Lesbian couple kicked out of a Chruch shocker

[Crimson Dynamo]

They were kicked out for looking like stereotypical lesbians, the ones that folks tell you dont exist. That and being f'ing annoying.

read more.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278349/Lesbians-forced-church-holding-hands-pews.html

[Jessica.]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH omg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/05/14/article-1278349-09938F1C000005DC-860_468x311.jpg

[Crimson Dynamo]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH omg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/05/14/article-1278349-09938F1C000005DC-860_468x311.jpg

your avatar looks like their lovechild!

[Ross]

Give them a break so what they held hands.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Give them a break so what they held hands.

the woman is married and has a family

had it been with a man the congregation would have felt the same

[Ross]

the woman is married and has a family

but she's going through a divorce, however long it takes is out of her hands in some respect. people get new partners while going through divorce all the time she's not marrying this woman so there's no need for a fuss.

[Crimson Dynamo]

She separated from her husband last September and is now going through a divorce.

She began a relationship with Miss Lawrence , 31, last November

- she is NOW going through a divorce

she is at it.

[Beso]

maybe they had an argument because one of them took the other one up the aisle.

[Crimson Dynamo]

maybe they had an argument because one of them took the other one up the aisle.

:hugesmile:

[Dr.Gonzo]

Neither of them were willing to get on their knees.

[Lewis.]

I think it's pretty pathetic that people are even laughing at this. I agree totally with Ross.

[BB_Eye]

How "Christian"

[WOMBAI]

the woman is married and has a family

had it been with a man the congregation would have felt the same

The woman is going through a divorce! I wonder if her ex-husband's relationships are scrutinised in the same way!

[BigBrotherfan4ever]

The woman is going through a divorce! I wonder if her ex-husband's relationships are scrutinised in the same way!

I was thinking the same thing when reading it, i doubt it very much:mad::rolleyes:

[Shaun]

How dare they. Evil homos.

[MusicMan]

your [Jessica's] avatar looks like their lovechild!

True this :hugesmile:

[Spike]

Firstly i'm shocked that the Daily Mail and their readers comments seem to be positive towards this couple. I've noticed the Daily Mail have been losing their touch the last week or so
Secondly this is why I hate religion so much. The church thinks it can tell people how to act well it should piss off because in our society the individual comes above this outdated organisation which is built upon a foundation of lies.
They should join the catholic church, I hear you can hold hands with anyone there, even children..

[Enid]

Stupid lesbians.

[InOne]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH omg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/05/14/article-1278349-09938F1C000005DC-860_468x311.jpg

38 and 31? They look well into their 40s :shocked:

[Enid]

Lesbianism ages you.

[WOMBAI]

Lesbianism ages you.

Relationships age you fullstop! Being single and pleasing yourself has a lot going for it!

[Shasown]

Relationships age you fullstop! Being single and pleasing yourself has a lot going for it!

No life ages you, while masturbation has a lot going for it, it really is not the answer.

[Vicky.]

Relationships age you fullstop! Being single and pleasing yourself has a lot going for it!

Is it only me that thinks this sounds very dirty?! :p

But yeah...thats very true...relationships are ridiculously stressful :S



And as for the OP...ridiculous. But typical of religious nuts.

[Shasown]

Is it only me that thinks this sounds very dirty?! :p



Vicky you really have a dirty filthy mind!!!!

[WOMBAI]

Is it only me that thinks this sounds very dirty?! :p

But yeah...thats very true...relationships are ridiculously stressful :S



And as for the OP...ridiculous. But typical of religious nuts.

OMG - I shall have to re-phrase - I didn't mean it that way! You have one dirty mind there girl!

[Vicky.]

:o

[WOMBAI]

No life ages you, while masturbation has a lot going for it, it really is not the answer.

I would say life, relationships and masturbation age you! :hugesmile:

[Shasown]

I would say life, relationships and masturbation ages you! :hugesmile:

True but while a celibate life with no one in it to share the joys and the woes may not exactly help you live forever, it will certainly seem it.

[WOMBAI]

True but while a celibate life with no one in it to share the joys and the woes may not exactly help you live forever, it will certainly seem it.

Swings and roundabouts I guess - but I seem to remember some studies that concluded that married men were less stressed than single ones - but the opposite applied for women! I can see why!

[Shasown]

Swings and roundabouts I guess - but I seem to remember some studies that concluded that married men were less stressed than single ones - but the opposite applied for women! I can see why!

Yeah true, but then again there are other studies that conclude the exact opposite often borne out by the fact married men die earlier than married women or single men.

[Stu]

Is it even worth posting?

The latest in a series of LT's 'look!, homos aint perfect!'.

[ElProximo]

They were kicked out for looking like stereotypical lesbians, the ones that folks tell you dont exist. That and being f'ing annoying.

read more.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278349/Lesbians-forced-church-holding-hands-pews.html

People seem to forget that Churches are their own 'private' organisations. They can make their own rules and decide what they want happening or don't want.
Annoying lesbians trying to make some kind of 'stand' against the Church is really... well annoying.
So I can understand why the Church asked them to leave.

I'm not sure it's 'overtly sexual' but then again as lesbians their hands would be their version of penises. So in that sense it was like they were rubbing their wieners together.

[Shasown]

People seem to forget that Churches are their own 'private' organisations. They can make their own rules and decide what they want happening or don't want.
Annoying lesbians trying to make some kind of 'stand' against the Church is really... well annoying.
So I can understand why the Church asked them to leave.

I'm not sure it's 'overtly sexual' but then again as lesbians their hands would be their version of penises. So in that sense it was like they were rubbing their wieners together.

What stand are the women actually making, oh yes thats right the right to worship the god they believe in, in a church they find convenient or like.

Yeah it must be so sickening to see two women holding hands, which are substitiute penises eh?

Doesnt the same absurd argument hold when in a heterosexual relationship if for example maybe the man cant get an erection or the woman finds intercourse painful.

Maybe they should just ban everyone in the congregation from holding hands, in fact whhy stop there why not ban any form of human contact during the services , you never know what sort of venal thoughts skin to skin contact can bring on in some sinners.

[Crimson Dynamo]

What stand are the women actually making, oh yes thats right the right to worship the god they believe in, in a church they find convenient or like.

Yeah it must be so sickening to see two women holding hands, which are substitiute penises eh?

Doesnt the same absurd argument hold when in a heterosexual relationship if for example maybe the man cant get an erection or the woman finds intercourse painful.

Maybe they should just ban everyone in the congregation from holding hands, in fact whhy stop there why not ban any form of human contact during the services , you never know what sort of venal thoughts skin to skin contact can bring on in some sinners.

Ask yourself how the local Gay nightclub would react to a couple of Christians singing some hymns at the bar each week?

these 2 silly women were making a fool of themselves and deserve to be chucked out.

I feel very sorry for her children

[Shasown]

Ask yourself how the local Gay nightclub would react to a couple of Christians singing some hymns at the bar each week?

these 2 silly women were making a fool of themselves and deserve to be chucked out.

I feel very sorry for her children

They would probably just ignore them or laugh at them, gays tend to be a lot more tolerant of people than the average christian community.

Yes so surely a quiet word asking them to refrain from all the lovey dovey stuff in church as it may offend others probably would have been the best course of action. The at least that church could have defended itself by saying they had followed every conceivable option that allowed them to stay as members.

Yeah any publicity that opens children up to be picked on is quite bad, maybe all parties concerned should have thought about the ramifications of their actions before deciding on their particular course of action.

[ElProximo]

What stand are the women actually making, oh yes thats right the right to worship the god they believe in, in a church they find convenient or like.

No they do not have this right. The Church has the right to accept or reject members.
They are private orgs.

I don't get to join the Montreal Canadians ice hockey team and then decide I like to shoot on my own teams net or remove my helmet and they must accept it.
Thats a private club with their own rules. They can make me leave.

Yeah it must be so sickening to see two women holding hands, which are substitiute penises eh?

Not sickening but just awkward and unappealing. I have seen Japanese girls rubbing their boobs together and thought it had a certain artistic beauty in its own way.

Doesnt the same absurd argument hold when in a heterosexual relationship if for example maybe the man cant get an erection or the woman finds intercourse painful.

No. Using your comparison we would suppose the lesbians were still touching their (version or equivalent) of penises. If they got hand arthritis (or some hand impairment) and had to play 'footsies' - then that would be like the husbands hand.
Obviously.

Maybe they should just ban everyone in the congregation from holding hands, in fact whhy stop there why not ban any form of human contact during the services , you never know what sort of venal thoughts skin to skin contact can bring on in some sinners.

Uh no.
No need to do that. You allow hand shakes. Some allow hugging (the side-hug being a sort of christian specialty),
and,
they may allow married couples to hold hands.
They just 'ban' gay contact.
A lot of Churches would not allow any gays together in their Church regardless of any touching.
It's their right and its because they consider it against their religion.

[Stu]

The problem is they are not without contradiction. You say they have a right to allow or reject who they want, right, but what about 'Judge Not'?

Just not very Christian, IMO.

[ElProximo]

The problem is they are not without contradiction. You say they have a right to allow or reject who they want, right, but what about 'Judge Not'?

Just not very Christian, IMO.

So just to be clear here - you think there is a Christian 'rule' and it says 'Judge Not'?

And how would that work anyways? Like if a bunch of scallies were throwing brick through the windows the Christians may WISH to say something about it but you come along and AHA.. hhaah... 'Judge not!'.

How would anyone even live?
If a contractor over-charged them 2 billion pounds they would 'judge not'?
I take money from the collection plate but before they can say anything aha... 'Judge not'.

Or is it possible you don't know what your talking about?
I think that would be the better explanation for your 'contradiction'.
Yes, I am pretty sure they DONT work that way or have that rule.

[MrGaryy]

Well I mean it's not like they're born again Christians, they've been attending mass their whole life, they know how the Catholic church feels about gays, they knew what to expect and they still decided to risk it.

[Shasown]

So just to be clear here - you think there is a Christian 'rule' and it says 'Judge Not'?

And how would that work anyways? Like if a bunch of scallies were throwing brick through the windows the Christians may WISH to say something about it but you come along and AHA.. hhaah... 'Judge not!'.

How would anyone even live?
If a contractor over-charged them 2 billion pounds they would 'judge not'?
I take money from the collection plate but before they can say anything aha... 'Judge not'.

Or is it possible you don't know what your talking about?
I think that would be the better explanation for your 'contradiction'.
Yes, I am pretty sure they DONT work that way or have that rule.

Yeah I seem to recall a tale from the good book where Jesus stepped in on a stepping and said something along the lines of "Let he is without sin cast the first stone". John chap 8:7 Its generally taken to mean Judge not lest you be judged on your own failings. Unless of course you know better than a whole ****load of theologians

(What the NT didnt tell us was that jesus got twatted in the head by a stone then looked up and said Mother you *******ing bitch!)

[Stu]

So just to be clear here - you think there is a Christian 'rule' and it says 'Judge Not'?

And how would that work anyways? Like if a bunch of scallies were throwing brick through the windows the Christians may WISH to say something about it but you come along and AHA.. hhaah... 'Judge not!'.

How would anyone even live?
If a contractor over-charged them 2 billion pounds they would 'judge not'?
I take money from the collection plate but before they can say anything aha... 'Judge not'.

Or is it possible you don't know what your talking about?
I think that would be the better explanation for your 'contradiction'.
Yes, I am pretty sure they DONT work that way or have that rule.
Angry little fella, aren't you kid.

If you want to compare getting overcharged by six billion pounds and two women holding hands, be my guest.

Like Shasown said, he who is without sin and all that. It was one of the cornerstones of Christ's teaching. You know, the guy that features heavily in Christianity. Heck, they were not even mounting a protest in the church. They wanted to actually be involved in what the church goers were and they said 'no thank you'. Again, you could be right, it's just not very Christian. Simple as.

At the end of the day those people in that church and people like you are all the same. You may get bogged down in logistical meanderings about society and spirituality in threads like these but at the end of the day, you just don't like the homos all that much, do you.

[iRyan]

There is so much ignorance going on in this thread it's quite sad.

Annoying lesbians trying to make some kind of 'stand' against the Church is really... well annoying.
So I can understand why the Church asked them to leave.

I'm not sure it's 'overtly sexual' but then again as lesbians their hands would be their version of penises. So in that sense it was like they were rubbing their wieners together.

How it's it AT ALL the lesbians fault? All they were doing was holding hands in church, much like any straight couple would. What is so wrong with that? And how the **** is holding hands like having sex for them? That's one of the dumbest things I'd heard in a long time.

And I don't see what the big deal is with the one woman going through a divorce with her husband whilst in a relationship with a woman. The woman was obviously a lesbian but she married a man because she thought she would "grow out of it" or the feelings would go away, just like pretty much all homosexuals do when they marry a straight person. But it didn't and she was unhappy. So she got a divorce and found a woman she loved. What is so wrong with that?

[InOne]

Nothing is wrong with it, but like Gary said, they knew what the church was like and what to expect.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The very fact they ran to the papers, allowed themselves to be pictured tells you all you need know about "the only lezzer in the village" type here

pathetic. another example of people who think that their individual sexual preferences somehow an identity.

a couple of sad women who could do with growing up and taking their responsibilities seriously as well as getting a new wardrobe, some hair advice and a trip to specsavers

[Shasown]

Well I mean it's not like they're born again Christians, they've been attending mass their whole life, they know how the Catholic church feels about gays, they knew what to expect and they still decided to risk it.

It wasnt the Catholic Church

St Nicholas Anglican church in Corfe Mullen, Dorset

Note the word Anglican? That indicates it is a member of the Anglican Communion of churches as in CofE.

[Shasown]

The very fact they ran to the papers, allowed themselves to be pictured tells you all you need know about "the only lezzer in the village" type here

pathetic. another example of people who think that their individual sexual preferences somehow an identity.

a couple of sad women who could do with growing up and taking their responsibilities seriously as well as getting a new wardrobe, some hair advice and a trip to specsavers

Very true but its also an excellent example of Christian Hypocrisy.

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/charges-dropped-against-christian-street-preacher/

some good news

[Shasown]

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/charges-dropped-against-christian-street-preacher/

some good news

Yes very good news for religious bigots and homophobes up and down the land.

How nice of him to "forgive" the police. What was he forgiving them for? Following the law of the land and doing their jobs?

[Stu]

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/charges-dropped-against-christian-street-preacher/

some good news
I agree. People should be free to be as stupid as they want.

[MrGaryy]

It wasnt the Catholic Church



Note the word Anglican? That indicates it is a member of the Anglican Communion of churches as in CofE.

alright no need to speak to me like I'm a ******. I misread, my point still stands.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Yes very good news for religious bigots and homophobes up and down the land.

How nice of him to "forgive" the police. What was he forgiving them for? Following the law of the land and doing their jobs?

They were doing neither. This is a classic example of Police targeting easy targets rather than actually fight real crime which is much harder.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I agree. People should be free to be as stupid as they want.

i agree

[Shasown]

alright no need to speak to me like I'm a ******. I misread, my point still stands.

PMSL there is a comeback to that ..... nah sorry mate didnt mean to imply you were, just some people dont seem to understand there is a difference.

But yeah you are quite right in the point you made, forgiveness and acceptance dont seem to be the focus of many Christians. As far as I can recall Jesus never said its wrong for women to love one another or even for men to do likewise, that was man putting words into the mouth of god.

[Crimson Dynamo]

PMSL there is a comeback to that ..... nah sorry mate didnt mean to imply you were, just some people dont seem to understand there is a difference.

But yeah you are quite right in the point you made, forgiveness and acceptance dont seem to be the focus of many Christians. As far as I can recall Jesus never said its wrong for women to love one another or even for men to do likewise, that was man putting words into the mouth of god.

Christianity is based on the life and character of Jesus not of man

the "that is not a very Christian attitude" guff is so old it may yet make an InOne avatar

[Captain.Remy]

I may be a Christian but that's taken a bit too far. I mean, so what if they love eating each other's mussel ? They still believe in God. Religion needs to move on according to the time it's being applied on. We live in the 21st century, time to cut the bull**** about condoms, abortion and same sex marriage.

By the way, last night I've watched "Lesbo Jumbo Dildo Combo Volume IX". Amazing. :laugh:

[InOne]

Christianity is based on the life and character of Jesus not of man

the "that is not a very Christian attitude" guff is so old it may yet make an InOne avatar

He is still watching you LT...


http://modernvedicastrology.com/mva/files/william_burroughs_2.jpg

[Shasown]

They were doing neither. This is a classic example of Police targeting easy targets rather than actually fight real crime which is much harder.

A PCSO complained about him after chatting to him. The police have to act on complaints. If you look at the history of his case you will see on first appearance in court magistrates allowed the case to proceed as opposed to chucking it in the bin.

It was the Crown Prosecution Service who decided to bin the case. That doesnt mean he wasnt guilty of the original charge “harassment, alarm or distress” contrary to Section 5 of the public order act. Just they decided not to pursue the case to a conclusion.

Nor does it mean the police were incorrect in arresting him and charging him.

[Shasown]

Christianity is based on the life and character of Jesus not of man

the "that is not a very Christian attitude" guff is so old it may yet make an InOne avatar

Did Jesus say it is wrong of a man to take it up the chuff or not? Did he say it was wrong for a woman to lick and flick the bean of another woman?

If the answer is no, then who is man to decide what Jesus or his dad wanted.

I think his main message for people was something along the lines of unconditional love for each other, dont think he preconditioned that by saying so long as they are straight or any thing else. In fact didnt he set an example by giving his life for everyone, regardless of race colour belief or gender? Didnt he get crucified to bring salvation to everyone? Or am I missing something?

[arista]

Neither of them were willing to get on their knees.



Knees


£5 R18 rated
DVD's

A Legacy of New Dead Labour.

[MrGaryy]

PMSL there is a comeback to that ..... nah sorry mate didnt mean to imply you were, just some people dont seem to understand there is a difference.

But yeah you are quite right in the point you made, forgiveness and acceptance dont seem to be the focus of many Christians. As far as I can recall Jesus never said its wrong for women to love one another or even for men to do likewise, that was man putting words into the mouth of god.

haha sorry if I seemed a little brash there :P

I mean I'm not justifying the Christina church's view or actions, but there are some things that will never change, or at least not any time soon so in my opinion they were looking for trouble in the first place. The very fact they went a newspaper with the story and had their photo taken professionally for the story, screams attention-seeking to me.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Did Jesus say it is wrong of a man to take it up the chuff or not? Did he say it was wrong for a woman to lick and flick the bean of another woman?

If the answer is no, then who is man to decide what Jesus or his dad wanted.

I think his main message for people was something along the lines of unconditional love for each other, dont think he preconditioned that by saying so long as they are straight or any thing else. In fact didnt he set an example by giving his life for everyone, regardless of race colour belief or gender? Didnt he get crucified to bring salvation to everyone? Or am I missing something?

You are missing something and have not read your Bible.:nono:

[Shasown]

You are missing something and have not read your Bible.:nono:

Really? Where?

You are telling me a man in his early 30's with long hair and a beard waltzing round the Middle East, with a bunch of other blokes, being a bit of a rebel and hacking off the Sanhedrin, pharisees scribes etc. didnt try a bit of hershey highway action at least once?

Or that all 12 of his merry men were absolutely straight? It only mentions one of them being married in the gospels. In those days most Jewish boys were married off early, in fact it was looked upon as duty in most of the society to marry and have children.

Isnt that the real reason why the christian faith as a whole have a major hardon for homosexuals, because the hero of their faith may have been one himself?


Ooops looks like I am going ta hell for that eh?

[Wildcat!]

What a ridiculous situation. Anyways, for me, I dont understand if youre a homosexual, why you would want to go to a church anyways, listening to the sermon of someone who obviously thinks you live in sin. The argument that did Jesus say its wrong to be a homosexual, is just stretching it. Some things are just obvious. NOt saying that its wrong, biblical religions dont accept it. The fact that same sex marriages arent allowed is all you need to know, and sex outside of marriage is a sin. So ots obvious what the church's stand on that is.

SO yeah, my point is, I dont understand why you would go to the church. I can understand, people who believe in christianity and are homosexuals, creating their own place of whorship. YOu dont need to go the church to pray, you can do that anywhere you want.

JUst some questions for me by the way. I do think everyone has the right to go to church no matter what, so its their choice. Its also the churchs choice to kick you ut obviously, weather hypocritical or not!

[Wildcat!]

And BTW, why wasnt there more such type lesbians in the L word! :)

[Shasown]

What a ridiculous situation. Anyways, for me, I dont understand if youre a homosexual, why you would want to go to a church anyways, listening to the sermon of someone who obviously thinks you live in sin. The argument that did Jesus say its wrong to be a homosexual, is just stretching it. Some things are just obvious. NOt saying that its wrong, biblical religions dont accept it. The fact that same sex marriages arent allowed is all you need to know, and sex outside of marriage is a sin. So ots obvious what the church's stand on that is.

SO yeah, my point is, I dont understand why you would go to the church. I can understand, people who believe in christianity and are homosexuals, creating their own place of whorship. YOu dont need to go the church to pray, you can do that anywhere you want.

JUst some questions for me by the way. I do think everyone has the right to go to church no matter what, so its their choice. Its also the churchs choice to kick you ut obviously, weather hypocritical or not!

Maybe they believed the congregation whom they had known for years would accept them as a couple, maybe they believed that their sexual beliefs didnt make them sinners. Maybe they wanted to court publicity for themselves by having such a situation kick off.

[Stu]

What a ridiculous situation. Anyways, for me, I dont understand if youre a homosexual, why you would want to go to a church anyways, listening to the sermon of someone who obviously thinks you live in sin. The argument that did Jesus say its wrong to be a homosexual, is just stretching it. Some things are just obvious. NOt saying that its wrong, biblical religions dont accept it. The fact that same sex marriages arent allowed is all you need to know, and sex outside of marriage is a sin. So ots obvious what the church's stand on that is.

SO yeah, my point is, I dont understand why you would go to the church. I can understand, people who believe in christianity and are homosexuals, creating their own place of whorship. YOu dont need to go the church to pray, you can do that anywhere you want.

JUst some questions for me by the way. I do think everyone has the right to go to church no matter what, so its their choice. Its also the churchs choice to kick you ut obviously, weather hypocritical or not!
And I think you will find that churches are full of people who have had sex outside marage.

Everyone in the damn church is a sinner. That's part of the idea. None of us are free from sin. So why target out the gays?

[Wildcat!]

I am not looking at it from the POV of the church. In that regard, we all know, they do not accept same sex union. I think its obvious, weather you want to talk about logistics r not, if youre honest with yourself, you know the religion does not condone it.

BUt fair enough if you think its an omission by the church, and a misinterpretation. In that case I think if I was in the situation (ie I am homosexual, but I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ), then I would whorship in my own way, I wouldnt go to church, unless its a church that accepts my sexuality.

AGAIN, this is just what I would do, and I was just stating my misunderstanding of the people who insist on putting it out there, in the church which obviously dont accept it.

Again, just me!

[Stu]

And all of that church not accepting rubbish relates to people who have had sex before or outside marriage too, who fill pews.

But they are different :rolleyes:.

[Wildcat!]

Yeah, just like there are people who have committed all kinds of acts, deemed sin by the church, including stealing lying or whatever else. But its a sin, like any other. The church doesnt say their congregation dont commit sins! Christian believers refer to themselves as sinners, because of course, no one is perfect. The difference is, church goers accept that those are sins according to the bible, and therefore, they go to church, pray, confess and whatnot, to be forgiven their sins. I dont think the homosexual, consider that they are sinning, or goes to church to be forgiven their sins. Which is fair enough.

But that brings me back to my point of, why go to church, if you fundamentally disagree with it in that sense? I think basically, that they have their own religion.

[Stu]

Yeah, just like there are people who have committed all kinds of offenses deemed sin by the church, including stealing lying or whatever else. But its a sin, like any other. The church doesnt say their congregation dont commit sins! Christian believers refer to themselves as sinners, because of curse no one is perfect. The difference is, church goers accept that those are sins according t the bible, and therefore, they go to church, pray, confess and whatnot, to be forgiven their sins. I dont think the homosexual, consider that they are sinning, or goes to church to be forgiven their sins. Which is fair enough.

But that brings me back to my point of, why go to church, if you fundamentally disagree with it in that sense?
Exactly. So the Lesbian couple accept that it is a sin according to the Bible, admit they are sinners, and are going to church to pray and coffess. Hey presto.

Of course the Lesbians can still go to church. Maybe there are parts they believe and parts they don't Most Christians have never read The Bible. They don't know what the hell they are worshipping.

It's riddiculous that you are seperating 'ordinary' sinners from gay ones.

[Wildcat!]

Firstly, I do not think most gay people wh are christian, consider themselves as sinning, when it comes to their sexuality. imo, they think the interpretation is wrong, and that they should be allowed to marry! Correct me if I am wrong. So in that sense, no, they dont g to church to be forgiven that particular sin!

And secondly, if you go to church, youre not going there to sin some more are you? And the lesbian who g in there holding hands, arent exactly repentant are they??? Imo, they are blatantly (not like they are having sex or anything), but they are basically standing there saying we are lesbians, and that's just not right imo!

Once again, I believe its their right, But I do think its the sin in the eye of the church, and I dont think most homosexuals think so! Therefore, I dont understand why they would want to go to church.
Isnt what I am saying logical?

[Shasown]

Yeah, just like there are people who have committed all kinds of acts, deemed sin by the church, including stealing lying or whatever else. But its a sin, like any other. The church doesnt say their congregation dont commit sins! Christian believers refer to themselves as sinners, because of course, no one is perfect. The difference is, church goers accept that those are sins according to the bible, and therefore, they go to church, pray, confess and whatnot, to be forgiven their sins. I dont think the homosexual, consider that they are sinning, or goes to church to be forgiven their sins. Which is fair enough.

But that brings me back to my point of, why go to church, if you fundamentally disagree with it in that sense? I think basically, that they have their own religion.

So what you are saying is a separate church for homosexuals because its in some way a different form of sin.

Yet serial adulterers, reoffending criminals etc are okay as church members but a person who may live his life impeccably as a christian is barred because of their sexual preference?

I dont understand the christian viewpoint, it is and always has been hypocrisy on a lot of churches to ostracise or treat homosexuals differently than other sinners. Even if that church believes their very lifestyle to be a sin. No one is perfect, And a person having a long term affair is in my eyes a hypocrite if they continue to attend church while having the affair.

[Stu]

So they are commiting a sin even by holding hands? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah. Brah. Seriously. It's not exactly a practicing act. It's not as if they were in the confession box going all scissor sisters on each other with Cher banging away on the organ.

As for what your saying being logical, well, it would need to be legible first. And it's a far cry from that lofty milestone.

[Wildcat!]

So they are commiting a sin even by holding hands? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah. Brah. Seriously. It's not exactly a practicing act. It's not as if they were in the confession box going all scissor sisters on each other with Cher banging away on the organ.

As for what your saying being logical, well, it would need to be legible first. And it's a far cry from that lofty milestone.

I edited my post! I am not saying they are sinning by holding hands, but they are basically saying they are a couple, and Imo, they should refrain from doing that, if they are in the church.

Once again, you cant have a discussion without being rude! My fault for thinking that people change and actually grow up!

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

It's not as if they were in the confession box going all scissor sisters on each other with Cher banging away on the organ

:joker::joker:

[Wildcat!]

So what you are saying is a separate church for homosexuals because its in some way a different form of sin.

Yet serial adulterers, reoffending criminals etc are okay as church members but a person who may live his life impeccably as a christian is barred because of their sexual preference?

I dont understand the christian viewpoint, it is and always has been hypocrisy on a lot of churches to ostracise or treat homosexuals differently than other sinners. Even if that church believes their very lifestyle to be a sin. No one is perfect, And a person having a long term affair is in my eyes a hypocrite if they continue to attend church while having the affair.


It goes without saying, that the person who is having an affair, while still attending church, is lying t themselves, and to the church goers. In most cases, they are going to church t actually suggest that they are not doing what they do on the side. Of course there are always exceptions. Not everyone in church are cheating on their significant others right?


But like I said before, I dont think the homosexual consider themselves as sinners, so thats why I think they believe differently than the christian religion, thats why I think their place of whorship should be seperate. Again, I dont think its the church who should kick them out, because after all, everyone should be allowed in church, n matter the level of the sins they commit. BUt if you dont believe in that yourself, why would you want to go?

Again, looking at it, from the Point of view of the homosexual. I am trying to determine, why he or she, would want to go to church!

The church is what it is! Its not like youre gonna change their views!

[Stu]

I edited my post! I am not saying they are sinning by holding hands, but they are basically saying they are a couple, and Imo, they should refrain from doing that, if they are in the church.

Once again, you cant have a discussion without being rude! My fault for thinking that people change and actually grow up!
So openess, love and honesty don't count amongst what you think the Christian church should encourage?

Fair enough.

[Shasown]

Again, looking at it, from the Point of view of the homosexual. I am trying to determine, why he or she, would want to go to church!

The church is what it is! Its not like youre gonna change their views!

Except even the church has to follow the law of the land and its illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality. Or would you again draw lines in the sand saying churches shouldnt hide paedophile behaviour because thats against the law but then they should be allowed to ban homosexuals even though thats against the law as well?

Believe it or not but homosexuality is a natural state and surely even if the church believes its a sinful state they still have to accept that some of their congregations will be in that state just as there will always be people in states of other sins.

[Wildcat!]

The whole homosexuality is a natural state, has not been proven, its a theory, and not a scientific fact!


Illegal?? I dont think anyone will kick you out of the church, because they know you are a homosexual! I have never heard of that before, as long as its not manifested in the church! And clearly, 2 people who are known to be homosexuals, and are holding hands in the church, are manifesting it. Once again, I am looking at it forom a logical point of view.

And again, I dont understand why as a homosexual, you would want to go in there!! BEcause youre not gonna change any views of the church, weather it generates publicity, or not!

[setanta]

Look, as much as I have no time for the churches stance on homosexuality you don't have to be a genius to see that the two women knew exactly what they were doing.

[Shasown]

The whole homosexuality is a natural state, has not been proven, its a theory, and not a scientific fact!


Illegal?? I dont think anyone will kick you out of the church, because they know you are a homosexual! I have never heard of that before, as long as its not manifested in the church! And clearly, 2 people who are known to be homosexuals, and are holding hands in the church, are manifesting it. Once again, I am looking at it forom a logical point of view.

And again, I dont understand why as a homosexual, you would want to go in there!! BEcause youre not gonna change any views of the church, weather it generates publicity, or not!

First off I am not a homosexual, second off I dont want to go into a church except feet first. Third it is a natural state, look at the male big horn sheep or the homosexuality that’s been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. Simply because todays science cant find a reason for something or a gene to explain things does not make something any less real.

No does being a homosexual exclude anyone from wanting to worship god in a church of their choosing.

Yes I do think they were stupid for openly defying convention in the church, yes I also think they are looking for their little bit of fame or notarity. Thats the problem with going to the press, the article will polarise opinion and no one wins, everyone looks bad.

[Beso]

the whole catholic church reeks of stupidity, jesus was a jew ffs.

[Shasown]

the whole catholic church reeks of stupidity, jesus was a jew ffs.

Yeah course it does, one of the biggest money spinning cons in history. But what has the catholic Church to do with this thread? Could I refer you back to post #45 :wink:

[ElProximo]

Like Shasown said, he who is without sin and all that. It was one of the cornerstones of Christ's teaching.

Nope.
The teachings you took the 'snippet' from are from the Gospels where you first understand the concept is a Jewish Rabbi under Jewish Law who is teaching Law to other Jews under the Law.

In fact far from saying 'don't judge' (if you cut out 2 words from a sentence you can change the meaning entire as you did) but the actual message was:

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Followed by the example of pointing out a 'speck' in a brothers eye while having a plank in your own.

Well this is for Jews and concerning their Law but the entire thing makes for a common-sense Christian principle too and simply put - be consistent in your judgment.
If the Pastor of this church was holding hands with his gay boyfriend during the sermon then he ought to hold himself to the same rules as the lesbians in the pews.

That is not complicated.

This Christian teaching is one of the very founding principles behind our societies belief in a fair and equal and just society where (we believe) that a government MP can and should be subject to the exact same laws and penalties (and right to defend) as the polish window-washer.

Again, the teaching is about judging. When you judge. about how to make proper judgments.
Obviously everything would be senseless if nobody 'judged' anything.

Duly noted you and Shasawn are delighted to be judging the Church here but I have no doubt will use different standards for some other things in your own lives?

but at the end of the day, you just don't like the homos all that much, do you.

Some of my best friends are homos! How dare you judge me!

[Shasown]

Duly noted you and Shasawn are delighted to be judging the Church here but I have no doubt will use different standards for some other things in your own lives?



Some of my best friends are homos! How dare you judge me!


Its not often you are right but you are most definately wrong again




"He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her". Thats from John chapter 8


Nope.
The teachings you took the 'snippet' from are from the Gospels where you first understand the concept is a Jewish Rabbi under Jewish Law who is teaching Law to other Jews under the Law.

In fact far from saying 'don't judge' (if you cut out 2 words from a sentence you can change the meaning entire as you did) but the actual message was:



For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Followed by the example of pointing out a 'speck' in a brothers eye while having a plank in your own.

What you are referring to is the Sermon on the Mount, it covers Matthew chapter 5 - 8 the part you refer to is Matthew 7:2 followed by the plank in the eye at Matt 7:3 a totally unrelated part of a completely different gospel.

I would advise you to get out your bible and check things like that out before you put your foot in your mouth like that poxi. Top Tip of the Day. Check your references before blindly spouting something you appear to know very little about. To quote yourself "That is not complicated"

Delighted, why would I be delighted? No I use the same measures and consistancies throughout my life.

I presume he judges you just as you have judged him!

[ElProximo]

"He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her". Thats from John chapter 8

What you are referring to is the Sermon on the Mount,

Nope.
You screwed this up. not me. He was not referring to the 'cast the first stone' passage.
He was 'invoking' the 'judge not' teaching.
He referred to something saying 'Judge Not'. (which is an out of context clip from Matthew).

For some reason YOU decided he must have meant the 'first stone' passage and then he agreed with you.
Both of you were wrong.



it covers Matthew chapter 5 - 8 the part you refer to is Matthew 7:2 followed by the plank in the eye at Matt 7:3 a totally unrelated part of a completely different gospel.

That WAS the 'judge not' passage he was trying to refer to. You brought up an unrelated passage.

I would advise you to get out your bible and check things like that out before you put your foot in your mouth like that poxi. Top Tip of the Day. Check your references before blindly spouting something you appear to know very little about. To quote yourself "That is not complicated"

I think you should heed that advice and I think its HILARIOUS you actually screwed this up and now will feel totally stupid when you realize it.

Top tip for you: If someone references to a passage with the words 'judge not' then they probably are referring to THE PART WITH THOSE WORDS IN IT dummy! lol


Delighted, why would I be delighted? No I use the same measures and consistancies throughout my life.


I doubt that.

[Beso]

Yeah course it does, one of the biggest money spinning cons in history. But what has the catholic Church to do with this thread? Could I refer you back to post #45 :wink:


Ok, thanks Rimmer:xyxwave:

[Shasown]

Nope.
You screwed this up. not me. He was not referring to the 'cast the first stone' passage.
He was 'invoking' the 'judge not' teaching.
He referred to something saying 'Judge Not'. (which is an out of context clip from Matthew).



Poor exercise in ass covering there matey. Go back and review from about thread#40 and you will see the real truth of what you have once again twisted to suit your own argument.

Ok, thanks Rimmer:xyxwave:

You are most welcome Lister :xyxwave:

[ElProximo]

Poor exercise in ass covering there matey. Go back and review from about thread#40 and you will see the real truth of what you have once again twisted to suit your own argument



I wasn't going to rub your face in it but since you keep 'asking for it' lets go review.

Stu starts by asking/writing:

You say they have a right to allow or reject who they want, right, but what about 'Judge Not'?


I then ask Stu:
So just to be clear here - you think there is a Christian 'rule' and it says 'Judge Not'?

Now at this point I know he is referring to 'judge not lest you be judged accordingly',
but,
YOU jump in and MISTAKENLY believe Stu and I are talking about 'cast the first stone'.
Watch as you even explain how you think that is the 'judge not' passage:

Yeah I seem to recall a tale from the good book where Jesus stepped in on a stepping and said something along the lines of "Let he is without sin cast the first stone". John chap 8:7 Its generally taken to mean Judge not lest you be judged on your own failings.

Now after you misidentify his reference he shows up confused thinking you must have it right.
He writes:
Like Shasown said, he who is without sin and all that. It was one of the cornerstones of Christ's teaching.

Both of you are wrong. He was referring to the 'Judge Not' passage all along and in the first place.
Nope.
The teachings you took the 'snippet' from are from the Gospels where you first understand the concept is a Jewish Rabbi under Jewish Law who is teaching Law to other Jews under the Law.

"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Then after I correctly identify the passage HE WAS referring to,
and,
explain to you the 'cast the first stone' passage is NOT the 'judge not' passage,
then,
even after realizing you screwed up you stupidly write:
"He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her". Thats from John chapter 8

He wasn't talking about that passage and once again that is NOT referred to as the 'judge not' passage.
D'oh!

You are 100% self-pwned and why you keep wanting to push it is baffling.
I did not 'rub your face' in this.
You did.

In the future I will not be allowing you to waste my time with this much stupidity,
but,
this should be 'lesson learned' for you. You should be a little embarrassed now and realize you ought not try this again.

[Stu]

Duly noted you and Shasawn are delighted to be judging the Church here but I have no doubt will use different standards for some other things in your own lives?
You may of course have noticed that neither of us are what you would call practicing Christians, dumbass.

[Photon]

The whole homosexuality is a natural state, has not been proven, its a theory, and not a scientific fact!

Stop posting.

Homosexuality has been well documented in the animal kingdom.

[Shasown]

Now at this point I know he is referring to 'judge not lest you be judged accordingly',
but,
YOU jump in and MISTAKENLY believe Stu and I are talking about 'cast the first stone'.


Both of you are wrong. He was referring to the 'Judge Not' passage all along and in the first place.



I love the way your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.

You know what people think and believe? Do me a favour, EMS!

[Crimson Dynamo]

Stop posting.

Homosexuality has been well documented in the animal kingdom.

and not in any way shape or form agreed on. Trying to morph human things onto animals is the same as Paris Hilton dressing her dog in a tutu, and about as useful.

[Photon]

Interesting argument there, though I'm not sure what you've addressed exactly. What is not agreed on?

Homosexual behavior has been observed in over a thousand different species. Of course, it is continuously studied and such studies are difficult to conduct as human interference must be kept to an absolute minimum, if not entirely or else such studies are considered invalid. In order to conduct accurate studies on group social behavior in animals, the presence of human interaction(whether direct or indirect) can nullify the value of any findings.

Of course, the primary argument(obviously not evidence based conclusions) that religious fanatics trumpeted for ages was that homosexuality was relegated to humans and was the result of amoral choices. Unfortunately for them, countless species have been observed in the wild engaging in homosexual behavior, even extending into same sex companionship in some of the more socially advanced species.

Of course, I'm sure you can refute this with something about frogs wearing bathing suits.

[letmein]

The homophobia and flat out bigotry in this thread is alarming. This thread should be locked, and members warned.

[cupid stunt]

The homophobia and flat out bigotry in this thread is alarming. This thread should be locked, and members warned.

ant YOU GOT NOWT better to do wi your life than grass ppl up on a friggin forum? keyboard warrior

[Crimson Dynamo]

The homophobia and flat out bigotry in this thread is alarming. This thread should be locked, and members warned.

i would rather ban you for your avatar and i would wager i am not alone.

[ElProximo]

The homophobia and flat out bigotry in this thread is alarming. This thread should be locked, and members warned.

Homophobia is a made-up mental illness that was popularized by gay activist orgs and people who were not psychiatrists or psychologists. It is true that the first 'documented' use (this is not the first use) might be a gay rights activist using it sarcastically (a neologism) in a hardcore porn mag,
but,
the reason it got popular was because activists and their propagandists began using it at every turn, media, placard.
Eventually the dictionary recognized it as a word being used to mean 'fear of homosexuals' (it is used that way).

But suppose there was such a thing?
An irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality?
I suppose there is.
Why should you want to prosecute those with this mental illness?
Why do you love the idea of threatening them with 'warnings' as if their mental problem was a crime?
Why do you want to 'lock up' homophobia sufferers?
I suppose you would like to straight-jacket them and gag them too?

These people suffer from an illness and how dare you talk of 'locking them up' and 'threatening them' to be silent!
First they are victims and now people like you want to victimize them even further for it.
There is increasing evidence that they may very well have been born this way. Its not a 'choice' but simply 'who they are' and who are you to condemn them?

Quite seriously, people like you make me sick to my stomach. Spewing hatred and bullying those with weaknesses is the worst thing there is. People like you are what is wrong with the world today and unless you learn to change your attitudes we never progress.

First you need to stop calling them 'homophobic' because that is simply unacceptable and insulting.
It starts with words.
They are called 'gay panic response sufferers' and don't need to be called derogatory names by you.

Next you need to start being a little more tolerant. Actually a LOT more tolerant. GPR people are JUST LIKE YOU AND ME and you have no right to stop them, tell them when to talk or what to do.
EVEN IF you disagree with GPR Sufferers (fine) but TOLERANCE for EVERYONE ought to be where you stand.

Last but not least - once you start using the proper terms and start learning to be tolerant you may then actually try and LEARN about GPR Sufferers!
get over your ignorance and become educated about GPR,
and,
wow.. you might even try and MEET some GPR Sufferers and realize they are actually normal people like you and me who have jobs and families and goals and not these 'horrible monsters' you make them out to be.

Its time people like you STOP your homophobist hate-spewing censoring of GPR people.

[Beso]

:joker:

[cupid stunt]

Homophobia is a made-up mental illness that was popularized by gay activist orgs and people who were not psychiatrists or psychologists. It is true that the first 'documented' use (this is not the first use) might be a gay rights activist using it sarcastically (a neologism) in a hardcore porn mag,
but,
the reason it got popular was because activists and their propagandists began using it at every turn, media, placard.
Eventually the dictionary recognized it as a word being used to mean 'fear of homosexuals' (it is used that way).

But suppose there was such a thing?
An irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality?
I suppose there is.
Why should you want to prosecute those with this mental illness?
Why do you love the idea of threatening them with 'warnings' as if their mental problem was a crime?
Why do you want to 'lock up' homophobia sufferers?
I suppose you would like to straight-jacket them and gag them too?

These people suffer from an illness and how dare you talk of 'locking them up' and 'threatening them' to be silent!
First they are victims and now people like you want to victimize them even further for it.
There is increasing evidence that they may very well have been born this way. Its not a 'choice' but simply 'who they are' and who are you to condemn them?

Quite seriously, people like you make me sick to my stomach. Spewing hatred and bullying those with weaknesses is the worst thing there is. People like you are what is wrong with the world today and unless you learn to change your attitudes we never progress.

First you need to stop calling them 'homophobic' because that is simply unacceptable and insulting.
It starts with words.
They are called 'gay panic response sufferers' and don't need to be called derogatory names by you.

Next you need to start being a little more tolerant. Actually a LOT more tolerant. GPR people are JUST LIKE YOU AND ME and you have no right to stop them, tell them when to talk or what to do.
EVEN IF you disagree with GPR Sufferers (fine) but TOLERANCE for EVERYONE ought to be where you stand.

Last but not least - once you start using the proper terms and start learning to be tolerant you may then actually try and LEARN about GPR Sufferers!
get over your ignorance and become educated about GPR,
and,
wow.. you might even try and MEET some GPR Sufferers and realize they are actually normal people like you and me who have jobs and families and goals and not these 'horrible monsters' you make them out to be.

Its time people like you STOP your homophobist hate-spewing censoring of GPR people.

well said lad

[BB_Eye]

Homophobia is a made-up mental illness that was popularized by gay activist orgs and people who were not psychiatrists or psychologists. It is true that the first 'documented' use (this is not the first use) might be a gay rights activist using it sarcastically (a neologism) in a hardcore porn mag,
but,
the reason it got popular was because activists and their propagandists began using it at every turn, media, placard.
Eventually the dictionary recognized it as a word being used to mean 'fear of homosexuals' (it is used that way).


For the record, I don't think homophobes are mentally ill nor that they need locking up. They are just ignorant, uneducated and/or insecure people like the poster above me. It seems you put words in... just about everybody's mouths there.

Speaking of mental illness, I'm sure any psychiatrist would have a field day with your whacko conspiracy theories and protracted, inarticulate rambling. To say nothing of your internalised homophobia.

[Crimson Dynamo]

For the record, I don't think homophobes are mentally ill nor that they need locking up. They are just ignorant, uneducated and/or insecure people like the poster above me. It seems you put words in... just about everybody's mouths there.

Speaking of mental illness, I'm sure any psychiatrist would have a field day with your whacko conspiracy theories and protracted, inarticulate rambling. To say nothing of your internalised homophobia.

I think there is a lot of confusion over people who are not gay who dislike what gay people do sexually (men) which is around 99.9% of the population and those who bully and abuse gay people because they dislike them because they do not conform to their nasty worldview.

[Stu]

I think there is a lot of confusion over people who are not gay who dislike what gay people do sexually (men) which is around 99.9% of the population and those who bully and abuse gay people because they dislike them because they do not conform to their nasty worldview.
No, I don't think there is much confusion at all. Your just being incredibly vague about it.

Obviously a straight man would not like a cock up his ass, that's perfectly acceptable and inevitable. After all a gay man probably wouldn't like to stick his own party stick in a vag. Nobody is talking about these people. Far and beyond that plenty of real homophobes exist. People who just don't like gays on a cultural & social level, as well as but not always religious and ethical ones.

Just .. don't like the people. Hatred. I'm talking about hate. It's almost recreational hate. Some ignorant, intolerable people just ... need things to hate. Beats me why. But the gays are an old favourite. The ***** are another one. It's got nothing to do with the very different idea of simply not being comftorable participating in or watching a sexual act that's not natural or appealing to you. Nobody is 'discriminating' against these people, which you are forever trying to point out.

Just like you seem to forever be marginalizing the very real concept of homophobia whenever the situation arises.

That's a rather strange route to take in most accepting peoples eyes.

[Shasown]

Homophobia is a made-up mental illness that was popularized by gay activist orgs and people who were not psychiatrists or psychologists. It is true that the first 'documented' use (this is not the first use) might be a gay rights activist using it sarcastically (a neologism) in a hardcore porn mag,......


They are called 'gay panic response sufferers' and don't need to be called derogatory names by you.

wow.. you might even try and MEET some GPR Sufferers and realize they are actually normal people like you and me who have jobs and families and goals and not these 'horrible monsters' you make them out to be.

Its time people like you STOP your homophobist hate-spewing censoring of GPR people.

Wow you really are clutching at straws now Elprox, Gay Panic response is a defence used by people who after assaulting or even killing a homosexual have used the temporary insanity get out clause to being approached sexually by the person they have assaulted etc.

Note the word "insanity", so you pretty much admit to those you claim are gay panic sufferers as having a mental impairment. Well done mate, case proven.

It doesnt wash in the UK nor does the syndrome you mentioned.

Homophobia is an acceptable term for the irrational fear of gays, end of.

If people are so insecure in their own sexuality they feel threatened by the presence of someone who is gay, either because of previous trauma or more likely because of their own insecurities about thier own sexuality, then yes they do need some form of therapy. In a way what you are suggesting could be extended to giving anyone a get out of jail free card. " I thought he was gay your honour and after me arse so I twatted him" Yeah that really works.

Homophobia was defined as a state of mind by psychologists not by gay rights activists. No matter how much you and your homophobic mates argue it wasnt.

[Wildcat!]

The thing is, there is a difference between, what technically, homophobia is (fear of homosexual), I suppose technically it would be something they cant control, I know there are people like that, who actually have a genuine fear, for one reason or another.

BUt what most people call homophobia, we all know what it is, weather its technically correct or not, its the people who hate/discriminate/look down upon, people who are homosexuals. If you ask most people, thats what they would tell you homophobia is. unless you break down the word, or look up the meaning, most people see it as that, and, me personally, even though I know the real definition of the word, in everyday conversations, I use it as the general consensus meaning of the word, so its really silly to get technical about it. We all know what most peolpe mean, by homophobia.

Not exactly the same thing , but its similar to when people call you racist, for not liking foreigners, or not liking someone from a certain religion. Technically, it shouldnt be, but most people will just call you racist.

And btW, i thought El proximo, was just being sarcastic, and making jokes, i didnt think it was a serious post!:conf:

[Crimson Dynamo]

No, I don't think there is much confusion at all. Your just being incredibly vague about it.

Obviously a straight man would not like a cock up his ass, that's perfectly acceptable and inevitable. After all a gay man probably wouldn't like to stick his own party stick in a vag. Nobody is talking about these people. Far and beyond that plenty of real homophobes exist. People who just don't like gays on a cultural & social level, as well as but not always religious and ethical ones.

Just .. don't like the people. Hatred. I'm talking about hate. It's almost recreational hate. Some ignorant, intolerable people just ... need things to hate. Beats me why. But the gays are an old favourite. The ***** are another one. It's got nothing to do with the very different idea of simply not being comftorable participating in or watching a sexual act that's not natural or appealing to you. Nobody is 'discriminating' against these people, which you are forever trying to point out.

Just like you seem to forever be marginalizing the very real concept of homophobia whenever the situation arises.

That's a rather strange route to take in most accepting peoples eyes.

This from the poster who exhibits the most hate in the whole forum?


(although he is a nice guy underneath)

[Stu]

This from the poster who exhibits the most hate in the whole forum?


(although he is a nice guy underneath)
Apart from my longstanding campaign against troll posters, I think your full of ****. As usual.

One day, as others have alluded to in the past, you might be prepared to engage in debate with adults instead of making one liners, but it looks like today is not that day.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Apart from my longstanding campaign against troll posters, I think your full of ****. As usual.

One day, as others have alluded to in the past, you might be prepared to engage in debate with adults instead of making one liners, but it looks like today is not that day.

You would think that as you know I am right. :wink:

and you are just a lad, not an adult.

[Stu]

You would think that as you know I am right. :wink:

and you are just a lad, not an adult.
If you are so confident then there is no reason why you can't outline your arguments for us all.

[Wildcat!]

Apart from my longstanding campaign against troll posters, I think your full of ****. As usual.

One day, as others have alluded to in the past, you might be prepared to engage in debate with adults instead of making one liners, but it looks like today is not that day.

With adults! So not with you obviously then.

[Shaun]

a male Wombai :shocked:

[Stu]

With adults! So not with you obviously then.
Thank you for your valid contribution. It has been noted for future reference :wink:.

[Crimson Dynamo]

i cant believe I spelled church wrong

[Claymores]

i cant believe I spelled church wrong

You'll be excomunicated by Gavin deep deep in the Highlands - Or sent to Switzerland

Can you pick Sweety Samy and biglover back up on the way home in a white military jumbo? thanks - Kerry goes to Iceland in them, but there's one in Inverness LT - not sure of Elgin.........ask Shas

Frozen teas @ LT's house with Samy and biglover'sister Joanne sounds super

Who invented the name for this site as TIBB (Fawlty) Towers - prey remind me..

[WOMBAI]

Apart from my longstanding campaign against troll posters, I think your full of ****. As usual.

One day, as others have alluded to in the past, you might be prepared to engage in debate with adults instead of making one liners, but it looks like today is not that day.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! :joker:

[Stu]

I thought Batman ended up killing the joker in the end?

[Beastie]

Wombai and Stuuuuuuuuuu! :bouncy:

[WOMBAI]

I thought Batman ended up killing the joker in the end?

The joker being you of course! :joker:

[setanta]

I thought Batman ended up killing the joker in the end?

Batman doesn't want to kill anyone, just incapacitates them usually. Oh Stu.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Wombai and Stu in civil partnership shock?

[Stu]

I'm starting to think I could post virtually anything and aul WOMBAI will somehow post back to it in a certain fashion.


I like fish, I do.
You are the only fish around here! :hugesmile:

... because I was in Paris the other day.
The French - would eat - you for breakfeast! :hugesmile:

It's a really bad song, though.
Not enough for your - mighty tastes! :hugesmile:

I made those ones up, believe it or not. Could you tell?

[WOMBAI]

I'm starting to think I could post virtually anything and aul WOMBAI will somehow post back to it in a certain fashion.












I made those ones up, believe it or not.

I can believe it! :hugesmile:

[Stu]

I can believe it! :hugesmile:
Good. It's healthy to have belief, as long as it's not too irrational.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Good. It's healthy to have belief, as long as it's not too irrational.

what if you believe you have a rash?

[Stu]

what if you believe you have a rash?
Depends what denomination you fall into, I suppose.

[Tom4784]

I can only laugh at certain individuals in this thread as it's depressing to think some morons actually believe the crap they spew over their keyboards. It's like we've slipped into the 80's.

[WOMBAI]

Good. It's healthy to have belief, as long as it's not too irrational.

Says the rolling stoned from the planet Zion! :hugesmile:

[Shasown]

I can only laugh at certain individuals in this thread as it's depressing to think some morons actually believe the crap they spew over their keyboards. It's like we've slipped into the 80's.

Ashes to ashes style

[Stu]

Says the rolling stoned from the planet Zion! :hugesmile:
What's a rolling stoned?

Where is planet Zion?

How are any of these things beliefs?

Have you actually got anything relevant to say or do you just enjoy following my posts around like a stray dog after scraps? You know ... those posts you cant stand?

[WOMBAI]

What's a rolling stoned?

Where is planet Zion?

How are any of these things beliefs?

Have you actually got anything relevant to say or do you just enjoy following my posts around like a stray dog after scraps? You know ... those posts you cant stand?

Whose following who! And to you, no! :hugesmile:

[Shasown]

I think maybe Wombai and Stu have this thing going on and all this silly arguing is asscovering.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I can only laugh at certain individuals in this thread as it's depressing to think some morons actually believe the crap they spew over their keyboards. It's like we've slipped into the 80's.

I dont know how many times people on forums post like this??

You cannot take any moral high ground whilst denouncing others as morons


when

will

people

learn

?

[Stu]

Whose following who! And to you, no! :hugesmile:
Well, you actually. Considering twice you started conversing with me in this thread when I made no prior mention of you.

Oops.

[Tom4784]

I dont know how many times people on forums post like this??

You cannot take any moral high ground whilst denouncing others as morons


when

will

people

learn

?

The difference is I'm not taking the moral highground I'm just calling half of the posters in this thread *****ing morons.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The difference is I'm not taking the moral highground I'm just calling half of the posters in this thread *****ing morons.

and by doing so the mirror reflects the biggest one of all...

[Tom4784]

Ashes to ashes style

Yup, only without the witty dialogue or likable characters.

[Tom4784]

and by doing so the mirror reflects the biggest one of all...

Coming from you? Laughable, my sides are literally splitting.

Homophobia isn't some made up concept and like it or not, being gay isn't a choice. Sorry that I don't act like the missing link.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Coming from you? Laughable, my sides are literally splitting.

Homophobia isn't some made up concept and like it or not, being gay isn't a choice. Sorry that I don't act like the missing link.

Sexual proclivity is a choice as one does not need to act on sexual desire.

Being white is not a choice neither is being a woman.

[WOMBAI]

Well, you actually. Considering twice you started conversing with me in this thread when I made no prior mention of you.

Oops.

I wouldn't exactly call it conversing! :hugesmile: But I am rather a fan of a much deserved bit of tit for tat! :hugesmile:

[Vicky.]

This thread has got even more ridiculous since I saw it and delted a load of stuff yesterday, not going to change, since it all started up again today...so closed.