Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Owlswing on March 23, 2016, 01:56:21 PM
-
On Facebook today
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/this-christian-mom-made-a-rap-song-attacking-trans-kids-and-thought-the-internet-would-want-to-see-it/comments/#disqus
Comments please
-
The issue here has nothing to do with Christianity, it is a matter of "degendered" lavatories.
Quite frankly I would side with a female who does not want to change a tampon whilst separated from a male who wants to be a female, by only a small partition wall which reaches neither the floor, or the ceiling.
-
Tbh it doesn't bother me.
A cubical is quite private.
I'm not sure I would go for same sex public toilets en masse, but I can cope with encountering the occasional person who is transgender.
It's like male toilet attendants in women's toilets , they exist too.
It is Christian because it is based on their claims that transgender is unnatural and not how God intended people to be.
That has its roots in their religious belief.
-
The issue here has nothing to do with Christianity, it is a matter of "degendered" lavatories.
Quite frankly I would side with a female who does not want to change a tampon whilst separated from a male who wants to be a female, by only a small partition wall which reaches neither the floor, or the ceiling.
Sorry Humph but is IS about Chritianity - the Christian God loves everyone - except homosexuals, transsexuals, lesbians, bi-sexuals, Jews, Muslims, children (he lets them get cancers and various other obscene diseases), the elderly (whose passing he can and in some cases does make a most unpleasant experience), he murders his followers and those who do not follow him indiscriminately with all kinds of "natural" disasters - "natural" dusaters which, if he is as all-powerful as Christians say he is, he could prevent!
Chritianity is not about who their God loves but who he does not and who he tells his followers not to love.
-
I think some Christians argue that gender (like sex) is instituted by God, and hence is inviolable. I suppose this is common among Evangelicals, not sure about Catholics, although they have been more liberal about SSM. By that, I mean grass roots Catholics, who in the US for example, are quite favourable to SSM.
But I would also expect that attitudes will be liberalized more and more about trans, as it has been about gays.
-
Well another ranting attack on God and Christians from the angry witch. A witch that believes Zeus is a real god. And I have read the Greek myth on what Matty's God Zeus has done. YUK!! Now if he would take some anger management classes an read the New Testament, he just might stop his tantrums and constant BS posts. I doubt any post from a Christian is going to be considered respectfully by Matty. He is here to hate, and rant at the Christians, this is what his thread is for and nothing else.
-
Well another ranting attack on God and Christians from the angry witch. A witch that believes Zeus is a real god. And I have read the Greek myth on what Matty's God Zeus has done. YUK!! Now if he would take some anger management classes an read the New Testament, he just might stop his tantrums and constant BS posts. I doubt any post from a Christian is going to be considered respectfully by Matty. He is here to hate, and rant at the Christians, this is what his thread is for and nothing else.
As I have said before - you are perfectly happy to rant against my beliefs - as in this post - but will whinge, whine, moan, complain, whimper and sneer and refuse to accept retaliation in kind!
Quit whinging and return to the real world from your Christian Cloud-Cuckoo-Land!
-
A cafe in my local town has one lot of toilets* shared by both genders. Doesn't remotely bother me
* one room, two cubicles, two sinks.
-
Our house has a shared toilet, strange, isn't it?
-
Our house has a shared toilet, strange, isn't it?
Unfortunately, you rather beautiful comment is irrelevant as only one person uses your home toilet at a time!
Nice try though! ;) ;) ;D 8)
-
Unfortunately, you rather beautiful comment is irrelevant as only one person uses your home toilet at a time!
Nice try though! ;) ;) ;D 8)
Hey, have you got CCTV installed here, or summat? No peekin'!
-
I have no problem with a transgender person using a female toilet cubical. However, I wouldn't like to use a uni-sex loo, where there were urinals as well as cubicals, as we had to do in France once.
The Christians who object to gays and transgender people are sickos and need therapy.
-
If you have a penis then you change in the boys locker room for physical ed class, because you want to be a girl is not my niece's problem. And they should not have to have you in the washroom nor locker room.
Does being transgender mean a fella is gay? I don't think it does and a straight trans has no business seeing my nieces naked, nor should my nieces have to relieve themselves a couple feet away from somebody with a penis.
-
If you have a penis then you change in the boys locker room for physical ed class, because you want to be a girl is not my niece's problem. And they should not have to have you in the washroom nor locker room.
Does being transgender mean a fella is gay? I don't think it does and a straight trans has no business seeing my nieces naked, nor should my nieces have to relieve themselves a couple feet away from somebody with a penis.
Locker rooms are a bit different though, people tend to shower and change. Toilet cubicals are different as they are private.
If women had to sit in full view with other women changing tampons most women wouldn't like it.
The Romans all used to sit round in full view and it was a social event.
Women's toilets are private places even if there is a gap under the door and above
Men with their urinals are more public, women don't even want other women in the same room or cubical.
Outside or in a different cubical is fine
Transgender is fine, small boys with mum is fine.
-
Hey, have you got CCTV installed here, or summat? No peekin'!
Dammit! Sussed! How did you guess? Can I have my cameras back please?
-
It is Christian because it is based on their claims that transgender is unnatural and not how God intended people to be.
That has its roots in their religious belief.
I think you could claim that it doesn't have its roots in a religious belief but that the religious belief has roots in an understanding of human value, worth and purpose.
-
Sorry Humph but is IS about Chritianity - the Christian God loves everyone - except homosexuals, transsexuals, lesbians, bi-sexuals, Jews, Muslims, children (he lets them get cancers and various other obscene diseases), the elderly (whose passing he can and in some cases does make a most unpleasant experience), he murders his followers and those who do not follow him indiscriminately with all kinds of "natural" disasters - "natural" dusaters which, if he is as all-powerful as Christians say he is, he could prevent!
Chritianity is not about who their God loves but who he does not and who he tells his followers not to love.
You really do have a weird understanding of Christianity, Owl (or even of Judeo-Christian thought). The whole Bible tells about God loves all humanity, and does so, so much, that he initially chooses a pretty insignificant people-group to act as witnesses to that love. He didn't choose the people of Israel on the strength of their track-record, or power, or even influence. He chose them for a purpose.
Yes, they, and especially their leaders, messed things up. Instead of developing processes (based on God's laws) that empowered and freed people, they developed processes that more and more hamstrung the people. For instance, the famous verse which records Jesus lambasting the religious leaders because they had failed to realise that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Jesus than lived and died to show this love of humanity; by offering that as a means of humanity re-establishing relationship with Him. Again, I am sure that there are those who would call themselves Christian who would fail in that purpose because they dislike or even hate certain people including, but not exclusively, those you have listed.
If you can find a passage in the Bible that tells us that we should hate anyone - whether in your list or not - (and uses language that cannot legitimately be used in any other way) perhaps you can post it. I'd remind you, however, that many of the most commonly presented examples (such as hating their father/mother/brother/sister) have long been shown to be false, because of the breadth of uses of the relevant verb in both biblical and non-biblical contexts.
-
You really do have a weird understanding of Christianity, Owl (or even of Judeo-Christian thought). The whole Bible tells about God loves all humanity, and does so, so much, that he initially chooses a pretty insignificant people-group to act as witnesses to that love. He didn't choose the people of Israel on the strength of their track-record, or power, or even influence. He chose them for a purpose.
Yes, they, and especially their leaders, messed things up. Instead of developing processes (based on God's laws) that empowered and freed people, they developed processes that more and more hamstrung the people. For instance, the famous verse which records Jesus lambasting the religious leaders because they had failed to realise that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Jesus than lived and died to show this love of humanity; by offering that as a means of humanity re-establishing relationship with Him. Again, I am sure that there are those who would call themselves Christian who would fail in that purpose because they dislike or even hate certain people including, but not exclusively, those you have listed.
If you can find a passage in the Bible that tells us that we should hate anyone - whether in your list or not - (and uses language that cannot legitimately be used in any other way) perhaps you can post it. I'd remind you, however, that many of the most commonly presented examples (such as hating their father/mother/brother/sister) have long been shown to be false, because of the breadth of uses of the relevant verb in both biblical and non-biblical contexts.
What I quoted is the views and attitudes that the Christian church of today promotes - Christian woman rapping against trans people, promotes the exlusion of gays from the clergy, and all the other negatives that you and others on here are quick to ignore.
Modern Christianity, if I listen to you, has moved way away from what Christ taught; and; if I listen to Sassy, it, modern Chrsitianity cannot even agree on what its beknighted book of rules says, even down to not being able to agree if it was translated correctly while not even being able to agree on what books or papers it should be translated froim or from what bloody language!
What proportion of the total UK parish clergy are men? What proportion of parish church goers are men? Should these not be the same, and should this not tranlate all the way up to Archbishop level.
The Church is, in places, still implacably against SSM.
The Christian Church in the 21st century is a screwed up mess of politics and sexism and racism that must have Christ spinning in his grave, or his throne at the right hand of God - whchever you believe.
If this forum is anything to go by, having people like ~TW~, Sassy, Ad_Orientum, Alan Burns, OMW, and Vlad promoting it, it it probably even more messed up that it outwardly appears.
-
women don't even want other women in the same room or cubical.
...are you sure?
Now, the Infinity club in Manchester has installed double cubicles or "twobicles" for female customers. So popular are they that the queues are enormous, even when other, single cubicles are free.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/aug/31/gender.uk1
-
...are you sure?
Now, the Infinity club in Manchester has installed double cubicles or "twobicles" for female customers. So popular are they that the queues are enormous, even when other, single cubicles are free.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/aug/31/gender.uk1
That is only because in a two-seater it is easier to whisper about "that woman's God-awful dress sense" rather than having to wait until outside or shout it between two cubilclkes!
-
...are you sure?
Now, the Infinity club in Manchester has installed double cubicles or "twobicles" for female customers. So popular are they that the queues are enormous, even when other, single cubicles are free.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/aug/31/gender.uk1
Good grief! :o
I think I'll stick with my private single cubical ;)
These younguns, nowadays whatever next?
Fortunately I'm too long in the tooth for swanky nightclubs, ::) so hopefully I can avoid those.
;D
-
That is only because in a two-seater it is easier to whisper about "that woman's God-awful dress sense" rather than having to wait until outside or shout it between two cubilclkes!
Sounds more like they don't want their mates to escape while they are in the loo.
Women usually heading to the loo in twos or threes.
Heaven forbid they should be alone in there ::)
-
Good grief! :o
I think I'll stick with my private single cubical ;)
These younguns, nowadays whatever next?
Fortunately I'm too long in the tooth for swanky nightclubs, ::) so hopefully I can avoid those.
;D
Younguns! There is the point!
The young are, usually, the ones who are pushing for change, SSM, sexual equality in just about everything, gay rights and it is us oldies who are seeing our values being amended. The younguns are trying to change the world they live in to the world they want to live in - just as we did when we were the younguns.
The younguns do not see trans people as the danger that some oldies do, and by oldies I mean mainly those over about 30.
It is the young who are rejecting the established religions (except Islam) for religions like Buddhism or no religion at all.
My daughter (22) had some of her friends over the other week and they asked what I was looking at on my computer - this forum - and they read quite a few of the threads and I am not going to repeat the comments that were made about some of the opinions expressed here - some I agreed with, others I most certainly did not. When I stated which of their opinions I was in disagreement with I got the comment that it was not surprising as I was so much older than they and values were changing, not always for the better but they were changing -quote "especially in matters of religion and personal relationships".
I am just glad that kids today can think for themselves, that in more and more instances they are rejecting the doctrines that their parents hold as sacrosanct, some of which are being show to be in need of change or rejection, especially the more dogmatic ones - in all ares of life and living.
-
My daughter (22) had some of her friends over the other week and they asked what I was looking at on my computer - this forum - and they read quite a few of the threads and I am not going to repeat the comments that were made about some of the opinions expressed here
Oh, I wish you would ;)
-
Better yet, get them to join...
-
Younguns! There is the point!
The young are, usually, the ones who are pushing for change, SSM, sexual equality in just about everything, gay rights and it is us oldies who are seeing our values being amended. The younguns are trying to change the world they live in to the world they want to live in - just as we did when we were the younguns.
The younguns do not see trans people as the danger that some oldies do, and by oldies I mean mainly those over about 30.
It is the young who are rejecting the established religions (except Islam) for religions like Buddhism or no religion at all.
My daughter (22) had some of her friends over the other week and they asked what I was looking at on my computer - this forum - and they read quite a few of the threads and I am not going to repeat the comments that were made about some of the opinions expressed here - some I agreed with, others I most certainly did not. When I stated which of their opinions I was in disagreement with I got the comment that it was not surprising as I was so much older than they and values were changing, not always for the better but they were changing -quote "especially in matters of religion and personal relationships".
I am just glad that kids today can think for themselves, that in more and more instances they are rejecting the doctrines that their parents hold as sacrosanct, some of which are being show to be in need of change or rejection, especially the more dogmatic ones - in all ares of life and living.
I draw the line at sharing the same cubical with anyone, some things are private.
It probably is an age thing.
I have no issues with transgender using the ladies, I do have an issue with the denial of my private space while actually on the toilet.
-
As I have said before - you are perfectly happy to rant against my beliefs - as in this post - but will whinge, whine, moan, complain, whimper and sneer and refuse to accept retaliation in kind!
Quit whinging and return to the real world from your Christian Cloud-Cuckoo-Land!
I think the issue is that many of your premises, from which you start such threads, are wrong - and so people want to make sure that the assumptions you use are challenged.
-
I think the issue is that many of your premises, from which you start such threads, are wrong - and so people want to make sure that the assumptions you use are challenged.
The woman in the video is a Christian, most of the anti-Trans anti-gay rhetotic surfacing in the US Presidential election and in various State laws are based upon quoted Christian teaching!
Separation of Chruch and State in the US is largely a myth!
-
What I quoted is the views and attitudes that the Christian church of today promotes - Christian woman rapping against trans people, promotes the exlusion of gays from the clergy, and all the other negatives that you and others on here are quick to ignore.
As I say, your assumptions are wrong, Owl. Simple. There may be some groupings who exclude gays or tans - but when one remembers that there are ordained gay men in the Church of England (and have been for several decades), as well as other denominations it would seem that "What (you) quoted is the views and attitudes that the Christian church of today promotes" is a minority opinion at best. Then, you say 'Christian woman rapping against trans people'. Again, are you suggesting that what 1 (one) Christian says/sings about is mainstream? Finally, on this paragraph, which "all the other negatives ... quick to ignore" would those be?
Modern Christianity, if I listen to you, has moved way away from what Christ taught; and; if I listen to Sassy, it, modern Chrsitianity cannot even agree on what its beknighted book of rules says, even down to not being able to agree if it was translated correctly while not even being able to agree on what books or papers it should be translated froim or from what bloody language!
I would agree that the Church has, during the last 2000 years "moved way away from what Christ taught" - hence things like the Inquisition, the accretion of wealth, sexual and other abuse of parishoners, etc - but I would also suggest that (partly because of the loss of nominal believers, for whom the traditions were often more important than the principles taught by Jesus) modern Christianity is probably closer to what Jesus taught than has been the case for some centuries.
What proportion of the total UK parish clergy are men? What proportion of parish church goers are men? Should these not be the same, and should this not tranlate all the way up to Archbishop level.
OK, according to the Guardian, 11 Feb 2014
Between 2002 and 2012, the number of female full-time clergy has increased by 41% from 1,262 to 1,781.
Simultaneously, the number of full-time males has dropped from 7,920 to 6,017, meaning women now make up roughly one in five members of full-time clergy (but only one-in-seven of those in incumbent posts such as vicars and priests-in-charge).
Just under half of part-time clergy are women and over half of the 3,148 ministers who support themselves are too.
So, yes there is a slight imbalance, though if you look at the make up of General Synod and diocesan synods, the mix is fairly equal - perhaps even more women. I believe that the issue of women in church leadership has been skewed by 2 issues. One is the fact that there would appear to have been a number of women in leadership prior to the Church being adopted by the Romans in the 4th century; and secondly, the resultant male-dominated elite that runs counter to Jesus' teachings.
The idea that a church that has 2 Archbishops has to share those between male and female smacks too much, in my view, of quotas. I'd rather have the two people best suited for the roles at any given time. If my father and others had had their way back in the 60s, the CofE would have women clergy long before it actually did; ironically, it was women who often voted the idea down in local synods.
The Church is, in places, still implacably against SSM.
And there is good doctrinal reasoning for this, in the same way that the church is, in places, still implacably against wrongdoing.
The Christian Church in the 21st century is a screwed up mess of politics and sexism and racism that must have Christ spinning in his grave, or his throne at the right hand of God - whchever you believe.
Unfortunately, the church is made up of people, and wherever people come together in this type of way, there are going to be flaws and problems like this. These issues certainly aren't unique to Christianity and the Church.
-
The woman in the video is a Christian, most of the anti-Trans anti-gay rhetotic surfacing in the US Presidential election and in various State laws are based upon quoted Christian teaching!
Since Jesus didn't once teach about transgender issues, people have to extrapolate from the teaching he did give. As I'm sure you'd agree, one can mis-extrapolate - something that the Church has done at various points in its history.
Separation of Chruch and State in the US is largely a myth!
You haven't only just realised this? It's been obvious for generations!!
-
Younguns! There is the point!
The young are, usually, the ones who are pushing for change, SSM, sexual equality in just about everything, gay rights and it is us oldies who are seeing our values being amended. The younguns are trying to change the world they live in to the world they want to live in - just as we did when we were the younguns.
A quick question, owl. Did every change that we wanted to see when we were young prove to be a sensible change? Wasn't it the case that we often had to listen to the wisdom of those older and more experienced than us? Obviously, young people are always going to push the boundaries, but that doesn't necessitate their being right.
The younguns do not see trans people as the danger that some oldies do, and by oldies I mean mainly those over about 30.
Are you admitting to seeing trans people as a danger? Can't say that I have ever felt this way.
I am just glad that kids today can think for themselves, that in more and more instances they are rejecting the doctrines that their parents hold as sacrosanct, some of which are being show to be in need of change or rejection, especially the more dogmatic ones - in all ares of life and living.
But are they able to think for themselves, Owl? The phenomenon of peer pressure has always been around, but my experience of working with young people is that it is more powerful that it has ever been before. In other words, they simply follow the crowd, as opposed to thinking for themselves.
-
As I say, your assumptions are wrong, Owl. Simple. There may be some groupings who exclude gays or tans - but when one remembers that there are ordained gay men in the Church of England (and have been for several decades),
Those would be the gay men who get sacked if they marry their partners?
Hypocritical doesn't begin to cover it.
-
As I say, your assumptions are wrong, Owl. Simple. There may be some groupings who exclude gays or tans - but when one remembers that there are ordained gay men in the Church of England (and have been for several decades), as well as other denominations it would seem that "What (you) quoted is the views and attitudes that the Christian church of today promotes" is a minority opinion at best. Then, you say 'Christian woman rapping against trans people'. Again, are you suggesting that what 1 (one) Christian says/sings about is mainstream? Finally, on this paragraph, which "all the other negatives ... quick to ignore" would those be?
The other negatives - the inability to on just about anything relating to what Christianity really is. How many sects and sub-sects are there? Christianity holds itsellf, as Sassy never tires of telling anyone who is still listening, to be the one true divine truth, and each and every oine of the sects and sub-sects claims the same thing so which one IS the one true truth?. Ad_O's? Sassy's? Yours?
The systematic indoctrination of children from an early age and its insistance on being allowed to continue to do in schools.
The continued reliance on a book that contains more contradictions than you can poke a stick at and to provide all kinds of arguments in attempts to prove it not so when these contradictions are pointed out.
I would agree that the Church has, during the last 2000 years "moved way away from what Christ taught" - hence things like the Inquisition, the accretion of wealth, sexual and other abuse of parishoners, etc - but I would also suggest that (partly because of the loss of nominal believers, for whom the traditions were often more important than the principles taught by Jesus) modern Christianity is probably closer to what Jesus taught than has been the case for some centuries.
Including the refusal to allow the criminal prosecution of paedophile priests, in fact taking the sztrongest possible steps to prevent such prosecutions, and the covering up of the activities of the murderous nuns of the Magdalene Laundries until all the offenders were dead.
Catholicism is still Christianity.
OK, according to the Guardian, 11 Feb 2014
Quote
Between 2002 and 2012, the number of female full-time clergy has increased by 41% from 1,262 to 1,781.
Simultaneously, the number of full-time males has dropped from 7,920 to 6,017, meaning women now make up roughly one in five members of full-time clergy (but only one-in-seven of those in incumbent posts such as vicars and priests-in-charge).
Just under half of part-time clergy are women and over half of the 3,148 ministers who support themselves are too.
End quote
So, yes there is a slight imbalance, though if you look at the make up of General Synod and diocesan synods, the mix is fairly equal - perhaps even more women. I believe that the issue of women in church leadership has been skewed by 2 issues. One is the fact that there would appear to have been a number of women in leadership prior to the Church being adopted by the Romans in the 4th century; and secondly, the resultant male-dominated elite that runs counter to Jesus' teachings.
The idea that a church that has 2 Archbishops has to share those between male and female smacks too much, in my view, of quotas. I'd rather have the two people best suited for the roles at any given time. If my father and others had had their way back in the 60s, the CofE would have women clergy long before it actually did; ironically, it was women who often voted the idea down in local synods.
You entirely miss my point; which was that, surely, in these days of sexual equaltity the percentage of male to female priests should match the percentage s of male and female members of congregations.
And there is good doctrinal reasoning for this, in the same way that the church is, in places, still implacably against wrongdoing.
Good doctrinal reasons . . . yeah, nice wriggle - but it is is still the norm for most Christians to condemn gays and trans because they do not conform to the way in which God separated hiumans into male and female and God outranks Jesus so his word takes precedence - see Leviticus 20:13.
Since Jesus didn't once teach about transgender issues, people have to extrapolate from the teaching he did give. As I'm sure you'd agree, one can mis-extrapolate - something that the Church has done at various points in its history.
No extrapolation needed - see Leviticus 20:13
A quick question, owl. Did every change that we wanted to see when we were young prove to be a sensible change? Wasn't it the case that we often had to listen to the wisdom of those older and more experienced than us? Obviously, young people are always going to push the boundaries, but that doesn't necessitate their being right.
So you are saying that everything now is exactly the same as it was when I was twenty or so - nothing can change just in case the oldies now are right! I hope not - monumental cock-ups are not the sole prerogative of the young.
Are you admitting to seeing trans people as a danger? Can't say that I have ever felt this way.
No! No way! One, for a very very very personal reason, and two, from age twenty to age 30 I lived in a community in which the gays, the trans and the lesbians far outnumbered the straights.
ut are they able to think for themselves, Owl? The phenomenon of peer pressure has always been around, but my experience of working with young people is that it is more powerful that it has ever been before. In other words, they simply follow the crowd, as opposed to thinking for themselves.
So today's youngsters are a bunch of sheep driven by the sheepdogs of peer pressure?
Hope, you can respond to these points or not, your choice, but do not expect me to respond to your responses, though others are, of course, free to do so.The headache that banging my head against the stonewall of your inability to consider, much less accept, that Christianity might be, in even the minutest particle, wrong and someone else's faith be right is something that I am no longer prepared to suffer.
-
The other negatives - the inability to on just about anything relating to what Christianity really is. How many sects and sub-sects are there? Christianity holds itsellf, as Sassy never tires of telling anyone who is still listening, to be the one true divine truth, and each and every oine of the sects and sub-sects claims the same thing so which one IS the one true truth?. Ad_O's? Sassy's? Yours?
The systematic indoctrination of children from an early age and its insistance on being allowed to continue to do in schools.
The continued reliance on a book that contains more contradictions than you can poke a stick at and to provide all kinds of arguments in attempts to prove it not so when these contradictions are pointed out.
Including the refusal to allow the criminal prosecution of paedophile priests, in fact taking the sztrongest possible steps to prevent such prosecutions, and the covering up of the activities of the murderous nuns of the Magdalene Laundries until all the offenders were dead.
Catholicism is still Christianity.
You entirely miss my point; which was that, surely, in these days of sexual equaltity the percentage of male to female priests should match the percentage s of male and female members of congregations.
Good doctrinal reasons . . . yeah, nice wriggle - but it is is still the norm for most Christians to condemn gays and trans because they do not conform to the way in which God separated hiumans into male and female and God outranks Jesus so his word takes precedence - see Leviticus 20:13.
No extrapolation needed - see Leviticus 20:13
So you are saying that everything now is exactly the same as it was when I was twenty or so - nothing can change just in case the oldies now are right! I hope not - monumental cock-ups are not the sole prerogative of the young.
No! No way! One, for a very very very personal reason, and two, from age twenty to age 30 I lived in a community in which the gays, the trans and the lesbians far outnumbered the straights.
So today's youngsters are a bunch of sheep driven by the sheepdogs of peer pressure?
Hope, you can respond to these points or not, your choice, but do not expect me to respond to your responses, though others are, of course, free to do so.The headache that banging my head against the stonewall of your inability to consider, much less accept, that Christianity might be, in even the minutest particle, wrong and someone else's faith be right is something that I am no longer prepared to suffer.
All splendidly observed, Owl. The last paragraph is exactly how I feel about Hope, Sass, TW, BA and a few others.
Unfortunately I find myself drawn to answer when their replies are particularly daft.
-
All splendidly observed, Owl. The last paragraph is exactly how I feel about Hope, Sass, TW, BA and a few others.
Unfortunately I find myself drawn to answer when their replies are particularly daft.
LJ
Ain't that the truth!
Somehow, though, the most irritating of the group is the one left out of your list, the biggedt little troll/WUM, who posts not biblical crap but snorks.
It is the MO of these to get you to post just so they have something to tell you off for, to belittle you for, to abuse you for.
Oh, and you can add the Apostle of Orthodoxy as well.
For me, it is a good job that there are people like you, Shaker, Rhiannon who make staying worthwhile.
-
LJ
Ain't that the truth!
Somehow, though, the most irritating of the group is the one left out of your list, the biggedt little troll/WUM, who posts not biblical crap but snorks.
It is the MO of these to get you to post just so they have something to tell you off for, to belittle you for, to abuse you for.
Oh, and you can add the Apostle of Orthodoxy as well.
For me, it is a good job that there are people like you, Shaker, Rhiannon who make staying worthwhile.
Aw shucks! Come here and give me a big hug!
((((Owly))))
:)
-
Aw shucks! Come here and give me a big hug!
((((Owly))))
:)
Please send location and taxi fare and you're on!
((((LJ))))
8)
-
Please send location and taxi fare and you're on!
((((LJ))))
8)
That might be an expensive taxi ride
-
That might be an expensive taxi ride
I suppose that depends upon what happens at the destination and with whom - sometimes that changes an expensive ride into a dirt cheap one! And sometimes it turns a cheap ride into one you regret for the rest of your life.
-
I suppose that depends upon what happens at the destination and with whom - sometimes that changes an expensive ride into a dirt cheap one! And sometimes it turns a cheap ride into one you regret for the rest of your life.
My dear, wise Owl! In this case it would be a rather long boat voyage, and all I can offer is a warm reception, a mainly sunny climate and a sympathetic shoulder + lotsa vino. :D
-
Those would be the gay men who get sacked if they marry their partners?
Hypocritical doesn't begin to cover it.
I'd agree 'hypocritical' doesn't begin to cover it. After all, it's not hypocritical in the first place. Remember that church law states that you can be ordained as a homosexual (be that gay or lesbian), but that marriage is by definition between one man and one woman. No hypocrisy there.
-
Same-sex marriage however is a secular affair, a component of civil law that has nothing to do with church law.
-
The issue here has nothing to do with Christianity, it is a matter of "degendered" lavatories.
Quite frankly I would side with a female who does not want to change a tampon whilst separated from a male who wants to be a female, by only a small partition wall which reaches neither the floor, or the ceiling.
In the residential halls in my University, all of the toilet blocks were unisex. Nobody - male or female - had a problem with it.
-
I have no problem with a transgender person using a female toilet cubical. However, I wouldn't like to use a uni-sex loo, where there were urinals as well as cubicals, as we had to do in France once.
Why not? If you are uncomfortable with using the urinals, go into one of the cubicles.
-
Same-sex marriage however is a secular affair, a component of civil law that has nothing to do with church law.
Sorry, Shakes, but Church law states that marriage is between a man and a woman. It also states that people who are ordained are to abide by such law.
-
Sorry, Shakes, but Church law states that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But fortunately, marriage in this country is not defined by Church law.
It also states that people who are ordained are to abide by such law.
So what?
-
Sorry, Shakes, but Church law states that marriage is between a man and a woman. It also states that people who are ordained are to abide by such law.
That's because the church loses its humanity when it comes to homosexuality. The hypocricy is that you claim to do so out of love.
-
But fortunately, marriage in this country is not defined by Church law.
Unless you are part of that Church legal process.
So what?
So, I assume that you don't believe that a train driver has to abide by the rules that control that profession?
-
That's because the church loses its humanity when it comes to homosexuality. The hypocricy is that you claim to do so out of love.
Oddly enough, in view of the number of people we have had in our church congregation who have committed sin over the years, I find this suggestion rather pathetic. Humanitariaism doesn't automatically allow every form of behaviour. It also involves discipline.
-
My dear, wise Owl! In this case it would be a rather long boat voyage, and all I can offer is a warm reception, a mainly sunny climate and a sympathetic shoulder + lotsa vino. :D
When I win the Lottery - you're on!
-
Unless you are part of that Church legal process.
Marriage in this country is not defined by the Church's legal process.
So, I assume that you don't believe that a train driver has to abide by the rules that control that profession?
Do the rules and regulations of driving trains say anything about marriage?
I know of CofE priests who have broken the rules of being a priest including, for instance, having affairs, who have not been sacked.
-
Unless you are part of that Church legal process.
So, Hope, what you are saying is that Church law takes precedence over Civil law even when applied to those who are not part of your beknighted church?
So, I assume that you don't believe that a train driver has to abide by the rules that control that profession?
Again you resort to taking things to their most illogical coinclusion to try to justify the unjustifiable!
-
So, Hope, what you are saying is that Church law takes precedence over Civil law even when applied to those who are not part of your beknighted church?
No, I'm saying that if someone is ordained as a CofE cleric, they are required, by dint of the oath they take as part of that ordination, to abide by the laws that govern that ordination.
Again you resort to taking things to their most illogical coinclusion to try to justify the unjustifiable!
A bit rich coming after that comment of your own. Most people, when they join a particular profession, are required to abide by rules that that profession set out.
-
No, I'm saying that if someone is ordained as a CofE cleric, they are required, by dint of the oath they take as part of that ordination, to abide by the laws that govern that ordination.
So, what you are saying is that the clergy are above the cibvil law?
A bit rich coming after that comment of your own. Most people, when they join a particular profession, are required to abide by rules that that profession set out.
NOT above the civil law though! If you can think of a profession that is above the civil law by dint of the rules of that profession please tell us what it is. I cannot think of one!
-
So, what you are saying is that the clergy are above the cibvil law?
No, civil law has a role in the Church context. But if you, as a CofE cleric, were to choose to disobey the ecclesiatical law, you will be dealt with by Ecclesiastical courts. The fact that a particular action is legal under civil law doesn't stop an Ecclesiastical court from disciplining someone.
NOT above the civil law though! If you can think of a profession that is above the civil law by dint of the rules of that profession please tell us what it is. I cannot think of one!
I can think of several. For instance, if a teacher is accused of sexual or physical abuse of a student in their charge, that teacher can find that the accusation (even if shown to have no basis) dogs their attempts to gain employment in education for the rest of their life. On another level, a train driver has to abide by a series of rules laid out by the train drivers union ASLEF, and sometimes these supersede civil law.
-
Oddly enough, in view of the number of people we have had in our church congregation who have committed sin over the years, I find this suggestion rather pathetic. Humanitariaism doesn't automatically allow every form of behaviour. It also involves discipline.
I find the church rather pathetic.
Echoing Jeremy's point, I know personally a priest still in orders who had an affair with a woman to whom he was offering marriage guidance. Actually he was counselling the husband too. The reason he didn't get defrocked? Their sexual relationship didn't include penetration and in the church's eyes that meant there was no adultery.
But hey, you think it more humane to sack a priest for marrying someone that they love.
The church deserves to die.
-
No, civil law has a role in the Church context. But if you, as a CofE cleric, were to choose to disobey the ecclesiatical law, you will be dealt with by Ecclesiastical courts. The fact that a particular action is legal under civil law doesn't stop an Ecclesiastical court from disciplining someone.
OK; as long as you mean that Church only supercedes CivilLaw within the Church.
I can think of several. For instance, if a teacher is accused of sexual or physical abuse of a student in their charge, that teacher can find that the accusation (even if shown to have no basis) dogs their attempts to gain employment in education for the rest of their life.
That is NOT a matter to do with the law. An accusation MUST be folowed by an investigation; exoneration should be justification for action, through the courts if necessary, funded by whichever teaching union the teacer belongs to, if necessary, against anyone using said unproven accusation to prevent employment in the future.
On another level, a train driver has to abide by a series of rules laid out by the train drivers union ASLEF, and sometimes these supersede civil law.
Rubbish! Any attempt to do so would result in action for "attempting to pervert the course of justice". Knowing your personal aquaintence with someone somewhere in every profession klnow to man (or woman) I have checked this with a couple of solicitors and a barrister.
-
On Facebook today
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/this-christian-mom-made-a-rap-song-attacking-trans-kids-and-thought-the-internet-would-want-to-see-it/comments/#disqus
Comments please
I think you are ignoring all sorts of political chicanery and the establishment of manifest inequalities.
You ignore the massive pool of anti trans and homophobia in secular Britain in public and in the workplace.
-
I think you are ignoring all sorts of political chicanery and the establishment of manifest inequalities.
I am not sure what, exactly, you are getting at with this comment.
You ignore the massive pool of anti trans and homophobia in secular Britain in public and in the workplace.
Oh yeah? Examples please! Checkable ones. Ones that are in the public domain.
-
http://nonadventures.com/2015/10/24/the-blast-supper/
The example of Jesus (in comic form).
-
I am not sure what, exactly, you are getting at with this comment.
Oh yeah? Examples please! Checkable ones. Ones that are in the public domain.
In areas of society which are still very macho, where there is no regard for what the rest of society thinks.
The sort of places gay people don't go, because they know their mockers don't care.
Women often get discriminated against too, but there is nothing the law can do, because it isn't something like a job.
It's more on the social side that you find it, on the fringes where the law doesn't reach.
The last bastions of the macho male.
I'd say most of them are atheist and have absolutely nothing to do with religion at all.
-
I'd say most of them are atheist and have absolutely nothing to do with religion at all.
And I would say they aren't atheist.
What I would say is that they belong to that vast majority in this country that are made up of the unintelligent who lack the willingness to acquire any sort of knowledge beyond what box set they are watching or the latest "offer" Sky TV are pushing at them to keep them in their ignorant apathetic state.
Whether you agree with atheists or not, they have usually thought through their position and in my experience (although I know others claim differently - but if its good enough for them its good enough for me) atheists very seldom express any homophobia.
In addition you might want to look at the institutions that currently support discrimination against homosexuals in this country - that would be, in the main, let me see - oh yes the religious institutions.
They will be the same institutions that in the main have long supported anti gay views within society - and if you scratch the surface of the aforementioned apathetic, ignorant folks I have described, sooner or later they will say well it's in the Bible.
Unthinking, apathetic, caffeine drink addicted, MCdonald eating fuckwits that we have created by our insistence that the market knows best, that consumerism is king, and self interest is the way to go.
The current thinking of Free marketry being created by Thatcher, Blair, Cameron who are or were,at least, nominally Christians.
-
This link is from stonewall 2014
I would argue that this attitude often has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion, but children being unpleasant as they can sometimes, also the reactions of many of the teachers make light of it.
Then you have the gay teachers who find they are getting prejudice from other teachers.
I'd argue this isn't always religiously based, in fact I think it often has nothing to do with religion.
It might be children pick it up from elsewhere, more from their peers than their parents.
My children came out with it " gay lord " and all that, nothing to do with me or religion, I just thought it was their age, discovering their own sexuality and all that, and explained what it meant.
I can see that if a child has same sex parents it does send them a bad message about their parents though.
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/teachers_report_2014.pdf
-
And I would say they aren't atheist.
What I would say is that they belong to that vast majority in this country that are made up of the unintelligent who lack the willingness to acquire any sort of knowledge beyond what box set they are watching or the latest "offer" Sky TV are pushing at them to keep them in their ignorant apathetic state.
Whether you agree with atheists or not, they have usually thought through their position and in my experience (although I know others claim differently - but if its good enough for them its good enough for me) atheists very seldom express any homophobia.
In addition you might want to look at the institutions that currently support discrimination against homosexuals in this country - that would be, in the main, let me see - oh yes the religious institutions.
They will be the same institutions that in the main have long supported anti gay views within society - and if you scratch the surface of the aforementioned apathetic, ignorant folks I have described, sooner or later they will say well it's in the Bible.
Unthinking, apathetic, caffeine drink addicted, MCdonald eating fuckwits that we have created by our insistence that the market knows best, that consumerism is king, and self interest is the way to go.
The current thinking of Free marketry being created by Thatcher, Blair, Cameron who are or were,at least, nominally Christians.
I was actually thinking of secular private clubs who still don't allow women or gay members.
Some of them are pretty much anti religion.
It's usually because the macho image matters more than other considerations.
Religion doesn't always come into it.
Just like religion doesn't come into this one
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/women-refused-club-entry-being-too-dark-and-too-fat
Horribleness exists.
It isn't all the fault of religion, people can just be unpleasant sometimes.
Sorry Trent, I never intended to upset you this morning. :(
-
If religion disappeared tomorrow, I don't think human nastiness to each other would go away.
There are always those "non conformists" who would carry it on.
That's why I don't blame religion for it, although they don't help.
It's possible to be a non conformist, hate sections of society, and have a total atheistic attitude.
The problem i think, is that non conformists will always be with us, even without religion.
Perhaps it's one of those survival things, a small percentage are non conformists and resist whatever attitudes most people adopt.
Maybe the answer is to recognise this about ourselves as a society, rather than blame it all on religion.
Getting rid of religion, won't get rid of non conformists.
It's a simplistic answer that blames it all on religion and religious figures.
I'm sorry if my posts upset anyone, it's just I can't blame homophobia just on religious people.
Strangely enough non conformists can also be quite nationalistic people.
Perhaps nationalism replaces religion in their ideology ............
Ideologies and religion can both have destructive outcomes.
-
I've never understood the tendency to excuse one form of bigotry by pointing out that other forms exist too.
-
I've never understood the tendency to excuse one form of bigotry by pointing out that other forms exist too.
That's because one originator of bigotry ( religion ) is being exposed and religious people vilified for being the sole source of that bigotry when actually they are not.
Bigotry in that case is homophobia.
My link with the women was to show bigotry can exist without religion of any sort, which IMO is self evident, until you discuss homophobia.
For some reason people seem to want to believe homophobia only has one source- religion.
If you look at Trents post even he says.....in effect.... " no they can't really be atheists, Well it all leads back to the bible.... They must be religious"..... I'm saying .... "No not necessarily...."
It's the assumption that Christianity is the sole source of homophobia that I am challenging.
The link between awful attitudes towards women and gays often comes from the same group, because they are very macho.
Women and gays don't fit into the macho world of some individuals.
-
Is there an assumption stated anywhere here that Christianity is the sole source of homophobia?
-
Is there an assumption stated anywhere here that Christianity is the sole source of homophobia?
Post 61 Trent.
-
Post 61 Trent.
Nope, it doesn't say that.
-
Nope, it doesn't say that.
It implies that.
There is an attitude generally that atheists cannot be guilty of homophobia.
I've noticed it.
To show you I haven't made it up I've googled it, and found a blog where someone has also noticed it.
This week, the rights of women and LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) people have been a big topic of discussion in the atheist blogosphere—with some asking whether or not homophobic or sexist atheists actually exist.
- See more at: http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/03/10/atheists-can-homophobic-sexist/#sthash.tO8vQ6K0.dpuf
http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/03/10/atheists-can-homophobic-sexist/
Yes it's just a blog, but it does show that it exists in as much someone else has bothered to blog on it.
It isn't totally in my imagination and as an attitude exists.
Trents post pretty much denied someone who was homophobic could be an atheist.
With his first sentence too.
-
It implies that.
There is an attitude generally that atheists cannot be guilty of homophobia.
I've noticed it.
To show you I haven't made it up I've googled it, and found a blog where someone has also noticed it.
http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/03/10/atheists-can-homophobic-sexist/
Yes it's just a blog, but it does show that it exists in as much someone else has bothered to blog on it.
It isn't totally in my imagination and as an attitude exists.
Trents post pretty much denied someone who was homophobic could be an atheist.
With his first sentence too.
No, his post was in reply to your post where you asserted that most bigotry was from atheists as regards homophobia. That's what his first sentence covers. I suggest you reread it, without making assumptions about what is being said.
-
It implies that.
There is an attitude generally that atheists cannot be guilty of homophobia.
I've noticed it.
To show you I haven't made it up I've googled it, and found a blog where someone has also noticed it.
http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/03/10/atheists-can-homophobic-sexist/
Yes it's just a blog, but it does show that it exists in as much someone else has bothered to blog on it.
It isn't totally in my imagination and as an attitude exists.
Trents post pretty much denied someone who was homophobic could be an atheist.
With his first sentence too.
Of course he doesn't.
-
No, his post was in reply to your post where you asserted that most bigotry was from atheists as regards homophobia. That's what his first sentence covers. I suggest you reread it, without making assumptions about what is being said.
I didn't state that, so you need to re read my post.
I was posting about small macho groups in society who were homophobic and I said "I'd say most of them are atheist and have absolutely nothing to do with religion at all.
"
To which Trent replied that he didn't think they were atheist.
I never said most bigotry was from atheists ( generally) , read it again.
( I was thinking for example of A few MC clubs where some of them are very macho orientated. )
You just don't see them sat on pews on a Sunday ;)
-
Most of the people who are a part of the 'macho' sub culture you describe haven't thought about theism at all, or the lack of it. Trent's point is that atheism means no more to them than Christianity does. Although atheism is an absence of belief it is still a considered point of view.
-
Most of the people who are a part of the 'macho' sub culture you describe haven't thought about theism at all, or the lack of it. Trent's point is that atheism means no more to them than Christianity does. Although atheism is an absence of belief it is still a considered point of view.
Which a baby can't hold, so can't be an atheist?
-
Do we have an issue with homophobic babies?
-
Although atheism is an absence of belief it is still a considered point of view.
Not necessarily. If you don't believe in any gods, you are an atheist - whether or not you've considered it.
-
I would have thought that a form of agnosticism.
You have to consider something to decide if you believe in it or not.
-
Do we have an issue with homophobic babies?
No just the definition of an atheist. :-\
I keep being told babies are born atheist, but like you I tend to think of them like agnostics.
For a moment there I thought you held to the babies are born atheist theory. :)
-
No just the definition of an atheist.
I keep being told babies are born atheist, but like you I tend to think of them like agnostics.
:-\
I'm sure they don't mind in the slightest what you call them! :)
-
I'm sure they don't mind in the slightest what you call them! :)
I'm sure they don't Len, as long as they get love and cuddles and treated well :)
-
I would have thought that a form of agnosticism.
You have to consider something to decide if you believe in it or not.
No, agnosticism is the belief that we can't know anything about the existence or nature of god (which has to be a considered view).
You don't have to decide not to believe in something. If you've never encountered a proposition, you can't believe it. Remember, atheism isn't the belief that there are no gods (you'd have to think about that) it's just a lack of belief that there are any.
-
No just the definition of an atheist. :-\
I keep being told babies are born atheist, but like you I tend to think of them like agnostics.
For a moment there I thought you held to the babies are born atheist theory. :)
It's a difficult one. Boiled down to it atheism is an absence of belief in God. Agnosticism takes the view that God is unknowable. In that sense babies are atheist.
However, I'm not comfortable with the idea that an adult who has never considered the existence of God can be declared to have an absence of belief in God. Perhaps non-theist is a better way of putting it; even agnosticism is still a considered point of view i.e God is unknowable.
-
No, agnosticism is the belief that we can't know anything about the existence or nature of god (which has to be a considered view).
You don't have to decide not to believe in something. If you've never encountered a proposition, you can't believe it. Remember, atheism isn't the belief that there are no gods (you'd have to think about that) it's just a lack of belief that there are any.
Just covered some of this in my reply to Rose.
Many people identify as agnostic because they don't know if God exists or not; I know quite a few personally. I'm not sure if that's the same thing as believing his to be unknowable, but it's a personal position of a lack of knowledge when used in that way rather than as a universal one. It may be that the original meaning has been corrupted but it's a common modern usage.
As I said in my reply to Rose, I'm uncomfortable putting labels on adults , even thick ones. The seems odd to label someone an atheist when we don't know what their belief would be should we ask them to consider their point of view. Maybe non-theist is better.
Or maybe I'm hair splitting.
-
Hi rose you didnt upset me.
My point is this most homophobes as far as i can see dont identify themselves as anything(there are exceptions of course as we see on here in 1 or 2 cases).
They are a huge number of people who dont concern themselves with thoughts of faith or ethics. They simply interested in their next fix whether it be food or alcohol or drugs or a shag. But what they do draw on if they are homophobic is the residual anti gay prejudice created by the various religions. I dont classify them as rieligious nor as atheist. They are the unthinking vicious result of failed political social and economic policies in this country.
-
Which a baby can't hold, so can't be an atheist?
If you dont believe in God or have no beliefs at all then you are an atheist
-
Hi rose you didnt upset me.
My point is this most homophobes as far as i can see dont identify themselves as anything(there are exceptions of course as we see on here in 1 or 2 cases).
They are a huge number of people who dont concern themselves with thoughts of faith or ethics. They simply interested in their next fix whether it be food or alcohol or drugs or a shag. But what they do draw on if they are homophobic is the residual anti gay prejudice created by the various religions. I dont classify them as rieligious nor as atheist. They are the unthinking vicious result of failed political social and economic policies in this country.
I can see where you are coming from on that one :)
-
If you dont believe in God or have no beliefs at all then you are an atheist
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/06/13/should-babies-be-considered-atheists-depends-on-your-definition-of-the-word/
Not everyone sees it that way :)
-
They are the unthinking vicious result of failed political social and economic policies in this country.
That's the style!
If all else fails blame it on the Government and it policies! And the current Government will lay the blame on the previous Government etc ad infinitum as nauseam!
Why not put the blame upon those who espouse the demonisation of LGBT people. You can say that it is becaise of the macho culture, but where, ultimatelky does the culture of male sureriorit come from?
Adam and the subordination of Eve - Lilith having been refused the option of being on top sometimes having been banished and demonised as a witch!
Where is Adam foiund?
In the bible!
A friend of mine who is so macho he can crack Brazil nuts with his eyelashes happily recounts an incident when he and a few friends went to a pub the had not visited before, way back in the late 70's. One of the group was gay, an effeminate homosexual was the accepted term at the time, and some other visitors to the pub took exception to the gay young man's presence. The landlord objected and told the blokes to either shut up or get out.
The landord was told to mind his own business and the leader of the objectors told the gay guy that he and his mates were going to take him outside and round the back of the pub, bend him over and show him what it was like to have a "real man" screw him in the arse!
The gay guy's response was what makes my friend remember this so well.
A "real man"? Screw my arse? Darling, any man who screws another man up the arse is a homosexual, a closet one in your case, but a homosexual nevertheless. I see you wear a wedding ring, do you ever screw your wife up the arse? Of course you do, she has the "proper" place for you to screw her but you choose her arse! You're as gay as I am, you just don't have the balls to admit it!
The "real man's" mates were laughing and one said that the gay had it right, as the "real man's" wife had complained that he preferred her arse.
How many other homphobes do you think are actuallly covering up a fear that they are actually gay?
-
Why not put the blame upon those who espouse the demonisation of LGBT people.
Well in my original post I did highlight the part religions had played in the upholding of anti gay views within society.
I thought I was clear on that.
-
...are you sure?
Now, the Infinity club in Manchester has installed double cubicles or "twobicles" for female customers. So popular are they that the queues are enormous, even when other, single cubicles are free.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/aug/31/gender.uk1
Sounds gross to me!
I wouldn't care about transsexuals or transgender people using the same facilities as me but do believe there should be closed dubicles. If you are out somewhere and have to 'go', you just go the nearest convenience! Thankfully no public urinals or sitting areas in the UK.
Someone mentioned locker rooms, showers etc, being communal. I really wouldn't have liked that when I was young (wouldn't like it now but situation doesn't arise). Maybe I am 'old school', but we didn't have communal showers. Locker rooms for changing after sport, yes, but you didn't get naked in there.
-
We had communal showers at the Ladies college I attended, but we weren't forced to use them. In fact there were only two girls who were prepared to do so in my form.
-
Why not put the blame upon those who espouse the demonisation of LGBT people. You can say that it is becaise of the macho culture, but where, ultimatelky does the culture of male sureriorit come from?
I've heard and seen more demonisation of said people from within that organisation than from any other!!
Adam and the subordination of Eve - Lilith having been refused the option of being on top sometimes having been banished and demonised as a witch!
Where is Adam foiund?
In the bible!
And the passage you refer to is a theological treatise, rather than a historical record.
-
I've heard and seen more demonisation of said people from within that organisation than from any other!!
And the passage you refer to is a theological treatise, rather than a historical record.
Which organisation?
-
Which organisation?
Sorry, I should have said 'those organisations' such as Stonewall, the Lesbian and Gay Foundation,OutRage!' LGBT Network, etc.
I think the thing I find most interesting is the way in which Trans- and Bi-sexual people often feel that they and their causes have been hijacked by the gay community and their organisations.
-
Sorry, I should have said 'those organisations' such as Stonewall, the Lesbian and Gay Foundation,OutRage!' LGBT Network, etc.
I think the thing I find most interesting is the way in which Trans- and Bi-sexual people often feel that they and their causes have been hijacked by the gay community and their organisations.
I don't know how many trans- and/or bi- people you know but those I know that I copied this to (eleven all told) generally agree that you are talking out of your arse.
-
There he is again with his extensive knowledge of gay networks and gay, bi & transgendered people.
What it is to have such an expert in our midst.
He, from his postings knows more gay people than I do - and I've only been around the gay community for about 40 years now. Astonishing.
Mind you he never discusses these issues anywhere but here. He rarely thinks about them except on here. Where then does he get his expertise in this area from?
Makes one think how easy it is to be an expert.
-
There he is again with his extensive knowledge of gay networks and gay, bi & transgendered people.
What it is to have such an expert in our midst.
He, from his postings knows more gay people than I do - and I've only been around the gay community for about 40 years now. Astonishing.
Mind you he never discusses these issues anywhere but here. He rarely thinks about them except on here. Where then does he get his expertise in this area from?
Makes one think how easy it is to be an expert.
As stated elsewhere on this forum - ex = something that has been - xpert (pronounced spurt) = a drip under pressure.
From 1972 to 1975 I worked with transvestites and transgenders in the strip joints of Syndey, Australia's Kings Cross area. I was co-opted onto a group that helped to counsel teenage trans, usually MTF, runaways who headed for the Cross when life as trans at home and/or school became too much for them to handle.
When I returned to the UK a friend, female, who overheard my brothers discussing my helping trans people, asked to meet me, and again co-opted me to work with trans people here in the UK. I only gave this sideline up six years ago.
Strangely enough about 70% of those who suffered worst at the hands of the homophobic were those from strongly religious homes or areas.
The amount of rubbish posted on this thread has lead me to a moment where I feel that I should make clear my reasons for my attitudes in the matter of both gays and trans people and, in particular, the attitudes of people like Sassy, Hope, and Vlad, to trans and gay people, so here goes and I am damn glad that JC is no longer here as I know just how much shit what I am about to say would head my way from his direction, I have no doubt that Vlad will pass it on to JC, but I have, to be honest, got past the point where I give a tuppenny fuck what others on this forum think of me or my history or my views on various subjects.
Had I been born in 1996 instead of 1946 I would have been MTF transgender. From the age of about seven I wanted nothing more in my life but to be a girl. I hated being a boy.
As has been stated before, my father was a staunch High Anglican, and I made the mistake of talking of my desire to be a girl in his hearing. I got the worst beating of my life and was warned that, should I ever mention the subject in front of him again, my next beating would be my last. Neither my mother nor I were in any doubt as to the truth of his words.
So all of you who decide to read this confession. offered freely and without duress, may now understand my aversion to, one, the Christian Church and its adherents and, two, to those who express such unpleasant attitudes to trans and gay people as those mentioned above, among others.
Yes I was married and have three children, part of the price I had to pay for my father not making my sexuality public. My children are well aware of the above facts and have shown themselves, being of a more modern generation, far more understanding than either my father or the Church in which I was brought up ever were. And NO, I did not declare my sexuality when I joined the Army and it did not have anything to do with my leaving the Army, that was brought about by a recurrence of my asthma.
HOPE SASSY VLAD
Now challenge my knowledge of gay and transgender issues and my knowledge of just what right bastards Christians can be when they go into pulpit mode.
Do your worst, you cannot hope to match my father!
-
Hope, Sassy, Vlad
THIS is the kind of religious discrimination that LGBT people face
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/johnwright/mississippi_senate_passes_horrific_anti_lgbt_religious_freedom_bill
All others of more reasonable attitudes - read it and weep!
-
Hi Owl,
What a touching and horrifying story. My heart goes out to you.
Most of us had no idea of these things happening in the past, but thanks to education and the internet something is now being done about it.
The religious stranglehold is broken now for ever, and I hope religion itself suffers the same fate.
-
Hi Owl,
What a touching and horrifying story. My heart goes out to you.
Most of us had no idea of these things happening in the past, but thanks to education and the internet something is now being done about it.
The religious stranglehold is broken now for ever, and I hope religion itself suffers the same fate.
Thanks for that LJ, but can I please ask which post this refers to?
It's been a long and awful night and I haven't slept yet!
-
Thanks for that LJ, but can I please ask which post this refers to?
It's been a long and awful night and I haven't slept yet!
Post #98 ... all that stuff about your father. Frightening.
-
Post #98 ... all that stuff about your father. Frightening.
Len
Yes, it is. but it is the sort of thing that happened then. Parents don't react perfectly when their children do something they weren't expecting.
Owlswing
However it's unfair, Owlswing, to put your words in OMW posts, because it's unfair to bring him into it. He can't defend himself.
In all the years I have seen him (OMW )posting I haven't seen him " have a go" at Leonard or Trent because of homosexuality.
Have you?
If he had a go at you, it's also true that you had a go at him and you still are, even though he isn't even here.
Stop holding grudges, let it go.
What happened with Christians in 1970s isn't the fault of Christians here now, even if they don't agree with you.
-
Len
Yes, it is. but it is the sort of thing that happened then. Parents don't react perfectly when their children do something they weren't expecting.
What makes you think it doesn't happen now in the more backward areas of the USA?
-
Or in the UK.
-
Or in the UK.
Are there still such fanatical parents in the UK? I have no idea because I haven't been back for many years, but the general impression I get from the press and tv programmes is that it's a thing of the past there.
Please don't tell me I'm wrong. :(
-
Hi Owlswing
What a very sad thing to happen to you.
I know it is not really any consolation to you personally but at least things are now moving in the right direction on trans issues.
To pick up on Rose's point about OMW - I can state that he has never been homophobic to me - indeed I get on quite well with him even tho he drives me nuts sometimes.
I know you have your differences, but that appears to be more to do with attitudes to paganism than any other issues.
Either way he ain't here so not much point discussing him.
Just bear in mind that the reaction you get on here from a very few is extreme and should be ignored most of the time (I know it's difficult - even I don't follow my own advice!)
My very best wishes to you.
-
Are there still such fanatical parents in the UK? I have no idea because I haven't been back for many years, but the general impression I get from the press and tv programmes is that it's a thing of the past there.
Please don't tell me I'm wrong. :(
I'm not aware of it in conservative Christians, Len, but we have religious fundamentalism from other faiths on the rise.
-
Len
Yes, it is. but it is the sort of thing that happened then. Parents don't react perfectly when their children do something they weren't expecting.
Owlswing
However it's unfair, Owlswing, to put your words in OMW posts, because it's unfair to bring him into it. He can't defend himself.
In all the years I have seen him (OMW )posting I haven't seen him " have a go" at Leonard or Trent because of homosexuality.
Have you?
If he had a go at you, it's also true that you had a go at him and you still are, even though he isn't even here.
Stop holding grudges, let it go.
What happened with Christians in 1970s isn't the fault of Christians here now, even if they don't agree with you.
I intend to stop holding grudges but I ask that you see my side of it when others are here saying what a great bloke he was and how missed he will be!
Just let me say that he will not be missed by me and I will let it go at that.
OK?
-
Hi Owlswing
What a very sad thing to happen to you.
I know it is not really any consolation to you personally but at least things are now moving in the right direction on trans issues.
To pick up on Rose's point about OMW - I can state that he has never been homophobic to me - indeed I get on quite well with him even tho he drives me nuts sometimes.
I know you have your differences, but that appears to be more to do with attitudes to paganism than any other issues.
Either way he ain't here so not much point discussing him.
Just bear in mind that the reaction you get on here from a very few is extreme and should be ignored most of the time (I know it's difficult - even I don't follow my own advice!)
My very best wishes to you.
OK, it may well be that I have misread some of his comments but there were a lot that were incapable of misinterpretation.
However, as has been said, he is not here so I must let my problems from that direction fade into history. I will try to do so!
Thank you for you comments on the other matters - it is really hard trying to go forward when so much of what I dreamed of for myself had no chance of ever becoming fact.
I just hope that I have managed to show why I am so uptight about some topics which, without #96, seemed to have no personal connection to me.
-
it is really hard trying to go forward when so much of what I dreamed of for myself had no chance of ever becoming fact.
You've just made this old softie shed a tear.
I really do feel for you.
-
Absolutely, Trent.
-
Lady Rhi and Trent
Thanks both!
All I have said does not change the fact that I have things of which I am proud, my children, and I have done things that I never dreamed of when I was young, some of which would get me banned from this forum and others that would get me locked up and the key thrown away!
-
I intend to stop holding grudges but I ask that you see my side of it when others are here saying what a great bloke he was and how missed he will be!
Just let me say that he will not be missed by me and I will let it go at that.
OK?
Yes of course.
It's not your fault he has gone anyway, he chose to go, because a comment from someone else upset him.
You sound like you have caring children Owlswing, who you are justifiably proud of, judging by how you describe their attitudes to various things.
I'm sorry things weren't more open minded then, but maybe if they were, you would never have had them.
:)
I hope going forward, you find peace and acceptance.
Obviously you have had plenty of experience of the whole issue.
🌹
-
What makes you think it doesn't happen now in the more backward areas of the USA?
I think it does still happen in that parents sometimes expect children to live up to what they are expecting.
Parents are human and get it wrong and react sometimes in ways not perfect.
It's how they visualise their children, like going to university etc. Some parents are more competitive on behalf of their children...... Or are more controlling thinking they are helping.
Mind you, some parents accept their children's choices and how they really are, rather than how they think they ought to be.
Some parents live their lives through their children's successes, sometimes even having ideas on the sort of person their child should marry.
It's part of a whole range of things a few parents inflict on their offspring, they are controlling.
An example I have come across is a 40year old single man living at home whose elderly mother declared she would do something drastic, if he ever brought a woman home.
I was appalled, it's a form of emotional blackmail and control.
Songs have been written about controlling mothers.
https://www.flashlyrics.com/lyrics/sons-of-maxwell/sonnys-dream-26
Unfortunately there are still controlling parents.
It happens.
I can see that being gay, etc could be an issue for a controlling parent.
They might not be religious just controlling.
I think it's something in our protective reflex, which some people use violence or threat of to reinforce.
It's when mothering turns to smothering, and dads can do it to.
The problem is I think they think they are helping at the time :(
-
I think it does still happen in that parents sometimes expect children to live up to what they are expecting.
Parents are human and get it wrong and react sometimes in ways not perfect.
It's how they visualise their children, like going to university etc. Some parents are more competitive on behalf of their children...... Or are more controlling thinking they are helping.
Mind you, some parents accept their children's choices and how they really are, rather than how they think they ought to be.
Some parents live their lives through their children's successes, sometimes even having ideas on the sort of person their child should marry.
It's part of a whole range of things a few parents inflict on their offspring, they are controlling.
An example I have come across is a 40year old man whose elderly mother declared she would do something drastic, if he ever brought a woman home.
Songs have been written about controlling mothers.
https://www.flashlyrics.com/lyrics/sons-of-maxwell/sonnys-dream-26
Unfortunately there are still controlling parents.
It happens.
I can see that being gay, etc could be an issue for a controlling parent.
They might not be religious.
Chilling thought.
-
It certainly is chilling Leonard.
(((Owlswing))). I found your account extremely moving and it made me feel ashamed though you know not all 'religionists' think the same way. Very sad business about your father.
I didn't know Vlad had gone, wasn't he here earlier today?
-
It certainly is chilling Leonard.
(((Owlswing))). I found your account extremely moving and it made me feel ashamed though you know not all 'religionists' think the same way. Very sad business about your father.
I didn't know Vlad had gone, wasn't he here earlier today?
I wasn't referring to Vlad as having left!
-
Chilling thought.
What, the fact that they might not be religious? ;)
-
I wasn't referring to Vlad as having left!
No, I didn't think you were. I should have put a line first under my response to Len and then another one under what I said to you, before asking others if Vlad had left.
-
What, the fact that they might not be religious? ;)
Is there any other motivation for such ghastly behaviour?
-
Is there any other motivation for such ghastly behaviour?
Yes, I think there is, unfortunately.
-
Yes, I think there is, unfortunately.
Why would parents treat the sexuality of their children so badly other than from religious fanaticism?
-
Why would parents treat the sexuality of their children so badly other than from religious fanaticism?
So, Len, are you suggesting that everyone who takes a different view from you on the issue of sexuality is necessarily religiously fanatical, or even simply religious? If so, I think you have a very warped view of humanity, as there are many non-religious people, even some atheists, who view sexuality differently to you.
-
Are there still such fanatical parents in the UK? I have no idea because I haven't been back for many years, but the general impression I get from the press and tv programmes is that it's a thing of the past there.
Please don't tell me I'm wrong. :(
Len, there are many fanatical adults, let alone parents in the UK, still. Some are politically fanatical, some are religiously fanatical, and still others are fanatical in other ways. In a way, I'd be worried for society if this kind of fanaticism didn't exist, since it is as a result of such fanaticism that society chnges and develops.
-
So, Len, are you suggesting that everyone who takes a different view from you on the issue of sexuality is necessarily religiously fanatical, or even simply religious? If so, I think you have a very warped view of humanity, as there are many non-religious people, even some atheists, who view sexuality differently to you.
Don't prevaricate! We are discussing the extremely inhumane behaviour of Owlswng's parents, not sexuality in general.
-
Len, there are many fanatical adults, let alone parents in the UK, still. Some are politically fanatical, some are religiously fanatical, and still others are fanatical in other ways. In a way, I'd be worried for society if this kind of fanaticism didn't exist, since it is as a result of such fanaticism that society chnges and develops.
See my previous post.
-
As stated elsewhere on this forum - ex = something that has been - xpert (pronounced spurt) = a drip under pressure.
Hi Owl, I hadn't realised that expert was spelled with 2 x's. ;)
So all of you who decide to read this confession. offered freely and without duress, may now understand my aversion to, one, the Christian Church and its adherents and, two, to those who express such unpleasant attitudes to trans and gay people as those mentioned above, among others. ...
Now challenge my knowledge of gay and transgender issues and my knowledge of just what right bastards Christians can be when they go into pulpit mode.
Do your worst, you cannot hope to match my father!
Owl, I am truly saddened to hear your story, and disgusted that a father - regardess of their religious point of view - should have behaved like you say he did. I would however, point to the fact that there are probably just as many High Anglican parents who would have taken the opposite view and supported you in your thinking. The same range of attitude goes for evangelical Anglicans, non-conformists of both extremes , Roman Catholics, atheists, antitheists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. - I know because I've met them.
As such, whilst you (and Floo, when one things about it) judge the church by your parent's behaviour, there are many who regard the church as a very dynamic and supportive organisation because of their experiences of parenting and even parenthood.
And therein lies the rub: we judge society and social organisations by the way in which we have experienced the attitudes said groupings hold. Few, if any, of us can claim to be looking at such groupings in an objective manner.
As I've said several times before, for most of my life I've been involved in campaigns to disestablish the Church of England, to encourage women's ordination, to push for transparency regarding sexual and other abuse within the church, to get Government to combat the widening gap between the rich and poor, to rethink our involvement in certain conflicts, to question the validity of nuclear power and defence, combating human trafficking and homelessness, etc., etc. All this is as a result of my Christian faith, and my belief that no human being is of less value than any other.
I can't remember who it was who recently suggested - either on this thread or another - that religion and politics ought to be kept well away from each other. However, taking that to its logical conclusion indicates that politicians and politics - nay, human beings and politics - ought to be kept well away from each other, simply because politics/religion/politicians/human beings are all about how we live our everyday lives.
Regarding your challenge, I think that we constantly need to be challenging soiciety and its mores. We also need to be asking why do young people feel uncomfortable in the gender/sexuality they are born in - is this something that bhas occurred at the same level down the centuries?, is this something that is becoming more prevalent? (and does it - as has been suggested in previous years - have something to do with the increasing levels of chemicals that we feed our children); is it, perhaps, getting increasingly rare? I think that a passive acceptance of such developments, which is what I tend to see around me, is probably bad for society as a whole as it shows that we aren't paying attention to modernity.
-
Why would parents treat the sexuality of their children so badly other than from religious fanaticism?
Fear of failure, children being seen as different, guilt .... Lots of reasons.
-
Fear of failure, children being seen as different, guilt .... Lots of reasons.
I accept that such reasons could occur, but I am sure nowhere near as often as religious ones.
-
Don't prevaricate! We are discussing the extremely inhumane behaviour of Owlswng's parents, not sexuality in general.
Sorry Len, but please do not equate my mother's attitudes with my father's.
I sincerely apologise to both her and you if I gave that impression.
My mother was a Jewess, hence my being also Jewish, by birth if not by upbringing, and had that fierce sense of matriachal (sic) duty that goes with the title of Jewish Mother!
She was as supportive of me as she could possibly be, to the point of standing between my father and me to stop a beating. more than once as I recall, and without her I would have suffered more bruid=ses and broken bones than I actually did.
She did what she could and always regretted that she could not do more.
-
So, Len, are you suggesting that everyone who takes a different view from you on the issue of sexuality is necessarily religiously fanatical, or even simply religious? If so, I think you have a very warped view of humanity, as there are many non-religious people, even some atheists, who view sexuality differently to you.
People who believe homosexuality to be wrong have a warped view, imo.
-
Sorry Len, but please do not equate my mother's attitudes with my father's.
I sincerely apologise to both her and you if I gave that impression.
My mother was a Jewess, hence my being also Jewish, by birth if not by upbringing, and had that fierce sense of matriachal (sic) duty that goes with the title of Jewish Mother!
She was as supportive of me as she could possibly be, to the point of standing between my father and me to stop a beating. more than once as I recall, and without her I would have suffered more bruid=ses and broken bones than I actually did.
She did what she could and always regretted that she could not do more.
My sincere apologies. Owl, I had forgotten that it was only your father who was guilty of such appalling conduct. :-[
-
Hi Owl, I hadn't realised that expert was spelled with 2 x's. ;)
. . . and I was taught that the word was "spelt" not "spelled". The latter being another rather Godawful Americanism.
Owl, I am truly saddened to hear your story, and disgusted that a father - regardess of their religious point of view - should have behaved like you say he did.
". . . like (I) say he did? This sounds as if you doubt the veracity of my statement? If so, may I ask why you should do so?
I would however, point to the fact that there are probably just as many High Anglican parents who would have taken the opposite view and supported you in your thinking. The same range of attitude goes for evangelical Anglicans, non-conformists of both extremes , Roman Catholics, atheists, antitheists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. - I know because I've met them.[/b}
Why does this not surprise me?
As such, whilst you (and Floo, when one things about it) judge the church by your parent's behaviour, there are many who regard the church as a very dynamic and supportive organisation because of their experiences of parenting and even parenthood.
And therein lies the rub: we judge society and social organisations by the way in which we have experienced the attitudes said groupings hold. Few, if any, of us can claim to be looking at such groupings in an objective manner.
I am sorry, but what else do you expect. My treatment was meted out on the basis that my father stated that it was God's will that the devil of homosexuality should be beaten out of me as it was against all His laws!
The treatment of my daughter, who went to the church she attended weekly (her mother is a born-again and, for the sake of peace and quiet and against my, then, agosticism I did not protest or try to stop the practice) and, when we divorced my daughter went to the Church to ask the priest, female, for spiritual help, she was nine at the time, and was told that she "should not consider that she was the only child in the world with problems of such a nature and should go home and grow up".
Do you really expect me to look at the Christian church in "an objective manner"?
As I've said several times before, for most of my life I've been involved in campaigns to disestablish the Church of England, to encourage women's ordination, to push for transparency regarding sexual and other abuse within the church, to get Government to combat the widening gap between the rich and poor, to rethink our involvement in certain conflicts, to question the validity of nuclear power and defence, combating human trafficking and homelessness, etc., etc. All this is as a result of my Christian faith, and my belief that no human being is of less value than any other.
Even were I to still be Christian I would find it very very hard to make this statement about my father!
Regarding your challenge, I think that we constantly need to be challenging soiciety and its mores. We also need to be asking why do young people feel uncomfortable in the gender/sexuality they are born in - is this something that bhas occurred at the same level down the centuries?, is this something that is becoming more prevalent? (and does it - as has been suggested in previous years - have something to do with the increasing levels of chemicals that we feed our children); is it, perhaps, getting increasingly rare? I think that a passive acceptance of such developments, which is what I tend to see around me, is probably bad for society as a whole as it shows that we aren't paying attention to modernity.
My challenge had nothing to do with changing "society and its mores".
It read, and I quote,
Now challenge my knowledge of gay and transgender issues and my knowledge of just what right bastards Christians can be when they go into pulpit mode.
For all your extensive activities none, so far as you have posted, have anything to do with gay and trans people and, even had they done so, they would only be second-hand experiences.
I consider that the Christian Church still promotes the attitude that if a person is not 100% heterosexual they are unacceptable in the eyes of the church and its God.
-
My sincere apologies. Owl, I had forgotten that it was only your father who was guilty of such appalling conduct. :-[
Negative perspiration!
-
We also need to be asking why do young people feel uncomfortable in the gender/sexuality they are born in
Possibly because some people suggest that these things have a negative impact on society.
Whereas I would suggest that those kinds of statements have a negative impact on society.
I have talked about this with psychologists, psychotherapists, co-counsellors, psychiatrists, social workers, etc. They all agree with me.
(I just thought I'd get the unsupported hearsay in first before anyone else did)
-
(I just thought I'd get the unsupported hearsay in first before anyone else did)
An excellent debating procedure in this case, I may well adopt that myself more often! ;)
-
Fear of failure, children being seen as different, guilt .... Lots of reasons.
Here's another one!
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/02/father-charged-with-shooting-and-killing-son-because-he-was-gay/
-
Here's another one!
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/02/father-charged-with-shooting-and-killing-son-because-he-was-gay/
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/02/father-charged-with-shooting-and-killing-son-because-he-was-gay/
The father appears to be claiming he shot his son after he threatened him with a knife and his wife was already dead, having been murdered.
They are still trying to figure out who killed the woman.
Not sure what the evidence is he shot him because he was gay. In fact it could be a row about evicting him and his drug problem, hard to say.
???
In this news report ,that drugs were involved. I wonder if people have just picked up the " gay" angle because it sells papers.
I say that because there seems to be a lot going on here other than that, drugs, eviction etc
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-father-accused-of-fatally-shooting-son-because-he-was-gay-20160401-story.html
-
Sometimes parents do some awful things, nothing to do with religion
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dad-killed-four-year-old-daughter-after-5598046
It seems to me, if a victim is gay everyone jumps on that, but tragic things happen all the time , because a small percentage of parents can't cope, one way or another.
In this one the father appears to use his daughter to get benefits and a better accommodation.
Love seems to have not existed.
However even among caring parents, parents can struggle to come to terms with the sexuality of an offspring, they might not murder but can disapprove without it involving religion. Purely because it is different to what they had expected.
Sometimes parents aspire for their children to achieve..... Sometimes being gay isn't part of that aspiring.
There is a song,
We're only making plans for Nigel
We only want what's best for him
We're only making plans for Nigel
Nigel just needs that helping hand
And if young Nigel says he's happy
He must be happy
He must be happy
He must be happy in his work
We're only making plans for Nigel
He has his future in a British steel
We're only making plans for Nigel
Nigel's whole future is as good as sealed
And if young Nigel says he's happy
He must be happy
He must be happy
He must be happy in his work
Nigel is not outspoken
But he likes to speak
And loves to be spoken to
Nigel is happy in his work
Nigel is happy in his work
We're only making plans for Nigel
We only want what's best for him
We're only making plans for Nigel
Nigel just needs this helping hand
And if young Nigel says he's happy
He must be happy
He must be happy
He must be happy in his work
We're only making plans for Nigel
We only want what's best for him
We're only making plans for Nigel
Nigel just needs this helping hand
We're only making plans for Nigel
He has his future in a British steel
We're only making plans for Nigel
Sometimes "Nigel " is gay, and sometimes parents don't face it well.
It has nothing to do with religion, but what parents envisage for their children.
I think parents need support too.
I think sometimes they need space to deal with it, not all parents are nasty about it, but it is different to what they are expecting.
Some parents, come round to it in their own time.
They also have to face people's snide comments about their offspring, which makes them feel like they have failed.
It's complicated.
Too complicated to be just a prejudice caused by religion.
-
This goes through some of the things I mean
< Popular topics - menu
Advice for parents and friends
I've had a lot of letters over the years from the friends and family of gay loved ones, asking how they can best help and support them. Perhaps a parent who's not sure how to deal with their child's recent coming out, or perhaps someone who's worried about a gay friend who's having problems adjusting to their sexuality.
Here are some tips to help you to help them:
Don't do anything!
Try not to see a gay person as having a disability and needing special treatment. A lot of gay people are perfectly happy and comfortable with themselves and simply want you to carry on as normal and without fuss. I know a lot of parents and friends worry that they're not doing enough, but often the gay person in question needs you to simply do nothing. There’s even a danger you can make things harder for your loved one by making them feel like a special case and marked out as some kind of problem to deal with. Being gay is not a problem in itself but people can turn it into one, even if their intentions are good.
"My gay friend/son/daughter..."
Remember, your friend is not defined by their sexuality any more than you are. He's not your gay friend - he's your friend. Sometimes sexuality is the key characteristic people tend to focus on, like a sticker they put on somebody, but it's only part of what makes a person who they are. Don't fall into the trap of categorising your gay loved one in this way. A gay person wants to be treated equally and valued as an individual. They don't want to be treated as a novelty, accessory or party trick.
Special skills
You don't need special skills to be a good friend or parent to a gay person. Valuable skills like the ability to listen, providing a hug when someone is hurting, or being able to offer good advice, are as important whether a loved one is gay or straight. If someone straight who you cared about was having problems you’d do your best to help them with the skills, resources and knowledge that you possess. It’s no different here.
Understanding
It might be the case that you've never met a gay person before and have questions about homosexuality. Perhaps the only reference you have is flamboyant characters on TV. Educate yourself a bit by reading the content on this website, but don't make the mistake of thinking that gay people are a weird subspecies with bizarre needs. They need and want the same things you do in order to be happy: love, sex, friendship, financial stability, a safe home etc.
Don’t be too helpful
When I came out, my friends were very keen to set me up on a date with the only other gay person they knew. I got the feeling they assumed we’d fall madly in love simply because we were two gay people with a lack of other gay people on our Christmas card lists. We didn’t get on particularly well, were very different from each other, and chose not to meet up again. I’d have had much more fun being introduced to someone – gay or straight - on the grounds that we had shared interests.
Assumptions
Don’t assume anything about someone because of their sexuality. They’re still an individual with their own interests and unique personality. The clichés of the gay man leaping out of the closet, donning hair glitter and dragging his straight friends off to the nearest gay club isn't helpful. It may be the last thing he wants to do. Let your friend set the pace. He or she knows whether they’re ready to explore their sexuality and in what ways.
Problems
If your loved one is having problems coming to terms with their sexuality you can help greatly by showing them that you don’t think being gay is a negative thing and that your feelings toward them haven't changed. Feeling better about being gay involves breaking down the negative associations a person might have with the label, and the things they think they're missing out on by not being straight. This part of the frequently asked questions will help. Encourage them to visit the website.
Adjusting your expectations after they come out
Traditionally we tend to equate having a happy, healthy and fulfilling life with being in a heterosexual relationship, getting married and having children. You might have had hopes of arranging a heterosexual wedding for your child some day. Maybe you were looking forward to having grandchildren. There’s nothing wrong with being excited about those things. Like any good parent, you want your child to be happy and to find love. When a child comes out it’s a time of adjustment. Suddenly confronted with the reality of your child being in a same-sex relationship can be a real shock. It’s vital to understand that although things are different from how you had imagined, the one central hope you had for your child can still be realised: their happiness.
Things are different, but they’re no worse. Your child can find the same love and fulfilment through a same-sex relationship as they might have had in a heterosexual one, and there’s no reason why you can’t be an important part of that. Of course your son or daughter will likely not have any children of their own. But don't forget that they may have chosen not to have kids if they’d be heterosexual. It’s wrong to force our hopes onto our children. They have to discover what happiness and fulfilment mean to them, with your support and acceptance. It’s a time of adjusting the ideas you might have held for your child's future, but it can also be a time of embracing a more open and honest relationship with them.
Your child's homosexuality is not a rejection of your values or lifestyle.
Traditionally we think of a man and woman raising children but healthy and happy families come in many different flavours in our modern world: single parent families, same-sex parents, foster families and adoptions, children raised by their grandparents, shared custody arrangements etc. A loving, positive, supportive and safe home environment is what counts, not who provides it. Appraise the family that your child has created by looking at the values it's founded on, not the gender mix of the household.
Your child didn’t choose to be gay. Help them to make the most of who they are.
Much as you might have cherished ideas about weddings and grandchildren, you mustn’t try to force these things onto your child. You didn't become a parent because you wanted grandchildren thirty years later. Your child isn’t gay because he or she wants to sabotage your dreams.
Don't assume that because your child is young that they don't know themselves or their sexuality. While many people have same-sex experiences but go on to form heterosexual relationships, many also report knowing from a very young age that they were gay (I knew when I was 13). Try to take their coming out seriously. You likely wouldn't challenge a child who was expressing heterosexual preferences, no matter how young.
You don’t want your son or daughter sneaking around and not telling you about their lives, but they will do if you make life tough for them over this. Talk to them and encourage openness.
Be kind to yourself. It can be a big surprise to discover that your child is gay. It’s okay to hurt, to worry and to feel helpless. This is a time of change for you too.
Indulging stereotypes about gay people will make you feel worse so throw them out the window. Your child can be happy as a gay person, and you can help. See Myths and stereotypes where common misconceptions about homosexual people are discussed.
Remember that your child has not changed. There's no secret society they've just joined or big gay uniform they're going to wear. They are the same child you’ve raised and loved. The only difference is that they’ve been more honest with you than they’ve probably ever been, and told you something deeply personal, potentially at great risk to themselves. Your child may be scared of losing your love and support.
You haven't failed as a parent because your child is gay, nor did you make your child gay somehow. Nothing you did or didn’t do during the life of your child has made them gay, just like nothing a parent does makes their child heterosexual. There was no switch you flicked on by mistake in your child’s mind. So whether you’re a single parent, dual parents or part of a large and close extended family - it’s not your fault. I discuss 'nature or nurture' in relation to what causes homosexuality here.
http://www.bgiok.org.uk/being_gay/parents.html
It isn't always religious,sometimes parents find it hard.
That's not to say gay people don't find it harder.
But there are issues wider than religion that parents need time to process.
Initially it may come across as disapproval, and some parents might never accept it.
I do think such things should be discussed though, rather than condemned.
:)
-
This goes through some of the things I mean
It isn't always religious,sometimes parents find it hard.
That's not to say gay people don't find it harder.
But there are issues wider than religion that parents need time to process.
Initially it may come across as disapproval, and some parents might never accept it.
I do think such things should be discussed though, rather than condemned.
:)
Rose
Can you see any of the anti-gay lot on here taking any notice whatsoever of your last sentence?
I cannot, not even should I live long enough to see the advent of the apocalypse.
-
Initially it may come across as disapproval, and some parents might never accept it.
I do think such things should be discussed though, rather than condemned.
:)
It should be condemned because it is wrong, and attempts made to reeducate parents.
-
Rose
Can you see any of the anti-gay lot on here taking any notice whatsoever of your last sentence?
I cannot, not even should I live long enough to see the advent of the apocalypse.
No but it's a bit of a vicious circle, blaming religious people, religious people reacting back.
It might help to try and improve what we can improve, parents still have to deal with the issues it raises.
Religious people have the same issues as in the article, but the difference is they can throw in the bible instead of discussing it.
I think if parents won't come round, it's a shame.
However they could be equally distraught at their offspring not following their religion.
Parents sometimes need support to cope with the idea that their children are their own people.
Sometimes they won't listen. It's sad, but you can only try what you can.
-
Sometimes they won't listen. It's sad, but you can only try what you can.
Sounds like trying to talk sense to some of the Christians on this forum!
-
It should be condemned because it is wrong, and attempts made to reeducate parents.
If you try and be too forceful the downside is people become too entrenched.
I think understanding is more beneficial.
Sometimes anger can be because parents feel they have failed in some way.
Hopefully with enough support and a change in societies attitudes this might begin to go away.
But it isn't all religiously based.
Some issues are parent expectations.
-
No but it's a bit of a vicious circle, blaming religious people, religious people reacting back.
But the fact is that the main religions are guilty parties in actually teaching that it is wrong..
-
If you try and be too forceful the downside is people become too entrenched.
I think understanding is more beneficial.
Sometimes anger can be because parents feel they have failed in some way.
Hopefully with enough support and a change in societies attitudes this might begin to go away.
But it isn't all religiously based.
Some issues are parent expectations.
Parents should learn not to dictate to their children after they become adults ... and allow them to think for themselves.
-
But it isn't all religiously based.
Some issues are parent expectations.
And where exactly do thgose expectations come from? At the very least in part?
-
Parents should learn not to dictate to their children after they become adults ... and allow them to think for themselves.
Here is a website written by parents Leonard.
http://www.gayfamilysupport.com/gay-family.html
I don't think telling a parent who initially finds out their son is gay, who may feel awful about it at the time, is helpful.
It's better they have positive support, rather than condemnation IMO.
It's guaranteed a failure to dictate what parents should do.
That's just going to make them feel a bigger failure.
Families are not complete strangers once children become adults. Families carry on supporting each other.
Families are a link which doesn't always exist, even with friends.
-
And where exactly do thgose expectations come from? At the very least in part?
Some is that parents naturally expect their children to go on and have children of their own.
In part religion can reinforce that, but that expectation is still there, even without it.
It's as much in society in general, regardless of religion.
It's what the expectation in society is, pretty much.
It's just being gay is just a bit different, and a bit different can just require a bit of adjustment.
-
Here is a website written by parents Leonard.
http://www.gayfamilysupport.com/gay-family.html
I don't think telling a parent who initially finds out their son is gay, who may feel awful about it at the time, is helpful.
It's better they have positive support, rather than condemnation IMO.
It's guaranteed a failure to dictate what parents should do.
That's just going to make them feel a bigger failure.
Families are not complete strangers once children become adults. Families carry on supporting each other.
Families are a link which doesn't always exist, even with friends.
Yes, Rose, I think you are right. Until society changes and becomes totally accepting of homosexuality, parents are as confused as anybody else. Thank goodness we seem to be moving in the right direction.
-
Yes, Rose, I think you are right. Until society changes and becomes totally accepting of homosexuality, parents are as confused as anybody else. Thank goodness we seem to be moving in the right direction.
:)