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

Benny_Cake · 16-06-2013 04:08PM

Mod note: Ok, I'm asking people to refrain from calling other users "bigots".

Bigoted remarks (and I don't recall lmaopml ever making a bigoted remark on this or any other thread) are expressly forbidden by the charter and if they are reported, then action will be taken.

Zombrex · 16-06-2013 09:34PM

If people want me to use another word I'm happy to use what ever word is appropriate.

But steadfastly holding to prejudices that present an untrue negative stereotype of people which is contradicted by evidence is not something to simply let slide, no matter how "nice" the person is being about it.

Tip toeing around that fact because the person says it is just their faith, or just their opinion, does a diservice to those negatively effected by such views.

NuMarvel · 16-06-2013 09:44PM

lmaopml wrote: »

I think it's rather difficult to keep up with the posts on this thread - I'm left scratching my head as to the overwhelming input from it's regulars - I'm not one of them, and neither have I been incorporated into the 'you guys' club - I'm a person, the same as anybody else who posts is.

I will say, I am very sorry if anybody thinks me a 'bigot' and a little dumbfounded at the idea that for the first time in my life I am accused of being such for merely participating in an online dialogue.

Perhaps some of you are right and my outlook is 'merely informed' or greatly informed by being a Christian. I happen to think this is important however, and not only that, but that there is a truth there that life has taught me too with my own family and experiences of life and love and marriage and it's breakdown - I'm not above those things, even if I don't spill about every single person I know and love.

I realise that marriages break down and all sorts of pain is associated with this, most especially and more often the pain is felt by the children - however, I don't understand your need to say 'this' happens 'therefore' marriage is not important, but I want it, because it isn't important?

Marriage is important, monogamy is important, family is important, fathers are important - these things are demonstrably true - and truth is important.

Now, you may call me a bigot, and you would be so very wrong, because I don't fit the definition - or you may extend very graciously the idea that another person can have an input and voice that is not 'thanked' but is important nonetheless.

Could you also be equally gracious and take the time to respond to some of the replies to your previous posts? It's a bit odd to post (twice) about how you can't keep up with the thread, just to repeat the same points that have been challenged. You're certainly not obliged to respond to anyone's questions or points, but you'll agree it will lead to a more informative discussion if you do.

aloyisious · 20-06-2013 10:15AM

Now here's a poster's thought on this report in The Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2344575/Indian-court-rules-couple-sex-legally-married--technically-need-divorce-wanted-sleep-else.html.

The judge ruled that a lower court was wrong to throw out a claim for child support and said that any couple who had sex together were married by that act, and that the official registering of a marriage was merely a procedural issue not relevant to the marriage created by the sexual actions between the couple, which resulted in two children being born to them. The poster (tongue-in-cheek) speculated that this ruling has introduced gay marriage into India.

tommy2bad · 20-06-2013 10:20AM

And polygamy if your married to everyone you shagged. I wont even mention lonely farmers

aloyisious · 20-06-2013 10:29AM

I ain't sure about this but I think I saw this somewhere else, if not on a thread here, but I'll post the video link here anyway, as part of it's Christian-preacher input is muddled. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vv4dbLQGQYI#t=0s

tommy2bad · 20-06-2013 11:15AM

aloyisious wrote: »

I ain't sure about this but I think I saw this somewhere else, if not on a thread here, but I'll post the video link here anyway, as part of it's Christian-preacher input is muddled. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vv4dbLQGQYI#t=0s

You do know thats a comedy parody ?

aloyisious · 20-06-2013 11:33AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

You do know thats a comedy parody ?

I admit I was a mite bit sceptical at the view of a christian being led by the nose by a shepherding female, but with the Westboro mob being so OTT and genuine at the same time, one can never be sure if it's a parody or not

Links234 · 20-06-2013 12:01PM

Posting this here as well, because this is BIG news, practicioners of dangerous and harmful "conversion therapy" Exodus International shut up shop, which is another nail in the coffin of this fraudulent, discredited industry.

Benny_Cake · 20-06-2013 08:25PM

Links234 wrote: »

Posting this here as well, because this is BIG news, practicioners of dangerous and harmful "conversion therapy" Exodus International shut up shop, which is another nail in the coffin of this fraudulent, discredited industry.

Big news indeed (link to the full statement here. It would be easy to say that what Alan Chambers said is too little, too late, given the damage that has been caused. Nevertheless, it took courage to say - I'm pretty sure both he and Exodus could have continued to be well thought of in the far end of the fundamentalist ghetto, but he did the difficult but right thing. Hopefully this marks the beginning of the end for the ex-gay movement.

Edit: The Atlantic has an interview with him here
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/lets-do-something-different-the-end-of-the-worlds-leading-ex-gay-ministry/277039/

ThreeBlindMice · 21-06-2013 06:36PM

This crowd has been around for quite a while. It looks as if they decided to shut down their ministry before proposed legislation to ban such conversion therapy.

A prominent US Christian group that purported to rid gay people of same-sex attraction through prayer has said it is shutting down.

Three-decade old Exodus International made the announcement alongside an apology from President Alan Chambers to people "hurt" by its treatment.

He acknowledged "the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn't change".

The move comes as California seeks to ban "conversion therapy" of gay people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22992714

Benny_Cake · 21-06-2013 08:11PM

ThreeBlindMice wrote: »

This crowd has been around for quite a while. It looks as if they decided to shut down their ministry before proposed legislation to ban such conversion therapy.

A prominent US Christian group that purported to rid gay people of same-sex attraction through prayer has said it is shutting down.

Three-decade old Exodus International made the announcement alongside an apology from President Alan Chambers to people "hurt" by its treatment.

He acknowledged "the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn't change".

The move comes as California seeks to ban "conversion therapy" of gay people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22992714

I don't think this is the case. The proposed law in California would only apply to "therapists" in that state. If Exodus wanted to get around it, it would undoubtedly be easy for them to do so (they could simply send people to Arizona, for example). More to the point though - and this is something that I only learned after this story broke - Exodus renounced the notion that someone's sexual orientation could be changed by therapy a while back (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/us/a-leaders-renunciation-of-ex-gay-tenets-causes-a-schism.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).

I'm not sure what to make of this overall, and I think a lot of people will reserve judgement for now. I've been reading some of the opinions on a couple of my favourite blogs: Rachel Held Evans thinks it took "a lot of guts to issue an apology as honest and as public", and John Shore thought it represents "shamelessly self-serving expression of a cynicism so absolute it borders on the sublime". I hope it's the former, but I think what would be the most Christian course of action would be for Alan Chambers or some of the top people in Exodus to offer to meet with anyone who suffered as a result of their "conversion therapy" to apologise and to listen.

ThreeBlindMice · 21-06-2013 10:28PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I don't think this is the case. The proposed law in California would only apply to "therapists" in that state. If Exodus wanted to get around it, it would undoubtedly be easy for them to do so (they could simply send people to Arizona, for example). More to the point though - and this is something that I only learned after this story broke - Exodus renounced the notion that someone's sexual orientation could be changed by therapy a while back (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/us/a-leaders-renunciation-of-ex-gay-tenets-causes-a-schism.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).

I'm not sure what to make of this overall, and I think a lot of people will reserve judgement for now. I've been reading some of the opinions on a couple of my favourite blogs: Rachel Held Evans thinks it took "a lot of guts to issue an apology as honest and as public", and John Shore thought it represents "shamelessly self-serving expression of a cynicism so absolute it borders on the sublime". I hope it's the former, but I think what would be the most Christian course of action would be for Alan Chambers or some of the top people in Exodus to offer to meet with anyone who suffered as a result of their "conversion therapy" to apologise and to listen.

At the way things are turning in the US at the moment I would guess this "Therapy" would soon be a federal issue and the same legislation would apply across the whole of the US.

wonderfulname · 21-06-2013 11:24PM

I think it's disingenuous to link their statement to legislation. I'm prepared to take it at face value, I've always been very impressed by a person who can stand up and say they were wrong, especially in relation to something like this where I quite honestly can't take on board the enormity of the damage they have caused or how huge a mental undertaking it must have been for them to do a complete 180 on their position.

There is an awful lot at play here, the kind of people those involved are required to be for their actions to be solely in response to the probability of new legislation is frightening to think of as it removes all humanity from the equation. Remember, these are people who thought, however misguidedly, that they were helping people. Had they continued to hold their initial beliefs I would have expected them to fight legislation, not run away from it.

lmaopml · 22-06-2013 01:01AM

MrPudding wrote: »

It is a subject that people feel strongly about, but I am not sure there is a club, and certainly not a club that you aren't a part of. Post what you can when you can and try to engage with the other posters.

Well, that's what I do Mr. P - I'm not always here, but I do my best, and I promise I will do my best, because I'm not boxed into the 'hater' so easily - I'm a real life person with people who identify as 'gay' in my life right here and now.

Whilst I don't think I have prsonally called you a bigot, I would like to address this point. If anyone thinks you are a bigot it is not because you are participating in an online dialogue, it is more likely due to the apparent unwillingness to look at evidence being presented to you and acknowledge that your position is, basically, without merit and is built on nothing more than supposition and religious doctrine and is in direct opposition to current thinking based on a preponderance of evidence.

With respect, I haven't really got a chance to say a whole lot at all - perhaps that's because I don't go around beating a 'Gay's are bad' drum, but merely stumbled over this thread much to my 'bigot'hood' - and don't fit into that stereotype, ( I hate generalisations!!) but I do emphatically think it's bizarre to be called out as a bigot for merely participating at all - I'm a brand new poster, I'm Catholic, I have Catholic 'Gay' relatives, so please a little less of the 'hate' talk and a little more just 'talk' would perhaps help.

I understand that you think being informed by your christianity is important, and as much as I disagree with christianity, or indeed religion in general, I genuinely believe that you should be entitled to hold the beliefs that you do. Further, I believe that your church should be, to a certain extent, fully able to promote and exercise those beliefs as well. Where we part company, I'm afraid, is the point where you or your religious organisation try to have laws based on those beliefs and try to impose the particular doctrine they support on those that don't.

Ok, I think I see where you are coming from - but I think I had this chat with you before a long time ago - to 'hate' people who are Catholic is to hate not only the 'Catholic Church' but more importantly 'people' who are Catholic and also citizens who in any democracy right or wrong or in between or who are anything from socialists to communists etc. etc. etc. are all the same, that's like me saying I 'hate' all atheists which I do not! - we're 'people' not 'sheeple'! You may disagree with us, but don't patronise or stereotype us - we're people, not 'baddies', we're the next door neighbour, and pigeon holes are not our native home.

I am not sure what your point is here, or indeed what you are trying to address. I know marriage break up has been mentioned in relation to the tired argument of "but wait, you can't redefine marriage" as evidence that it has already been redefined, but I don't think anyone is saying it is not important. This is also a silly argument because we are arguing for marriage equality. We are arguing for marriage to be made available to a class of person to which it is currently denied. Why would we be doing that if we thought it was not important? I think it is extremely important, that is why I am arguing for same-sex couple to be allowed to marry.

Being entirely honest, I can't find a valid argument that doesn't say that the state should not protect same sex couples with the same rights that any married couple has simply because they 'love' eachother and that is important.

And you are right, when a marriage or any relationship breaks up the children suffer. One of the important aspects of marriage, from a civil perspective, is if a marriage does break up there are certain rights and obligations that must be fulfilled. Of course, marriage is supposed to be forever, but the reality of it is that often it isn't. Whilst it is sad, it has to be accepted that marriages do break up and recognition of that does not reduce its importance.

Sadly I think proposing that it is 'not so important', does 'reduce' it's importance. If it's merely a legal contract that the state makes legal than it's not exactly as 'important' as regards children, but more important as regards parents. I personally believe that Marriage is different once children are part of the family - it revolves around them first, not me. That's why I believe that the state should reflect that ideal of marriage as important, and not merely as a contract between would be lovers.

I would agree with you that marriage and family are important. I would also tend to agree that monogamy is important. These things are, generally, supported by evidence and therefore demonstrably true.

Yes, I know they are, it's common sense afterall.

Fathers, on the other hand, not so clear and not necessarily demonstrably true. You have been provided with plenty of links in this thread that show that having a father and a mother is not as important as was once thought. So whilst one might think, instinctively, that a child needs a father and a mother, this is simply one more area where instinct has proven to be inaccurate. That you will stubbornly cling to your ideas without any indication that you have even looks at the evidence that supports a different viewpoint, or tried to engage with that evidence is rather frustrating.

I'm sorry Mr. Pudding, but I have two little boys and 'four' adult brothers, and to be honest, I think the statement that 'fathers' are not really necessary is actually only contributing to the idea that fathers are merely sperm doners and that 'any' male role model can replace a 'father' and to my mind this is actually a terrible thing to think or promote. I am female, I am fearful for my children that one day they believe that a father is not necessary and therefore they are not necessary and the law is biased anyway so therefore the 'actual' fathers role, that is a biological father is not important - the same goes for a 'biological' mother. How can one say they are not important? If merely a 'role' model is important than the parent becomes defunct - not one but both. If that's the case every family loses - I'm not state down but I place my values from the 'family' up -

I don't think I have ever called you a bigot, but I can understand why some might. Again, I do accept that you hold a different idea but I think the problem is that the problem is that you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that there is another side to it, and further, that you simply ignore or dismiss out of hand any evidence that does not fit with your viewpoint.

I know, I felt the same way, I felt like saying 'bigot' - but I thought better of it - because I don't believe it's the case, I just think it's a lack of acknowledgement as you say - everybody has a right to shape society and the future, not with hatred I hope for other people, but with compromise and sacrifice.

Several people have posted quite detailed responses to your posts and many, including myself, have provided links to other sources of information and evidence of our positions and you simply ignore them without comment and trot out your demonstrably untrue and inaccurate suppositions, demanding, presumably, that they should be accepted and valued because they are based on your genuinely held religious belief. Well, no. I don't accept them. Your religious belief has this wrong. Your instincts have this wrong. Am I am afraid, as long as you cling to these particular opinions, in opposition to the evidence you are likely to be considered, mistakenly or otherwise, for a person holding a bigoted opinion.

MrP

Yeah - that seems to be the way my input has gone, and I'm only new to the thread..lol...certainly haven't read it from beginning to end, or am invested in banging on about the 'ills of the Gay Community' etc. etc. so on....However, you can if you like accept that I don't spend every single moment on boards, and I am mostly up to my knickers in real life - I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to post a reply to all the people invested in this thread, but I do realise that some are posting from the heart - and I am not going to deny or diminish that. Please don't diminish me, I'm absolutely not your enemy and not a 'hater' - I'm just a person.

aloyisious · 22-06-2013 07:25AM

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum-on-gay-marriage-to-be-held-in-2014-29364000.html

FIACH KELLY POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT – 22 JUNE 2013

TANAISTE Eamon Gilmore says there will be a referendum on gay marriage next year, marking the first definite coalition comments on when the potentially divisive poll will take place. While some in Fine Gael would prefer to push the referendum back further, the Tanaiste told an event organised by the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (GLEN) it will "realistically" happen in 2014. "I suppose realistically we're probably looking at next year sometime," Mr Gilmore told the event in Google's European headquarters on Dublin's Barrow Street.
..................................................................................................................................................................

Also in today's Irish Times: article by Ger Philpott. Dublin Pride after 20 years:

http://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.1438633.1371831926!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_300/image.jpg

Twenty years legal... Life for gay people has changed hugely, but has it changed enough?

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Flife-and-style%2F20-years-of-being-legally-gay-1.1438643&ei=aE_FUZr5L6ey7Aa484HoDw&usg=AFQjCNGJiQvsXCPF2I32XhCsxCDXFZD91g&bvm=bv.48293060,d.ZGU

aloyisious · 22-06-2013 09:21AM

Re the expiration of Exodus, there's this report of Anti-gay groups ready to take up the fight:

Despite Exodus closing its doors, Voice of the Voiceless (VoV) soldiers on, promoting July as the first-ever Ex-Gay Pride Month. In case, you’ve never heard of VoV, it’s basically an anti-ex-gay defamation group

Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/july-is-ex-gay-pride-month-and-other-right-wing-lunacies-20130621/#ixzz2WvoY2sTI

twg73 · 22-06-2013 10:20AM

aloyisious wrote: »

Twenty years legal... Life for gay people has changed hugely, but has it changed enough?

Why is HIV infection still so high among Gay Men and growing? 150 new cases last year. Its 2013 and condoms in every store and elsewhere. You nearly can't go into a Mens public toilet in Ireland without seeing vending machines for them. I saw in Dublin some groups giving them free.

Yes, Life for Gay People has changed. 20 Years ago were there 150 men a year getting infected with HIV?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/new-figures-reveal-sharp-increase-in-hiv-among-young-gay-men-1.1422177

Is having sex with different partners making them happy? Why not wait and find someone you love and stick with one person.

HIV is just one infection. There are also other STD's on the rise among Gay Men. Progress?

aloyisious · 22-06-2013 11:14AM

twg73 wrote: »

Why is HIV infection still so high among Gay Men and growing? 150 new cases last year. Its 2013 and condoms in every store and elsewhere. You nearly can't go into a Mens public toilet in Ireland without seeing vending machines for them. I saw in Dublin some groups giving them free.

Yes, Life for Gay People has changed. 20 Years ago were there 150 men a year getting infected with HIV?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/new-figures-reveal-sharp-increase-in-hiv-among-young-gay-men-1.1422177

Is having sex with different partners making them happy? Why not wait and find someone you love and stick with one person.

HIV is just one infection. There are also other STD's on the rise among Gay Men. Progress?

Yup, I agree with you, Hiv/AIDS and other STD's are a big (and getting bigger) issue for Gay men and men who have sex with men. along with their other partners. It seem's that the fact that Anti- Hiv meds exist is being misread and/or ignored and it's an unfortunate fact that gay men and M-S-M are being stupid in ignoring the fact their bodies are NOT immune to attack by STD's. There are pre-sex prophylactics and after-sex prophylaxis available now to help avoid STD's and young people know they are available. I don't know if it' an age-issue thing, similar to other youth-ignorance of life's facts, that they just have to learn the hard way, instead of listening to fuddy-duddies.

twg73 · 22-06-2013 11:24AM

aloyisious wrote: »

Yup, I agree with you, Hiv/AIDS and other STD's are a big (and getting bigger) issue for Gay men and men who have sex with men. along with their other partners. It seem's that the fact that Anti- Hiv meds exist is being misread and/or ignored and it's an unfortunate fact that gay men and M-S-M are being stupid in ignoring the fact their bodies are NOT immune to attack by STD's. There are pre-sex prophylactics and after-sex prophylaxis available now to help avoid STD's and young people know they are available. I don't know if it' an age-issue thing, similar to other youth-ignorance of life's facts, that they just have to learn the hard way, instead of listening to fuddy-duddies.

Well I am not on the attack to Gay groups from a Christian point of view (I am catholic). I only want what is best for them from a Human point of view. I think Ireland is understanding today, we do accept Gay Men and Women. Its not Christian teaching that is to blame for the rise in STD's among Gay men. Its also worth noting that for every Diagnosed HIV case in Ireland there are about 3-4 undiagnosed cases. So the rate of HIV infection is higher.

Sad reality .. And this is a human reality. If you abuse nature, nature is not very forgiving. Abuse alcohol.. Abuse Food, Abuse your sexuality... you see the results.

Self-discipline weighs ounces, regret weighs tons.

Benny_Cake · 22-06-2013 11:35AM

aloyisious wrote: »

Yup, I agree with you, Hiv/AIDS and other STD's are a big (and getting bigger) issue for Gay men and men who have sex with men. along with their other partners. It seem's that the fact that Anti- Hiv meds exist is being misread and/or ignored and it's an unfortunate fact that gay men and M-S-M are being stupid in ignoring the fact their bodies are NOT immune to attack by STD's. There are pre-sex prophylactics and after-sex prophylaxis available now to help avoid STD's and young people know they are available. I don't know if it' an age-issue thing, similar to other youth-ignorance of life's facts, that they just have to learn the hard way, instead of listening to fuddy-duddies.

A lot of this is probably related to the fact that anti-retroviral treatments have become so effective(thankfully), the death rate has plummeted. It's probably made HIV into a more abstract notion in the minds of many younger people compared to the 80s and early 90s when a HIV diagnosis was a death sentence. I'd doubt it's a phenomenon confined to the gay community - human nature, unfortunately.

aloyisious · 22-06-2013 11:37AM

twg73 wrote: »

Well I am not on the attack to Gay groups from a Christian point of view (I am catholic). I only want what is best for them from a Human point of view. I think Ireland is understanding today, we do accept Gay Men and Women. Its not Christian teaching that is to blame for the rise in STD's among Gay men. Its also worth noting that for every Diagnosed HIV case in Ireland there are about 3-4 undiagnosed cases. So the rate of HIV infection is higher.

Sad reality .. And this is a human reality. If you abuse nature, nature is not very forgiving. Abuse alcohol.. Abuse Food, Abuse your sexuality... you see the results.

Self-discipline weighs ounces, regret weighs tons.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that Hiv (and it's co-worker - AIDS) don't respect one's religious choice or life, so don't get worried about that aspect. Plus not all Hiv-AIDS persons are Gay or MSM, it'll randomly affect both sexes and life practices.

eviltwin · 22-06-2013 11:39AM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

A lot of this is probably related to the fact that anti-retroviral treatments have become so effective(thankfully), the death rate has plummeted. It's probably made HIV into a more abstract notion in the minds of many younger people compared to the 80s and early 90s when a HIV diagnosis was a death sentence. I'd doubt it's a phenomenon confined to the gay community - human nature, unfortunately.

Totally agree.

Aids doesn't have that same emotional impact it used to. Certainly when I was growing up Aids was something that terrified us all - probably in part to that ad campaign that ran on UK tv in the 80's

Today its all a bit "meh" but then STD's in general don't seem to be taken all that seriously.

The main difference, imho, between the straight and gay community is the issue of pregnancy. That scares women more than an std hence they probably take more precautions.

twg73 · 22-06-2013 11:53AM

eviltwin wrote: »

Today its all a bit "meh" but then STD's in general don't seem to be taken all that seriously.

Wow.. I am feeling my age then. I suppose people are not aware of the drugs you have to take for the rest of your life if you do get HIV.

Also many suffer some of the side effects of the drugs:- -feel very weak or tired - have unusual (not normal) muscle pain - have trouble breathing - have stomach pain with nausea and vomiting - feel cold, especially in your arms and legs - feel dizzy or lightheaded - have a fast or irregular heartbeat

Your quality of life is not the same once you get HIV. And you always carry the risk of getting AIDs.

I suppose in today's world its all about doing what you like and not what is best for you. Abstinance is nearly a dirty word, but you won't get HIV or AIDS from it.

MrPudding · 22-06-2013 12:05PM

I will try to keep this uncharacteristically brief.

lmaopml wrote: »

With respect, I haven't really got a chance to say a whole lot at all - perhaps that's because I don't go around beating a 'Gay's are bad' drum, but merely stumbled over this thread much to my 'bigot'hood' - and don't fit into that stereotype, ( I hate generalisations!!) but I do emphatically think it's bizarre to be called out as a bigot for merely participating at all - I'm a brand new poster, I'm Catholic, I have Catholic 'Gay' relatives, so please a little less of the 'hate' talk and a little more just 'talk' would perhaps help.

I will say once more. You are not being called a bigot for taking part in the conversation, or merely participating.

lmaopml wrote: »

Ok, I think I see where you are coming from - but I think I had this chat with you before a long time ago - to 'hate' people who are Catholic is to hate not only the 'Catholic Church' but more importantly 'people' who are Catholic and also citizens who in any democracy right or wrong or in between or who are anything from socialists to communists etc. etc. etc. are all the same, that's like me saying I 'hate' all atheists which I do not! - we're 'people' not 'sheeple'! You may disagree with us, but don't patronise or stereotype us - we're people, not 'baddies', we're the next door neighbour, and pigeon holes are not our native home.

Hate? What are you talking about? I have not mentioned hate, nor is it relevant to the point. The point I am making is one can't make laws based on religious beliefs as they may not be acceptable to persons that don't share that belief. I can understand why you might not accept this point, but I can't understand how you repeatedly miss it. Perhaps an extreme example might illustrate what I mean. Imagine in a few years a new extremist type of religion becomes popular with politicians. As a result of one of the tenets of that belief they decide to enact legislation that means that, when outside the house or in the presence of males how are not family, women must be completely covered from head to toe and there must be no flesh visible, further, girls must leave school at 12 years of age and women are not allowed to work.

Now, these politicians sincerely and completely believe their religion. They also sincerely and completely beleive that these new laws are 100% justifable on the grounds of their beliefs. Now, imagine the population of the country is more or less as it is now, with respect to religion. Do you think it would be acceptable for these politicians to enact legislation with the effects above tat would effect all women, irrespective of what religion they followed?

Now, please don't give me the whole "that will never happen, therefore i am not going to answer" line. It is a thought experiment. It is supposed to be extreme, and its purpose is to make a point. Think about it and then give me an honest answer.

lmaopml wrote: »

Being entirely honest, I can't find a valid argument that doesn't say that the state should not protect same sex couples with the same rights that any married couple has simply because they 'love' eachother and that is important.

I don't understand what you are saying here. The double and triple negatives make the sentence, to me, meaningless.

lmaopml wrote: »

Sadly I think proposing that it is 'not so important', does 'reduce' it's importance. If it's merely a legal contract that the state makes legal than it's not exactly as 'important' as regards children, but more important as regards parents. I personally believe that Marriage is different once children are part of the family - it revolves around them first, not me. That's why I believe that the state should reflect that ideal of marriage as important, and not merely as a contract between would be lovers.

Where have I said it is not so important?

My whole point is marriage is really important.

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, I know they are, it's common sense afterall.

NO!!! Common sense has nothing to do with it. On this particular occasion common sense and evidence happen to agree but that is not always the case, you next point for example.

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm sorry Mr. Pudding, but I have two little boys and 'four' adult brothers, and to be honest, I think the statement that 'fathers' are not really necessary is actually only contributing to the idea that fathers are merely sperm doners and that 'any' male role model can replace a 'father' and to my mind this is actually a terrible thing to think or promote.

See, there you go with you common sense again. I am a father of four. I most certainly don't see myself as a sperm donor. I genuinely believe that two women can raise a child as effectively as a man and a women but that does nothing to diminish my particular role as a father in my particular family.

Read this, I have to thank Oldernwiser for this:

[quote= M Lamb, The Role of the Father in Child Development. (Wiley, 2004.) p 10]

First, fathers and mothers influence their children in similar rather than dissimilar ways. Contrary to the expectations of many developmental psychologists, the differences between mother and fathers appear to be much less important than the similarities… Stated differently, students of socialization have consistently found that parental warmth, nurturance and closeness are associated with positive child outcomes regardless of whether the parent involved is a mother or father… Secondly, as research has unfolded, psychologists have been forced to conclude that the characteristics of individual fathers - such as their masculinity, intellect, and even their warmth - are much less important, formatively speaking, than are the characteristics of the relationships they have established with their children. [/quote]

See, this is where common sense and anecdotal evidence let you down. You might genuinely believe you are correct, but you aren't. You common sense is wrong.

lmaopml wrote: »

I am female, I am fearful for my children that one day they believe that a father is not necessary and therefore they are not necessary and the law is biased anyway so therefore the 'actual' fathers role, that is a biological father is not important - the same goes for a 'biological' mother. How can one say they are not important? If merely a 'role' model is important than the parent becomes defunct - not one but both. If that's the case every family loses - I'm not state down but I place my values from the 'family' up -

I am not sure why one would fear this. I would prefer my children new what was right, rather than believed something incorrect for that sake that some people think that is the way it should be. We can say that, in general a father or a mother is not important, in respect of rearing a child because that is what the evidence shows. This does not mean that we need to immediately abandon the family. This is not an attempt to force people not to have fathers or mothers, it is simply a response to those that say a child needs a father and mother, therefore no same-sex marriage.

lmaopml wrote: »

I know, I felt the same way, I felt like saying 'bigot' - but I thought better of it - because I don't believe it's the case, I just think it's a lack of acknowledgement as you say - everybody has a right to shape society and the future, not with hatred I hope for other people, but with compromise and sacrifice.

But it isn't the same. We have provided you with evidence, which you ignore. You have provided us with, "it is my religion."

MrP

Yeah - that seems to be the way my input has gone, and I'm only new to the thread..lol...certainly haven't read it from beginning to end, or am invested in banging on about the 'ills of the Gay Community' etc. etc. so on....However, you can if you like accept that I don't spend every single moment on boards, and I am mostly up to my knickers in real life - I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to post a reply to all the people invested in this thread, but I do realise that some are posting from the heart - and I am not going to deny or diminish that. Please don't diminish me, I'm absolutely not your enemy and not a 'hater' - I'm just a person.[/QUOTE]

Benny_Cake · 22-06-2013 12:06PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Totally agree.

Aids doesn't have that same emotional impact it used to. Certainly when I was growing up Aids was something that terrified us all - probably in part to that ad campaign that ran on UK tv in the 80's

Today its all a bit "meh" but then STD's in general don't seem to be taken all that seriously.

The main difference, imho, between the straight and gay community is the issue of pregnancy. That scares women more than an std hence they probably take more precautions.

I remember those ads well, I was only about 6 or so and didn't have a notion what AIDS was but they scared the hell out of me. I can also remember the frequent news reports, largely out of San Francisco, which featured gaunt looking men. It's a truly horrendous disease.

twg73 wrote: »

Wow.. I am feeling my age then. I suppose people are not aware of the drugs you have to take for the rest of your life if you do get HIV.

Also many suffer some of the side effects of the drugs:- -feel very weak or tired - have unusual (not normal) muscle pain - have trouble breathing - have stomach pain with nausea and vomiting - feel cold, especially in your arms and legs - feel dizzy or lightheaded - have a fast or irregular heartbeat

Your quality of life is not the same once you get HIV. And you always carry the risk of getting AIDs.

True. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But the drugs - side effects and all - are a lot better than the alternative. I wouldn't say that people consciously decide to take the risk, it's more the fact that HIV has largely become a chronic condition that is largely hidden now. So it simply isn't at the forefront of peoples minds anymore. It should be though.

aloyisious · 22-06-2013 12:28PM

twg73 wrote: »

Wow.. I am feeling my age then. I suppose people are not aware of the drugs you have to take for the rest of your life if you do get HIV.

Also many suffer some of the side effects of the drugs:- -feel very weak or tired - have unusual (not normal) muscle pain - have trouble breathing - have stomach pain with nausea and vomiting - feel cold, especially in your arms and legs - feel dizzy or lightheaded - have a fast or irregular heartbeat

Your quality of life is not the same once you get HIV. And you always carry the risk of getting AIDs.

I suppose in today's world its all about doing what you like and not what is best for you. Abstinance is nearly a dirty word, but you won't get HIV or AIDS from it.

it's in human nature to have a poke before "should I have a poke?" , the old hoary "thinking with the penis instead of the brain" It's also a fact that the female partner of MSM might not be aware of their partner's outside activities and get blindsided as a result, as that's what's happened to the wife of one of the original AIDS victims in the early days of the US AIDS epidemic.

twg73 · 22-06-2013 03:46PM

aloyisious wrote: »

it's in human nature to have a poke before "should I have a poke?" , the old hoary "thinking with the penis instead of the brain" It's also a fact that the female partner of MSM might not be aware of their partner's outside activities and get blindsided as a result, as that's what's happened to the wife of one of the original AIDS victims in the early days of the US AIDS epidemic.

One thing is getting HIV from sex, both partners know the risks. Horrific that a 3rd innocent party got AIDs. But I suppose even in straight relationships there are people who cheat and pass STD's to partners. However in Ireland HIV is not spreading among straight couples as fast as among gay men.

Bannasidhe · 22-06-2013 03:57PM

twg73 wrote: »

One thing is getting HIV from sex, both partners know the risks. Horrific that a 3rd innocent party got AIDs. But I suppose even in straight relationships there are people who cheat and pass STD's to partners. However in Ireland HIV is not spreading among straight couples as fast as among gay men.

I am a bit confused by what point you are actually making to be honest.

What does an increase in the number of people who have contracted HIV have to do with Gay people being entitled to equal rights under the law?

Do I need to point out that statistically lesbians are among the lowest risk - along with nuns?

STI rates in Ireland increased by 12% in 2012 from the previous year. The highest increase was in Gonorrhoea cases up 33.4% - the majority of those being men. Chlamydia remained the most common STI accounting for 48.3 per cent of cases last year. Almost 60 per cent of people with STIs were aged between 20 and 29.

This demonstrates a lack of sexual health education and unacceptable level of risk taking across the board - not just among gay men.

twg73 · 22-06-2013 04:33PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am a bit confused by what point you are actually making to be honest.

What does an increase in the number of people who have contracted HIV have to do with Gay people being entitled to equal rights under the law?

Do I need to point out that statistically lesbians are among the lowest risk - along with nuns?

STI rates in Ireland increased by 12% in 2012 from the previous year. The highest increase was in Gonorrhoea cases up 33.4% - the majority of those being men. Chlamydia remained the most common STI accounting for 48.3 per cent of cases last year. Almost 60 per cent of people with STIs were aged between 20 and 29.

This demonstrates a lack of sexual health education and unacceptable level of risk taking across the board - not just among gay men.

1. My original post above was in response to 20 years since the laws on Homosexuality were changed.

2. Regarding Equal rights, I presume you mean marriage. Well the Constitution needs to be changed. Which means a referendum. I think the case for equal rights is strong (in regards to Taxation, property, etc..) However when it comes to adoption of a child to a couple where both are the same SEX and neither are the biological parent, then it becomes tricky. There we as a society are choosing to deny the child the right to have a Father or a Mother figure in their lives. That said I do think if a Lesbian couple have a child that the non biological partner should adopt, If the child has known nobody else. But when you look at Gay men there is a whole host of spectrums. Many conservative Irish simply don't understand the Gay community, esp when the march half naked wearing leather in parades. If you ask them to vote on equal rights for gay couples on all levels its a hard ask. Coupled with the reality of STD's among Gay men.
Why does the Blood Donation clinics exclude gay men?

Gay male couples and Gay female Couples are very different. Men and Women are different on many levels.

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

Comments