Ian Paisley Junior

galwayrush

Jakkass wrote:

He's open to his personal views. He hasn't incited hatred against homosexuals, nor is he "promoting intolerance". All he is saying is that he finds homosexual activity to be immoral. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Well said. We're still allowed freedom of speech i believe, and we're all entitled to our personal views.

Boston

galwayrush wrote:

We're still allowed freedom of speech i believe

You Sir are wrong. You're allowed freedom of expression, with several caveats. I'm sure Hmm Messiah, barrister at law, will back me up on that one.

Marshy

Boston wrote:

If I said I find mixed race marriages/relationships immoral would you also not see anything wrong with that? Serious question I'd like an answer to.

Very true.

Its only because some people agree with his notion that its considered "free speech".

philologos

Boston wrote:

If I said I find mixed race marriages/relationships immoral would you also not see anything wrong with that? Serious question I'd like an answer to.

I wouldn't see anything wrong with that either as long as you weren't causing a serious threat to anyones life. Not that I agree with it however. But it seems that Ian Paisley Jr, has religious reasons for saying that homosexual activity is immoral.

Boston

Everyone has their reasons, and religious reasons are no better then "its the way I was raised", but leaving that aside. So you personally see nothing wrong with either scenario, would you feel that those about whom the views are held should also see nothing wrong with those views? And I want to make the distinction here between not caring/not bothered by and not see somethign as wrong.

Also you seem to have gone to of the view that anything that doesn't promote the taking of life is ok? Do you seriously believe that?

philologos

as long as they aren't actively persecuting these people with violence or otherwise or verbally abusing them to their face people should be encouraged to discuss these things. Religions reasons are not no better than "it's the way I was raised". People genuinely (in the 3 major Abrahamic religions) believe that God intended for man and woman to have sexual relations, and that homosexual activity is immoral it's written both in the Bible and the Qu'ran. So how far are we meant to go on the political correctness, that is the question really isn't it? I'm not homophobic, but I regard homosexual activity as immoral. What can you do to me for it? I really can't see a problem with Ian Paisley Junior there, and perhaps that portrays badly on me I don't know.

stovelid

Boston wrote:

If I said I find mixed race marriages/relationships immoral would you also not see anything wrong with that? .

I'd think you were a bigot but then again, I think that IPJ is one too.

He said that he against 'gay acts' but not 'gay people'. Moronic obviously but he probably thought it an adequate elucidation of the fact that he religiously disagrees with a lifestyle but bears the individuals no malice.

Obviously he is a foolish homophobic bigot but when until he (a) is found to discriminate against gays in the political sphere (b) starts up something like Save Ulster From Sodomy again (c) actively incites hatred against gays; I think that is all he can be called.

philologos

how is this "discriminating against gays in the political sphere", all the man is doing is expressing his view on homosexual activity. Personally I think it's reading too much into it to call him a bigot.

Boston

Jakkass wrote:

as long as they aren't actively persecuting these people with violence or otherwise or verbally abusing them to their face people should be encouraged to discuss these things. Religions reasons are not no better than "it's the way I was raised". People genuinely (in the 3 major Abrahamic religions) believe that God intended for man and woman to have sexual relations, and that homosexual activity is immoral it's written both in the Bible and the Qu'ran.

On this we wil ljust have to disagree. Allah told me doesn't make it any less wrong or better then "I just don't know better".

So how far are we meant to go on the political correctness, that is the question really isn't it? I'm not homophobic, but I regard homosexual activity as immoral. What can you do to me for it? I really can't see a problem with Ian Paisley Junior there, and perhaps that portrays badly on me I don't know.

We're not talking Political correctness. Call a spade a spade, by all means argue that people have a right to their views, racist/sexist/homophobic, I'll even agree, but dont try to sell me it as something it's not. It's homophobic regardless of whether or not you think it's ok to be so.

stovelid

Jakkass wrote:

how is this "discriminating against gays in the political sphere", all the man is doing is expressing his view on homosexual activity. Personally I think it's reading too much into it to call him a bigot.

The department associated with his ministry is involved in enforcing equality.

It's reasonable that some people may fear that somebody like him may not be completely committed to equality for gays.

My feeling is that he will work with the brief fairly but he should definitely be seen to do this.

Also, my feeling is that considering consensual, legal sexual activity between adults immoral is meaningless but that your's and his view. Fair enough.

By choosing to announce it publicly, he is definitely guilty of making bigoted statements. Saying that to Hot Press is not like saying it 'between friends' or even anonymously on a forum.

philologos

Boston wrote:

On this we wil ljust have to disagree. Allah told me doesn't make it any less wrong or better then "I just don't know better".

You're equating faith with ignorance. But when the being that created you passes down a law to say that homosexual activity is a sin. You usually feel obliged to obey it. Spirituality, is a very special thing to people, whereas ignorance isn't special to anyone.

Boston

Jakkass wrote:

You're equating faith with ignorance. But when the being that created you passes down a law to say that homosexual activity is a sin. You usually feel obliged to obey it. Spirituality, is a very special thing to people, whereas ignorance isn't special to anyone.

And when the being that created you passes down a law to say that you should kill the infidel or hang those that dance (Calvinism) people are all too willing to use the blanket of religion to justify abhorrent attitudes and acts. If your guy is telling you that Homosexuality is a sin, why draw the line at killing/Physical abusing gays. If you really believe what you're saying you should be committed to stoping homosexuality, people pick and choose bits of religions to support their bigoted attitudes, not the other way around. I've known devout "Christians" that use and abuse people at will. It's all a morality trip.

Btw you don't need religion to have faith. Don't try to push an argument here that too believe in god you have to be homophobic. Faith isn't ignorance, but you're trying to use it to shield your own ignorance.

philologos

Boston, it's up to whoever is committing homosexual acts to decide for themselves whether they want to reject or accept God. The message is already availiable.

Boston

Jakkass wrote:

Boston, it's up to whoever is committing homosexual acts to decide for themselves whether they want to reject or accept God. The message is already availiable.

Being gay doesn't mean rejecting god. Thats a very arrogant attitude.

philologos

If you are to accept God in full faith, you have to follow by his rulings on sexuality. As I said earlier, it's the act of homosexuality thats the issue, not the people. If two men love eachother, so be it, as long as they abstain from sexual intercourse.

Boston

Jakkass wrote:

If you are to accept God in full faith, you have to follow by his rulings on sexuality. As I said earlier, it's the act of homosexuality thats the issue, not the people. If two men love eachother, so be it, as long as they abstain from sexual intercourse.

Gods rulings? Give me a break, rulings of isolated old men. Next time I have sex with my slave girl I'll remember to beat her. Do you judge people who have pre marital sex as much as you judge homosexuals that have sex? Do you tell these people their actions are wrong or immoral? I doubt it somehow. Pick and choose what parts of religion you follow. And as I said, why stop at not killing gays, I mean the laws of God have been broken, punishment must be swift.

EcoGirl

Jakkass wrote:

If you are to accept God in full faith, you have to follow by his rulings on sexuality.

This would be better phrased as: "If you are to accept certain religions's statements that they're the sole spokesperson for God, you have to follow by what they say are God's rulings on sexuality."

Religions try to have a monopoly on God, and God's thoughts, and God's opinions and God's dogma.

But many people reject that. They can have full faith in God without religions and without man made rules.

And the God I know doesn't care whether people are gay or straight.

Stark

This isn't the Christian forum. According to the charter, we don't discuss Christian dogma. (on the basis that trying to argue with someone whose only response is "God said so" isn't much of a discussion). Thread locked.