Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

SebBerkovich

Those Russians are in for a nasty surprise if they find themselves on the Wiki page for RuPaul's Drag Race.

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/05/01/anything-good-on-the-nolan-show/

Guy in the audience made her look like a complete fool!

On last night’s The Nolan Show, Stephen Nolan was joined by Arlene Foster (DUP) and Caitríona Ruane (Sinn Féin) on the issue of marriage equality.

This was a day after the NI Assembly defeated a bill to enable marriage equality which already exists in England and Scotland. A marriage equality advocate Dean McKenzie joined the live discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqVJqh7rL2M

old hippy

Cabaal wrote: »

They've seen the act's they've submitted in the past right? :pac:

Whilst it's all to easy and tempting to dismiss Milonov as nutjob, the worrying thing is his words will garner support over there. Russia seems to be going through a collective hysteria regarding homosexuality. These are dangerous times, with dangerous individuals fanning the flames of hatred

Brian Shanahan

old hippy wrote: »

Whilst it's all to easy and tempting to dismiss Milonov as nutjob, the worrying thing is his words will garner support over there. Russia seems to be going through a collective hysteria regarding homosexuality. These are dangerous times, with dangerous individuals fanning the flames of hatred

Always happens with fascist dictatorships, the Fuhrer whips up the masses into a frenzy over a tiny powerless and defenceless minority, the masses are then unleased (usually with the guidance of the private army of the dictator) on the minority in an orgy of violence and murder, which is retroactively sanctioned by the state, and then as a coup de gras the minority is then charged with inciting the violence and forced to pay restituion to the state for all the damaged caused to them. To shake it up a bit and ensure the people don't go stale, a different minority is often picked by the leadership after each event of this nature.

PopePalpatine

I wonder, could we legitimately call Putin a fascist? Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC fascism advocates a strong link between state and big business.

JimiTime

Penn wrote: »

While I agree that it's not really an issue relating to marriage equality etc, it is somewhat important to note that "biological parents" =/= "good parents".

Its also worth noting that nobody believes just because you have a child, you'll be a good parent.

One thing the story does accentuate however (beyond the shocking murder of a baby by his own father), is the very unfortunate reality that being same sex attracted prevents you having children of your own with your partner of choice. So in a way it does have relevance to the redefining marriage debate, as it gives an example of the uniqueness of the child producing partnership of a man-woman relationship. Something that no matter how indignant people become, will never change. So why shouldn't we recognise that unique, child producing coupling in society? Civil partnership for inheritance, tax, expression of commitment etc, but don't change what marriage means and remove societies recognition of the unique child producing man-woman dynamic. I've heard it argued that such a system says that 'homosexual couples are not the same', and that is correct, it does say that, but its true. They are not the same, and never will be, even if society pretends they are by redefining words. Do you believe such a sentiment is bigoted?

pauldla

Absolam

JimiTime wrote: »

One thing the story does accentuate however (beyond the shocking murder of a baby by his own father), is the very unfortunate reality that being same sex attracted prevents you having children of your own with your partner of choice. So in a way it does have relevance to the redefining marriage debate, as it gives an example of the uniqueness of the child producing partnership of a man-woman relationship. Something that no matter how indignant people become, will never change.

This is also the case for many opposite attracted couples; since they can't participate in that unique child producing partnership should they also be excluded from marriage?

JimiTime wrote: »

So why shouldn't we recognise that unique, child producing coupling in society? Civil partnership for inheritance, tax, expression of commitment etc, but don't change what marriage means and remove societies recognition of the unique child producing man-woman dynamic.

When did marriage become a unique child producing man-woman dynamic? Socially marriage has been many things in many societies over many centuries; it's not an unchanging absolute, and I doubt you want us to adopt the traditional arranged marrriage system, or the feudal dowry system, or even the celtic divorce system. And if we have to change it anyway to exclude non child producing man-woman dynamics, then there's no reason not to change to become more inclusive rather than exclusive, is there?
Certainly we could recognise a unique, child producing coupling in society; some people already do, they call them breeders. But you could come up with your own recognition system if it's something you want, rather than trying to restrict the concept of marriage.

JimiTime wrote: »

I've heard it argued that such a system says that 'homosexual couples are not the same', and that is correct, it does say that, but its true. They are not the same, and never will be, even if society pretends they are by redefining words. Do you believe such a sentiment is bigoted?

The fact that homosexual couples are not the same as hetrosexual couples simply by virtue of their gender composition does not seem to be any sort of argument at all for their not being permitted to marry? Are you perhaps saying that such a system as you propose says that 'homosexual couples are not treated equally to hetrosexuals under this system'? That would be a truer statement. And yes, that system would be bigoted.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

Its also worth noting that nobody believes just because you have a child, you'll be a good parent.

One thing the story does accentuate however (beyond the shocking murder of a baby by his own father), is the very unfortunate reality that being same sex attracted prevents you having children of your own with your partner of choice. So in a way it does have relevance to the redefining marriage debate, as it gives an example of the uniqueness of the child producing partnership of a man-woman relationship. Something that no matter how indignant people become, will never change. So why shouldn't we recognise that unique, child producing coupling in society? Civil partnership for inheritance, tax, expression of commitment etc, but don't change what marriage means and remove societies recognition of the unique child producing man-woman dynamic. I've heard it argued that such a system says that 'homosexual couples are not the same', and that is correct, it does say that, but its true. They are not the same, and never will be, even if society pretends they are by redefining words. Do you believe such a sentiment is bigoted?

Hey Jimi, good to see you back. Can we presume this vist will follow your usual tactic and you will be completely ignoring the questions your were asked before you last disappeared?

Also, could you give us an idea of how long you will be around for this time? If it is just for a short period I won't bother asking you the questions you keep ignoring again.

MrP

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

Its also worth noting that nobody believes just because you have a child, you'll be a good parent.

One thing the story does accentuate however (beyond the shocking murder of a baby by his own father), is the very unfortunate reality that being same sex attracted prevents you having children of your own with your partner of choice. So in a way it does have relevance to the redefining marriage debate, as it gives an example of the uniqueness of the child producing partnership of a man-woman relationship. Something that no matter how indignant people become, will never change. So why shouldn't we recognise that unique, child producing coupling in society? Civil partnership for inheritance, tax, expression of commitment etc, but don't change what marriage means and remove societies recognition of the unique child producing man-woman dynamic. I've heard it argued that such a system says that 'homosexual couples are not the same', and that is correct, it does say that, but its true. They are not the same, and never will be, even if society pretends they are by redefining words. Do you believe such a sentiment is bigoted?

Since you don't accept redefinitions of marriage, you must view women as property presumably.

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

Its also worth noting that nobody believes just because you have a child, you'll be a good parent.

One thing the story does accentuate however (beyond the shocking murder of a baby by his own father), is the very unfortunate reality that being same sex attracted prevents you having children of your own with your partner of choice. So in a way it does have relevance to the redefining marriage debate, as it gives an example of the uniqueness of the child producing partnership of a man-woman relationship. Something that no matter how indignant people become, will never change. So why shouldn't we recognise that unique, child producing coupling in society? Civil partnership for inheritance, tax, expression of commitment etc, but don't change what marriage means and remove societies recognition of the unique child producing man-woman dynamic. I've heard it argued that such a system says that 'homosexual couples are not the same', and that is correct, it does say that, but its true. They are not the same, and never will be, even if society pretends they are by redefining words. Do you believe such a sentiment is bigoted?

Yes such a sentiment is bigoted , and why so ? Because marriage is not denied to infertile couples or old couples or couples that don't want kids . So by definition the desire or ability to have kids is not a requirement for marriage. So why use it as a pretext to deny it to one group rather than all groups ?

aloyisious

marienbad wrote: »

Yes such a sentiment is bigoted , and why so ? Because marriage is not denied to infertile couples or old couples or couples that don't want kids . So by definition the desire or ability to have kids is not a requirement for marriage. So why use it as a pretext to deny it to one group rather than all groups ?

Possibly because to do so would be to reveal the falsehood behind "Religious Marriage is the same as Civil Marriage". The church say's that for a marriage to be legal, the married couple must consummate it by sexual intercourse. As the church say's that to have sexual intercourse for pleasure is sinful, then the reason has to be the procreation of children. Basically the church want's to have involvement in and ultimate control of ALL marriages that are not carried out under/within other religions or beliefs here in the republic, as a way to ensure it stay's as a power within the land. I suspect that the ultimate desire of the church is to control (again) marriage within the republic through a return of Ne Temere as the law of the land, even if it's not within the state's laws, using the issue of children as a pretext. The church then get's a lien on the parents, through their kids, obliging them as good catholics to raise the kids within the faith.

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

Its also worth noting that nobody believes just because you have a child, you'll be a good parent.

One thing the story does accentuate however (beyond the shocking murder of a baby by his own father), is the very unfortunate reality that being same sex attracted prevents you having children of your own with your partner of choice. So in a way it does have relevance to the redefining marriage debate, as it gives an example of the uniqueness of the child producing partnership of a man-woman relationship. Something that no matter how indignant people become, will never change.

So why shouldn't we recognise that unique, child producing coupling in society?

Civil partnership for inheritance, tax, expression of commitment etc, but don't change what marriage means and remove societies recognition of the unique child producing man-woman dynamic. I've heard it argued that such a system says that 'homosexual couples are not the same', and that is correct, it does say that, but its true. They are not the same, and never will be, even if society pretends they are by redefining words. Do you believe such a sentiment is bigoted?

Jimitimes quote in full, with my editing of it to highlight the part in the middle. I don't understand that part. I thought that the unique, child producing coupling he mentioned is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, the Constitution of the Republic, the Govt of the Republic and most (if not all) the people in the republic, plus by the various religions and beliefs practiced here.

The real question is why the citizens (Hetero and other) of our republic should feel that the existing law on Civil Marriage here should NOT be extended to their fellow Same Sex Citizen Couples, NOT why those citizens should feel that Civil Marriage (like religious marriage) must be denied to Same Sex Couples.

Civil Marriage is a horse of a different colour to Religious Marriage, unions made under different laws. The notion that one, or more, church should have the power (or even the entitlement to feel it has the power) to decide the Civil Laws of our country is to return to the days of Ne Temere.

That is one vision that is anathema to me as it would be a restriction of my civil rights by a body of men who have no right under our country's laws to imagine, think or attempt to put such restrictions into play here in our republic.

NuMarvel

JimiTime wrote: »

being same sex attracted prevents you having children of your own with your partner of choice. So in a way it does have relevance to the redefining marriage debate, as it gives an example of the uniqueness of the child producing partnership of a man-woman relationship. Something that no matter how indignant people become, will never change. So why shouldn't we recognise that unique, child producing coupling in society? Civil partnership for inheritance, tax, expression of commitment etc, but don't change what marriage means and remove societies recognition of the unique child producing man-woman dynamic.

Being chronologically advanced also prevents you from having children of your own with your partner of choice. Yet no one bats an eye lid to the hundreds of older people who get married in Ireland every year. No one's worried about their union "redefining marriage" or removing the "recognition of the unique child producing man-woman dynamic".

It's almost as if people want to treat gay couples differently just because they're gay. Which segues nicely to...

JimiTime wrote: »

I've heard it argued that such a system says that 'homosexual couples are not the same', and that is correct, it does say that, but its true. They are not the same, and never will be, even if society pretends they are by redefining words. Do you believe such a sentiment is bigoted?

The issue isn't that gay couples are different. It's that some want to treat them differently just because they are different.

Unfortunately for those people, treating people differently just because they're different doesn't fly in a democratic society. There must be sound, valid, and consistent reasons for the differing treatment. Saying gay couples shouldn't marry because marriage is about having babies doesn't come close to being valid or consistent, because that's not a criteria for anyone else.

Links234

This is a seriously good article that I'd urge everyone here to read (especially Jimi) http://www.newsweek.com/ex-ex-gay-pride-249282

MrPudding

I know the religious don't like the comparisons, but I think it is time for a few quotes from some old anti-miscegenation cases. No particular reason for this other than I am supposed to be studying and editing some pieces for a student journal, so an activity related to neither seems appropriate.

In 1958 a black woman and a white man got married. They moved to Virginia and were prosecuted under a law there that outlawed mixed race marriage. They pleaded guilty, unlikely they could do anything else, and were sentenced to 1 year in prison. The judge suspended the sentence for 25 years, with the proviso that they leave the state and not return for 25 years. He said this:

Some judge in Virginia wrote:

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 marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

The couple moved to a different state and 5 years later sought to have the conviction overturned on the basis that it offended certain constitutional rights. I won't go into too much detail as a few readers get whiney when we talk about law too much, but I thought some quotes form the judgement might interest some.

The couple were unsuccessful in the Virginia Supreme Court. That court took the opportunity to clarify why the anti-miscegenation laws were in place:

Virginia Supreme Court, quoting Naim v Naim wrote:

to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens [and to prevent] the corruption of blood [and the creation of] a mongrel breed of citizens [and to prevent] the obliteration of racial pride

So all good reasons there...

And here is the Supreme Court overturning the convictions:

The Supreme Court of the US wrote:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

I also like this:

Chief Justice Warren wrote:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

It is interesting, I think, that both the anti-interracial marriage and the anti-SSM marriage people both call god to their side. God did not want the races to mix and god does not like the greys, apparently.

Of course, as religious privilege is no longer what it once was, and because the courts are less willing to protect a right to be a complete dick because god, the anti-side have to come up with new arguments. And this is where this redefinition of marriage as something irrevocably connected to producing children (unless of course you are a hetero couple unable or unwilling to have children, in which case it doesn't apply) comes from. This attempt to dress pure bigotry and religious moral pushing as something political or, wait for it, scientific [I'm looking at you Regnerus] to try to get it through is very weak. It irritates me that in spite of these arguments being completely rebutted, not just here on boards, but in actual courts, they still get trotted out.

I started this post with no real purpose other than wasting a bit of time I can ill afford to waste, and it was not directed to anyone in particular, but i suppose I should perhaps put in a question to the anti-ssm people, particularly Jimi (though I expect he will ignore it/me as he always does), the question is this: In light of the total refutation of the arguments against SSM, what do you have? You can't restrict the rights of a person because of your religious belief, that simply does not work any more. So how do you justify restricting the rights and actions of a sizeable majority of the population when those rights and actions cause no harm to society and are, quite frankly, none of your business, and they relate to the personal relationship, and recognition of such, of two consenting adults?

I know you have been dodging questions like this for months and months, but I really hope you can find that time you actually lay our for us the reasons why you think it is OK for same-sex couple to be discriminated against and why marriage equality is such a problem. Please...

MrP

pauldla

You may well be on an ignore list, MrP. Which is the loss of the person ignoring, as that was an interesting and illuminating post. I wish I could waste time so profitably!

MrPudding

Links234 wrote: »

This is a seriously good article that I'd urge everyone here to read (especially Jimi) http://www.newsweek.com/ex-ex-gay-pride-249282

He won't read it. If he does, it won't change anything.

MrP

aloyisious

Originally Posted by Mr Pudding.

Some judge in Virginia.... 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 marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.


An "enlightened judge".... wonder what he'd say if the Klan had asked him if he did not approve of the importation of non-nationals into North America for the purposes of slavery and crop-harvesting.

Originally Posted by Virginia Supreme Court, quoting Naim v Naim
to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens [and to prevent] the corruption of blood [and the creation of] a mongrel breed of citizens [and to prevent] the obliteration of racial pride..... perversely, a legal recognition that mulattos existed, naughty slavers.

freyners

A homophobe pastor on some radio show doesnt like Frozen that much, apparently Disney is trying to turn children gay

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/kevin-swanson-disneys-frozen-will-teach-kids-to-be-gay/531f5d5f78c90a3766000de8?ncid=facebook

JimiTime

There is no issue in saying that if a couple can't reproduce, there is something wrong medically or biologically. Dare say it about a homosexual union, and its bigotry. If homosexuals want to be homosexuals, then by all means be homosexuals, but its a real shame that those who see their inherent infertility as something to be considered an issue be labelled 'self hating' or 'bigoted' etc. People are born with all sorts of infirmities, so even if someone is born being same sex attracted, does not mean that there is nothing wrong with their biological makeup. Íts a real shame that people have been bullied into rejecting any notion that such a thing is an issue. Fair enough, a lot of people don't mind being attracted to inherently infertile couplings, but why must so much hate be directed at those who realise the issue that being same sex attracted renders ones reproductive organs obsolete? There is absolutely no doubt that if someone is same sex attracted, there is something wrong somewhere. Be it genetic, psychological or physiological. Similarly if someone is born with a Penis and believes they are a woman or vice versa. I really do sympathise, but I hate the idea that I must pretend that its all perfectly normal. There is absolutely no doubt that its not in the slightest bit normal no matter how its spun. I really hope society realises that it being led down the garden path in all of this. It would be great if we could reach out with love to those experiencing such issues without pandering to the popular pretenses that men wanting to put their penises in other men or men thinking they are women etc is perfectly normal and non eventful. Jesus has a better way, and all of us can be saved and inherit life. Its there for all who choose it.

Absolam

JimiTime wrote: »

There is no issue in saying that if a couple can't reproduce, there is something wrong medically or biologically. Dare say it about a homosexual union, and its bigotry.

That's not what you said though. What you said was that we should recognise the unique child producing coupling in society as marriage. That definitively excludes a couple medically or biologically incapable of reproduction. Saying a couple is incapable of reproduction is stating a fact; it applies to hetero and homo sexual couples alike. Saying a couple is incapable of marriage because they are incapable of reproduction is bigotry, and even moreso when you exclude hetero incapables from your marriage exclusion just because they're hetero.

JimiTime wrote: »

If homosexuals want to be homosexuals, then by all means be homosexuals, but its a real shame that those who see their inherent infertility as something to be considered an issue be labelled 'self hating' or 'bigoted' etc.

Firstly, and obviously, homosexuals don't 'choose' to be homosexuals. Even the christian churches have managed to get past that idea.
Secondly, they're not infertile. They're fertile (as much as heterosexuals are anyway).
Thirdly, seeing homosexuals as 'choosing' to be homosexual and 'inherently infertile' in the face of the evidence is bigoted. Considering that they have 'issues' and require 'labelling' is being bigoted.

JimiTime wrote: »

People are born with all sorts of infirmities, so even if someone is born being same sex attracted, does not mean that there is nothing wrong with their biological makeup.

What makes you think homosexuality is an infirmity? What makes you think there is something wrong with a homosexuals biological makeup? Have you stumbled upon some new medical research, or are you just being bigoted?

JimiTime wrote: »

Íts a real shame that people have been bullied into rejecting any notion that such a thing is an issue.

It is. People should be more than capable of realising that homosexuality is not an issue at all without any bullying whatsoever.

JimiTime wrote: »

Fair enough, a lot of people don't mind being attracted to inherently infertile couplings, but why must so much hate be directed at those who realise the issue that being same sex attracted renders ones reproductive organs obsolete?

How? Their reproductive organs work fine, and haven't been replaced with anything better. Perhaps you are using the word obsolete incorrectly, in which case you might replace the word hate with derision.

JimiTime wrote: »

There is absolutely no doubt that if someone is same sex attracted, there is something wrong somewhere. Be it genetic, psychological or physiological. Similarly if someone is born with a Penis and believes they are a woman or vice versa. I really do sympathise, but I hate the idea that I must pretend that its all perfectly normal. There is absolutely no doubt that its not in the slightest bit normal no matter how its spun. I really hope society realises that it being led down the garden path in all of this.

But there is heaps of doubt. In fact, given that there is no medical evidence that there is anything wrong anywhere, the opposite has to be true; there can be no doubt that if someone is same sex attracted that there is nothing wrong anywhere that is associated with their sexual preference.

JimiTime wrote: »

It would be great if we could reach out with love to those experiencing such issues without pandering to the popular pretenses that men wanting to put their penises in other men or men thinking they are women etc is perfectly normal and non eventful. Jesus has a better way, and all of us can be saved and inherit life. Its there for all who choose it.

It would be better if you could reach out with love to people without judging them. I think your friend Jesus reputedly had something to say about that, although I can't recall anyone saying he ever said anything about homosexuality? Maybe I missed that bit.

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

....

It would be better if you could reach out with love to people without judging them. I think your friend Jesus reputedly had something to say about that, although I can't recall anyone saying he ever said anything about homosexuality? Maybe I missed that bit.

Good post. On your last point, he uttered not a dickybird on the matter, IIRC. But then, I am an atheist, and am probably distorting Scripture to suit my own bigoted agenda.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

There is no issue in saying that if a couple can't reproduce, there is something wrong medically or biologically. Dare say it about a homosexual union, and its bigotry. If homosexuals want to be homosexuals, then by all means be homosexuals, but its a real shame that those who see their inherent infertility as something to be considered an issue be labelled 'self hating' or 'bigoted' etc. People are born with all sorts of infirmities, so even if someone is born being same sex attracted, does not mean that there is nothing wrong with their biological makeup. Íts a real shame that people have been bullied into rejecting any notion that such a thing is an issue. Fair enough, a lot of people don't mind being attracted to inherently infertile couplings, but why must so much hate be directed at those who realise the issue that being same sex attracted renders ones reproductive organs obsolete? There is absolutely no doubt that if someone is same sex attracted, there is something wrong somewhere. Be it genetic, psychological or physiological. Similarly if someone is born with a Penis and believes they are a woman or vice versa. I really do sympathise, but I hate the idea that I must pretend that its all perfectly normal. There is absolutely no doubt that its not in the slightest bit normal no matter how its spun. I really hope society realises that it being led down the garden path in all of this. It would be great if we could reach out with love to those experiencing such issues without pandering to the popular pretenses that men wanting to put their penises in other men or men thinking they are women etc is perfectly normal and non eventful. Jesus has a better way, and all of us can be saved and inherit life. Its there for all who choose it.

So that's a no on answering any of the questions you have been asked or even making an effort to engage with the subject? Why do you waste our time? Why do you bother to come back?

MrP

Bannasidhe

MrPudding wrote: »

So that's a no on answering any of the questions you have been asked or even making an effort to engage with the subject? Why do you waste our time? Why do you bother to come back?

MrP

To inform gay parents like myself that despite the living breathing proof to the contrary we are infertile?

Apparently marriage is strictly for fertile heterosexual people who can breed babies together...

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

There is no issue in saying that if a couple can't reproduce, there is something wrong medically or biologically. Dare say it about a homosexual union, and its bigotry. If homosexuals want to be homosexuals, then by all means be homosexuals, but its a real shame that those who see their inherent infertility as something to be considered an issue be labelled 'self hating' or 'bigoted' etc. People are born with all sorts of infirmities, so even if someone is born being same sex attracted, does not mean that there is nothing wrong with their biological makeup. Íts a real shame that people have been bullied into rejecting any notion that such a thing is an issue. Fair enough, a lot of people don't mind being attracted to inherently infertile couplings, but why must so much hate be directed at those who realise the issue that being same sex attracted renders ones reproductive organs obsolete? There is absolutely no doubt that if someone is same sex attracted, there is something wrong somewhere. Be it genetic, psychological or physiological. Similarly if someone is born with a Penis and believes they are a woman or vice versa. I really do sympathise, but I hate the idea that I must pretend that its all perfectly normal. There is absolutely no doubt that its not in the slightest bit normal no matter how its spun. I really hope society realises that it being led down the garden path in all of this. It would be great if we could reach out with love to those experiencing such issues without pandering to the popular pretenses that men wanting to put their penises in other men or men thinking they are women etc is perfectly normal and non eventful. Jesus has a better way, and all of us can be saved and inherit life. Its there for all who choose it.

In all the above, you made no mention of the fact that Gay Men and Women can and do have the same desire that Straight men and women have, to have children borne from their own loins, blood-tied children and that their reproductive organs are capable of producing children, that the organs are not obsolete, however fascinating a revelation that that fact might be to you.

NuMarvel

JimiTime wrote: »

There is absolutely no doubt that if someone is same sex attracted, there is something wrong somewhere. Be it genetic, psychological or physiological.

There is little doubt that you genuinely believe that, and I don't expect anyone here to change your mind.

However, you should remember that this belief is why your attempts to rationally excuse discrimination will always fail. Reason and logic are incompatible with prejudice, so you will never be able to put forward a cogent case to deny marriage to gay couples.

My advice is that you should stop trying and stick to what you believe to be the truth (within the confines of the rules and charters). It won't win you any friends, and it certainly won't help your cause, but at least you'll be saying what you truly believe, instead of engaging in a futile charade.

Cabaal

JimiTime wrote: »

There is absolutely no doubt that if someone is same sex attracted, there is something wrong somewhere. Be it genetic, psychological or physiological.

Ok, lets imagine for a second that there is something wrong and you are right (even though you're not and there's no reputable evidence to support your claim)

Lets look at it, they are still a human with a natural urge to be with another human, they act this out. Simple as that.

Now compare this to a priest or nun, a human who represses their perfectly natural urges and never acts on them.

They then lecture everyone else on whats natural or not and try and dictate this in the laws of numerous country's and whats morally wrong (condoms being illegal, being gay being illegal, sex before marriage is wrong, enjoying sex is wrong etc)

Which human is a more well adjusted human being?
Which human is a better person?

I know which person I see as a better and more well adjusted person, can you honestly say you think the nun/priest have nothing wrong with them psychological or physiological?

To me it sounds like they lack a very simple natural urge to be with another human being, this is very very far from normal or natural. I'd go so far as to use the Vatican's language and say they are unnatural.

Its messed up really, a bunch of men who repress the most natural urge in the world to have sex think they are the moral guardians of whats right and wrong when it comes to sex. If you don't agree that that in itself is dysfunctional and unnatural then you're blind to the reality of the situation

MrPudding

Cabaal wrote: »

Ok, lets imagine for a second that there is something wrong and you are right (even though you're not and there's no reputable evidence to support your claim)

Lets look at it, they are still a human with a natural urge to be with another human, they act this out. Simple as that.

Now compare this to a priest or nun, a human who represses their perfectly natural urges and never acts on them.

They then lecture everyone else on whats natural or not and try and dictate this in the laws of numerous country's and whats morally wrong (condoms being illegal, being gay being illegal, sex before marriage is wrong, enjoying sex is wrong etc)

Which human is a more well adjusted human being?
Which human is a better person?

I know which person I see as a better and more well adjusted person, can you honestly say you think the nun/priest have nothing wrong with them psychological or physiological?

To me it sounds like they lack a very simple natural urge to be with another human being, this is very very far from normal or natural. I'd go so far as to use the Vatican's language and say they are unnatural.

Its messed up really, a bunch of men who repress the most natural urge in the world to have sex think they are the moral guardians of whats right and wrong when it comes to sex. If you don't agree that that in itself is dysfunctional and unnatural then you're blind to the reality of the situation

Jimi isn't catholic, and he is ok with sex, as long as it is between a married opposite sex couple, of course.

MrP

Cabaal

MrPudding wrote: »

Jimi isn't catholic, and he is ok with sex, as long as it is between a married opposite sex couple, of course.

MrP

I know he's not catholic, just merely interested if he will agree and apply the same words to priests/nuns for their unnatural repression of basic natural normal urges