In typical fashion, the bigoted movement led here by the forums own pair of religious fundo's, runner and Josephus, continue to put forward spurious argument in opposition to gay marriage. Not content to simply propagate an irrational argument, runner like the criminal who blames the victim for his crime, tries to blame homosexuals for their own misfortune, claiming violence against gays is mostly the work of other gays. If that is true, and I do not deny it, domestic violence is the source of your claim, and it occurs in gay relationships, just as it does in heterosexual relations, so what? How does that impact on the rights of gay couples to have legal recognition of their relationship. Josephus denies that there was ever any widespread abuse of homosexuals by the broader community , simply claiming that acts of violence against gays was nothing more than "the abuse of a few". Maybe you should claim gay bashing is simply boisterous youth letting off steam.
In fact you could use a similar argument to justify pedophilia by your Catholic clergy, the Church admits 7% of priests are pedophiles, a small number, so 83% are engaged in something else, consenting relationships with other men or women. or simply masturbating alone behind their alters, no harm in any of that you could say. That should justify pedophile priests, after all they are only a few in number compared to the overall mass, they would only cause minimal harm, nothing more. Agree?

Hi Paul,

As one of the tag-along bigots that you allude to, I have to defend Josephus when he writes that " .... a fuss about a few homosexuals being abused, and they should not be abused. Yet you downplay the deliberate mowing down and murder of innocent people by Muslims."

As he says, of course homosexuals should not be abused, if it ever happens - i.e. that homosexuals are abused specifically because they are homosexuals. I recall going to a homosexual party in my young and adventurous days in about June 1963, and nobody worried much about the issues then, legal or not. I don't recall much from that night, except I woke up around 6 or 7 am still there.

I don't know all that many homosexuals, they don't seem to mix in my tiny circles, but for what it's worth, I don't know any who have been assaulted. Yes, tiny sample, very poor research.

Now Islamist-fascist abuse and violence - thy are probably more salient. I hope we don't have to wait until an Islamist-fascist drives his van into a Gay Pride march to test the theory, or a group of fascists throw a homosexual off some high-rise in inner Sydney. Now THAT would be 'abuse'.

Joe

Joe,

I’m not sure what your point was supposed to be there. I don’t see how you have defended anything Josephus said. Your whole post seemed to tinker around the edges of a point that was never really made in the end there.

The closest you came to defending what Josephus said was to use your personal observations to suggest that he wasn’t downplaying the abuse homosexual people have suffered for hundreds or thousands of years, only to negate your own point by explaining yourself why your observations aren’t reliable enough to count for anything anyway.

<<I hope we don't have to wait until an Islamist-fascist drives his van into a Gay Pride march to test the theory, or a group of fascists throw a homosexual off some high-rise in inner Sydney.>>

Test what theory? There was a massacre in a gay club committed by an Islamist in Orlando last year. Was that enough to test this theory?

Hi AJ,

You inadvertently put your finger on an interesting point: often Islamist terrorists are just run-of-the-mill crims, turds, philanderers, drug addicts, scum-bags, who see the promises of Islam - 72 virgins forever, wow - and are told by beautifully-dressed, polite and quietly-spoken, extremely well-mannered imams etc. that all they have to do get to Paradise is kill a few random innocent people, any way they can. So, they commit these vile acts - although I suppose the pro-fascist-left will compare them with those in the Middle Ages, or with the times and mores of Ishmael and Hammurabi - and do it in the name of Islam.

So clearly, one option is that either mosques have to be shut down and imams interned or deported OR - an important OR - those mosques and imams must very loudly and explicitly tell their parishioners that, even though the Korans supports such vile atrocities, this is now the 21st century and such crimes must - surely ? - be condemned by Allah himself.

Of course, the problem is, that there may be nothing in the Koran to back that strategy up. So perhaps, if I may be so bold, there may be just a few small problems with Islam.

There you go, AJ, plenty to nit-pick there :)

Cheers,

Joe

The claim by AJ that I condone abuse of Homosexuals is a spurious claim as I do not support violence or abuse. I have several close friends homosexuals living in relationships. They are fine individuals. I do not approve of their sexual practices, but that is not hate or bigotry of the person, as I can mix and converse with them.

My wife and I have friends, mothers of Lesbians and they are very disappointed with their life decisions; yet they dearly love them. They had hoped to have grandchildren, and a happy family. These young women do not see marriage as important as they do not want children.

The true facts are not represented by the advocates of SSM.

Joe,

I don’t nit-pick. To nit-pick is to be excessively concerned with inconsequential details (that wasn't meant to be ironic, either, I'm entitled to defend myself against offensive suggestions).

But thanks for providing me with the opportunity to do so, anyway. I mean, that did seem like an unnecessarily long way to say that the Qur’an doesn’t have anything to interpret nicely in a 21st-century context.

But I’m not sure what that has to do with Josephus’s downplaying of abuse towards homosexuals, or how it is a defence for it. Nor do I see how I have inadvertently raised the issue apart from the fact that I mentioned Islam (which I suppose is enough around here).

So, if you don’t mind, I might just keep smiling and… slo-o-o-owly step backwards now…

--

Josephus,

Where have I claimed that?

<<The claim by AJ that I condone abuse of Homosexuals is a spurious …>>

It's bad enough to claim that someone has said something they didn't even say, but to then to go to the extent of assessing what wasn't said, and coming to a conclusion about it (i.e. that it is spurious), is just downright delusional. What is wrong with you?

I think it’s time you started providing quotes. You can’t be trusted to paraphrase anyone, anymore.

<<I do not approve of their sexual practices, but that is not hate or bigotry of the person, as I can mix and converse with them.>>

But you oppose their right to marry, even after it is made clear that you have no rational reason to oppose it, and that DOES make you bigoted.

<<The true facts are not represented by the advocates of SSM.>>

Please, tell us, what are these “true facts”?

On second thoughts, I might just continue smiling while slowly stepping backwards...