Homophobia
“Why is it that if I am against homosexuality I am referred to as a homophobic as if I have some kind of ailment?” This was a question asked by a CNS reader in one of the comments. It sounds like a simple question but in fact delves into conflicting ideas about modern society.
We believe in free speech – but at what point does that becomes hate speech? We believe in multiculturalism – but where do we draw the line and say ‘no, you can’t do that’? And who decides these things?
Firstly, to answer the question: homophobia is labelled so because it is a classification of prejudice, like racism, misogyny, Anglophobia, anti-Semitism, and so on. When people are victimised or marginalised or humiliated or in extreme cases brutalised, we (the wider international community) believe this is wrong and that finding an excuse for it in a religious manuscript or ‘traditional values’ is not acceptable.
Here’s an example of a religious practice that is unacceptable to most people across the globe: in a few Muslim countries (note: not all) an interpretation of Sharia law allows them to bury people up to their necks in sand and stone them to death for adultery. Now it could be argued that this is none of our business, that it is their country, their laws and they can do what they like to maintain their sense of morality. But the cruelty involved repulses us, the injustice outrages us, and whenever such a case is publicised, the international community puts pressure on the country to grant a reprieve; we lobby and campaign and petition for such practices to cease because we believe we have a moral obligation to do so for the sake of the victims.
Yes, I know that these terrible things do not happen here. I am simply establishing the principle of an international moral compass and the right or obligation of people on the outside of a community to ‘interfere’. Does everyone agree so far? Now, to put this in a local context, most people in the Western world, which includes many Christians, see discrimination of homosexuals as wrong, no matter what ‘traditional values’ dictate, and those rallies against gay cruise ships do much damage to these islands.
Historically, Christianity has been no less brutal than other belief systems: the Inquisition burned ‘heretics’ to save their souls and inquisitors believed they had a moral religious duty to light the fires; the "curse of Ham" justified slavery in the minds of the slave traders and slave owners; the Bible was trotted out to denounce movements campaigning for female suffrage; and how can we forget poor old Galileo, forced to retract his conclusions that the earth revolved around the sun because the church leaders of the day said it conflicted with their interpretations of the Bible and was therefore false.
Yes, I know that this was a long time ago and that these things have not happened here. I know that the anti-slavery campaign was championed by Christians (using the same religious text), and I am full of admiration for them. The principle that I am establishing this time is that some Christian beliefs espoused by some Christians, however strongly held, are simply wrong. Within Christianity, no less than in other religions, passionate beliefs feel like God telling you that something is true. But it ain’t necessarily so.
Now, let’s dispense with the comparison, widely used, that homosexuality is comparable with paedophilia. It isn’t. When they’re not going through the Bible to justify their prejudice, homophobes turn to the self-righteous “protecting the children”. But two consenting adults living together, loving each other and/or having sex do not harm anyone (or rather no more or less than heterosexuals in a relationship). Paedophiles hurt children, physically and mentally, and society has an obligation to protect the vulnerable from sexual predators, whether they are hetero or homosexual.
So why should we speak out against homophobia? Because prejudice in all its many dirty colours is mental cruelty.
The person making the comment referred to at the beginning said he/she has nothing against gays, but also writes, “I don’t think being homosexual is a born condition, I believe it is a sickness and even more sickening when they try to promote it as an ‘alternative lifestyle’ which is exactly why Gay cruises are organised.”
Now ask yourself, when someone says you are “sickening”, is that hurtful? If you have to put up with variations of this your whole adult life, how would that make you feel? (The same is true for battered spouses, people on the wrong end of racism, etc.) Quite as awful is the “love the sinner, hate the sin” brigade. Though these people think they are being nicer than the out and out homophobes, this is just name calling (“sinner”) and the real sin here is making someone feel bad about themselves. Stop it.
Then we inevitably come to Sodom and Gomorrah, cities destroyed by God for their wicked ways, and cited whenever those "pious" Christians try to justify their discrimination of any group that holds different lifestyles. A belief system that connects human action with natural forces is a dangerous superstition that can easily lead to persecution (and has done so repeatedly for the last 2,000 years): hurricanes are not forces of nature but God’s wrath because we allow degenerates to live here – and there are plenty of Americans who believe that Katrina was divine retribution on New Orleans.
“The gays are taking over!” – another oft heard piece of nonsense, as silly as saying that women or the disabled or blacks or Jews are masterminding a takeover of the world. People just want their rightful place as equals, a fair chance at happiness. Is that so bad?
Gay bashing is not a fact of life here yet, but it’s only a matter of time. The indoctrination of prejudice that the local churches inflict on young children at Sunday school, coupled with a more aggressive and increasingly violent youth culture makes this inevitable. The hateful, harmful bigotry against gays, spoken with “love” from the bully pulpit, will have consequences as evil as stoning someone for adultery.
And I, for one, will place at least part of the blame at the feet of the local church leaders for stirring up violent emotions and calling it “Christianity”, and political and community leaders for not doing anything about it.
Category: Viewpoint
Do we have any confirmed reports of children being turned to a life of sin as a result of the arrival this week of a group of very stylishly dressed high spending tourists this week?
344 comments on homophobia while we have escalating crime, accidents claining lives, earthquakes, escalating crime, etc. Glad Cayman has it’s priorities straight.
There will always be gays. Get over it already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
This was certainly an interesting read. When I read the part about Hitler being a heterosexual, I had to laugh, simply because of the above link I saw a few weeks ago. See an excerpt below.
"there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin’s Law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin’s law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk’s Exception")."
At the end of the day, this debate could go on and on and on and on and on, you get my drift. it’s like the debate with euthanasia and abortion. people will always disagree on subjects they have strong opinions on.
Right on target.
Along with the homosexuals not being welcomed as tourists, expats needing to leave, and the crime rate I think Cayman is heading towards a path of the past.
I personally believe that Cayman has issues now that are going to either sink the ship or save it. Those include:
– Blatant hating of expats (not all, but a majority of Caymanians). Guess all the experts should go home and let Cayman suffer on its own with empty buildings.
– Hating of homosexuals: Let’s not forget one of your "own" just got charged with raping another man. Guess there are no homosexual Caymanians. Don’t forget that a few of your most prominent business women cozy up to other women.
– Crime: Your police don’t even pick up bullet fragments at the scene. Guess you have some real smart people working there.
– A Premier who thinks he is "King" of the castle with no one to answer to. Has he done ANYTHING expect beg the criminals to halt the crime wave, ironically enough which started just after the UDP was elected.
– An Education Minister who is by nature smart, yet has to bow down to Big Mac and now you have empty, unfinished school buildings. Hope a big hurricane doesn’t come next year and then you all cry that you need shelter!
– Health: They can’t seem to get the swine flu here, but EVERY other modern country has gotten it. Yet, they come up with every excuse (4 now I believe) why it hasn’t come here.
-Emergency Room: A four hour wait, in the emergency room at the hospital. Guess that goes with the phrase "soon come…"
Yah, you got some good things going on here…..keep up the great work!
Funny… while some of the problems you have highlighted are true problems there are major gaps. Such as expatriate hatred of Caymanians. Intolerance of religion. Not to mention democratic world leades leaders far more perverse than our own Bush dragging whole regions into war over greed. In fact, on each of your valid points there is another side that is equally valid. So how about we round your little vision off…
As for the emergency room wait – clearly you aren’t from a place with an NHS where you have to wait sometimes years to see a GP and can’t see a dentist more than once a decade. It’s a good thing their emergency system works… sometimes… and your wait is only about 6 hours… because when else would you be able to see a doctor?
(HSA keep on doing what you’re doing. If it weren’t for the HSA and their wonderful emergency room people like me would have died several times over while the previous commenter waited outside for four hours for some cough medicine.)
But as always, there will be those with selective vision who will only see the bad. Unfortunately the negativity is more often than not paired with a love of ones own voice.
Your absolutly right. Give yourself a (manly)pat. What Cayman has is much better than the worst of what the world has to offer.
Aaah. There is the diversion we need! Let’s talk about racism instead and pretend it is all the same.
The original post Pax Vobiscum is referring to did not at any time mention Christianity, but the reponse infers it did.
Oh how clever of pax vobsicum to use a latin term to make his or hers comments sound credible.
Unfortunately the arguments offered are, in my opinion hogwash.
He or she compares homosexuality to Paedophiles as one being harmless and the other not. I beg to to differ since the term ‘harm’ covers both psychological and physical. We should protect our children from both kinds of harm. We should teach them procreation as nature intended and if they end up being homosexual, we have still fulfilled our obligation.
Proponents of homesexuality seek to influence school curriculums to include the teaching of homosexuality and have even gone so far as to lobby for tradiational book titles to be changed to reflect same sex names e.g. John and Jane.
Without any biblical reference I can say that the ONLY way man can reproduce is for male sperm to fertilize female egg. Therefore nature has intended this to be the only and correct way.
Before I am accused of being homophobic, I have nothing against gay ‘people’ although I do object to them hijacking the word gay to now mean homosexual. This is a deliberate attempt to infer one can only be truly happy (gay) if one is homosexual – what else could they possibly mean?
I believe homosexuality is wrong, I am against the principles of homosexuality, it is an opinion and does not mean I am prejudiced, racist or discrimate in any way, it is simply my freedom of speech in action.
For the proponents of homosexuality being natural and observed in the animal world it is important to remember that homosexual behaviour is not the same as being homosexual, and practicing sexual acts with a same sex partner which is NOT apparent in the animal world.
Q.E.D. (yes its another clever latin term, but is quite meaningless)
So a ship full of "gay" (to mean happy – cause dey is, mi amigo) folks, coming to Cayman and "practicing" homosexual acts would be fine by you as long as they don’t call or classify themselves as GAY and homosexual???
Get over it – you are as homophobic as the rest of them – you are just trying to justify it to yourself.
Get off your pulpit, chose a side and stop trying to sit on the fence – unless, perhaps, that gives you a jolly feeling that makes making a decision difficult…
Closet door, thrid on the left, come on out!!!!!
That is obviously not what the poster was saying at all. He/she is very clear that homosexuality is wrong. How is that sitting on the fence?
Is that the only counter that the Gay Lobby can muster – that anyone who openly disapproves of homosexuality must themselves be secretly homosexual? It is a little pathetic.
Well if you read it again the objection is to the hijacking of a perfectly good English word that is now only used to describe homosexuals. Furthermore what are you talking about with sitting on the fence?
Speaking of "hogwash", "Oh how clever…" has given us a prime example of the term.
Sorry, but regardless of how passionately you plea that you are not prejudiced against homosexuality, your supporting arguments betray your true inclination and expose your rampant homophobia. Moreover, to call some of your your statements hogwash would be a compliment.
First off, I would not "accuse" you being homophobic at all. You ARE homophobic! So much so that you equate homosexuality per se as being harmful to children. What is your basis for that belief? (Other than your rabid homophobia, that is.) We should indeed protect our children from inappropriate sexual overtures. But to promote the idea that homosexuality is something that requires protection from is a silly and dangerous idea. Your closing phrase "if they end up being homosexual we have fulfiled our obligation…" is most telling of your true nature. if they "end up homosexual"? You use that term in the same way one would say "if they end up broke", or "if they end up sick" or "if they end up in prison". I think you "ended up" homophobic, that’s what I think! And what’s with this "obligation"? Is it your view that we have an "obligation" to teach children that homosexuals and homosexuality is perverted and dangerous? What or who did this "obligation" come from? (Oh… I think I know but you won’t own up to that will you?)
The most effective homophobics hide behind a thin veil of openmindedness and tolerance, and even Christianity – but underneath the veil lies a dark heart full of hatred borne of ignorance.
Your ideas of educating our children about sexuality could have some interesting implications: "We should teach them procreation as nature intended".
Hmmmm? "As nature intended", eh? In the natural world most species begin to be sexually active as soon as they reach sexual maturity. So you’re saying that we need to teach our boys to begin "getting busy" once they start producing semen? Does that also mean once a girl reaches puberty she is fair game? Personally, I think out of blind ignorance you are promoting a dangerous concept.
In the natural world few species mate for life and most males do not stick around to even begin to assist in raising the young. In the natural world, males and females will have multiple sexual partners in the course of a single day. So I guess you are espousing promoting this very natural concept in the curriculum too? (Wow! Just think of the homework assignments in that class!)
I think your overall concept of patterning human sexuality after the natural world may not achieve the puritanical society in which you would probably be quite happy. I think your statements are simply silly and thoughtless, but typical, examples of the way many homophobics justify and promote their homophobia.
Your equating sexual orientation and sexuality solely with reproduction is another mark of a true homophobic. Has it ever occured to your that people are attracted to and have sex with other people for motives other than procreation? Are you aware that people engage in heterosexual sex practices that absolutely cannot result in procreation (but are a LOT of fun)? Are these to be avoided too?
Oh, by the way, your knowlege of animal behaviour is as void as your cries that you are not homophobic. Mother Nature find you guilty of gross ignorance. FYI: Same sex coupling and homosexual behaviour is quite commonplace in the natural world. It is especially prevalent among the higher-evolved and more social species.
When it comes to having sexual contact for pleasure, the bonobo chimpanzees are shameless champions of "anything goes" and are a prime example discrediting your statement that same-sex encounters do not happen in nature: scientists estimate that about half of bonobo’s are bisexual and virtually all of them engage in same-sex erotic conduct at some point.
What IS not common in the natural world but is all too common in the human world is baseless prejudice against homosexual behaviour and those who practise it. By writing this posting you have committed an unnatural act!
Here is a suggestion: go to the library or hit the Internet and open your mind and really study about that which you speak, and maybe then I will consider lowering your rating from "Silly Raving Homophobic" to "Homophobic-with-hope". At the very least you might actually learn something and be able to argue from an informed standpoint rather than repeating homophobic hogwash from your brainwashed past.
Lest this posting be branded as being "pro gay" or "anti heterosexual", or whatever: that is not my intention. What I am is "dumbophobic", I intensely dislike is intolerant people spouting hogwash and lies and pure silliness to promote their personal prejudices.
If you want to hide your lack of facts, stick to what you know: just be honest and simply say you have a baseless personal prejudice against gays and homosexuality and homosexual behaviour and it is your right to have those feelings. In other words admit your are homophic and proud of it!
You are introducing arguments in the original post that simply are not there.
The comparison to the animal world was homosexuality nothing else no mention of mating for life or any such thing.
The comment on educating children was about reproduction, nothing about advocating free sex for all ‘when they were ready’
You say I must stick to ‘Facts’ yet you readily accuse me of being homophobic when you neither know me or are in possession of such facts.
There have been many studies on animal homosexuality and at best the proponents of it can produce only inconclusive evidents, independant studies have produced clear evidence and that is where I base my informed opinion on. Most of this is available on the internet at credible sites that you may wish to visit.
Lastly in reading your writing style it appears to be ad-hominem and is a very poor attempt at rebuttal.
"Lastly in reading your writing style it appears to be ad-hominem and is a very poor attempt at rebuttal".
This is typical of the gay lobby, or at least of its representatives on here.
Your homophobic way of thinking is what I was replying to and was not even remotely trying to formulate a formal debate.
You accuse me of introducing arguments not in the original post? How silly when you are as or more guilty of doing so than I am! The tenor and main arguments in the original posting by Pax centred around the immorality of prejudice and the incongruence of prejudice in a civilised society. I see no attempts by Pax to justify sexual preferences and no references to natural sexuality or really any of the points you introduced in your posting. And even if I introduced arguments that were not there, what of it? Who said I can’t do that? Who made those rules? Did it sting because what I stated was true?
"Inconclusive events"?? Oh come ON! You HAVE to be joking, right? Where have you been hiding? There are scholarly and well-accepted scientific papers on the subject and the "events" are quite conclusively same-sex sexual behaviours. However, what is not clear – and what you seem to be trying to say – is that the events observed in the natural world do not conclusively support the stance of some pro-gay proponents. You are correct in this point. But then the evidence absolutely does not support your stance either. (I know, I know, I am giving private interpretation to your ramblings. But, hey, I am trying to give you at leastone point correct, ok? Because so far you are not fairing so well.) Read on:
You say that "independent studies have produced clear evidence", but clear evidence of what? And since you are so well-versed in formal debate and argumentation, must I remind you that "evidence" does not a truth create? Misinterpreted evidence can and often does create oppressive opinions, however.
Since you seem to imply that you speak only of sexuality and sexual orientation as it relates to reproduction, I countered that reproduction is not the sole motivation for humans to have sex, which is correct. Yes? (Do I hear a response? Ok, good, I’m glad you agree.)
Did your debating coach teach you to avoid the arguments entirely because thus far you have done a good job of avoiding Pax’s and mine. And you have answered none of my questions. I rarely ask rhetorical questions so they are actually inviting an answer, ok?
Many other species enjoy sexual contact that scientists have concluded has nothing to do with reproduction. Humans usually choose to have sex for pleasure. Therefore, I content that you cleverly narrowed the scope of motivations for sex to exclude sex solely for the purpose of pleasure in order to bolster your argument by reference only to the reproductive sexual drive model evident in the natural world.
So, since you imply that you speak of sexuality from a reproductive point of view, and I am referring to sex for pleasure, then what is your argument against homo-erotic contact solely for pleasure? I really do want you to try and answer this one! OK? Can you?
You write: "The comparison to the animal world was homosexuality nothing else no mention of mating for life or any such thing" Well! You introduced the idea of using animal sexuality into this thread. So, I ask, where do we draw the line in using the animal model as an example? And who decides what aspects of animal reproductive behaviours that we embrace and which we disregard in teaching our children? What are the criteria for such decisions?
Forget formal rebuttal or writing style, let me just cut to the chase here: In a formal debate the first "rule" or strategy is not choose a silly line of reasoning. Where your argument fails is your folly in crafting a rebuttal based comparisons between animal reproductive sexuality and human sexuality (and drawing conclusions based thereon) in the first place. See? If you go down that road trying to argue an anti-gay stance you could be in for a world of pain. I just ran with the theme for fun.
During mating the female mantis kills the male by biting off his head. The male starfish gestates the eggs and gives birth. Cows mount other cows for reasons not clearly known. Human and animal sexual behaviours seem to encompass realms outside of mere drives to reproduce. Here is the bottom line: Just because a behaviour exists, or does not exist, in the natural world does not make a similar behaviour inherently right or wrong relative to human sexuality.
To both the pro and anti gay/heterosexual sides, I say this: What goes on in the natural world does not automatically give rise to an argument for or against what is right or wrong for humans. Human sexuality, attraction and sexual practices are far too complex to derive a comprehensive moral model for humans from the natural world. In other words, you made a poor choice of argument in the first place. So why did you go there anyway? To give a bit of credence to your narrow-minded and prejudicial point of view, I surmise.
According to anthropologists, human homosexuality has been around since the dawn of mankind. In some societies it was frowned upon, in some it was promoted as a higher form. It would seem that the morality, the "rightness", of sexuality is in the eye of the beholder. Regarding the subject at hand, until someone proves to me or at least gives me some ample and credible evidence that homosexuality is wrong, I shall continue to make my displeasure known to those who lash out with prejudice at those who are hurting no one by their choice of a loving relationship with, or just sex with, another consenting adult.
Lastly, if your allegation of my approach being ad-hominem is in regard to my argumentation from a formal debate point of view, you are incorrect relative to the definition of an ad-hominem argument: I did not reject the validity of your argument because you are a homophobic; I label you a homophobic because of the fallacy of your arguments. There is a difference and a proficient debater would know the difference.
However, if you are using Latin to impress me with your vocabulary or your debating savvy, but you mean it literally in a semantic sense relative to the translation of the term from Latin to English, then you are oh-so very right! I am pretty rabidly ad-hominem when it comes to people who proffer silliness posing as truth.
So, now that we have that out of the way, please give us some credible and not-silly reasons why you are so against homosexuality. (Homophobia, maybe?)
That gay lobby’s position is hypocritical. On the one hand you deem stating that homosexuality is immoral to constitute "hate" and "homophobia", while on the other hand they get to state that expressing values which oppose homosexuality is itself "immoral". If stating that an acitivity is immoral amounts to hate then that must be the case every time, not just in respect of those with whom you disagree. You refuse to accept that there is a distinction between opposing a behaviour and hating the people, yet your venomous attacks are obviously against the people with all the gratuitous insults and name-calling . You have admitted that they are "rabidly" ad hominen. In other words, so long as you are convinced that you are right you can be as "rabid" as you like. Often the view is expressed that those whose views are opposed to you should be eliminated. If that is so, then why does it not apply to those people who oppose homosexuality? The gay lobby is therefore guilty of the very same intolerance of which they accuse others.
The gay lobby does not in fact engage in rational discussion at all. When inconvenient facts are brought to light the poster is immediately labelled as homophobic or a closet homosexual so as to avoid having to address the real issues. You have been given much evidence that homosexuality is wrong but you choose to ignore it. A previous poster has raised a number of health issues with regard to homosexuality. If male homosexuals and those who engage in sex with other men sare 9 times more likely to contract HIV than heterosexuals then this is a public health issue. Since smoking has been determined to cause cancer each pack of cigarettes has been issued with a warning label that smoking can be hazardous to your health. Smoking ads have been pulled from TV. In other words, there are efforts to discourage and not encourage smoking because of the public health danger. If 75% of the lesbian community is shown to have mental health issues which has been shown to be unrelated to any lack of social acceptance of their behaviour in liberal societies such as the Netherlands then this is a relevant fact to be taken into account.
The fact that human homosexuality has been around for a very long time is irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of it. Human violence has also been around since the earliest humans and we obviously draw no favourable conclusions from that.
Please stop pretending that those who do not share your views are irrational idiots so that your views can be foisted on society as somehow superior.
The gay lobby’s position is often hypocritical, agreed. It is probably my posting(s) you are referring to so let’s go:
First off, let me be clear on this. I am not part of any "gay lobby". I am part of the "Dumbophobic Lobby". I am hetero with equally straight children. The only reason I started responding to the postings in this thread is because of the relatively high number of silly arguments being offered and the bad attitude being displayed by the anti-gay side of the fence. I kinda like truth and fairness.
Being of mixed racial heritage and interacting with a few prejudiced people in my life gave me a good perspective on the subject of hatred and predjudice and a sensitivity to when a person’s attitude to another person or subject is a result of some type of prejudice. It also gave me a passion for exposing and denouncing prejudice and silliness whenever I encountered it. I did not cower to prejudiced people as a young person but took them head-on. I continue to do so now.
While the gay lobby’s position may have much bunk and hypocracy, the anti-gay lobby combines bunk and hypocracy with a religious mandate and and "us-or-them", often hateful, attitude. The vast majority of gay people just want to left alone and enjoy the right to pursue a happy and fulfilled life. (The same stuff straight people seek) If gays had equal rights from the start and were not the subject of hatred and prejudice, there would be no "gay lobby". The gays circled their wagons in response to threats and oppression.
In response to your silliness: I do not "pretend" that those who do not share my views are irrational idiots so that my views can be foisted on society as somehow superior. I simply point out the irrationality of idiots’ ramblings and leave it at that. (Which has been quite easy to do in regard to this topic.)
I do my best to expose the silliness of irrational idiots who often debate from positions of prejudice, paranoia and baseless fears, and I let the chips fall where they may.
Regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree with the core issue, I kinda like the truth to be argued and have little stomach for myths, folklore, religious spooky mysticism, fanaticism, pseudo-morality, pseudo-science, and personal prejudice being proffered as the Absolute Truth we must all live by. I say, live and let live.
I see you parroted the anti-gay "FACTS" offered by an earlier poster. (That might be insulting to parrots since they usually repeat exactly what they hear.) While the "facts" presented may or may not in fact be factual, the conlusions idiots draw from even sound data are often erroneous and usually tenuous at best.
Case in point – By what you wrote you have apparently firmly concluded that "75% of the lesbian community is shown to have mental health issues which has been shown to be unrelated to any lack of social acceptance of their behaviour in liberal societies such as the Netherlands? You read the so-called "facts" but you drew an idiotic conclusion, because the data do not support drawing that conclusion.
I hope readers here review the posting to which you refer and note carefully that you actually REWROTE the "facts" to serve your own bigoted views. In truth, the "facts" posted stated that 75% of the lesbian sought counseling or treatment for certain mental conditions. Not all peope who seek counseling or treatment are necessarily indeed ill. A valid possibility that you did not even entertain is that lesbians may be more likely to seek counseling or treatment for mental conditions whether or not such conditions actually exist. The data does not allow a conclusion to be made regarding the actual incidence of such illnesses relative to the gay versus straight communities. For all we know in that country 80% of hetero peole seek such counseling.
You also failed to restate the facts correctly so rabid is your prejudice! In addition there is no mention of any data to "show" that lesbian mental health "is unrelated to any lack of social acceptance". The person making the statement made that implication and you butchered the entire statement and drew an irrational conclusion based on misconstruing the data you read. Does that make you one of the idiots you accuse me of castigating? I will leave that for you to answer.
You accuse me of being "rabidly ad-hominem" against those who oppose my views. Again you have absolutely mangled the facts. I stated that I am rabidly ad-hominem in opposition to those who use silly and baseless arguments to further their agenda. Sound familiar?
By the way: Thank you for offering a prime example of the type of silliness I strive to expose. Your folly helped my Dumbophobic, anti-idiot cause greatly. I am sure the "gay lobby" thanks you too. Your attitude and mindset are exactly what the writer of the original Viewpoint posting is referring to.
I do not ignore credible argument but so far – in regard to the rabidly anti-gay postings – have seen few if any rational points that are worthy of serious consideration. If your main points are any indication of the clarity of thought of the anti-gay lobby, God help you. No, God help us all!
So far not a single person on this thread has offered any credible, factual, logical argument as to why homosexuality is somehow inherently wrong and many pro-gay adherents have been equally lacking in credibility. Until I see that posting I shall continue to file similarly lacking homophobic responses in the "Idiot" folder.
I will leave you with this: If indeed it is true that "male homosexuals and those who engage in sex with other men are 9 times more likely to contract HIV than heterosexuals", may I add that exclusively lesbian females are far less likely than either gender heterosexuals to develop AIDS. So, perhaps out of your concern for public health, you will agree that lesbianism is a healthier choice?
You see? Basing an argument on "facts" but missing the whole picture can result in some very interesting "conclusions"! Where your argument fails is basing your castigation of gays out of concern for "public health" and only presenting part of the picture (in this case HIV vulnerablity of homosexual males) to "prove" your point. Single straight males have a higher incidence of HIV than married males. And the vast majority of HIV positive females were infected by a single male. Does this mean we must outlaw unmarried hetero sex out of concern for public health? Some people here would like that idea.
Ok, I am done with you. Next…
You are obviously a very emotional excitable person with whom name-calling takes the place of sound reasoning. Do you speak to everyone with whom you disagree with insults, or are you having a bad time?
I am afraid I did not find much of your post intelligible but I will respond to the few points that were:
First you say that "parroted" the facts and then you say that I "rewrote" them. You do understand, don’t you, that those two statements are incompatible? Either it was a correct statement of the facts or it was not. But of course you were focussed on delivering insults rather than reasoning.
I didn’t accuse you of being "rabidly ad hominem". That was your description of yourself which I quoted. You are apparently so enraged that you do not recognize your own words.
You seek to deflect the point about the very high incidence of HIV amongst homosexual males, by referring to the fact the heterosexual females wereinfected by heterosexual males and to the incidence among single heterosexual males. You appear to have assumed that I am only opposed to homosexual immorality. Quite to the contrary, the point is that immorality was involved at some point whether that is homosexuality or heterosexual immorality. Indeed in many of the cases, where heterosexual women are infected it is because they have had sex with men who are bisexual and have had sex with other men, and in some cases because they engage in anal sex. This information is all readily available at the Centers for Disease Control website. If people practised only monogamous, vaginal heterosexual sex we would not have these health issues. If you do not understand that the fact that homosexuals are infected with HIV at a rate 9 times higher than heterosexual men (including those who engage in high risk activity) amounts to credible factual evidence why homosexuality is wrong then the problem clearly lies with you since it will be obvious to any intelligent, objective person. This is an example where ideology has displaced commonsense.
As the data indicates the health issues re lesbians has primarily to do with mental health (but also drug use). This issue is not evaded by the ridiculous suggestion that somehow lesbians are likely to seek treatment for a condition that they do not have or that this would be reported if in fact they received no treatment. That is a transparently desparate attempt to evade the issue.
There are of course many other issues such as drug use which tends to go hand in hand with the gay lifestyle. The Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population. No doubt you, and the rest of the gay lobby, will dismiss all of this as irrelevant but this only demonstrates that you are as morally bankrupt as those whose cause who champion.
Good try. I myself negated the "parroted" part as an insult to parrots since parrots repeat correctly (clearly implying that you were not correct in your statement) but, in your oh-so-lucid insight you somehow failed to comprehend the negation, did you not? (Why do you do continually miss things like that? It is silly.) I do not usually craft such statements to allow silly people to dismantle them. Thus, your initial statement just went "poof".
Perhaps the reference to rabidly ad hominem was in need of further clarification. The tenor of your accusation was that I oppose those who do not share the same view as I. You are incorrect, that is not what I said. I have made it clear that I am rabidly opposed to the silliness of arguments such as the one your proffered about my "parroting" statement when I clearly negated it myself. I am rabidly opposed to silliness posing as righteousness. I am rabidly opposed to silliness resulting in oppression.
FINALLY! You have come clean and have at long last made it relatively clear that you are opposed to homosexuality on moral principles. Am I correct or not? (Your answer?)
You accuse me of "deflecting" when you have yet to directly answer a single question I have posed to you. Who is "deflecting"?
Now to address you glaring non-sequiturs (in other words, your fallacies of reasoning.) In my opinion you are so rabidly homophobic you do not care to reason clearly.
For the purposes of illustrating your silliness, I shall assume that it indeed factual "homosexuals are infected with HIV at a rate 9 times higher than heterosexual men (including those who engage in high risk activity)". You conclude that your data: "amounts to credible factual evidence why homosexuality is wrong". It does no such thing! To rephrase, your conclusion is in error.
You have given a very good example of a non sequitur. Your conclusion is not the only such "conclusion" that may be drawn. The statement is actually rather open ended in regard to such a conclusion as you have made. From the data given, one may only formulate inferences in regard to the moot you are trying to support. In this case "wrong" is more a moral judgement than a logical conclusion, and you are quite far from proving your point. You may have provided evidence that homosexuality is associated with certain risks, but then so is cliff diving associated with certaijn risks. But neither is inherently "wrong" just because of an inconclusive correlation with risk.
There are other inferences that could be made based on your data: homosexual men may need to be better informed about safer sex; homsexual men may need to be better educated regarding safer sex. Gay men may need to be more responsible in regard to their sexuality and sexual practices. There are others, but by now you get the idea.
So you are a proponent of limiting sexual interaction to only heterosexual vaginal intercourse? Ok, here a few questions: Are you implying that any other form of sex is immoral? Must the participants be married (to each other), or is pre-marital and/or extra-marital heterosexual vaginal intercourse ok in your book? I don’t think many people are on board with you on this one but you are entitled to your curiously puritanical sexual lifestyle.
I would like answers to all the questions I have posed to you thus far because we could make progress in mutual understanding here. Perhaps I have misunderstood your motives all along. So please do not "deflect" on this, ok?
I have been very forthcoming on the "why’s and wherefore’s" of my opinions, but you have been far less so. The best you can do is come up with disjointed reasoning and non-sequiturs in feeble attempts to discredit my statements.
Let us now cut to the core of the issue. Ok?
It is clear to me now that the basis of your anti-gay stance is substantially a moral one. Am I correct? In considering where we began, we can see much inconsistency in the substantive basis for your succesive arguments: As I recall you first tried to use the "natural" realm to discredit Pax and argue your point. It failed. Then you simply stated you are against homosexuality because it is your freedom of speech right to do so. (Which it certainly is.) Then you tried to discredit my writing as being "ad-hominim". You were shown to be barking up the wrong tree again, so then you went on to use health statistics, and finally, you drew fallcious conclusions by making inferences based on certain correlations, which your data did not support.
Just because there is a correlation between two events does not mean that one is the cause of the other. To draw such a conclusion without proof makes one guilty of the post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning fallacy.
Establishing a clear relation as to causality is key whenit comes to drawing a logical and soundly based conclusion. Thus far, the mass of your evidence is more or less anecdotal to the issue and you have failed to establish a "cause-effect" relationship between homosexuality and the all the ills of which you write. Many of your arguments are mostly forms of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallicious reasoning. As are many of the anti-gay arguments and conclusions in this entire thread. But I suppose you will disregard this point, huh? Not out of will, but because you simply cannot at this point prove a causality relationship. Can you?
I am not saying a "cause-effect" relationship does not exist. I am saying you have yet to provide empirical evidence of any cause-effect relationship. Pretty poor performance after all the words you have expended.
Now you choose to reject viable interpretations of data and label them as "ridiculous" when in fact they are possibilities at least equal in soundness to your conclusions. Just because someting seems far-fetched does not mean it is impossible. You just choose to ignore that aspect because it will not bolster your homophobic case.
In regard to the reference to the lesbian "facts", I was not trying to evade any issue. I was merely pointing out "conclusions" which were no more than mere inferences based on reading into the data things that were not there. (Which, by the way is one of the hallmarks of poor argumentation.) I again continued down a path you blazed and arrived at different, but nontheless equally sound, "conclusions". Probably equally crummy argumentation but at least I tried to remain at your level.
So let’s kick things up a notch! Let me illustrate how fallicious conclusions might be drawn: I am willing to wager with you that I can prepare an elixir which I am confident I can truthfully declare, prove, and which, over a period of years, any independ study can verify: "At least 9 out of 10 of test subjects who drink my Magic Elixir will live to be over 90 years old."
You are invited to be present throughout the study. Do you take the bet? I am willing to wager CI$100,000. Any takers?
Back to the point. Now we have new light on the subject! We now see that your prime objection to homosexuality is based on moral grounds. Your attempts at rational argumentation all failed and now the truth is apparent.
Morality is a very subjective and personal thing. No? I would say it is correct to assume you have an aversion to homosexuality for personal moral reasons. (Please correct me if I am wrong, ok?)
Whatever the basis, Ithink we can safely say that you do have such an aversion. Again let me know if I am incorrect here.)
We continue: Just as it is correct to label those who have an aversion to water as "hydrophobic" and those who have an aversion to heights as "acrophobic". (Uh, oh…I guess you see where this is leading, huh?) Yup, your aversion to homosexuality permits the label of "homophobic". Checkmate! See how easy that was?
If you have a truthful, straight, simple answer to this question, please tell us: On what principles of morality is your aversion to homosexuality based?
Is your distaste for homosexuality just a personal aversion for no good reason? Are you now prepared to reveal just why you consider homosexuality as being so "immoral"? You thus far have not remotely addressed this morality issue. You have dallied around the issue by citing the natural realm, your health concerns, and my perceived lack of argumentation skills. But you still have not covered the truth as you perceive it on moral grounds.
I have spilled my guts here and addressed each issue in a very transparent forthright way and you just prance around here and there grabbing at tenuous physical data and certain "facts" to bolster what we now see is really a case based on morality.
So, since this is an issue of morality, I ask this one simple question and we hope you do not "deflect" around it as you have done numerous other of my questions:
Why is homosexuality inherently immoral?
I await your answer.
First, let me congratulate you. Notwithstanding the continued arrogance, you seemed to have cleaned up your act a little. Indeed you are now using latin terms. Very impressive. It might indicate that you are living up to the very high opinion you have of your own intelligence. But then again it might not. I really do not have the time to respond to all of this but there are a couple of points to which I ought to respond.
The point about the factual statistics is to demonstrate that there are objective reasons, reasons we should all be able to understand, why one should be opposed homosexuality. You, together with the rest of the gay lobby, keep misusing the term "homophobia". Phobias refer to irrational fear or hatred. I have no hatred or fear of homosexuals. And as I have already demonstrated my position is certainly not irrational. Holding that homosexuality is immoral does not mean that one is homophobic. You remember the latin word you used – non-sequitur? You try to achieve this leap by suggesting that morality is simply a subjective and personal thing and that if you disapprove on moral grounds it simply reflects your personal aversion, and personal aversion means irrational fear. Your entire argument depends on the premise of moral relativism and a series of non-sequiturs. I do not aceept your premise. My objection is not merely about my personal likes and dislikes. However, where behaviour is shown to be harmful we should have an objective basis for agreement.
If you had been interested in understanding the rights and wrongs of the issue rather than ignoring the facts in your attempts to defend homosexuality against all arguments then you would understand what lies behind the statistics – that there are particular aspects of the homosexual lifestyle which promote the spread of HIV AIDS and other diseases. You would not be positing the very silly suggestion that somehow homosexuals may be less informed about safe sex than heterosexuals. You would have at least have attempted to find the real reasons. I would not have been forced to be graphic. You would understand that it is caused by (1) the nature of the homosexual sex act which mingles blood, semen and faeces, and (2) the generally promiscuous lifestyle. (They also engage in other sexual practices which are too horrific to mention here. ) For example 2004 study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city’s homosexual male population. According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. Pretending that there is no causal link does not help the homosexual.
Incidentally, you have attributed a number of things to me which were clearly the approaches of other posters. Please do not assume that there is only person responding to you.
Re magic elixir, suppose there was a reliable study that showed that you were NINE TIMES more likely to suffer a brain aneurism and die if you ate a particular food product than if you did not. Would you really be so stupid as to continue, and to encourage your family, to eat the particular food product because these were epidemiological studies and therefore did not technically prove that the food product was causing the aneurisms?
I like your analogy. Please allow me to expand on it. If the study reflected that those who eat a particular food produce are 9 times more likely to have a brain aneurism and die than if you did not, would you:
(a) continue to eat the food product and encourage others eating that product to continue to do so, and in addition accuse those reporting the results of the study of hating or fearing those who enjoy the particular food product; or
(b) tell everyone you know that perhaps eating that product is not a such a good idea.
The poster was right about the magic elixir analogy though, it does indeed demonstrate fallacious reasoning starting with the fact that it bears no relationship to the issue at hand. "Magic Elixir" suggests that it constitutes quackery and is a fraud. It is not clear how this compares with scientifically controlled studies. The claim would be prospective and not based on retrospective studies and therefore not be immediately verifiable. If the claim was false by definition the buyer would not be around to make any charge as to its falsity and the seller would not be around compensate for false advertising.
Oh dear. This is who homosexuals have supporting them? You are clearly emotionally unbalanced and immature. The idea that straight women may be more likely to have mental health issues than lesbian women is hilarious, but it is understandable that you would have that perception given your own unbalanced condition. In a 2003 study (Cochran, Sullivan & Mays) it was found that GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender)groups are about two-and-one-half times more likely than heterosexual men and women to have had a mental health disorder, such as those related to mood, anxiety, or substance use, in their lifetime. Is the picture clear enough for you yet? Not that this will cure your delusions, but those are the facts.
Who said I had any "perception" in regard to the issue? I think in your hilarity you missed something. Or perhaps your reading and comprehension level has not caught up to that required to grasp this issue properly?
Ok, you are now armed with some "facts" Good! I am happy for you.
In other words, the facts are your "bullets", the case you are trying to establish is your target. Yet you have loaded your gun but you have failed to identify a target (a conclusion). So far you are merely armed and dangerous.
So what is the correlation you are trying to establish here? Are you trying to establish that homosexuality is the root cause of such disorders?
Gee, I hope you can make your conclusion understood because I do want to be "deluded" by my lack of clear perception of what you are trying to say. So state your case and the cause-effect relationship you are trying to establish and I shall be happy to reply.
Steady now! Let’s see if you can hit the target.
Target hit a long time ago. You are just too cluelessto notice.
In an interview with Zenit News, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a child and adult psychiatrist in practice for more than 27 years, said, "Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interviews, males who had any homosexual CONTACT within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual CONTACT within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence."
He concluded by saying, "Men and women with a history of homosexual CONTACT had a higher prevalence of nearly all psychiatric disorders measured in the study. These findings are the result of a lifestyle marked by rampant promiscuity and an inability to make commitments, combined with unresolved sadness, profound insecurity, anger and mistrust from childhood and adolescence."
Don’t blame homophobia for the mental disorders, blame homosexuality.
Incidentally, you are not nearly as smart as you think you are.
mood, anxiety or substance abuse …hmmmm… maybe its because homophobic idiots, like you, make their life so miserable
Name-calling is not logical argument, but shows that you are bereft of anything inteliigent to say.
CORRECTION: Sorry, it was late and I did not proof read. Where I wrote: "The male starfish gestates the eggs and gives birth." Should read: "The male seahorse gestates the eggs and gives birth." (I would not want any of our children to be an incorrect lesson in marine biology!)
So, according to your opening statement, anyone with an opinion that does not agree with yours is homophobic? I too am against homosexuality, but not homosexuals, is that so difficcult to comprehend.
Well there you have it, I am a homophobic according to you, because I have an opinion that does not agree with yours.
I am not a Christian, but I believe that homosexuality is wrong, is my opinion wrong? Is there something wrong with me? Am I homophobic? Should I seek psychiatric treament? Should I perhaps try it to see if I like it? Am I suppressing the homosexuality inside me?
According to the Gay Lobby, the answer is yes to all the above. It really doesn’t matter that they don’t know anything about you as an individual. It is proved by the simple fact that you have the temerity to believe homosexuality is wrong.
No but I will say you question your self to much.
May I suggest self assurance classes
The questions are intended to be thought provoking and to the writer are rhetorical. It is common in debates and polls to solicity viewpoints by posing questions
Your opinion is indeed wrong.
There is likely nothing wrong with you other than probably you have been brainwashed by the church. If you are homophobic, it might be because you don’t understand and are feeling the mental stress between (a) the rational part of your brain that tells you that whether that guy over there is gay or not is no more "right or wrong" than whether he has red hair or black hair, and (b) the effect of the brainwashing by the church that "gay is bad" without providing any rationally sound argument as to why.
Should you seek psychiatric treatment? Nope, just reject the indoctrination and abandon irrational hate, and go on out for a beer with your friends and forget about the whole thing.
Should you try it to see ifyou like it? Nope, not unless you swing that way. If you know you play right handed, why swing lefty? If it isn’t your gig, fine. This is about not irrationally hating those who do swing that way, not about your orientation.
Are you suppressing the homosexuality inside of you? No, but if you are not careful you might be guilty of oppressing the homosexuals around you.
Doesn’t take any brainwashing from the church to see that there is something wrong with homosexuality. A number of facts that show its harmful effects and have nothing to do with religion were offered up in a previous post. Quite to the contrary, it takes serious brainwashing by the gay lobby to not see that there is something seriously wrong with it.
Another brainwashing victim surfaces…
If you want to call rational thinkers "the gay lobby", what do we call you? The Hate Lobby?
No need to announce your arrival, it is quite evident that you are another gay lobby brainwashing victim.
Aaah but you are not rational thinkers. You ignore relevant facts if they do not suit your agenda and castigate those raising them as "haters". That is not rational behaviour but is mere propaganda.
How about the heterosexual lobby since we have not hi-jacked any other English word?
And the word "straight" shouts out, "What about me?"
How about the "not so well dressed and less likely to have a decent body" lobby?
And just where is the Church mentioned in the posting? Why have you introduced something that is not relevant to the posters comments?
FACT: According to the journal Nursing Clinics of North America in 2004 homosexual men and men who have sex with men "are nine times more likely to become infected with HIV than their heterosexual counterparts".
FACT: According to The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers by Michael Newton Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation… On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random hate crime.
Also according to The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology "Forensic pathologists often state that homosexual homicides are more violent than those with heterosexual victims. Overkill or wounding far beyond that required to cause death is a frequently used descriptor of these deaths. We quantified the number and extent of injuries between homosexual and heterosexual homicide victims to determine whether one group suffered more violence than the other…Homosexual homicides are more violent than heterosexual homicides when one compares the mean number of injuries (fatal sharp, blunt, and total)/case and the extent of injuries on the body".
FACT: Homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse). A U.S. national survey of female homosexuals was published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology which found that 75 percent of the approximate 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some type, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness. Gay lobbyist like to blame this on discrimination. However, John R. Diggs, M.D. states the following regarding homosexuality and mental health:
"An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries — in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands. So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia".
Homsexuality then is a destructive lifestyle. And you wonder why God says it is a bad idea?
I can hardly wait for the explosions.
Who but a man who is wrestling with secret feelings of their own latent homosexuality would be so worked up over gay men?
You are clearly yearning to hug it out with a fellow fundie male. Do us all a favor and go on a Christian fundie retreat in the mountains of the US somewhere. You are sure to share a special moment in the woods with some other tormented soul there. Afterwards, maybe you will feel much better and stop devoting so much time to hating others.
Go ahead, don’t worry about repurcussions. Remember, Christian fundies aren’t perfect, they’re just forgiven. So when you are finished with your secret camp communion, just say "sorry" and you’ll still be good to go for the Rapture.
Hey, speaking of the Rapture, can I have your car when you vanish?
LOL! Quick, quick! We have no sensible response. We need a diversion!
Bring in the Jews – they’ve been on the sidelines way too long.
WTF – can we just try being constructive here folks (and folksettes)???
And those in between and straddling (maybe a poor choice of words…) – folksetas, maybe??
And you are being constructive by accusing anyone who disapproves of homosexuality of being a closet homosexual? Give me a break. Not sure what the Jews have to do with it. Looks like a desparate attempt by you to try to claim moral high ground. Unlike practising homosexuality being Jewish does not make one immoral. But of course you would like to get off topic because you cannot answer the very valid points that have been raised about the destructiveness of homosexuality.
Actually the only thing we know about the poster is that he/she disapproves of homosexuality on what appear to be factual bases, and believes in God.
Your ridiculous conjecture about me does not rebut solid facts about the issue.
You seem to know a lot about homosexual liaisons.
They know, you do… Me thinks…
How silly. You don’t know me. But it is clear that poster was a having a homo fantasy.
Guess you’re in it… Enjoy the moment – embrace your inner feelings…
Knock, knock, can I come in too?
Thank you – again, closet door – third on the right – COME ON OUT!!!
This is just stupid, and clearly made up with falsified or "spun" references. What an idiot!
They are direct quotes from reputable publications and medical journals. No spin, nothing false. You can’t handle the truth so you live in denial.
Spin is so RIGHT! The "facts" do little to indict homsexuality but do make a mockery of those who base their homophobia on erroneous conclusions based on such facts, regardless of the validity of their sources.
If the "facts" the poster presented are intended to rouse anything other than pity for the person who posted them, he failed.
For example: The statement, " A U.S. national survey of female homosexuals was published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology which found that 75 percent of the approximate 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some type, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness" does nothing to prove that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems, but it does support the moot that lesbians may be more prone to seek counseling for such problems whether or not any real problem actually exists.
Another example: The statement "Forensic pathologists often state that homosexual homicides are more violent than those with heterosexual victims", does nothing to prove that homosexuals are more inherently violent or more prone to homicide than heterosexuals. It is a scare-mongering tactic and poor argumentation at best.
And finally: The statement "According to the journal Nursing Clinics of North America in 2004 homosexual men and men who have sex with men ‘are nine times more likely to become infected with HIV than their heterosexual counterparts". This is absolute scare-mongering. I would proffer that several studies have shown that lesbians are less likely than heterosexual women to contract AIDS. This "fact" suggests that, from a fear of HIV standpoint, it is best to be lesbian than heterosexual!
Spin is very subtle, but dangerous.
There is no "spin" involved. Your rebuttals are pretty silly and are themselves "spin". Why would you assume that lesbians are more likely than heterosexual women to report mental health issues? Prejudice against hetero women?
Merely asserting that the statement of a fact is "scaremongering" is not logical argument; it is merely seeking to avoid the issue by giving the statement a pejorative label.
Keeping secrets tends to increase stress and risk of mental health problems. Homosexuals have to keep more secrets because of bigots like you. Being gay is not the cause of the problem, being the victim of prejudice is.
The problem is not the merely keeping secrets as this is shown in very liberal societies such as the Netherlands where it is not kept secret but is socially acceptable. The problem is the lifestyle itself. Stop blaming others for the harmful effects of a degenerate lifestyle.
Oh yes. Everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.
Now ya got it! Spin! Of course I put "spin" on the "facts". However, I did not make an inviable inference. Re-read what I wrote and you will see the assumptions are indeed permissible given the "facts". I merely offered an alternative inference based on the data you presented. Because your data ("facts") are inconclusive relative to proving the immorality or "wrongness" of homosexuality, I merely applied spin of another direction to illustrate the folly of drawing fallacious conclusions. Anyway I am glad you and I can agree as to the folly of doing so. So we will not do it again, will we?
Here is a no-spin fact which has been stated elsewhere in this thread but which bears repeating here: In regard to your facts and all similar anti-gay facts I have read in reply to the "Pax – Homophobic" Viewpoint: Although these "facts" may establish some degree of correlation between homosexuality and the ills of which you write, none of your "facts" establish a cause-effect relatioship. And that is a very significant failure because it means that your "facts" and statistics do nothing to prove that homosexuality is "wrong" or immoral.
Bear in mind I have yet to read in this thread reference to a scientific study concluding that homosexuality is the cause of an increased incidence of mental illness, or for that matter that homosexuality causes any of the ills of which you write.
The distinction is important, because any "fact" or statistic not accompanied by, or ultimately leading to such such a conclusion may be spun in any direction and yet proves nothing.
Therefore, I would proffer that as yet not a single person here has proven that homosexuality is indeed inherently wrong or immoral. Yea, not a single person here has presented any "facts" or statistics that conclude that homosexuality is the cause of mental illness or other associated maladies written about here.
News flash for you! Until 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s position was that homosexuality was itself a mental illness. What changed then was not based on any new research but simply the result of political pressure by the gay lobby. Even so the vote that changed it was only 57% of those who voted. The classification changed not because of science but because of political correctness.
Many facts have been presented that show that homosexual practices are the cause of the spread of disease.
FACT ATTACK! Wowzas
So basically what you are saying is that homosexuals are more passionate and emotional than heterosexuals. Even if all that you cite is true, your underlying assumption is that homosexuality is something that can be turned on and off. That is just not the case. What you would rather see is homosexuals pretending to be heterosexual, in the same way that your religion requires you to pretend not to ‘covet your neighbour’s ox’. This all comes across as bitterness that you have to play by rules of your own invention but others who don’t have not been struck down yet. Take it up with your god, it’s his business not yours. And, please do not try to use science to back up your archaic beliefs it is not up to the task.
Huh? What said is that it is a destructive lifestyle. In view of the examples used I am not sure how you reduce that to being "passionate and emotional". If we are 9 times more likely to contract HIV if we engage in male to male homosexual behaviour why should that not be publicly stated? Political correctness? Since smoking greatly increases our chances of getting cancer, there is an acknowledgement of that and a public health warning.
No, we do have control over our sexual behaviour. Arguably the heterosexual male’s natural inclination is not to be monogamous but to have multiple female partners. But we can choose to exercise self-discipline and rein that in. We renew our minds.
Human nature is sinful. We have all sorts of proclivities. We are predisposed to sin from birth so it is not a good argument to state that "to me the behaviour is natural".
As many former homosexuals have testified there is deliverance from homosexuality.
The rest of the post is unintelligible. I am not sure how "bitterness" or "rules of (my) own invention" get into all of this or what it is that I must take up with God.
Don’t you love stastics? let me use your own as a good example
Fact 1 There are around 1.1million hetrosexuals with HIV in North America and only 0.3 million homosexuals with HIV
(there are 1.4 million people with HIV in NA then use your percentage, with percentage of population in NA who are homosexuals is 2.5%)
Fact 2 List the most famous serial killers.. how many were gay?
Ted Bundy; Boston Strangler, Dr Shipley, Rose and Fred West, etc
mmm they were all hetrosexuals (and white)
Also 98% of all domestic disturbances are involving Hetrosexual couples.
Fact 3 – Homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems
You will find the same with many groups that have grown up persecuted and discremated against. Don’t forget many homosexuals know what they are from early teens and have to hide it from everyone growing up trying to be someone else.
You actually think that is healthy for the mind… many overcome their suffering when they finally come out.
The Dutch study may be from a more progresive society, but they are Christians and many gays are still persecuted in daily life in their teenage years.
Let me add another 75% of married christian men cheat on their wife…..in defaince of God’s commandments.
God also says it a bad idea to get your side burns cut, get a tattoo or treat foreigners badly in your country, but I don’t here you protesting against that?
Why is that? isn’t it only God’s job to judge, so why are you judging. Are you God?
What is interesting is that you do not once quote any source for your ‘statistics’ but simply make unsupported claims. Did you just make up the numbers?
For example, you give some patently false numbers about HIV infection. According to the Centers for Disease Control "in 2005, MSM (men who have sex with men) still accounted for about 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases and 71% of cases in male adults and adolescents".
For example, you suggest that 98% of all domestic disturbances involve heterosexual couples. This would appear to be false in light of actual statistics from reliable sources. For example, the 2004 Canadian Government General Social Survey states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively". According the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies, "Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples."
It is therefore clear that you have a real credibility issue which only serves to undermine your entire post and highlights the desparation of your cause.
The case that homosexuals only suffer from psychiatric problems because of lack of social acceptance was debunked in my first post.
You keep confusing the Old Testament with the New. The New says nothing about side burns.
I don’t believe you should treat anyone badly since that is not loving your neighbour. You clearly do not understand what not judging means. What it most certainly does not mean (as you apparently think) is that one should never distinguish between good and evil, and right and wrong, or that one should keep quiet about it.
Isn’t the old testament part of the bible? mmm nut go ahead pick and choose those parts of Gods word that fit your agenda
Actually I gave my figures according to the first poster just scaled it up to the total population of North America. I even did the math for you LOL
Now even taking your domestic violence figure, you say that homosexual partners are twice as likely to have a domestic violence incident? now 2.5 % of the population of NA are gay, so then 95% of domestic cases are between hetrosexual couples even by your figures, no? that’s why I love stastics, they can always be twisted
LOL
The case that homosexuals only suffer from psychiatric problems because of lack of social acceptance was debunked in my first post.
Actually it isn’t as I explained in my first post
I don’t believe you should treat anyone badly since that is not loving your neighbour.
Yes it sounds like it to me in your post, personally I say let God judge the sinners, but wht ever floats your boat
PS wasn’t Hitler a hetrosexual?
Evidently you were unable to support your ‘statistics’ and now attempting to divert attention by references to Hitler?
At least you acknowledge that you are trying to twist statistics. What matters is that, contrary to your assertion that 98% of all domestic abuse concerned hetero couples, in fact the RATE amongst homo couples is 2-3 times that of hetero couples.
Since you are apparently incapable of honest, reasoned debate based on actual data I have no intention of wasting my time with any further response.
Are you truely that dumb, I just gave the sources for the figures, using your own, taking your figure it even works out that 95% of domestic abuse cases are between hetrosexuals.
My point on stastics is they are all twisted to suit who ever wields them.
Ever since Charles Wentworth Dilke stated "lies, damn lies and stastics"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
But it seems you can’t actually debate my figures even when I have clearly explained were they are calculated from.
Frankly it seems your IQ is smaller then your mental age, so go forth with your judging and intolerance and quote parts of the bible that suit your agenda while decrying large parts (ie the whole Old testmant) being part of the Holy book.
I will pray for your soul, though and forgive you.
Based on the squeal that missile reached its target. Too funny. You have only embarrassed yourself. I wouldn’t challenge anyone’s IQ if I were you.
"O, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive".
Let me summarize:
1. I quoted actual statistics from reliable sources for my factual points.
2. You fabricated a number of statistics in order to prove your points. None of your statistics have been supported any source. Period. Instead, your points have all been rebutted by actual statistics from reliable sources.
3. My original post did not advance any statistic for domestic violence at all. I also did not provide any statistic for the percentage of the population that is homosexual. You have adopted 2.5% without any source. It follows that your 98% of domestic violence is by heterosexuals could not have been derived from any statistic I provided. It did not involve any calculation. It was a falsehood, plain and simple.
I will simply ignore the abuse which only springs from the embarrassment of having been exposed as fraudulent.
You stated that "For example, the 2004 Canadian Government General Social Survey states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples"
Now according to the The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) 1.51% of the total U.S. population identifies themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, so stretching to say they are in same Sex couples if 1.5% of the population are gay and they (according to your source) are twice as likely to have a “domestic” then 3% of domestic violence cases are concerning homosexuals, the rest 97% are involving hetrosexuals.
There you go sources and all.
Now lets review the number of hetrosexuals in the US with HIV/AIDS, now there are 1.2 million people with HIV in NA http://www.globalhealthreporting.org/diseaseinfo.asp?id=23
so taking your 9 times more likely for gay men to transmit HIV and 0.7% of the population of the US are gay (according to the The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS)) then of the 1.2 million Gay NA’s 75,600 are gay men, so well over a million must be hetrosexual, hence
there are over 1 million HIV positive hetrosexuals in North America, compared to 75,000 gay men.
Simple really
should read
nd 0.7% of the population of the US are gay men (according to the The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS))
You keep missing the point. The raw number of gays with HIV compared to the raw number of heterosexuals is irrelevant. One would naturally expect that there would be a much higher raw number since heterosexuals comprise the vast majority of the population. What matters is the RATE of infection or domestic violence etc. amongst homosexuals as opposed heterosexuals. Let’s say that your figures are accurate for the sake of illustration:
If indeed 1.51% of the U.S. population is homosexual (note that this conflicts with your earlier figure of 2.5%) then we would expect 1.51% of the population of HIV positive to be homosexuals, all other things being equal. But instead, applying your figures of 75,000/1,075,000 x 100 we find that the percentage is 6.98%, i.e. 4.62 times higher than it should be. This of course leaves aside the fact that many of the heterosexual population would have contracted the virus from drug use, blood transfusions etc.
However, your figures conflict with reliable statistics. The CDC states that in 2007 men who have sex with men accounted for 72% of all adult males and adolescents with HIV although according to their estimates they comprise only 5-7% of the population.
This of course leaves aside the fact that many of the heterosexual population would have contracted the virus from drug use, blood transfusions etc.
LOL so Homosexuals don’t have blood transfusions or take drugs then.
The fact remains that their are far more hetrosexuals with HIV than there are homosexuals with HIV and that is a FACT
It is a fact, but it is an IRRELEVANT fact as I have already demonstrated. There is a hugely disproportionate number of homosexuals with HIV due to their lifestyle. That is the point.
I am signing off now since you clearly are unable to engage in intelligent discussion.
That was your point, my point was theat there are far more hetrosexuals with HIV than homosexuals, which you seem to hate to admit for some reason or disprove.
And we have yet to bring up Africa, where, in Botswana, 23.9% of the population now have HIV, are you trying to say close to 25% of Batswana are gay.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bc.html
But hey have your tantrum when you can’t get your own way, no skin off my back(side)
Fact 2. Do the names John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer mean anything to you?
If the vast majority of the population is heterosexual one would naturally expect them to form a similar ratio of serial killers. Same with being white. This would not demonstrate a causal relationship. That is the point which you seem to be missing.
So many people seem to be criticising the churches and the pastors for ignoring the other problems on the island…how many of you actually attend church regularly? For those of us who attend, we can attest that in every sermon the pastors preach again various sins that may include but are not limited to homosexuaity.
Then why is homosexuality the only subject they preach to everyone – including us who do not attend because we cannot bear to listen to their mindless vitriol in the name of the Lord?????
I think the point of the poster is that is an incorrect assertion. And by your admission you are not in a position to make any assertions about what is preached since you do not attend.
You cannot bear to attend because your consciences are seared. You refuse to love the truth and be saved. (2 Thess. 2:10-12)
Wow – paging Lost Soul, Lost Soul who thinks he has found it in the book…
…because anyone who does not approve of homosexuality is a "lost soul".
Folks, we only have to let these gay actvists say what’s on their mind and their moral bankruptcy becomes obvious.
If an alien came to Earth and a bible basher had to explain that his daily life is governed by the translations of the copies of the writings of a few inhabitants of the Middle East 2,500 to 2,000 years ago, how hard do you think he would laugh? I am assuming aliens a) exist and b) can laugh.
So you are prepared to accept the authority of aliens (if they exist) as to truth?
Anon2, just checking, what is your defintion of an alien?
Nice Try. I believe it was you who used the term in the post to which I responded. What is your definition? You seem ready to believe in them and accept their authority on these issues.
As a matter of probability, aliens are more likely to exist than a Christian god.
Is that a fact? How do you calculate this probability? Do these ‘calculations’ apply only to the Christian God, or do they apply to other gods as well? What proportion of the world’s population believes in the existence of aliens as compared to existence of God?
It just goes to show some people are willing to believe in anything except God.
you must be a lawyer.
I seriously suggest you read some Kierkegaard for the interraction between faith, morality and "truth".
No, only that the alien and I had a similar sense of humor.
You mean the imaginary alien. I am sure you also had an entertaining conversation. Not a good sign for your mental health.
Half the posters on this thread think they talk to God and God is statisically less likley to exist than aliens. But then it is obvious that many of them are loopy.
Just wondering – but where does that leave the Alien Gods???
In the closet with the Gaylien Odds??
Stop trying to dress up prejudice as science. There are no valid objective statistical calculations. It all depends on who you ask and their particular methodology. There is no scientific evidence that aliens exist.
On your definition most of the world is loopy.
"There are no valid objective statistical calculations."
We know of 1 solar system (ours) and it has 1 planet (Earth) that has life. There are billions of galaxies with billions of solar systems. The probability of Earth being the only planet with life on it with those number of possible other places for life to develop is so close to zero that it is is fair to say that it is statisically certain that there are aliens.
It is impossible to prove the existence of god. That is where faith comes in. One either beleives or one doesn’t. But the probability of the existence of god (as defined in the Bible) is incapable of the same level of probability analysis as the probability of aliens.
Hence it is more likely that there are aliens that there is a god.
There you go again. You are leaping from the probability of the existence of aliens (which I don’t necessarily accept) to proof of the existence of God and therefore comparing apples to oranges. There is no evidence of alien life forms anywhere. Evidence, not statistical probability, compares to proof.
That probability of the existence of aliens is a figure approaching 1. Given that the existence of God is incapable of proof, the probability of the existence of a deistic deity or theistic deity is less than 1. It is comparing like with like, ie probabilities.
The existence of a universe containing intelligent life is itself highly improbable but it nevertheless exists. Probability is not a meaningful concept with respect to these issues.
Even if life was highly improbable in a given universe which is statisically nonsense, given the prevailing view of the likelihood of near infinite parallel universes as part of a multiverse, then then statisically the probablility of life in a universe is a certainty. (Well it is anyway unless I am a figment of your imagination).
It is not statistically nonsense. Even your hero Richard Dawkins acknowledges that it is highly improbable but believes that this great improbability was overcome by natural selection. In the first instance a universe that contains intelligent life is dependent upon the existence of some 122 narrowly defined anthropic constants, e.g. gravity, level of oxygen, level of carbon dioxide etc. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these constants would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (I.e., without Divine design). Assuming there are 1022 planets in the universe his answer is one chance in 10138
Okay, I’m bored with gays.
Who shall we hate in the name of Jesus next week?
You are too busy already hating Christians in the name of gay rights.
Let’s hate this jackass in the name of anti-anti-human-rights heroes. Or just because she/he’s a jackass… But we have to invoke the name of Christ in hating them either way, to make them feel at home.
I guess I struck a nerve.
Someone needed to do it… But now they will go silent…
Sorry, I was off doing life. Where were we? Oh yes… hating haters. Where was that guy’s nerve? Let’s all form a line to jump up and down on it. He’ll probably be used to something like that.
Jews – time to bring them back into the picture… No, thinking maybe we need to lead a new cry – can we starting banging the rays – that’s Rays with an R… Grrrr…
Almost all of the opposition about the ‘gay’ cruise ships I hear is centered on fears of them acting inappropriately, not because they hate homosexuals. This is a valid concern.
I’m sure however they behave won’t be worst that what we see at batabanoo festival.
Only time will tell. Something as simple as cross dressing would be seen as inappropriate. Also there is a fringe element to the gay community. When you have a cruise ship catering to homosexuals itsbound to include those individuals. What do you think is so bad about batabanoo?
I have nothing personally against fundamentalist Christians, in fact some of my best friends are fundamentalist Christians, but hand on heart I would not want my children to grow up to be one. I really don’t mind what they chose to do in private or behind closed doors, but it is when they parade around in public and try to force us to accept their life choices that I have a problem. Why do these fundamentalists feel such a strong urge to shove their lifestyle down our throats all the time?
Sounds as if you "hate" fundamentalist christians, at least according to gay lobby definitions of hate.
DAMN where do I start here.
First I would wish that preachers get back behind the pulpit and stop being judgemental of people. Doesn’t it say not to judge in the bible? Who died and gave you that right?
Next, the whole argument of it being not their choice is a pile of BS. It’s a decision. Just like some of us having a desire to put a tattoo on our arms while others thing that it’s hideous.
Now that doesn’t make it evil but it is a decision none the less. There is no genetics that explains this no matter how the swayed scientist try to make it a medical fact it simply isn’t. I like green you like red. I like dogs you like cats. It’s about simple human behavior.
I don’t hold you to the fire for it because it’s not my place to. It’s a decision you made and I admire you for standing up for it considering the resistance in front of you but don’t try to manipulate my mind into believing it’s more than it really is.
In finishing. Preachers you really need to speak less and read more. If Jesus could say "he who is without sin let him cast the first stone" then what should you say? You are suppose to be the voice of reason and calm in all of this not the voice of distain. Where is your humility?
I personally find many of our preachers, not all, are not following the Lord’s word. They are stuck in personal agendas. What they call their calling. Let me set you straight. Your calling is to teach us what is right and what is wrong but you are NOT called to judge any man only TEACH.
I have met some good preachers but unfortunately the ones we hear about the most are the ones sticking their noses where it does not belong.
A beautifully written piece and so refreshing. The bigotry proudly showcased in Cayman is embarrassing at best, and as far as I can see, it demonstrates the least Christian behaviour that I have ever seen. I have always understood that Christians are supposed to be warm, loving, forgiving people who embrace others, help them where they can and are generous in spirit.
I thought there is no hatred, cruelty, bigotry, exclusion, greed, malice or judgement…..that job is reserved for God – isn’t that why He has a Judgement Day? So why don’t the people who claim to be Christian – focus on being good, kind, gentle, loving people and leave the judging to their God? The only answer to that is because they don’t want to behave like good Christians, they want to be prejudiced and use their religeon to justify their behaviour…..but it doesn’t. It simply shows how religeon is manipulated by man to suit his own needs…. and I am certain that God will frown upon that practice.
And be very careful about taking Chruch Leaders’ words as gospel….even they are only men and women, who have failings and weaknesses and are just as at risk of mis-interpreting their religeous books – albeit with best interests at heart or unfortunately occassionally with selfish motivation and to justify their own prejudice. If they say jump…it doesn’t necessarily mean that God says it – use your own brain to consider whether this is what God really wants and whether it will make you a good Christian.
Think about whether your behaviour is kind, welcoming and loving or is it judgemental, excluding and prejudiced? Are you trying to do God’s job? Think carefully about your actions, how you represent your God and good luck on Judgement Day.
"hatred, cruelty, bigotry, exclusion, greed, malice" are reserved for God?!
Love does not require us to condone sin. You are the kind of person who as parent is permissive and indulgent leading to the ruination of the child. That is not love. You are very misguided.
What an insuffereable person you are! Not only do you claim to know the mind of God (how unbelievably arrogant!), but now you are deciding this person is a bad parent based on a comment that suggests Christians should be loving and forgiving. Well I’m sorry but that says a lot about you and what kind of "Christian" you are.
I agreed with the comment and no, I was not a permissive indulgent parent and I have four grown, very succesful children who are all wonderful, kind, considerate loving people. One of the standards that I instilled into them – and one that they are now teaching to my grand children – is to be kind to people, because that is how I interpret Jesus telling me to love my neighbor as myself. I also taught them to stand up to bullies, which is what you are.
You are also deliberately misreading the comment, which is not honest. He did not say hatred, cruelty, bigotry, exclusion, greed, malice are reserved for God, he said that judgement is reserved for God.
So here you are, a smug, lying bully and you want us to believe that the God we know and love needs you to deliver his message? I don’t think so. Please tell me you are not a pastor.
The mind of God is revealed in his Word. If you are a Christian you will know that there is nothing arrogant about declaring his Word. On the other hand it is arrogant to believe, as you do, that your opinion is above his Word. YOU are very smug with your sense of spiritual superiority. Do not be wise in your own opinion.
What is funny is that you are the sort of person who goes around accusing Christians of "judging" others if they say their behaviour is immoral, but here you are judging me. Actually your insults and name-calling are a form of bullying (not that it affects me in the least, but just to point out your hypocrisy).
It was not for me to assume what the writer meant but to point out the grammatical meaning of his/her statement which I did. The writer has acknowledged that.
LOL – I wondered if someone would spot that – no – I meant judgement…not the others…but I can see how it could be misread.
The other part made me chuckle – you are so far from the mark that it is funny. Obviously this debate isn’t about my parenting skills but as it goes I am told I am very strict, although I never raise a hand to my child – he understands right from wrong and the consequences of his actions. I regularly get told what a wonderfully behaved little boy he is and what beautiful manners he has – soi guess you can be loving and forgiving and raise a child well…huh – go figure!
If that is true then you should be consistent.
To the fundie who says Hitler had nothing to do with Christianity, read Mein Kampf. If you are short on time because you have an excorcism scheduled for this afternoon or whatever, please take a quick glance at the quotes and photos here:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm
Come on, don’t be afraid, click it. The photos are great! Hitler praying, chumming it up with religious nuts, and more!
By the way, the model of Hitler’s proposed capital city of Germania to be built after he won WWII was to have a 300 foot cross in a central plaza. Hmmmm….
Now runaway like a good little Nazi and picket the gay cruiseship.
God bless…
You are too funny. It really doesn’t matter if Hitler went to church as a boy or liked big crosses. That is not what being a Christian is all about. It is very clear from both his words and his actions that he was anti-Christian. He actually despised Christianity because of course it was founded by Jews. (Hello! Jesus was a Jew, so were the twelve). I have already quoted from Goebbels to that effect.
Going to church and or praying makes me no more a Christian than standing in a garage makes me a car
Jesus was the one who rebuked his followers and instructed them to let the children come to him. Jesus was the one who dined with sinners, earning him the condemnation of the religious leaders of the day. And so forth. And so on. Jesus’ response was that he came to save the sinner and not the righteous, so that is where his work was and where he needed to be. His reaction to these sinners was to go to them or bring them to himself and talk to them lovingly about the Kingdom of God.
I am sure that is what the local Christian community is talking about doing for the homosexual cruise ship passengers, is it not?
🙂
It is not.
and why not?
Cuz A Man said so.
Cause the local christian community says so! I’m just A Man.
Frank, next time I see you I’ll ask you out for a beer. Straight talk.
Cool. But I have to let you know up front that I’m strictly for the ladies.
Who is this man?
He is not The Man, he is just a very naughty boy.
I think it might have been better if you said you know only part of what has happened during the Holocaust, in other words what has been told, but not all stories which occurred during that time.
I only hate people who hate.
Hey, I just thought of something funny. What if God is gay and it’s the heterosexuals he actually hates and wants killed. He just put it the other way around in the Bible to test the heterosexuals and give them a chance to redeem themselves. Maybe he figured that if the heterosexuals had a minimum amount of morality they would think for themselves and reject such a mean and unjust command.
If so, looks like our hetero-fundies have failed miserably.
Probably not true, but wouldn’t it be hilarious if it were?
Hey, here’s a thought:
Imagine how sick and horrible Cayman would be if people like Pastor Bob, Pastor Al and Rev. Sykes were in charge. Seriously, if they could pass any laws they wanted, have anyone they wanted locked up or executed. If theycould determine what children were taught in schools, how people dressed, what they watched on TV, what music they listened to, and so on.
Now that is the stuff of nightmares…
Unfortunately you have just discribed life in many countries ofthe world today. China, North Korea, Cuba to name just a few. Life for the people of Cayman is beter than that for now but seems to be heading that way. If it is allowed to continue ( nothing done to stop it by the people) then yes it will be a sick and horrible Cayman.
You seem to be naming communist societies where atheism is favoured.
It will be a sick and horrible Cayman if the growing decadence is left unchecked.
I only hate people who hate people who hate people. That is what I hate.
Let’s see what this causes….
What if Jesus is just one of the "Lawyers" to the God (or the Supreme being)?So Christians would be represented by Jesus, Buddhist by Buddha, etc..
Just open your minds a bit and give it some thought. I now Christians and other religions might say that "their God" is the only God or is one inthe same as God, etc. Don’t even bother; I am just trying to really make you think about it.
On this subject, I have no problem with homosexuals and a few friends that are homosexuals. It isn’t my cup of tea, but then again there are lots of things people like that I don’t. I respect individual freedom and choice.
Nothing new there, buddy. Hinduism and the New Age say that. But Christians know that Jesus Christ is the way, truth and the life and no man comes to the Father but by him.
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Cayman you are full of fools and worship at the feet of fools.
To all you higher consiousness beings in Cayman please forgive them for they know not what they do.
LOL! "higher consiousness beings". Sounds very New Age. Who are you Swami Fullofit?
On the day of your death all things will be revealed to you and only then will you realize how foolish your life and what you could have done. Until then live as you will and hopefully allow others to do the same. Be prepared to be treated as you have done to others.
I will never understand people who believe that they somehow have the inside track on God and all the rest of us are clueless…
May be you don’t understand because you are clueless.
I believe in God but I am not a Christian. I respect everyone’s right to religion or to have no religion. I cannot judge anyone, I reserve that right for God. People love to throw out that "he who is free of sin…" comment from the bible. Do you realise that in that scenario, not even Jesus himself cast the first stone! Surely He was free of sin (especially if you believe in the Trinity). Not even Jesus saw fit to judge or condemn.
Personally I could care less what anyone’s sexual orientation is. You want to come here and spend your money, have a great holiday and that’s fine with me too. Homosexuality isnt contagious and if you feel that your child will become gay by simply being exposed to homosexuality then YOU have already failed as a parent in ensuring your child isnt easily changed or swayed by the world.
I don’t believe being gay is a choice, I do believe that homosexuals view a person of the same sex in the same way I view a person of the opposit sex who I may be attracted to. Gay people are not inherently promiscuous, evil, diseased or destined to hell. If the cruise came here and wasnt labelled "gay" the world wouldnt come to an end just because they set foot here.
All I can say is, I dont have time to condemn gays or anyone else becaue I am too busy worrying about my own soul.
Do you realize that in that scenario Jesus said "Go thy way and sin no more"? That is what is being said here. No one is casting anystones.
Yes but it was GOD who said "Go thy away…" YOU don’t have the right to tell anyone else to go away and sin no more. YOU should concentrate on living your life in a way the exemplifies who you are and what you believe instead. Telling someone they are a sinner is tantamount to casting stones and that role is reserver for GOD not you. Why should gays have to do what you say when youre a sinner (according to the bible) too. I don’t have to agree with someone elses lifestyle but I’m not going out of my way to persecure them for it. THAT is GOD’s domain.
Jesus’s life was intended to be an example for every believer. In that context he did not speak as God but as a man filled with the Holy Spirit. It is obviously silly to say that a certain behaviour is sinful is tantamount to casting stones since Jesus by his own words and actions made a clear distinction between the two. It is not a matter of what I say, but a matter of what God says. We are simply his witnesses. Even as the Father sent Jesus, Jesus has sent us.
I am absolutely agree that no one should be persecuted for their lifestyle. However, correctly identifying immoral behaviour is not persecution. It is simply gay lobby propaganda to say that it is. Most people consider adultery immoral but no one believes that saying this amounts to persecution of adulterers.
I love how everyones talking about Jesus and God, and Christianity & yet you all pass judgments. What people choose to do with their life is their business. If you consider being gay sinful, then great- dont be gay! If you are under the impression that when they face their maker he will turn them away- good! be glad you’re not gay! but do not force you’re beliefs onto other people & chastise people for the choices they make.
Why arent the Ministers speaking about the murderes, rapist, thieves inbreeding, and the increase lawlessness that is happening in this country,I think a few of them mught be gay themselves too!!
Perhaps if you actually went to church you would actually know that a great deal is preached against.
So why do they make a big thing of this in the press but confine their important commentry to their flock of lemmings??? Put half the effort into publicising the gay cruise into REAL CRIME, and the island, indeed the world, would be a better place.
But then again, a lot of their own flock would be caught up in the ensuing mess…
At least their gay congregation can stay quietly in the closet while they spout their hatred and ignorance…
Hippo Krits – All of them.
It seems to me that all the hate being expressed here is against Christians, rather than against gays.
Quite right too!
I can’t speak for everyone but for myself I don’t hate Christians any more than I hate any other category of people but I do hate the anti-gay message that is preached by some. there’s quite a few comments by Christians that they hate this too so making this a Christian versus non-Christian issue is wrong.
Assuming that you are not referring to those who may advocate the infliction of harm to homosexuals, what you describe as an "anti-gay message" is, and has always been, simply Christian morality. Hence, to hate it is to hate Christianity. Do you also "hate" its anti-adultery message? How about its anti-theft message?
So why are so many of Cayman’s christians yelling anti-gay slogan while sleeping with their neighbours wife?
Anti-adultery message, yep the Bibel includes it loud and clear, yet so many like to by pass it and call fire and brimstone on the minorities
Na, I just hate gay Christians!
At least you are honest; you are a hater. No doubt full of hatred, bitterness and resentment.
we don’t hate christians, we hate the unchristianity and hypocrisy of some so called ‘christians’
You express hate against those Christians who stand for Christian morality and seek to justify it by pretending that it is unchristian or that they are automatically hypocrites.
They used the word ‘some’. It does indicate that they don’t think that of all Christians who stand for Christian morality.
My friends, ask yourselves if a cruise company set out to market a cruise to liars or theives or murderers or fornicators and this fact was advertised before the ship arrived in Cayman, shouldnt the people of Cayman protest?
If so, why shouldn’t it be the same with homosexuals?
If you are a sole provider, I feel sorry for your children being brought up by such someone with such narrow minded and bigotted views.
So why aren’t the ministers speaking out about the Caymanian liars, theives, murderers, and fornicators?
Why do they ignore problems of our own people, and their own flock?
Perhaps if you actually went to a bible-believing church you would know that is not true. All those things are preached about.
Perhaps because more than one of them fall into at least one of these categories…
A bit of hypocrisy perhaps?
They already here, man!
I agree. Let’s stop all the liars coming here. We’ll set up questionaires at customs and ask all arrivals if they are liars and if they tick yes, we won’t let them in.
Hang on, there may be a hitch in this system …….
And any cruise ship that is marketed specifically to murderers – we should definitely say no to that one.
Because the "gay" cruise is no different from any other cruise!
What about a cruise for men without sideburns?
would you protest against that?
Leviticus 19:27
Nor do I see you protesting outside the tattoo shops
Leviticus 19:28
Double standards????
Honestly, one of the best summations I’ve seen so far. Very well put!!!
In most normal thinking countries this would be a simple letter or a short essay to a media source . Here in the Cayman Islands there are undertones of courage behind it. Why should that be?
So.. I"ll wake tomorrow morning thankful…that there are people willing to say what needs to be said.
Incase I need to escape any rollover dramas i’m keeping mum!
But the Church /es have this country by the balls .
Thank God we are not "most ‘normal’ thinking countries".
In response to Anon2 (Monday 1/11/2010 – 13:30)
Stalin may have been an atheist but Hitler certainly was not. He was responsible for the deaths of fewer people than Stalin but at least he did it with your God’s backing. Nazism was not an atheist ideology. In a speech in Munich in 1943 Hitler assured his audience that he was “profoundly religious on the inside”.
He also sought an ethical justification of his actions in theist terms, proclaiming in February 1945, “Providence does not show mercy toward the weak. Instead it only recognises the right to live for the healthy and strong!”
In other words, Nazism was yet another doctrine for murderous fanatics claiming to do God’s work.
OK CMA? Keep doing God’s work. Spread the hate. Hitler would approve.
Don’t be silly. Hitler did nothng with "(my) God’s backing". Nazism derived none of its ethics from Christianity and was instead heavily influenced by Darwinism.
What do you mean by, "(my) God’s backing"?
How many Gods are there? I thought that there was only one. Are you a Hindu?
I’m sorry but if Hitler had religious leanings then it was towards the same God that you worship. Funny old business isn’t it?
Didn’t you notice that this phrase appeared in quotes? The post I was responding to stated as follows: "He (Hitler) was responsible for the deaths of fewer people than Stalin but at least he did it with *your God’s backing*".
I am afraid that you lack spiritual understanding. There is but one true and living God (Elohim Adonai). He is worshipped by Christians and by Jews (but in the latter case, not according to knowledge). However, both the OT and NT bear witness that there are many gods (celestial created beings) and these are worshipped in other religions. Hinduism is a good case in point.
Your Hitler argument is just plain silly.
1 Cor. 8:5-7 "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone knows this."
Hitler did nothing more than bring increased efficiency to the murdering of Jews by European Christians. It had been going on in Europe for more than a thousand years before him. Christians routinely quoted from the Bible and were rallied by their priests and preacher for this. They "warmed up" for their Holy Crusades by killing every Jew they could round up. Hitler was just better at it because he had acess to superior planning and engineering.
"Nazism was influenced by Dawarinism".
Uh, okay, there was that bit about the whole racial superiority thing they were fond of. But that was a misreading of the theory of evolution. What’s your point? Are you suggesting that Nazis cited evolution as justification for murder, therefore evolution is untrue? If so, you are clueless.
The Nazis also dropped bombs from airplanes. Does that disprove gravity?
Hitler was really big on persecuting gays too. You guys should love him. He’s just your sort of nut.
Since you were praying or speaking in tounges during history class, for the record, Hitler was a very active child in his church. He often quoted from the Bible and spoke of god in speeches. He had cooperative relationships with the top ranking religious nuts in Germany. His Wehrmacht troops all had "God is with us" inscribed on their belt buckles. And, to this day, Hitler has never been excommunicated by the church he belonged to.
I’m sure Hitler is lounging in heaven right now, playing Risk with 72 alter boys, or whatever. After all, he may have been bad in many areas, but he was not gay.
And, according to the Cayman Ministers Association, that is just about all that counts in this life.
Please. Don’t be ridiculous. There was nothing about Hitler that was Christian.
You are happy to dismiss Nazism as a misreading of the theory of evolution but yet insist that Hitler’s acts must necessairly be a correct reading of Christianity. According to Goebbels "the Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symbol of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race…Both Christianity and Judaism have no point of contact to the animal element and thus,in the end, they will be destroyed."
You clearly have a problem with double standards.
For those who are not religious: Man was created through the evolutionary proccess. In a biological sense, for mankind to continue surviving,he must procreate. I have not yet heard of ANY circumstances where a gay couple could procreate. Yes, some species such as certain snails can procreate with the same gender but that is because they are HERMAPHRODITES. We as humans are not and therefore must preserve our species by procreating the way HUMANS are supposed to i.e. sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. In a biological sense, homosexualtiy is wrong.
For those who are religious: Many prejudisms and "wrong" ways of life exist in the Old Testament. For example, polygamy and prejudism towards prostitution and low class society such as tax collectors and shepherds and even homosexuals. In the New Testament, Jesus comes to Earth and eliminates some of these by: 1. Being born in a manger with shepherds being the first to witness his birth, 2. Talking and affiliating himself with a corrupt tax collector, 3. Allowing a prostitute to wash his feet with oils which was thought to be sinful. We also now know, through the Bible, that polygamy is wrong and you should be faithful to your ONE spouse. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Jesus asscociated with homosexuals. Yes, he abolished all prejudisms and said to love your fellow man no matter their choice. But this is because no one has the right to judge anyone else except for God. This doesn’t make homosexuality right or justified.
To sum it all up…no matter from a religious or atheist point of view, homosexuality is WRONG.
1 + 2 = 4
2 + 3 = 9
ipso facto all fish are called Wanda.
Perfect logic.
The leap that homosexual behaviour is wrong is as "a matter of biology" is wrong and simplistic. Homosexual behaviour is very common in nature. If it increases cohesive bonds within the framework of a social animal such as man then it can assist in the protection of the social structure in a manner to promote interdependence and protection of the group genetic material, particularly if you bear in mind the significant proportion of homosexuals who all participate to varying extents in heterosexual activity.
Violence is also very common in nature. Does that make violence a good thing?
The proportion of homosexuals who also participate in heterosexual activity make the activity all the more dangerous for the rest of us.
A homosexual participating in a heterosexual activity neither increases nor decreases the risk of that activity to the participants. In fact, participation in activities with violent homophobes can indeed be more dangerous to the homosexual.
The strength of the relationships created by homosexuals and heterosexuals alike only serve to help you and the rest of society. Homosexuals have treated you in hospitals, served you food, put out your fires, fought your wars, etc. alongside heterosexuals. Yet, you would and will never know that they just helped you.
Homosexuals, as a group, do not pose a threat to an individual or society.
Your level of thinking is rather sad.
Wrong. Homosexuals participating in heterosexual activity has caused a great deal of HIV infection to heterosexual females in particular.
Actually, infidelity, lack of information, superstitions (in the case of some countries), prostitution, drug abuse and a lack of protection has caused a great deal of HIV infections in the general population. You also fail to take into account that lesbians have the lowest rate of infection (there is little to no chance of a woman passing the virus to another woman). The transmission of HIV between a man and woman is usually as a result of infidelity (i.e. heterosexual infidelity), not, as you would suggest, homosexual activity. Thus, most heterosexual women (infected in this manner that is) receive the virus from their cheating heterosexual husband/boyfriend who slept with a woman who was infected by a man.
In a word "sin" is the cause.
I think the word you are looking for is "virus".
No the word is "sin". Viruses cannot affect you without contact. All of the contact described by the poster was sinful.
Lack of information isn’t a sin. In some cases, protection (i.e. condoms) are thought as a sin (implying that in these sections of Christianity a lack of protection is not a sin), depending on what dogmas you adhere to.
Lack of knowledge about protection afforded by condoms would not be relevant if we were all obeying God’s commands.
So do hemophiliacs from the 1980’s and drug users, as well as promiscuous individuals. According to statistics, so do the French and English, not to mention Sub-Saharan Africans. As do individuals who get tattoos. Why just stick to claiming homosexuals, or more accurately given the context of your little post, bisexuals, have "caused a great deal of HIV infection" when you could just look at all at-risk groups. Why not anyone who has sex without a condom or comes into regular contact with materials capable of transmitting infected blood? And furthermore, "great deal" is grossly inaccurate, and irresponsible to claim. Get over your fear of gays already.
What about the "heterosexuals" and their perversions? Hello?
I think I made it clear from the outset that I am against all forms of immorality, homosexual or heterosexual.
You better stop ALL cruise ships!
Well since gluttony is a deadly sin, having seen the girth of many cruise ship passengers, we should ban every ship.
Your non-religious argument posited above has the false attraction of a keen amateur, but misunderstands genetics. Let us assume, as you do, that homosexuality is a genetic trait which results from a specific combination of genes. Each gene performs many different roles in human development. The genes which may be associated with homosexual development are part of the human genome and therefore are therefore integral to humanity as part of the process of natural selection – they are part of the very essence of homo sapiens, part of what makes you human, me human and what makes the CMA Pastors human (I could start talking about the transitory nature of homo sapiens here and why talking of the essence of any species is a fiction in the context evolutionary science but that is another issue).
The genes which give rise to homsexual traits may also be linked to development of one’s nose, one’s immune system or any other aspect of human biology. There is no such thing as "the gay gene" in the sense of a single gene whose sole function is determinative of sexual orientation. Accordingly homosexuality is an integral part of mankind’s genetic make-up. Given the prevalence of homosexuality in mammals. (a bat gay pride fly by would be very well attended), these genes have a long history and are likely to be very integral to survival.
Biology does not have a moral code. Natural selection is not about the survival of the most pious. The statement that "In a biological sense, homosexuality is wrong" is gibberish. In fact, the the more accurate statement is true – "homosexuality is critical to human development".
Obviously to you Taliban types, out there none of the above makes sense, and of course we all appeared by magic 6,000 years ago and the evil of homosexuality is a choice freely made by sinners.
This is just too much for the fundamentalist homophobes to take on. Well said.
"Biology does not have a moral code".
Even from an immunological point of view, the body itself considers homosexual acts to be disordered. For instance, there are substances in seminal fluid called "immuno-regulatory macromolecules" that send out "signals" that are only understood by the female body, which will then permit the "two in one flesh" intimacy required for human reproduction. When deposited elsewhere, these signals are not only misunderstood, but cause sperm to fuse with whatever somatic body cell they encounter. This fusing is what often results in the development of cancerous malignancies. ("Sexual Behavior and Increased Anal Cancer", Immunology and Cell Biology 75 (1977); 181-183))
You assume sexual intercourse is solely for the purpose of reproduction, yet they are other results of it, such as emotional bonding – scientifically proven. This is beneficial to a group as a whole due to the fact that a person would be more inclined to help protect the group in order to protect the one they love. This emotional bonding takes place between, not just a man and a woman, but also between 2 men and 2 women. The emotional bonding is particularly strong with women due to the particular hormones produced during coitus.
It is the same reason that mothers are referred to having a ‘maternal instinct’. Hormones produced during pregnancy and birth create a bond between mother and child. Your attempt at logic is rather myopic and completely excludes certain factors surrounding intercourse and human interaction.
There is a tribe in the Amazon which uses sexual intercourse to strengthen the tribe, not just to reproduce. Sex between consenting adults is encouraged regardless of whether they have a ‘spouse’. Jealousy is frowned upon. The emotional bonding which takes place creates a stronger society where violence is non-existent.
In addition to this, there are men and women who are unable to have children, but are perfectly healthy otherwise. Based on your logic they should not have sexual intercourse as they are unable to produce children from the union.
Nature also provides checks and balances to ensure equilibrium within populations – if every act of sexual intercourse resulted in a child the world would be overrun, more people starving, more people in poverty.
Due to these facts, homosexuality is a natural result of nature and by no means wrong.
Christian hardcore hetero wrote:
"…for mankind to continue surviving, he must procreate. [Therefore] In a biological sense, homosexuality is wrong."
Free mind responds:
Uh… okay, so shall we persecute and protest against all infertile heterosexual couples, all those heterosexual couples who choose not to have children, and all elderly couples who can no longer procreate?
After all, according to you, they are unatural and biologically wrong.
Do yourself a favor, stop trying to come up with a smart defense for your barbaric beliefs. It’s embarrassing. Just accept who you are. You believe in a prejudicial, bigoted, and backward view of humankind. Admit it. Don’t dance around that fact by trying to sound sophisticated. Be proud of your decision to side with the angry sky god who is not prejudiced and loves everyone (well, except for the majority of people, who he tortures forever, of course)
Strange mindset, these people have. They seem to follow a strict pattern. For example, I bet the person who wrote the previous post loves guns with a deep passion, would love for criminals to be beaten in public, thinks human rights are dangerous if not evil, and thinks children in government schools should be made to read the Bible and pray every day.
This is an odd self-inflicted sickness. The question is, what is the cure? How can we help these people recover?
Wow! Such hate. And all because someone has a different view.
There is also a lot of hate echoed in some of these posts just because a group of people are different.
Natrual Selection !!!!!!!!!! Research!!!!!!!!!!!! If you don’t know what your taking about then educate yourself.
What is the church’s view on chastity? Is chastity correct in the ‘biological sense’?
But this is because no one has the right to judge anyone else except for God, To sum it all up homosexuality is WRONG.
mmm seems like you are judging someone else. Does that mean you think you are God?
Otherwise you have no right to judge that Homosexuals are right or wrong under your own logic
Imagine the Cayman island "Christian" Community against stupidity, low moral standards, and irresponsibility.
They would still be inefective.
It is sad that current Premier has not shown leadership to defend the laws of the Cayman Islands, and the cajones to speak in opposition to the CMA; even if it were in defense of his cruise ship agenda, it would be welcome and timely now.
Instead of waiting on your Premier to stand up and do something why don’t you go to your pastor and your aunt and your cousins and tell them that gay-bashing / discrimination is wrong and you will no longer be doing business with or associating with people who condone it.
What does this garble mean?
<!–[if gte mso 9]>
CNS: It’s trash that appears when people cut and paste from a word doc. We haven’t yet managed to get rid of this little glitch in the system and I can’t delete it.
There is much in this article that I could respond to but I will confine myself to two points:
"…homophobiais labelled so because it is a classification of prejudice, like racism, misogyny, Anglophobia, anti-Semitism, and so on. When people are victimised or marginalised or humiliated or in extreme cases brutalised, we (the wider international community) believe this is wrong and that finding an excuse for it in a religious manuscript or ‘traditional values’ is not acceptable".
From a Christian perspective victimisming, humiliating or brutalizing homosexuals is itself morally wrong. However, it is often the case that these words are given special meanings when applied to homosexuals. Identifying a homosexual lifestyle as immoral behaviour as such does not fall into any of these categories. The term homophobia when applied in this way is a misnomer. The issue is not about hatred or fear of a class of people but instead about disapproval of a certain type of immoral behaviour and therefore any comparisions with racism, anti-semitism etc.are entirely inappropriate.
It is no different from disapproving of any kind of immoral behaviour. For example, the extra-marital affairs of Tiger Woods (all between consenting adults) is the subject of a great deal of excoriating commentary from the media and the public at large, some of it intensely personal. Sponsors have withdrawn their sponsorships. Borrowing your special terminology one could say that he is being victimized, humiliated, marginalized etc., yet if Tiger were to respond in those terms you would no doubt say that he is being arrogant. The adverse comment would be justified as freedom of speech, particularly as he breached a certain moral code.
Yet you have claimed is that sin is really about "making some one feel bad about themselves". When we behave immorally (and this applies to all immoral behaviour, not just homosexual conduct) we OUGHT to feel bad about our conduct. However, this is not about condemnation of that person since the Good News of Jesus Christ is that there is forgiveness and redemption as we repent and turn away from sinful lifestyles. There is deliverance for every sinner, including homosexuals. YES, homosexuals have been delivered.
Christians are not called to condone sin, and any Christian who does so purporting to be expressing love to those persons participates in that sin and will be called to account for it. When Jesus Christ prevented the stoning of the woman caught in adultery he did not condone her sin, but said "Go thy way and sin no more". In other words "repent". It is therefore ridiculous to blame the local pastors for "stirring up violent emotions and calling it Christianity.". They are bearing witness to the truth as they must and are in excellent company. The church must not lose its prophetic voice because the world is unhappy about it. But Christians be aware, we must expect persecution as a result. Sin does not like to be called by its rightful name, so good becomes evil, and evil becomes good, right becomes wrong, and wrong becomes right. These are signs of the times.
I fully expect that there will be howls of outrage from the gay lobby but I have said what I must for that I make no apology.
Agree 100%. Very well thought out and written.
Oh dear! You honestly believe you are being ‘persecuted’ for holding bigoted views. That’s a really twisted reaction.
Let me try to explain it to you. Racists often genuinely believe that other races are inferior. They don’t think there is anything wrong with promoting the idea that their own race is superior.
Misogynists honestly think it’s OK to denigrate women or to hold the view that they are not equal to men.
Homophobes honestly believe that to publicly vilify homosexuals by calling them names like "sinner", "immoral", etc is OK and that they are so morally superior that they can dictate what everyone else can and cannot do. "Identifying a homosexual lifestyle as immoral behaviour" is bigotry pure and simple.
The Tiger Woods fuss is not the same thing and is more about public obsession with the lives of the rich and famous (ridiculous in my book). It’s this week’s news. Next week he’ll be back on the golf course and the advertisers will be pursuing him once more. Tiger will not respond, he will throw a couple of million at his PR guys. How is this relevant again?
Christians have been and will be persecuted for standing up for their values and beliefs. It is the gay lobby who have a twisted mindset as you have again demonstrated. You have deemed standing against an immoral lifestyle to itself be evil. Hence evil becomes good, and good, evil. You seek to vilify Christians by using names like "homophobes", "haters" and "bigots". You throw these emotive terms around because you believe that they can silence dissent. You wish to silence Christians because they do not agree with you. Apparently free speech is only recognized if you hold liberal views. This is the hypocrisy of your position.
Why does correctly identifying homosexual behaviour as immoral consitute vilification of homosexuals, but excoriating Tiger Woods’s immoral behaviour does not constitute "unacceptable" vilification of Tiger Woods? Are the media bigots for denouncing his behaviour? The difference is that Tiger Woods would not have the temerity to make such a a preposterous claim. If you apply sound logic you will find the relevance. I have deliberately chosen immoral heterosexual conduct to make the point that a homosexual lifestyle is not the only form of immoral behaviour that we should be concerned about. We must be equally willing to examine ourselves and let go of our own cherished sins that we, like homosexuals, might seek to justify.
I find the heterosexual lifestyle absolutely immoral behaviour and Christianity a scourge upon this earth requiring eradication. This is the truth to be followed!
If the shoe was on the other foot the above is what you would be faced with – every day. Those are the types of words gay people must face every day. The above is not what I believe but if you fit into either the category of being heterosexual or Christian you would feel it to be a personal attack.
Christians aren’t the only ones persecuted for standing up for their values and beliefs. Gay people and their supporters are as well. What some people have not begun to realise is that your truth is not another’s. Your truth is not mine or the people that will be on that gay cruise ship. Your life is not mine or the people that will be on that gay cruise ship. You have not walked in our shoes, and you do not understand what your words do to us. They are stones, fists and sticks to our face – literally and otherwise.
Words are a weapon which should be used carefully. It can incite violence as it has towards gay people on so many occasions. One of the most recent cases was a girl in South Africa who was gang-raped and murdered because three men thought she was gay. Those three men believe what you believe and were influenced by someone else who believed the same. Think about the effect of your words before you speak them, you could end up killing someone with them.
There was nothing in my words that would incite anyone to violence. It is simply dishonest to suggest that.
There is only one Truth. It is not subjective.
You see only 5 seconds ahead of you. Many seemingly benign words have incited people to violence. A 16 year old boy shot his classmate between the eyes because his classmate asked him to be his valentine. I’m sure his parents were not inciting violence by telling him gay persons are immoral or being against gay persons. But the interpretation of words takes many turns. For you, there is only one truth because you haven’t opened your eyes to anything else. With eyes wide shut you follow.
Clearly, the 16 year old had serious psychological issues. That has nothing to do with Christian beliefs. If it did, then every Christian would go around shooting gays between the eyes for coming on to them. You would expect that they would also shoot other people who commit other immoral acts. Your argument does not hold water. It is just more homosexual propaganda.
That was only one example of many. The issue I had raised to begin with was not Christian beliefs but words – the impact of words. You are rather defensive I see, not just in this post but others.
In any case, your reasoning seems to be the one that does not hold water. All whites did not go around lynching blacks in the Deep South a few decades ago, nor did all whites treat black with prejudice in apartheid Africa, but some did. Also, not all Muslims go around blowing themselves up, but some have. It shows, in all of the aforementioned cases, the impact of words. Words can move an individual, a group, a nation. Words can move the world.
If by "defensive" you mean I am rebutting an attack then I indeed I am.
The fact that all whites did not go around lynching blacks proves that it had nothing to do with being white per se. That is my point. You keep coming up with non-sequiturs.
I think you’ve lost track of the issue. The relevance of the above post has to do with the impact of words, not being Christian as you keep coming back to for some reason. The post you had replied to was discussing the impact of words, not Christianity. So, your above point is irrelevant.
You have made a leap to suggest that stating what has been known for millenia that homosexuality isimmoral is causing people people to kill them. That is something that simply cannot be established. It is a fallacy.
I don’t think I’m making myself clear. I’m saying words can influence people to kill others. It has been established – gay-bashing (literal bashing), honour killings, and rapes targeting gay people. I am not saying you advocate such acts or that your words will inevitably lead to someone being killed. I’m pointing out the effect words can have. Not to mention the emotional impact on the ones those words target. Words are powerful.
Oh yes, not to mention the words of the Bible have incited violence, despite many verses being interpreted by some as benign. The impact of words is just another truth that seems to evade you.
In addition, if the Bible is your truth, your ‘one Truth’, why isit that there are so many interpretations of it? Not to mention so many offshoots of Christianity?
Hmmm….let me try again. I do not have anything against Christians and there are millions of Christians out there who are not homophobic or bigoted. Some of them I know well and feel nothing but admiration for because they are genuinley good people who show nothing but love for their fellow man. So to say I am vilifying Christians is simply not true.
But I do have a beef with homophobes, racists, bigots, etc, some of whom use religious texts (the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud) to justify thier prejudices. So if you feel persecuted it is because you are homophobic and not because you are a Christian. You believe that Jesus wants you to pour hate and scorn on people for what they are. Others read the same text and don’t believe that is so.
"You wish to silence Christians because they do not agree with you." Another example of paranoia. If you are going to trash people you can expect some critism to come back. What goes around comes around, as they say. You think homosexuals are wicked, and say so, and I think homophobes are wicked, and say so. Is this unfair?
If you would slow down a bit and stop feeling persecuted, you would notice that I made no judgement on Tiger Wood’s behaviour because I am not interested. As far as I am concerned, it is a matter between him and his wife. "Are the media bigots for denouncing his behaviour?" Really, is this a serious question? The media are satisfying the public’s hunger for dirt on famous people and the general delight in grubby scandals, it is not a moral judgement on their part. Is that moral? No not really, but the media is a whole different subject.
"We must be equally willing to examine ourselves and let go of our own cherished sins…" Yes, exactly. That is what I want you to do. Examine yourself and let go of your cherished sin of homophobia.
It appears that when challenged with logic your position degenerates into spluttering about "bigots", "racists", "hate" etc. etc. I know that the gay lobby uses name-calling as a propaganda tool to manipulate others who wish to avoid being called feared names, but you will find that it has absolutely no impact on me.
Tiger Woods’s celebrity status is quite irrelevant to my point.The issue would be the same if it were Joe Average down the street; the only difference would be that his neighbours and associates would be having the commentary rather than the media. The point is immoral behaviour.
The Christian position on homosexuality is very clear. No amount of twisting scripture or wresting it from its proper context will make it say that a homosexual lifestyle is moral. I have already made the point about Christians who condone immorality in the name of love. What you refuse to understand that holding a certain behaviour is immoral is not "trashing" people.
Examining myself is a matter that I take very seriously on a daily basis. I have not said anything which is in the slightest hateful about homosexuals. I am therefore not impressed by your "cherished sin of homophobia" comment.
What logic? All I see is indoctrinated nonsense.
Give it up, Pax! You’re dealing with Cayman’s morality police. You may as well argue with the Taliban.
That is because you are not listening. You are indoctrinated by the ‘homosexuality is good, Christianity is evil’ brigade.
Anon2, I know that you like to pretend that because we stand against your prejudice that we are against Christianity because that boosts your persecution complex and attempts to instill fear in the Christians reading this exchange that we are attacking their religion. But we are not. We are against bigotry. In this matter you hold the same views as extremist Muslims, skinheads, the Aryan Nation, Stalin and Hitler. It encompasses the batty sides of religion – all religions – as well as the far right and far left of politics.
Great company you keep.
I know that we because we stand against immoral behaviour you like to pretend that we are like extremist Muslims, skinheads, Aryan Nation, Stalin and Hitler becauses that boosts your persecution complex. This is obviously nonsense. I have not suggested that anyone should be brutalized, killed or any in any way harmed because of their sexual orientation. There is nothing extremist about my position at all. Quite to the contrary, mine is a mainstream position which you are trying to displace by your extremist position.
The "batty" sides of religion? LOL!
It is hard for you to assert that your view is a mainstream position – mainstream in which group? Amongst skinheads the mainstream position is that whites are superior…so, amongst which group is your view a mainstream position? Once we’ve established that, the next step is to establish if that group is in fact extremist. And please don’t assume you speak for the ‘majority’ of whichever group you adhere to.
Mainstream among humankind generally. And yes, the majority of people do view homosexual acts as immoral.
And you know that because you have done a survey of the entire world’s population and now hold the exact percentage of persons who view homosexual acts as immoral. Well done! How long did it take you to do a survey like that? And, did you use Google to translate or Babel Fish?
Get a clue. If the people California, one of the most liberal of all states not only in the US but the entire world, passes Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage where do you think the rest of the world stands?
As you say Proposition 8 was to ban gay marriage, not to state that homosexuality is immoral. Whilst some of those voters will agree with your point, there are many who do not think homosexuality is immoral but do agree that marriage should remain between a man and a woman as stated in tradition. A majority vote banning gay marriage does not demonstrate the majority’s opinion on another topic. In the same way, the online poll CNS has regarding the gay cruise shows that, thus far, the majority are not against the cruise ship docking here in Grand Cayman. That does not mean that the majority of voters think that homosexuality is not immoral. The poll, like Proposition 8, is not intended to measure voters opinion in that regard. Get a clue!
It is not another topic but part of the same topic. If some people who wish to take no action in respect of Gay Cruises in fact believe that homosexuality is immoral, why would anyone want to actually take action and ban gay marriage if they thought that homosexuality was perfectly moral? It is a necessary implication that those who supported Proposition 8 disagree with a homosexual lifestyle.
This is supported by the polling data which found there was a strong correlation between worship attendance and how individuals voted on Proposition 8. Of persons who attend church weekly 84% supported Proposition 8. Of those who never attend church 17% supported it. Appeals to traditional definitions of marriage are intended simply to soften the language. They considered that schools would then begin to teach children that gay marriage was acceptable and those who opposed it were bigots. They also considered that gay spouses would then be able to adopt children and raise them in a homosexual environment. Religious charities would be forced to refer children to homosexual married couples for adoption. Clergy would be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for them or be deemed to be discriminatory. Do you really think that people want to hang on to tradition for its own sake? You still need to get a clue.
Correlation does not mean causation. And what you believe is an implication is an assumption. The figures you quote also brings questions with them. Throwing percentages is great but it’s meaningless without knowledge of the total population (meaning total number of voters). What was the total number of persons who voted? What percentage attended church weekly and what percentage of the total population did not attend church weekly? But even with those numbers it does not immediately imply that the majority of voters voted for Prop 8 because they felt that homosexuality is immoral. And you cannot deduce that implication because (a) not everyone who goes to church believes homosexuality is immoral (b) not everyone who doesn’t go to church believes homosexuality is not immoral. So, provide the percentage of the church going population which believes homosexuality is immoral and also a percentage of the non-church going population which believes homosexuality is immoral.
People are not inclined to change and people do hang on to tradition for its own sake. That is exemplified globally, from holidays with no religious meaning to having Sunday dinner at the table. There are seas of traditions people hold onto for no reason except that it’s tradition.
I’m glad you’re giving figures though. Give us some more and we can work out the math together and extrapolate an estimated percentage of the world’s population which believes homosexuality is immoral. Although, we do have to account for culture as a variable.
I still believe the clue is yours to be found.
Of course I can deduce that. It is called commonsense. There does not have to be 100% correlation. Bearing in mind that, particularly in California, "Christian" will include very liberal believers and there are persons of high moral values who do not go to church, this accounts for less than 100% correlation. Considering that California is the home of ‘gay churches’ this is a remarkable correlation. Because of the strong gay lobby in California and the US generally those polled are not going to say specifically that they believe homosexuality is immoral. Not wanting to disturb traditional marriage is simply a code phrase for saying that. I have given you the sorts of underlying reasons they had for approving Proposition 8 and they all relate to disapproval of a homosexual lifestyle.
A Pew Poll in August 2009 found that 49% of Americans thought that homosexuality was morally wrong while 9% thought that it was morally acceptable. 33% thought it was not a moral issue. The same poll found that 53% of people polled were against gay marriage. Note that this is almost a statistical dead heat with the those who consider it immoral. Other cultures may be much more conservative. A Poll found that 95% of Ugandans considered homosexuality immoral. In 2009 Gallup Poll of British Muslims 0% (zero) thought homosexuality was moral.
Get the picture?
The population of the U.S. is 304,059,724 as of July 2008.
78.4% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, 4.7% identify as Other Religion, 16.1% as Unaffiliated and 0.8% as Don’t Know/Refused, according to a Religious Landscape Survey (The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life). Make note this is a 2007 survey.
If we apply the Pew statistics you provided, 49% of every sub-group of America thinks that homosexuality is morally wrong given that 49% of all Americans think that the same is true (for lack of a detailed study on each sub-group applying this percentage across the board is the best we can do assuming that not all persons who think homosexuality is morally wrong is Christian). Just to check, you can use the above percentages of religious identification as a ratio to break down the 49% of Americans who think homosexuality is morally wrong.
This works out to the following who think homosexuality is morally wrong: 38% of total Americans who also identify as Christians; 2.3% of total Americans who also identify as Other Religion; 7.9% of total Americans who also identify as Unaffiliated; and, 0.3% of total Americans who also identify as Don’t Know/Refused. Make note that these are percentages of total Americans and that the percentages are liable to change with a detailed study of each sub-group.
Also, you neglected to mention, from the same poll you quoted (Pew), that 57% of Americans are in favour of civil unions and that 53% of Americans are against same sex marriages. This provides an interesting disparity. So, if 49% of Americans think that homosexuality is morally wrong we can assume that that same 49% is included in the 53% of Americans being against same sex marriages and their opposition of same sex marriages to be primarily due to their opinion that it is morally wrong. It would then be ‘implied’ that the remaining 4% have a different reason for opposing same sex marriages.
It is essential to also make note of the fact that the Pew poll found that, of the persons surveyed, 11% of those who thought homosexuality was morally wrong are in favour of same-sex marriage as compared to 70% who are in favour of same-sex marriage and who "haveno moral qualms about homosexuality".
Similarly, we can assume that 51% of the American population (as opposed to the 49%) are in favour of civil unions, with the remaining 6% of those who think homosexuality is morally wrong also in favour of civil unions.
Make note all of these figures will have margins of error as set out in their respective survey.
Continuing to apply that 49%, for lack of any other available data, of the 13,402,566 valid votes, 6,567,257 (49%) of those who voted yes to Proposition 8 might have done so because they felt homosexuality is morally wrong. 433,827 (6%) of those who voted yes would have done so for other reasons. Note 52.24% of voters voted ‘yes’ to Prop 8 and 47.76% voted ‘no’.
The 2009 Gallup Poll also stated 35% of French Muslims thought homosexuality to be acceptable. Also, it is interesting to note that 69% of Canadians and 77% of Western Europeans are more accepting of homosexuality, according to a comparison between Canada and America done by the Pew Global Attitudes Project.
You are trying to split hairs and obfuscate the issue. The original point which has now been clearly demonstrated is that my view (that homosexuality is immoral) is entirely mainstream.
Using your logic, then so is the opposite (i.e. that homosexuality is not immoral or is amoral) is also mainstream based on all the deductions above. Though, if mainstream is ‘the norm’ then I’d say the 51% trumps the 49%.
There was also no obscurity created. It was simply deduction through numbers, very similar to your deduction which was based on the correlation between church-going and favour for Prop 8. I admit it might’ve been better presented visually. Bullet points would have made it a bit easier to follow.
Simply put, if 57% of Americans favour civil unions and 49% of Americans think homosexuality is morally wrong, then most Americans think homosexuality is either morally acceptable or, as the poll put it, do not think it is a moral issue (the remaining 51% accounts for morally acceptable, not a moral issue and undecided/don’t know). I’m not looking at whether the majority think it is morally acceptable just if the majority think it is morally wrong (of which only 49% do). The analysis also implied that voters who found homosexuality immoral were not the majority despite the fact that the majority of voters voted for Prop 8. Thus, it is not logical to utilise that example to indicateyour point.
Neither was it splitting hairs. Statistics are often thrown out and can be misrepresented on many occassions, such as through the ommission of other statistics which are rather important to the overall understanding of the data. I was deducing what your numbers actually mean. Each data set is key in the overall assessment.
The cultural factor was also most interesting in relation to the difference between British and French muslims. Yet despite those 2 groups representing 0% and 35% respectively Western Europe came out with 77% acceptance for homosexuality.
You seem to have some difficulty with basic bath. 9+33 does not = 51, but 42. Therefore even if I were to accept your premise that we must bundle these two groups together (which I do not) they still do not make a majority and 49% is clearly the majority group even if it does not form an overall majority of all those surveyed*. It obviously does not follow that all of those persons who favour civil unions believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable since the same poll found that the % of people who hold that view is not 57% but 9%, or if we allow your bundling, 42%. So I am afraid your deduction is obviously flawed and my point is clearly established.
I suspect the remaining 9% were simply copping out of the issue because they did not wish to express the opinion that it is immoral because of the powerful gay lobby who will label them as "haters".
* Statistically this couldbe a majority given the margin of error.
Actually, 100% – 49% = 51%. That’s where the 51% came from.
As I stated, I am not trying to assert that the majority of people believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable. I am asserting that the majority of the American population think something other than that homosexuality is immoral and that majority represents 51% of the society.
The question from the start has been centred on people thinking homosexuality is morally wrong, not people thinking it is morally acceptable. If a person believes that it is not immoral, it does not mean that they believe the opposite is true.
Your suspicions regarding the 9% are irrelevant to the data (in fact, the ones who copped out of the survey make up 7% as it was 35% who had no moral qualms). Survey administrators offer privacy for individuals completing surveys partly due to the fact that they are able to gain more responses by doing so. A survey such as this would most certainly warrant privacy of respondents information. In the process of administering a survey this is made clear to the respondent. The respondents would have nothing to fear. It is fair to assume, however, that people might have no opinion on the topic, allowing for a ‘Don’t Know’ type option is common in many surveys to ensure the survey represents the population as best as possible.
Just a thought, if the gay lobby was so "powerful" why is it that same-sex marriages and civil unions are only legal in a few states in the US and, as you state, the majority of persons worldwide feel its immoral? Given your claim, the gay lobby should really just give up their fight, as it seems a futile attempt at even trying to ‘win’ people over.
My point, which I have already demonstrated, is that that is a false equation.
The issue isn’t about privacy of information. Some people were embarrassed to say that they did not support Barack Obama because of his race regardless of privacy of information. So they found other reasons: we don’t think he was born in the U.S. etc.; we think he supports terrorists. People fear being called certain names. People lie all the time, e.g. in exit polls.
Regrettably, the gay lobby is succeeding as a study of these polls over the past 30 years will show.
Western Europe is a bastion of moral decay and is not representative of the rest of the world.
What needs need to quashed is the idea that if your view is that homosexuality is immoral you are a "hater" and should be deprived of your freedom of speech. Ironically, this is what reflects true intolerance.
Your view may be that Western Europe is a bastion of moral decay. However, many see it as a place of freedom. That is a stark difference in opinion which is not being quashed in this dialogue – one difference in opinion among many.
It should be pointed out that the Netherlands is a country which truly believes in freedom of speech, and that freedom is upheld more so there than most anywhere else in the world. MP Geert Wilders has been very vocal regarding his anti-Islamist and anti-immigrant views for a long time. He is currently asking for charges to be dropped or reduced in his trial, citing his right to freedom of speech. (He’s facing charges due to hate crimes influenced by his views).
With freedom comes great responsibility. It must also be remembered that with freedom of speech you open yourself to criticism and differences in opinions. In some cases, exercising the right to freedom of speech has lead to violence such as was seen in the murder of Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh. Regardless of one’s views freedom of speech should never lead to violence.
You say Western Europe is a bastion of moral decay, yet there is more freedom there than in the US. Perhaps, too much freedom (based on tolerance and Human Rights) is the cause of Europe’s moral decay?
Quashing the idea that if your view is that homosexuality is immoral you are a "hater" and should be deprived of your freedom of speech would also go against the concept of freedom of speech. Otherwise, should we set limits to freedom of speech?
You are right that what is called freedom in Europe has led to its moral decline.
"Quashing the idea that if your view is that homosexuality is immoral you are a "hater" and should be deprived of your freedom of speech would also go against the concept of freedom of speech. Otherwise, should we set limits to freedom of speech?"
I am afraid that makes no sense. There is a movement within the gay lobby to suggest that it should be a criminal offence prosecuted as "hate speech" if I merely state that a certain behaviour is immoral, yet they rail against Christians as "bigots" who the world would be better of without. In certain parts of the world Christians are already being persecuted, imprisoned etc. merely for stating that. This is a double standard.
There is a point at which speech crosses the line, e.g. if I am suggesting that unlawful violence be done to a group of people. This is in no way approached by the statement that a certain behaviour is immoral. Most people affirm that adultery is immoral yet I do not see this being labelled as "hate speech" against adulterers. Obviously that cannot represent the line, but if it did the gay lobby would crossed its own line in their statements against Christians.
What is called freedom in Europe may be moral chains for you – differing opinion. Europe apparently has the happiest country, according to another recent poll. You might not be happy there, but others are.
I wasn’t referring to the gay lobby and their motives. My point was that if someone thinks you’re a hater for your opinion, calling for them to be deprived of their freedom of speech (as they are also calling for the deprivation of your right to free speech) is attempting to limit their freedom of speech just as they would like done to you. Their attempt to stifle your freedom of speech also goes against the very concept of freedom of speech. It works both ways – not just you to them but also them to you.
I agree with you that a line must be drawn at some point with freedom of speech. The question is really where? There is the obvious explicit encouragement of violence. But what about those statements which are more subtle. And these types of statements affect all groups. You say Christians have been persecuted and indeed they have, just as much as homosexuals. The language used towards both groups can be explicitly hateful but there are also more subtle messages of violence, or violent interpretations of benign messages.
"My point was that if someone thinks you’re a hater for your opinion, calling for them to be deprived of their freedom of speech (as they are also calling for the deprivation of your right to free speech) is attempting to limit their freedom of speech just as they would like done to you".
You are still missing my point. I have never called for anyone to be deprived of their freedom of speech. My point is that labelling our statements as "hate speech" (against which there are laws in some countries) is a call for our speech to be outlawed and that whole idea must be quashed.
So, they call for you to be deprived of your freedom of speech and in return you call for them to be deprived of their freedom of speech? Is it not their right to freedom of speech as it is your right to freedom of speech to state all these views, irrespective of whether or not you or they perceive the other’s opinion as constructive or not?
Not getting lost in numbers, I found your discussion quite entertaining… I’d just like to say this: morality is subjective and cannot be quantified. Harm can be quantified. Is homosexuality really harming us, straight people? (personally, I’m benefiting from it: great friends and a fantastic way to have some population control going on…) Furthermore, societies have very different codes of conduct. All religions have sub-groups, some extremists and some not. Not everyone follows a religion. Amen for that. Alas. Homosexuality is not immoral. It just is people being brave and loving.
You first declare that morality is subjective and then go on to declare, as with objective authority, that homosexuality is not immoral. You need to be at least consistent with yourself.
We differ on this of course. The mainstream Christian view is that morality is objective. If not, at it is up to each one to have their own moral code, that no one else is allowed to object to, then society will degenerate into chaos.
The poster does not strike me as declaring homosexuality to not be immoral as objective. They view morality through the quantification of harm which seems to be based on the poster’s opinion of morality.
As it stands, societies currently and historically have many individuals with their own moral code. Generally, there are certain morals which cut across society/societies, which individuals do not object to. When the masses do, however, object to what is thought to be the accepted moral code of the time there may be an overthrowing of the ruling elite. That degeneration into chaos can sometimes result in a better society.
Hmmm, given all these figures I’m not sure your common sense is quite that common. I’m inclined to side on the deductions of the other poster.
Well at least it is not common enough to include you. If 49% of people in the US believe that homosexuality is immoral and only 9% believe definitively that it is moral then it is clearly the view that it is immoral is obviously mainstream. I understand that you are inclined to agree with the other poster, but that has nothing to do with the data but rather that you are prejudiced as a part of the gay lobby.
Actually, it does have to do with the data. What the other poster seems to be arguing is if most people view homosexuality as immoral not if most people view it as moral. If 49% of people view it as immoral then 51% have a different view. 51% of people view homosexuality differently.
That is a logical fallacy. It is like trying to argue that the spoilt ballots in an election should be counted against the clear winner who far exceeds any other candidate, and because there are some similarities between the losers that their votes should all be pooled so that the winning candidate can be declared to be the loser.
51% do not have "a different view". The 51% is comprised of groups with different views or no view at all. They cannot be lumped together. Of these only 9% affirm homosexuality to be moral. Obviously the majority group is the 49% which affirms homosexuality to be immoral. This is the only one view that can be said to be mainstream since 51% is made of groups with disparate views or no view at all.
California has 23.4 million eligible voters as of May 2009. The total votes, which includes valid, invalid and blank votes, taken for Proposition 8 totalled 13,743,177 or 58.7% of total eligible voters. That leaves the opinions of 41.3% of the California voting population unaccounted for.
Nice try. The whole point of a voting system or polls is that it is taken to be representative of the whole. If an elected representative is elected under those circumstances would you really say that he was not elected by the people since we do not know the opinion of every single registered voter? Of course not. Case closed.
‘Taken to be representative of the whole’ and ‘is representative of the whole’ are different matters. Voting systems globally are fundamentally flawed in providing a true representation of the whole. With a topic such as same-sex marriage, where passion for both sides of the argument run high, majority of persons who vote are usually heavily weighted to one side or the other. The in-betweens are left to be in-betweens.
With a presidential election more people realize that they will be impacted by who is elected. The in-betweens are more likely to get involved due to self-interest – ‘this will affect me and so I need to ensure my voice is heard’. Many people did not feel that they would be affected by Prop 8, so they felt why bother vote even if they knew how they would vote. Not really representative of the people, only representative of the people who voted.
I did ask that you not assume that you speak for the majority of persons in the group you adhere to.
Erm…..I’m heterosexual and do not have any kind of complex about it, not do I feel persecuted. Nice try though.
There are many things taken as immoral in many religions, including Christianity, which people have grown to see are outdated, harkening back to darker days. Women, for instance, wearing pants – a good Christian woman back in the day would never wear pants. People throughout history have chosen what they see as immoral, does that make it so? The earth used to be seen as the centre of the universe, yet it was proven otherwise. Burning someone at the stake for ‘witchcraft’ used to be a moral obligation. Questioning is one step towards learning. If you have not learned to question, how can you ever see the truth for yourself? Instead, you are lead by someone or something you think holds the light. They or it might very well lead you into darkness…oh, but wait, they already have.
Sputtering on a keyboard? That’s a neat trick! No, I was trying to answer you as clearly as I possibly could. Anon2, you have not yet challenged anyone with logic, only shown how blindlyyou cling to your views, no matter how much harm you cause.
In a previous comment, despite that fact that homosexuals living here feel that they cannot admit to their lifestyle for fear of the reaction, you claimed to be "persecuted". Now you refer to "name-calling as a propaganda tool to manipulateothers who wish to avoid being called feared names", even though the loudest voices on the airwaves, which reflect your own position, continue to drown out all other points of view because people are afraid to come forward if they can be identified. You are simply not being honest.
But I know you will never waver your position. Like the religious leaders throughout history, asserting moral authority over a community gives you power and you will never let that go. You will continue to cherry pick the teachings of the Bible to support your views. How sad!
My aim is not to impress you but to show those who are not completely lost in fundamentalist views that there is an alternative to the hatred and bullying of homophobes.
You have no basis for the claim that I cherry-pick the the teachings of the bible to support my views. My views are derived from the Bible. They are not based on hatred.
Try logic instead of propaganda.
I am glad that you know that I will not waver and be bullied into approving something which is immoral.
I think you should also try logic instead of propaganda. Your views, derived from the Bible, are not logical. And your views are most definitely not based on love.
If you believe that some things are immoral as asserted in the Bible but not others things also asserted as immoral in the Bible, then you are indeed cherry-picking the teachings of the Bible.
My views are indeed based on love. Like an irresponsible parent you are confusing love with indulgence, and like a rebellious child you believe that restrictions mean lack of love.
Like I said, you have no basis for claiming that I cherry pick. None.
You have not provided any evidence of the contrary (i.e. a lack of cherry-picking). Your response is like a tired boxer flaying their arms in a last attempt to land a punch.
Love is not the end result of your views, nor is it the beginning. If love is essentially a positive emotion, how can it begin with negativity? And, indeed, that is what your views do – begin with negativity.
Love implies a willingness to sacrifice. And I have seen gay couples sacrifice so much to be together. Indulgence is selfish, yet all I’ve seen is kindness from gay friends, towards myself, towards others, towards their partners. They have relationships which outlast many straight couples I know, and I do make note that those relationships are with one person and one person alone. You have not the eyes to see that. You have not the eyes to see love. And no, I don’t believe restriction means a lack of love. Because no matter what amount of restrictions are imposed, no matter how far apart you keep them, those persons will always love each other.
LOL! I love it. You get to make baseless accusations and then I have to DISPROVE them?! Guilty until proven innocent. That is the resort of the desparate.
Love is the motivation. Love for God, and love for thus who are perishing unless they hear the Good News of Jesus Christ. My personal sacrifice here is to say this even though I know it will one day result our persecution as Christians. You have not eyes to see love. You are spiritually blind.
What is "negativity"? It seems to be the equivalent of saying that I believe there should be restrictions. Is describing any behaviour as immoral "negativity? You keep using these buzzwords as if you believe you have added something of substance. You have not. It is just more vacuous name-calling.
I have said enough. The choice is yours. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. You cannot say on the day of Judgement that you were not told.
Actually, I made no accusation. I was inclined to agree with Pax, pending anything which showed otherwise, based on your own statements. I’ve been waiting to hear your side, as there are always two sides, but that seems unlikely to happen.
Love is your motivation for what? Whilst I’m sure many gay persons appreciate your attempt to ‘save’ them, I’m sure they would rather you kept your criticism to your circle and left them alone. Perhaps, your energy might be better placed in other areas of ‘sin’. It is no sacrifice to yourself to state your opinions for it won’t result in Christian persecution. And yes, you are right about not having the eyes to see love and being spiritually blind in your terms because our perceptions of love and spirituality are most definitely different. And I thank God for that. The love I see is beautiful and the spirituality I hold is serene. Wish you could see what I see, but that is a point where we can only agree to disagree.
Negativity is not, as you perceive, to be based on restrictions, but on the emotive aspects of a word. I think rape is immoral, not out of love, but because of the pain and violation done to the victim. Immoral emotes negative feelings towards an action.
And on Judgement Day, perhaps I shall see you in the fire also – who knows.
Either you are not the poster I was responding to or you are clearly confused. You plainly demanded that I disprove the suggestion that I was cherry picking scripture.
"My side" has been very ably represented. You are not listening.
We shall see if you maintain your "serenity" on that Day.
No, I haven’t been listening. I’ve been reading. The sub-thread, thus far, has focused more on whether your view is based in love or not. It hasn’t touched so much on cherry-picking.
Regardless, I made no demand for you to disprove anything. There was a statement that no evidence has been provided which indicates a lack of cherry-picking. It wasn’t a challenge or a demand, merely an observation. If you happened to attempt to indicate otherwise then so be it, I might have learnt something or I might have been able to teach you something. And, if you didn’t attempt to indicate otherwise then nothing gained or lost.
I’m sure both you and I shall be maintaining our serenity on that ‘Day’. Best of luck.
At this point you ceased to make sense altogether and there is little point in responding further.
Then you are not listening (i.e. reading).
Sometimes Christians are the biggest bigots of all! Many times they are the ones doing the persecuting while playing like they are the "victim" . God hates hypocrisy and hypocrites.
I don’t share your opinions but I do recognise your right to hold and defend them within the context of free speech, a concept which is a strong element of my moral code.
But I have a problem with your absolute certainty that your moral code is the " correct" moral code. Again, your moral code is yours. It will be shared by some and not shared by others. I would claim to have a strong moral code, yet I do not find a homosexual lifestyle immoral.
As a conservative Christian, which is how I perceive you, I suspect you cannot conceive of alternative moral codes which are equally as legitimate as yours and are neither right nor wrong. But opening yourself up to this possibility is the first step to tolerance. Of course, you have to want to take that first step, but isn’t tolerance a Christian virtue?
Well it all depends on what you mean by tolerance, OReally. If by that you mean compromise then no, it is not a Christian virtue.
I certainly acknowledge that there are non-Christians who have high ethical standards. One of my very best friends is an atheist. We discuss all of these things without any of the acrimony evident in the gay lobby posts. Why? because our high regard for each other transcends the differences in our beliefs. He will often question me about my spiritual perspectives and I in turn will challenge him on his positions. Yet I have not compromised my beliefs and I hope that one day he will see the light.
Interesting that you can’t seem to bring yourself to attribute high moral standards to non-Christians, but high ethical standards. Given your regard for the specific meaning of words, I have to assume you used this term deliberately, in which case I also have to assume that you believe that non-Christians have no basis, since they don’t believe in the bible, for having a moral code.
Which of course leads me back to the point of my original post which is that like it or not, accept it or not, there are many equally legitimate moral codes out there and the mere recognition of this, which requires no compromise of one’s own beliefs, is a start towards tolerance.
I respect your opinions, I accept your moral code but I do not believe for a minute that you have a monopoly on the " correct " moral code. Any argument which starts from a position of absolute moral correctness is fundamentally flawed, regardless of whether it is in fact right or wrong.
you are not achristian, a christian is someone who belives in the teachings of Jesus…. what did Jesus ever say about gays??
I think you need some help with your logic. Jesus did not need to teach what was clearly already understood by his audience. For example, he also did not say that rape is evil. Does that mean that if someone holds that rape is evil he is not a Christian?
i think you need help with your logic if you think homosexuality is comparable to rape……
The point is that homosexuality and rape are both sins. It doesn’t matter whether you think they are comparable. That is besides the point.
I agree rape is evil. But where in the Bible does it mention that it is a sin? Just wondering so that I may take a read of it.
Well, actually, Lot did suggest to the crowd of raging hormonal men that they can take his 2 daughters instead. So, I guess the Bible was saying, raping women – no problem, that’s what they’re there for; raping men – most definitely not, none of that homosexual stuff! I guess it was already clearly understood by Jesus’ audience thatraping women was fine. So, you’re telling me that the ancients were so dim that they didn’t already understand how to ‘love thy neighbour’? Seriously, where is your logic? Perhaps you’re born-again (I admit that is an assumption), but I’m pretty sure your previous life did not take place in Jesus’ time. Stop embarrassing yourself by pretending that you were there and that you know what went on in Jesus’ head.
You make the mistake of thinking that any behaviour portrayed in the bible (even by men of God) was necessarily godly. When Noah got drunk he was not being godly. If you took the time to gain some understanding of scripture rather than trying to find passages to debunk scripture it would help immensely.
It is obvious that the Jews did not understand that love thy neighbour applied to Samaritans whom they loathed. That is the whole point of the parable of the Good Samaritan.
You should be embarrassed by your ignorance and lack of understanding.
It would seem you also make the same mistake. You seem to think your interpretation of the Bible is correct and anything different is wrong. Your understanding of the scripture is not necessarily correct. Also, you have one disturbed view of the world if you believe that all Jews back then did not have the heart to help a Samaritan. You continue to embarrass yourself with your ignorance and lack of understanding. Such blind following.
It is simply historical fact (including historical texts outside the Bible) that the Jews despised against the Samaritans. The fact that there probably exceptions does not disprove the rule.
Your approach does not qualify as interpreting the Bible. There are some issues which are disputable and others which are not. These points are not. If you are going to debate try to gain some some knowledge of your subject first or you will continue to embarrass yourself.
Everything is disputable. Even history is subjective. A set of texts written hundreds of years ago can have many inconsistencies and inaccuracies. The writings of Herodotus are one such example. Even texts today can have many inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
One of the things one learns in studying history is that what you read tells only one side of a story. Like a photograph it can only show the occurrence from that point of view. There is always the question of who writes history and in what context. Just something to bear in mind.
The poster is not embarrassing themself by questioning what is thought to be fact. You may be familiar with historical texts but perhaps not with the study of history.
This is a red herring. I am fully familiar with studying history and can do without the condescending tone. This point is not in contention in any historical texts of which I am aware. They all agree on this point although they may differ on the reasons that the Jews despised them. The poster did not "question what is thought to be fact", or offer some alternative account. He/she stated that my clear statement of historical fact reflected "a disturbed view of the world" without any basis whatsoever.
If we take your approach and everything is disputable then we know absolutely nothing about the past.
And indeed we don’t – we just think we know.
No doubt you are among those that claim the holocaust didn’t happen.
I think it happened (call it 98%), it lacks 100% knowing because I wasn’t there in that time.
And so you are willing to give the Neo-Nazi holocaust deniers some credence. But even if you were there at the time, according to your theory, you would still not know since that would only be your perspective. Remember NOTHING is objective and everything is disputable.
A good question may be: what do any of us really know? We could all just be quarks in an electron in an atom in a cell in a body we are unaware of, and our awareness of events part of a form of collective thought. But this is going off on a tangent from the main discussion.
My apologies if you thought I was being condescending. That was not my intention at all. I was merely trying to support one of the previous poster’s point, at least what I perceived as one of their points. I believe what the poster might have been saying was that they believe there is more good in this world than people admit to themselves. My perception was based on the fact that the poster found it hard to believe that all Jews hated the Samaritans and that this hate was more an exception than the rule. Perhaps, it is a naive view but, do you not remember how the world was so much more beautiful as a child?
Actually, it is your logic that is faulty. If Jesus’ audience already had a clear sense of moral right and wrong then you believe that we do not need a bible or a teacher to clearly spell out what is right and wrong. However, you clearly don’t believe that at all. Society imbues us with a sense of morals whether we adhere to a religion or not. Some religions skew that innate sense of morality, appartently giving their followers the right to pass judgement on those who do not share the same beliefs. In my opinion, the old testament is a terrible moral code and possibly ranks as one of the most bloodthirsty religious texts ever put together. In the interests of free speech, you can tell me I’m wrong. I’m not going to tell you what you can and cannot believe so you can live your life by those texts if you wish, as long as you do me no harm by doing so.
You need help with your comprehension skills. I touched on the specific issue of rape. Nowhere did I state that Jesus’s audience had a clear sense of moralright and wrong. Quite to the contrary, while there were certain issues of which they were keenly aware there were others that were overlooked or misunderstood. They were often more concerned with the letter of the law rather than the Spirit. Jesus was concerned to correct these misunderstandings.
While our innate sense of morality, our conscience, is important it will vary from individual to individual and cannot serve as a reliable guide to right conduct. The conscience of some people permits them to cheat others or the govt. as they find good excuses for it. That is because we are corrupted with sinful attitudes and often blind to our own faults. The whole point of spiritual revelation is provide something which does not vary from culture to culture and individual to individual but is a reliable guide to what is pleasing to God. Christian morality when correctly applied is second to none.
How then does one determine objectively whether that morality is being correctly applied or not?
There are some issues which are difficult and disputable. There is a whole of study of Christian Ethics. However, I think we can be absolutely clear when a behaviour is described in the NT as "perversion", "unnatural" (Rom. 1:26,27) and "wickedness" ( 1 Cor. 6:9) that it is against Christian morality. Note that many other behaviours are included.
Very enlightening! I’m almost persuaded. Now please answer the question.
Tiger Woods behaved immorally. Homosexuals have not and do not. When Woods married he vowed to be sexually faithful to his wife. He has not been and so he has acted immorally.
Homosexuals (the vast majority are not married) have made no such vow and so have not been immoral. For practising homosexuals their sexual actions are as natural to them as rubbing you nose when it itches is to you. That is not a flippant comment. It is accurate and factual.
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. I have three sons aged 25, 23 and 20. I also have a 17 year old daughter. It became obvious to my wife and I when our youngest son was eight years old that he was different from his two brothers.
At a family meal two years ago I finally decided to ask him outright if he were gay. I was greeted with screams of laughter by theother three. He got up and walked around the table and gave me a big hug. It was a happy, memorable moment.
He told me that he had never ‘come out’ because he had always assumed that I realised that he was. He was right but I had needed confirmation.
He also told me that if you think that someone is, then they almost certainly are. My family and I left Cayman and returned home three years ago. I would never have written this if I still lived there because it would be too easy, from the clues I’ve given, to identify my gay son (many will have already done so) and for some of you to make his life miserable. He is like you only he’s different – and much, much nicer.
"Tiger Woods behaved immorally. Homosexuals have not and do not. When Woods married he vowed to be sexually faithful to his wife. He has not been and so he has acted immorally".
Obviously immorality does consist merely in the breaking of vows and so the entire premise of your argument fails. Even if it did Tiger Woods’s affairs would be none of your business since he did not make a vow to you.
As for the homosexuality is natural to homosexuals argument, the case could be made that Tiger has discovered monogamy is not "natural" to him and so he should not be held to that standard and he has therefore not acted immorally.
The point of moral standards is to restrain our baser impulses – the very same base impulses that you describe as natural. As a heterosexual it is natural to me to be attracted to women with particular attributes, however it does not follow that I am compelled to act upon that attraction and engage in relations with such women. It follows then that a homosexual lifestyle is indeed a choice.
Beyond religous beliefs and politics, what is the real motivation of not letting a cruise that is catering to a "gay" crowd stop and see your beutiful island of Grand Cayman.
Perhaps there is a worry that an HIV+ person might "hook up" with a local and a new onset of the disease will strike the island. That is a reasonable concern. HIV/Aids is still a killer.
Is there a fear, for a good many Caymanians, allowing them to dock would send a signal that the island condones that lifestyle. I dont think seeing a "gay" cruise is more of a statement than a lot of the movies and TV shows that are avail to anyone with a dish.
When I first started visiting CI in 1982 it was explained by my hostess that wearing skimpy clothing IE: bathing suits or bathing suit top with shorts was looked down on by the local ladies. And since mostly local ladies worked at the storesin HogSty Bay, I made sure I wore a comfortable sun dress that was maybe more modest then I would normally wear. But I received wonderful service and polite comments. I complied with the local traditions.
If I were in Saudi Arabia I would wear the cloak and scarf coverning my hair to be polite. Not my dream apparel but do-able.
Perhaps the cruise ship could educate the passengers and let them know it is a conservative island. And overt show of affection is not appreciated. Wait till your back on ship or in your suite. Be polite visitors and be sensitive to local attitudes.
So think about giving the cruise a chance-to show their intentions. And if after one visit the people of CI could make a decision. To allow another specialty cruise or not.
just my thoughts
dj
cayman is not a ‘conservative’ island, quite the reverse in fact. however, cayman has to accept that times move on, and it cannot pick and choose which parts of world progress it accepts. It is like those very church ‘dons’ who refused to accept that the earth rotates around the sun. cayman is no more the centre of the world any more than Earth is the centre of the universe.
Times and attitudes change, sometimes permanently. Let’s take Jesus as an example. If today a long haired, unshaven guy wearing a robe and no underwear was constantly picking up and kissing strange children and kissing or touching various parts of their bodies to ‘make them better’, and all the pictures of this individual depicted that, what would todays society, even back in time where we are on cayman, have to say aboutthat individual? It’s probably a bit contentious to claim Jesus (if he even existed) was a paedophile, but even so, what would be said today? would you want that person picking up your children on cayman? the world has moved on cayman, deal with it. the problem is that no one has the spheres to deal with the outrageous behaviour of the ‘cayman ministers’…
Honey, Cayman has come a long way! If you flash your $100.00 bill in George Town they don’t care if you wearing a bikini or a ball gown! Grand Cayman already has every form of humanity walking the streets. The Cruise ships don’t have to bring them! The "religious" fanatics just like the Pharisees of Old Testament, have to show us how "holy" they are by pointing their self righteous fingers at everyone else.
This is a beautifully written and perfectly reasoned piece. Well done Paxo!
I have reached the point now where I despair of voluble Christians. I really doubt that they believe most of what they say. They can’t do. It defies logic. I would like one day to hear a Christian, in response to a question, say, "I don’t know."
They never do. Their certainty on every topic is all encompassing and is always based on the bible – a very old fairy story.
If we could all agree that there is no God, virtually all of the world’s problems would be solved in a stroke and after death, we could all sink into the peaceful oblivion that awaits us anyway.
In view of the fact that Stalin, an atheist, is history’s greatest mass murderer, atheism is obviously not a cure to the world’s problems. He is estimated to have killed more than 60 million people. The answer is more of God in our hearts (and not just on our lips).
Atheism may not be the answer to the world’s problems. But one does wonder what the world would be like without religion. So many wars, deaths, hate have been in the name of some god. What if there was no religion? What if there was one less reason to divide mankind?
This is an odd argument. Atheism is not a moral code or a belief system. Some atheists are very good people and some are very bad people. Atheism says nothing about a person’s morality except that they have not signed on to an established religion.
You seem to miss the fact that I was responding to a particular comment that suggested that the world would be a better place if we were all atheists. To say that atheism says nothing about a person’s morality (and therefore whether the world would be a better place) does not refute my point but rather the point to which I was responding.
What a stupid comment.
John Dillinger, The Boston Strangler and Jack the Ripper were all left handed.
Be careful of left handed people. They are all almost certainly murderers.
I am left hand and I must say I am one sick little puppy.
In the past the Bible was relied upon to justify discrimination against left-handers.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977234688
Let thee without sin cast the first stone, with your right hand.
You’re right, Stalin beats God in those stakes. According to scripture God only killed somewhere from 2.3 million to 2.7 million people. Not a precise number but things are a bit vague because events like the flood are bit difficult to quantify and a few others just say ‘and the women and children’.
So God is nicer than Stalin. However, there is a lot of killing that has gone on in God’s name. Crusades, the Inquisition, colonisation of N. America/S.America/Africa/Australasia/Indian subcontinent and he still theoretically has the rest of eternity to catch up. That’s if you ignore the fact that he created us all to suffer and die in the first place.
No, he didn’t create us to suffer and die in the first place. We did that to ourselves by rebelling and this is why mankind continues to suffer. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.
Another fundie fruitcake gets it all wrong.
Your god has a far higher bodycount than Stalin. According to your fantasy, he once killed everybody on earth except one family of fundie nuts. Yes, the global population was relatively small back then but he made up for it since. Your god has been tossing billions into his hell for thousands of years. That’s an impressive toll of human destruction. Stalin could only soil himself with lust fantasizing about that staggering level of evil.
Face it, Fundies, you worship the greatest evil character ever dreamed up by humans. And don’t say, "no, the devil is worse", because your god is responsible for making him too. (not that Satan really exists, of course).
By the way, why don’t Caymanians stone all women who are not confirmed to be virgins on their wedding night? The Bible says you have to. Oh, that’s right, I forgot, Fundies don’t actually read the Bible. They just stare blankly at preachers and repeat a few silly lines over and over.
Sad.
What is sad is your ignorance. There is this whole section of the Bible called the New Testament…
Bravo. Peace to you too!
Simple: Hate is Hate – Period.
Bad manners are bad manners – period.
If you find yourself spouting anti-whatever rhetoric (take your pick: gays, expats, Caymanians, religious group, nationality etc.), you are betraying the principles that any major religion espouses, as well as principles that thoughtful atheists or agnostics profess to live by. You’re living a lie. You have issues within yourself that require attention and you’re being rude.
You might argue that there have to be standards… No argument there. Trick is to be brutally honest with yourself and separate stuff that you don’t like or approve of versus stuff that actually affects you or your loved ones, and what you can control or help change in a positve way.
Using the topics mentioned here: Can someone’s gay lifestyle REALLY have any effect on you? No. Does gang/drug violence? Yes. How about adultery? Child and/or spousal abuse and domestic violence? Both yes, for the incredible immediate and long-lasting effects on a family and trust, and by extension, society.
"Live and let live" does not mean allowing stuff to happen to you – a wiser man than myself wrote that "The freedom to swing your arm stops at my nose…"
That motto implies responsibility on both sides, and restraint. Stop yourself before you say or do something hateful, and politely challenge someone who slips and spouts/does that crap… And if you are called out – don’t get defensive, but stop, and think [gasp!]
Kudos to CNS and writers here for encouraging civil conversations, versus the unproductive shouting that seems to happen elsewhere…
I believe in God but stopped going to church many, many years ago as I found that many times these leaders of organised religion who are tasked with showing us the way use it as an opportunity to spew forth their bigoted, racist, narrow minded, hatred filled sermons to an audience of people desperate for someone to tell them how to live their lives; that if they follow they will find happiness, peace, success etc. etc.. that if you sin all week you will be forgiven on Sunday, that if you commit adultery you will be forgiven but please tithe at least 10% of your income to the church and if you can give more all the better as your sins will be forgiven faster! Don’t take birth control as it is murder but we have starving children the world over – it’s ok to have 11 children even though you cannot feed or educate them. You can be raped by your father/uncle/brother/stranger but you must have that child as to do anything else is against God’s will! Homosexuals are degenerates who have chosen to live this lifestyle and can be cured and, oh by the way, it is contagious – don’t get too close as you too will start lusting after people of the same sex! and God forbid you allow your children to spend time with them.
But it is ok for you to beat the living daylights out of your wife and your children – you will still be invited to dinner and your abuse won’t be discussed – we will all turn a blind eye. And we won’t take a stand against abuse because we all know that it’s not as bad as homosexuality! It is ok to be an adulturer or to commit incest but not to be a homosexual.
If these leaders can be so vocal in their hatred of homosexuality (which is not a choice by the way – really now, who in their right mind would choose a life of discrimination, a lifestyle that is taught to be shameful and wrong, a lifestyle that makes them an outsider?) why aren’t your religious leaders just as vocal about abuse, incest, racism, bigotry, adultery all of which are wrongaccording to the bible – why aren’t they marching in the streets every day helping to bring these issues to light? why aren’t those that worship in these churches and are so vocal about their hatred of homosexuality just as vocal about the abuse, incest, rape, bigotry, racism and adultery that is so rampant in our society? Why aren’t you shunning your friend who beats his wife and children? who rapes his children? who hates white/black/Filipino/Jamaican/American/English? who commits adultery? who laughs at the mentally or physically challenged? why do you still invite him into your home but you won’t let a homosexual cross the threshold?
So much hatred comes from the pulpit – why are you giving them so much power? why are you allowing them to dictate to you what the bible says? you can believe in God all by yourself, you can worship anywhere – you can read the bible and form your own opinion, you don’t need someone else to tell you what is right and what is wrong – do you think God cares that you go to church one day a week to worship Him? Stop believing everything you hear and start questioning – question everything, question why you think the way you do, question everything you have been taught and then ask yourself "what would God want? God, who gave his only son – what would He want from me?"
You can be assured it is not hatred.
> "rallies against gay cruise ships"
The ships are not gay. It’s the people on them that are gay.
Don’t get the people-hating church "leaders" started on the ships now – they’ll be calling for fire and brimstone against the whole cruise ship industry due to the erect stacks and the round portholes lewdly displayed by these vessels. One even has brightly coloured ribbons painted on the bow: a clear sign of homosexuality.
Never underestimate the ignorance of a religiously-indoctrinated christian cult member. Just beware of their poisonous words and try to prevent the spread of their hateful disease.
I saw the Carnival Inspiration giving a funny look to the Crown Princess today.
Gay ships.
I have this to say. I am so sick and tired of hearing the CIMA go on and on about an issue that is so old they need to shut up. Instead of quoting the Bible and going on how be gay is so wrong, go out and start to do some good for these 3 islands we all call our home. The amount of increase in crime recently, the CIMA hasn’t said one word about that. No yet the sit in the places of worship and preach and preach. Go and try and start some after school programs to educate the young kids in these 3 islands about the values and morals about not getting into a life of crime or reach out to the police and try and do some good. No they go on and on about gays. I am a proud gay Caymanian and I will tell you this. I would rather praise God in the comfort of my own home and glorify him rather than sit amongst those that call themselves Christians when all they do is preach hate amongst those that to them are not worthy of God’s love.
God loves us all no matter what colour, we are all created equal. So my message to the CIMA is stop preaching your hate. Yet it is ok to collect your offerings every Sunday and fill your church coffers and build these palaces to worship God in when instead what you should be doing is trying to use some of your members hard earned dollars to do some good in the 3 islands. we all call these 3 islands home but yet you the CIMA is the only body that is against gays coming to these 3 islands. I wonder if you did a count of your members and checked to see how many sit in your pews every Sunday and those same members are gay, would you tell them they are outcast. be carefull what you wish for. And in ending let me say this the GOd that I was raised to serve and praise is a true and just God. Start preaching LOVE instead of HATE.
A proud gay Caymanain, and yes I too am a normal human being just like you I live and work in these 3 islands which I call my HOME . STOP the HATE, spread the LOVE. God bless these 3 islands that we all call home.
It is easier to hate than it is to love love.
The CMA proving this again it appears
Thanks Chet.
God does indeed love us all. He just hates our sin. When we cherish sin in our hearts it separates us from God. He wants us to love sinners but hate sin as well. It is not about making people outcasts but rather telling them about repentance, God’s forgiveness and redemption. However, there is no short-cut which leaves out repentance. May God speak to your heart that you will know his truth and it will set you free.
I feel that all the hoorah about the gay cruises coming to Cayman is only hypocrisy. There is not one preacher in these islands who would turn away an openly gay person, if they came into their church and listened to their sermon and put money in their offering plate. This is not a case of good Christianity, this is a case of fanaticism at its highest. I have never been gay, have never even wondered about, but we live in a free society and should never ever try to force our personal beliefs on others. That belongs in a communist country or a dictatorship.
Many people are repulsed by spiders, snakes, rats or other creatures.
Why?
Because they appear or behave in a way that seems un-natural.
Homosexuality in the male may be due to a genetic or physiological defect or induced by upbringing: it is established fact that male children raised in an otherwise female-only household will have a tendancy to reject female companionship in adulthood and may, therefore, form attachments to other males.
Homosexuality in the female is almost invariably due to genetic or physiological causes.
All of these causations can be treated or ameliorated so that the ‘patient’ gets to live a ‘normal’ heterosexual life, IF HE OR SHE SO WISHES.
It follows that anyone refusing to get help is deliberately propagating their abnormality and thus presents a prima facie example of mental deficiency which should be dealt with under the mental health laws of whichever country they happen to be in.
This is not a popular point of view, but just because it has been adopted as policy by violent totalitarian regimes in the past does not make it erroneous.
Let’s see… you start by saying that spiders are unnatural and end by agreeing with Hitler. The bit in between didn’t make much sense either.
You are one sad, messed up person.
That’s good preachin’!
It is an established fact that people who make up established facts or take what others told them as established facts are doomed to not live in the real world but one in which they are right and everyone else is wrong. Just like extreme Muslums. They belive it is an established fact that killing non muslums will get them to heaven where 40 virgins will be waiting for them. And of course the 40 (female maybe) virgins will I guess do what ever they want happily ever after with no interference from the parents of the 40 virgins. Can you belive that? Did you choose to be a heterasexual? Most homosexuals did not choose it either. In all ways of life exept that one they are exactly like you. O wait they also are not afraid they will catch heterosexuality from you. But it is your choice to listen or not listen to reason. Live free and hopefully let others live the same.
P.S. Many people are repulsed by spiders, snakes and other creatures becuse of fear of being attacked and hurt. But don’t take my word for it.
Learn to spell and then you might be taken seriously.
I assume you understand the irony of your comment. Since you are making up a established fact you can, by your reasoning, safely be ignored.
Spiders and snakes are unnatural? Gays can be cured? Just cuz Hitler and Mao eliminated a lot of "undersirables" doesn’t make eliminating undesirables so bad?
You have tumbled so far down the dark hole of religious evil and stupidity you may be a lost cause. Your brain has been filled with nonsense by preachers who got their degrees from intellectual cesspools such as Oral Roberts University. They don’t know anything. Stop listening to them immediately. There is a chance you can be saved. Here is what you must do:
Watch the National Geographic Channel every day for two months. You will be shocked to learn that spider and snakes are "natural". Follow that up with repeat viewings of the film "Bruno". You will be shocked to learn that homophobic morons are both pathetic and ridiculous.
Good luck. I’ll be praying for you in your recovery.
Because they appear or behave in a way that seems un-natural.
It was onty a couple of hundred of years ago that a women menstruating was seen as an unnaural act.
Does that it make it right to be repulsed by women?
I find it more scary that you want everyone to act in your vision of normalcy. Did you bully little ginger children as there don’t look the same (after all the could dye their hair to be normal
This is not a popular point of view, but just because it has been adopted as policy by violent totalitarian regimes in the past does not make it erroneous.
Actually it does, look at the types of people (like you) who have done these things in the past, whether the Nazis, the Hutus, or the Turks.
Do you believe you will meet Hilter in Heaven? actually rereading your post I do think you actually do think so.
I am repulsed, to use your description, by spiders, snakes, rats, soldier crabs, and a host of other creatures because their perfectly natural behaviour may be to bite or otherwise injure me. I would love to see the sources of your "facts". You need help. You may want to try the mental health facilities of whatever country you happen to be in and stop propagating foolishness.
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid–
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
So all boys that belong to single mothers are gay? Go see Dr. Lockhart..you need a mental check up. My fiance is definitely not gay and neither are my kids. I am a single mother of two teenage boys and they are definitely not gay. My fiance has no problem helping with housework. His mother taught him how to take care of himself and I did the same with my boys.
you should crawl back under the rock you just came out from
-Heterosexuality is invariably due to genetic or physiological causes or induced by upbringing. This causation also can be treated or ameliorated.-
Your statement implies that the above is true. Sexuality is, in essence, displayed as a behavioural trait. If genetics, physiology or environment plays a part(s) in causing homosexuality then the same is true in the causation of heterosexuality; and, as such, if the effect of these causations can be treated in the case of homosexuality, so too can the effects be treated in the case of heterosexuality. Just because homosexuals are a minority does not mean that they have a defect – that is like saying that red-heads have a defect as all three factors (genetics, physiology and environment) have coalesced to create the traits found in someone with red hair.
Fact of the matter is that the scientific community is not in agreement with what is the cause of sexuality (homosexuality or otherwise).
You are an idiot!!
Thank you, Pax Vobiscum, for refuting so many of the illogical, hateful reasons so-called Christians use to justify their homophobia.
Now, if the churches and pastors would justturn their passion and energy to the criminals in our community, they might actually accomplish something good. Where are their outcries whenever somone is killed or raped, or abused? Where is their outrage when these thugs slowly chip away at our once-peaceful society? Who cares what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? I care what the wannabe-gangsters are up to.
The comments often made about gays coming here to "convert" us to homosexuality, or to influence our children, are utter nonsense. The people on the "gay" cruises are just here to have fun, to relax, to visit our little piece of paradise. They couldn’t give two hoots about whether any of us is gay or wants to be gay. Can you say that about the young people in our gangs? No, because they are actively recruiting new members and trying to consolidate their power. Which group do you think the ministers should be worried about?….
I say "get over yourselves" and focus on the real problems on our islands.
They rabble-rouse and rail against homosexuality because they fear that people will see gays for what they are – regular people. Then the whole facade they’ve created about the so-called evils of homosexuality come crumbling down as those they have mislead come to see that there is absolutely nothing wrong with two loving adults in a relationship, regardless of their gender. All this talk of "defects" by a smattering of commentors is just their way of dehumanizing homosexuals so that they can spew hatred without guilt. It’s sick, twisted and can lead down a very dangerous path.
I agree with your viewpoint. I should also add that the religious component is one of the things I have found endearing about Cayman. And one of the things that makes many places in the Caribbean and Central America special places, much like India has it’s Hinduism and Buddhism. That being said, it bothers me tremendously that people’s faith and belief in their Gods is being steered in other directions. By persons who have taken it upon themselves to be the spokespersons, or intermediaries, between people and their faith. When someone decides to do this (for whatever reason) they also take on the responsibility to act as a catalyst of sorts, allowing people to gather together, give thanks, and feel a oneness with others, and with their god. Unfortunately, some consider themselves to also be interpreters of holy writings and that is where the problems begin. The manuscripts, whether it be the Koran, the Bible, or the teachings of Krishna, have survived for thousands of years unchanged because they hold for many basic concepts and ideals of what their faith represents. None of the writers of these scripts asked for them to be interpreted at will by anyone who so chooses. Somewhere along the line, certain groups saw the advantage to using them, and interpreting them, for purposes other than for what they intended. They are guidelines, manuals if you will, to help one lead a spiritual life. Nothing more was intended. Because they all take into account the inherent godliness of all people and they are meant to be blended into our daily lives and used by us. It is when someone takes it upon themselves to interpret them by preaching "Here’s what they meant….." that societies fall into trouble. Who gave this person the right? Why do we need someone to tell us what our god meant? We can study it, meditate on it. And come to our own conclusions.
Based on where we are on our own journey. Because it is meant to be that way.
Thank you for your viewpoint.
Thank you for an extremely well written piece. I was raised a Christian but was also educated to think for myself. Many years ago I became an atheist for reasons I will not go into here. You do not need religion in order to have a moral compass. I would encourage all of the young Caymanians reading these debates to keep an open mind and question everything.
I have found it saddening in the past that people go on a gay cruise to truly have a vacation where they can truly relax and not have to worry about offending those around them and then they come to Cayman. Thankfully, most of them take it with good humour but it must be hurtful to arrive and be made to feel so unwelcome. I suppose the churches don’t realise that they are the cause of any provocative behaviour. The vast majority of visitors jsut want to have a good time, have no intention of offending anyone and will be on their way by sundown. Practice being tolerant for half a day, the next time it may be easier. And, if you find that you are listening to a sermon of hate in church on Sunday, have the courage to get up and leave; having moral strength is not necessarily tied to religious belief.