This is awful

netwhizkid

Link

Just stumbled across this when researching Islamofacism, frightening stuff altogether, regardless of your opinions of ones orientation no one should face this.

Iwasfrozen

Thats disgusting, would their God really want them to act like that ?

Starfox

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Thats disgusting, would their God really want them to act like that ?

It depends on the incentive for those in power doesnt it? I mean a repressed angry nation can never rise together and rid themselves of the power hungry bad eggs that rule...

Aard

Sickening.

superblue

they're the ones in the wrong.

MultiUmm

Words fail to describe how despicable these acts are.

I.J.

horrific stuff and hopefully the more people reject religion and how absurd it is the safer society will become. Luckily in the west I think its been a while now since the Catholic Church was allowed, encouraged and proud to torture and murder homosexuals. One has to rebel against religion for this kind of thing to stop.

philologos

I.J. wrote: »

horrific stuff and hopefully the more people reject religion and how absurd it is the safer society will become. Luckily in the west I think its been a while now since the Catholic Church was allowed, encouraged and proud to torture and murder homosexuals. One has to rebel against religion for this kind of thing to stop.

If you want to brand all religion with the same brush, that is.

What is happening in Iraq is completely unacceptable, but to act as if it is all people of faith is a bit much.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

If you want to brand all religion with the same brush, that is.

What is happening in Iraq is completely unacceptable, but to act as if it is all people of faith is a bit much.

Says a man who has admitted his own religious bigotry in relation to homosexuality.

I.J.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you want to brand all religion with the same brush, that is.

What is happening in Iraq is completely unacceptable, but to act as if it is all people of faith is a bit much.

Who are you, satan? You show up everywhere defending your dangerous obsession. Religion is a bunch of rituals and often fascist rules and desiring the eradication of homosexuals is way up on the list. You say what is happening in Iraq is unacceptable but I'm sure your Pope is enjoying it. Tell me a religion which embraces homosexuals?

ixoy

I.J. wrote: »

Tell me a religion which embraces homosexuals?

I can post you the inevitable response:

What Jakkass will say wrote:

God loves everyone, including homosexuals. He is only against the sin, not the sinner. God embraces homosexuals as equally as hetrosexuals.

Am I right Jakass or what?

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

Says a man who has admitted his own religious bigotry in relation to homosexuality.

Is supporting civil partnership bigotry in any way?

bigotry: A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset.

Let's analyse this further:

Intolerant of, or takes offence to the opinions, lifestyles and identities differing to his own.

Couldn't this be equally said of you. You take offence at my opinions, my Christian lifestyle, and my Christian identity. I personally welcome disagreement, but I personally feel entitled to have my own opinion on the LGBT issue. Which is, that civil partnerships should be explored more closely, and that marriage should remain as is.

Do you not think it is a bit disingenuous to compare me to someone who is killing homosexuals?

I.J. wrote: »

Who are you, satan? You show up everywhere defending your dangerous obsession. Religion is a bunch of rituals and often fascist rules and desiring the eradication of homosexuals is way up on the list. You say what is happening in Iraq is unacceptable but I'm sure your Pope is enjoying it. Tell me a religion which embraces homosexuals?

No, I'm not "Satan". I don't have any "dangerous obsession" with anything.

I think you've been dishonest comparing all Christians, all Muslims, and all Jews to these people in Iraq. Most of us would never dare encourage such a thing, infact most of us would regard it unscriptural to do so.

So yes, comparing me and other Christians to what is happening in Iraq is unacceptable, and I will call you out on it.

The Pope doesn't represent my form of Christianity. You mightn't have been aware. I personally have no formal involvement in the Catholic Church. I respect many people who follow Catholicism, they have a lot of heart, but I am not formally a member of that church.

I fully believe that Christianity welcomes homosexuals to come to know about God, and to know about Jesus Christ.

ixoy wrote: »

Am I right Jakass or what?

Yes. I can say this because it is theologically correct. God does love us all. Can I ask you ixoy, do you think the comparison that I.J has drawn between believers such as myself and distortionists such as these in Iraq is fair or acceptable? Yes or no.

I.J.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think you've been dishonest comparing all Christians, all Muslims, and all Jews to these people in Iraq. Most of us would never dare encourage such a thing, infact most of us would regard it unscriptural to do so.

My comments; "hopefully the more people reject religion and how absurd it is the safer society will become" and "One has to rebel against religion for this kind of thing to stop", refer obviously to the torture and murder of homosexuals in Iraq, as it is the original topic of this thread. However, it is clear from the words "this kind of thing", I am not just referring to these specific incidents and leaving my statement open to refer to all the other horrible and nasty things religions are involved in. All the major religions that I am aware of incite hatred and disgust towards homosexuals and the loudest are Roman Catholic, the divisions of Christianity and Muslim. Do you think religions who do not condone murder and torture are, as a counter action, treating homosexuals as equal human beings?. As I said, inform me of a religion that embraces homosexuality. Oh and I stand corrected in regard to referring to the Pope as "your" Pope.

philologos

I.J. wrote: »

My comments; "hopefully the more people reject religion and how absurd it is the safer society will become" and "One has to rebel against religion for this kind of thing to stop", refer obviously to the torture and murder of homosexuals in Iraq, as it is the original topic of this thread. However, it is clear from the words "this kind of thing", I am not just referring to these specific incidents and leaving my statement open to refer to all the other horrible and nasty things religions are involved in. All the major religions that I am aware of incite hatred and disgust towards homosexuals and the loudest are Roman Catholic, the divisions of Christianity and Muslim. Do you think religions who do not condone murder and torture are, as a counter action, treating homosexuals as equal human beings?. As I said, inform me of a religion that embraces homosexuality. Oh and I stand corrected in regard to referring to the Pope as "your" Pope.

I don't see this as a reason to rebel against all religion, or even against Islam, but to clearly set a precadent that this is unacceptable.

Your comment concerning all religion, also by extension implies that people who adhere to those respective faiths welcome this act in Iraq. I certainly don't.

If such comments are made, I feel I have the right to challenge such assumptions.

I believe Christianity welcomes homosexuals to join our faith. Your issue doesn't seem to be in the welcoming part, but rather that Christianity holds a different moral position to your own.

I regard homosexuals as people, obviously. People created by God like the rest of us. After this creation point, it is up to us to decide what to do with our lives, in accordance to God's will or not.

I think church authorities have called out homophobia in the past, members of the Church of Ireland have done the same in the past. I am against hatred against homosexuals. If the Catholic Church have not called out on homophobia I think they should. By homophobia, I do not mean disagreements with gay marriage, that isn't homophobic in any sense of the word, it is a mere disagreement. Outwardly pronouncing hatred against someone else for being of a different sexual orientation than you are is unacceptable. The same applies in the job place, and in daily life.

I.J.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see this as a reason to rebel against all religion

Well this is where we have to agree to disagree. I personally believe in loving all my fellow human beings, letting people do as they please as long as it doesn't hurt another person and not letting superstition or the supernatural, with fascist rules created by other men, get in the way of any of this. You can have your rituals and fabricated morals and I will have what is natural: love.

philologos

I.J. wrote: »

Well this is where we have to agree to disagree. I personally believe in loving all my fellow human beings, letting people do as they please as long as it doesn't hurt another person and not letting superstition or the supernatural, with fascist rules created by other men, get in the way of any of this. You can have your rituals and fabricated morals and I will have what is natural: love.

I think loving all fellow human beings is rather consistent with the message of Christianity. I also think loving God is important, I think I'd say loving God is how I usually end up being better at loving other people.

As for letting people do as they please, it depends what you mean here. Legally perhaps there is some room for this argument for me.

Morally as a Christian, I would of course love other people to be able to live a Christian lifestyle. Personally as a Christian, I know that if I loved my neighbour, I would want to share with them what I have received from God. I personally know that there are some things I shouldn't do because of my Christianity, I sometimes fail, but aiming to be adherent is key for me.

I'd contend that this "love" that you describe mightn't be as natural as it seems. After all to us, God is love and the one who cannot show compassion for another lacks God. Perhaps this is telling about what happened in Iraq.

I.J.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think loving all fellow human beings is rather consistent with the message of Christianity. I also think loving God is important, I think I'd say loving God is how I usually end up being better at loving other people.

It is a nice claim on behalf of Christianity but saying one thing and doing another is a different story. One can believe in anything they like privately. However when that spills over onto other people, thats where the problem is for me. Whether its the Pope inciting hatred or religions grasping the opportunities to control education systems, therefore brainwashing innocent children with superstition and ideologies which at the end of the day are only there to give hierachies power and money. When I suggest all rebel against religion, it just reflects what has happened for some time now ever since the age of Enlightenment. Why do you think, taking one example, homosexuals are not burned at the stake in the West anymore? Because a great deal of people rebelled against religion and didn't stand for its bull **** anymore and out of this rebellion, homosexuals found their freedom. When I say rebellion, I just mean ignore or turn a blind eye and not exactly protesting. I call on the people subjected to the religions dominant in the East, or anywhere else for that matter, to do the same and maybe their socities will become safer also. Take modern days issues such as contraception or rock 'n' roll music. People laugh out loud at the suggestion that religions are opposed to these things but the fact is they are. People subtly rebelled against religion by ignoring its rules so they could enjoy these things and I'm happy to see a world, at least in the west, which is a great deal safer as people gradually no longer take religion seriously.

philologos

I.J. wrote: »

It is a nice claim on behalf of Christianity but saying one thing and doing another is a different story.

It depends what you regard love as. Does it mean that we cannot disagree with one another? Does it mean we automatically have to accept anothers opinion on something. Is it possible that we can care without agreeing necessarily. I think these are questions that Christians and people in the LGBT community and people in both need to ask themselves about it.

I think I can. I don't know about you though.

I.J. wrote: »

One can believe in anything they like privately. However when that spills over onto other people, thats where the problem is for me.

In Irish society and in British society, freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both enshrined. Proselytism and sharing the Gospel is the meeting point of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

I.J. wrote: »

Whether its the Pope inciting hatred or religions grasping the opportunities to control education systems, therefore brainwashing innocent children with superstition and ideologies which at the end of the day are only there to give hierachies power and money.

I don't agree with your claim about brainwashing.

As for power and money, this is only a valid claim if one cannot seek Christianity without going to a megachurch. In all due respect to you this is absurd.

My ideology has resulted in me, trying to understand why we are the way we are, about God, and about the rest of humanity, and how best I can respond to God's love and God's grace in the world.

I.J. wrote: »

When I suggest all rebel against religion, it just reflects what has happened for some time now ever since the age of Enlightenment.

Are you suggesting the Age of Enlightenment was a wholly positive thing? Indeed in terms of intellectual thought it probably was, but things that happened were appalling. I bring attention to the Dechristianisation of France in this case.

I.J. wrote: »

Why do you think, taking one example, homosexuals are not burned at the stake in the West anymore? Because a great deal of people rebelled against religion and didn't stand for its bull **** anymore and out of this rebellion, homosexuals found their freedom.

I would argue that it was due to the notion that people didn't find it acceptable any more. I don't think burning people on the stake is compatible with the message of Jesus Christ. I mean how can you burn someone at the stake, and somehow still believe that you will be forgiven because you are such a forgiving person. It doesn't make sense. To me, if you are guilty, and you kill someone else who is guilty, you in turn should be punished for your guilt.

I hope you are understanding where I am coming from.

I.J. wrote: »

When I say rebellion, I just mean ignore or turn a blind eye and not exactly protesting.

Right, but whether we like it or not. People will believe in God even if people ignore or turn a blind eye. I love my faith, and I don't see why anyone else should want to destroy it.

I.J. wrote: »

Take modern days issues such as contraception or rock 'n' roll music. People laugh out loud at the suggestion that religions are opposed to these things but the fact is they are.

I'd regard both as being extremely useful. You seem to be analysing only a very small strain of people who are involved in faith. I as a Christian can see uses for contraception (for me I'd only feel it moral within marriage), and I think music can express a lot of things in many different ways.

I.J. wrote: »

People subtly rebelled against religion by ignoring its rules so they could enjoy these things and I'm happy to see a world, at least in the west, which is a great deal safer as people gradually no longer take religion seriously.

Your problem is you are taking it as if all religions are exactly the same. I would differ strongly on this.

Do people no longer take faith seriously in the West? I'm disagreeing with you here too. I mean there probably are higher populations of unbelievers, but there are still strong Christian core believers in all of these countries and in all of these nations. I can't see faith dying ever in the West, or in the rest of the world. Christianity is currently growing in the world.

My point of view is ultimately this:
Christians are going to exist, let's try to enter into better relations and lets try to understand each other more even if we disagree on certain issues, we are all ultimately people at the end of the day. People to me, who have been created by God.

shay_562

Jakkas wrote:

I think loving all fellow human beings is rather consistent with the message of Christianity.

Dude, have you read Leviticus lately? Or most of the Old Testament, actually, where God frequently throws temper tantrums and wipes out swathes of humanity in His anger. I accept that people can have different ideas of what "love" means, and that "love" can include telling someone when you think they're making a mistake, but there's a massive disconnect between large parts of the Bible that advocate stoning, burning and whatnot, and the modern, happy-clappy version of Christianity that centres around loving the sinner, hating the sin and choosing which parts of your holy book are relevant as it suits you. I think fundamentalist religion, of any order, necessarily involves the hatred and persecution of those with different beliefs, and while you can offer a toned-down version of Christianity that's less fond of persecuting those that are different, to claim that that represents all Christians and to take offense when people criticise religious intolerance doesn't logically work.

philologos

shay_562 wrote: »

Dude, have you read Leviticus lately? Or most of the Old Testament, actually, where God frequently throws temper tantrums and wipes out swathes of humanity in His anger. I accept that people can have different ideas of what "love" means, and that "love" can include telling someone when you think they're making a mistake, but there's a massive disconnect between large parts of the Bible that advocate stoning, burning and whatnot, and the modern, happy-clappy version of Christianity that centres around loving the sinner, hating the sin and choosing which parts of your holy book are relevant as it suits you. I think fundamentalist religion, of any order, necessarily involves the hatred and persecution of those with different beliefs, and while you can offer a toned-down version of Christianity that's less fond of persecuting those that are different, to claim that that represents all Christians and to take offense when people criticise religious intolerance doesn't logically work.

I'm reading the Jewish Torah at the moment, I'm in the middle of Numbers, I'm also reading Proverbs and Daniel in the Old Testament. Christians hold to the moral law, we believe that we have all fallen into sin, and that we have been redeemed by Christ's mercy. Jewish and Christian understanding of punishment differ. Christians believe we are all deserving of punishment, but we have been spared by Jesus Christ as our Messiah and Redeemer. Jews believe that we will all be personally accountable for our sins, and in the case of the Torah law, we were deserving of death for our sins. For Christians, Jesus both man and God died for us and took away our sins, because He Himself was blameless, and He rose again allowing us to live in new life with Him. In a sense, Christians have already died, and have been excuse the cliché born again. Given a new life, while renouncing the old one.

This is why seriously aiming to repent and put behind you former sins is crucial.

I'm just as much a sinner as anyone else, and I recognise that. In fact to be a Christian one has to recognise this.

Christians aim to follow the moral law of the Bible. However, due to our salvation through Jesus Christ, the understanding of punishment changed. I hope that makes sense for you. It's mainly Jesus' impact that marks us as being distinct from Jews.

I guess I would have to ask you: Have you read the New Testament? It'd really clear up this question for you nicely.

I.J.

Jakkass wrote: »

In Irish society and in British society, freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both enshrined. Proselytism and sharing the Gospel is the meeting point of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

In Irish society, you were an outcast if you weren't Catholic. This is still quite strong in a lot of places.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't agree with your claim about brainwashing.

Forcing children to learn prayers, bullying them to go to mass. Educating them about only Catholicism is something that was commonplace until recently when I was at school, if not still in existence. One can say this is up to the parents, but Catholic schools may be their only choice and also, its the school which is responsible for educating a child. The child is still innocent and their minds are tainted with this stuff. Let them learn when they are mature enough. Its only all speculation and not fact.

Jakkass wrote: »

I would argue that it was due to the notion that people didn't find it acceptable any more. I don't think burning people on the stake is compatible with the message of Jesus Christ. I mean how can you burn someone at the stake, and somehow still believe that you will be forgiven because you are such a forgiving person. It doesn't make sense. To me, if you are guilty, and you kill someone else who is guilty, you in turn should be punished for your guilt..

A lot of religions contradict themselves.

Jakkass wrote: »

Right, but whether we like it or not. People will believe in God even if people ignore or turn a blind eye. I love my faith, and I don't see why anyone else should want to destroy it..

You can have your faith privately. I wont bother you. I just dont want a society which enforces it upon anybody. This is still in existence as long as religions have control of education.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd regard both as being extremely useful. You seem to be analysing only a very small strain of people who are involved in faith. I as a Christian can see uses for contraception (for me I'd only feel it moral within marriage), and I think music can express a lot of things in many different ways..

A la carte Christian I take it.

Jakkass wrote: »

Do people no longer take faith seriously in the West? .

Never said this. Just that the numbers taking it seriously are reducing.

Jakkass wrote: »

My point of view is ultimately this:
Christians are going to exist, let's try to enter into better relations and lets try to understand each other more even if we disagree on certain issues, we are all ultimately people at the end of the day. People to me, who have been created by God..

Why do we have to udnerstand eachother?. LGBT community have not done anything to Christians so the LGBT community should just let be. Basically, out of all this, religions should just leave the LGBT alone. It boils down to that. We have done nothing to religions for them to react the way they do to us

philologos

I.J. wrote: »

In Irish society, you were an outcast if you weren't Catholic. This is still quite strong in a lot of places.

I've gone 20 years without being a Catholic in Ireland, I've never been regarded as an outcast.

I.J. wrote: »

Forcing children to learn prayers, bullying them to go to mass. Educating them about only Catholicism is something that was commonplace until recently when I was at school, if not still in existence. One can say this is up to the parents, but Catholic schools may be their only choice and also, its the school which is responsible for educating a child. The child is still innocent and their minds are tainted with this stuff. Let them learn when they are mature enough. Its only all speculation and not fact.

I cannot say I've experienced either. Teaching children about God, and about Jesus Christ, to me isn't in any way harmful, especially if the parent wants it for their child.

I.J. wrote: »

A lot of religions contradict themselves.

Apparently so.

I.J. wrote: »

You can have your faith privately. I wont bother you. I just dont want a society which enforces it upon anybody. This is still in existence as long as religions have control of education.

I encourage freedom of choice.

I.J. wrote: »

A la carte Christian I take it.

Nowhere in the Bible does it condemn the use of contraception in marriage. It's one of my disagreements with Catholicism. The passage that is commonly cited (Genesis 38) refers to a Jewish law concerning a male who dies and leaves his wife childless. In that situation in the Jewish law, one of the deceased brothers would give the widowed wife a child in the deceaseds name. It has absolutely nothing to do with contraception.

I.J. wrote: »

Never said this. Just that the numbers taking it seriously are reducing.

Not worldwide.

I.J. wrote: »

Why do we have to understand eachother?. LGBT community have not done anything to Christians so the LGBT community should just let be. Basically, out of all this, religions should just leave the LGBT alone. It boils down to that. We have done nothing to religions for them to react the way they do to us

I think understanding eachother is the best way we can promote good relationships between us.

I don't feel either side are innocent in this debate. Christians are entitled to believe that sex other than in a marriage with a man and a woman isn't acceptable. It is whether or not they incite hatred based on this belief that is the problem, not the belief itself. Christians are entitled to hold the moral standard that they wish. Throwing slurs at people that disagree with you on gay marriage isn't a reasonable way of dealing with the discussion, I think you and I would agree with that much.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Is supporting civil partnership bigotry in any way?

Er, yeah, yes it is. This is a classic example of some being more equal than others. You're throwing homosexuals a bone to make them shut up, you're not actually giving them equality. You're basically telling a huge group of people that they are second class citizens in regards to marriage.

Couldn't this be equally said of you. You take offence at my opinions, my Christian lifestyle, and my Christian identity.

I am not offended by your beliefs. I disagree with them, I think they are unhealthy for society, but I don't take offense.

You, however, are intolerant of homosexuals, which makes you a bigot. You believe people working in government positions should have the right to practice their bigotry in their professional lives if they don't want to marry homosexuals for religious reasons.

Do you not think it is a bit disingenuous to compare me to someone who is killing homosexuals?

No Jakkass, I don't. It's people like you that contribute to a world where actions like this are tolerated. You keep proclaiming that queers are sinners and that they have to live with second class rights then don't be surprised when people treat them like second class citizens.

You and these guys in Iraq are both symptoms of a broken way of thinking. You might not be as extreme as they, but you both rationalise your bigotry in the same way.

Zillah

I.J. wrote: »

Why do we have to udnerstand eachother?. LGBT community have not done anything to Christians so the LGBT community should just let be. Basically, out of all this, religions should just leave the LGBT alone. It boils down to that. We have done nothing to religions for them to react the way they do to us

Oh I.J, that sounds so reasonable. You'll come to learn that saying something reasonable to a religious person does not usually have the expected outcome.

Tricity Bendix

shay_562 wrote: »

Dude, have you read Leviticus lately? Or most of the Old Testament, actually, where God frequently throws temper tantrums and wipes out swathes of humanity in His anger. I accept that people can have different ideas of what "love" means, and that "love" can include telling someone when you think they're making a mistake, but there's a massive disconnect between large parts of the Bible that advocate stoning, burning and whatnot, and the modern, happy-clappy version of Christianity that centres around loving the sinner, hating the sin and choosing which parts of your holy book are relevant as it suits you. I think fundamentalist religion, of any order, necessarily involves the hatred and persecution of those with different beliefs, and while you can offer a toned-down version of Christianity that's less fond of persecuting those that are different, to claim that that represents all Christians and to take offense when people criticise religious intolerance doesn't logically work.

Going to have to agree with the above. I used to be a very active little christian, until I read the Old Testament for myself. The God in the Old Testament bore no resemblence to the God Jesus spoke of. And seeing as how God cannot change, I figured the lovey dovey version of God must not give the whole story. And basically I would never want to worship such a tyrannical, insecure entity such as was portrayed in the Old Testament.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

Er, yeah, yes it is. This is a classic example of some being more equal than others. You're throwing homosexuals a bone to make them shut up, you're not actually giving them equality. You're basically telling a huge group of people that they are second class citizens in regards to marriage.

I'm not particularly. I just consider the union of a man and a woman to be a different thing than the union of two of the same gender. I am in agreement that there should be a means of formally recognising both.

Zillah wrote: »

You, however, are intolerant of homosexuals, which makes you a bigot. You believe people working in government positions should have the right to practice their bigotry in their professional lives if they don't want to marry homosexuals for religious reasons.

Elaborate on this given the position I have above. I personally don't think that homosexual activity is moral, that's my take on it. This has no impact on the lives of homosexuals.

As for what I said concerning people working, and it's not just in Government positions. I mean that the State should recognise that this is a contentious issue, and it should allow people to opt out based on conscience in the same way as you can opt out based on conscience concerning abortion.

Zillah wrote: »

No Jakkass, I don't. It's people like you that contribute to a world where actions like this are tolerated. You keep proclaiming that queers are sinners and that they have to live with second class rights then don't be surprised when people treat them like second class citizens.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Zillah wrote: »

You and these guys in Iraq are both symptoms of a broken way of thinking. You might not be as extreme as they, but you both rationalise your bigotry in the same way.

See above. Absolutely absurd. I don't encourage death, or criminalisation of homosexual acts in any way. I just happen to disagree with them on a moral basis.

Tricity Bendix: That's odd, because most of the New Testament teachings are based on Old Testament ones.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not particularly. I just consider the union of a man and a woman to be a different thing than the union of two of the same gender. I am in agreement that there should be a means of formally recognising both.

That's reasonable. I just think that the rights of white people and the rights of black people are different. I am in agreement that there should be a means of formally recognising both.

Rephrasing bigotry does not make it any less reprehensible.

Elaborate on this given the position I have above. I personally don't think that homosexual activity is moral, that's my take on it. This has no impact on the lives of homosexuals.

Your opinion doesn't, no. Your actions caused by that opinion do, however.

As for what I said concerning people working, and it's not just in Government positions. I mean that the State should recognise that this is a contentious issue, and it should allow people to opt out based on conscience in the same way as you can opt out based on conscience concerning abortion.

I believe the State should recognise that allowing black people to vote is a contentious issue, it should allow people to opt out on conscience.

Rephrasing bigotry does not make it any less reprehensible. How would you feel if racist vote counters wanted to opt out because they thought black people should not be allowed to vote? How is that in any way different to your demands?

"Opt out" has nothing to do with my opinion on abortion. I am in favour of allowing people the freedom to control their own bodies, in no way am I "opting out". Please explain this. In what way am I "opting out"?

See above. Absolutely absurd. I don't encourage death, or criminalisation of homosexual acts in any way. I just happen to disagree with them on a moral basis.

You contribute to a world where homosexual acts are deemed immoral, even though it is an act between two consenting adults which causes no harm to anyone else. Immoral people are punished for being immoral; don't be surprised when people harm homosexuals for being "immoral".

Yours is the definition of an absurd morality, and one of the reasons I so thoroughly loathe religion. You've managed to convince yourself that a consensual act between two adults is an wicked thing. An immoral act should be one that harms an innocent party, nothing else.

philologos

Let's keep it short and sweet here.

Zillah wrote: »

Your opinion doesn't, no. Your actions caused by that opinion do, however.

I know you're in the personal vendetta business, but what actions are you referring to specifically?

Zillah wrote: »

I believe the State should recognise that allowing black people to vote is a contentious issue, it should allow people to opt out on conscience.

Homosexuality and race are entirely different. The issue isn't with equality, everyone can get married. The issue people have is with the definition. If people would be more honest about this, the discussion might become a lot more clearer. People want to change the definition of marriage, the Government has provided an alternative. I don't see what the issue is.

If civil partnerships are in some way inadequate, people should seek to gain more rights through them rather than insisting on changing marriage.

Zillah wrote: »

Rephrasing bigotry does not make it any less reprehensible. How would you feel if racist vote counters wanted to opt out because they thought black people should not be allowed to vote? How is that in any way different to your demands?

Again, see above.

Zillah wrote: »

"Opt out" has nothing to do with my opinion on abortion. I am in favour of allowing people the freedom to control their own bodies, in no way am I "opting out". Please explain this. In what way am I "opting out"?

I meant that people who work in hospitals can opt out of having any part in any abortion procedure on moral grounds. Apologies if that was unclear.

Zillah wrote: »

You contribute to a world where homosexual acts are deemed immoral, even though it is an act between two consenting adults which causes no harm to anyone else. Immoral people are punished for being immoral; don't be surprised when people harm homosexuals for being "immoral".

According to my faith they are. This by no means means I hate homosexuals, or that I advocate their killing. I think it's highly dishonest that you should make a comparison like that.

As for "immoral people being immoral". Please note, I also believe that I am deserving of punishment for my sins also. It isn't a special case in any respect.

Zillah wrote: »

Yours is the definition of an absurd morality, and one of the reasons I so thoroughly loathe religion. You've managed to convince yourself that a consensual act between two adults is an wicked thing. An immoral act should be one that harms an innocent party, nothing else.

In your opinion. People differ and will always differ.

The loathing religion part is your prerogative. I believe that homosexual acts are immoral, that is why I don't engage in them, or encourage other people to engage in them. This by no means suggests that I support their criminalisation however. This by no means suggests that I have an active hatred towards homosexuals like the sort we are discussing in Iraq.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I know you're in the personal vendetta business, but what actions are you referring to specifically?

Voting, generally. And while you personally might not advocate or engage in such violence, your opinions and those who share them contribute to a world where such actions are tolerated.

Homosexuality and race are entirely different.

No, they're not. Both are biologically determined states over which the individual has no control.

The issue isn't with equality, everyone can get married.

But only some are allowed to get married to those they love. You are advocating forbidding a large number of people from ever being allowed to marry the people they love.

If civil partnerships are in some way inadequate, people should seek to gain more rights through them rather than insisting on changing marriage.

You don't get to determine what marriage is. You and I have different opinions on what a marriage is. Yours happens to be discriminatory. You seem to be happy with that.

I meant that people who work in hospitals can opt out of having any part in any abortion procedure on moral grounds. Apologies if that was unclear.

Well they shouldn't, they should do their damn job.

According to my faith they are. This by no means means I hate homosexuals, or that I advocate their killing. I think it's highly dishonest that you should make a comparison like that.

It doesn't matter what you and those like you intend, it is what you cause, and you cause a world where homosexuals are discriminated against.

As for "immoral people being immoral". Please note, I also believe that I am deserving of punishment for my sins also. It isn't a special case in any respect.

The loathing religion part is your prerogative. I believe that homosexual acts are immoral, that is why I don't engage in them, or encourage other people to engage in them. This by no means suggests that I support their criminalisation however. This by no means suggests that I have an active hatred towards homosexuals like the sort we are discussing in Iraq.

And so we reach the point where we can no longer rationally discuss such matters. It doesn't matter that homosexual acts do not cause harm, that they in no way impinge upon other people's lives. You say they are immoral because your magic God-book says they are that is the end of the matter. You can't be reasoned with, you can't be convinced...you are for all intents and purposes insane.

Pity, because there are so many of you.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

Voting, generally. And while you personally might not advocate or engage in such violence, your opinions and those who share them contribute to a world where such actions are tolerated.

How exactly? You aren't making a very good case here. As for on the voting front, you're effectively saying that we should stifle democracy on certain issues.

Zillah wrote: »

No, they're not. Both are biologically determined states over which the individual has no control.

There is a lot of contention within science as to whether or not homosexuality is biologically determined. I will admit that I don't know whether or not it is.

Zillah wrote: »

But only some are allowed to get married to those they love. You are advocating forbidding a large number of people from ever being allowed to marry the people they love.

I'm not forbidding anything. The law regards marriage as a union between a man and a woman in Ireland. The civil partnership legislation recognises a civil partnership as a union between two of the same gender. If people have issues with the latter, they should campaign to the Government to improve the latter instead of changing the definition of marriage. I would have thought that would be pragmatic.

Zillah wrote: »

You don't get to determine what marriage is. You and I have different opinions on what a marriage is. Yours happens to be discriminatory. You seem to be happy with that.

I don't. The Government does.

Zillah wrote: »

Well they shouldn't, they should do their damn job.

Very easy for someone who doesn't hold pro-life views to say.

Zillah wrote: »

It doesn't matter what you and those like you intend, it is what you cause, and you cause a world where homosexuals are discriminated against.

Actually, I think intentions are key behind analysing action.

Zillah wrote: »

And so we reach the point where we can no longer rationally discuss such matters. It doesn't matter that homosexual acts do not cause harm, that they in no way impinge upon other people's lives. You say they are immoral because your magic God-book says they are that is the end of the matter. You can't be reasoned with, you can't be convinced...you are for all intents and purposes insane.

Well, if one is to be a Christian, this is the conclusion. People are free to choose otherwise. Within our ethics, we regard marriage as the place for sexual activity. Other people are entitled to disagree, but this is my view.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

How exactly? You aren't making a very good case here.

Do I actually need to give you a lecture on how thoughts and opinions spread and influence other people in society? The less people that say "Homosexuality is evil!" the less comfortable people will be in committing acts of violence against them. I shouldn't need to explain this.

As for on the voting front, you're effectively saying that we should stifle democracy on certain issues.

I'm saying that unfortunately if enough bigots vote then we get bigoted laws. I'd like if we had less bigoted laws.

There is a lot of contention within science as to whether or not homosexuality is biologically determined.

No, there isn't. Any opposition to homosexuality being biologically determined comes from homophobes who don't want to accept that it isn't an evil choice. It's a bit like creationists opposing evolution. There is no controversy, only the illusion of one.

I'm not forbidding anything. The law regards marriage as a union between a man and a woman in Ireland. The civil partnership legislation recognises a civil partnership as a union between two of the same gender. If people have issues with the latter, they should campaign to the Government to improve the latter instead of changing the definition of marriage. I would have thought that would be pragmatic.

Again, we don't share a definition of marriage. The current one in place was put in place by religious conservatives, I want the law to be changed so as to not be discriminatory. You want to keep it discriminatory.

Well, if one is to be a Christian, this is the conclusion. People are free to choose otherwise. Within our ethics, we regard marriage as the place for sexual activity. Other people are entitled to disagree, but this is my view.

Out of morbid curiosity, would you please define what the word "immoral" means to you? If the answer is just going to be "What God says it is in the Bible" I'd like you to just admit that instead of a large paragraph of vague dodging.

Do you not think that "causing harm to others" is a key requirement for immorality? Honestly, I want to understand this. You and I both agree that acting like a dick towards other human beings is at the heart of being a "bad" person. Do you see how really bizarre it is to me that you are condemning something as immoral even though it doesn't hurt anyone? To put things in perspective...how would you feel if I and millions of people around the world told you that drinking a glass of milk was immoral? Would you not find that incredibly weird and ridiculous? Drinking milk doesn't hurt anyone!