The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

JimiTime

Corkfeen wrote: »

Nasty objectors is very much applicable when you are not comparing like for like.

I didn't compare. You can point it out where I did if you like?

They muddy the waters with incest, bestiality and paedophilia because they know they're fighting a losing battle where they have to smear people's sexuality.

Its a lost battle, never mind losing battle but for divine intervention IMO. As for the 'muddying the waters' thing, unlike the intentions of you guys trying to make anyone who disagree's with you akin to racists, there is actually a question to be answered in terms of sexuality that involves all sexual desire. Often appeals to sexuality being intrinsic and immutable etc are used by you guys. So it is quite apt to then ask the question of other sexual behaviours or desires that are still considered taboo, as homosexuality once was.

You are quite correct that something like consent certainly seperates dramatically the application of paedophilia from homosexuality. I of course know this and would not dare equate the two actions at all.

If for example Alien life with the same level of intelligence as humans that could capably consent existed, I can't think of a legitimate reason to object to such a relationship. It's not my duty to dictate what two sane individuals consensually engage in even if they are not of the same species or even planet. This is all hypothetical as no animal that we know is capable of consent. So really, your slippery slope would only exist if Star Trek became legit. People may believe the animal is consenting but there's no certainty so one could effectively be raping an animal.

Again, did you read the article, and is consent your only objection?

Links234

JimiTime wrote: »

If not, what is your objection?

JimiTime

Links234 wrote: »

Picture thingy

Did you read the article? And is consent your only objection?

Kiwi in IE

JimiTime wrote: »

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/6/

Oh you have to be joking? Which anti gay movement made up that rubbish in a pathetic effort to try and prove there is some 'comparison'? Sorry Jimi but whoever invented that, as a anti equal marriage tactic, is NOT helping your agenda. That is so funny I nearly fell over laughing! I wonder which chuch sponsored it?

Corkfeen

Jimi, you clearly want to say something. I honestly have no idea if a person is born attracted to animals. I wouldn't find it surprising if some people are however I haven't read up on the topic. Ultimately the issue is consent(is this not clear enough), I read the article btw. Some people believe that the animals consent but it's impossible to prove and they are in all likelihood superimposing consent upon them. Link's picture probably sums it up as well if not better.

You are attempting to liken the gay rights movement to zoophile's far more questionable movement that will never be successful, this conclusion only requires logic.

Yes, to be blunt Jimi, homophobia is the same as racism. You're trying to justify your homophobia outside of a biblical context but it is still homophobia. There is not one logic reason to object to homosexuality or gay marriage. For the most part, I find your posts to be amusing as they aren't in any way credible.

Ps: Links, Adam is going to get electrocuted...

JimiTime

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Oh you have to be joking? Which anti gay movement made up that rubbish in a pathetic effort to try and prove there is some 'comparison'? Sorry Jimi but whoever invented that, as a anti equal marriage tactic, is NOT helping your agenda. That is so funny I nearly fell over laughing! I wonder which chuch sponsored it?

I'm happy you think its that ludicrous tbh, but I've seen the documentary etc alluded to in the article, and the people had the same view as the guy in the article. I'm thinking by what you are saying, that you see great issue with the content though. Could you detail what your issues are?

Kiwi in IE

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm happy you think its that ludicrous tbh, but I've seen the documentary etc alluded to in the article, and the people had the same view as the guy in the article. I'm thinking by what you are saying, that you see great issue with the content though. Could you detail what your issues are?

My issue with beastiality is that I can't stand cruelty to animals.

Not that I see the 'article' as serious. I suspect it is dreamt up by some group with an anti equal marriage agenda.

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/6/

Is there anyone who would defend this movement? If not, what is your objection? They back gay rights as the beginning of further 'sexual liberation'. Gay rights campaigners have of course backed away from the association, but I'm wondering for those who do condemn these people or/and their behaviour and desires and political quests, what is the basis etc?

How exactly would a marriage official determine that the animal hasn't been coerced into marriage? How would the animal report to the authorities it was been abused by its partner? When a divorce happens, does the human get all possessions and the house? Or does it have to be split 50-50? Would the animal be charged with indecent exposure if it isn't clothed in public? Will animals be given the vote? Will they be allowed claim social welfare?

Kiwi in IE

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/04/18/surges-hours-zealand-legalizes-gay-marriage-2/

Here's one for you Jimi!

dadvocate

I think the gay marriage brigade are simply being typically controversial when they attempt to subvert the custom and tradition and, it should be mentioned, the meaning, of the word 'marriage'.

If the church defines marriage as 'the creation of a self-contained family producing unit' then that is their business and they can argue that since gay people are incapable of producing children within their union, without recourse to aldultery or adoption, then a gay couple cannot be married in the sight of God.

Civil partnerships are a compromise reached by the secular state and it has been arrived at by taking great care in the wording of what a civil partnership is.

And anyway, why would a gay person want to be validated by an institution which despises gay sex at its heart?

I think it is a case of militancy for the sake of militance.

Corkfeen

dadvocate wrote: »

I think the gay marriage brigade are simply being typically controversial when they attempt to subvert the custom and tradition and, it should be mentioned, the meaning, of the word 'marriage'.

If the church defines marriage as 'the creation of a self-contained family producing unit' then that is their business and they can argue that since gay people are incapable of producing children within their union, without recourse to aldultery or adoption, then a gay couple cannot be married in the sight of God.

Civil partnerships are a compromise reached by the secular state and it has been arrived at by taking great care in the wording of what a civil partnership is.

And anyway, why would a gay person want to be validated by an institution which despises gay sex at its heart?

I think it is a case of militancy for the sake of militance.

People want the right to marry under civil law, marriage is a legal contract of the state and isn't necessarily religious. The church may define marriage as whatever they want.

jill_valentine

dadvocate wrote: »

I think the gay marriage brigade are simply being typically controversial when they attempt to subvert the custom and tradition and, it should be mentioned, the meaning, of the word 'marriage'.

If the church defines marriage as 'the creation of a self-contained family producing unit' then that is their business and they can argue that since gay people are incapable of producing children within their union, without recourse to aldultery or adoption, then a gay couple cannot be married in the sight of God.

Civil partnerships are a compromise reached by the secular state and it has been arrived at by taking great care in the wording of what a civil partnership is.

And anyway, why would a gay person want to be validated by an institution which despises gay sex at its heart?

I think it is a case of militancy for the sake of militance.

I don't really give a fiddler's what the church does within its own doors. The church, however, is doing its level best to dictate what happens in the world I actually have to live in, by pretending it owns the concept of marriage, and reducing it from a special, lifelong commitment of love between two people, down to a baby generating transactional contract.

That's where the problem arises, really. I think that bishop a while back came up with the perfect solution, separate the civil and religious ceremonies entirely and let everybody get on with it.

dadvocate

JimiTime wrote: »

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/6/

Is there anyone who would defend this movement? If not, what is your objection? They back gay rights as the beginning of further 'sexual liberation'. Gay rights campaigners have of course backed away from the association, but I'm wondering for those who do condemn these people or/and their behaviour and desires and political quests, what is the basis etc?

What new plagues and STD's would inter-species sex produce?

Would horses and dogs wear condoms?

Zoophiles should be regarded in the same light as paedophiles and be prosecuted in all cases with an extra charge of constituting a public health risk.

Any society that accepts either is in irreversible decline.

Kiwi in IE

The pretence that there is a correlation between acts of animal cruelty and child abuse and the sexual relationship of a couple of the same gender, does nothing to make one think any of the rest of the irrational 'reasons' to oppose equal marriage are likely to be any more credible. It actually does the anti gay cause far more harm than good in the eyes of any person with a ounce of rationality. In fact, it makes equal marriage opponents appear so ridiculous that I think it should be encouraged.

dadvocate

Corkfeen wrote: »

People want the right to marry under civil law, marriage is a legal contract of the state and isn't necessarily religious. The church may define marriage as whatever they want.

What? Where do you think the state got its definition of marriage from?

The church did define marriage and the state uses the same definition.

A nut screwed onto a bolt might be defined as a functional unit but it is not discriminatory to refer to a pair of nuts as something else.

It is not unreasonable to consider a gay union as something other than marriage. A civil-partnership perhaps?

jill_valentine

dadvocate wrote: »

What? Where do you think the state got its definition of marriage from?

The church did define marriage and the state uses the same definition

The church was pretty late in the game, as the old marriage concept goes. And its original definition doesn't bear a lot of relation to its current one. But out of interest, do you object when non-Christians or non-religious people get married? Do you make a point of putting the word in "inverted commas"?

28064212

dadvocate wrote: »

What? Where do you think the state got its definition of marriage from?

Where do you think the church got its definition of marriage from?

dadvocate wrote: »

The church did define marriage and the state uses the same definition.

No it doesn't. Does the RCC recognise a Muslim marriage? Or a humanist one? Does the RCC allow divorced people to remarry?

Corkfeen

dadvocate wrote: »

What? Where do you think the state got its definition of marriage from?

The church did define marriage and the state uses the same definition.

A nut screwed onto a bolt might be defined as a functional unit but it is not discriminatory to refer to a pair of nuts as something else.

It is not unreasonable to consider a gay union as something other than marriage. A civil-partnership perhaps?

The church didn't invent marriage, it predates Catholicism by a couple of thousand years. And it's definition varies throughout, just because Christianity adopted it as a sacrament doesn't mean Christianity owns it.

Currently we allow divorce however this is not viewed as acceptable in Catholicism. Marriage has been changing from century to century. There are even examples of same sex marriage occurring so it's not an off the wall idea. Marriage confers legal rights that civil-partnerships do not, why exactly should only a man and woman be allowed to avail of them?

Other denominations and atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry according to your definition(It's news to me that only Catholics are allowed to marry), I would consider your definition of marriage to be both ignorant of the existing definition of marriage and marriage's history.

dadvocate

jill_valentine wrote: »

I don't really give a fiddler's what the church does within its own doors. The church, however, is doing its level best to dictate what happens in the world I actually have to live in, by pretending it owns the concept of marriage, and reducing it from a special, lifelong commitment of love between two people, down to a baby generating transactional contract.

That's where the problem arises, really. I think that bishop a while back came up with the perfect solution, separate the civil and religious ceremonies entirely and let everybody get on with it.

I think you would do well to research what marriage was originally designed for. It was not for love.

Marriage was designed to join families and estates and was largely a political consideration as it still is with arranged marriages etc. It was about the security of future generations of those families.

Only peasants married for love and there is very little evidence to support the notion of a 'life-long commitment' judging by the amount of adultery that takes place.

It is naive and erroneous to romanticise an institution that is intended to increase the power of the ruling classes.

By the way, my objection to 'gay marriage' is linguistically based. I am fed up to the back teeth with minorities attempting to hijack the English language and bending and contorting well defined words on the basis that they either don't apply to them in their current form, 'marriage' for example, or because they do apply to them as in the case of all words prefixed with 'black' are considered to have racist connotations.

I do give a 'fiddler's'. Gay people are excluded from the institution of marriage because they can't be married by definition.

And by the way, do you consider that trying to avail of tax-breaks available to married couples demonstrates the love and life-long commitment between gay people any more than it does for straight people?

Kiwi in IE

dadvocate wrote: »

What? Where do you think the state got its definition of marriage from?

The church did define marriage and the state uses the same definition.

A nut screwed onto a bolt might be defined as a functional unit but it is not discriminatory to refer to a pair of nuts as something else.

It is not unreasonable to consider a gay union as something other than marriage. A civil-partnership perhaps?

I am getting married later this year in a registry office with no reference to any religion. We have our own views on what our marriage will mean and don't give a fig whether they fit with the religious definition of marriage or not. Should my marriage therefore be called by another name?

Corkfeen

You do realise language and society constantly evolves? It's a sad state of affairs if you view this to be a minority hijacking a word. Spam used to be a type of food and awful meant awe inspiring. You should probably consider living in a cave if you can't deal with the slightest change in the meanings of words.

Kiwi in IE

dadvocate wrote: »

By the way, my objection to 'gay marriage' is linguistically based. I am fed up to the back teeth with minorities attempting to hijack the English language and bending and contorting well defined words on the basis that they either don't apply to them in their current form, 'marriage' for example, or because they do apply to them as in the case of all words prefixed with 'black' are considered to have racist connotations.

I do give a 'fiddler's'. Gay people are excluded from the institution of marriage because they can't be married by definition.

I assume you would prefer to be communicating in Old English then? The word gay itself must really annoy you since it used to mean happy, but has been 'hijacked'!

Languages change and evolve as do the definition of words. This has occurred for as long as man has been communicating verbally and was not instigated by modern civil rights movements.

dadvocate

Corkfeen wrote: »

The church didn't invent marriage, it predates Catholicism by a couple of thousand years. And it's definition varies throughout, just because Christianity adopted it as a sacrament doesn't mean Christianity owns it.

Currently we allow divorce however this is not viewed as acceptable in Catholicism. Marriage has been changing from century to century. There are even examples of same sex marriage occurring so it's not an off the wall idea. Marriage confers legal rights that civil-partnerships do not, why exactly should only a man and woman be allowed to avail of them?

Other denominations and atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry according to your definition(It's news to me that only Catholics are allowed to marry), I would consider your definition of marriage to be both ignorant of the existing definition of marriage and marriage's history.

I may have erred in using the term 'church' where I should have used 'religious leadership'.

This should not have confused you however as it seems to have done.

Apart from insane megalomaniacal Roman emperors, what examples of same sex marriages were considered acceptable?

Where did I 'define' marriage'?

You may not like the fact that marriage was designed to produce heirs but you are stuck with it and history would argue against you.

dadvocate

28064212 wrote: »

Where do you think the church got its definition of marriage from?


No it doesn't. Does the RCC recognise a Muslim marriage? Or a humanist one? Does the RCC allow divorced people to remarry?

I appears that the word 'church' excusively refers to the RCC.

Instead of 'church', or 'RCC', think 'religious leadership' and then try again.

As for your list of questions, they are simply white noise and contribute nothing to this discussion.

Kiwi in IE

dadvocate wrote: »

Where did I 'define' marriage'?

Here

dadvocate wrote: »

I think the gay marriage brigade are simply being typically controversial when they attempt to subvert the custom and tradition and, it should be mentioned, the meaning, of the word 'marriage'.

If the church defines marriage as 'the creation of a self-contained family producing unit' then that is their business and they can argue that since gay people are incapable of producing children within their union, without recourse to aldultery or adoption, then a gay couple cannot be married in the sight of God.

dadvocate

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I am getting married later this year in a registry office with no reference to any religion. We have our own views on what our marriage will mean and don't give a fig whether they fit with the religious definition of marriage or not. Should my marriage therefore be called by another name?

It's not that it is a religious definition, it is the definition. You can call your union what you will but if it is not about producing heirs then you would be incorrect in referring to it as a marriage.

You can't call a blue carpet red just because you prefer the word red. Life would be very confusing if we carried on like that.

Also, let's have a bit of equality here. Homosexuals have hijacked the word 'gay' and as such, 'gay' has connotations which do not apply to straight people anymore. Well, straight people have a word, 'marriage' which has connotations that do not apply to gay people.

I am not arguing that there should not be an institution that is equivalent to 'marriage' available to gays but the term 'marriage' has been taken and therefore gay rights activists should simply choose another word for what they call their unions.

Kiwi in IE

dadvocate wrote: »

It's not that it is a religious definition, it is the definition. You can call your union what you will but if it is not about producing heirs then you would be incorrect in referring to it as a marriage.

What should it be called then, when a couple gets married knowing they are infertile?

Kiwi in IE

My marriage will not be about 'producing heirs'. It will be about ensuring my partner has parental rights to the 'heir' we already produced without being married. We decided long ago that we would be together for life and do not need anyone to cast a marriage spell over us to assure that.

So it seems I am not going to be 'married', as the intent is not to 'produce heirs'? What shall we call it then after it has happened do you think?

Funnily enough the Irish state will view us as married, and call our relationship a marriage from that point on. So will other states. It is a Civil Servant conducting the state's business who will carry out the ceremony. They didn't make any effort to ensure that our intent was to 'produce heirs' when we gave notice to the registrar. So the in the eyes of the state we will be married. Can you explain to me who it is exactly that will not recognise that we have a marriage after this ceremony?

Corkfeen

dadvocate wrote: »

It's not that it is a religious definition, it is the definition. You can call your union what you will but if it is not about producing heirs then you would be incorrect in referring to it as a marriage.

You can't call a blue carpet red just because you prefer the word red. Life would be very confusing if we carried on like that.

Also, let's have a bit of equality here. Homosexuals have hijacked the word 'gay' and as such, 'gay' has connotations which do not apply to straight people anymore. Well, straight people have a word, 'marriage' which has connotations that do not apply to gay people.

I am not arguing that there should not be an institution that is equivalent to 'marriage' available to gays but the term 'marriage' has been taken and therefore gay rights activists should simply choose another word for what they call their unions.

That's utter rubbish. If a person marries and doesn't reproduce, they are still legally married. Just because you're being exceedingly obtuse, it doesn't change what is legally defined. Do you really believe that infertile people who marry are not married? Let's be realistic here, marriage is not legally defined as being solely about reproducing. You've just redefined the meaning of marriage in contemporary society, congratulations! Your entire argument is don't steal my word and it actually negates plenty of existing marriages.

If I recall correctly same sex unions occured in medieval society at a couple of points. Also Ancient Mesopotamia and Greece had them.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/us/beliefs-study-medieval-rituals-same-sex-unions-raises-question-what-were-they.html

dadvocate

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I assume you would prefer to be communicating in Old English then? The word gay itself must really annoy you since it used to mean happy, but has been 'hijacked'!

Languages change and evolve as do the definition of words. This has occurred for as long as man has been communicating verbally and was not instigated by modern civil rights movements.

This is getting silly. You consider a word that once meant 'happy' but now means 'sexually attracted to members of you own gender' as 'evolution?

It is no more an example of evolution than a demolished housing estate being replaced by a multi-story car-park is.

And what about the ambiguity that might arise from such 'evolution'?

'Oh ya, lucky me I'm singing every day,
Ever since the day you came my way.
You made my life for me just one big happy game,
I'm gay every morning and at night I'm still the same.'

Do you think that some people might interpret that verse as a celebration of homosexual passion?

Do you think that some people might conclude that the singer of the song containing that verse is a homosexual?

'Hijacked' is a much better word than 'evolved' in this context.