View Full Version : Bigoted Secularists
I read a report in the P&G today concerning the new rights for gay people that became law from today. Apparently the western Isles Council is not going to comply because no one will perform the ceremonies where gay couples can marry. One Christian minister said he was delighted that bigoted secularists were not able to impose their will on the local people who would normally conduct those ceremonies.
I wonder how they stand in law and could the Scottish Parliament impose a travelling registrar on them, who would conduct the ceremonies in public buildings?
I think what a lot of people forget its year 2005 not the year 1705
I'm afraid that registrars who will perform only opposite-sex ceremonies elicit the same anger in me as pharmacists who don't believe in dispensing RU-486 or even the contraceptive pill(!!!!!).
If you can't do the job, don't go down that career path you big bunch of eejits.
I think that any registrar who refuses to perform same-sex ceremonies should be sacked. I genuinely believe that employment tribunals would err on the side of the law rather than the side of the eejits who rant about "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve".
I dont think it should be encouraged. the kids nowadays are growing up to think its normal infact almost fashionable.
Lianachan
20-Dec-05, 00:32
The Scottish Executive say they're prepared to fly in external registrars if neccessary.
Having lived in the Western Isles for <too many> years, I don't think the social climate is condusive to gay marriage in the first place.
I dont think it should be encouraged. the kids nowadays are growing up to think its normal infact almost fashionable.
Oh yes; I mean after the rise and rise of kd lang, I could no longer hide my lesbianism. Just too fashionable to keep under wraps you know! Now if I could just find a darling woman to marry me, my world would be complete!
I dont think it should be encouraged. the kids nowadays are growing up to think its normal infact almost fashionable.that is my opinion so all you buffoons who jumped in to bad rep me ask yourselves"what is normal",
...ask yourselves"what is normal",
Why does something have to be 'normal' before it is accepable?
Why does something have to be 'normal' before it is accepable?I can choose myself as to what I find acceptable. I have nothing against gay people I just think gay marriage is a no no. thats my opinion and im afraid I can think whatever I like. Does every-one have to agree with your opinion?
I have nothing against gay people...
Heaven forbid! You just think that their lifestyles are abnormal and that they choose to be gay to be fashionable. Nooooo, you have nothing against them at all. :rolleyes:
thats my opinion and im afraid I can think whatever I like. Does every-one have to agree with your opinion?
I didn't say you weren't entitled to your opinion... I only asked you why something had to be normal before it was acceptable.
If you don't feel able to explain why you believe what you do about homosexuals then that is fine, but don't hide behind feigned indignance to a charge that I never made.
if it is against a persons belief to do something then no i dont think they should be forced to do it.
obviously .. homosexuality is a very touchy subject.
i have several gay friends back home .. and it dosent bother me at all *laughs*
in fact the cheeky monkeys allway were the ones making the gay jokes!
but obvioulsy everyone cant be gay or we would be in trouble as a society *grins* well pop control wouldnt be an issue!
i like men myself! *winks*
anywho..
back to subject.. if you find some one you love deeply thats what matters..
there is nothing wrong with that.. however i do think that it should be kept private just like in any other relationship.. be it straight gay or bi.. dosent matter a relationship is a very personal thing.. and between the people involved.. its not like they are out in public having umm "relations"
what a person does in privacy is that private..
i would prefer my boys to grow up marry and have kids but lets face it no one will be good enough for my babies male or female *grins*
but i will support them whatever their choices..
anyhow im getting carried away!
but again if its against someones personal belief then no do not think they should be forced to do something but have another to do it..
I have no problem with this but am I the only parent of a 10 year old who is already struggling to explain the birds and bee's and then the Dolce and Gabanna advert comes on and 2 men kiss at the end and they turn round wanting it explained!!! I like to think about these things before I explain them badly and hate to be put on the spot lol.
If I refused to perform a part of my current job just because I was wrestling with my concience then there would be either or two things happening.
a) I would seek other employment.
b) I would be forced to seek other employment.
Surely the registrars have breached their terms and conditions of their employment, they are officers of the law of the land afterall?
Is stem cell research and cloning normal? No.
Is abortion normal? No.
Is pumping chickens and turkeys full of growth hormones etc. normal? No.
Is burning fossil fuels and increasing the Co2 in the atmosphere causing abnormal heating of the Earth's atmosphere normal? No.
Is a man and woman getting married normal? Yes.
Is a man and a man getting married normal? No.
I guess that marriage is one of the normal things in a abnormal world. So when the rules change on that "foundation of society" then that's why there is some resistance to it.
Probably when registrars became registrars they never invisioned having to perform same-sex marriages. It never entered their thoughts. Now the rules have changed and some feel that they can't in good conscience do it.
If we are such a permissive and tolerent society, is there not room for permission and toleration of their right to refuse? If not then are you not lowering yourselves to the same type of bigotry that you accuse them of?
I can't see what all the fuss is about quite honestly.:confused:
Is[...] normal[...]normal?
Define normal.
Some states of the US and other countries support polygamy. Is that normal?
The UK supports first cousin marriages. Is that normal?
In 250,000 years of human history, civil marriage has only a 170 year history, is marriage normal?
We are members of a message forum. Is that normal?
Are you normal? Am I?;)
<snip>
Are you normal? Am I?;)
I know I'm not. :D
George Brims
20-Dec-05, 18:26
Sorry Rheghead but you have it wrong there about the polygamy thing in the US. NO states allow it, not even Utah, where the Mormons make up a majority of the population. The Mormons were persecuted because of their habit of polygamy, and basically made a deal with the state that they would give it up if their religion was to be tolerated i.e. they were to be given the same rights to religious freedom as everyone else. Now there are small groups of renegade Mormons (cut off from the mainstream church) who do still practice polygamy, but they are prosecuted for it from time to time.
I love the irony of some minister who wants to impose his narrow religious view on other peoples' lives complaining about "bigoted" secularists.
What's the problem? How many mixed sex marriages are really true to the words of the ceremony anyway?
You get a man and woman who never go to church but want to get married there so they go to the services for a few weeks before-hand to keep the "defence" honest and probably never set foot there again until the next wedding or funeral they attend. How many mixed-sex marriages end in divorce after a relatively short time, what happened to "till death"?
Who is to say that someone's love for a person of the same sex is not as worthy as if it were for someone of the opposite sex? They may well live their lives with the true-commitment to each other that the ceremony suggests and I would applaud that ahead of some phoney religious service for people with no religious commitment but who like the idea of the Big Church Wedding.
what does it say in the bible about same sex relationships??????
nothing good *G* do you want verse by verse or just that it is unatural and against it?
what does it say in the bible about same sex relationships??????
What does it say in the Bible about stoning disobedient children to death?
You either believe in it all or you accept that some of it is a work of fiction.
The new law permits Civil Partnerships in order to protect the basic rights of people who co-habit over a period of time and wish to name their partner as their next of kin regardless of sex.It merely gives to a partnership of whatever ilk the same rights in law as a married couple.
If people chose to celebrate registering their civil partnership then why should they not?
This is NOT a marriage merely bringing within the human rights law those that have been discriminated against in the past.
Oh and by the way, I gather that no one has applied for a civil partnership in The Western Isles so isn't the horse being put before that cart?
what does it say in the bible about same sex relationships??????
What does it matter? The bible was written when people still believed in dragons and all sorts of other nonsense. Who would do anything in their life using a handbook that was 2000 years out of date? Even Windows 95 is obsolete, what makes you think that the bible can last for eternity? Times move on, people move on but old religious hokum lives on. When is Bible 2 coming out?
ps Irate, Tunbridge Wells need not reply!!
what does it say in the bible about same sex relationships??????
I read somewhere and I quote:
" The Bible has 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. This doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. Its just that they need more supervision."
I have nothing against same sex marriage. But if a registrar does not want to perform this ceremony, then they should be excused, I'm sure there are plenty more who will. Same as a doctor or nurse who do not believe in abortion can opt out of performing one.
Oh and by the way, I gather that no one has applied for a civil partnership in The Western Isles so isn't the horse being put before that cart? On PM (Radio4) this afternoon they were interviewing the Western Isles councillor who chairs the committee responsible for this decision. He said that the Western Isles are the most tolerant place he has ever been, welcoming all people regardless of their sexuality. He even went so far as to say that he knows gay people.
A gay man from the Western Isles emailed the show to say that he hides his sexuality because to be openly gay in the Western Isles would bring shame upon his village.
Now, whom do you believe here; a councillor who says on the one hand that his community is open to same-sex relationships whilst on the other he prohibits the ceremony to celebrate those relationships, or a gay man who says he hides his sexuality every day because he believes he would be ostracised if he didn’t?
If you believe the gay man, are you surprised that gay people in his area haven’t applied for a civil partnership?
If you believe the councillor then perhaps you can explain to me why he felt it necessary to ban the ceremony in the most tolerant place he has ever been? I ask because the interviewer asked the councillor and he didn’t seem to have an answer.
I have nothing against same sex marriage. But if a registrar does not want to perform this ceremony, then they should be excused, I'm sure there are plenty more who will. They should be excused? They should be sacked; there are plenty more who will do the job and do it properly, without moral judgements which have no place in their professional lives.
Same as a doctor or nurse who do not believe in abortion can opt out of performing one. That's a dire analogy, katarina. Doctors and nurses can specialise in many areas. We wouldn't excuse them if they opted to work in a clinic that provided abortion or pre- or post-abortion care and then refused to have anything to do with abortion. That would make them eejits if they tried.
This country just woke up and realised it's the 21st Century. Being a registrar involves, at long last, performing ceremonies for any couple whose partnership can be recognised in law. If the registrars don't like it, they ought to find themselves new jobs.
I believe everyone has a right to be guided by their own conscience. Same sex marriages were not an issue when most registrars took on the job.
And since those in the medical profession are there to save life, they should be allowed to refuse to end it if it is against their beliefs.
Hey Drutt,
All humor aside, mind a while back we were in a thread about this same subject and I was asking you what a gay union/wedding etc was like?
Well, its funny how the world turns, I have been invited to a gay wedding next year, fancy that! I'll be able to find out for mysel...
if a registrar does not want to perform this ceremony, then they should be excused
I believe everyone has a right to be guided by their own conscience.
What if they had moral objections to mixed-race marriages? Plenty of people do so it is feasible that a registrar somewhere does. Should they be excused from performing any ceremony at such a wedding? What if they have a conscientious objection to people marrying if there is an age gap greater than ten years?
In 2000, the council carried out an audit of its own policies regarding ‘Quality of Life’ and subsequently prepared a set of ‘themes of sustainability’. Number 10 reads:
People live without fear of crime, persecution or discrimination because of their personal beliefs, race, gender, sexuality or disability.
(http://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/qualityoflife/15THEMES.htm)
How can throwing their support behind a bunch of bigoted registrars possibly do anything but show gay people that their community flat-out rejects them?
Well, its funny how the world turns, I have been invited to a gay wedding next year, fancy that! I'll be able to find out for mysel... Marvellous stuff... I do like a wedding (so long as nobody expects me to wear a hat). Is it in Scotland?
I do hope you and all the wedding party have a great time... it'll be a long overdue celebration. Unless they've just met, of course, and then it meets with my stern disapproval. ;)
I believe everyone has a right to be guided by their own conscience. Same sex marriages were not an issue when most registrars took on the job. It's a matter of equality and of removing discrimination against same-sex couples. Who cares what the job used to be? This is the job now. They should shape up or ship out.
And since those in the medical profession are there to save life, they should be allowed to refuse to end it if it is against their beliefs. Katarina! Why are you persisting with this analogy? It's dismal. The two are not comparative in any way. Dealing with abortion is not compulsory in the field of medicine, no, but how does that have anything to do with registrars wilfully refusing to conduct their full job?
It's not medicine; it doesn't have specialisations. They don't get to pick whether they marry single parents, divorcees, young people, old people, short people. Their job is to provide a registration and ceremonial service to couples who are recognised in law. The law overrides their morals. They need to leave their morals at home or... get a new job!
Is it in Scotland?
What do you think? in the land of Calvin and Knox....?
Joke.
Q/ Why do Wee Free's not have sex standing up?
A/ They think it might lead to dancing.
No its over the water, and they have been together for 10 years... the bridesmaids will be out of play I suppose - ah well - the music will make up for it.
No its over the water, and they have been together for 10 years... the bridesmaids will be out of play I suppose - ah well - the music will make up for it.
Ah, a long-overdue celebration then. :cool:
You've got me curious now though... Canada?
You've got me curious now though... Canada?
To be honest not sure where exactly it is - just know I have to go and I have to promise to be on my best behaviour... south US somehere I think... but not Arne Land.
Maybe I've picked it up wrong but he report on the TV I saw said the registrars weren't refusing to carry out the civil ceremony, they were willing to carry out the legal side of things, they just weren't willing to carry it out as a religeous ceremony.
If that is the case, fair enough in my opinion. Forcing the registrars to carry out something which they believe is against the teachings of their religion is secularist in itself. Thats like forcing a jew to eat a bacon roll.
Lianachan
21-Dec-05, 01:21
Maybe I've picked it up wrong but he report on the TV I saw said the registrars weren't refusing to carry out the civil ceremony, they were willing to carry out the legal side of things, they just weren't willing to carry it out as a religeous ceremony.
No, you've picked it up exactly right. I heard a Western Isles council spokesman on Radio Scotland this afternoon, and that's what he said.
I mentioned it on this thread already, but having lived in the Western Isles for years - I don't think the social climate is condusive to such ceremonies.
Another report in the P&J today quoted a gay man who maintains the local community is very respectful of his sexual orientation. He backed the registrars in their stance against performing the ceremonies.
Perhaps he grew up believing some of the "unnatural" stories he heard from his tollerant neighbours concerning homosexuality. He is perfectly happy to be discriminated against for the sake of being accepted by his neighbours. His neighbours will be perfectly happy to accept him as long as he doesnt rock the boat.
I see similar "understandings" at work in Thurso. Its that taboo thing again.
The registrars will sign the legal documents but refuse to perform the ceremony.
Maybe I've picked it up wrong but he report on the TV I saw said the registrars weren't refusing to carry out the civil ceremony, they were willing to carry out the legal side of things, they just weren't willing to carry it out as a religeous ceremony.
If that is the case, fair enough in my opinion. Forcing the registrars to carry out something which they believe is against the teachings of their religion is secularist in itself. You’re right, you have picked it up wrong..
The ceremony that they are refusing to carry out is not religious at all; it is a civil ceremony in exactly the same way as a heterosexual couple choosing to marry at the Registrar’s Office would have a civil ceremony. A friend married at a Registrar’s Office not long ago and the registrar was so adamant that it is not a religious ceremony that my friend was not allowed religious music and readings could not be from religious texts.
Now if a person truly has such a high level of religious fervour that they believe that marriage is not open to interpretation by the society of today but should, instead, be a sacrosanct affair as God intended, what are they doing working as a registrar? All of the marriages they conduct are bereft of religion so surely they object to them all?
Religion is simply an excuse. The truth of the matter is that they are intolerant toward gay people. Nothing more and nothing less.
Whitewater
21-Dec-05, 11:13
I must spend some time and learn how to use quotes again.
Hereboy quote:-
''Q/ Why do Wee Free's not have sex standing up?
A/ They think it might lead to dancing.''
Brilliant 'hereboy', I laughed out loud at that one.
On a more serious side, the Western Isles are not a very liberal society. I recall a few years ago when the late Lord Mackay was thrown out of the Free Church because he attended the funeral of one of his Catholic friends. If that is what the council classes a tolerant society I think they should wake up and get into the 21st century
Sorry Rheghead but you have it wrong there about the polygamy thing in the US. NO states allow it, not even Utah, where the Mormons make up a majority of the population. The Mormons were persecuted because of their habit of polygamy, and basically made a deal with the state that they would give it up if their religion was to be tolerated i.e. they were to be given the same rights to religious freedom as everyone else. Now there are small groups of renegade Mormons (cut off from the mainstream church) who do still practice polygamy, but they are prosecuted for it from time to time.
I love the irony of some minister who wants to impose his narrow religious view on other peoples' lives complaining about "bigoted" secularists.
George is correct on this one. I lived in Utah for two years and I found that multiple marriages are no longer allowed. There are a few isolated communities that do have multiple marriages, but they are against state law as well as federal law.
As for rights of homosexual people to marry one another, that is still being argued throughout the USA.
When I was in the military during WW2 I fought against one of those who wanted to push his gay rights against me when he crawled into my sack. He caused enough problems to get transferred back to the states. Perhaps that is what he wanted and used that method to get what he wanted - a transfer back to the states. If he had been aboard a ship he might have ended up overboard which I heard did happen to some who attempted those things.
I'm all for this same sex marriages, I think think its about time our country moved with the times. Recognising homosexual relationships on a civil level is a good thing for people in such situations. I'm very impressed this was implemented.
Now, as for Registrars refusing to do the ceremonies, its a load of tosh. Excuse them from performing this duty? I think not.
"It wasn't part of the job when they took it on"... And your point is?
Fact is, job descriptions change as time goes by. I work in a pub, if from the 26th of March I all of a sudden refuse to impliment the smoking ban, I'll lose my job. I don't agree with it, but it(you can add the SH to that word if you want) happens. These Registrars need to move with the times and stop living in the past.
The Bible is something else thats been mentioned in this thread. Its a joke if you ask me, its over 2000 years old. Like someone else pointed out, can we really live our life by a book that was written so long ago? The world has evolved so much in this time, we couldn't possibly live our lives like they did back then. As far as I'm concerned, its a good story and nothing else. People should watch Dogma and have a laugh at the Bible
My own opinion is mixed. No matter how much I try to accept homosexuality as normal, theres still something whirring deep in my socks that seems to question its rightness. I canna ignore it because it feels real. When I intelectualize about homosexuality I find its easy enough to give it equal morality to other legal forms of sexuality but I still cant ignore the bit that questions it. Ive been working on it for a few years now and I have to admit my opinions have gone from one as righteous as Geezers or Katerinas to one where I realise the problem lies in me and not in homosexuality.
Its a bit like a virus. I grew up being infected by other peoples thoughts concerning homosexuality. None of them were positive and all of them were shameful and immoral. Thats whats still whirring around in the depths of my socks.
This is a brave move by a progressive government and like all things in life, me included, its part of a process that is going to shape the future.
Although I wouldnt suggest sacking the registrars, especially at this time of year, I would suggest they were re-trained by de-brainwashing experts, showing them the virus that has inhabited their souls from the time they were born. How else can the world change if we dont change?
I guess its the same with old people who modern society may see as racist. They ain't really racist when they use non-PC names such as Chinky or Paki etc, it's just the way these people have been brought up. Times are changing and although there are still single-minded idiots out there who are racists, I think the scales are tipping towards a less racist culture.
We can't igrnore homosexual people any longer and what the government has done is impressive. I have no moral objection to their relations, we can't help our feelings or who we fall in love with. If a man falls in love with another man, or a woman with another woman, it shouldn't be ignored because religion see's it as immoral. If you fall in love with someone society deems as ugly or too old/young they don't stop you marrying him or her.
When I was in the military during WW2 I fought against one of those who wanted to push his gay rights against me when he crawled into my sack. He caused enough problems to get transferred back to the states. Perhaps that is what he wanted and used that method to get what he wanted - a transfer back to the states. If he had been aboard a ship he might have ended up overboard which I heard did happen to some who attempted those things.
I don't understand... are you suggesting that gay men are inherently unable to control themselves when around other men? What is the relevance of this little anecdote?
Whitewater
22-Dec-05, 10:59
Society is changing, I have some lifelong friends who are gay and I have had no difficulty in accepting that, their behaviour, manners, and attitude towards myself, family and friends has always been impeccable, they have never caused my wife or family embarassment at any time.
I think it is time it was brought out into the open, it's been with us as long as man has roamed the earth, it is time we accepted it.
I've been away and netless for a few days, so I haven't had the opportunity to open my big mouth on this topic. FWIW I agree with the "usual suspects": drutt, jjc, rheghead, jeid, whitewater, ...
While we're on the topic of weddings with a difference, I heard yesterday about this one (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/25/content_403182.htm). Gulp -- that's an age difference of 54 years! What do you think of that?
Before anyone asks -- no, I don't know either of them.
Ah, Szin, you must be forgetting about the case of Anna Nicole Smith, 27 year old stripper/poor excuse for an actress and J. Howard Marshall, a 89-year-old wheelchair-bound oil billionaire.
Thats an age difference of 62years! They married in 1994 and he died in 1995. Nobody objected to them getting married, but his son's did when it came to the will etc.
No, I hadn't forgotten about Anna Nicole Smith and her "old man". In fact, they came to mind immediately.
I can see how a young woman like Ms Smith might meet a rich old man and turn into a gold digger. But it's not so obvious with an old physicist, even if he does have a Nobel Prize. :confused:
A Comment for the Bible-bashers (bashing in the negative way):
Have you ever read the Bible?
The Bible claims to be the Word of God (our Creator). If it is, why would the fact that most of it is over 2000 years old make any difference?
Are you celebrating Christmas this year? If you think the Bible is completely out of date with the modern world, why are you celebrating Christmas?
Why do you refer to this year as 2005? and next year as 2006?
Like it or not the Bible has had a profound effect on your life already.....I wonder what else it has in store for you?
;)
Valid point savey, but I think in today's society, the true meaning of Christmas is actually lost amongst kids. Christmas is much and such like Valentine's Day... an easy way to make money. Commercial companies know what kids want and the exploit that.
When was the last time you heard a child say "oh, we must remember that this is the celebration of the birth of christ"
I don't think I ever have. Kids think its all about Santa and presents.
I'm celbrating Christmas, but not because I believe anything that's written in a book of quotes. I'm celebrating it because it's a time that you can be with everyone who you care about and who cares about you, have a nice meal, exchange gifts and have a good time.
It's tradition, not because I believe in God, but because it's what I've grown up with. If it wasn't there in the first place, we wouldn't of known it to miss it.
As for the year, its a number. We're taught it at school.
Out of curiosity, what do other religions see the year as? Do they too see it as 2005?
The Bible claims to be the Word of God (our Creator). If it is, why would the fact that most of it is over 2000 years old make any difference? Well, I guess that depends on whether you believe that the Bible is the word of God. Personally, I don’t. I believe that it is a millennia-old book of fables written by the Brothers Grimm of its day.
Are you celebrating Christmas this year? No, but I shall be having a very happy few days off work.
If you think the Bible is completely out of date with the modern world, why are you celebrating Christmas? I’m not.
Why do you refer to this year as 2005? and next year as 2006? Because if I didn’t use the same calendar as everybody else I’d be late filling in my tax return and I’d have to pay a fine.
-------------------------------------------------------------
There, I believe that I’ve answered your questions so perhaps you’ll answer one of mine.
Does the Bible not say that anybody who blasphemes or curses should be stoned to death? Does the Bible not tell us to stone our “stubborn or rebellious sons”? Does the Bible not tell us that any woman who was not a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death on at her father’s doorstep?
If what you say is true and the Bible really is the word of God, why do you ignore his commandments?
When I was at school, I don't remember the Bible telling anyone that jjc.
Care to give us some references to that?
actually jjc all that was in the old testement under the law of moses that was changed in teh new testement by Jesus.. when it was proclaimed that the law of moses had been fufilled..
Jesus actually stopped stonings.. remember the adultress?
that was to be stoned? Jesus said let he who has no sin cast the first stone.
thus disbanning the mob and helping the woman.
Jesus if you read the new testement. was full of forgivness and allowance for mankind and our weakness.. Jesus understood that we are not perfect and usually weak in the arms of temptation.
but at the end of the day basically good souls for the majority and that everyone makes mistakes and as long as we learn from them and try to better ourselves.. that is what counts.. now this is not going into deep religion but basic principles.
I always thought that if God had made the Universe perfect in the first place then He wouldn't of had to bother sending his kid down to sort the mess out.
Never send a boy to do a man's work? Never has a saying been so true. World's still a mess :)
<snip>
There, I believe that I’ve answered your questions so perhaps you’ll answer one of mine.
Does the Bible not say that anybody who blasphemes or curses should be stoned to death? Does the Bible not tell us to stone our “stubborn or rebellious sons”? Does the Bible not tell us that any woman who was not a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death on at her father’s doorstep?
If what you say is true and the Bible really is the word of God, why do you ignore his commandments?
The Bible does say these things. They are part of the Law given to Moses.
The death of Jesus removed the obligation on all to follow this Law code.
I quote from Galatians 3 v 23-25
"But before the time for faith came, the Law kept us all locked up as prisoners until this coming faith should be revealed. And so the Law was in charge of us until Christ came, in order that we might then be put right with God through faith. Now that the time for faith is here, the Law is no longer in charge of us."
There are quite a few other scriptures from the "New Testament" showing that Christians would no longer be required to keep the old Law.
Hope this answers your questions.
When I was at school, I don't remember the Bible telling anyone that jjc.
Care to give us some references to that? Sure, no problem:
Does the Bible not say that anybody who blasphemes or curses should be stoned to death?
Leviticus 24:16 - And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death
Leviticus 24:24 – And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Does the Bible not tell us to stone our “stubborn or rebellious sons”?
Deuteronomy 21:20 – And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
Deuteronomy 21:21 – And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all of Israel shall hear and fear.
Does the Bible not tell us that any woman who was not a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death on at her father’s doorstep?
Deuteronomy 22:13 – If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
Deuteronomy 22:14 - And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
Deuteronomy 22:15 - Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
Deuteronomy 22:20 - But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Deuteronomy 22:21 - Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
The fact that God swaps and changes his mind every 5 minutes proves to me that God is imperfect or Human's interpretation of God is imperfect which are one of the same anyway as Man created God in his own image.
There are quite a few other scriptures from the "New Testament" showing that Christians would no longer be required to keep the old Law.
Ah, so we're on The Word of God v1.1 these days? But then, how many translations do we have?
King James felt it necessary to have his own version (v1.3?) so I guess there was something in the version before that he felt should be tweaked. How many others have had a hand in interpreting the 'Word of God'?
The fact that God swaps and changes his mind every 5 minutes proves to me that God is imperfect or Human's interpretation of God is imperfect which are one of the same anyway as Man created God in his own image.
When parent sends their son or daughter to primary school and then secondary school, is that the parent changing their mind?
As time passes things change.
Ah, so we're on The Word of God v1.1 these days? But then, how many translations do we have?
King James felt it necessary to have his own version (v1.3?) so I guess there was something in the version before that he felt should be tweaked. How many others have had a hand in interpreting the 'Word of God'?
I think you'd enjoy a visit to the British Museum, nice comparison between the oldest manuscripts available and several modern translations. Its quite eye-opening.
Ah, so we're on The Word of God v1.1 these days? But then, how many translations do we have?
King James felt it necessary to have his own version (v1.3?) so I guess there was something in the version before that he felt should be tweaked. How many others have had a hand in interpreting the 'Word of God'?
As the great geeks(I haven't missed an 'r' out) of our day would say...
"If at first you don't succeed, call it v1.0"
When parent sends their son or daughter to primary school and then secondary school, is that the parent changing their mind?
As time passes things change.
I don't quite fully understand how you got that analogy to fit in to this but I will stick with it.
Since that parent has not had the benefit of a secondary education or any choice in the matter in sending her kid to a secondary school or not, then God proves to me to be either imperfect (uneducated) or not sentient as He has no choice in the way of things.
As time passes things change.
Precisely. You're starting to understand now. Things do change and a translation of a translation of a translation made hundreds of years ago may not actually be relevant in today’s society.
But let’s say for a second that you’re right and God did change his mind and write a second draft. Does the New Testament not tell us that wives should be ‘in subjugation’ to their husbands and that the wife is the ‘weaker vessel’ in relation to her husband?
I don't quite fully understand how you got that analogy to fit in to this but I will stick with it.
Since that parent has not had the benefit of a secondary education or any choice in the matter in sending her kid to a secondary school or not, then God proves to me to be either imperfect (uneducated) or not sentient as He has no choice in the way of things.
I was kinda vague there I agree :)
What I meant was that just as education and administration changes over time for children (as they grow and change, and the world grows and changes) so education and administration of God's people has changed over time.
Maybe we should just agree to disagree :)
Maybe we should just agree to disagree :)
I agree but be careful there, religious dogma doesn't allow that luxury! ;)
Precisely. You're starting to understand now. Things do change and a translation of a translation of a translation made hundreds of years ago may not actually be relevant in today’s society.
But let’s say for a second that you’re right and God did change his mind and write a second draft. Does the New Testament not tell us that wives should be ‘in subjugation’ to their husbands and that the wife is the ‘weaker vessel’ in relation to her husband?
Yes the Bible does say these things. Though I'm sure it says "in subjection" as opposed to "subjugation." And a quite a few people in the world today both agree with it and live their lives by it, because they truly believe it is the Word of God. (No, they're not all just men!) :)
If you don't want to then nobody will force you.
I agree but be careful there, religious dogma doesn't allow that luxury! ;)
LOL, again backed up by the Crusades.
I would think that luxury is essential for living in todays world.
Though I'm sure it says "in subjection" as opposed to "subjugation."
Quite right, thanks for spotting my mistake.
And a quite a few people in the world today both agree with it and live their lives by it
Do you? Do you believe that wives are less than their husbands and that they should subject themselves to them?
Quite right, thanks for spotting my mistake.
Do you? Do you believe that wives are less than their husbands and that they should subject themselves to them?
No, I don't believe that wives are less than their husbands.
Do you believe that people who do believe that and that live their lives by it should be forced to change?
When I was in the military during WW2 I fought against one of those who wanted to push his gay rights against me when he crawled into my sack. He caused enough problems to get transferred back to the states. Perhaps that is what he wanted and used that method to get what he wanted - a transfer back to the states. If he had been aboard a ship he might have ended up overboard which I heard did happen to some who attempted those things.
I don't understand... are you suggesting that gay men are inherently unable to control themselves when around other men? What is the relevance of this little anecdote?
What dont you understand about Marions posting jjc? I do! Whilst serving in the Merchant Navy on passenger ships in the 60's where of a crew of 600 males there were very few females in those days, of that 49% were "bent", a term used before the current term "Gay" was introduced.
As a result many a hetrosexual male crew member had unwarranted and unwanted advances by the homosexuals who were not able to control their urges, and in my experience they targeted the younger and more gulibile lads in the crew. So that is the relevance of this anecdote. Your term "Gay" men can be and were predetory.
Do you believe that people who do believe that and that live their lives by it should be forced to change?
No, but I do think that they should be encouraged to change.
That a person believes something because of their religion does not make it immutable and does not make it closed to discussion. "God" is used as a shield to cover too many wrongs.
So that is the relevance of this anecdote. Your term "Gay" men can be and were predetory.
As can straight men... sorry, but I still fail to see the relevance.
No, I don't believe that wives are less than their husbands.
So some of God's commandments are open to interpretation. How does one go about deciding which can be ignored and which cannot?
porshiepoo
22-Dec-05, 17:48
Seems such a shame that we progress from the years of 13 year olds able to marry and have children just to take a step back (IMO) and allow gay marriage.
I always thought I was ok with gay relationships and have never frowned on them or discriminated against gays, until now. The thought of gay couples being able to stand in front of a god and marry just seems..well....wrong!
The thought of gay couples being able to stand in front of a god and marry just seems..well....wrong!
It's a good job that they are joining in civil partnerships and not religious ones then.
So some of God's commandments are open to interpretation. How does one go about deciding which can be ignored and which cannot?
OK one more.....then I'm off (see http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=5490&page=2 for details)
Notice the scripture 1 Peter 3: 7 says to husbands: "Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered."
Does the Bible's principle that a husband should bestow honor on his wife recognizing that she is not as physically strong as him, indicate to you that woman should be viewed as less? Notice that they were “joint heirs of the grace of life” and that his prayers would be hindered if he didn't do this.
Being “in subjection” is not a role purely exclusive to wives. Husbands have to be “in subjection” too. Eph. 5:21-33. is excellent for explaining these principles.
Wives are not less than their husbands, they just play different roles in the family unit.
Its been good chatting with you all.
Savey
As a result many a hetrosexual male crew member had unwarranted and unwanted advances by the homosexuals who were not able to control their urges, and in my experience they targeted the younger and more gulibile lads in the crew.
reminds me of the old joke.
Q. How does the Navy separate the men from the boys?
A. With a crowbar.
Whilst serving in the Merchant Navy on passenger ships in the 60's where of a crew of 600 49% were "bent", a term used before the current term "Gay" was introduced.
As a result many a hetrosexual male crew member had unwarranted and unwanted advances by the homosexuals who were not able to control their urges, and in my experience they targeted the younger and more gulibile lads in the crew. So that is the relevance of this anecdote. Your term "Gay" men can be and were predetory.
Hey golach, change a few words and your quote reads like this: "A crew of 600 is 49% male. As a result many a female crew member had unwarranted and unwanted advances by the males who were not able to control their urges, and they targeted the younger and more gullible lassies in the crew."
You could also reverse the sexes in that paragraph, and I bet on some cruise ships, it would be true LOL
My point is: When it comes to the pursuit of sex, whether male or female, whether same sex or opposite sex....a person will pursue (flirt, romance, try to get them drunk, or propose marriage to) whoever they fancy. All people can be predatory.
Notice the scripture 1 Peter 3: 7 says to husbands: "Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered." Actually, it doesn’t. The copy I’m reading says:
“Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered.”
But let’s not squabble over just which of the many versions of God’s words we’re looking at…
Does the Bible's principle that a husband should bestow honor on his wife recognizing that she is not as physically strong as him, indicate to you that woman should be viewed as less? No, but the verse which says that the wife should be in subjection to the husband certainly does.
Being “in subjection” is not a role purely exclusive to wives. Husbands have to be “in subjection” too. Eph. 5:21-33. is excellent for explaining these principles. I’d like to see the passage in the Bible that states that the husband should be in subjection to the wife. Indeed, Ephesians 5:23 (which you cited in support of your interpretation) clearly says “For the husband is the head of the wife.” The other verses you reference (21 – 33) speak only of the husband ‘loving’ his wife. I had a pet dog when I was young. I loved that dog. We were far from equal.
George Brims
22-Dec-05, 20:16
Here is an example of why the ability to formalise your partnership, gay or straight, is a fundamental right that should be available to all.
Copied (without permission but I bet they don't mind) from the "Broadsheet" column at salon.com. To get to the links in various places read the original at http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/ (you have to scroll down quite far to get to it) .
After 23 years of service as an investigator in the Ocean County, N.J., prosecutor's office, Lt. Laurel Hester is dying of lung cancer. She would like her partner, Stacie Andree, to get her pension benefits.
The Ocean County Board of Freeholders would like Hester to get lost. The freeholders, the all-Republican governing body that sounds, and acts, like something out of the "Scarlet Letter," have denied her request for domestic partner benefits. Something about how it would "cost too much." Oh, and something about the "sanctity of marriage."
There's apparently a bit of a loophole in New Jersey's Domestic Partners Act of 2004. According to NJ.com, while that law covers state employees, it "also changed state law to permit -- but not require -- counties, cities and other local government entities to provide pension and health care benefits for domestic partners of their employees. More than 100 agencies have since adopted such resolutions, including Bergen and Hudson counties, NJ Transit, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority and a dozen towns, from Stone Harbor to Jersey City. Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) said not requiring local governments to adopt domestic partner benefits was 'the only way to get the bill through. We were well aware of the difficulties; that it was only a small step forward,' she said. 'It is something that we will have to come back and address in future legislative sessions.' For now, it has created a patchwork of law applied inequitably to public employees depending on local politics, according to Steven Goldstein of Garden State Equality, a gay rights organization."
Posted today at the Big Gay Picture: the first in a series of three interviews with Hester, who has otherwise shunned most press. The Republic of T. also has lots more info.
Without the benefits, by the way, Andree stands to lose the couple's house.
Hester has about six months to live.
Merry Christmas!
Maybe I've picked it up wrong but he report on the TV I saw said the registrars weren't refusing to carry out the civil ceremony, they were willing to carry out the legal side of things, they just weren't willing to carry it out as a religeous ceremony.
If that is the case, fair enough in my opinion. Forcing the registrars to carry out something which they believe is against the teachings of their religion is secularist in itself. Thats like forcing a jew to eat a bacon roll.
I totally agree with that.
I totally agree with that.
How many times? :eek:
It isn't a religious ceremony that they are refusing to carry out, it is a civil one.
How many times? :eek:
It isn't a religious ceremony that they are refusing to carry out, it is a civil one.
I'm not bothred - But you are so busy concidering the rights and wrongs you have not stopped to think of the couple involved. Gay or straight, would you really want your ceremony to be conducted by some one who has been forced to do it?
Personally to have the registrar cringing, looking at me as if I was something on the sole of their shoe, or avoiding looking at me at all would ruin my day. No matter how hard they try, I'm sure the distaste would communicate itself in some way.
If the person conducting the ceremony couldn't be happy for us and wish us well, I'd rather have someone else.
If the person conducting the ceremony couldn't be happy for us and wish us well, I'd rather have someone else.
Yes, absolutely, which is why those who can't or won't do the job should find new jobs.
Why are you defending the kind of people who would look at you as if you were something on the sole of their shoe?
I'm not bothred Am I bothered? Yeah, but am I bothered? Face! Does it look bothered? Yeah, but am I bothered? *sigh*
But you are so busy concidering the rights and wrongs you have not stopped to think of the couple involved. Oh please, tell me you aren’t about to claim you are thinking of the couple when you say that the registrars should be ‘guided by their conscience’! That would just be too much.
If you really have nothing against same-sex couples (as you claimed on page two) how about this option: if a registrar is not willing to do their job then they should find alternative employment – thus saving any same-sex couples they might be forced to marry the humiliation and annoyance of having their day ruined by an officially-sanctioned homophobe.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that seems like a better option for the couple than barring them from having a ceremony at all.
Oh, and whilst I’m on the subject of page two, you never did answer my question. What if the registrars of the Western Isles had a moral objection to mixed-race couples? Would you support a ban on ceremonies for them?
porshiepoo
22-Dec-05, 23:16
It's a good job that they are joining in civil partnerships and not religious ones then.
Still wrong though whatever slant they want to put on it!
Still wrong though whatever slant they want to put on it! Ummm... okay.
One question though. You said (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=42825&postcount=78)that you had always thought you had been okay about gay relationships and had never frowned upon or discriminated against gay people. You seemed to imply that you had changed your opinion because you thought it ‘wrong’ for same-sex couples to stand ‘in front of God and marry’.
Since they aren’t marrying before God, what really changed your opinion of homosexuals? I wonder if maybe you were never truly as tolerant as you would like us to believe.
jamesmoore
23-Dec-05, 00:52
ive been thinking about this,and ive come to the conclusion that id rather marry a man,because i believe he would make a better wife than a woman would.I think over the past couple of decades, men have taken on the roll of the woman more and more,men are becoming nurses,librarians,p.a's,house husbands while women on the other hand are driving trucks,buses,trains,running businesses etc.men still work in the transport industry but more so as the trolly dolly.Only this morning in the rain i witnessed an unbelievable amount of so called men with their oversized umbrellas not daring to put them down a second too soon,waiting till the bus had actually stopped and opened its doors.Whats that all about? Men were men 20 years ago!!This role reversal is going to continue and by my reckoning i would say in 200 years os so man will actually be giving birth and breast feeding too.
Well James, I read in the newscientist that the male chromosome is destined for self destruction due to irrepairable mutation, so we [males] are on a finite time.
Of course that has nothing to do with civil partnerships. Thinking about it, I might just send a gay couple (that I know) a xmas card just to enquire if they are having a do. They might even come up to honeymoon in Caithness:)
if a registrar is not willing to do their job then they should find alternative employment – thus saving any same-sex couples they might be forced to marry the humiliation and annoyance of having their day ruined by an officially-sanctioned homophobe.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that seems like a better option for the couple than barring them from having a ceremony at all.
Oh, and whilst I’m on the subject of page two, you never did answer my question. What if the registrars of the Western Isles had a moral objection to mixed-race couples? Would you support a ban on ceremonies for them?
Sigh. Yawn. Whatever the objections, they would have a better day if they were married by some one who approved and wished them well, rather than as you put it ' a sanctioned homophobic' or 'racist' in answer to your question.
Sigh. Yawn. Whatever the objections, they would have a better day if they were married by some one who approved and wished them well, rather than as you put it ' a sanctioned homophobic' or 'racist' in answer to your question. So rather than give them that option, you approve of the Western Isles Council's decision to ban them from having any ceremony at all? Could you explain why?
Oh, and I note that you still haven't answered the question about mixed-race marriages... is it possible that you are having a little difficulty justifying your own argument when the absurdity of it is pointed out to you?
Sigh and yawn all you like, but the fact remains that whilst you claim to have 'nothing against same sex marriage' you believe that it is absolutely right for a council to implement policies that discriminate against them.
So rather than give them that option, you approve of the Western Isles Council's decision to ban them from having any ceremony at all? Could you explain why?.
When did I say that? I do not approve of that decision. If you bothered to read my posts you would see that all I said was that no one should be forced to do something against their own beliefs.
Oh, and I note that you still haven't answered the question about mixed-race marriages... is it possible that you are having a little difficulty justifying your own argument when the absurdity of it is pointed out to you?
Again - read my posts - don't just assume what I'm saying. Did you not see the word 'racist' in my last post? I thought that more than answered your question. I have absolutely no difficulty justifying my own arguements, thank you very much.
No matter how abhorrent I find some peoples views to be, it is not for me or you to tell them what to do or not to do.
When did I say that? I do not approve of that decision. If you bothered to read my posts you would see that all I said was that no one should be forced to do something against their own beliefs. The registrars said that they would not perform ceremonies for same-sex couples. The councillors decided that they would not force the registrars to do their jobs and gave in to their demands. With one breath you say you disagree and with the next you agree. Which is it? Were the councillors wrong or were they right?
Again - read my posts - don't just assume what I'm saying. Did you not see the word 'racist' in my last post? I thought that more than answered your question. No, I'm afraid it didn't. You see, you don't seem to have any problem accepting a council policy which is inherently homophobic so the fact that you recognise that a similar policy banning mixed-race marriages would be racist really doesn't have much bearing on whether you would support that policy.
No matter how abhorrent I find some peoples views to be, it is not for me or you to tell them what to do or not to do. Really? Then who should?
I don't understand... are you suggesting that gay men are inherently unable to control themselves when around other men? What is the relevance of this little anecdote?
Evidently there are some who cannot control their sexual desires around other men. It happens all too often. It did not happen only to me, but to others as well. That was the reason for his transfer out of my military unit back to the states. That is how those things were handled back then during those days. The same problem happened when I was hitch hiking while in the States. The man who picked me up made an advance to me and I stated that was not my style and to please let me out of his car. What happens when one of those types makes an advance to you? Do you submit or do you take the same position as I did?
Evidently there are some who cannot control their sexual desires around other men. It happens all too often.
Define “all too often”. You still seem to be suggesting that there is something inherent in gay men that means they are unable to restrain themselves and will pounce on you whenever they see you.
You asked what I would do if a gay man made unwanted advances toward me. I’d do the same as anybody – man or woman – would do if anybody – straight or gay – made such advances. I’d decline.
What I would not do is assume that everybody of the same sexual persuasion would make the same advances. I’m simply not conceited enough to believe that every gay man or straight woman finds me irresistible.
It only takes one bad apple to ruin a barrel but one swallow doesn't make a summer.
and if a cat has kittens in the oven, it doesn't make them biscuits!
SandTiger
28-Dec-05, 02:41
what does it say in the bible about same sex relationships??????
Possibly...
A Summary
When one compares the original Hebrew and Greek writings with various English translations of the Bible, discrepancies emerge. There are many passages in English Bibles which clearly condemn same-sex activities. But when the original Hebrew or Greek text is studied, the passages are either ambiguous or are unrelated to consentual homosexuality within a committed relationship. Two words which are often mistranslated in many places in the Hebrew Scriptures are:
qadesh means a male temple prostitute who engaged in ritual sex; it is often mistranslated as “sodomite” or “homosexual.”
to’ebah means a condemned foreign Pagan religious cult practice, but often translated as “abomination.”We have concluded the following:
The Bible has a lot to say about temple prostitution, including homosexual ritual prostitution. This was a common practice within the Canaanite fertility religion; some believe that the practice was also taken up by some ancient Israelites.
God’s destruction of town of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality
The Bible says little about homosexual feelings.
It says nothing about sexual orientation; the concept of orientation dates only from the late 19th century.
A number of homosexual relationships are described positively or neutrally in the Bible
Of the many hundreds of Jesus’ instructions and prohibitions, few have a sexual component and none condemn homosexuality.
Paul may have condemned same-sex sexual activities by homosexuals, but the passages are unclear; there are many possible interpretations.
Bible translators must be aware of the errors that have been made in previous versions of the Bible; they are widely discussed in theological literature. But it would probably not be economically possible at this time to produce a translation of the Bible that was accurate. People are so used to expecting homophobic references in a half-dozen locations in scripture that they probably would not buy a Bible that was accurate to the original text, or which admitted that the meanings of certain words are unknown.A Caution
The words “homosexual” and “homosexuality” do not appear in the Bible—at least they are absent from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. The authors of the Bible did not understand sexual orientation; this concept was only developed in the late 19th century. The writers had little or no comprehension of same-sex committed relationships. Their languages had no words for these concepts. Rather, they assumed that everyone was heterosexual, but that some heterosexuals engaged in sex with persons of the same gender. Thus, when you see one of these terms in an English translation of the Bible, it is important to dig deeper and find what the original Hebrew or Greek text really means.
Bible References
In Biblical times, same-gender sexual interactions could take many forms. Some were:
kings of conquered tribes were sometimes raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation. Homosexual rape was also a way of humiliating visitors and strangers. These were acts of power and domination and had nothing in common with consentual sex by gays and lesbians.
some non-Jewish tribes in the area had male prostitutes in their temples who ritually engaged in same-sex activities; this horrified the ancient Israelites. Temple prostitution is no longer found in most areas of the world.
it was common within the Roman Empire for male adults to keep boy prostitutes for the purpose of sexual activity. The boys were often slaves. In modern times, this is considered child abuse, a criminal offense.
it is reasonable to assume that many loving gay and lesbian relationships existed in Biblical times, but these would normally have been conducted in secret.Only the last type would have any similarity to today’s gay and lesbian consentual, committed, loving relationships.
SandTiger
28-Dec-05, 02:43
People’s Beliefs Regarding the Bible
People differ greatly in their view of the Bible:
Generally speaking, Fundamentalists and other Evangelical Christians believe that:
the Bible, as originally written, is inerrent (infallible) and that God prevented the authors from making even a single error
every verse is useful in their understanding of God’s intentions
one should initially attempt to interpret each passage according to its literal meaning Many conservative Christians believe that certain translations are essentially free of error; e.g. the King James Version and the New International Version. Thus, when they read some of the passages that clearly and unmistakably condemn homosexuality, they are inclined to trust the translators and conclude that God hates homosexuality. Unfortunately, many groups of translators have been heavily biased against certain people, including Witches, gays and lesbians; many have tended to warp their translations accordingly.
More liberal Christians tend to look upon the Bible as containing many translation errors, whose verses should not necessarily all be taken at their face value. Sections which accept and regulate slavery, limit the rights of women and condemn homosexuality are some examples. Each Bible translation reflects the world view, beliefs and mind sets of its translators. Their personal biases distort their work. There is an additional complexity facing translators: today’s society is very different from that of Biblical times. It is sometimes difficult to find a current English word that closely matches a Hebrew or Greek term.
Specific Verses from the Hebrew Scriptures
Transferred to a separate file (http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/hom_bibh.htm) for size reasons.
Specific Verses from the Christian Scriptures
Transferred to a separate file (http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/hom_bibc.htm) for size reasons.
Same-Sex Relationships in the Bible
The Bible describes three emotionally close relationships (http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/hom_bmar.htm) between two people of the same gender. They appear to have progressed well beyond a casual friendship:
Ruth and Naomi
David and Jonathan
Daniel and Ashpenaz Daniel’s relationship appears to have been a committed homosexual partnership; the others may or may not have been sexually active. Conclusions
There may be as many as three references in the Bible to committed homosexual relationships, none of which was condemned.
Homosexual activity in the temple by male prostitutes is clearly prohibited by the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).
Prostitution, both heterosexual and homosexual is generally condemned.
Sexual abuse of boys by adult males is condemned
St. Paul considered at least some male and female homosexual acts to be forbidden, but it is unclear precisely which acts are included. He may have been referring to:
temple prostitution,
people who are not innately gay, lesbian or bisexual, but who engaged in homosexual acts,
to child sexual abuse, or
group sexual orgies. Paul was certainly aware of sexual orgies in Pagan temples, including both heterosexual and homosexual encounters. He would have been aware of the practice of male adults keeping a boy for sexual purposes. These may have been the only forms of same gender sex that he knew of. He did not appear to make any references in his writings to consentual, committed homosexual relationships. He probably did not know of any.
One should note that Paul also condemned women preaching (1 Cor 14:34) or wearing gold or pearls (1 Tim 2:11). He also accepted and did not condemn the institution of slavery. Many Christians feel that his writings reflect his own prejudices are not a particularly useful guide for ethics and morals in the 20th Century.
Jesus made many hundreds of statements regarding belief and behavior. However He never mentioned homosexuality.
It is the subject of endless debate whether St. Paul’s prohibition of at least some homosexual acts was:
for the people in the vicinity of the Mediterranean during the 1st Century CE, or
for all people, forever. One can argue that the ancient Israelites were surrounded by warlike tribes. Their fertility was very important if the group was to survive. The early Christian church was persecuted by the Roman government and by the Jewish religious leaders. Homosexuals tend to have few children; thus their presence would be met with opposition. At the end of the 20th Century, conditions are the exact opposite; we are threatened by our excessive fertility. Perhaps Paul’s criticism of homosexuality is no longer valid, like his various prohibitions against women’s behavior.
Internet and Published References
For more information on the Sodom, Gammora and Gibeah stories, see: http://student.uq.edu.au/~s101014/HMPGE2.html#page2 (http://student.uq.edu.au/%7Es101014/HMPGE2.html#page2)
For an analysis of some of the references to homosexuality in the Bible, see: http://www.theshop.net/information/homo1.htm (http://www.theshop.net/information/homo1.htm)
This is the home page of Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D., author of the book: “What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality”, Alamo Square Press, San Francisco CA (1994)
Dignity, New York has an extensive “Lesbian, Gay Bisexual Catholic Handbook” which is available at their site: http://www.bway.net/%7Ehalsall/lgbh.html#c3 (http://www.bway.net/%7Ehalsall/lgbh.html#c3)
“New American Bible”, Catholic Book Publishing Co., (1986), P. 249
Anon, “What does Leviticus 18:22 really say?”, National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA), PO Box 1391, Schenectady NY, 12301-1391 (1996)
Anon, “What does Leviticus 20:13 really say?”, NGPA (1996)
Anon, “Romans 1:26-27”, NGPA (1996)
Anon, “A Biblical Perspective on Same-Sex Marriage”, NGPA, (1994)
Father Basil Isaacs, “Proofx booklet”, Fountain of Life Western Orthodox Church Catholic Mission. Available for $2.50 from 1928 E. Highland, Suite F104-142, Phoenix, AZ 85016.
Barry Wick, “Myths Invoked in Letter”, Editorial, Rapid City Journal, 1997-APR-13
Jesus made many hundreds of statements regarding belief and behavior. However He never mentioned homosexuality.
kinda strange, since he had such strong views about everything else? There was a thread devoted to a play about this not so long ago.:rolleyes:
SandTiger
28-Dec-05, 03:10
kinda strange, since he had such strong views about everything else? There was a thread devoted to a play about this not so long ago.:rolleyes:
Well, he was prolly a closet Gay, innit?
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO... I feel I may have signed my own death warrant :rolleyes:
You asked what I would do if a gay man made unwanted advances toward me. I’d do the same as anybody – man or woman – would do if anybody – straight or gay – made such advances. I’d decline.
You must not have read my post very thoroughly. I am certain my comment was "I declined the advance."
Personally I find the theory presented in 'the DaVinci Code' that Mary Magdalene was in fact the wife of Jesus of Nazareth much more feasable than the assumtion that he was celebate all his life. After all he was a jew, and marriage and children was concidered the duty of jewish religious men. She seemed to be everywhere he was, she was at his feet with his mother when he died, she and his mother visited the tomb where he was laid - sounds more like a devoted wife than a prostitute he happened to save. Just a thought.....
You must not have read my post very thoroughly. I am certain my comment was "I declined the advance."
Sorry, I don’t understand. Perhaps I’m missing something – I’ve had a busy morning and I’m a little tired – but where did I suggest that you had done other than decline the advance? :confused:
Whitewater
28-Dec-05, 13:39
Katarina said:-
Personally I find the theory presented in 'the DaVinci Code' that Mary Magdalene was in fact the wife of Jesus of Nazareth much more feasable than the assumtion that he was celebate all his life. After all he was a jew, and marriage and children was concidered the duty of jewish religious men. She seemed to be everywhere he was, she was at his feet with his mother when he died, she and his mother visited the tomb where he was laid - sounds more like a devoted wife than a prostitute he happened to save. Just a thought.....
You are correct Katarina. Not only the 'Da Vinci Code' but many other books have now been written which put forward the same senario.
The original scrolls give a very different picture of the Christian religion than that painted in the bible. When the romans collected all the writings together they were very selective in what they used, they produced a book through which they could control the people, painted a beautiful picture which has over the years given untold numbers of Christians great hope and joy, which is not a bad thing, but it was a story told by the controll freaks of the day who rewrote the original scriptures to suit themselves. Woe betide anybody who questioned it, the were murdered as heritics in the name of religion. This action was against all the writings they had already included in the version of the bible they made up. Action of a desperate organisation ???? going against there own teaching to preserve the lies.
They attempted to destroy all the other teaching and gospels which did not agree with the picture they had painted, but unfortunately for them some of the historians at the time managed to hide many of the original scrolls which slowly resurfaced down through the centuries, the Dead Sea scrolls being, I think,about the most recent where several previously unknown gospels have come to light.
Many of the modern historians and authors are now delving into this information and producing many interesting books and theories simply because they no longer have the fear of being put to death as heritics.
I don't know if Jesus was agaist gay people of not, he taught us to love oneanother, perhaps some of us take this too literally.
There are also many biological reasons for homosexuality and lesbianism where many find it impossible to fit into a hetrosexual society, so we should not be too quick to condem, and to go back to the Jesus portrayed in the bible, I'm sure he would have been aware of this.
landmarker
28-Dec-05, 22:52
what does it say in the bible about same sex relationships??????
Whatever it says they have gone on since well before the bible was written.
I've read the thread -skimmed it really. Same sex 'marriage' is completely the WRONG term in my opinion for what is basically a financial arrangement and a statement to the outside world. The true concept of a marriage is for man and woman to produce children. Otherwise, what's the point? I'm all for homosexuals being allowed civil partnerships. I'd extend these to heterosexuals who want them, sisters, elderly platonic friends who reside together, brothers et al.
Maybe also to heterosexuals who dont want kids.
I personally find 'gay' male sex fairly repugnant and many of the ilk to be predatory. However what they do behind closed doors is up to consenting adults. I see little reason for the promotion of 'gay' lifestyles though, because by and large they, and we were better off when they were in the closet in my opinion.
As a 'community' they have made rapid progress in the last thirty years, isn't this latest development enough? For heavens sake why bring 'weddings & marriages' into it. Tabloidese? or just lazy English language.
Alan - English
(keen to learn more about Caithness)
by and large they, and we were better off when they were in the closet in my opinion.
I dread to ask... but could you expand on this a little?
landmarker
29-Dec-05, 00:15
I dread to ask... but could you expand on this a little?
If you might not like the answer, why ask the question?
This is all about opinions. Mine is that the less I hear about homosexuality the better.
Alan
Whatever it says they have gone on since well before the bible was written.
I've read the thread -skimmed it really. Same sex 'marriage' is completely the WRONG term in my opinion for what is basically a financial arrangement and a statement to the outside world. The true concept of a marriage is for man and woman to produce children. Otherwise, what's the point? I'm all for homosexuals being allowed civil partnerships. I'd extend these to heterosexuals who want them, sisters, elderly platonic friends who reside together, brothers et al.
Maybe also to heterosexuals who dont want kids.
I personally find 'gay' male sex fairly repugnant and many of the ilk to be predatory. However what they do behind closed doors is up to consenting adults. I see little reason for the promotion of 'gay' lifestyles though, because by and large they, and we were better off when they were in the closet in my opinion.
As a 'community' they have made rapid progress in the last thirty years, isn't this latest development enough? For heavens sake why bring 'weddings & marriages' into it. Tabloidese? or just lazy English language.
Alan - English
(keen to learn more about Caithness)
A pretty poor post in my opinion. Marriage being about kids is nonsense. Many of your "normal" couples have had kids outside of marriage and made a good job of bringing them up. For me marriage is all about making a commitment to the other person, whether or not that is done in a church is irrelevant. The idea that sisters could have an equally intimate partnership to a gay couple is ridiculous.
I assume that as you single out "gay" male sex as repugnant, you are quite happy to observe two females getting to know each other better? That smacks of double standards.
You are only in a position to decide whether YOU think it was better when gays were "in the closet", you cannot speak for gays or for the wider public and I am sure you will find many who find your opinion puzzling and illogical.
People are what they are, they can only live life based on their feelings and we are all born from the union of male and female elements in a science that is inexact. If people are happy and not harming anyone can you not just accept that and get on with your own life.
Homosexuality is a fact, burying your head in the sand won't make it go away!!
jamesmoore
29-Dec-05, 04:03
A pretty poor post in my opinion. Marriage being about kids is nonsense. Many of your "normal" couples have had kids outside of marriage and made a good job of bringing them up. For me marriage is all about making a commitment to the other person, whether or not that is done in a church is irrelevant. The idea that sisters could have an equally intimate partnership to a gay couple is ridiculous.
I assume that as you single out "gay" male sex as repugnant, you are quite happy to observe two females getting to know each other better? That smacks of double standards.
You are only in a position to decide whether YOU think it was better when gays were "in the closet", you cannot speak for gays or for the wider public and I am sure you will find many who find your opinion puzzling and illogical.
People are what they are, they can only live life based on their feelings and we are all born from the union of male and female elements in a science that is inexact. If people are happy and not harming anyone can you not just accept that and get on with your own life.
Homosexuality is a fact, burying your head in the sand won't make it go away!!Dear oh dear, next you will be be expecting people to be more accepting of paedophiles and allowing them to carry out their sexual preferences. Some of you people really disgust me. Same sex relationships should be carried out behind closed doors and definately not encouraged. if it was natural why don't animals do it?
pedromcgrory
29-Dec-05, 04:15
very very true james ,
Dear oh dear, next you will be be expecting people to be more accepting of paedophiles and allowing them to carry out their sexual preferences. Some of you people really disgust me. Same sex relationships should be carried out behind closed doors and definately not encouraged. if it was natural why don't animals do it?
Well said!!!! I could not have put it better myself
if it was natural why don't animals do it?
Why are you so sure that they don't? :rolleyes:
Dear oh dear, next you will be be expecting people to be more accepting of paedophiles and allowing them to carry out their sexual preferences. Some of you people really disgust me. Same sex relationships should be carried out behind closed doors and definately not encouraged. if it was natural why don't animals do it?
I think there is a very big difference. Same sex relationships are between consenting adults. I have nothing against gays marrying, but I do object to seeing same sex couples kissing on television - we don't need it rammed down our throats. And animals don't do it???? You haven't been around many animals have you?
Probably itll take longer than a few generations before the taboo like mentality shown by the big bad mannies on caithness.org will die out.
Doing things behind closed doors is a common courtesy most people would adhere to so I suspect the fears express by jamesmoore and his primal tribe are very personal and extremely insulting to law abiding homosexuals.
Theres a theory that many many blokes who show their disgust against homosexuality are in actual fact denying their own homosexual desires.
I dont blame them. Its a shameful thing to be a homosexual.
Perhaps jamesmoore and golach would like to say more about what it is that worries them about homosexuality when it will never ever be a problem for them.
Maybe landmarker can tell me the difference between prejudice against homosexuals and prejudice against incomers into a community? Would incomers be allowed to prejudice locally established homosexuals?
Try and be reasonable in your responses chaps because this is the nitty gritty of the whole homosexual question and you lot have it in your power to change it.
As for seeing gays kissing on television. I get the same feelings as Katerina but I am aware these feelings are cultural. I have to overcome them if I am not going to discriminate against fellow human beings leading perfectly legal and normal lives with different sexual preferences than my own.
Dear oh dear, next you will be be expecting people to be more accepting of paedophiles and allowing them to carry out their sexual preferences. Some of you people really disgust me. Same sex relationships should be carried out behind closed doors and definately not encouraged. if it was natural why don't animals do it?
Your statement is childish and illogical. Why would my acceptance of two consenting adults carrying out a legal activity lead to me accepting a totally different and illegal activity?
It seems that I also disgust you. Have you ever wondered why you have so many feelings of disgust? Perhaps you should take a look at yourself and wonder what is so good about YOU. Ignorance is a quality that I think is to be condemned as much as any.
Homosexual activity DOES take place in the animal kingdom, some animals will engage in sexual activity with either sex, some prefer their own sex. Scientists argue that it is not natural because animals also kill their offspring, kill each other and indulge in cannibalism. Now I wonder what species that might remind anyone of?
I would advise you to carry out some "behind closed doors" activity yourself. Preferrably Library doors. Open some books, open your mind and discover that it takes all sorts to make a world.
very very true james ,
Only, it Isn't true!!
Well said!!!! I could not have put it better myself
Then you obviously don't rate yourself very highly. I don't think the United Nations will be giving yer man the call to debate any sensitive matters in the near future!!
[quote=gleeber]
Perhaps golach would like to say more about what it is that worries them about homosexuality /quote]
I just dont like the idea of homosexuality its a personal thing, I dont like Brussels Sprouts or Tripe either, and I would say that a homosexual to me is like a bowl of Rudicen Tripe, is that simple enough Gleeber?
If you might not like the answer, why ask the question?
This is all about opinions. Mine is that the less I hear about homosexuality the better.
Alan
I ask because I think it’s important to understand why, after decades of openness about homosexuality, some still believe that it is okay to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexuality.
So, you’ve told us your opinion… how about explaining why?
Dear oh dear, next you will be be expecting people to be more accepting of paedophiles and allowing them to carry out their sexual preferences. What an emotive crock of nonsense. As Scorrie so rightly says, your statement is childish and illogical.
Some of you people really disgust me. Why, thank you. Coming from you, I really do take that as a compliment.
if it was natural why don't animals do it? Again, as Scorrie so rightly points out, animals do do ‘it’. However, you raise an interesting question that I have yet to have answered but have often asked of people who claim that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’. If homosexuality is not ‘natural’, what external influence causes it?
jamesmoore
29-Dec-05, 13:50
What an emotive crock of nonsense. As Scorrie so rightly says, your statement is childish and illogical.
Why, thank you. Coming from you, I really do take that as a compliment.
Again, as Scorrie so rightly points out, animals do do ‘it’. However, you raise an interesting question that I have yet to have answered but have often asked of people who claim that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’. If homosexuality is not ‘natural’, what external influence causes it?Natural to me is "What fuctions according to design".
As for animals At least they would not be spreading their seed to taint future generations".
Would you find it acceptable then for a father to marry his daughter then, since this would be between two consenting adults?
What I am aying is "where will all this stop?" There is bound to be some "Do Gooder" like yourself who would say it isn't fair if a father cannot marry his daughter..
Natural to me is "What fuctions according to design". Not to go into details, but it seems that the design functions just fine for both straight and gay relations.
As for animals At least they would not be spreading their seed to taint future generations. Aside from the fact I disagree with the use of the word ‘taint’ here, I think you’ve got this backwards. We’re talking about same-sex couples committing to one another. When comparing that scenario to the gay sex that occurs in the animal kingdom, where it’s simply another facet of social hierarchy and learning, I think that it is the human couple who are less likely to ‘spread their seed’.
Would you find it acceptable then for a father to marry his daughter then, since this would be between two consenting adults? You’ve tried to make people afraid of homosexuals by comparing them to paedophiles. You’ve now tried to do the same by comparing homosexuality to incest. Is there a third string to your bow of inappropriate comparison or are we done with the straw men?
jamesmoore
29-Dec-05, 14:53
Not to go into details, but it seems that the design functions just fine for both straight and gay relations.
Aside from the fact I disagree with the use of the word ‘taint’ here, I think you’ve got this backwards. We’re talking about same-sex couples committing to one another. When comparing that scenario to the gay sex that occurs in the animal kingdom, where it’s simply another facet of social hierarchy and learning, I think that it is the human couple who are less likely to ‘spread their seed’.
You’ve tried to make people afraid of homosexuals by comparing them to paedophiles. You’ve now tried to do the same by comparing homosexuality to incest. Is there a third string to your bow of inappropriate comparison or are we done with the straw men?how about havng sex with animals. A man in America married hishorse. He believes he has a right to his sexuality of zoophilia. As I said where will this end?
So are you saying that this is acceptable too...
how about havng sex with animals […] are you saying that this is acceptable too... Wow! I was only joking when I asked if you had a third inappropriate comparison, but you managed to find one. Well done. What’s next, necrophilia?
Seriously, you don’t really think that paedophilia, incest and bestiality are comparable to homosexuality, do you?
jamesmoore
29-Dec-05, 15:11
Wow! I was only joking when I asked if you had a third inappropriate comparison, but you managed to find one. Well done. What’s next, necrophilia?
Seriously, you don’t really think that paedophilia, incest and bestiality are comparable to homosexuality, do you?I find them all as equally disgusting and if one is seen as to be acceptable then all the others will follow on very shortly.
"Homosexuals are Brute Beasts"....part of a vile and satanic system that will be utterly annihilated and there will be a celebration in heaven"
"Homosexuals are Brute Beasts"....part of a vile and satanic system that will be utterly annihilated and there will be a celebration in heaven"
Now I know why I shouldn't take your views seriously, your post was a declaration of hate which makes me wonder who really is part of the 'vile and satanic system' them or you? There are a number of the clergy which are a part of that system you talk about.:rolleyes:
I find them all as equally disgusting and if one is seen as to be acceptable then all the others will follow on very shortly. Why, because you find them all equally disgusting? That's like saying that because I find pineapple and dirt equally unpalatable we'll be seeing tinned mud on the supermarket shelves any day now.
"Homosexuals are Brute Beasts"....part of a vile and satanic system that will be utterly annihilated and there will be a celebration in heaven" Ah, we're back to religious intolerance again I see. I note that you didn't attribute your quote, so please allow me.
You are quoting the words of Rev. Jerry Falwell. That's the same Rev. Falwell who blamed abortionists, feminists, lesbians and gays for 9/11. That's the same Rev. Falwell who states that AIDS is "not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals". That's the same Rev. Falwell who believes that all public schools should be abolished and children should be taught only in Church schools run by Christians, and that "textbooks are soviet propaganda".
Yep, he's a truly wonderful role-model for you. He's so interested in your well-being that he'll send you a home-study kit to teach you how to read the Bible his way (for a small fee of $1,250 of course) and all he asks (on top of the $1,250) is that you make a small contribution to his Ministry… which you can do through several different links on his website. :rolleyes:
Hey jjc, what's your view on pagans like me? I recently became a Wiccan (a witch to the uninitiated), I don't believe in any deity but I worship the Earth and all that sail on Her. I used to think I was a medium but I'm not sure they exist any more.
I'm happy with homosexuality, although I'm not one.
Does your religious tolerance extend to me?
jamesmoore
29-Dec-05, 16:06
Why, because you find them all equally disgusting? That's like saying that because I find pineapple and dirt equally unpalatable we'll be seeing tinned mud on the supermarket shelves any day now.
Ah, we're back to religious intolerance again I see. I note that you didn't attribute your quote, so please allow me.
You are quoting the words of Rev. Jerry Falwell. That's the same Rev. Falwell who blamed abortionists, feminists, lesbians and gays for 9/11. That's the same Rev. Falwell who states that AIDS is "not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals". That's the same Rev. Falwell who believes that all public schools should be abolished and children should be taught only in Church schools run by Christians, and that "textbooks are soviet propaganda".
Yep, he's a truly wonderful role-model for you. He's so interested in your well-being that he'll send you a home-study kit to teach you how to read the Bible his way (for a small fee of $1,250 of course) and all he asks (on top of the $1,250) is that you make a small contribution to his Ministry… which you can do through several different links on his website. :rolleyes:Yes, I find him a truely wonderful role model...Thank you for your information.
You talk of tinned mud, nothing would surprise me.. I bet 20 years ago no-one thought there would be gay marriages. Thats what becoming accepting of these homosexuals has done..
Is there a differance between homosexuality and homosexuals? Can an individual detest an act or an ideology but not the person perpetrating that act or who follows that ideology?
Can you hate fox hunting but not fox hunters? Or the monarchy but not monarchists? (Not that the latter is an act or an ideology but you take the point.) If so, where does that leave us?
shrek_donkey
29-Dec-05, 16:36
Hey jjc, what's your view on pagans like me? I recently became a Wiccan (a witch to the uninitiated), I don't believe in any deity but I worship the Earth and all that sail on Her. I used to think I was a medium but I'm not sure they exist any more.
I'm happy with homosexuality, although I'm not one.
Does your religious tolerance extend to me?
Just wondering why you became a wiccan?
Hey jjc, what's your view on pagans like me? I recently became a Wiccan (a witch to the uninitiated), I don't believe in any deity but I worship the Earth and all that sail on Her. I used to think I was a medium but I'm not sure they exist any more.
I'm happy with homosexuality, although I'm not one.
Does your religious tolerance extend to me?
Out of interest crayola 'how long did you think you were a medium for'?, why now are you unsure if they exist anymore?:confused:
Hey jjc, what's your view on pagans like me?
You could worship your big toe and I would be happy for you... right up to the point where you tell me that the great and powerful Toenail has given you a list of people to persecute.
I bet 20 years ago no-one thought there would be gay marriages. Really? There have been gay marriages since Spartan times. I could be mistaken but that was a little earlier than the 1980s, wasn't it?
Dear oh dear, next you will be be expecting people to be more accepting of paedophiles and allowing them to carry out their sexual preferences. Some of you people really disgust me. Same sex relationships should be carried out behind closed doors and definately not encouraged. if it was natural why don't animals do it?
well said....i could not have put it better myself james...
jamesmoore
29-Dec-05, 17:29
Really? There have been gay marriages since Spartan times. I could be mistaken but that was a little earlier than the 1980s, wasn't it?Marriage is a union between a man and a woman..thus it has been for thousands of years.
Marriage is part of a grand plan for the human race. Marriage is to procreate. Why is it so important to gay people to change this?
Not being able to marry is a simple consequense of having a homsexual lifestylye..
ouch!! those darn reputation boxes seems you can't 2nd someone's posts and a scorrie comes along and nabs 5 points off you, ah! at least i rattled your cage eh!! dense you say hmm! nice one.
as for calling james an imbecile (never) funny how you decided to make that remark in my rep box and not on here for james to see.
Cheer up it's the season of good will!:rolleyes:
It seems to me that this thread is just going over the same ground again and again. Nothing will be gained by trying to see who can "shout" their argument loudest.
Maybe this thread should be closed.
It seems to me that this thread is just going over the same ground again and again. Nothing will be gained by trying to see who can "shout" their argument loudest.
Maybe this thread should be closed.
Seems a few are getting a real buzz out of this thread though Tymey, again they will soon find another one to dive in and quote everyones comments and rip them apart like a vicious bull dog
Seems a few are getting a real buzz out of this thread though Tymey, again they will soon find another one to dive in and quote everyones comments and rip them apart like a vicious bull dog
Well so long as they do it behind closed doors and no one gets hurt then that is fine by me! :0)
jamesmoore
29-Dec-05, 18:29
ouch!! those darn reputation boxes seems you can't 2nd someone's posts and a scorrie comes along and nabs 5 points off you, ah! at least i rattled your cage eh!! dense you say hmm! nice one.
as for calling james an imbecile (never) funny how you decided to make that remark in my rep box and not on here for james to see.
Cheer up it's the season of good will!:rolleyes:Its particularly annoying whan that person goes back into every second post to edit what they have said.
I seem to think this stupid reputation thing is detering people from giving their true opinions..I'm afraid I am not going to agree with the "DO GOODERS" for the sake of how many points I can achieve..
What are you achieving by editing every second post..sometimes even twice?
Sorry pooh pooh this is not directed at you!
landmarker
29-Dec-05, 18:33
<<A pretty poor post in my opinion. >>
I must try harder to get up to your standards.
<<Marriage being about kids is nonsense>>....
I disagree. It is the main reason for marrying. There are other reasons which are not mutually exclusive, but children are high on the agenda for most who marry, rightly so.
<<The idea that sisters could have an equally intimate partnership to a gay couple is ridiculous.>>
Rubbish! Intimacy is not just about getting your end away in improbably places. Many elderly sisters who co-habit would welcome the kind of benefits -pension rights etc. that this new arrangement brings.
<<I assume that as you single out "gay" male sex as repugnant, you are quite happy to observe two females getting to know each other better? That smacks of double standards.>>
Double standards maybe. The mechanics of lesbian sex are not as off putting to me. I dislike hairy bodies, mens backsides and though I have a beard myself, if another one came close I'd probably vomit.
<<You are only in a position to decide whether YOU think it was better when gays were "in the closet", you cannot speak for gays or for the wider public and I am sure you will find many who find your opinion puzzling and illogical.>>
I've always been enigmatic.
<<If people are happy and not harming anyone can you not just accept that and get on with your own life.>>
No problem at all. Your inward digestion of my post was poor too mush. I have no problem with low profile queerdom.I said as much - absorb what you read.
Live and let live, behind closed doors. My only problem is the 'wedding' thing and the 'gay pride' marches etc. what nonsense. If I grabbed a placard saying 'I'm glad I like women' I'd be looked upon as a nutter - and rightly so.
<<Homosexuality is a fact, burying your head in the sand won't make it go away!!>>
There is no way I'd bury MY head in any sand when there were poofters about.
regards
Alan
keen to learn more about Caithness
landmarker
29-Dec-05, 18:47
Maybe landmarker can tell me the difference between prejudice against homosexuals and prejudice against incomers into a community? Would incomers be allowed to prejudice locally established homosexuals?
.
I would think not but why would they want to?
Unless said homosexuals were marching up and down the High Street with banners, or trying to convince the rest of the world that it's a 'normal' condition. It might be natural in many cases , but it aint normal.
Prejudice is usally based upon ignorance and I have little time for blind prejudice. That's why I'm only 'concerned' about the homosexual issues that I have been forced to take account of, either via personal experience or extensive news coverage. Like predators in toilets, gay 'weddings' and 'gay' adoption. I'm pretty much against all of these things.
As for prejudice against incomers mmm. Maybe I might one day suffer this, then I will see things in a new light perhaps. Might I expect it in Caithness?
The line I read somewhere here about 'men who express their disgust at homosexuality are merely suppressing their own latent feelings' is an old chestnut. Believe what you like.
I am equally vocal about unfettered immigration, does this mean I really want to be an immigrant.
Blimey!! I just realised that's a very poor example.
Beam me up Scottie.
Alan
49 weeks a year in the wrong place.
Its particularly annoying whan that person goes back into every second post to edit what they have said.
I seem to think this stupid reputation thing is detering people from giving their true opinions..I'm afraid I am not going to agree with the "DO GOODERS" for the sake of how many points I can achieve..
What are you achieving by editing every second post..sometimes even twice?
Sorry pooh pooh this is not directed at you!
How very true james certain vultures are waiting to pounce! trusted members (a few) often don't give their view they just attack other peoples and spent most of their time looking to see who they can bad rep again!
Childish i know but whatever turns em on in their boring lifes.
You could worship your big toe and I would be happy for you... right up to the point where you tell me that the great and powerful Toenail has given you a list of people to persecute.Was that laconic, or have I been dismissed facetiously?
Perhaps you are feeling a little "got at". Do you ever feel "that lot" are following you around?
Anyways, thank you for your answer, I'll view it from a bottle-half-full perspective, and it simply remains for me to wish you a Happy Yuletide. :)
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman..thus it has been for thousands of years. Well, except for the gay marriages in Sparta, the gay marriages in ancient Rome (two of Nero's marriages are reported to have been to other men), the gay marriages through the ages in China… heck, the gay marriages just about anywhere but Christian Europe.
Marriage is part of a grand plan for the human race. Marriage is to procreate. So infertile couples should be barred from marrying? What about couples who choose not to have children? Would you have a questionnaire and a fertility test before couples are allowed to wed?
Why is it so important to gay people to change this? Change what? Change a state that exists only in a Christian-dominated world? Look around you – practising Christians are a minority group. Things they are a changing.
jamesmoore
29-Dec-05, 20:55
Was that laconic, or have I been dismissed facetiously?
Perhaps you are feeling a little "got at". Do you ever feel "that lot" are following you around?
Anyways, thank you for your answer, I'll view it from a bottle-half-full perspective, and it simply remains for me to wish you a Happy Yuletide. :)Yet another thread taken "off topic" by crayola.
You are no better than "that lot". Every-one is entitled to their opinion and it shouldn't be a case of "our lot" and "that lot".
This is supposed to be a message board for every-one!!
landmarker
29-Dec-05, 20:56
I ask because I think it’s important to understand why, after decades of openness about homosexuality, some still believe that it is okay to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexuality.
So, you’ve told us your opinion… how about explaining why?
jjc.....
'decades of openness' ?? Yes, in the media, yes in certain areas of big towns and cities and in certain pubs and clubs in smaller towns all over the UK.
I'm not advocoating discriminination - read again. I am against promotion and overt dispays of what is a minority sport, and still an unacceptable one in families throughout the land. Despite all the 'openness' of which you speak Mr & Mrs Bloggs or Mc.Bloggs gor that matter would still much prefer their kids to turn out straight. Were I to discover my kids were homosexual I'd accept it grudgingly, hope they were happy and keep the whole sorry business as close to my chest as possible.I wouldn't be encouraging them to attend many 'pride' marches. They are completely counter productive.
Alan
If I grabbed a placard saying 'I'm glad I like women' I'd be looked upon as a nutter Don't you think that is because your sexuality is accepted and you aren't subjected to a daily tirade from people who discriminate against you because of it?
jamesmoore
29-Dec-05, 21:04
Well, except for the gay marriages in Sparta, the gay marriages in ancient Rome (two of Nero's marriages are reported to have been to other men), the gay marriages through the ages in China… heck, the gay marriages just about anywhere but Christian Europe.
So infertile couples should be barred from marrying? What about couples who choose not to have children? Would you have a questionnaire and a fertility test before couples are allowed to wed?
Change what? Change a state that exists only in a Christian-dominated world? Look around you – practicing Christians are a minority group. Things they are a changing.These acts are still perversions of the natural law. Tolerence is one thing but approval is another thing..
jamesmoore
29-Dec-05, 21:07
Don't you think that is because your sexuality is accepted and you aren't subjected to a daily tirade from people who discriminate against you because of it?We heteros choose to be who we are and the life that comes with it...... as do gays!!
Was that laconic, or have I been dismissed facetiously? […]Anyways, thank you for your answer, I'll view it from a bottle-half-full perspective, Sorry, I really didn't mean for my brevity to be anything other than… well, brevity. I'm truly fascinated by religion and although I don't know much about Wicca what I do know is very interesting.
My only problem with any religion is when it exceeds its own boundaries and tries to impact on the lives of those who don't believe in it. Take Christianity (simply because it is the one which I have most direct contact with): I have a number of Christian friends and relations. How they choose to follow that religion is between them and their God, but if any of them ever seriously tried to tell me that I was going to Hell (and if they are right in their choice of God then, let's face it, I pretty much am) or that I should shun other friends of mine because of their sexuality then we'd have a slight falling out.
it simply remains for me to wish you a Happy Yuletide. Now that I've rambled on for a bit I hope you will take it in the manner in which it is intended when I say that I wish you a Happy Yuletide also.
Tolerence is one thing but approval is another thing..
How, exactly, do you presume to equate your outdated and repressive prejudices with 'tolerence'?
We heteros choose to be who we are and the life that comes with it...... as do gays!!
Do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe that homosexuals choose to be stigmatised, discriminated against and generally hated by ignorant homophobes?
jamesmoore
29-Dec-05, 21:46
Do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe that homosexuals choose to be stigmatised, discriminated against and generally hated by ignorant homophobes?I do believe we all make a choice for which path we take. It's not forced upon us yet but if you have your way im sure plenty more will follow on in their perversions.. after all they were NOT born that way!
they were NOT born that way!
I wasn't born short-sighted, it just developed as I got older. Go figure.
Anyway, I think I'm pretty much done with our conversation here. No, scratch that – I know I'm done. If you're interested, you lost any credibility with me (and I hope with most other right-thinking people) at the point where you aligned yourself with a man who believes homosexuals are to blame for the attacks on the Twin Towers.
jamesmoore
29-Dec-05, 22:05
I wasn't born short-sighted, it just developed as I got older. Go figure.
Anyway, I think I'm pretty much done with our conversation here. No, scratch that – I know I'm done. If you're interested, you lost any credibility with me (and I hope with most other right-thinking people) at the point where you aligned yourself with a man who believes homosexuals are to blame for the attacks on the Twin Towers.How clever... attempting to stop a rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants...Actually the quote was from a book by Jim Hill and Rand Cheadle,"the bible tells me so" Anchor books(1996)pages 69-70.
It had nothing to do with the Twin Towers.
Whats wrong..don't you like it when some-one disagrees with you?
You we're quick enough to carry on pushing your opinions after I made that quote.
Oh well, I was against the idea of this disgusting perversion from the beginning and your opinions have made me all the more homophobic!!
shrek_donkey
29-Dec-05, 22:19
I wasn't born short-sighted, it just developed as I got older. Go figure.
Anyway, I think I'm pretty much done with our conversation here. No, scratch that – I know I'm done. If you're interested, you lost any credibility with me (and I hope with most other right-thinking people) at the point where you aligned yourself with a man who believes homosexuals are to blame for the attacks on the Twin Towers.
JJC I think its a case of double standards plenty of people i know dont agree with what i do.
It does'nt mean i lost any credibility just because i dont agree, its up to james to believe what he wants to. Plenty of people feel the same as james he is not the only person that thinks it is wrong.
jamesmoore
29-Dec-05, 22:34
JJC I think its a case of double standards plenty of people i know dont agree with what i do.
It does'nt mean i lost any credibility just because i dont agree, its up to james to believe what he wants to. Plenty of people feel the same as james he is not the only person that thinks it is wrong.Plenty of people feel the same way but are scared off by the nasty little red box they will get if they make a post..I don't see what the point is really..this is a message board, where every-one is entitled to their opinion....Hmm maybe not!!!
I thought i talk a lot of rubbish. But you lot take the biscuit .
after all they were NOT born that way!
Are you quite sure about that?
jamesmoore
30-Dec-05, 00:24
Are you quite sure about that?No-one is born gay any more than you can be born Athiest or Christian
If being born is genetic then surely that gene would have been found by now. I will believe that people are born that way once this gene has been found.
It is a learnred behavior, behavioral patterns reinforsed by habit.
Some diseases are aquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning rather than by consious choice.
Example:
No-one is born alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol.
Just as one aquires alcoholic desires(by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without conciously choosing them, someone may aquire homosexual desires(by engaging in homosexual fantasies or desires) without conciously choosing them.
Even if there is a genetic disposition toward homosexuality it is still not part of the design of nature....
Other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there be be a genetic disposition for them..
If being born is genetic then surely that gene would have been found by now. I will believe that people are born that way once this gene has been found.
Now we have it in black and white, take a look at this link (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519) Go figure...
jamesmoore
30-Dec-05, 00:44
Now we have it in black and white, take a look at this link (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn65190). Go figure...Hmm the article cannot be found. Thats a pity I would like to read that.
So you are saying that homosexuals are born that way. Why then are all children tested for this gene and the parents made aware their child is gay?
Surely it would save a lot of heartache if they know in advance.
Try again james on the original link, you got there before I had chance to prove the link and edit:o
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519
jamesmoore
30-Dec-05, 01:00
Try again james on the original link, you got there before I had chance to prove the link and edit:o
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519Sorry not enough hard proof in there to convince me, they MAY have a link is whats said..
Even supposing there is a gene it dosn't make the act of same sex marriage acceptable..
Other genetic behaviors are not acceptable. As I said earlier "would you find it acceptable for members of the same family to marry" because that is the slippery slope we are going down here if we encourage homosexuality.
Of course this research is still ongoing. There is no 'gay gene' right enough but there is a genetic link to homosexuality. The wholething is complex but if nurture triggers off something in their nature then should we really condemn them? We don't make life choices on who we are brought up by do we?
jamesmoore
30-Dec-05, 01:17
Of course this research is still ongoing. There is no 'gay gene' right enough but there is a genetic link to homosexuality. The wholething is complex but if nurture triggers off something in their nature then should we really condemn them? We don't make life choices on who we are brought up by do we?So the same can be for any-one at all then. If it's in their nature any person who commits an act, no matter how abominable, can be excused?.. Who are we to condemn..Eh?
So the same can be for any-one at all then. If it's in their nature any person who commits an act, no matter how abominable, can be excused?.. Who are we to condemn..Eh?
Well it depends on how you judge people as abominable. To me abominable means something that harms other people, animals and property.
Gay people who enter life partnerships (to me any road) are only expressing love for eachother and are not harming anybody else.
jamesmoore
30-Dec-05, 01:35
Well it depends on how you judge people as abominable. To me abominable means something that harms other people, animals and property.
Gay people who enter life partnerships (to me any road) are only expressing love for eachother and are not harming anybody else.So you see nothing wrong in ,say, brothers showing their love in the same way?
So you see nothing wrong in ,say, brothers showing their love in the same way?
Warning! Warning! Straw-man Alert! Straw-man Alert! Warning!
So you see nothing wrong in ,say, brothers showing their love in the same way?
Well if you find a good example then come back to me for an opinion.
Warning! Warning! Straw-man Alert! Straw-man Alert! Warning!
? what's this mean jjc:confused:
jamesmoore
30-Dec-05, 01:49
Well if you find a good example then come back to me for an opinion.People probably said the same thing 50 years ago about gay marriages!
jamesmoore
30-Dec-05, 01:52
Warning! Warning! Straw-man Alert! Straw-man Alert! Warning!
I think some-one here has lost his peedie marbles..
OOhh jjc Just when I thought yo had enough too..
what's this mean jjc To use a 'straw-man' argument is to change your opponent's actual position into one which is much easier to refute. It's a pretty lazy debating technique because it allows you to avoid having to think too hard or justify yourself whilst your opponent has to constantly defend themselves against entirely irrelevant accusations.
If you look at Jamesmoore's posts in this thread you'll see that it is a tactic he relies upon quite heavily to avoid tricky questions. Some examples:
"Next you will be expecting people to be more accepting of paedophiles." Not hating homosexuals becomes support for paedophiles.
"Would you find it acceptable then for a father to marry his daughter?" Not hating homosexuals becomes support for incest.
"How about having sex with animals […] are you saying that this is acceptable too…" Not hating homosexuals becomes support for bestiality.
"So you see nothing wrong in ,say, brothers showing their love in the same way?" Not hating homosexuals becomes support for incest (again).
These are all attempts by James to make it look as though the person disagreeing with him holds an opinion which is much easier for him to publicly refute than the one that is actually being discussed – i.e. straw men.
jamesmoore
30-Dec-05, 02:23
I think you could rip apart any thread on this forum with your same theory just because it dosn't go your way.... This is a forum or have you forgotten?
I am entitled to my opinions whether you like them or not JJC.
I do not agree with your opinions either but I do not resort to the pathetic name calling you do...........I mean..Strawman..come on surely you can come up with something better than that!!
I havn't laughed so much in ages...Thank you!
I do not resort to the pathetic name calling you do...........I mean..Strawman..come on surely you can come up with something better than that!! First, straw man isn't a name I called you; it is the name for the type of argument you use.
Second, whilst I wish I could take the credit for 'coming up' with the term, I'm afraid it's been in use for considerably longer than either you or I have been alive.
I think theres probably been enough said about homosexuality to make it obvious theres a difficulty in perception of the sexual act.
The knockers call it unnatural and vile and an abomination.
Im saying we have to get over that perception if we are to learn anything about the things that bother us. I have no concerns about my sexuality or the sexuality of my neighbour. What is it about jamesmoore and his cronies that arouses so much hatred if its unlikely to affect them? If you dont like tripe dont eat it!
In another hundred years people will see homosexuality as much a norm as cheese on toast. jamesmoore and others of the same ilk will be the exception then. Their homophobic hatred will be outlawed by law. Thankfully their views are here for all to see how much a law is needed to protect law abiding communities against the inner fears of homophobes.
Its also nonsense to suggest that you can love the sinner but hate the sin. The 2 canna be seperated.
Have a nice New Year chaps.
just wondering.. is there any gay people reading this post and if so .. would love to have your oppinion on the whole situation
Niall Fernie
30-Dec-05, 12:50
This thread has decended far enough.....
Closed
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.