Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

old hippy

JimiTime wrote: »

If homosexuals want to be homosexuals, then by all means be homosexuals... There is absolutely no doubt that if someone is same sex attracted, there is something wrong somewhere.... 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.... 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.

The same Jesus who hung around with a bunch of men, hmmm? You know, for someone who appears to be a Christian, you come across as extremely intolerant. Is this normal behaviour for your sect? Were you born that way or did you just chose bigotry?

Who's going to save you, Jimi?

robindch

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.

I certainly doubt it. Can you explain why you happen to think that something is wrong with a woman if she prefers women to men?

JimiTime wrote: »

Similarly if someone is born with a Penis and believes they are a woman or vice versa.

And people who are, say, born with some physical disability also have "something wrong" with them? And what about people who are brighter and smarter than average? Do they also have "something wrong" with them?

Do you not only (a) want to live in a world where everybody is the same but (b) force everybody, by use of coercive social pressure, to pretend they're the same?

Stark

Don't forget to slap your kids across the hand with a ruler if they use their left hand instead of their right.

aloyisious

The way I see it, life/nature for humans seem's almost to be an ongoing experiment, where the human genome is imperfect and always will be. Face it, Jimitime, the human race is NOT perfect and never will be. We can only tinker with it and repair major faults within it. We cannot perfect it. As for the social results of the fault-lines within the human race, we can only adjust our understanding of them and adjust society's laws/rules to allow for the faults within the social system. Saying that the laws of humanity are fixed in stone is rubbish.

_Redzer_

And this is why people wonder why the religious are cúnts.

Love thy neighbour and judge ye lest ye be judged my hole

PopePalpatine

_Redzer_ wrote: »

And this is why people wonder why the religious are cúnts.

Love thy neighbour and judge ye lest ye be judged my hole

I've said it many times before, I'm convinced that as religiosity increases, empathy decreases.

Bellatori

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I've said it many times before, I'm convinced that as religiosity increases, empathy decreases.

Absolutely, I agree. Religiosity is all about (self) righteousness. It has little to do with the Golden Rule and everything to do with feeling superior to ones neighbours. It is all about pointing the finger.The Pharisees were exemplars of this and nothing much as changed since.

Brian Shanahan

old hippy wrote: »

The same Jesus who hung around with a bunch of men, hmmm? You know, for someone who appears to be a Christian, you come across as extremely intolerant. Is this normal behaviour for your sect? Were you born that way or did you just chose bigotry?

One of the lessons that history teaches us is that religion breeds intolerance.

_Redzer_

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

One of the lessons that history teaches us is that religion breeds intolerance.

And education kills religion. Funny that

robindch

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

One of the lessons that history teaches us is that religion breeds intolerance.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

And this is why people wonder why the religious are c**ts.

No need to breed intolerance.

Cabaal

I'll just leave this here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

No need to breed intolerance.

A simple statement of fact is not being intolerant. One of the main purposes of religion is to define the in group of a particular society, by framing a set of beliefs that only the in group would believe, and furthermore to paint those who don't accept the beliefs of the in group as somehow lesser peoples.

It is common throughout all religions, and through quite a lot of groups not based around religions as well. Because to be honest, religion is one of the many ways to set up the "us v them" dichotomy.

Nodin

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 bizarre statement, tbh. Nobody suggests stopping infertile people marrying.

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. 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?
..

For somebody who isn't catholic, you're wearing a strip remarkably similar to theirs.

JimiTime wrote: »

There is absolutely no doubt that if someone is same sex attracted, there is something wrong somewhere. ..

Not really. "wrong" implies harm. Theres none.

JimiTime wrote: »

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. ..

Ahh, the plumbing. Always gets down to the plumbing.

JimiTime wrote: »

Jesus has a better way, and all of us can be saved and inherit life. Its there for all who choose it.

Yez can't even agree what the "better way" is, for fecks sake, let alone prove it.

JimiTime

aloyisious wrote: »

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.

Thats just it though. Those desires for children etc are part of the sadness for me. That biological testimony, that they will never have the fulfillment of having a child with their partner. It speaks out against the notion that its all just perfectly normal. Like I said, if people want to be homosexual, then fine. However, there is so much bile and venom reserved for those who see that there is actually an issue. You alluded to the issue in that people will still desire children, but will have to look beyond their partners to fulfil it by definition. We would call that an issue in terms of an infertile hetero couple, yet it is demanded that being attracted to a coupling that is intrinsically infertile be considered a non issue and in fact hateful to say otherwise. Of course I'm aware of two men using a woman as a surrogate, or two women getting a man (or buying his 'produce') involved, so 'obsolete' may be wrong on a technical level, but I think it gets the point across.

Obliq

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats just it though. Those desires for children etc are part of the sadness for me. That biological testimony, that they will never have the fulfillment of having a child with their partner. It speaks out against the notion that its all just perfectly normal.

Again, so much wrong with that post that I'll only tackle this bit. With a question. Why do you have such a narrow definition of normal?

I'll give you an example of another kind of normal. You speak of biological testimony, which according to you is the fulfilment of having a child with your partner. First child I had I did not have a partner, but the child had a dad and still has (and he's ace). There was no such "biological testimony" as you relate, and yet that example is normal.

Here's another. Second child I had was with a partner alright, but it was a difficult and abusive relationship and neither myself, my partner nor my children were fulfilled within it except with doubt. This was also normal.

I now have a wonderfully fulfilling partnership, with no children resulting. This is also normal.

If you feel you have to exclude gay people from being normal when they have children on grounds of no "fulfilment of having a child with their partner", when they'd potentially do a lot better than me in that regard, I think your prejudices are showing. Again.

JimiTime

Obliq wrote: »

Again, so much wrong with that post that I'll only tackle this bit. With a question. Why do you have such a narrow definition of normal?

I'll give you an example of another kind of normal. You speak of biological testimony, which according to you is the fulfilment of having a child with your partner. First child I had I did not have a partner, but the child had a dad and still has (and he's ace). There was no such "biological testimony" as you relate, and yet that example is normal.

Here's another. Second child I had was with a partner alright, but it was a difficult and abusive relationship and neither myself, my partner nor my children were fulfilled within it except with doubt. This was also normal.

I now have a wonderfully fulfilling partnership, with no children resulting. This is also normal.

If you feel you have to exclude gay people from being normal when they have children on grounds of no "fulfilment of having a child with their partner", when they'd potentially do a lot better than me in that regard, I think your prejudices are showing. Again.

The biological testimony refers to the fact that one cannot reproduce with a member of the same sex. Ones desire to procreate can remain, but ones attractions rules out ever fulfilling this desire with your partner. There is nothing biologically relevant about the relationships you describe. Glad you found happiness in the end though.

Obliq

JimiTime wrote: »

The biological testimony refers to the fact that one cannot reproduce with a member of the same sex. There is nothing biologically abnormal about the relationships you describe. Glad you found happiness in the end though.

There is nothing biologically abnormal in two gay men having a child through surrogacy or friendship with a woman. There is nothing biologically abnormal in two gay women having a child together through a sperm donor, whether known to them or not. There is nothing whatsoever biologically abnormal in two people of any shape, creed, colour or sex having a loving relationship with children who are only biologically related to one of them.

You're talking bollix, and you've been called on it so many times it's not at all funny. How can you be glad for me in a happy childless relationship, and not for an equally happy and loving gay relationship with children? You make NO SENSE.

Obliq

Ps. Can you please try to give some inkling as to why you have such a narrow definition of normal?

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

The biological testimony refers to the fact that one cannot reproduce with a member of the same sex. Ones desire to procreate can remain, but ones attractions rules out ever fulfilling this desire with your partner. There is nothing biologically relevant about the relationships you describe. Glad you found happiness in the end though.

What planet are you on Jimi? That has to be the biggest load of fantasy I have ever read.



If one desires to procreate and one's body is capable then one may, if one wishes, procreate all one bloody well wants to - gay or straight.

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What planet are you on Jimi? That has to be the biggest load of fantasy I have ever read.

It appears to be a 2 dimensional planet contained in a narrow book in a narrow bookshelf of a narrow room owned by a narrow-minded god. Possibly called "The Bible", or somesuch.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What planet are you on Jimi? That has to be the biggest load of fantasy I have ever read.



If one desires to procreate and one's body is capable then one may, if one wishes, procreate all one bloody well wants to - gay or straight.

Not with ones partner though. Like I said, if myself and my wife were infertile, we would consider it an issue, and there would be no issue calling it an issue. We could utilise all the methods available to have a child, surrogacy, IVF etc etc, but it would never remove the fact that our infertility is an issue. A gay couple by definition are infertile as a couple, yet some, dare I say most, would call it hateful to observe such a fact as an issue.

DM addict

JimiTime wrote: »

A gay couple by definition are infertile

Um. . . being gay doesn't make you infertile.

I think what you're trying to say is that, as a unit, they cannot procreate without outside help. But that is true of many couples, who use IVF/surrogacy/adoption/etc to help them have children. Doesn't preclude or remove their right to get married.

JimiTime

DM addict wrote: »

Um. . . being gay doesn't make you infertile.

Thats why I've continuously referred to 'as a couple'. What it does accentuate, is the unique relationship of a man - woman, and how no matter how its spun etc, there is a big difference between a man-woman and a man-man etc couple, and that while marriage is not soley about children, it is a big part of it.

DM addict

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats why I've continuously referred to 'as a couple'.

My mistake.

So any childless marriages are abnormal?

iwantmydinner

Also though, marriage is about two people. It's a binding, legal contract between two adults. It's got nothing to do with babies or your fertility levels.

So... There's that.

JimiTime

DM addict wrote: »

My mistake.

So any childless marriages are abnormal?

No, but infertility is.

JimiTime

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Also though, marriage is about two people. It's a binding, legal contract between two adults. It's got nothing to do with babies or your fertility levels.

So... There's that.

Actually, its got a whole lot to do with children and family. However, if we remove gender from marriage, then why is the number of people in the marriage important? Whats so special about it being about TWO people?

Obliq

JimiTime wrote: »

Not with ones partner though. Like I said, if myself and my wife were infertile, we would consider it an issue, and there would be no issue calling it an issue. We could utilise all the methods available to have a child, surrogacy, IVF etc etc, but it would never remove the fact that our infertility is an issue. A gay couple by definition are infertile as a couple, yet some, dare I say most, would call it hateful to observe such a fact as an issue.

Gosh, lucky you're not infertile then eh? If either of you were then I reckon that you making it such an issue would cause you both to feel pretty sh1t. Much better to recognise there's no way to cause fertility without some outside help and accept that it's only as big an issue as you make it.

Same could be said for the topic at hand.

Obliq

JimiTime wrote: »

What it does accentuate, is the unique relationship of a man - woman

There's nothing unique about a man/woman combination in having a child. It's the only way afaik. In fact, it could be so lacking in uniqueness that a woman might not even know who the father is *shocker*! I KNOW!! Hope you're sitting down Jimi.

But sperm/egg is truly far from a unique relationship. Everyone goes that route to have children, even infertile couples.

iwantmydinner

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, its got a whole lot to do with children and family. However, if we remove gender from marriage, then why is the number of people in the marriage important? Whats so special about it being about TWO people?

Ah yeah, sure why not dodge the point and crack out the old polygamy line instead.