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

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

I imagine he is talking about Toronto's anti-bullying syllabus "Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism" which is confusing children into be gay, apparently.

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/wwwdocuments/programs/Equity_in_Education/docs/Challenging%20Homophobia%20and%20Heterosexism%20Final%202011.pdf

Oh piss off with the sarcasm and stop being a tit. Its beneath you.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

However, I see a real issue with society supporting the idea that children do not need a mother and father. In a mother and a father, the spectrum of human emotion is covered in one complimentary package.

Could you give a clear example of a gender-specific or gender-determined role in the spectrum of "human emotion"? What are you thinking here? That Mums are more sympathetic, that Dads are less of a soft touch? That kind of thing?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Oh piss off with the sarcasm and stop being a tit. Its beneath you.

er ...

JimiTime wrote: »

causing confusion and trying to brainwash them by removing any natural instincts they may have in relation to gender and sexuality.

Its not my fault your position sounds stupid when said out loud ....

Sonics2k

JimiTime wrote: »

Of the simple rebranding of civil unions under the heading of 'marriage'. I don't know if there are any, which is why I asked my fellow Christians about it.

However, I see a real issue with society supporting the idea that children do not need a mother and father. In a mother and a father, the spectrum of human emotion is covered in one complimentary package. I also see the idea's pushed by GLSEN as a real cause for concern in terms of child development, causing confusion and trying to brainwash them by removing any natural instincts they may have in relation to gender and sexuality. What the eventual consequences will be? We don't fully know, its a social experiment I for one am not willing to simply sit and watch, especially for such a small group of people playing politics. It most certainly is NOT, in the words of Eamon Gilmore, 'The Human rights issue of our time'. It is a political game.

I like how you're directly implying that I, (and children raised by single parents) and others raised by LGBT couples have been brainwashed into not understanding my own gender and sexuality.

Here are the consequences of Gay marriage:
1) Gay people get married.

Wiggles88

JimiTime wrote: »

Of the simple rebranding of civil unions under the heading of 'marriage'. I don't know if there are any, which is why I asked my fellow Christians about it.

However, I see a real issue with society supporting the idea that children do not need a mother and father. In a mother and a father, the spectrum of human emotion is covered in one complimentary package. I also see the idea's pushed by GLSEN as a real cause for concern in terms of child development, causing confusion and trying to brainwash them by removing any natural instincts they may have in relation to gender and sexuality. What the eventual consequences will be? We don't fully know, its a social experiment I for one am not willing to simply sit and watch, especially for such a small group of people playing politics. It most certainly is NOT, in the words of Eamon Gilmore, 'The Human rights issue of our time'. It is a political game.

As for the mother/father roles how do you feel about single parents? Surly they are equally lacking in either a mother or father role, yet there isnt a movement out there trying to ban single parent families.

Also the current scientific consensus regarding different family structures is that homosexual couples perform as good as heterosexual parents (a meta analysis of the research was kindly posted by oldrnwisr in an earlier thread and can be found here)

Regarding the GLSEN, I must say I am not overly knowledgeable on their views as this is the first I have heard of them, however from what I can see (from a quick google) their goal is to simply end school bullying of homosexuals. If you could be so kind to link me to a source of their brainwashing views it would be most appreciated as I'm having trouble finding them.

Corkfeen

JimiTime wrote: »

Of the simple rebranding of civil unions under the heading of 'marriage'. I don't know if there are any, which is why I asked my fellow Christians about it.

However, I see a real issue with society supporting the idea that children do not need a mother and father. In a mother and a father, the spectrum of human emotion is covered in one complimentary package. I also see the idea's pushed by GLSEN as a real cause for concern in terms of child development, causing confusion and trying to brainwash them by removing any natural instincts they may have in relation to gender and sexuality. What the eventual consequences will be? We don't fully know, its a social experiment I for one am not willing to simply sit and watch, especially for such a small group of people playing politics. It most certainly is NOT, in the words of Eamon Gilmore, 'The Human rights issue of our time'. It is a political game.

GLSEN an anti bullying campaign etc is apparently a part of a dangerous social experiment. Do you think it would be better if teenagers are bullied to the point where they'll never considering leaving the closet because they don't feel safe? It would prevent the sodomy that you rave about... But it would also be inhumane and far more dangerous to society than simply teaching people to be comfortable with their sexuality.

And in regards to same sex parents, there have been numerous studies that show that there is no difference in parenting and these studies have been posted numerous times here. But posters seem to prefer to ignore the legitimacy of them and choose to post the studies of quacks that aren't in any way peer reviewed.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

I also see the idea's pushed by GLSEN as a real cause for concern in terms of child development, causing confusion and trying to brainwash them by removing any natural instincts they may have in relation to gender and sexuality.

What Sonic said.

Plus, don't you recognise that this is what the church has been doing to homosexuals?

JimiTime

Sonics2k wrote: »

I like how you're directly implying that I, (and children raised by single parents) and others raised by LGBT couples have been brainwashed into not understanding my own gender and sexuality.

Thats not implied at all. Your mother may have had no interest in getting into the politics of LGBT. GLSEN want to push childrens thoughts into a certain direction.

Here are the consequences of Gay marriage:
1) Gay people get married.

And if the buck stops there, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure what the issue is. Its why I asked my fellow contributors what am I overlooking in terms of battling over the terminology. Maybe I AM missing something, but at present, I don't see the issue with the term itself.

Sonics2k

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats not implied at all. Your mother may have had no interest in getting into the politics of LGBT. GLSEN want to push childrens thoughts into a certain direction.

I've yet to see any evidence to show this. I've been looking around, and like the other posters here, all I've seen is a group who are looking to stop bullying in High Schools.
Are you against this?

JimiTime wrote: »

And if the buck stops there, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure what the issue is. Its why I asked my fellow contributors what am I overlooking in terms of battling over the terminology. Maybe I AM missing something, but at present, I don't see the issue with the term itself.

The main argument seems to come down to the use of the word Marriage. Religious folks tend to subconsciously tie it in with with religious matters, despite it's more legal meaning too.

Phil has given his explanation, and as I've tried to show, the word 'Marry' or 'Marriage' is not firmly set in a religious or Christian basis, it has legal, political and social meanings too.

Many are 'afraid' the word is being re-defined, and I suppose to some it is. But all we really mean when we say the word 'marriage' when referring to many straight and gay couples is the legal or social meaning.

For example, I know a couple who got married a few years ago at a civil reception. There was nothing religious about it at all, as both of them are Atheists. But on the invitation it said "We invite you to our wedding" and he did ask her to marry him.

Apologies for the ramble. But the point really comes down to this. Marriage is not always a religious matter, and those who are religious and oppose gay marriage need to realize this. It's not as if straight people will suddenly be forced to marry a gay person.

JimiTime

Wiggles88 wrote: »

As for the mother/father roles how do you feel about single parents?

Phil answered this earlier. It is regrettable to see, due to whatever circumstances , a child not have a mother and father. My nephews dad died when he was just 2 weeks old. My sister done what any good mother would do and raised him as best she could. Just like many single parents do. Does this mean we say that this was on a par with him being raised by his mother AND father? Certainly not. Single parent families cannot really be helped. Death, breakup, fornication etc all occur.

Surly they are equally lacking in either a mother or father role, yet there isnt a movement out there trying to ban single parent families.

They are of course equally lacking, but they haven't been state sponsored. I would equally oppose single people being allowed to adopt children when there are nuclear families available.

Regarding the GLSEN, I must say I am not overly knowledgeable on their views as this is the first I have heard of them, however from what I can see (from a quick google) their goal is to simply end school bullying of homosexuals. If you could be so kind to link me to a source of their brainwashing views it would be most appreciated as I'm having trouble finding them.

Nothing comes under the banner of 'We want to indoctrinate your kids with idea abc'. All such things come under banners of 'rights', 'anti-bully' etc. So when someone pipes up and says, 'But what about this....', its easy to say, 'So you are FOR bullying' etc. Its all just political games. The devil is in the detail as they say.

If you are interested in the issues I refer to, I direct you to the rather well researched book with all its references noted at the back, linked below

http://www.amazon.com/Queer-Thing-Happened-America-Strange/dp/0615406092

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

Plus, don't you recognise that this is what the church has been doing to homosexuals?

Church is somewhere you choose to go to, in which the topic of homosexuality, or sexuality in general virtually never comes up. Maybe now, as its the topic of the moment it does a bit, but I've never come across it.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

Church is somewhere you choose to go to, in which the topic of homosexuality, or sexuality in general virtually never comes up. Maybe now, as its the topic of the moment it does a bit, but I've never come across it.

Hence my use of a definite article, to refer to the institution of religion. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

A second go:
Do you recognise that this (suppression of natural instinct re: gender and sexuality) is what The Church have been trying to do with homosexuals?

Also, I asked a question earlier and I'm genuinely interested in your answer. Could you give a clear example of a gender-specific or gender-determined role in the spectrum of "human emotion"?

Wiggles88

JimiTime wrote: »

They are of course equally lacking, but they haven't been state sponsored. I would equally oppose single people being allowed to adopt children when there are nuclear families available.

You say they are "lacking" however the research I linked shows otherwise, do you have any backing to the statement that "gay parents are lacking" ? Also are there specifics as to what they are lacking, and again are there studies etc. which prove these clams?

JimiTime wrote: »

Nothing comes under the banner of 'We want to indoctrinate your kids with idea abc'. All such things come under banners of 'rights', 'anti-bully' etc. So when someone pipes up and says, 'But what about this....', its easy to say, 'So you are FOR bullying' etc. Its all just political games. The devil is in the detail as they say.

Any chance of some specifics that you have issue with?

JimiTime wrote: »

If you are interested in the issues I refer to, I direct you to the rather well researched book with all its references noted at the back, linked below

http://www.amazon.com/Queer-Thing-Happened-America-Strange/dp/0615406092

Thank you for the link, I shall have a read through what I can find on it and get back to the thread.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

They are of course equally lacking, but they haven't been state sponsored. I would equally oppose single people being allowed to adopt children when there are nuclear families available.

So there are two couples applying for adoption:

• First couple. One has an excellent job, the other is a dedicated homemaker. They have a stable homelife, good access to education etc. Basically everything that adoption agencies look for in parents. Except for one thing. They're homosexual.
• Second couple is a heterosexual or "nuclear" couple. They both work long hours in menial jobs for poor money, have very little time at home, and can't afford good childcare. They don't have a good plan for raising the child, they just think they want one.

Who should the adoption agency rank as as better option for the child?

Bannasidhe

28064212 wrote: »

So there are two couples applying for adoption:

• First couple. One has an excellent job, the other is a dedicated homemaker. They have a stable homelife, good access to education etc. Basically everything that adoption agencies look for in parents. Except for one thing. They're homosexual.
• Second couple is a heterosexual or "nuclear" couple. They both work long hours in menial jobs for poor money, have very little time at home, and can't afford good childcare. They don't have a good plan for raising the child, they just think they want one.

Who should the adoption agency rank as as better option for the child?

Or here are two actual cases of people I know.

A :
In a stable long-term relationship (over 20 years) but unmarried. Has two biological daughters. Owns own home (large very des-res in quiet tree-lined neighbourhood, large secure garden) outright. Lives close to parks, walking distance to excellent school. One has substantial trust fund so is able to be a full time parent with no prospect of facing financial difficulties due to not working outside the home. Qualified teacher, PhD in Early Childhood studies. Partner is an MD. Both are fluent in 7 languages.



B: Married couple (do not live in Ireland so do not assume they are male/female). 2 biological daughters. One is not employed but is prone to going on lengthy (average 3 months at a time) spiritual retreats to 'find themselves'. Does not cook, clean, iron etc ever - has domestic staff. Partner works in a different country so lives there Mon-Fri. On Sat spends day in home office working. Financially secure but working partner is a workaholic averaging 70-80 hour week. Large house with pool - but several km from schools, parks, shops - no public transport. Both are also fluent in several languages.


Now - I wonder which would be the best environment for a child?

NuMarvel

JimiTime wrote: »

Phil answered this earlier. It is regrettable to see, due to whatever circumstances , a child not have a mother and father. My nephews dad died when he was just 2 weeks old. My sister done what any good mother would do and raised him as best she could. Just like many single parents do. Does this mean we say that this was on a par with him being raised by his mother AND father? Certainly not. Single parent families cannot really be helped. Death, breakup, fornication etc all occur.

You believe your nephew's situation isn't on a par with being raised by both parents, but do you believe he is less than he could be because he was only raised by one parent? Do you think he would have been a better person if he was raised by both parents? If so, in what areas do you feel he is lacking?

I don't mean to get too personal, but because you raised it, I do need to question it.

JimiTime wrote: »

They [single parent families] are of course equally lacking, but they haven't been state sponsored.

According to the Citizens Information website and the Revenue website, those families receive tax credits and allowances directly from the State:

• One Parent Family Tax Credit
• One-Parent Family Payment

So those families are very much State sponsored. Have you written to your TD asking for these payments and credits to be done away with in the next budget?

philologos

For the record - I had little or no issue with the Civil Partnership Bill even though as a Christian I believe that marriage us the right context for sexual expression.

What I disagree with is the redefinition of marriage and family. There is also quite a bit of research to show that marriage provides a better context for children to grow up in than other relationship structures.

I'll link to some papers when I'm off the train.

People keep saying shut up but the reality is that in a free and even secular society all views should be considered on merit alone and thrashed out.

If I believe that leaving marriage alone is best for society, I'll make that clear. Just as you will your position.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

For the record - I had little or no issue with the Civil Partnership Bill even though as a Christian I believe that marriage us the right context for sexual expression.

What I disagree with is the redefinition of marriage and family. There is also quite a bit of research to show that marriage provides a better context for children to grow up in than other relationship structures.

I'll link to some papers when I'm off the train.

People keep saying shut up but the reality is that in a free and even secular society all views should be considered on merit alone and thrashed out.

Well while I agree some people do keep saying shut up, others are saying your position is demonstrably false and illogical, before saying you know "so shut up" :pac:

philologos wrote: »

For the record - I had little or no issue with the Civil Partnership Bill even though as a Christian I believe that marriage us the right context for sexual expression.
...
If I believe that leaving marriage alone is best for society, I'll make that clear. Just as you will your position.

You can't believe that because civil partnership is marriage in all but name, and thus would have the same physical effects on society. Its like saying the best thing to do with the fact that night working causes harmful effects on the human body is to simply not call it "night working" any more.

Frankly given how ridiculous some of the arguments you have presented so far for your objection to gay marriage I'm not sure you actually know why you are opposed to it, since I find it almost impossible to believe you actually believe any of this crap. It seems like searching for a reason to be opposed to something.

Enkidu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have been thinking about this and tbh I think this notion of the 'traditional' family is little more then an idealised concept (like having sunshine everyday in summer) which does not take into account reality and ever changing social dynamics.
...Rest of post.

Wow! That was a great read Bannasidhe!:)

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

Really? Have people advocated silencing the right to express an opinion?

Read the first page of the thread, particularly the disturbing views expressed by dlofnep. In post 7 he argues that religious leaders should not have the right to express their opinions against gay marriage.

PDN

Helix wrote: »

they're perfectly free to their opinion

they're not perfectly free to dictate whether or not gay people can marry outside of their church

Scare-mongering - pure and simple.

I have asked for examples of where anyone is dictating what others can or cannot do. All that have been cited are instances of religious leaders airing their opinion.

The only people with the power to dictate in such matters are governments.

So, once more, can someone please show me how any religious leader is dictating who is allowed to participate in civil weddings?

Nodin

JimiTime wrote: »

This is a societal issue not a religious one, that effects the future for us all. Be you religious, or be you not, you can have a view on this one way or the other.

It primarily affects the future of gay people. Enforcing a ban on a minority is unjustifiable.

Nodin

PDN wrote: »

Read the first page of the thread, particularly the disturbing views expressed by dlofnep. In post 7 he argues that religious leaders should not have the right to express their opinions against gay marriage.

Not quite what hes saying.

No, it absolutely isn't. Because as I've already pointed out, marriage is not
solely a religious institution. Now the Church can oppose holding same-sex
ceremonies (as archaic as such a view is), but they have absolutely no right to try and influence legislation of a civil affair.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79960121&postcount=7

PDN

Nodin wrote: »

Not quite what hes saying.

It is exactly what he is saying.

I had posted:
"It would be hypocrisy of the highest order to suggest that Barack Obama or film stars have the right to use their celebrity and influence to declare their support for gay marriage, but that bishops or businessmen should not have the right to express their opposition to gay marriage."

dlofnep replied:
"No, it absolutely isn't. Because as I've already pointed out, marriage is not solely a religious institution. Now the Church can oppose holding same-sex ceremonies (as archaic as such a view is), but they have absolutely no right to try and influence legislation of a civil affair. "

There is no amibiguity there.

I was arguing that both the proponents of gay marriage, and its opponents, have the right to voice their opinions and therefore to influence future legislation. That is because I am a secularist and I believe in equal rights of free speech for religious and non-religious alike.

dlofnep clearly stated that he does not believe in that equality of free speech.

Nodin, I appreciate you want to act as an apologist for your fellow travellers, but in this case you are defending a poster who is advocating intolerant restrictions of free speech against those with whom he disagrees.

Furthermore: the following posters thanked that post, demonstrating the hypocrisy of those who profess tolerance while, at the same time, supporting the view that free speech should be denied to some: 1210m5g, Bannasidhe, Blowfish, brimal, carlmango11, Cienciano, Coeurdepirate, Corkfeen, Cossax, Craven99, Doctor DooM, EMF2010, endacl, e_e, face1990, freyners, Helix, HoggyRS, housetypeb, Ikky Poo2, IT-Guy, john why, kildare.17hmr, Links234, MagicMarker, Millicent, MrStuffins, muff03, Nailz, Napper Hawkins, Neilos, Nervous Wreck, PopePalpatine, readyletsgo, Sonics2k, StanMcConnell, Sugar Free, Table Top Joe, Tea-a-Maria, Tonyandthewhale, Wiggles88

I must admit that up to now I have always thought that those who spoke of Christians' civil rights being infringed in this matter were either alarmists or conspiracy theorists. However, this thread demonstrates that there are a frightening number of people whose hatred of Christianity means they are prepared to advocate, or support, the repression of free speech when it suits them.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

For the record - I had little or no issue with the Civil Partnership Bill even though as a Christian I believe that marriage us the right context for sexual expression.

What I disagree with is the redefinition of marriage and family. There is also quite a bit of research to show that marriage provides a better context for children to grow up in than other relationship structures.

I'll link to some papers when I'm off the train.

People keep saying shut up but the reality is that in a free and even secular society all views should be considered on merit alone and thrashed out.

I am certainly not saying shut up and I do recognise the attraction of the 'ideal' and why some people would prefer that that concept is given a special status. I just don't happen to agree with that point of view.

The issue as I see it is that the ideal is rarely, if ever, the real. Nor is is always as ideal in reality as it is in our minds. To return to the sunny every day in Summer analogy. Were that to actually occur we would have hose pipe bans, farmers and gardeners complaining about lack of rain and withered crops, people wandering around with parts of their bodies exposed to public view that I think most of us would really rather not see, free sun burn for everyone in the country, our beaches and parks left looking like landfill sites, flies everywhere etc etc etc. Not so ideal eh?

And sometimes the nuclear family model is not ideal either. It can be a place of abuse, fear, sorrow and uncertainly. The introduction of divorce has opened the door to freedom for many trapped in awful marriages but that does not mean that every nuclear family is a bed of roses for all within - or maybe it is - looks good from a distance but full of thorns, aphids and blackspot when you look closely.

As a society we have to deal with what is already reality, not hanker after the impossible - and the idea that every single child in Ireland will have a mammy and a daddy and they will all live in some super state of nuclear family bliss is never going to be true and no amount of legislation will make it so. We may as well bring in a law saying it will only rain for 2 hours, during the night in June/July/Aug and the average daily temp. will be 23 degrees Celsius with a light refreshing breeze.

There was a time when homosexuality was illegal in this country - it didn't mean there were no homosexuals. It just meant people lived in fear and uncertainty or left as fast as the boat would take them.

There are children in this country now who are growing up in families headed by same-sex couples. Indeed, as bluewolf and sonic2k can confirm there are adults in this country who grew up in families headed by same-sex couples - some of those adults now have children of their own.

These children are being forced to live in what are legally defined as single parent families - not because they do have have two parents, but because the State has deemed that one of those parents is legally a stranger. Yet, the State does allow non-biological parents to legally adopt their partner's children provided that non-biological parent is married to the children's biological parent.

You believe every child should have two parents. Ok.
You believe that those two parents should be married. Ok.
You believe that those married people should be of opposite genders. Ok.

But the reality, that no legislation is ever going to change, is that not every child has two parents. Do we say that one parent + child(ren) is not a family?

The reality is that some children do have two parents, but the law as it stands does not recognise this - this applies to same-sex couples and unmarried fathers alike.

The reality is that many lesbian and Gay couples want to marry not to cheapen or lessen what marriage means but because they respect it and want to embrace life commitment and fidelity. Can you honestly say that every single heterosexual who married feels the same way?

All campaigners for equality - in particular those couples with children - are asking for is to be allowed to embrace a slight variation on what you hold up as the ideal. They believe children should have two parents and want to legally ensure that is the case.

For you it is a variation too far. I get that. I really do understand that what I call a slight variation is so at odds with what you believe to be the ideal as to be unsupportable.

But - is that enough of a reason to deny the children growing up in families headed by same-sex couples the security of having two legally recognised parents?

Could it not be argued that a stance such as yours - were it to become the official position of the Irish government - would punish children because their parent's 'lifestyle is not 'ideal'?

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

It is exactly what he is saying.

I had posted:
"It would be hypocrisy of the highest order to suggest that Barack Obama or fim stars have the right to use their celebrity and influence to declare their support for gay marriage, but that bishops or businessmen should not have the right to express their opposition to gay marriage."

dlofnep replied:
"No, it absolutely isn't. Because as I've already pointed out, marriage is not solely a religious institution. Now the Church can oppose holding same-sex ceremonies (as archaic as such a view is), but they have absolutely no right to try and influence legislation of a civil affair. "

There is no amibiguity there.

I was arguing that both the proponents of gay marriage, and its opponents, have the right to voice their opinions and therefore to influence future legislation. That is because I am a secularist and I believe in equal rights of free speech for religious and non-religious alike.

dlofnep clearly stated that he does not believe in that equality of free speech.

Nodin, I appreciate you want to act as an apologist for your fellow travellers, but in this case you are defending a poster who is advocating intolerant restrictions of free speech against those with whom he disagrees.

Furthermore: the following posters thanked that post, demonstrating the hypocrisy of those who profess tolerance while, at the same time, supporting the view that free speech should be denied to some: 1210m5g, Bannasidhe, Blowfish, brimal, carlmango11, Cienciano, Coeurdepirate, Corkfeen, Cossax, Craven99, Doctor DooM, EMF2010, endacl, e_e, face1990, freyners, Helix, HoggyRS, housetypeb, Ikky Poo2, IT-Guy, john why, kildare.17hmr, Links234, MagicMarker, Millicent, MrStuffins, muff03, Nailz, Napper Hawkins, Neilos, Nervous Wreck, PopePalpatine, readyletsgo, Sonics2k, StanMcConnell, Sugar Free, Table Top Joe, Tea-a-Maria, Tonyandthewhale, Wiggles88

and here was me thinking we were at the beginning of the end all the blowing and huffing 'you said/I said/blah blah blah three bags full' that derails these threads PDN. Are we now going to descend into 'you thanked this - oh yeah, well you thanked that' tit-for-tat flame war?

genuine .

Wiggles88

JimiTime wrote: »

If you are interested in the issues I refer to, I direct you to the rather well researched book with all its references noted at the back, linked below

http://www.amazon.com/Queer-Thing-Happened-America-Strange/dp/0615406092

I'm sorry but the author Michael Brown has a clear religious agenda and he himself states that his opposition to homosexuality is religious based. He is fully entitled to his religious opinions of course however, and correct me if I'm wrong here, I thought your point was there were non religious reasons to object to homosexual marriage? And as for his "references" he uses such references as youtube comments, protest signs etc. not the most scientific of sources.

Again I can see the religious argument against homosexuality (although I wholeheartedly disagree with it) but this in no way sheds light on any secular reasons as to why homosexual marriage is "bad" in any way.

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and here was me thinking we were at the beginning of the end all the blowing and huffing 'you said/I said/blah blah blah three bags full' that derails these threads PDN. Are we now going to descend into 'you thanked this - oh yeah, well you thanked that' tit-for-tat flame war?

genuine .

I was simply pointing out that a poster advocated the suppression of free speech for one category of people (religious leaders). Other posters were sufficiently enamoured with that prospect to add their thanks to the post.

That is worth remembering when those same posters pretend to take the high moral ground with respect to tolerance.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

dlofnep clearly stated that he does not believe in that equality of free speech.

That isn't his argument. I don't agree with his argument, but as you have put it it is isn't his argument.

dlofnep is saying that churches should not use their power to influence legislation. Their power extends far beyond making public announcements, as has been demonstrated in Ireland over the years when the Catholic Church had massive influence over politics through various manners of manipulate and control.

For example, a favorite tactic of Catholic priests to maintain control on their "flock" is to punish those who act against their teachings by publicly humiliating them through the refusal to grant holy communion.

Now again, let me be clear I don't agree with dlofnep. I think a private organization such as a religious church can act how it likes with regard to its membership and its rules of membership and if people are stupid to be influenced into keeping quite by this then maybe they deserve to be humiliated.

But it is incorrect to frame his objection in terms of free speech as if that is the only outlet the various religious groups have to express objection to those who disagree with them. It significantly down plays the power religious organisations have over their members through the manipulation of their reputation and standing in the wider society.

Nodin

PDN wrote: »

It is exactly what he is saying.

I had posted:
"It would be hypocrisy of the highest order to suggest that Barack Obama or film stars have the right to use their celebrity and influence to declare their support for gay marriage, but that bishops or businessmen should not have the right to express their opposition to gay marriage."

dlofnep replied:
"No, it absolutely isn't. Because as I've already pointed out, marriage is not solely a religious institution. Now the Church can oppose holding same-sex ceremonies (as archaic as such a view is), but they have absolutely no right to try and influence legislation of a civil affair. "

There is no amibiguity there.

I was arguing that both the proponents of gay marriage, and its opponents, have the right to voice their opinions and therefore to influence future legislation. That is because I am a secularist and I believe in equal rights of free speech for religious and non-religious alike.

dlofnep clearly stated that he does not believe in that equality of free speech.

Nodin, I appreciate you want to act as an apologist for your fellow travellers, but in this case you are defending a poster who is advocating intolerant restrictions of free speech against those with whom he disagrees.

...........

To me it appears he objects to the church using its powers as an institution to block same sex marriage, else why bother with "the Church can oppose holding same-sex ceremonies (as archaic as such a view is)".