Anti-gay adverts pulled from bus campaign by Boris Johnson

[Itshim]

Please show me were in scripture it says that homosexuality is accepted ?. I find any reference to "Gay" as offensive , have a friend who change her given birth name because of this.

[Taf]

It would appear that this gentleman believes homosexuality is caused by brain damage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17703018

So if he believes that, perhaps he also believes it can be cured?

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Russ

It may surprise you to know that there is no one core belief on this. If you want to go by what is written in scripture then those who have gay sexual relationships are to be put to death.

Whereas some people still believe this (I suspect they'd be anti-gay regardless of religion), there are many millions who see it differently. Jesus said nothing against loving monogamous relationships and that's the view I prefer to take.

There is far too much 'them and us' is matters like this. It's almost like if you're not actively encouraging gay relationships then you're obviously against them and want gays to have no rights whatsoever.

The Bible was created in an era where homosexuality was not properly understood, it also contains parts which are not against homosexuality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bib..._homosexuality

---------- Post added at 16:35 ---------- Previous post was at 16:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Taken out of context it doesn't appear at first glance homophobic.However on careful reading of the article it would appear to be offensive because it's an attempt to suggest that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured.



The phrases chosen for the posters seem to have been deliberately used to give an impression of ambiguity so as to try not to appear homophobic and thus designed to pass any test of being anti-gay by advertising standards.

You can see why Christainity is declining, because it has not moved with the times, has become corrupted and has lost it way and its true focus

---------- Post added at 16:38 ---------- Previous post was at 16:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Your question is based on a false premise. Religions like Christianity have not started to accept homosexuality. Certain Christian churches, located almost entirely in post-Christian societies where there is mounting pressure for people to accept a post-Christian, liberal morality, have begun to find ways to re-interpret their beliefs in order to incorporate the views of those outside the religion. This phenomenon, where it, exists, occurs generally within denominations, rather than denominations as a whole setting out to re-write their statements of faith.

Well it is a good thing, becuase there is nothing wrong with Homosexulity and people are born with it, but Christainity itself is not 100% clear about this and remember, no one has asked Jesus himself!

---------- Post added at 16:40 ---------- Previous post was at 16:38 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

I can see how some can take it that way - but others may see it as answering back at Stonewall constantly ramming sexuality down people's throats.

On the subject of morality, it could be argued either side are at fault however they both have views and should be free to express them, however repugnant or misguided.

What the Core Issue Trust say is wrong, Stonewall is right, it is the same when it come to BNP and UAF

---------- Post added at 16:45 ---------- Previous post was at 16:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

If you look at Stonewall's history especially the behaviour of idiots like Peter Tatchell you'll see they have a chequered past.

20 years ago during their 'OutRage' campaign (targeting ministers who were speaking out against homosexuality yet being gay themselves) they threw incorrect accusations of homosexuality around, especially at some public figures who were not publicly against homosexuality but were gay themselves and preferred to keep it that way. Tatchell took it upon himself to decide that they needed 'outing'.

When he tried to get Mugabe arrested that time - he then complained about getting a shoeing from his bodyguards - what did he expect? The beating was not justified but if you place yourself in the firing line like that, people with extreme views will react and there shouldn't be any surprise at that.

If all Stonewall wanted to do was promote the rights of gays then I have no objection to that, they're entitled to their views. But they have a history of taking things too far.

For god sake Peter Tachell is not an idiot and nether is Stonewall, the reason thaey take drastic steps is that they know that if they do not, they will facing a losing battle, and it has worked, without Stonewall, there would be far less LGBT right in the UK that they are now and for god sake Mugarbe is an idiot

I am not aware of all of Stonewall's actions but I don't think there is anything wrong with their latest advert "Some people are gay, get over it". That just seems to be attacking homophobia and what's wrong with that?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Please show me were in scripture it says that homosexuality is accepted ?

Show me where it isn't accepted.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

What the Core Issue Trust say is wrong, Stonewall is right,

Just because something is your opinion does not mean it is correct.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

For god sake Peter Tachell is not an idiot

Again, your opinion. My view is that someone who purposely 'outs' a person who wanted to stay 'in the closet' is well and truly an idiot.

Originally Posted by Russ

Again, your opinion. My view is that someone who purposely 'outs' a person who wanted to stay 'in the closet' is well and truly an idiot.

Certainly. Although it does depend on the circumstances. In the US there were many personalities who spouted either homophobic rhetoric or, if in power, promoted homophobic legislation who were subsequently outed to be either homosexuals or at least to have committed sexual acts with members of the same sex. Gay rights activists have had a lot of success in exposing the alleged hypocrisy.

[Russ]

The problem Tatchell and his cronies went after people in the public who they felt needed to be out as they felt it would be an inspiration to others to come out. That's fine if the person involved needed encouragement but these were people who for whatever reason wanted to stay in the closet. They were not spouting anti-gay stuff, they just wanted to keep their own secret but Tatchell took it upon himself to overrule them.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Russ

Show me where it isn't accepted.




Just because something is your opinion does not mean it is correct.



Again, your opinion. My view is that someone who purposely 'outs' a person who wanted to stay 'in the closet' is well and truly an idiot.

So you are saying it is ok for someone to call Homosexuality a disease and to call describe someone as in racist and offensive terms

Also, what do thy have to hide if they are pretending to be Gay, people should not ruin their lives by living a lie

---------- Post added at 12:27 ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Certainly. Although it does depend on the circumstances. In the US there were many personalities who spouted either homophobic rhetoric or, if in power, promoted homophobic legislation who were subsequently outed to be either homosexuals or at least to have committed sexual acts with members of the same sex. Gay rights activists have had a lot of success in exposing the alleged hypocrisy.

There are also examples of people Living a live though out their lives, and it was not a good experience for them, Rock Hudson, Dusty Springfield for example?

---------- Post added at 12:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

The problem Tatchell and his cronies went after people in the public who they felt needed to be out as they felt it would be an inspiration to others to come out. That's fine if the person involved needed encouragement but these were people who for whatever reason wanted to stay in the closet. They were not spouting anti-gay stuff, they just wanted to keep their own secret but Tatchell took it upon himself to overrule them.

He has done a lot of good things for Gay rights, also why were those people living a lie?

---------- Post added at 12:30 ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Sorry, Chris, but that sounds like an "it is what it is" answer - the old "I am right because I am right".

The Bible was written (and interpreted) in the mores and culture of the time (slavery, dietary, treatment of women, tribal warfare, etc) - the world has moved on in its understanding of why things are, or do not need to be (dietary re diseases and worms in food, slavery replaced by automation, treatment of women by treating them (mostly) as equals) - why should other things be any different, such as how we treat homosexuals?

Why is it some scripture is, excuse the phrase, gospel, but other parts aren't?

I am pretty sure that if Jesus was around these days, he would have nothing wrong with Homosexuality, because as long as they are good person, thats enough for him

It is more a case of Old Fashioned Values that anything to do with Relgion!

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

So you are saying it is ok for someone to call Homosexuality a disease and to call describe someone as in racist and offensive terms

Also, what do thy have to hide if they are pretending to be Gay, people should not ruin their lives by living a lie

---------- Post added at 12:27 ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 ----------



There are also examples of people Living a live though out their lives, and it was not a good experience for them, Rock Hudson, Dusty Springfield for example?

---------- Post added at 12:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------



He has done a lot of good things for Gay rights, also why were those people living a lie?

Core Issue Trust do not say homosexuality is a disease - please let the discussion be fact-based (however much I disagree with CBT's position).

Re 'outing' - surely it is the person involved right to decide (as long as there is no hypocrisy involved, as previously discussed); I am sure you would be upset if your tweets became general knowledge in your workplace, especially in light of your (alleged) seniority.....

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

It is more a case of Old Fashioned Values that anything to do with Relgion!

I'd agree with that. it was like my nan RIP. she'd call black people blackies.
it was just how people were then. and the way some are now it's just as you say 'old fashioned values'

I don't mind gays. I just don't like them 'The only way is Essex' type. they are so annoying.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Core Issue Trust do not say homosexuality is a disease - please let the discussion be fact-based (however much I disagree with CBT's position).

Re 'outing' - surely it is the person involved right to decide (as long as there is no hypocrisy involved, as previously discussed); I am sure you would be upset if your tweets became general knowledge in your workplace, especially in light of your (alleged) seniority.....

They do say it can be "cured", which is not that case (bar a few bizarre sudden changes of sexual orientation)

In a lot of case, the main reason people "stay in the closet" is because they are hypocrites or they are ashamed to be who they are for various reasons

Would you mind sharing examples of people who were forced to "come out"

As for me, there is a reason, why I do not use my real name online, also in "real life" I am known for being left-wing of sorts, but I keep some of my more radical views online

Also, if God created people, why did be create people who are LGBT?

Also my religion (Sikh) has nothing against Homosexuality, they consider marriage as unions of souls (male or female)

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

So you are saying it is ok for someone to call Homosexuality a disease and to call describe someone as in racist and offensive terms

Resorting to putting words in my mouth indicates you're running out of ideas.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Also, what do thy have to hide if they are pretending to be Gay, people should not ruin their lives by living a lie

The reasons for someone wanting to keep their private life private is their own issue and for you or Tatchell to decide otherwise is the ultimate in arrogance.

So, Alan, you can stay 'in the closet' re your 'radical' views, but do not extend that right to others re their sexuality.

Speaking of hypocrisy......

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Re 'outing' - surely it is the person involved right to decide (as long as there is no hypocrisy involved, as previously discussed);

Outing was in my eyes something that should NEVER have happended.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

In a lot of case, the main reason people "stay in the closet" is because they are hypocrites or they are ashamed to be who they are for various reasons

Presumably you can provide evidence of this other than its just your opinion?