planetf1.com

It is currently Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:49 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:12 am
Posts: 576
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
MrMuttley wrote:
Brain I think your slightly missing the point on the child abuse thing. I am prepared to bet that 90+% percent of all homosexuals would report a child abuser to the police. Regardless of the abusers orientation.
The RC church leadership on the other hand deliberately covered up when they knew it was going on in their ranks. Looking after your own doesnt come in to it when such serious crimes are commited. I would shop my own family if I knew they were a sex offender.


I'm just going to assume that you (and others) are not suggesting that child abuse by a RC priest/worker is 'worse' than child abuse by a lay-person simply because the former also promote morality.


Well thats the convinient thing about this particularly digusting crime. there is never any morality judgement in it. No sexual offence against a child can ever be justified so morality doesnt come in to it. In some crimes like theft etc you can say things like "oh the person was starving or has drug problems " etc etc which might help justify why they offend. In Child abuse is never that way.

Any decent person would condem the actions of a child abuser therefore by definition some of the RC leadership are not decent people because they covered it up. That is the only morailty judgement to make. I would make the same judegement of a gay/bi person if they covered up such a heinous crime.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 124
Tufty wrote:
Johnston wrote:
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Another view point.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Brain of Ireland, do you have lots of stats from other, none extremist organisations to back up the stats you presented to us?


I read that article, however the thrust of the argument is that opinion (not hard data) has shown a decline in the belief that gay people are more statistically likely to abuse a child. Then, it gets rather wishy-washy about terminology and lack of research. Naturally, no papers which are contrary to their position are cited.

Some other research (not affiliated with religious organizations):

1. 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with on adolescent or younger boys (The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles [Simon and Schuster, 1979], page 275)
2. Homosexual males are 3 times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia (K. Freund & R.I. Watson. “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study.” 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992)
3. 25% of (white) homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years or younger (Alan P.Bell, et. al., Institute for Sex Research. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women [Simon and Schuster, 1980)
4. 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children less than 17 years old (P.H. Gebhard and A.B. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979 Table 443, “Homosexual Sample: Age at First Post pubertal Homosexual Contact,” and Table 444, “Homosexual Sample: Age of Partner in First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact)


I'm going to take that first one.

73% of Homosexuals have had sex with an adolescent or younger boys.

It's a meaningless stat. It doesn't mention what age they were. They could have been adolescents themselves. Rather than the homophobic conclusion it's dirty old men running after young boys. The other party could have been the instigator.

For comparison what is the percentage of straight guys who have had sex with Adolescent or younger girls.

If you think a lot of straight guys are losing their virginity in Adolescents the likely hood is they are having sex with adolescent girls. If you think that girls tend to go for older guys, you get a lot of 17 year old guys sleeping with 16 yo girls. Does that class as "Younger" ?

So the chances are the amount of Straight guys who have had sex with an adolescent or younger girls would be quite high too.

If the stats were similar would that make all straight guys kiddy Fiddlers?

By BoI's logic you might as well just lock me up now.

Sorry Brain, but I'm pretty sure you've read too many assumptions into that data, and even if 73% is an accurate figure the proportion of those who did so illegally would be tiny compared to the number who were still teenagers themselves. It reads like a study with a pre-determined conclusion: vilifying homosexuality in a far less accepting time.

It is for that reason that outdated and - as we've all shown - vague data is being ignored by most people in this thread.
\
Not just vague data, ALL data - even when it is not affiliated with any religious organization.

I've been on PF1 long enough to know that forumers ask for 'evidence' - then proceed to ignore, or attack that evidence. If the prevailing opinion is that homosexuals are no more likely to be involved in child abuse - based only on 'opinion', in spite of multiple studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals - I won't waste any more time debating.

_________________
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1983
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
..and based on information derived from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Institute of Criminology. Plus being advocated in Gay literature such as the Journal of Homosexuality in papers such as "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" and in a 1995 edition of 'The Guide' with "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake.".

Simply ignoring the data because you despise these lobbyists, their beliefs/religious affiliations and/or because its from the 1990's is just being willfully blind.

When it comes to lobbyists or those with an agenda of course the reports are not going to be trustworthy.

See all the organisations in America who claim to have indisputable proof that videogames cause people to go on mass shooting sprees - despite the fact the FBI who has researched it heavily and has found there to be no link, the fact millions of people play videogames and don't get turned into mass killers and the fact that crime rates have been shown to have dropped by demographics who play a lot of videogames. However the reports are still out there proving the link, far more numerous than these reports that you are citing.

You even say yourself that it is "...based on information derived from..." - the keyword in that sentence being derived. It's not even the raw information, it's been processed and carefully reassembled to make sure that it fits the point the creator wants it to make.




BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
As for slavery, you are clearly just throwing around silly claims which have no historical support. A Christian - William Wilberforce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce- led the British empire in abolishing slavery in 1807. One commentator on the excellent research 'Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves' by Adam Hochschild (2005) wrote "‘The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called “the religious right”.
Other Christian activists included Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson.

In 1807 in Britain nearly 100% of the population was Christian, so of course Christians would have led the movement to abolish slavery. But even if 75% of the population was not Christian this still would not mean anything. This was not a movement by one of the Christian churches, it was started by individuals independent of their religious authority. Now, the authorities may have jumped on the bandwagon later, but the Church of England or Catholic Church didn't recognise the evil of slavery or lead the campaign against it, they only did so once the movement had already started.



BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Laura, this thread started to (justifiably) rail on the Catholic church for their appalling record of child abuse. No argument from me, I'm not Catholic nor a Catholic apologist - I agree, its disgraceful. Nonetheless, to simply ignore the massive over-representation (statistically) of crimes against children committed by homosexuals (these stats show a correlation, like the correlation that smoking increases risks of ill-health) is just burying one's head in the sand. Try reading 'Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences' or 'Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement'.
Other forumers take exception with the credibility of the stats, or the lobbyist behind them, but the fact remains they were formally presented (and defended) in a legal setting to the Criminal Justice Commission of Queensland - not just on a F1 off-topic forum. Gay rights organizations such as the ILGA had NAMBLA as associate members until as recently as 1994, and even if they've expelled them, they are still on record for lobbying to lower or even abolishing the age of consent with minors.

My dog in this fight is to expose the hypocrisy in using broad strokes to label organized religion as a virtual haven of child molesters - whilst willfully ignoring the very, very high statistical instances of child abuse among the homosexual community. You can't have it one way without the other.

Correlation does not mean causation. That's one of the most important things to know in any scientific study, yet the one thing most sensationalist, agenda driven news organisations deliberate fail to remember.

For example, taking smoking and cancer as an example. People who smoke have a much higher cancer rate than those who don't - now while it has now been proved by science that smoking does cause cancer, it would be possible for this same correlation to exist if cigarettes didn't cause cancer.

Suppose cigarettes didn't cause cancer, but you could only buy cigarettes in the middle of a nuclear reactor. The same correlation would still exist - people who smoke would have a higher rate of cancer, however it wouldn't be down to the smoking, it would be down to the fact they were getting a lethal dose of radiation every time they went to buy more.

20 years ago there was still a great stigma attached to being gay. In fact, it was still criminalised at the time and place of that report, given that it was presented as part of the argument against decriminalising homosexuality in Australia. As a result, surveys into sexuality are hardly going to be accurate (they still are not accurate today when a majority of people do not have a problem if someone is gay) The statistics as presented are meaningless, there is no definition as to what they actually mean, how they were sampled, researched or determined. What counts as someone being "gay" for example? Does a bisexual person count as "gay"? Or do they just have to have had gay thoughts? Because most people in their lives will have had gay thoughts of some description at some point in their life.

You can't just present a statistic like "Homosexuals commit between 33% and 50% of all recorded instances of child molestation" and leave it as that. It's meaningless.

BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
So let me understand you better...
You can freely demonize one group (lets say the Catholic Church - of which I am not a member) for their terrible child abuse conduct but turn a blind eye to another group (Homosexuals) who are also are shown to be heavily involved (statistically) in child abuse? And if that statement is kind of correct, then the only differentiation is that the Church positions itself as moral, right?

Also, the Gay Liberation Front manifesto clearly states its aim as "we are not in fact being idealistic to aim at abolishing the family" and "The end of the...the family will benefit all women, and gay people" and that Christianity is "archaic and irrational" are exactly the same flavor of forcing people to 'adhere to their morality' (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/glf-london.asp) as the organized religion is accused of, right? If you don't think anyone is being forced to adhere here, just post comments that are seen as anti-gay - the howls of homophobia and humans rights violations are deafening.

You continue to refer to homosexuals as a community. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. It would be like saying "the left handed community" or the "blue eyed community" - it does not exist and is not a thing.

Now, specific Gay Rights organisations are a legimate target, as they are an organisation that people volunteer to join an associate themselves with. That's an equivalent to the Catholic Church, however you cannot group together all people who are gay into a single group and claim they all share the same views and agendas, because they don't.

BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
I read that article, however the thrust of the argument is that opinion (not hard data) has shown a decline in the belief that gay people are more statistically likely to abuse a child. Then, it gets rather wishy-washy about terminology and lack of research. Naturally, no papers which are contrary to their position are cited.

Some other research (not affiliated with religious organizations):

1. 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with on adolescent or younger boys (The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles [Simon and Schuster, 1979], page 275)
2. Homosexual males are 3 times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia (K. Freund & R.I. Watson. “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study.” 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992)
3. 25% of (white) homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years or younger (Alan P.Bell, et. al., Institute for Sex Research. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women [Simon and Schuster, 1980)
4. 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children less than 17 years old (P.H. Gebhard and A.B. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979 Table 443, “Homosexual Sample: Age at First Post pubertal Homosexual Contact,” and Table 444, “Homosexual Sample: Age of Partner in First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact)

I bet that 73% of heterosexuals have had sex with adolescents or younger people. Because most people lose their virginity before they are 18. I bet more than 25% of heterosexuals lose their virginity before the age of 16. If an 18 year old has sex with a 15 year old, he/she is a paedophile.

I am not sure how stat 1 concurs with stat 4, unless 36% of homosexuals are having sex with 17-18 year old boys.

Does Stat 2 group bisexual men in with heterosexual men or with homosexual men. Or does it work on the premise that if the sexual offence is conducted on a boy the man is counted as gay, if it's conducted on a girl they are counted as straight? Because if that's the case then they are not actually gay or straight. They are paedophiles - they are sexually interested in children.

There is a reason that most people are not sexually attracted to children; other than the fact it's a child, physically a child is not representative of what they find sexually attractive. If you are a straight male, a child girl and a child boy are equally sexually non-attractive. The same applies to gay people. If a gay paedophile sexually assaults a young boy, it's because they are a gay paedophile. The action is as sexually repulsive to a gay non-paedophile as it is to a straight person.

No non paedophile, gay, straight or bisexual has ever thought "if I was to have sex with children it would be in line with my sexual orientation" because they are NOT PAEDOPHILES and sex with either gender of children is equally as wrong.


edited a couple of typos I noticed, but then it is a very long post so there were bound to be some

Yeah but I noticed a few typos and 'facts' I disagree with - so I'm going to state that your whole post is meaningless, out of context and not supported by anything but your opinion. Sound familiar? ;-)

Given that you seem to be the only person on this topic who is in disagreement with me it is pointless continuing to debate you if you are going to respond to a post that I spent a sizeable amount of my time writing with such a glib and specious statement. I'm a) not going to change your mind b) have better things to do if you are not willing to put any effort in and c) think anyone else reading this topic is more likely to agree with me than with you.

And yes, of course there will be typos. I typed it out really quickly in a text box on a web browser and did a quick glance for formatting errors before submitting it. I didn't write it in a word processor, run a spell check, read it through or submit it for peer review. This is a web forum not a university dissertation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 7423
Location: London
BoI I'd suggest you quit while you are slightly behind. You basically lumped every single homosexual in the same box as a group who go around sleeping with only adolescents. No one here has said all Catholics are kiddy fiddlers. However you did try and post "evidence" that a large majority of homosexuals are.

The fact that you seem to be implying that homosexuals are more likely to engage in peadophilia simply because of the fact they are gay is stupid. As Tufty said a good chunk of those homosexuals who have slept with an adolescent were probably adolescents themselves. If a 17 year old sleeps with a 16 year old does that make it wrong? Nope.

Just stop.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1364
Location: Wrexham, UK
I think it's pretty fine to ignore statistics when said statistics tell you:
73% of homosexuals have had sex with 18 and unders.
37% of which were with people 17 years and under.
25% of which were with people 16 and under.

i.e. 40% of homosexual people have sex with 17-18 year olds.

Now your statistics seem very contradictory to one another, or highlighting that people consent in intercourse between the age of 17-18 more than any other age. At least they don't go too young eh?

This could only seem likely simply because many people lose their virginity around this age, and as such I would expect the 'straight' society to be similar. In which case, the statistic is hardly damning at all. But that's not what you posted it for is it?

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
If anyone has actually read any of the literature, or bothers to cite peer-reviewed scientific papers which contradict those posted - rather than just state their opinion - feel free to do so.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm

Quote:

Psychotherapist and author Joe Kort points out that when men molest little girls, they’re specifically called “pedophiles” or “sexual predators.” But when men molest boys, they’re simply called “homosexuals,” as though sexual orientation were responsible for driving these men to their crimes.


Quote:
When it comes to statistics, we know surprisingly little about child sexual abuse. Official statistics are notoriously incomplete because too many cases are never reported.


Thats just a snippet I but I suggest reading the rest.

BTW that was just the first link I found on Google.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1075
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
If anyone has actually read any of the literature, or bothers to cite peer-reviewed scientific papers which contradict those posted - rather than just state their opinion - feel free to do so.



this might help. just an example how some of the statistics quoted was created. Very interesting reading.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads ... ence_1.pdf


another example - work N3 in your quote (by Allan Bell and Martin Weinberg). Authors always admitted that they weren't sampling randomly. They were making study in gay bars for singles and bath houses. and they did not provide any representative data for heterosexuals. Authors openly admitted that. and it was done in 70s. in San Fransisco, during the era of 'free-love' and drugs. no guarantee that data for heterosexual people would be much different. But we don't know, do we.

Question to you - have YOU actually read those works that you mentioned?

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1503
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Just to update Brain of Ireland's signature,

Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather
data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from
non-living matter in school science classes? Oh hang on, we don't!


So rather then debate/discuss the issue, you'd rather mock the debater, classy.


What's to discuss when children aren't taught that life spontaneously arose. It's a theory but not taught as fact which I believe you are getting at, no?

Of course what facts should we use that life began another way or should we continue to teach the many different ways people think life could have started?

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:17 am
Posts: 660
Just for clarity asphalt, are you definitely and only talking about life beginning spontaneously, as opposed to the universe / cosmos?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1983
domdonald wrote:
Just for clarity asphalt, are you definitely and only talking about life beginning spontaneously, as opposed to the universe / cosmos?

This is probably in danger of going OT if the discussion continues down this line, so would probably make sense to create a topic about Evolution/Intelligent Design.

*Runs and hides before PF1-Mod sees what I have just suggested*


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 3344
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
domdonald wrote:
Just for clarity asphalt, are you definitely and only talking about life beginning spontaneously, as opposed to the universe / cosmos?

This is probably in danger of going OT if the discussion continues down this line, so would probably make sense to create a topic about Evolution/Intelligent Design.

*Runs and hides before PF1-Mod sees what I have just suggested*

tbh i think it went OT when the subject if pedophilia was brought up but that 2 pages ago!

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1983
minchy wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
domdonald wrote:
Just for clarity asphalt, are you definitely and only talking about life beginning spontaneously, as opposed to the universe / cosmos?

This is probably in danger of going OT if the discussion continues down this line, so would probably make sense to create a topic about Evolution/Intelligent Design.

*Runs and hides before PF1-Mod sees what I have just suggested*

tbh i think it went OT when the subject if pedophilia was brought up but that 2 pages ago!

Well that was related because the thread is to do with the Catholic Church's stance on Gay marriage, and the paedophile issue demonstrated thel Catholic Church's moral credibility.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
would it be fair to say that from this thread a successfully conclusion would be.

Homosexual Priests shouldn't be allowed near kids :P

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1503
domdonald wrote:
Just for clarity asphalt, are you definitely and only talking about life beginning spontaneously, as opposed to the universe / cosmos?


Well I was talking about life on earth as I believe that was what he was referring to.

However you could easily talk about the creation of our universe as there is no proof of how that came to be either. Just lots of theories.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:17 am
Posts: 660
yes, ok. Although I would be careful when using words like "theory", since in science a theory has a specific meaning. Many other "theories" are simply speculation, or unsubstantiated claims. This is usually one of the issues with debates about the origins of life, the universe and everything because religious apologists often confuse the two when stating that the idea of the existence or non-existence of God are just two different theories, giving the impression that the two carry equal weight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:41 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 2042
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
domdonald wrote:
Just for clarity asphalt, are you definitely and only talking about life beginning spontaneously, as opposed to the universe / cosmos?

This is probably in danger of going OT if the discussion continues down this line, so would probably make sense to create a topic about Evolution/Intelligent Design.

*Runs and hides before PF1-Mod sees what I have just suggested*

Seen and caught in the act. Not that you have any reason to hide. Set it up if you like, although if it's still relevant here I see no reason it needs to be split.

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
("Anonymous") probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Yes, we have a swear filter now. No, it doesn't change coffin to 'place of rest'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1983
P-F1 Mod wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
domdonald wrote:
Just for clarity asphalt, are you definitely and only talking about life beginning spontaneously, as opposed to the universe / cosmos?

This is probably in danger of going OT if the discussion continues down this line, so would probably make sense to create a topic about Evolution/Intelligent Design.

*Runs and hides before PF1-Mod sees what I have just suggested*

Seen and caught in the act. Not that you have any reason to hide. Set it up if you like, although if it's still relevant here I see no reason it needs to be split.

I was just recalling the nightmare of modding the previous religion based threads on the old forum...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:32 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 2042
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
domdonald wrote:
Just for clarity asphalt, are you definitely and only talking about life beginning spontaneously, as opposed to the universe / cosmos?

This is probably in danger of going OT if the discussion continues down this line, so would probably make sense to create a topic about Evolution/Intelligent Design.

*Runs and hides before PF1-Mod sees what I have just suggested*

Seen and caught in the act. Not that you have any reason to hide. Set it up if you like, although if it's still relevant here I see no reason it needs to be split.

I was just recalling the nightmare of modding the previous religion based threads on the old forum...

No harm in giving it another shot though. I'm willing to keep a close eye on any such thread.

Anyway I'll stop hijacking this one, so if you wish to communicate further on this matter, PM me.

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
("Anonymous") probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Yes, we have a swear filter now. No, it doesn't change coffin to 'place of rest'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1503
domdonald wrote:
yes, ok. Although I would be careful when using words like "theory", since in science a theory has a specific meaning. Many other "theories" are simply speculation, or unsubstantiated claims. This is usually one of the issues with debates about the origins of life, the universe and everything because religious apologists often confuse the two when stating that the idea of the existence or non-existence of God are just two different theories, giving the impression that the two carry equal weight.


Yes, I simply refer to them being theories despite some being based on lots of evidence and others being based on next to nothing.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:08 pm
Posts: 960
domdonald wrote:
I think it is perfectly acceptable to bring up the child abuse "card" in such a discussion . The Roman Catholic church, as an organisation, has been demonstrated to be rich, powerful, corrupt and criminal. These are the same people who decide what "ordinary" catholics should believe by claiming they are passing on the word of god. If you are a good obedient Roman Catholic, you should believe and agree with what they say, and be subservient to the message. If it turns out that this organisation systematically sought to cover up child rape, I think there is a very relevant and obvious link when we are on the subject of sexual preferences, tolerance and what is "normal" or "natural". Apart from making the Roman Catholic Church complicit in unspeakable crimes, it also displays an astonishing level of hypocrisy.

Biffa, to dismiss this and to say it is not helpful (or as an "extreme' statement), when discussing the issue of same sex marriage and the support, or lack of it, from the church and therefore from many believers as a result of this religious influence, one can only assume you mean it is not helpful to your argument.

I have been watching a few debates involving religion over the past few days and it is a very common tactic of the religious side to dismiss anything which they believe and which they are told to believe, which by today's moral standards is generally accepted as abhorrent, as "unhelpful for the purposes of engaging in progressive discourse". No, its NOT unhelpful, because religious values, beliefs and teachings for example concerning homosexuals, are the cause of much bigotry in the world today. The only difference is, that religious folks can justify the intolerance and bigotry by saying "God said it, so don't blame me". If this is the general attitude of the Roman Catholic church and its members, and if it is Gods will, then I think it is very valid to explain and acknowledge this in the context of any discussion on gay marriage.


Been away for a few days and am just now seeing the sorry direction this argument has taken.

(In answer to domdonald bolded part): But the point that I was trying to make was; if you want to discuss same-sex-marriage then let’s do that constructively (in its own right) rather than revert to the child abuse argument (which as I hinted is the card that is often played whenever discussing anything perceived to be ‘catholic’, and frankly just derails any meaningful debate).

The child abuse situation is abhorrent, but right at this moment we are supposed to be discussing same-sex-marriage, I fully support it, I am not religious or a Catholic (Christopher Hitchens is one of my greatest heroes and even he would be turning in his grave at how aimless this debate has become).

As a non-religious person, if you cannot separate debate between same-sex-marriage and child abuse then neither side will get anywhere. We need to be better than that!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1983
Biffa wrote:
but right at this moment we are supposed to be discussing same-sex-marriage

Actually the thread is "Vincent Nichols on gay marriage" - so the topic of the thread is the Catholic Church's position on gay marriage. As a result, bringing up the Catholic Church's standing on other issues is very much on topic and relevant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:08 pm
Posts: 960
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Biffa wrote:
but right at this moment we are supposed to be discussing same-sex-marriage

Actually the thread is "Vincent Nichols on gay marriage" - so the topic of the thread is the Catholic Church's position on gay marriage. As a result, bringing up the Catholic Church's standing on other issues is very much on topic and relevant.


Well not really! And I'm not sure if it was this thread but there seemed to be a consensus that ‘same-sex-marriage’ rather than ‘gay-marriage’ is a more acceptable term.

But regardless of that, why exactly are the ‘other’ issues you mention relevant to the gay-marriage debate? Why not the flagrum, the cilice, why not the matter of papal infallibility? What are you saying about that??

From what you say I can only assume that your primary argument is against the ‘Catholic Church’ as an entity (nothing wrong with that of course), rather than anything to do with the specifics of ‘gay-marriage’. And that is where you do the whole argument an injustice!

As soon as someone says: Catholics cannot debate about same-sex-marriage because some other Catholics have done terrible things shows as much intolerance as those that you are arguing against!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1983
Biffa wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Biffa wrote:
but right at this moment we are supposed to be discussing same-sex-marriage

Actually the thread is "Vincent Nichols on gay marriage" - so the topic of the thread is the Catholic Church's position on gay marriage. As a result, bringing up the Catholic Church's standing on other issues is very much on topic and relevant.


Well not really! And I'm not sure if it was this thread but there seemed to be a consensus that ‘same-sex-marriage’ rather than ‘gay-marriage’ is a more acceptable term.

But regardless of that, why exactly are the ‘other’ issues you mention relevant to the gay-marriage debate? Why not the flagrum, the cilice, why not the matter of papal infallibility? What are you saying about that??

From what you say I can only assume that your primary argument is against the ‘Catholic Church’ as an entity (nothing wrong with that of course), rather than anything to do with the specifics of ‘gay-marriage’. And that is where you do the whole argument an injustice!

As soon as someone says: Catholics cannot debate about same-sex-marriage because some other Catholics have done terrible things shows as much intolerance as those that you are arguing against!

If you read my contributions to the thread then you will have seen that my argument was not:

"Catholics cannot debate about same-sex-marriage because some other Catholics have done terrible things"

1) I specifically have stated (more than once) that I was talking about the organisation and not the followers.

2) I specifically stated it was not because of the actions of the individual priests molesting children

3) What I actually referred to was the fact that the Catholic Church (as an organisation, again, NOT individual Catholics) chose to cover up the cases of child abuse in order to protect its image.

I also referred to its continued campaign against condoms in Africa - because it would rather see millions of Africans die from Aids than be seen publicly reversing its position.

Both of these demonstrate that the Catholic Church would rather protect its image, rather preserve its antiquated dogma than do the morally decent thing. This is 100% relevant to its position on Gay Marriage. For centuries the Catholic Church has been demonising homosexuality, and the reason it stages such a public fight against homosexuality is for the same reason it opposes condoms and covered up the child abuse - to protect and preserve its image. They will make claims that it is to do with the sanctity of marriage or morality - but they have constantly demonstrated they do not care about what is morally right. They will commit many resources fighting against gay marriage, or gay adoption, or whatever despite the fact they know it is ultimately a futile struggle and these laws will eventually get passed (even if they do secure exceptions) but ultimately the resources and money they spend on these fights could have been used for doing genuine good (let's remember that many ordinary church folk do do good things, such as charitable work)

Vincent Nichols making this speech on Christmas Day is just like Bernie Ecclestone when he makes his claims the British Grand Prix might be scrapped, or that Ferrari can leave Formula 1 if they want, because he knows it will a) get in the headlines and b) reaffirm the caricature the media have established.

He could have used his Christmas speech to talk about looking after the vulnerable in society - yes it would have got less column inches but at least it would have been a message of peace and goodwill rather than a hate filled rant that will accomplish little except to stir things up and divide.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1983
mac_d wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mac_d wrote:
If people want gay marriage, I'm cool with it as long as they allow Civil partnerships to straight people, or otherwise completely make all benefits, tax issues, medical, legal etc issues for both the same.

I don't see why gay marriage etc would bother anyone really. But perhaps it's because I grew up in a pretty accepting time, and if I had grown up more used to an anti-gay world, I might have been shaped into disagreement. I'd like to think I still wouldn't, but who knows.

The "Straight people are also discriminated against because they can't get a civil partnership" is a bogus argument trotted out by homophobes who have a deliberately short term memory. Civil partnerships only exist because they were created as a means for gay people to be able to do something similar to marriage without calling it marriage and bringing out the full wrath of organised religion and bigots. It was an intermediate step to test the water, and allow the general public to get used to the idea of gay couples having legally formalised relationships so when the idea of gay marriage was suggested ordinary people didn't see what the big deal was because gay people were essentially already getting married in a different name.


I feel you've painted me to be something I think is massively inaccurate. My point was simply if gay people are allowed to get married, straight people should be allowed to enter civil partnerships. If gay marriage over-rode the civil partnership so as to make it no longer exist legally, then that is fine. But I stress this, there should be parity and equality in the totality of it. If you allow gay marriage but keep the civil partnership status as an alternative status, this should be open to hetrosexual couples also.

I'm not saying straight people are discriminated against. I don't have a short memory and I entirely resent being essentially called homophobic.

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply I thought you were homophobe. I was referring to what I wrote in quotation marks rather than your actual quote because it is something that is often trotted out by the hard line homophobes: "We're discriminated against too, we can't get civil partnershipped"

If gay people are allowed to marry then I don't see why civil parterships will continue, because "civil partnership" was just a new name made up for marriage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:00 am
Posts: 272
The last time catholics had a say on marriage in England someone got the pip and started their own religion ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 3344
swillis wrote:
The last time catholics had a say on marriage in England someone got the pip and started their own religion ...

:lol:
Although it was to do with getting the Pope's permission to get divorced rather than married!

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1503
minchy wrote:
swillis wrote:
The last time catholics had a say on marriage in England someone got the pip and started their own religion ...

:lol:
Although it was to do with getting the Pope's permission to get divorced rather than married!


But it does somewhat put into perspective the way some religions began when you consider the absolute faith some purple put in to their chosen faith. I swear a lot of religious people haven't bothered to dig deep enough to see how their religion is based on.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Image

Some people don't even look as far as the mis-translations, contradictions or the bits left out and changed by the Council of Nicea. Nevermind what it's actually based on. Remember if you question it it's just a test of your faith :?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 3344
Johnston wrote:
Some people don't even look as far as the mis-translations, contradictions or the bits left out and changed by the Council of Nicea. Nevermind what it's actually based on. Remember if you question it it's just a test of your faith :?

Well, this can be looked at in the same way as the gun laws in America discussion that's been going on in another thread here. Lots of people, both american and non-american, are suggesting a change in the law because society has changed and the gun ownership laws should as well.

Why then shouldn't religion also change with the times? Christianity has always changed with the times. It has adopted new customs which today are taken for granted, but 1000 years ago would possibly be looked at as being evil. Should Jews still slaughter Lambs for passover and paint their doors with the blood before the feast, this is what they used to do 1000's of years ago, so why not now? As long as the religion holds it's core beliefs then that is really all that is needed.

So why not allow the change in gay marriage for Christians? I'm sure it was Moses or Noah who got drunk and went to another man's tent or something similar which was when God supposedly told people not to do it! But as far as Christians are concerned, the old testament is just back story and the new testament is their holy book. Now I could be wrong here, but I don't think there is anywhere that either Jesus or his disciples said it was a crime against God or that is was forbade. So even though it is tradition not to allow it, why stick to that tradition if the world is changing around you?

As to the last sentence in your post, I know you're posts may be tongue in cheek, but surely the puzzled face after it shows that you don't understand how a believer would look at that statement and make their faith stronger because they have questioned it themselves.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
minchy wrote:

As to the last sentence in your post, I know you're posts may be tongue in cheek, but surely the puzzled face after it shows that you don't understand how a believer would look at that statement and make their faith stronger because they have questioned it themselves.



Nope not tongue in cheek. I've had the "Test of faith" thrown at me during "discussions" with religious folk when pointing out some of the inconsistencies within the bible. Inconsistencies are there to test us. Well that's what I was told anyway.

The biggest test of course being the Dinosaurs being planted.

I've even been slated by one person for working on Sundays, that was my test apparently. temptation put in my way. Funnily enough when she started working on Sundays it became Gods will. Go figure.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 3344
Johnston wrote:
minchy wrote:

As to the last sentence in your post, I know you're posts may be tongue in cheek, but surely the puzzled face after it shows that you don't understand how a believer would look at that statement and make their faith stronger because they have questioned it themselves.



Nope not tongue in cheek. I've had the "Test of faith" thrown at me during "discussions" with religious folk when pointing out some of the inconsistencies within the bible. Inconsistencies are there to test us. Well that's what I was told anyway.

The biggest test of course being the Dinosaurs being planted.

I've even been slated by one person for working on Sundays, that was my test apparently. temptation put in my way. Funnily enough when she started working on Sundays it became Gods will. Go figure.

ah, that's very different when put in context. But whenever having discussion regarding religion you will always have folks who just write random stuff like that rather discuss it and question it themselves (on both sides!)

There was a good discussion i saw on bbc parliament the other day (i know, but in my defense i was really bored) between prof Dawkins the Load Sacks (the chief rabbi) about how religion is relevant in society. It was interesting and if you've got a spare hour I'd recommend watching it.

EDIT: the debate has already been taken off iplayer but is on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roFdPHdhgKQ

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
minchy wrote:
ah, that's very different when put in context. But whenever having discussion regarding religion you will always have folks who just write random stuff like that rather discuss it and question it themselves (on both sides!)

There was a good discussion i saw on bbc parliament the other day (i know, but in my defense i was really bored) between prof Dawkins the Load Sacks (the chief rabbi) about how religion is relevant in society. It was interesting and if you've got a spare hour I'd recommend watching it.

EDIT: the debate has already been taken off iplayer but is on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roFdPHdhgKQ



Oh yes I know that. I done a few years in Church. Listening, watching and having the old discussions after the service was enough to convince me that a lot of so called religious folk shouldn't be let near a position of power :lol:

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1503
I read that there have been protests backed by the Catholic Church in Paris against bringing in same sex marriage and gay adoption. They believe it will affect the building blocks of society. What on earth do they actually mean by this?

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:59 am
Posts: 702
Asphalt_World wrote:
I read that there have been protests backed by the Catholic Church in Paris against bringing in same sex marriage and gay adoption. They believe it will affect the building blocks of society. What on earth do they actually mean by this?

It wasn't just Catholics, just about all the main religious groups took part, except for buddhists...
Buddha never expressed a view on homosexulaity, they don't care what anyone else gets up to, and don't want to get involved in other peoples' issues- very sensible if you ask me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:42 pm 
A friendly reminder for people participating in this thread to be careful about generalisations. Please note that we do not allow attacks based on race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or any other type of discrimination.

(Just to make it clear, this comment is not specifiaclly triggered by the most recent posts).


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group