God does not discriminate so why does Dave?

[doughnut8]

I can not stand his FAKE sincerity and his open disgust at minorities like gay people. I say send him a message and he can stick his vile agenda and get him OUT NOW! Call: 09011 323 004

[Livia]

I think you're confusing him with someone who ACTUALLY discriminates against minorities.

[oddballmisfitsFTW]

I can not stand his FAKE sincerity and his open disgust at minorities like gay people. I say send him a message and he can stick his vile agenda and get him OUT NOW! Call: 09011 323 004

the "GOD" of the bible DOES discriminate

Dave has said is more a follower of Jesus who is lot more forgiving

[doughnut8]

I think you're confusing him with someone who ACTUALLY discriminates against minorities.

Saying he would not marry gay people IS Discrimination in the EXACT say way as saying he would not marry Black people.

[Livia]

Saying he would not marry gay people IS Discrimination in the EXACT say way as saying he would not marry Black people.

No one can "marry" gay people in this country. It isn't legal. Gay people can have a civil partnership, but they are now allowed to marry. That's not Dave's rule.

[headaball]

I can not stand his FAKE sincerity and his open disgust at minorities like gay people. I say send him a message and he can stick his vile agenda and get him OUT NOW! Call: 09011 323 004

Who's you then, head of the gay mafia?

[Livia]

the "GOD" of the bible DOES discriminate

Dave has said is more a follower of Jesus who is lot more forgiving

Exactly. The anti-gay stuff is Old Testament, in Leviticus... where it also says you are allowed to own slaves, sell your children into slavery and burn someone to death for sleeping with an in-law. Nothing hysterical there, then.

[doughnut8]

Exactly. The anti-gay stuff is Old Testament, in Leviticus... where it also says you are allowed to own slaves, sell your children into slavery and burn someone to death for sleeping with an in-law. Nothing hysterical there, then.

I bet Dave believes all that crap also.

The thing is he is fostering his hatred to minorities and spreading that as okay...it is disgusting!

[WOMBAI]

Dave is not at all homophobic - sick of people accusing him of it!

[doughnut8]

Dave is not at all homophobic - sick of people accusing him of it!

Of course he is as he said he would never marry same sex people as he thinks they should burn in hell for their sins.

[BigBrotherfan4ever]

I can not stand his FAKE sincerity and his open disgust at minorities like gay people. I say send him a message and he can stick his vile agenda and get him OUT NOW! Call: 09011 323 004

Me either, the guy drives me mad when opens his mouth, with the Sh... he comes out with.:mad::mad::mad:

[BigBrotherfan4ever]

Dave is not at all homophobic - sick of people accusing him of it!

Totally disagree with you WOMBAI.

[ElProximo]

Dave is not at all homophobic - sick of people accusing him of it!

You are correct and the OP has it all wrong.

[Caroline592]

" God does not discriminate so why does Dave? "

Dave is not God.

[flamingGalah!]

Dave is a fraud, that's why... EVICT THE CHARLATAN :xyxwave:

[WOMBAI]

Totally disagree with you WOMBAI.

It is a totally unfair accusation and he has done nothing to deserve it! Josie stirred that one up - to cause controversy! He was honest and stated that he didn't approve of gay marriage in line with his religious beliefs - he is entitled to those opinions - and I do not believe they make him homophobic!

[doughnut8]

It is a totally unfair accusation and he has done nothing to deserve it! Josie stirred that one up - to cause controversy! He was honest and stated that he didn't approve of gay marriage in line with his religious beliefs - he is entitled to those opinions - and I do not believe they make him homophobic!

His option is the definition of homophobic.

[flamingGalah!]

His option is the definition of homophobic.

Exactly. If he said he wouldn't marry black people that would make him racist. Religious beliefs are not an excuse for discrimination... :nono:

[Mystic Mock]

Dave is a fraud, that's why... EVICT THE CHARLATAN :xyxwave:

totally agree but you know people clearly prefer frauds over entertainment.

[Livia]

I bet Dave believes all that crap also.

The thing is he is fostering his hatred to minorities and spreading that as okay...it is disgusting!

Dave's a Christian. He, and all Christians, are more concerned with the New Testament. Leviticus is Old Testament.

[Mystic Mock]

It is a totally unfair accusation and he has done nothing to deserve it! Josie stirred that one up - to cause controversy! He was honest and stated that he didn't approve of gay marriage in line with his religious beliefs - he is entitled to those opinions - and I do not believe they make him homophobic!

why do you always blame josie for what another housemate does?

[Livia]

Exactly. If he said he wouldn't marry black people that would make him racist. Religious beliefs are not an excuse for discrimination... :nono:

It's not the same thing AT ALL! No one would marry a gay couple. Not Catholics, Not Jews, not Methodists, not Anglicans... no one. It's just the way it is. His personal view might night concur with that, but the church - any church - would not allow it.

[doughnut8]

The guy is a dinosaur spreading this horrible hate about people who do not fit this ridiculous christian centric view of the world. We need to send his guy and his ugly views a message.

[flamingGalah!]

It's not the same thing AT ALL! No one would marry a gay couple. Not Catholics, Not Jews, not Methodists, not Anglicans... no one. It's just the way it is. His personal view might night concur with that, but the church - any church - would not allow it.

YES IT IS!!! He could perform a civil partnership if he so wished, he isn't a bloody Catholic Priest is he?! He has his own made up loony religion...

He says he would not do it OUT OF PERSONAL CHOICE that is discrimination :xyxwave:

[flamingGalah!]

The guy is a dinosaur spreading this horrible hate about people who do not fit this ridiculous christian centric view of the world. We need to send his guy and his ugly views a message.

I have already voted for him several times & will continue to vote until Friday to get that disgusting man out :xyxwave:

[stonedape]

Exactly. If he said he wouldn't marry black people that would make him racist. Religious beliefs are not an excuse for discrimination... :nono:

this. When the paradigm fully shifts that's exactly how people will think of opinions like Dave's.

to Livia - there are countless churches, Catholics and Protestants, that do support marrying homosexuals. How can a religious majority enforce their interpretation on a religious minority? And don't even start with "but it's in the Bible!" There are more discarded moral codes in the Bible than followed ones.

At best, he lacks critical thinking skills. At worst, he's an arse.

[Livia]

The guy is a dinosaur spreading this horrible hate about people who do not fit this ridiculous christian centric view of the world. We need to send his guy and his ugly views a message.

It isn't just Dave. Do you actually read any of this stuff? THE WHOLE CHURCH is united in not marrying gays. And not just Christians. And they can't "marry" in a register office, they can only have a civil partnership.

Dave is tolerant of all people I think. I've never once heard him discriminate or judge someone. But you know what, I'm wasting my time, aren't I. Ignorance is bliss when it suits your crusade.

[suzq]

Dave is a PR**K

[Livia]

this. When the paradigm fully shifts that's exactly how people will think of opinions like Dave's.

to Livia - there are countless churches, Catholics and Protestants, that do support marrying homosexuals. How can a religious majority enforce their interpretation on a religious minority? And don't even start with "but it's in the Bible!" There are more discarded moral codes in the Bible than followed ones.

At best, he lacks critical thinking skills. At worst, he's an arse.

There are NO churches that marry gay people None. Not one. I am not a Christian. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm telling what the law of the land says. Even if the church decided to marry gay couples, it would have to be passed by the House of Lords before it became legal. Dave does not have a say.

[flamingGalah!]

There are NO churches that marry gay people None. Not one. I am not a Christian. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm telling what the law of the land says. Even if the church decided to marry gay couples, it would have to be passed by the House of Lords before it became legal. Dave does not have a say.

But Dave isn't even a "proper" minister is he?? He just started up his own silly religious sect where they pretend they are pissed on Gods love & wheel themselves around in wheelchairs in town centres offering to cure cancer...

IF he can legally perform weddings then he is also legally permitted to perform civil partnership ceremonys... So he CAN, he just WONT... that is discrimination...

[WOMBAI]

why do you always blame josie for what another housemate does?

Because she did stir it up! Why do you refuse to hold her responsible for her own actions?

[Livia]

But Dave isn't even a "proper" minister is he?? He just started up his own silly religious sect where they pretend they are pissed on Gods love & wheel themselves around in wheelchairs in town centres offering to cure cancer...

IF he can legally perform weddings then he is also legally permitted to perform civil partnership ceremonys... So he CAN, he just WONT... that is discrimination...

A civil partnership is performed by a registrar. It is not a religious ceremony of any kind, it is purely secular. It is not discrimination, it is not legal.

I am not supporting Dave's ministry, nor his cancer cure claims. But this whole "not marrying gays is like not marrying black people" is a ludicrous argument!

[stonedape]

There are NO churches that marry gay people None. Not one. I am not a Christian. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm telling what the law of the land says. Even if the church decided to marry gay couples, it would have to be passed by the House of Lords before it became legal. Dave does not have a say.

You're aware churches exist outside of the UK, right?

The same book was used to justify not marrying whites and blacks, with just as little real argument as Dave: "It's in the Bible!" "It's just not natural!" so I'd say the argument is sound.

[Fuzzylogic]

The guy is a dinosaur spreading this horrible hate about people who do not fit this ridiculous christian centric view of the world. We need to send his guy and his ugly views a message.

You are either an idiot or a troll, which is it?

There is a difference between hims aying he won;t marry gays and being a "gay hater."

If he hated gays and gayness he wouldn;t be friends with Mario, and be so huggy with other men.

[flamingGalah!]

A civil partnership is performed by a registrar. It is not a religious ceremony of any kind, it is purely secular. It is not discrimination, it is not legal.

I am not supporting Dave's ministry, nor his cancer cure claims. But this whole "not marrying gays is like not marrying black people" is a ludicrous argument!

A civil partnership isn't legal?? :conf:

It isn't a ludicrous argument at all! If Dave is a qualified registrar (which is about all he could be as he has basically made up his own religion & "church") then he would be able to perfom a civil partnership, he said he wont, so that is discrimination... Just the same as if he said he wouldn't marry a couple for the colour of their skin... Many people use the term "marry" for gay couples, even if technically it is a "civil partnership" it gives couples the exact same rights & is different only in name...

[Livia]

You're aware churches exist outside of the UK, right?

You are aware we're talking about a man who's "ministry" is in the UK, right? If he was a minister in, say, the Netherlands, we wouldn't need to be having this conversation because gay marriage is legal there and whether or not he agreed to marry gay couples would be up to him. At the moment, the decision is out of his hands. One day it might be different, but right now, that's the way it is.

Don't get the impression I'm a follower, or a supporter. I am a Jew. I am not a Christian. I'm talking only about the legality of what he's saying in the face of some pretty unfair criticism.

Ask me if he can cure cancer and I will tell you, no.

[Mystic Mock]

Because she did stir it up! Why do you refuse to hold her responsible for her own actions?

because she only asked him a question so why would you blame her for that?

and watch out josie if you breathe wombai and your other haters will attack you.

[Livia]

A civil partnership isn't legal?? :conf:

It isn't a ludicrous argument at all! If Dave is a qualified registrar (which is about all he could be as he has basically made up his own religion & "church") then he would be able to perfom a civil partnership, he said he wont, so that is discrimination... Just the same as if he said he wouldn't marry a couple for the colour of their skin... Many people use the term "marry" for gay couples, even if technically it is a "civil partnership" it gives couples the exact same rights & is different only in name...

Dave is NOT a registrar he is a minister. A civil partnership is a secular ceremony, which means is it non-religious.

Because people call it a marriage, it does not make it one. It offers the same rights as a married couple but is is not a "marriage" in the eyes of the law.

I've explained it as simply as I can. Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, you have to see what I'm saying, surely. I do not necessarily support it, but it is the law nevertheless.

[Mystic Mock]

You are aware we're talking about a man who's "ministry" is in the UK, right? If he was a minister in, say, the Netherlands, we wouldn't need to be having this conversation because gay marriage is legal there and whether or not he agreed to marry gay couples would be up to him. At the moment, the decision is out of his hands. One day it might be different, but right now, that's the way it is.

Don't get the impression I'm a follower, or a supporter. I am a Jew. I am not a Christian. I'm talking only about the legality of what he's saying in the face of some pretty unfair criticism.

Ask me if he can cure cancer and I will tell you, no.

mario would love the netherlands and you know why? being a prostachute is legal over there lol.

[flamingGalah!]

Dave is NOT a registrar he is a minister. A civil partnership is a secular ceremony, which means is it non-religious.

Because people call it a marriage, it does not make it one. It offers the same rights as a married couple but is is not a "marriage" in the eyes of the law.

I've explained it as simply as I can. Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, you have to see what I'm saying, surely. I do not necessarily support it, but it is the law nevertheless.

But what I am trying to explain is that Dave is NOT a proper minister, he does not have a church & he CANNOT perform weddings anyway.. IF he was able to perfom ANY cermony he would have to have a license to be able to do it. He is not affiliated to any part of the C.O.E... So if he was to perfom any cermonys he could also perfom a civil partnership if he so wished, he said he wouldn't, so therefore he is discriminating against homosexuals...

Forget the religious legalities as Dave isn't following any recognised religion anyway... He is simply an ex junkie who pretends to be pissed on reading a book...

[Livia]

mario would love the netherlands and you know why? being a prostachute is legal over there lol.

Prostachute. Is that where you call a prostitute and they parachute in? :-)

[stonedape]

You are aware we're talking about a man who's "ministry" is in the UK, right? If he was a minister in, say, the Netherlands, we wouldn't need to be having this conversation because gay marriage is legal there and whether or not he agreed to marry gay couples would be up to him. At the moment, the decision is out of his hands. One day it might be different, but right now, that's the way it is.

Don't get the impression I'm a follower, or a supporter. I am a Jew. I am not a Christian. I'm talking only about the legality of what he's saying in the face of some pretty unfair criticism.

Ask me if he can cure cancer and I will tell you, no.

You were the one with the hubris to claim NO CHURCHES. NONE. marry gays. Don't start getting specific now. Legality was never the issue, the issue is Dave's stance which regardless of legality could be for or against gay marriage. It's against. And if you'd ever read the Bible in full, you'd realize how ridiculous the stance is. There's almost nothing in the book about it, just like there's almost nothing about interracial marriage.

Again, it's either a lack of critical thinking about his own religion, or he's just a total ass. I'd say definitely the former, because he actually has a really tolerant attitude. I just don't think he's thinking about what he believes.

[Fuzzylogic]

Prostachute. Is that where you call a prostitute and they parachute in? :-)

LOL:joker:

[Livia]

But what I am trying to explain is that Dave is NOT a proper minister, he does not have a church & he CANNOT perform weddings anyway.. IF he was able to perfom ANY cermony he would have to have a license to be able to do it. He is not affiliated to any part of the C.O.E... So if he was to perfom any cermonys he could also perfom a civil partnership if he so wished, he said he wouldn't, so therefore he is discriminating against homosexuals...

Forget the religious legalities as Dave isn't following any recognised religion anyway... He is simply an ex junkie who pretends to be pissed on reading a book...

I understand what you're saying, and to an extent I agree with you. I don't know if he can perform weddings. Possibly he can... but not a gay one.

If a gay couple have strong religious convictions, they may be able to find a sympathetic minister who could bless their union, but they would not marry them in a religious ceremony.

No religion started out as a recognised religion. Christianity is only 2000 years old... Judaism is 5000 years old, so by comparison, all Christians are newbies compared to Jews!

Anyhoo... it's been interesting. Think we've probably flogged it to death now though!

[ElProximo]

You're aware churches exist outside of the UK, right?

The same book was used to justify not marrying whites and blacks, with just as little real argument as Dave: "It's in the Bible!" "It's just not natural!" so I'd say the argument is sound.

In fact, rarely has there ever been any laws anywhere forbidding what is called 'interracial' marriage.
You can find a handful of examples (south africa, nazi germany, some US states).
If a handful of kooks did attempt to justify these using the Bible they were quiet obviously failures as the Christian Abolitionists (in the US case) used the Bible to conquer them with massive public support (most Christians).

One thing you can try and do is visit some community in Harlem New York and announce that black men are the same as gays.
Also mouth off about the Bible.
See how long you can remain an 'atheist' as you are being beaten to death within maybe.. maybe you will have 10 minutes of slow death before finally being eliminated.

I'm not recommending it but its something you could try and do?
If you believe 'blacks' are the same thing as gays in that sense.

Just so you know (you can google this) but gay marriage is NOT VERY POPULAR in the black communities.
Not at all.
In fact you can find plenty of USA blacks on youtube VERY OFFENDED by your idea that their civil rights are the 'same thing' as Gay Agenda goals.

Just so ya know.

[flamingGalah!]

In fact, rarely has there ever been any laws anywhere forbidding what is called 'interracial' marriage.
You can find a handful of examples (south africa, nazi germany, some US states).
If a handful of kooks did attempt to justify these using the Bible they were quiet obviously failures as the Christian Abolitionists (in the US case) used the Bible to conquer them with massive public support (most Christians).

One thing you can try and do is visit some community in Harlem New York and announce that black men are the same as gays.
Also mouth off about the Bible.
See how long you can remain an 'atheist' as you are being beaten to death within maybe.. maybe you will have 10 minutes of slow death before finally being eliminated.

I'm not recommending it but its something you could try and do?
If you believe 'blacks' are the same thing as gays in that sense.

Just so you know (you can google this) but gay marriage is NOT VERY POPULAR in the black communities.
Not at all.
In fact you can find plenty of USA blacks on youtube VERY OFFENDED by your idea that their civil rights are the 'same thing' as Gay Agenda goals.

Just so ya know.

I see you are back to spouting nonsical drivel again :sleep:

You are aware that there are gay black men are you?? :sleep: :sleep:

[smudgie]

Prostachute. Is that where you call a prostitute and they parachute in? :-)

:joker::joker::joker::joker: Brilliant.

[Mystic Mock]

Prostachute. Is that where you call a prostitute and they parachute in? :-)

yes im saying he has sex for money.

[paper-cut-exit]

yes im saying he has sex for money.

lol :joker:

[Livia]

You were the one with the hubris to claim NO CHURCHES. NONE. marry gays. Don't start getting specific now. Legality was never the issue, the issue is Dave's stance which regardless of legality could be for or against gay marriage. It's against. And if you'd ever read the Bible in full, you'd realize how ridiculous the stance is. There's almost nothing in the book about it, just like there's almost nothing about interracial marriage.

Again, it's either a lack of critical thinking about his own religion, or he's just a total ass. I'd say definitely the former, because he actually has a really tolerant attitude. I just don't think he's thinking about what he believes.

I was talking about churches in the UK. Which is where Dave is. I think you know that. Legality was ALWAYS the issue for me. I've never heard Dave say that even if it were legal, he still would not marry a gay couple.

And actually, I have read the bible In full. And of course I agree that the stance is outdated. As I said earlier, Leviticus clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination in the face of God. But it also says in Leviticus, that you may own slaves, that you can sell your children into slavery and stone people to death for wearing a mixture of cloths! I am not arguing about the stance being outdated, I am saying that gay marriage is not allowed under the law in this country and that not even Dave is responsible for that. If you feel that strongly, put your energy into lobbying your MP and try to get the law changed.

[Mystic Mock]

lol :joker:

well he is a trophy afterall.

[Mr XcX]

How do you know GOD does not discriminate have you met him.
hhhhmmmmmmmmmmm?????

[Livia]

yes im saying he has sex for money.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to have sex with him for free.

[Mystic Mock]

I can't imagine anyone wanting to have sex with him for free.

lol agreed.

[stonedape]

In fact, rarely has there ever been any laws anywhere forbidding what is called 'interracial' marriage.
You can find a handful of examples (south africa, nazi germany, some US states).
If a handful of kooks did attempt to justify these using the Bible they were quiet obviously failures as the Christian Abolitionists (in the US case) used the Bible to conquer them with massive public support (most Christians).

One thing you can try and do is visit some community in Harlem New York and announce that black men are the same as gays.
Also mouth off about the Bible.
See how long you can remain an 'atheist' as you are being beaten to death within maybe.. maybe you will have 10 minutes of slow death before finally being eliminated.

I'm not recommending it but its something you could try and do?
If you believe 'blacks' are the same thing as gays in that sense.

Just so you know (you can google this) but gay marriage is NOT VERY POPULAR in the black communities.
Not at all.
In fact you can find plenty of USA blacks on youtube VERY OFFENDED by your idea that their civil rights are the 'same thing' as Gay Agenda goals.

Just so ya know.

Wow, talk about knocking down a straw man. When did I ever say black is the same thing as gay? I'm talking about the specific issue of blacks marrying whites and the same sex marrying, and even more specifically about their justification with the same arguments from the same book. I am not comparing the civil rights struggles of both groups.

I live in the US. I've lived really close to Harlem, it's actually not as bad as your grotesque Hollywood picture, so I'd **** about that. And I'd be much more worried expressing my atheism in the south than NYC. Blacks that get offended by atheists or gay marriage are also either A) not thinking about their own beliefs or B) assholes. They should empathize with stigmatized minorities, as they are a stigmatized minority themselves, however incomparable their suffering may be.

[mikopale]

People on this forum that say Dave is discriminating gays, don't u think that u are discriminating him for his beliefs. Gays have their beliefs and Dave has his beliefs. Just because they differ doesn't mean that Dave is discriminating. If a gay copuple ask Dave to marry them and Dave says 'no', then the gay couple raise a big hoo hah about it, then surely the gays would be discriminating Dave.

[flamingGalah!]

People on this forum that say Dave is discriminating gays, don't u think that u are discriminating him for his beliefs. Gays have their beliefs and Dave has his beliefs. Just because they differ doesn't mean that Dave is discriminating. If a gay copuple ask Dave to marry them and Dave says 'no', then the gay couple raise a big hoo hah about it, then surely the gays would be discriminating Dave.

No. So if my beliefs were that black people were evil would I be respected for my beliefs or would I be called a racist?? :conf:

And "gays" don't have their "beliefs" they simply want to be treated the same as everyone else, what is wrong with that?? :conf:

[Livia]

Actually, if a registrar feels strongly for religious reasons that they can't perform a civil partnership for a gay couple, as part of the Human Rights Act, they can be relieved and another registrar will do it. It's all about people's personal beliefs and their right to them. You cannot force someone to believe something, or to reject their own beliefs. However, a registrar could not refuse to marry a black couple.

It's a minefield.

[flamingGalah!]

Actually, if a registrar feels strongly for religious reasons that they can't perform a civil partnership for a gay couple, as part of the Human Rights Act, they can be relieved and another registrar will do it. It's all about people's personal beliefs and their right to them. You cannot force someone to believe something, or to reject their own beliefs. However, a registrar could not refuse to marry a black couple.

It's a minefield.

It's shocking discrimination! :nono:

[mikopale]

If a gay person wants to get married or have a civil partnership, then they don't have to get Dave to do it. They can easily find someone else.

Dave doesn't treat gays differently, he's only following his beliefs which he is entitled to have. I know Christian doctors who refuse to operate abortions, that doesn't mean that they are discriminating against the mother, it just means that they don't want to kill innocent babies.

My point is, if people can choose what they do and don't do, then Dave should have the right to say that he wouldn't conduct gay marriages or civil partnerships.

Everyone makes decisions that hurt others at some point or another, and this is a decision that Dave has made. Plus, what has Dave's choice got to do with anyone on this forum. If you want to moan about someone then moan about people in your own lives, not somebody you don't even know.

[Livia]

It's shocking discrimination! :nono:

I'm not arguing with you.

This is why it surprises me when people say they are not interested in politics. It affects all of us all the time and it's only through politics that outdated, archaic laws can be changed. I mean it's only a little over fifty years since homosexuality was legalised; before that you could be sentenced to prison for being gay. So things are changing. But reeeeally slooooowly.

[stonedape]

Actually, if a registrar feels strongly for religious reasons that they can't perform a civil partnership for a gay couple, as part of the Human Rights Act, they can be relieved and another registrar will do it. It's all about people's personal beliefs and their right to them. You cannot force someone to believe something, or to reject their own beliefs. However, a registrar could not refuse to marry a black couple.

It's a minefield.

:joker::joker::joker: one of these things is not like the other!

[Mr XcX]

But isn't marriage a religious ceremony.
Why not let Gay get married.

[Livia]

:joker::joker::joker: one of these things is not like the other!

No, I know that. That was my point. That was a point someone else made earlier in the thread.

I'm happy to discuss with with you seriously, but we're probably not going to agree totally because you're looking at it idealistically and I'm looking at it from a legal point of view. I'm not trying to antagonise you and I hope you feel the same.

[flamingGalah!]

... Plus, what has Dave's choice got to do with anyone on this forum. If you want to moan about someone then moan about people in your own lives, not somebody you don't even know.

Erm because this is a BIG BROTHER forum honey & we are discussing what he has said in the house...

If you want to discuss your friends & family I suggest you go chat on Facebook... :xyxwave:

[mikopale]

Dave to win.

[flamingGalah!]

DAVE TO BE EVICTED FRIDAY :dance: :xyxwave:

[ElProximo]

I'm talking about the specific issue of blacks marrying whites and the same sex marrying, and even more specifically about their justification with the same arguments from the same book. I am not comparing the civil rights struggles of both groups.


You were comparing the 'civil rights' of these two different groups as if the same idea and principles were involved,
and,
you also compared some opponents in the different issues.

What I wanted to do was explain to you how most people (including many in the Black Civil Rights issues) do NOT agree that there are comparable principles here.
One is an appearance and given from birth. The other is a behavior.
That sort of thing is why many see 'gay rights' and 'black civil rights' as completely different sorts of issues. Not the same principle.

I also wanted to clarify something:
Christian groups were what headed Abolitionist movements and did so by arguing from the Bible.
They used the Bible to end slavery.

Aside trivia - many of those same Christian orgs who ended slavery and discrimination in whatever 'interracial marriage laws' were the SAME CHRISTIAN ORGS AND PEOPLE who got women the vote.
Christian movements.
They used the Bible and Jesus teachings to argue and appeal for their civil rights causes.

David's position is common in the west because most have a 'Christian basis' for their thinking and culture and laws and philosophy.
It is that idea that everyone is equal in the eyes of God and that everyone is imperfect.
That homosexual behavior is just another 'bad thing' that an otherwise valuable (to God) person can do.
This is quite different from many other cultures today and through history which would just consider the person themselves to be 'broken' and the very person themselves to be less valuable as a human being. They may even be killed or reduced to something like an animal (in how they are viewed or rights given etc).
Other cultures may suppose the person is inherently evil and to be killed for the good of the rest of society.

So Davids angle is amazingly friendly to someone in homosexuality and is one reason why people like you can even discuss this as a 'right' and why you live in a society where homosexuality can be 'open' and tolerated.

[Mr XcX]

GET John James out

[flamingGalah!]

One is an appearance and given from birth. The other is a behavior.
That sort of thing is why many see 'gay rights' and 'black civil rights' as completely different sorts of issues. Not the same principle.


Bullsh*t. :sleep:

Someone does not "choose" to be gay, it is also given "from birth" & it is not simply "behaviour" it is who that person is...

I find your views extremely offensive...

[Mr XcX]

Bullsh*t. :sleep:

Someone does not "choose" to be gay, it is also given "from birth" & it is not simply "behaviour" it is who that person is...

I find your views extremely offensive...

You go Galah, report them. :)

[stonedape]

You were comparing the 'civil rights' of these two different groups as if the same idea and principles were involved,
and,
you also compared some opponents in the different issues.

What I wanted to do was explain to you how most people (including many in the Black Civil Rights issues) do NOT agree that there are comparable principles here.
One is an appearance and given from birth. The other is a behavior.
That sort of thing is why many see 'gay rights' and 'black civil rights' as completely different sorts of issues. Not the same principle.

I also wanted to clarify something:
Christian groups were what headed Abolitionist movements and did so by arguing from the Bible.
They used the Bible to end slavery.

Aside trivia - many of those same Christian orgs who ended slavery and discrimination in whatever 'interracial marriage laws' were the SAME CHRISTIAN ORGS AND PEOPLE who got women the vote.
Christian movements.
They used the Bible and Jesus teachings to argue and appeal for their civil rights causes.

David's position is common in the west because most have a 'Christian basis' for their thinking and culture and laws and philosophy.
It is that idea that everyone is equal in the eyes of God and that everyone is imperfect.
That homosexual behavior is just another 'bad thing' that an otherwise valuable (to God) person can do.
This is quite different from many other cultures today and through history which would just consider the person themselves to be 'broken' and the very person themselves to be less valuable as a human being. They may even be killed or reduced to something like an animal (in how they are viewed or rights given etc).
Other cultures may suppose the person is inherently evil and to be killed for the good of the rest of society.

So Davids angle is amazingly friendly to someone in homosexuality and is one reason why people like you can even discuss this as a 'right' and why you live in a society where homosexuality can be 'open' and tolerated.

I am not debating the civil rights struggles of blacks vs. gays, however badly you want me to. I will not be debating whether homosexuality is genetic or behavioral. I will not be debating whether the Bible was used to justify or end slavery or discrimination against women.

I will say that seeing homosexuality as just one bad sin committed by an otherwise good person, like lying or stealing, is progress. But we can't pretend the entire world adopts this Western view today. And just because it's progress doesn't mean it's entirely correct. I'd hope one day people look back and see this gay marriage "issue" or "sin" of homosexuality as silly as witchcraft (or interracial marriage), because in the end what type of genitalia you prefer is as irrelevant morally.

And to Livia: No hard feelings, just got a little heated at the beginning. :thumbs:

[Livia]

And to Livia: No hard feelings, just got a little heated at the beginning. :thumbs:

No hard feelings at all. I've enjoyed talking to you, and to Flaming Galah.

[mikopale]

Bullsh*t. :sleep:

Someone does not "choose" to be gay, it is also given "from birth" & it is not simply "behaviour" it is who that person is...

I find your views extremely offensive...

What objective reason do you have to be offended? I don't think you are born gay. It is something that develops later on in life. I know people who have been gay and are now straight, so what does that mean in your view if you don't mind me asking? They couldn't have been born gay if they are straight now.

[flamingGalah!]

What objective reason do you have to be offended? I don't think you are born gay. It is something that develops later on in life. I know people who have been gay and are now straight, so what does that mean in your view if you don't mind me asking? They couldn't have been born gay if they are straight now.

I am offended because that poster was insinuating (as some wrongly do) that people can choose their sexuality, you cannot...

If you know people that were gay but are now straight then they are Bi...

Unless they are those weirdo religious types who believe they have been somehow "cured" of their gayness, then they are just *******ed up & in denial... :xyxwave:

[Shasown]

I am offended because that poster was insinuating (as some wrongly do) that people can choose their sexuality, you cannot...



No, but you can choose to follow a religion or not.

Dave is in your eyes a homophobe, however working on your logic, that would also mean ALL Catholics, CofE, CofS, members of the Anglican Communion of churches - well pretty much all adherents of any Christian Church bar a few small denominations, members of the Jewish faith, Muslims, Hindus, Seikhs, in fact most other religion that perform marriages are all homophobic. Simply because they are members of a religion that doesnt allow gay marriages.

[mikopale]

I am offended because that poster was insinuating (as some wrongly do) that people can choose their sexuality, you cannot...

If you know people that were gay but are now straight then they are Bi...

Unless they are those weirdo religious types who believe they have been somehow "cured" of their gayness, then they are just *******ed up & in denial... :xyxwave:


But if they no longer have gay feelings then they are not bisexual, therefore cannot have been born gay.

Plus, you could come accross as being discriminating by refereing to religious people as 'those weirdo religious types'.

[flamingGalah!]

No, but you can choose to follow a religion or not.

Dave is in your eyes a homophobe, however working on your logic, that would also mean ALL Catholics, CofE, CofS, members of the Anglican Communion of churches - well pretty much all adherents of any Christian Church bar a few small denominations, members of the Jewish faith, Muslims, Hindus, Seikhs, in fact most other religion that perform marriages are all homophobic. Simply because they are members of a religion that doesnt allow gay marriages.

Pretty much yes :xyxwave:

Just as if I were a member of the KKK I would be racist...

[AfroMullet]

the "GOD" of the bible DOES discriminate

Dave has said is more a follower of Jesus who is lot more forgiving

God is Jesus. Jesus was the first concious human manifestation of god.

But LOL your sayin minorities like Daves discrimination against everyone, the only think i can think that he has said that could be concidered discimination is that he wouldnt marry gays, and aside from it not being legal, even if it was, why should he have to if he personally isnt OK with it.

But to say Dave is a homophobe is madness, have you seen the guy? Nine times outta 10 hes got his arm round a bloke or is kissing one.

[flamingGalah!]

But if they no longer have gay feelings then they are not bisexual, therefore cannot have been born gay.

Plus, you could come accross as being discriminating by refereing to religious people as 'those weirdo religious types'.

Ah, so they are the "in denial weirdo religious cured gays" then, thought so... ;)

And good, to your second paragraph... :xyxwave:

[mikopale]

Ah, so they are the "in denial weirdo religious cured gays" then, thought so... ;)

And good, to your second paragraph... :xyxwave:


So you agree that you are discriminating against religious people then?

[Shasown]

Pretty much yes :xyxwave:

Just as if I were a member of the KKK I would be racist...

Ever tried reconciling yourself to the fact, that religions are very slow in changing inline with modern society and its views, and as opposed to being institutionally homophobic they are just outdated and in a few decades time they may drag themselves closer to the 21st Century, or does your hatred of Dave blind you to that possibility?

[flamingGalah!]

So you agree that you are discriminating against religious people then?

Only if you agree that you are homophobic... :xyxwave:

[flamingGalah!]

Ever tried reconciling yourself to the fact, that religions are very slow in changing inline with modern society and its views, and as opposed to being institutionally homophobic they are just outdated and in a few decades time they may drag themselves closer to the 21st Century, or does your hatred of Dave blind you to that possibility?

Well I'm living in 2010 so would rather not have outdated views & discrimination now thanks... :xyxwave:

[mikopale]

Only if you agree that you are homophobic... :xyxwave:

I am not homophobic. I am not afraid of homosexuals. Some of my friends are gay. I don't act differently towards my gay friends than i do with my straight friends. What I am saying is, you obviously have a problem with that fact that people can have strong beliefs about their own faiths, and you feel insecure that their beliefs are stronger than yours, therefore you feel threatened, and want to attack those people by saying that they are discriminating gays when they are not. In the case of Dave, it is his personal opinion that he wouldn't conduct a gay ceremony which he has every right to have. Why can't you accept that and move on?

[Shasown]

Well I'm living in 2010 so would rather not have outdated views & discrimination now thanks... :xyxwave:

Wouldnt we all? But we both know it isnt going to happen for a while yet.

[toby843]

YES IT IS!!! He could perform a civil partnership if he so wished, he isn't a bloody Catholic Priest is he?! He has his own made up loony religion...

He says he would not do it OUT OF PERSONAL CHOICE that is discrimination :xyxwave:

I'm sorry but it clearly states in the Bible that being gay is wrong, many many times. Dave is only following his religion, which, yes, is something he chooses to do, but he can in no way be called discriminatory for it any more than he could for following any of the other biblical guidelines. I think everyone on this thread who is trying to make out he is as bad as a racist needs to take step back a minute and take a look at what they are saying and really think it through.
Why in this country do we feel the need to head down this blame culture and look for reasons to hate people? Another good example is the instant thread on how people are saying Keeley deserves compensation, why does she? She willingly entered the house having been made fully aware of the fact there would be physical tasks, she had as much protection on as you could wear, ie, helmet, elbow and knee pads, the surface was smooth and not unreasonably high. Now are we saying that the military shouldn't climb 6 and 9 foot walls on obstacle courses in training because they are too high? Where do we think the money will come from when people sue?? Our pockets. A woman sued the local council because when she was sat in the park under a tree and a small branch fell and hit her and caused no permanent damage. Are acts of mother nature the councils fault now? The money people sue for means it doesn't get spent on the things we really need. Why don't people see this. I'm sure endemol are well insured but in todays economical climate most large corporations are in some way government funded, see where I'm going?
Lets not forget that by heritage, law, popular culture and tradition, Great Britain is a christian country, whether you practice or not, so lets stick to at least part of our heritage and see that Dave is only living his life in line with his beliefs. If we can allow Sharia law in Islamic areas of the country then I'm pretty sure Dave should be allowed to follow the country's traditional religion, all be it a slightly personalised version.

[WOMBAI]

I can not stand his FAKE sincerity and his open disgust at minorities like gay people. I say send him a message and he can stick his vile agenda and get him OUT NOW! Call: 09011 323 004

He has never expressed any disgust for gay people - I accuse you of being an out and out liar! Stick your hysterical lies where the sun don't shine! :sleep:

[ElProximo]

Well I'm living in 2010 so would rather not have outdated views & discrimination now thanks... :xyxwave:

You live in 1980 and have outdated views.
I am almost certain I saw you here going on about how gays were 'born that way' and how they were a 'minority group' and all this outdated 60's agenda crap.

In fact, if you look at the USA right now you see they are now REPEALING gay marriage. Even in their most progressive States known for being at the forefront of various culture movement the trend is to repeal these 'gay marriage' bills.

Now take a look at the UK. The BNP is the forefront 'reform' movement with the new increasingly popular views.
Not socially liberal '60s philosophy' left-wing parties who's Dinosaur radicals are a thing of the past.
Especially interesting to me is actually talking to the up and coming hip urban homosexuals.
I like to relate this story because it's such a great 'picture':
- two younger guys and a girl are talking and groan about here comes Gerald. A man about 50 approaches them and honestly I could just tell he was some old 'gay rights' homo from across the street. Something about the beard lol.
Anyways, Gerry has some pamphlets and is 'organizing' at street level. he comes over and is being important.
Gerry moves on.. i guess to go 'street level organize' elsewhere.
One says "Dude.. he wants to suck your dick hahaha!"
"yeah.. he would too.. he is a nice guy but I hate that ****".
they mock his age group.
"he even believes that stuff about how there are 'gays' and born gay and all that bullshlte"
The girl chimes in the laughing at Gerry's old beliefs "they need to get real..everyone is OMNI sexual".
There is no 'homosexuals and lesbians'.. the other chips in "Ya.. but that was his age group.. they believed that i guess".
They scoff at that.

In fact their belief system is older than Gerry's. That WAS the way homosexuality (which wasn't called or categorized in this way) but how it was through human history.
It was a sexual thing you did.
A Greek might have a teen boy and use him for sex until age 25 and then marry a woman.
the same Greek may turn 50 and decide to get another young man for sex.
And have sex with his slave girl.
a Roman might have sex with women all the time but for a while decide to take take a few turns with an Ethiopian youth at the orgies. Then not do it next year.
One Caesar was into a man for a while.

But here in modern times it's people like you and Gerry who are living in the past holding onto this strange notion/religious belief that there is a world where a type of human is born called a homosexual.
These are like a gender.
These different types of humans are then categorized as a separate group of humans and ought to have specific laws and protections.
Get with the times.
This isn't 1980 anymore. Get off that nonsense.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Dave discriminates against intelligent people in that he avoids them as they see through his bs

[WOMBAI]

Dave discriminates against intelligent people in that he avoids them as they see through his bs

Ha, ha - and of course you see yourself as one of those 'intelligent' people! In my book - it isn't very 'intelligent' to jump on these hate the 'weirdo' bandwagons!

As a hm he is interesting and funny - and that is why I like him! :hugesmile:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Ha, ha - and of course you see yourself as one of those 'intelligent' people! In my book - it isn't very 'intelligent' to jump on these hate the 'weirdo' bandwagons!

As a hm he is interesting and funny - and that is why I like him! :hugesmile:

You dont like him Wombai you sexually fancy him and as such are blind to who he really is.

He is a lying rat who copied some twit from America in order to build status for himself.

[flamingGalah!]

You live in 1980 and have outdated views.
I am almost certain I saw you here going on about how gays were 'born that way' and how they were a 'minority group' and all this outdated 60's agenda crap.

In fact, if you look at the USA right now you see they are now REPEALING gay marriage. Even in their most progressive States known for being at the forefront of various culture movement the trend is to repeal these 'gay marriage' bills.

Now take a look at the UK. The BNP is the forefront 'reform' movement with the new increasingly popular views.
Not socially liberal '60s philosophy' left-wing parties who's Dinosaur radicals are a thing of the past.
Especially interesting to me is actually talking to the up and coming hip urban homosexuals.
I like to relate this story because it's such a great 'picture':
- two younger guys and a girl are talking and groan about here comes Gerald. A man about 50 approaches them and honestly I could just tell he was some old 'gay rights' homo from across the street. Something about the beard lol.
Anyways, Gerry has some pamphlets and is 'organizing' at street level. he comes over and is being important.
Gerry moves on.. i guess to go 'street level organize' elsewhere.
One says "Dude.. he wants to suck your dick hahaha!"
"yeah.. he would too.. he is a nice guy but I hate that ****".
they mock his age group.
"he even believes that stuff about how there are 'gays' and born gay and all that bullshlte"
The girl chimes in the laughing at Gerry's old beliefs "they need to get real..everyone is OMNI sexual".
There is no 'homosexuals and lesbians'.. the other chips in "Ya.. but that was his age group.. they believed that i guess".
They scoff at that.

In fact their belief system is older than Gerry's. That WAS the way homosexuality (which wasn't called or categorized in this way) but how it was through human history.
It was a sexual thing you did.
A Greek might have a teen boy and use him for sex until age 25 and then marry a woman.
the same Greek may turn 50 and decide to get another young man for sex.
And have sex with his slave girl.
a Roman might have sex with women all the time but for a while decide to take take a few turns with an Ethiopian youth at the orgies. Then not do it next year.
One Caesar was into a man for a while.

But here in modern times it's people like you and Gerry who are living in the past holding onto this strange notion/religious belief that there is a world where a type of human is born called a homosexual.
These are like a gender.
These different types of humans are then categorized as a separate group of humans and ought to have specific laws and protections.
Get with the times.
This isn't 1980 anymore. Get off that nonsense.

I'm sorry but I couldn't be bothered to read all your drivel that you once again spout... :sleep:

It is very very plain what your views on homosexuals is so your opinion is completely irrelevant & offensive... and actually your views are prehistoric!

Yes people are born gay. Get over it. Do you honestly believe we all woke up one day & decided to be gay?? Just shows your ignorance really :sleep:

And for the record I don't want to be a "minority group" or "treated specially" I would just like the same respect & treatment as every one else, thanks :xyxwave:

Now go find an American anti-gay forum & spout your offensive views on there...

[MojoNixon]

I can not stand his FAKE sincerity and his open disgust at minorities like gay people. I say send him a message and he can stick his vile agenda and get him OUT NOW!

Tell that to muslims. Thank You.

[psychtracker]

I'm sorry but I couldn't be bothered to read all your drivel that you once again spout... :sleep:

No offence flamingGalah, but i think if you can't be bothered to read through all of ElProximo's post, then you shouldn't be passing comment.

Maybe i'm wrong, but my interpretation of what ElProximo was saying (in a nutshell) - was that we are all born bisexual to some varying degree.

[Chuckyegg]

Oh i was under the impression that his God thing was on the back boiler. He was all "Godded out" after the first month.

[Livia]

I'm sorry but it clearly states in the Bible that being gay is wrong, many many times....

Really? Many times? Where exactly?

The Bible also advocates beating your wife, beating your children, selling your children into slavery, owning slaves, stoning people to death for adultery and burning people to death for growing two kinds of crops in the same field.

If you're going to suggest that because something is in the Bible it has to be adhered to, I think everyone on this forum, including me, is in big, BIG trouble.

[flamingGalah!]

No offence flamingGalah, but i think if you can't be bothered to read through all of ElProximo's post, then you shouldn't be passing comment.

Maybe i'm wrong, but my interpretation of what ElProximo was saying (in a nutshell) - was that we are all born bisexual to some varying degree.

No offence but butt out :xyxwave:

[Shasown]

Really? Many times? Where exactly?

The Bible also advocates beating your wife, beating your children, selling your children into slavery, owning slaves, stoning people to death for adultery and burning people to death for growing two kinds of crops in the same field.

If you're going to suggest that because something is in the Bible it has to be adhered to, I think everyone on this forum, including me, is in big, BIG trouble.

Looks like we are both going to that warm place when we die then eh? I hear the music is better down there anyway.

[Livia]

Looks like we are both going to that warm place when we die then eh? I hear the music is better down there anyway.

Thinking about what some (not all...) reglious people are like, who the hell would want to spend eternity with them anyway?!

See you there. It'll be your round.

[Shasown]

Thinking about what some (not all...) reglious people are like, who the hell would want to spend eternity with them anyway?!

See you there. It'll be your round.

No worries, will have a nice cold one waiting for you.

[toby843]

Really? Many times? Where exactly?

The Bible also advocates beating your wife, beating your children, selling your children into slavery, owning slaves, stoning people to death for adultery and burning people to death for growing two kinds of crops in the same field.

If you're going to suggest that because something is in the Bible it has to be adhered to, I think everyone on this forum, including me, is in big, BIG trouble.

Ok, I didn't really want to get into a big religous debate as I am not religous myself but here goes:

•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
•Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


I think that just about covers the bible thing. Anyway, as I said, I'm not religous so I am not suggesting anything about how we live our lives.

I'm simply saying, Dave has his beliefs and he is entitled to them, and, as a christian country, we should not hold them against him.

You're right, there are some outrageous parts to the bible, hence the fact I am not religous, but if our country was founded in Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Shintoism etc etc. . we would find ourselves living in an altogether different society, wouldn't you agree, and in some ways, nowhere near as free as we are to live our lives.

So the point I'm making is as a society we feel the need to pick holes in beliefs yet moan and argue when we feel we are not being treated fairly. We seem to have inherited an "I owe you nothing but you owe me everything" culture, almost americanist in its reliance on blame culture and compensation, wouldn't you agree?

I'm pretty sure that if you were to take a snap shot of societies values 60 years ago and applied them to todays public, life would be a much smoother affair.

[Late for the Party]

“Religion easily has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bull**** story"

George Carlin

[flamingGalah!]

Religion is also the cause of most of the worlds wars...

[Livia]

Ok, I didn't really want to get into a big religous debate as I am not religous myself but here goes:

•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
•Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


I think that just about covers the bible thing. Anyway, as I said, I'm not religous so I am not suggesting anything about how we live our lives.

I'm simply saying, Dave has his beliefs and he is entitled to them, and, as a christian country, we should not hold them against him.

You're right, there are some outrageous parts to the bible, hence the fact I am not religous, but if our country was founded in Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Shintoism etc etc. . we would find ourselves living in an altogether different society, wouldn't you agree, and in some ways, nowhere near as free as we are to live our lives.

So the point I'm making is as a society we feel the need to pick holes in beliefs yet moan and argue when we feel we are not being treated fairly. We seem to have inherited an "I owe you nothing but you owe me everything" culture, almost americanist in its reliance on blame culture and compensation, wouldn't you agree?

I'm pretty sure that if you were to take a snap shot of societies values 60 years ago and applied them to todays public, life would be a much smoother affair.

If you aren't religious, I'm an confused why you're arguing so hard in support of a couple of passages of a book you don't consider God's Word.

So you've given me two Old Testament mentions, both Leviticus (read the rest of it and see the all the other things you're not allowed to do) and two New Testament passages. You'll have undoubtedly noticed that it also says drunkards shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven, so presumably Andrew is out, after last night's performance. Oh, and you can be stoned to death for working on the Sabbath. And working on the Sabbath includes going shopping, cooking and even answering the telephone. So, are you going to embrace the bit that says homosexuality is an abomination, but ignore all the other "abominations" because you consider them to be archaic?

Sixty years ago people were sent to prison for being homosexual. Society has moved on.

When the Bible was written the world was a very different place. The bits about homosexuality are as outdated as the bits about being allowed to own slaves.

Incidentally, also in Leviticus [21.20] it states that you may not approach God's alter if you have a defect of sight. Our Rabbi wears glasses. Clearly he thinks there are bits that are past their sell-by date too.

[StGeorge]

You'll have undoubtedly noticed that it also says drunkards shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven, .

Sh1t....i'd better find other digs after i kick it....:sad:

[Livia]

Sh1t....i'd better find other digs after i kick it....:sad:

Don't worry, we're getting party together in The Other Place. And Shasown's getting the first round.

[StGeorge]

Don't worry, we're getting party together in The Other Place. And Shasown's getting the first round.

Sounds hot stuff....:hugesmile:

[MariaLeFrink2]

Apologies if thius has been posted before, but I've just seen this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBkgdKiSzx0&feature=related

Dave in a wheelchair around toen, 'healing and blessing' people. Afterwards to his congregation, he lets them know that even MUSLIMS wanted to convert.

YUCH :nono:

[stonedape]

Ok, I didn't really want to get into a big religous debate as I am not religous myself but here goes:

•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
•Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


I think that just about covers the bible thing. Anyway, as I said, I'm not religous so I am not suggesting anything about how we live our lives.

I'm simply saying, Dave has his beliefs and he is entitled to them, and, as a christian country, we should not hold them against him.

You're right, there are some outrageous parts to the bible, hence the fact I am not religous, but if our country was founded in Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Shintoism etc etc. . we would find ourselves living in an altogether different society, wouldn't you agree, and in some ways, nowhere near as free as we are to live our lives.

So the point I'm making is as a society we feel the need to pick holes in beliefs yet moan and argue when we feel we are not being treated fairly. We seem to have inherited an "I owe you nothing but you owe me everything" culture, almost americanist in its reliance on blame culture and compensation, wouldn't you agree?

I'm pretty sure that if you were to take a snap shot of societies values 60 years ago and applied them to todays public, life would be a much smoother affair.


There are more verses in the bible about women not cutting their hair or what type of food to eat. "The bible told me so" is no defense, especially not in 2010 when so little is taken literally/seriously. The scarce passages in the Bible against homosexuality, the same ones you mentioned and I've personally heard over 100 times, are highlighted because of Western society's current fixation with homosexuality. And this was taught by our parents, not a book nearly no one reads. The Bible's just used as a shield in hope's no one has the balls to challenge their ignorant archaic beliefs, as in cases like this.

[toby843]

If you aren't religious, I'm an confused why you're arguing so hard in support of a couple of passages of a book you don't consider God's Word.

So you've given me two Old Testament mentions, both Leviticus (read the rest of it and see the all the other things you're not allowed to do) and two New Testament passages. You'll have undoubtedly noticed that it also says drunkards shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven, so presumably Andrew is out, after last night's performance. Oh, and you can be stoned to death for working on the Sabbath. And working on the Sabbath includes going shopping, cooking and even answering the telephone. So, are you going to embrace the bit that says homosexuality is an abomination, but ignore all the other "abominations" because you consider them to be archaic?

Sixty years ago people were sent to prison for being homosexual. Society has moved on.

When the Bible was written the world was a very different place. The bits about homosexuality are as outdated as the bits about being allowed to own slaves.

Incidentally, also in Leviticus [21.20] it states that you may not approach God's alter if you have a defect of sight. Our Rabbi wears glasses. Clearly he thinks there are bits that are past their sell-by date too.

Hi, see this is what I like, this is what these forums are all about, healthy debate on relevant subjects. not mindless childish slagging for no real reason. Thanks you Livia.

So....Like I said before, I'm not religous, I'm not arguing for or against the bible, I'm arguing for Dave's right to have a religous view, and one that should by all rights be shared by the majority of the coutry as it is christian coutry by foundation.

When I talked about society 60 years ago my point was that if we could take their values we would be better off, not their laws. Would you not rather live in a world where the dustman would take your bin even if the lid wasn't shut slightly? Or, not worry about sending your child on a school sports event in case they bang their head against another child and the other parents sue you? Would you rather not be surrounded by health and safety signs everywhere yo go telling you not to do what you quite clearly wouldn't do anyway? And so on and so forth!

Now I'm not homophobic in any way but in my opinion, and it is my opinion and I'm allowed it, I don't agree that same sex couples should be allowed to adopt children, and I am happy to think that knowing that I am allowed an opinion, ergo, Dave should be allowed his religous views, after all, without national identity and the great and triumphant history of our country what would we be left with in todays society of immigration and assylum??

[toby843]

There are more verses in the bible about women not cutting their hair or what type of food to eat. "The bible told me so" is no defense, especially not in 2010 when so little is taken literally/seriously. The scarce passages in the Bible against homosexuality, the same ones you mentioned and I've personally heard over 100 times, are highlighted because of Western society's current fixation with homosexuality. And this was taught by our parents, not a book nearly no one reads. The Bible's just used as a shield in hope's no one has the balls to challenge their ignorant archaic beliefs, as in cases like this.

I wouldn't say my beliefs are archaic, I believe we live in a free country where everyone is entitled to an opinion or view. I have absoloutely nothing against same sex couples. See above for my opinion.
I did not post on this thread with the intention of being anti-gay, I am simply arguing for Dave's right to a religous belief.

I'm not sure what your point on western societies fixation with homosexuality is, in my opinion homosexuality is more accepted now than at any other time. I'm not sure what you mean?

[stonedape]

I wouldn't say my beliefs are archaic, I believe we live in a free country where everyone is entitled to an opinion or view. I have absoloutely nothing against same sex couples. See above for my opinion.
I did not post on this thread with the intention of being anti-gay, I am simply arguing for Dave's right to a religous belief.

I'm not sure what your point on western societies fixation with homosexuality is, in my opinion homosexuality is more accepted now than at any other time. I'm not sure what you mean?

Didn't mean to insinuate you are anti-gay or you hold these positions I'm arguing against, I'm arguing against the common belief. And it is archaic. The Greeks would call the view archaic, and the Greeks are archaic.

My point on Western society's fixation with homosexuality is that this debate has almost nothing to do with the Bible, which was your initial argument. The Bible says it, they believe it, move on. But it's not that simple, because there's so many moral laws in the Bible they look past consciously or unconsciously. So why is this the issue where Leviticus applies? It's our society. Homosexuality has to be one of the biggest "moral" issues of our time, and it's literally which genitals you prefer. :crazy:

[flamingGalah!]

...
So....Like I said before, I'm not religous, I'm not arguing for or against the bible, I'm arguing for Dave's right to have a religous view, and one that should by all rights be shared by the majority of the coutry as it is christian coutry by foundation.

So you think everyone in this country should be against gay "marriage" & you do not agree with same sex couples adopting children, but you are not homophobic... hmmm, well you sure hold some homophobic views... :sleep:

[toby843]

Didn't mean to insinuate you are anti-gay or you hold these positions I'm arguing against, I'm arguing against the common belief. And it is archaic. The Greeks would call the view archaic, and the Greeks are archaic.

My point on Western society's fixation with homosexuality is that this debate has almost nothing to do with the Bible, which was your initial argument. The Bible says it, they believe it, move on. But it's not that simple, because there's so many moral laws in the Bible they look past consciously or unconsciously. So why is this the issue where Leviticus applies? It's our society. Homosexuality has to be one of the biggest "moral" issues of our time, and it's literally which genitals you prefer. :crazy:

Ok, then lets put the bible to one side, as anyway I am not religous. From a moral stand point then, at the moment I would say society is very pro homosexual, almost every single school accepts it into lesson for children about growing up and forming relationships, it features very heavily in factual videos made specifically for teens. It has become part of the positive discrimination argument along with race and physical ability. Our media views have changed to accept and in some ways celebrate homosexuals, its almost like you can't have anything to do with fashion on tv unless you are gay, am I right?
You see, society at the moment is in almost a "gay fever" where it feels the need to celebrate homosexuality. So I would say the moral issue is really, do we think its the correct way to go?
And I still believe in Dave's inherent right to a religious belief, we wouldn't stop a muslim reading their Koran in the house would we?

[stonedape]

Ok, then lets put the bible to one side, as anyway I am not religous. From a moral stand point then, at the moment I would say society is very pro homosexual, almost every single school accepts it into lesson for children about growing up and forming relationships, it features very heavily in factual videos made specifically for teens. It has become part of the positive discrimination argument along with race and physical ability. Our media views have changed to accept and in some ways celebrate homosexuals, its almost like you can't have anything to do with fashion on tv unless you are gay, am I right?
You see, society at the moment is in almost a "gay fever" where it feels the need to celebrate homosexuality. So I would say the moral issue is really, do we think its the correct way to go?
And I still believe in Dave's inherent right to a religious belief, we wouldn't stop a muslim reading their Koran in the house would we?

They're on videos in school, they monopolize televised fashion, so that's (positive) discrimination? Maybe it's different in the UK, but every boy in school besides the top dog was called a fag every day in school, and for men who actually acted effeminate, goodbye happiness/social life. I'd say they deserve a little video in school.

The moral issue is whether two people of the same sex having a sexual relationship is morally right or wrong. Two consenting adults having sex harms no one, and in fact helps people out a great deal, as anyone who has had sex would know. There's the "non-natural" argument, which defeats itself as homosexuals exist in nature, and not just in humans. There's the "no procreation" argument which defeats itself as any trait that causes infertility will be rare in a population and never "take over", and the same stigmas are not attached to infertile straight couples. And there's the Biblical argument, which we've already gone over.

In the end, morality just isn't determined by the Bible. For the most part, people have kept the parts of the Bible that make moral sense like murder and theft while discarding the bits that don't matter like witchcraft, dietary codes and not working on Sunday. We just haven't all figured out homosexuality is in the 2nd category yet.

[toby843]

So you think everyone in this country should be against gay "marriage" & you do not agree with same sex couples adopting children, but you are not homophobic... hmmm, well you sure hold some homophobic views... :sleep:

Well you're right about me not agreeing that same sex couples should adopt children. As for me wanting the whole country to be against gay marriage, thats not what I meant. I meant as a christian country the general view should be we follow christian guidelines, as a country.

[ElProximo]

The moral issue is whether two people of the same sex having a sexual relationship is morally right or wrong. Two consenting adults having sex harms no one, and in fact helps people out a great deal, as anyone who has had sex would know. .

Some people will say that it harms both of the men. They are perverting their natural physiology and sexuality.
This causes imbalance, psychological problems, mental problems but maybe the worst thing is that they don't learn how to correct their thinking/bodies to their natural heterosexual states and sadly miss out on potentially finding the woman of their dreams and enjoying a life together with her.

This may be where Dave or others stand and they believe they are the ones who truly love 'gays'.
They could even argue that people like you HURT them by actually encouraging them to continue perverting themselves.

Friends who love friends want them to quit smoking. They certainly don't try and encourage the bad habit.
Enemies would encourage it and even buy their opponent cigarettes and congratulate them for bravely smoking them saying 'nothing will go wrong' and 'its who you are' and 'see.. you are happy!'.

The problem with people like you (meaning our views) is that you presume that homosexuality is good.
At no point do you even consider the possibility it may be bad.
So for you the only explanations (in your mind) is that anyone who disagrees must be uninformed or must be trying to 'hurt gays'.
No.
In fact people like Dave (in his mind, in his intentions) believes he is doing something to love and help homosexuals.

[toby843]

They're on videos in school, they monopolize televised fashion, so that's (positive) discrimination? Maybe it's different in the UK, but every boy in school besides the top dog was called a fag every day in school, and for men who actually acted effeminate, goodbye happiness/social life. I'd say they deserve a little video in school.

The moral issue is whether two people of the same sex having a sexual relationship is morally right or wrong. Two consenting adults having sex harms no one, and in fact helps people out a great deal, as anyone who has had sex would know. There's the "non-natural" argument, which defeats itself as homosexuals exist in nature, and not just in humans. There's the "no procreation" argument which defeats itself as any trait that causes infertility will be rare in a population and never "take over", and the same stigmas are not attached to infertile straight couples. And there's the Biblical argument, which we've already gone over.

In the end, morality just isn't determined by the Bible. For the most part, people have kept the parts of the Bible that make moral sense like murder and theft while discarding the bits that don't matter like witchcraft, dietary codes and not working on Sunday. We just haven't all figured out homosexuality is in the 2nd category yet.

Ok so you're not in the UK? What I mean by positive discrimintation is that it is a widely held belief that employers will pick the minority (Gay, Race, Physical abilty etc) over the standars white manle/female in order to not be seen as discriminating against a certain demographic.

So do we think its right to teach the next generation homosexuality is right? Thats a question not an opinion by the way.
You're right about people using the parts of the bible they want and not the parts they don't. It happens in almost every religion, and usually the ones who follow all the guidelines to the letter invariably end up in a very unhappy society. As I've said before I'm not religous so lets leave the religous views to Dave.

So there is no harm in two consenting adults having sex? Well the worldwide statistic on AIDS that clearly state homosexual males are in a higher risk category would argue your point I think. But yes you are right to a degree, any adults that choose to indulge in homosexuality have the right to do so. But should we be in the situation where a 10 year old child is worrying whether they are gay or not? I would say we are only in this position because of the pro gay attitude of general culture. I don't mean to say I want gays banished to an underground scene in any way, I am not anti gay, I'm just arguing do we want our young children to feel in that position.

The non natural argument doesn't really add up in a pro gay way as there are no solely homosexual animals, there are animals that indulge in homosexul behaviour but will still mate with the other sex for pro creation, human homosexuals won't do that, with the exception of bi-sexuals, but we're talking homosexual here. And I would add that humans have developed (or been given???!!!) a far more complex and powerful brain, wheras homosexual animals are solely in it for physical gratification. Animals lick their own anus, would that mean its acceptable for you to in public?

The no creation argument I can't see as a real argument to be honest. There is no situation that comes to mind where we will be stuck for having babies to be honest. So you can have that one!! haha

I like this, thanks.

[stonedape]

Some people will say that it harms both of the men. They are perverting their natural physiology and sexuality.
This causes imbalance, psychological problems, mental problems but maybe the worst thing is that they don't learn how to correct their thinking/bodies to their natural heterosexual states and sadly miss out on potentially finding the woman of their dreams and enjoying a life together with her.

This may be where Dave or others stand and they believe they are the ones who truly love 'gays'.
They could even argue that people like you HURT them by actually encouraging them to continue perverting themselves.

Friends who love friends want them to quit smoking. They certainly don't try and encourage the bad habit.
Enemies would encourage it and even buy their opponent cigarettes and congratulate them for bravely smoking them saying 'nothing will go wrong' and 'its who you are' and 'see.. you are happy!'.

The problem with people like you (meaning our views) is that you presume that homosexuality is good.
At no point do you even consider the possibility it may be bad.
So for you the only explanations (in your mind) is that anyone who disagrees must be uninformed or must be trying to 'hurt gays'.
No.
In fact people like Dave (in his mind, in his intentions) believes he is doing something to love and help homosexuals.

If you think there is a link between homosexuality and mental disease that is not based on discrimination from society, you just haven't read enough peer-reviewed papers on the subject. So yes, you are uninformed. It is not a nicotine addiction. Good intentions don't mean jack, the view is ignorant and the result is negative.

Don't know if you're a troll or legit, but it's views like those above that cause hormonal gay kids to go shooting themselves or living as closeted hermits that don't have sex the rest of their lives, and cause more moral harm than anything you imagine preferring the same sex does.

[toby843]

Don't know if you're a troll or legit, but it's views like those above that cause hormonal gay kids to go shooting themselves or living as closeted hermits that don't have sex the rest of their lives, and cause more moral harm than anything you imagine preferring the same sex does.

I'm sorry but I would suggest its the confused kids that cause themselves to shoot themselves. When homosexuality is so prevalant in our society and is encouraged and given the moral seal of approval it will of course lead to young adults trying to decide if they want to be homosexual or not.

[stonedape]

I'm sorry but I would suggest its the confused kids that cause themselves to shoot themselves. When homosexuality is so prevalant in our society and is encouraged and given the moral seal of approval it will of course lead to young adults trying to decide if they want to be homosexual or not.

No, it's the negative messages about being inherently mentally/physically unnatural or diseased, uselessness of life if you don't have a wife, etc, as were just expressed by ElProximo. Again, don't know if ElProximo's a minority view in the UK, but he'd be in great company in the US. However celebrated you perceive homosexuality, why would anyone choose to be in a minority if they could be "normal"?

[ElProximo]

If you think there is a link between homosexuality and mental disease that is not based on discrimination from society, you just haven't read enough peer-reviewed papers on the subject.

And if you think homosexual behavior is helpful, mentally healthy then YOU don't know a damn thing and haven't read the literature and don't know what you are talking about.

You may think your helping gays by encouraging and condoning them but you are hurting them.
Your 'righteous intentions' don't mean jack. You hurt people.

but it's views like those above that cause hormonal gay kids to go shooting themselves or living as closeted hermits that don't have sex the rest of their lives, and cause more moral harm than anything you imagine preferring the same sex does.


There is a massive suicide, drug overdose rate among homosexuals.
Because they have twisted their minds and physiology and become confused and upset from what they are doing which is unnatural.
Then,
Because people like you keep telling them they 'ought to feel good about it' and they don't - they feel even MORE despair.
People like you are what cause gay kids to kill themselves.

[toby843]

No, it's the negative messages about being inherently mentally/physically unnatural or diseased, uselessness of life if you don't have a wife, etc, as were just expressed by ElProximo. Again, don't know if ElProximo's a minority view in the UK, but he'd be in great company in the US. However celebrated you perceive homosexuality, why would anyone choose to be in a minority if they could be "normal"?

Ok well I hope my views aren't seen as negative, I'm in it for the discussion.
So the AIDS statistics add up I'm afraid but a stereotypical view is something we should avoid in every avenue of life. We are all different with different values and beliefs etc.
I guess your point about why would anyone choose to be a minority etc is saying there is no choice in homosexuality? I would disagree strongly with that, but I fear we're getting off the point of Dave being allowed his religous view. So I would suggest we all agree to disagree and enjoy the fact we've had a fun and healthy debate and call it a day there?

[Lex]

I can not stand his FAKE sincerity and his open disgust at minorities like gay people. I say send him a message and he can stick his vile agenda and get him OUT NOW! Call: 09011 323 004

I personally would like to see Dave evicted,(after jj1+jj2+mario), but for the reason that he is a manipulative, duplicitus full-on gameplayer!...But, in no way do I believe that he is homophobic!..imo, Rasputin has many faults!...but that's not one of them! :elephant:

[Livia]

Hi, see this is what I like, this is what these forums are all about, healthy debate on relevant subjects. not mindless childish slagging for no real reason. Thanks you Livia.

So....Like I said before, I'm not religous, I'm not arguing for or against the bible, I'm arguing for Dave's right to have a religous view, and one that should by all rights be shared by the majority of the coutry as it is christian coutry by foundation.

When I talked about society 60 years ago my point was that if we could take their values we would be better off, not their laws. Would you not rather live in a world where the dustman would take your bin even if the lid wasn't shut slightly? Or, not worry about sending your child on a school sports event in case they bang their head against another child and the other parents sue you? Would you rather not be surrounded by health and safety signs everywhere yo go telling you not to do what you quite clearly wouldn't do anyway? And so on and so forth!

Now I'm not homophobic in any way but in my opinion, and it is my opinion and I'm allowed it, I don't agree that same sex couples should be allowed to adopt children, and I am happy to think that knowing that I am allowed an opinion, ergo, Dave should be allowed his religous views, after all, without national identity and the great and triumphant history of our country what would we be left with in todays society of immigration and assylum??

There’s quite a lot of healthy debate here, amongst a lot of mindless drivel of course. Some of my favourite posters on here I hardly agree with at all, but they don’t resort to name-calling and can agree to either see the alternate view, or to disagree.

Dave has a right to his religious view. We both agree on that. But the laws that he chooses to follow have been carefully chosen and discriminate expressly against one section of society. I’m not referring exclusively to Dave here, but to religious people generally, but as Dave is the point of this thread… He does not agree with homosexuality because it says so in the Bible. But he allowed Ben to cut his hair short, around his temples, which is also expressly forbidden in the Bible. So why is one held up as God’s word, and the other isn’t? It’s not a pick-and-mix, it’s supposed to be the Word of God. If one God-given law is archaic enough to be ignored, who chooses?

I will not argue that Health and Safety legislation is over-zealous. Yes there are elements of the bygone that are looked on with nostalgia… but to think everything was rosy back then would be erroneous. Sixty years ago food was still rationed, National Service (love it or hate it) was non-negotiable, inner cities, many destroyed by war, would remain virtual ghettos for at least another two decades. The “Darling Buds of May” view of the 1950s is, I think, a mistake.

You say that this is a Christian country, and although well over fifty eight percent of the country listed their religion as “Christian”, a visit to any church on any Sunday will show that attendance has been declining year on year over a long period. More people go to football matches on Saturdays than go to church on Sundays. Interestingly sixteen percent of people stated they had “no religion”, the highest proportion of non-believers in the country ever. While it would be nice to think the Christian doctrine of “Love thy Neighbour” would be a nice ethos, I’m afraid that’s not the reality of it. And as a side note, interestingly, during the last Census, seven people in every thousand in England and Wales listed their religion as “Jedi”.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want. But that doesn’t mean it is right or even legal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their race, gender, disability or religious view. So how does it make it right to be able to discriminate against members of our society purely on the grounds of the sexual orientation? This is not an unter-class we’re talking about; gay people work, contribute and pay taxes and they should have the right to live their lives with the same rights as anyone else.

Finally, and slightly off-topic I know, you talk about the triumphant history and national identity of this country and ask what it would be in today’s society of immigration and asylum. Offering shelter to people IS a part of this country’s triumphant history and national identity. This country went to war for the downtrodden in 1939, and many people, including members of my own family, found shelter here. This country’s crowning glory in my view, is the willingness of the majority of British people to stand up for the underdog, to raise their fist against the bully even when it is outnumbered and to offer sanctuary to the downtrodden as it has done for hundreds of years.

[stonedape]

And if you think homosexual behavior is helpful, mentally healthy then YOU don't know a damn thing and haven't read the literature and don't know what you are talking about.

You may think your helping gays by encouraging and condoning them but you are hurting them.
Your 'righteous intentions' don't mean jack. You hurt people.



There is a massive suicide, drug overdose rate among homosexuals.
Because they have twisted their minds and physiology and become confused and upset from what they are doing which is unnatural.
Then,
Because people like you keep telling them they 'ought to feel good about it' and they don't - they feel even MORE despair.
People like you are what cause gay kids to kill themselves.

I guess hijacking my argument is flattering, but try something a little more creative than a metaphoric "I know you are but what am I?". As I've already said, the "massive" suicide and drug rate is caused by people like you, and you don't even need the righteous intentions. All empirical evidence in psychology and psychiatry points to this. In societies with less stigma, there is less mental disease. If your claims were true, you'd see more. You hurt people, and you're so willfully ignorant you've twisted positive affirmation into moral harm. It makes me worry for the future of humanity :dance:

[toby843]

So why is one held up as God’s word, and the other isn’t? It’s not a pick-and-mix, it’s supposed to be the Word of God. If one God-given law is archaic enough to be ignored, who chooses?

A point I whole heartedly agree with, hence me not being religious.
I will not argue that Health and Safety legislation is over-zealous. Yes there are elements of the bygone that are looked on with nostalgia… but to think everything was rosy back then would be erroneous. Sixty years ago food was still rationed, National Service (love it or hate it) was non-negotiable, inner cities, many destroyed by war, would remain virtual ghettos for at least another two decades. The “Darling Buds of May” view of the 1950s is, I think, a mistake.

Again, good points, but again, I was refferring to the values of society back then, the feeling of mucking in together, family values, hard work, clean living, community spirit, national pride etc. When was the last time we had a good old street party with union flags flying everywhere? I'm sorry to say it, I doubt it would be allowed in todays climate as we may offend. Agreed?
You say that this is a Christian country, and although well over fifty eight percent of the country listed their religion as “Christian”, a visit to any church on any Sunday will show that attendance has been declining year on year over a long period. More people go to football matches on Saturdays than go to church on Sundays. Interestingly sixteen percent of people stated they had “no religion”, the highest proportion of non-believers in the country ever. While it would be nice to think the Christian doctrine of “Love thy Neighbour” would be a nice ethos, I’m afraid that’s not the reality of it. And as a side note, interestingly, during the last Census, seven people in every thousand in England and Wales listed their religion as “Jedi”.

very good point. Perhaps we should take a step back and have a look at the benefits of returning to the way we used to be.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want. But that doesn’t mean it is right or even legal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their race, gender, disability or religious view. So how does it make it right to be able to discriminate against members of our society purely on the grounds of the sexual orientation? This is not an unter-class we’re talking about; gay people work, contribute and pay taxes and they should have the right to live their lives with the same rights as anyone else.

I guess this depends on how you take the term "discriminate" in any given situation. I wouldn't say in this case Dave is discriminating in the nasty sense that we would perceive rascism or sexism. I would say its more a case of womens only nights at swimming pools, men only on the front line (for now), adults only in certain pubs. The kind of "discrimination" we tend to accept as ok. If its our belief that a murderer is bad and we should lock them away we are in effect discriminating against murderers in the true definition of the word. It is Dave's belief homosexuality is wrong but he is not treating anyone differently within his relationship with them.
Finally, and slightly off-topic I know, you talk about the triumphant history and national identity of this country and ask what it would be in today’s society of immigration and asylum. Offering shelter to people IS a part of this country’s triumphant history and national identity. This country went to war for the downtrodden in 1939, and many people, including members of my own family, found shelter here. This country’s crowning glory in my view, is the willingness of the majority of British people to stand up for the underdog, to raise their fist against the bully even when it is outnumbered and to offer sanctuary to the downtrodden as it has done for hundreds of years.

What my point was, is that, as we, quite rightly, accept a steady incoming stream of asylum seekers we constantly integrate other cultures and religions and different ways of life into our own, we must make sure we don't forget our own national identity. Thats what I meant. As a serving member of HM forces I agree 100% with you on our countries crowning glory.

(Thanks for the nice intro too)

[Shasown]

So there is no harm in two consenting adults having sex? Well the worldwide statistic on AIDS that clearly state homosexual males are in a higher risk category would argue your point I think. But yes you are right to a degree, any adults that choose to indulge in homosexuality have the right to do so.


Animals lick their own anus, would that mean its acceptable for you to in public?



What worldwide statistics are you using?

I would say currently the highest risk group to be black, uneducated, poor, promiscuous, Africans. Whilst it is true in the 80's AIDS spread rapidly through homosexual communities that had more to do with being promiscuous and not using protection.

As for the animal licking anus thing, no I wouldnt do it to myself or anyone else in public, in private however I might try it if only i could reach :wink:

[ElProximo]

I guess hijacking my argument is flattering, but try something a little more creative than a metaphoric "I know you are but what am I?".


I introduced the idea of what belief harms homosexuals and what helps them and first suggested that your presumption hurts gays.
You took my lead and countered and got it back in more detail.


As I've already said, the "massive" suicide and drug rate is caused by people like you, and you don't even need the righteous intentions. All empirical evidence in psychology and psychiatry points to this.

No it doesn't and it's sociology and not psychiatry. It is statistics. We know (mainly from police and hospital reports) that there is a horrifically disproportionate amount of suicide and drug abuse (and then overdose) depression and murder among those who enter the homosexual lifestyles and circles.

You can guess some 'secret twist' must be happening but the stats are the stats. Your 'secret blame twist' is just your own mind working on ways to hurt more gays.


In societies with less stigma, there is less mental disease.

Nope. Where there are large open and freely and even promoted gay communities is found these statistics. Some of the worst stats came from San Franciscos gay communities.
That is about as 'free and non-stigmata' a place for gays as it gets.


If your claims were true, you'd see more. You hurt people, and you're so willfully ignorant you've twisted positive affirmation into moral harm. It makes me worry for the future of humanity :dance:

No, you think promoting homosexuality will help you hurt Christianity and the traditional family.
you don't care about gays or whether your advice leads to their deaths and pain and suffering as long as it serves your hateful intents and purposes.
Right?

[Livia]

What my point was, is that, as we, quite rightly, accept a steady incoming stream of asylum seekers we constantly integrate other cultures and religions and different ways of life into our own, we must make sure we don't forget our own national identity. Thats what I meant. As a serving member of HM forces I agree 100% with you on our countries crowning glory.

(Thanks for the nice intro too)

Dave is discriminating because the Bible tells him to. He's following a set of rules. It is the rules that are wrong, and it's the lawmakers and the Church (and I don't mean just Christians) itself that needs to think deeply about it.

It'll be two weeks on Saturday since I was at a village fair that was decked out with flags. I realise that it's not the same in the inner city (I come from east London) but I do think that the Union Flag is being reclaimed from the BNP and other far-right fanatics. Slowly, but it's happening.

The arrival of newcomers to Britain has been going on since people invented the boat. The Vikings, the bloody Romans, the Huguenots, Jews, Muslims, Moors... this country is ever-changing. Even the language owes it beauty to the fact that it's made up of the best of other languages... every word that ends 'able' or 'ible' or 'tion' is a French word. We're a patchwork quilt of a country and we always have been really. Ever changing and ever the same.

Always nice to talk to someone serving in the Forces.

[flamingGalah!]

Some people will say that it harms both of the men. They are perverting their natural physiology and sexuality.
This causes imbalance, psychological problems, mental problems but maybe the worst thing is that they don't learn how to correct their thinking/bodies to their natural heterosexual states and sadly miss out on potentially finding the woman of their dreams and enjoying a life together with her.

This may be where Dave or others stand and they believe they are the ones who truly love 'gays'.
They could even argue that people like you HURT them by actually encouraging them to continue perverting themselves.

Friends who love friends want them to quit smoking. They certainly don't try and encourage the bad habit.
Enemies would encourage it and even buy their opponent cigarettes and congratulate them for bravely smoking them saying 'nothing will go wrong' and 'its who you are' and 'see.. you are happy!'.

The problem with people like you (meaning our views) is that you presume that homosexuality is good.
At no point do you even consider the possibility it may be bad.
So for you the only explanations (in your mind) is that anyone who disagrees must be uninformed or must be trying to 'hurt gays'.
No.
In fact people like Dave (in his mind, in his intentions) believes he is doing something to love and help homosexuals.

And if you think homosexual behavior is helpful, mentally healthy then YOU don't know a damn thing and haven't read the literature and don't know what you are talking about.

You may think your helping gays by encouraging and condoning them but you are hurting them.
Your 'righteous intentions' don't mean jack. You hurt people.



There is a massive suicide, drug overdose rate among homosexuals.
Because they have twisted their minds and physiology and become confused and upset from what they are doing which is unnatural.
Then,
Because people like you keep telling them they 'ought to feel good about it' and they don't - they feel even MORE despair.
People like you are what cause gay kids to kill themselves.

I thought I had read some bullsh*t from you but this load of homophobic & extremely ignorant drivel really takes the biscuit, even for you... :sleep:

And stop beating around the bush by keep stating "some people" when you actually mean that YOU have these beliefs, at least have the guts & grow some in stead of trying to speak for others when you are simply getting your own disgusting & twisted beliefs off your chest... :sleep:

You have to be the most offensive person I have ever encountered on a forum... I didn't think there were still people about as ignorant & ill informed as you are. So congratulations for letting me realise that people with such narrow minds still exist...

[Livia]

I guess hijacking my argument is flattering, but try something a little more creative than a metaphoric "I know you are but what am I?". As I've already said, the "massive" suicide and drug rate is caused by people like you, and you don't even need the righteous intentions. All empirical evidence in psychology and psychiatry points to this. In societies with less stigma, there is less mental disease. If your claims were true, you'd see more. You hurt people, and you're so willfully ignorant you've twisted positive affirmation into moral harm. It makes me worry for the future of humanity

I agree with this post entirely so won't bother adding to the conversation.

[toby843]

What worldwide statistics are you using?

I would say currently the highest risk group to be black, uneducated, poor, promiscuous, Africans. Whilst it is true in the 80's AIDS spread rapidly through homosexual communities that had more to do with being promiscuous and not using protection.

As for the animal licking anus thing, no I wouldnt do it to myself or anyone else in public, in private however I might try it if only i could reach :wink:

hahahah I laughed proper hard at that. I got my missus in to look at it too. Good one.

Anyway, I never said the highest risk group. I just said homosexual men are in a higher risk group. Any research on any AIDS site will confirm that. Cool?

[Shasown]

hahahah I laughed proper hard at that. I got my missus in to look at it too. Good one.

Anyway, I never said the highest risk group. I just said homosexual men are in a higher risk group. Any research on any AIDS site will confirm that. Cool?

Course its cool mate, nice to meet you by the way.

[flamingGalah!]

hahahah I laughed proper hard at that. I got my missus in to look at it too. Good one.

Anyway, I never said the highest risk group. I just said homosexual men are in a higher risk group. Any research on any AIDS site will confirm that. Cool?

Anyone who sleeps around without using protection is at a high risk of HIV/AIDS, as well as many other STD's... As are drug users...

And not all gay men are like the stereotype & sleep with dozens of different men each week...

[toby843]

It'll be two weeks on Saturday since I was at a village fair that was decked out with flags. I realise that it's not the same in the inner city (I come from east London) but I do think that the Union Flag is being reclaimed from the BNP and other far-right fanatics. Slowly, but it's happening.

.

Good. Thats something we should be pushing for slightly more I think. lets get our own flag back. Well said.

[toby843]

Anyone who sleeps around without using protection is at a high risk of HIV/AIDS, as well as many other STD's... As are drug users...

And not all gay men are like the stereotype & sleep with dozens of different men each week...

This I understand. Please will people stop thinking these are my personal views. I'm just having a lively debate.

[toby843]

Course its cool mate, nice to meet you by the way.

And you, and Livia, and anyone else I've had a constructive conversation with on this thread. Thank you all.

[Livia]

Good. Thats something we should be pushing for slightly more I think. lets get our own flag back. Well said.

Now we just have to teach everyone to fly it the right way up. Freaks me out when I see it upside down!

[WOMBAI]

What worldwide statistics are you using?

I would say currently the highest risk group to be black, uneducated, poor, promiscuous, Africans. Whilst it is true in the 80's AIDS spread rapidly through homosexual communities that had more to do with being promiscuous and not using protection.

As for the animal licking anus thing, no I wouldnt do it to myself or anyone else in public, in private however I might try it if only i could reach :wink:


What an image that has put in my mind! :joker:

[flamingGalah!]

This I understand. Please will people stop thinking these are my personal views. I'm just having a lively debate.

Well forgive me, but you could have mentioned the other high risk groups as well...

[Shasown]

Now we just have to teach everyone to fly it the right way up. Freaks me out when I see it upside down!

Its also a crime.

[Livia]

[/B]


What an image that has put in my mind! :joker:

I have a theory that if Shasown could do that, he'd never leave the house. Show of hands?

[Livia]

Its also a crime.

I didn't know that. Is it actually a crime? I know it's a signal of distress... didn't know it was against the law. I feel even more self-rightous about it now!

[Shasown]

I have a theory that if Shasown could do that, he'd never leave the house. Show of hands?

Quite wrong, I would do all the chat shows that would be interested, like Mssr's Norton and Carr's, would make a few shillings I bet!

[Livia]

Quite wrong, I would do all the chat shows that would be interested, like Mssr's Norton and Carr's, would make a few shillings I bet!

In that case I'd volunteer myself to be your agent. 20%.

[Shasown]

I didn't know that. Is it actually a crime? I know it's a signal of distress... didn't know it was against the law. I feel even more self-rightous about it now!

Nope the Union Jack flown upside down is a sign of distress, to fly the Union Flag upside down is "lese Majeste" an insult to the Crown, which is still on the statute books.

[Livia]

Nope the Union Jack flown upside down is a sign of distress, to fly the Union Flag upside down is "lese Majeste" an insult to the Crown, which is still on the statute books.

That's my one new thing for today then. Thanks for that.

[toby843]

Well forgive me, but you could have mentioned the other high risk groups as well...

Sorry, its just we were talking about homosexuals, but you are quite right yes.

[toby843]

I have a theory that if Shasown could do that, he'd never leave the house. Show of hands?

I'll be honest. I'm not sure I'd want to. I mean, it'd be a bit bitter sweet (depending on what you'd eaten!!) wouldn't it. Feel good but minging. I mean lick the back of your hand, what do you feel most? Your tongue on your hand or your hand on your tonuge? I think I'd have to be fully sure it'd be worth it you know.

[Livia]

I'll be honest. I'm not sure I'd want to. I mean, it'd be a bit bitter sweet (depending on what you'd eaten!!) wouldn't it. Feel good but minging. I mean lick the back of your hand, what do you feel most? Your tongue on your hand or your hand on your tonuge? I think I'd have to be fully sure it'd be worth it you know.

Don't really want to think about the mechanics of it, if I'm honest! My cat seems to enjoy it.

[Livia]

LOL... I realise that "my cat enjoys it" sounds reeeeeeeally weird! LOL... I mean he enjoys doing it to himself. Just to clarify....

[toby843]

LOL... I realise that "my cat enjoys it" sounds reeeeeeeally weird! LOL... I mean he enjoys doing it to himself. Just to clarify....

yeah yeah! Come here whiskers, yummy!

[Livia]

Nah, I'm giving that a miss. My cat's ar5e is definitely NOT Kosher.

[flamingGalah!]

Don't knock rimming until you have tried it... ;)

[Livia]

Don't knock rimming until you have tried it... ;)

LOL... Jezuz... how did we get from all that serious stuff... to THIS?!

[flamingGalah!]

LOL... Jezuz... how did we get from all that serious stuff... to THIS?!

LOL not sure, but it wasn't me! :joker:

[toby843]

LOL not sure, but it wasn't me! :joker:

It was me but it was initially in a serious conversation, honest guv.

Anyway. I'm gonna sit and watch the HL show so stand by for posting haha