Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,543
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
............
The tolerant Catholic Church
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Do you have a quote for that because I'm assuming nobody has said that
Same, although I am more inclined to believe this I would like to look at the context.
As the subject of Gay rights came up I was looking at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)
It only refers to marriage as being between a man and a woman.
If it can be argued that marriage should include gays then surely that is the document that they should be changing, not doing it piecemeal country by country.
Either something is a clear universal truth and should apply across the world, or it is something that is being pushed into law on an opportunistic basis by politicians looking for votes.
Particularly as nobody elected Cameron to push this through and as such he has no legal mandate to be meddling in the first place.
Actually why is he even bothering to consult anyone when Featherstone has just said, pffft it will be legal by 2015 regardless ? I didn't vote for a totalitarian state.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,543
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Some will argue that Article 16 doesn't specifically mention men and woman having the right to marry each other and it may include the right to marry others of the same sex.
I can't agree with that interpretation. Certainly not when every other right listed refers to "everyone". They have gone out of their way to change the style of the article and not say
Is that just with men though or with women also?
How about men and women?
Because that is the context that gives it relevance - if out of all the combinations available you were to find one display uncomfortable and the rest not then it would be more justified to label you homophobic. If however like most people you find all such displays to be uncomfortable in a normal social context when taken to quite intimate lengths well then your not homophobic just British
Do you have a quote for that because I'm assuming nobody has said that
spudbynight said that gay marriage would undermine the fabric of society. There have been plenty of more overtly anti-gay posts and the words unnatural and abonormal have been used. Try looking at the thread with slightly less bias perhaps?
I am not even sure what you mean by this.
Considering some nations still have the death penalty for homosexuality I would rather not wait for all nations to catch up before changing our own laws.
Is that just with men though or with women also?
How about men and women?
Because that is the context that gives it relevance - if out of all the combinations available you were to find one display uncomfortable and the rest not then it would be more justified to label you homophobic. If however like most people you find all such displays to be uncomfortable in a normal social context when taken to quite intimate lengths well then your not homophobic just British
In real life, I am more uncomfortable about Male couples than Female couples (although I once has an intimate encounter with a bisexual lesbian couple in my drunken youth)....and less so about Mixed couples...although all make me feel a little uncomfortable to one degree or another.
However, say for example I was watching TV....True Blood for example which has a lot of sexual scenes both heterosexual and homosexual...it is generally only the homosexual ones between male partners that makes me feel uncomfortable......
I suppose by the broad and general definition that makes me a homophobe...although I cannot consciously control how I feel, I was simply made or conditioned that way...much like how Homosexuals feel about their sexuality I suppose.
Sharia law would undermine the fabric of society, but saying as much isn't offensive to Muslims
That's why I'm asking, I don't think anybody has actually said homosexuals are a threat to society
Apart from the special people I don't think anyone has been anti gay either
"some posters have been decrying the (sometimes justified, sometimes not) abuse directed at the church they have been the same people using abusive terms towards homosexuality"
As above, it's easier to actually quote people rather than just 'some people said something'. I was wondering who specifically you were talking about.
I'm just checking you are not misquoting people that's all
Which is a more useful use of gay activists and Cameron's time, making some gays in the UK feel good about themselves or highlighting the torture of gays in Iraq where they superglue their anus and then initiate diarrhoea to kill them ?
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/04/21/37716/iraq-militias-glue/
This, in a country where we are supposed to be the ones in control.
To me the fact that people still die because of their orientation is far more important than tweaking some law in a 1st world country.
Maybe that's not so good for the page views for hipster gay bloggers or gain any votes for Cameron, but it is still what we should be doing.
I have to wonder about the integrity of such bloggers that are happy to push for equal rights for themselves while 1,000's die in other countries, yet even though they have free access to the web and lots of followers, they still say nothing.
This is all tinsel and fluff, poor minority group apparently being denied cake, lets Like this on Facebook and change the world from our armchair.
Even better let's do this just to spite Catholics because they are all paedophiles or something and invented the Crusades which were bad for some other complicated reason, Oh Oh and the burning of Witches which is terrible because Harry Potter is sooooo cool y'know
Dumbing down politics is bad.
/
Last edited:
It would also be indicative of your own preference though. The real issue is that you are still watching True Blood! And certain other posters have been quite the bigot in other recent threads so should be careful in their self-righteousness lest we hold them to their own standards.
It does make me wonder just how broad certain definitions are becoming though...before reading hurfdurfs quoted definition, I would not have considered myself a homophobe by any definition of the word.....Just a bit of a prude when it comes to men having it away.....
But that word has leverage and it pays to make that leverage as strong as possible, when pursuing an agenda, even though basic logic and evidence shows it to be an unreasonable position. The problem is when a broad definition is applied to include and then a lot narrower definition is applied as a stick to beat someone with. For example, homophobia as an aversion to displays of intimacy between men then getting applied as homophobia as a label to denote someone who is actively at the more aggressive end of the definition. Then the way the word homophobia is used is prejudicial because it is implying individuals under the umbrella term hold a certain set of values they do not have - it is implying something out of context. And that is the irony. This is what happens when you have well funded and articulate lobby groups though.
Last edited:
Absolutely agree.
Im a lapsed catholic myself, but isnt it true that none of the major faiths recognise the legitimacy of homosexuality, gay marriage, adoption of kids by gay couples. It might not fit into our current modern day world with it's politically correct thinking, but supposedly people are supposed to live by their faith, be they christian, jew muslim etc. So therefore if gay marriage, homosexuality, adoption of children by same sex couples is allowed. It undermines what weve been led to believe for years, ie the belief in god and state, hence the pope as the leader of the catholic faith, or the queen in england as the leader of the protestant faith. And lets be honest, no person on this planet can say they adhere 100% to theyre religious teachings, human nature will always succeed, greed, jealousy, envy, malice, violence. Were not really any better than the wild animals that inhibit the planet. Were just a little bit more advanced.
However you can point out how and why it would undermine it. With gay marriage no one has yet managed to do that.
That's why I'm asking, I don't think anybody has actually said homosexuals are a threat to society
Apart from the special people I don't think anyone has been anti gay either
"some posters have been decrying the (sometimes justified, sometimes not) abuse directed at the church they have been the same people using abusive terms towards homosexuality"
spudbynight was one example, koolpc was another, MortonF a third, Craterloads another. That is just off the top of my head, I have neither the time nor energy to go through the entire thread and quote instances. I was just finding it somewhat ironic that both you and spud for example have disliked religion coming in for criticism or abuse whilst being perfectly fine with letting abuse slide when it is against homosexuality. A not uncommon blindness in us all when it comes to debates I feel.
As above, it's easier to actually quote people rather than just 'some people said something'. I was wondering who specifically you were talking about.
I'm just checking you are not misquoting people that's all
It is quite a large thread and I was just making general comments rather than specific points.
Which is a more useful use of gay activists and Cameron's time, making some gays in the UK feel good about themselves or highlighting the torture of gays in Iraq where they superglue their anus and then initiate diarrhoea to kill them ?
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/04/21/37716/iraq-militias-glue/
This, in a country where we are supposed to be the ones in control.
To me the fact that people still die because of their orientation is far more important than tweaking some law in a 1st world country.
Maybe that's not so good for the page views for hipster gay bloggers or gain any votes for Cameron, but it is still what we should be doing.
I have to wonder about the integrity of such bloggers that are happy to push for equal rights for themselves while 1,000's die in other countries, yet even though they have free access to the web and lots of followers, they still say nothing.
This is all tinsel and fluff, poor minority group apparently being denied cake, lets Like this on Facebook and change the world from our armchair.
Even better let's do this just to spite Catholics because they are all paedophiles or something and invented the Crusades which were bad for some other complicated reason, Oh Oh and the burning of Witches which is terrible because Harry Potter is sooooo cool y'know
Dumbing down politics is bad.
/
This is just rubbish to be honest. Lets ignore injustices in our own system (which can easily be changed) because some other people are worse? Shame you don't apply the same standards to the Catholic Church. Why are they going on about homosexuals having the right to marry in the UK rather than focusing their energies on more serious problems to the church?
Just because you feel that gay marriage is all tinsel and fluff doesn't mean that others feel the same and that it should not be changed.
Obvious homophobes not realizing that they are homophobic is just as funny as Nick Griffin or DD claiming that they aren't racists 
.
How many homosexual people do you know that complain about how repulsed they are by displays of heterosexual affection, none right?
Its also very rare to find heterosexual women who find homosexuality repulsive in anyway, except for a few deeply religious prudes who would more than likely also be repulsed about straight sex. In fact a lot of 100% Straight women I knew would often intimately hug and kiss their female friends.
.How many homosexual people do you know that complain about how repulsed they are by displays of heterosexual affection, none right?
Its also very rare to find heterosexual women who find homosexuality repulsive in anyway, except for a few deeply religious prudes who would more than likely also be repulsed about straight sex. In fact a lot of 100% Straight women I knew would often intimately hug and kiss their female friends.
Think I've already stated I don't really want people of any gender getting too frisky in public ...
Moreover, still waiting on you to qualify you statements in the other thread where you made that sweeping statement about genetic engineering. It's just my former colleagues and I would really like to know where we went wrong for all those years and eagerly are awaiting you simple solutions to something that ICH, John Hopkins and the Pasteur Institute have been struggling with for years.
Why should I bother going though several pages of threads to reply to a post in a currenty dead thread? If you are that obsessed over getting a reply why not message me via trust?
Regarding the issue of genetic engineering since I absolutely cannot find that thread, the entire human genome has been mapped, genetics can easily deduce which genes are responsible for certain genetic disorders, and new genes can easily be added to any genome using the correct methods which I have long forgotten. This of course is only possible by modifying the genes in a gamete prior to fertilization, never after a zygote is formed and already starts replicating.
Regarding the issue of genetic engineering since I absolutely cannot find that thread, the entire human genome has been mapped, genetics can easily deduce which genes are responsible for certain genetic disorders, and new genes can easily be added to any genome using the correct methods which I have long forgotten. This of course is only possible by modifying the genes in a gamete prior to fertilization, never after a zygote is formed and already starts replicating.
Last edited:
Oh right so you can solve the problems of genetic engineering but you can't use the search function on a forum ... Naturally I am not interested in your reply as I know for a fact you can not back up your assertions.
I am merely pointing out that once again you are making statements that go against what research and evidence indicates.
I'm using my mobile phone to post on these forums, it doesn't handle forum search engines well at all.
Its far more likely that you have never even studied genetics, and havnt got the slightest clue about it. Dolly the sheep says hi, I'm a clone!
Research and evidence fully 100% indicates that yes the entire human genome has been mapped, and yes we can genetically engineer gametes at the genetic level. You are beyond clueless if you don't even know that much.
Last edited:
Does the bar differ depending on who is being frisky though? Do you react differently to the same public display of affection depending on who is doing it?
I know for me that context and location are much more important than who is doing what. Light kisses, hand holding and general hugging would be fine pretty much anywhere whether that be man/woman, man/man or woman/woman. If your distaste changes depending on the gender of those involved then it is more than just a dislike of public affection.
We have one word to describe the whole gamut of negative reactions to homosexuality (Arguably the wrong word too), is this a problem? Do we need more or should we be more nuanced about it? If so, does it also apply to other prejudices?
Obviously not! You are obviously a scholarly chap and I look forward to learning from your extensive knowledge. My confusion was that you stated "that most diseases are caused by a specific gene which then only expresses exclusively for that disease" and therefore are easily curable by genetic engineering. Now from my "uneducated laymans" point of view then I was wondering why the only such success has been in the treatment of ADA/XSCID but where they had found that the retroviral insertion by an oncogene had resulted in resulting leukaemia. I eagerly await your response.