A little bit of extreme prejudice for your Sunday

Sonics2k

Newsite wrote: »

Is expressing an opinion on principle that marriage is for one woman and one man equal to homophobia? How can the journalist express their opinion then?

What I will say is that the language used in the article is somewhat clumsy, but let's not go down an ultra-PC road (or further down it).

Here's an update for you.

Marriage has little to do with it, it's just a media focus and "Hot button" for a lot of people.

What gay couples want is equality, fully and completely, to match those of heterosexual couples in legal relationships.

As it currently stands, inheritance rights under the current Civil Partnership are extremely limited, and un-equal to those in a straight marraige.

All that's being asked for is basic equality between Heterosexual people (such as myself) and Homosexual people in terms of legal rights.

Is it so much to ask for, that a gay couple who have been in a loving, caring relationship for over 20 years, cannot legally pass on their property to eachother, and can't even become legally recognised as joint-parents to a child.

Newsite

Sonics2k wrote: »

Here's an update for you.

Marriage has little to do with it, it's just a media focus and "Hot button" for a lot of people.

If that's truly the case, well then shame on the Sindo.

Sonics2k wrote: »

What gay couples want is equality, fully and completely, to match those of heterosexual couples in legal relationships.

As it currently stands, inheritance rights under the current Civil Partnership are extremely limited, and un-equal to those in a straight marraige.

All that's being asked for is basic equality between Heterosexual people (such as myself) and Homosexual people in terms of legal rights.

Is it so much to ask for, that a gay couple who have been in a loving, caring relationship for over 20 years, cannot legally pass on their property to eachother, and can't even become legally recognised as joint-parents to a child.

Well then, as I've said, why not campaign for greater rights under civil partnership?

Sonics2k

Newsite wrote: »

So only opinions which fall in line with the PC, liberal majority are allowed? Everyone else needs to 'just stop'?

I'm not here to insult anyone, but this man voiced a very legitimate opinion, and he is entitled to it. Why is it that when someone declares their opinion that marriage should be for a man and a woman only, that they are immediately labelled as homophobic and prejudiced?

Genuine q like!

My advice was simple, this is an LGBT forum for people to discuss the matters at hand. It's also a privately owned forum, so you're freedom of speech is virtually non-existent on this subforum.

You could always post in the After Hours thread, which is frankly, more suited to debating the topic, but not here where people will take offence.

I love a good debate, but trust me when I say this is not the forum for it on this particular topic.

Sonics2k

Newsite wrote: »

If that's truly the case, well then shame on the Sindo.



Well then, as I've said, why not campaign for greater rights under civil partnership?

People are campaigning.

What holds it back are people like the writer of this article that spreads nonsense and lies, which unfortunately people will believe because it's in the paper.

@mods, my apologies if I've gone too offtopic.
Newsite, I'll only discuss this further on p.m. so we don't send it more offtopic.

Annasopra

Newsite If you have any questions or comments about moderation you should ALWAYS send them by pm. The charter is very clear on this. Your behaviour on this thread is skating on very thin ice. Again I will not discuss this warning in the thread.

Newsite

Sonics2k wrote: »

My advice was simple, this is an LGBT forum for people to discuss the matters at hand. It's also a privately owned forum, so you're freedom of speech is virtually non-existent on this subforum.

You could always post in the After Hours thread, which is frankly, more suited to debating the topic, but not here where people will take offence.

I did post in AH. And I'm not here to incite anything or provoke anyone. I'm here to voice a point of view in a respectful way, which I have been doing.

Sonics2k wrote: »

I love a good debate, but trust me when I say this is not the forum for it on this particular topic.

What you're saying here is that 'anyone who disagrees with you isn't welcome'. Would that be a fair assertion?

I've spent the past week or so posting on a thread in Christianity ('David Quinn and...'), where various folks who are non-Christian have been taking potshots and throwing insults, without engaging in debate (which I am patently doing). They are merely there to trot out their own opinion. With that in mind, are you really saying I shouldn't be here?

I'm a Christian, and I'm also concerned about the rise of the PC society. I have zero, zilch, nada against gay people as people, and it's a sad indictment of society that people on this forum might automatically jump to the conclusion that the opposite is the case, simply given that my opinion doesn't line up with the prevailing one on here.

Untense

Newsite wrote: »

Given that you are probably still a bit upset about this article (which is perfectly fine, obviously), I'll overlook this racist slur and sweeping remark on 'people just like me' (hello, prejudice?!?) on someone you've never met.

It shouldn't be hard to overlook the racist slur, since there was none. Unless you mean saying 'blacks' is a racist slur. The sweeping remark on 'people just like you' is an accurate one - when I say people just like you, I mean people who were using your arguments and holding a similar 'position' in terms of progress and equality. There were people who opposed equal rights for others throughout the ages, using similar arguments as you did:

.... denying it to gay people is down to the fact that marriage is for one woman, one man!

"Marriage is for one white woman, one white man!", "Marriage is down to one woman, one man - till death do they part!


But aside from that, I think many gays would be happy to have 'civil partnership' hold equal rights to marriage. At the moment it does not, which is why it's not enough for many and why they are unhappy.

Moving on, you trot out the equality argument, the 'equal rights' argument.

A valid one, since this is about equal rights: at the moments gay people don't have equal rights.

You talk about black people being discriminated against, putting the 'denial' of being granted the rights to the institution of marriage with the genuine hardship and extreme persecution endured by blacks over centuries of slavery and intolerance. For real like?

You've mistaken my point. My point has nothing to do with the degree of suffering or hardship gays have had compared to blacks, but was to do with unequal rights in marriage for black people, which is as legitimate and analogous for comparison as other forms of inequality. This is not to see who is suffering more, but simply about equal rights before the law. Gay people don't have equal rights in marriage/civil partnership before the law, because the civil partnership bill does not give equal rights.

In terms of equality, (and not degrees or severity of oppression) black people were discriminated against in regards to the institution of marriage, and so are gay people today. With similar arguments presented.

And before you say that 'gays haven't been persecuted, and aren't being persecuted'? - of course I recognise that this happens, and is very wrong.

This isn't about persecution but about inequality, which is very straight forward and can be looked at rationally without drawing emotional ideas in to it.

But the reason that comparing blacks being denied marriage rights with gays being denied marriage rights is wrong

It's quite legitimately analogous. There was a time when blacks were denied marriage with eachother, because at that time black people were not considered equal. It is for the same reason that gay marriage is not allowed today.

(and quite possibly grossly insulting to blacks/racial minorities)

To find out if that assertion was true, you would need to go around and speak with every black person or racial minority in the world, and ask them their opinion. For it to be true, it would require every last person you spoke with to agree that it was insulting. But regardless of whether every black person or person of ethnic minority on the planet found it insulting, the analogy I made would still be valid.

is that denying it to blacks is racism, but denying it to gay people is down to the fact that marriage is for one woman, one man!

Actually, the reason given for why blacks shouldn't marry was not that 'it was racism'. If you asked white people why they didn't want blacks to marry, they would not have said, "oh, because we're racist!". They would have said, "Because that's the way it's supposed to be." Or, "one white man, one white woman!". Back then it wasn't called racism, it was 'how it is supposed to be'.

To give you more perspective, here is a quotation given by a judge in a trial of an interacial married couple in the USA, who were convicted and sentenced to prison for one year:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Basically, the argument used by this judge to punish this couple for marriage, was that "that's the way it's supposed to be".

Races were 'put' on different continents so therefore they shouldn't mix. Today we would find this argument archaic and simply wrong. Most people today would be offended at the idea that people of different races could not date, or marry or have children together.
In comparison, today it seems odd to many that a woman would want to couple with a woman, because women shouldn't like women. Because a man is for a woman, and a woman is for a man. Right?

You have exactly the same thing going on now, because it is never about race, or sexuality, or whatever: it is about fixed, unquestioned ideas of what should or should not happen, that are found to simply be untrue and a bit silly when you look at them.

Untense

Newsite wrote: »

I'm not here to insult anyone, but this man voiced a very legitimate opinion, and he is entitled to it.
Genuine q like!

He is entitled to his opinion, and I defend his right to say whatever he wants to say.

I don't think that's why people are upset. We have all heard these opinions in the pub, or on the street. But this is a newspaper which, while also entitled to free speech, has some basic standards it is expected to uphold, including not inciting hatred or causing offense to minorities.

Principle 8 − Prejudice

Newspapers and magazines shall not publish material intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, colour, ethnic origin, membership of the travelling community, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.

They published a very inflammatory opinion on a paper, which means it will be regarded with some sort of 'weight' or authority by many readers. When things are published on media, it is legitimised in the minds of many people. He has every right to have his opinions, but his opinions are factually incorrect starting from the headline, and in fact almost every paragraph is misleading and/or misinformed. Including his citations which are basically quotes of other people's misinformed opinions used to back his own misinformed opinions.

Newsite

Untense wrote: »

It shouldn't be hard to overlook the racist slur, since there was none. Unless you mean saying 'blacks' is a racist slur. The sweeping remark on 'people just like you' is an accurate one - when I say people just like you, I mean people who were using your arguments and holding a similar 'position' in terms of progress and equality. There were people who opposed equal rights for others throughout the ages, using similar arguments as you did:


"Marriage is for one white woman, one white man!", "Marriage is down to one woman, one man - till death do they part!


But aside from that, I think many gays would be happy to have 'civil partnership' hold equal rights to marriage. At the moment it does not, which is why it's not enough for many and why they are unhappy.


A valid one, since this is about equal rights: at the moments gay people don't have equal rights.



You've mistaken my point. My point has nothing to do with the degree of suffering or hardship gays have had compared to blacks, but was to do with unequal rights in marriage for black people, which is as legitimate and analogous for comparison as other forms of inequality. This is not to see who is suffering more, but simply about equal rights before the law. Gay people don't have equal rights in marriage/civil partnership before the law, because the civil partnership bill does not give equal rights.

In terms of equality, (and not degrees or severity of oppression) black people were discriminated against in regards to the institution of marriage, and so are gay people today. With similar arguments presented.



This isn't about persecution but about inequality, which is very straight forward and can be looked at rationally without drawing emotional ideas in to it.



It's quite legitimately analogous. There was a time when blacks were denied marriage with eachother, because at that time black people were not considered equal. It is for the same reason that gay marriage is not allowed today.


To find out if that assertion was true, you would need to go around and speak with every black person or racial minority in the world, and ask them their opinion. For it to be true, it would require every last person you spoke with to agree that it was insulting. But regardless of whether every black person or person of ethnic minority on the planet found it insulting, the analogy I made would still be valid.


Actually, the reason given for why blacks shouldn't marry was not that 'it was racism'. If you asked white people why they didn't want blacks to marry, they would not have said, "oh, because we're racist!". They would have said, "Because that's the way it's supposed to be." Or, "one white man, one white woman!". Back then it wasn't called racism, it was 'how it is supposed to be'.

To give you more perspective, here is a quotation given by a judge in a trial of an interacial married couple in the USA, who were convicted and sentenced to prison for one year:


Basically, the argument used by this judge to punish this couple for marriage, was that "that's the way it's supposed to be".

Races were 'put' on different continents so therefore they shouldn't mix. Today we would find this argument archaic and simply wrong. Most people today would be offended at the idea that people of different races could not date, or marry or have children together.
In comparison, today it seems odd to many that a woman would want to couple with a woman, because women shouldn't like women. Because a man is for a woman, and a woman is for a man. Right?

You have exactly the same thing going on now, because it is never about race, or sexuality, or whatever: it is about fixed, unquestioned ideas of what should or should not happen, that are found to simply be untrue and a bit silly when you look at them.

You said that 'people like me' would have opposed marriage based on race grounds 'back then'. So what you're saying is that my Christian belief now that marriage is man+woman would equate to my being racist back then. Agree?

The reason you can't equate the two is because not approving a marriage between a black person and a white person is racism. It's wrong because you have no grounds for not approving it. But based on the belief that God created marriage for a man and woman together, it's perfectly right and just not to approve it for same sex couples.

So - not prejudicial, just standing up and defending our belief that marriage is for one man, one woman, for life.

Untense

Newsite wrote: »

You said that 'people like me' would have opposed marriage based on race grounds 'back then'. So what you're saying is that my Christian belief now that marriage is man+woman would equate to my being racist back then. Agree?

No, I don't agree. I didn't know you were Christian, when I said 'people like you', I meant people with your particular argument would have used the same type of argument against inter-racial marriages back then. That still stands as I had originally meant it.

The reason you can't equate the two is because not approving a marriage between a black person and a white person is racism. It's wrong because you have no grounds for not approving it.

Yes, we see it as wrong today. Though had you lived 90 years ago, you would likely have agreed with that US judge when he imprisoned the inter-racial couple with the reason that, 'God put people of different races on different continents for a reason.'

But based on the belief that God created marriage for a man and woman together, it's perfectly right and just not to approve it for same sex couples.

If you believe in your particular God, but that is why the State is to be separated from Religion. I don't think you would like to have to obey Sharia law, or have Viking law imposed upon you by the state you live in. Since you don't believe in those particular ideologies. By what right should others be permitted to force those beliefs on you.

Equally, nobody is going to stop you from believing that there is a God, and you are entitled to believe that this god created marriage for a man and a woman. But those are personal beliefs, which ideally in democracy should have no bearing on law and equality, they were designed to be separate.

If you can separate your personal beliefs from law, as you might distinguish Sharia law from our own, you cannot argue that at the moment there is a legal inequality. Even if your reason for supporting that inequality still stands.

So - not prejudicial, just standing up and defending our belief that marriage is for one man, one woman, for life.

Whether you think it a good thing or not, it is still prejudice based on a belief. Prejudice is defined as, 'Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience.'

Religion by its very nature is not based on reason. And clearly you do not have experience of these matters either. But since you've brought up that your point of view is based on the fact you're Christian, this discussion can go no further without going even further off topic. Let's leave it at that.

Newsite

Untense wrote: »

No, I don't agree. I didn't know you were Christian, when I said 'people like you', I meant people with your particular argument would have used the same type of argument against inter-racial marriages back then. That still stands as I had originally meant it.

K fair enough, sorry. I was jumping the gun a bit there with that comment. Besides, I wasn't offended Apologies.

Untense wrote: »

Yes, we see it as wrong today. Though had you lived 90 years ago, you would likely have agreed with that US judge when he imprisoned the inter-racial couple with the reason that, 'God put people of different races on different continents for a reason.'

No. For the reason that I would have seen through what the judge was saying and would have recognised his opinion for what it was - racist. There is no basis for his argument in Scripture.

Untense wrote: »

If you believe in your particular God, but that is why the State is to be separated from Religion. I don't think you would like to have to obey Sharia law, or have Viking law imposed upon you by the state you live in. Since you don't believe in those particular ideologies. By what right should others be permitted to force those beliefs on you.

Equally, nobody is going to stop you from believing that there is a God, and you are entitled to believe that this god created marriage for a man and a woman. But those are personal beliefs, which ideally in democracy should have no bearing on law and equality, they were designed to be separate.

If you can separate your personal beliefs from law, as you might distinguish Sharia law from our own, you cannot argue that at the moment there is a legal inequality. Even if your reason for supporting that inequality still stands.

Ok, I was unclear. I don't mean 'approve' in the sense of a legal approval - I mean it in the sense that I couldn't approve of gay marriage, and my opinion is reflected in such.

Untense wrote: »

Whether you think it a good thing or not, it is still prejudice based on a belief. Prejudice is defined as, 'Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience.'

Religion by its very nature is not based on reason. And clearly you do not have experience of these matters either. But since you've brought up that your point of view is based on the fact you're Christian, this discussion can go no further without going even further off topic. Let's leave it at that.

As per the above.

Slang_Tang

foggy_lad wrote: »

Marriage to me will always involve a man and a woman so how can i as a gay man get married? If I wanted the right to get married I would see about having myself straightened out:) but I do believe that a civil partnership should include all the same legal and hereditry rights etc as hetrosexual marriage

No, the Christian concept of marriage involves a man and a woman.

Marriage has a rich and varied history, one that pre-dates Christianity. Same-sex unions have existed in various forms for centuries. If you're not a practising Christian, you need to re-think why marriage should be limited to a man and woman.

Some bedtime reading: John Boswell, Same-Sex Union in Pre-Modern Europe.

CrystalLettuce

Cavehill Red wrote: »

"Extreme prejudice"? Really?
If this is what you consider extreme prejudice, how do you describe the criminalisation of homosexuality or gay bashing?

He is writing off gays as promiscuous, fringe practitioners of weird sex. You do know what "Prejudice" MEANS right?

And I would describe those as unquestionably immoral.

Why does foggy_lad even post here? If someone mades an ignorant post, you can be sure to see his name in the "thanks from" field.

CrystalLettuce

Newsite wrote: »

So only opinions which fall in line with the PC, liberal majority are allowed? Everyone else needs to 'just stop'?

Poor oppressed you, able to marry the person you love and avail of a lengthy list of privileges?

And stop falling back on "PC" as an excuse for comments that would be considered bad regardless.

In this context, the conceit that “political correctness” constitutes a violation of free speech is particularly zany; as though society’s marginalized groups wield oppressive power over the dominant mainstream. Actually, as far as I’m concerned you’re free to call me “chink” and I’m free to call you “racist loser” (and more if necessary, but I’ll leave that aside for now in the interest of false civility). Free speech is the straw man of choice for intellectual bums of all stripes too fragile and vacuous for critical engagement. Calling someone who says or does bigoted things “a bigot” isn’t censorious, it’s descriptively accurate, like calling a bad movie “a bad movie”, even if the bigot didn’t intend to come off as bigoted and the movie didn’t intend to come off as bad.

http://zuky.tumblr.com/post/2827066832

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that people who rail against Politically Correct speech are those who do not want to have to be polite or civil to folks different from them. They see nothing wrong with using the language they grew up with or that they’ve come to use. They do not care if the language they use is hurtful to others because, after all, the most important thing is that they get to do what they want when they want. This is the prevailing attitude of people with privilege.

http://theangryblackwoman.com/2007/04/12/in-defense-of-political-correctness/

It's about civility. Normally if someone is uncivil, rude, vicious or cruel, we call them on it. But if they're uncivil, rude, vicious or cruel towards a member of a marginalised group, we cannot say anything for fear of being accused of thought control via the "PC Brigade". Which is ironically the kind of nonsense anti-PC types would claim to oppose.

jaffacakesyum

Newsite wrote: »

K fair enough, sorry. I was jumping the gun a bit there with that comment. Besides, I wasn't offended Apologies.




No. For the reason that I would have seen through what the judge was saying and would have recognised his opinion for what it was - racist. There is no basis for his argument in Scripture.



Ok, I was unclear. I don't mean 'approve' in the sense of a legal approval - I mean it in the sense that I couldn't approve of gay marriage, and my opinion is reflected in such.



As per the above.

Ah, so now we are getting somewhere. This is the crux of the matter:

You are perfectly entitled to personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and there are no exceptions. However, seeing as state and religion are/should be separate, you can offer no logical reason to deny gay couples equal rights.

Basically if you came out and said "Listen, due to personal religious beliefs of mine, I believe gay people marrying is immoral and I don't agree with it. However, this is just my personal belief and I recognise that people of other beliefs, race, creed etc. might feel differently. Seeing as religion and state are separate, gay couples should of course be allowed to marry and have equal rights to heterosexuals, even though I don't believe it is moral, personally"

If you said that I - and most gay people I think* - would have no issue. It's this superiority attitude that "I am Christian. The Bible says this. Therefore law should be obeyed according to God's word"

CrystalLettuce

Newsite wrote: »

I'm not here to insult anyone, but this man voiced a very legitimate opinion, and he is entitled to it. Why is it that when someone declares their opinion that marriage should be for a man and a woman only, that they are immediately labelled as homophobic and prejudiced?

Genuine q like!

Also, just because you agree with it doesn't mean it's "Legitimate". In what way is it valid or legitimate? None of it is based in reality at all or any real first hand experience. Nobody involved with LGBTs in a serious capacity will tell you any of it bears true. It is abstract from reality. It is not "legitimate".

Cavehill Red

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

You are perfectly entitled to personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and there are no exceptions. However, seeing as state and religion are/should be separate, you can offer no logical reason to deny gay couples equal rights.

Sorry to interject, but this is something I've often wondered about: is there an entitlement under equality for example to refer to gay sex as vaginal penetration? Would denying the use of the term 'vaginal penetration' to male gay couples be prejudicial?
Because this is culturally and historically how the term 'marriage' is seen by a large segment of society, and that is perfectly understandable given the trajectory of history.
It's for that reason that I don't entirely comprehend the picking of an argument over the terminology. Argue the 100 differences between civil partnership and marriage for sure. But why seek to co-opt the word that has a distinct hetero meaning? That's clearly antagonistic.
I'd be more inclined to secure the equality rather than the terminology.

CrystalLettuce

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Sorry to interject, but this is something I've often wondered about: is there an entitlement under equality for example to refer to gay sex as vaginal penetration? Would denying the use of the term 'vaginal penetration' to male gay couples be prejudicial?

Vaginal penetration describes two physical things that have meaning outside of this context. Marriage does not refer to a pre-existing physical object and you have already been told the definition of marriage has differed throughout history and chosen to ignore it.

It is a ridiculous comparison. The reason it should be called "marriage" is that to refuse to do so, is acknowledging heterosexual love is somehow "Inferior" to homosexual love. Marriage is seen by most(until they decide to enter into an argument about gay marriage and are homophobes that is) as a seal of love & commitment. Lack of gay marriage propagates the idea that gays are promiscuous, deviant and cannot share the same level of emotional bond. This is why even if it was just an issue of name(which it isn't), that it's still an issue. The only acceptable alternative to "marriage" would be something that socially, has the same weight as it. But there isn't anything.

Why should someone even bother engaging someone so intellectually dishonest as yourself? This is my main concern here.

jaffacakesyum

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Sorry to interject, but this is something I've often wondered about: is there an entitlement under equality for example to refer to gay sex as vaginal penetration? Would denying the use of the term 'vaginal penetration' to male gay couples be prejudicial?
Because this is culturally and historically how the term 'marriage' is seen by a large segment of society, and that is perfectly understandable given the trajectory of history.
It's for that reason that I don't entirely comprehend the picking of an argument over the terminology. Argue the 100 differences between civil partnership and marriage for sure. But why seek to co-opt the word that has a distinct hetero meaning? That's clearly antagonistic.
I'd be more inclined to secure the equality rather than the terminology.

I have no idea what you're getting at with denying the term 'vaginal penetration' to male gay couples. How on earth would denying that be prejudicial seeing as it is biologically impossible for two men to have vaginal sex

As for picking arguements over terminology, I actually agree with you that the differences between civil partnership and marriage are the main issue here and not nitpicking with terminology.

However, why should marriage have a distinct hetero meaning?? This is a civil marriage we're talking about. Why on earth should gay couples not be allowed to have a civil marriage, if you are supporting full equal rights and civil partnership, as implied by your post

Why can't a man get down on one knee and propose and ask his boyfriend to marry him? Why should he have to say 'will you civil partnership me'

Cavehill Red

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

Vaginal penetration describes two physical things that have meaning outside of this context. Marriage does not refer to a pre-existing physical object and you have already been told the definition of marriage has differed throughout history and chosen to ignore it.

Why should someone even bother engaging someone so intellectually dishonest as yourself? This is my main concern here.

Actually, nobody's told me any such thing. You've failed entirely to engage with my point, which is that the factual reality that vaginal penetration cannot be used as a descriptor of male gay sex is correlative to the heteronormative concept of marriage in our culture.

I would like you to either attempt to justify the unfounded allegation of intellectual dishonesty or else withdraw it. You may find you are unable to justify it.

wonderfulname

Ah, the subtlety of language... it's really getting on my tits at this point.

Just to say, insisting that the definition of marriage is a religious union of two people of the opposite sex is akin to claiming I just said the concept of language is actually a physical thing currently perched on my breasts, it's limited to an absurd degree.

But on topic, this is the paper David Quinn likes to spew his garbage in isn't it? Why is anyone surprised?

It could be worse, we could have political representatives who claim this;

We understand that when we’re granting the rights of marriage, that that’s a special right Tony, that’s something we have suggested is clearly the best possible way to see children raised through the best possible environment to launch the next generation, we believe that with all of our hearts as a society, I think most people understand that. So we’ve set aside this special area of the law that says we’re going to respect traditional marriage of a man and a woman because that is the launching pad of the next generation. Let’s face it; we have made a special exception in the law that gives special consideration and recognition to that.
And when people would come along and blur that distinction and say ‘well that should apply in every way’ it not only is a complete undermining of the principles of family and marriage and the hope of future generations but it completely begins to see our society break down to the extent that that foundational unit of the family that is the hope of survival of this country is diminished to the extent that it literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.

That's a fantastic bit of spin right there you have to admit, nobody can say they can't understand where he's coming from for the first three quarters of it then BAM, gays literally rip apart the fabric of american society and destroy the country, literally...

That man was elected, he made that claim on friday, I find this way more disheartening than the contents of an opinion section known by all for it's absurd, ill informed, pantophobic ramblings.

wonderfulname

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Actually, nobody's told me any such thing. You've failed entirely to engage with my point, which is that the factual reality that vaginal penetration cannot be used as a descriptor of male gay sex is correlative to the heteronormative concept of marriage in our culture.

This is really getting to be an absurd thread, can we use vaginal penetration as a descriptor of girl on guy oral sex? No, because a mouth is not a vagina, seriously you might want to rethink this, it's just baffling.

CrystalLettuce

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Actually, nobody's told me any such thing. You've failed entirely to engage with my point, which is that the factual reality that vaginal penetration cannot be used as a descriptor of male gay sex is correlative to the heteronormative concept of marriage in our culture.

I would like you to either attempt to justify the unfounded allegation of intellectual dishonesty or else withdraw it. You may find you are unable to justify it.

But it's not correlative at all, and I explained why. I did not fail to engage your point, you failed to acknowledge my debunking of it. You have been told that - it has been posted in this thread, and it has been made as a point against your side of the argument. It is not my fault if you didn't read it - if it was a 30 page thread it'd be understandable, but it's not.

As someone pointed out - it is physically impossible for a gay man to penetrate the vagina of another (cisgendered) gay man as one does not exist, so that descriptor makes no sense. There is also no REASON for them to seek this definition, whereas I gave you good reason why gay marriage should be called that, and you ignored this too. Unless you can provide a similar reason why they should seek "Vaginal Penetration" as the legal title(wait a minute, why would we even have legal definitions of what people get up to in bed?) for gay sex - your point is invalid.

This is why I call you intellectually dishonest. And don't bet on that last bit. Don't pull ridiculous comparisons out of your ass and use fancy words to defend it. Concede you made a ****ty point or you'll find yourself out of your league very fast. And then no doubt complaining about your opinion being oppressed by the PC crowd.

Cavehill Red

wonderfulname wrote: »

This is really getting to be an absurd thread, can we use vaginal penetration as a descriptor of girl on guy oral sex? No, because a mouth is not a vagina, seriously you might want to rethink this, it's just baffling.

I'm sorry to have confused you. Let's take it slowly. For many people, the term marriage is as unattributable to a gay relationship as the term 'vaginal penetration' is to gay sex, because they see it as a factual contradiction of reality. To then shout about prejudice in relation to the term 'marriage' is therefore as preposterous to such people as suggesting to them that it is prejudiced not to be able to use the term vaginal penetration to describe gay sex.
In other words, the term marriage is for many people factually linked to heteronormative practices, just as vaginal penetration (by a penis) is.
Hence, you don't get anywhere telling such people that they're prejudiced, because they're likely as baffled to hear that as you just were a minute ago reading my analogy. They don't see themselves as baffled; they see someone trying to make a rights issue out of a factual category error.
This is why I've always argued that it's the ACTUAL EQUALITY that matters and not the terminology, and that picking a row over the term marriage is not constructive.

CrystalLettuce

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm sorry to have confused you. Let's take it slowly. For many people, the term marriage is as unattributable to a gay relationship as the term 'vaginal penetration' is to gay sex, because they see it as a factual contradiction of reality.

But there are actually valid reasons for one to be seen as contradicting reality, whereas the other, marriage, is an arbitrary definition in the first place.

You're elevating the views of people who are not even educated in these matters to begin with over reason itself. This is, by definition, nonsense.

To then shout about prejudice in relation to the term 'marriage' is therefore as preposterous to such people as suggesting to them that it is prejudiced not to be able to use the term vaginal penetration to describe gay sex.

But it's not. Since there is no reason for homosexuals to want that word to describe gay sex, and they're not seeking it. You are dismissing off hand that there are any reasons to call gay marriage marriage, which means you may as well not even be in this argument. You are just flat out disregarding your opponents arguments.

In other words, the term marriage is for many people factually linked to heteronormative practices, just as vaginal penetration (by a penis) is.

In previous eras, marriage was linked to concepts such as land ownership. You're pretty much pushing Argumentum Ad Populum - most people believe this, therefore it's valid - which is a logical fallacy.

Quite frankly - educate yourself, and knock it off.

Hence, you don't get anywhere telling such people that they're prejudiced, because they're likely as baffled to hear that as you just were a minute ago reading my analogy. They don't see themselves as baffled; they see someone trying to make a rights issue out of a factual category error.
This is why I've always argued that it's the ACTUAL EQUALITY that matters and not the terminology, and that picking a row over the term marriage is not constructive.

I've explained to you why it is.

Cavehill Red

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

But it's not correlative at all, and I explained why. I did not fail to engage your point, you failed to acknowledge my debunking of it. You have been told that - it has been posted in this thread, and it has been made as a point against your side of the argument. It is not my fault if you didn't read it - if it was a 30 page thread it'd be understandable, but it's not.

Except you neither addressed my point, never mind 'debunked' it...

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

As someone pointed out - it is physically impossible for a gay man to penetrate the vagina of another (cisgendered) gay man as one does not exist, so that descriptor makes no sense.

First pause here - my analogy highlights this exact aspect of the gay marriage problematic - to many people it literally makes no sense because to them it is physically impossible for a gay couple to marry. The historical definition for literally centuries is so heteronormative that the idea of gay marriage is akin to the idea of gay male vaginal penetration - a category error. This is hugely important for gay marriage activists to grasp. The opposition isn't prejudicial; it's definitional.

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

There is also no REASON for them to seek this definition, whereas I gave you good reason why gay marriage should be called that, and you ignored this too. Unless you can provide a similar reason why they should seek "Vaginal Penetration" as the legal title(wait a minute, why would we even have legal definitions of what people get up to in bed?) for gay sex - your point is invalid.

Firstly, see the paragraph above. Secondly, it is perfectly arguable that there is no need to adopt a heterocultural term to describe gay relationships at all. In fact, some see it is restrictive, imitative, and limiting. This is, as no doubt you realise, a matter of some debate within the gay community.
It seems to me, given the lack of consensus within the gay community and the simple fact of historical continuity of the marriage concept coupled with opposition from heterosexuals who otherwise would support equality in all forms but the terminology, that the easiest method for resolving all of this would be to quit seeking to mimic hetero structures and self-define a term that encompassed the same RIGHTS (which is what ultimately is important) as heterosexual marriage. Anything else is needless provocation for the sake of it.

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

This is why I call you intellectually dishonest. And don't bet on that last bit. Don't pull ridiculous comparisons out of your ass and use fancy words to defend it. Concede you made a ****ty point or you'll find yourself out of your league very fast. And then no doubt complaining about your opinion being oppressed by the PC crowd.

Actually, I think you called me intellectually dishonest simply because you didn't like the points I made nor did you understand them (at least in part.) But I'll forgive you this once.

wonderfulname

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm sorry to have confused you. Let's take it slowly. For many people, the term marriage is as unattributable to a gay relationship as the term 'vaginal penetration' is to gay sex, because they see it as a factual contradiction of reality.

These people are uneducated, just because something appears to contradict for them at this moment in time does not mean it does in fact contradict.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

To then shout about prejudice in relation to the term 'marriage' is therefore as preposterous to such people as suggesting to them that it is prejudiced not to be able to use the term vaginal penetration to describe gay sex.

Nope, all that is preposterous there is that random link, a prejudice is a baseless preconceived notion, by your own admission that is all accepting only the traditional view on marriage is.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

In other words, the term marriage is for many people factually linked to heteronormative practices, just as vaginal penetration (by a penis) is.

Ooh what's the word for that again?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Hence, you don't get anywhere telling such people that they're prejudiced, because they're likely as baffled to hear that as you just were a minute ago reading my analogy. They don't see themselves as baffled; they see someone trying to make a rights issue out of a factual category error.

Which is why you reach out to people, not sit in a little gay getto, of course people are going to be prejudiced if you don't correct them.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is why I've always argued that it's the ACTUAL EQUALITY that matters and not the terminology, and that picking a row over the term marriage is not constructive.

The terminology kind of does matter, not calling an institution equal to marriage marriage is merely protecting these people in a rather patronising way, and allowing social inequality to persist even when legal equality is obtained, why belittle their intelligence as you so eloquently did mine in the beginning of your post, why not bloody well discuss things?

Cavehill Red

wonderfulname wrote: »

These people are uneducated, just because something appears to contradict for them at this moment in time does not mean it does in fact contradict.

Or, on the other hand, it might simply contradict.

wonderfulname wrote: »

Nope, all that is preposterous there is that random link, a prejudice is a baseless preconceived notion, by your own admission that is all accepting only the traditional view on marriage is. Ooh what's the word for that again?

The 'traditional' definition of marriage has a lengthy and significant cultural resonance, one that never encompassed gay relationships. Nevertheless, gay relationships existed throughout that entire recorded history, whether oppressed or not. So it's not sufficient to seek to describe that definition of marriage as prejudicial. In fact, it's based upon a substantive reality. Rather, it seems to me that the core argument against prejudice and in favour of generic equality is the idea that things, be they relationships, sexual acts, skin colour, whatever, can have equal validity while being different.

wonderfulname wrote: »

Which is why you reach out to people, not sit in a little gay getto, of course people are going to be prejudiced if you don't correct them.

I'm not convinced that hectoring people that their legitimate perception of an historic reality is prejudice and that they're bigots by definition is the way to persuade, personally.

wonderfulname wrote: »

The terminology kind of does matter, not calling an institution equal to marriage marriage is merely protecting these people in a rather patronising way, and allowing social inequality to persist even when legal equality is obtained, why belittle their intelligence as you so eloquently did mine in the beginning of your post, why not bloody well discuss things?

Social inequality only adheres in the eyes of those who perceive gay relationships as somehow inferior if they cannot borrow heteronormative terminology and ritual. This is primarily a phenomenon that exists within the gay community, hence the need to 'landgrab' the term 'marriage'.
I believe we are discussing things. I hope you can begin to see what I'm saying and then we can move the discussion on somewhat.

murraykil

I am unsure about the difference between a civil union and a marriage, legally speaking.

It is obvious discrimination if heterosexual unions are performed in a registry office and it gets to be called a marriage, while a homosexual union in the same office is distinguished as a civil union. Is there any difference between them legally, other than the legal title?

As for homosexual couples adopting, I would like to think that whatever assessment is made of a couple before allowing an adoption to take place would be able to assess any type of couple equally, e.g. are they committed to each-other, are they responsible, are they financially secure enough, do they have a good home environment for a child?

I would be surprised if any study could show that a homosexual couple would be less suitable than a heterosexual couple to adopt a child if they met what should be strict criteria for being eligible.

The marriage thing, I don't really get; I don't think it's the place of the state to tell any religion or church that they must let homosexual marriages in the church, but I don't see how registry unions should be allowed to differ. Still, Ireland has shown progression on this front, but again, I'm unsure on how much a civil union differs from a marriage in a registry office.

I think the guy who wrote the article is disgusted by homosexuality in general and how he is being forced to accept it through the prevalence of homosexuality in the media, or even in real life, where many cities have gay villages, even a gay high school in NY.

I would not have been in favour of a gay high school, although it is inclusive of anyone, but maybe after hearing about the kid who killed himself there due to being bullied for being, they probably serve a useful purpose, but hopefully the day will come where it will be unnecessary to make such distinctions.

It is probably teens like this kid who suffer most from the distinctions made between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and media articles like this are an attempt to keep some distinctions in place a while longer.

wonderfulname

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Or, on the other hand, it might simply contradict.

Go on, show me how.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The 'traditional' definition of marriage has a lengthy and significant cultural resonance, one that never encompassed gay relationships.

Or divorce, or interfaith, interracial, civil, open, shotgun, convenience... I could go on.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Nevertheless, gay relationships existed throughout that entire recorded history, whether oppressed or not. So it's not sufficient to seek to describe that definition of marriage as prejudicial. In fact, it's based upon a substantive reality.

Already countered, no need to repeat yourself.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Rather, it seems to me that the core argument against prejudice and in favour of generic equality is the idea that things, be they relationships, sexual acts, skin colour, whatever, can have equal validity while being different.

I don't disagree with you.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm not convinced that hectoring people that their legitimate perception of an historic reality is prejudice and that they're bigots by definition is the way to persuade, personally.

I'm not convinced you know what a discussion is, for starters, twisting my point beyond all recognition and throwing it back at me does not qualify.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Social inequality only adheres in the eyes of those who perceive gay relationships as somehow inferior if they cannot borrow the terminology of heteronormative terminology and ritual.

Ritual? This is new, so you too are working off the religious definition of marriage, and not the legal agreement affording certain rights and responsibilities to couples?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is primarily a phenomenon that exists within the gay community, hence the need to 'landgrab' the term 'marriage'.

And the term relationship, lets get a new word for that and all, what about sex? I mean that one is actually somewhat different, that should definitely have a totally separate word, I mean god forbid people go to the effort of understanding polysemes.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I believe we are discussing things. I hope you can begin to see what I'm saying and then we can move the discussion on somewhat.

Yup, didn't understand that point in the slightest, I guess it must contradict your reality.