Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Owlswing on August 23, 2015, 08:23:06 PM
-
OK - I am not supposed to be posting for at least another week due to the medication I am taking, I am not supposed to get "wound-up", bad for the heart apparently when taking these particular pills.
However, I read this article and found it truly disturbing, not from the fact that it shows just how widespread gay-phobia is in America, but by the possibility that it also exists here in the UK
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-hidden-war-against-gay-teens-20131010
I know the article is somewhat aged, but I know that most American ideas, sooner or later, percolate across the Oggin and I really cannot see this partucular American attitude and behaviour being widely accepted or implemented here, this mght just be the rose-coloured "us Brits ain't like that" attitude, but does anyone else think that it might do so, and to what extent and depth.
I will read the responses to this post, with great interest, but will probably follow advice and not comment for at least the next week or so until the medical restrictions placed on me have been lifted.
-
Whilst I admit to having not done a huge amount of teaching in schools lately, the experience I have had of youth clubs, and especially bullying taking place at school that has been reported to me as a youth club leader, it would still seem to be predominantly racist and sexist. Yes, I have had a few cases of sexuality-based bullying (including one case of a heterosexual girl being bullied by a group of lesbian classmates). In fact, I would suggest that, parallelling UKIP's growth in popularity, so the cases of racist bullying has risen again. The problem is sometimes that the same person can get bullied for more than one reason, thus making a core problem difficult to isolate. This is, in part, why I believe that the practice of dividing the bullying into type can sometimes be counter-productive. I would much rather concentrate on 'outing' the bullies and dealing with their issues without necessarily broadcasting what they are.
-
Whilst I admit to having not done a huge amount of teaching in schools lately, the experience I have had of youth clubs, and especially bullying taking place at school that has been reported to me as a youth club leader, it would still seem to be predominantly racist and sexist. Yes, I have had a few cases of sexuality-based bullying (including one case of a heterosexual girl being bullied by a group of lesbian classmates). In fact, I would suggest that, parallelling UKIP's growth in popularity, so the cases of racist bullying has risen again. The problem is sometimes that the same person can get bullied for more than one reason, thus making a core problem difficult to isolate. This is, in part, why I believe that the practice of dividing the bullying into type can sometimes be counter-productive. I would much rather concentrate on 'outing' the bullies and dealing with their issues without necessarily broadcasting what they are.
Might help to not equate gay s*x to murder as you have done multiple times in the past.
-
Asterisk in sex because of weird forum software
-
It's built in the hosting, I think, NS.
Although 'sex' is usually ok. It's context that seems to be the issue.
-
Yes, I have had a few cases of sexuality-based bullying (including one case of a heterosexual girl being bullied by a group of lesbian classmates).
Oooh look another anecdote from Hope about homosexuality that just happens to be negative.
You want to be careful, that cupboard you keep them stored in will run dry soon.
-
Whilst I admit to having not done a huge amount of teaching in schools lately, the experience I have had of youth clubs, and especially bullying taking place at school that has been reported to me as a youth club leader, it would still seem to be predominantly racist and sexist. Yes, I have had a few cases of sexuality-based bullying (including one case of a heterosexual girl being bullied by a group of lesbian classmates). In fact, I would suggest that, parallelling UKIP's growth in popularity, so the cases of racist bullying has risen again. The problem is sometimes that the same person can get bullied for more than one reason, thus making a core problem difficult to isolate. This is, in part, why I believe that the practice of dividing the bullying into type can sometimes be counter-productive. I would much rather concentrate on 'outing' the bullies and dealing with their issues without necessarily broadcasting what they are.
Thanks for the total derail, Hope - but then I should not have expected anything else from you!
Note to self - give it up, it just ain't worth the bloody effort!
-
NO DERAIL!, Hope, as a teacher, has come across bullying in your UK schools. Get it? It's not just an American thingy. The fact is bullying in UK secondary schools happens to be the worst in Europe.
-
If a child is different, they will be a target for bullies.
It doesn't matter whether that difference is race, sex, disability, whatever - there will be some form of discrimination practiced by a core element in any school.
With any luck, that is restriced to jibes and verbal abuse, but in extreme cases, can lead to violence and physical abuse* leading to attempted suicide.
Whilst I applaude measures put in place by teaching staff to impliment anti-bullying strategy, we need to remain watchful, because eradicating bullying inside the school gates might just exacerbate it outside the school gates.
I doubt that any measures will end this phenomenon.
* - I was physically, as well as verbally, bullied at school - because I was different.
So was a fellow disabled student in an able-bodied school - a girl forced to walk with leg calipers.
That was nothing compared to the vile racist stuff aimed at the two black pupils in a 1700-strong academy comp.
-
Might help to not equate gay s*x to murder as you have done multiple times in the past.
But I have also equated it to lying, failing to fulfill promises, cheating and many other forms of what society would regard as low-level wrong-doing, NS. Its only people like you who seem determined to equate it specifically to more high-level wrong-doing.
-
Oooh look another anecdote from Hope about homosexuality that just happens to be negative.
Oh, so it's alright for gays and lesbians to bully heterosexuals, but not vikki verca. In case you hadn't noticed, this was actually a comment acknowledging the fact that sexuality-based bullying occurs, but not always one-way.
-
Oooh look another anecdote from Hope about homosexuality that just happens to be negative.
Oh, so it's alright for gays and lesbians to bully heterosexuals, but not vikki verca. In case you hadn't noticed, this was actually a comment acknowledging the fact that sexuality-based bullying occurs, but not always one-way.
That is not what I said.
-
Thanks for the total derail, Hope - but then I should not have expected anything else from you!
What derail? I thought this thread was about bullying and in particular a suggestion that 'gay'-bullying is common. Is it not possible to suggest that, whilst it occurs, it is perhaps still not as common as some of the other forms of bullying. What's the important thing: that society combats bullying, or that society combats 'gay'-bullying?
-
That is not what I said.
It is, trent. You stated that a comment that acknowledges sexuality-based bullying is negative towards homosexuality on the grounds that I used an example to highlight the fact that it happens both hetero- on homosexual, and also the other way round. In other words, we are seeing victims of such bullying of both types of sexual orientation.
If you wish to ignore the latter, that is your perogative.
-
That is not what I said.
It is, trent. You stated that a comment that acknowledges sexuality-based bullying is negative towards homosexuality on the grounds that I used an example to highlight the fact that it happens both hetero- on homosexual, and also the other way round. In other words, we are seeing victims of such bullying of both types of sexual orientation.
If you wish to ignore the latter, that is your perogative.
It is not. I pointed out that as always you had a negative anecdote about gay people. At no point did I state or imply that gay people could not be bullies. You really should learn to read for comprehension.
-
Might help to not equate gay s*x to murder as you have done multiple times in the past.
But I have also equated it to lying, failing to fulfill promises, cheating and many other forms of what society would regard as low-level wrong-doing, NS. Its only people like you who seem determined to equate it specifically to more high-level wrong-doing.
I am not so equating it and have never so equated it - you have in your own posts - stop lying
-
That is not what I said.
It is, trent. You stated that a comment that acknowledges sexuality-based bullying is negative towards homosexuality on the grounds that I used an example to highlight the fact that it happens both hetero- on homosexual, and also the other way round. In other words, we are seeing victims of such bullying of both types of sexual orientation.
If you wish to ignore the latter, that is your perogative.
It is not. I pointed out that as always you had a negative anecdote about gay people. At no point did I state or imply that gay people could not be bullies. You really should learn to read for comprehension.
The scare quotes around the word gay are a bit of a giveaway, aren't they?
-
Anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong, even if they don't go as far as bullying gays, needs to change their attitude PDQ! Being prejudiced against someone for no better reason than they are attracted to people of the same sex is WRONG, and excusing their bigotry using the not so good book is very nasty indeed! >:(
A banned poster, who laughingly called himself a 'Christian', said he wouldn't coach gays, and would turn a blind eye if anyone duffed them up! >:(
-
What's the important thing: that society combats bullying, or that society combats 'gay'-bullying?
Any kind of bullying against a minority group whose behaviour is not antisocial is wrong, and must be combated.
-
What's the important thing: that society combats bullying, or that society combats 'gay'-bullying?
Any kind of bullying against a minority group whose behaviour is not antisocial is wrong, and must be combated.
Though the means in which to combat different types of bullying may well be different.
-
Bullying needs to be dealt with, full stop, not just for sexuality reasons.
Yes. In my experience, the people being bullied are the ones that people feel they can bully - then they find a reason (race, hair-colour, sexuality, they smell..) or they just make one up. You can limit the opportunities with teaching about equality, perhaps, but essentially the pack mentality is part of the childhood psyche. It's not nice, but it's there.
Schools often " wash there hands of it" saying if it doesn't happen on school premises or they don't see it it isn't their problem.
What are they supposed to do? They have no remit outside of their own grounds. That's what parents are there for, and there are more than enough instances of parents not supporting the schools when the incidents occur in the schools.
They appear to be stubbornly blind even when there are witnesses.
Four ten year olds making one claim vs four ten year olds making another claim - how does the school pick sides?
I wasn't impressed with the way bullying was dealt with at my sons school. Denial seemed to be the only thing that was done by teaching staff.
There are bad schools out there, there are times when schools would rather not have bullying incidents on file than deal with the issue so they don't have bullying incidents happening, but they aren't the majority.
O.
-
Might help to not equate gay s*x to murder as you have done multiple times in the past.
But I have also equated it to lying, failing to fulfill promises, cheating and many other forms of what society would regard as low-level wrong-doing, NS. Its only people like you who seem determined to equate it specifically to more high-level wrong-doing.
That you are here quite brazenly equating what sexually-active consenting homosexual adults do with 'low-level wrong-doing' astonishes me - it confirms, as if it needed confirming, that some elements within Christianity are intrinsically homophobic no matter how much they bleat that they aren't.
There is a bright side though - since attitudes like this are no doubt assisting the on-going decline of Christianity.
-
Might help to not equate gay s*x to murder as you have done multiple times in the past.
But I have also equated it to lying, failing to fulfill promises, cheating and many other forms of what society would regard as low-level wrong-doing, NS. Its only people like you who seem determined to equate it specifically to more high-level wrong-doing.
Why are you equating it to those things at all? Who is being harmed if two consenting adults choose to fondle each other's similar genitals in the privacy of their own home? Who is being deceived or betrayed by someone holding their lover's hand in the street?
O.
-
I await a reply with interest.
Mind you, I'm still waiting for what Hope thinks were/are the "good reasons" why "homosexuality was viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures," and that's been weeks now.
-
Thanks for the total derail, Hope - but then I should not have expected anything else from you!
What derail? I thought this thread was about bullying and in particular a suggestion that 'gay'-bullying is common. Is it not possible to suggest that, whilst it occurs, it is perhaps still not as common as some of the other forms of bullying. What's the important thing: that society combats bullying, or that society combats 'gay'-bullying?
You, Hope, are just about the most devious and unpleasant Christian I have had the misfortune to come into contact with, except one.
The thread is NOT "about bullying and in particular a suggestion that 'gay'-bullying is common" - much as you WANT it to be!
It is about CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS and CHRISTIAN PARENTS throwing out gay studens and children from school and family merely because they ARE gay!
Now talk about the subject of the thread and not your overweaning need to defend the indefensible actions of your fellow Christians!
Your response shows that the attitudes demonstrated in the article are here, in the UK, and you are one of its supporters!
And, of course, Johnny Canoe has to protect his neighbours by trying to direct attention away from the US to the UK and Europe, another Christian who has forgortten how to be human when his religion falls short in its humanity!
-
Deep breaths, CMG, this is really not a thread for you given the medical advice. Hope you are getting better.
-
Fundamentally, the issue doesn't lie with the parents who (mistakenly, in my opinion) believe that a Christian education is best for their - and by implication all - children.
It doesn't even lie with the Churches which, in the modern era, are voluntary.
The fault lies with national (or, in the US, state) authorities who allow children to be inducted into schools according to their parents religious choices, who allow institutions to teach religion rather than enforcing that they teach about religions.
Churches have no vested interest in supporting secularism if it's their religion that's being favoured, or if it's religion over non-religion as is the case in the UK. It's for government to ensure that children are raised on an even field.
O.
-
Where I live I get a lot of events that pass by, or block the streets. There are sporting events, protests, festivals. The most common is Orange walks, of which probably twenty weekends some roads around me will be blocked off. I watch these with apprehension and pity. Apprehension because of the outcome of their drunken followers fighting or randomly pishing in the street or doorways. Pity because of the sight of kids in prams holding the can of Super Lager while their parents dance about singing about history and hatred they do not understand.
On Saturday it was Pride, the music was better, the people happier, the event welcoming. No attempts to beat you up if you try to cross the road, just smiles and dancing.
One of these is the future, and one locked inexorably with past hatreds that end with much internalised violence. I do not say that there are those on here who march to the beat of that outdated drummer, but with the casual hatred of the active homosexuality is like X, y, z crime they tap their feet to that beat.
-
I haven't grown up with sectarianism, but I did once drive into the London Pride march by mistake and I have never felt safer in a huge crowd in my life.
My former parish priest told a great story about a wedding he conducted where one of the bride's attendants was a gay man, kitted out in pink morning suit. Being an Anglo-Catholic the pp tried to persuade him to take off his top hat in church, but the man refused as it would spoil his look, so in the end my old pp told him he looked so good he wasn't going to argue any more and left him to it. :)
-
I haven't grown up with sectarianism, but I did once drive into the London Pride march by mistake and I have never felt safer in a huge crowd in my life.
My former parish priest told a great story about a wedding he conducted where one of the bride's attendants was a gay man, kitted out in pink morning suit. Being an Anglo-Catholic the pp tried to persuade him to take off his top hat in church, but the man refused as it would spoil his look, so in the end my old pp told him he looked so good he wasn't going to argue any more and left him to it. :)
Wisdom will out! :)
-
I haven't grown up with sectarianism, but I did once drive into the London Pride march by mistake and I have never felt safer in a huge crowd in my life.
My former parish priest told a great story about a wedding he conducted where one of the bride's attendants was a gay man, kitted out in pink morning suit. Being an Anglo-Catholic the pp tried to persuade him to take off his top hat in church, but the man refused as it would spoil his look, so in the end my old pp told him he looked so good he wasn't going to argue any more and left him to it. :)
Wisdom will out! :)
-
Wisdom might well out, Len, but, surely this was an act of disrespect to the building and faith of the priest?
After all, I wouldn't demand a pork pie in a Bar Mitzvah (and I'm glad to say I've attended several).
Nor will I be putting the Christian concept of Christian marriage to the couple whose gay wedding I'll be attending in November.
-
Wisdom might well out, Len, but, surely this was an act of disrespect to the building and faith of the priest?
My opinion is that people are more important then buildings or faiths.
After all, I wouldn't demand a pork pie in a Bar Mitzvah (and I'm glad to say I've attended several).
Nor will I be putting the Christian concept of Christian marriage to the couple whose gay wedding I'll be attending in November.
That is because you consider the people there more important than your likes or beliefs.
-
I think attending a wedding and refusing to deal with the customs, where they are not objectionable, in which case don't go, makes you an utter arse, no matter how great you look.
-
Well we know this, bullies are not gay friendly. In my jr high school the bullies would go around suggesting their targets were gay. They would make school a complete and living hell with their suggestions that their targets were gay. Where are those bullied guys and gals today? I hope they are happy. And dearest Matty, it was when I opted to go to a CHRISTIAN high school, that I realized that school could be interesting with out all that nasty drama that bullies bring to the classroom.
Yes Matty, your English schools harbour the worst anti gay bullies in Europe.
-
And Matty, I have a feeling that MOST bullying is to be found in government run schools not private Christian schools. We do know that it is severe in your government schools. Just google Matty!
-
And Matty, I have a feeling that MOST bullying is to be found in government run schools not private Christian schools. We do know that it is severe in your government schools. Just google Matty!
Sorry, johnny, but having been involved in a couple of faith schools, (one as a pupil, one as a parent and one as a teacher) I can confirm that bullying in state schools is no more or less prevalent than in faith schools.
-
What's the important thing: that society combats bullying, or that society combats 'gay'-bullying?
Any kind of bullying against a minority group whose behaviour is not antisocial is wrong, and must be combated.
So, you would agree with me that dealing with bullying is the most important?
-
And Matty, I have a feeling that MOST bullying is to be found in government run schools not private Christian schools. We do know that it is severe in your government schools. Just google Matty!
Sorry, johnny, but having been involved in a couple of faith schools, (one as a pupil, one as a parent and one as a teacher) I can confirm that bullying in state schools is no more or less prevalent than in faith schools.
How could it be? Children are children, and seldom intelligent enough to think as adults. What is important is how much control they are subject to.
-
What's the important thing: that society combats bullying, or that society combats 'gay'-bullying?
Any kind of bullying against a minority group whose behaviour is not antisocial is wrong, and must be combated.
So, you would agree with me that dealing with bullying is the most important?
Yes, of course, Hope, along with teaching kids the reason WHY it is most important.
-
And Matty, I have a feeling that MOST bullying is to be found in government run schools not private Christian schools. We do know that it is severe in your government schools. Just google Matty!
In my experience of private schools most of the bullying is sanctioned and is age-based - older children put in positions of authority over younger children, which is then abused.
Here in the UK the majority of the Christian schools ARE state schools - the academy idea of letting schools run themselves free of central government authority has instead created a system whereby schools are interfered with by institutions that are not even education-oriented.
O.
-
At no point did I state or imply that gay people could not be bullies. You really should learn to read for comprehension.
Yet, what you did was pick up on the fact that homosexuals can bully, despite my pointing out the fact that it happens every which way. I picked it out because, as far as I am aware, it was a rarity - but that it does happen.
-
I think attending a wedding and refusing to deal with the customs, where they are not objectionable, in which case don't go, makes you an utter arse, no matter how great you look.
You might be right, but I thought it worth repeating because my pp told this story with tolerance and mild amusement. Not all Christians are judgemental homophobes.
-
Anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong, even if they don't go as far as bullying gays, needs to change their attitude PDQ! Being prejudiced against someone for no better reason than they are attracted to people of the same sex is WRONG, and excusing their bigotry using the not so good book is very nasty indeed! >:(
I am entitled to believe that certain ways of behaving are wrong, Floo, in the same way that a certain William Wilberforce stuck to his guns regarding the wrongness (or sinfulness) of slavery for 20 years before the trade was banned here.
It is interesting, that there are those who believe that homosexuality who, as they are not religious, let alone Christian, do not use the Good Book to back up their beliefs; what are you going to blame for their opinions? Then, of course, there are those Christians and other religious people who use a variety of sources including - but by no means exclusively - the Bible to back up their beliefs. I appreciate that you see everything in black and white, but life exists in shades of grey, as well as of colours - as well as black and white.
-
At no point did I state or imply that gay people could not be bullies. You really should learn to read for comprehension.
Yet, what you did was pick up on the fact that homosexuals can bully, despite my pointing out the fact that it happens every which way. I picked it out because, as far as I am aware, it was a rarity - but that it does happen.
Hope please answer this question. Do you think homosexuality is wrong, and if so why?
-
I am entitled to believe that certain ways of behaving are wrong, Floo, in the same way that a certain William Wilberforce stuck to his guns regarding the wrongness (or sinfulness) of slavery for 20 years before the trade was banned here.
Have you no shame? To compare your own self-confessed homophobia to the anti-slavery movement?
With your 'right' to hold an opinion comes responsibilities: the responsibility to justify it, to found on reasonable foundations. On what basis do you think that 'homosexual behaviour' is wrong? What, fundamentally, do you mean by 'homosexual behaviour', because there is no behaviour that homosexual people conduct that is not also conducted by heterosexual or bisexual people.
It is interesting, that there are those who believe that homosexuality who, as they are not religious, let alone Christian, do not use the Good Book to back up their beliefs; what are you going to blame for their opinions?
And they get the same challenge you get - why is it 'wrong'? And, like you, they are pitifully short of meaningful responses.
Then, of course, there are those Christians and other religious people who use a variety of sources including - but by no means exclusively - the Bible to back up their beliefs. I appreciate that you see everything in black and white, but life exists in shades of grey, as well as of colours - as well as black and white.
Yet you adopt a curiously black and white absolutism to homosexuality - where is the accomodation there, where is the 'live and let live', where is the 'judge not lest ye be judged' spirit when it comes to gay people?
O.
-
Outrider,
Yes, well Christian schools are not state schools here in Canada. But ALL schools here in Canada must use a government approved curriculum. That means they are monitored here in my province by the government's education dept. All Christian schools must have qualified teachers. Like I said, when I left the tax supported public school for a private Christian school, I suddenly didn't have to watch the daily antics of bullies. I have no doubts that bullying is severe in government run schools compared to the privately funded Christian schools.
-
Outrider,
Yes, well Christian schools are not state schools here in Canada. But ALL schools here in Canada must use a government approved curriculum. That means they are monitored here in my province by the government's education dept. All Christian schools must have qualified teachers. Like I said, when I left the tax supported public school for a private Christian school, I suddenly didn't have to watch the daily antics of bullies. I have no doubts that bullying is severe in government run schools compared to the privately funded Christian schools.
I've 'served time' in both, my wife teaches and I know many teachers - children bully, it's a facet of their development. They identify apparent weakness and cluster together to target it as part of some sort of intrinsic bonding ritual.
The themes of the bullying might vary, but regardless of the type of school or the denomination of the parents, it's pretty much universal across the UK - whether it continues to other nations in the same way I couldn't comment.
I'm glad you had a singular better experience when you shifted schools.
O.
-
I am entitled to believe that certain ways of behaving are wrong, Floo, in the same way that a certain William Wilberforce stuck to his guns regarding the wrongness (or sinfulness) of slavery for 20 years before the trade was banned here.
Indeed you are, even if it is a nauseating outlook given your comparison with the abolition of slavery. Presumably then, on the same basis, you'll be campaigning for the proscription of consenting homosexual adults acting in line with their sexuality.
As I said - nauseating!
-
In the bad old days some people thought being left handed was wrong and condemned those who were. :o
No one has a right to condemn a person for being gay, anymore than they have a right to be racist. Bigots are the deviants!
-
Too funny, I am not alone in my experience Outrider, I promise you that. And yes bullying can and is found in all schools but I am convinced that government tax funded schools have more of a problem. I've seen it. And I am not alone in seeing it.
-
Outrider,
Yes, well Christian schools are not state schools here in Canada. But ALL schools here in Canada must use a government approved curriculum. That means they are monitored here in my province by the government's education dept. All Christian schools must have qualified teachers. Like I said, when I left the tax supported public school for a private Christian school, I suddenly didn't have to watch the daily antics of bullies. I have no doubts that bullying is severe in government run schools compared to the privately funded Christian schools.
I've 'served time' in both, my wife teaches and I know many teachers - children bully, it's a facet of their development. They identify apparent weakness and cluster together to target it as part of some sort of intrinsic bonding ritual.
The themes of the bullying might vary, but regardless of the type of school or the denomination of the parents, it's pretty much universal across the UK - whether it continues to other nations in the same way I couldn't comment.
I'm glad you had a singular better experience when you shifted schools.
O.
Outrider
You need to understand that, in JC's view, Canada is an absolute paradise for Christians and anyone who is not Christian or does anything whatsoever that Christians disagree with deserves everything they get. I, as a Pagan and a witch, which (no pun intended) JC never, ever, tires of reminding people, would have no place there.
If this is challenged then he will always point out that things are far worse on this side of the pond!
-
Don't be so silly and knee jerking dearest Matty. And you of all people best not speak for me, dear friend. We have all the ills that your little island has dearest Matty, and we have them witches, though not many here in the Bible belt of Canada, thank the Lord. Now cheer up and have a cookie.
-
Anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong, even if they don't go as far as bullying gays, needs to change their attitude PDQ! Being prejudiced against someone for no better reason than they are attracted to people of the same sex is WRONG, and excusing their bigotry using the not so good book is very nasty indeed! >:(
I am entitled to believe that certain ways of behaving are wrong, Floo, in the same way that a certain William Wilberforce stuck to his guns regarding the wrongness (or sinfulness) of slavery for 20 years before the trade was banned here.
As far as I am aware, the current tally is that Hope has compared homosexuality to lying, breaking promises, slavery and murder.
What I can't understand is that lying, breaking promises, slavery and murder can be lumped together in the same category as they cause harm (in the very broadest sense) to human beings and their wellbeing and welfare, whereas homosexuality doesn't. Quite the opposite, in fact.
If I thought it was worth asking Hope to explain this view I would, but given his record of answering straightforward questions (i.e. as good as nonexistent) I know that I needn't bother.
-
Whilst I admit to having not done a huge amount of teaching in schools lately, the experience I have had of youth clubs, and especially bullying taking place at school that has been reported to me as a youth club leader, it would still seem to be predominantly racist and sexist. Yes, I have had a few cases of sexuality-based bullying (including one case of a heterosexual girl being bullied by a group of lesbian classmates). In fact, I would suggest that, parallelling UKIP's growth in popularity, so the cases of racist bullying has risen again. The problem is sometimes that the same person can get bullied for more than one reason, thus making a core problem difficult to isolate. This is, in part, why I believe that the practice of dividing the bullying into type can sometimes be counter-productive. I would much rather concentrate on 'outing' the bullies and dealing with their issues without necessarily broadcasting what they are.
I don't understand this post Hope. The article is not about bullying at schools, it's about schools (Christian schools) expelling gay children. I suggest you read the linked article next time before putting your homophobic foot in it.
-
it was when I opted to go to a CHRISTIAN high school, that I realized that school could be interesting with out all that nasty drama that bullies bring to the classroom.
Except this thread is about Christian schools effectively doing the bullying.
-
Whilst I admit to having not done a huge amount of teaching in schools lately, the experience I have had of youth clubs, and especially bullying taking place at school that has been reported to me as a youth club leader, it would still seem to be predominantly racist and sexist. Yes, I have had a few cases of sexuality-based bullying (including one case of a heterosexual girl being bullied by a group of lesbian classmates). In fact, I would suggest that, parallelling UKIP's growth in popularity, so the cases of racist bullying has risen again. The problem is sometimes that the same person can get bullied for more than one reason, thus making a core problem difficult to isolate. This is, in part, why I believe that the practice of dividing the bullying into type can sometimes be counter-productive. I would much rather concentrate on 'outing' the bullies and dealing with their issues without necessarily broadcasting what they are.
The correlation with UKIP is bollocks!!!
During the election a racist accusation was made at a UKIP meeting and I forget which ethnic group rose up from the UKIP ranks; they looked like Muslims, and they turned on the accuser and jeered at them. So take that slur back, Hope.
-
At no point did I state or imply that gay people could not be bullies. You really should learn to read for comprehension.
Yet, what you did was pick up on the fact that homosexuals can bully, despite my pointing out the fact that it happens every which way. I picked it out because, as far as I am aware, it was a rarity - but that it does happen.
You missed the point completely. Never mind.
-
And Matty, I have a feeling that MOST bullying is to be found in government run schools not private Christian schools. We do know that it is severe in your government schools. Just google Matty!
In my experience of private schools most of the bullying is sanctioned and is age-based - older children put in positions of authority over younger children, which is then abused.
Here in the UK the majority of the Christian schools ARE state schools - the academy idea of letting schools run themselves free of central government authority has instead created a system whereby schools are interfered with by institutions that are not even education-oriented.
O.
-
Free Schools are not a policy of the Scots government, Outrider, where education is devolved. Private faith schools are not (unfortunately) illegal - but the Education (Scotland) Act passed by Holyrood in March this year gives very strict criteria for their operation; criteria which must fulfil the priorities set out in the Scottish Education carriculum, or the school will. quite rightly, loose its' charitable status and licence to teach.
-
Jeremy,
I don't believe the school is doing that. It is enforcing it's rules and all students are well aware of these rules before they attend. That boy knew the position that school takes on homosexuality but he went anyways AND started having sex. If I had started having sex and my school had found out, I would have been booted out. I had a class mate booted out for that very reason.
If you have a problem with the position the school takes, don't attend. It's a hard lesson for that guy, but if he had been honest with his parents, I am sure they would not have wanted him there.
-
You missed the point completely. Never mind.
Sorry to disappoint you, Trent, but I'm not going to be bullied into believing that bullying is acceptable provided the bully is someone whose outlook on life matches mine (or yours).
-
You missed the point completely. Never mind.
Sorry to disappoint you, Trent, but I'm not going to be bullied into believing that bullying is acceptable provided the bully is someone whose outlook on life matches mine (or yours).
Given trentvoyager has not said the above, has made it clear when you last put it that he was saying anything like that that he was not, why are you misrepresenting him in this tawdry knock off lie?
-
What I can't understand is that lying, breaking promises, slavery and murder can be lumped together in the same category as they cause harm (in the very broadest sense) to human beings and their wellbeing and welfare, whereas homosexuality doesn't. Quite the opposite, in fact.
And you have evidence to back up this assertion, Shaker?
I would suggest that homosexuals are generally more likely to have multiple partners than heterosexuals, and studies suggest that having multiple sexual partners makes one prone to mental health issues. There is an interesting M.Sc in Abnormal and Clinical Psychology project on Acadamia.edu in which thew author finds the following results and comes to the subsequent conclusions:
Results:
This study found that depression, both self-reported and previously diagnosed, was associated with a variety of risky sexual behaviours including poor contraception use and having a sexually transmitted disease. Risky sexual behaviour was not found to correlate with low self-esteem; however, those of high self-esteem were significantly less likely to have risky sex. Early sexual initiation was not associated with depression but led to an increased subjective estimate of likelihood of risky sexual behaviours in the future. Males were found to be significantly more likely to engage in risky sex both with poor partner choice and infrequent use of contraception. Those of a low economic status were particularly susceptible to risky sexual behaviour.
Conclusions:
Risky sexual behaviour can have many negative consequences both in adolescence, as previous research has shown and, as this study reports, in later life. Poor contraceptive use and a poor choice of sexual partner can all severely impact mental health reducing self-esteem and increasing depression. The exact relationship between risky sexual behaviour and mental health is unclear; however, it is hoped that future longitudinal studies can improve our knowledge on this area. Education needs to be improved to reduce thenumber of sexually transmitted diseases and other risks that adolescents in particular may encounter. This can be carried out in schools and through a variety of media outlets. If thisis achieved risks to both physical and mental health can be reduced.
https://www.academia.edu/209711/Sexual_Behaviour_and_its_Mental_Health_Consequences
OK, whilst this is by no means conclusive, but the fact that the coinclusions include the thought that "The exact relationship between risky sexual behaviour and mental health is unclear", indicates that there is some degree of correlation.
Another article available on the web is entitled "Is There a Price to Pay for Promiscuity?". It goes on to say that yes, there is - both physically and emotionally. http://www.everydayhealth.com/longevity/can-promiscuity-threaten-longevity.aspx
Another - available at http://tinyurl.com/qbmyvuo - states that "And yet hookups pose a significant threat to the physical and psychological health of these young individuals.
In addition to the known risks of contracting STDs, developing unwanted pregnancies, and being raped or otherwise assaulted, people who engage in casual sex may suffer emotional consequences that persist long after the details of an encounter are a dim memory. On college campuses, where brief sexual liaisons are prevalent, unanticipated results can jeopardize a student’s career. In the workplace, the results can be just as disastrous, if not more so."
A number of studies have investigated sexual exclusivity in homosexual relationships, particularly among gay men (e.g., Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Blasband & Peplau, 1985; Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Harry, 1984; Harry & DeVall, 1978; Harry & Lovely, 1979; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986; Peplau & Cochran, 1982; Peplau et al., 1978; McWhirter & Mattison, 1984). In general, homosexuals—especially gay men—appear to have more permissive attitudes about sexual fidelity than do heterosexuals (Peplau & Cochran, 1980). Blumstein and Schwartz (1983, p. 272) reported that for men in couples, 75% of husbands and 62% of heterosexual cohabitors believe monogamy is important, compared to only 35% of gay men. For women, 84% of wives, 70% of heterosexual cohabitors, and 71% of lesbians believe monogamy is important. For all groups except gay men, a majority endorse the virtues of sexual fidelity; among gay men, sexual exclusivity is the minority view.
This quote comes from a paper entitled "A Relationship Perspective on Homosexuality" page 338 - http://tinyurl.com/pn86rpv . I accept that it is 20-odd years old, but it highlights a number of issues that are unlikely to have changed dramatically over that period, all of which point to a greater likelihood of harm to homosexuals than to heterosexuals.
Obviously, as with ANY human interaction, one will find exceptions that run counter to the typically observed pattern, but society can't and doesn't design itself around the exception, but around the normal pattern.
I have found more recent material, but as I wanted to post material that has rigorous peer review support, I have avoided using stuff from groups such as Stonewall and Outrage!; CARM and Anglican Mainstream.
-
Given trentvoyager has not said the above, has made it clear when you last put it that he was saying anything like that that he was not, why are you misrepresenting him in this tawdry knock off lie?
NS, trent has - and not for the first time - accused me of exemplifying homosexuality in a negative fashion. The example I gave was part of sentence that highlighted the fact that sexuality-related bullying occurs in both directions. I can only assume from his response that he doesn't want to acknowledge this bilateral behaviour pattern, preferring that only straight-on-gay bullying is acknowledged.
-
Given trentvoyager has not said the above, has made it clear when you last put it that he was saying anything like that that he was not, why are you misrepresenting him in this tawdry knock off lie?
NS, trent has - and not for the first time - accused me of exemplifying homosexuality in a negative fashion. The example I gave was part of sentence that highlighted the fact that sexuality-related bullying occurs in both directions. I can only assume from his response that he doesn't want to acknowledge this bilateral behaviour pattern, preferring that only straight-on-gay bullying is acknowledged.
Oh come on, Hope! Are you really suggesting that gay children bully the straights? You live in cloud cuckoo land.
-
Oh come on, Hope! Are you really suggesting that gay children bully the straights? You live in cloud cuckoo land.
Clearly you like to see society through rose-tinted spectacles. I have seen just about every possible form of bullying that can take place in a school and I can confirm that gays can bully straights. As I pointed out in the original post that I made, it doesn't happen as often as the other way round, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Remember that, unlike in our youth, when bullying was almost always face-to-face - be that physically or mentally/emotionally - it can now take place 'virtually' and from a distance, through social media and other channels.
-
Given trentvoyager has not said the above, has made it clear when you last put it that he was saying anything like that that he was not, why are you misrepresenting him in this tawdry knock off lie?
NS, trent has - and not for the first time - accused me of exemplifying homosexuality in a negative fashion. The example I gave was part of sentence that highlighted the fact that sexuality-related bullying occurs in both directions. I can only assume from his response that he doesn't want to acknowledge this bilateral behaviour pattern, preferring that only straight-on-gay bullying is acknowledged.
No, he has not said anything of the kind. Why is it that you have lied about what he said continually?
-
No, he has not said anything of the kind. Why is it that you have lied about what he said continually?
If you feel that way, you are entitled to do so. I still believe that Trent is doing the proverbial ostrich-thing.
-
It is enforcing it's rules and all students are well aware of these rules before they attend.
Nobody is disputing that the rule exists. We are just pointing out that the rule is wrong.
-
Clearly you like to see society through rose-tinted spectacles. I have seen just about every possible form of bullying that can take place in a school and I can confirm that gays can bully straights. As I pointed out in the original post that I made, it doesn't happen as often as the other way round, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Remember that, unlike in our youth, when bullying was almost always face-to-face - be that physically or mentally/emotionally - it can now take place 'virtually' and from a distance, through social media and other channels.
The thread is about bullying in schools, where it CAN and should be controlled.
What happens on the social media is another matter and hardly controllable
-
What I can't understand is that lying, breaking promises, slavery and murder can be lumped together in the same category as they cause harm (in the very broadest sense) to human beings and their wellbeing and welfare, whereas homosexuality doesn't. Quite the opposite, in fact.
And you have evidence to back up this assertion, Shaker?
I would suggest that homosexuals are generally more likely to have multiple partners than heterosexuals, and studies suggest that having multiple sexual partners makes one prone to mental health issues. There is an interesting M.Sc in Abnormal and Clinical Psychology project on Acadamia.edu in which thew author finds the following results and comes to the subsequent conclusions:
Results:
This study found that depression, both self-reported and previously diagnosed, was associated with a variety of risky sexual behaviours including poor contraception use and having a sexually transmitted disease. Risky sexual behaviour was not found to correlate with low self-esteem; however, those of high self-esteem were significantly less likely to have risky sex. Early sexual initiation was not associated with depression but led to an increased subjective estimate of likelihood of risky sexual behaviours in the future. Males were found to be significantly more likely to engage in risky sex both with poor partner choice and infrequent use of contraception. Those of a low economic status were particularly susceptible to risky sexual behaviour.
Conclusions:
Risky sexual behaviour can have many negative consequences both in adolescence, as previous research has shown and, as this study reports, in later life. Poor contraceptive use and a poor choice of sexual partner can all severely impact mental health reducing self-esteem and increasing depression. The exact relationship between risky sexual behaviour and mental health is unclear; however, it is hoped that future longitudinal studies can improve our knowledge on this area. Education needs to be improved to reduce thenumber of sexually transmitted diseases and other risks that adolescents in particular may encounter. This can be carried out in schools and through a variety of media outlets. If thisis achieved risks to both physical and mental health can be reduced.
https://www.academia.edu/209711/Sexual_Behaviour_and_its_Mental_Health_Consequences
OK, whilst this is by no means conclusive, but the fact that the coinclusions include the thought that "The exact relationship between risky sexual behaviour and mental health is unclear", indicates that there is some degree of correlation.
Another article available on the web is entitled "Is There a Price to Pay for Promiscuity?". It goes on to say that yes, there is - both physically and emotionally. http://www.everydayhealth.com/longevity/can-promiscuity-threaten-longevity.aspx
Another - available at http://tinyurl.com/qbmyvuo - states that "And yet hookups pose a significant threat to the physical and psychological health of these young individuals.
In addition to the known risks of contracting STDs, developing unwanted pregnancies, and being raped or otherwise assaulted, people who engage in casual sex may suffer emotional consequences that persist long after the details of an encounter are a dim memory. On college campuses, where brief sexual liaisons are prevalent, unanticipated results can jeopardize a student’s career. In the workplace, the results can be just as disastrous, if not more so."
A number of studies have investigated sexual exclusivity in homosexual relationships, particularly among gay men (e.g., Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Blasband & Peplau, 1985; Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Harry, 1984; Harry & DeVall, 1978; Harry & Lovely, 1979; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986; Peplau & Cochran, 1982; Peplau et al., 1978; McWhirter & Mattison, 1984). In general, homosexuals—especially gay men—appear to have more permissive attitudes about sexual fidelity than do heterosexuals (Peplau & Cochran, 1980). Blumstein and Schwartz (1983, p. 272) reported that for men in couples, 75% of husbands and 62% of heterosexual cohabitors believe monogamy is important, compared to only 35% of gay men. For women, 84% of wives, 70% of heterosexual cohabitors, and 71% of lesbians believe monogamy is important. For all groups except gay men, a majority endorse the virtues of sexual fidelity; among gay men, sexual exclusivity is the minority view.
This quote comes from a paper entitled "A Relationship Perspective on Homosexuality" page 338 - http://tinyurl.com/pn86rpv . I accept that it is 20-odd years old, but it highlights a number of issues that are unlikely to have changed dramatically over that period, all of which point to a greater likelihood of harm to homosexuals than to heterosexuals.
Obviously, as with ANY human interaction, one will find exceptions that run counter to the typically observed pattern, but society can't and doesn't design itself around the exception, but around the normal pattern.
I have found more recent material, but as I wanted to post material that has rigorous peer review support, I have avoided using stuff from groups such as Stonewall and Outrage!; CARM and Anglican Mainstream.
I think you'll struggle to find many unwanted pregnancies amongst people who have homosexual relationships.
I think it's been said before, but being gay is not something you choose. If gay men are more likely to have sexual partners, you ranting and raving about it will not help. Perhaps society's historic attitude to gay relationships has contributed to the "problem", after all, it is only recently that gay people have been allowed to get married and no thanks to people like you.
-
You missed the point completely. Never mind.
Sorry to disappoint you, Trent, but I'm not going to be bullied into believing that bullying is acceptable provided the bully is someone whose outlook on life matches mine (or yours).
As I never implied or stated anything of the sort - or indeed tried to bully you I would appreciate an apology.
You appear unable to comprehend what has been written. Strange for such an experienced teacher.
-
What I can't understand is that lying, breaking promises, slavery and murder can be lumped together in the same category as they cause harm (in the very broadest sense) to human beings and their wellbeing and welfare, whereas homosexuality doesn't. Quite the opposite, in fact.
And you have evidence to back up this assertion, Shaker?
I would suggest that homosexuals are generally more likely to have multiple partners than heterosexuals, and studies suggest that having multiple sexual partners makes one prone to mental health issues. There is an interesting M.Sc in Abnormal and Clinical Psychology project on Acadamia.edu in which thew author finds the following results and comes to the subsequent conclusions:
Results:
This study found that depression, both self-reported and previously diagnosed, was associated with a variety of risky sexual behaviours including poor contraception use and having a sexually transmitted disease. Risky sexual behaviour was not found to correlate with low self-esteem; however, those of high self-esteem were significantly less likely to have risky sex. Early sexual initiation was not associated with depression but led to an increased subjective estimate of likelihood of risky sexual behaviours in the future. Males were found to be significantly more likely to engage in risky sex both with poor partner choice and infrequent use of contraception. Those of a low economic status were particularly susceptible to risky sexual behaviour.
Conclusions:
Risky sexual behaviour can have many negative consequences both in adolescence, as previous research has shown and, as this study reports, in later life. Poor contraceptive use and a poor choice of sexual partner can all severely impact mental health reducing self-esteem and increasing depression. The exact relationship between risky sexual behaviour and mental health is unclear; however, it is hoped that future longitudinal studies can improve our knowledge on this area. Education needs to be improved to reduce thenumber of sexually transmitted diseases and other risks that adolescents in particular may encounter. This can be carried out in schools and through a variety of media outlets. If thisis achieved risks to both physical and mental health can be reduced.
https://www.academia.edu/209711/Sexual_Behaviour_and_its_Mental_Health_Consequences
OK, whilst this is by no means conclusive, but the fact that the coinclusions include the thought that "The exact relationship between risky sexual behaviour and mental health is unclear", indicates that there is some degree of correlation.
Another article available on the web is entitled "Is There a Price to Pay for Promiscuity?". It goes on to say that yes, there is - both physically and emotionally. http://www.everydayhealth.com/longevity/can-promiscuity-threaten-longevity.aspx
Another - available at http://tinyurl.com/qbmyvuo - states that "And yet hookups pose a significant threat to the physical and psychological health of these young individuals.
In addition to the known risks of contracting STDs, developing unwanted pregnancies, and being raped or otherwise assaulted, people who engage in casual sex may suffer emotional consequences that persist long after the details of an encounter are a dim memory. On college campuses, where brief sexual liaisons are prevalent, unanticipated results can jeopardize a student’s career. In the workplace, the results can be just as disastrous, if not more so."
A number of studies have investigated sexual exclusivity in homosexual relationships, particularly among gay men (e.g., Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Blasband & Peplau, 1985; Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Harry, 1984; Harry & DeVall, 1978; Harry & Lovely, 1979; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986; Peplau & Cochran, 1982; Peplau et al., 1978; McWhirter & Mattison, 1984). In general, homosexuals—especially gay men—appear to have more permissive attitudes about sexual fidelity than do heterosexuals (Peplau & Cochran, 1980). Blumstein and Schwartz (1983, p. 272) reported that for men in couples, 75% of husbands and 62% of heterosexual cohabitors believe monogamy is important, compared to only 35% of gay men. For women, 84% of wives, 70% of heterosexual cohabitors, and 71% of lesbians believe monogamy is important. For all groups except gay men, a majority endorse the virtues of sexual fidelity; among gay men, sexual exclusivity is the minority view.
This quote comes from a paper entitled "A Relationship Perspective on Homosexuality" page 338 - http://tinyurl.com/pn86rpv . I accept that it is 20-odd years old, but it highlights a number of issues that are unlikely to have changed dramatically over that period, all of which point to a greater likelihood of harm to homosexuals than to heterosexuals.
Obviously, as with ANY human interaction, one will find exceptions that run counter to the typically observed pattern, but society can't and doesn't design itself around the exception, but around the normal pattern.
I have found more recent material, but as I wanted to post material that has rigorous peer review support, I have avoided using stuff from groups such as Stonewall and Outrage!; CARM and Anglican Mainstream.
And yet you dissaprove of gay marriage. Where already figures are showing increasing levels of fidelity between gay couples. So even though you could have helped gay people by recognising the importance of marriage for them - you choose not to.
-
And you have evidence to back up this assertion, Shaker?
Yes, plenty - but since you habitually avoid answering questions put to you, I'm under no obligation to provide it.
-
NS, trent has - and not for the first time - accused me of exemplifying homosexuality in a negative fashion.
When you compare it with lying, promise-breaking, slavery and murder, what do you expect?
When you claim that there are "good reasons" - still pointedly unexplained after several weeks - as to why "homosexuality has been viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures," what do you expect?
Or are you now saying that you didn't say these things?
-
Too funny, I am not alone in my experience Outrider, I promise you that. And yes bullying can and is found in all schools but I am convinced that government tax funded schools have more of a problem. I've seen it. And I am not alone in seeing it.
People see lots of things, but that doesn't mean they're true - hence the well-studied, well-evidenced concept of confirmation bias.
Why would government-funded schools have more of a problem with bullying? Does the funding model lead to a selective intake? Are the children allergic to tax dollars? Are the observers pre-disposed to dislike the state or prefer the religious?
Even if I consider that your promise - entirely earnestly made, I'll accept - that other people have witnessed what you have and have come to the same conclusion, the plural of anecdote is still not fact.
O.
-
Free Schools are not a policy of the Scots government, Outrider, where education is devolved. Private faith schools are not (unfortunately) illegal - but the Education (Scotland) Act passed by Holyrood in March this year gives very strict criteria for their operation; criteria which must fulfil the priorities set out in the Scottish Education carriculum, or the school will. quite rightly, loose its' charitable status and licence to teach.
I've not seen much of the detail of the proposal, I'm hoping that it doesn't exempt the RE element from the National Curriculum like in England and Wales. It's not as bad as it is in Northern Ireland, of course, but it could so easily be better.
O.
-
I would suggest that homosexuals are generally more likely to have multiple partners than heterosexuals, and studies suggest that having multiple sexual partners makes one prone to mental health issues.
Surely the opportunity to form socially-validated long-term relationships - let's call it marriage - would act as a deterrent on this tendency towards multiple partners? Or, to put it another way, if people are compelled by social approbrium not to demonstrate a public affection for members of the same sex, it's difficult to maintain a long-term relationship - the social pressures against homosexuality in the (recent) past have encouraged this tendency towards multiple partners.
There is an interesting M.Sc in Abnormal and Clinical Psychology project on Acadamia.edu in which thew author finds the following results and comes to the subsequent conclusions:
Results:
This study found that depression, both self-reported and previously diagnosed, was associated with a variety of risky sexual behaviours including poor contraception use and having a sexually transmitted disease. Risky sexual behaviour was not found to correlate with low self-esteem; however, those of high self-esteem were significantly less likely to have risky sex. Early sexual initiation was not associated with depression but led to an increased subjective estimate of likelihood of risky sexual behaviours in the future. Males were found to be significantly more likely to engage in risky sex both with poor partner choice and infrequent use of contraception. Those of a low economic status were particularly susceptible to risky sexual behaviour.
Conclusions:
Risky sexual behaviour can have many negative consequences both in adolescence, as previous research has shown and, as this study reports, in later life. Poor contraceptive use and a poor choice of sexual partner can all severely impact mental health reducing self-esteem and increasing depression. The exact relationship between risky sexual behaviour and mental health is unclear; however, it is hoped that future longitudinal studies can improve our knowledge on this area. Education needs to be improved to reduce thenumber of sexually transmitted diseases and other risks that adolescents in particular may encounter. This can be carried out in schools and through a variety of media outlets. If thisis achieved risks to both physical and mental health can be reduced.
https://www.academia.edu/209711/Sexual_Behaviour_and_its_Mental_Health_Consequences
This does not show that 'multiple partners leads to mental health issues', it shows that they correlate. Whether that's because both are caused by some third factor (such as widespread disapproval of their nature and tendencies, say) or whether the mental health issues lead to multiple partners still needs to be established.
Another article available on the web is entitled "Is There a Price to Pay for Promiscuity?". It goes on to say that yes, there is - both physically and emotionally. http://www.everydayhealth.com/longevity/can-promiscuity-threaten-longevity.aspx
Except that it doesn't cite any sources and even the suggestion that promiscuity could lead to a reduced lifespan is muddied by the inclusion of promiscuity amongst a list of 'other risky behaviours such as smoking, heavy drinking, substance abuse' without any independent reason to lump them together.
Another - available at http://tinyurl.com/qbmyvuo - states that "And yet hookups pose a significant threat to the physical and psychological health of these young individuals.
And within the article the author clearly states that it's impossible to separate biological factors from social ones - the negative effects that are reported could just as easily come from the knowledge that their activity is considered to be socially undesirable as it is from any intrinsic, 'natural' reaction. If we change social expectations we could quite conceivably remove these negative effects.
A number of studies have investigated sexual exclusivity in homosexual relationships, particularly among gay men (e.g., Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Blasband & Peplau, 1985; Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Harry, 1984; Harry & DeVall, 1978; Harry & Lovely, 1979; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986; Peplau & Cochran, 1982; Peplau et al., 1978; McWhirter & Mattison, 1984). In general, homosexuals—especially gay men—appear to have more permissive attitudes about sexual fidelity than do heterosexuals (Peplau & Cochran, 1980). Blumstein and Schwartz (1983, p. 272) reported that for men in couples, 75% of husbands and 62% of heterosexual cohabitors believe monogamy is important, compared to only 35% of gay men. For women, 84% of wives, 70% of heterosexual cohabitors, and 71% of lesbians believe monogamy is important. For all groups except gay men, a majority endorse the virtues of sexual fidelity; among gay men, sexual exclusivity is the minority view.
This quote comes from a paper entitled "A Relationship Perspective on Homosexuality" page 338 - http://tinyurl.com/pn86rpv . I accept that it is 20-odd years old, but it highlights a number of issues that are unlikely to have changed dramatically over that period, all of which point to a greater likelihood of harm to homosexuals than to heterosexuals.[/quote]
And, again, how important are you going to consider fidelity and monogamy if the social structure of the society in which you live prevents you from partaking of it? The widespread punishment and ostracism of homosexuals has led them to create a gay culture that can hide in mainstream society, and that means not setting a solid base of activities - monogamy is difficult to hide.
Obviously, as with ANY human interaction, one will find exceptions that run counter to the typically observed pattern, but society can't and doesn't design itself around the exception, but around the normal pattern.
But equally human activities shape themselves around the pattern of society, especially the activities of minority groups.
I have found more recent material, but as I wanted to post material that has rigorous peer review support, I have avoided using stuff from groups such as Stonewall and Outrage!; CARM and Anglican Mainstream.
The problem isn't with what you cite, it's with the preconceptions you bring to your interpretation of what you cite.
O.
-
Risky sexual behaviour often leads to sex addiction and this is linked to depression and low self esteem. It is something that affects people of all sexual orientations. That elements of our society still chooses to treat gay people as second class - and tells them God doesn't want them if they love another - makes it more likely that gay people will suffer from low self esteem than if we just lived and let live.
-
Yes, the irony is large, when people cite stuff about gays doing risky things, as if their own anti-gay sentiments are completely unrelated. Of course, gays have lived in a risky world, when facing so much negativity.
Even the OP about bullying gay kids has been derailed! This shows that there is still an attempt by some to invalidate gays and their experience, and to denigrate them.
-
Oh come on, Hope! Are you really suggesting that gay children bully the straights? You live in cloud cuckoo land.
Clearly you like to see society through rose-tinted spectacles. I have seen just about every possible form of bullying that can take place in a school and I can confirm that gays can bully straights. As I pointed out in the original post that I made, it doesn't happen as often as the other way round, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Remember that, unlike in our youth, when bullying was almost always face-to-face - be that physically or mentally/emotionally - it can now take place 'virtually' and from a distance, through social media and other channels.
Hope I find that very hard to believe, but then your posts are often hard to believe, I am afraid!
-
It is enforcing it's rules and all students are well aware of these rules before they attend.
Nobody is disputing that the rule exists. We are just pointing out that the rule is wrong.
Why has JC's post quoted here disappeared?
I have had this done to me where I have quoted something said to/about me and had it challenged only to find the post had been deleted so it looked as if I was making it up!
Funnily enough both deletions were by Hard-arsed Christinas.
-
Why has JC's post quoted here disappeared?
I have had this done to me where I have quoted something said to/about me and had it challenged only to find the post had been deleted so it looked as if I was making it up!
Funnily enough both deletions were by Hard-arsed Christinas.
That's why I make a point of quoting posts by certain posters, to have a permanent record that can't be subsequently altered.
-
Why has JC's post quoted here disappeared?
I have had this done to me where I have quoted something said to/about me and had it challenged only to find the post had been deleted so it looked as if I was making it up!
Funnily enough both deletions were by Hard-arsed Christinas.
That's why I make a point of quoting posts by certain posters, to have a permanent record that can't be subsequently altered.
Good point - now let us see what JC's excuse/explanation for his post's disappearance - probably "God did it!"
Now off to clinic to collect my bollocking for having been on the net! Ho-hum!
-
Yes, the irony is large, when people cite stuff about gays doing risky things, as if their own anti-gay sentiments are completely unrelated. Of course, gays have lived in a risky world, when facing so much negativity.
Even the OP about bullying gay kids has been derailed! This shows that there is still an attempt by some to invalidate gays and their experience, and to denigrate them.
Surely the vastly greater irony is that whatever can be said about gays can be said many, many, many more times about heterosexual people, yet - as we've seen with Hope - tends only to be used in reference to gays.
Nobody knows for sure exactly what the gay proportion of the population is, which is why there are so many differing figures. There are problems with definition for starters (who counts as gay?) and also reportage - in a society which still doesn't fully accept homosexuality, it's no surprise that some homosexual people are not going to want to declare themselves to be so. But you don't have to be much of a sociologist to know that straights outnumber gays by many, many times, so if for the sake of the argument we accept these studies at face value and accept that what they indicate about promiscuity is accurate (I don't; the articles themselves refer to serious and significant problems in accuracy), the much greater problem would be amongst the straight population, not the gay segment. And yet here we see it wheeled out with regard to gays.
Coincidence?
-
Even the OP about bullying gay kids has been derailed! This shows that there is still an attempt by some to invalidate gays and their experience, and to denigrate them.
Interestingly, wiggi, the derail took place between posts #3 and #7.
-
Surely the vastly greater irony is that whatever can be said about gays can be said many, many, many more times about heterosexual people, yet - as we've seen with Hope - tends only to be used in reference to gays.
With the even greater irony that the very people who insist on documentary, scientifically verifiable evidence don't like it when it disagrees with their own opinion.
-
Surely the vastly greater irony is that whatever can be said about gays can be said many, many, many more times about heterosexual people, yet - as we've seen with Hope - tends only to be used in reference to gays.
With the even greater irony that the very people who insist on documentary, scientifically verifiable evidence don't like it when it disagrees with their own opinion.
What scientifically verifiable evidence ?
-
Surely the vastly greater irony is that whatever can be said about gays can be said many, many, many more times about heterosexual people, yet - as we've seen with Hope - tends only to be used in reference to gays.
Nobody knows for sure exactly what the gay proportion of the population is, which is why there are so many differing figures. There are problems with definition for starters (who counts as gay?) and also reportage - in a society which still doesn't fully accept homosexuality, it's no surprise that some homosexual people are not going to want to declare themselves to be so. But you don't have to be much of a sociologist to know that straights outnumber gays by many, many times, so if for the sake of the argument we accept these studies at face value and accept that what they indicate about promiscuity is accurate (I don't; the articles themselves refer to serious and significant problems in accuracy), the much greater problem would be amongst the straight population, not the gay segment. And yet here we see it wheeled out with regard to gays.
Coincidence?
The problem with this tirade is that I happen to believe that promiscuity is harmful to those who are involved in it. So you are correct in saying that numerically the numbers are greater on the heterosexual side - but that doesn't mean that we oughtn't to be concerned about the harm that promiscuous gays are doing to themselves, especially as the proportions reported in the reports I quoted, all show proportionately higher numbers amongst homosexuals, and especially amongst gay males. The possibility that the underlying figures regarding the number of homosexuals are wrong is of very little relevance to this debate, as they are proportionate to the known gay population, a proportion that will likely remain the same statistically regardless of the raw figure.
Furthermore, no person, gay or straight, is isolated. He or she will have family, friends, work and hobby/sporting colleagues all of whom can be affected by any harm that the individual causes to themselves.
-
You are such a BIGOT, Hope! >:(
-
What scientifically verifiable evidence ?
The articles that I quoted from reputable sources, such as www.academia.edu, Psychology Today and UCLA.
-
Why are we discussing the possible effects of promiscuity on a thread about homosexuality?
-
The problem with this tirade is that I happen to believe that promiscuity is harmful to those who are involved in it. So you are correct in saying that numerically the numbers are greater on the heterosexual side - but that doesn't mean that we oughtn't to be concerned about the harm that promiscuous gays are doing to themselves, especially as the proportions reported in the reports I quoted, all show proportionately higher numbers amongst homosexuals, and especially amongst gay males. The possibility that the underlying figures regarding the number of homosexuals are wrong is of very little relevance to this debate, as they are proportionate to the known gay population, a proportion that will likely remain the same statistically regardless of the raw figure.
Furthermore, no person, gay or straight, is isolated. He or she will have family, friends, work and hobby/sporting colleagues all of whom can be affected by any harm that the individual causes to themselves.
Since when did you become the arbiter of the sexual conduct of consenting adults, Hope?
You are entitled to your opinion of course, just as others are free to disregard what you say. Perhaps you would be better to simply respect the legal choices that our fellow humans make as regards how they choose to exercise their sexuality - or, to put it more simply, mind your own business!
-
Since when did you become the arbiter of the sexual conduct of consenting adults, Hope? ...
You are entitled to your opinion of course, just as others are free to disregard what you say. Perhaps you would be better to simply respect the legal choices that our fellow humans make as regards how they choose to exercise their sexuality - or, to put it more simply, mind your own business!
Gordon, in his post #54 Shaker questioned why behaviours that undoubtedly cause harm to people should be associated with homosexuality since, as he said, it doesn't. I think you would agree that, as responsible citizens we are not only entitled to, but are required to warn people of the consequences of their actions. Why this should suddenly be supressed when it comes to matters of sex, I'm not quite sure.
-
Since when did you become the arbiter of the sexual conduct of consenting adults, Hope? ...
You are entitled to your opinion of course, just as others are free to disregard what you say. Perhaps you would be better to simply respect the legal choices that our fellow humans make as regards how they choose to exercise their sexuality - or, to put it more simply, mind your own business!
Gordon, in his post #54 Shaker questioned why behaviours that undoubtedly cause harm to people should be associated with homosexuality since, as he said, it doesn't. I think you would agree that, as responsible citizens we are not only entitled to, but are required to warn people of the consequences of their actions. Why this should suddenly be supressed when it comes to matters of sex, I'm not quite sure.
That depends on how you define 'harm', since it seems to me that your are largely expressing your personal disapproval - which isn't the same thing at all.
I'm not suggesting we suppress anything - be careful with all that straw.
-
I don't understand this post Hope. The article is not about bullying at schools, it's about schools (Christian schools) expelling gay children. I suggest you read the linked article next time before putting your homophobic foot in it.
Sorry not to have responded to this earlier, jeremy. I accept your criticism, in so far as the topic that was involved - I did an 'ippy' on the article, and skim read it. As soon as I read the reference to social media within the context of the article's title and that of this thread, I assumed that we were dealing with bullying, both online and in-person. Mea culpa. I have since reread the article properly twice and whilst I would probably challenge one or two of its rather generalised conclusions, it has valid points to make.
-
Since when did you become the arbiter of the sexual conduct of consenting adults, Hope? ...
You are entitled to your opinion of course, just as others are free to disregard what you say. Perhaps you would be better to simply respect the legal choices that our fellow humans make as regards how they choose to exercise their sexuality - or, to put it more simply, mind your own business!
Gordon, in his post #54 Shaker questioned why behaviours that undoubtedly cause harm to people should be associated with homosexuality since, as he said, it doesn't. I think you would agree that, as responsible citizens we are not only entitled to, but are required to warn people of the consequences of their actions. Why this should suddenly be supressed when it comes to matters of sex, I'm not quite sure.
Hope, the research that you quoted earlier is ridiculously dated, going back as it does to a time when being out was difficult, let alone cohabiting in a gay relationship with all the problems around getting joint tenancies or mortgages that existed back then.
But let's assume that there is something in the idea that men are more likely to cheat than women. Don't you see that that means lesbians have the most stable relationships?
-
Hope comes over as so prejudiced he only sees what he wants to see! ::)
-
With the even greater irony that the very people who insist on documentary, scientifically verifiable evidence don't like it when it disagrees with their own opinion.
This is merely a dodge (and a pathetic one one at that) which doesn't even attempt to address the point I made. Whete was your "documentary, scientifically verifiable evidence" when it comes to the orders-of-magnitude greater number of straights, instead of being pulled out and dusted off when a thread concerns gays? Just a sheer coincidence, Hopeless?
-
Even the OP about bullying gay kids has been derailed! This shows that there is still an attempt by some to invalidate gays and their experience, and to denigrate them.
Interestingly, wiggi, the derail took place between posts #3 and #7.
Hope - the derail happened in POST 2 - YOURS - and you well know it and you have tried to continue the derail in every single post you have made since then!
-
It is enforcing it's rules and all students are well aware of these rules before they attend.
Nobody is disputing that the rule exists. We are just pointing out that the rule is wrong.
Why has JC's post quoted here disappeared?
It hasn't, it's still there.
-
Why are we discussing the possible effects of promiscuity on a thread about homosexuality?
Yes ... I'd been wondering that too, until I saw who brought up the subject (of promiscuity, on a thread about gay teenagers in school) and then stopped wondering.
-
Even the OP about bullying gay kids has been derailed! This shows that there is still an attempt by some to invalidate gays and their experience, and to denigrate them.
Interestingly, wiggi, the derail took place between posts #3 and #7.
No. The derail happened in reply #1, i.e. your reply. The original post was not about gay children being bullied.
ETA: I see you have since acknowledged your mistake and apologised for it.
-
Gordon, in his post #54 Shaker questioned why behaviours that undoubtedly cause harm to people should be associated with homosexuality since, as he said, it doesn't. I think you would agree that, as responsible citizens we are not only entitled to, but are required to warn people of the consequences of their actions. Why this should suddenly be supressed when it comes to matters of sex, I'm not quite sure.
Yet this is merely a belief of yours, as stated in #88.
-
It is enforcing it's rules and all students are well aware of these rules before they attend.
Nobody is disputing that the rule exists. We are just pointing out that the rule is wrong.
Why has JC's post quoted here disappeared?
It hasn't, it's still there.
OK - I must have missed it - I went back several times to look for it, but hey, add blind to senile.
-
Apologies, CMG, but your post just made me think of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpGegoE3Kik
-
Apologies, CMG, but your post just made me think of this
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gpGegoE3Kik
BLOODY HELL and ICE CREAM!
That takes me back some!
High heels and flairs! Those WERE the days!
Oh happy memories - thanks for this NS!
-
On this whole issue of gay men being more promiscuous - they are. I have no doubt about that. However to attribute that to homosexuality seems to be the error here.
It is much more to do with the nature of male and female sexuality. That is one of the reasons why in studies on infidelity amongst heterosexuals there is always reported a much higher proportion of men being unfaithful than women. Of course the women could just be better liars, but I think given the number of studies done and the consistency of the figures this is unlikely to be the case and the increasing sophistication of sampling also mitigates against the possibility of errors.
What, is also inarguable in my mind is the fact that having existed outside of the mainstream of society for so long, and in many cases being denied the possibility of forming long term relationships, gay men simply took solace where they could. AS I pointed out earlier there are already indications that wider acceptance of gay people is leading to a change in sexual behaviour amongst gay men. This is to be welcomed. This is not because I am in any way priggish about sex - it's just because I think it is better for some people, gay or straight, to be in long term stable relationships. I say "some" because I recognise that this is not for everyone and I do not wish to in any way denigrate the lives they need to lead for their own peace of mind and health.
-
OK, well here we go then, some of you say the rules are wrong. Then here's what you do, YOU DON"T GO THERE! Duh! If you are fooling your parents and the school, nothing good will come from that. That's also a, HELLO, ANYBODY IN THERE? And he started skronking to boot! Homo or hetero, that's also against THE RULES! Again DUH! Now somebody out there is going to come up with the brilliant line that the rules are wrong. Yup! Don't go to that school then. So simple really. No, this is a case of a certain dear persons never ending war on anything Christian. That's all. He's scouring the internet everyday looking for outrageous Christian stories. (snork) And a complete fail here with this one.
-
It is enforcing it's rules and all students are well aware of these rules before they attend.
Nobody is disputing that the rule exists. We are just pointing out that the rule is wrong.
Why has JC's post quoted here disappeared?
It hasn't, it's still there.
OK - I must have missed it - I went back several times to look for it, but hey, add blind to senile.
No, it's a quirk of the board or your computer.
I, too, have noticed posts disappear and then reappear ... I don't know where the bug is, but it certainly ain't in my brain!
I suppose some clever clogs will now ask for evidence of that. :)
-
With the even greater irony that the very people who insist on documentary, scientifically verifiable evidence don't like it when it disagrees with their own opinion.
I've addressed my issues with your 'scientifically verifiable evidence' in a fair amount of detail above, please feel free to correct my interpretation if you want. I've felt more than free to correct yours, especially where you directly contradict the findings actually explicitly expressed in the reports that you've cited.
O.
-
It is enforcing it's rules and all students are well aware of these rules before they attend.
Nobody is disputing that the rule exists. We are just pointing out that the rule is wrong.
Why has JC's post quoted here disappeared?
It hasn't, it's still there.
OK - I must have missed it - I went back several times to look for it, but hey, add blind to senile.
No, it's a quirk of the board or your computer.
I, too, have noticed posts disappear and then reappear ... I don't know where the bug is, but it certainly ain't in my brain!
I suppose some clever clogs will now ask for evidence of that. :)
With odds that far "odds-on" I ain't betting!
-
OK, . . . this is a case of a certain dear persons never ending war on anything Christian. That's all. He's scouring the internet everyday looking for outrageous Christian stories.
I do not pursue a never-ending war on anything Christian. What I pursue is a war against the sanctimonious hyper-Christians like you, Hope, and Sassy who are so far up themselves and their religion that they are incapable of admitting that anything done by or in the name of their religion could possibly be wrong.
They are incapable of following their own rules!
What does the Bible say - erm - oh yes - Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself - you three must really really hate yourselves if the attitudes you demonstrate on this board towards your neighbours on the board are anything to go by.
We are not talking about the schoool rules - we are talking about the blind persecution of homosexuals by the three above-named no matter where the homosexuals are situate.
The article was not scoured from the internet, it was part of a main article on Yahoo News, concerning Christian exclusion of homosexuals from religious life, from Christian communities.
Christians have forgotten that homosexuals are, just like them, human and, like humans everywhere, including all Christians, are flawed in one way or another.
The has been only one perfect (supposedly) human on this planet, ever, and I have no wish to end up nailed on a cross like he was.
Everything anyone says that you, in you cocoon of Christian hyper-superiority to anyone non-Christian is greeted as "too funny" or "snork", you are just incapable of accepting any form of criticism of your beliefs while heaping tons onto any other belief.
If you put as much effort into being a good person as you do into ridiculing me and others and our beliefs on this board you might get to be a bit more of a decent human being.
Now, take you milk and cookies and go sit in a corner and sulk because someone doesn't like and rejects your religion!
I look forward in eager anticipation to your super-intelligent (not!) retort.
-
OK, . . . this is a case of a certain dear persons never ending war on anything Christian. That's all. He's scouring the internet everyday looking for outrageous Christian stories.
I do not pursue a never-ending war on anything Christian. What I pursue is a war against the sanctimonious hyper-Christians like you, Hope, and Sassy who are so far up themselves and their religion that they are incapable of admitting that anything done by or in the name of their religion could possibly be wrong.
They are incapable of following their own rules!
What does the Bible say - erm - oh yes - Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself - you three must really really hate yourselves if the attitudes you demonstrate on this board towards your neighbours on the board are anything to go by.
We are not talking about the schoool rules - we are talking about the blind persecution of homosexuals by the three above-named no matter where the homosexuals are situate.
The article was not scoured from the internet, it was part of a main article on Yahoo News, concerning Christian exclusion of homosexuals from religious life, from Christian communities.
Christians have forgotten that homosexuals are, just like them, human and, like humans everywhere, including all Christians, are flawed in one way or another.
The has been only one perfect (supposedly) human on this planet, ever, and I have no wish to end up nailed on a cross like he was.
Everything anyone says that you, in you cocoon of Christian hyper-superiority to anyone non-Christian is greeted as "too funny" or "snork", you are just incapable of accepting any form of criticism of your beliefs while heaping tons onto any other belief.
If you put as much effort into being a good person as you do into ridiculing me and others and our beliefs on this board you might get to be a bit more of a decent human being.
Now, take you milk and cookies and go sit in a corner and sulk because someone doesn't like and rejects your religion!
I look forward in eager anticipation to your super-intelligent (not!) retort.
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Well done mate! The terrible trio would do well to take a hard and honest look at themselves and their sanctimonious claptrap. But they won't, of course. They are too busy being fake Christians.
Jesus would turn over in his grave if he could see them.
-
The problem with this tirade is that I happen to believe that promiscuity is harmful to those who are involved in it.
You can believe it as much as you'd like, but the citations you gave were either implicitly or explicitly unclear on causation - they showed corrrelation, but there's nothing in there to show that promiscuity causes these problems rather than these problems causing promiscuity, or promiscuity and these problems both being caused by a third factor.
So you are correct in saying that numerically the numbers are greater on the heterosexual side - but that doesn't mean that we oughtn't to be concerned about the harm that promiscuous gays are doing to themselves, especially as the proportions reported in the reports I quoted, all show proportionately higher numbers amongst homosexuals, and especially amongst gay males.
So is this actually an issue about men? The more men are involved the more promiscuity is likely?
If you're linking promiscuity to harm, why aren't you advocating against: a) men or b) promiscuity. Why make the issue about homosexuality when at least half of that populace, by your own reckoning, are less likely to come to harm than the norm.
Furthermore, no person, gay or straight, is isolated. He or she will have family, friends, work and hobby/sporting colleagues all of whom can be affected by any harm that the individual causes to themselves.
And, equally, they can be affected by the negative attitudes of members of the society around them...
O.
-
OK, well here we go then, some of you say the rules are wrong. Then here's what you do, YOU DON"T GO THERE! Duh! If you are fooling your parents and the school, nothing good will come from that. That's also a, HELLO, ANYBODY IN THERE? And he started skronking to boot! Homo or hetero, that's also against THE RULES! Again DUH! Now somebody out there is going to come up with the brilliant line that the rules are wrong. Yup! Don't go to that school then. So simple really. No, this is a case of a certain dear persons never ending war on anything Christian. That's all. He's scouring the internet everyday looking for outrageous Christian stories. (snork) And a complete fail here with this one.
In exactly the same way that black people didn't need to go to the whites only beaches and pools, right...
Funds are being directed to these Christian institutions to indoctrinate children because of an affiliation of their parents. Funds are being used to support these institutions to segregate the populace according to religious divides.
That's us responding to an attack on a unified society.
O.
-
If you're linking promiscuity to harm, why aren't you advocating against: a) men or b) promiscuity. Why make the issue about homosexuality when at least half of that populace, by your own reckoning, are less likely to come to harm than the norm.
Hmmmm ... I wondered why we hadn't seen these studies until the subject of homosexuality cropped up, too.
I guess we'll never know.
-
Jesus would turn over in his grave if he could see them.
I am amzed that you cannot feel the vibrations through your feet, they are rattling the windows of my room! Jesus' nickname is not Gyro for nothing, you know!
-
Oh Leo, how could you? I apologize if my belief in knowing and following the rules and never signing something you don't agree with has put a wrinkle in you panties. Nothing good comes from teens having sex, ANY kind of sex. And I won't apologize for believing that Mr. Leo.
Matty, whatever, you are what you are. Too funny you!
-
Oh Leo, how could you? I apologize if my belief in knowing and following the rules and never signing something you don't agree with has put a wrinkle in you panties. Nothing good comes from teens having sex, ANY kind of sex. And I won't apologize for believing that Mr. Leo.
Matty, whatever, you are what you are. Too funny you!
Quote from the post to which you are responding:
I look forward in eager anticipation to your super-intelligent (not!) retort.
I got it didn't I?
You still have not addressed the point of the article that gays are bveing ejected from THEIR FAMILIES!
What Contract did they sign, and when, that they were to be required to grow up heterosexual in order to remain in the family into which they were born?
Loving Christian families - yeah!
-
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/alike/alike.htm. Nothing good comes from teens having sex, ANY kind of sex.
Thank goodness antique ideas like that are being shown as foolish.
Several members of my family were conceived by teen parents, as are millions of others. My eldest brother was one of them, and believe me he was a saint compared to your "good" self.
Get down off your high horse and look in a mirror ... you will see a perfect example of a bigoted fool.
-
Oh Leo, how could you? I apologize if my belief in knowing and following the rules and never signing something you don't agree with has put a wrinkle in you panties.
Except that you don't have any justification for your rather arbitrary 'rules'.
Nothing good comes from teens having sex, ANY kind of sex.
I shall let my children know that their mother's age at conception means they are "nothing good", as determined by the all-knowing's early spokesman... I'll check cupboards first, but I'm pretty sure we'll not have any shits for them to give.
And I won't apologize for believing that Mr. Leo.
Colour me surprised...
O.
-
It seems increasingly apparent from this thread, and many others, that issues surrounding sexuality in general (and homosexuality in particular) will be the death-knell of some elements within Christianity in the UK at least as society moves on and further away from the declining influence of organised theism.
The problem they have is that trying to maintain the nonsense that the best guide to social and/or sexual morals in current times is a book about an element of middle-eastern culture in antiquity, which is about as sensible as asking NASA to plan their first manned mission to Mars based on the 1953 edition of the 'Boys Book of Space' and a big box of Meccano.
-
Oh Leo, how could you? I apologize if my belief in knowing and following the rules and never signing something you don't agree with has put a wrinkle in you panties. Nothing good comes from teens having sex, ANY kind of sex. And I won't apologize for believing that Mr. Leo.
Matty, whatever, you are what you are. Too funny you!
-
Hmmmmm;
Nothing good?
You mean the LORD jesus wasn't good?
Necause ,ost scholars - evangelical scho;lars at that - reckon Mary was a young teenager at best when her firstborn - Jesus - was born.
The rest of Jesus' siblings - by Joseph, would have followed soon afterward...if Mary and Joseph were normal human beings living in Judea at the time we know they were.
-
Hmmmmm;
Nothing good?
You mean the LORD jesus wasn't good?
Necause ,ost scholars - evangelical scho;lars at that - reckon Mary was a young teenager at best when her firstborn - Jesus - was born.
The rest of Jesus' siblings - by Joseph, would have followed soon afterward...if Mary and Joseph were normal human beings living in Judea at the time we know they were.
To be fair, I don't think any sex was allegedly involved in this gods incarnation of himself in the avatar Jesus, was it? The later siblings, yes...
O.
-
Sort of witless of our Canadian friend's god to go down the route of creating the libido, or was that the talking snake's doing, and designing humans to be able to reproduce as teens then.
So many on here create little, petty stupid gods, all agog about who does what marvellously lubricious and stunningly enjoyable stroke/lick/pike to whom.
-
Oh Leo, how could you? I apologize if my belief in knowing and following the rules and never signing something you don't agree with has put a wrinkle in you panties. Nothing good comes from teens having sex, ANY kind of sex. And I won't apologize for believing that Mr. Leo.
Matty, whatever, you are what you are. Too funny you!
As long as a teenager is over the age of consent, and in a steady relationship there is no harm in having sexual relationship with a partner, gay or straight. In fact if one is intending to marry the person concerned, it is daft not to know if you are sexually compatible before tying the knot! I married at 19.
-
Hmmmmm;
Nothing good?
You mean the LORD jesus wasn't good?
Necause ,ost scholars - evangelical scho;lars at that - reckon Mary was a young teenager at best when her firstborn - Jesus - was born.
The rest of Jesus' siblings - by Joseph, would have followed soon afterward...if Mary and Joseph were normal human beings living in Judea at the time we know they were.
To be fair, I don't think any sex was allegedly involved in this gods incarnation of himself in the avatar Jesus, was it? The later siblings, yes...
O.
-
OK, leaving out the virgin birth which I accept. whilst you don't - but that's another thread - if Mary were an average girl in first century Palestine, then early pregnancy would be the norm. Anything else would be a cause celebre in the local area.
Late preganancies were very much the exception.
-
The problem they [Christians] have is that trying to maintain the nonsense that the best guide to social and/or sexual morals in current times is a book about an element of middle-eastern culture in antiquity, which is about as sensible as asking NASA to plan their first manned mission to Mars based on the 1953 edition of the 'Boys Book of Space' and a big box of Meccano.
Beautiful comparison! I wish that I had thought of that!
-
Matty,
Your stunted title is "A war on gay persons still at school" Duh! A parents reaction to their gay children is NOT a school's problem. Duh. So if a parent can't love their gay child, that parent shouldn't be a parent. If some suggest a parent can only love a child if they accept that child's life style, well those people are stunted. And if a student enrolls in a school that has certain rules but that kid goes right ahead and lies and then breaks rules, I expect the school to enforce their rules. Most schools have no anti gay policies so that kid should be attending a school where he agrees to and actually does obey the rules.
Oh yes Floo and Gordon, that sexual revolution has been such a wonderful thingy hasn't it. The steep increase in STDs, single moms ending up living off others tax dollars cause daddy ran, and the murdering of babies in the womb. Ya that Bible is so old fashioned, what a wonderful world we have now with sex restrictions done away with. Either one of ya been to Vegas? It's sickening what is peddled along the streets in brochures handed out by the sex industry to adults walking along with their children. What a great thing your sex revolution has given us.
So floo, I get that sex is nothing but that to you, but to billions of people it is something more and it is something shared between husband and wife. That's a beautiful thing. Your view is cheap and clinical.
-
So if a parent can't love their gay child, that parent shouldn't be a parent.
How do you propose that such a parent finds out that their child is gay before they have a child?
An astonishingly stupid statement even by your usual standards, canoe, which is saying something.
-
So if a parent can't love their gay child, that parent shouldn't be a parent.
How do you propose that such a parent finds out that their child is gay before they have a child?
An astonishingly stupid statement even by your usual standards, camoe, which is saying something.
Doesn't he mean that if you can't love a child regardless of their sexual orientation then you shouldn't have children at all? Not just have them and hope they turn out the way you want?
My bestest mate at school was gay and when his adopted mother found out she said, 'why couldn't we have been given a straight one?' I think that's what JC is alluding to. We don't get to choose our kids and if we can't love and accept them for who they are we shouldn't be parents. Unfortunately though many parents can't accept their kids for all kinds of stupid reasons. :(
-
Doesn't he mean that if you can't love a child regardless of their sexual orientation then you shouldn't have children at all? Not just have them and hope they turn out the way you want?
He may have meant that - but then, the obvious solution for such a person is to put their Bible down and stop being a dick, I'd have thought.
-
Shaker, are you suggesting that a child is indeed a child before it's birth? Well praise the Lord if you have had a change of heart!
-
Shaker, are you suggesting that a child is indeed a child before it's birth? Well praise the Lord if you have had a change of heart!
No, I'm not. Can't you read?
-
My parents loved me unconditionally, and they would have asked me to leave if I was up to something they could not condone. Wouldn't make me stomp my feet and cry that they don't love me anymore. Wouldn't make me scream, it's all about me therefore they have to change their beliefs. People need to grow up and find some spine donors.
Shaker, at least a monkey on a rock has a heart and doesn't fear the warmth of the sun. And they are good critters, never going on a dirty Marxist rants calling people holding their Bibles dicks. You are so disgusting and I pity you.
-
My parents loved me unconditionally, and they would have asked me to leave if I was up to something they could not condone. Wouldn't make me stomp my feet and cry that they don't love me anymore. Wouldn't make me scream, it's all about me therefore they have to change their beliefs. People need to grow up and find some spine donors.
Shaker, at least a monkey on a rock has a heart and doesn't fear the warmth of the sun. And they are good critters, never going on a dirty Marxist rants calling people holding their Bibles dicks. You are so disgusting and I pity you.
When, if ever, "people holding their Bibles" start to actually obey the Bible IN ITS ENTIRETY I will stop thinking of them as Dicks, sanctimonious, overbearing, unpleasnt hypocritical Dicks who preach one thing and do another.
You and others like you run for the Bible when it suits you and forget it when it doesn't.
You cannot have it both ways!
-
And if a student enrolls in a school that has certain rules but that kid goes right ahead and lies and then breaks rules, I expect the school to enforce their rules. Most schools have no anti gay policies so that kid should be attending a school where he agrees to and actually does obey the rules.
How many students enrol themselves in schools? In the main, children are educated at the establishment either of their parents' or the state's selection.
Oh yes Floo and Gordon, that sexual revolution has been such a wonderful thingy hasn't it. The steep increase in STDs, single moms ending up living off others tax dollars cause daddy ran, and the murdering of babies in the womb.
The increase in STDs has been a proliferation - there are more varieties, more widely known - but the actual increase in incidence isn't far outside of the growth of population. Single parent families are more an issue of marital breakdown and the availability of divorce, which is only an issue if you presume that single-parent families are intrinsically a problem. Babies are never 'murdered' in the womb - in the majority, abortions aren't conducted on babies without extreme justification, foetuses and blastocysts are terminated in the womb.
Ya that Bible is so old fashioned, what a wonderful world we have now with sex restrictions done away with.
Perfect, no. Better? Absolutely.
Either one of ya been to Vegas? It's sickening what is peddled along the streets in brochures handed out by the sex industry to adults walking along with their children. What a great thing your sex revolution has given us.
So the fact that some Americans have switched worship of God for worship of money (or mixed the two, in some cases) means that sexual liberation is bad?
So floo, I get that sex is nothing but that to you, but to billions of people it is something more and it is something shared between husband and wife. That's a beautiful thing. Your view is cheap and clinical.
Or husband and husband. Or wife and wife. Or husband and wife and wife. So long as no-one is deceiving or co-ercing anyone, where's the problem?
O.
-
Or husband and husband. Or wife and wife. Or husband and wife and wife. So long as no-one is deceiving or co-ercing anyone, where's the problem?
O.
The problem is the width of the mind that is trying to work it out, and minds a notoriously susceptible to the vice-like grip of religion narrowing them.
In some cases squeezing them to become a one-way street.
-
Or husband and husband. Or wife and wife. Or husband and wife and wife. So long as no-one is deceiving or co-ercing anyone, where's the problem?
O.
The problem is the width of the mind that is trying to work it out, and minds a notoriously susceptible to the vice-like grip of religion narrowing them.
In some cases squeezing them to become a one-way street.
Moderator: content removed.
-
Come on guys, aren't we better than this? :-\
O.
-
I'm not :P
-
I'm not :P
Shouldn't we be trying to be, then? ::)
There's a thread sprang back into action today about why the forum isn't attracting new members... I wonder...
O.
-
I'm not :P
Shouldn't we be trying to be, then? ::)
There's a thread sprang back into action today about why the forum isn't attracting new members... I wonder...
O.
I suspect I know why the forum isn't attracting new members, and it's quite simple - because the forum is tiny and because it's a closed shop known only to those who are already members (i.e. ex-Beebers). It's completely lost amongst the bazillions of online forums/discussion boards. It's not known; it needs to be publicised and advertised to get the name around.
-
To attract new members we'd need to be active on social media (Twitter etc) and that would mean someone volunteering to take the job on. And can you imagine how exciting that'd be?
I don't think we can say it's just that some people here are rude that deters new members. Mumsnet is mahoosive and it's also the most terrifying forum out there. We do have a big issue with crazy volumes of spammers on a daily basis though - I reckon Gordon checks thirty a day, maybe more.
-
I'm not :P
Shouldn't we be trying to be, then? ::)
There's a thread sprang back into action today about why the forum isn't attracting new members... I wonder...
O.
I am an ex-Beeber and I think that the small number of members results in a lot of threads, threads on subjects which could be provocative of thought and extensive in discussion, lasting about three posts before they become repeats of dozens of other similar threads with exactly the same protagonists posting exactly the same pro and con posts and achieving nothing positive.
Under the haeding of "Religion" I can read an OP and predict, almost word for word, what Hope, Sassy, Floo, Nearly Sane, Bashful Anthony, Johnny Canoe, Shaker, Leonard James and some others are going to post to the thread.
Without wishing to be rude, I think the reason there are so few new members ids that possible new members will read a few threads that might interest them, see what has been posted and decide that the ongoing repetition of 'cast-in-concrete' opinions is, quite frankly, boring!
Also the quite obvious derogatory attitudes and comments of some posters to and about other posters when their religion or religious beliefs are questioned and/or criticised is unpleasant in the extreme, regardless of how appropriate the questioning/criticism may be, and in this regard I must freely admit my own guilt.
-
Might help to not equate gay s*x to murder as you have done multiple times in the past.
But I have also equated it to lying, failing to fulfill promises, cheating and many other forms of what society would regard as low-level wrong-doing, NS. Its only people like you who seem determined to equate it specifically to more high-level wrong-doing.
That you are here quite brazenly equating what sexually-active consenting homosexual adults do with 'low-level wrong-doing' astonishes me - it confirms, as if it needed confirming, that some elements within Christianity are intrinsically homophobic no matter how much they bleat that they aren't.
There is a bright side though - since attitudes like this are no doubt assisting the on-going decline of Christianity.
Oh yes .... a dispute between Gays and Christians is mere cannon fodder for
Antitheists like Gordon.
-
Yup ;)
-
Under the haeding of "Religion" I can read an OP and predict, almost word for word, what Hope, Sassy, Floo, Nearly Sane, Bashful Anthony, Johnny Canoe, Shaker, Leonard James and some others are going to post to the thread.
Ouch! :-[