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

Black Menorca

Deleted User wrote: »

Placing 'equally' in sentences does not automatically guarantee that you are describing an equal footing. It's akin to those who post/say FACT at the end of statements believing that it may somehow offer the preceding information some form of protection from scrutiny.

Pavlova.

From my perspective, marriage is available to everyone, equally. There is clearly another view that will probably prevail tomorrow. So be it.

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

MOD NOTE

The poster has been warned to not call other posters troll on thread.

Do not attempt to bait them please.

Thanks for your attention.

No probs. I'll delete the reference.

Black Menorca

Black Menorca wrote: »

From my perspective, marriage is available to everyone, equally. There is clearly another view that will probably prevail tomorrow. So be it.

Could you have made the exact same argument that you are making in the days before the "eligibility criteria" were extended to inter-racial marriages?

Can you see the similarities in the viewpoint you're expressing?

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

These two ideas are at odds with each other.

In your opinion, maybe.

To my eyes it is a reality.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

In your opinion, maybe.

To my eyes it is a reality.

how about now?

Black Menorca

Deleted User wrote: »

Could you have made the exact same argument that you are making in the days before the "eligibility criteria" were extended to inter-racial marriages?

Can you see the similarities in the viewpoint you're expressing?

Continual attempts to pigeon hole me as being in league with racists in the past isn't working.

Black Menorca

Black Menorca wrote: »

Continual attempts to pigeon hole me as being in league with racists in the past isn't working.

Again, I ask you to point out the disconnection between the two analogies. I'm perfectly happy to apologise profusely if you can explain why the comparisons aren't valid.

However, as I've said, I believe they're very comparable. This exact phrase might well have been stated at the time;

Black Menorca wrote: »

..
Every eligible citizen has equal access to marriage as things stand today.

I'm trying to point out a flaw in your argument, as opposed to pigeon holing you with anyone. I believe that you should understand that the argument that you're backing could also have been applied in the case of inter-racial marriage, but now understood to be indefensible. What is different in the case otherwise?

Black Menorca

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, I ask you to point out the disconnection between the two analogies. I'm perfectly happy to apologise profusely if you can explain why the comparisons aren't valid.

However, as I've said, I believe they're very comparable. This exact phrase might well have been stated at the time;


I'm trying to point out a flaw in your argument, as opposed to pigeon holing you with anyone. I believe that you should understand that the argument that you're backing could also have been applied in the case of inter-racial marriage, but now understood to be indefensible. What is different in the case otherwise?

You can keep banging this drum. The floor is yours.

However trying to correlate access to marriage today to racist policies in the Deep South is anathema to me.

Black Menorca

Black Menorca wrote: »

You can keep banging this drum. The floor is yours.

However trying to correlate access to marriage today to racist policies in the Deep South is anathema to me.

This drum is critical, rational and analytical thinking.

Please point out the flaws in the approach, and I'm happy to withdraw any remarks you might have taken offence at.

katydid

Black Menorca wrote: »

Continual attempts to pigeon hole me as being in league with racists in the past isn't working.

No one said you were "in league with racists in the past". We said your stance is equivalent to the one used by racists in the past. Different thing

Black Menorca

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

In other words, you'd rather not face up to a few harsh truths.

I refuse to be pigeon holed as the big nasty homophobe.

Black Menorca

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're the one adding the words 'big nasty' in there.

What people are saying is your views on same sex marriage are directly comparable to views in the past on interracial marriage.

You could deny both are wrong, or claim both are wrong, but you cannot logically say one is wrong while standing by the other.

Says who? You?

I have to laugh when some people make these grand statements from on high, condemning those who disagree with them as being homophobic.

I'm not accepting it.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

Says who? You?

I have to laugh when some people make these grand statements from on high, condemning those who disagree with them as being homophobic.

I'm not accepting it.

then offer up an explanation as to why one is okay with you and the other isn't.

aloyisious

Black Menorca wrote: »

I have no intention of marrying now or in the future. I have no idea how it will change, if at all.

So, as you have no idea how it will change, if at all, why did you vote NO against the proposed addition to the constitution?

pmasterson95

I believe that they have been vocal in saying the ref has nothing to do with children which is factually true I'll admit.


However they are now trying to link racism into the debate/referendum. I'm 99% sure the referendum isnt concerning just black people getting SSM. But of course its the yes side they can add irrelevant points to try and guilt people.

Paddez

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I believe that they have been vocal in saying the ref has nothing to do with children which is factually true I'll admit.


However they are now trying to link racism into the debate/referendum. I'm 99% sure the referendum isnt concerning just black people getting SSM. But of course its the yes side they can add irrelevant points to try and guilt people.

This is so far off point, it's a little depressing.

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

then offer up an explanation as to why one is okay with you and the other isn't.

Very simply, I support marriage between single men and women who wish to avail of it, being available to all. No matter their race, religion, hair colour or whatever you're having yourself.

that does not make me a homophobe and I will continue to refuse such a label being pinned on me.

Black Menorca

aloyisious wrote: »

So, as you have no idea how it will change, if at all, why did you vote NO against the proposed addition to the constitution?

You're the first person to ask me why I'm voting no, instead of trying to pin me down as a homophobe.

In a nutshell, I see this addition to the Constitution as opening up a Pandora's box whereby denying future children knowledge of their genetic identity.

Within weeks a married Gay couple could apply through the High Court for their rights to pro-create, normalising surrogacy and the nation powerless to prevent it.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

Very simply, I support marriage between single men and women who wish to avail of it, being available to all. No matter their race, religion, hair colour or whatever you're having yourself.

that does not make me a homophobe and I will continue to refuse such a label being pinned on me.

Doesn't answer the question.

Why is race not an issue, but sexuality is when it comes to marriage?

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

Doesn't answer the question.

Why is race not an issue, but sexuality is when it comes to marriage?

Gender is the issue, not sexuality.

Michael OBrien

Black Menorca wrote: »

You're the first person to ask me why I'm voting no, instead of trying to pin me down as a homophobe.

In a nutshell, I see this addition to the Constitution as opening up a Pandora's box whereby denying future children knowledge of their genetic identity.

Within weeks a married Gay couple could apply through the High Court for their rights to pro-create, normalising surrogacy and the nation powerless to prevent it.

Whats the difference, in regard to surrogacy, between a gay couple and a hetro couple where one is infertile?

Michael OBrien

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I believe that they have been vocal in saying the ref has nothing to do with children which is factually true I'll admit.


However they are now trying to link racism into the debate/referendum. I'm 99% sure the referendum isnt concerning just black people getting SSM. But of course its the yes side they can add irrelevant points to try and guilt people.

The issue is not racism, its the link between the logic used in the arguments in both cases. Appeals to tradition were used in both cases. How is this hard to grasp?

Black Menorca

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Whats the difference, in regard to surrogacy, between a gay couple and a hetro couple where one is infertile?

The State will no longer be able to give preference to a family model based on father, mother and children.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

Gender is the issue, not sexuality.

still not an answer.

would you care to answer the question?

why is race not a problem but gender/sexuality is?

Michael OBrien

Black Menorca wrote: »

The State will no longer be able to give preference to a family model based on father, mother and children.

So what? People go on about the biological parents, etc. but why is there anything good particularly about the family model you propose. Its already redundant and many homes don't adhere to it. This is not 1950.
What abilities to raise a child are ONLY available to a mixed gender relationship? cooking dinner? helping with homework? taking them to external activities? What?
What I see is a lot of shadowboxing going on here. Making contentless statements about a mother and a father, playing a shell game between conceiving a child and RAISING a child. The latter one is what is important to society and to the child. That is what will be protected. How a child is conceived is largely irrelevant as long as they are loved and cared for.

I see this as just a thinly veiled appeal to tradition. In other words, this was how people viewed a family sometime in the past, according to you, now that is being challenged and you don't like it.

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

still not an answer.

would you care to answer the question?

why is race not a problem but gender/sexuality is?

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. Always has been since the formation of the state and a lonnnnng time before that.

I can't marry a married woman, I can't marry another man.

I can marry a single woman of a different race.

I am supporting the status quo.

Black Menorca

Michael OBrien wrote: »

So what? People go on about the biological parents, etc. but why is there anything good particularly about the family model you propose. Its already redundant and many homes don't adhere to it. This is not 1950.
What abilities to raise a child are ONLY available to a mixed gender relationship? cooking dinner? helping with homework? taking them to external activities? What?
What I see is a lot of shadowboxing going on here. Making contentless statements about a mother and a father, playing a shell game between conceiving a child and RAISING a child. The latter one is what is important to society and to the child. That is what will be protected. How a child is conceived is largely irrelevant as long as they are loved and cared for.

Say that to adoptees who long to know who their biological parents are.

Black Menorca

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

But people couldn't, at a point in the past, for reasons almost identical to those being put out against gay marriage now.

Just how are they identical? You've yet to convince me.

Black Menorca

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Straight couples adopt children too.

Too? AFAIK the only couple who adopt are straight. Though I am open to correction on that.

joseph brand

Black Menorca wrote: »

You're the first person to ask me why I'm voting no, instead of trying to pin me down as a homophobe.

In a nutshell, I see this addition to the Constitution as opening up a Pandora's box whereby denying future children knowledge of their genetic identity.

Within weeks a married Gay couple could apply through the High Court for their rights to pro-create, normalising surrogacy and the nation powerless to prevent it.

Is this like the 'slippery slope' argument?

A staunch No voter recently told me that the 'slippery slope' would lead to marriage between:

• Children and parents
• Siblings
• Humans and animals

It's slightly depressing when someone comes out with such drivel in a debate. I didn't think the 'Adam and Steve' zinger could be beaten. How wrong I was.