Forum menu
The only reason this thread was started (and subsequently supported by some) is homophobia, plain and simple.
Absolute tosh Mr Woppit.
Whoppit you are a complete hypocrite! If you take the sentence you wrote above:
If I can find a tramp or someone even less suitable to look after the boysLocal priest?
:and substitue the word 'priest' for something else like 'Muslim', 'homosexual', 'black person', 'woman', 'disabled person' etc. I'm pretty sure you'd not only get flamed but you'd get lynched. And I would be leading the mob.
So why is it OK to be so prejudice against priests? Before you start calling others, take a look at yourself first.
Financial security is the best foundation for a good start in life and the best insurance for a secure life to proceed.
Yes, as some fab four once said, "Money can buy you love"
oh.... hold on..
So why is it OK to be so prejudice against priests? Before you start calling others, take a look at yourself first.
This is true. I actually know a few priests. In fact my aunt is one. And while I don't necessarily agree with all their religious views, I also don't see why they should be insulted in such a fashion. In fact, seeing as all those people I know are parents, I'd say they were probably very suitable for looking after children.
Silly Woppit. 🙄
Ooh. I seem to have touched a nerve.
and substitue the word 'priest' for something else like 'Muslim', 'homosexual', 'black person', 'woman', 'disabled person' etc. I'm pretty sure you'd not only get flamed but you'd get lynched. And I would be leading the mob.
...but not for "priest". So I'm safe from the wrath of the geetee-led mob yet awhile. Phew.
Actually, I was referring to those newsworthy of late and ordained, who are evidently paedophiles, as being more unsuitable than tramps (as jocularly posted by barnsleymitch). It was an aside, and nothing to do with gay people, who are of course, no more automatically paedophiliac than heterosexuals, so I don't QUITE know what your objection is.
I took a look at myself. I'm a handsome brute. 8)
Actually, I was referring to those newsworthy of late and ordained, who are evidently paedophiles
Then why didn't you say 'paedophile priests' instead ?
Ooh. I seem to have touched a nerve.
Yeah a little. I consider myself an aetheist (although I was brought up Catholic but that's a whole other story. Really) but I also try really hard not to be prejudice against anyone without really good cause (so I'd say it was OK to be prejudice against a facist gay hating, woman bashing, muslim mudering, child felching SOB for example).
I am all for a more secular society, but I don't think it should be at the expense of religious freedom. Nor should religious freedom come at the expense of tolerance of diversity. I think that the price of equality is that you will create an environment in which you have to allow certain groups the right to be prejudice based on (ill informed or otherwise) beliefs. It's like the price of civil liberties being that suicide bombers will have a greater chance of succeeding.
Actually, I was referring to those newsworthy of late and ordained, who are evidently paedophiles,
I know you were. That's the point; you didn't differentiate so your statement was based on the assumption that all priests are peodophiles.
...nothing to do with gay people, who are of course, no more automatically paedophiliac than heterosexuals, so I don't QUITE know what your objection is.
Precisely, but by not differentiating you lump all priests together as being paedophilles.
Now i've met you Whoppit and you seemed like a very decent chap to me (as well as a handome brute!) so I'll put this one down to a misunderstanding, but at the same time, hard as it is to do, you might reflect on whether you are prejudice against religious people, in particular Christians. Just a thought.
geetee1972 - thanks for your reply, it really helped. BTW I'm not being sarcastic. I did get a little bit wound up ...I had too much time on my hands yesterday.
And as for your statement "I’ve reflected a lot on this thread and in some ways I’ve changed my views" I too have had a similar experience, thanks to the contributions from you and others.
So, for 2011 it's out with the nihilism and existential angst (the latter should have been exorcised a while ago ...late teens I guess, but I'm heading for mid 40s FFS!) and in with a new era of positivity, acceptance and more riding of bike.
Hugs all round.
The world really is a good place! 😀
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/30/elton-john-homophobia-baby-lifestyle ]Someone else's view[/url], I broadly agree with, apart from the homophobia dying bit because it's dancing across most of this thread.
When stripped down to it's components parts though some people are on the whole objecting because it's Elton and David and they are gay and they don't like that. note *some.
It starts with Rightplacerighttime saying "father"; that's it right there, also being a shopaholic is one of the key indicators of bad parenthood? You live you learn.
There are a lot of kids who end up in the world as unplanned unwanted results of unprotected poor decisions, born to decision makers who don't get to be quizzed about their qualifications as life makers.
Some kids grow up with single parents, (however this happens, walkouts, death, divorce, ...) some good, some not and some not ideal (this as it turns out isn't exclusive to single parents) they might not all grow into the best people in the world but the idea that kids need a mother and a father is not a coverall. Some families with a mother and a father are not naturing hotbeds of small people incubators. As it goes we don't know the particulars of their arrangement.
However you want to paint it though making babies is not some special love ritual to create life, for some it's a drunken Christmas party, a broken condom and a baby in August.
There is debate though somewhere in there, but I think we're mostly blinkered by our own opinions and an unyielding need to be right based on our experiences and beliefs.
Geetee I get you, you have a very valid point but I disagree fundamentally because I don't think they are buying a baby (but you do) nor do I think of making babies as a sanctified act, because it mostly never is, but this comes down to experiences and beliefs.
Can I also be a handsome brute?
Can I also be a handsome brute?
Well you can at least be an elloquent one on the basis of the evidence thus far. 😀
How handsome [i]is[/i] Whoppit?
I've never met him, but now I'm intrigued, although I'm not gay or owt...
Oh no, messed it up again...
I once saw a picture of mr woppit. He's certainly right about the 'brute' part, if nothing else.
It wasn't nice, was it Mitch? 🙁
I wanted to say what Ether so eloquently has, but sadly I am too angry and stupid to put such common sense and objective thought into words.
I've lost a lot of weight since then. 😕 (And grown a beard, which disguises the wattles. 😯
I suppose, to be strictly accurate, I [i]should[/i] have said "paedophile priest", but I kind of assumed that it would be obvious as to what I was referring, and the inclusion of the descriptive would have lessened the comedic impact of the statement.
I had in mind the Hitch's defence of his friend Stephen Fry against the anti-gay attacks of Anne Widdecombe and the Bishop of Uganda when he said: "I am perfectly happy for my good friend Stephen to babysit my children, but if a Catholic Priest in full regalia turned up to do it, first I'd call a cab, then I'd call the police".
I note that, whilst being hugely admiring of Catholic barnsley's "soft answer that turneth away wrath" tactic, he seemed to agree with me...
I've never met him, but now I'm intrigued, although I'm not gay or owt.
Maybe that's because you haven't met woppit! He'll turn ya!
will somehow have their lives blighted because of the likely outcome being that their fathers will die early on in their children's lives, compared to the norm, to be specious in the extreme.Financial security is the best foundation for a good start in life and the best insurance for a secure life to proceed.
I am sure loosing your father in early childhood is upsetting. The size of the inheritance is unlikely ot ease this sense of loss.
i would say that love is th emost imprortnat thing a parent can give and am saddened that you value wealth above the ability to provide emotional support to your child.
eth3er you are correct some heterosexual parents are not very good. you also mentioned mothers and fathes - can I accuse you of being heterophobic now for saying this ? or should we discuss the issue?
Whoppit looks a little like this
[img] 
[/img]
Oh yawn. Hilarious.
Yes, yes. I'm sure young Zevon will experience a sense of loss, but that would come from missing a good father, wouldn't it? So no objections as to his competence, but that sense of loss comes at any age, doesn't it? He would still have had a good father.
What seems to get up our crtitics noses is that he doesn't conform to some imaginary perfect paradigm that doesn't include anything other than the usual "Mum, Dad and 2.5 children" myth.
I note that the BBC's chosen critic on the news was from the famously bigoted "Christian Voice", for instance...
yes my onl;y objection is he is not heterosexual and part of a nuclear 2,5 children family you are as perceptive as you are wise.
Throughout his career, John has battled addictions to alcohol and cocaine. By 1975, the pressures of stardom began to take a serious toll on the musician. During "Elton Week" in Los Angeles that year, John suffered a drug overdose.[101] He also battled the eating disorder bulimia. In a CNN interview with Larry King in 2002, King asked if John knew of Diana, Princess of Wales' eating disorder. John replied, "Yes, I did. We were both bulimic
he admitted spending £30 million in just under two years – an average of £1.5 million a month, the High Court in London heard. The singer's lavish lifestyle saw him spend more than £9.6m on property and £293,000 on flowers between January 1996 and September 1997. ..... When quizzed by Mr Hapgood [QC] about the £293,000 spent on flowers, John said, "Yes, I like flowers."
then his own quote about why he thought he would not be a good parent- cited earlier.
If you want to reduce all this to me just objecting to him becuase he is gay then how can I stop your irrational belief.
Certainly he would not meet adoption criteria due to the above and his age rather than due to his sexuality.
substitue the word 'priest' for something else like 'Muslim', 'homosexual', 'black person', 'woman', 'disabled person' etc.
As an aside and at the rist of derailing this,
"Priest" doesn't fit into the same category as the other demographics there. People choose to be priests; being black, gay, female, French etc isn't a choice.
It's wrong to be prejudiced against demographics simply because people are different. If someone chooses to have an invisible friend and / or bugger choirboys however, I'm less convinced that they deserve the same level of respect.
The original comment was a joke, of course. It's in the same vein as cracks about truck drivers eating Yorkies and murdering prostitutes. Priests aren't an ethnic minority, they're not special, they've simply made a career choice. And in this particular case, I'd have more sympathy if the priesthood weren't intentionally, institutionally, trying to cover up abuse cases.
Junkyard > do you have any objections that aren't based on his actions over thirteen years ago? Drink driving convictions come off your licence after ten. Give it a couple more years and he'd be out following a murder conviction having served his time.
Cougar homosexuals are not an ethnic group either and the jury is still out on you're born gay or choose to be gay. And since when did it just 'being a joke' make it ok?
Any degradation of a group based on the actions of a few or even a majority is ignorant and prejudice. If you're going to champion equality you really have to do it sincerely and not just when it's politically or morally expedient.
Blimey charlie, this thread's creating some differences of opinion innit? I have to agree with junkyards last post, insofar as he managed to describe Elton John's somewhat tenuous links with reality in a much clearer way than I could have. Again, his sexuality shouldnt make any difference as to whether he would make an appropriate parent or not, but the fact that he managed to blow three hundred grand (a sum that I would have to work ten years or more to earn) on flowers is a bit of a worry, or am I just too bitter and judgemental?
Well....
Is Woppit like a greek god then?
He may object to the 'God' bit, I'm afraid...
And in this particular case, I'd have more sympathy if the priesthood weren't intentionally, institutionally, trying to cover up abuse cases.
Most abusers of children are in fact family members.
And when you speak about the 'priesthood', are you speaking of all priests, of all flavours of Christianity and indeed other religions? Or a tiny minority of priests from the Catholic faith, as has been reported in the media?
So, if there's a spate of muggings in an area, which has a large Afro-Carribean population, and a high proportion of those muggers are Black, does it then mean all Black people are muggers? I think the National Front tried suggesting this some years ago...
Don't let facts get in the way of yer bigotry though, eh?
Cougar homosexuals are not an ethnic group either
They're not an "ethnic" group, no, nor is being female or disabled. That misses the point though.
and the jury is still out on you're born gay or choose to be gay.
Only amongst Christian fundamentalists, homophobes and the ignorant. Which one are you?
And since when did it just 'being a joke' make it ok?
This is a bigger conversation. My stance is basically that either everything is fair game or nothing is. As soon as you start cherry-picking what subjects are and aren't available to make jokes about, you're guilty of prejudice. I personally subscribe to the former line of thought, it'd be a very drab anod boring world otherwise, but I appreciate that some people prefer to read the Daily Mail.
The way I see it; I spose you 'choose' to be homosexual as much as you'd 'choose' to be heterosexual.
I'm heterosexual. I'm attracted to women. I don't actually think I've got a 'choice' in the matter really. I can't suddenly simply 'choose' to be attracted to men instead. Doesn't work like that. I'd imagine the same is true for homosexual people; their sexuality is as inherent in their own nature as mine is.
Just because the 'default' setting seems to be heterosexuality for [i]most[/i] people, doesn't mean that it's the same default setting for [i]everybody[/i].
So as for the 'jury still being out'; who are the ones to judge?