Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

JimiTime

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's at times like this that I am literally filled with joy that the world is steadily giving less and less of a f*ck about whatever hangups your imaginary friend has with sex.

If you want to have your sex life dictated by the constraints of bronze-age mythology, knock yourself out. It must really upset you that it's becoming less acceptable for you and yours to impose those constraints on others, but that's not an idea that troubles me one iota.

If people want to have sex with whatever, thats their prerogative. Thats not the issue. The issue is demanding that we all agree that its perfectly fine, and in the context here, insist that they teach our children that its perfectly fine. You will notice that the man in questions sexual behaviour is not my issue, but rather his insistance on preaching to children that its perfectly fine. I am fully aware that I live in a world of various views and beliefs, some I agree with, others I don't. Being a tolerant guy, I accept it. However, there is a difference between accepting that a teachers sexual preference is his business, and a teacher insisting on teaching pupils that his sexual behaviour is perfectly fine.

_Redzer_

JimiTime wrote: »

If people want to have sex with whatever, thats their prerogative. Thats not the issue. The issue is demanding that we all agree that its perfectly fine, and in the context here, insist that they teach our children that its perfectly fine. You will notice that the man in questions sexual behaviour is not my issue, but rather his insistance on preaching to children that its perfectly fine. I am fully aware that I live in a world of various views and beliefs, some I agree with, others I don't. Being a tolerant guy, I accept it. However, there is a difference between accepting that a teachers sexual preference is his business, and a teacher insisting on teaching pupils that his sexual behaviour is perfectly fine.

Sorry, I fail to see how it's wrong to preach to children about equality and differing sexualities, but to preach to children that anything other than heterosexuality is perfectly fine.

Seriously?

And it's whoever, Jimi, not whatever people want to have sex with.

iwantmydinner

JimiTime wrote: »

If people want to have sex with whatever, thats their prerogative. Thats not the issue. The issue is demanding that we all agree that its perfectly fine, and in the context here, insist that they teach our children that its perfectly fine. You will notice that the man in questions sexual behaviour is not my issue, but rather his insistance on preaching to children that its perfectly fine. I am fully aware that I live in a world of various views and beliefs, some I agree with, others I don't. Being a tolerant guy, I accept it. However, there is a difference between accepting that a teachers sexual preference is his business, and a teacher insisting on teaching pupils that his sexual behaviour is perfectly fine.

"whatever" ... Nice dehumanisation there.

Also, homosexuality IS fine. It is perfectly fine. It is right and proper that children are taught that.

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

If people want to have sex with whatever, thats their prerogative. Thats not the issue. The issue is demanding that we all agree that its perfectly fine, and in the context here, insist that they teach our children that its perfectly fine. You will notice that the man in questions sexual behaviour is not my issue, but rather his insistance on preaching to children that its perfectly fine. I am fully aware that I live in a world of various views and beliefs, some I agree with, others I don't. Being a tolerant guy, I accept it. However, there is a difference between accepting that a teachers sexual preference is his business, and a teacher insisting on teaching pupils that his sexual behaviour is perfectly fine.

Why is it the responsibility of the school to ensure that children remain in their respective religious bubbles? What is so terrible about children learning about the various sexualities and relationships that exist in society? Why not let them and then can have discussions about what they learn with their parents? Crazy I know, parents actually parenting? Where will the madness end?

oscarBravo

JimiTime wrote: »

The issue is demanding that we all agree that its perfectly fine, and in the context here, insist that they teach our children that its perfectly fine.

The subtle point you're refusing to acknowledge is that your beliefs constitute bigotry, and you are demanding not only that children be taught bigotry, but that anyone who tells children that it's OK not to be bigots be punished for doing so.

I'm aware that you don't consider your beliefs to be bigotry; apparently it's OK to be a complete dick towards your fellow human beings if a magic book tells you to.

I happen to think that a world with fewer bigoted dicks in it would be a better world, and as such I'm all in favour of children being taught the simple fact that it's OK to be gay.

JimiTime

Obliq wrote: »

Oh boy. I have so many problems with your post, I'll have to just focus on your first sentence.

No. Just no. He was honest enough a person to tell the children he's gay. Promote his politik? What does that even MEAN in this context? The man told children he's gay, that's all. It's criminal to even think that's wrong IMO>

Firstly, there was no need to announce that he is sexually attracted to men to his students in assembly. You spin it as 'he was honest enough', but really, the amount of times people go on about how a persons sexual habits are no-one elses business, yet you applaud a person who decides to announce it and make it into a big deal. However, the bigger issue is that he is looking to promote his sexual behaviour as acceptable. Now I understand that this is perfectly fine with those who agree with what he is promoting, but it is not ok for many, and the teacher knew this. It really does come down to the teacher using his position to promote his views to the children in his school. How would you feel if the teacher in your educate together school decided to use their position to promote Christianity?

lazygal

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, there was no need to announce that he is sexually attracted to men to his students in assembly. You spin it as 'he was honest enough', but really, the amount of times people go on about how a persons sexual habits are no-one elses business, yet you applaud a person who decides to announce it and make it into a big deal. However, the bigger issue is that he is looking to promote his sexual behaviour as acceptable. Now I understand that this is perfectly fine with those who agree with what he is promoting, but it is not ok for many, and the teacher knew this. It really does come down to the teacher using his position to promote his views to the children in his school. How would you feel if the teacher in your educate together school decided to use their position to promote Christianity?

What would you say if your child told you he or she was gay?

PopePalpatine

lazygal wrote: »

What would you say if your child told you he or she was gay?

He'd send them off to a gulag where they're subjected to aversion therapy, of course.

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, there was no need to announce that he is sexually attracted to men to his students in assembly. You spin it as 'he was honest enough', but really, the amount of times people go on about how a persons sexual habits are no-one elses business, yet you applaud a person who decides to announce it and make it into a big deal. However, the bigger issue is that he is looking to promote his sexual behaviour as acceptable. Now I understand that this is perfectly fine with those who agree with what he is promoting, but it is not ok for many, and the teacher knew this. It really does come down to the teacher using his position to promote his views to the children in his school. How would you feel if the teacher in your educate together school decided to use their position to promote Christianity?

For a start being gay is not the same as being Christian . One is a choice the other is not .

Obliq

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, there was no need to announce that he is sexually attracted to men to his students in assembly. You spin it as 'he was honest enough', but really, the amount of times people go on about how a persons sexual habits are no-one elses business, yet you applaud a person who decides to announce it and make it into a big deal. However, the bigger issue is that he is looking to promote his sexual behaviour as acceptable. Now I understand that this is perfectly fine with those who agree with what he is promoting, but it is not ok for many, and the teacher knew this. It really does come down to the teacher using his position to promote his views to the children in his school. How would you feel if the teacher in your educate together school decided to use their position to promote Christianity?

My kids aren't in an educate together school, they went to the local RCC which is a fine community school and all that's available in the area. I get on exceptionally well with the Christianity promoting teachers (they can't help having to) and my family's atheism is accepted and indeed EXPLAINED to the other children.

As for spin, that's pretty disingenuous coming from the same person who just said it's an issue to call being gay acceptable - Which, when you get past all the twisted language you use like "promoting" instead of "telling", and "sexually attracted to men" instead of "gay", is what you are saying.

JimiTime

oscarBravo wrote: »

The subtle point you're refusing to acknowledge is that your beliefs constitute bigotry, and you are demanding not only that children be taught bigotry, but that anyone who tells children that it's OK not to be bigots be punished for doing so.

I'm aware that you don't consider your beliefs to be bigotry; apparently it's OK to be a complete dick towards your fellow human beings if a magic book tells you to.

I happen to think that a world with fewer bigoted dicks in it would be a better world, and as such I'm all in favour of children being taught the simple fact that it's OK to be gay.

Believe me, I acknowledge the unfortunate view that people of your view insist on calling God and all his followers bigots or whatever explicit names you choose. Even more unfortunate, is that many people still don't believe that LGBT activism will continue to turn its gaze towards people of faith and demand they assimilate to their views. The question is, what will be the punishment that you eventually demand for those who do not neglect God in favour of your views.

Nodin

JimiTime wrote: »

Believe me, I acknowledge the unfortunate view that people of your view insist on calling God and all his followers bigots or whatever explicit names you choose. Even more unfortunate, is that many people still don't believe that LGBT activism will continue to turn its gaze towards people of faith and demand they assimilate to their views. The question is, what will be the punishment that you eventually demand for those who do not neglect God in favour of your views.

O there will be no demand for punishment. Bigotry is essentially illegal already. You can fill your head with all the hate you want but any discrimination will have you on the wrong side of the law.

Gas, isn't it?

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

Believe me, I acknowledge the unfortunate view that people of your view insist on calling God and all his followers bigots or whatever explicit names you choose. Even more unfortunate, is that many people still don't believe that LGBT activism will continue to turn its gaze towards people of faith and demand they assimilate to their views. The question is, what will be the punishment that you eventually demand for those who do not neglect God in favour of your views.

Not all Christians are opposed to LGBT equality.

JimiTime

Obliq wrote: »

My kids aren't in an educate together school, they went to the local RCC which is a fine community school and all that's available in the area. I get on exceptionally well with the Christianity promoting teachers (they can't help having to) and my family's atheism is accepted and indeed EXPLAINED to the other children.

And you chose to send your children there, so I'm sure you see how the parallel is not applicable.

As for spin, that's pretty disingenuous coming from the same person who just said it's an issue to call being gay acceptable - Which, when you get past all the twisted language you use like "promoting" instead of "telling", and "sexually attracted to men" instead of "gay", is what you are saying.

Is there something wrong with saying 'sexually attracted to men'? If you could explain how that is using 'twisted language' I'd appreciate it. Also, if a teacher tells my child that men having sex with men is ok, then that is promoting that as acceptable behaviour.

lazygal

JimiTime wrote: »

And you chose to send your children there, so I'm sure you see how the parallel is not applicable.



Is there something wrong with saying 'sexually attracted to men'? If you could explain how that is using 'twisted language' I'd appreciate it. Also, if a teacher tells my child that men having sex with men is ok, then that is promoting that as acceptable behaviour.

There are gay women too. Or is it only gay men you don't agree with?

Obliq

JimiTime wrote: »

The question is, what will be the punishment that you eventually demand for those who do not neglect God in favour of your views.

Oooh, and it's a good question. Yes, what WOULD I want to do to those who treat other people as lesser than themselves?

Well, I think tipping them off their moral high-horse through the vast weight of the public majority leaving them on the far-outer edge of opinion and policy making should be fine really. Which they're doing to themselves, all on their own-ee-o. So I'm giving a thumbs up to social isolation as punishment enough. Yay! Can't wait.....excited for the future

Links234

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, there was no need to announce that he is sexually attracted to men to his students in assembly. You spin it as 'he was honest enough', but really, the amount of times people go on about how a persons sexual habits are no-one elses business, yet you applaud a person who decides to announce it and make it into a big deal. However, the bigger issue is that he is looking to promote his sexual behaviour as acceptable. Now I understand that this is perfectly fine with those who agree with what he is promoting, but it is not ok for many, and the teacher knew this. It really does come down to the teacher using his position to promote his views to the children in his school. How would you feel if the teacher in your educate together school decided to use their position to promote Christianity?

Just bolding a few things to point out how Jimi likes to skew things, how he talks about sexual "habits" and "behaviour" as an attempt to try and make folks imagine the teacher is talking about something sordid or objectionable. Jimi constantly makes these kind of comments about "sexual appetites" as if revealing onesself to be gay or bisexual is the same as talking about the details of their sex life. It's quite dehumanizing language, reducing a person to sexual habits or appetites.

Seriously, search the word "appetite" in this thread, and you'll find a load of posts from Jimi talking in this way about gay people (as well as doing the regular Jimi tactic of comparing them all to pedophiles).

A more cynical mind might suggest that this isn't a way of trying to reframe the discussion, and say that if a person may mention to you that they are gay, and your mind immediately goes to imagining their sexual 'habits' or 'behaviour' and dwelling on what their sexual 'appetites' might be, that we have a bit of a closet-case on our hands. Only a cynical mind might suggest such a hypothetical though, so we shalln't entertain it.

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

If people want to have sex with whatever, thats their prerogative. Thats not the issue. The issue is demanding that we all agree that its perfectly fine, and in the context here, insist that they teach our children that its perfectly fine. You will notice that the man in questions sexual behaviour is not my issue, but rather his insistance on preaching to children that its perfectly fine. I am fully aware that I live in a world of various views and beliefs, some I agree with, others I don't. Being a tolerant guy, I accept it. However, there is a difference between accepting that a teachers sexual preference is his business, and a teacher insisting on teaching pupils that his sexual behaviour is perfectly fine.

Perhaps you could to post here the information you have at your disposal that the sacked teacher was teaching the children that he is a sexually active homosexual male having sexual congress with other homosexual males and felt that it was ok to tell that to them. I certainly haven't seen that in print. Might it be that you are making assumptions as to the teacher's sexual activity status?

Edit: I'm wondering if your views are those espoused by the Pope, that being homosexual by itself is NOT what is wrong in it's eyes, it's being a sexually- active homosexual male or female having sexual congress with other homosexuals of the same sex, or do you think his view on the topic is wrong?

Obliq

JimiTime wrote: »

And you chose to send your children there, so I'm sure you see how the parallel is not applicable.

Quite. You made the parallel in the first place and it was entirely inapplicable.

Is there something wrong with saying 'sexually attracted to men'? If you could explain how that is using 'twisted language' I'd appreciate it. Also, if a teacher tells my child that men having sex with men is ok, then that is promoting that as acceptable behaviour.

I certainly can explain. There is no need to say "men having sex with women" or "men having sex with men" in order to explain to a child that you are heterosexual or gay. Really.

It's just another example of you trying to make out like this is some big sex-shocker for kids, whereas if you read the article, you'll find that the teacher was supporting the children's views by telling them he was gay. A far cry from the "I have sex with men, tells teacher to small children shocker" daily mail standard from yourself.

Below is the actual context.
I did come out at school in an assembly after a group of 11-year-olds held up a poster they made, with the heading ‘Gay is good’. It seemed like the right time to let the children know that they knew a gay person.

JimiTime

Obliq wrote: »

Oooh, and it's a good question. Yes, what WOULD I want to do to those who treat other people as lesser than themselves?

More spin I see

Well, I think tipping them off their moral high-horse through the vast weight of the public majority leaving them on the far-outer edge of opinion and policy making should be fine really. Which they're doing to themselves, all on their own-ee-o. So I'm giving a thumbs up to social isolation as punishment enough. Yay! Can't wait.....excited for the future

And people still insist that gay marriage will just mean gay people will get married.

Obliq

JimiTime wrote: »

More spin I see

And people still insist that gay marriage will just mean gay people will get married.

Ha! Loving the sad face Jimi. You poor, poor persecuted thing. Bad gay lobby, bad :cool::pac:

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

More spin I see

And people still insist that gay marriage will just mean gay people will get married.

Shocking stuff. Imagine, people will disassociate themselves from people that hold views they see as wrong.

_Redzer_

JimiTime wrote: »

And you chose to send your children there, so I'm sure you see how the parallel is not applicable.



Is there something wrong with saying 'sexually attracted to men'? If you could explain how that is using 'twisted language' I'd appreciate it. Also, if a teacher tells my child that men having sex with men is ok, then that is promoting that as acceptable behaviour.

Erm. It is acceptable behaviour. Just as a man and woman going at it is acceptable.

Gordon

Do teachers tell kids that it's ok for a man and woman to shag? Surely they would simply educate, as opposed to forcing their opinion into the child's mind.

Obliq

Gordon wrote: »

Do teachers tell kids that it's ok for a man and woman to shag? Surely they would simply educate, as opposed to forcing their opinion into the child's mind.

Yes exactly. In order to explain heterosexuality (for example) to children, one tends not to say "well, a man and a woman have full-on penetrative intercourse, with much kissing, sucking and sometimes toys and often using every orifice available". I hope you have learned something today Jimi.

JimiTime

aloyisious wrote: »

Perhaps you could to post here the information you have at your disposal that the sacked teacher was teaching the children that he is a sexually active homosexual male having sexual congress with other homosexual males and felt that it was ok to tell that to them. I certainly haven't seen that in print. Might it be that you are making assumptions as to the teacher's sexual activity status?

His sexual activity is irrelevant. If he has orgies nightly or is completely celibate it has no bearing. The issue is the promotion of homosexuality as perfectly fine and good. Like I said, that seems perfectly acceptable to those who agree with it, but there are many parents who do not want their childrens school being used as a platform to promote such an idea. Would you like to see primary schools being used to promote the idea that gay is not good?

Links234

It can be objectively stated that homosexuality IS fine and good.

Obliq

JimiTime wrote: »

His sexual activity is irrelevant. If he has orgies nightly or is completely celibate it has no bearing. The issue is the promotion of homosexuality as perfectly fine and good. Like I said, that seems perfectly acceptable to those who agree with it, but there are many parents who do not want their childrens school being used as a platform to promote such an idea. Would you like to see primary schools being used to promote the idea that gay is not good?

Why do you keep using the word "promotion" in place of "calling" or "telling", or more to the point "accepting"?

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

His sexual activity is irrelevant. If he has orgies nightly or is completely celibate it has no bearing. The issue is the promotion of homosexuality as perfectly fine and good. Like I said, that seems perfectly acceptable to those who agree with it, but there are many parents who do not want their childrens school being used as a platform to promote such an idea. Would you like to see primary schools being used to promote the idea that gay is not good?

Do you not see the difference between a school saying to students (some of whom are gay), "being gay is not wrong" compared to getting them "being gay is wrong"? One is supportive to students where the other isn't.

Nodin

JimiTime wrote: »

His sexual activity is irrelevant. If he has orgies nightly or is completely celibate it has no bearing. The issue is the promotion of homosexuality as perfectly fine and good. Like I said, that seems perfectly acceptable to those who agree with it, but there are many parents who do not want their childrens school being used as a platform to promote such an idea. Would you like to see primary schools being used to promote the idea that gay is not good?

Whoa there trigger. Where was he 'promoting homosexuality'?

oscarBravo

JimiTime wrote: »

Believe me, I acknowledge the unfortunate view that people of your view insist on calling God and all his followers bigots or whatever explicit names you choose.

I don't call God a bigot for the same reason I don't call the tooth fairy a bigot. As for all his followers being bigots, that's not true either. You might be amazed just how many Christians don't feel the need to be dicks towards people who don't share their sexual preferences.

Your constant message is that it's not OK to be gay. Try firing a teacher for telling kids it's OK to be black or female, and come back to me.

It is OK with you if a teacher tells kids it's OK to be black or female, isn't it?

JimiTime

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for all his followers being bigots, that's not true either. You might be amazed just how many Christians don't feel the need to be dicks towards people who don't share their sexual preferences.

Expletives and subjective observations aside, followers of Christ will follow Christ in reaching out to all with the good news of the kingdom, and just as he preached repentance when he reached out to the sinners and said 'Go and sin no more', so do his followers do.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Your constant message is that it's not OK to be gay.

Actually, you'll find my message has been that its not ok to try to abuse ones position as a school teacher to further your political goal of promoting the idea to primary school pupils that homosexuality is good. If a parent wishes to broach the subject of sexuality with their child and preach such a message, then fine.

Try firing a teacher for telling kids it's OK to be black or female, and come back to me.

It is OK with you if a teacher tells kids it's OK to be black or female, isn't it?

Do you believe it reasonable that a person can have no problem with the colour of a persons skin, but can have issue with, lets say, thievery? I would dare to say that its actually ridiculous to believe that the two can be compared. After all, one thing is simply the colour of a persons skin, and the other is an action which a person indulges in.

So yes, of course its ok to teach that its ok to be white or black or female or male, but the actions of these black/white men and women is a whole different ball game.

_Redzer_

JimiTime wrote: »

Petty insults aside, but whether you like it or not, the fact of sex being an action is not really up for discussion. And yes, deciding to have sex is in fact a choice.

Ugh yeah, but you can't decide who you're attracted to before choosing to have sex. That's the point.

By your logic straight people choose to be straight because they choose to have sex with the opposite sex.

Turtwig

Jeez Louise folks!

I've had to delete a few posts in this thread and probably should have deleted more. Implying a poster supports Nazi policies is not on. Calling them a simpleton is not on and for the love of God if you feel peeved by posts don't respond in kind!



Try to keep things civil. Flaming words boths ways isn't going to resolve anything. It's clear you have diverging opinions on this. So please, try to respect the other person's character. If you can't do that then take a break and come back when you post a civil post.

JimiTime

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Ugh yeah, but you can't decide who you're attracted to before choosing to have sex. That's the point.

By your logic straight people choose to be straight because they choose to have sex with the opposite sex.

Actually, thats not the point. The point is that a previous poster insinuated that the colour or gender of a person, is comparable to the actions of a person.

_Redzer_

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, thats not the point. The point is that a previous poster insinuated that the colour or gender of a person, is comparable to the actions of a person.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT AN ACTION, ACTION IMPLIES CHOICE!

Since both skin colour and sexual orientation cannot be chosen, bigotry and racism are the same thing as they share the same central premise.

JimiTime

Jernal wrote: »

Jeez Louise folks!

I've had to delete a few posts in this thread and probably should have deleted more. Implying a poster supports Nazi policies is not on. Calling them a simpleton is not on and for the love of God if you feel peeved by posts don't respond in kind!



Try to keep things civil. Flaming words boths ways isn't going to resolve anything. It's clear you have diverging opinions on this. So please, try to respect the other person's character. If you can't do that then take a break and come back when you post a civil post.

Don't mean to be pedantic, but as the only member of the other side, and my amazing powers of deduction, I can't help but see that "Flaming words boths ways" and "don't respond in kind!" implicate me in this warning. I don't believe that you warning fairly represents what happened. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel offended by the insults etc, but I really don't see how you can say that there were 2 sides at fault tbh. I understand my views are the anti-thesis to your own in this subject, but I don't belive your implication is fair. I called nobody names in the face of being called a nazi and a simpleton.
Respectfully,
Jimi.

JimiTime

_Redzer_ wrote: »

SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT AN ACTION, ACTION IMPLIES CHOICE!

Since both skin colour and sexual orientation cannot be chosen, bigotry and racism are the same thing as they share the same central premise.

Race is not a choice, having sex is. You said so yourself:
"you can't decide who you're attracted to before choosing to have sex"

The fact that sex is an action is the very reason why comparing matters of sexual intercourse to race or gender is so ludicrous.

_Redzer_

Tbh, I never called you a simpleton. I said that was such a simpleton post.

Attack the post, not the poster. And technically I never directly called you anything. Any offence you may have experienced from that was self inferred.

Technically, I'm off scot free.

_Redzer_

JimiTime wrote: »

Race is not a choice, having sex is. You said so yourself:
"you can't decide who you're attracted to before choosing to have sex"

The fact that sex is an action is the very reason why comparing matters of sexual intercourse to race or gender is so ludicrous.

Sexual orientation is not the same as sexual intercourse. I keep making that distinction but you keep ignoring it and derailing it.

So tell me, what's the difference between discriminating against skin colour and sexual orientation -baring in mind that sexual orientation deals with which gender you're attracted to.

No mention of sex because that's a different argument. For example I had a fairly good idea I was gay before I had sex, you see, I understood and realised my attractions so I was better able to conclude my sexual orientation

JimiTime

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Tbh, I never called you a simpleton. I said that was such a simpleton post.

Attack the post, not the poster. And technically I never directly called you anything. Any offence you may have experienced from that was self inferred.

Technically, I'm off scot free.

No offence experienced here, though your 'technicality'? Come off it

Corkfeen

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, there was no need to announce that he is sexually attracted to men to his students in assembly. You spin it as 'he was honest enough', but really, the amount of times people go on about how a persons sexual habits are no-one elses business, yet you applaud a person who decides to announce it and make it into a big deal. However, the bigger issue is that he is looking to promote his sexual behaviour as acceptable. Now I understand that this is perfectly fine with those who agree with what he is promoting, but it is not ok for many, and the teacher knew this. It really does come down to the teacher using his position to promote his views to the children in his school. How would you feel if the teacher in your educate together school decided to use their position to promote Christianity?

He added: ‘I came out at school in an assembly after a group of 11-year-olds held up a poster they made headed “Gay is good”.

Yep,perfectly legitimate circumstances to come out under. Just because insufferably bigoted individuals view it to be unacceptable should not mean he should hide away when his students are more tolerant than many fully grown fools.

JimiTime wrote: »

Believe me, I acknowledge the unfortunate view that people of your view insist on calling God and all his followers bigots or whatever explicit names you choose. Even more unfortunate, is that many people still don't believe that LGBT activism will continue to turn its gaze towards people of faith and demand they assimilate to their views. The question is, what will be the punishment that you eventually demand for those who do not neglect God in favour of your views.

Curse them and their expectation to be viewed as the very normal people that they are.

JimiTime wrote: »

His sexual activity is irrelevant. If he has orgies nightly or is completely celibate it has no bearing. The issue is the promotion of homosexuality as perfectly fine and good. Like I said, that seems perfectly acceptable to those who agree with it, but there are many parents who do not want their childrens school being used as a platform to promote such an idea. Would you like to see primary schools being used to promote the idea that gay is not good?

Tolerance should be encouraged in schools. You've highlighted the need for tolerance in schools tbh when you are so obsessed with expecting a teacher to hide his orientation away while the students are being millions of times more tolerant than you.

JimiTime wrote: »

Race is not a choice, having sex is. You said so yourself:
"you can't decide who you're attracted to before choosing to have sex"

The fact that sex is an action is the very reason why comparing matters of sexual intercourse to race or gender is so ludicrous.

The method you encourage is to deny your sexual orientation,pretend your straight and marry a woman. You've claimed for an age that sleeping with someone of the same orientation is immoral but you can't show any reason for it being immoral besides the bible telling you so. One does not choose their sexual orientation,your method of reparative therapy or denial is far more damaging for a person. You'll now claim you don't have any major opinion on reparative therapy but you really do...

You find it to be more of an issue that a minor in certain states in America can't receive reparative therapy than a person being honest about their sexual orientation. If this is what you consider to be the moral backbone of Christianity,it's pretty damn warped. Thankfully,most that I know who call themselves Christians would not endorse such warped viewpoints on subjects.

robindch

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Tbh, I never called you a simpleton. I said that was such a simpleton post.

[...]

Technically, I'm off scot free.

"Simpleton" is a noun which describes a person, not an adjective which describes a quality, so it's completely reasonable to conclude that your post was insulting.

Technically, that's a cardable offence, so off your high-horse please and stick to the rules.

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

If people want to have sex with whatever, thats their prerogative. Thats not the issue. The issue is demanding that we all agree that its perfectly fine, and in the context here, insist that they teach our children that its perfectly fine. You will notice that the man in questions sexual behaviour is not my issue, but rather his insistance on preaching to children that its perfectly fine. I am fully aware that I live in a world of various views and beliefs, some I agree with, others I don't. Being a tolerant guy, I accept it. However, there is a difference between accepting that a teachers sexual preference is his business, and a teacher insisting on teaching pupils that his sexual behaviour is perfectly fine.

JimiTime wrote: »

His sexual activity is irrelevant. If he has orgies nightly or is completely celibate it has no bearing. The issue is the promotion of homosexuality as perfectly fine and good. Like I said, that seems perfectly acceptable to those who agree with it, but there are many parents who do not want their childrens school being used as a platform to promote such an idea. Would you like to see primary schools being used to promote the idea that gay is not good?

Why do you believe homosexuality is wrong?

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

More spin I see



And people still insist that gay marriage will just mean gay people will get married.

I don't understand the above. Do you think that people - presumably heterosexual - other than gay people, will avail of gay marriage, when they already have the right to marry in a church or civil registry office? How peculiar.

Edit:in your other post - to which I posted a question - included a mention of difference between a teachers sexual preferences and a teachers sexual practices, the second of which your post distinctly stated that the teacher was telling the pupils/children about. You specifically mentioned both his sexual preference and his sexual practice, do you stand by that?

I see you put up the question: would you like to see primary schools being used to promote the idea that gay sex is not ok? I find that question to be an oxymoron when posted in relation to a teacher being fired by his school for telling his pupils he's gay and (according to you) telling them about gay sex, practices you seem opposed to from your other posts, and that you seem to approve of the school's act in firing him
.
Please pardon me for my getting excited by JimiTime, I've got the bit between my teeth so I can type up question-responses.

PopePalpatine

Meanwhile, in the Land of the So Brave:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/07/linda-harvey-homeless-gay-teens-have-only-themselves-to-blame/

(credit to aloyisious for posting this in the Politics forum)

aloyisious

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Meanwhile, in the Land of the So Brave:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/07/linda-harvey-homeless-gay-teens-have-only-themselves-to-blame/

(credit to aloyisious for posting this in the Politics forum)

Woo.... reddner much

Bannasidhe

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Meanwhile, in the Land of the So Brave:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/07/linda-harvey-homeless-gay-teens-have-only-themselves-to-blame/

(credit to aloyisious for posting this in the Politics forum)

Just like it was all the fault of a close friend of mine that she ended up at being dragged to a psychiatrist aged 15 to be 'cured'.

Same woman is now aged 30 with a high powered job in the UK and about to 'Gay' marry her been together 8 years partner and her mother is wondering why she isn't invited..

old hippy

JimiTime wrote: »

Race is not a choice, having sex is. You said so yourself:
"you can't decide who you're attracted to before choosing to have sex"

The fact that sex is an action is the very reason why comparing matters of sexual intercourse to race or gender is so ludicrous.

Sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice.You're born that way. It's normal. Sexual intercourse, however, can be a behavioral choice. The only lifestyle choice is choosing to be out and comfortable with who you are, seeking equality and all that or choosing to stay in the closet.

Telling people that being gay is ok and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it is not promoting homosexuality. It's promoting equality.

gaynorvader

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Just like it was all the fault of a close friend of mine that she ended up at being dragged to a psychiatrist aged 15 to be 'cured'.

Same woman is now aged 30 with a high powered job in the UK and about to 'Gay' marry her been together 8 years partner and her mother is wondering why she isn't invited..

That's a sad story.