Anti-gay remarks by UCC Chaplain

[Paul McAndrew]

Anti-gay remarks by UCC Chaplain:

http://www.corkindependent. com/local-news/local-news/this-is-crossing-the-line/

http://www.corkindependent. com/local-news/local-news/we-demand-an-apology/


http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=211757 736965

[Henry Hill]

UCC shouldn't be paying for staff that aren't acedemics besides from security etc. We should be entirely secular. The existance of a creator of the world cannot be proven so for an university to hire a expert on the creator seems ridiculous.

As for his remarks, he is just saying what the bible says. Its a case of don't shoot the messenger. Any christian cleric who says he is in favour of gay marriage etc is just picking and choosing what bits of the bible to believe in. An a la carte christian. I won't be signing up as he is just stating his religon's position

[Haro]

Any christian cleric who says he is in favour of gay marriage etc is just picking and choosing what bits of the bible to believe in.

Every Christian does this, given the same bits of the Bible that aren't great for gays also aren't great for people who wear cotton-polyester mixes.

[Cannabis]

Its a rule now that bumming men is good and your and evil bigot homophobe if you dont agree. Its the law.

[KolaKubes]

I think he's entitled to his opinion.

If the LGBT group were banned from the use the Honan, that would be different.

I happen to think Ultimate Frisbee is wrong. Does this "intolerant" attitude mean I will end up with their club starting Facebook groups to call for my sacking?

[Henry94]

He is entitled to his opinion but after the Iris Robinson affair we may wonder what he's into himself. Everybody has something they wouldn't want to see on the front of the Echo.

[Haro]

Its a rule now that bumming men is good and your and evil bigot homophobe if you dont agree. Its the law.

I think he's entitled to his opinion.

If the LGBT group were banned from the use the Honan, that would be different.

I happen to think Ultimate Frisbee is wrong. Does this "intolerant" attitude mean I will end up with their club starting Facebook groups to call for my sacking?

Jesus Christs, you're both cunts you know that? Especially Cannabis.

Of course his attitude is "intolerant". It wasn't even a particularly kindly worded homophobic jab. Just because something can be written up to religious reasons doesn't mean they get a free pass.

It's not even a question of whether he should be allowed to say it here - you two eejits are pretty much saying that not only is there no issue with the college allowing him to make it as a statement, but that people shouldn't get upset about it either.

I can't stand this insane reverse political correctness.

Some people just have horrible archaic viewpoints. We like to say everyone is entitled to an opinion, but then excuse particularly rude ones with religion, which is more of a cultural thing here than a personal choice. So which is it?

If someone is spouting unbelievable bullshit that demonises a particular group of people with nothing to back it up, that's a BAD thing. It's a shame some people are either too stupid or too complacement to realise this.

[Langer Dan]

Haro, go home you fag.

[Motorway To Roswell]

Bumming another man is wrong lads, ye disgusting freaks of nature, ye will all pay for it anyway at the end of the day, in Hell!

[starchaser]

Anti-gay remarks by UCC Chaplain:

http://www.corkindependent. com/local-news/local-news/this-is-crossing-the-line/

http://www.corkindependent. com/local-news/local-news/we-demand-an-apology/


http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=211757 736965

how is it "anti gay" if he's just stating what his religion believes in. for fucks sake , i could set up a religion tommorow that thinks that eating pizza is a sin. religion is like that - its got a certain set of beliefs and thats it, weirdness and all.

yer free to fuck off and not believe in it and go off and believe in something else.

live and let live should be the rule.

Here is what the fella posted:
"A Cork church is to have a LGTB carol service. I long for everyone, whatever their sexual orientation, to have a joyful and peaceful Christmas, but there can be no true joy or peace in actively practising and celebrating a lifestyle, which does not please God"

which is fair enough. that is what HIS religion teaches. and to be fair, he hasnt called for the banning of the LGTB carol service. the guy sounds reasonable.

Now go try having an LGTB carol service in an Islamic mosque, and then come back to us. Preferably with your head still on your shoulders.

[dennisfallen]

Thought Hell was done away with.

[Motorway To Roswell]

how is it "anti gay" if he's just stating what his religion believes in. for fucks sake , i could set up a religion tommorow that thinks that eating pizza is a sin. religion is like that - its got a certain set of beliefs and thats it, weirdness and all.

yer free to fuck off and not believe in it and go off and believe in something else.

live and let live should be the rule.

Here is what the fella posted:
"A Cork church is to have a LGTB carol service. I long for everyone, whatever their sexual orientation, to have a joyful and peaceful Christmas, but there can be no true joy or peace in actively practising and celebrating a lifestyle, which does not please God"

which is fair enough. that is what HIS religion teaches. and to be fair, he hasnt called for the banning of the LGTB carol service. the guy sounds reasonable.

Now go try having an LGTB carol service in an Islamic mosque, and then come back to us. Preferably with your head still on your shoulders.

Spot on!

[starchaser]

i'm atheist - but i fucking hate it when so called "liberation" groups hammer religious types under the guise of "equality". the world isnt like that and never will be.

we should be all aiming for a secular republic and church-state separation, as in America. and only then can all groups practise what they believe in freely and without intervention from anyone else. and that goes for gay people as much as religious folks. even though they think they are on opposite sides, the path to the solution means they are actually on the same side. we're talking about freedom here - "liberty" precisely.

[Haro]

how is it "anti gay" if he's just stating what his religion believes in. for fucks sake , i could set up a religion tommorow that thinks that eating pizza is a sin. religion is like that - its got a certain set of beliefs and thats it, weirdness and all.

yer free to fuck off and not believe in it and go off and believe in something else.

live and let live should be the rule.

No, that's shit and points out exactly the problem - you can just declare anything your belief and use it as an excuse to be a jackass and say stupid things about whole groups of people.

Just because being gay isn't wrong doesn't mean nothing is "wrong". It's not live and let live if he's going around telling everyone who's gay they know no joy and peace.

Here is what the fella posted:
"A Cork church is to have a LGTB carol service. I long for everyone, whatever their sexual orientation, to have a joyful and peaceful Christmas, but there can be no true joy or peace in actively practising and celebrating a lifestyle, which does not please God"

which is fair enough.

No it's not. That's a horrible thing to say. It starts off trying to look reasonable and descends into loopiness. He longs for everyone to have a joyful christmas, but then says there can be no joy or peace for gays.

that is what HIS religion teaches. and to be fair, he hasnt called for the banning of the LGTB carol service. the guy sounds reasonable.

No, he isn't. Just because he isn't Fred Phelps doesn't mean he's "reasonable". This kind of viewpoint is not born in anything "reasonable".

Now go try having an LGTB carol service in an Islamic mosque, and then come back to us. Preferably with your head still on your shoulders.

If you were living in Iran or whatever you'd probably be saying the same thing relative to that to justify the level of persecution that goes on over there.

I'm curious as to what people think bigotry actually is.

[Motorway To Roswell]

Gayness is wrong.

End of arguement

[bosco]

Jesus Christs, you're both cunts you know that? Especially Cannabis.

You sound like a bit of a knob yourself. I assume you respect my right to state my opinion here, but I'll admit my opinion is purely based on a few of your posts that I've read. You could be a genuinely decent person who just gets way too worked up about what people post on internet forums. Take it easy lad. If you start a post by blaspheming and calling people cunts, you're not likely to be taken seriously. Try a more measured approach. Now, 1... 2... 3... breathe.......

[Haro]

You sound like a bit of a knob yourself. I assume you respect my right to state my opinion here, but I'll admit my opinion is purely based on a few of your posts that I've read. You could be a genuinely decent person who just gets way too worked up about what people post on internet forums. Take it easy lad. If you start a post by blaspheming and calling people cunts, you're not likely to be taken seriously. Try a more measured approach. Now, 1... 2... 3... breathe.......

If these are real people who have influence on the world around me then I think my constant anger at absolutely everything is a little bit on the justified side. There are just so many people here who have such unbelievably loveless attitudes that I can't ignore since they're the kind of people that I love amongst. Leaving the country is nowhere near practical for me right now since I'm in college and also quite ill long term. So I'm stuck with this shite.

[irishmonkey]

I really dont see what the fuss is about.
his religion sees it as wrong, thats just the way his religion is.
i dont think ye are seeing it from his poit of view ( ye seem fairly intorent of religions)
he is allow no repenting sinners into "the house of god" to have there service.
thats a very BIG move for someone in his position.
He is well justified to keep whoever he wishes out of the church.
the chruch is not a pub/gym.
It is for the people of that religion - no one else.

the fact that these people follow a religion that sees them as sinners/wrong/devils, well thats there choice no one forced them to join this religion.

the man is entilited to his religion. just as you are to yours.
He is still allowing them to perform there service, that takes guts.

how many people on this form would do the moraly right thing even thow it goes against everything you believe in.

fuck ye lads leave hime alone

[KolaKubes]

If these are real people who have influence on the world around me then I think my constant anger at absolutely everything is a little bit on the justified side. There are just so many people here who have such unbelievably loveless attitudes that I can't ignore since they're the kind of people that I love amongst. Leaving the country is nowhere near practical for me right now since I'm in college and also quite ill long term. So I'm stuck with this shite.

You're very emotional.

Have a cup of tea.

[pudgee]

how is it "anti gay" if he's just stating what his religion believes in.

Cos his religion is anti-gay.
Next question.

[hans aus dtschl]

How dare someone who believes in Hell, walking on water, loaves and fishes, immaculate conception, random assorted miracles, God, heaven etc etc etc also believe a certain group may not be fully deserving of going to his religion's ideal heaven. Once they die.

I gotta say, though I have absolutely no problem with anyone's sexual preference, the LGBT are by far the most tiresome group I ever heard of during my time in UCC. They're the only group who specify what the sexual preferences of their members should be, too. I never heard of an "S" society. But then I don't give much of a damn about people's sexual preferences...

[Murdock]

how is it "anti gay" if he's just stating what his religion believes in.

What a retarded thing to say.


This fucker should be turfed out of it post-haste. He's allowed make whatever bigoted statements he wants to his own congregation of bigots, but he has no place in a modern university. I don't want my fees paying the wages of such a dinosaur.

[Corcaigh32]

I am not making any comment on what he said - but surely he is being paid (he is being paid??) to BE the chaplain. Can someone be the chaplain without being a priest? If not, how is he to make any other comment other than the one he made, other than say nothing at all?

[Haro]

How dare someone who believes in Hell, walking on water, loaves and fishes, immaculate conception, random assorted miracles, God, heaven etc etc etc also believe a certain group may not be fully deserving of going to his religion's ideal heaven. Once they die.

I gotta say, though I have absolutely no problem with anyone's sexual preference, the LGBT are by far the most tiresome group I ever heard of during my time in UCC. They're the only group who specify what the sexual preferences of their members should be, too. I never heard of an "S" society. But then I don't give much of a damn about people's sexual preferences...

Idiot, "S" people can join the LGBT if they want. You're just making presumptions to feed your "opinon". I had no time for the LGBT while I was there but that's because the people in charge of it at the time were, much like you, narks and useless tossers.

Straight people are allowed to marry the person I love and don't get fired for their orientation. When people are truly equal, then we won't need anything as silly as an LGBT. Until then, where are people meant to get support?

You'd rather people not get support, because at the end of the day, that's the kind of person you are, the kind of people homophobes tend to be, and the kind of person this "I'm not a homophobe, but I'm sick of LGBT types" almost always are.

[Haro]

I really dont see what the fuss is about.
his religion sees it as wrong, thats just the way his religion is.
i dont think ye are seeing it from his poit of view ( ye seem fairly intorent of religions)
he is allow no repenting sinners into "the house of god" to have there service.
thats a very BIG move for someone in his position.
He is well justified to keep whoever he wishes out of the church.
the chruch is not a pub/gym.
It is for the people of that religion - no one else.

But most of Ireland is OF that religion, born into that religion and apparently don't get much of a say in it. "No one else" is probably less than 30% of the country at a very optimistic estimat.e

Seriously, can you think these things through before you voice an opinion about them?

the fact that these people follow a religion that sees them as sinners/wrong/devils, well thats there choice no one forced them to join this religion.

But people of that religion often force things on others. Socially, being a catholic or at least a christian is highly demanded of the average person in Ireland.

the man is entilited to his religion. just as you are to yours.

Just as a racist is entitled to his views? They might be entitled to them - but it doesn't change the fact that they're wrong. It is also almost impossible to make the sinner/sin seperate religious types claim they can. It almost always spills over in some shape or form.

He is still allowing them to perform there service, that takes guts.

how many people on this form would do the moraly right thing even thow it goes against everything you believe in.

fuck ye lads leave hime alone

What, so it's okay for him to attack gays because it's his beliefs, but it's not okay for people to attack homophobes because it's our beliefs, not to mention the fact that it's actually disliking something for something they do WRONG instead of how they're born?

This just shows the sheer fucking hypocrisy and idiocy apologists can sink to.

[Haro]

I am not making any comment on what he said - but surely he is being paid (he is being paid??) to BE the chaplain. Can someone be the chaplain without being a priest? If not, how is he to make any other comment other than the one he made, other than say nothing at all?

This is the problem. Does every Christian have to be a homophobe?

If so, that means that the majority of Ireland is homophobic, and nobody should have a say against this, since we're to Ahh just leave 'em alone? And people are pretty much saying that, that people are wrong to get upset at these remarks, yet he isn't wrong to express his beliefs on gays?

It's not even a case of teh gays being allowed freedom of speech and not him - it's quite the opposite! By trying to be moral relativists you've just swung around onto the bigot's side of things where they can attack gays, but gays can't attack him.

Do you not realise that's going beyond mere insanity into a whole new level of crazy?

A Christian does not have to be a homophobe and being Christian is not an excuse for being a homophobe(or anything). If someone is that down right disrespectful to someone because of how they're born - people should call them out on it. There isn't anything wrong with showing someone disrespect if they're doing something actually ethically wrong on a more utilitarian scale - there's plenty wrong with being snivelling apologists for mean spirited remarks.

If this is what religion is, then that religion is "bad". But apparently, despite the push for moral relativism, people who speak out against these people are universally "bad". People need to stop making excuses. A homophobe is a homophobe. No excuses.

[might I say]

If not, how is he to make any other comment other than the one he made, other than say nothing at all?

Y'see to say nothing would have been the smart option . If you really want to piss off gays and lesbians then nothing bothers them more than ignoring them .:crazyeye:

[Haro]

Yes, everyone with a different sexual orientation to you is an attention whore.

I like how everyone is "I'm not a homophobe, but here's my smarmy right wing viewpoint that's patronising towards gay people."

[might I say]

Yes, everyone with a different sexual orientation to you is an attention whore.

I like how everyone is "I'm not a homophobe, but here's my smarmy right wing viewpoint that's patronising towards gay people."

Well you'll be glad to know I dont fall into " I'm not a homophobe but " bunch , as I am a homophobe , no buts , ifs or and.
Call me right wing , call me a bigot , but I think two guys fucking is disgusting .






Mind you Im all good with two hot chicks making out .

[Corcaigh32]

I wasn't making excuses. The point was being made that students fees shouldn't go towards the wages of someone like this person in a modern Irish university if this was what he was going to come out with. I was simply making the point that as the Chaplain he couldn't possibly come out with any other statement, except to say nothing. Now you have a habit of ignoring the point I make in threads so I will leave it at that.

On the substantive issue, I will give you my opinion so you can have a cut off me. I am not a homophobe. I have no issue with gays, lesbians, transgenders, bisexuals - gay marriage, gay inheritance, etc etc etc. Where you will no doubt want to have a cut off me is because I do have an issue with gay adoption. Don't agree it with it at all and all the arguments about 2 loving parents when 2 heterosexual parents could be beating the shit out of their kids doesn't wash with me.

[KolaKubes]

Yes, everyone with a different sexual orientation to you is an attention whore.

I like how everyone is "I'm not a homophobe, but here's my smarmy right wing viewpoint that's patronising towards gay people."

It's like a political version of Perse.

[Henry Hill]

Yes, everyone with a different sexual orientation to you is an attention whore.

I like how everyone is "I'm not a homophobe, but here's my smarmy right wing viewpoint that's patronising towards gay people."

I think your personality may un-intensionally be causing homophobia.

Your problem is with the bible says about gay people. If you want to know ask iris robinson

[Haro]

I think your personality may un-intensionally be causing homophobia.

Your problem is with the bible says about gay people. If you want to know ask iris robinson

The Bible says shit about gay people directly, and even if it did it's still no excuse.

[Haro]

I wasn't making excuses. The point was being made that students fees shouldn't go towards the wages of someone like this person in a modern Irish university if this was what he was going to come out with. I was simply making the point that as the Chaplain he couldn't possibly come out with any other statement, except to say nothing. Now you have a habit of ignoring the point I make in threads so I will leave it at that.

On the substantive issue, I will give you my opinion so you can have a cut off me. I am not a homophobe. I have no issue with gays, lesbians, transgenders, bisexuals - gay marriage, gay inheritance, etc etc etc. Where you will no doubt want to have a cut off me is because I do have an issue with gay adoption. Don't agree it with it at all and all the arguments about 2 loving parents when 2 heterosexual parents could be beating the shit out of their kids doesn't wash with me.

This is the essence of the homophobic viewpoint though, as with most of the right wing viewpoints I moan about - there's nothing to back that up. In fact the majority of studies done into this sort of things shows that children are just as healthy being raised by same sex partners. People make the mistake of not realising that parents are not the only role models a child has, for a start. But people don't care about the studies, they care about their "Opinions".

[frankeechops]

The Bible says shit about gay people directly, and even if it did it's still no excuse.

Think before you type

Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version)


22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

[Henry Hill]

Think before you type

Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version)


22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

It says nothing about lesbians. God loves them too :D

[Henry Hill]

This is the essence of the homophobic viewpoint though, as with most of the right wing viewpoints I moan about - there's nothing to back that up. In fact the majority of studies done into this sort of things shows that children are just as healthy being raised by same sex partners. People make the mistake of not realising that parents are not the only role models a child has, for a start. But people don't care about the studies, they care about their "Opinions".

"I HATE it when people don't share the same opinion I have, since I'm so smart their automatically idiots"
Is this what your trying to say?

[frankeechops]

It says nothing about lesbians. God loves them too :D

So does this mean Lesbians are Kosher?

[Corcaigh32]

You must have a PhD in selective reading or else it's the way I type.

I am not a homophobe. I happen to think that the best environment for a child to be brought up is with a Mammy and Daddy. Is it always possible? No. Does it always mean the best parents? No. Is it possible for 2 gay parents to love a child? Yes of course it is. My point is, I do not believe it is the optimum environment for a child to be brought up in and therefore don't agree with it. Try reading what I actually type and not what you like to infer from it. It was the same in the Lenihan thread.

[Haro]

"I HATE it when people don't share the same opinion I have, since I'm so smart their automatically idiots"
Is this what your trying to say?

Are you a fucking idiot? I said that there are actual studies supporting the facts children raised by same sex couples are perfectly healthy.

You must have a PhD in selective reading or else it's the way I type.

I am not a homophobe. I happen to think that the best environment for a child to be brought up is with a Mammy and Daddy. Is it always possible? No. Does it always mean the best parents? No. Is it possible for 2 gay parents to love a child? Yes of course it is. My point is, I do not believe it is the optimum environment for a child to be brought up in and therefore don't agree with it. Try reading what I actually type and not what you like to infer from it. It was the same in the Lenihan thread.

I didn't say you were a homophobe. I said your thinking was the same illogical shite that's the root of homophobia. Maybe you need to brush up on your reading. "I happen to think" "I do not believe" - people have done actualy studies into this thing and found that it's highly very probably you're wrong, but these don't enter into your reasoning since you have none to begin with - it's just an arbitary, irritating viewpoint.

And the Lenihan thread was shameful, don't even bring that up. Jade Goody 2.0.

[Murdock]

It's like a political version of Perse.

Or, as you also call him; the pointless little faggot.

[KolaKubes]

Or, as you also call him; the

And?

[Haro]

Perse is a pretty awful person, but I'd hardly think he's an example of your average gay. Most of them don't put on the "I'm gay but I'M ALSO A TOUGH GUY" shite.

[Cannabis]

Jesus Christs, you're both cunts you know that? Especially Cannabis.

Of course his attitude is "intolerant". It wasn't even a particularly kindly worded homophobic jab. Just because something can be written up to religious reasons doesn't mean they get a free pass.

It's not even a question of whether he should be allowed to say it here - you two eejits are pretty much saying that not only is there no issue with the college allowing him to make it as a statement, but that people shouldn't get upset about it either.

I can't stand this insane reverse political correctness.

Some people just have horrible archaic viewpoints. We like to say everyone is entitled to an opinion, but then excuse particularly rude ones with religion, which is more of a cultural thing here than a personal choice. So which is it?

If someone is spouting unbelievable bullshit that demonises a particular group of people with nothing to back it up, that's a BAD thing. It's a shame some people are either too stupid or too complacement to realise this.

so people cant say bumfucking men aint normal? Sounds like the type of talk a bumfucka would say. If a guy comes out and says ''Death to all gays lets hang them'' then id say calm down but some guy whos just saying he aint approving bumfucking is entitled to his opinion you fuckin bumfucka.

[Haro]

so people cant say bumfucking men aint normal? Sounds like the type of talk a bumfucka would say. If a guy comes out and says ''Death to all gays lets hang them'' then id say calm down but some guy whos just saying he aint approving bumfucking is entitled to his opinion you fuckin bumfucka.

There's a difference between an opinion and being a total cunt. Read over your "WUM" posts in future to distinguish between the two.

[Cannabis]

or just have a look at your posts the defintion of a crusading cunt

[Haro]

The definition of crusading cunt is, apparently, someone who believes there can be such a thing as bigotry without actually wanting to go out and hang the target of their intolerance. Since this doesn't happen outside of places like Iran, there must be no bigotry anywhere, right?

It would seem very likely you're on the barmy side of this one. The fact you consider me a "crusading cunt" just shows the vile, poisonous apathy so many people have that even thinking maybe we should call a homophobe a homophobe is just too much to handle.

[Henry Hill]

So does this mean Lesbians are Kosher?

Wahey :D

Are you a fucking idiot? I said that there are actual studies supporting the facts children raised by same sex couples are perfectly healthy.


Everyone in the thread will agree your the fucking idiot

You'll have to post a link for that. You seem too aggressive to ever bring up a child.
For the record I think gays should be able to adopt but in the same way a straight people can i.e. they have to be deemed to be capable of raising a child. As in a relationship for a good few years and have enough money to support the child and not be an asshole


You seem to think calling people homophobe strengthens your agruement.
It doesn't

If someone doesn't like you its because your a cunt not because there a homophobe. There isn't too much homophobia in Ireland anyway amongst young people its mostly the older generation, I don't know why your getting so worked up. For the record Perse seems like a sound enough lad

[Haro]

Everyone in the thread will agree your the fucking idiot

What? But if everyone in this thread is an idiot, then what grounds do they have? Anyone can call someone an idiot. Just because something "agree" on something doesn't make it true. Just like calling small minded prejudice viewpoinst "valid opinions" doesn't make it true either.

The tone of this thread, like most serious threads on PROC, was in the toilet before I even commented on it. I don't see why I should keep my tone refined if people are going to act like tossers regardless. There has to be some kind of love in an argument before it's worth doing anything but shouting at people and hoping the bystanders can make sense of it.

You'll have to post a link for that. You seem too aggressive to ever bring up a child.

Just as well I'm not a gay.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477

How aggressive you are in an online argument with a bunch of complete tools doesn't have an awful lot of bearing on how aggressive you are around children. Though sometimes it does feel like I'm surrounded by them.


You seem to think calling people homophobe strengthens your agruement.
It doesn't

The people I'm calling homophobes don't even have an argument. That doesn't, despite your position on adoption, seem to bother you of course.

There isn't too much homophobia in Ireland anyway amongst young people its mostly the older generation

What do you base this on? There's plenty of homophobia in this thread. Of course if you're using a shitty definition of it, then you might find none. But, you are filled with the typical Irish apathetic wank, so it's hard to sell you a new definition.

This is why people think there isn't a problem with homophobia in Ireland, and come down on "Moral crusaders" while letting the real jackasses go out to pasture.

The thinking Perse is a sound enough lad, but calling me an idiot - says a lot about your judge of character. Lazy judgements - the more aggressive one on the surface is wrong. I've seen Perse in action and he is a vicious cunt. Getting angry over things that actually matter doesn't make you a bad person.

[Murdock]

And?

You're a homophobic tool.



Lamentable thread.

[hans aus dtschl]

The scenario that prompted the thread is basically LGBT vs the catholic church via one person's job. That's always gonna be quite ugly.

Haro,
For the record, I don't have a problem with anybody's sexuality. I only have a problem with people's crusades. I've worked at gay bars, I go clubbing in gay clubs, I have gay friends, gay role models, transgender role models, lesbian friends... etc...and those are just the ones I know who make a point of being open about what they're into, sexually. I don't really care what the rest of my friends are into. It doesn't interest me. It's none of my business unless they want to tell me, or state it publicly.

My reasons for disliking the LGBT were not because of the cause it worked for, but for the way in which they tended to work for their cause while I was there: aggressive totalitarian and intolerant. Calling a society LGB, LGBT etc, they actively discriminate based on sexual preference. Whether it's simply implied, or otherwise.

I'm not sure what you were saying RE: gay marriage. I'm all for it. But you can't expect gay catholic marriage until the catholic church decides homosexuality is ok. It'd be silly to think they'd just relent and say "ok, we don't agree with homosexuality, but we will marry them". They'll only change their ways through dialogue and their education. It's a religion: some bits are always going to be outlandish.

As for 'You'd rather people not get support, because at the end of the day, that's the kind of person you are, the kind of people homophobes tend to be, and the kind of person this "I'm not a homophobe, but I'm sick of LGBT types" almost always are.'

I think you extrapolated just slightly there. I also think you showed how closed minded you might be.
"at the end of the day, that's the kind of person you are".
It looks from that post as though you like to play judge and jury a little yourself.

Plenty people within the gay community also dislike the LGBT because of its hardline stance, mis-directed anger and so forth. I guess they must just be homophobic too.

I'm not sure I should even have bothered replying. There's no point in attempting discussion if the flat response is "your opinion is different to mine because you're a bigot".

My opinion's only different to yours because I'm not you.

Maybe the notion of actual sexual liberation is still a long way off.

[irishmonkey]

good post

[rebelicecreamman]

good post

x2.
Haro very angry.

[Haro]

Haro,
For the record, I don't have a problem with anybody's sexuality. I only have a problem with people's crusades.

I don't understand why you think repeating the same thing the other eejits have done(except the one or two that probably are outright homophobes in the more traditional sense) is a good idea.

I've worked at gay bars, I go clubbing in gay clubs, I have gay friends, gay role models, transgender role models, lesbian friends

Oh, the "Gay friends" line.

You have a problem with assertive gay people then. I still have every reason to hate you.

It sounds to me like you had a bad experience with an LGBT and are letting that colour your whole world view. Have you tried telling your gay friends from the gay bar you worked in the same shit you're telling me? That you don't think they should have such a support net, or vanguard for their rights?

This is why "Gay friends", even taken to the extreme of working in a gay bar, isn't an argument.

My reasons for disliking the LGBT were not because of the cause it worked for, but for the way in which they tended to work for their cause while I was there: aggressive totalitarian and intolerant. Calling a society LGB, LGBT etc, they actively discriminate based on sexual preference. Whether it's simply implied, or otherwise.

Bullshit, straight people can and have joined the LGBT. I've already stated this and the fact that you've ignored it shows you're just as pig headed as some old bigots.

As soon as there are no actual issues of discrimination or in general being gay in a straight world, then there will be no need for it. What you seem to want is for that support net to be taken apart so it alligns better with your simpleminded worldview.

No matter what, there are almost always vicious undertones to "I'm not a homophobe, but..." types.

That's why, quite frankly, I despise people like you.

I'm not sure what you were saying RE: gay marriage. I'm all for it. But you can't expect gay catholic marriage until the catholic church decides homosexuality is ok. It'd be silly to think they'd just relent and say "ok, we don't agree with homosexuality, but we will marry them". They'll only change their ways through dialogue and their education. It's a religion: some bits are always going to be outlandish.


That's way off base from what the thread is actually about - regardless of what they let their members do(Which is shite - it's not a private boys club, when they have much less of a hold over the whole country then it might be more like that, you are an apologist and nothing more) - it's about making rather patronising comments on things a chaplain should not be making comments about. Nobody forced him to make these remarks, or even to be a bigot to begin with. You do not have to be a bigot to be Christian.

As for 'You'd rather people not get support, because at the end of the day, that's the kind of person you are, the kind of people homophobes tend to be, and the kind of person this "I'm not a homophobe, but I'm sick of LGBT types" almost always are.'

Explain how I'm wrong?


Plenty people within the gay community also dislike the LGBT because of its hardline stance, mis-directed anger and so forth. I guess they must just be homophobic too.

Can you direct me towards these people? Within any group you'll get doormats and people that think they're being clever by ultimately going against their best interests. It doesn't prove anything.

I'm not sure I should even have bothered replying. There's no point in attempting discussion if the flat response is "your opinion is different to mine because you're a bigot".

I could very easily say that regardless of whether you're bigoted against gays - you're bigoted against LGBTs and strong willed gay people. You are ranting and raving about a group without showing any reasoning or evidence to back up what you're saying - the definition of irrational hatred.

Also, it's often used by right wing christian conservative groups as a "moderate" plain - "oh it's not that we hate gays, just the aggressive ones". It's picking off the people who can actually incite change, and you'd have to be a bit dim to think nobody uses this tactic. It's used commonly in politics, if you ridicule or make one group look bad, even members of the group might turn against it.

You want LGBTs not to exist. You've pointed out how their very existence is somehow discriminative. Therefore, as I stated and will state again, you want to take a way a support net for young homosexuals and means to secure future rights such as the gay marriage you claim to be okay with. Also, despite you coming down on me as if I'm being unreasonable and immature, you have failed to provide anything to back up your vendetta against LGBTs.

Either you haven't thought this through, or you're a jackass that's been sweet talked by social conservatives into a dumb viewpoint. If your worldview came to play, nobody would be there to fight for recognition of gay marriage, fight against discrimination, and provide support to young homosexuals. Many young people who do not recieve support commit suicide. This seems like an extreme example - but as I said, you have a problem with the existence of what is essentially a support group - so you're more or less putting a viewpoint you can't defend in the slightest before human life and happiness which is what support groups seek to secure.

This is why I have such a problem with this line of argument. I expect any group that would replace the LGBT in whatever insane alternative you have would be too extreme for you. Point is, Irish people don't like people who fight for things anymore.

[exileonpatrickstreet]

Perse is a pretty awful person, but I'd hardly think he's an example of your average gay. Most of them don't put on the "I'm gay but I'M ALSO A TOUGH GUY" shite.

you know, i was about to post in support of your views - regardless of how badly you put them across - until i read this

[Haro]

Oh well. I guess liking people with nasty tendancies is more important than the right thing.

[rebelicecreamman]

Haro
You do more damage to your cause with every word you write. Almost all the people you persist in insulting in this thread are in favour of gay rights and oppose the views expressed by the chaplain. Yet you alienate those who would support you. Best of luck converting those who actually are homophobic!

Stop being a numnuts and lose the anger.

[Cannabis]

''Oh, the "Gay friends" line.

You have a problem with assertive gay people then. I still have every reason to hate you.''

haros defo a bummer. Ignore him hes just angry we wont pack him full of fudge.

[strict66]

Er why do you care what the catholic think of ye. Its not like their opinion matters much anymore.

[Haro]

Haro
You do more damage to your cause with every word you write. Almost all the people you persist in insulting in this thread are in favour of gay rights and oppose the views expressed by the chaplain. Yet you alienate those who would support you. Best of luck converting those who actually are homophobic!

Stop being a numnuts and lose the anger.

You're an idiot. Being in favour of gay rights is pretty irrelevant if they also want to get rid of the one group that secures those rights. Therefore, you're part of the problem if you're acting like the people who want to get rid of their support net are the reasonable ones.

How can you really be pro-gay rights if you also conveniently think the very existence of an LGBT is discriminative?

It's just the "gay friends" shit. When it comes down to it, Irish people hate any kind of assertiveness. I'm the only person with a solid argument in the thread. It's not because OH LOL EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG, it's because nobody has put forward anything to back up their views. Why are LGBTs so awful? Why is it wrong for people to be on a "crusade"? Why is religion excuse to be a bigot?

I'm sure if it was worded less aggressively, there would be another excuse, or it would just be teased like most such posts are on PROC. If people wimp out of an argument they set a horrid tone for because it's too aggressive, they probably have no argument to begin with.

Troll posts like this -

Its a rule now that bumming men is good and your and evil bigot homophobe if you dont agree. Its the law.

And absurd posts like this -

I happen to think Ultimate Frisbee is wrong. Does this "intolerant" attitude mean I will end up with their club starting Facebook groups to call for my sacking?

I'm sure Kolakubes doesn't understand why that would be offensive, but it is. It's pretty much saying homophobia doesn't exist and implying anyone who thinks otherwise is a big moaner.

If people set a good tone for the argument providing comments that make some kind of sense instead of snarky one line replies, I wouldn't get aggressive to begin with. When you're arguing with people like this, no amount of being calm is going to take away the smugness.

[rebelicecreamman]

I give up. You'd fight with your shadow. Suggested reading: 'How to win Friends and Influence People'.

[strict66]

hysterical!

[frankeechops]

Lads, Who really gives a Shit? By continuing this discussion, we are only giving exposure to the Bigots views.

And also, people are coming on, giving out reams about how disgraceful it is and all, yet they haven't read the article in question.

The sooner this is left alone the better.

[frankeechops]

I've no problem with what the chaplain said. I'm pro-every sort of lifestyle, but the priesto is just fulfilling his job description: follow Vatican decrees.

Do you know what he said as a matter of interest?

[hans aus dtschl]

Haro, I'm not replying any more.

What it comes down to is, unless such time I state a sexual preference which patently is not straight (I'm sorry, but I am mostly attracted to women) you will view me as some sort of enemy.

Just because you're a minority bigot, doesnt make you any less of a bigot.

And just for the record, this is exactly the attitude I disagreed with, which existed within the LGBT during my time in college. Specifically the phrase "seeing stright couples together makes me feel sick" was the final straw for me.
Sexual liberation can't occur when these attitudes prevail on both sides.

Crusades like yours are wrong because they don't engage in dialogue. They're just totalitarian monologues. "My way is right because I can't be wrong". I assume you're around 19 or 20 and know everything about the world. When you get a little older your activism may be very useful for securing full equality and rights, but for now you're actually doing damage.

Another thing: catholicism IS a private boys club. Acknowledge that, and you'll go a long way. They protect child molestors and preach against many facets of modern science. LGBT don't have a monopoly stake in taking umbrage with church views. Far from it.

And as a final note, I've heard the "oh you've got gay friends, all homophobes say that" line a fucking MILLION times. I've got gay and transgender role models. People I aspire to be. People I admire. I also happen to have gay friends. Sometimes what looks like someone on your side, and sounds like someone on your side, but isn't EXACTLY in agreement with everything you think, is still on your side. But it looks to me like one of the only people on here (besides WUMs) with a genuine issue with sexual preferences is you.

When you see injustice, by all means fight against it, but come on, figure out who's with you and who's against you!


And thats the last I'm saying on the issue. You can continue to insult me personally if you like. But if you know anyone campaigning for gay rights successfully in the city, why not ask them personally what they think of the thread?

[Haro]

I give up. You'd fight with your shadow. Suggested reading: 'How to win Friends and Influence People'.

That's ridiculous, I'd say a person who wants to get rid of LGBTs complete is a sensible opponent for someone who is an advocate of gay rights(and not the I HAVE GAY FRIENDS kind).

Haro, I'm not replying any more.

What it comes down to is, unless such time I state a sexual preference which patently is not straight (I'm sorry, but I am mostly attracted to women) you will view me as some sort of enemy.

That's not really the point. I dislike people who write off bigoted views as acceptable because of an excuse like religion(which is debatedly the problem to begin with). That is why I view you as an enemy. I don't like apologists and the typical Irish attitude that hates people who stand up for anything. I'm pretty sure I've said this but I don't think you can hear me over the sound of your own voice.

Another thing: catholicism IS a private boys club. Acknowledge that, and you'll go a long way. They protect child molestors and preach against many facets of modern science. LGBT don't have a monopoly stake in taking umbrage with church views. Far from it.

So let's excuse a bunch of child molesters to also be bigoted about gays and not make any further character judgements? Nice.

Catholicism is the official religion of Ireland. Even though we don't have a panel of priests on the Late Late anymore, the Catholic attitude is still heavily ingrained in Irish culture and is undoubtedly respnsonsible for a lot of the backwater right wing viewpoints Irish people hold. When he speaks for catholicism, he speaks for most of the Irish public who've been brought up into it without much of a choice.

It's not Scientology or some shit like that. He actually has influence over a surprising amount of people. This has an overall negative effect. This is a bad thing.

Just because you're a minority bigot, doesnt make you any less of a bigot.


Oh, the classic I'm not a bigot, YOU'RE the bigot card. Again, sign of a weak argument. What am I being bigotted against exactly?

And just for the record, this is exactly the attitude I disagreed with, which existed within the LGBT during my time in college. Specifically the phrase "seeing stright couples together makes me feel sick" was the final straw for me.

I've never encountered any LGBT group that was like this. However I presume as with anything, there are bad apples. The fact that you let this colour

I also had a pretty bad experience with an LGBT once, actually it was pretty horrid. But I was sensible enough to connect with other groups and realise it was just one shitty bunch.

Obviously, you are not able to do the same.

Crusades like yours are wrong because they don't engage in dialogue. They're just totalitarian monologues. "My way is right because I can't be wrong".

No, my way is probably right because you haven't provided any evidence to show your way is.

Obviously, you are a person who either doesn't understand what an argument is or doesn't care. You can have an aggressive argument and still have it be logically sound. Your isn't, and that's the problem.

And quite frankly it's beyond pathetic that you're still sticking to the YOU JUST HATE ME BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH YOU attitude.

Quite frankly that's as good a reason as any to hate somoone.

When you see injustice, by all means fight against it, but come on, figure out who's with you and who's against you!

I don't think you understand that I consider enablers, apologists the problem too.

I've even had this argument with actual gay people(Though they are, of course, in a rare minority). I don't see why I should go easy on you.

And as a final note, I've heard the "oh you've got gay friends, all homophobes say that" line a fucking MILLION times. I've got gay and transgender role models. People I aspire to be. People I admire. I also happen to have gay friends. Sometimes what looks like someone on your side, and sounds like someone on your side, but isn't EXACTLY in agreement with everything you think, is still on your side. But it looks to me like one of the only people on here (besides WUMs) with a genuine issue with sexual preferences is you.

None of this changes the fact, that again, you still want to get rid of LGBTs thus making it more difficult for your friends and role models. You missed the point of my argument. You picked up on the "ALL HOMOPHOBES SAY THAT" but missed that I was actually making a good point - how would your gay friends(apart from the few nutty ones who probably agree with you) feel about you thinking the very existence of LGBT organisations is discrimination? You never answered this. And it was, you know, my whole point.

I don't think you're listening, at all. I think you picked up on me insulting you and left it at that. If I hadn't insulted you, you would have been just as arrogant in a different fashion.

You want to get rid of all LGBTs. Of course I'm going to want to fight against you. Just because you're not Fred Phelps, again, doesn't mean you're still not a problem. The world is not that linear.

And thats the last I'm saying on the issue. You can continue to insult me personally if you like. But if you know anyone campaigning for gay rights successfully in the city, why not ask them personally what they think of the thread?

PROC is pretty biased towards the right as are the general Irish public. If I showed this towards, while they might not approve of how much I fly off the handle, I'd hardly think they take your comments regarding their existence well.

But again, you're not listening to me. Maybe it was a bad idea to be so insulting to begin with, but in my experience reasoning with people like you is impossible - because you're so convinced you're on the tolerant side, nothing can convince you that you're part of the problem. This is probably what you think of me, but that's because you haven't really thought things through.

I honestly don't understand how a supposedly pro-gay rights person can think "Sure it's his beliefs" is an excuse for someone to mouth off about gay people. Since when is religion or "it's my beliefs" an excuse? Isn't that what's almost always used to justify homophobia? So we should never have a problem with homophobia?

Apparently you can't be a "real" pro-gay rights person unless you have absolutely zero problem with people who are a threat to them. This is horrible reasoning. I don't go around beating people up because they say stupid things about gay people, but you're far and out at the other extreme, which is just as dangerous. There is such a thing as being "assertive", but you're unable to even draw a middle line between my posts and yours.

[livedadream]

Haro I see your point (its drowned in anger and insults) but there is one there,

however I want to make something clear,

alot of commentary has taken place here and feelings have been hurt but in a situation like this you have to look at the other peoples perspectives...

(firstly this is my opinion and simply something I experienced I am sure that you may not have but I am simply opening up a different side of the argument: while I do not agree with what the UCC Chaplin said I do understand that these are his beliefs and not something new, he simply stated what he has been taught and what he is allowed to say as a REPRESENTATIVE of the Church, tolerance is what you lack here, everyone is entitled to an opinion, his belief is that the physical act of homosexuality is a sin which is Vatican decree, this is a fact.)

Bigotry is a stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own, it appears that from this discussion that there is only one bigot here, you, I do not say this to insult you but simply to advise that while you hold strong and passionate opinions you must be willing to accept others, you do not have to agree with them but you do have to listen, you cannot simply respond to people who do not agree with you stating they are Bigots.

My example is simple and I hope not confusing:

I was on my uni's societies board and a number of students (LGBT and others) came to us and stated that they wished the society did not exist for a number of reasons, Many stated that the need to have a society that represents the minority only pointed out the difference (between gay and straight), that surly everyone is equal so why is there a need for a society to say Hey Look We're Equal (an attitude along the lines of well we don't treat you differently so why are you telling us your the same).

Situations like Gay Pride and other events like it are great dont get me wrong but the point being made by these students were that Straight people dont have a parade declaring their pride in being straight, have a parade showing your Pride for being Gay makes people think "why do they need a parade why do they need to show their pride are there people who arnt proud of being gay and if so why is it something to be ashamed of?"

"One thing I learned a long time ago is that gay people are everywhere. They come in all different shapes and colors and sizes. Gay transcends religion, race, nationality, you name it and there is a gay person doing it." You got your GAA players and your Politicians. You got your gay atheists or agnostics to everything from wiccans to muslims and everything in between. Pick a category and there you'll find gay people.

That being said, most people are smart enough to know that not every gay person on the planet is as flamboyant as Adam Lambert or the queen on the back of the float in a parade sitting on a giant fiberglass penile chaise.

However, and this is important, the only way you can truly ensure your rights and freedom is to support the rights and freedom of those with whom you have nothing in common. Voltaire stated (and this is not a quote but I think vaguely what he said) I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Put simply telling people we're not different only points out that you might be. People are simple a spade a spade, tell someone your not different and the human condition states we'll go ok I didn't think you were but may since you told you your not that your preempting me thinking you are, what are you trying to hide?

A number of my friends gay and straight black and white believe that equality will only occur when people stop asking for it and simply action it.

Equality has to come from both sides with straight people accepting that Gay couples have the same rights are Straight couples, but Gay couple have to accept that people fear what they do not know, and must educate not hate.

If you believe someone to be intolerant, speak to them like a human being and educate them dont say oh your a Bigot you hate gays that simply makes people defensive.

If it's your belief that Gay people are the same as everyone else then you must accept that some people may disagree based on any reason and you have to accept that.

Live and learn and educate.

[Haro]

If it's your belief that Gay people are the same as everyone else then you must accept that some people may disagree based on any reason and you have to accept that.

I don't think I do, sorry. I accept beliefs and opinions that are actual beliefs and opinions that are based in some kind of rationality. I don't think it's fair to call GAYS IS IMMORAL an opinion on the same level as one that is actually research and you know, is worth a fuck. You won't see me bothering with those much on here - I have those arguments with friends, and they're usually good discussions.

A number of my friends gay and straight black and white believe that equality will only occur when people stop asking for it and simply action it.

I honestly think that's incorrect. Have you ever heard of the saying that rights are not given, but earned? I suppose you could spin that around to fit your definition, but how exactly do you "action" it? I think you're falling into the right wing trap of "Do nothing and we'll be more tolerant." This is almost NEVER the case, it's just easier for them because let's face it, people don't like change. It's a headache for them to deal with their ideas being constantly challenged.

Remember, Ireland is an immensely apathetic nation, I don't know how much I can stress this. The attitudes you get from people here are not universal attitudes and certainly not "The right" attitude. Sometimes to get things done you just have to keep shouting at people.

[hans aus dtschl]

And sometimes to get things done, you only need to ask politely.

[exileonpatrickstreet]

... Sometimes to get things done you just have to keep shouting at people.

how's that worked out for you? in this thread, for example?

[frankeechops]

how's that worked out for you? in this thread, for example?

Repped like a mo fo

[rebelicecreamman]

Uh-oh.
Stand by for torrent of abuse.

[frankeechops]

Uh-oh.
Stand by for torrent of abuse.

But it okay icey, Were all so idiotic we'll be able to take it.

[Haro]

how's that worked out for you? in this thread, for example?

Given very few of you were all that reasonable to begin with I don't see how not shouting would have achieved anything either. The most I would have done was gotten a vague post of support from you, but since you're a smartass anyway I won't lose any sleep over it.

Uh-oh.
Stand by for torrent of abuse.

But it okay icey, Were all so idiotic we'll be able to take it.

Honestly smarmy comments like this are the worst. Making aggressive comments are just a sign of aggressive, being a smarmy git is nothing less than being a sign of a smarmy git. That really helps towards how you tell if someone is genuinely mean spirited.

None of you made any good arguments, but when someone "pwns" me you jump back on top of me as if you'd said anything useful, at all, in this thread.

Again, I had some reasons for saying what I said. You couldn't provide any. That's what it does and should come down to at the end of the day.

[frankeechops]

None of you made any good arguments, but when someone "pwns" me you jump back on top of me as if you'd said anything useful, at all, in this thread.



Your in the wrong place brother if you think any one is trying to pwn you. Most people just think the best way to deal with this is to ignore the little biggot instead of spreading what he said further. Unlike you, who obviously feels the need to some righteous indignation, Like some other groups I can think of.

Now kindly fuck off with your soap box.

I await your unnecessarily long winded reply with bated breath.

[livedadream]

I don't think I do, sorry. I accept beliefs and opinions that are actual beliefs and opinions that are based in some kind of rationality.

But do you? the rational is that the Bible says:
"Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"

Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

The Bible has stated that it is and indecent act and a destestable act. This is where Christians get there rational from their beliefs and opinions.

It is not being gay that the Church teaches is a sin but the act of homosexuality (the sex to be a bit blatent.) the same by the way as having sex before marriage etc all sins. He's not just picking on the Gays.


Have you ever heard of the saying that rights are not given, but earned?""


I think your confusing that with respect, not rights.

Your rights are as people are so aware about now adays are and always have been the same as everybody elses

Equality before the law
The right to life
The right to trial by jury
The right to bodily integrity
Freedom to travel
Personal liberty
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly
Freedom of association
Religious liberty
The rights of the family
Property rights
The right to earn a livelihood
Inviolability of dwelling
The right to fair procedures
The right to privacy


The coloured ones by the way are the ones your complaining about someone else expressing.

You state that Ireland is an apatheic nation that "The attitudes you get from people here are not universal attitudes and certainly not "The right" attitude. Sometimes to get things done you just have to keep shouting at people."
Maybe people dont listen anymore because firstly you shout and secondly you dont listen to them when they talk like for instance my last post that you totaly ignore the parts that you didnt like or that disproved your argument?

Just a thought but I dont think that Ireland is an apatheic nation think of what happens when the Irish get annoyed about something:

21 Feb 2009 ... Over 120000 march on Dublin in protest of Irish economy ...

21 Feb 2009 ... Protests against public sector cutbacks gathered nearly 100000 people in Dublin

Wednesday, 22 October 2008 Up to 15,000 people protested outside Leinster House against changes to the medical card scheme.

5 Feb 2009 ... 15000 people in third-level fees protest in Dublin

"It's a headache for them to deal with their ideas being constantly challenged."

Maybe its a headache because you keep shouting?

Remember life can either be accepted or changed. If it is not accepted, it must be changed. If it cannot be changed, then it must be accepted.”

[exileonpatrickstreet]

Given very few of you were all that reasonable to begin with I don't see how not shouting would have achieved anything either. The most I would have done was gotten a vague post of support from you, but since you're a smartass anyway I won't lose any sleep over it ...

yeah, that's what i thought, kitty rose. you've never changed anyone's opinion for the better with your self-righteous style. you only do it to feed your ego.

you don't better the cause you claim to champion. in fact, you damage it by getting the backs up of people who could be converted by a more reasonable style. and what's more, you know that this is the case. in your self-absorbtion, you actually damage the lives of gay people, and you do it willfully.

i've done far more to better the lives of gay people than you ever will.

[livedadream]

here here.

[exileonpatrickstreet]

i don't really want reppage or 'hear hear's for this. kittie rose is a damaged individual who seriously needs anger counselling at the very least. i think the best thing we could do for him is just leave well alone from here on in

[DogTheLangerHunter]

i don't really want reppage or 'hear hear's for this. kittie rose is a damaged individual who seriously needs anger counselling at the very least. i think the best thing we could do for him is just leave well alone from here on in

Not meant as reppage, but this will bring forth a 9 page rant from the man himself.

[Corcaigh32]

Haro - a genuine question which you are under no obligation to answer - are you Irish?

[Alz Ferguson]

This thread is evil

[Haro]

But do you? the rational is that the Bible says:
"Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"

Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

The Bible has stated that it is and indecent act and a destestable act. This is where Christians get there rational from their beliefs and opinions.


The Bible does not mention the word "Homosexual". The word did not exist at that time. Later revisions done by conservatively minded people, sure. But it's pretty detestable you'd use that to back up your case.

You don't seem to understand that just because it says something, doesn't make it rational. If you're told something pretty hideous and you accept it without questioning it, then you are at fault.

[livedadream]

Haro your actually hilarious...
your rebuttal begins with "the bible doesn't mention the word homosexual because the word didn't exist at the time"
fair enough but emm you weren't there I defo wasn't there back in good old biblical days so I cant comment im just quoting the Bible (a little known book...)
And i never said that people have not questioned it (the Bible) I simply stated that they are their beliefs, and by the way you only picked on of the quotes I listed, what about the other two? (selective reading perhaps?)
you also flat out ignore my statement about the constitutional rights you are complaining about other people exerting and your comments about apathetic Ireland being disproved.
Face it Haro, your wrong and you know you are but are fighting because you have nothing better to do with your life... go out get a hobby and make an effort to get the chip removed from your shoulder... Seriously (im not trying to be mean) bitterness is actually bad for you...
Everyone here gave you a chance and listened to what you have to say but you wont listen to what anyone else is saying.
To actually have a discussion with someone, you have to listen....

[Raccoon_face]

I know people in the chaplaincy in UCC and the Catholic chaplain in particular is one of the nicest, most down to earth man you could meet. The chaplaincy is very gay friendly and open and liberal - this particular staff member (who only works a few hours a week there) cannot be thought of as representative.

Also - while the chaplaincy would have some responsibility for dealing with students' mental health issues, the primary responsibility for that lies with the counselling service. And they are excellent.

[Edmund Blackwater]

ghey thread

[Haro]

Haro your actually hilarious...
your rebuttal begins with "the bible doesn't mention the word homosexual because the word didn't exist at the time"
fair enough but emm you weren't there I defo wasn't there back in good old biblical days so I cant comment im just quoting the Bible (a little known book...)

You're quoting a modern revision of the Bible. I can't believe you're calling me hilarious when you're using a version of the Bible that had the word "Homosexual" shoe-horned in to bolster your argument.

And i never said that people have not questioned it (the Bible) I simply stated that they are their beliefs, and by the way you only picked on of the quotes I listed, what about the other two? (selective reading perhaps?)

What does it matter if "It's their beliefs"? Catholicism is not a "Personal" belief for the majority of people in this country. Otherwise, you would see a more random distribution of religions, rather than one being so dominant.

Why is declaring something a belief a way to make it unquestionable anyway? If someone goes around killing people, they probably believe that in certain circumstances, killing is alright for them. Does that mean that people shouldn't tell him otherwise? Homophobia may be a lot less extreme, but it's still harmful and in some cases can lead to death. The kind of people that do that might not be the same people issuing these statements, but they use them as justification.

21 Feb 2009 ... Over 120000 march on Dublin in protest of Irish economy ...

21 Feb 2009 ... Protests against public sector cutbacks gathered nearly 100000 people in Dublin

Wednesday, 22 October 2008 Up to 15,000 people protested outside Leinster House against changes to the medical card scheme.

5 Feb 2009 ... 15000 people in third-level fees protest in Dublin

Yeah, and are people still out on the streets protesting these things? If people aren't apathetic, why did they vote the same eejits in again anyway? Turning up for a couple of protests is one thing. Actually sustaining the effort and trying to make a difference another.

Also, you didn't prove anything about "rights". You only listed a set definition, idea of rights without logically defending any of them. How is that an argument? You're accusing me of being against freedom of expression, yet you want me to shut up about this guy. Hypocrite.

Nobody can have unlimited freedom, it's ridiculous. It's about gaining the optimum set of rights, something you'd never understand since you can't construct an argument. Gay people are deneid - Equality before the law, The rights of the family, Freedom of expression precisely because people like that say these sorts of things.





Face it Haro, your wrong and you know you are but are fighting because you have nothing better to do with your life...

How am I wrong? You've done nothing to prove you're case. The people in this thread, including you, are acting like I'm a joke while also acting like homophobia doesn't exist in that country. That's just insane. Just beacuse you're a majority here doesn't mean you're not unbelievable pricks. But since this is a minority issue anyway, that should be obvious.

[Haro]

I know people in the chaplaincy in UCC and the Catholic chaplain in particular is one of the nicest, most down to earth man you could meet. The chaplaincy is very gay friendly and open and liberal - this particular staff member (who only works a few hours a week there) cannot be thought of as representative.

Also - while the chaplaincy would have some responsibility for dealing with students' mental health issues, the primary responsibility for that lies with the counselling service. And they are excellent.

They shouldn't be employing this person then. If students rely on a service like the chaplaincy, and they meet this fella, just imagine what could happen.

That's why things are livedadream's unbelievably fucking simple mind seems to think they are - that's what someone's "right to expression" can result in.

[exileonpatrickstreet]

haro, i ruve you, won't you terr me your name
haro, i ruve you, ret me jump in your game

hzM71scYw0M

[irishmonkey]

They shouldn't be employing this person then. If students rely on a service like the chaplaincy, and they meet this fella, just imagine what could happen.

That's why things are livedadream's unbelievably fucking simple mind seems to think they are - that's what someone's "right to expression" can result in.

so they should employ a chaplin that doesnt follow the bible.
haro your logic is amazing.
its there religion they are not harming anyone. they are letting them have there service etc.
what do you want - shut down all the churches that follow the bible?
should we flog them for following there religion.
or just ban all religion?

he just stated his beliefs - he has a right to. everyone has a right to.
he did not descrimanate against them
they have there service
they are allowed into the church
they are allowed partispate in services

what exactly is your issue?

[Haro]

so they should employ a chaplin that doesnt follow the bible.
haro your logic is amazing.

That's complete shit. Not every Christian, not every Catholic believes that being gay is wrong. What happens if someone is Catholic and gay, in the scenario I implied? What if they need some help reconciling this fact with their religion? My best friend during college was gay, and catholic. It was not an easy place to be in.

Instead of showing some kind of tolerance, they'd be either chewed up and spat out patronised and left to fend for themselves, or given support to "change" themselves.

That is shit. It doesn't matter if people believe otherwise - being gay is perfectly natural and not something that can be changed. If they believe otherwise, then they're wrong. Not because "it's my opinion" but because it is a fact accepted by just about every psychiatric association that's worth mentioning. You are defending people who run from reality, and push their illusions onto others. I'm not even talking about the "Spirituality" side, which has nothing to do with it. Having an opinion that conflicts with reality is wrong, especially in this manner since gay people simply cannot change their horrible ways and be "happier", no matter how much " right" they have to that opinion. They are free to express that fact but when they do so in a sensitive position, that is a different matter.

You cannot have psychologist specialising in issues related to sexuality, who is also a homophobe and says this sort of thing. Would that be discrimination? And given the amount of population that is catholic, and the fact that no matter how catholic they are, some are going to be gay - some(as many as 1 in 10) are going to avail of the Chaplaincy service while suffering from such issues.

The fact is you don't give a shit about the actual people here, because your train of thought is without love. You and everyone else are just obsessed with putting my argument down instead of having any of your own.

its there religion they are not harming anyone. they are letting them have there service etc.

But it's not "Their" religion. Not everyone labeled a "Christian" or even a "Catholic" has the same beliefs - it is the culutral default, so people will always tend towards labelling themselves this, and attempting to conform to it's protocol.

This line of thought is harmful because it is trying to goad them into being heterosexuals, which doesn't work. So much damage is done to people trying to be something they're not. It is not just how he holds the belief - it's how he's using it. There's more than enough pressure on people on this country to be normal. He is trying to encourage them to take a path, which, according to actual research done on the matter, does not work. You cannot "cure" a gay person, and they most certainly will not be more fulfilled lying to themselves for the sake of one misinterpretation of a 2000 year old text.

People need to stop justifying these things with "religion". Yet you seem to think people should be able to get away with more because it's "their beliefs".

You do not care about the individual. Like a typical conservatively minded person, you only care about the group which pushes it's beliefs on others - not the rights of the actual individual.


what do you want - shut down all the churches that follow the bible?

Yeah, because wanting college officials to not talk shit about things they don't understand is the same as shutting down Churches. Real smooth moves there. Also what about all the churches that follow the bible in a different way? Do they not even deserve their existence to be recognised?

Again - you only care about the pushy, arrogant mainstream. You do not care for the individual cases.

should we flog them for following there religion.
or just ban all religion?

See above.

he just stated his beliefs - he has a right to. everyone has a right to.

He stated his beliefs as a member of the Chaplaincy, which is in turn a part of the college, and thus reflects on the college as a whole. If he'd said that black people are immoral niggers, would you be defending his right to state his beliefs as a member . It's only because homophobia is somewhat acceptable that you can act like a total fuckwit about this.

he did not descrimanate against them

Yes, he did. He stated that as long as they are engaging in any homosexual behaviour, they will not achieve a true happiness. In his mind, hetereosexuals can achieve that, and not only does he believe it he wishes to rope others into it by commenting on it in the way he did.

It is discrimination because it is putting down an entire group of people and the way in which they love a human being. Why do you care more about a doddering foggy of a religion than love? This is what I don't understand.

And dear god please put some effort into your spelling if you're going to join in on this.

they have there service
they are allowed into the church
they are allowed partispate in services

But according to him recieve no benefit from doing so. He is taking advantage of this situation to try and "convert" gay people which is sickening.

what exactly is your issue?

I think you know exactly what my issue is. At the end of the day, I am doing nothing but expressing my disgust that this can happen. I haven't even said that I want anyone silenced or removed(though I do not think such a person should be associated with the college, and a service that essentially mounts to a counselling service).

You think you're being some vanguard for freedom of speech here. Because of the I don't agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend your right to say it school of thought. People like to think themselves of being little heroes for upholding this "difficult" recourse. But there's nothing difficult about it, since it's not paying attention to what is actually appropriate, what hurts people and what doesn't.

Ironically, you are just as much trying to encroach on my freedom of speech by coming down like a rain of bricks on me for expressing an opinion. This shows the inherent flaws in moral relativism and unrestricted free speech. Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of what religion actually is and how people inherit it, a failure to recognise the idea that some things can actually be facts supported by evidence - not just opinions, and a lack of care for the individual over the collective.

[Henry Hill]

Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of what religion actually is


Not everyone labeled a "Christian" or even a "Catholic" has the same beliefs

The misunderstanding is on your part
If you are christian and you don't believe in what is being preached from the bible, theres an easy solution, stop being a christian. Not every Christian has the same beliefs with all the different denominations but every true catholic does. Most people who claim to be Catholic do not live according to catholic teaching. If you follow a religon your supposed to believe in it hook, line and sinker. The moral teaching of a religon are not optional if you are a true believer. Your problem is with the mans religon.

And see how everyone else communicates without resorting to insults, they just weaken your agruement


You cannot "cure" a gay person, and they most certainly will not be more fulfilled lying to themselves for the sake of one misinterpretation of a 2000 year old text.

As has been proved to you already in the thread, the bible is clear in that homosexuality is wrong and I'm an atheist so I have no vested interests

[Haro]

If you are christian and you don't believe in what is being preached from the bible, theres an easy solution, stop being a christian. Not every Christian has the same beliefs with all the different denominations but every true catholic does. Most people who claim to be Catholic do not live according to catholic teaching. If you follow a religon your supposed to believe in it hook, line and sinker. The moral teaching of a religon are not optional if you are a true believer. Your problem is with the mans religon.

I like how you're "supposed" to follow the rules of your religion, but not "supposed" to actually pay attention to reality in terms of what makes gay people happy, amongst other things? That's what I really hate. It's not as if the rules of Christianity don't contradict themselves anyway - it teaches to be loving and tolerant, but giving the fact that gay people simply can't be "ungayed" and are made less happy by this attempt - how is making those kind of comments "Loving and tolerant"? The little things seem to be more important than the overall message.

What kind of fucked up ethics are these, honestly? This is what gets me.

And see how everyone else communicates without resorting to insults, they just weaken your agruement

The argument remains the same no matter how it's presented. Ever heard of style over substance fallacy? It might not be as convincing, but you're presuming people can be convinced.

As has been proved to you already in the thread, the bible is clear in that homosexuality is wrong and I'm an atheist so I have no vested interests

Maybe it's because you're an atheist that you're less likely to understand that some people can be catholic and gay, and it can be a nightmare? It's possible.

[Henry Hill]

Maybe it's because you're an atheist that you're less likely to understand that some people can be catholic and gay, and it can be a nightmare? It's possible.

I understand alright, my mom is a true believer and nothing could ever change that. If a religon is drilled into you as a child it can be hard to shake off even if you don't believe in the teachings. When children do their communion in Ireland, they still believe in santa claus. Its the whole idea behind religon, you generally have to be force fed it as a child to believe it.

it teaches to be loving and tolerant, but giving the fact that gay people simply can't be "ungayed" and are made less happy by this attempt - how is making those kind of comments "Loving and tolerant"? The little things seem to be more important than the overall message.


Through very selective reading. Jesus came into it in the new testament talking about turning the other cheek and the golden rule but the god of the new testament causes the genocide of non believers (as did Moses) and is more like hitler than the god you were taught about in primary school (if your Irish)

I know what you mean. I have a cousin who I'm pretty sure is gay ( I've never asked him just always presumed) and his mom would be a true believer so some of that shite has probably been pushed onto him.

[Haro]

Yeah, that's kind of my whole point really that got lost. It is very awkward when religion and sexuality mix, so the "I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT" where being massively insensitive(as per usual with PROC).

Being gay isn't an issue if it's just a matter of fact. When you're pressured to be a certain way and you really can't and shouldn't, it's bad. That's why these kind of comments are horrible - even if only dedicated catholics are listening, at least some will be gay, and come down even harder on themselves.

I don't understand why people can't see this.

[irishmonkey]

at the same time your being massively insensitive against a religion.
the chaplin in this case is not just stating his beliefs but also they are holding services FOR them etc.

he is just saying its a sin
condoms are also seen as sinful
etc etc.
Catholicism has lots of strange stuff in it.
but if thats the religion you choose to follow thats your choice.
and the chaplin has probably done more to help people both straight and gay than you ever will, so just leave him alone with his beliefs.

[Henry Hill]

at the same time your being massively insensitive against a religion.


If your in favour of freedom of speech you have to support the speech that is unpopular as popular speech does not need any support or protection. It is still taboo to criticise a religons beliefs or a religon in general. But what if the criticism is jusified? They've even brought out a new blasphemy law in this country. This being "offended" crap is bollock. Being gay isn't optional but practising a certain religon is, although you are generally signed up as a baby. As far as I'm concerned if you believe something you should be able to back it up with evidence and it should stand up to a logical agrument and not say "we must be tolerant/sensitive as these are people's beliefs" if the beliefs are wrong

[Corcaigh32]

OK HH - tell me how a belief is wrong?

Belief doesn't have to be based on fact - that is the nature of belief and faith.
That's the killer with the blasphemy legislation and the website trying to get the government to charge them. It misses the whole point.

Deliberately going out of your way to incite hatred by intentionally publishing or broadcasting something which attacks something which is held to be sacred by a religion, with the intent of offending substantial adherents of that religion is what will get them charged. That's not why they are publishing, they are publishing to get charged, so they will never be prosecuted.

Disagreeing with belief systems is one thing. That's perfectly reasonable. This is about tolerance. You don't find people who believe, in whatever religion, complaining about atheists in the same way that Dawkins supporters are forever complaining about theists. Tolerance is what this is about.

[Haro]

at the same time your being massively insensitive against a religion.

No, I'm not. A "religion" is not a human being with feelings. Nobody is truly going to get emotionally scarred by the FACT, not the opinion, that gay people cannot be "cured" by their religion. If they are, that's something they need to deal with instead of using religion as a shield to hold opinions that have been long since disproven.

the chaplin in this case is not just stating his beliefs but also they are holding services FOR them etc.

The Chaplaincy is - not him personally. Did you read the article? He said that they were "Crossing the line", meaning he probably wouldn't have allowed it personally. Obviously this just proves a further disconnect.

he is just saying its a sin
condoms are also seen as sinful
etc etc.
Catholicism has lots of strange stuff in it.
but if thats the religion you choose to follow thats your choice.

But people DON'T chose to follow most religions.

And he's not "just" saying it's a sin. Obviously, you're full of generic apologist responses.

After he rambled on about it being sinful, he said this.

"A Cork church is to have a LGTB carol service. I long for everyone, whatever their sexual orientation, to have a joyful and peaceful Christmas, but there can be no true joy or peace in actively practising and celebrating a lifestyle, which does not please God,"

In other words, he is pretty much telling gay people not to be gay, that they will never be truly happy being openly and contently gay. Which is bullshit, since trying to repress sexuality with religion does not work, and will make matters worse.

This is a harmful thing to say for religious homosexuals who are already undergoing a dilemna.

But of course you only care about a concept's feelings being hurt, not actual people.

If that's "Only what the bible says", then I'm sorry, the Bible is wrong, just as wrong as if it says the sun revolves around the earth. Also, the Bible doesn't say that to begin with. Only later revisions of the Bible include the word "Homosexual". Nothing pre 1900s does. It is shoe-horned in. I don't understand why there are some people dense enough not to understand that. If I decide to make a revision of the bible saying all gingers were little bolloxes, would that be right? No.

The Bible is not to be taken literally word for word. People that do take it like that are not just Christians but fundamentalistis and literalists. It seems that a good few of the atheist, agnostic and general non-christians in this thread don't understand this.

and the chaplin has probably done more to help people both straight and gay than you ever will, so just leave him alone with his beliefs.

I like this. I'm anti-free speech for speaking out against him, and should leave him alone with his beliefs. Whereas he can say what he wants, even where it blatantly contradicts reality and can be potentially harmful?

[irishmonkey]

i give up
you have basically not read anyones posts on this thread.
all im saying hes entitled to his beliefs.
gay people are entitled to be gay.
seems like a mountain out of a mole hill

for the laugh explane what is meant but
"a man lying with another man the way he would a woman"

and the bible wasn't written in english so it never did say homosexual fair point.
the Chaplin didnt say homosexual either( i don't think), but im beyond caring .

and my final point
purple, monkey, dishwasher

[Haro]

i give up
you have basically not read anyones posts on this thread.
all im saying hes entitled to his beliefs.
gay people are entitled to be gay.
seems like a mountain out of a mole hill

No, it isn't. You give up because you were unable to come up with a decent rebuttal.

His "beliefs" are based on incorrect assumptions, and things which any psychiatric institution this side of NARTH will tell you is wrong.

You certainly don't seem to think I'm entitled to take offense at his beliefs, making the whole free speech thing bullshit. Apparently Free Speech is only for bigots.

for the laugh explane what is meant but
"a man lying with another man the way he would a woman"

That could mean almost anything, such as treating a man in a homosexual relationship as a woman rather than another man. That's an equally valid interpretation. It also doesn't explain where the prejudice against lesbians and transgenders comes from. Why would it beat around the bush?

You're also aware Leviticus also tells us not to wear cotton-polyester mixes? Which means we should be wearing most of the underwear we wear? If you have one, and not the other - that means you're picking and chosing, meaning he CHOOSES his views on homosexuality, and thus can be held accountable.

[Henry Hill]

Why anyone would take anything said in the bible seriously is beyond me. Watch a documentary on it if you have to. No one believes in the greek and roman gods and if you did you'd be branded a lunatic so why is the bible any different?

[Haro]

To be fair I understand sort of why people believe in things - real life can be horridly boring and there is always the hopeful spirit there is something fantastical out there. I find it hard not to be like that myself sometimes. If belief is kept to that kind of hope, I think it's fine.

But I can't see why in God's name you'd WANT to believe in Catholicism. It seems like the anti-thesis of anything wondrous or "spiritual".

The idea that this kind of belief though should be in any way protected when used to justify utter bullshit like irishmonkey seems to want is definitely insane, though.

[cletusclark]

A socially conservative Presbyterian minister?!?!

Shocking stuff...the world's gone mad....

[Corcaigh32]

You do understand the concept of religion, faith and belief. You do understand that it's a personal and voluntary thing. You understand that it is up to the individual to carry those beliefs and faith in their hearts or the whole thing falls flat on its face i.e. the Catholic faith is not the Pope, the Bible, the Honan Chapel or the Bishops but is the faith that catholics have in their religion. You might say the immaculate conception is a load of b*ll*cks because it's impossible, because it is a metaphor, because the idea is taken from Roman theology - that doesn't matter. All that matters is that people have faith in the immaculate conception and what that means to them. If you really think that people living in the 21st century are living on every word that emanates from the sermons at Mass and haven't evolved a very personal faith and relationship with their God, be it in that instance a Catholic one, or maybe a Protestant, Muslim or Zaro-Astrian God then you have missed the point of having faith in the first place.

[Haro]

You do understand that it's a personal and voluntary thing.

It's not. This is where you're absolutely wrong and perhaps delusional.

If it was voluntary, you wouldn't get a majority of Catholics in Ireland, a majority of Hindus/Sikhs/Buddhists in India, a majority of Protestants in the US, etc.

It's a statistical fact. Obviously, you didn't do enough probability in school, or don't understand what "voluntary" means. Just because a gun isn't held to your head doesn't mean it's an active choice.

[Corcaigh32]

Hmmm so you genuinely believe that real faith, real religious belief and faith is imposed on people and the faith they have in their hearts they can't shed even if they want to?

Make a distinction between what people are born into and grow up with and are used to - in the same way as for example going to the St. Patrick's Day Parade - and true and real and meaningful personal faith. I don't think you can. I am far from delusional and as a matter of fact, I am beginning to think I am discussing a concept of faith and religion at a level you haven't thought about yet, which is fair enough.

You still seem to think of religion and faith as the constructs of formal institutionalised doctrines, be they catholic, protestant, buddhist, sikh, muslim, zaro-astrian or whatever. Your premise seems to be that such doctrines in and of themselves are fundamentally flawed because by their nature, they are founded with little or no basis on logic or fact. My point to you is the purpose that religion has or faith has in the lives of people, be it Catholic faith, Protestant faith, whatever faith it might be goes far beyond the doctrines or dogmas that the texts or scriptures of that particular faith subscribes to. Faith is what matters, belief is what matters - the act of faith is in and of itself something which cannot be based on fact or logic - that is the whole point. That is why the vast majority of people on the planet believe in one God (or many) or another. Now you will tell me it is to serve some psychological or emotional need that we have as humans to rationalise the world around us and our own mortality. Maybe it is. I choose to think otherwise. What makes you right and me wrong? I will tell you - a matter of faith.

[Haro]

Hmmm so you genuinely believe that real faith, real religious belief and faith is imposed on people and the faith they have in their hearts they can't shed even if they want to?

It's not what I believe! It's a statistical impossibility. Why can't you understand that? If Faith was a "Personal choice" you would see more random distribution where multiple faiths or lack there of are open, yet we still see enormous clumping together.

You're not listening, at all.

I am far from delusional and as a matter of fact, I am beginning to think I am discussing a concept of faith and religion at a level you haven't thought about yet, which is fair enough.

Don't pull this bullshit on me. Either you can't understand the concept of statistics, probability, or choice itself. If it was a true and meaningful personal faith, it wouldn't so happen to bear at least some similarities to the mainstream religion. Don't make me out to be the one who "doesn't understand" when you can't understand that a choice half the country makes others don't is down to some other kind of bias factor.

If what you say is true, why aren't there more churches of other religions around? You will not get the same amount of buddhist temples as you will catholic churches in ireland, nor even a comparable number. If faith was truly a personal and intimate thing people would not so easily lump themselves in with the mainstream.

Ironically I probably understand the idea of "spirituality" a lot deeper than you do.

This is EXACTLY how a belief can be wrong - if it obnoxiously clashes with any notion of reality, like your idea of personal choice does.

[The Black Knight]

To be fair I understand sort of why people believe in things - real life can be horridly boring and there is always the hopeful spirit there is something fantastical out there. I find it hard not to be like that myself sometimes. If belief is kept to that kind of hope, I think it's fine.

But I can't see why in God's name you'd WANT to believe in Catholicism. It seems like the anti-thesis of anything wondrous or "spiritual".

The idea that this kind of belief though should be in any way protected when used to justify utter bullshit like irishmonkey seems to want is definitely insane, though.

People can believe what they want to believe, regardless of whether you believe it to be bullshit or not. Truly what difference does it make to you what he said or what some other guy said? Who cares? If it offends you or someone else then it is because you allowed it to, and that’s an issue with yourself that have to deal with.

Does it affect your life? No. Does it affect you who are? No.

I think the whole point really is that a person’s belief should not have to be protected because a person should be able to believe whatever they want to believe.

Most of the Bible has been misinterpreted for thousands of years. Most Priests, Bishops and people that came before it don’t know the true meaning of some of the passages. Even the people that wrote them didn’t truly understand what they meant. There have, however, always been spiritual teachers and the likes that have understood them, but their true meaning has remained hidden, although people like Eckhart Tolle and others are finally beginning to spread the world to the rest of the world in a more successful fashion.

Liviticus uses the term “homosexuality” even though the term “homosexuality” wasn’t first coined until the 1850s. Liviticus also writes, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood”, which suggests that life doesn’t begin until the foetus is first infused with blood 19, I believe, days after conception, so, taken literally, in these 19 days it’s Ok to abort at any stage as life hasn’t begun yet? Disprove that one using the Bible!

Anyway, the true point that people like Eckhart Tolle bring forward now is that it is Ok for others to have their beliefs, as it doesn’t make a difference to you as a person, in other words, don’t become the judge. And thus irishmonkey is also entitled to have his opinion, even if it does seem like a load of rubbish to almost anyone else that reads it.

[Corcaigh32]

Again you and I hit the same problem - I specifically said to make a distinction between what people are born into and grow up with and are use to - yes I understand your point about how there are so many Catholics in Ireland and so many Muslims in Pakistan and so many Jews in Israel. I understand statistics and probability. I get that point your making. The point I was making is, belief and faith, irrespective of what religion or belief system (whichever you want to call it) is what matters and NOT the set of rules or scriptures or texts that the afore-mentioned religion subscribes to. Why? For the same reason that the vast majority of people on the planet are theists and not atheists.

The reality is that in the societies of the modern world children are brought up in the religion of their parents and then bring up their children in their religion which totally supports your probability and statistics point - no argument there.

My point is as long as people are believing and having faith that is all that matters. A point you conveniently ignored in my previous post so you could have a cut off me about my lack of understanding about statistics and probability and the rather obvious point that people will be born into the religions of their parents.

[Haro]

Anyway, the true point that people like Eckhart Tolle bring forward now is that it is Ok for others to have their beliefs, as it doesn’t make a difference to you as a person, in other words, don’t become the judge. And thus irishmonkey is also entitled to have his opinion, even if it does seem like a load of rubbish to almost anyone else that reads it.

If someone flies in the face of reality though - like the idea that gay people can be "cured" and live a more fulfilling life by well, not being gay, is false. It's something you can do actual studies into and it's being falsified.

People are protecting dangerous delusions.

The point I was making is, belief and faith, irrespective of what religion or belief system (whichever you want to call it) is what matters and NOT the set of rules or scriptures or texts that the afore-mentioned religion subscribes to. Why? For the same reason that the vast majority of people on the planet are theists and not atheists.

But most people ARE influenced by the religion of their culture. Their view of exactly what a God is differs - Buddhists do not have the same concept of "spirituality" as someone brought up in a Christian society. And many people still do take their viewpoints from Catholicism here, or else we'd probably have gay marriage already.

[irishmonkey]

Haro,
please dont imply that i think gay people can be cured etc.
personally as long as it doesn't evolve kids i don't give a flying fuck what people get up to in there bedroom.
gay people are entitled to be gay, and everyone is entitled to there beliefs.
even if those beliefs are about a guy that lives in a cloud that hates underpants and condoms.

thats all im saying, thats my only point.
they are 2 groups that just wont get on together.
please don't read into it anything other than that.

[Haro]

Haro,
please dont imply that i think gay people can be cured etc.
personally as long as it doesn't evolve kids i don't give a flying fuck what people get up to in there bedroom.
gay people are entitled to be gay, and everyone is entitled to there beliefs.
even if those beliefs are about a guy that lives in a cloud that hates underpants and condoms.

But if you read what he was saying, he obviously believes abstainance would make them happier, which is, again, something we can actually study, and something which is false. Defending beliefs, unlike the general existence of a god, we can actually PROVE WRONG makes you an apologist in the extreme.

[irishmonkey]

you wouldnt understand a point if someone stabbed you with one

[Haro]

You honestly don't understand a fucking thing. You're an unreasonable twat through and through and I'm done trying to explain things to you.

Things shouldn't be defended just because they're beliefs. Beliefs can be wrong. Not just unlikely like believing in a particular god, but proved wrong because all the fucking research done into it indicates otherwise.

[Henry Hill]

Things shouldn't be defended just because they're beliefs. Beliefs can be wrong. Not just unlikely like believing in a particular god, but proved wrong because all the fucking research done into it indicates otherwise.

I couldn't agree more.

Homosexuality was illegal in Ireland until the early 90's, divorce until the mid 90's, abortion is still illegal as is gay marriage, contraceptives were illegal until the 70's, and until the early 70's the constitution recognised the catholic church as the "one true church". This was all in line with catholic teaching. If something does not stand up to rigorous scientific examination then it is not true. Not believing in something is the default position.
Religon is not a private matter as every child has it forced upon them from junior infants onwards. If you are gay and are told by priests and teachers in your primary school that to act out your fantasies will result in you spending a eternity in hell suffering pain as it is a mortal sin then I believe its only fair to debunk these beliefs as being nonsense

[Henry Hill]

Hmmm so you genuinely believe that real faith, real religious belief and faith is imposed on people and the faith they have in their hearts they can't shed even if they want to?

I do. A child does not have the critical reasoning to understand that when their parents and teachers tell them something that it could be untrue. If a child reaches the age of reason with these strong held beliefs then in most cases these beliefs cannot be shed. I can say with 100% certainity Osama Bin Laden had his religious beliefs drilled into him as a child and will never become a freethinking atheist but will live his life according to religious dogma and superstition. Imagine if he was gay, imagine the personal torment he would suffer

[Corcaigh32]

HH - I agree with the first statement in your post. However, from their on I disagree - a classic case in point are the number of atheists on this thread who presumably, and I admit it is a presumption, grew up as Catholics per the first statement you made e.g. let's say for the sake of argument only - you were brought up a catholic but you obviously have shed that religion now.

After that as I said in post 109 above - "..the purpose that religion has or faith has in the lives of people, be it Catholic faith, Protestant faith, whatever faith it might be goes far beyond the doctrines or dogmas that the texts or scriptures of that particular faith subscribes to. Faith is what matters, belief is what matters - the act of faith is in and of itself something which cannot be based on fact or logic - that is the whole point. That is why the vast majority of people on the planet believe in one God (or many) or another. Now you will tell me it is to serve some psychological or emotional need that we have as humans to rationalise the world around us and our own mortality. Maybe it is. I choose to think otherwise."

[Henry Hill]

for the sake of argument only - you were brought up a catholic but you obviously have shed that religion now.

Thats true. I wouldn't describe myself as an atheist anywhere other than in a thread like this unless I was asked about religon but I just don't believe in it after reading up on the thing. I was religious to an extent growing up so maybe I'm proving a point you made in a way but if that indocrination as a child was a stronger I doubt I would have broken away.

As for the second point you made, I would believe in the alternative you gave to your beliefs.

[yavid yalls]

He is entitled to his opinion but after the Iris Robinson affair we may wonder what he's into himself. Everybody has something they wouldn't want to see on the front of the Echo.


The echo is just repeating something that was said earlier.

[Haro]

I couldn't agree more.

Homosexuality was illegal in Ireland until the early 90's, divorce until the mid 90's, abortion is still illegal as is gay marriage, contraceptives were illegal until the 70's, and until the early 70's the constitution recognised the catholic church as the "one true church". This was all in line with catholic teaching. If something does not stand up to rigorous scientific examination then it is not true. Not believing in something is the default position.
Religon is not a private matter as every child has it forced upon them from junior infants onwards. If you are gay and are told by priests and teachers in your primary school that to act out your fantasies will result in you spending a eternity in hell suffering pain as it is a mortal sin then I believe its only fair to debunk these beliefs as being nonsense

Exactly! How can this not be harmful to a child who turns out to be gay? Being gay wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for that. That's why I can't respect guys like Corcaigh.

[Haro]

I do. A child does not have the critical reasoning to understand that when their parents and teachers tell them something that it could be untrue. If a child reaches the age of reason with these strong held beliefs then in most cases these beliefs cannot be shed. I can say with 100% certainity Osama Bin Laden had his religious beliefs drilled into him as a child and will never become a freethinking atheist but will live his life according to religious dogma and superstition. Imagine if he was gay, imagine the personal torment he would suffer

Exactly. If people were able to chose as adults like apologists claim, then they'd actually do so, but we still see people sticking to the religion of their parents or of their culture.

When you raise a kid at an early age, it's like you're programming the operating system. Trying to get someone to switch to Linux later on is a balls since they have to find all new software.

Trying to change your worldview at a later age is like pulling the sheet from out of the table without disturbing the fine china on top. It's so difficult to do. You've built everything on top of the idea that the world is created by God and everything in it should please God and this isn't just a cup of coffee, it's Jesus's cup of coffee. You can't enjoy anything "For what it is" like that, in extreme cases. Because of that, when I look at a car and someone else looks at a car, they look at two totally different things.

It's good to have people with different beliefs and opinions, but taken to the extremes it so often is, it just means people end up living in different realities, and people like corcaigh and Irishmonkey defend their right to be trapped there and end up hurting others through a lack of understanding.

[Corcaigh32]

Yet again - you missed my points deliberately. But look fair enough. Any of the points I have made about belief in the last couple of pages CLEARLY states that belief and faith is what matters irrespective of the religion or doctrines or texts that might subscribe you to. Having faith is not the same as blindly following what you were thought as a child, what you grew up with etc - another point I made. Incidentally, when in any of the threads that I have posted with you have I said I couldn't respect you?

Read back what I said and tell me where I said anything other than that I wasn't a homophobe, I fully supported gay, lesbian, transgendered and bisexual relationships, rights and marriage and that the only place where you and I would have a problem would be in relation to gay adoption. Even there I said it was because I believed the ideal environment for a child to be brought up in was with a mom and a dad and not because gay parents couldn't necessarily be loving parents.

Don't imply that I am happy with anything that is harmful to children. Are we clear?

Edit - did you read HH's next post in reply to mine? Or are you going to conveniently ignore that too?

Edit 2 - and people like corcaigh and Irishmonkey defend their right to be trapped there and end up hurting others through a lack of understanding - I have done precisely the opposite.

[irishmonkey]

oh god.
right lads.
I'm not catholic. and if the catholic church is right ill be burning in the fires of hell with the rest of ye.

I just think if someone is doing something that makes them happy and its not harming anyone - let them off to do it
(haro before you start name one person in ireland straight or gay that does not know the catholic stance on homosexuality)

had the chaplin said the same thing about people that dont believe in god we wouldnt have a 13 page thread.
and if he had i would not be offened.

if a muslim cleric comes out and says Allah has brought the cold snap to ireland to punish us for our wicked ways - i dont really mind.

i would be very surprised if the gay comunity was hurt by someone telling them something they already know.

[Haro]

oh god.
right lads.
I'm not catholic. and if the catholic church is right ill be burning in the fires of hell with the rest of ye.

We didn't say you were Catholic. We said you were engaging in apologetics on their behalf. There's a big different.

i would be very surprised if the gay comunity was hurt by someone telling them something they already know.

You're ignoring everything that's been said over the last couple of pages as to precisely how this does hurt people.

[irishmonkey]

i did not apologies for it.

as for ignoring points
you missed the entire middle of my last post

[The Black Knight]

If someone flies in the face of reality though - like the idea that gay people can be "cured" and live a more fulfilling life by well, not being gay, is false. It's something you can do actual studies into and it's being falsified.

People are protecting dangerous delusions.


A belief in itself is not dangerous, it is only dangerous if someone chooses to act on it with physical violence to justify it. Or, as in your case, choose to ramble on about them and get angry, which is also dangerous.

Unfortunately, what you don't realise is that Bigotry is defined as "intolerance and prejudice", which is what you are towards this mans beliefs regardless of whether you believe them to be correct or not. You are only one person, and there are many out there that would agree with this man's beliefs. Who is to say you're right? Instead of not giving this guy air time, you've successfully made his point of view known to others so that they may consider it.

Tolerance and Acceptance is the key. If you tolerated and accepted this man, everyone would have forgotten about this incident by now.

[Henry Hill]

A belief in itself is not dangerous, it is only dangerous if someone chooses to act on it with physical violence to justify it. Or, as in your case, choose to ramble on about them and get angry, which is also dangerous.

Unfortunately, what you don't realise is that Bigotry is defined as "intolerance and prejudice", which is what you are towards this mans beliefs regardless of whether you believe them to be correct or not. You are only one person, and there are many out there that would agree with this man's beliefs. Who is to say you're right? Instead of not giving this guy air time, you've successfully made his point of view known to others so that they may consider it.

Tolerance and Acceptance is the key. If you tolerated and accepted this man, everyone would have forgotten about this incident by now.

I have a lot of intolerance for an awful lot of religous beliefs. Religons get treated with a respect and deferrance that is not given to anyone else. If you said you believed women shouldn't be allowed leave the house without a family member or her husband you would be branded a lunatic, if you said it was because of your religon you would get an entirely different reaction.

[strict66]

The church went from hounding homosexuals and burning them at the stake to preaching tired old polemics to empty churches.

I'd call that progress.

They are only relevant and validated if you make them so
(i.e. threads like this)

[The Black Knight]

I have a lot of intolerance for an awful lot of religous beliefs. Religons get treated with a respect and deferrance that is not given to anyone else. If you said you believed women shouldn't be allowed leave the house without a family member or her husband you would be branded a lunatic, if you said it was because of your religon you would get an entirely different reaction.

Well, unfortuately, while you don't realise it, people like you that are intolerant towards other religions are not the solution to the problem but the cause of it. The only reason religion creates trouble is because of peoples intolerance toward others beliefs.

[rebelicecreamman]

Ffs lads. All of this tolerance for the intolerance is gonna make Haro very angry.

[strict66]

I have a lot of intolerance for an awful lot of religous beliefs. Religons get treated with a respect and deferrance that is not given to anyone else. If you said you believed women shouldn't be allowed leave the house without a family member or her husband you would be branded a lunatic, if you said it was because of your religon you would get an entirely different reaction.

You wouldn't actually . Even religious people
(incl Muslims dont agree with that)

[Henry Hill]

You wouldn't actually . Even religious people
(incl Muslims dont agree with that)

That would be a strict intrepretion of sharia law as practised by the taliban while they controlled Afghanistan, also in saudi arabia (where women can't drive cars) and in parts of Africa such as Northern Nigeria where women are stoned for adultery. But you are right if you mean the majority of muslim in the west don't follow it this strictly

Well, unfortuately, while you don't realise it, people like you that are intolerant towards other religions are not the solution to the problem but the cause of it. The only reason religion creates trouble is because of peoples intolerance toward others beliefs.

If people were like me no one would believe in fairytale gods or at least not take it all so seriously this wouldn't happen

[Haro]

A belief in itself is not dangerous, it is only dangerous if someone chooses to act on it with physical violence to justify it.

Sorry, that's nonsense. It's been explained several times how a belief can be harmful, but unfortunately you're living in a lala land where everything without a knife or a shotgun exists in a vacuum.

Or, as in your case, choose to ramble on about them and get angry, which is also dangerous.

No it isn't.

Unfortunately, what you don't realise is that Bigotry is defined as "intolerance and prejudice", which is what you are towards this mans beliefs regardless of whether you believe them to be correct or not.

Yes; I am intolerant of homophobia. I'm also intolerant of people who think it's a good idea to go around punching people in the face for no reason. What's your point? There's being intolerant for the sake of a "belief", and there's being intolerant because something is harmful. And both Harry and I HAVE shown how a belief can be harmful, you're just having too much fun being ignorant.

Technically bigotry is more along the lines of saying one things and doing another. As is the case with Christian tolerance and christian homophobia.

You are only one person, and there are many out there that would agree with this man's beliefs. Who is to say you're right?

Um, several studies done into the matter? No, wait, actually, this really pisses me off. I'm going to ignore the rest of your post until you can deal with this.

You're just as destructive as this Chaplain. Why? Because like I said, there have been STUDIES done into this, and you want to force this absolute bullshit subjective reality on top of reality that already exists.

It's one think to make up fantasy to escape from harsh reality, it's another to make it replace nice reality and use it to presecute people.

IT IS NOT AN OPINION OR A BELIEF WITH REGARDS ABSTAINANCE OF THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE AND HOW HAPPY IT MAKES SOMEONE. THERE ARE STUDIES DONE INTO THIS. SO FAR NOBODY ARGUING YOUR CASE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ACCEPT THIS POSSIBILITY.

If you can, I'll find such studies for you. If you can't, quite frankly, fuck off, and stop trying to piss your anti-intellectual relativism over this thread.

[strict66]

That would be a strict intrepretion of sharia law as practised by the taliban while they controlled Afghanistan, also in saudi arabia (where women can't drive cars) and in parts of Africa such as Northern Nigeria where women are stoned for adultery. But you are right if you mean the majority of muslim in the west don't follow it this strictly






Not just the west . Turkey which is muslim country (mainly) has a fairly tolerant attitude to the said and certainly sharia law is anathema there.

But you know as well as me if there was no such thing as religion then these sorts would find some other outlet or excuse for their tyranny.

[strict66]

Sorry, that's nonsense. It's been explained several times how a belief can be harmful, but unfortunately you're living in a lala land where everything without a knife or a shotgun exists in a vacuum.



No it isn't.



Yes; I am intolerant of homophobia. I'm also intolerant of people who think it's a good idea to go around punching people in the face for no reason. What's your point? There's being intolerant for the sake of a "belief", and there's being intolerant because something is harmful. And both Harry and I HAVE shown how a belief can be harmful, you're just having too much fun being ignorant.

Technically bigotry is more along the lines of saying one things and doing another. As is the case with Christian tolerance and christian homophobia.

You are only one person, and there are many out there that would agree with this man's beliefs. Who is to say you're right?

Um, several studies done into the matter? No, wait, actually, this really pisses me off. I'm going to ignore the rest of your post until you can deal with this.

You're just as destructive as this Chaplain. Why? Because like I said, there have been STUDIES done into this, and you want to force this absolute bullshit subjective reality on top of reality that already exists.

It's one think to make up fantasy to escape from harsh reality, it's another to make it replace nice reality and use it to presecute people.

IT IS NOT AN OPINION OR A BELIEF WITH REGARDS ABSTAINANCE OF THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE AND HOW HAPPY IT MAKES SOMEONE. THERE ARE STUDIES DONE INTO THIS. SO FAR NOBODY ARGUING YOUR CASE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ACCEPT THIS POSSIBILITY.

If you can, I'll find such studies for you. If you can't, quite frankly, fuck off, and stop trying to piss your anti-intellectual relativism over this thread.

I've said before I'll say it again . HYSTERICALLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL!

Dont mind Brittany leave Haro alone.

[Henry Hill]

And both Harry and I

Who?

[Henry Hill]

Not just the west . Turkey which is muslim country (mainly) has a fairly tolerant attitude to the said and certainly sharia law is anathema there.

But you know as well as me if there was no such thing as religion then these sorts would find some other outlet or excuse for their tyranny.

The communists had no religon and they managed to cause enough trouble. Although I would say that it wasn't their atheism that did it, some were just cunts

I was there on holidays before and its a great place. Remember when ireland played Iran in a playoff for the 2002 world cup and the Irish fans were warned that if they tried to bring drink with them it would be treated as an illegal drug. Turkey is the complete opposite it has all the nightclubs etc that you want but it has the culture as well.

[strict66]

Remember when ireland played Iran in a playoff for the 2002 world cup and the Irish fans were warned that if they tried to bring drink with them it would be treated as an illegal drug.

And ironically enough Iran has a drug problem amongst their youth the same as anywhere else in the world. Crack believe it or not is a big problem there.

[Corcaigh32]

For the record the only person arguing a case is you. I have just been making some points about belief, faith and the nature of personal religion. You have an incredible knack for selective reading. But I'll say this for ya, you never give in..........

[Henry Hill]

And ironically enough Iran has a drug problem amongst their youth the same as anywhere else in the world. Crack believe it or not is a big problem there.

I think prostitution is big there too, well where isn't it but its funny they say a few prayers to have a temporary marriage and then annul it afterwards to keep things above board

[strict66]

I think prostitution is big there too, well where isn't it but its funny they say a few prayers to have a temporary marriage and then annul it afterwards to keep things above board

Crack , Hookers and Riots .

I know where I'm going on holidays this year

[Haro]

Who?

Whenever I see your name, I think of Harry Hill. I wanted to see if you noticed the same thing.

[Haro]

But you know as well as me if there was no such thing as religion then these sorts would find some other outlet or excuse for their tyranny.

That's kind of the point though. You can't excuse things as religious beliefs. If you have to do that, more often than not it hs nothing to do with spirituality.

[Henry Hill]

Whenever I see your name, I think of Harry Hill. I wanted to see if you noticed the same thing.

I'm sure
I just watched Goodfella's before signing up and he's the main man
Are you in the LGBT in ucc?

[strict66]

I'm sure
I just watched Goodfella's before signing up and he's the main man
Are you in the LGBT in ucc?

Why are ya gonna get her whacked . I hear Jimmy Conroy is studying arts up there

[strict66]

That's kind of the point though. You can't excuse things as religious beliefs. If you have to do that, more often than not it hs nothing to do with spirituality.


Very true . As Mark Twain said " Patriotism , the last bastion of a thug"

[Henry Hill]

Why are ya gonna get her whacked . I hear Jimmy Conroy is studying arts up there

If the price is right. Jimmy taught the course was about painting

[Haro]

No I'm not actually.

[Henry Hill]

No I'm not actually.

I'm surprised although its probably more of a social thing than a issues based campaigning group

[strict66]

I'm surprised although its probably more of a social thing than a issues based campaigning group

What the mafia ? Definitely more a social group than anything .

[Henry Hill]

What the mafia ? Definitely more a social group than anything .

We get alot of bad press. But its just good innocent fun to pay the bills

[livedadream]

“But if you read what he was saying, he obviously believes abstainance would make them happier, which is, again, something we can actually study, and something which is false.”

He says the same thing about straight people! hes not picking on one side... he says the exact same thing about straight people like! this is what bugs me haro. you go on and on about the Chap about how hes homophobic because he made a comment about gay people, but if a straight person went up to him and said im a girl having sex with a boy is it wrong, his response (as we all know) would be yea, your sinning TWICE! for having pre marital sex and for using a condom, hes not picking on gays he hates anyone having sex that isnt married....

“Being gay wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for that.”

To be honest it sounds like your the only on here the thinks being gay is “an issue”

You go on and on about how nobody on this thread has given you a decent argument but they have (even the people i don’t necessarily agree with i still see that they are making a good point) you just conveniently ignore them...

IT IS NOT AN OPINION OR A BELIEF WITH REGARDS ABSTAINANCE OF THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE AND HOW HAPPY IT MAKES SOMEONE. THERE ARE STUDIES DONE INTO THIS. SO FAR NOBODY ARGUING YOUR CASE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ACCEPT THIS POSSIBILITY.

Lets be honest... abstinence makes everyone unhappy....not just gay people...

I'm done trying to make you see that your arguments, apart from becoming abusive to even the people who are helping your cause, are just plain sad... Go out live your life and spend less time thinking about how shit the world is and how, what was it you said about Ireland being apathetic and shite in general and just enjoy it.

Everyone can look at the world and think Jesus its gone to shite kids being killed, wars, creepy bankers the banking malarky etc but if you actually spent your day worrying and thinking about all that stuff you'd go mad and more than likely spend your life on public forums trying to be heard talking about how shite the world is and everyone in it..... oh....

ah well.... i'm going out in the scary shitey world for a walk down in Crosser with my puppy coz its fun...and I hope no scary homophobic's (or Bankers equally scary) come after me...

[The Black Knight]

Sorry, that's nonsense. It's been explained several times how a belief can be harmful, but unfortunately you're living in a lala land where everything without a knife or a shotgun exists in a vacuum.

Ok, answer me this: Supposing I believe that all Gays should rot in hell for eternity (I don’t actually believe this, by the way, I’m just giving it as an example), but suppose I never mention it to anyone or impose my ideals on another person, how is this harmful?

No it isn't.

Isn’t it? Lets take any murder on the street has happened and, besides the ones where an assassin has been paid, how many of them do you think were caused by anger? Speak to any counsellor or psychologist on the matter and they will tell you that most people in the world have built up anger within them of which you seem to have a lot, and it is when this is released it becomes destructive. So yes, anger is dangerous.

Read this book: “Homecoming” by John Bradshaw


Yes; I am intolerant of homophobia. I'm also intolerant of people who think it's a good idea to go around punching people in the face for no reason. What's your point? There's being intolerant for the sake of a "belief", and there's being intolerant because something is harmful. And both Harry and I HAVE shown how a belief can be harmful, you're just having too much fun being ignorant.

Technically bigotry is more along the lines of saying one things and doing another. As is the case with Christian tolerance and christian homophobia.

You are only one person, and there are many out there that would agree with this man's beliefs. Who is to say you're right?

Um, several studies done into the matter? No, wait, actually, this really pisses me off. I'm going to ignore the rest of your post until you can deal with this.

You're just as destructive as this Chaplain. Why? Because like I said, there have been STUDIES done into this, and you want to force this absolute bullshit subjective reality on top of reality that already exists.

It's one think to make up fantasy to escape from harsh reality, it's another to make it replace nice reality and use it to presecute people.

IT IS NOT AN OPINION OR A BELIEF WITH REGARDS ABSTAINANCE OF THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE AND HOW HAPPY IT MAKES SOMEONE. THERE ARE STUDIES DONE INTO THIS. SO FAR NOBODY ARGUING YOUR CASE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ACCEPT THIS POSSIBILITY.

If you can, I'll find such studies for you. If you can't, quite frankly, fuck off, and stop trying to piss your anti-intellectual relativism over this thread.

A bigot is defined as:
1. one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
2. one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Bigotry is:
the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot

Sound like anyone we know? You’re saying you’re intolerant of homophobia. You, by definition, my man, fit the profile of a bigot fairly spot on.

I don’t like homophobia either, but I do accept that it exists and therefore while I accept it exists I will not have any trouble with any person that holds these views, even if I don’t like their views, as I accept this person is entitled to their perspective. However, it is when this person starts to kick the shit out of gays that it escalates to the point where something has to be done about it, just like your example of the guy punching someone in the face; otherwise it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t affect anyone.

Studies are also done by people, but it doesn’t mean they are right. Proofs can always be disproved. Just take David Irving as and example; the majority of people in the world would not support his view, yet people, like you, that hail the work of forefathers did to give us freedom of speech, deny people like him Freedom of speech that have a different point of view. You might return to me and say I am now trying to deny you freedom of speech by saying you should accept my point of view, but I don’t. You’re entitled to your opinions, just liked I’m entitled to express my view on your opinions and vica versa.

You’re missing the point regarding what I’m saying about abstinence of the homosexual lifestyle making a homosexual happy. I don’t believe this is true. I don’t agree with the Chaplain. And yes, studies have shown it to be true, nor do I doubt for a second the integrity of their findings, but the Chaplain is entitled to believe those studies are wrong if he wants to believe it. He is entitled, no matter how ignorant it may seem to you, to believe his beliefs. Has he actually harmed anyone by expressing his beliefs? No, he hasn’t.

[Plinth]

That priest is perfectly entitled to say homosexuality is immoral or disgusting, or whatever the hell he wants to call it. I'm glad he can and did for two reasons:
Firstly, as much as I disagree with what he said I'm thankful that he's allowed to state his opinion without persecution, just as I'm allowed to state my opinion on, say, the catholic church or Islam (or maybe not anymore what with the blasphemy legislation!). It's great that this democratic, free nation allows freedom of speech and rarely curtails opinions. They can be completely insulting and despicable - and we all have the right to be insulted. But we don't have any right to persecute or attack the person who made the hurtful statement.

Secondly, on a more personal level, I'm also quite glad he said it because I dislike organised religion to put it mildy - and the fact that he's making a statement which is so detached from the general social standard (particularly in a university!) is just pushing the boat out further for Christianity. It's just another tiny example of the 'values' of religions being exposed and thrashed. Sign of the times, I hope.

[Haro]

A bigot is defined as:
1. one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
2. one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Bigotry is:
the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot

Sound like anyone we know? You’re saying you’re intolerant of homophobia. You, by definition, my man, fit the profile of a bigot fairly spot on.

You're an unbelievable fucking idiot. If you're intolerant of murderers, does that make you a bigot? No. Being intolerant of something that's ACTUALLY BAD isn't a bad thing. And it's not as if I'd prevent a homophobe from marrying, or really anything much at all, whereas they would with gay people. Yet you chose to rant at me instead.

It just goes to show what a complete tool you are.


You’re missing the point regarding what I’m saying about abstinence of the homosexual lifestyle making a homosexual happy. I don’t believe this is true. I don’t agree with the Chaplain. And yes, studies have shown it to be true, nor do I doubt for a second the integrity of their findings, but the Chaplain is entitled to believe those studies are wrong if he wants to believe it.

Yeah; just like a mother is entitled to believe that getting their Baby vaccinated will make it autistic?

Fuck off.

[The Black Knight]

You're an unbelievable fucking idiot. If you're intolerant of murderers, does that make you a bigot? No. Being intolerant of something that's ACTUALLY BAD isn't a bad thing. And it's not as if I'd prevent a homophobe from marrying, or really anything much at all, whereas they would with gay people. Yet you chose to rant at me instead.

It just goes to show what a complete tool you are.

Reductio Ad Absurdum.

*sigh*

You still haven't seen the distinction between the physical and non physical act. Actually, you have seen it but chosen to ignore it, just as it suited you, because you yet again chose a physical act of violence to make your point. You've basically just reiterated what you wrote in the previous post and my point still stands.

Yeah; just like a mother is entitled to believe that getting their Baby vaccinated will make it autistic?

Fuck off.

A mother is completely entitled to think that if she wants. Why wouldn't she be? She is not entitled to put her baby's life in danger, but her belief is hers to have. The same way that Jehovah Witnesses are entitled to not want blood transfusions.

[strict66]

Again hysterical nonsense .

[thegillabbeygowl]

Homo. :mrgreen:

[Haro]

Reductio Ad Absurdum.

*sigh*

No, it's not. Also just naming a logical fallacy without how it applies in such a situation is bad arguing.

It is not an appeal to ridicule because it is simply demonstrating that it is possible to be intolerant of something without it being "wrong". All I had to do was demonstrate there was a case in which intolerance is acceptable.

You still haven't seen the distinction between the physical and non physical act. Actually, you have seen it but chosen to ignore it, just as it suited you, because you yet again chose a physical act of violence to make your point. You've basically just reiterated what you wrote in the previous post and my point still stands.

Irrelevant, since homophobia can lead to physical and emotional violence. While the Chaplain in question may never take out a spade and a shotgun, someone else who inherits his views may take them more seriously. People will ALWAYS react to such things differently. That's why hate directed at a group who hasn't done anything wrong is a bad thing. Of course, if I was to be "Intolerant" of homophobed without any reasoning, that would be equally as bad, and could equally be picked up by some lunatic. But I'm not. I have reasons for why homophobia is harmful.

Also, why would only things regarding physical violence be acceptable to be bigoted towards? Hitting someone over the head is bad "for a reason". Why can't homophobia also be bad for the reasons I've provided?

[irishmonkey]

your argument is that someone will go out and beat the crap put of homosexuals because of the belief they will never be happy?

[Henry Hill]

your argument is that someone will go out and beat the crap put of homosexuals because of the belief they will never be happy?

There is definitely a link between religon and homophobia. All religons hate the gays, look at the fundamentalist christians in the US. Ok we don't live in America but you get my point, religious people can be strongly influenced by their clergy

[Haro]

Actually Irishmonkey, you are aware that in Uganda where they're introducing the death penalty for homosexuals, the president's wife is a member of a US Evangelical church?

Not to mention the ways in which both Henry and I already listed it could be harmful. People don't pick between being catholic and gay. It doesn't work like that. Either 1) Catholicism can relinquish it's status as being the country's official religion that's expected of you, or 2) It has to knock shit like this off.

Otherwise, people are going to be born into a situation where they hate themselves. How is that fair? Why is the right of someone to be a bigot more important than the "true" right to self expression?

[Corcaigh32]

American fundamentalist christians are the same as the american political pundits - they have no concept of reality and no concept of perspective - some of them believe the world was created in 7 days. Per irishmonkey's point, they are entitled to believe that the world was created in 7 days but we know it wasn't so using them as an example is like taking the worst case example.

[Haro]

Your post looks pretty hilarious after mine. People believing whatever they want has literally lead to people dying because of how others interpreted that.

Beliefs do not exist in a vacuum.

[Henry Hill]

American fundamentalist christians are the same as the american political pundits - they have no concept of reality and no concept of perspective - some of them believe the world was created in 7 days. Per irishmonkey's point, they are entitled to believe that the world was created in 7 days but we know it wasn't so using them as an example is like taking the worst case example.

There are fundamentalists in Ireland too. Look at all the people that went to knock recently? What we saw was a collective mental illness not god.

How come hardly anyone came out as being gay in Ireland 50 years ago?
1. It was illegal due to the influence of the church
2. People believed it was wrong due to the influence of the church.
If you were raised by people who took christianity very seriously and were taught that homosexuality was evil and you hit puberty and realised that you were gay then the personal torment you would suffer would be very tough if you taught you would go to hell for having sex. I know you could laugh at someone for thinking they would go to hell for being gay but religious indocrination is very hard to shake off if you were properly indocrinated.

These beliefs are laughable and deserve to be treated as such, respecting these beliefs is ridiculous.

[Henry Hill]

your argument is that someone will go out and beat the crap put of homosexuals because of the belief they will never be happy?

People can take what their clerics say very seriously and to heart, Ian Paisley for example

[irishmonkey]

you are quoting massive extreamest examples.
may i remind you that the lgb are allowed participate and have there own services in the church, clearly there is a slight difference between these two.

from your logic people can only believe in things that are proven. really making faith pointless.

the cathloic church has very little power these days.
most people i know havent been in a church in years.

religion must be kept seperate from law, i agree on that.
but people have a right to believe what they want.
but that should not be used as an excuse for the deplorable examples you describe above.

for example: if i beleve god hates the french, it is not an excuse for me to go around attaching/killing french people.

everything is a balance

[rebelicecreamman]

you are quoting massive extreamest examples.
may i remind you that the lgb are allowed participate and have there own services in the church, clearly there is a slight difference between these two.

from your logic people can only believe in things that are proven. really making faith pointless.

the cathloic church has very little power these days.
most people i know havent been in a church in years.

religion must be kept seperate from law, i agree on that.
but people have a right to believe what they want.
but that should not be used as an excuse for the deplorable examples you describe above.

for example: if i beleve god hates the french, it is not an excuse for me to go around attaching/killing french people.

everything is a balance

If its balance you want, you've come to the wrong thread.

[irishmonkey]

If its balance you want, you've come to the wrong thread.

smartest comment in the whole thread

[Henry Hill]

you are quoting massive extreamest examples.
may i remind you that the lgb are allowed participate and have there own services in the church, clearly there is a slight difference between these two.


I agree with all that.

[Corcaigh32]

Ah wouldya stop, I have already gone through all this with you. Your position is simple. You do not accept the catholic church's position on homosexuality and the consequences that position has for gay people in Irish society as they grow up and their ability to live the lives that heterosexual people take for granted. I get that.

Your extrapolation that all belief systems are inherently flawed because certain beliefs spawn actions, prejudices, violence, hatred, bigotry based on nothing logical, nothing proven, nothing scientific has merit based on historical evidence. These events have happened e.g. "queer-bashing" etc.

You STILL miss the point about belief though. If you take belief to be an institutionalised construct of morals or rules or scriptures or texts which are subject to interpretation by a clergy then it will always be easy to rage against a Catholic church or a Sharia Islam - as you have consistently done through this thread.

That doesn't change the fact that people are entitled, yes even the american christian fundamentalists, to that belief as long as they don't walk out the door and kick the head off someone because of it. And if they do, that's what the law is there for.

[Corcaigh32]

There are fundamentalists in Ireland too. Look at all the people that went to knock recently? What we saw was a collective mental illness not god.

How come hardly anyone came out as being gay in Ireland 50 years ago?
1. It was illegal due to the influence of the church
2. People believed it was wrong due to the influence of the church.
If you were raised by people who took christianity very seriously and were taught that homosexuality was evil and you hit puberty and realised that you were gay then the personal torment you would suffer would be very tough if you taught you would go to hell for having sex. I know you could laugh at someone for thinking they would go to hell for being gay but religious indocrination is very hard to shake off if you were properly indocrinated.

These beliefs are laughable and deserve to be treated as such, respecting these beliefs is ridiculous.

But in fairness, HH, that wasn't our time. The world 50 years ago was completely different and Ireland certainly was as the current church scandals are proving. What the priest or bishop said went in those days - you know that. I would put it to you this way. The people who walk in and out of mass on a Sunday go there for a variety of reasons. Some of them go because they have always gone. Some of them because they are devout Catholics, some of them because they are bringing their kids, some of them because they feel they need to be seen there and some because as Catholics - going to mass is that part of the week where people get to talk to God. (Incidentally, for the purposes of this post let's pretend that we all believe A. N. Other God exists although I know some of you don't).

Do you really think, say with the exception of the over-55s, that the vast majority of those people believe homosexuality is wrong because Fr. O'Sullivan says so? In this day and age. Does the fact that they don't believe homosexuality is wrong make them less Catholic or more Catholic, or a la carte Catholic? Divorce is not allowed according to the catholic church. Do you really think all the catholic people in Ireland voted for it thinking that their souls were going to be damned for all eternity?

People go to mass, like Protestants go to service, like Jews go to temple, like Muslims go to mosque, not to be indoctrinated, not to hear what the current ruling on homosexuality is so they know how to behave if they run into Graham Norton on the street - they go to be at one with the deity of their choice because belief is about way way more than the rules and regs of any particular religion - and this is the last time I am going to try and make this point. (Remember - for the purposes of this post let's pretend that we all believe A. N. Other God exists although I know some of you don't).

[The Black Knight]

No, it's not. Also just naming a logical fallacy without how it applies in such a situation is bad arguing.

It is not an appeal to ridicule because it is simply demonstrating that it is possible to be intolerant of something without it being "wrong". All I had to do was demonstrate there was a case in which intolerance is acceptable.



Irrelevant, since homophobia can lead to physical and emotional violence. While the Chaplain in question may never take out a spade and a shotgun, someone else who inherits his views may take them more seriously. People will ALWAYS react to such things differently. That's why hate directed at a group who hasn't done anything wrong is a bad thing. Of course, if I was to be "Intolerant" of homophobed without any reasoning, that would be equally as bad, and could equally be picked up by some lunatic. But I'm not. I have reasons for why homophobia is harmful.

Also, why would only things regarding physical violence be acceptable to be bigoted towards? Hitting someone over the head is bad "for a reason". Why can't homophobia also be bad for the reasons I've provided?

I give up. You're not getting the point. I'm the type of person that tries once or twice to make a person see what I mean, and after that if they can't see what I mean, they won't. You, at your present position in life, are incapable of getting the point and we're beginning to go around in circles.

You will see what I mean some day though, but, unfortunately, a lot of people don't realise what I'm trying to show you here until their death bed.

[strict66]

There is definitely a link between religon and homophobia. All religons hate the gays, look at the fundamentalist christians in the US. Ok we don't live in America but you get my point, religious people can be strongly influenced by their clergy

Again I wouldn't single out religion of guilty of this crime. Look at Cuba , a communist/socialist state where the treatment of gays is appalling . Che and Castro were deeply homophobic lads and also fiercely anti church.

Y'know Haro ,for someone who is so concerned with the sanctity of personal expression y'think there would be some scope for the expression of others.

Me personally I have no hang ups about gays but I know plenty of good people who find same sex intercourse off putting to say the least. Are they evil or even vocal about it ? No they just dont like it and find it at odds with their outlooks.

Should their freedom of expression and speech be censored to appease , lets face it a tiny minority?

[Henry Hill]

Well said Corcaigh.

Tbh I was thinking of a someone I knew who was best friends with another lad, the other lad came out as being gay. They stopped being friends afterwards. They were 15 at the time. The guy who was friends with the gay guy is now 20's training to be a priest, he used go on trips away with a catholic youth group. That was what I had in mind when posting about people getting influence by religon. I get your point

Again I wouldn't single out religion of guilty of this crime. Look at Cuba , a communist/socialist state where the treatment of gays is appalling . Che and Castro were deeply homophobic lads and also fiercely anti church.


Could you imagine what cuba would be like if Fidel was gay. Imagine the communist parades

[strict66]

Well said Corcaigh.

Tbh I was thinking of a someone I knew who was best friends with another lad, the other lad came out as being gay. They stopped being friends afterwards. They were 15 at the time. The guy who was friends with the gay guy is now 20's training to be a priest, he used go on trips away with a catholic youth group. That was what I had in mind when posting about people getting influence by religon. I get your point




might have been suffering from "Im the only gay in the village" syndrome.
I bet they met up years later had a few drinks and tried to work out who had more ass.

[Haro]

No, I never buy this "You need to distinguish between homophobia and the REALLY BAD homophobia".

It's all bad, no excuses. You don't need to "balance" bigoted beliefs with a lack of bigoted beliefs. That's crazy. That's like needing to balance a bit of random gunfire in the streets against a lack of gunfire.

[Haro]

Ah wouldya stop, I have already gone through all this with you. Your position is simple. You do not accept the catholic church's position on homosexuality and the consequences that position has for gay people in Irish society as they grow up and their ability to live the lives that heterosexual people take for granted. I get that.

Your extrapolation that all belief systems are inherently flawed because certain beliefs spawn actions, prejudices, violence, hatred, bigotry based on nothing logical, nothing proven, nothing scientific has merit based on historical evidence. These events have happened e.g. "queer-bashing" etc.

You STILL miss the point about belief though. If you take belief to be an institutionalised construct of morals or rules or scriptures or texts which are subject to interpretation by a clergy then it will always be easy to rage against a Catholic church or a Sharia Islam - as you have consistently done through this thread.

That doesn't change the fact that people are entitled, yes even the american christian fundamentalists, to that belief as long as they don't walk out the door and kick the head off someone because of it. And if they do, that's what the law is there for.

The law did nothing to prevent the death penalty in Uganda, despite it coming about due to the influence of american extremists.

Also there are plenty of things people can do within the law, or in ways that won't be caught by the law.

[livedadream]

"The law did nothing to prevent the death penalty in Uganda, despite it coming about due to the influence of American extremists."

Uganda is a different country buddie.... you cant start complaining about a cleric in Ireland being homophobic and then complain that the Irish Law or Us Law or even the UN is not protecting Gays in Uganda... (they dont protect young girls from genital mutilation either but that's a different story...) countries cant govern other countries... with your arguments the whole world is against you and we all ignorant bigots who hate each other for stupid reasons....

and just so your a little less ignorant its not just because your gay that they put you to death its if you test positive for HIV and then go about bumming people that they put you to death... (ie: if you know you have HIV but don't give a shit and spread it anyway...)

[corcadorca]

Presbyterianism takes its cues from Calvin (the theologian not the cartoon character). These people put emphasis on the scripture and have always encouraged their members to read it (they were at the forefront of putting in to people's hands in a language they could read, unlike Catholicism). St Paul in his scribbling has a pretty clear line on homosexuality:


Rom.1,24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom.1,25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
Rom.1,26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
Rom.1,27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Rom.1,28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
Rom.1,29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
Rom.1,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom.1,31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Rom.1,32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.


1Cor.6,9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts (NIV: nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders, NJB: the self-indulgent, sodomites),
1Cor.6,10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.


1Tim.1,8 Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully,
1Tim.1,9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Tim.1,10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
1Tim.1,11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted



So why the surprise?

[Paul McAndrew]

http://thefbomb.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/11432_1213404059401_ 1357770001_31126858_ 1725600_n.jpg

[Haro]

"The law did nothing to prevent the death penalty in Uganda, despite it coming about due to the influence of American extremists."

Uganda is a different country buddie.... you cant start complaining about a cleric in Ireland being homophobic and then complain that the Irish Law or Us Law or even the UN is not protecting Gays in Uganda... (they dont protect young girls from genital mutilation either but that's a different story...) countries cant govern other countries... with your arguments the whole world is against you and we all ignorant bigots who hate each other for stupid reasons....



You're a fucking idiot. Because of the "free speech" of a group in the US, a country in africa is putting gays to death.

and just so your a little less ignorant its not just because your gay that they put you to death its if you test positive for HIV and then go about bumming people that they put you to death... (ie: if you know you have HIV but don't give a shit and spread it anyway...)

Oh, that makes it much better. Twat.

[Haro]

Presbyterianism takes its cues from Calvin (the theologian not the cartoon character). These people put emphasis on the scripture and have always encouraged their members to read it (they were at the forefront of putting in to people's hands in a language they could read, unlike Catholicism). St Paul in his scribbling has a pretty clear line on homosexuality:


Rom.1,24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom.1,25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
Rom.1,26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
Rom.1,27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Rom.1,28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
Rom.1,29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
Rom.1,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom.1,31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Rom.1,32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.


1Cor.6,9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts (NIV: nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders, NJB: the self-indulgent, sodomites),
1Cor.6,10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.


1Tim.1,8 Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully,
1Tim.1,9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Tim.1,10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
1Tim.1,11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted



So why the surprise?

But all these are based on the idea that you already find homosexuality to be wrong and deviant, and then read these and apply that to it.

[livedadream]

You're a fucking idiot. Because of the "free speech" of a group in the US, a country in africa is putting gays to death.



Oh, that makes it much better. Twat.


eh buddie.. i'm rubber your glue...

:lol!:

and yea it does actually...
having sex with someone unprotected when you have HIV or AID's is actually considered murder in some countries...

get an education....

[Haro]

eh buddie.. i'm rubber your glue...

:lol!:

and yea it does actually...
having sex with someone unprotected when you have HIV or AID's is actually considered murder in some countries...

get an education....

Can you honestly say someone unbiased and intelligent reading your posts with your glorious lack of uppercase and general moral facepalmery would say you look "Educated" ?

[livedadream]

Eh Haro Im gonna stick to the moral high ground here buddie...

my first class joint hons degree, my masters (magna cum laude) and the PhD I'm currently completing stand by regards my "education".
The fact that you cant seem to complete an argument without making it personal shows your total lack of (oh and here come the big words... just for effect get your webster ready...) intelligence, competence and experience in forming a solid argument (a shrink may argue this is due to no Real world experience with actual real people... but look its the age of Dungeons and Dragons and what not, you don't need real physical people to talk to, right?).


my "glorious lack of uppercase" is laziness because i'm typing and its irrelevant if the words are Uppercased correctly or not, It Doesnt Change The POINT I Am Making... (that simpler to read??)

Im sure an unbiased, educated and intelligent bystander would remark regarding this thread along the lines of

"oh my look at all those people having a mature (in parts) discussion isnt free speech AMAZING... oh but wait look at that Haro person rather belligerent don't you think, at least the other people are reading what he has to say and making their points without getting personal, he must have issues... maybe he's (god forbid) GAY and not very proud of it or maybe he's gay and used get the shit kicked out of him because of it.... OR (and this you may find shocking) maybe Haro has an Almighty Chip on his shoulder and isnt Gay maybe he just LOVES arguing with people fighting for a cause that most Gay people would prefer he wouldn't because he's giving us a bad name..."

so heres an Idea you take some time, read what people like corcadorca, Irishmonkey, Henreyhill and coraigh32 are saying and take a second, you might realise that the world isnt against you, that everyone is different and has different opinions, no one on this thread is seriously after saying that being Gay is wrong in general, they agree that the church says its wrong but their not saying its wrong in their eyes. Read, Think, it might just all click that the worlds not against you.


oh ps just in case your Latin is as horrific as your attitude magna cum laude means in layman's terms... shit hot at what i do....

[Haro]

I'm not reading all that, too many brackets flying in my face.

And if my Latin is horrible it's because I've never learnt a word of it, I was just naming off logical fallacies you unfortunately don't seem to either be familiar with, or care for. Funnily enough logic is a bit more important than correct Latin in an argument.

You're just bad at arguing. I don't know if it's a required attribute for whatever shite you're studying, but you are. Learn to structure your posts a little better at least so I can read them without going WUT.

[might I say]

I'm not reading all that, too many brackets flying in my face.

And if my Latin is horrible it's because I've never learnt a word of it, I was just naming off logical fallacies you unfortunately don't seem to either be familiar with, or care for. Funnily enough logic is a bit more important than correct Latin in an argument.

You're just bad at arguing. I don't know if it's a required attribute for whatever shite you're studying, but you are. Learn to structure your posts a little better at least so I can read them without going WUT.

Latin isn't the only thing catching you out , you dont seem to understand basic English either.