Christian fundamentalists try to block protection for gay kids at school

[Phantom]

Hello all, I read this article this morning, and out of all the articles I've read, this just isn't right by any standards. Christian Fundamentalists trying to block protection rights for gay children. Very sad, how this world is turning.

Christian fundamentalists try to block protection for gay kids at school - from Pink News - all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News


Christian evangelical groups have been accused of trying to undermine an effort by a teaching organisation to protect children from bullies.

The General Teaching Council is conducting a consultation on a proposed Code of Conduct and Practice.

The evangelicals have taken exception to one section of the Code which reads:

"Registered teachers should proactively challenge discrimination, stereotyping and bullying, no matter who is the victim or perpetrator; promote equality and value diversity in all their professional relationships and interactions."

The Christian Institute and other evangelical groups have interpreted this be "a tool for promoting secularism and gay rights" and have orchestrated a mass write-in by their members objecting to it.

In a mail-out to its supporters it listed some "examples" of supposed discriminations that Christians have suffered.

They include a nurse who was disciplined for offering to "pray" for patients and a registrar who tried to claim that she should be excused from some of her duties because of her religious prejudice against gay people.

The Institute claims that under the GTC guidelines Christian teachers will have to treat gay kids with respect regardless of their views on homosexuality.

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said:

"The Christian Institute is an unpleasant bunch at the best of times, but this really scrapes the bottom of the barrel.

"Who could possibly object to children being protected from the prejudices of bullies, bigots and zealots when they are captive in school?

"The objections to this Code of Practice are not only nasty, they are unconvincing and exaggerated."

The NSS has written to the GTC warning them that an orchestrated campaign is underway and urging them to leave the section of their Code unchanged.

Colin Hart, Director of The Christian Institute, said:

"Christians would support most of the code, but many are alarmed by the new diversity rules.

"Under the code, Christian teachers will be required to 'proactively combat discrimination' and 'value diversity' based on religious belief and sexual orientation.

"The code rightly requires that teachers should respect their colleagues and those they teach.

"But respect for people as people is not the same as respecting or valuing every religious belief or sexual lifestyle.

"Forcing this on Christian teachers is to force them to go against their conscience."
================================================== ========
Here is a link to the comments posted as well:

Pink News - Comments on Christian fundamentalists try to block protection for gay kids at school
================================================== ========
This is just wrong. Regardless of what religion you are or what you believe, kids should still be respected and treated fairly. This is another form of discrimination, to kids! I mean for gay adults its hard and horrible but for kids...its just sick and wrong to treat them like that.

Your throughts?

[Aara]

i think that is horriable, that kids are being hurt! i know that i'm bi & it hurts me to hear that children are being hurt.

[RamesesII]

Ha who the hell is going to protect the kids out of school hours, not to mention all the bullying and discrimination that isn't seen or reported what percentage of kids go and tell teachers or parents whats going on behind closed doors or in an alley way to and from school. Seriously! and those bloody Christians i've just about had enough of them (sorry for those of you who are christian in the forum) how the hell do the get away with all these priests etc sexually abusing children you see it in the newspaper all the time. I've got kids not yet of school age but jeez i know nothing will probably stop them from being bullied if they do get bullied or verbally abused or discriminated.
Its not the physical abuse you have to watch out for these days its turned into verbal abuse which leads to the even greater mental issues. All i can say is im teaching my kids how to kick some ones arse if the get physically bullied or abused although with the world going the way it is ill probably end up in jail and my children shipped out to some bloody home.Back in the days the kids would sort it out with a good fist fight and then after they would be best bloody mates that is how it worked in my days. The world has just gone stupid.

But that is another issue.

[Sasquatch]

Christian evangelical groups have been accused of trying to undermine an effort by a teaching organisation to protect children from bullies.

They've been accused. So much for "innocent until proven guilty" and "assumption of innocence" -- apparently, if you're Christian and accused of doing something bad, you're automatically guilty.

The Christian Institute and other evangelical groups have interpreted this be "a tool for promoting secularism and gay rights" and have orchestrated a mass write-in by their members objecting to it.

What "other evangelical groups"?

In a mail-out to its supporters it listed some "examples" of supposed discriminations that Christians have suffered.

They include a nurse who was disciplined for offering to "pray" for patients and a registrar who tried to claim that she should be excused from some of her duties because of her religious prejudice against gay people.

A nurse offered to pray for her patients and was disciplined for it -- that's not discrimination?

The other example mentions a registrar who probably recognized her own personal bias and asked to be replaced, to ensure that her bias wouldn't effect the clients.

The Institute claims that under the GTC guidelines Christian teachers will have to treat gay kids with respect regardless of their views on homosexuality.

I doubt that -- where did the Christian Institute claim that treating queer kids with respect is their only problem with the plan, or a problem at all?

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said ...

Because who's the best person to comment on what Christians think? The leader of an anti-Christian organization.

"The Christian Institute is an unpleasant bunch at the best of times, but this really scrapes the bottom of the barrel.

Because the opinions of a bunch of open anti-Christians are more important than any other opinions, right?

Colin Hart, Director of The Christian Institute, said:

"Christians would support most of the code, but many are alarmed by the new diversity rules.

"Under the code, Christian teachers will be required to 'proactively combat discrimination' and 'value diversity' based on religious belief and sexual orientation.

"Diversity" is nothing to be strived for. It's not bad, of course, but there is absolutely no reason that anything should be sacrificed for the sake of "diversity".

And when you get into "diversity based on religious belief and sexual orientation" ... what he's saying is that Christians have no reason to encourage others to not be Christian or not be straight just because it makes the group more "diverse".

"The code rightly requires that teachers should respect their colleagues and those they teach.

"But respect for people as people is not the same as respecting or valuing every religious belief or sexual lifestyle.

What's bad about this? He's saying that we should respect the people, but that's not the same as respecting their choices.

[Chez Daja]

Again, nothing against gay children, but shouldn't ALL sexuality be excused from school life?
You say 'kids', which suggests they're under the age of 18. I know sexuality in high schools DOES exist, but maybe it shouldn't. Just a thought.

People go to school to learn. It should stay that way.

[Rocky]

Again, nothing against gay children, but shouldn't ALL sexuality be excused from school life?
You say 'kids', which suggests they're under the age of 18. I know sexuality in high schools DOES exist, but maybe it shouldn't. Just a thought.

People go to school to learn. It should stay that way.

Haha, very good point Chez. It is very distracting for myself as a high school student back in the day when I was trying to gain more Calculus knowledge when the cheerleading captain kept whispering raunchy things in my ear. Do you know how hard it is to integrate in calculus, let alone when I could cut the sexual tension in the air with a knife?! Next thing I know, I'm sitting at the lunch table, just trying to get through the struggle of daily life (because high school is soooo tough and stressful and all), and these two girls kept telling me to meet them behind the flagpole and they'll "show me theirs if I show them mine." I'm just trying to go to school to learn mang, that's all. If these fundamentalists wanna run things like a boss, I think any kind of flirting or any hints at sexuality should be permabanned from school. Because that is all school is, boys getting the girls in the back. [/Gwen Stefani]

The Institute claims that under the GTC guidelines Christian teachers will have to treat gay kids with respect regardless of their views on homosexuality.

Gee, I didn't see that one coming. Who would of thunk it? To be respectful, to everyone? I'm glad they wrote this one down in the guidelines, because I'm sure as hell that people will leave this up to interpretation and now all kinds of Supreme Court rulings will come from it.

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said:

"The Christian Institute is an unpleasant bunch at the best of times, but this really scrapes the bottom of the barrel.

Those crazy Christians. They are just an unpleasant bunch of people. From going down to help with Hurricane Katrina relief, to flying over to Belize to run a summer camp, to helping poverty-stricken people in Jamaica building houses for their families (these are just experiences of me in the presence of them firsthand). Nevermind them helping millions and millions of people worldwide (I hear they serve more people than McDonalds, but that's just a rumor), they are a force to be dealt with, and we must eliminate all of them and their silly organizations at all costs!

...Or just not take them seriously. Like I did, with this thread. lolgg

[Pete]

I really miss the good ole days when it was ok to make fun of everyone. Now everyone is all politically correct and some of the best comedy is just thrown out the window. If I learned anything from grade school it was that a bully could be the biggest motivation out there, and that karma is a bitch.

Now, I agree that teachers should put a stop to bullying and violence and all of that, but they shouldn't really have to force everyone to accept each other and to try and assimilate everything. When you do stuff like that, you start to lose sight of your own self. It's one thing to have like an international day at a school, where the kids bring in an ethnic dish or perform a dance, but it's another thing to force them to completely tolerate it. I had a teacher who made us try one thing from every nation, because she felt that we shouldn't discriminate. Guess what happened, I got food poisoning because I didn't want to try sushi that was left unrefrigerated for a few hours. I told my teacher that I didn't want to try it, and she told me that I had to because the Japanese kid's mom would get offended if I didn't.

What I'm trying to get at is that why should kids be forced to like other people, so as not to offend them?


I also feel that, like Rocky and Chez said, why should sexuality have any place in school? Straight or gay, you're there to learn, not champion for rights. Even in college. You're there to learn, don't disrupt it for the other kids, just because you have an agenda. If that's what you want to do with your school tax/ tuition, then so be it, but just remember that other people are paying the same thing to get an education.

[nix]

America the land of freedom.. I really think you guys should revise that, as your people are anything but free

Freedom of speech? What ? your suing me for slander?

Freedom to Marry who you want ? Oh no, please dont beat me with your cross shaped baton !

And rocky wtf, dodging highschool *****? Whats wrong with you? best ***** you will ever get ! Taking school abit too serious mate.

[Pete]

hahaha nix, rocky was joking.

and for the record any ***** is great *****... except if its old and/or hairy. though i'm a fan of college ***** myself. still fresh and a little more experienced.

[Furore]

Do teachers and the like ever do shit anyways?

I mean I think it's great there'll be a guideline for encouraging tolerance and all, but how many kids ever did follow the rules that much? I mean BESIDES the overly smart people who get all the good jobs and are generally better people than all of us. You know, the smart boring ones who have no fun?

Ribbing and a little bullying toughen a person up and teach them valuable skills for later on in life. Maybe other ways work too, but I never seen it in action.

As far as a Christian group denying the kids a chance at a better experience and the chance to be who they want, **** off mates. People need some damn empathy.

As far as sexuality goes, there's gonna be some into that shit even from really young ages as some kids start earlier than others. Sometimes it ****s people up in the long run, but it happened before, it's happening now and I'll be damn surprised if it stops any good deal any time soon.

[Unknown Entity]

Again, nothing against gay children, but shouldn't ALL sexuality be excused from school life?
You say 'kids', which suggests they're under the age of 18. I know sexuality in high schools DOES exist, but maybe it shouldn't. Just a thought.

People go to school to learn. It should stay that way.

A very good point. Unfortunatly, lots of kids feel the urge to express themselves before they have got know themsleves. The kids who develop feelings for someone of the same sex see it as a big deal, and that it is something to gloat about to other people. Yeah, a big deal to them as an individual, but to the bullies, it's just another reason to pick on someone. I feel too, that maybe sexuality is something people should keep quiet about until they are sure whether they are straight, gay or bisexual. It's only when you hit college or uni, that people are more grown up about things like this - at Haggerston, pretty much everyone in my year save a few were homophobes. At college, to some people it's still a tad of a joke, but it's so much more grown up.

Either way, teachers, or whatever... They should be open minded about who they teach. Period. I've been bullied by a teacher at Primary school, and I tell ya, it ain't nice. For what? Being a bit of a tom-boy. If I was like everyone else in the class, ie, the slag who is on her second child now, I wouldn't have had to endure that. I mean, when you become a teacher, you should know the kinds of people you are going to be teaching. If you don't like it, then find another job. Work at "Gay H8ters R Us" or anyother brand you can think of regarding someones personality and/or looks.

Ribbing and a little bullying toughen a person up and teach them valuable skills for later on in life. Maybe other ways work too, but I never seen it in action.

Not all kids. I have confidence problems, and loads of pent up anger problems from way back when I was at Primary school. I guess I was one of the weaker ones eh?

Those crazy Christians. They are just an unpleasant bunch of people. From going down to help with Hurricane Katrina relief, to flying over to Belize to run a summer camp, to helping poverty-stricken people in Jamaica building houses for their families (these are just experiences of me in the presence of them firsthand). Nevermind them helping millions and millions of people worldwide (I hear they serve more people than McDonalds, but that's just a rumor), they are a force to be dealt with, and we must eliminate all of them and their silly organizations at all costs!

ZOMG, you did a dis on yerself!

Kidding. You also have a very good point. The only thing that Christians can't get the grasp of is liking the gay guy. Haha, though apparently, if its two gay girls at it, it's ok... Anyway... Christians are brilliant at helping people in need, I'll give you that. But... you know the poverty-stricken families in Jamaca? What if one or two of the families had a gay member of the family? Would Christians help them then?

Damn, that went off a tad, but there was a point.

[Cheesevixen]

Don't really know what to think about the subject. Everyone made really good points. In my mind school is like work. In order to create a good work environment you have to have some kind of tolerance level toward people different from you. The ones that cross the boundaries more than likely are the first to go, and these "bullies" will learn that then if not now.

True you can't stop bullying in schools, but it is always a good idea to have some moral backing that children can look to for guidance. I had a lot of problems with teachers taking the bullying children s side...so to me having a rule that limits what a teacher can an cannot push on a young mind is great.

Tolerance needs to be explained to children somehow, and not many parents will accurately do that. Honestly, you don't know how a rule like that will effect children. For some it will help direct them, and for others it will be a joke. It's no different than real life. I can't kick someone out of my store because they are black, or call them a homo while ringing them up..life doesn't work that way.After work it is my choice whether to do those things. Its the same with these children and teachers. If in "real" life they want to be dicks than so be it, but school is not the place, and school should be a small safe haven where they come to learn.

As far as the sex thing. It's a distraction in school...work...everywhere. Either way people will be angry or ignore it. I know tons of couples that met in the work place...high school sweethearts...it happens. Just a part of our primal make up.

[Rocky]

But... you know the poverty-stricken families in Jamaca? What if one or two of the families had a gay member of the family? Would Christians help them then?

Damn, that went off a tad, but there was a point.

Well, although as far as I know, we didn't work with any Jamaican homosexuals, but there were several guys that were smoking some marijuana in plain view. Considering that marijuana is illegal in Jamaica (despite what people may believe, so don't buy the good stuff down there unless you want to spend time in a Jamaican jail cell and I wouldn't recommend that to anyone), I'm sure we can let our predispositions towards others slide and work with them.

Besides, as a missionary, my job is to help people in need, first and foremost. If helping a person out leads them closer to God, then awesome. If not, then there is a probability that my action towards a person may be a small "cog" in the chain, and later down the road that person may become a Christian.

I really miss the good ole days when it was ok to make fun of everyone. Now everyone is all politically correct and some of the best comedy is just thrown out the window.

I agree with you 100%. I think the whole world should take the time out of their day and watch the movie "Gran Torino," and then people will realize the stupid bickering needs to come to a stop.

[Phantom]

Well, although as far as I know, we didn't work with any Jamaican homosexuals, but there were several guys that were smoking some marijuana in plain view. Considering that marijuana is illegal in Jamaica (despite what people may believe, so don't buy the good stuff down there unless you want to spend time in a Jamaican jail cell and I wouldn't recommend that to anyone), I'm sure we can let our predispositions towards others slide and work with them.

Besides, as a missionary, my job is to help people in need, first and foremost. If helping a person out leads them closer to God, then awesome. If not, then there is a probability that my action towards a person may be a small "cog" in the chain, and later down the road that person may become a Christian.



I agree with you 100%. I think the whole world should take the time out of their day and watch the movie "Gran Torino," and then people will realize the stupid bickering needs to come to a stop.

If helping a person out leads them closer to God, then awesome. If not, then there is a probability that my action towards a person may be a small "cog" in the chain, and later down the road that person may become a Christian.


So, is your missionary work a chance to convert people? What if that person you save believes in another religion? This reminds me of those times whenever I went shopping on a Sunday and had to wait in the subway tunnel for the trolley, a man (probarly a missionary or just a very hype priest comes into the crowded terminal and starts preaching the "Good word", and wanting to save our souls, and if you convert to so and so religion you'll truely be saved. Then the guy would walk around the terminal giving people little books about converting to Christianity. Needless to say when he got to me I gave him the evil eye and he left me alone, but this is exactly my point, and another reason why I dislike and distrust religion.



I think its nice that Chrisitan missionaries are going out to countries helping little kids and homeless folks on the streets, what I don't like about missionaries is the fact that they wander around looking to help people but then shove these little Chrisitanity booklets in the faces of the people they help. My great Grandfather was a missionary back in the old days when he was young, and he did the same thing: Helped the helpless, talk to them about having faith in God blah blah blah, then say become a Chrisitan and you'll be see what wonderful things Jesus has in store for you. Sounded shady to me, like some underground cult.


Anyway back on topic.

@ Chessevixen:

As far as the sex thing. It's a distraction in school...work...everywhere. Either way people will be angry or ignore it. I know tons of couples that met in the work place...high school sweethearts...it happens. Just a part of our primal make up.

I totally agree with this post, it is a distraction, and school should be a safe haven for kids to learn. What you do after school is up to you, but while in school it is a teacher/principal's responsibility to ensure the safety of each child in their care regardless of what their beliefs are, or what they believe in. They have a job to do, even if they dont like it, their students are still their responsilbity while they are in school, after school their parents are there responsibility.

[Sasquatch]

I really miss the good ole days when it was ok to make fun of everyone. Now everyone is all politically correct and some of the best comedy is just thrown out the window.

Amen, brother. Amen.

Now, I agree that teachers should put a stop to bullying and violence and all of that, but they shouldn't really have to force everyone to accept each other and to try and assimilate everything.

Indeed. That's the parents' job.

America the land of freedom.. I really think you guys should revise that, as your people are anything but free

How so?

Freedom of speech? What ? your suing me for slander?

What? You mean I'm not allowed to dishonor your name and lie about you, causing personal harm to your life, career, reputation, or livelihood? I'M NOT FREE!

Freedom to Marry who you want ? Oh no, please dont beat me with your cross shaped baton !

I hope you're being stupid on purpose, here. You mean I'm not allowed to redifine marriage as it's been defined for thousands of years so I can have taxpayers support my personal sexual abnormalities? I'M NOT FREE!

And rocky wtf, dodging highschool *****? Whats wrong with you? best ***** you will ever get ! Taking school abit too serious mate.

If high school tang is the best you've ever gotten, you've never gotten anything but. Anybody who's gotten more than high school sex will back me up on that, I'm sure.

As far as a Christian group denying the kids a chance at a better experience and the chance to be who they want, **** off mates. People need some damn empathy.

That's not what's happening. Nobody is "denying" anything -- they're simply saying that nobody should be forced to accept another's lifestyle.

It's only when you hit college or uni, that people are more grown up about things like this - at Haggerston, pretty much everyone in my year save a few were homophobes. At college, to some people it's still a tad of a joke, but it's so much more grown up.

Let me just ask ... does making a "gay joke" make somebody a "homophobe"?

If you don't like it, then find another job. Work at "Gay H8ters R Us" or anyother brand you can think of regarding someones personality and/or looks.

Just because somebody doesn't agree with a particular dysfunction doesn't mean they "hate" people who have it.

The only thing that Christians can't get the grasp of is liking the gay guy.

It's too bad the Bible doesn't say anything like, "love the sinner" ... OH WAIT.

Haha, though apparently, if its two gay girls at it, it's ok...

What Christian groups have protested homosexuality in males, but not in females?

Please. I want to see this. People who realize that homosexuality is abnormal (often labeled "homophobes") very rarely say anything about how queer guys are bad, but lesbians are good. I want to see something from any sort of Christian group that says that.

Anyway... Christians are brilliant at helping people in need, I'll give you that. But... you know the poverty-stricken families in Jamaca? What if one or two of the families had a gay member of the family? Would Christians help them then?

Are you trying to make a point, or are you actually asking a question? If it's the latter, your answer is yes. No Biblical missionary group would say, "well, we would have given food to your starving family, but that little one looks a little limp-wristed, so you're gonna have to keep fending for yourselves. That'll learn ya."

DI can't kick someone out of my store because they are black, or call them a homo while ringing them up..life doesn't work that way.

Actually, if you work at a private business that doesn't receive federal funding, you can hang up a "whites only" sign by the door if you want. You'll lose a lot of customers, but hey, that's your choice. As far as insulting people goes, you might get into "they hurt my feelings!" lawsuits, but as for refusing service, that's the right of the private business.

So, is your missionary work a chance to convert people? What if that person you save believes in another religion?

Why does that make a difference? If you want somebody to accept your beliefs, whether they're religious, political, social, sexual, or otherwise, what they currently believe makes no difference, unless it's also what you believe, in which case, there's no need to try to convince them of something they already believe.

If you think apples are the best fruit in the world, and you meet two people, one of whom thinks apples are the best fruit in the world and the other of whom thinks oranges are the best fruit in the world, which one would you talk to if you wanted to convince everybody that apples were the best fruit in the world?

This reminds me of those times whenever I went shopping on a Sunday and had to wait in the subway tunnel for the trolley, a man (probarly a missionary or just a very hype priest comes into the crowded terminal and starts preaching the "Good word", and wanting to save our souls, and if you convert to so and so religion you'll truely be saved. Then the guy would walk around the terminal giving people little books about converting to Christianity. Needless to say when he got to me I gave him the evil eye and he left me alone, but this is exactly my point, and another reason why I dislike and distrust religion.

How DARE they talk to me and hand me a pamphlet! I hate them!

I think its nice that Chrisitan missionaries are going out to countries helping little kids and homeless folks on the streets, what I don't like about missionaries is the fact that they wander around looking to help people but then shove these little Chrisitanity booklets in the faces of the people they help. My great Grandfather was a missionary back in the old days when he was young, and he did the same thing: Helped the helpless, talk to them about having faith in God blah blah blah, then say become a Chrisitan and you'll be see what wonderful things Jesus has in store for you. Sounded shady to me, like some underground cult.

What an evil man, for believing that his religion helps people and wanting others to get that help! Why, he must have been pure evil!

He might have even been *gasp* a conservative!

He probarly was, anyway.

What you do after school is up to you, but while in school it is a teacher/principal's responsibility to ensure the safety of each child in their care regardless of what their beliefs are, or what they believe in.

There's a difference in ensuring safety and forcing everybody to accept their viewpoint. You still must not understand the difference between tolerance and encouragement.

[Furore]

That's not what's happening. Nobody is "denying" anything -- they're simply saying that nobody should be forced to accept another's lifestyle.

And why not? All that would be forced upon people is some tolerance of how another chooses to live their life. I guess I'm just not one of those enlightened enough to realise that because I'm definetely correct I shouldn't have to allow others to live as they choose even though it wouldn't really effect me. Too bad that.

Just because somebody doesn't agree with a particular dysfunction doesn't mean they "hate" people who have it.

Tell that to employers including so called 'equal opportunity employers' who hear you have a disability and then refuse to hire you or find a way to be rid of you even if it doesn't affect your work capacity in any way. And believe me, it happens. Even if it's not hatred, they do seem to now see you on a lower level and that in itself is pretty ****ing uncalled for.

And that's just one example, people in general often do act poorly towards those they don't understand or agree with. My least favourite people? Those crazy minority Christians who believe artificially created humans have no soul. Like little ol' IVF fertilised me. But thanks to the wonderful law system here I can just stick my finger up at them and make retarded moaning/groaning noises.

It's too bad the Bible doesn't say anything like, "love the sinner" ... OH WAIT.

It's too bad many Christians don't seem to always live by that message. I mean targetting homosexuals isn't loving them. Not agreeing with lustful acts that may drive a Christian away from his God is perfectly fine, but not when you're targetting the sinner, right? I personally feel God is the only being with the right to judge and man takes it upon himself to act with God's authority way too damn much...

[Unknown Entity]

Let me just ask ... does making a "gay joke" make somebody a "homophobe"?

*sighs* No. It wasn't jokey at secondary school - you were bullied if there was even the smallest of chances you were gay or bisexual. Everyone but the teachers were against you. At college, its more of a jokey/teasy atmoshere, but you aren't being forced away from everyone. Do you really think I'd be hanging out with a bunch of homophobes, or people that made me feel uncomfortable about my sexuality? No, I wouldn't think so.

Just because somebody doesn't agree with a particular dysfunction doesn't mean they "hate" people who have it.

Since when was being gay or bisexual a dysfunction. Maybe in the Bible, it's a dysfunction, but that was written well over a few undred years ago. Get with the time buddy.

It's too bad the Bible doesn't say anything like, "love the sinner" ... OH WAIT.

Oh, and back to the Bible... I agree with Silver. God didn't write the Bible, hell, didn't even have a say in what went in the bloody thing. He is the one who supposedly created Earth, and everything on it, so don't you think He should be getting more credit than the Bible? Oh, and if Christians can't even follow the "messages" in the Bible, what do you think they are going to make of God when he makes an appearence? Kiss his ass and forget the Bible, or will it be the Bible they still worship more?

What Christian groups have protested homosexuality in males, but not in females?

Please. I want to see this. People who realize that homosexuality is abnormal (often labeled "homophobes") very rarely say anything about how queer guys are bad, but lesbians are good. I want to see something from any sort of Christian group that says that.

I know CATHLIC guys that look at porno. Nuff said.

Are you trying to make a point, or are you actually asking a question? If it's the latter, your answer is yes. No Biblical missionary group would say, "well, we would have given food to your starving family, but that little one looks a little limp-wristed, so you're gonna have to keep fending for yourselves. That'll learn ya."

It was acually a point, so you wasted your time with that statement. I also wasn't saying that a Christain would not feed a family if they thought one was gay - would they help the starving gay guy and show him the same respect as everyone else.

What? You mean I'm not allowed to dishonor your name and lie about you, causing personal harm to your life, career, reputation, or livelihood? I'M NOT FREE!

I sure hope that was a sarci comment.

And that's just one example, people in general often do act poorly towards those they don't understand or agree with. My least favourite people? Those crazy minority Christians who believe artificially created humans have no soul. Like little ol' IVF fertilised me. But thanks to the wonderful law system here I can just stick my finger up at them and make retarded moaning/groaning noises.

Yarp, I agree. I guess some (notice I said some, and put it in bold) Christians wouldn't no a good thing if it came up behind them and bit them on the arse.

[RamesesII]

Like chez daja said seriously school is for learning not all this crap. What happened to the good old days where school taught children manners and discipline when you would get a whip for being naughty or bullying etc

[Unknown Entity]

Like chez daja said seriously school is for learning not all this crap. What happened to the good old days where school taught children manners and discipline when you would get a whip for being naughty or bullying etc

I'd bring back the whip too. Give teachers more power over lug-head bullies!

[Sasquatch]

And why not? All that would be forced upon people is some tolerance of how another chooses to live their life.

Tolerance -- not acceptance. There's a difference between, "Timmy's different, but we can't treat him mean for it," and, "Timmy's not different."

I guess I'm just not one of those enlightened enough to realise that because I'm definetely correct I shouldn't have to allow others to live as they choose even though it wouldn't really effect me. Too bad that.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to live like they want to. I'm saying they shouldn't expect others to go out of their way to pretend that them living the way they want to is normal.

Tell that to employers including so called 'equal opportunity employers' who hear you have a disability and then refuse to hire you or find a way to be rid of you even if it doesn't affect your work capacity in any way. And believe me, it happens. Even if it's not hatred, they do seem to now see you on a lower level and that in itself is pretty ****ing uncalled for.

You're talking about a disability, not something like homosexuality. And while it's uncalled for and illegal, there's nearly always some logic to it. Hell, I've had a potential employer refuse to hire me because I'm in the Army, which means I'd be unavailable for a few days a month and a couple weeks a year, with the possibility of being deployed for more than a year. Stupid? Yes. Illegal? Yes. Illogical? Not really.

Hell, the same thing could be said for women. If you throw legality out the window, who would you rather have working for you -- a man, or a woman? Both could do the job equally well, but with a man, you wouldn't be forced to give more days off for her to take care of her children (as mothers are usually the ones that do that, as opposed to fathers), and you wouldn't be forced to waste time and money training somebody that might be out for months at a time if she gets pregnant.

Now, because I wasn't hired, or because an employer might rather hire a man, does that mean they hate the Army, or hate women?

And that's just one example, people in general often do act poorly towards those they don't understand or agree with.

And they can do just that, if they want to. Just like you can act poorly towards those you disagree with.

It's too bad many Christians don't seem to always live by that message. I mean targetting homosexuals isn't loving them.

"Targetting"? For what?

I personally feel God is the only being with the right to judge and man takes it upon himself to act with God's authority way too damn much...

"God is the only being with the right to judge" ... You know, it's too bad God didn't pass down His Word to man, so that we may also know what's right and wrong. That would have made things so much easier, wouldn't it?

*sighs* No. It wasn't jokey at secondary school - you were bullied if there was even the smallest of chances you were gay or bisexual.

Or short, or tall, or skinny, or fat, or freckled, or ugly, or wore glasses, or had big feet, or had hairy legs, or had bad cothes, or ...

Everyone but the teachers were against you.

You mean *gasp* kids get teased? Oh, the humanity!

You know, it's a good thing our parents didn't have to get teased when they were in school, think of how they would have turned out!

Since when was being gay or bisexual a dysfunction. Maybe in the Bible, it's a dysfunction, but that was written well over a few undred years ago. Get with the time buddy.

I'm not talking about it being a moral dysfunction, I'm talking about it being a natural dysfunction. Check out a biology class, maybe you'll figure it out.

Oh, and back to the Bible... I agree with Silver. God didn't write the Bible, hell, didn't even have a say in what went in the bloody thing.

Says who?

He is the one who supposedly created Earth, and everything on it, so don't you think He should be getting more credit than the Bible?

What Christian worships the Bible, but not God?

Oh, and if Christians can't even follow the "messages" in the Bible, what do you think they are going to make of God when he makes an appearence? Kiss his ass and forget the Bible, or will it be the Bible they still worship more?

... what the hell are you getting at, here?

I know CATHLIC guys that look at porno. Nuff said.

First of all, I said Christian. Second, anecdotal evidence is worth nothing. And third, you still didn't answer my question.

I sure hope that was a sarci comment.

Yes. Nix made a comment about how we're not "free" because we can't slander.

[Cheesevixen]

I'm not like a "peace and love" type of person, but I find this thread getting more religious by the second. It's not "who" disagreed with the schools ruling. Whether they be Christians or Atheists. Neither is a discussion about "if's, and's, or but's". The only thing that matters here is whether or not schools should be allowed to tell a child whether it is appropriate or not to make fun of another student because they are different from them. We teach our children everyday what they can and cannot do in order for them to grow up and have some type of moral standing. I don't think it's wrong for the schools to want to get involved with that. If the Christians think so than fine. The answer will be found in the results not the opinions of religious beliefs. I don't see the harm in telling a child not to call someone a dyke, or to open there eye's a little and look deeper into a persons personality not their sexual preference. I do see a problem with the issue never being discussed by the adults that children are supposed to look to for guidance out of fear that it may condemn your child to hell. At the very least I see a problem with telling a child they can't bring a same sex date to the dances.

And FYI Sassy, I love you however....I would totally be fired on the spot for hanging a sign like that up. Kinda makes me want to though..hate my job lol

[Unknown Entity]

Or short, or tall, or skinny, or fat, or freckled, or ugly, or wore glasses, or had big feet, or had hairy legs, or had bad cothes, or ...

Maybe yes, but being gay in a single sex school makes it worse.

You mean *gasp* kids get teased? Oh, the humanity!

You know, it's a good thing our parents didn't have to get teased when they were in school, think of how they would have turned out!

Maybe if there were a few less people like you around, the bullying would stop. :/

Oh, and I am well aware that my generation wasn't the first generation to be bullied over sexuality. My mother and father probably did get bullied, but have you seen anyone step forward with solution yet?

I'm not talking about it being a moral dysfunction, I'm talking about it being a natural dysfunction. Check out a biology class, maybe you'll figure it out.

Kinda tough doing a programming course. Unless you want me start disecting frogs in an IT room, I'm pretty sure we can leave it at that.

Says who?

So says the f**king hamster in my head! Who is to say God DID in fact have a say of what went in the Bible?

What Christian worships the Bible, but not God?

Tsk, I said He should get more credit. Not that Christians worship the Bible. :/

... what the hell are you getting at, here?

Should be obvious. Some Christians aren't as Saintly as your average atheist. Christians follow the Bible, but just aren't very good at it. When God comes, what do you think he is going to say when he sees the state the world is in?

First of all, I said Christian. Second, anecdotal evidence is worth nothing. And third, you still didn't answer my question.

I know you did! I just thought I'd give you a reason to dig at my post again. You know, its kinda nice, this little row. Don't you think? :/

From my own personal experience, I have come to the conclusion that Catholics are more strict than Christians. But of course, you'll have something to say about that won't you? Only, this thread wasn't supposed to be about religion. :/

And your question? Fair enough, one point to you. Males in general - not just Christian males - have a tendancy to like lesbians. Two. On the same bed. Perfectly normal, but if it is a Christian against gay people, then do you see the fault?

Yes. Nix made a comment about how we're not "free" because we can't slander.

Oh good.

I'm not like a "peace and love" type of person, but I find this thread getting more religious by the second.

I think you are right. I don't know who started off the religious theme in here, but I sure as hell hope it wasn't me.

At the very least I see a problem with telling a child they can't bring a same sex date to the dances.

I agree. However, some people have different parents, who hold different opinions on this, and thats how kids get bullied about stuff like this. I think it is sad.

[Pete]

I think that bullying is a right of passage in school. Everyone gets bullied over something in school. It's up to you to figure out how to make it stop. Once you do, the bully leaves you alone and you win. It's been that way for generations and generations. Yes it is a problem, but these problems usually have a way of working themselves out. Usually the bully gets left behind a grade and is no longer your problem or winds up in jail. It's all about karma.

[Sasquatch]

Maybe yes, but being gay in a single sex school makes it worse.

So does being poor in a richer area, or being from another state, or looking different than everybody else, or talking different than everybody else. It's called "being different". Most of us have had to deal with it.

You were picked on because of your sexuality. I was picked on because I was a scrawny, shy kid with a lisp, divorced parents, old cheap clothes, and a yankee accent in a Southern state. Boo-friggin'-hoo.

Maybe if there were a few less people like you around, the bullying would stop. :/

Maybe you need to stop making ignorant assumptions.

Oh, and I am well aware that my generation wasn't the first generation to be bullied over sexuality.

... or anything (i.e. everything) else.

My mother and father probably did get bullied, but have you seen anyone step forward with solution yet?

Well there are some things that work, but for the most part, when you're discussing children, immaturity is at the forefront. You can't force people who are immature in every way to be mature about specific things. Until the Age of Consent, drinking age, driving age, voting age, and more are lowered to about 12, 12-year-olds to act like 12-year-olds.

Kinda tough doing a programming course. Unless you want me start disecting frogs in an IT room, I'm pretty sure we can leave it at that.

That's why the rest of us went through high school.

So says the f**king hamster in my head! Who is to say God DID in fact have a say of what went in the Bible?

Umm ... God says.

Unless you don't believe the Bible at all, in which case, it doesn't really matter, does it?

Tsk, I said He should get more credit. Not that Christians worship the Bible. :/

Sorry, the "or will it be the Bible they still worship more?" kind of threw me off. Nobody "worships" the Bible -- they respect it as His word.

Should be obvious. Some Christians aren't as Saintly as your average atheist. Christians follow the Bible, but just aren't very good at it.

Some Christians aren't very good at it. Most, granted. I guess it's a good thing we don't have to be perfect.

When God comes, what do you think he is going to say when he sees the state the world is in?

Well, I would think that He already knows what's going on in the world ... but that's just a hunch.

I know you did! I just thought I'd give you a reason to dig at my post again. You know, its kinda nice, this little row. Don't you think? :/

Don't worry about it, I just have problems with Catholicism.

From my own personal experience, I have come to the conclusion that Catholics are more strict than Christians.

To what? The Bible, or the Church?

And your question? Fair enough, one point to you. Males in general - not just Christian males - have a tendancy to like lesbians. Two. On the same bed. Perfectly normal, but if it is a Christian against gay people, then do you see the fault?

I didn't realize that "males in general" is a Christian group.

So I'll ask again. Maybe it'll be easier to understand if I put it in the form of a question.

What Christian group or organization states as their policy or collective opinion that homosexuality is more acceptable in females than it is in males?

[Furore]

Tolerance -- not acceptance. There's a difference between, "Timmy's different, but we can't treat him mean for it," and, "Timmy's not different."

Well whatever makes a person feel better for discriminating against others. If something like that helps you sleep at night, good for you. Though I do recall a lot of the New Testament preaching love for Sinners rather than the big T, in fact I don't think the actual word was used much if at all. But my point is, if a person is discriminating against someone and that leads to them feeling victimised, there ain't no love there.

Did Jesus go around discriminating against homosexuals in the bible? NO! In fact he hung out with sinners and people deemed scummy by the rest of the populous. Did he do what they did himself? No. But he didn't provoke or hassle them neither. He was chill, they were chill and perhaps his way of communicating amicably and staying chill had the biggest impact of all. God shows himself through benevolent acts after all.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to live like they want to. I'm saying they shouldn't expect others to go out of their way to pretend that them living the way they want to is normal.

Fair enough. But wouldn't the better solution be to ignore or accept it rather than making them feel like shit about it to the point where parts of society see homosexuality as an excuse to target a person?

And does an individual Christian gain any virtue from acts against homosexuals or any other sinner? Last I checked it was virtuous to do things involving faith, hope, charity and agape love. Agape love is the truer kind one may feel for his family and other men as opposed to that which leads to sinful lust. Christ sacrificing himself for us was a stunning example of agape love. Love your neighbour and all, y'know?

You're talking about a disability, not something like homosexuality. And while it's uncalled for and illegal, there's nearly always some logic to it. Hell, I've had a potential employer refuse to hire me because I'm in the Army, which means I'd be unavailable for a few days a month and a couple weeks a year, with the possibility of being deployed for more than a year. Stupid? Yes. Illegal? Yes. Illogical? Not really.

So? In the context I used it, it's a valid example. You can have a person disabled in a way that wouldn't affect his choice of work and a healthy 'normal' person will be picked ahead of him most of the time, even if less qualified. You can help being in the army. A person with a disability cannot help that they have one and a person may not be able to help their sexual preference neither. Even if sexuality is changable as some science might suggest, look at the reality. How many people want their sexuality changed due to what other people might want and is that not a violation of freedom if it were in place?

Hell, the same thing could be said for women. If you throw legality out the window, who would you rather have working for you -- a man, or a woman? Both could do the job equally well, but with a man, you wouldn't be forced to give more days off for her to take care of her children (as mothers are usually the ones that do that, as opposed to fathers), and you wouldn't be forced to waste time and money training somebody that might be out for months at a time if she gets pregnant.

Depends on the job and the individual honestly. Individual? Well I'd prefer the 7' ogre woman over the 4' stammering midgit man for a construction job any day. Is that discriminatory? Damn right it is. But with an occupation, there's a clear end result and you want the best one. With matters of sexuality and such the thing at stake is a person's quality of life, their dignity and their right to live as they see fit just like anyone else. Though I feel a bit of ribbing in schools is good for kids as it conditions them for the workplace which is much the same a good deal of the time, I think kids should be able to be who they want to be and tolerance AND acceptance should be taught to all. It can only be a good thing looking at what has happened to many victims over things like race, sexuality and any other superficial things.

Now, because I wasn't hired, or because an employer might rather hire a man, does that mean they hate the Army, or hate women?

Nope, just discrimination that can be justified for an organisation's desired goal. Oh it sucks, but life can be full of shit, some which could possibly be lessened or even possibly removed if people stop being douchebags on a mass scale.

And they can do just that, if they want to. Just like you can act poorly towards those you disagree with.

Damn straight. But I shouldn't and I recognise this. I'm a sinner who just does what he feels is best, and in the end I feel God will recognise that. But I see many of my sins as justifiable even if wrong in the grand scheme of things and that in itself is a comfort. And I give of myself quite often, so hopefully that'll weigh in my favour. But whatever. C'est la vie and all y'know?

"Targetting"? For what?

For them being homosexual. Or is it just a coincidence homosexuals are in the firing line and it's really that all of them have a similar birth mark or something else that categorises them?

"God is the only being with the right to judge" ... You know, it's too bad God didn't pass down His Word to man, so that we may also know what's right and wrong. That would have made things so much easier, wouldn't it?

It's too bad the word he did pass down is so open to interpretation. But that's also the beauty of it. There's often so many layers that more wisdom can be gained from later reading. Possibly as humans likely lack the ability to comprehend God directly due to our limitations. That's merely speculation however... But using you as an example, do you yourself act towards others as Jesus did? I'm aware I can be quite morally ambiguous at times, but at least I see some things fairly clearly.

Or short, or tall, or skinny, or fat, or freckled, or ugly, or wore glasses, or had big feet, or had hairy legs, or had bad cothes, or ...

To a different extent most of the time. Gay as a word with negative connotations has been used very commonly these days. eg 'He's gay', 'That's gay', 'How gay' etc. Hell, even homosexual is sometimes. 'Don't be a ****ing homo' is one I've heard a few times, often used to describe someone too scared to do something.

You mean *gasp* kids get teased? Oh, the humanity!

And kids being as impressionable as they are will take it upon themselves to be discriminatory if taught it's ok. Probably the reason (or a good deal of it)
racial and sexual discriminations have lasted as long as they have.

You know, it's a good thing our parents didn't have to get teased when they were in school, think of how they would have turned out!

Very true. Older people who lived in less tolerant times are often more likely to be discriminatory old geezers. Not always however as some were open enough to realise that we're not that different and we should just get along nicely.

I'm not talking about it being a moral dysfunction, I'm talking about it being a natural dysfunction. Check out a biology class, maybe you'll figure it out.

So, erectile dysfunction? I googled natural dysfunction and that's what came up pretty much the most. I only googled it as I don't recall learning that sexuality in humans is a natural dysfunction. I do recall hearing it was a problem when it stopped a species of animal from reproducing, but also recall that the tools a creature uses are part of it's defining characteristics and that humans have invented such tools as artifical insemination and the like which would allow homosexuals to produce geneticly related offspring. Or a homosexual could just adopt which is an amazing act of agape love which would give a needy child a home.

Says who?

Says God not literally picking up a pen and writing a book. No, we know the bible comes from God through select humans. Much the same as a holy vision is communication between God and some human designated as holy messenger boy/girl. Or were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John God's pen names?

First of all, I said Christian. Second, anecdotal evidence is worth nothing. And third, you still didn't answer my question.

Catholicism is a form of Christianity. Second, to some people real world evidence beats speculation. And third, BWWWWUURRRRRRR. No but really, what question do you want answered? I might be able to help you, but couldn't be effed finding the one in question. And give it to me as a straight up single bodied question to avoid ambiguity. It'll likely make my answer more clear.

Yes. Nix made a comment about how we're not "free" because we can't slander.

Nix is not equal to God therefore acknowledging his teachings is a form of false Idolatry and Christians see that as bad. Humans are fallible, God is not.

I think that bullying is a right of passage in school. Everyone gets bullied over something in school. It's up to you to figure out how to make it stop. Once you do, the bully leaves you alone and you win. It's been that way for generations and generations. Yes it is a problem, but these problems usually have a way of working themselves out. Usually the bully gets left behind a grade and is no longer your problem or winds up in jail. It's all about karma.

Damn straight, and what I believe myself more or less. It's a conditioning tool and without it you can really **** yourself over for later in life.

What Christian group or organization states as their policy or collective opinion that homosexuality is more acceptable in females than it is in males?

How many more males than females who were homosexual have been seriously victimised at the hands of some considering themselves Christian? And I'm talking more than just verbally. A conservative guess is fine.

Just because a Christian group or organisation puts rules or policies forwards does not mean the individuals need to take notice of them and that's quite clearly visible.

[Unknown Entity]

So, erectile dysfunction? I googled natural dysfunction and that's what came up pretty much the most. I only googled it as I don't recall learning that sexuality in humans is a natural dysfunction. I do recall hearing it was a problem when it stopped a species of animal from reproducing, but also recall that the tools a creature uses are part of it's defining characteristics and that humans have invented such tools as artifical insemination and the like which would allow homosexuals to produce geneticly related offspring. Or a homosexual could just adopt which is an amazing act of agape love which would give a needy child a home.

Thank you! You explained that one so much better than I did - or I would have if I had picked biology at high school. I prefered Chemistry - you know, whorking with dangerous chemicals and making exploding cheese.

I think that bullying is a right of passage in school. Everyone gets bullied over something in school. It's up to you to figure out how to make it stop. Once you do, the bully leaves you alone and you win. It's been that way for generations and generations. Yes it is a problem, but these problems usually have a way of working themselves out. Usually the bully gets left behind a grade and is no longer your problem or winds up in jail. It's all about karma.

Bullying happens at school and in the work place, but it doesn't give anyone the right to bully others. Yes, Sasquatch, I understand everyone is differrent. You could be bullied for being beautiful, all but a mole on your arm for all I care. From what I have seen, most bullys get bored after a week or a month or two of the same "joke" that someone may be taller, shorter or whatever than them. However, when someone comes out of the closet, no one wants to know you, because they are conviced you want to make out with them.

When I hit year 10, I started hanging around with another girl in my year, who was rummored to be a lesbian. I'm not one for listening to rummors, so I ignored it. After a week, I heard a new rummor that me and this girl were partners. I knew we wasn't, so I ignored it, and it did die down after a month. Eventually, no one could even remember it because the next big thing came out - whatever that was. But, it didn't change anyones opinions of this girl.

I hope I explained that one enough using my experience on how being gay or bisexual can be different from having a mole on your arm. The mole bullying - it will die down. Being gay - people hold on to that for a very long time, until they are old enough to understand it all themselves.

Maybe you need to stop making ignorant assumptions.

I apologise, really I do. I know I shouldn't have typed that, I just... did. Ermm... finger slipped? No?

... ok.

[Sasquatch]

Well whatever makes a person feel better for discriminating against others.

... okay, maybe you missed the part about not treating them differently.

Though I do recall a lot of the New Testament preaching love for Sinners rather than the big T, in fact I don't think the actual word was used much if at all.

If loving somebody meant ignoring the wrong things that they do, you might have a point. I guess that would be why couples in love never argue, or why parents and children never argue. They love each other, so it doesn't matter what any of them do, right?

But my point is, if a person is discriminating against someone and that leads to them feeling victimised, there ain't no love there.

Again, I don't know where you're getting this "discrimination" idea from.

Did Jesus go around discriminating against homosexuals in the bible? NO! In fact he hung out with sinners and people deemed scummy by the rest of the populous.

Did he say that they weren't sinners?

Fair enough. But wouldn't the better solution be to ignore or accept it rather than making them feel like shit about it to the point where parts of society see homosexuality as an excuse to target a person?

So if somebody else takes something too far and does something stupid, it's my fault for thinking that their victim should change?

And does an individual Christian gain any virtue from acts against homosexuals or any other sinner?

Who is advocating "acts against homosexuals"?

So? In the context I used it, it's a valid example.

Unless you consider homosexuality to be a disability, no, it's not.

You can have a person disabled in a way that wouldn't affect his choice of work and a healthy 'normal' person will be picked ahead of him most of the time, even if less qualified.

And that'd be illegal. What's your point?

Depends on the job and the individual honestly. Individual? Well I'd prefer the 7' ogre woman over the 4' stammering midgit man for a construction job any day. Is that discriminatory? Damn right it is.

Not really. In such case, the little person's "disability" would affect his qualifications for the job.

With matters of sexuality and such the thing at stake is a person's quality of life, their dignity and their right to live as they see fit just like anyone else.

And nobody's threatening any of that.

For them being homosexual. Or is it just a coincidence homosexuals are in the firing line and it's really that all of them have a similar birth mark or something else that categorises them?

What "firing line"? "Targetting" for what? (Not for what reason, but for what action.)

It's too bad the word he did pass down is so open to manipulation.

Fix'd.

Possibly as humans likely lack the ability to comprehend God directly due to our limitations.

If one takes the Bible as the Word of God, and the Bible says that A, B, and C are wrong, it doesn't take much "comprehension" to figure out that A, B, and C are wrong.

Gay as a word with negative connotations has been used very commonly these days. eg 'He's gay', 'That's gay', 'How gay' etc. Hell, even homosexual is sometimes. 'Don't be a ****ing homo' is one I've heard a few times, often used to describe someone too scared to do something.

Languages, and specific words in those languages, adapt and change. Fifty years ago, "cool" meant slightly cold. A hundred years ago, "groovy" meant that something had a lot of grooves. If you tell somebody to "cut a rug" nowdays, chances are that the first thing they'll think of is taking a pair of scissors to a strip of carpet.

A group of people selected "gay" as "their word". It has since become synonymous with "stupid". "Homo", or "homosexual", has become synonymous with "feminine" or "weak". Just like "fundamentalist" has become synonymous, to some people, with "extreme".

And kids being as impressionable as they are will take it upon themselves to be discriminatory if taught it's ok.

That's why we shouldn't teach them that discrimination is okay. But as I've pointed out multiple times, there's a difference between realizing that somebody is different and treating thm differently for it.

Very true. Older people who lived in less tolerant times are often more likely to be discriminatory old geezers. Not always however as some were open enough to realise that we're not that different and we should just get along nicely.

For the most part, today's generation, being forced to accept others, will be less discriminatory than previous generations. And according to Chris Rock, the most racist people are old black people -- people that have experienced real racism.

I only googled it as I don't recall learning that sexuality in humans is a natural dysfunction.

It stops reproduction, does it not? Can something inhibit reproduction and not be a dysfunction?

And of course you don't recall learning it. You think public schools will admit that homosexuality is unnatural?

Says God not literally picking up a pen and writing a book. No, we know the bible comes from God through select humans. Much the same as a holy vision is communication between God and some human designated as holy messenger boy/girl. Or were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John God's pen names?

Are you made of silver? Am I actually a sasquatch? Is Pete actually ... well, nevermind.

Think about this. I'm posting this message. How do I do that? Do I just think it, and it automatically posts? Do I say it? No -- I use a keyboard. What you're reading did not come from me -- it came from my keyboard. It's what I wanted to post, sure, because I'm telling my keyboard what to put up on screen, but it does not come directly from me. Just because this message is not conveyed directly from my mind to yours doesn't mean it doesn't come from me.

And just because God Himself didn't pick up a pen doesn't mean that the message didn't come from Him.

Ether you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, or you don't. If you don't, you shouldn't care if it is or not.

Catholicism is a form of Christianity.

That's arguable, but I don't want to get into it here.

Second, to some people real world evidence beats speculation.

And anecdotal evidence means absolutely nothing. I might know ninety-eight white people and two black people -- that doesn't mean that the world is 98% white and 2% black.

And third, BWWWWUURRRRRRR. No but really, what question do you want answered? I might be able to help you, but couldn't be effed finding the one in question. And give it to me as a straight up single bodied question to avoid ambiguity. It'll likely make my answer more clear.

I'll post it again for you.

What Christian group or organization states as their policy or collective opinion that homosexuality is more acceptable in females than it is in males?

How many more males than females who were homosexual have been seriously victimised at the hands of some considering themselves Christian? And I'm talking more than just verbally. A conservative guess is fine.

Would you be taking into account the percentage of "outspoken", or more vocal, homosexual females as opposed to males? Or the cultural taboo of assaulting females?

Just because a Christian group or organisation puts rules or policies forwards does not mean the individuals need to take notice of them and that's quite clearly visible.

And how does that reflect upon Christians any more than it reflects on people in general?

The comment was made that Christians like homosexuality in women, but not homosexuality in men. I'm just looking for some -- any sort of -- evidence to back that up.

[Furore]

... okay, maybe you missed the part about not treating them differently.

Really? Because I thought you were against the changes which if memory serves me correctly were all about promoting tolerance towards the kids in schools who are different. All I can see that doing is possibly leading to them all being treated the same unlike now where some can be easily victimised.

If loving somebody meant ignoring the wrong things that they do, you might have a point. I guess that would be why couples in love never argue, or why parents and children never argue. They love each other, so it doesn't matter what any of them do, right?

Correct in some ways I guess. But I feel the big thing is being benevolent towards your fellow man. You may have arguments over some things, but the better men will be humble enough to realise they could be wrong and that maybe they should just accept what the other person is saying as their own beliefs that don't have to be believed or followed by anyone else. Unlike God, humans are fallible.

Again, I don't know where you're getting this "discrimination" idea from.

The media mostly. I mean, most of what I see is from the US where it looks like shit has really hit the fan. But then I recall that the Pope himself didn't wish to support the UN protecting homosexuals in countries that kill them. Pro-life my ass...

Did he say that they weren't sinners?

Did he tell them to their face they were sinners? I don't recall him taking that approach and that's the one some Christians are taking. The only thing it incites is meaningless hatred more often than not.

So if somebody else takes something too far and does something stupid, it's my fault for thinking that their victim should change?

If you feel the victim should change than too ****ing right. It's the aggressor who's caused the problems, not the victim.

Who is advocating "acts against homosexuals"?

The Pope, some Christian groups, some Christian mobs, areas where Christianity is the law only it's been twisted and perverted by the people practicing it to the point where it promotes hatred and the like which to my knowledge are far from virtuous...

Christians against homosexuals - Google Search
A fair few by the looks of my google search...
And some are quite an entertaining read. I notice however that many only show one side of things from the bible and most of it concerning homosexuals is Old Testament. Last I remembered, that was the more violent section that encouraged acts of vigilance and the like in some parts.

Unless you consider homosexuality to be a disability, no, it's not.

No, I merely stated that like a disability, sexuality may be something a person can't help. I honestly didn't think it was that hard to understand, especially as my words tend to be a lot more straight forwards then the bible, but onto that more later.

And that'd be illegal. What's your point?

That it happens. And it happens on a large scale. What matters most, the reality or the illusion set in place so the world seems more magical?

Not really. In such case, the little person's "disability" would affect his qualifications for the job.

Still discriminatory picking giant woman over little man. For all I'd know the little guy could carry a ton more than the woman, but if she looked strong I'd be inclined to think she could carry more. That *IS* discrimination and though in the case of work you really want the people you'd feel would get the job done better, someone would suffer because of something they couldn't change.

And nobody's threatening any of that.

Got your head in the sand? I mean honestly, I see it on a daily basis at almost every place I've worked and every school I've gone to. When someone is bullying a person due to their sexuality, they do lose some of their dignity. And if nobody's threatening that, why are any people against a policy promoting equality?

What "firing line"? "Targetting" for what? (Not for what reason, but for what action.)

What action have be taken by Christians against Homosexuals? Hmm... protesting at the funerals of soldiers, the Pope not acting Pro-life because the people in question were homosexual, Christians trying to convert homosexuals and 'cure them', preaching that homosexuals are evil in some cases which leads to unwarranted hate... I could likely google more if you wanted. I just type in things like 'Christian' 'Homosexuals' and then a keyword like 'Violence' and several things pop up. Yeah, a few articles will pop up along the lines of Gays wanting to get violent with Christians over Prop 8, but they didn't start this.

Fix'd.

So you believe your interpretation is infallible which would somehow elevate you above fallible human status? Well, let's look at another source...

There are many places in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) that have been traditionally interpreted as condemning homosexuality. Romans 1:26 and 27 has St. Paul criticizing sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition. This passage has been variously interpreted to refer to all homosexual behavior, to orgiastic activity, to temple prostitution, or to heterosexuals who were engaging in same-sex exchanges. The meaning is unclear.
I Corinthians 6:9 contains a lists of activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God. One was translated as referring to masturbation, and is now sometimes translated as "homosexual". The true meaning is lost.
1 Tim 1:9 is similar to I Corinthians.
Jude 7 refers to the people of Sodom as "giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh". The latter has been variously translated as women engaging in sexual intercourse with angels and as homosexuality. The exact meaning is lost.


We conclude that St. Paul in the Christian Scriptures seems to have condemned some homosexual activity, but it is unclear which ones. There is no mention of loving, committed gay and lesbian relations in the Christian Scriptures.

- CAN A HOMOSEXUAL REMAIN A CHRISTIAN?

And I agree with that quite well. I've read the bible a few times, and I haven't seen anything damning anything other than some acts which would drive a man away from God. Masturbation fits under there, and I'd bet a fair few Christians are regular masturbators.

If one takes the Bible as the Word of God, and the Bible says that A, B, and C are wrong, it doesn't take much "comprehension" to figure out that A, B, and C are wrong.

Unfortunately in many cases it doesn't say that A, B or C are wrong and anything else is speculation based on things that seem similar. I don't recall many of the current vices of the age mentioned and it's only interpretation of things that are vaguely similar that allow a person to take a stab at whether it's right or wrong for a Christian to do. If a person believes their interpretation is infallible, they are too proud.

Languages, and specific words in those languages, adapt and change. Fifty years ago, "cool" meant slightly cold. A hundred years ago, "groovy" meant that something had a lot of grooves. If you tell somebody to "cut a rug" nowdays, chances are that the first thing they'll think of is taking a pair of scissors to a strip of carpet.

Are cool, groovy and cutting a rug discriminatory in the same way that gay can be used?

A group of people selected "gay" as "their word". It has since become synonymous with "stupid". "Homo", or "homosexual", has become synonymous with "feminine" or "weak". Just like "fundamentalist" has become synonymous, to some people, with "extreme".

So if I made 'Christian' as my 'word' synonymous with being 'mentally inferior' and it became used that way in mainstream it would become ok? I get the feeling Christians would be just as offended as homosexuals are in this case if that were the case...

That's why we shouldn't teach them that discrimination is okay. But as I've pointed out multiple times, there's a difference between realizing that somebody is different and treating thm differently for it.

Well when kids are teasing a homosexual boy and not a straight boy, are they not being treated differently? Because I'd think they were. Maybe I'm missing something, IDK. I'd think a policy to promote equal treatage of kids regardless of sexuality would do nothing but promote understanding.

For the most part, today's generation, being forced to accept others, will be less discriminatory than previous generations. And according to Chris Rock, the most racist people are old black people -- people that have experienced real racism.

And that I see as a good thing. I'm only arguing about those I feel aren't so accepting. There's still a shiteload of discrimination out there, and if enough people see it too, maybe something will come out of it, even if something small.

It stops reproduction, does it not? Can something inhibit reproduction and not be a dysfunction?

Not really, no. I believe I went on to say...

I only googled it as I don't recall learning that sexuality in humans is a natural dysfunction. I do recall hearing it was a problem when it stopped a species of animal from reproducing, but also recall that the tools a creature uses are part of it's defining characteristics and that humans have invented such tools as artifical insemination and the like which would allow homosexuals to produce geneticly related offspring. Or a homosexual could just adopt which is an amazing act of agape love which would give a needy child a home.

Humanity has evolved past the need for traditional methods for better or worse.

And of course you don't recall learning it. You think public schools will admit that homosexuality is unnatural?

Catholic schooled the entire way. It's really just that around here, schools are required to teach what's best accepted as well as some alternative theories in their science classes. And I always preferred Science over Maths and English here solely because it gave me room to speculate.

Are you made of silver? Am I actually a sasquatch? Is Pete actually ... well, nevermind.

I certainly wear a lot of Silver, for all I know you're a sasquatch and Pete would have to be Pete if Pete is who he is.

Think about this. I'm posting this message. How do I do that? Do I just think it, and it automatically posts? Do I say it? No -- I use a keyboard. What you're reading did not come from me -- it came from my keyboard. It's what I wanted to post, sure, because I'm telling my keyboard what to put up on screen, but it does not come directly from me. Just because this message is not conveyed directly from my mind to yours doesn't mean it doesn't come from me.

If not from your mind then whose? Last I checked, keyboards do not have minds and the keyboard is just a method for communicating the ideas from your head. Yes, the bible does come from God, but he gave it to us through men and you can see that different writers had a different style of writing indicating that though the word is from God, it was written by very real men.

And just because God Himself didn't pick up a pen doesn't mean that the message didn't come from Him.

I never said that. Merely that He didn't directly write it. And why would He need to?

Ether you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, or you don't. If you don't, you shouldn't care if it is or not.

Oh I believe it is the word of God, but I also believe that he didn't hop down, use a pen to write it and publish different parts under pen names.

That's arguable, but I don't want to get into it here.

How is it arguable? It is one of the older denominations and retains traditional aspects some other denominations have dropped. And it's also the largest Christian denomination around.

And anecdotal evidence means absolutely nothing. I might know ninety-eight white people and two black people -- that doesn't mean that the world is 98% white and 2% black.

Anecdotal evidence means a lot a good deal of the time. Without it a few things would be accepted as truth in times when lies were prevalent. Granted it's best used in a support role, but it definetely has it's uses.

And I also ask you this, how many people would act like those in your example? I don't know too many people myself that would think that way, but it might just be as our science classes here involve sample studies using better estimation techniques.

I'll post it again for you.

What Christian group or organization states as their policy or collective opinion that homosexuality is more acceptable in females than it is in males?

Cheers. Now let's see...
Well searching around I couldn't find anything more than anecdotal evidence which you'll likely brush aside, but my favourite theory is that a patriarchal organisation like a Christian church full of straight powerful men would feel more comfortable with gay woman due to homosexual men possibly hitting on them or perhaps even them falling in love with a homosexual which would likely make them question their faith and current direction. There's also females have no penis and can't have penis/vagina sex and many old stuffy Christians seem to lack an imagination. Why does that matter? Well I see very few younger men in positions of power in the Church. Priests, perhaps the odd bishop... Not much else. All speculation. OH YEAH! Also a good percentage of males admit to regularly masturbating in publications that do quizzes and as a major percentage of the world identify as Christians, that would likely mean a deal of Christians masturbate. And lesbians would likely make good masturbation material I believe.

There's also that the bible is based in Middle Eastern areas, and there didn't seem to be as much respect for women as men in that time period in general. Having several wives was all the rage for some people. Damn, discrimination stretches a good deal back...

Would you be taking into account the percentage of "outspoken", or more vocal, homosexual females as opposed to males? Or the cultural taboo of assaulting females?

Take everything into account. The cultural taboo of assualting females could very well be a big part of it. Once again it's discriminatory even if it's justifiable for some.

And how does that reflect upon Christians any more than it reflects on people in general?

It reflects on people in general but it also applies directly to individuals calling themselves Christian who don't always act as Christian as they should.

The comment was made that Christians like homosexuality in women, but not homosexuality in men. I'm just looking for some -- any sort of -- evidence to back that up.

Any sort?
Well it's a long shot, but it's all I can think of that can be seen on film or similar. 25%-30% of the world's population are Christian. Now amazingly, 78.5% of North Americans identify as Christian. So I could take a US show like for example, Jerry Springer. Now what percentage of people in that show's large audience do not chant 'We Love Lesbians' whenever the chant starts? Last I looked, most were chanting it and if 78.5% of US people are Christian, that to me would indicate that unless the audience was made up of a small minority audience, a lot of Christians were chanting that they love lesbians. I've never heard the same for gay men.

Where did I get that statistic of 78.5% you might be wondering?
I got it from the CIA, here:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...elds/2122.html
Just add the US denominations up.

[Sasquatch]

Really? Because I thought you were against the changes which if memory serves me correctly were all about promoting tolerance towards the kids in schools who are different.

No. I'm against the promotion of diversity and secularism. Just because something's different doesn't mean we should include it.

Still, it has nothing to do with treating them differently because they're different.

All I can see that doing is possibly leading to them all being treated the same unlike now where some can be easily victimised.

So some people go overboard with an idea, so that makes it a bad idea?

But I feel the big thing is being benevolent towards your fellow man.

Who's arguing against that?

You may have arguments over some things, but the better men will be humble enough to realise they could be wrong and that maybe they should just accept what the other person is saying as their own beliefs that don't have to be believed or followed by anyone else. Unlike God, humans are fallible.

And do you not see the difference between one's personal beliefs and the beliefs one attains from God?

The media mostly. I mean, most of what I see is from the US where it looks like shit has really hit the fan.

It hasn't. The extremely few cases of discrimination are prosecuted to extremes.

But then I recall that the Pope himself didn't wish to support the UN protecting homosexuals in countries that kill them. Pro-life my ass...

He didn't say he didn't support their protection. He said he didn't support the legalization of homosexuality.

If jay-walking was a capital offense, and you didn't want to legalize jay-walking, that wouldn't mean that you want all jay-walkers to be executed.

Did he tell them to their face they were sinners? I don't recall him taking that approach and that's the one some Christians are taking.

Some, yes, He did.

The only thing it incites is meaningless hatred more often than not.

So something is a bad idea because people get their panties in a wad over it?

So if somebody else takes something too far and does something stupid, it's my fault for thinking that their victim should change?

If you feel the victim should change than too ****ing right. It's the aggressor who's caused the problems, not the victim.

You're not serious, are you?

Then I guess I'm guilty of the few assaults on homosexuals, because I disagree with homosexuality -- just like those who actually carried out the assaults. I guess I'm guilty of abortion clinic bombings, because I'm against abortion -- just like those who actually carried out the bombings. I guess I'm guilty of race riots and beatings by Black Panthers, because I'm against racial inequality -- just like those who actually carried out the riots and beatings. I guess I'm guilty of raping and murdering hookers, because I disagree with prostitution. I guess I'm guilty of torturing prisoners because I disagree with terrorism. I guess I'm guilty of shooting Larry Flint because I disagree with his type of pornography. And I guess I'm guilty of the Oklahoma City bombing, because I disagree with what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

The Pope, some Christian groups, some Christian mobs, areas where Christianity is the law only it's been twisted and perverted by the people practicing it to the point where it promotes hatred and the like which to my knowledge are far from virtuous...

The Pope isn't advocating acts against homosexuals. And very few "Christian" groups do.

Christians against homosexuals - Google Search
A fair few by the looks of my google search...

Look again. Out of the ten results on the first page, seven refer to Christians against [homosexuality -- not against homosexuals. One is from "religioustolerance.org" (which is anything but) attacking the few Christians who are anti-homosexual. One is about gays calling for violence against Christians. And one is about whether or not homosexuals can be Christians. While seven of the ten are against homosexuality, none of the ten are "against homosexuals".

And some are quite an entertaining read. I notice however that many only show one side of things from the bible and most of it concerning homosexuals is Old Testament. Last I remembered, that was the more violent section that encouraged acts of vigilance and the like in some parts.

In the Bible, many of the punishments and atonements for sins -- death, sacrifices, etc. -- stopped applying after Jesus paid for all sin. That doesn't mean that what was sinful isn't anymore.

That it happens. And it happens on a large scale. What matters most, the reality or the illusion set in place so the world seems more magical?

Could you cite some evidence that "it happens on a large scale"?

Still discriminatory picking giant woman over little man. For all I'd know the little guy could carry a ton more than the woman, but if she looked strong I'd be inclined to think she could carry more.

To your knowledge, she is best suited for the job. That's not discrimination.

If the little person requested the chance to demonstrate how much he could lift or carry and you refused, or if you knew he could carry more but didn't want a little person working for you, then it would be discrimination.

Got your head in the sand? I mean honestly, I see it on a daily basis at almost every place I've worked and every school I've gone to. When someone is bullying a person due to their sexuality, they do lose some of their dignity.

Aw, shucks. There it is again, people getting made fun of and picked on.

If somebody makes fun of me for having body hair, I haven't lost any freedoms. My quality of life doesn't go down. I can still live my life as I see fit. And if I'm so weak that my self-esteem goes down and I "lose some of my dignity" whenever says something I don't like, boo-friggin'-hoo, too bad.

There is absolutely nothing -- nothing that guarantees our right to never have our feelings hurt.

And if nobody's threatening that, why are any people against a policy promoting equality?

Who says they're against promoting equality? Oh, the gay news site says that. Well, I guess they're perfectly credible when it comes to what Christians think, right?

Here in the real world, it was the promotion and value of diversity that was the issue.

What action have be taken by Christians against Homosexuals? Hmm... protesting at the funerals of soldiers ...

By one group that calls themself "Christian". If I put on a dress and beat up a handicapped orphan, would you blame that on women?

... the Pope not acting Pro-life because the people in question were homosexual ...

Wrong again. But I've gone over this already.

... Christians trying to convert homosexuals and 'cure them' ...

It's bad to try to do what you can for what you believe helps people? Oh wait ... yeah, their feelings were hurt. Guess that means those people were just pure evil, what with their talking and their pamphlets.

... preaching that homosexuals are evil in some cases which leads to unwarranted hate...

Again, a few incidents of something being taken overboard mars everybody with a similar stance?

I could likely google more if you wanted. I just type in things like 'Christian' 'Homosexuals' and then a keyword like 'Violence' and several things pop up.

Here, I'll do it for you. Let me sort 'em out, too. Let's see, out of the first ten ... Three concern violence against Christians. One concerns threats of violence against Christians. One is from "religioustolerance". One is an opinion piece on an athiest site. One concerns a homosexual who labels Christians as "terrorists". One concerns a woman who falsely accuses Christians of inciting violence. One concerns an activist who blames violence on Christians. And one is a website for "gay Christians".

Yeah, a few articles will pop up along the lines of Gays wanting to get violent with Christians over Prop 8, but they didn't start this.

Ah, the old "well he started it!" line. Classic.

[quote]So you believe your interpretation is infallible which would somehow elevate you above fallible human status? Well, let's look at another source...[quote]Not at all -- I believe in what it says, not what it can be manipulated to say.

- CAN A HOMOSEXUAL REMAIN A CHRISTIAN?

"Religious tolerance" is anything but. But if you'll notice, I said manipulation ... did you pay any attention to the fact that everything the Bible says about homosexuality being sinful, according to these people, either means something completely different, or has a meaning that is "lost" or "unclear"?

And I agree with that quite well. I've read the bible a few times, and I haven't seen anything damning anything other than some acts which would drive a man away from God.

So you haven't seen any verses that say anything specifically about homosexuality? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Either you're intentionally ignoring specific verses, or you're unintentionally ignoring specific verses.

Masturbation fits under there, and I'd bet a fair few Christians are regular masturbators.

Show me the Bible verse that outlaws masturbation.

Sure, there was one man who was commanded not to spill his seed on the ground ("pull out"), and there are verses against lustful thoughts, but none specifically mention masturbation. There ARE verses, however, that specifically mention homosexuality.

Unfortunately in many cases it doesn't say that A, B or C are wrong and anything else is speculation based on things that seem similar.

It does say that homosexuality is wrong.

Are cool, groovy and cutting a rug discriminatory in the same way that gay can be used?

Is "gay" discriminatory? Better tell the GLBT community about it.

So if I made 'Christian' as my 'word' synonymous with being 'mentally inferior' and it became used that way in mainstream it would become ok?

You mean how "fundamentalist" has come to mean "extremist"? Sure, if you can make it part of the language, it'll get picked up.

Just like "gay" was picked up by some people to mean "stupid", after it was picked up by some people to mean "homosexual". "Gay" had a meaning before queers decided to call themselves that.

Well when kids are teasing a homosexual boy and not a straight boy, are they not being treated differently? Because I'd think they were.

Yes, that would be discrimination ... which nobody is supporting. ONCE AGAIN, there is a difference between realizing somebody is different and treating them differently for it.

I'd think a policy to promote equal treatage of kids regardless of sexuality would do nothing but promote understanding.

The arguments over the policy have nothing to do with equal treatment. (Not "treatage", treatment.)

And that I see as a good thing. I'm only arguing about those I feel aren't so accepting. There's still a shiteload of discrimination out there, and if enough people see it too, maybe something will come out of it, even if something small.

There's some discrimination against minority groups, yes. There's also discrimination in favor of minority groups, and between minority groups.

Much, much, much more common are the accusations of discrimination where there is none. "Crying wolf", if you will. Stupid people getting pissy about others not promoting their choices, in this situation. In the case of the recent political cartoon, stupid people getting pissy and fabricating "racism" where there was none, simply because the cartoon featured a monkey (the same week a crazed monkey was in the news) and mentioned the stimulus bill (the same week the stimulus bill was in the news).

Not only do these false accusations aggrivate those they are made against, but also when a credible accusation is finally made, most people are so used to bullshit and mountains out of molehills that they don't pay any attention to the cases with merit.

Not really, no. I believe I went on to say... ... Humanity has evolved past the need for traditional methods for better or worse.

The technology to overcome a dysfunction does not change whether or not it's a dysfunction.

Catholic schooled the entire way. It's really just that around here, schools are required to teach what's best accepted as well as some alternative theories in their science classes.

That's one thing that many people don't like about Catholicism -- instead of focusing on what's right and true, they focus on what's popular.

Last I checked, keyboards do not have minds and the keyboard is just a method for communicating the ideas from your head.

Just like God used men as a method of communicating His Word.

Yes, the bible does come from God, but he gave it to us through men and you can see that different writers had a different style of writing indicating that though the word is from God, it was written by very real men.

And what difference does this make?

How is it arguable? It is one of the older denominations and retains traditional aspects some other denominations have dropped. And it's also the largest Christian denomination around.

Popularity doesn't make it accurate. It's a different discussion for a different thread, one I'd enjoy debating with knowledgeable people. (All too often, people jump into issues like that with stuff like, "OMG you're dum of cours its Christian!")

Anecdotal evidence means a lot a good deal of the time.

When it's not credible, not proveable, and not applicable, it doesn't mean anything.

Well searching around I couldn't find anything more than anecdotal evidence which you'll likely brush aside, but my favourite theory is that a patriarchal organisation like a Christian church full of straight powerful men would feel more comfortable with gay woman due to homosexual men possibly hitting on them or perhaps even them falling in love with a homosexual which would likely make them question their faith and current direction.

So let's get this straight ... your theory is that Christian men are uncomfortable with homosexual men because they don't want to get hit on or fall in love with a man?

Also a good percentage of males admit to regularly masturbating in publications that do quizzes and as a major percentage of the world identify as Christians, that would likely mean a deal of Christians masturbate. And lesbians would likely make good masturbation material I believe.

So your next theory is that people that take quizzes masturbate, and somehow you know that some of them are Christian, and somehow you know that they masturbate to lesbians, and somehow you know that finding something attractive means it's not sinful?

I'm sure getting wasted off my ass every night would be very fun. Sleeping with a different woman (or two!) every night would be fun, too. Some heavy recreational drug use, I bet that would be fun too. But just because an attraction might be there doesn't mean I don't realize it's wrong.

There's also that the bible is based in Middle Eastern areas, and there didn't seem to be as much respect for women as men in that time period in general. Having several wives was all the rage for some people.

And that means they like lesbians?

Take everything into account. The cultural taboo of assualting females could very well be a big part of it. Once again it's discriminatory even if it's justifiable for some.

There's no way to tell what the causes are of more homosexual men being assaulted than homosexual women. It might just be "guys hate gay guys but love gay women", or it might be that men don't want to assault women, or that women aren't as outspoken about their sexuality.

So I could take a US show like for example, Jerry Springer. Now what percentage of people in that show's large audience do not chant 'We Love Lesbians' whenever the chant starts? Last I looked, most were chanting it and if 78.5% of US people are Christian, that to me would indicate that unless the audience was made up of a small minority audience, a lot of Christians were chanting that they love lesbians.

You said it was a long shot, but ... wow.

First ... well, first, you're lumping Mormon and Catholic in with Christian, but oh well. Other than that ... first, you assume that everybody who "identifies" as Christian actually is a Christian. I think we both know that nowhere near 75% of the American population even attends religious services. Second, you assume that the audience of Jerry Springer is an accurate representation of the religious diversity in America. Third, you're assuming that the few who don't chant aren't Christians, and those who do are -- or, at the very least, that the majority of those who chant are. Fourth, you're assuming that chanting "we love lesbians" on the Jerry Springer Show is clearly representative of one's views on homosexuality.

I've never heard the same for gay men.

Fifth, you're assuming that the Jerry Springer Show has gay men on stage as often as it has lesbians on stage. Sixth, you're assuming that since you haven't seen it, it doesn't happen. Seventh, you're assuming that they even have a chant for gay men. Eighth, you're assuming that the lack of a chant reveals a difference of appreciation.

And ninth, you're assuming that you can get an accurate representation of Christian views on homosexuality of each sex by watching a the Jerry Springer Show.

[Furore]

And do you not see the difference between one's personal beliefs and the beliefs one attains from God?

And how might one decide which is which? If you're some kind of special divine messenger, I want proof. Because something about that reeks of wrongness to me.

Then I guess I'm guilty of the few assaults on homosexuals, because I disagree with homosexuality -- just like those who actually carried out the assaults. I guess I'm guilty of abortion clinic bombings, because I'm against abortion -- just like those who actually carried out the bombings. I guess I'm guilty of race riots and beatings by Black Panthers, because I'm against racial inequality -- just like those who actually carried out the riots and beatings. I guess I'm guilty of raping and murdering hookers, because I disagree with prostitution. I guess I'm guilty of torturing prisoners because I disagree with terrorism. I guess I'm guilty of shooting Larry Flint because I disagree with his type of pornography. And I guess I'm guilty of the Oklahoma City bombing, because I disagree with what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

No, it's your fault for thinking a victim should change rather than an aggressor. But if you don't support a peaceful way of doing things than you are a part of the problem. I'm not saying that you in particular aren't supporting such a thing, but people that are against a peaceful way of doing things definetely are.

Aw, shucks. There it is again, people getting made fun of and picked on.

Does that make it right? I'm all for ribbing and kids toughening themselves up, but I feel it should be for stupid reasons that'll be either forgotten later or frowned upon by a kid's family. Like personal appearance, divorce etc. Things like that are hard on a kid but they can ready them for more of the same in the workforce.

If somebody makes fun of me for having body hair, I haven't lost any freedoms. My quality of life doesn't go down. I can still live my life as I see fit. And if I'm so weak that my self-esteem goes down and I "lose some of my dignity" whenever says something I don't like, boo-friggin'-hoo, too bad.

It's ok to cry. Let it all out buddy. Most of us don't care if you have excess body hair.

There is absolutely nothing -- nothing that guarantees our right to never have our feelings hurt.

Not even those people who get in the way and defend a person against that kind of thing? Because that's the guy I was and though it got me in trouble a few times, I wouldn't have had it any other way. Idealism is like that though. It's the ultimate high. And people seemed to like me for it, unless they were the kinds who were picking on others. Then, they tended to hate me with some exceptions. Can't be everyone's friend sadly. And my tendancy to be a smartass every so often rarely helps my cause, but I digress...

By one group that calls themself "Christian". If I put on a dress and beat up a handicapped orphan, would you blame that on women?

If enough of you did that I'd be very inclined to blame hairy transexuals. Women don't have penises.

It's bad to try to do what you can for what you believe helps people? Oh wait ... yeah, their feelings were hurt. Guess that means those people were just pure evil, what with their talking and their pamphlets.

Fine, let's civilise the savages. FOR THE GLORY OF <insert_whichever_country_religion_or_organisation _here_in_caps>!!. History shows us that trying to change people is always a good thing, yeps...

Ah, the old "well he started it!" line. Classic.

Well, it's quite valid. In terms of conflict, if it don't get started it don't exist.

Not at all -- I believe in what it says, not what it can be manipulated to say.

Which translation? Or do you read the language it was originally written in? And also bear in mind that what you get from the bible mightn't be the same as what someone else gets from the bible. This is what I mean by interpretation. Parables for example were used by Jesus to explain advanced concepts to simpler people and some were quite multi-layered.

It does say that homosexuality is wrong.

Where? And feel free to quote it from whichever bible you like, but also mention which bible you used. It could very well be why you think as you do.

The technology to overcome a dysfunction does not change whether or not it's a dysfunction.

If that is true than humans must be one of the most useless creatures ever to exist. Without the technology to overcome our dysfunctions we'd be helpless, especially as many of us these days don't know a life without them.

And there are some creatures that use tools to do things like crack a hard shell or something to feed. If they didn't have this technology they'd possibly die if they didn't adapt.

The technology makes a creature functional where previously they were dysfunctional. While using it they lose the dysfunction so I fail to see how they're still dysfunctional.

That's one thing that many people don't like about Catholicism -- instead of focusing on what's right and true, they focus on what's popular.

Not really, I think many schools are like that here. See catholics don't believe half the stuff taught at the school in question, that was merely so we'd be informed. I've no doubt some of it was forced by the government just as things such as sex education, specifically the usage of contraceptives.

If anything it's those crazy protestants who went and changed things around.[/sarcasm]

You said it was a long shot, but ... wow.

First ... well, first, you're lumping Mormon and Catholic in with Christian, but oh well. Other than that ... first, you assume that everybody who "identifies" as Christian actually is a Christian. I think we both know that nowhere near 75% of the American population even attends religious services. Second, you assume that the audience of Jerry Springer is an accurate representation of the religious diversity in America. Third, you're assuming that the few who don't chant aren't Christians, and those who do are -- or, at the very least, that the majority of those who chant are. Fourth, you're assuming that chanting "we love lesbians" on the Jerry Springer Show is clearly representative of one's views on homosexuality.

Fifth, you're assuming that the Jerry Springer Show has gay men on stage as often as it has lesbians on stage. Sixth, you're assuming that since you haven't seen it, it doesn't happen. Seventh, you're assuming that they even have a chant for gay men. Eighth, you're assuming that the lack of a chant reveals a difference of appreciation.

And ninth, you're assuming that you can get an accurate representation of Christian views on homosexuality of each sex by watching a the Jerry Springer Show.

Catholics and Mormons are Christians. And I wouldn't know that 75% of Americans do not attend churches as I'm not American. But even if some don't attend church, not all Christians are regular church goers. Some go Easter and Christmas, some don't go at all. Doesn't mean they're not Christian. All I assumed is that if a percentage that high were Christian and the audience was that big and as many people as I could see were yelling that they loved lesbians, some of those yelling they loved lesbians were likely Christian. When the percentage of the country's population is 78.5% (closer to 80% than 75% really) I can feel safe to assume there were Christians there chanting. And for all the episodes I have seen (a shitload while in school) I can say I never saw an episode where people chanted their love of gay men.

As for your ninth point, I assumed no such thing. I merely tried to answer this:

The comment was made that Christians like homosexuality in women, but not homosexuality in men. I'm just looking for some -- any sort of -- evidence to back that up.

It supports the theory that some Christians might prefer homosexuality in women rather than men. I doubt any Christian or Christian organisation would directly say it due to the outcry that would almost certainly pop up.

========

As much as I feel some conflict on a smaller scale can be fun at times, I can see that with conflict on a larger scale all that happens is a bunch of people suffer. Why allow hatred, misunderstanding and various prejudices to take root in a society's children when all it can lead to is more stupid conflict?