16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieotherwise are you prepared to ignore this sexuality and think, oh that's not a gay bar, its just a persons bar, OK, the people who frequent it are gay, but hey they are gay persons who coincidently just happen to be congregating at this particular spot at this particular moment, and the bar has the designation gay bar, but its not really a gay bar, its just a bar with persons who happen to be gay, really Lemony, is this the way we should be thinking???
it seems that you missed out the fundamental point of it being designated a gay bar, by the very fact that the persons attending are gay, thus my dear lemony yellow, is their sexual orientation not a definitive reason of why they are there, why the bar happens to be there, and why it is termed a gay bar, thus it appears to me, that sexuality has inde bar with persons who happen to be gay, really Lemony, is this the way we should be thinking???
I read through this several times, but you're really just failing to make any sense. That gay persons are commonly subjected to pejorative designations and have to endure practices that highlight their sexuality beyond what is encountered by straights doesn't show that gay persons are, in any genuine way, "defined" by their sexuality any more than straight persons are defined by their sexuality. It only shows something regrettable about the prevailing social climate, regarding ignorance and bigotry. It shows that gays have to suffer more for their sexuality, for no good reason; it shows that gays are unfairly singled out more and excluded just by virtue of their sexuality.
You seem to think that gay persons are "defined" by their sexuality insofar as society makes a point to single them out expressly for it.
16 Oct 09
2 edits
on the contrary, the gay community has been relentless in persuit of its aims and has systematically used sexuality as a tool for political posturing and to further its agenda, to such an extent, that in Scottish schools it can now be promoted, through literature and other means, as an alternative lifestyle, let me ask the same of heterosexualy? has that also framed its dictates through a decree?
in the highlands of Scotland where persons rely on tourism through privately owned catering establishments, little guest houses exist where persons stay for one or two days and receive bed and breakfast, there was a proprietor who, because of his religious convictions and the dictates of his conscience, would not permit homosexuals, to reside in his establishment. the result of it was, that he was deemed to be prejudicial, his reputation was slandered simply because he wished to exercise his conscience within the realms of his own establishment, does that not strike you as ludicrous and unjust? let us not delude ourselves into thinking that this movement is somehow a victim, au contrare, it is self evident that it is aggressive and subversive..
16 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat would you think if the same person refused Blacks, Muslims, Jews, JW's etc etc??
on the contrary, the gay community has been relentless in persuit of its aims and has systematically used sexuality as a tool for political posturing and to further its agenda, to such an extent, that in Scottish schools it can now be promoted, through literature and other means, as an alternative lifestyle, let me ask the same of heterosexualy? has ...[text shortened]... ment is somehow a victim, au contrare, it is self evident that it is aggressive and subversive..
The saddest part here is that you are so blind you can't see why people are taking issue with this.
the gay community has been relentless in persuit of its aims
What, non-discrimination?
16 Oct 09
5 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobits not a proper argument noobster, for the argument is not over what the person is, whether they are pink orange purple or brown, Irish Jamaican, or whatever, it concerns the free exercise of conscience. does the proprietor have a right to exercise his conscience or not? in actual fact Noobster, there are many places where heterosexuals cannot reside in an establishment if they are unmarried, do you hear them crying prejudice? It only really establishes my point, for if heterosexuals had been turned away, you would not have heard anything about it, but because it concerns Gays, well, now you will never be able to forget it! do you understand the point that i am trying to make? i dont ask you to agree with it, or even accept it, just to acknowledge that it is valid.
What would you think if the same person refused Blacks, Muslims, Jews, JW's etc etc??
16 Oct 09
This has been entertaining and saddenning. Robbie, why would you persist with this point?
I once questioned why athiests post on the spirituality forum. I was quickly corrected by TJ and others and promptly apologized and pulled my head in about the matter.
the more you defend this point of view,the worse it looks for you. Pick your battles 🙂
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI had the feeling that whatever a free citizen does at her/ his bedroom with her/ his personal (adult!) objects of love and desire is strictly her/ his business.
its not a proper argument noobster, for the argument is not over what the person is, whether they are pink orange purple or brown, Irish Jamaican, or whatever, it concerns the free exercise of conscience. does the proprietor have a right to exercise his conscience or not? in actual fact Noobster, there are many places where heterosexuals cannot resi ...[text shortened]... ut it, I think not, but because it concerns Gays, well, now you will never be able to forget it!
Methinks the proprietor has definately the right to exersise his consiousness and to promote a sexualy oriented discrimination, but then he has to be ready to be judged because he broke the law (just like a driver who refused to stop on the red light claiming that he exersised his consiousness".
Furthermore, it's the first time I hear that in Bonnie Scotland you have many extablishments at which an heterosesual couple cannot reside if they are not married -yikes😵
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by karoly aczeli have nothing to fear Karoly, why should i deny my own conscience, yup it may not be fashionable, yet i am duty bound to show love to all persons, irrespective of their race, creed or colour, but it does not mean that i need to accept their behaviour, does it?
This has been entertaining and saddenning. Robbie, why would you persist with this point?
I once questioned why athiests post on the spirituality forum. I was quickly corrected by TJ and others and promptly apologized and pulled my head in about the matter.
the more you defend this point of view,the worse it looks for you. Pick your battles 🙂
16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetlemmm, its a great point beetle. i wish you and Maria would be married soon, so i send some gift from the amber nectar of the north and we could get flight on ryannair and come and dance to the sound of the mandolin and the violin in the crazy Greek folk dances, it would be great to forget oneself! There are not many, only one or two, in the western Isles. They still hold the Sabbath there and nothing moves on a Sunday.
I had the feeling that whatever a free citizen does at her/ his bedroom with her/ his personal (adult!) objects of love and desire is strictly her/ his business.
Methinks the proprietor has definately the right to exersise his consiousness and to promote a sexualy oriented discrimination, but then he has to be ready to be judged because he broke the la extablishments at which an heterosesual couple cannot reside if they are not married -yikes😵
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobie..err ... where have you been? Most countries in the world have laws specifically favoring heterosexuality. I know of no laws that favor homosexuality. Even a law that allows homosexuality to be promoted in schools is not favoring homosexuality unless it specifically forbids similar promotion of heterosexuality.
...let me ask the same of heterosexualy? has that also framed its dictates through a decree?
16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheaderr, i have been lots of places, specifically favouring heterosexuality, mmm, how many heterosexuals wanted their sexual preference to be framed through a decree?
..err ... where have you been? Most countries in the world have laws specifically favoring heterosexuality. I know of no laws that favor homosexuality. Even a law that allows homosexuality to be promoted in schools is not favoring homosexuality unless it specifically forbids similar promotion of heterosexuality.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh I am happily married to my beautiful Maria since '97 and there been good times and bad times but we 're still in honeymoon -however nowdays we enjoy mostly jazz and them pipers from Bonnie Scotland😵
mmm, its a great point beetle. i wish you and Maria would be married soon, so i send some gift from the amber nectar of the north and we could get flight on ryannair and come and dance to the sound of the mandolin and the violin in the crazy Greek folk dances, it would be great to forget oneself! There are not many, only one or two, in the western Isles. They still hold the Sabbath there and nothing moves on a Sunday.
Have a nice weekend with you and yours my trusty feer😵
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI understand what you are saying but it is invalid, and it is against the law.
its not a proper argument noobster, for the argument is not over what the person is, whether they are pink orange purple or brown, Irish Jamaican, or whatever, it concerns the free exercise of conscience. does the proprietor have a right to exercise his conscience or not? in actual fact Noobster, there are many places where heterosexuals cannot resi ...[text shortened]... make? i dont ask you to agree with it, or even accept it, just to acknowledge that it is valid.
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
Discrimination on the grounds of race is illegal.
Discrimination on the grounds of religion is illegal.
Discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is illegal also.
Homosexuality has only been legal in the UK since 1980 (Scotland 1982), and in some countries in the world it is still punishable by death. How many hetreosexual poeple have been subjected to elctro-shock therapy to 'cure' their sexuality?
I understand your point but your so wide of the mark, you're stuck in the 19th Century.
16 Oct 09
4 edits
my friend in Pakistan, Gulam Ali was subject to electro shock treatment because he wanted to renounce Islam and become a Jehovahs Witness, but that is besides.
There are many things that are lawful Noobster, but for the Christian, the law of God and the exercise of conscience supersedes these laws, for example, it may be the law that in time of war all are required to register and to go and fight and be trained to kill other human beings, the Christian, in view of the example of Christ and the dictates of his conscience, may of course object to this, and refrain, even though it is secular law. The point of course is, that while as you rightly state we are subject to these, superior authorities, the secular governments, while being law abiding, it is a relative subjection, for the Law of God and the conscience supersedes that of secular government.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou actually believe it is okay to kill homosexual active men because it says so in the bible?
There are many things that are lawful Noobster, but for the Christian, the law of God and the exercise of conscience supersedes these laws
(The bible says nothing about homosexual women so they you cannot kill, thanks god.)
16 Oct 09
4 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasactually the Bible does mention homosexual women, but cause your a Noob, you dont know that. This is the point that you seem to be having trouble with, for it is a concept that requires some thought and discernment. For christians we ourselves cannot kill anyone, an unborn child, adult, homosexual, anyone. is this point quite clear? we ourselves cannot take life because it does not belong to us, the life is Gods, do you understand this point? Life is sacrosanct, sacred to God, he gave it, it belongs to him, it does not belong to us, we cannot take it. tell me if you are having trouble with this concept.
You actually believe it is okay to kill homosexual active men because it says so in the bible?
(The bible says nothing about homosexual women so they you cannot kill, thanks god.)
secondly and this also takes a little discernment, while the Bible condemns the act of homosexuality (the passages that you are referring to where it was a capital punishment are no longer binding, I repeat, no longer binding! they are obsolete in practice although the principles remain), it does not condemn homosexuals as persons. do you understand this? we are under duress to show love to all, for Christ came and died for all, but we are not under duress to accept the act of homosexuality, for it is strongly condemned, do you understand this?