Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KC003)
    If everyone in society accepted homosexuality, gay people wouldn't feel the need to commit suicide. When people make homophobic remarks, it makes that gay person feel like utter ****. So when people are constantly making those remarks, they feel that there's no point carrying on as things will never get better. It's all very well you sitting at your computer making these comments without even thinking about it, but have you given a second thought about how it makes any gay people that are reading this feel?
    Your comment wasn't directed at me, but it's the same issue as I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

    A person cannot make any comment about a homosexual/gay or they get branded a homophobe.

    Gay people/homosexual men in particular (and I don't just mean on here, even in real life) seem to take any negative comments more personally simply because they originate from a hetero, even if they are not homophobic comments. Seems like they need to get themselves some thicker skin and realise the world doesn't owe them anything.

    They don't deserve any more special treatment over a hetero, just because they are homosexual.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    Your comment wasn't directed at me, but it's the same issue as I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

    A person cannot make any comment about a homosexual/gay or they get branded a homophobe.

    Gay people/homosexual men in particular (and I don't just mean on here, even in real life) seem to take any negative comments more personally simply because they originate from a hetero, even if they are not homophobic comments. Seems like they need to get themselves some thicker skin and realise the world doesn't owe them anything.

    They don't deserve any more special treatment over a hetero, just because they are homosexual.
    I didn't suggest they deserve special treatment. And yes, I actually agree that some do need to grow thicker skin, because some of what is said to them is just banter. Trust me, if my best mate took offence at some of the gay jokes I make, she probably would have committed suicide long ago. And it's the same with my other gay mates. A lot of it is just banter. But there are people that make really quite unacceptable and unjustified comments towards them, that I can't say I blame them for taking offence at.

    My issue is that there are some people who don't treat them as equal human beings. Yes, maybe some people don't agree with homosexuality, but I don't understand why some people, such as the guy I was replying to in that comment, need to take it too far and start comparing homosexuality to sex with animals like he was doing. I can't specifically remember the comment I was replying to, but there was a fairly long debate surrounding some of the arguments he made.

    So actually, you make a very valid point, which I do agree with to some degree. But the point I was making in that post, was that in actual fact, some of the abuse they get purely over their sexuality is probably better left unsaid because some of the remarks said don't benefit anyone. If I received comments day in, day out about the fact I'm straight, it would probably get annoying and I would start taking offence. So why do some straight people feel it's okay to direct such comments at gay people, when actually, they could just keep their opinion to themselves? I don't know the answer to that question, but that's pretty much the basis of my general argument. Not having a go at you at all, but that's why I made that particular comment.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hi TSR people

    I'm only speaking for myself here, not anyone else. I'm a Christian, and yes I was brought up with Christian values, but there comes a time when you as a person have to decide what you do and do not believe (I'm 18 now and I've decided). People just need to understand, just as I understand your own beliefs (whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant) you just understand mine as well, because it's courteous and then we can all get along better.

    In answer to the thread's question though, I haven't got a problem with gay people at all, I decide whether I like someone by getting to know their personality not their sexual orientation. However, I don't agree with homosexuality, why? Because it's my opinion. Now I'm not going to run down the streets shouting bloody murder to anything homosexual because it's just rude and disrespectful.

    But if I see two gay people making out or something in person I will feel a bit squeamish because that's the kind of person I am, forget preference I just don't like PDA lol. I do have a problem with gay marriage though, only because some (a guess, not evidence) denominations or individual churches may not believe in gay marriage and forcing their head to bless the marriage if they don't want to isn't right and will just cause conflict. So if there are churches would gladly bless gay marriage, more power to them! Let them do what they want to do, just as others want to do what they want to do. Christianity is such a vast and diverse religion, I know Church of England and the Church of Wales aren't marrying gay people (please educate me if I'm wrong here), but shouldn't other smaller churches that aren't being heard (like my own) follow their own doctrine and not one implemented onto them? Also, to the religious people slandering gay people in this thread, you don't have to get your view across just by being rude. You've said what you want to say, stop arguing about it. Peace and love, guys :flower2:

    Now you can call me arrogant, or a bigot or whatever words are flying around these days but why? When have I ever called you out for what you believe? I've given my opinion and I hope you can respect it regardless of if you agree or disagree.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wardah2)
    I don't accept it because of religious beliefs and the pure fact that I don't think its 'natural'.
    Despite being gay, I actually understand this from a heterosexual's point of view. If I was heterosexual, I'm pretty sure I would actually agree with you, I'm sure I would think that it was unnatural and abhorrent too. But that all changes when you actually see for yourself that it's not a choice, and does indeed seem very natural to the individual in concern.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T94)
    But if I see two gay people making out or something in person I will feel a bit squeamish because that's the kind of person I am, forget preference I just don't like PDA lol. I do have a problem with gay marriage though, only because some (a guess, not evidence) denominations or individual churches may not believe in gay marriage and forcing their head to bless the marriage if they don't want to isn't right and will just cause conflict. So if there are churches would gladly bless gay marriage, more power to them! Let them do what they want to do, just as others want to do what they want to do. Christianity is such a vast and diverse religion, I know Church of England and the Church of Wales aren't marrying gay people (please educate me if I'm wrong here), but shouldn't other smaller churches that aren't being heard (like my own) follow their own doctrine and not one implemented onto them? Also, to the religious people slandering gay people in this thread, you don't have to get your view across just by being rude. You've said what you want to say, stop arguing about it. Peace and love, guys :flower2:

    Now you can call me arrogant, or a bigot or whatever words are flying around these days but why? When have I ever called you out for what you believe? I've given my opinion and I hope you can respect it regardless of if you agree or disagree.
    No one is forcing a church to marry ANYONE.
    It is merely making the option available and as such, a priest if they chose can say yes or no. Also, don't forget the church does not own marriage.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T94)
    But if I see two gay people making out or something in person I will feel a bit squeamish because that's the kind of person I am, forget preference I just don't like PDA lol. I do have a problem with gay marriage though..
    Don't worry. If I see a couple making out in public I always cringe and want to throw something at them (it always seems to be the ugly couples too)
    You seem nice. If only there were more nice Christians on the internet who don't get offended by everything

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T94)
    I do have a problem with gay marriage though, only because some (a guess, not evidence) denominations or individual churches may not believe in gay marriage and forcing their head to bless the marriage if they don't want to isn't right and will just cause conflict. So if there are churches would gladly bless gay marriage, more power to them! Let them do what they want to do, just as others want to do what they want to do. Christianity is such a vast and diverse religion, I know Church of England and the Church of Wales aren't marrying gay people (please educate me if I'm wrong here), but shouldn't other smaller churches that aren't being heard (like my own) follow their own doctrine and not one implemented onto them? Also, to the religious people slandering gay people in this thread, you don't have to get your view across just by being rude. You've said what you want to say, stop arguing about it. Peace and love, guys :flower2:
    .
    No church is being forced. They're making it available for those who want it.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    Sorry for not being so specific if that caused you confusion.

    I can assure you that even if I didn't explicitly state it, I was talking specifically about homosexual men.

    If I have anything to say about lesbians I will specifically refer to them as lesbian, but when I say gay or homosexual I am meaning homosexual men.
    Why not just add men to your 'gay' or 'homosexual' to avoid confusion. Seems like you're not saving any time at all, especially if you end up having to clarify.

    I can repeat an old point again - whether you think this one is correct or not is immaterial to me because I know this one comes down to which side of sexuality you are on - heterosexual or homosexual...

    The simple point is this:
    If anyone says anything negative about gays/homosexuals, those who make the comments are immediately branded as homophobic.

    So trying to prove anything becomes a bit of a joke really as there is no way to do so against people who see every comment you make as homophobic, no matter how simple the comment - simply because they have already decided you are a homophobe anyway.
    The point is, if you don't have a valid reason for saying anything against homosexuality (or against gay men as you seem to only be arguing) then you are liable to be labelled a homophobe. And not with the definition of being scared of gay people, but as a similar definition to the word racist or sexist (as the word homophobic is commonly used now).

    We have discussed this before quite some time ago - teaching them that liking men is just the first step, teaching about gay sex will follow later after that.
    And you know this how?
    Even in sex education if they mention anal sex and oral sex performed on both men and women, these are still things that straight couples do so to tell teenagers that protection is required for these things as well covers gay sex without having to state that it's gay sex. And children are only taught the mechanics of straight sex in biology when looking at reproduction.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    People always question what they don't understand. Simply as.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ells_Bells92)
    And even though I support gay marriage (and have a gay brother for that matter) I support your right to not perform a same sex marriage. Not my place to tell people what they can and can't do.
    Thank you. That is actually very noble of you to say so.. There does seem to be a general expectation that priests today should unhesitantly bend to the demands of society's latest wishes and woe betide them if they happen to be conservative priests that think otherwise. There seems to be a modern assumption that the church exists merely to serve, humour and even entertain the people, regardless of what they happen to be demanding this week!.

    There is a lot of bullying going on at the moment. Society demands gay marriage and as a priest you'd better comply or you're branded a homophobe! Society demands female priests and bishops and you'd better be on the bandwagon too or you will be dismissed as a sexist!

    I wish your brother very well. If one day he decides to marry and decides he'd like to do that in a religious service I am sure he will find many ministers in various denominations (as well as some Anglican priests) who will make this a reality. I'm not a homophobe - it's preposterous to suggest that I hate gay people. It's a cheap shot. But I am a traditional and conservative Anglican and I am not ever going to allow myself to be bullied into administering what I believe are wrongful sacraments, regardless of the pressures placed on me to do so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I'm not a homophobe - it's preposterous to suggest that I hate gay people. It's a cheap shot. But I am a traditional and conservative Anglican and I am not ever going to allow myself to be bullied into administering what I believe are wrongful sacraments, regardless of the pressures placed on me to do so.
    :thumbsup:

    If only more would take the same attitude!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Thank you. That is actually very noble of you to say so.. There does seem to be a general expectation that priests today should unhesitantly bend to the demands of society's latest wishes and woe betide them if they happen to be conservative priests that think otherwise. There seems to be a modern assumption that the church exists merely to serve, humour and even entertain the people, regardless of what they happen to be demanding this week!.

    There is a lot of bullying going on at the moment. Society demands gay marriage and as a priest you'd better comply or you're branded a homophobe! Society demands female priests and bishops and you'd better be on the bandwagon too or you will be dismissed as a sexist!

    I wish your brother very well. If one day he decides to marry and decides he'd like to do that in a religious service I am sure he will find many ministers in various denominations (as well as some Anglican priests) who will make this a reality. I'm not a homophobe - it's preposterous to suggest that I hate gay people. It's a cheap shot. But I am a traditional and conservative Anglican and I am not ever going to allow myself to be bullied into administering what I believe are wrongful sacraments, regardless of the pressures placed on me to do so.
    I think it's important the religious groups control their own rites, and despite some of the rhetoric I think the overwhelming majority of people tend to agree. The Church of England (not the Anglican communion in general) has a slightly odd position as the established church - if it wishes to retain a position of privilege in society then it seems reasonable to expect it to serve society. That's more of an issue with the church-state relationship than anything else.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    I think it's important the religious groups control their own rites, and despite some of the rhetoric I think the overwhelming majority of people tend to agree. The Church of England (not the Anglican communion in general) has a slightly odd position as the established church - if it wishes to retain a position of privilege in society then it seems reasonable to expect it to serve society. That's more of an issue with the church-state relationship than anything else.
    I think that's a very good point. And one of the reasons that I continue to argue for disestablishment.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I think that's a very good point. And one of the reasons that I continue to argue for disestablishment.
    I argue for disestablishment on principle. But looking at it pragmatically, if the CofE wants to retain it's established status then it needs to find a better way of balancing society's demands with those of it's faith.

    Same-sex marriage is a good example. As the established church, the CofE is obliged to perform a Christian marriage for anyone who wants one - with a few provisos about remarrying people with living ex-spouses. I see no reason why a similar proviso shouldn't protect them from being forced to conduct same-sex marriages; it is a Christian marriage and the CofE understands those to be pre-requisites for such a marriage. But why is that an obstacle to offering after-the-fact services of blessing and commitment - which are not weddings - to same-sex couples just as they frequently do for divorcee couples? Some churches do offer such services, but it's fairly controversial. Perhaps that's not the right balance to strike, but the church seems very reluctant to explore the question of what the right balance is - it just wants to wash it's hands of a group of people.

    Actually, I'd be interested to hear what you think about that kind of blessing/commitment service.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    I argue for disestablishment on principle. But looking at it pragmatically, if the CofE wants to retain it's established status then it needs to find a better way of balancing society's demands with those of it's faith.

    Same-sex marriage is a good example. As the established church, the CofE is obliged to perform a Christian marriage for anyone who wants one - with a few provisos about remarrying people with living ex-spouses. I see no reason why a similar proviso shouldn't protect them from being forced to conduct same-sex marriages; it is a Christian marriage and the CofE understands those to be pre-requisites for such a marriage. But why is that an obstacle to offering after-the-fact services of blessing and commitment - which are not weddings - to same-sex couples just as they frequently do for divorcee couples? Some churches do offer such services, but it's fairly controversial. Perhaps that's not the right balance to strike, but the church seems very reluctant to explore the question of what the right balance is - it just wants to wash it's hands of a group of people.

    Actually, I'd be interested to hear what you think about that kind of blessing/commitment service.
    I think your first point is quite an interesting one in that it begs the question - does indeed the CofE want to retain its established status? I do know that there are a number of bishops, some of them high profile such as Bishop Nazir Al (formerly Rochester), who believe that the Church of England "must free itself of 'dead hand' of Parliament" but I am not sure how widespread this view is. I'm not sure either how the laity is trending on this question either.

    Nazir, goes on to say:

    "As the Convocations said to Henry VIII himself, Establishment is only possible 'insofar as the law of Christ allows'. It cannot mean that the Church is expected to own every passing fad or every trendy fashion in contemporary society."

    I couldn't agree more with the good bishop!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gearoid94)
    per se*
    You're kidding right? you made a post for that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yellowcopter)
    'Would not being exist if you are parent is gay' - it's *your not you're and that sentence makes no sense.

    Yes I still would, people being gay won't change the sexuality of either of my parents. They were born heterosexual just like some people are born gay.

    If your parents were gay (both of them) and repelled against intercourse with opposite sex, would you being alive now?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mullah.S)
    If your parents were gay (both of them) and repelled against intercourse with opposite sex, would you being alive now?
    I'm not reproducing at this specific moment, does that mean I'm depriving some hypothetical baby of life? Quick, everyone have unprotected sex! We must give birth to all the hypothetical children!

    Think of the children! The poor, hypothetical children!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    I'm not reproducing at this specific moment, does that mean I'm depriving some hypothetical baby of life? Quick, everyone have unprotected sex! We must give birth to all the hypothetical children!

    Think of the children! The poor, hypothetical children!
    You are only able to make that statement because your alive because you're parent being heterosexual.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mullah.S)
    You are only able to make that statement because your alive because you're parent being heterosexual.
    You just need to look at Syed in Eastenders.....based on real life scenarios. You do get closet gays from all walks of life.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.