Gay marriages and civil partnerships in church

Post Reply New Topic

Now here is an interesting point.
Does a person choose their sexual identity anymore than the colour of their skin or their gender? No.
OK what is the homophobic bigot (ie ho·mo·pho·bi·a (hm-fb-)n. 1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. 2. Behavior based on such a feeling.) thinking the homosexual person is going to do to rectify their sin. Being gay is sinful and being gay is a sin. Effectively these elements of the church believes that God has selected a people that will be punished for being (not choosing or following a course of acting that they could avoid.)
Is that fair, tolerant, loving , ethical, kind or good? Flies in the face of organised Christian faith doesn't it?

My questions to the Christians that hold such views and are in contempt of gay people

Are you a bigot (it is defined above)?
Does that make you any better than the intolerant sexists, racists or any other bigot or bigotry?
Why?
Why do you think that a loving tolerant moral God would allow for people to be born gay and thus damned at birth (Yes not go into the "they choose to be gay" - that is a cop out)?
Murderers, rapist, thieves and the like hurt others and society. Gays don't. Why invest with them the same or similar abject disapproval?
In the approach of calling it fair, if a fundamentalist Christian with negative views on gay people were to illustrate contempt then at what point is retaliation from those insulted parties, allowable? We ought not suggest that gay people ought to be defenseless against anti-gay rhetoric or not (regardless of whether it is hidden under the cowardly veil of a stated belief, or not).

You bring up interesting points Butterflies

I have the misfortune to live in one of the most backward and religious places in Britain. I was playing football with a bunch of teenage boys, and was pretty freaked out when they started talking about how they would be happy to beat up a "fa***t" for no reason other than the fact they were gay. A few of these boys were religious, and one of the main reasons for their homophobic views was that "God" says that it's wrong.
I'm not saying that the church is solely responsible for homophobia, but the attitude of the churches certainly does nothing to help the situation, and I'm pretty certain that the churches attitude to homosexuality does significantly increase homophobia.

I see this as opinion-intolerant "hate speech" against a group of people and I have removed it from one of your posts:

I was shocked to be accused of hate-speech. So shocked in fact, that I was unable to even respond properly to the accusation.

Ah, you cause me to chuckle! It would be wrong of me to re-post your actual PM here, but that PM easily left me with the clear impression that you "totally disagreed" but that you would nevertheless "modify it slightly" ... and you quickly did, and I thank you.

Note: I have just recently edited "idiots" into "people" in another of your posts just above, and for the very same reason.

Could you tell where exactly you substituted "idiot" for "people"?

There is nothing that can be done to stop hate, but the law stops people acting on their hate. There will always be people in our society that choose to hate. Most of them are not worth trying to reason with.

I still do not understand how I was guilty of "hate speech," and I would appreciate enlightenment.

Sure ...




If I might first digress just a bit: All of this is actually and presently an insightful and learning exercise for me at the personal level ... and if you would give me just a moment here, I will go get an excerpt from some recent and non-revealing (in any personal way) moderator discussion concerning alleged "hate speech" ...

So, you're seriously trying to tell me that I'm not allowed to say "There will always be idiots in our society that choose to hate?"

Not at all. WP rules are never up for debate. Rather, what we have here are but some examples of one of my own personal interpretations of the principles behind WP rules, and as applied within the larger, global context of so-called "hate speech" against groups of people. To wit:

"There will always be idiots in our society that choose to hate."
versus
"There will always be people in our society that choose to hate."

First, "choosing to hate" is but rhetorical conjecture and/or hyperbole or whatever, but that is of no actual consequence here. Nevertheless, and with said people who allegedly "choose to hate" thus grouped, next calling that same group of people "idiots" seems to me to be quite derogatory -- hate speech -- as an inflammatory attack against at least a generalized or stereotyped group of people.

Back in a few moments with the other text I had mentioned ...

I have the misfortune to live in one of the most backward and religious places in Britain. I was playing football with a bunch of teenage boys, and was pretty freaked out when they started talking about how they would be happy to beat up a "fa***t" for no reason other than the fact they were gay.

A few of these boys were religious, and one of the main reasons for their homophobic views was that "God" says that it's wrong.
versus
A few of these boys were religious, and one of the main reasons they gave for their homophobia was that they claimed "God says that it's wrong."

I'm not saying that the church is solely responsible for homophobia, but the attitude of the churches certainly does nothing to help the situation, and I'm pretty certain that the churches attitude to homosexuality does significantly increase homophobia.

Well, if that's your interpretation of things, then once again I would question the wisdom of having such an inexprienced mod moderating this sub-forum.

Surely there are far less contentious boards that you could cut your teeth on.

There is no need to state that here -- that would be something for Alex' ears. Also, my moderation of PPR is not exclusive.


Ah, you again cause me to chuckle!

Oh well. At least you're finding this whole issue funny.

Oh no, not at all. It is your perceptions of and/or silly, childish innuendo or whatever against me that cause me to chuckle.

You've said yourself that you're inexperienced ...

... and I certainly think you're a bit over-enthusiastic with the editing.

I really think you need to take a long look at yourself before you go playing with peoples posts ...

... or if you're maybe just abusing your powers slightly.

I do not think you should be boasting about how much this makes you chuckle

Obviously it is your inexperience as a mod that I am refering to.







Is it really just about your perceptions though? It's your personal comprehension or perception of peoples posts that I feel is flawed. Surely somebody with a different perspective to your own, might feel differently about editing posts that conflict with your world view.




Clearly you are insinuating that I am a troll, sockpuppet, or bully. You, yourself have stated that making insinuations about members is unacceptable. That is clearly unacceptable conduct on your behalf, and once more I take it as evidence of your inexperience as a mod.