Finally got round to replying to this. I don't mind answering everyone's questions but it might take a while



I should start by declaring my hand. I don't believe gay people should be able to enter into any formal union, civil partnership or marriage. I do however agree with John McCain that gay people should not be prevented from entering into formal contracts which take care of the legal stuff if they wish to cohabit or divvy up their assets following a death.

The reason I object to any state-sponsored gay union is, well, firstly because I believe it is unbiblical, for the reasons I've stated elsewhere in this thread. And secondly, whilst we may be a secular country in practice (though not as bad as say France), it is absurd that the Head of State and Head of the Church of England should give their implied approval of such unions through Royal Assent. It makes a complete mockery of the CofE. No wonder no one takes them seriously.

I've never argued that gay people can change, more that they can refrain from conducting gay relationships.

As a Christian, do you think sex before marriage is biblical?

Maybe they are just moving forward faster than other religions ?

Religions of all hues find it difficult to cope with questions and changing attitudes without those changes being initiated by themselves, it comes back to control of the population and the big problem that I see with many religions is that you can't re-interpret scriptures and ancient writings in a modern setting without another group of people crying "heretic".

The Catholic church (just as an example) painted themselves into a corner recently with their public treatment of the child abuse scandals, trying to deny the issue and then trying to deal with it internally while expecting the population to be compliant just showed a complete lack of reality in their leadership and a belief that the faithful would just follow and the rest ignore - the modern world doesn't work like that, this is not the middle ages any more.

Apart from certain districts with a WF postcode.

At the risk of getting personal, just how 'literal' is your stance. Have you never for example 'cast your seed upon the ground' (Genesis 3icon_cool.gif...or would you admit that you have occasionally fornicated for reasons other than procreation?
I don't know you but I would probably call you a liar if you said no, which would not sit too well with the following passage which lists homosexuality together with mendacity as unrighteous and contrary to sound doctrine.
[i"knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for
the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for
the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of
mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for
kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing
that is contrary to sound doctrine, (1 Timothy 1:9-10)"[/i

Just one other thing that's really bugging me. Their are no direct NT references to Homosexuality, and only 4 in the OT. Even when it comes to the issue of 'sexual morality' only the Pauline Epistles have any direct reference. Can we not therefore assume that this really wasn't that much of an issue For Matthew, Mark, Luke et. al?... or maybe it's just that Paul was the Mary Whitehouse of his time.
The reality is that it's the Church much more than the Bible that obsesses itself with control over sexuality and relationships.

ok, this is going to be a rant, but I'm sorry, some incredibly offensive things have been said on this thread.

1. 'Being gay's not like being black, because you can choose not to be gay but you can't choose not to be black

So as a gay person, I should refrain from having any sexual or romantic liaison with anyone I happen to like? I should actively renounce a part of myself that is fundamental to who I am. This isn't different to being black. There is a [uhuge[/u market for skin lightening creams for black people, and various treatments can remove melanin from the skin. So when I decide to 'keep being black' I'm making exactly the same choice to keep indulging a part of myself people might not like as I do when I decide to keep being gay.

2. God said it's wrong, so I shouldn't do it.

3 Premises of Christianity:

a. God made me
b. God made the moral laws of the universe, and a church to enforce them
c. God is benevolent and loving

So god made me, he made me gay, in direct contradiction of his own moral laws, and he then encouraged is followers at various points in history to kill/torture/imprison/abuse/exclude me. Given he is also supposedly omniscient he knew all this would happen, so the three premises' of kirkstaller's belief are contradictory.

either

a. God didn't make me, and therefore doesn't exist

or

b. Homophobes are wrong when they say 'god made homosexuality a sin'

or

c. God is a malevolent prick who has designed me specifically so his followers can have someone to bully.

A, B, or C kirkstaller. Make your choice.

3. Gay people are acting immorally, but shouldn't be abused, or bullied, or anything nasty like that

Ask yourself why people bully each other, ask yourself why hatred of all stripes happens. It happens because people [ufundamentally believe there is something wrong with those people who display that trait, whatever it should happen to be.[/u People do not go around abusing those who you respect & consider as equals. When the church and people like Kirkstaller start espousing their bigoted attitudes, they build the base for homophobic abuse at every level to happen.

4. We can hate the sin, but not the sinner

This too is bunkum. I can't help finding someone i see on the street attractive, I can't help wanting to date people I should happen to like. when you try to divorce my sin from my self you demand I deny a fundamental part of who I am, which I cannot do, just as I cannot, and will not, ask you to deny your god. People do not exist in some sort of moral vacuum where you can separate who we are, our actions and our desires.

5. The club shouldn't 'force 21st century morality on its supporters'

This isn't what the club is doing, the club is standing up and saying all of its supporters should be treated equitably. When you demand a right to degrade individuals because they make choices you disagree with, you leave behind a right to believe what you want, and claim a right to have your views aired in public, no matter how damaging or hurtful they may be to people. If supporting a club which believes there's nothing wrong with being gay is so damaging to you, you are free to GTFO.

6. The bible says marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, so gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married

Here's a few other things the bible says

-Touching pigs makes you unclean (so no pork for anyone)

-those who plant 2 different crops side by side will go to hell (farmers in the house?)

-those who work on the sabbath should be killed (we definitely played on a sunday this year, guess Nantwichexile will get the academy side he's always wanted)

-it's a sin for women to wear clothes made of two different threads (best chuck the topshop loyalty cards)


now I'm going to presume you're not a complete mentalist kirkstaller and say that you don't believe this. So if you don't, why do you pick out one quote from the bible, that being

'a man shall not lie with another man, for it is an abomination'

and not only give credence to that line you would never give to others, but give it more credence than all of the other passes of peace, love & charity the bible contains? Answers on a postcard please.

7. Property contracts ok, marriage bad

Firstly, Civil Unions are those property contracts, but second, when you remove the term 'marriage' you are happy to give all the benefits the state affords to a marriage, but reserve one word which, by withholding, you use to insult, debase and degrade those people who don't fit into your straitjacket of sexual morality. The job of the state, Kirkstaller, isn't to uphold your religion (even if we're officially CofE, the majority of polled christian's don't share your views), but to treat it's citizens equally, no matter what their colour, sexual orientation, or creed. When the state bows to your ideals it actively participates in the denigration of a community and the worth, as people, of its members. That is horrendously immoral, and a complete failure of the duty of the government to care for its citizenry.


Now, I am happy for people to believe whatever they want to believe and hold any opinion they want, but at the point they come on a public forum trying to debase peopel like me, undermine our choices, our lifestyle, our right to be who we are, and even our right to me treated equally by the rugby club we support, that's enough.

McLaren Field, please give Kirkstaller the indefinite ban his incredibly offensive views deserve. You'd not allow some quasi-respectable BNP supporter to give pseudo-scientific justifications for his racism, and I think 6 pages of attempting to defend his Bigotry is quite enough. Ban. Now.

He's probably in bed. "There's nobody here but us chickens".

No - and for these reasons - you don't change opinions by simply holding your hands to your ears and saying that you can't hear anything, the poster "Kirkstaller" has genuinely held views based on his christian beliefs, now you and I may oppose the fundemental principles of those beliefs, and by the way your reposte to those beliefs was very well constructed, but its of more benefit to have those beliefs aired so that we all understand properly what an element of the population still believe in.

By viewing both sides of the coin we are now much better informed as to why the RFL takes the anti-homophobia stance and where the campaign needs to be targeted.

And for the record I'd do exactly the same for a BNP spokesperson too although to be honest they are easy game to pick to pieces.

I think kirkstaller is entitled to his/her opinions, particularly as they are clearly not being expressed with the specific intention of causing insult or injury (even if that may be the effect for some).

I think an enightened society has room for all views to be expressed, considered and debated. Creating taboo subjects doesn't do much to alter perceptions. There have to be limits, of course, but I personally think the debate on here falls well within acceptable limits. I don't particularly want to see people villified for articulating opinions like this if they are prepared to hear other sides and engage intelligently with the debate, as kirkstaller has done.

Exactly.

The debate on here has been one of the best on any of the Forums, with well constructed and genuine views being exchanged. As an Agnostic, whilst not converted by kirkstaller's opinions, I thought he put his personal beliefs over particularly well, and in a reasoned and fairly compassionate way.

As did Tyke, until her final paragraph.

Excellent post .... And I even make a cameo appearance



However, I do agree with others that nobody should be censored for well meaning but ridiculous opinions. An open forum is the best way to tackle misguided people. Unfortunately I suspect Kirkstaller is one of those pious bluddy minded individuals who will never deviate from th their position regardless of the strength of a good riposte .. It will simply shatter the whole basis to the meaning of their life and their perceived reward of a better after life

What age are you in heaven by the way ? Do babies who die stay babies ? at the rapture are all that rise from their graves to be judged already in heaven or hell ?? For paradise and eternal happiness does there not have to be some misery to appreciate the concept of happiness ? Will it not get a little boring ? I was brought up a catholic. I am now a committed atheist/humanist.

Tyke's/Rhinos No. 1 Fan, you make some eloquent arguments, but I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. I think this thread has run it's natural course, but, for the sake of clarity, I'd like to correct the way you seem to have misrepresented my faith. I'll keep this relatively short and polite



May I also thank McF for respecting freedom of speech on both sides of the debate.



The Bible is, in my view, quite clear that homosexual acts are sinful. We can argue all day about whether that is true or not, but for the sake of argument, let's say that it is true. The Bible also tells us to resist temptation and to live a holy life. That may be very hard for people in your position, I accept that, but that is what I believe God tells us to do.



God didn't make you gay. Protestant theology dictates that man chose to rebel against God. This started in Eden and continues to this day - we have all inherited Adam's original sin. I believe that we all rebel against God - even Christians - and for that we must be punished. The Bible tells us that the punishment we deserve is eternal separation from God in Hell.

I'm as much of a sinner as you, and I don't have the right to judge you. I deserve Hell just as much as you do. I commit sins - I have lied, cheated and worse - but I have placed my faith in Jesus. He took the punishment for us.



I understand it's hard, I really do, but for the reasons I've outlined above I believe that it is what makes God happy.



I've said in a previous post that OT law no longer applies to us. I do however draw on the NT and a holitstic approach to scripture to form my views on marriage.

Hang on, so you are saying been hmoosexual is not the same as being black, asian or of any other creed? People are born the way they are, end of. Its not a life choice, its the way you are programmed.




heres one for you, I dont believe there is such a thing as god, i think its a big lie brought about to control the way people thought and acted hundreds of years ago. people say there is no such things as alien life forms, ghosts etc because we have no proof. Show me the proof that god exists. You cant apart from a book that was written many centuries after a supposed event occured.

There is a degree of choice with regard to the practice of sexual predilection though, if not with regard to the predilection itself. There is zero degree of choice with regard to race or skin colour.

Jacko had a good go.

I say respect other people's believes and that people can believe in what they choose to.

What I am against are people preaching their beliefs for the sole purpose of insighting hatred and attempting to convert others to your way of thinking.

I myself am Roman Catholic and I say leave people be, to live their lives as they choose.

Whatever our personal opinions the fundamental question is why do people belleve the bible .... Or the koran .... Or any other " holy book " ? There is no empirical proof that any of them were conceived of by any god... they're accepting the word of other men from ancient times that this is so. And different men interpret scripture in different ways. Followers then choose which version they choose to believe or are taught or are compelled to believe ( what choice do Afghan women in remote tribal areas have for example ?? ).

Why believe ?? Is it that you WANT to believe in a god ? Why ?

Because Christians Choose to Believe, like you Choose to Believe in Nothing Religious.

Like I said earlier.....Let people believe in what they want instead of wanting everyone to believe in what you believe in.

Simple really.

Oh.

You owe me a new monitor - I just covered the last one in coffee at the idea of a Roman Catholic advocating religious tolerance, given Catholicism's historical "issues" with non-believers.

I was expressing my personal views on people's beliefs.

Lots of Religious Institutions have Dark Pasts as do many Countries due to Leaders and/or Political Institutions.

[uHistorical[/u is a key word in your Statement.

Who's this "God" person you refer to?

Anyway, isn't a phobia a fear? Surely we're not campaigning against people being afraid of gay people are we?

Since religion is a manmade institution, elements of both are true as to what you think. If there is a god and you believe it good for you just dont force you view on me. if you are an atheist then bully for and thanks for sharing it with me i can sleep easy

it comes down to your own morality. We may not agree with Kirkstaller but they are his own views that people who try to take the moral high ground force into the shadows. for every poster on here you have all sinned in one form of another that may go against someone elses beliefs such as bullying, road rage,smokers,the jones next door,pornography, theft,hatred,meat is murder,global warming,jealousy,fatism,racism,buggery,tribal loyalty, resentment, personally held beliefs,habits,hygiene the list is endless it has happend on this site where you disagree with what a poster has put. you may think it is right but others dont but in the dark in the quiet when no one else knows no one can cast judgement you act upon those but you dare not share it with people who think and feel differently for you know you face certain ridicule.

why should he banned just because you say his view is biggoted. i say ban you for not allowing him to have his say in what he feels as you feel you are the fascist police i hate. Its people like you who foster the killing and stagnation of any debate and differing veiws that may move the attitude forward and seek an outcome You should be allowed to feel and think what you like just dont speak for my view, dont foster your view on me let me debate and if you dont like the reply you like dont start spouting off but you also must be prepared to deal with any consequenses that come your way. whether it is legal moral or any form of retribution. If you dont like what others think and say then debate it and argue it but FFS move on.

I just enjoy the sparring on the forum the Angry of Leeds letter in the paper it makes me smile

Ah yes, what a weekend that was...

i have seen your home made dvd of it andy

you mucky pup

Yes you did when you said:





How are you defining marriage?