New Party leaders

[floo]

Incorrect, its a scientific issue which has a massive degree of agreement within the scientific community.
(((((Being gay is no more or less a crime than having a violent temper.  What can be argued - in both cases - is allowing the 'tendency' to become action.)))))

What a disgusting thing to say Hope, and you have the temerity to call yourself a Christian!!!!

[Brownie]

Read slowly and inwardly digest the meaning of a post before sounding off please floo.

This is what I said in my previous post and on this occasion I think it is worth repeating:

"He could have said "Being gay is no more or less a crime than having a shy, retiring nature".  The meaning would have been the same and his next sentence would equally have applied. He said "What can be argued...",  it can be argued, and is argued frequently.

[Sebastian Toe]

He could have said "Being gay is no more or less a crime than having a shy, retiring nature".  The meaning would have been the same and his next sentence would equally have applied. He said "What can be argued...",  it can be argued, and is argued frequently.

Yes, he could have said that -  but he didn't. 
He chose to associate homosexuality with something 'bad'.
Hope has form in this area, so it's not really worth the effort in making excuses for him.

[floo]

Read slowly and inwardly digest the meaning of a post before sounding off please floo.

This is what I said in my previous post and on this occasion I think it is worth repeating:

"He could have said "Being gay is no more or less a crime than having a shy, retiring nature".  The meaning would have been the same and his next sentence would equally have applied. He said "What can be argued...",  it can be argued, and is argued frequently.

I read it and stand by what I said in view of his previous comments on homosexuality, which was those of a bigot.

[Brownie]

Comment or comments?  I make no excuses for anyone but I do think each post should be read on its own merits without reference to anything said or inferred maybe three months ago.

[Nearly Sane]

'Liam Fox also addressed the meeting'. Oooft


http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_577aaacae4b0f7b55795b23f?edition=uk&icid=maing-grid7|uk-ttg|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D476422

[Aruntraveller]

He could have said "Being gay is no more or less a crime than having a shy, retiring nature".  The meaning would have been the same and his next sentence would equally have applied. He said "What can be argued...",  it can be argued, and is argued frequently.

I'm afraid you are missing the point Brownie.

It will only ever be put against a negative. That's the way that poster works. Years of experience believe me.

In the past gay people have been metioned in the same sentence as murderers, child molestors, thieves, - well I guess you get the point. But never in the same breath as  law abiding citizen working in an ordinary job. Or indeed that excellent local parish priest who just happens to be a little bit lavendar.

No he'll always go for the negative.

The poster is full of hate not hope.

[Hope]

What a disgusting thing to say Hope, and you have the temerity to call yourself a Christian!!!!

I am fully aware that you will always regard anything with which you disagree as 'a disgusting thing' - which is why I'm not particularly bothered by what you say here.  It is, from your fingers, a meaningless comment.

I have the temerity to say what I say because, as a Christian, I believe that is what is the case.  We all have the potential to commit some form of wrong-doing (and generally, we aren't very good at avoiding that potential).  However, the fact that we have that potential doesn't make us 'bad' people; what makes us 'bad' people is giving that potential free rein.  That is why I've consistently said that temptation isn't a sin; sin is giving into that temptation.  Again, you seem to disagree with that, whic is your prerogative - but I believe that most psychologists would agree with me even if they don't use the terminology that I have used.

[Nearly Sane]

I am fully aware that you will always regard anything with which you disagree as 'a disgusting thing' - which is why I'm not particularly bothered by what you say here.  It is, from your fingers, a meaningless comment.

I have the temerity to say what I say because, as a Christian, I believe that is what is the case.  We all have the potential to commit some form of wrong-doing (and generally, we aren't very good at avoiding that potential).  However, the fact that we have that potential doesn't make us 'bad' people; what makes us 'bad' people is giving that potential free rein.  That is why I've consistently said that temptation isn't a sin; sin is giving into that temptation.  Again, you seem to disagree with that, whic is your prerogative - but I believe that most psychologists would agree with me even if they don't use the terminology that I have used.

I so nearly agreed with this but then you pulled out that lat bit which implies that most psychologists would think that any active homosexuality was giving into temptation. Citation or retract, I would suggest.

[Hope]

I'm afraid you are missing the point Brownie.

It will only ever be put against a negative. That's the way that poster works. Years of experience believe me.

In the past gay people have been metioned in the same sentence as murderers, child molestors, thieves, - well I guess you get the point. But never in the same breath as  law abiding citizen working in an ordinary job. Or indeed that excellent local parish priest who just happens to be a little bit lavendar.

No he'll always go for the negative.

The poster is full of hate not hope.

Interestingly, Trent, since said poster believes the practice of a homosexual orientation to be wrong, it is very difficult for them to liken that action to something they believe to be positive and good.  It has nothing to do with 'being filled with hate' - unless you are also 'filled with hate' in respect to your belief that murder is wrong, which I assume that you do.

[Nearly Sane]

Interestingly, Trent, since said poster believes the practice of a homosexual orientation to be wrong, it is very difficult for them to liken that action to something they believe to be positive and good.  It has nothing to do with 'being filled with hate' - unless you are also 'filled with hate' in respect to your belief that murder is wrong, which I assume that you do.

So someone who didn't believe in the practice of miscegnation had no hate
 

[Nearly Sane]

Certainly that looks like May vs Leadsom at moment. Bye bye Liam.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36718196

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

  It has nothing to do with 'being filled with hate' - unless you are also 'filled with hate' in respect to your belief that murder is wrong, which I assume that you do.

It is unbelievable and scary that you were ever allowed to teach.

How can you not tell the difference between actions involving consent and ones which do not is beyond me.

[Gordon]

Interestingly, Trent, since said poster believes the practice of a homosexual orientation to be wrong, it is very difficult for them to liken that action to something they believe to be positive and good.

Pity then that said poster has failed abysmally to demonstrate the claim of wrongness.

[Nearly Sane]

Ah well, Andrea

http://reaction.life/was-andrea-leadsom-really-such-a-city-hotshot/

[Brownie]

Pity then that said poster has failed abysmally to demonstrate the claim of wrongness.

The poster cannot demonstrate the claim of wrongness.   I venture to say that it would be a good idea for the poster and others of like mind to at least try to think outside the box and entertain the idea that what was written in days gone by and accepted as the truth, may not be binding in light of what has been discovered in more recent years.  It would be a start. 

[Nearly Sane]

The poster cannot demonstrate the claim of wrongness.   I venture to say that it would be a good idea for the poster and others of like mind to at least try to think outside the box and entertain the idea that what was written in days gone by and accepted as the truth, may not be binding in light of what has been discovered in more recent years.  It would be a start.

Unfortunately some of the people that follow the idea are candidates for being PM

[Aruntraveller]

Also good bye to Hope's favourite - Stephen Crabb.

[Nearly Sane]

Also good bye to Hope's favourite - Stephen Crabb.

more time to spend with his family

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

http://reaction.life/was-andrea-leadsom-really-such-a-city-hotshot/

The Mission Impossible theme is playing in the background.

Agent Sane, your Mission if you choose to accept it, find a suitable candidate to lead Grande Britannia out of this shit hole it is in.

This post will self destruct in 10 seconds.

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

The poster cannot demonstrate the claim of wrongness.   I venture to say that it would be a good idea for the poster and others of like mind to at least try to think outside the box and entertain the idea that what was written in days gone by and accepted as the truth, may not be binding in light of what has been discovered in more recent years.  It would be a start.

The problem is that what you call "what has been discovered in more recent years" is pretty inconclusive.  I'm afraid that I don't see that 'what has been discovered' actually moves things on as much as some people here and in society would like us to believe.  What 'has been discovered' is largely based on short-term research.

In a slightly different context, just because something has been legislated in favour of, it doesn't mean that that makes something ethically or morally acceptable.  For instance, some UK legislation allows individuals and corporations to avoid paying taxes and other such dues.  Does that legislation make it morally acceptable?  What about the whole issue over the Iraq War?  Was that ethically correct, even though Parliament voted in favour?

[Hope]

Dear Sane,

http://reaction.life/was-andrea-leadsom-really-such-a-city-hotshot/

The Mission Impossible theme is playing in the background.

Agent Sane, your Mission if you choose to accept it, find a suitable candidate to lead Grande Britannia out of this shit hole it is in.

This post will self destruct in 10 seconds.

Gonnagle.

Of those standing, Theresa May is the only one that seems remotely possible.  As for anyone else, Hilary Benn comes to mind.  Perhaps we really need to go back to the old-guard just for this period - or what about a National Unity Government?

[Gordon]

The problem is that what you call "what has been discovered in more recent years" is pretty inconclusive.

Brownie is commenting in general terms here, but even then it is the case that knowledge regarding sexuality has progressed over time so that, for example, earlier approaches involving 'cures' for homosexuality are no longer regarded as appropriate (in that homosexuality isn't a medical condition).

I'm afraid that I don't see that 'what has been discovered' actually moves things on as much as some people here and in society would like us to believe.

That is because your particular approach to Christianity is distorting your ability to think clearly and is leading you into fallacious reasoning.

What 'has been discovered' is largely based on short-term research.

Since you have recently demonstrated on several occasions your utter ignorance of research methods I doubt that you can justify this comment - but have a go anyway.

In a slightly different context, just because something has been legislated in favour of, it doesn't mean that that makes something ethically or morally acceptable.  For instance, some UK legislation allows individuals and corporations to avoid paying taxes and other such dues.  Does that legislation make it morally acceptable?  What about the whole issue over the Iraq War?  Was that ethically correct, even though Parliament voted in favour?

This is just spurious tu quoque.

[Bubbles]

Looks like Boris is supporting Andrea Leadsom.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Looks like Boris is supporting Andrea Leadsom.

That just goes to show that two wrongs make THE right.