are doing is against the will of God. Or do they want a church wedding for no other reason but to prove a point, and that is that they can. I will be honest and say I dislike poofery and dykery and expect will never accept them as the norm.

Bobby, dear-heart, you have not read your bible! Sadly. :affraid:

If you had read and studied the book you would KNOW that there is NO mention of having to get married in a physical building/church, or about 'legislated marriage laws' being biblical in origin or a Christian prerequisite - whatsoever. Scour the texts of the New Testament (Christians should be imbued with the word of Christ?).

Understand now that no one is going to force ANY church to marry ANYONE! This is a truth you need to entertain for the sake of parity and justice.

Also, your condemnation of dykes, gays, queers, etc., is also not mentioned in the New Testament.

During the 18th century, for an example, we once believed, as did the church which blessed the laws, that over 100 common crimes were punishable with capital punishment, including the public hanging of thieves (as young as six years old - I kid you not the 'prima facie' evidence is out there!), and did you know that until the first quarter of the 18th century women who killed their husbands were publicly burned at the stake! Sounds impossible but it was morally and socially/religiously acceptable to act in such a brutal, savage and horrific manner. Can you imagine the outcry if anyone wanted to bring such draconian violence back into British law? That's because over time human morality changes, sometimes for the better. This is a socio-historical fact of life.

Do you, Bobby, agree that people's attitudes, including religious bodies, change their views?

Perhaps you need to reassess your beliefs in an objective and impartial way, and then perhaps read your bible?

Sorry to sound patronizing but needs must!

by astra Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:09 am

Awful Truth,

Hello,

IT sounds like you did not come through the "bible thumping" ministers and priests that we me in the 50s and 60s.

I would be 6 at one of these sermons and MOST of the words STILL ring with me today.

It was as Bobby describes it!

You will just have to put up with us!

Sounds ........................................ Smile

by AwfulTruth Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:24 am

astra wrote:Awful Truth,

Hello,

IT sounds like you did not come through the "bible thumping" ministers and priests that we me in the 50s and 60s.

I would be 6 at one of these sermons and MOST of the words STILL ring with me today.

It was as Bobby describes it!

You will just have to put up with us!

Sounds ........................................

I still say that morality changes in positive ways: and that religious bodies do not always promulgate the gospel of Jesus Christ but rather the ethos of cruelty masquerading as Christian values.

We need to be quite certain as to what is Christian and what is not.

by polyglide Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:20 pm

If you leave religion out of the matter all together and just consentrate on the facts regarding homosexuality you can come to a better and more realistic conclusion.

Firstly, if a homosexual is born as such then so are rapists, child abusers and any other deviant.

If you make an excuse for one why not the others?/

There must be millions of people at some time or other who feel like commiting murder but the vast majority do not and the same applies to many other matters etc;

The homosexuals are not content with being protected by law, as never before, they now want to have marriages as those of man and woman.
I would agree with this wholeheartedly if they all went on an island all on their own and produced their like, for that is what marriage is for.

The word marriage was raised as that to cover the joining together of a male and female and nothing else.

We then have the problem af racial or religious hatred etc;

The homosexuals claim they are often subject to same but let us look at another aspect.

We are or should be aware that in our country there are several religions that abhour homosexuality and also many individuals and yet the homosexuals prance up and down the streets on many occasions singing and dancing etc; celebrating there perversion, what would happen if the former started doing the same demanding that the homosexuals should be dealt with under their laws etc. ?

Surely the above is inciting hatred.

I have no place for hatred of any kind I just have the deapest sympathy for the pathetic.

by Shirina Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:30 pm

Firstly, if a homosexual is born as such then so are rapists, child abusers and any other deviant.

My first point of contention is the definition of "deviant." Precisely where do we draw the line between "deviant" and "normal?" This is a fairly important point since, rest assured, almost all of us are deviant in some particular way. There are hundreds of sexual fetishes out there, some of them quite disgusting. Many heterosexual couples will also practice anal sex. Would the wife making the husband dress in a school girl uniform just before sex be classified as "deviant?" Is adultery "deviant?" The things that go on inside the bedrooms of "normal" people might shock and surprise you.

But none of them ... NONE of them ... have laws on the books preventing them from getting married.

It is very easy to look at society's worst deviant offenders and make spurious correlations with gays, but they are just that. Spurious. It is much more relevant to compare homosexuality with thousands of other sexual perversions and ask ... why are people who practice them not banned from marriage? Or health care benefits? Or inheritance rights? Or hospital visitation rights? It would seem only homosexuals are "gifted" with so much hate by the "normal" crowd.

My second point of contention is your assertion that rapists and murderers must've been "born that way" if gays were, as well. What a silly thing to say. It is nonsense in the extreme to assume that a man who shoots a convenience store clerk while robbing it of a few packs of cigarettes was born to do such a thing. In addition, comparing gays to murderers and rapists is such a disingenuous argument that I'm left agog that you would even use it. Attempting to link gays with murderers and pedophiles (et. al.) is a common tactic that really grinds my gears because of how dishonest it is. One could just as easily say that if gays are born that way, then so are altruists, philanthropists, and God-believers ... but of course the anti-gay crowd never says THAT! Why? Because they only want to link homosexuality with criminals, not saints, and that kind of psychological bullying irritates the living daylights out of me.

If you make an excuse for one why not the others?/

The exception already exists, polyglide, just not in the way you think. For, you see, murderers and rapists, pedophiles and wife beaters, adulterers and sado-masochists, terrorists and serial killers - they can all get married. Even Jack the Ripper could get married despite murdering at least 6 women. No matter how violent, how depraved, how sick in the head you are, you can marry whomever you want. Just as long as you're not homosexual.

I would agree with this wholeheartedly if they all went on an island all on their own and produced their like, for that is what marriage is for.

First let me say that I find this attitude abhorrent for obvious reasons. Secondly, marriage is NOT about reproduction. Where, in any modern set of wedding vows, is reproduction mentioned? And does this mean infertile and elderly couples should be banned from marriage as well? What about couples who have decided not to reproduce? The meaning and purpose of a marriage is whatever the individual couples want it to be. There is no state- or church-sanctioned absolutist purpose for marriage.

The word marriage was raised as that to cover the joining together of a male and female and nothing else.

The word "marriage" means whatever we say it means. There was a time when words like "cool" and "gay" meant something else entirely. And nothing else.

We are or should be aware that in our country there are several religions that abhour homosexuality

There are few things more despicable than blaming the victim, polyglide, and you're walking the razor's edge. I really don't care what religions abhor. Gays have the right to express themselves like any other British or American citizen ... WITHOUT being victims of violence and persecution. If those religions don't like it, they can sod off. No one should feel intimidated by religion from expressing themselves. If, again, you don't like gays prancing and dancing around, then stay away from Gay Pride events. Don't make a point of going, watching, then condemning them for doing it as if somehow they're invading YOUR space. You are invading theirs.

what would happen if the former started doing the same demanding that the homosexuals should be dealt with under their laws etc. ?

LOL! They DO! Or have you not been reading my posts?

Surely the above is inciting hatred.

No, a Gay Pride event is not inciting hatred. That is ridiculous. Inciting hatred is when a group stands around telling everyone else who they should hate. Gays don't use Gay Pride events to stand on a soapbox and preach hate against straights. Simply existing is not inciting hatred. In a truly free society, gays shouldn't have to adhere to anyone else's religious beliefs. In a truly free society, gays can prance and dance all they wish to, and if you don't like it, don't watch.

I have no place for hatred of any kind I just have the deapest sympathy for the pathetic.

I have no sympathy for the primitive and the superstitious. None whatsoever.

by AwfulTruth Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:51 pm

Shirina well done!

Thought of the Week:

"I have no place for hatred of any kind I just have the deapest sympathy for the pathetic." by Polyglide

Your moderate tone is too neutral my dear - please get tougher!

Where did you learn your humanity - at the foot of Adolph? And where was logic or rationale in your bigoted, facile argument? Look at the facts - which you MUST be inured to due to a psychological block. Are you gay, by the way, as sometimes this latent or covert issue can manifest itself in a hatred for gay people? Just surmising, don't 'ya know!

Some salient, pertinent and valid de facto facts taht may blow some air through your cobwebbed brain:

Exclamation

Same-sex relationships occur throughout the animal world.

Exclamation

Same-sex relationship usually have the same dynamic function as same-sex relationships - like bringing up unwanted offspring or where a mother cannot cope with her young. in short there are gay lions, gorillas, flamingoes, albatross and a vast panoply of animals - including human animals like you and I.

Exclamation

Your charge that gay people are inciting hatred is erroneous and false - an aspersion founded on fallacy and misinformation typical of the politics of cant.

Exclamation

The term 'marriage' is not owned by the church and this religious claptrap you are peddling is actually ALL about semantics and the ownership of the word 'marriage'. Moreover, frankly, your bald ignorance of the bible and the relevant historical evidence as to WHY marriage was institutionalized in the first place in Norman England (re the landed gentry etc.) is breathtaking; taking into account your overtly abusive claims, which are based on blind hatred and nothing else - reading what you have printed here.

Exclamation

I am gay and I have been 'married' in a monogamous relationship to someone for 28 years - yes, that is a fact. A loving, caring relationship: you do not know us so do not even think of making any judgements!

Finally, Polygrip, my advice to you is that you need to stop preaching condemnation about people you do not know or do not wish to know. The best advice that if you cannot say anything pleasant about a whole section of British society, then do not say anything at all. Unless of course they are politicians or the clergy: fair game then!

You know it makes sense!

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:36 pm

Anyone who has learnt to live with Tory sleaze and Liberal weasels can surely accommodate a few shirt-lifters.

by ROB Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:03 pm

Shirina wrote:
My first point of contention is the definition of "deviant." Precisely where do we draw the line between "deviant" and "normal?" This is a fairly important point since, rest assured, almost all of us are deviant in some particular way. There are hundreds of sexual fetishes out there, some of them quite disgusting. Many heterosexual couples will also practice anal sex. Would the wife making the husband dress in a school girl uniform just before sex be classified as "deviant?" Is adultery "deviant?" The things that go on inside the bedrooms of "normal" people might shock and surprise you.

But none of them ... NONE of them ... have laws on the books preventing them from getting married.

True. The Amendment to the Constitution of the Sovereign State of Texas that I’ve referenced in a previous post makes no mention of “deviant”, “normal”, “sexual fetishes”, “anal sex”, or “the husband dress[ing] in a school girl uniform.”

Shirina wrote:
It is much more relevant to compare homosexuality with thousands of other sexual perversions and ask ... why are people who practice them not banned from marriage?

The Amendment to the Constitution of the Sovereign State of Texas that I’ve referenced in a previous post bans no one that is of age, mentally competent, and of age from marriage.

Shirina wrote:
My second point of contention is your assertion that rapists and murderers must've been "born that way"…

Polyglide didn’t assert that “rapists and murderers must’ve been ‘born that way.’”

Shirina wrote:
Attempting to link gays with murderers and pedophiles (et. al.)

Polyglide didn’t “[attempt] to link gays with murderers and pedophiles (et al.)”

Shirina wrote:

If you make an excuse for one why not the others?/
The exception already exists, polyglide, just not in the way you think. For, you see, murderers and rapists, pedophiles and wife beaters, adulterers and sado-masochists, terrorists and serial killers - they can all get married.

True.

Shirina wrote:
No matter how violent, how depraved, how sick in the head you are, you can marry whomever you want.

Not true.

Shirina wrote:
… marriage is NOT about reproduction.

Yes it is. Marriage is also about raising the reproduced.

Shirina wrote:
Where, in any modern set of wedding vows, is reproduction mentioned?

What percentage of unions of women and men who have exchanged marriage vows have reproduced?

Additionally, what percentage of persons reproduced within a marriage, i.e., a union between a woman and a man, are, as adults, incarcerated? What percentage has committed murder, rape, armed robbery, assault, and other vicious, violent crimes?

In comparison, what percentage of persons reproduced within a marriage, i.e., a union between a woman and a man, are, as adults, incarcerated? What percentage has committed murder, rape, armed robbery, assault, and other vicious, violent crimes?

Shirina wrote:
There are few things more despicable than blaming the victim, polyglide…

Polyglide is not “blaming the victim”; Polyglide is exercising freedom of thought, speech, and publication, insofar as posting here might be considered publication.

Shirina wrote:
… and you're walking the razor's edge..

Polyglide is not “walking the razor's edge”; Polyglide is exercising freedom of thought, speech, and publication.

Shirina wrote:
You are invading theirs.

No he is not.

by witchfinder Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:55 pm

I am not a a Christian, infact as time goes by I find myself detesting the Christian Church more and more due to its intollerance, its hypocracy and its bigotry.

The attitude and opinions of many within the Church and people like polyglide are pushing more and more people away from the Church, congregations and attendances are falling, the Church is becoming less and less relevant in society.

But if the Church accepted that love and devotion and respect is not restricted to hetrosexual, married people ( married as in their context ), then perhaps the various Churches might have a bit more respect.

by ROB Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:15 pm

AwfulTruth wrote:
Where did you learn your humanity - at the foot of Adolph?

Polyglide has provided no evidence of learning anything “at the foot of [the beast]”; conversely, you are the first, and so far only, poster on this thread to mention the beast.

AwfulTruth wrote:
And where was logic or rationale in your bigoted, facile argument?

Polyglide has posted no “bigoted, facile argument”; Polyglide has exercised his freedom of thought, speech, and publication.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… a psychological block.

In all jurisdictions within the UK and US, one is required to be a licensed diagnostician and perform a psychological workup prior to pronouncing someone as having a “psychological block.” Are you a licensed diagnostician? Have you performed a psychological workup on Polyglide?

AwfulTruth wrote:
Are you gay, by the way, as sometimes this latent or covert issue can manifest itself in a hatred for gay people? Just surmising, don't 'ya know!

One is required to be a licensed diagnostician and perform a psychological workup prior to pronouncing that someone has a “latent or covert issue can manifest itself in a hatred for” anyone. Are you a licensed diagnostician? Have you performed a psychological workup on Polyglide?

AwfulTruth wrote:
.. your cobwebbed brain:

Polyglide has not stated that he has a “cobwebbed brain.”

AwfulTruth wrote:
… your overtly abusive claims

Polyglide has made no “overtly abusive claims.”

AwfulTruth wrote:
… which are based on blind hatred…

Polyglide has exhibited no “blind hatred.”

AwfulTruth wrote:
… you need to stop preaching condemnation about people you do not know or do not wish to know.

Polyglide has not engaged in “preaching condemnation about people [he does] not know or [does] not wish to know.”

AwfulTruth wrote:
… if you cannot say anything pleasant about a whole section of British society, then do not say anything at all.

Polyglide, as a resident of a nation in which his freedom of thought, speech, and publication is guaranteed by law, needs neither your authorization nor your approval to think, speak, and publish as he decides to think, speak, and publish.

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:49 pm

Britain has laws against hatred which are probably not reflected everywhere else.

It is a Criminal Offence in GB to discriminate. Full Stop (Period).

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:09 am

oftenwrong wrote:Anyone who has learnt to live with Tory sleaze and Liberal weasels can surely accommodate a few shirt-lifters.

Priceless! lol!

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:34 am

RockOnBrother

Free speech is de rigueur here and should be everywhere else and a precious part of our freedom of expression and I totally and unequivocally defend any post to be expressed whatever be its nature.

But there is no such thing as a free dinner...opinions always get challenged and that's cool and I think we can all understand that what we may feel is plain speaking can sometimes offend other people.

Therein lies the rub: people have a right to be offended and express that offence if they so choose.

RockOnBrother, no offence intended, but I did find some of your post rather inane, irrelevant and pointless - as if you were defending someone who had just pissed on someone's doorstep.

Saying green is purple and white is yellow is, for arguments sake, would be a rather aimless exercise in perverse semantics or perverse chromatic occlusion or even pathological colour blindness - don't you think?

Hence your post is a very curious post indeed! Basketball

I suggest you and your sincere compatriot watch these videos:

[youtube][/youtube]

by ROB Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:11 am

AwfulTruth wrote:
RockOnBrother

Free speech is de rigueur here and should be everywhere else and a precious part of our freedom of expression and I totally and unequivocally defend any post to be expressed whatever be its nature.

You have spoken truth.

AwfulTruth wrote:
But there is no such thing as a free dinner...opinions always get challenged and that's cool and I think we can all understand that what we may feel is plain speaking can sometimes offend other people.

Although one is free to do so a long one does not slander and/or libel another person, this does no mean that one is required to personally attack other person’s character and/or psychological health. One can, I one so chooses, refrain from such personal attacks while vehemently arguing one’s conscience and one’s beliefs.

John McCain, in October 2008, publicly chastised and corrected one of his supporters that stated a lie about Obama by stating, “No, ma’am, we will not say that about my opponent here; Senator Obama is a man with whom I often disagree and who I always respect.” We on Cutting Edge would do well to emulate United States Senator John McCain.

AwfulTruth wrote:
Therein lies the rub: people have a right to be offended and express that offence if they so choose.

I am offended by personal attacks on anyone except beasts like all al qaida, taliban, and the indescribably heinous beast that exterminated sixteen innocent human souls in Afghanistan.

AwfulTruth wrote:
RockOnBrother, no offence intended, but I did find some of your post rather inane, irrelevant and pointless…

You are entitled to your opinion, incorrect as it may be.

AwfulTruth wrote:
Saying green is purple and white is yellow is, for arguments sake, would be a rather aimless exercise in perverse semantics or perverse chromatic occlusion or even pathological colour blindness - don't you think?

You’ve said “for argument sake.” What is your argument?

AwfulTruth wrote:
Hence your post is a very curious post indeed!

I suggest you and your sincere compatriot watch these videos:

Who might my “sincere compatriot” be? As for your videos, I will watch them with you after you study certain texts with me.

by Shirina Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:53 am

Polyglide didn’t “[attempt] to link gays with murderers and pedophiles (et al.)”

You know, Rock, I get it. You don't want gays to get married and thus you will oppose it even into the depths of absurdity. I have seen it happen many, many times before.

It is nigh impossible to discuss this issue with you because you avert your eyes when the facts are laid bare; your denials could not be any more fundamentally wrong than if you had said water is not wet or the sky is not blue. Whenever you are confronted with a reality that you oppose, you retreat into this bizarre fantasy as if you were a victim of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. You hide behind semantics and cast aside your ability to think critically and analytically about any issue that might invade and shatter the illusory walls you've constructed for yourself. You talk about being scholarly yet you eschew proper academic investigation when the results are not to your liking. This elemental flaw prevents anyone, least of all me, from engaging you in any sort of worthwhile discussion; we cannot make any connection whatsoever as if we are speaking through a wormhole between two different realities.

I have given you incontrovertible proof that the religious right and the plain old bigots have joined forces to persecute the gay community. They have used fear, shame, lies, enough money to feed the entire country of Namibia for a week, and even violence to make sure gays stay in their place. The same people who kept the black community in chains for 400 years are the same people you now stand up to be counted among, a traitor to freedom and civil liberties. Those who gave America Jim Crow laws are simply repeating history, only this time, you're supporting them.

Oh, I know you'll deny it. I know you'll say that bigotry against gays isn't the same as bigotry against blacks. Except it is. And you KNOW it is. That's the entire reason why you are compelled to hide behind semantics and ultra-literal interpretations of the posts I write. You cannot defend the indefensible so what recourse do you have than to pigeon hole this entire issue with denials and semantics. There is the Protection of Marriage Act (protection from WHAT?), there is DOMA, there is DADT, there are 30 state amendments, even one of our former presidential candidates went on national television to say, "There is something wrong with this country when gays can serve openly in the military ..." and yet none of these things - NONE of them - have anything to do with restricting the rights of gays.

All I can really say is that you go right ahead keeping your head in the sand. Keep pretending that these amendments and these laws have nothing whatsoever to do with gay bashing. Of course, that's the trouble with an injustice. It never seems like an injustice when you agree with it.

by polyglide Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:40 am

What a relief it is to have a moderator with common sense and an understanding of what is written rather than a misguided and utterly irrelevant response by someone obviously lacking in many quarters.

You can take any religion or other activity and you will find every type of person involved, those who are there for all the right reasons and those for many wrong reasons.

The many churches have their fair share of deviants, you only have to look at our MPs amongst which we know there are a number of thieves, liars and perverts and they are the ones who should be setting the proper standard of behavior and there is no doubt there will be a number that we do not know about.

In nearly all other activities the same will apply in one form or another.

I do not agree with homosexual bashing I just wish they would accept what they are and not pretend to be something they are not.

As for homosexual pride, I cannot for the life of me see anything to be proud of, perhaps I am missing something they do that warrants acclamation by the population as a whole.

There is no injustice involved in a person who feels homosexuality is unacceptable, just as there is no injustice in homosexuals thinking it is.

by Sponsored content