Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
As for the homophobic fuckers acting as apologists for the Russian government and trying to use democracy as a shield to defend their vile actions and engaging in whataboutery to try and distract attention: when you've finished having tea with Mr. Tumnus, kindly go and suck the dick you clearly so desperately crave.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Consults crystal ball/

He's about to pull the 'I'm gay, so I'm not homophobic' card for his whataboutery.

In his case, I think it's a bit of conservative posing to avoid having to identify with those nasty 'lefties' demanding a boycott.

So not homophobia, I'd guess but Toryphilia which has led to him being mistaken for an actual homophobe using 'dogwhistle' tactics. Which is kind of amusing actually and serves him right for his 'Look at me, I'm such a contrarian!' posting.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

Why do people who are opposed to the goals think anyone cares about their opinion on right tactics to achieve the goals?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I reject the meaning that you give to the word homophobia and I reject the allegation of hatred of homosexual people that is implied by its use against me.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I reject the meaning that you give to the word homophobia and I reject the allegation of hatred of homosexual people that is implied by its use against me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I reject the meaning that you give to the word homophobia and I reject the allegation of hatred of homosexual people that is implied by its use against me.

---

Fine, I'll just call you a bigoted fuckwit whose views have no place in civilised society. Happy?

---

Yup, me, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and millions of ordinary Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and yes, even gay people, who do not agree with same sex marriage.

I would return your compliment and call you an intolerant denier of freedom of speech.



I suggest that you recognise that there are people with a different view to yours. I suggest you just get over it. Protesting outside a closed church door that people don't agree with you, and that the vicar won't abandon all his beliefs in order to give you what you want and marry you, isn't going to win you the argument.

Neither will standing outside a mosque, synagogue or temple.

[ 15. August 2013, 13:32: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Alternatively, Mudfrog, you're obviously of that school of thought that thinks marriage is simply about having official permission to make babies. This happily means that - and I admit I'm making a bit of an assumption here - now that you've finished that task and the young ones have grown up, you and Mrs Mudfrog can part ways. Your duty's done. There's no reason for you to stay together anymore.

What's that? You want to stay together just because you love each other and have a committed relationship? Despite there being no children around?

WELL WHY YOU DON'T YOU GROW A FUCKING PAIR OF BRAIN CELLS AND REALISE THAT YOUR MARRIAGE IS NOW EXACTLY LIKE A GAY ONE, YOU TROGLODYTE MORON?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
What's the betting Mudfrog wears poly-cotton shirts and eats shellfish?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Marriage is all about becoming 'one flesh' and homosexual relationships, not being a union of opposites, cannot be, according to the Bible 'one flesh'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Amusingly, even on a text-based discussion forum, actions speak louder than words. Thus, even though you might assert that there is a total absence of fear or hatred in your amygdala, by arguing and defending fundamentally homophobic philosophy you functionally plant yourself securely within the borders of homophobia.

Choadchoker.

---

Interesting.

Sounds very Soviet. Like criticising the government proves I'm insane.

Very medieval too - denying I'm a witch automatically proves that I am one.

There can be no defence therefore, no rational discussion, because whatever I write, even using reasonable words, will automatically be seen as aggression, homophobic hysteria.

So, in your world everyone must agree with you because that is the only loving thing to do. Anyone with a different view, with a differently-informed conscience, with a different view of the bible and theology, is by definition homophobic.

How very tolerant of you.

...see, I can be sarcastic too

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Marriage is all about becoming 'one flesh' and homosexual relationships, not being a union of opposites, cannot be, according to the Bible 'one flesh'. Therefore, whatever else they might be (and I fully and unreservedly recognise civil partnerships) homosexual relationships cannot be marriages.

Not without changing the definition of marriage which does include the potential sexual element of 'one flesh'.

Once you remove the constituent parts of sexual consummation and sexual fidelity as necessary elements to a marriage - which the UK marriage bill does, then it is no longer marriage. And the simple reason that the bill has removed these things, ISTM, is that the committees could not decide after lengthy discussions what constituted homosexual sex.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Marriage is all about becoming 'one flesh' and homosexual relationships, not being a union of opposites, cannot be, according to the Bible 'one flesh'. Therefore, whatever else they might be (and I fully and unreservedly recognise civil partnerships) homosexual relationships cannot be marriages.

Not without changing the definition of marriage which does include the potential sexual element of 'one flesh'.

Once you remove the constituent parts of sexual consummation and sexual fidelity as necessary elements to a marriage - which the UK marriage bill does, then it is no longer marriage. And the simple reason that the bill has removed these things, ISTM, is that the committees could not decide after lengthy discussions what constituted homosexual sex.

---

Oh wow. Where to begin? With your flimsy Biblical exegesis? Or your wobbly legal understanding?

I'll go with the latter, because I'm on my own professional ground there. As I pointed out to you in Dead Horses - one of the things you haven't replied to - adultery as a ground for divorce hasn't existed in my own country for decades. So you think all marriages conducted in Australia - a country that only has heterosexual marriage - are invalid?

More importantly, the fact that adultery is a ground for divorce does not mean that sexual fidelity is a 'necessary element' of marriage. There are marriages where people can cope with an instance of adultery, whether happily or unhappily. It's only a ground for divorce if someone actually decides to file for divorce.

As for 'one flesh'... I'm sorry, I missed the part in biology class where gay sex always ends up with the bodies remaining separate, but married heterosexual sex causes them to glue together. Gee, maybe it's a metaphor? Maybe the whole passage talks about a partner and doesn't actually mention sex? Maybe when someone talks about being 'completed' by their partner, they're not suggesting that the only time this happens is when a penis and a vagina meet?

I'm fascinated by the whole idea that men and women are 'opposites' but that all men are the 'same' and that all 'women' are the same (readily interchangeable??), thereby meaning that the only way you could possibly be made complete by another person is if they have the right physical plumbing.

Soulmates? Pfft. Who knew that souls had genitals?

---

quote:

---

Genesis 2:23-24
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
23 Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,[a]
for out of Man[b] this one was taken.”
24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
What's the betting Mudfrog wears poly-cotton shirts and eats shellfish?

---

No, but I know the difference between moral and ceremonial laws.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as adultery is concerned, I don't think any civil authority has the right to remove adultery from the ten commandments or from the words of Jesus about marriage.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The difference between the genders is what makes the sexual relationship so profound, it is the joining as 'one flesh' of those two different genders. Note, it's not just the joining of two people as in the modern pop music definition of 'two become one.' It has to be complementary - 'mf' become one in a way that 'mm' or 'ff' cannot.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I reject the meaning that you give to the word homophobia

---

quote:

---

I suggest that you recognise that there are people with a different view to yours. I suggest you just get over it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Consults crystal ball/

He's about to pull the 'I'm gay, so I'm not homophobic' card for his whataboutery.

In his case, I think it's a bit of conservative posing to avoid having to identify with those nasty 'lefties' demanding a boycott.

So not homophobia, I'd guess but Toryphilia which has led to him being mistaken for an actual homophobe using 'dogwhistle' tactics. Which is kind of amusing actually and serves him right for his 'Look at me, I'm such a contrarian!' posting.

---

quote:

---

by Sergius Melli in Dead Horses
... whilst I may have made LGBT rights an issue I campaign about and thereby do not give my time or money to WaterAid, I will do my utmost to ensure that I campaign on every area of LGBT rights and do not just advocate in one small section, hence why if you are going to kick up a fuss about one issue then you need to bring a light to bear, and pressure, upon those other related issues. If you call for a boycott of Russia, call for a boycott of every other place in the world which acts as Russia does or even worse does not give even the minimum of human rights to LGBT peoples.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yup, me, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and millions of ordinary Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and yes, even gay people, who do not agree with same sex marriage.

---

quote:

---

I would return your compliment and call you an intolerant denier of freedom of speech.

---

quote:

---

I suggest that you recognise that there are people with a different view to yours. I suggest you just get over it. Protesting outside a closed church door that people don't agree with you, and that the vicar won't abandon all his beliefs in order to give you what you want and marry you, isn't going to win you the argument.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, but I know the difference between moral and ceremonial laws.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

As I've already said above, Russia has passed a law, democratically, which is backed by as many as 90% of the Russian population. Surprisingly I respect democracy and therefore respect Russia's right to regulate their citizens behaviour, especially in regards to minors (because lets be clear this is not a law banning homosexuality, merely a law which prevents the presentation of same-sex relationships to minors.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Louise, I thought you'd had your point made for you with that post.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Theologically and Biblically, 'one flesh' is the union of different sexes.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't give a shit what you do in your church, so long as it fucking stays there. You don't like gay marriage? Fine, don't have one. But don't try to deny others the right to have one if they so choose.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:


A Biblical condemnation would have been just as strongly stated against a wife initiating sex with her husband and taking an active role in love-making, or indeed a married man lying back and letting his wife do all the work. Which Christians today would regard either of these as abominations before the Lord? Yet these are derived from the very same mindset as the 'Biblical' condemnation of same sex activity. What is 'natural' in ancient times is not the same as what is natural to us.

Therefore, without some awareness of the different attitudes to men and women, any comments about same sex activity which are extrapolated onto our own society are likely to result in a very real distortion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
And hey, so what if I believe in consensus and trying to reach a common ground with my Brothers and Sisters in Christ? That is my choice and to me much more admirable than sectarianism and the overly schismatic nature of what is generally proposed here. It is a fact of life that people do not agree on issues, and therefore proper dialogue and step-by-step consensus has to be made to ensure that success for the ultimate aims is achieved, I don't just assume that everyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong, they tend to actually have something really important to add to a discussion, but then, that would require having to admit that you don't know everything and that just doesn't seem to fit with the ideology that underpins too many people's philosophy these days.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Absolute nonsense and with no Biblical authority whatsoever.

---

Is that the best you have to offer?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Absolute nonsense and with no Biblical authority whatsoever.

---

Is that the best you have to offer?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

But don't try to force the church to change its mind - not, like those two pampered rich men, take your local parish church to court for not allowing you to have your big theatrical day out on their premises.

---