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 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

Religion, gay artists and homophobia - Page 3 Empty

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 blueturando Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:52 am

I am neither Gay or religious, so I really cannot speak for either side in this debate.....but I will put my penny worth in anyway

To be brutally honest I don't really understand homosexuality and I'm left with the thought that if it was normal and all the world was homosexual, then the human race would have been a non starter. Saying that I have no problem with people living the life they want to lead (within the law) and people being homosexual does me no harm what so ever....Like most people, I know and have friends who are Gay and they dont flaunt their sexuality in an offensive way and for want of a better phrase, dont force their issues or sexuality down my throat.... Rolling Eyes

If Gay people want to get married who am I to say they cannot. Not so long ago the Christian right was saying all homosexuals were all promiscuous and speading Aids around the world...God was punishing them.....So it's a bit rich to complain when a loving couple of whatever sexual persuasion wishes to settle down and cement their relationship in marraige.

Polyglide said many religions 'abhor' homosexuality.....well that maybe the case, but many people also abhor religion....so maybe we could ban religion it and make it illegal too

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:39 pm

polyglide wrote:

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.

For the sake of common sense where is the logic in your diatribe? I actually think you have one hell of a cheek to even pretend to be knowledgeable enough to comment on any gay issue or gay person you do not know or do not wish to know.

Polyglide, believe all the dogma, misinformation and stereotypical nonsense if you wish, but please be aware that there is absolutely no academic or objective judgement present in your thinking. It smacks more of bigoted mantra that like ground-hog day is just repeated and repeated, over and over again.

Clearly your intellectual grasp of 'difference'; the animal kingdom where single sex couples exist in huge numbers; the historical abuse and persecution of gay people and your facile depth of understanding is nothing to boast about, so probably best you keep quiet for fear of being labelled yourself?

Frankly, your grasp of the serious issues is about as constructive as a chocolate teapot. Very disturbing. The following video will always remind me of your attitude...

[youtube][/youtube]

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:47 pm

blueturando wrote:I am neither Gay or religious, so I really cannot speak for either side in this debate.....but I will put my penny worth in anyway

To be brutally honest I don't really understand homosexuality and I'm left with the thought that if it was normal and all the world was homosexual, then the human race would have been a non starter. Saying that I have no problem with people living the life they want to lead (within the law) and people being homosexual does me no harm what so ever....Like most people, I know and have friends who are Gay and they dont flaunt their sexuality in an offensive way and for want of a better phrase, dont force their issues or sexuality down my throat....

If Gay people want to get married who am I to say they cannot. Not so long ago the Christian right was saying all homosexuals were all promiscuous and speading Aids around the world...God was punishing them.....So it's a bit rich to complain when a loving couple of whatever sexual persuasion wishes to settle down and cement their relationship in marraige.

Polyglide said many religions 'abhor' homosexuality.....well that maybe the case, but many people also abhor religion....so maybe we could ban religion it and make it illegal too

Good post Blue, you may find this of interest as regards the incidents of primary same-sex relationships throughout the animal kingdom. Scientific evidence, prima facie and irrefutable is helping to neutralize the fevered homophobia that religious organizations promulgate so enthusiastically.

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:13 pm

There is also the seriously constructive notion that in the wild, including human beings, the incidents of non-breeders (gay people and animals) helps to create a check on population numbers and can prevent, in some instances, a population explosion.

That human beings should and must be encouraged to come out and not feel compelled to 'breed' with members of the opposite sex, is actually a very healthy concept based on pragmatic assessment rather than some kind of useless dogma.

The ideology of the study of human nature should include the acceptance that human beings are far too complex to be labelled as just 'gay, straight or bisexual', and that sexual proclivity is not a matter of morality or choice, but rather a predisposed proto-genetic imperative, that transcends human philosophy, religious tenets, hostile dogma, or any other mumbo jumbo that negates the reality of the human condition and sacrifices scientific truth on the altar of homophobia.

I rest my case.

by Guest Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:37 pm

polyglide wrote:
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.

AwfulTruth wrote:
For the sake of common sense where is the logic in your diatribe?

Polyglide has posted no “diatribe.”

AwfulTruth wrote:
I actually think you have one hell of a cheek to even pretend to be knowledgeable enough to comment…

Polyglide, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed by law, has the right to comment independent of your opinion as to how knowledgeable he might and might not be.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… on any gay issue or gay person you do not know or do not wish to know.

Polyglide, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed by law, can comment on any issue upon which he chooses to comment.

AwfulTruth wrote:
Polyglide, believe all the dogma, misinformation and stereotypical nonsense if you wish…

Polyglide has not testified to any belief in “dogma”, “misinformation”, or “stereotypical nonsense” on this thread.

AwfulTruth wrote:
It smacks more of bigoted mantra…

Polyglide has posted nothing that “smacks… of bigoted mantra” on this thread.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… best you keep quiet for fear of being labelled yourself?

Polyglide, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed by law, need “keep quiet” when and if he chooses, and only when and if he chooses.

by oftenwrong Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:19 pm

[quote="RockOnBrother"]

polyglide wrote:

Polyglide, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed by law, need “keep quiet” when and if he chooses, and only when and if he chooses.

Can we just establish which Administration's Law is referred to?

Law should ideally be Universal, but in fact it depends where you are in the World whether an action (including speech) is legal or sanctionable. Simply crossing an international border can render something you are carrying illegal. (Try taking an apple through US Customs).

Freedom of speech is by no means a worldwide concept.

by **astradt1** Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:36 pm

Full quote by AT
Polyglide, believe all the dogma, misinformation and stereotypical nonsense if you wish, but please be aware that there is absolutely no academic or objective judgement present in your thinking

Edited quote by Roc
AwfulTruth wrote:
Polyglide, believe all the dogma, misinformation and stereotypical nonsense if you wish…

And Roc's response
Polyglide has not testified to any belief in “dogma”, “misinformation”, or “stereotypical nonsense” on this thread.

As can be seen when a quote is edited by a responder the original meaning and intent can be lost...This makes the responder and thier response look meaningless..

This one of the dangers of the line by line style of dissection and response to any post.....

Perhaps the poster feels it makes them look scholarly but I would beg to differ from that idea........

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:26 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
polyglide wrote:
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.
AwfulTruth wrote:
For the sake of common sense where is the logic in your diatribe?

Polyglide has posted no “diatribe.”

AwfulTruth wrote:
I actually think you have one hell of a cheek to even pretend to be knowledgeable enough to comment…

Polyglide, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed by law, has the right to comment independent of your opinion as to how knowledgeable he might and might not be.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… on any gay issue or gay person you do not know or do not wish to know.

Polyglide, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed by law, can comment on any issue upon which he chooses to comment.

AwfulTruth wrote:
Polyglide, believe all the dogma, misinformation and stereotypical nonsense if you wish…

Polyglide has not testified to any belief in “dogma”, “misinformation”, or “stereotypical nonsense” on this thread.

AwfulTruth wrote:
It smacks more of bigoted mantra…

Polyglide has posted nothing that “smacks… of bigoted mantra” on this thread.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… best you keep quiet for fear of being labelled yourself?

Polyglide, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed by law, need “keep quiet” when and if he chooses, and only when and if he chooses.

As the moderator why are you entering into this type of dialogue with a member anyway? what is the point?

For the record I am human rights activist and I ALWAYS defend free speech - without exception. That means sometimes disagreeing with other people's views even if they have just insulted one.

If you cannot see that your intervention is rather odd - perhaps you better explain?????? Basketball

by Guest Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:39 pm

AwfulTruth wrote:
For the record I am human rights activist and I ALWAYS defend free speech - without exception.

All posters hereon, without exception, including Polyglide, possess the unalienable human right to freedom of speech. I am heartened that you join me in supporting, without exception, Polyglide's unalienable human right to freedom of speech.

by astra Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:06 am

unalienable human right to freedom of speech.

Will you lot stop making that noise in the kitchen, I am listening to the neighbours having a fight next door!

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:18 am

To the Moderator Rock:

If you read the posts properly and stopped patronizing me with gusto then maybe you would start exhibiting the free speech and STOP trolling me?

I am serious: your inane and inappropriate trolling under the guise of 'moderator' is a complete subversion of your roll. In fact, you could be accused of on-line bullying via constantly repeating a message that is not required or appropriate.

For the very last time here I shall state that I do not need to be lectured by you or anyone else what free speech is, and as I have said before, I support free speech. Period

I really am not a moron and really resent being treated like one...

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:26 am

MOOT POINT

Why doesn't Polyglide ever reply to posts? Why instead do they enlist the 'moderator' to fight their own battles?

If that is not poor etiquette I do not know what is.

It is essential that people do not hide behind moderators instead of engaging with the fall-out of something they have posted! Otherwise this negates the whole ethos of Cutting Edge - does it not? Unless this is a family issue? :affraid:

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:19 am

astra wrote:
unalienable human right to freedom of speech.

Will you lot stop making that noise in the kitchen, I am listening to the neighbours having a fight next door!

Who won?

by Shirina Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:37 am

Why doesn't Polyglide ever reply to posts? Why instead do they enlist the 'moderator' to fight their own battles?

Hey there, Awful Truth:

Actually, witchfinder and I moderate this particular topic. Rock doesn't even have access to basic moderation forum controls on this thread, so for all intents and purposes, he's just another poster. Since I believe in moderating only as a last resort, I allow people to work out their own differences (as they often do). Hopefully you and Rock can do the same.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:52 am

Shirina wrote:
Why doesn't Polyglide ever reply to posts? Why instead do they enlist the 'moderator' to fight their own battles?
Hey there, Awful Truth:

Actually, witchfinder and I moderate this particular topic. Rock doesn't even have access to basic moderation forum controls on this thread, so for all intents and purposes, he's just another poster. Since I believe in moderating only as a last resort, I allow people to work out their own differences (as they often do). Hopefully you and Rock can do the same.

Thanks for that, Shirina- appreciated that you were able to clarify swiftly. OK Basketball

It's just a pity that some people seem to not wish to engage with/entertain the notion that a person might be offended by a personal remark; a homophobic remark (however bald or dressed-up it may be) which some gay/straight people may find deeply offensive. In that respect I really do think the best thing for people with strong views, of the negative variety regarding gay people, should probably keep quite rather than antagonize and lose the plot. It's, to me, a question of diplomacy that recognises that the offended party should have their sensibilities respected in order to avoid a figurative incident of whatever/wherever.

If someone is ever offended, then it should be regular etiquette to have the right to express their feelings of 'offence'; hopefully getting an apology to diffuse the situation. Certainly, my own ethos is that if someone is deeply offended by anything I have posted, then they must tell me and I would, likewise, apologize, rather than have them go off on one. Problem solved!

I do not think that homophobia, as manifested by any homophobe (this is not meant as a term of abuse but as a de facto adjective), is something that can be talked out overnight, in that most homophobes are died-in-the-wool and simply find it impossible to change their opinions. Which is cool - no problem with that at all; I accept that.

Some people do change their views over time and express this sea-change, but others continue to express their dislike of gay people.

All I can say, finally, is that if homophobic comments offend people, then like sexism comments against women, or ageism (any ism!) is probably best left unsaid for the sake of etiquette.

That does not mean that such a line would or should stifle free speech or the imperative of Cutting Edge to promulgate free expression, ad hoc.

As I have said before, people like politicians and the clergy may be seen as fair game.

by Guest Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:13 pm

AwfulTruth wrote:
To the Moderator Rock:

I am not a moderator on this thread.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:25 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
AwfulTruth wrote:
To the Moderator Rock:
I am not a moderator on this thread.

Fair enough Rock, but I would like to suggest that you reconsider posting consecutive quotes that may have been taken out of context?

Just a thought! Smile

by polyglide Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:14 pm

I can assure you I do not need anyone to stand my corner but it is encouraging to know that there are some people who actually understand what is written and unfortunately others who read with no actual understanding and I have no intention of attempting to educate the latter.

It is a fact that if every deviant was taken out of the human race there would be very few ,if any, humans left.

If Awful Truth had anything of sense to say he would not have to protest in such an aggresive manner to the ideas and opinions of others.

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:53 pm

polyglide wrote:I can assure you I do not need anyone to stand my corner but it is encouraging to know that there are some people who actually understand what is written and unfortunately others who read with no actual understanding and I have no intention of attempting to educate the latter.

It is a fact that if every deviant was taken out of the human race there would be very few ,if any, humans left.

If Awful Truth had anything of sense to say he would not have to protest in such an aggressive manner to the ideas and opinions of others.

Polyglide

Let us set the record straight: You have accused me of being a 'deviant' and a 'pervert' and you think I do not read your posts? How can you possibly accuse ME of being aggressive? I am perfectly willing to argue with people who have other views but please do not expect me not to be offended by your usage of offensive adjective words, which you use with all the sincerely of someone who takes their own views very seriously indeed. That's fine.

I once again find myself having to firmly affirm that I am a defender of free speech. If I were not, I would be constantly angling for certain posts to be expunged and forever complaining to the moderators. I do not do that kind of thing because I think it is cowardly and undermines the essence of free speech.

However, there is a real line drawn between insults and hate crime. I see the difference and I wish people would stop winging and just get on with it.

Let us agree to disagree and move on. You have, finally, made your opinion of me absolutely crystal clear - period! I will bear you no ill feeling. flower

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:03 pm

On the subject of famous gay people (aka perverts, deviants and evil scum - according to some others), some of whom have made a huge contribution to the world and its people:

Alexander the Great
*Macedonian Ruler, 300 B.C.
Socrates
*Greek Philosopher, 400 B.C.
Sappho
*Greek Woman Poet, 600 B.C.
Hadrian
*Roman Emperor, 1st-2nd c.
Richard the Lionhearted
*English King, 12th c.
Saladin
*Sultan of Egypt and Syria
Desiderius Erasmus
*Dutch Monk, Philosopher
Francis Bacon
*English statesman, author
Frederick the Great
*King of Prussia
Lord Byron
*English poet, 18th c.
Walt Whitman
*U.S. poet, author, 19th c.
Oscar Wilde
*Irish author, 19th c.
Marcel Proust
*French author, 20th c.
Colette
*French author, 20th c.
Gertrude Stein
*U.S. poet, author, 20th c.
Alice B. Toklas
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Federico Garcia Lorca
*Spanish author, 20th c.
Cole Porter
*U.S. composer, 20th c.
Virginia Woolf
*English author, 20th c.
Leonard Bernstein
*U.S. composer, 20th c.
Pope Julius III
*1550-1555
T.E. Lawrence
*English soldier, author, 20th c.
Jean Cocteau
*French writer, director, 20th c.
Charles Laughton
*English actor, 20th c.
Marguerite Yourcenar
*Belgian author, 20th c.
Tennessee Williams
*U.S. Playwright, 20th c.
James Baldwin
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Andy Warhol
*U.S. artist, 20th c.
Michelangelo
*Italian artist, 15th c.
Leonardo Da Vinci
*Ital. Artist, scientist, 15th c.
Christopher Marlowe
*Eng. Playwright, 16th c.
Herman Melville
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Horatio Alger, Jr.
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Tchaikovsky
*Russian composer, 19th c.
Willa Cather
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Amy Lowell
*U.S. author, 19th & 20th c.
E.M. Forster
*English author, 20th c.
John M. Keynes
*English economist, 20th c.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
*Australian mathematician, 20th c.
Bessie Smith
*U.S. singer, 20th c.
Noel Coward
*English playwright, 20th c.
Christopher Isherwood
*English author, 20th c.
Pier Paolo Pasolini
*Italian film director, 20th c.
Yukio Mishima
*Japanese author, 20th c.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*U.S. stateswoman, 20th c.
Julius Caesar
*Roman Emperor, 100-44 B.C.
Augustus Caesar
*Roman Emperor
Harvey Milk
*U.S. politician, 20th c.
Bayard Rustin
*U.S. Civil Rights activist, 20th c.
James I
*English King, 16th-17th c.
Queen Anne
*English Queen, 18th c.
Marie Antoinette
*French Empress, 18th c.
Melissa Etheridge
*U.S. Rock Star, 20th c.
Pope Benedict IX
*1032-1044
May Sarton
*U.S. author, (1912 - 1995)
Edna Ferber
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Elton John
*English Rock Star, 20th c.
Margaret Fuller
*U.S. writer, educator, 20th c.
Montezuma II
*Aztec ruler, 16th c.
Peter the Great
*Russian Czar, 17th-18th c.
Langston Hughes
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Pope John XII
*955-964
Madame de Stael
*French writer, 17th-18th c.
Martina Navratilova
*U.S. tennis star, 20th c.
Greg Louganis
*U.S. Olympic swimmer, 20th c.
Billie Jean King
*U.S. tennis star, 20th c.
Roberta Achtenburg
*U.S. politician, 20th c.
Barney Frank
*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.
Gerry Studds
*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.
Hans Christian Andersen
*Danish author, 19th c.
Tom Dooley
*U.S. M.D. missionary, 20th c.
J. Edgar Hoover
*U.S. director of the FBI., 20th c.
Frida Kahlo
*Mexican artist, 20th c.
Suleiman the Magnificent
*Ottoman ruler, 15th c.
Rock Hudson
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz
*Mexican author, 16th c.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Candace Gingrich
*Gay Rights activist, 20th c.
Margarethe Cammermeyer
*U.S. Army Colonel, 20th c.
Zoe Dunning
*U.S. Military Reservist, 20th c.
Tom Waddel
*U.S. M.D., Olympic star, 20th c.
Kate Millet
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Janis Joplin
*U.S. singer, 20th c.
Rudolf Nuryev
*Russian dancer, 20th c.
Waslaw Nijinsky
*Russian dancer, 20th c.
Ernst Röhm
*German Nazi leader, 20th c.
Dag Hammerskjold
*Swedish UN Secretary, 209th c.
Aristotle
*Greek philosopher, 384-322 B.C.
Paula Gunn Allen
*Native American author, 20th c.
Angela Davis
*U.S. political activist, 20th c.
June Jordan
*U.S. author, activist, 20th c.
Rainer Maria Rilke
*German poet, 20th c.
James Dean
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Montgomery Clift
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Baron VonSteuben
*German General, Valley Forge
Edward II
*English King, 14th c.
Beethoven
Composer

by Sponsored content