John Sullivan #homophobia #sexist

John Sullivan #homophobia #sexist gaystarnews.com

John Sullivan, a UK councillor candidate congratulated Russia on banning gay Pride marches and claimed regular exercise in schools can prevent homosexuality.

In a series of Facebook posts, Sullivan, who is a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) likened gay activists to termites and stated that feminism is evil and being gay is even worse.

In one post Sullivan suggested regular physical exercise prevents children from becoming gay.

He recommended Victorian style regular physical exercise be reinstated in schools as it apparently causes releases of tension which prevents homosexuality.

Sullivan also went on to call gay marriage supporters 'termites' mockingly reacting to an article on Conservative party members supporting marriage equality.

His antagonism doesn’t stop there, he also claimed feminism is evil, suggesting that homosexuality is even worse (saying 'it doesn't go there').

101 comments

old comment by J. James

"And remember kids, 5 Hail Marys a day prevents your bodily Humours from getting out of proportion!

Excuse me, dear constituents, whilst I stoke the steam engine of my dirigible. I must attend a conference in Siam to clamp down on those blasted suffragettes..."

-Jon Sullivan

@PG
The problem, obviously, is that he states that being gay is evil, and is someone's "fault"- namely; the gay person's for not getting enough exercise. Which is ridiculous and unscientific, obviously- you'll notice a whole bunch of burly, muscular, masculine gay people out there, and low excercise doesn't turn you gay, and CERTAINLY not for the reason that it "released tension which causes homosexuality."

old comment by Wehpudicabok

@Phillip-George:

Do you actually expect us to say something along the lines of "oh my god, i didn't realize how GROSS being gay is! we should put a stop to this before i barf all over my keyboard!"? Because I cannot imagine what else you might have been trying to accomplish with that comment.

I for one approve of all bits of anal intercourse between men which happen between consenting adults. And for that matter, all intercourse between consenting adults. Why shouldn't I?

You can't just throw out the word "cofactors" and think it makes you right. If you make the claim (as Sullivan does) that exercise cures homosexuality, you have to provide the evidence. You can't just claim that the opposition has failed to respond and that you win by default.

Likewise, do you have any evidence for the claim that "testosterone levels are falling dangerously nationwide/ worldwide"? Actually, that's two claims, and to be generous I'll give you brownie points for either one:

1) Testosterone levels are falling on a large scale.
2) Falling testosterone levels are/would be dangerous.

I have not seen any evidence for either one of these, from you or anyone else.

old comment by J. James

Phillip-George, I could care less what gay people do. Honest to goodness. My counter-question would be whether you think straight sex should be banned because of anal, oral, S&M, Furries, shit fetishists, and all manner of unpleasant and disgusting things straight people do. Not all gay people do butt stuff- e.g., Lesbians. And so on and so forth, I won't get into detail. And until a cure for homosexuality is found, there will continue to be gay people and they will continue to do all manner of harmless-but-icky-in-polite-company things to each other.

I also can't help but notice you don't have a response to the whole "gays are evil" reason for why we're justifiably flaming this guy.

Are people acting on compulsion showing signs of addictive behavior entirely 'informed' on their consent?

two. On the gray scale of human activity - a cannibal could advertise for someone to dismember and eat. It has been done. Is it informed consent and none of anyone's business?

three. How many people who act on compulsion have "buyers regret"? Has freedom of choice lead demonstrably to "happier consumers".

four. Testosterone levels as a cofactor in fetal development almost certainly plays a role - but 'born' Gay is a ridiculous oversimplification. How many six year olds for example are thinking about sexual identity and what will make them happy in bed/ or a public bathroom/ or a gym or dark sauna.

five. the councilor's lack of erudition only slightly obscures the rational basis for his thinking. Tribal communities that play together stay together and intermittently work their gluts off - actually have a lower incidence of homosexual activity. But lets no jump to conclusions.

six. tolerance has a quasi magical quality to it not unlike any superstition.

old comment by Ebon

John Sullivan is a moron and UKIP are a far-right party only one step removed from the outright fascist BNP. Exercise (or testosterone levels) have nothing to do with homosexuality as homosexuality is set by hormonal levels in the womb. By the time kids would be doing physical exercise in schools, they're already gay. They just haven't realised it yet because they haven't had their bodies flooded with sex hormones as happens during puberty. I have taken large amounts of testosterone (illegally, it was during my sporting days) and it didn't stop me being bisexual.

Phillip-George is also a moron and I personally hope he dies in a horribly painful manner as soon as possible. Note, that is a hope, not a threat. He substitutes having a vocabulary for actually having something interesting to say. It's just bigotry wrapped in a dictionary.

old comment by Wehpudicabok

@Ebon:

Don't be a dick. Phillip-George is making a respectful counterargument. He is very, very wrong, but as he has so far managed not to stoop to posting disturbing comments like that, he doesn't deserve such hate.

@Phillip-George:

1. People with compulsions may or may not be able to give informed consent. It depends on the circumstances. But since homosexuality is no more a compulsion than heterosexuality, it's a moot argument.

2. Alright, I'll grant that cannibalism is unacceptable, and add a stipulation that the activity must be nonviolent. Nevertheless this has no bearing on homosexuality.

3. I'm guessing that this analogy is supposed to argue that "the government does have a role in preventing sexual deviation, just as it has a role in protecting consumers," but since we don't judge freedoms based solely on whether they make us "happy," it's likewise moot. (Read Rawls' A Theory of Justice for an argument on the proper definition of the role of government, and in particular why freedom should not be predicated on increasing happiness.)

4. Neither are six-year-olds heterosexual, yet. They are children. This does not mean that the orientation with which they will eventually identify has not already been set.

5. True - let's not jump to conclusions. For instance, might these same tribal communities already stigmatize homosexuality and thus under-report its occurrence in the first place? Perhaps. No way to know without study. Though again, this doesn't prove anything about the morality of homosexuality one way or the other.

6. It's a cheap ploy to make your opponents' arguments sound like superstition. I doubt you even believe it yourself. Assuming you do, talk to an African-American older than sixty, and ask them whether the increased tolerance they have experienced since the civil rights movement has improved their quality of life. That's evidence that tolerance works, and no belief based on evidence can be called superstitious.

old comment by Ebon

@ Wehpudicabok:

He's not making a counterargument, he's just expressing his bigotry in the only socially acceptable way still allowed to him. If this was the Thirties, he'd be a racist antisemite. You wouldn't respect a cannibal because he has nice table manners, don't respect the bigot just because he has a vocabulary. His points are all PRATTS (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) and he knows it, he just pushes them because they allow him to express his hatred of homosexuals. He doesn't stop being deserving of my hatred just because he has access to a dictionary and occasionally scans a newspaper.

Mikgof

Gay is one of the demigods in Atheism's Pantheon - a condition too good to critique and certainly too good to ostracize.

Around and around the wheel spins. At this point I accuse you all of refusing the right of "former Gays" to exist. Well they don't exist, they are liars, or a figment of a "fundy's" corrupted imagination.

To which I point out your hypocrisy.

Then I gently point out the myth of informed consent. No virgin ever really knows what they've got till its gone forever. Then I suggest that some, "tried Gay" and didn't like it; and maybe always will think of the experiment as a bit of violence done to them. Which in the eyes of the one eyed, also, doesn't exist.

So the Monkeys of "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" still bang away at their typewriters. Thus proving intelligence is not random.

Some people stop being Gay, like so many things in life of false promise, because it simply didn't deliver the all sustaining high. The party balloons go limp and the ash trays start to stink.

Robespierre
there's something different between a cloistered closeted fraternity and giving "public policy sanction" to same fraternity.

More than that though Robespierre - children aren't in College. The "born Gay" mantra is dehumanizing in so much as it totally "sexualizes" a child. Which is a form of robbery and, an ultimate violence. IMHO

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

This guy didn't get in, though it was close.

No association between gays and exercise. None whatever. Oh no.

@Philip-George

1.What has this to do with homosexuality in particular? Heterosexual hypersexuality has been known about for over a hundred years. The condition bears a closer relation to bipolar disorder than to homosexuality.

2. That involves the intentional taking of a human life. This, I think you'll find is illegal for a variety of pressing moral reasons. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is closer to consenting to going to the movies with a friend.

3. Freedom of choice also comes with the phrase "caveat emptor." The divorce courts are full of those who regret their previous actions.

4. Six-year-old boys do not grow facial hair. Does mean that adult men have learned to grow beards? Or is it something inborn but manifests itself only on puberty? Would pointing out that the child will eventually grow facial hair be "sexualizing" it?

5. Anyone with even the slightest acquaintance with the anthropological literature on the subject knows that this is nonsense. What is more, the same literature shows your definition of 'traditional marriage' and 'natural law' also seems to be the exception rather than the rule. In short, anything but natural.

6. On the contrary, tolerance, like many impersonal nouns, is entirely neutral. Tolerance of different ethnic groups is a good thing; tolerance of corruption not so much. An impersonal noun cannot have magical properties.

No virgin ever really knows what they've got till its gone forever.

That is not an argument against homosexuality. That is an argument against sex.

old comment by Deep Search

Yeah, because what makes societies stronger is hatred and othering groups of people who do nothing wrong. God bless the homophobes, the anti-human thugs...

Also pretty sure physical activity doesn't make you not-gay or give you the magic amount of a certain hormone or something to "balance you out." Plenty of homosexuals are fit. And plenty are kinda overweight. Like any other group of people, shockingly enough.

@ P-G Crazy Pants "Are bi-sexuals eternally condemned to be the tofu meatloaf in the unsalted vegan sandwich, on sour dough rye."

I don't know, but I'd be happy to be that sandwich and eat it, too. What's wrong with that? If there's something wrong with it, I don't want to be right.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

You may have gained seats in the Council Elections the other day, UKIP, but bravo in alienating a section of your potential electorate.

And there's your leader Nigel Farage claiming to all & sundry, that UKIP are non-discriminatory. As suggested when one Googles 'UKIP':

image

'Libertarian, non-racist party'

'Non-racist'. Yeah. [i]Right[/i]. [/hyper-snark]

Ron Paul in the US is 'Libertarian' too. Funny, then, that his 'Libertarianism' doesn't extend to the rights of individual women, re. abortion.

'Non-racist'. Funny then, UKIP, that your intolerance of racism (as per the reaction to the expose, via the above BBC News link) doesn't equally extend to tolerance of alternate lifestyles, eh?

Unless Sullivan is summarily expelled from the party by UKIP's Nigel Farage - a la Alex 'Seig Heil' Wood - then they've just proven what has been said about them for so long: UKIP = National Front Mk. II.

...oh, and we finally see the mega-troll in his true light. Don't want to say I told you, so, but I told you so. Canuovea, I'm looking at you. Just three letters: T.O.S.

Said trolly-troll previously spoke of 'Westminster', re. procedures. Well, to take him on his word, I hereby motion that he be permabanned. Any seconders?

--EDIT--

@Swede

"And which bit of anal intercourse between men do you most approve of?"
"Which bit of anal intercourse between straight people do you most approve of?"

image

Beautiful. Just beautiful. Prime example of Argument Annihilation at it's best. Fair brings a tear to the eye, that there's more here in FSTDT who can destroy debates like this, especially via the method you've just demonstrated: the 'You Didn't Think Of That, Did You?!'

One word, P-G: Strapons.

...and a shiny new Internet is on it's way to you, Swede. :3

old comment by Canuovea

Being homosexual is a matter of sexual attraction to the same sex. This can vary in degrees, of course, which the existence of bisexuals proves.

Its opposite, being heterosexual, is a matter of sexual attraction to the opposite sex.

One doesn't become hetero or homosexual through sexual acts.

Anything you disagree with in the above?

As for anal sex... it can happen between a man and a woman or between two men or, I'm sure, between two women. It isn't a strictly gay thing. In fact, I've heard of homosexuals who don't do anal sex, but rather only oral sex.

Also, when it comes to sexual dangers, lesbian sex is probably the safest, definitely from an STD perspective.

Finally, even if anal is harmful (a point that I am willing to concede for the sake of argument), why should we say that homosexuals cannot practice it? I mean, it is their choice, their informed consent, their awareness of the risks. Why should we force them not to do it? We let people smoke cigarettes.

Canuovea / rikalous

can there ever be a circumstance of anal intercourse between men be considered healthful?

With any definition of marriage/ the ancient institution one can easily define the sexual act of procreation/ everything else can just be put aside as foreplay.

With the male-male union/ what is His Honor the Judge recommending? Equal time on top. Alternate and equal rights time at each other buttocks. Why is it important?

What are you actually wanting to tell the "young" pre-homosexual - so-called undecided or sexually those intending to experiment. What does society thus, as a corporate identity plan to resolve about quasi-normal gay commitment to marriage. This isn't a trivial issue.

If a heterosexual straight marriage can be dissolved because of non coitus can the gay couple do the same? Think is through really well. This is not about semantic word definitions - but human lives/ mental and physical health.

old comment by Canuovea

Again, even if anal sex is harmful, what gives us the mandate to tell anyone, legally, not to do it? That would include hetero, homo, and asexuals.

Not only that, but since anal isn't the only way to have sex for homosexuals (especially lesbians), then how does that reflect poorly on homosexuals?

As for the definition of marriage. Well, the definition has changed constantly over time. It has waffled between secular and religious in meaning (depending on the culture you happen to be in) and I'd say today it is pretty secular.

At one point it was for legitimating specific children. At another it was simply for the purpose of a holy sanction for sexual release, in order to prevent going to hell (St. Paul). At yet another time it was about a couple confirming their love and commitment for each other.

That last one is probably the most modern one, but it does have its supports in some of Jesus' thoughts on marriage. Marriage was to be a very real and permanent bond, according to Jesus, so much so that divorce was not really allowed. I don't recall him mentioning children, though. And after all, why have kids? According to early Christians, Jesus was supposed to return in their lifetimes. Why have babies?

"With the male-male union/ what is His Honor the Judge recommending?... Why is it important?"

That is entirely up to the couple, of course. The state (and church) has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. But it is important for social, legal, and love based reasons.

"What are you actually wanting to tell the "young" pre-homosexual..."

I think sexual education is best for young people in that position. If they discover that they have attractions for the same sex, better to have all the information. Same with heterosexuals.

As for the issue of non-coitus... maybe? Probably not according to Jesus, but that is more a matter for the courts. But you don't stop people who can't have children from being married.

Then the state has no business at all having anything to do with marriage, heterosexual or any other thing to do with any civil contract. Get them out of it. Totally.

Remove all remedy through "family law" courts.

I'm attracted to the option of if people believe in marriage as a religious institution then the only courts to recognize them should be ecclesiastical courts with peer review and no no-faults divorce. Take everything back 200 years plus.

If government can't recognize consummation of marriage as implicit and essential then get them totally out of all marriage.
Ecclesiastically convened courts, may not, of course be interested in recognizing any marriage outside of a church.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Canuovea

Yep. One thing we Brits don't tolerate is Intolerance. Like I say, UKIP = National Front Mk. II

Neo-Nazis are a disruptive influence. As are Trolls. So, just as the police deal with these slime on the streets, mods/admins deal with these slime online. T.O.S. in forums/boards, Section 5 of the Public Order Act (along with the 1936 Public Order Act, post-Battle of Cable Street, and that law's destruction of Fascists such as Mosley's BUF Blackshirts) on the streets, and how that deters any potential UK equivalent of the US's WBC (who themselves are 1st Amendment/US Constitution-abusing trolls). I have no problem with that.

So you tolerate Fascists, such as the above linked Oswald Mosley, eh? That in itself speaks volumes about you. As Ebon pointed out, the Daily Fail's proprietor in the past was one Lord Rothermere, who supported Mosley, Mussolini and Hitler (but was forced to change his tune when WWII broke out). And as for today, well...! (click 'Refresh' for lulz)

'Oh, if only Diana was here?!'

-Russell Howard, "Mock The Week"

...oh, and seems you've finally found something you disagree with, re. P-G the homophobe/troll. So glad you're finally getting with the program! [/hyper-sarcasm]

old comment by Canuovea

Anon-e-moose,

I've disagreed with a lot of what PG has said. I've also discussed many of those points. Maybe you just noticed that now? That is okay, comments sections can be hard to follow, it isn't as if I expect you to. But I'm not calling on him to be banned just because he disagrees with me. Seriously.

We also had that argument about section 5 of the public order act previously. All I'll add is that you probably would support the Minister of the Interior from A Clockwork Orange too, then? Aversion therapy and behavioural modification.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfxNG_TM8J4

You might find that interesting. Personally, I think we must tolerate the intolerant (so long as they are not actually harmful) in order to expose to the world how crazy these people are. Better to have it in the open than forced underground. So yeah, I'll tolerate having fascists around. Makes em easier to spot, expose, and ridicule.

Phillip George,

In all honesty, I wouldn't mind that to a degree. Though have a separate marriage like thing for the legal and social benefits of marriage (taxes, etc), as there are good reasons to have those around.

The thing is, that is kinda the state of things already, just that both are called marriage. Secular marriage is different from marriage in a religious institution. They come with the same perks, but not the same recognition. I mean, a Catholic isn't going to say that someone who was married by a secular judge is seen as married in the Catholic tradition.

And all this is separate from how homosexuality is apparently morally wrong.

old comment by Felix Wilde

@Moose: Given your penchant for stripping criminals of basic civil liberties and the relish with which you describe prosecution of thoughtcrime, I wouldn't be so quick to call fascists subhuman scum. You're verging on as bad as the BNP mate. Equality at the cost of freedom is no more than tyranny (or as Jello Biafra would put it, unity is bullshit if it's under someone's fat boot).

@PG: A failure to recognise the entitlement of a minority group to basic human rights, on the other hand, is intolerance. They're not demanding a chopper with a full tank and 80 million dollars up in here, they're just demanding equality under the law and the right to marry their consenting partners. Don't be a dolt.

old comment by Canuovea

Traditional marriage meant a right to have children? Sure, unless one is infertile. Not to mention, the right to have children doesn't mean that there is a necessity to have children.

Married straight people can have an open marriage... but that is more them waiving their expectation of monogamy.

Not to mention, traditional marriage doesn't seem incompatible with gay marriage... how does the existence of one destroy the other? This isn't Highlander, there need not be only one. Certainly, there are a variety of different types of straight marriage.

Edit: Thank you Felix Wilde, you may have hit on what often bothers me about some of Anon-e-moose's posts.

old comment by Ebon

Western Jurisprudence is inexorably linked to Biblical Jurisprudence

Said by someone with absolutely no understanding of the history of law. Western law came from Rome, which in turn came from the Greeks. None of them were Christians. See, I actually studied this shit and got good marks in it. You're just a lying sack of lies trying to claim his religion was a lot more historically important than it actually was. History doesn't prove your points so no problem, you'll just lie about history instead and hope you convince enough brain-dead fundies that you can claim there's a controversy that should be taught.

The reason most people are ignorant of these points has nothing to do with "Orwell" (?). People are ignorant of these points because they're complete lies. They're lies from a known fundie (i.e. a habitual liar). Like David Barton, fundies just love to rewrite history and claim Christians were far more important than they were. Fundies love to lie and PG, like all fundies, is lying his ass off.

When a poster like PG distorts, exaggerates and lies through his teeth with every single post, I'm baffled as to why he hasn't been banned. He's a habitual and constant liar who earns my hatred with every post.

old comment by Ebon

This is just talking about the importation of the English Common Law system to the early US. Some (very) small accomodation was made for a pretext of Christian principles but the English Common Law system was based on the law of the legal system of Rome. It was never subject to the Justinian reformation as the Eastern Empire was. English Common Law was based on the legal system of pre-Christian Rome which was, in turn, based on the Greeks. Claiming otherwise is just lies. Since fundies love to lie and love to lie about history most of all, it's not a surprise that you lie about it. That's what fundies do, it's what they are. They vehemently believe in a heretical lie called Rapture theory so they exist to spout lies, getting a thrill every time they do until they can wash their sins away through prayer, ready to lie some more.

That there were grounds to annul a marriage was never in dispute. What is in dispute is your claim that western law is based on Christianity because it's a pack of lies and revisionist history. Anything you say can be presumed to be a lie with no further evidence required. You're a lying sack of shit grabbing hold of any figleaf you can hide your hatred of gay people behind. If your sadistic maniac of a god wrote a message in the sky saying same-sex marriage was ok, you'd convert to Satanism instantly. You hold your faith because it gives you a socially acceptable excuse to hate gay people and you search out articles so they can provide you with a pretext for your hate. If you were born in the Thirties, you's be a racist antisemite but they're not acceptable anymore while hating gay people is as long as you pretend that it's part of your religion. You religion doesn't give you an excuse to be a hateful, lying sack of shit. You're the kind of person who ate up The Bell Curve because it gave you a scientific-sounding pretext for your bigotry. You'll believe absolutely anything if it comports with your hatreds. And that shouldn't be a surprise, your entire faith exists purely as a revenge fantasy on everyone who ever thought, felt or loved differently to you. Satan's Name, why can't I kill people through the internet?

You're one of the few people whose suicide would improve the earth no end so go for it, kill yourself.

old comment by Ebon

the most basic of western jurisprudence at common law is mens rea.

No, it isn't, it's actus reus. Without the act, the mind is irrelevent (Christianity might recognise thought crime, the law doesn't).

apart from Latin what do you think we have in common?

What do who have in common? Use complete sentences instead of fragments, you cretin. You and I? Only abiding hatred. American and English courts? A common basis in English common law, drawn from Greece via Rome and extended to the various underpinnings of law such as habeus corpus, actus and mens, the de minimis rule and so on. Again, you are clutching at trifling matters to find a pretext, any pretext, for your blistering hatred of gay people.

Actually, fuck it. I'm done with you, you pathetic homophobic pseudo-pious false Christian.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Felix Wilde

If it means guns aren't accessible to criminals and a UK equvalent of the WBC can never exist, I have no problem with that.

If criminals aren't allowed to continue with their 'activities', nor are minorities no longer the targets of discrimination, so?

As for my referring to fascists as 'subhuman'? 'Sauce for the Goose'. If they can't take it, what makes them think they have the right to dish it out in the first place? 'Subhuman'. Doesn't sound very nice eh, right-wing fundie bigots? And now they know how they sound to everyone else.

And what's so wrong with intolerance crushed by legislation? I refer you to Oswald Mosley & his BUF Blackshirts (the Cockneys of London certainly had a problem with them in 1936!) If it was so wrong, why do people continue to vote for MPs who issue papers for debate, are voted on, and ultimately put on the statute books? (and remember it was the British public who lobbied their MPs to have guns banned, post-Dunblane). It's ultimately the British public's choice (if an MP doesn't do as we say, his constituents can vote him/her out). If there's people who want legislated Political Correctness, seems I'm not the only one who doesn't have a problem with that. Better blame them equally - and to all of them personally - FSTDT.

The US has the Constitution. The UK has Magna Carta and the EU Declaration of Human Rights. I'm not exactly seeing Brussels coming down like a ton of bricks on our Parliament because they legislate against a UK WBC's right to exist for example, so you'd better take it up with them, USA, not me. 'Stripping criminals of basic civil liberties'? It's my country's own law that is doing so, not me personally; again, Brussels seem to be conspicuous by their absence in this matter, so take it up with Parliament & the EU, not me.

But then, there's always an alternative to being criminals and bigots: not being criminals and bigots. Would it kill them to not be what they are? Better ask John McVicar and Kevin Day respectively.

So LGBT people can live just as everyone else in the UK, in peace, security, and equality.

image

Problem?

old comment by Canuovea

Anon-e-moose,

Just wow. Didn't address Felix's point about your love of thoughtcrime. And I'm just confused with some of your logic. "Would it kill them to not be what they are?" I've no more words. Felix basically accused you of being nearly a left wing fascist, and you haven't managed to be convincing in disproving that.

PG, I wouldn't say "Western Jurisprudence is inexorably linked to Biblical Jurisprudence - Judeo Christian ethics." There are a lot more traditions going into that than just the ethics of an ancient desert dwelling people. Rome, the basis for the rule of law, for instance.

Ebon is right here, well, not the adhominem and desire for you to commit suicide, but pretty much everything else.

Rape was always rape, even if inside marriage. Just that the laws didn't recognize it as such. It is still an evil act.

Not to mention, don't tell me that Judeo-Christian ethics cared one jot about marriage. Jesus, maybe, but the rest of it? Not so much. Mosaic law, for instance, allowed a man to divorce his captive (and raped) wife (who probably didn't agree to marriage) if he got tired of her.

Also, the Chinese (hell, pretty much all Asians), Africans, Romans, Greeks, Norse, Gaels, etc all had marriage before Christianity came around. Even the Canaanites had it.

And that the secular state actually recognizes divorce and remarriage at all suggests that secular law doesn't care at all about what Jesus or religion had to say on the matter.

Assault, unlawful imprisonment, assault and battery, cruel and inhuman treatment, neglect, abandonment, infidelity, adultery etc.

All these things could be put into charges or accusations against a husband [or wife] and become grounds for divorce.

But not rape [until modern human's reinvention it]. Assault yes, rape no.

You see, in every tradition on earth just about, marriage means forfeiture of exclusive 'rights' over one's own body. Marriage as a merger of human beings into "one" being. I'm sorry it sounds esoteric, but that's just the way it is. Today's knowledge is yesterday's "stupid".

You'd have to go to Paul, the celibate Apostle for better insight [I'm not being ironical].

In a Christian marriage headache is no excuse. Sex is a duty/ obligation.

This is why there is, can be no marriage 'equality' with 'gay marriage' - its just as impossible as a man providing a womb or a woman providing the semen.

You are a modernist Canuovea - Christianity is supernatural. See: Sid Roth series for further details.

old comment by Justanotheratheist

@ Phillip-George

In a Christian marriage...sex is a duty/obligation?

Thanks for confirming, yet again, that Christians are living in the Stone Age. I may not be the world's best husband - far from it - but the day I use that line of "reasoning" when I'm in the mood for some hanky-panky my wife has my full permission to lock me out of the bedroom.

If you have any feelings whatsover - let alone love - for a person, you would never force them to have sex when they don't want to. Not ever. Unless, of course, you're a Christian. Then you have licence to behave like a fucking caveman.

Thank fuck, then, that my marriage is strictly secular (even though my wife is a believer) and that your antiquated ideas on the subject of married relationships mean precisely nothing in our lives.

old comment by Canuovea

PG,

There are doctrines that allow for marital rape in Christianity, I'm sure. Though I'm not sure about condoning it. Then again, according to Jesus, if someone divorced and remarried, they were committing adultery.

I suppose views of that have changed now that society has become more equal. Same with sex, I suppose. Sex is now seen as an act of love between two people. At least, one version of sex (probably the best one, but I'll bet someone would disagree). That is also the ideal reason for marriage.

I agree with you, this is rather new, but I think I like it better than "marry for station, for money, etc... Don't worry, I'll arrange a marriage for you!"

So if sex and marriage have become more about an expression of love than of children or religious symbolism or whatever... how does that exclude homosexuals? I don't think it does.

But of course, religious institutions shouldn't be forced to change their definition of marriage just because the secular definition is different now. Forcing churches to perform marriages of any kind against their will is wrong. Though that doesn't mean that rape in marriage should be seen as okay if the religion says so... after all, that is suddenly getting secular again.

Though I will say that Paul doesn't seem like someone I'd take marriage or sexual advice from. Especially since he didn't seem to like women very much and was practically a pharisee. You know what Jesus thought about those guys... and old habits die hard.

But sure, you could say I'm perhaps somewhat of a modernist, and you're quite old fashioned. I'd like to think both of us can sometimes bring something to the table.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Ahem:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=83063&Page=4

I'm fundie about the LAW & democracy in MY country...? Look to your own country, and the legal basis of such. In that case, the US Constitution - via the ACLU - is fundie, therefore ALL it's citizens are fundie too, because 'homosexual bigots are using the power of government to carry out their hate-driven harassment of the O'Reillys'. If what I say is 'fundie', then you agree that 'harassment' of those with Christian convictions via 'criminal or civil sanction for acting on their deeply held religious convictions' is wrong.

So what are those in the US doing about it? Tolerance is a double-edged sword. But it seems that in recent years the law is becoming biased more towards the minorities, especially LGBT people, at the cost of those opposed to such losing their 'rights'. Not exactly seeing the Senate/HoR doing anything about it, therefore it AGREES with 'harassment' of those with deeply-held Christian 'convictions', via the law. Seems then, that 'fundie' is a matter of perspective. There have, after all, been those who said that a particular quote wasn't 'fundie', yet others have gone on to prove them wrong, to emphasise said quote's fundieness.

Can a law(s) in a democratic country be regarded as 'Fundie' - in this case the UK's Section 5 of the Public Order Act (which, as I say, denies a potential UK equivalent of the WBC the right to exist)? Not seeing very many people opposed to that here, nor in Brussels. Seems they - certainly the EU - have no problem with that.

I don't. LGBT people here can live in peace without being unjustifiably harassed, and told they'll 'Go To Hell', nor are funerals - especially of armed forces servicemen - protested against here. Just ask said LGBT people, and families of those K.I.A. soldiers et al, if Section 5 is 'fundie', then get back to me.

@J. James

"Philip-George, I am not ignoring the existence of people that claim to be ex-gay. It really just doesn't matter at all. Being "ex-gay" is a choice, in the same way that being celibate is a choice. I wouldn't punish them for that, but I won't give them any undue attention either as they are simply irrelevant to the issue at hand.

What matters here are gay people. People that are gay and choose to comport themselves as such."

...but it seems that certain people can be ex-Christian by [i]choice[/i].

You can't be born Christian. Jonathan Edwards was a long-time Christian. With emphasis on was.

The same can't be said about others, though, despite their past 'convictions' on the matter at hand.

old comment by Canuovea

Anon-e-moose, you seem to be missing my point.

It is fundie behaviour to be screaming about how much you want someone to suffer and die.

I think it is also wrong to deny people freedom of expression/speech so long as the expression itself is not physically harming or calling for the harm of others (as that would infringe on their rights). Insults are different. Nobody has a right to not be insulted.

But you've got my understanding of rights wrong. Religious freedom allows people to worship and believe as they wish, so long as it does not impact the rights of others. See that last part? I like that part.

As such, I'd hope the ACLU would defend the WBC's right to free speech, if someone tried to pass a law restricting them. They do tend to jump at the prospect of defending religious organizations too. The ACLU is wonderful.

From my perspective, your section 5 of the public order act is an abomination (as you describe it) that should not be part of a free society. Each to their own, I suppose, but that is one reason I wouldn't want to live in Britain.

And no, I don't care if the LGBTQ community and families of fallen soldiers would be happy to just up and ban organizations like the WBC. As I said, nobody has the right to not be insulted. There are, of course, other methods of dealing with the WBC that doesn't ban them...

John Sullivan #homophobia #sexist gaystarnews.com

101 comments

Confused?