Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Bellatori

aloyisious wrote: »

...

There is absolutely no excuse for discrimination (unless, of course, it favours me and mine).

Is this now simply a matter of semantics. We do tend to invent words to get around difficulties so we now use 'gay' but not 'queer'. We don't use '******' but call everyone of colour 'black' somewhat bizarrely as most are not! The list of such changes is enormous. Using the expression 'limey' for the english was considered rude at one time but now it elicits a smile for being a real anachronism.

My point is, if it means so much to the dog in the manger group who want to use the word marriage for heterosexual partners, would it have been so difficult to find an appropriate work for same sex partners? If I wanted to take this reductio ad absurdam I would point out that we have equal rights legislation in the UK to ensure that men and men are now absolutely equal. I hesitate to use the word women in there in case anyone thinks I am making a distinction between the two groups which of course is now forbidden..... If you think about it there is probably a point hidden somewhere in there!

[EDIT] I used, because it was appropriate to the point I was making the word that got the DJ sacked and Jeremy Clarkson into difficulties. It is good to see that the political lly correct editor removed it irrespective of the context.

Bannasidhe

Love the sinner hate the sin my arse!

An Ohio Catholic school teacher has quit, rather than sign a new morality contract which requires her to condemn her gay son’s homosexuality.
The controversial contract, introduced for all teachers by the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, prohibits employees from practising gay “lifestyles”, as well as “publicly endorsing” homosexuality, out-of-wedlock relationships or abortions.
Molly Shumate, 49, is the first teacher to quit rather than sign the contract, which was introduced this week, because her 22-year-old son Zachery is gay and she refuses to publicly condemn him.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/05/10/us-catholic-school-teacher-quits-over-new-contract-that-tells-her-to-condemn-her-gay-son/

_Redzer_

Is it just me, or has the fact that religion is starting to die off slowly in the western world caused the hateful members to become more and more concentrated as the more 'level headed' slowly taper off?

The institution is becoming more and more putrid and toxic. I see nothing but bile and hate from them in their desperation to not become irrelevant in society.

Cabaal

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Is it just me, or has the fact that religion is starting to die off slowly in the western world caused the hateful members to become more and more concentrated as the more 'level headed' slowly taper off?

The institution is becoming more and more putrid and toxic. I see nothing but bile and hate from them in their desperation to not become irrelevant in society.

Whats happened is the more level headed and accepting people are now no longer in the catholic faith as they see the major problems with it.

This means the faith is now more full of the extreme people as the faith isn't diluted by the level headed people anymore

gaynorvader

Bellatori wrote: »

{...}

[EDIT] I used, because it was appropriate to the point I was making the word that got the DJ sacked and Jeremy Clarkson into difficulties. It is good to see that the political lly correct editor removed it irrespective of the context.

Nagger?

MrPudding

Bellatori wrote: »

There is absolutely no excuse for discrimination (unless, of course, it favours me and mine).

Is this now simply a matter of semantics. We do tend to invent words to get around difficulties so we now use 'gay' but not 'queer'. We don't use '******' but call everyone of colour 'black' somewhat bizarrely as most are not! The list of such changes is enormous. Using the expression 'limey' for the english was considered rude at one time but now it elicits a smile for being a real anachronism.

My point is, if it means so much to the dog in the manger group who want to use the word marriage for heterosexual partners, would it have been so difficult to find an appropriate work for same sex partners? If I wanted to take this reductio ad absurdam I would point out that we have equal rights legislation in the UK to ensure that men and men are now absolutely equal. I hesitate to use the word women in there in case anyone thinks I am making a distinction between the two groups which of course is now forbidden..... If you think about it there is probably a point hidden somewhere in there!

[EDIT] I used, because it was appropriate to the point I was making the word that got the DJ sacked and Jeremy Clarkson into difficulties. It is good to see that the political lly correct editor removed it irrespective of the context.

One of the issues is, however, they by using a different word the state would be highlighting and endorsing discrimination. Calling it something else is saying that gay people are different to the extent they can't get married.

California had civil partnerships which were legally identical to marriage. But they still fought for ssm.

MrP

aloyisious

Bellatori wrote: »

There is absolutely no excuse for discrimination (unless, of course, it favours me and mine).

Is this now simply a matter of semantics. We do tend to invent words to get around difficulties so we now use 'gay' but not 'queer'. We don't use '******' but call everyone of colour 'black' somewhat bizarrely as most are not! The list of such changes is enormous. Using the expression 'limey' for the english was considered rude at one time but now it elicits a smile for being a real anachronism.

My point is, if it means so much to the dog in the manger group who want to use the word marriage for heterosexual partners, would it have been so difficult to find an appropriate work for same sex partners? If I wanted to take this reductio ad absurdam I would point out that we have equal rights legislation in the UK to ensure that men and men are now absolutely equal. I hesitate to use the word women in there in case anyone thinks I am making a distinction between the two groups which of course is now forbidden..... If you think about it there is probably a point hidden somewhere in there!

[EDIT] I used, because it was appropriate to the point I was making the word that got the DJ sacked and Jeremy Clarkson into difficulties. It is good to see that the political lly correct editor removed it irrespective of the context.

I think I get what you mean. My understanding of the issue is that some people have, in effect, claimed ownership of the word marriage and all it's connotations to society in general. They've said that marriage is out of bounds to other citizens because they dislike those other citizens on grounds of religious belief. They attempt to include in that denial of marriage the rights to Civil Marriage, a ceremony devoid of religious rites and distinct from the religious equivalent. Mr P put it well.

Bellatori

MrPudding wrote: »

One of the issues is, however, they by using a different word the state would be highlighting and endorsing discrimination. Calling it something else is saying that gay people are different to the extent they can't get married.

California had civil partnerships which were legally identical to marriage. But they still fought for ssm.

MrP

That all sounds terribly plausible BUT we don't call women men just because of equality laws. We DO make a distinction because they are different (we are a dimorphic species after all...!) which is why your argument is flawed. Two men or two women are NOT the same as a man and a women. Now functionally that may not be true but it is actually true.

I have wondered whether the requirement to make civil partnerships marriage was not actually a bit of triumphalism. To me it matters not one jot BUT to religious groups it clearly does. However if religious groups were to convince me that their motives were pure and not about an attempt to stigmatise then I might find myself sympathetic to their cause. The actuality is that I have a feeling that when they mouth the words equality they have their fingers crossed.

Absolam

Bellatori wrote: »

That all sounds terribly plausible BUT we don't call women men just because of equality laws. We DO make a distinction because they are different (we are a dimorphic species after all...!) which is why your argument is flawed. Two men or two women are NOT the same as a man and a women. Now functionally that may not be true but it is actually true.

I think you're actually speaking to MrPs point there; the desire to have marriage rather than civil partnership is because, unlike the difference between men and women, the marriage would be the same as other marriages.

If you're saying we shouldn't call homosexual marriage the same as heterosexual marriage because they're different, you're missing the point of what is being asked for. It's not saying that two men are the same as two women, or the same as a man and a woman, it is saying the marriage of two men is the same as the marriage of two women, and the same as the marriage of a man and a woman.

aloyisious

Bellatori wrote: »

That all sounds terribly plausible BUT we don't call women men just because of equality laws. We DO make a distinction because they are different (we are a dimorphic species after all...!) which is why your argument is flawed. Two men or two women are NOT the same as a man and a women. Now functionally that may not be true but it is actually true.

I have wondered whether the requirement to make civil partnerships marriage was not actually a bit of triumphalism. To me it matters not one jot BUT to religious groups it clearly does. However if religious groups were to convince me that their motives were pure and not about an attempt to stigmatise then I might find myself sympathetic to their cause. The actuality is that I have a feeling that when they mouth the words equality they have their fingers crossed.

I agree with you, the fingers are well crossed when it comes to equality.

Basically, it seems that the ONLY objection that religious groups of whatever denomination or size have to Gay Couples getting married is solely because the couples are of the same sex. The groups are insisting that the rules which apply to Religious Marriages must also apply to Civil Marriages, even though the Civil Marriages are devoid of Religious input, and are performed under the laws and rules of Mankind.

The only connection is in the use of the word "Marriage". Denying Civil Society the use of the word "Marriage" in Civil Ceremonies to ALL it's citizens is equal to claiming the rights of ownership of that word. As far as I am concerned, those of Religious belief who want to claim that the Marriage of Gay Couples is impossible under Religious or Canon Law can do so merrily. They have to recognize that in and for Civil Society, Civil Law must apply. The allegation that their Religious Rights are being affected by a possible change to Civil Law on Marriage is nonsense, those rights are well protected under Civil Law. One just has to look at Civil Employment Laws here, with regard to Schools and Religious Ethos.

Cabaal

Good few years before you see progressive stuff like this in the catholic church...hell might just freeze over first

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/05/13/the-right-on-rev/

Part of an address by the Rev Paul Colton, Church of Ireland Bishop of Cork, yesterday to launch Cork LGBT Awareness Week.

“There are many Christians, including myself, who believe that God’s justice, God’s love and the inclusiveness of God, must bear fruit in unqualified equality for gay and lesbian people too. As a friend, a gay priest in the UK said only this weekend:

Being gay is not a choice, it is my being, who and what I am as a person before God and though it does not define all that I am it is inseparable from my sense of self and of course from my faith.

Strangely, something that gives me hope – paradoxically – is the fact that almost from the start, Christians have been arguing among themselves about something or other. First the argument was about circumcision.

Since then the Christian story has been one of prejudice, injustice, labelling as ‘the other’ and failing to show Christ’s love, being overcome step by step: slaves, Jews, science, single mothers, children born outside marriage, people in interchurch marriages, victims of suicide, the downfall of apartheid, divorcees, women (first in decision-making in the Church and then in the ordained ministry); standing up to racism. Think in our own lifetime of how, arising from our sense of the love of Christ, our attitudes have changed in the Church to many of these people, issues and situations.

Awareness is the state or ability to perceive. If that is to happen we all need to be open to looking around – to seeing, hearing, listening and encountering, yes, but most especially, to take the risk of reaching out to understand, especially of reaching out to embrace people we think are different from us.

I want, therefore, to encourage especially those gay and lesbian people who are involved in church life, or who once were, to engage with the debates many churches are having at the current time. About an hour ago Shirley Temple Bar tweeted: ‘Sharing LGBT stories is an important step on the road to equality.’ I agree with that, and I ask you not to give up on religion and religious institutions.

It is essential that your voices and experiences are heard and listened to. More important, it is vital that you do not let people drive you away. The loving welcome and inclusion of you is not theirs to take away: that love, that inclusion, that welcome, that belonging are God’s gift – God’s grace – offered to you as much as to anyone else.

JimiTime

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd like you to be adult enough and accept that being Homosexual is as much a choice as is being Heterosexual, and stop peddling the line "if people want to be homosexual".

No offence intended, but I sense a linguistic over-sensitivity. 'If people want to be homosexual' is used in the context comparing people to those who are homosexual, but who do not wish to be. It is not meant to imply that the same sex attraction was chosen, but rather to distinguish between those who are same sex attracted and embrace it, and those who are same sex attracted and reject it.

Ask yourself how that stand's in comparison to the two lines you placed below it "That biological testimony, that they will never have the fulfillment of having a child with their partner".

EDIT: another part of your writing - yet it is demanded that being attracted to a coupling that is intrinsically infertile be considered a non issue - (your likening of a heterosexual infertile couple to a same sex couple due to the procreation angle) is very much NOT A NON-ISSUE to some same sex couples, is important to both sides of the debate - Gays having YEA AND NAY sides. It's just being approached from two different angles, the equation of Marriage and Love VERSUS the equation of Marriage and Procreation. I can't decide if what you wrote (attracted to a coupling) refer's simply to the issue of procreation or if it also mean's you can't understand that same-sex couples, gay couples, can actually feel real love for each other, regardless of whether an act of sexual congress between them solely can end in procreation. You seem to have the equation of Marriage and Procreation as being the only way marriage can exist, be accepted or validated.

I make no proclamations on the love that 2 gay people have for each other. I have pointed out that no matter how its spun, a man-woman coupling is unique. On its own. Different fundamentally, in that it is the only biologically compatible coupling that can actually make a child. While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

keane2097

JimiTime wrote: »

NI make no proclamations on the love that 2 gay people have for each other. I have pointed out that no matter how its spun, a man-woman coupling is unique. On its own. Different fundamentally, in that it is the only biologically compatible coupling that can actually make a child. While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

Presumably you still think it should include couples who can't have kids but nevertheless are made up of a man and a woman?

Just to clarify, I've seen it asked a few times but haven't seen it directly answered I don't think.

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

{...}
I make no proclamations on the love that 2 gay people have for each other. I have pointed out that no matter how its spun, a man-woman coupling is unique. On its own. Different fundamentally, in that it is the only biologically compatible coupling that can actually make a child. While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

What makes you say so?
Do you deny that there have been childless heterosexual marriages in the past?

Corkfeen

JimiTime wrote: »

No offence intended, but I sense a linguistic over-sensitivity. 'If people want to be homosexual' is used in the context comparing people to those who are homosexual, but who do not wish to be. It is not meant to imply that the same sex attraction was chosen, but rather to distinguish between those who are same sex attracted and embrace it, and those who are same sex attracted and reject it.

Ask yourself how that stand's in comparison to the two lines you placed below it "That biological testimony, that they will never have the fulfillment of having a child with their partner".



I make no proclamations on the love that 2 gay people have for each other. I have pointed out that no matter how its spun, a man-woman coupling is unique. On its own. Different fundamentally, in that it is the only biologically compatible coupling that can actually make a child. While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

So Jimi,what exactly is the negative impact of same sex marriage? You've rambled about it plenty but have never actually shown anything besides rambling.... You do a lot of rambling.

aloyisious

@JimiTime. No offence was taken due to linguistic sensitivity. The words written spoke volumes. I take it your clarification mean's you meant there are different thought and action trends amongst homosexuals as regards jiggery-pokery; some participate, some choose not to. As for embracing it, I accept what I am. I don't reject what God, or nature, made me.

Absolam

JimiTime wrote: »

'If people want to be homosexual' is used in the context comparing people to those who are homosexual, but who do not wish to be. It is not meant to imply that the same sex attraction was chosen, but rather to distinguish between those who are same sex attracted and embrace it, and those who are same sex attracted and reject it.

But what you actually said was "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.". You're saying that those who embrace their sexuality are inherently more/less fertile than those who reject it? The more you explain your point, the less sense it seems to make; how does embracing your sexuality affect your fertility?

JimiTime wrote: »

I make no proclamations on the love that 2 gay people have for each other. I have pointed out that no matter how its spun, a man-woman coupling is unique. On its own. Different fundamentally, in that it is the only biologically compatible coupling that can actually make a child.

How, exactly, is it more unique than a man-man coupling? Since there appear to be less homosexuals than heterosexuals overall, surely that means a man-man (or woman-woman) coupling is definitively more unique than a man-woman coupling?

JimiTime wrote: »

While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

Children occur outside of marriage too. If children are the unique element, perhaps we should set that relationship apart instead? We could perhaps, instead of saying people are married, say they are 'parents' instead. I think mot of the mechanics are in place already, so it's a fairly easy transition.

Then all the people who are currently married but aren't parents can stay married, all the people who aren't married but want to be can be, all the people who are parents can stay parents, and some of the people who want to be parents can become parents (because unfortunately not everyone gets what they want all the time). Would that be an acceptable resolution for you?

old hippy

JimiTime wrote: »

No offence intended, but I sense a linguistic over-sensitivity. 'If people want to be homosexual' is used in the context comparing people to those who are homosexual, but who do not wish to be. It is not meant to imply that the same sex attraction was chosen, but rather to distinguish between those who are same sex attracted and embrace it, and those who are same sex attracted and reject it.

Ask yourself how that stand's in comparison to the two lines you placed below it "That biological testimony, that they will never have the fulfillment of having a child with their partner".



I make no proclamations on the love that 2 gay people have for each other. I have pointed out that no matter how its spun, a man-woman coupling is unique. On its own. Different fundamentally, in that it is the only biologically compatible coupling that can actually make a child. While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

Why set it apart? All relationships/marriages are unique - should they be set apart as well?

Instead of advocating some kind of apartheid here, can you not just admit it's normal?

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

Why? What are you trying to achieve by "recognizing" that, to you anyway, it's different?

iwantmydinner

JimiTime wrote: »

While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

To what end, though? What would the point of setting this "unique" relationship apart actually be?

old hippy

iwantmydinner wrote: »

To what end, though? What would the point of setting this "unique" relationship apart actually be?

Apartheid. Us and them. Normal and other. Right, Jimi?

Daith

JimiTime wrote: »

While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

You are not required to be married to raise children.
You are not required to have children in order to maintain your married status.

Same sex couples can and are raising children yet can not marry
Straight couples can be married and not have children.

Marriage is a union of two people. I'm unsure if the ability of a man to insert his penis into a woman, ejaculate sperm and impregnate a woman is enough to set it apart. Should infertile couples not be allowed to marry?

Cabaal

JimiTime wrote: »

I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

Should society also separate out the unique status of a marriage of a white man and a white women?....you know the backwards ignorant argument that was used in bible belt America against mixed race marriages.

After all, a white marriage is unique!

Only white children can be created by a white couple, they have unique dna and they are statistically better off financially then a black person in the USA which means the child will have a better standard of living.

Would you support this unique classification as well JimiTime? After all, its all about the children in your view, anything else means you support a poor upbringing for children.

old hippy

Meanwhile; the oppression bandwagon rolls on

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/newt-gingrich-complains-that-homophobes-are-being-repressed-as-row-erupts-after-michael-sam-kisses-boyfriend-on-television-9376067.html

Cabaal

old hippy wrote: »

Meanwhile; the oppression bandwagon rolls on

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/newt-gingrich-complains-that-homophobes-are-being-repressed-as-row-erupts-after-michael-sam-kisses-boyfriend-on-television-9376067.html

Do they not see how crazy their argument is?

Imagine this

Newt Gingrich complains that racists are being 'repressed' as row erupts after interracial kiss on Star Trek was aired on television

How do they not see anything wrong with their insanely stupid defense?

old hippy

Cabaal wrote: »

Do they not see how crazy their argument is?

Imagine this


How do they not see anything wrong with their insanely stupid defense?

It's trying to legitimise bigotry and prejudice. It's insane but also dangerous.

Mark Hamill

Cabaal wrote: »

How do they not see anything wrong with their insanely stupid defense?

Insanely stupid defences are not normally used by sane, rational people.

aloyisious

old hippy wrote: »

Meanwhile; the oppression bandwagon rolls on

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/newt-gingrich-complains-that-homophobes-are-being-repressed-as-row-erupts-after-michael-sam-kisses-boyfriend-on-television-9376067.html

Gay Rights is the new grey for Newt, it's not black and white enough for him to understand our "intolerance" of bigotry.

Meanwhile, to bring a lighter tone to this thread..... http://www.amusingtime.com/images/03/funny-goth-and-gay-birds.jpg

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/05/16/you-could-tell-she-was-slightly-disgusted/

Four workers, including a nurse, a teacher and a clothes store assistant, tell of their experiences in dealing with homophobia in their workplace for a new Anti-Homophobia in the Workplace Campaign launched by BeLonG To and the Irish Congress of Trade Union earlier today – to mark the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

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

aloyisious

Louise Hannon, winner of Irish Law Court Case winner on grounds of transgender discrimination at work s/was to give talk at Liberty Hall.