Korg Forums

Thread's still burning I see....lol

I certainly admit to having an intolerance of others who seek to oppress and harm people who do not fit in with their idea of what a person should be genderwise. Why does it matter what someone else chooses to dress like, or - provided it is another consenting adult - who they love?

I cannot see how if someone is wired to be attracted to another adult of their own gender, that should be the cause of so much aggression. People are killed for this so no wonder there is an agenda for change.

But where do I agree with you is however we look at it there are indeed limits to what is acceptable in society. But it is a sliding scale. Even the horror of paedophilia is a confusing area, 14 year old jailbait groupies....slightly different story from the procurement of very young children. But even that is subject to differing cultural norms. Who sets the limits? Governments with their respective political agendas - those that are often unseen and very different from their official line.

It certainly is confusing and it is naive to think that basic human decency is a given. It is not. We are as savage as any other animal. And certainly kindness to others is not the default behaviour of many of us - which is why I originally resonded to some of the comments on the first page of this thread. Words do have the power to break people. I can just imagine someone coming to terms with the burden of their sexuality not being the 'norm' reading such cowardly abuse and taking it inward.

I don't think Joe was actually equating homosexuality, and paedophilia though, just pointing out that with no limits everything is acceptable. Which of course quite clearly it is not.

We should be looking first and formost at taking care of our children, whether straight gay, transvestite - whatever - and teaching them to love and respect one another to build a better future. That does indeed mean setting some boundaries. If only we could focus on loving rather than fighting each other.

As a darkly ironic note, paedophile entertainers have been surrounding themselves on stage with children for years. Now that is truly something to make the flesh crawl.

lloydsmith wrote: I certainly admit to having an intolerance of others who seek to oppress and harm people who do not fit in with their idea of what a person should be genderwise. Why does it matter what someone else chooses to dress like, or - provided it is another consenting adult - who they love?

Trouble is, often the intolerance or lack of tolerance is one way.

I'll try to explain but will probably fail badly.

I know many Christians that couldn't give a toss if someone came to their church who was gay. They also couldn't give a toss if a couple come that are living together regardless of sexual preference.

However, most Christians believe in the Bible, regardless of what others may think of it, and many look at casual sex between consenting heterosexual couples as no different to gay sex or any other thing the bible implies is wrong.

What you or I think is really irrelevant, if they aren't persecuting homosexuals, people should be more tolerant of their beliefs.

Too often we see cases in the press where a gay couple have deliberately singled out a Christian whatever to make a point, with zero tolerance of that Christians belief. Deliberately wrecking a Christians life etc by trying to do something they know that Christian will not approve of (such as deliberately booking into a Christian hotel fully aware what will happen)

Where as most (and note I do say "most" all the time on here, you get fanatics in any group of people) Christians I know just want to go on with their everyday lives without being expected to change what they believe in in order to satisfy the media etc.

Many feel they are persecuted in today's society, if they try to say anything, they get people shouting such things as they are believing in a fantasy, completely mocking their faith.

You cant watch TV programs or most internet forum threads without people blaspheming saying things like "for Christs sake" etc, no one cares Christians find this offensive everyone is happy to be intolerant of Christians desires not to hear this.

Then you have the double standards in the press where Christians are very easy game but they wont say a single word against Islam. Can you imagine the media letting people use Mohamed in the same way they use the terms Jesus and Christ?

Jerry Springers Opera was the first and so far the only TV/film thing I've ever complained about (yes I did watch it). I didn't complain in the way many Christians complained, I simply said to the BBC that if the opera was about Islam and Mohammed I know as well as they know they wouldn't have dared to show it. But because it's mocking the Christian faith, who cares.

That to me is intolerance.

Christians seem to have to watch their every word in case they offend someone at the same time no one gives a toss if they offend Christians.

Yes many Christians are complete jerks. So are many none Christians, you get good and bad in all walks of society

I cannot see how if someone is wired to be attracted to another adult of their own gender, that should be the cause of so much aggression. People are killed for this so no wonder there is an agenda for change.
.

But where do you draw the line.

Going to give my true feelings towards homosexuality first before I come back to this,

I was born. I didn't give a toss about girls (or boys) in a sexual way until I was about 14/15 and suddenly I found girls really really attractive.

I have never ever felt that way about any male (I know some people say all men must have been attracted to another man at sometime or they are a lier, but that is untrue for me)

Some friends felt the way I did at 12, others at 17.

I didn't choose to be attracted to girls, I simply am wired that way. I didn't choose what age I was when I started to find girls attractive, it simply happened.


Some people are born with their bodies messed up. And even me saying something like that causes friction between many and I have been called all names for saying that, but I stick by it.

If my children had been born with no limbs, I would love them dearly, I would want the best for them. I wouldn't want them mocked by others. I would want them to integrate fully into society and be totally accepted.

But I could not honestly say it is entirely normal to be born that way, even if 100000 a year are born without limbs. Something has gone wrong somewhere hence they had no limbs.

Some people are born in the wrong bodies, people are born with both genitalia and people are born with other things that I don't consider normal.

But that doesn't make them any less of a human being at all.

I think with homosexuality, it's a complicated area because I do believe some people are born with a strong attraction to the same sex, hence are gay. If I woke up at 14 and found myself attracted to the boys around me, that is not my fault and there's not a single thing I could do about it.

But I would still consider it a defect in the same way not having all limbs is a defect, the body was not made as nature intended, to procreate etc.

And again I feel I have to keep stressing that does not make them any less of a human being.

I do also strongly think it's also become trendy to be gay in some circles and while I agree 100% some people are born gay, I do think for many, it's a simple lifestyle choice. And I've been called all the names under the sun for saying that before, what am I supposed to do lie?

I don't honestly believe you are born camp though, I cant stand camp people and I think many do homosexuality a great deal of damage. I'm not talking about just how someone speaks, I'm talking about the stereotypical camp gay people you see on TV, often making sexual innuendos every other word.

While I realise many gay people don't fall into the category I'm about to describe, these tend to be the more vocal ones and these are the ones I often wonder whether or not its more of a lifestyle choice.

Lets take me and 4 of my life long best friends. Joy Division is my all time favourite band, they all cant stand them. They all love football and golf, I cant stand either. All of us have completely different music we like, and a lot of our TV choices the others would not enjoy. We argue until we are blue in the face about politics.

We are typical men, all liking different things, all into different music, all with different fav TV shows etc etc etc.

Not one of us likes I will survive by Gloria Gayner and I would be extremely surprised if I was truly gay, I would like it either. Same with the likes of YMCA

A few years back (yikes, about 16 years ago) I was best man and I organised a stag weekend in Amsterdam. As it turned out it was also Gay Mardigras over there.

Didn't bother any of us at all. We would hear music coming loudly from a street, go to investigate and find its a gay party. However, the way they were dressed was so stereotypical it was almost unbelievable. Skimpy black leather shorts, the leather cap, string vest etc etc etc

I can 100% agree that some people are born attracted to the same sex, I do not believe at all that being born that way would make them want to dress like I just described or want to be part of the so called gay scene.

It is purely by the above behaviour that I have such doubts that many people claiming to be gay are really gay.

I could of course be wrong, but that is what this thread is all about, we judge on how people act and dress and if people dress and act in certain ways, then don't be surprised if people judge you for it.

I used to be a punk many years ago, many places would't let me in due to how I was dressed, I was one of the most placid people on the planet, wouldn't hurt a fly. I knew full well when I dressed like that that I wouldn't get into these places, it was my choice.


Anyway, back to your comment.

To answer your commend I have to mention paedophiles, by doing so I am in no way comparing gay people to pedos, and I feel sad that in this thread I have to keep stressing things so a few wont take offence.

If I'm born a boy and as I grow up and find just women attractive, that is not my fault, it's how I'm wired. So obviously no aggression should be shown towards me.

If I'm born a boy, as I grow up, I find men sexually attractive, that too is not my fault, hence no aggression should be shown against me.

However, here's where it gets controversial. While obviously such a person needs to be kept away from children both for their and the childs protection, if I was born a boy and as I grow up, for some reason find myself with an uncontrollable sexual urge towards young kids, that too is not my fault hence no aggression should be shown against me, instead society should be sympathetic, obviously keep me away from kids but give me all the help and sympathy they can. But society is aggressive to such people.

Then we get onto the subject of are people born evil or are they conditioned to it?

You can get someone from the poorest roughest background with the most abusive parents, make something great of their lives that society should be proud of and not follow in their parents footsteps

Then you get others born with all the blessings in the world, loving caring parents, a great first class education, Proper discipline not to harsh, not to lenient, the sort where most kids would turn out well adjusted. Yet they go completely off the rails, end up being violent towards innocent people whether in a robbery, or murder or whatever.

Are they born wired differently? Or have they simply made the wrong choice somewhere in their lives, or has it been down to bad luck on the people they associated with?

And if it was simply down to who they met as they grew up, and that could condition them in such an extreme way, why cant that apply to something such as your sexual preference? (and again I feel I need to keep stressing I do 100% believe some people are born gay)

And if they are simply wired that way, then shouldn't we close down the prisons as we know them, and instead turn them into places of help, where even if someone can never be released due to being a danger to the public, they can lead a much happier fun life, sort of more like a holiday camp/hotel/small town like complex rather than a harsh prison environment?

Lets take a different example.
I met my wife when she was 17 and I was 19, we were living together at 21 and got married at 28.

Over that time I have had some great offers from some very very very attractive girls, often in situations where the chances of someone finding out are almost zero. Not once have I even been slightly tempted to give in to temptation.

One of my best friends is a stereotypical womaniser/charmer. He would say yes at every opportunity and would think nothing of chatting up a married woman and trying (and usually succeeding) to have his way with her.

Both he and I have high sex drives so it's not about that,

We went to school together, hung out together etc, yet I grew up to be faithful and he didn't.

Reason I'm using us two is as I know him so well and how similar we are in many areas.

Is it just by my choice that I remain faithful and his choice that he doesn't, or is it purely luck on how we were wired when we were born?

I don't see how you can pick on just one aspect of how you are wired when you are born and ignore all others.

If it's not about choice, then we can say that most things good or bad that happen due to the actions we take, are all down to how we were wired before our birth, therefore we can forget about having any responsibility or having any guilt? Surely all our actions are effectively predestined due to things beyond our control?


I'm rambling now

I could go on a lot more about this, but that will do for now.

Hopefully I've managed to say this without anyone being offended but if I have, it will be a first, and by saying that I don't mean I've deliberately posted something I know people will find offensive, I mean the exact opposite, I've gone out of my way not to be offensive but I know someone will take it upon themselves to feel offence anyway (usually on behalf of others that don't care)

Too often we see cases in the press where a gay couple have deliberately singled out a Christian whatever to make a point, with zero tolerance of that Christians belief. Deliberately wrecking a Christians life etc by trying to do something they know that Christian will not approve of (such as deliberately booking into a Christian hotel fully aware what will happen)

This is what ojustaboo is referring to I think http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15811223

Could say more but don't wont to see the thread locked due to t&c on politics and religion. But yea, Christians do take some stick. But because Christians are supposed to "turn the other cheek" then they are easy fodder for atheist, secular, humanism groups etc, as Christians aren't supposed to "fight back" as it were.

On the flip side, if Christians so much as disagree with gay marriage (for example) they are automatically "HOMOPHOBIC" (I've seen it on question time on BBC were a women ("catholic voices") got spat on after the show for making similar comments.

""" On the way back to the car, a group of young people spat at me.""""

http://carolinefarrow.com/2014/03/28/qu ... onscience/


2c

Interesting and painstakingly made points. I am largely with you on most of what you both say.. and where we differ I appreciate where you are coming from and can understand why you should feel as you do.

I do not relate to the more flamboyant expressions of sexuality either, guys. - particularly in public. By anyone. It makes for very uncomfortable viewing and is unnecessary. It also suggests an obsession with sex, which is not actually representative of gay or to use the modern more accurate abbrev LGBT people as a whole.

It is a fallacy (sorry about the pun!) to think there is a gay community, gay mafia, etc. - of course LBGT identifying people are as diverse in character as the rest of humanity. I also suspect bearded drag queens are very much in a tiny class of their own. Most of us will be rather relieved about that.

In my humble opinion some religions are indeed more equal than others.......did you know there is a specific order in bookstores for religious books? (Carefully non specific reference of course)... best leave it there I think...

Another area where I agree with you - I do not care one way or the other about gay marriage either, other than to achieve equality in a legal sense . I am not sure of the desperate need some have to replicate traditional marriage. The first official UK marriage was in the form of an OTT musical, which I personally thought was cringeworthy and rather made a mockery of it.

And of course political extremism is ugly whatever the flag being flown. But of course such demonstrations are often hijacked by militants for their own political ends. LGBT people are of course quite capable of being wrong, violent, evil, boring, etc as the rest of humanity though. Do not forget the part the media has in distorting our perceptions.

You perhaps do not know many people that identify as gay. I make that observation because of your 'us and them' references. I am reluctant to discuss my personal preferences on a public forum but I will say that I probably have more in common with other artists and musicans than anyone else.

It may surprise you but I largely agree with Ojustaboo on what he says here regarding orientation.

Where I will disagree is - I have yet to meet anyone who is gay because it is a lifestyle choice. Too tough a life and again there is the matter of wiring. You cannot program or reprogram yourself at will.

Gay doesn't rub off - children do not become gay if they are living in a gay household for example.

I think it is fair to say - if you only know of people, rather than know individual people themselves then you are only going to see the extremes, the actions that make those people stand out - and make the natural assumption that all people in that ( mythical) group are the same.

It is indeed human nature to want to categorise people and indicative of the fact we still are a long way from accepting and moving beyond our differences. But to be able to discuss and learn from one another is a start.

lloydsmith wrote: Where I will disagree is - I have yet to meet anyone who is gay because it is a lifestyle choice. Too tough a life and again there is the matter of wiring. You cannot program or reprogram yourself at will.

Gay doesn't rub off - children do not become gay if they are living in a gay household for example.

I only know two people fairly well (well that I know of), one of my daughters friends is gay and he has spent a few evenings getting drunk with me and her boyfriend as we play games like Buzz on the PS3.

And one of my best friends daughter is a lesbian.

You would not have the slightest idea of their sexual preference at all and that's kind of my point. They are just everyday normal people, liking and hating different things etc etc.

I can relate to this fine.

What I cant relate to (and I understand to a point this is caused by the media) is the stereotypical gay, like what I witnessed in Amsterdam, or how the schoolteachers gay friend dresses and acts in South Park (appreciate that's a cartoon) or the Blue Oyster bar in police Academy etc.

There's a guy that's on loads of panel shows in the UK recently, Louie Spence, here's a clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTguLOn6gb0

Doesn't matter what he appears on, I just sigh and wait for him to jump on the table, do the splits and wiggle his backside in the camera.

I obviously realise he and the people I have described here do not represent the average lesbian/gay person at all, but it is what the average person on the street see.

I think he acts like this (not being gay) totally for the reaction he gets, his choice sure but it's back to what this thread originally quickly turned into. I don't believe for one second Conchita is wired to dress the way he chooses at all, I can believe he's born gay, but the rest is simply his choice. And just like when I chose to dress like a punk, if he chooses to dress in a way that will obviously raise eyebrows he cant then honestly say all he wants to do is be accepted, if no one raised an eyebrow when he started doing this, I suspect he would have stopped many years ago.

With regards to not agreeing with me about some people being conditioned to being gay, It's a very very very hard thing to prove, You could be 100% right, I openly admit, but I don't think you are

You (or I) can only think based on your own personal experiences, if you are born gay, then obviously your experience is you have zero choice over it.

Again being careful not to be misinterpreted here, I am not comparing being gay to being addicted to smoking or being overweight, just using this as a simple example that springs to mind.

Speak to most fat people, speak to most smokers (not all) and they will say they are happy with their size, or are happy smoking and could gve up any time they want etc,

Speak to the same people a few years later when they have lost weight or no longer smoke and you usually get a different story, they admit to not really liking being fat or hating smoking but being unable to give up.

Mind you, that said, as an ex smoker who hasn't smoked since 1999, I loved smoking and could start again tomorrow and only gave up as it was damaging my health.

Could it be (and again I could and probably am wrong, have been wrong many times before) that if someone is in a gay relationship, they act in a similar way, say they have always felt like that, even if some haven't?

And again I feel the need to stress to people I'm not talking about anyone born gay I 100% agree some people are born that way.

Or could it be more than that, could it be someone discovers a gay lifestyle, loves what it offers, loves the people they are meeting, feel they fit in very very well and convince themselves they've always felt that way?

Again I'm talking more the sort of person into the so called gay scene, I know you say there's not a gay community, I'm just going by a quick google at the various gay and lesbian clubs/nightclubs

For instance look at the second pic (click on arrow in pic to go to ext one) here

http://www.holland.com/us/tourism/artic ... terdam.htm

I don't think I'm making myself very clear, I'll try again

A good friend of mine (was his best man also, not the guy I took to Amsterdam) struggled talking to women. Well that's not quite true, he had zero problem talking to women that were in a relationship with his mates, as he wasn't trying to chat them up, but he simply went to pieces trying to chat a woman up (I know moist of us have been there regardless of sexual preference)

He was still single, never having a proper girlfriend in his early 20's. Sure some guys (and girls) do that by choice, for whatever reason, but he was desperate.

One night he had a heart to heart with me and said that he was beginning to wonder if he was gay, maybe that's why he could't get a women.

(I know people who are gay know they are gay and wouldn't begin to wonder, please bear with me)

I said to him that he obviously is't gay as he fancies women, he just needs to get over this hurdle that's stopping him relaxing and acting normal in front of them.

This was 29 years ago.

6 months later he got over his hurdle, is now married and ended up with zero problems chatting up women.

I know I will probably get dragged over the coals for what I'm about to say, but is it something I wonder (and I have often been wrong in life).

If he felt like that now, with many more gay clubs around, and being gay no longer having the stigma attached that it used to have (well not in this country anyway) , I wonder whether if it was now, he would have ended up being gay (puts on fire proof coat and hides quick)

I'll try to explain my logic.

At 15 I had an extremely high sexual urge but didn''t have my first sexual experience until I was 18. For those 3 years it was almost all I thought about (and music). I just wanted to experience sex, which is exactly how my friend felt in his 20s. I was the odd one out, most of my friends had girlfriends, could pick up a girl any time they want, I was like the gooseberry

Even though I have never ever honestly found a man sexually attractive in any way shape or form, if I was 15/16 now, feeling like that, or my friend in his 20's, could we had decided (maybe when drunk, who knows) to go to a gay club to see what happened, and if while there a gay person picked either of us up and we experienced sex for the first time, would it not be possible that after finally experiencing sex with another person we wanted to do it again?

And could it be that we made loads of new friends, enjoyed the clubs we were in, enjoyed our new found sexual release and convinced ourselves we had always really been gay?

I appreciate that could come across offensive to some people, I really don't mean it that way at all, I am simply trying to give my thought process.

There's also those that have been abused (again i feel I need to stress I am not saying gay people are abusers any more than heterosexual people are, you get bad in all walks of society) . Often when a man has been sexually abused by other men as he grew up, he ends up carrying on with gay sex. Does it mean that when this happens, the poor kids that were abused all happened to be gay, or have they been conditioned to prefer this way of intimacy?

Again none of this is meant to take anything away from those that I honestly 100-% agree are born gay

I think that sexuality is a very complicated subject and it's easy for me and others to compare how we think and presume therefore everyone else must have the same clear unchanging views.

I suspect if you get a group of say 100 heterosexual women, and a group of 100 heterosexual men, feed them a truth drug (if such a thing exists) ask them what they would like sexually, how much they like sex etc and I think it would show what a diverse and completely different group (as in within each group, not men v women) of people we are .

If someone has a very low sex drive, maybe they cant understand men and women who go out on the pull every night. If someone has such an high sex drive they can hardly control themselves, they might wonder what all the fuss is about being faithful, why not get all the sex you can.

Then there's all the people in between.

The point of that is that it's not even a simple matter of choice. I had a heavy debate last week with a good friend over all the 60 and 70s UK Djs being hauled through the courts in sex scandals (I'm not talking about the likes of Garry Glitter or Jimmy Saville)

I said that while I would like to think I wouldn't have done, if I was caught up in the fame and the times and I had girls throwing themselves at me, would I have really cared at the time if they were only 15 (and my wife says that at that age, a girl getting off with someone famous would have been seen as something great to gloat about to your friends).

My friend said words along the lines of "But those djs had a choice. They had a responsibility. It's not all about instant gratification, it's not all about getting pleasure here and there, you have to be socially responsible too."

While in a perfect world what he says is correct, I know for example my womanising friend I mentioned in my earlier post if he was a dj, he would have been getting off with every single woman he could.

It's very very very hard for me or anyone else to judge how others act based on how we feel personally about sexual things.


I'm rambling again

I guess in my ideal world, we just wouldn't have to worry about the nature of our sexual adventures and there should be no stigma attached to people should they wish to explore different aspects of themselves.

Young people are indeed more open to persuasion which makes them vulnerable. i think it is particularly difficult for a person who has suffered gay sexual abuse to actually know what their true orientation is, and that is a tragedy I have witnessed more than once in my encounters with damaged people. It makes me as angry as it would anyone else, other than the abusers themselves of course.

I know of straight people who have tested the waters on the other side and then decided it wasn't for them so we can add that to the possibilities too.

You are right that we can only really talk from our experience and try to gain insight by listening to those of others and be open to refine our views on everything. Sounds jolly hard work written down.

In my experience, sexuality is not always a fixed thing from birth for everyone. But that is not the same thing as saying everyone has latent homosexual tendencies. My brother is 100% straight for example. Undoubtably so. In many ways we are very alike, humour, geekiness etc and in others totally different. Just the same as anyone else.

I do absolutely agree with you about people like Loius Spence, and yes, much of the exaggeration of their manner is surely down to marketing a persona for the media. Sadly I suspect he really is like that in everyday life... It probably grates on me even more than it does you, as it does nothing to promote acceptance. I can list a whole line of camp figures in history who by their manner totally alienated me and made me very uncomfortable to think I might have anything in common with them.

I also cannot bear I will Survive, YMCA and anything by Abba so it is definitely not gene related..I also struggle (not literally) with Elton John and his 'husband'....lol.. sometimes it all seems a bit risible. Whether I should feel like that or not, well I can't help it. Lol.

However my original point about Conchita was that if he chooses to promote himself in that way it is up to him, i can always look away. Whether it has been helpful politically is a moot point. It didn't matter enough to me to make me shave my beard for sure. I suspect he is attaining celebrity for self serving reasons but at least he has promoted discussion. Whether it is actually good PR is open of course to debate.

I don't think we are very different in most of our viewpoints here and where we are just adds to an interesting discussion. Thank you for putting some serious time and thought into sensitively contributing to what has become an enlightening and stimulating thread.

Many thanks for your responses, it makes a nice change to have a serious discussion without others derailing it .

See the problem, as I see it, is some people think that if you don't agree with someones lifestyle you must be a hater. I think that is just to far from possible. I have a good friend who is queer as a three dollar bill but we are still friends that doesn't mean I have to agree with his lifestyle but it is his to choose not mine. I can accept him for who he is but Like I said that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. This is what people need to understand, you can not force agreement or acceptance but it is possible to accept without agreeing or agree without accepting, sounds odd but we are complex organisms I wouldn't expect anything less then insane complexity, and even a fair amount of chaos!

FWIW maybe I am the odd one out. Wouldn't be the first time.

I don't and never will accept that gay people (or any other kind of "deviant" from the norm) will only be tolerated "as long as they don't go flaunting it", which is what I'm reading between the lines here.

I don't mind at all that many Christians have a problem with homosexuality, or with casual heterosexual sex. They should do their best to avoid this behavior. I mind when they start complaining others can't do it either.

We don't have gay mardi gras by the way, we don't in fact have mardi gras at all, although I suspect you just went for the nearest cultural equivalent. There's an important difference though - it's called the Gay Pride Parade, and it celebrates the freedom to be gay and the acceptance by society. It also represents the constant struggle to improve gay acceptance and gay rights. Almost none of the gay people you see dressed up like that will look like it on any other day of the year.

I dunno...depends how you define flaunting but parading oneself dressed for extreme acts the bedroom in front of Saturday morning shoppers always seemed to me to be counter productive to acceptance. And I just don't like camp, occasionally it can be funny but usually I find it more than a little pathetic.

In my youth I occasionally took part in political parades for various things and found it very uncomfortable to be around people who seem to think that being OTT was the way forward. They make me uncomfortable when they purport to represent me. They don't.

More progress in my book comes from finding common ground than flaunting ones differences. I think it is the wrong way of going about things. And to attack people for being intolerant when made uncomfortable by extreme behaviour is of course intolerant in itself.

Free speech ensures that everyone can comment what they like. I really don't mean to say that everyone should like the OTT look. But to say that it's fine if people are gay as long as they don't openly show it speaks of a latent bigotism. I wouldn't complain if those Christians we talked about went around wearing crosses and I don't insult a priest going about in his robes either.

EDIT: by the way, I can understand your point about making progress. We just disagree on how to get there I think, but the "end result" (if there is ever such a thing) should still be an open free society with full freedom of expression, religion and sexual orientation.

SanderXpander wrote:I don't and never will accept that gay people (or any other kind of "deviant" from the norm) will only be tolerated "as long as they don't go flaunting it", which is what I'm reading between the lines here.

So you would be happy taking your kids to your local town when say a BDSM group is flaunting what they like, with men/women being pulled along in chains with various clasps etc around various parts of their body which would look to a child (and a lot of adults) that the person in chains is there against their will and in a lot of pain?

Gays want themselves accepted as normal, then they go on a gay pride march and dress etc in anything but what is considered normal clothes.

I don't mind at all that many Christians have a problem with homosexuality, or with casual heterosexual sex. They should do their best to avoid this behavior. I mind when they start complaining others can't do it either.

But it's OK for some gay people to complain about Christians and try and change what Christians have to do in their places orf worship?

You think it's fine for gay and in your words, "any other kind of "deviant" to flaunt their lifestyle but think Christians should keep quiet as their beliefs and opinions go against what you believe?

Yes you have the fanatical Christian groups such as the famous one in the US with that idiot (I think I read somewhere he recently died) , but I don't know one Christian that thinks he and his group are either sane or representative of fellow Christians.

I had an argument with a local church when they were protesting and getting a petition against a local lap dancing club.

I simply said the following.

"If the lap dancing club got a petition together to close down your church and got more signatures than your petition gets, would you take the slightest bit of notice? And if the answer is no, why should anyone listen to your petition."

Personally I don't like lap dancing clubs, I think they are tacky and demeaning to women, even though many say they are happy to work there, I imagine most of these later on in life will have a somewhat different opinion and I don't believe it makes either men think of women, or those women working there think of men in any way that's really beneficial to society, but that's a different debate altogether

I know a fair few Christians, like any other group of people you have the sane ones, the ones not quite with it, the fanatical ones.

My dad is a fanatical Christian, if you are unlucky enough to be in a room with him when the TV news is on, it's a very very unpleasant experience,. Veins pumping in his head as he screams at the TV etc and I sadly can no longer be in the same room as him. I have told him in no uncertain words that if he was a Muslim, he would be a suicide bomber and I really 100% stand by that assessment. I've seen the worst of Christianity in my upbringing (I'm now 50 btw) , I know how bad some Christians can be, but you can apply that to any group of people..

He is not representative of most Christians i know.

I think that the churches in both the US and the UK (cant comment on anywhere else as have had zero experience) probably do more to drive people away from churches than any anti God group could ever do.

Some of the things I witnessed being bought up with church I could write a 3 volume book on and sadly most of what I saw does not make pleasant reading, churches I had first hand experience of have been AOG, Baptist, CofE New Frontiers and a few others and I have very little good to say about any of them. More like hypocritical, leaders wanting power and control, and sadly often deserting members of their churches when those members need them most etc.

However I know 100s of very good what I call normal Christians, a strong faith in the Bible and God and are not at all judgemental. Your not going to change their minds on what the Bible says or get the Bible re-written, that simply will not happen.

Most I know think along the following lines. They couldn't care less who comes to their church, it is open to everyone. If someone is leading a lifestyle God doesn't prove of, then God can convince them it's wrong, it's not their job to judge and condemn. And they include everything in this, whether gluttony, gossiping, sex outside of marriage homosexuality or whatever.

But at the same time many are very very worried about some of the recent law changes in the UK, as they see their simple passion to worship the deity they choose in their way, to be undermined at every turn by those who don't even go to their church.

A friend was telling me about a lesbian couple that were attending his church, no one cared. Yet every week the couple would challenge the church on various things and in the end my friend turned around to them and said that it was them that seemed to have a problem, it was them constantly going on about it, no one else was mentioning it.

At the same time and this is where it will sit very uncomfortable with many, I know none of my friends churches would allow someone in a homosexual relationship, or a couple living together outside of marriage etc, to preach, or lead any group etc. This is simply because they believe it's not what God wants and they believe that by letting someone in that situation lead such a group or preach, the church would be saying God approves. And that is something it's impossible to get around without trying to rewrite their entire faith which will never happen.


They know as do I that within a few years there will be a gay couple taking a church to court for refusing to let them marry there.

I got married in a registry office, I had zero desire to get married in a church, it's a piece of paper that makes things legal according to my countries law. I lived with my wife for many years and got married a week before our first child was born just to make things legal in the eyes of my country. We considered ourselves already permanently together in our own eyes and a marriage certificate that we can get divorced from at any time makes zero real difference to us personally.

If I was gay, I would have zero desire to get married or attend a church where it was obvious I wasn't welcome, I simply cannot see it being a nice day even if the courts ordered a church to allow me.

I also don't buy the various arguments about the definition of marriage as that to me is irrelevant. The churches definition for marriage in their "club" is for heterosexual people only and that should be their choice, and they should be able to do that completely unchallenged.

If someone else wants to start their own church with their rules, then go ahead, but you should not expect others to change theirs and that is why most churches seem to be worried, they feel (in the UK) that it wont be long before a gay couple demand to get married in a church they really have no interest in, just to make a point.

And "where next" is a valid point. Could a couple living outside of marriage take a church to court and demand they are allowed to lead groups etc, I know that sounds a bit silly but many churches feel their beliefs are constantly being undermined by those with no real faith in the first place.

One final comment on this (note I hate church, just an opinion), if I went to a church and say I was a woman, and I loved the church, loved God etc and I wanted to be a part of that church.

Regardless of my personal feelings, my personal agenda, the last thing I would want to do would be cause division within that church or get the church as a whole, bad publicity in the press, (it has enough as it is).

So even if as a woman I wanted to become a vicar and felt that it was unfair that I couldn't. I would put up with that unfairness for the sake of my church family, I would not do what happened in the CofE in the UK (well not sure about all of it, England anyway) where they happily got the church to accept women vicars causing huge splits in the church and getting it loads and loads of unneeded bad press in the process.

Which would lead me to ask the question , did they do it for the benefit of the church or the benefit of themselves, and I think you know what I think. And I apply exactly the same logic to gay people that kick up a stink in a church

Again I cannot stand churches., just trying to look at things from different angles.

I know I'm rambling about this, my apologies, I'm trying not to cross the lines on discussing religion as it's not the actual religion I'm discussion, more just showing what I've experienced to try and show my angle on everything.

e don't have gay mardi gras by the way, we don't in fact have mardi gras at all, although I suspect you just went for the nearest cultural equivalent. There's an important difference though - it's called the Gay Pride Parade, and it celebrates the freedom to be gay and the acceptance by society. It also represents the constant struggle to improve gay acceptance and gay rights. Almost none of the gay people you see dressed up like that will look like it on any other day of the year.

To be honest it doesn't' matter if its for 30 mins once a year, if people are portraying being homosexual as dressing like that (which in my eyes those people that dress like that are doing exactly that) , in my opinion they are completely undermining someone born gay.

Again I believe some people are born gay., I do not believe in the slightest that being born that way gives a person the desire to dress like most do in gay pride parades. I would have far more respect and I think there would be far more acceptance if such people actually acted normal in those parades.

You cant be born with a uniform that shows off your sexuality, it is simply a choice and a very very bad one in my opinion.

All they are doing is making themselves look anything but normal and fuelling the belief of many that it is a lifestyle choice.

I wouldn't be "happy" taking my kids to a BDSM parade no, sexuality is a very complex subject. I wouldn't make a huge issue out of it either though, that only reinforces the idea that it's a shocking experience. I don't see why I would need to take my kids there at all though.

Christians have free speech, the same as anyone else. You are making it seem as if I oppose that, and if I make it come off that way I'm sorry, because I don't. I do reserve the right to vocally disagree with them, because I believe their doctrine makes them unfairly judge another group of people, and in some cases it leads to hateful behavior and codified discrimination. Those last two can and should be opposed, not Christians themselves.

That said, there is a real problem between homosexuality and religion. I'm glad that you are in a Christian society where the people don't seem to care much either way. I hope that this opinion will become universally pervasive. But the actual book has some hefty lines on homosexuality and as long as the church as an institution does not take a clear stand on these in favor of gay people, I can understand people like those lesbian couple you met. At the same time I don't see why they'd have to or want to go to that church at all and judge people who don't seem to personally bear them any ill will, I agree with you there. It is important to point out injustice however, and we take a lot for granted that we shouldn't just because it's easier. Segregation could go on for so long not because huge amounts of people were active racists, but because they'd rather not busy themselves with changing the status quo - it might be uncomfortable to evaluate their beliefs.

I don't think you understand the point of the Gay Pride Parade. I understand that you find it hard to take people seriously when they're dressed that way. It's a party and people are supposed to dress up silly or over the top. Maybe it's also a tourist thing that makes it hard to see it in the context. Over here, we tend to actually go into town and enjoy the music, the joy and the costumed people and boats. The mere fact that you say you would have more respect for them if they dressed normal shows that we still have a ways to go.
I sincerely doubt that people would have a greater acceptance if there was a silent march of suited people once a year.

Ah, but...

it's called the Gay Pride Parade, and it celebrates the freedom to be gay and the acceptance by society

Where is it written that anyone HAS to be accepted by society? Does society accept fat people as attractive in general? No. Society finds them unattractive because of their body mass. But, make that person a fat homosexual, and now society is required to "accept' that person, but ONLY because he's a homosexual. Why is that important to anyone? If we are required to accept them, are we then not also required to accept Neo-Nazis, the KKK, pedophiles, and all their ilk as well? I mean acceptance is acceptance: either it's universal or it isn't. What if it's a black person-hating KKK member that's a homosexual? Are we then supposed to accept that person? Why is it only acceptable to not accept him for his racism, but be FORCED to accept him for his homosexuality?

And why is it called "Gay" in the first place? The term is homosexual, but even the homosexuals seem to feel a little embarrassed about that, so they come up with a softer, easier term to use. Isn't that a little hypocritical of them? They INSIST we accept them, but then they have to alter terms because they aren't in accord with what they are.

More to the point, forced acceptance is a form of mind control. An example: a person you don't find attractive asks you to date them. You say no. Couldn't that person then go through the same whole rigamarole demanding acceptance, and that you date that person? Isn't that forcing acceptance of that which you don't want?

The world makes the demand that we accept homosexuals because we've evolved to the point of universal acceptance, but we haven't evolved to the point where we're allowed to buy a 24 ounce soda, so there's legislation to outlaw it...

A person's orientation is a person's orientation... unless they are attracted to someone under a certain age. Then their attraction is immoral and illegal. Here in Georgia, it's completely legal for me to sleep with a female on her 16th birthday, but if she's 15 year, 364 days 23 hours and 59 minutes old and I do the same thing, I go to prison for 20 years. Someone want to explain that to me? Even weirder, with approval, I can then marry that 16 year old and do whatever we both consent to in bed with complete abandon. However, if one photograph of that ever makes it to someone else's eyes, I again go to jail for 20 years, for taking underage pornographic pictures... of my wife! (BTW, that's not just Georgia, that's anywhere the legal age of consent is under 18.)

My point is, you can't regulate, nor can you legislate acceptance. You can put it out there and hope, but you can't make it a law, else you will have to legislate every thing in the world that requires acceptance, else people will be able to skirt around it, because it's not illegal to not accept something, therefore it is subject to abuse.

Finally, none of this is relative to the man who won EuroVision. I don't know if he's homosexual or not. I made the original comment that I think he was silly for wearing a dress, shaving, and then painting a beard back on, and I stand by my comment. Maybe he's homosexual, maybe not, but in either case, I don't think that what someone is, or just because of what someone is, that should be a deciding factor in whether that person wins a performing competition, and I stand by that.

..Joe

Random thoughts

Gay stands for 'good as you', not a lot of people know that...(true). I hate it as a term and a label personally - LGBT is more inclusive but a bit of a mouthful.

I must say that surely the whole point of a parade is that it is seen by the general public so visibilty to minors IS an issue.