Sinn Fein undermining the sanctity of marriage

1 views

A sign of the times.  Sinn Fein under attack…from Catholic Priests.

“While Sinn Féin support remains high in the Catholic community, they do not, however, have the support of Catholics who are committed to the cause of life and marriage….Catholics understand therefore, that a vote for Sinn Féin is a vote for the weakening of the institution of marriage and the right to life for all the unborn.””

And the DUP being praised..by the same Catholic Priests. Fr. Owen Gorman, parish priest in Aghadrumsee, wrote in Catholic monthly newspaper ‘Alive’ :

“Catholics have started to support Peter Robinson’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)…the most consistently pro-life and pro-traditional marriage party in Northern Ireland.”

And a similar points by Father Tim Bartlett from the Catholic Council for Social Affairs on BBC The View .

Today`s Sinn Fein motion on gay marriage will likely fail without the need of the DUP petition of concern (the last vote on the issue in 2012 was 45 for gay marriage & 50 against).  It will be interesting to see if the petitioning by the Roman Catholic church, Presbyterian church and the Coalition for Marriage has any effect on the voting numbers. Meanwhile Amnesty International has continued to threaten legal action should Stormont fail to enact gay marriage citing international law

“States may not discriminate with regards to the right to marry and found a family, on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

In the US the debate has turned to Polygamy where the left wing Slate magazine has come out for polygamy whilst a lawyer involved in same-sex marriage litigation has this piece on the issue. Having had a debate on Twitter with an SDLP member who defined marriage as being based solely on love I have to wonder where such a definition logically ends.

Such a basis would surely be a can of worms yet many in favour of gay marriage fail to see that defining marriage solely on the basis of love opens marriage to all sorts of relationships. ( In Brazil, an uncle and niece may have a relationship provided they undergo health checks & in parts of the US, first cousins may marry if they are beyond reproductive age or ability. Sweden allows marriage between siblings who share a parent.)

1 Corinthians 6: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,  nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

  • abucs

    Precisely Joe.

    People will have different ideas on what ‘normal’ is, thus the need to be pluralistic in law and not have state enforced law based on secular humanist philosophy.

    This is especially so for the point raised – in education.

  • abucs

    Hello Mickles,

    regarding the ‘tangent’ of ‘right wing’.

    You are entirely correct. You only implicitly associated me with ‘religious conservatives’, it was CM who branded me ‘Christian right.’

  • http://gravatar.com/joeharron Mister_Joe

    abucs,

    i understand your position but my point was that homosexuality cannot be derided as not normal, let alone abnormal. Some people are homosexual, I have seen estimates ranging from 5 – 10%, and most are not. Homosexuality seems to exist in all animals.

  • carl marks

    abucs
    So I produce the science you chose to ignore it!
    You claim to have a science degree the way you treat facts would seem to contradict this, anybody with any training in science would consider the facts presented to them this seems beyond your ability.
    Like the bombast on your blog you are very light on facts and heavy on propaganda.
    Again you resort to personal abuse when you have no argument to put forward.
    Again i ask you what do you mean by a pluralist state is it two sets of laws one for the minority of Christians (for when they were in the majority they showed no such consideration for others) and which Christians there are many different types of Christians as there are types of tree,
    What about muslins and Mormons will the state stay out of marriage in a way that will permit polygamy or will these freedoms only apply to the homophobic sections of society.
    Finally let me assure you that no matter what you think of my intellectual abilities it is a higher opinion than i have of yours,
    Now i produced the evidence for my argument (the link that you ignored) kindly produce the evidence for this twin study that you seem to be basing everything on.
    And please produce a link to your blog, I’m sure we could all do with a good laugh in these tough times.

  • abucs

    CM, i really don’t know how you can say I ignored your link when i explicitly went through it to repost all of the phrases contained within it, which suggests that homosexuality is not solely based on genes….. They were the facts that were contained within your link. I didn’t ignore them, in fact I did the very opposite, I explicitly highlighted them.

    Please try to follow.

    You asked previously whether a pluralist state meant different sets of laws for Christians, Muslims etc and i told you that it didn’t. The answer hasn’t changed. Nor will it change if you ask me a third time.

    Please try to follow.

    but then I am starting again to point out your silly remarks and getting back into the cycle which gets you upset and produces the next round of silliness.

  • abucs

    Joe,

    Firstly I wouldn’t use the word ‘derided’ as that implies a hostility that isn’t there.

    I suppose strictly speaking ‘normal’ could mean “the majority” or it could mean “fully functioning.”

    I think in both of those understandings homosexuality could be said to be ‘not normal’ although others might disagree.

    Words like ‘abnormal’ can also be incorrectly taken to mean an insult. I am sure we are all ‘not normal’ in some respect.

  • carl marks

    All the points you bring up,
    Waiting to be confirmed by others, etc this is what is called science, scientists don’t give conclusive statements until a thing has been proved beyond all possible doubt (unlike those who believe in a mythic creature, they make it up as they go along and expect to be believed, see twin theory).
    Now why don’t we look at a few facts ,
    The student who had to attend a gay awareness course , people are sent on these type of course if they are offensive( you cannot stop a person being racist, sexist or homophobic but you can stop them offending other people) so she must have offended one or several people and been told that this course may not improve her mind but will show her the behaviour expected in civilised company.
    Civil marriage celebrants are paid by the tax payer to Carry out a job if they don’t do it then there employer has a duty to the taxpayer to get rid of them and employ someone who will do the job properly.
    Now the people who were refused adoption, so many people have pointed out to you that this was not a case of failure to tick a box saying they would support the gay lifestyle (whatever that means) they stated that if any child they adopted Wasy they would not permit it so they were refused the privilege of adoption to protect the child, now how many times and how many people must tell you this before it sets in.
    Now this
    “If the state forces schools in sex education to affirm the gay lifestyle as normal with a ‘born that way’ narrative it has gone too far.”
    If your gay the gay lifestyle is normal, as has been pointed out it is right this should be taught in schools,
    And why shouldn’t it be pointed out the great contributions that gay people have made to our culture and society, i sure you would want the contribution that religion (we will ignore the child abuse carried out by those who serve god) has made.
    Also please post links to your other claims (we still remember the pastors and Russian population in a tailspin urban myths you quoted as facts in earlier posts) then we can verify them.
    Now you never answered my questions how far do you want this pluralist society to go, i asked will polygamy be allowed to those whose religion permits it, will sexism be allowed to those who think god made women to serve man, and what about those who believe god is a racist?
    Or should the law apply to all, for if it doesn’t then may i say that people like you are thankfully in the minority and as such the rest of us may decide to treat you like you would treat others.

    Finally i did not brand you as Christian right your own posts done that,

  • carl marks

    abucs
    “You asked previously whether a pluralist state meant different sets of laws for Christians, Muslims etc and i told you that it didn’t. The answer hasn’t changed. Nor will it change if you ask me a third time.”

    No I asked you what you meant by a pluralist state, you seem to be either unable or unwilling to give us a definition of what you mean
    As far as anybody can tell for you, this means that those who don’t like gay people are exempt for the laws that make discriminating against them illegal, you also seem to be claiming (note the seem that’s because you won’t explain what you mean) that this is exemption is because of religious beliefs, I only ask what other religious beliefs do you want exempt from the law will you extend the same rights to those who believe in a different myth from you,( of course I’m making the assumption that you are not racist or sexist)
    Please explain you keep talking using the phrase Pluralist society but when someone tries to pin you down as to what you mean you wriggle, go off on a tangent or get abusive,
    As has been pointed out by other people the examples you give of Christians been picked on are in reality examples of homophobes not being permitted to practice their homophobia, they are using Christianity as a cover for small minded bigotry and it is right that they should not be allowed to do this.
    Now be a good boy and tell us exactly what you mean by pluralist state, how do you envisage it working, what are its limits ,sexism, racism will these be allowed along with homophobia, and if not why not ,are other peoples deeply held beliefs not as valid as yours.
    Will i only be allowed to employ atheists if i so wish. Will those performing civil ceremonies not have to marry mixed race couples if their god tells them its wrong , will PHD students be allowed to hand out sexist abuse it that is what god tells them to do.
    Come on educate me, after all you claim to be a teacher it should not be beyond you abilty to explain these things and how you think it would work.

  • Mickles

    abucs:

    “I bring up the Twins study for various reasons. The first is that i was challenged to produce evidence, then that evidence was rubbished. Importantly, it points out the obvious in that homosexuality is unlikely to be solely based on genetics.”

    – But it isn’t evidence. Twin studies are in no way conclusive, and make nothing ‘obvious’. I’ve explained why they are unreliable.

    “you accept that it is probably a combination of factors such as genetics and the environment.”

    – I also said psychological factors, which are not environmental. You seem to conveniently leave out anything that doesn’t push your ‘gay by environment’ theory.

    “Again I would criticise the media for not reflecting the scientific consensus but focusing on a ‘born that way’ narrative to promote their own philosophy to be railroaded through law based on a popularly (mis)informed public.”

    – Any media I’ve seen has presented a variety of studies and research. The links I’ve given reflect as much scientific consensus as there is. Maybe you can show examples of the media pushing their own philosophy? Maybe you go out of your way to be offended?

    “For her particular circumstance it is likely that the process was affected 100% by environmental conditions.”

    – ‘it is likely’ is not a fact. It’s your assessment and throwing ’100%’ in there doesn’t add any weight to your assumption.

    “The important thing to realise is that if environment is at least partly responsible for homosexuality as you believe,”

    – Don’t misrepresent me, the scientific evidence I’ve pointed to mention genetic, psychological and environmental reasons. This does not mean each factor is an equal third, environmental factors are not necessarily the same as genetic or psychological in terms of how they affect an individuals sexuality. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it.

    “when the state tries to impose the secular humanist philosophy with regards to homosexuality it is going too far.

    You are forcing people to live in a state sponsored environment which might end up contributing to homosexuality.”

    – You’ve been asked many times, how is the state imposing or forcing anything? If equal rights means other people have to deal with it then so be it. Those wishing to not live in a state where homosexuals are equal are basing their argument on religion, those wishing equal rights for gays are basing their argument on civil rights. Antiquated religious views should win over civil rights? Why should that be the case?

    “I do oppose the imposition of state imposed ‘rights’ which serve to create an environment which forces people to adopt secular humanist ideologies.”

    – Again, is marriage being taken away from anyone? Is anyone being forced to get gay married?

    “When the state refuses to let someone adopt a child because they are deemed ‘bad parents’ solely because they will not tick a government form affirming the gay lifestyle then it has gone too far.”

    – ‘gay lifestyle’ implies choice – you presented a loaded, biased argument. Why should a child who turns out to be homosexual endure hardship from bigot parents?

    “When, such as in California, the state forces every school to include at least 4 pages of their history books solely dedicated for LGBT contributions to history then it has gone too far.”

    – So when I asked what they should teach in school (the facts/religion/nothing), your answer is ‘nothing’?

    “When, as in America, a psychology student if prevented from finishing her studies because she won’t affirm the gay lifestyle it has gone too far.

    when the university rules she can only come back and continue her studies if she attends gay rights courses, submits weekly updates on her progress and that she must attend at least one ‘gay pride’ festival then it has gone too far.”

    – Evidence?

    “When a psychiatrist in the field is thrown out because he did not agree with the gay lifestyle and referred the patient to another doctor who did it has gone too far.”

    - ‘gay lifestyle’ implies choice, biased again.

    “When civil marriage celebrants lose their jobs because they will not marry a homosexual couple then it has gone too far.”

    - When you do a job, you don’t get to choose who you provide a service to and expect to keep your job.

    “When schools in Canada are forced by the state to create ‘gay / straight’ alliance groups within the school if requested by students then it has gone too far.”

    – So they should ignore the will of pupils to form groups of like minded individuals to help prevent bullying? You are pro bullying now?

    “We need to learn to be pluralistic. not force a certain way of thinking on people through the state.”

    – You can think what you like, where is the evidence that people’s thinking is being outlawed? If certain people don’t like equality that’s fine, not going to stop it happening.

  • carl marks
  • abucs

    Ah, there is so much nonsense in your posts CM but again i’ll resist the temptation to bite. Especially so when it takes you several weeks to learn the obvious.

    As far as what constitutes a pluralist state and pluralist laws – it should be fairly easy for any person whith average intelligence to follow what has been said.

    That being said, i’ll repeat it again but spell it out even more explicitly for you.

    Pluralist laws do not try to force a narrow minded philosophical morality on its citizens, it recognises that there are disagreements and attitudes towards a range of issues and fosters a co-operative ‘live and let live approach’.

    Here are some of my (restated) examples :

    Narrow minded secular law : to be a foster parent you must affirm the homosexual lifestyle to your kids.

    Pluralist law: to be a foster parent you must love and respect your child.

    Narrow minded secular law: You must have 4 dedicated pages of Gay and Lesbian contributions to history in every school history textbook.

    Pluralist law : you must have history textbooks that tell the truth and do do seek to purposefully exclude a section of society.

    Narrow minded secular law : to be educated or work in the field of pyschology/couselling you must affirm the gay lifestyle.

    Pluralist law : if you have a philosophical difference with your patient that causes a disagreement in treatment, you should refer the patient to a doctor who shares their own philosophy.

    Narrow minded secular law : If any youth approaches your medical practise to ask for help with homosexual attractions you must affirm the gay lifestyle and not attempt to help the youth with regards to his request.

    Pluralist law : If a youth approaches your medical practise to ask for help with homosexual attractions then you help him, unless of course it conflicts with you own philosophy and then you refer them to someone who shares their philosophy.

    Narrow minded secular law : You must marry homosexuals if they wish you to.

    Pluralist law : If you do not wish to marry people because it conflicts with your philosophical position then you should refer them to someone who shares their philosophical position.

    Pretty much i just joined the dots to what was said before. Yet again i am repeating myself to you CM. Please try to follow the first time.

  • abucs

    Mickles
    ……… – But it isn’t evidence. Twin studies are in no way conclusive, and make nothing ‘obvious’. I’ve explained why they are unreliable.

    –> twin studies and especially identical twin studies are very important with regards to investigating links between genetics and the environment.

    http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/
    http://pps.sagepub.com/content/5/5/557.abstract

    also look up ‘twin studies’ in wikipedia for their usefulness.

    ……………….– I also said psychological factors, which are not environmental. You seem to conveniently leave out anything that doesn’t push your ‘gay by environment’ theory.

    –> Pretty much anything that is not genetic would be environmental. Are you suggesting that psychological traits are not genetic or environmental? If so then what are they and where do they come from?

    This doesn’t change the basic point, that you accept that genetics is not 100% responsible for homosexuality – which i stated very clearly.

    ……..– ‘it is likely’ is not a fact. It’s your assessment and throwing ’100%’ in there doesn’t add any weight to your assumption.

    –> yes it is my assessment. 100% is obviously part of my assessment.

    ………………- Don’t misrepresent me, the scientific evidence I’ve pointed to mention genetic, psychological and environmental reasons. This does not mean each factor is an equal third, environmental factors are not necessarily the same as genetic or psychological in terms of how they affect an individuals sexuality. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it.

    –> I’m not misrepresenting you. Nowhere did i say such factors are a third each. I have said homosexuality is likely not 100% genetic. Your words agree with this. There is no misrepresentation.

    …………………. – You’ve been asked many times, how is the state imposing or forcing anything? If equal rights means other people have to deal with it then so be it. Those wishing to not live in a state where homosexuals are equal are basing their argument on religion, those wishing equal rights for gays are basing their argument on civil rights. Antiquated religious views should win over civil rights? Why should that be the case?

    –> I have mentioned peoples differing thoughts on homosexuality and talked about the science involved. It is you who are bringing in religion and trying to attach it to my viewpoint and therefore ban it because of the religion angle you have introduced.

    This is not pluralistic. It is not me that mentions God and the Bible and such. That has been you guys that have done this.

    It is your morality that anything religious be banned from consideration. Things you don’t agree with, you try to associate with religion so that you can ban it. Not very pluralistic or intelligent.

    ……………….– Again, is marriage being taken away from anyone? Is anyone being forced to get gay married?

    –> Have I in any way indicated that marriage has been taken away from anyone or anyone is being forced to be ‘gay married’ as you say. If i haven’t suggested this, then why are you bringing it up?

    ………………….– ‘gay lifestyle’ implies choice – you presented a loaded, biased argument. Why should a child who turns out to be homosexual endure hardship from bigot parents?

    –> I’m not sure if the word lifestyle implies choice. If you think so, then so be it. Are you suggesting that lifestyle is genetic? or that gays do not have a lifestyle? you cannot fail to address cases because you don’t like the word lifestyle.

    The parents involved have raised 15 foster children already. That have stated for the record that they would love any child they received. It is you who are somehow deciding that they are bigots whose lifestyle would be ‘hard to endure’. There is no pluralism or decent mindedness in that statement.

    ………………………….– So when I asked what they should teach in school (the facts/religion/nothing), your answer is ‘nothing’?

    –> Do you really think my opinion is that we should teach nothing in school? Honestly?

    …………………– Evidence?

    –> see next post

    …………………………….- When you do a job, you don’t get to choose who you provide a service to and expect to keep your job.

    –> But when the state says you must think a certain way about a moral behaviour it is the state that is narrow minded. It is certainly not pluralistic nor equal to different viewpoints nor pluralistic.

    …………………..– So they should ignore the will of pupils to form groups of like minded individuals to help prevent bullying? You are pro bullying now?

    –> No and no.

    ……………………– You can think what you like, where is the evidence that people’s thinking is being outlawed? If certain people don’t like equality that’s fine, not going to stop it happening.

    –> As mentioned before by George Orwell – “Some are more equal thatn others”.

    Equality is a loaded gun. It is not a stand alone morality but is used to support a philosophy. In our civilisation some are using it to underwrite the philosophy of secular humanism.

    This is wrong. This dictated morality belongs in the yesteryear of soviet propaganda where everyone who disagrees becomes ‘an enemy of the state’.

    It is no co-incidence that it is the moronic ‘carl marks’ who is investing so much time favouring this approach.

    As secular projects have shown, in the end everyone becomes ‘an enemy of the state’.

    Pluralism is the liberal, broadminded way forward. Not old style narrowminded secular dictates forced through law.

  • abucs
  • abucs

    It doesn’t matter how you distort equality. Forcing people in education to think a certain way and then being arrogant enough to suggest people who disagree with you are bigoted and hateful should be stopped.

    http://www.wsmv.com/story/22638464/tn-students-say-assignment-forced-them-to-support-gay-rights

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/students-professor-forced-us-to-wear-gay-ribbons/

  • Mickles

    Abucs, controversial far right website wnd isn’t helping your points. I don’t think we can take a site that heavily promotes religious novels seriously as an unbiased source. Also they are a conspiracy theory factory associated with the birther movement. And they falsely reported Al Gore as a drug dealer so their credibility is a little shot! It’s not evidence.

    As for your other link, the wsmv one, its another misrepresentation of facts, you can even see the comments by students below, no one was forced to do anything. It’s your far right media sources that are promoting an agenda and changing the facts to suit their narrative (as they have a history of doing). Have you yet shown any evidence of media who enforce a ‘humanist secular agenda’ or do you just read right wing sites?

    Using ‘not 100% genetic’ as an argument that people should be free to shun and bully others based on sexuality, is pretty weak.

    “anything that is not genetic would be environmental”

    – no, that’s pretty damn wrong.

    “I have mentioned peoples differing thoughts on homosexuality and talked about the science involved”

    – right wing websites – not equal to science. Twin studies – in no way conclusive of anything to sexuality. Similar genes – not equal to exact same genes.

    You are equating equal rights laws with somehow forcing people to think a certain way, to which no laws have passed.

  • carl marks

    Abucs
    Thank you for your latest bit of abuse, tis easier than putting forward a real argument, but since you seem to have missed the point i will go into further detail with you (by the way I know you have problems with understanding things but surely even you will have noticed that Mickles is making the same points as myself so either we are both slow or you’re not making sense.
    All your definitions of pluralist law you advocate discrimination against gay people based on this thing (dreamed up by the Christian right with no science at all to back it up) you call the Homosexual lifestyle, now I understand why you would do this.
    If you (and the rest of the Christian Right) look at the real (not made up to suit) science you will be forced to admit the being gay is not some sort of choice but a matter of genetics, then you will have to concede that if your god exists and your creation myth is true then he made homosexuals and you will then have to stop hating them.
    Now back to my question (which i note you do not answer) and i will make it as simple as I can, you wish the law to allow people to discriminate against gay people because you do not approve of homosexuality, you wish for example those licensed to perform civil marriage ceremonies to be able to refuse to marry gay people if they disapprove of gay marriage, I ask if someone for religious reasons (and such people exist) disapproves of interracial marriage to be allowed to refuse to carry out a ceremony involving a mixed race couple surely there beliefs are as valid as yours as both are based on their faith.
    Now to the rest of your points

    Narrow minded secular law : to be a foster parent you must affirm the homosexual lifestyle to your kids.
    Pluralist law: to be a foster parent you must love and respect your child.
    This has been done so often I’m beginning to think your not reading what people are saying about it but we will go again (check out as well mickles answer to this)
    Again we have a unfounded assumption that being gay is a lifestyle choice and a complete ignoring of the harm done to a person when people try to force heterosexuality on someone who is not heterosexual.
    This is accepted by the vast majority of those working in the field of mental health.
    Again this
    “Narrow minded secular law: You must have 4 dedicated pages of Gay and Lesbian contributions to history in every school history textbook.
    Pluralist law : you must have history textbooks that tell the truth and do not seek to purposefully exclude a section of society.”
    Are you claiming that gays and lesbians have made no contribution to society, when society attempts to stop a culture of discrimination if attempts to educate people in the true value of those discriminated against, the same thing happened in he USA after it became illegal to discriminate against black people,
    And please tell me who is this excluding? And how is it excluding them.

    “Narrow minded secular law : to be educated or work in the field of pyschology/couselling you must affirm the gay lifestyle.”
    Again the gay lifestyle nonsense,
    The first rule of medicine is
    “first do no harm” the medical experts round the world would not let a practising doctor try to CURE homosexuality (since it is neither a disease or affliction) and anybody in the field of psychology/counselling who is not blinded by false assumptions would not try it as it would harm the patient.

    So please while your infantile insults are always amusing would you answer my question this time, here it is again,
    If you think it would ok to some people to treat Homosexuals different in law because they say your god disapproves, can others who say their god disapproves of different races, or the the Disabled (a punishment from god) then also treat those differently .
    And if you do not believe that those i mention should be part of your Pluralist society then what makes there deeply held beliefs different from yours.
    Now that should not be difficult for you!

  • carl marks

    Abucs
    you really have a lot to learn, this sort of thing says a lot more vabout you than me.
    “Equality is a loaded gun. It is not a stand alone morality but is used to support a philosophy. In our civilisation some are using it to underwrite the philosophy of secular humanism.

    This is wrong. This dictated morality belongs in the yesteryear of soviet propaganda where everyone who disagrees becomes ‘an enemy of the state’.

    It is no co-incidence that it is the moronic ‘carl marks’ who is investing so much time favouring this approach.”

    to be called a moron from a man who runs a blog full of bombas and untruths is rich indeed
    I invite anybody to go to your website
    http://whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com/about/

    read what you try to pass of as facts and let everybody else decide who is the one without the abilty to form a argument.
    by the way still waiting for you to answer my questions, cant help wondering why you try to go off on a tangent everytime your asked could it be you know that you cant answer it without letting people know that you dont believe in freedom of speech and action for anybody but you and the other nuts on the Christain Right,
    which of course would make you a bigot and anti democrat.

  • abucs

    Mickles, you complain about far right websites or whatever and say how “we” can’t take it seriously and then this somehow gives a free pass on not having to deal with the issue. These issues are on multiple websites. Perhaps you might try dealing with the issue?

    regarding your comment

    “…… Using ‘not 100% genetic’ as an argument that people should be free to shun and bully others based on sexuality, is pretty weak.”

    What is pretty weak is sidestepping the science on what homosexuality is and then pretending that i want people bullied. That is certainly very weak.

    and your other comment regarding as ‘pretty damn wrong’ the idea that what is not genetic in peoples behaviour is environmental. Please explain. Just saying it’s damn wrong is, to use your own words, pretty weak.

    CM, it’s not really worth responding to you. You are an imbecile. You are trying desperately to get God and Christianity into this debate so you can feed your anti Christian pathology. Your post makes no reasonable sense.

    I suggest you finish school and see a psychiatrist.

  • carl marks

    CM, it’s not really worth responding to you. You are an imbecile. You are trying desperately to get God and Christianity into this debate so you can feed your anti Christian pathology. Your post makes no reasonable sense.

    I suggest you finish school and see a psychiatrist.

    Temper temper, i only asked a question it seems that since you can’t answer it without exposing yourself for what you are you throw a tantrum.
    Was it not pointed out to you before that calling people names is not only childish but also destroys any credibility that your argument has.
    Now a few points, are you not a Christian, are you not always banging on about a “non secular humanist agenda” and are you not always using extreme right Christian websites (by the way it’s not helping you anybody with a titter of wit knows that these sites are propaganda outlets aimed at the uneducated)to further your arguments, so i think we can safely assume that you are peddling your own Christian opinions.
    I see that you removed the page on your website were you claim Marx was influenced by Darwin (despite Marx publishing all his seminal works 20 years before Darwin published Origins) that is good, would you like me go over the rest of your site and correct the other major mistakes (both in timeline, and facts) for you.
    By the way correcting this will be a major job lots of mistakes, so heres the site link again folks,
    http://whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com/about/
    I will probably need help
    Now this beauty,
    Equality is a loaded gun. It is not a stand alone morality but is used to support a philosophy. In our civilisation some are using it to underwrite the philosophy of secular humanism.
    This is wrong. This dictated morality belongs in the yesteryear of soviet propaganda where everyone who disagrees becomes ‘an enemy of the state’.
    It is no co-incidence that it is the moronic ‘Carl marks’ who is investing so much time favouring this approach.
    As secular projects have shown, in the end everyone becomes ‘an enemy of the state’.
    So you don’t believe in equality then and you think it leads to dictatorship and you really think I’m the only person here who believes in equality you are very mistaken and that is sad.
    But this leads me back to my question (you know the one you are trying so hard to pretend wasn’t asked of you)
    APART FROM THE GAY COMMUNITY WHO ELSE DO YOU THINK DOES NOT DESERVE TO TREATED AS EQUAL, CAN I BE RASCIST IF I WANT OR SEXIST, AND IF NOT WHAY NOT IF YOU THINK ITS OK TO TREAT GAY PEOPLE DIFFERENT WHY CAN RASCISTS AND SEXISTS DO THE SAME.
    So feel free to throw in all the childish insults you want (I will treat them as proof that you are unable to put up a proper argument) but please answer the question.

  • carl marks

    abucs
    good one i see that you have also removed the conversation with a poster on your site were you claim that Galileo was not really a victim of the churches attempt to suppress science, the only problem is with this and the Marx/ Darwin thing you have removed 66% of all the contributions to your site, but at least it’s not as inaccurate.

  • abucs

    CM, when you ask me what do I mean by Pluralistic Laws and I re-inforce what I have been saying by giving you 4 or 5 explicit examples of the difference between narrow minded secular law and pluralistic law you cannot reasonably say I haven’t answered your question.

    You can say the example laws I have given are not pluralistic and explain why. You can say you disagree with the approach and explain why. But you cannot complain that I have avoided your question and go on pretending that I am incapable of giving you an answer to what I mean by pluralistic law.

    You cannot present a link that is in opposition to my point that homosexuality is not considered solely genetic, have me go through each point of your link line by line, explaining how your link not only does not speak against my point but supports it, only for you to somehow unfathomably claim that I have ignored your link. You can explain why my detailed points are not valid or you can quote from your own link to defend the case that it does speak against my point.

    But to just claim that I have ignored your link if frankly absurd.

    Every time you run out of logical things to say you close your eyes and go off into your own little world. More than a dozen times you have done this and then fallen back to your line that I hate gays and Christians are stupid.

    Pointing out your deficiencies is not trying to win the argument or abuse you, it is frustratingly trying to point out why I cannot have an intelligent conversation with you. You make no rational sense and you are incapable of following an argument. It is for you to deal with your obvious deficiencies.

  • abucs

    In summation,
    If homosexuality is at least in part environmental, as the science strongly suggests, then it is quite reasonable that people would prefer an environment that is not conducive to their children being homosexual. That is a reasonable position. One reasonable position amongst many, in a pluralistic society. To portray this reasonable position as hateful makes no logical sense. Parents and blind people would wish an environment that is not conducive to children becoming blind. This does not mean they are hateful of blind people. The same with infertility. People may wish not to be infertile and parents may wish for their children to not be infertile and so would favour an environment where this is not conducive. This in no way means that such people hate infertile people or if they are infertile themselves, that they hate themselves.

    This shows the clear politically correct nonsense that has been manufactured over this issue. In order to invoke a manufactured discrimination morality, people have to brainwash themselves to think that people disagreeing with them are hateful. This is a very dangerous (and itself hateful) philosophy.

    There is no God or Christianity or Bible or hate in the reasonable position that has been put, but there is an attempt by people to portray a reasonable position as hateful and ignorant and to try and link it to religion so they can dismiss it in their own minds.

    It is obvious that many of the people who are pushing this intolerant line are themselves anti-Christian and who cannot separate their own need to justify a rejection of Christianity from discussing the points in a rational manner and cannot avoid projecting hate onto people who are being reasonable.

    It is clear from my posts that it is not on religious grounds that I have objected to a state sponsored, narrow minded, politically correct, secular morality on homosexuality. It is on the grounds of intellectual freedom and an aversion to the dumbed down herd mentality that is being created contrary to scientific facts and reasonable discussion.

  • abucs

    CM you can leave me all the hugs and kisses on my website that you want to.

    Likewise, you can leave messages calling me every name and as much vulgar language as you like and you can also demean yourself by suggesting all sorts of relationships between myself and the school kids and headmasters etc.

    You just prove my point.

    I am still not going to allow your posts or correspond with you because you are a deeply disturbed individual. For your own sanity you should seek medical help.

  • carl marks

    I use no different language on your site to you (by the way have you sorted out the contradiction were you claim that the Nazis were humanists then in another post call them pagans, strange how your opinion and your “facts” change to suit whatever line your peddling) than you use on this one to me, oh and I’m still going through it (the section you call scholarly documents(bit pretentious that) will let you know about the inaccuracies i find, i think we will be talking for some time
    Now despite all your waffle you have still failed to answer my question, if “Christians are allowed to opt out of equality laws in relation to the gay community because they don’t believe Gays should be treated equally (you are the person who claimed equality is wrong) then in your wonderful pluralist society can racists and sexists opt out of treating those of a different race or sex different.
    Will a person licensed to perform marriages be allowed to opt out of performing a ceremony for people of a mixed race?
    You see you give me what you envisage as the rules of a pluralist society, in my opinion (and i expect that of most civilised people) that is a charter for anti Gay discrimination and what I’m asking you and have asked you several times and you have failed to answer me,
    Do you reserve the same rights to those who will claim that their religion means that should discriminate against black people, women, divorcees?
    Now it’s quite simple could you answer it please and give the reasons for your answers, if you can discriminate why cant they?

  • carl marks

    Abucs
    ” Parents and blind people would wish an environment that is not conducive to children becoming blind. This does not mean they are hateful of blind people. The same with infertility. People may wish not to be infertile and parents may wish for their children to not be infertile and so would favour an environment where this is not conducive.”

    These are your completely ridiculous comparisons.
    How would you bring a blind parson up in a environment that would stop them being blind or a infertile person in one that would stop them being infertile but you think (against all the science) that you can bring a gay person up in a environment that can stop them being gay,
    Really Abucs that is perhaps the silliest statement yet!.
    I just asked on your website what nickname the kids in school had for you, and expressed my opinion that the other teachers would perhaps prefer to avoid you in the staff room plus perhaps your principal may well regret the employment laws that make sacking (be thankful for the non secular humanist agenda that brought them in) those who might be better getting a different job.
    As for the religious thing you claim i am trying to insert into the debate you are the person who early on in the debate brought up the “non secular humanist agenda” in the debate, also you continually refer to right wing Christian websites to support you arguments and you have a (rather rambling and incoherent) website that boasts your Christianity, so that’s twice you have denied you are arguing from a Christian viewpoint if you deny one more time shall we hear a cock crow.
    Now please answer my question and less waffle

  • carl marks

    Likewise, you can leave messages calling me every name and as much vulgar language as you like and you can also demean yourself by suggesting all sorts of relationships between myself and the school kids and headmasters etc”.

    of course you could prove this very easily after all you moderate your own website, and lets be honest if the history of visitors or the site is anything to go by, nobodys going to see it.
    but to be truthful this claim is in the same catergory as the 100′s of pastors thing.

  • Mickles

    Silly me abucs. In quoting your mostly religious www ‘sources’ to show how you have in fact brought religion into the debate despite your claims to the contrary, my comment must undergo moderation. I guess due to tge dubious nature of some of your links.