Conrod Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 If they express such wrongheaded notions publically it's quite right and proper that they are challenged.Wrongheaded in your opinion. I don't have a problem with his view. At all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Wrongheaded in your opinion. I don't have a problem with his view. At all. Your own irrational hatred of homosexuals is indeed well known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 'Challenged' does not mean 'physically attacked'. All views can be challenged; no view-holders should be physically attacked for holding them. Well, yeah, obviously. Unless I'm mistaken, that's not happened here though, in fact come to think of it I'm not even sure that it's possible to physically attack someone on an online forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 They dertainly do - by all means challenge the post, but don't stoop to attacking the poster. RTeading the thread it's as though he's being metaphorically handbagged to death by a pack of badly made-up trannies and poofs.Lol, you do realise that non-bigots like us aren't really insulted very much when you call us gay, right? No, you probably can't understand that. That's fine, challenging is one thing, but several of you have turned this into a personal attack on the poster, rather than a challenge of his statement.Actually only one person has done that, and I attempted to chastise them for doing so, everyone else has been pretty reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Keep it civil and on topic please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I'd say that the issue of the acceptance of homosexuality is on topic. It demonstrates how our own morality based on empathy and reason is replacing dogmatic Christian morality, long may it continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I'd say that the issue of the acceptance of homosexuality is on topic. It demonstrates how our own morality based on empathy and reason is replacing dogmatic Christian religious morality, long may it continue. Altered to be inclusive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I'd say that the issue of the acceptance of homosexuality is on topic. It demonstrates how our own morality based on empathy and reason is replacing dogmatic Christian morality, long may it continue. Are Conrod and Tom Fletcher claiming a Christian basis for their homophobic beliefs, or are you inferring one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Are Conrod and Tom Fletcher claiming a Christian basis for their homophobic beliefs, or are you inferring one? Tom Fletcher said it. Im a Christian... I was brought up in a very religious protestant family ... ...my religious belief is my main reason for my objection [to homosexuality] Seems pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 'Challenged' does not mean 'physically attacked'. All views can be challenged; no view-holders should be physically attacked for holding them. Who is suggesting that view-holders should be physically attacked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.