View Full Version : Homosexuals crucified.
Congratulations to the Rev Wallace on his nomination for the top job in the church of Scotland.
Commiserations to the many homosexuals who are likely to be further discriminated against because of the Revs stance on homosexuality.
Perhaps I am doing the Rev an injustice and his views may have changed concerning homosexuality and its place in a modern world but, if it has, I havnt heard. The last I heard from the rev Wallace on the subject was his condemnation of an earlier moderator who had voiced the opinion that he (the moderator) would have no problems with homosexual ministers in the Church of Scotland.
At a time when our modern society is adapting to ancient taboos and morals, is it right that any leader, let alone a religious leader, should discriminate against people who are different than them.
In the case of religious discrimination, consider that the laws and morals come from an ancient civilisation who lived 3000 years ago, some of whom may have gone home after writing the offending texts against homosexuals and stoned someones wife to death for talking to a male neighbour?
brokencross
18-Oct-06, 11:00
Gleeber
The acceptance of homosexuality as a norm should be a personal choice and not inflicted upon us by law.
Most of the "advances" in recognition of the homosexual cause have been under the guise of Equality/Human Rights and nothing to do with the morality of the physical act of being a homosexual.
I have homosexual friends of both sexes and I accept them for what they are as people, but this does not mean that I necessarlly agree with homosexual acts.
Am I a bad person for having these views?
I agree the church has a powerful voice and should be careful how they conduct themselves.
I too congratluate the Rev Wallace on making the short list, he must be doing something right.
Metalattakk
18-Oct-06, 11:21
Congratulations to the Rev Wallace on his nomination for the top job in the church of Scotland.
Commiserations to the many homosexuals who are likely to be further discriminated against because of the Revs stance on homosexuality.
Perhaps I am doing the Rev an injustice and his views may have changed concerning homosexuality and its place in a modern world but, if it has, I havnt heard. The last I heard from the rev Wallace on the subject was his condemnation of an earlier moderator who had voiced the opinion that he (the moderator) would have no problems with homosexual ministers in the Church of Scotland.
At a time when our modern society is adapting to ancient taboos and morals, is it right that any leader, let alone a religious leader, should discriminate against people who are different than them.
In the case of religious discrimination, consider that the laws and morals come from an ancient civilisation who lived 3000 years ago, some of whom may have gone home after writing the offending texts against homosexuals and stoned someones wife to death for talking to a male neighbour?
That's all sensationalist claptrap though...
Anyone would think you're just trying to provoke a reaction... ;)
We come back to the old truth.... the base purpose of sexual relations is to procreate. Same sex liaisons cannot procreate and must be by definition unnatural. It follows that the old description of 'queer' is the most descriptive of a same sex relationship.
It really annoys me that these people have hijacked the very descriptive word 'gay' in an attempt to normalise their affairs.
We come back to the old truth.... the base purpose of sexual relations is to procreate. Same sex liaisons cannot procreate and must be by definition unnatural. It follows that the old description of 'queer' is the most descriptive of a same sex relationship.
It really annoys me that these people have hijacked the very descriptive word 'gay' in an attempt to normalise their affairs.
Homosexuality occurs in nature and therefore must be natural. If we define the purpose of sexual relations to be to procreate, then every heterosexual sexual act that does not result in the creation of a child must also be unnatural.
Procreation is an inexact science, there are many things that can go wrong and to expect that every being created will be heterosexual is unrealistic. The process is flawed and we, as human beings are all flawed in some way. We are individuals with different feelings and desires. I celebrate, rather than condemn that fact. Nothing could be more natural in my opinion.
By the way I am married with two kids and have no desire to "get it on" with my fellow males. However I cannot condemn someone who has a different feeling on what "floats her/his boat", nor would I expect them to refrain from expressing their feelings for another person, simply because it might offend some stranger with a different viewpoint. It is also their right to call themselves anything they see fit, or are you going to insist that we call black people something more derogatory, of our choosing, because the word black is too generalistic?
If that is the same Rev Wallace who wanted lines painted on the floor of the Pultneytown Academy special education unit when it opened so that main streem kids would know not to cross to where the kids with learning dificulties were classed then I dont think Gleeber is trying to get a reaction for no reason.
Excellent post Scorrie but I fear we have been here before.
There are many things in life that are "not normal" as seen through "ordinary" people's eyes. (I wonder who defines normal and ordinary.) Can anybody honestly claim that everything they do, in the public eye or behind closed doors, is "normal" as defined by those who are "ordinary"?
Surely in this day and age we should be more tolerant of our fellow human beings, or do we still need to be derogatory and judgemental of those "different" from "normal" people as in Scorrie's post?
I feel sorry for anyone who has to dwell on the mechanisms of anybody's intimate life and then publicly denounce those practices. Any love shared honestly between two people is a blessing; I only wish there was more honesty around.
'Ang on a minute there. Woah those high horse. As far as I can tell from the Mr. Gleeber:
"The last I heard from the rev Wallace on the subject was his condemnation of an earlier moderator who had voiced the opinion that he (the moderator) would have no problems with homosexual ministers in the Church of Scotland."
Rev. Wallace only has a problem with homosexual ministers - not with homosexuals. If he said he thought that blind people shouldn't be heart surgeons is he therefore condemning all blind people?
'Ang on a minute there. Woah those high horse. As far as I can tell from the Mr. Gleeber:
"The last I heard from the rev Wallace on the subject was his condemnation of an earlier moderator who had voiced the opinion that he (the moderator) would have no problems with homosexual ministers in the Church of Scotland."
Rev. Wallace only has a problem with homosexual ministers - not with homosexuals. If he said he thought that blind people shouldn't be heart surgeons is he therefore condemning all blind people?
Personally I can see the problem with a blind heart surgeon as I am sure most people would but what is his problem with a homosexual minister? I'm not having a go at Mr. Wallace, just can't work it out.
It follows that the old description of 'queer' is the most descriptive of a same sex relationship.
In my opinion the only queer people in the world are those who dont love anyone. A loving and consensual relationship between two adults that allows them both to find peace compassion and understanding within a loving and supportive relationship is to be applauded not sneered at.
roblovesplastic
18-Oct-06, 15:09
I use logic for this one.
I am a heterosexual male and the thought of me having a homosexual act turns my stomach.
SO.
Logically its not that homosexuals choose to be that way, or an illness, more the acceptance that this is who they truly are.
So because of this, no they should not be punished or persecuted in any way by anyone.
The only people that I think should be crucified, because it would be nice and slow for them, are paedophiles or anyone that hurts children.
Personally I can see the problem with a blind heart surgeon as I am sure most people would but what is his problem with a homosexual minister? I'm not having a go at Mr. Wallace, just can't work it out.
Indeed, Ann. But the thread here seems to have developed into his problem with homosexuals. As far as I can interpret, it's his problem with homosexual ministers. As I'm not a minister, I feel that it's not my position to comment. However, when he DOES start commenting on homosexuality then the debate here can begin. Now where to next? The Pope and his non-conformist views on the marriage of priests in the Catholic Church? Mmm - speaking as a non-Pope . . .
percy toboggan
18-Oct-06, 18:05
In my opinion the only queer people in the world are those who dont love anyone. A loving and consensual relationship between two adults that allows them both to find peace compassion and understanding within a loving and supportive relationship is to be applauded not sneered at.
agreed. It's the predatory and promiscuous homo's that get the relatively monogomous ones a bad name. These feloows get a firm thumbs down from me I'm afraid. The ones who seek out chance encounters on public land and in public lavs. Someone mentioned 'ancient taboos and morals' well it's barely thirty five years since homosexuality was illegal isn't it?
I applaud any churchman or cleric for taking an anti-homosexual stance in this libertarian age. It's not the way to go. It's natural in many cases but not normal, if ever it were so our very existence as a species would be threatened. People who do not like rampant , pro-active and strident 'queers' or 'gay' folk - call 'em what you will should not be villified. One opinion is as valid as the next one. If you are homosexual why not just keep quiet about it and get on with your life as best you can? just like the rest of us in fact.
Sexuality is surely not the defining quality of us as individuals, unless you're one of those fleet footed lavatory cowboys I mentioned earlier. I take it we'd all like to avoid them? Or do these too have their Champions?
agreed. It's the predatory and promiscuous homo's that get the relatively monogomous ones a bad name. These feloows get a firm thumbs down from me I'm afraid. The ones who seek out chance encounters on public land and in public lavs. Someone mentioned 'ancient taboos and morals' well it's barely thirty five years since homosexuality was illegal isn't it?
I applaud any churchman or cleric for taking an anti-homosexual stance in this libertarian age. It's not the way to go. It's natural in many cases but not normal, if ever it were so our very existence as a species would be threatened. People who do not like rampant , pro-active and strident 'queers' or 'gay' folk - call 'em what you will should not be villified. One opinion is as valid as the next one. If you are homosexual why not just keep quiet about it and get on with your life as best you can? just like the rest of us in fact.
Sexuality is surely not the defining quality of us as individuals, unless you're one of those fleet footed lavatory cowboys I mentioned earlier. I take it we'd all like to avoid them? Or do these too have their Champions?
You get sleaze bags in every sexual variety. People who seek out casual sex with strangers, rapists, predatory males and females, bikes, dykes, trikes, pimps, Johns, Toms, Dicks and Harrys. They are all in there
Why should anyone have to keep quiet about being Homosexual? They have every right to be open and honest about the way they are. If only rapists and paedophiles were as honest and open!! Of course THEY prefer to keep quiet about it and get on with their lives as best they can.
The fact that it is only 35 years since homosexuality was legalised shows how stuck in the past we really were on some issues. No wonder the attendances in Churches are falling, as enlightened people realise that they can make their own mind up on what is right and wrong in this world, rather than following instructions that are thousands of years out of date.
In any case is it not all about the message that a minister is conveying, rather than whether, He/She is Homo/Hetero/Bi or Asexual? In what way does it change the word of God, that it came from lips that may have contacted the lips of someone of the same sex?
Homosexuality occurs in nature and therefore must be natural. .
As in certain tribes of monkeys, invariably chimps and alike, it is not called homo (as in human) and it would seem to release tensions and stress amongst the chimps/apes whatever. However, if that type of behaviour was normal (chimps eg.) we would have quite a few revealing sites on our streets, especially in major cities etc.
Therefore you cannot class it as normal in society, it may seem to be an acceptable practice in some quarters, but in general, it is something that should be personal & private and left to the bedroom arena. Not everyone is as liberated as we would like to think or are led to believe.
Ciao,
dpw39
danc1ngwitch
18-Oct-06, 19:53
I dunno much about much. Lol, one thing i do know and have learned, is that Humans *US* We are indeed afraid of our own sexuality!!! I know this may ignite reactions in some but its the truth. Shame <<<< Oh how i dislike that word, Shame is used Wow !!! Live and let Live, who made that up as its not always the case. Own free will is another that is used !!! Most who use it doesna know what it is.. Who are we to Judge ??? I often get judged afore people get ta know me and then how wrong most are..LoL.. I am glad we are all individual, or some try to be..
I am different in some ways and i am glad i aint one O da sheep... I wouldna follow even if i was LoL, but it doesna make me a bad person... And for those of u that has no clue what i am saying ( I aint gay but have nuttin against those who are). I wink ma eye and say hey hey hey .. live this short life best we can..
oldmarine
18-Oct-06, 20:39
I use logic for this one.
I am a heterosexual male and the thought of me having a homosexual act turns my stomach.
SO.
Logically its not that homosexuals choose to be that way, or an illness, more the acceptance that this is who they truly are.
So because of this, no they should not be punished or persecuted in any way by anyone.
The only people that I think should be crucified, because it would be nice and slow for them, are paedophiles or anyone that hurts children.
I spent 36 months in the Pacific theatre of operations during WWII. During that time I was approached separately by a company commander and a high enlisted grade person who tried to use their rank to solicit homosexual activity. It disgusted me as I did not care for that time of envolvement. I talked to a military chaplain about the problem. He took action on the matter and went to a higher level in my unit and reported the incident. Both persons were transferred back to the states. One of the concerns was for the safety of both persons who could have been shot by someone during the heat of battle. I realize that times have changed during these later days for political correctness; however, I believe that those situations can impact morale when they are allowed to happen without anything being done to correct the problem.
.
As in certain tribes of monkeys, invariably chimps and alike, it is not called homo (as in human) and it would seem to release tensions and stress amongst the chimps/apes whatever. However, if that type of behaviour was normal (chimps eg.) we would have quite a few revealing sites on our streets, especially in major cities etc.
Therefore you cannot class it as normal in society, it may seem to be an acceptable practice in some quarters, but in general, it is something that should be personal & private and left to the bedroom arena. Not everyone is as liberated as we would like to think or are led to believe.
Ciao,
dpw39
There are more than monkeys "doing the business" it is widespread amongst Insects, Birds and Mammals. It is only in these more relaxed times that scientists and nature observers have been able to report the facts. In the "good" old days they would have been crucified themselves for reporting that King Kong was a fan of "Fairy" rather than Fay Wray!!
Dolphins and Penguins are reported to be "at it" and I am not talking about the players of Miami's Football team and Pittsburgh's Ice Hockey team here!!
I don't follow your logic on being unable to class homosexual sexual activity as normal in society. It is not normal for ANY sexual activity to be on open view, outside of the bedroom arena, in our society. Most people ARE keeping it private and personal.
People need to accept that the supposedly repulsive sexual acts going on between people of the same sex are very little different from that which goes on between a man and a woman. In some cases those acts will be indentical.
I spent 36 months in the Pacific theatre of operations during WWII. During that time I was approached separately by a company commander and a high enlisted grade person who tried to use their rank to solicit homosexual activity. It disgusted me as I did not care for that time of envolvement. I talked to a military chaplain about the problem. He took action on the matter and went to a higher level in my unit and reported the incident. Both persons were transferred back to the states. One of the concerns was for the safety of both persons who could have been shot by someone during the heat of battle. I realize that times have changed during these later days for political correctness; however, I believe that those situations can impact morale when they are allowed to happen without anything being done to correct the problem.
Oldmarine, but aren't you talking of ANY people who tried to engage you in an activity of which you did not wish to take part? I would class that as sexual harassment, which should not be tolerated in any society, I'm sure most would agree. Regardless of the harasser’s sexuality. It would be similar to some office manager, trying to come on to the new boy, and telling him if he doesn't comply with their wishes he'll get the sack - that manager could be male or female, sexuality is irrelevant, it's the act of harassment that is not acceptable. You did the right thing reporting the incidents, but I appreciate you're already aware of that.
There is talk on here of some gay people being OK, but others are plain dirty. Sheesh, we should open our eyes... many people are overtly sexual, homo/bi/hetero; we're all capable of that. I find it disappointing though, in this day and age, that many still can't see that, and still continue to label those who are not heterosexual, as dirty or queer.
I'm with Ann on this, a loving and consensual relationship should be cherished, regardless of the genders of the people involved.
And back to Gleebers initial point... I'm having trouble understanding why sexuality would have any impact on a minister's ability to preach and spread the word of God too. If it's the campness he's got an issue with, well I have to say, I haven't yet seen a minister that brags about the number of conquests he had whilst at uni, so why should a gay minister be any different .
I find it a little interesting that some who find homosexuality acceptable still need to state that they themselves are not homosexual, as if there is a stigma attached!
Also why is the Rev seemingly wrong to hold his stance on homosexual ministers? The teachings of the Bible indicate that Homosexuality is wrong so would it not be hypocritical to have a Homosexual minister stood in the pulpit spouting the teachings of the Bible?
"The clear teaching of the Bible
The historic Christian faith has always affirmed Biblical teaching that homosexual acts are always wrong (e.g. Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27).
The Bible is clear that the only legitimate context for sex is marriage and that marriage can only take place between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:24). Sexual acts between men and women before marriage (fornication) or outside marriage (adultery) are also condemned (Matthew 5:27-28).
Homosexual temptation
Probably everyone experiences sexual temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13). Sexual temptation, including homosexual temptation is not sinful. Yielding to it is. (James 1:14-16)
Christians oppose lowering the age of consent for homosexual activity to sixteen since to do so exposes children1 (http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/homosexualageofconsent.htm#1) to this activity. Moreover the signal it sends is also important. Equalising the age of consent with the age for heterosexual activity sends out the message that homosexual activity is morally equal to heterosexual activity."
Would you employ a career thief and fraudster to be a Police Constable?
We don't allow paedophiles to be teachers!
Just a thought.......
I find it a little interesting that some who find homosexuality acceptable still need to state that they themselves are not homosexual, as if there is a stigma attached!.....
I would disagree on this one Listener, I feel that a stance of 'I am hetrosexual, therefore I have no attraction towards someone of the same sex, but I do not see it being a problem that others do' is perfectly viable.
Also, a thief/fraudster and peadophile are all criminals - last time I heard, homosexuality was not against the law.
Homosexuality does not occur naturally in other species. Examples of homosexual acts among other animals are due to an overpowering urge to procreate, where examples exist, the urge overides the need to identify whether the recipient is male or female. Homosexuals know that they cannot reproduce but there is a measure of non-instinctive premeditation going on.
I think we are getting away from Gleebers origional question (sic) Should a short listed nominee for the post of Moderator of the Church of Scotland have such allegedly anti homosexual views?
I think we are getting away from Gleebers origional question (sic) Should a short listed nominee for the post of Moderator of the Church of Scotland have such allegedly anti homosexual views?
If the Bible is so expressly anti-homo then how can he be otherwise? Surely he can't question the higher authority?:roll:
Not that I'm anti homo myself, as anyone knows I'm not, it is just that as an agnostic, any move to push folk to agnosticism is a good thing.
Also, a thief/fraudster and peadophile are all criminals - last time I heard, homosexuality was not against the law.
I am not saying homosexuality is criminal nor that it should be. Though I think mere pedantics are sidetracking the point I am trying to make.
It may not necessarily be an “anti-gay” homophobic, generally discriminating stance but a more logical attitude from the Church’s view when the Bible is saying one thing but the representative who is teaching such is clearly not following this, hence the Ministers stance could be that to have a Homosexual Minister in the Church would be hypocritical and could give mixed signals as to the Church’s position and the contents of the Bible.
I find it a little interesting that some who find homosexuality acceptable still need to state that they themselves are not homosexual, as if there is a stigma attached!
Also why is the Rev seemingly wrong to hold his stance on homosexual ministers? The teachings of the Bible indicate that Homosexuality is wrong so would it not be hypocritical to have a Homosexual minister stood in the pulpit spouting the teachings of the Bible?
I can't speak for other but my reason for declaring my sexuality was to let readers know that I am posting as a Heterosexual person who is tolerant of Homosexuality, rather than a Homosexual trying to defend my orientation.
Surely there is a lot more to the Bible than Homosexuality? I would have thought that the main message of the Bible was to encourage a belief in, and following of, God. When you get right down to analysing the content of the Bible it can be vague and conradictory, with lots of areas open to different interpretation. It has always been a volume that is quoted from selectively.
The church needs to move with the times or will continue to see the flock dwindle. God didn't write the Bible, who knows what kind of person the author of any particular section was?
Oh dear, I'm confused.
If it is alright for certain Groups to have the right to call themselves by whatever name they wish, even though many people may be offended by their choice of name then why must I feel restricted by the choice of name I decide to call them by?
If certain sexual acts are deemed to be acceptable because they also occur in the animal world then why is it, apart from the fact that I would end up becoming well aquainted with the staff at Caithness General, that should I decide to become "dominant male" in this area is it unacceptable for me to attack any male I wish and take my pick of any females I may choose?
On the question of Religion then that is a question of belief. Should I choose to become a member of any Religious Group then it is up to me to find one which is acceptable to my beliefs and lifestyle and not for me to decide that the particular Religious Group should change it's beliefs to accept my demands.
Not too many years ago somebody chose to call the "Resurrection" as a "Conjuring trick with an old bag of bones". If that was his belief then that is his entitlement. What I found appalling was that, whilst he was willing to decry probably the most important part of Christian Beliefs, he could also allow himself to be Ordained as Archbishop of York.
As far as I could see he was being a complete hypocrite in accepting a all the benefits that such a position provides whilst disagreeing totally with the beliefs the position required.
I admit that I am unaware of the attitude of the Church of Scotland towards Ordaining homosexuals but, if Rev Wallace's beliefs are in line with those of the Church of Scotland then I cannot see why there should be a problem.
Homosexuality does not occur naturally in other species. Examples of homosexual acts among other animals are due to an overpowering urge to procreate, where examples exist, the urge overides the need to identify whether the recipient is male or female. Homosexuals know that they cannot reproduce but there is a measure of non-instinctive premeditation going on.
I am no expert in the field and did not realise you were an authority on the subject. However, I do know that male Penguins who were given the choice of male and female partners unfailingly chose to go for the guys. That puts a hole below the waterline of your theory that animals are not identifying the sex of their intended mate.
Scientists seem divided on the subject and I wonder how many of them look at the matter without a bias towards what they wish to find? Some of the theory, such as homosexual activity being a release of tension, will remain simply a theory. Unless we can send our man Dr Doolittle in to ask the monkeys why they are doing it, then we will never know.
Chimpanzees or Chimpansies? Funnily enough David Attenborough never seems to get round to broaching the subject.
Oh dear, I'm confused.
If it is alright for certain Groups to have the right to call themselves by whatever name they wish, even though many people may be offended by their choice of name then why must I feel restricted by the choice of name I decide to call them by?
If certain sexual acts are deemed to be acceptable because they also occur in the animal world then why is it, apart from the fact that I would end up becoming well aquainted with the staff at Caithness General, that should I decide to become "dominant male" in this area is it unacceptable for me to attack any male I wish and take my pick of any females I may choose?
On the question of Religion then that is a question of belief. Should I choose to become a member of any Religious Group then it is up to me to find one which is acceptable to my beliefs and lifestyle and not for me to decide that the particular Religious Group should change it's beliefs to accept my demands.
Not too many years ago somebody chose to call the "Resurrection" as a "Conjuring trick with an old bag of bones". If that was his belief then that is his entitlement. What I found appalling was that, whilst he was willing to decry probably the most important part of Christian Beliefs, he could also allow himself to be Ordained as Archbishop of York.
As far as I could see he was being a complete hypocrite in accepting a all the benefits that such a position provides whilst disagreeing totally with the beliefs the position required.
I admit that I am unaware of the attitude of the Church of Scotland towards Ordaining homosexuals but, if Rev Wallace's beliefs are in line with those of the Church of Scotland then I cannot see why there should be a problem.
Part 1, that is what is known as respect for another's wishes.
Part 2, males used to do that when man was less developed socially. We have moved on in some areas since then.
Part 3, You can, in my opinion, accept the teachings of Jesus and the existence of God, without needing to believe that he was actually the Son of God or rose from the the grave after his death. In many ways the Church is just a business like any other. I don't see a problem with it being able to evolve to better represent the ways of the modern world. It is not as if we are asking for the main message to be altered. I think there are enough religions, branches, sections etc already without having to create a new one to cover every permutation.
I am no expert in the field and did not realise you were an authority on the subject. However, I do know that male Penguins who were given the choice of male and female partners unfailingly chose to go for the guys. That puts a hole below the waterline of your theory that animals are not identifying the sex of their intended mate.
Scientists seem divided on the subject and I wonder how many of them look at the matter without a bias towards what they wish to find? Some of the theory, such as homosexual activity being a release of tension, will remain simply a theory. Unless we can send our man Dr Doolittle in to ask the monkeys why they are doing it, then we will never know.
Chimpanzees or Chimpansies? Funnily enough David Attenborough never seems to get round to broaching the subject.
Well if we are going to look at penguin behavior as a model then we should look at their kidnapping, cannabalism and prostitution as exemplery(sp) ways of living our own lives.:roll:
Part 1, that is what is known as respect for another's wishes.
Part 2, males used to do that when man was less developed socially. We have moved on in some areas since then.
Part 3, You can, in my opinion, accept the teachings of Jesus and the existence of God, without needing to believe that he was actually the Son of God or rose from the the grave after his death. In many ways the Church is just a business like any other. I don't see a problem with it being able to evolve to better represent the ways of the modern world. It is not as if we are asking for the main message to be altered. I think there are enough religions, branches, sections etc already without having to create a new one to cover every permutation.
1. Exactly, so why should it be expected that respect for other's wishes should not apply to all involved?
2. So it's alright to site animals as an example to support one course of action but not when their behaviour supports a different one. If we have developed socially beyond one kind of behaviour then I don't see that animals social behaviour can be used to support another.
3. Quite, "In My Father's House are many Mansions, if it were not so I would have told you", in which case it is up to the individual to find one which suits them and not for the individual to demand that all the Mansions are demolished and rebuilt for their benefit.
As you say, there are enough religions, branches and sections already, so finding an acceptable one should be no problem for any believer in most faiths.
Gleeber
The acceptance of homosexuality as a norm should be a personal choice and not inflicted upon us by law.
.
Acceptance is something personal, I agree. Discrimination against people for their sexuality, sex, creed, colour, abilities or disabilities, however can and should be "inflicted" by law. Acceptance is something personal, and everyone is entitled not to personally accept any life style. However, that is where your "non-acceptance" should remain, with yourself, because it is your opinion and our personal opinions are not to "inflict" on others (opinions are neither right nor wrong).
Well if we are going to look at penguin behavior as a model then we should look at their kidnapping, cannabalism and prostitution as exemplery(sp) ways of living our own lives.:roll:
Do pinguins pay with mastercard? Confused! ;)
Do pinguins pay with mastercard? Confused! ;)
I thought the same - then I realised they paid with chocolate biscuits ;)
Kaishowing
19-Oct-06, 17:08
Don't think anyone should be amazed that hypocracy and religion are so intertwined.
A religion that preaches tollerance and love and understanding, should put into practice those cornerstones of the belief....not only apply when priests feel it doesn't conflict with their personal predjudices.
After all, any religion that requires human interpretation is by definition flawed, as we as mere humans are obviously on a far lesser emotional, intellectual and spiritual level from 'The Ultimate'.
Leave people to live their lives as they see fit as long as nobody is getting harmed. Let them answer to 'whomever' when they shuffle off the mortal coil, for their choices in life, and stop trying to change people 'for their own good in the long run'.
Anyone who claims that they know for certain what 'The Ultimate' wants, is guilty of such arrogance it beggars belief. To present that argument as a justification for hatred in any form is the true sin.
1. Exactly, so why should it be expected that respect for other's wishes should not apply to all involved?
2. So it's alright to site animals as an example to support one course of action but not when their behaviour supports a different one. If we have developed socially beyond one kind of behaviour then I don't see that animals social behaviour can be used to support another.
3. Quite, "In My Father's House are many Mansions, if it were not so I would have told you", in which case it is up to the individual to find one which suits them and not for the individual to demand that all the Mansions are demolished and rebuilt for their benefit.
As you say, there are enough religions, branches and sections already, so finding an acceptable one should be no problem for any believer in most faiths.
1. So you are saying that it is OK for you to use derogatory names simply because the group of people involved should respect that this is your right?
I think the way that respect should work both ways is that each side has a name they prefer to be called and the other side respects that request. In the 70's "Love Thy Neighbour" had the Black and White characters calling each other "Sambo" and "Honky", I don't think that this could ever be seen to be accepted as a healthy situation with each side respecting that the other has the right to use whatever name they see fit for the purpose.
2. I am not making any difference between one type of animal behaviour and any other. I believe that we too are animals, with pretty basic needs when you get right down to it. Some humans still kill and eat their fellow beings but other societies consider it to be taboo. Homosexuality cannot be considered as similar to murder, cannibalism, rape or violence. It is common sense in my mind to see the difference but obviously others cannot and we remain a society that is paranoid to a large extent and firmly in favour of enforcing the sterotypes of dolls for girls and guns for boys. Pretend killing of Arabs in computer games is normal, liking fashion programs is "gay"
3. Nobody is asking the big man to destroy his mansions. Why does it always have to be a question of getting the wrecking ball out? Why can't he just renovate that dark cupboard under the stairs and perhaps think about getting a cooncil grant to put a wee extension on the side to let a few people stay, instead of sending them to the hoose next door?
Well if we are going to look at penguin behavior as a model then we should look at their kidnapping, cannabalism and prostitution as exemplery(sp) ways of living our own lives.:roll:
The sole point is that Homosexual behaviour occurs in animals. It is not only Penguins that show this behaviour.
Here's my 2 pence worth.
I have homosexual friends both male and female. As a professional DJ, I would say I come across more than most people (except maybe trainee hairdressers :lol: ). I am also a Christian. Not all that practicing but still a Christian. I don't go to church because I believe most of the people are hypocrits.
And here's the thing. Whether you like / believe it or not, the Bible is very, very explicit about homosexuality. It isn't allowed. End of. Now that doesn't mean I spurn my gay friends. They can choose to live there life how they choose. They are still my friends and I still love them. And they know of my beliefs and my opinions.
But for a minister to be a practicing homosexual is wrong. He is preaching the Gospel whilst defying it just by standing there. It is something I would avidly stand against.
I forgot to add, Rheghead, here is a particular type of Penguin to check out ;o)
http://www.australianfauna.com/fairypenguin.php
percy toboggan
19-Oct-06, 17:55
I think the way that respect should work both ways is that each side has a name they prefer to be called and the other side respects that request. In the 70's "Love Thy Neighbour" had the Black and White characters calling each other "Sambo" and "Honky", I don't think that this could ever be seen to be accepted as a healthy situation with each side respecting that the other has the right to use whatever name they see fit for the purpose.
I bought a couple of dvd's last year of 'Love thy Neighbour' It was a real reminder of less tense times. I laughed a bit & smiled a lot. It al seemed 'healthy' enough especially when compared with the strangled nature of inter racial relations we have today. In the seventies immigration was not much of a problem. Today it is.
roblovesplastic
19-Oct-06, 18:54
I think we are getting away from Gleebers origional question (sic) Should a short listed nominee for the post of Moderator of the Church of Scotland have such allegedly anti homosexual views?
No
No
No
No
No
No
;)
I bought a couple of dvd's last year of 'Love thy Neighbour' It was a real reminder of less tense times. I laughed a bit & smiled a lot. It al seemed 'healthy' enough especially when compared with the strangled nature of inter racial relations we have today. In the seventies immigration was not much of a problem. Today it is.
I think Enoch Powell would have disagreed with your assertion that those were less tense times and that immigration was not much of a problem. I do not think for one minute that black people were happy with the words "Sambo" or "Nig Nog" at the time. The difference was that they pretty much had to accept the situation in those times. In 1976 the Notting Hill Carnival riots were a result of the Black community standing up and deciding that enough was enough. The way the Police treated them was changed radically after that time.
I don't think name calling can ever be "healthy" and while it is possible to argue for, or against, "Love Thy Neighbour" being racist, it is undeniable that it is not funny, unless you are, as I was at the time, 10 years old or less.
No
No
No
No
No
No
;)
Are you sure now?
1. So you are saying that it is OK for you to use derogatory names simply because the group of people involved should respect that this is your right?
I think the way that respect should work both ways is that each side has a name they prefer to be called and the other side respects that request. In the 70's "Love Thy Neighbour" had the Black and White characters calling each other "Sambo" and "Honky", I don't think that this could ever be seen to be accepted as a healthy situation with each side respecting that the other has the right to use whatever name they see fit for the purpose.
2. I am not making any difference between one type of animal behaviour and any other. I believe that we too are animals, with pretty basic needs when you get right down to it. Some humans still kill and eat their fellow beings but other societies consider it to be taboo. Homosexuality cannot be considered as similar to murder, cannibalism, rape or violence. It is common sense in my mind to see the difference but obviously others cannot and we remain a society that is paranoid to a large extent and firmly in favour of enforcing the stereotypes of dolls for girls and guns for boys. Pretend killing of Arabs in computer games is normal, liking fashion programs is "gay"
3. Nobody is asking the big man to destroy his mansions. Why does it always have to be a question of getting the wrecking ball out? Why can't he just renovate that dark cupboard under the stairs and perhaps think about getting a cooncil grant to put a wee extension on the side to let a few people stay, instead of sending them to the hoose next door?
1. Nope. Not in the least. But neither should they or others label people who are not totally accepting of their way of life. I, and I am certain a lot of other people as well, find the manner in which "Homophobe" is used as an abusive term to dismiss people who might not agree totally with them.
Being offensive to people who are "different" to them is a two edged sword which cuts both ways, or at least it should do.
2. Liking Fashion Programmes is "gay"? That's a stereo type if ever I have heard one, where did that one come from? I really must adjust my viewing behaviour, I dread think what people might think.
Guns and Dolls? Sexual stereo-typing? I thought that line of thinking went out with burning bras.
If animal behaviour is to be used as a reason for some human behaviour then I see no reason not to use it as a reason for other human behaviour.
Animals and humans engage in homosexual activity. Animals and humans engage in cannibalism. Animals and humans engage in murder, violence and rape. However, it permissible to use animals as a reason for some human behaviour but only if it's those behaviours which are deemed "acceptable" at any particular period of time.
The way in which children are brought up is due to the fact that Society is paranoid. Wow, that's a sweeping accusation if ever I heard one.
So now you know folks, don't buy your daughters a doll or your sons a gun otherwise you are demonstrating your paranoia and stereo-typing your children.
3. So it's not up to humans to find a suitable Mansion in God's House, it's up to God to redecorate the whole place to suit humans. If I had guests in my house who demanded I change my home to suit their tastes I know what my reaction would be. When I go anywhere as a visitor I consider I have two choices, I either accept things as they are or go somewhere I do find suitable. It's up to me to find the right place for me and not for me to demand everywhere be changed to my demands.
Nobody is asking anybody to move to any other premises but simply to find a place in God's House where they find the decor acceptable. There are many options and most things are catered for somewhere in His House.
Just as a matter of interest, does anybody know if hems are up or down next season?
pultneytooner
19-Oct-06, 21:50
Just as a matter of interest, does anybody know if hems are up or down next season?
That depends if you are a homosexual or not?
Dreadnought
19-Oct-06, 23:18
Homosexuality used to be an imprisonable offence. Then it became ok behind closed doors. Then it became ok in public. Then homosexual marriage (of a sort) became legal. Now it is being taught in schools. Maybe its time to leave before it becomes bloody compulsory!
1. Nope. Not in the least. But neither should they or others label people who are not totally accepting of their way of life. I, and I am certain a lot of other people as well, find the manner in which "Homophobe" is used as an abusive term to dismiss people who might not agree totally with them.
Being offensive to people who are "different" to them is a two edged sword which cuts both ways, or at least it should do.
2. Liking Fashion Programmes is "gay"? That's a stereo type if ever I have heard one, where did that one come from? I really must adjust my viewing behaviour, I dread think what people might think.
Guns and Dolls? Sexual stereo-typing? I thought that line of thinking went out with burning bras.
If animal behaviour is to be used as a reason for some human behaviour then I see no reason not to use it as a reason for other human behaviour.
Animals and humans engage in homosexual activity. Animals and humans engage in cannibalism. Animals and humans engage in murder, violence and rape. However, it permissible to use animals as a reason for some human behaviour but only if it's those behaviours which are deemed "acceptable" at any particular period of time.
The way in which children are brought up is due to the fact that Society is paranoid. Wow, that's a sweeping accusation if ever I heard one.
So now you know folks, don't buy your daughters a doll or your sons a gun otherwise you are demonstrating your paranoia and stereo-typing your children.
3. So it's not up to humans to find a suitable Mansion in God's House, it's up to God to redecorate the whole place to suit humans. If I had guests in my house who demanded I change my home to suit their tastes I know what my reaction would be. When I go anywhere as a visitor I consider I have two choices, I either accept things as they are or go somewhere I do find suitable. It's up to me to find the right place for me and not for me to demand everywhere be changed to my demands.
Nobody is asking anybody to move to any other premises but simply to find a place in God's House where they find the decor acceptable. There are many options and most things are catered for somewhere in His House.
Just as a matter of interest, does anybody know if hems are up or down next season?
If there is room in God's house for Homosexuals then why is it deemed to be an unacceptable orientation?
I think you have started rambling away here in an effort to have the last word.
I think that anyone with the merest modicum of intelligence can understand that the way we (as a society) sterotype our children is a fact.
Pretty poor stuff for "royalty" Jaws.
percy toboggan
20-Oct-06, 19:40
I think Enoch Powell would have disagreed with your assertion that those were less tense times and that immigration was not much of a problem. I do not think for one minute that black people were happy with the words "Sambo" or "Nig Nog" at the time. The difference was that they pretty much had to accept the situation in those times. In 1976 the Notting Hill Carnival riots were a result of the Black community standing up and deciding that enough was enough. The way the Police treated them was changed radically after that time.
I don't think name calling can ever be "healthy" and while it is possible to argue for, or against, "Love Thy Neighbour" being racist, it is undeniable that it is not funny, unless you are, as I was at the time, 10 years old or less.
So, you think Enoch Powell would not view todays race relations as more tense than during the nineteen seventies. Were he alive today he would probably be garnering votes on the back of it. It's much more of a tinderbox. Those mad staring eyes which sadly deflected from the validity of a truth teller, some would say genius. I wouldn't, incidentally.
Humour is subjective though Scorrie and what might make one rock with laughter as a ten year old could pale into puerile tripe as one matures.
Love thy Neighbour?
Well, as I said I laughed 'a bit' mostly at the name calling on both sides. I was older than you when I saw it first time around and I did not laugh back then. Only latterly. since the emergence of po faced multi-culturalists and the birth of political correctness can I laugh at the freedom of speech and expression we had to mock and offend back then - on both sides. We took it for granted at our peril and it slipped away , silently and stealthily to be replaced by a bland and bleak landscape of tight lipped restraint.
Mockery and offence are a part of life. A small part. We need to roll with it, not stifle it.
So, you think Enoch Powell would not view todays race relations as more tense than during the nineteen seventies. Were he alive today he would probably be garnering votes on the back of it. It's much more of a tinderbox. Those mad staring eyes which sadly deflected from the validity of a truth teller, some would say genius. I wouldn't, incidentally.
Humour is subjective though Scorrie and what might make one rock with laughter as a ten year old could pale into puerile tripe as one matures.
Love thy Neighbour?
Well, as I said I laughed 'a bit' mostly at the name calling on both sides. I was older than you when I saw it first time around and I did not laugh back then. Only latterly. since the emergence of po faced multi-culturalists and the birth of political correctness can I laugh at the freedom of speech and expression we had to mock and offend back then - on both sides. We took it for granted at our peril and it slipped away , silently and stealthily to be replaced by a bland and bleak landscape of tight lipped restraint.
Mockery and offence are a part of life. A small part. We need to roll with it, not stifle it.
I quite agree with you. Enoch would probably have a lot more support these days. I just wanted to make the point that I didn't think Love Thy Neighbour was a "healthy" vehicle as there was racial tension at the time, albeit on a smaller scale to today.
As for the humour, each to his own, as you say. Still, I would be willing to bet that Love Thy Neighbour would be a candidate for a Nafta, rather than a Bafta in any poll of sane critics.
I understand where you are coming from on Political Correctness gone mad. I recall two remarks from sporting commentaries which both incited quite a bit of complaint at the time. The first was a golf commentator who simply happened to use the phrase "Chink in his armour" at the wrong time, when commentating on an oriental golfer. The other was a horse racing commentator who though that one horse might be "The Nigger in the woodpile". My personal feeling is that the former example was unavoidable as it is impossible to vet every word for offensive potential, however the latter example was something that was quite obviously potentially offensive.
I am all for freedom of speech but do not really see why we need to mock and cause offence? Mockery and offence may be a small part of life but they can cause big problems. Why can't we be free to speak in a manner that makes our point in as dignified and respectful a way as possible? Is it that we really need to be like opposing teams on a football terrace, trading the most basic and vilest insults?
Thanks for your high quality comeback on my earlier post.
Mockery and offence are a part of life. A small part. We need to roll with it, not stifle it.
For once percy we can almost agree about something. I dont think it's such a small part though and rather than rolling with it I try to understand it. I think the essence of all discrimination, whether racist or sexist or just plain personal is the same. We dont have different compartments in our brains for disliking homos or pakistanis or unmarried mothers. It's all the same stuff.
Political correctness is here as a result of prejudicial attitudes towards others and its still in its infancy. It will change too. This is a transitional period and old time traditionalists like the Rev Wallace and percy are hanging on by the skin of their teeth.
percy toboggan
20-Oct-06, 22:33
Rev Wallace and percy are hanging on by the skin of their teeth.
I'm ready to let go. All I need is a modest house, clean air and a dog to walk by the shore. I cannot keep weeing agin the wind and I realise it. Folks like me are dying off, and the replacement rate though it exists , is insufficient.
I hope to have some respite though, before I shuffle off.
If there is room in God's house for Homosexuals then why is it deemed to be an unacceptable orientation?
I think you have started rambling away here in an effort to have the last word.
I think that anyone with the merest modicum of intelligence can understand that the way we (as a society) stereotype our children is a fact.
Pretty poor stuff for "royalty" Jaws.I haven't said that it is an unacceptable orientation. I am divorced, there are some Christian Congregations who will refuse to re-marry me because of their beliefs. Should I wish to remarry in a Christian "Establishment" (to cover the various names used for the actual building) it is up to me to find one which finds my re-marriage acceptable. The responsibility is on me to find one, not for me to demand all varieties of Christianity accept my viewpoint. I must find a room in God's House to suit me.
I would expect no Christian Congregation to turn me away completely for being divorced, likewise I would expect none to turn away Homosexuals. In fact, I can't think of one which does as a matter of course.
I would point out, at this stage, that the points I am making relate only to the Church of Scotland and what I understand to be it's position on the Ordination of homosexuals and towards the Blessing of Partnerships between same sex couples.
Should any Christian Congregation deem that all homosexuals should be excluded from their Communion I would be just has horrified and condemnatory as I suspect most people would be.
I am not looking at the question from a point of view of morality, I consider that would be a different question, but from how a particular section of a Religion interprets it's Beliefs and who should be allowed to promote them.
Couldn't care less about who has the last word, I really couldn't. All I was pointing out is that should animal behaviour be used to illustrate one form of human activity then that allows animal behaviour to illustrate others. That particular can of worms was not opened by me, I simply extended the example further.
With respect to male/female stereo-typing, I suggest a quick check on the latest studies on the difference in the physical connections and the methods human male and female brains use to operate and how that affects what either sex is normally better at doing.
Sorry I have insufficient intelligence to see that the vast majority of society are bringing up their children in a totally unacceptable manner. Strange thing is, Humanity seems to have survived quite well whilst labouring under that ridiculous method of stereo-typing.
As to the last comment, was that meant to further the discussion? If it was meant for other reasons then I find it rather amusing even though it serves no point.
Just to make one thing clear for the benefit of the board, I personally have no problem with homosexuals or homosexuality even though there are probably those who have already written me off as a homophobe.
The problem I have is with the attitude, which seems to be prevalent amongst some groups at the present time, that anybody who questions or makes any suggestion, even of the mildest kind, about any subject which those groups have decided is beyond discussion becomes immediately labelled as some sort of hate monger and extremist who should be silenced and shunned by decent society.
Do please feel free to have the last word, scorrie, I don't mind letting you have it in the least. [lol]
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.