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

Zombrex wrote: »

Again it goes back to how much power the Church has over its followers. My family has personal experience with this, a Catholic priest told his flock not to associate with a CoI relative of mine because of something he did. This has a significant effect on his personal life and his business. In fairness this was in the 1940s, I think this would not happen these days simply due to the collapse of the Catholic power in this country. But again it would be naive to view the this purely in terms of free speech.

Don't have to go back to the 40s. Anybody here try and buy condoms in the 80s in Ireland?

From 1980 - 1996 my aunt did not have sexual relations with her husband as they had 6 children, lived on a low income and couldn't afford any more children. As devout Catholics my aunt and her husband followed Rome's diktat against contraception to the letter. Child # 6 had been the result of using the Rhythm Method. Auntie used to send her husband a card every year on the anniversary of the last time they 'did it'.
That aunt also publicly and privately shunned me when she learned I was Gay. She refused to acknowledge my existence and would just act as if I wasn't there. She kept this up well into the 21st century. I never mentioned it to my mother as I knew it would cause a family fight, my other aunts did notice and had stern words with her. They refused to accept her explanation that as Rome had spoken out against homosexuality she was obliged to show disapproval.

Since then she has apologised and now we get on great - as we had done before she learned I was Gay. Mother is still annoyed with her...

PDN wrote: »

Who accused you of being intolerant by expressing your views on whether gay marriage should be legal. I certainly didn't.

Just off the top of my head I seem to recall being called intolerant because I thanked a post which I read as saying religious organisations should not be allowed to try and dictate to the State.

Now, I know that is not how you read that post, and we both know how different people interpret the written word in different ways and I am sooo not going to get into a pointless 'you thanked/I thanked/ they meant this/ no. They meant that' tangent. I was responding to my personal interpretation of the statement and I thanked it on that basis.

So, while no one in this forum may have accused me of being intolerant by expressing my views on whether gay marriage should be legal I have most certainly been accused of being intolerant for expressing an objection to religious organisations attempting to manipulate public opinion by issuing dire warnings about the threat to the future on humanity if I 'marry' (:p) my partner.

PDN wrote: »

Look, I'm not going to waste my time if we're going to ignore what posts actually say in plain English and start discussing what they might mean if someone chooses to read them differently.

You mean like what you did with dfolneps post?

PDN wrote: »

dfolnep's words were plain and unambiguous.

dlofnep wrote: »

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.

Yes, they were plain and quite simple. I fail to see the problem.

He says. The Church does not have to like same-sex ceremonies, but they should not try and use their power to influence a Civil affair.

What -exactly- is the problem here? Or are you going to desperately attempt to claim that people don't use their Religious views to slow down and impede changes in Irish Law, like Divorce or even the sodomy laws, and they can be influenced strongly by the likes of the Pope.

You go pick up any newspaper from here in Ireland, pick a random few articles discussing the Gay Marriage movement, and you put down the opposition.
I'm willing to bet they come from religious backgrounds and oppose it on religious grounds.

Zombrex wrote: »

er ...



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

Just be humble enough to accept that you decided to twist what I said to suit your ends of making a sarkie comment, and stop playing to the gallery. My comment in no way made reference to the GLSEN curriculum turning people gay, and even if you misconstrued it as such, at least have the good sense to ask for clarification. All your attitude reveals is a disingenuous and argumentative motivation. One I certainly wont indulge any more. If you really want to discuss the topic though, try not to be motivated by making the seals clap their fins.

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.

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.

thanks for tying me to YOUR view of what was discussed by the poster. I would have interpreted in a different view as I would have agreed that comparing a view of a political leader/celebrity with the supposed representative of the moral authority on earth is ridiculous and that the two scenarios are obviously different

MY reason why: you disagree with obama/clooney, negative consequences are largely nil
you disagree with the pope, who to many people represents the word of god, people will equate that with burning in hell

I also agreed with his point that is laughable to try and suggest that the church is only voicing opinion and not actively using its influence. A good example is using children in their schools to sign a petition. Of course since you are currently side-stepping this I doubt we will reach agreement here.

Also, cheers for saying I hate Christianity. FYI i dont, all my family are practising Catholics. I might disagree with the teachings but that doesnt mean I hate it, despite some people trying to relate disagreement to hatred.

Zombrex wrote: »

Well while risking the wrath of Jimi again, my understanding was the objections of him and Wolfsbane were centred around the role playing children do where they are asked to imagine what it is like to be a member of a different gender, or to imagine themselves as say the quiet boy who plays with dolls etc

Of course the purpose of these is to get children to empathize with the people they would have otherwise bullied and to try and understand through role playing what it is like to be a member of the other sex.

And we can't be having that now can we :P

I'm just back from taking my grandkids camping -girl aged 5 and boy aged 3.
Boy discovered there is a thing called a chainsaw when he saw my OH using one. Boy loved the chainsaw and stood watching OH using it for ages (from a safe distance while holding my hand). It meant nothing to him that a woman was using it - he loved that it was a fabulous machine for cutting wood and therefore deserving of awe. Also cool on his eyes was how people (who also all happened to be female) were splitting wood with one chop of an axe. Every time the block was split in one stroke he shouted 'One Chop hurrah!!'

Last year the girl had equally stood in awe watching OH chainsaw - she's over that now as it's sooooo last year and just complains that OH is not available to play due to chainsawing duty.

Boy eventually trotted off to play with a gang of girls and boys who were attempting to see who could stuff the most straw up their jumpers and who could make the biggest splash in the puddles. Not one of the children gave a flying who was a boy or a girl no more then they cared who was white and who was black or who had blue eyes and who had green.


When we took him home Boy helped his father sort the laundry (No love- that goes on the blue pile not on the red pile...), he got to push the button on the washing machine (very exciting!) and then sat there chatting (about the chainsaw) to his dad while he made dinner.


Oh dear...it would appear myself, my OH and my son are guilty of 'breaking down a childs natural insticts towards gender divide'. Even though the child in question has never displayed any indication of being aware there is a so-called gender-divide.

Zombrex wrote: »

Er, again

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

and from the original thread

TBH, its far from harmless. It is a strategic framework for breaking down a childs natural insticts towards gender divide, family and sexuality. It also makes no apologies for the fact that it cares not a jot for the moral position of parents etc. I have no issue with an anti-homophobe part of a curriculum aimed at an age appropriate class. However, this framework sets out to quash the natural instincts of growing Children, and break up any traditional family values etc. From Kindergarten up.

Some may see it as encouraging inclusivity, but myself and many others see it as distorting gender, sexuality and family to very young children.

Again, where have I said that it will turn people gay?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He implied children's natural instinct is towards hatred and bigotry???? :eek:

What children is he hanging out with - the lovely ones in Lord of the Flies????

Disingenuous claptrap. Idiocy and dishonesty. Again, you are just throwing fish to the seals so that they clap their fins.

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, where have I said that it will turn people gay?

Perhaps it would put an end to people speculating what you mean if you gave some clarification to your statements. From my reading of your posts you made it clear you are against homosexual couples raising children and you are also against GLSEN yet you havent explained why exactly you take this stance. Granted, you said homosexual couples cannot give their child the "full spectrum of human emotion" as heterosexual ones do but to be fair this is a very vague comment and I for one have no idea what it means.

Corkfeen wrote: »

You still haven't shown how the anti-bullying campaign will wreck society. People have claimed the exact same thing about eliminating the segregation of people based on the colour of their skin....Just because you think that you're right this time, proves nothing.

People also claimed the same about overturning the Irish law that criminalised sexual activity between men. And about women being allowed to vote and run for election in parliaments around the world.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the same was said when contraception was legalised in Ireland.

At some stage, it would be nice if all the people claiming society will be ruined/wrecked/destroyed by whatever it is they're objecting to, would learn from history and realise society is a lot more resilient and accepting than they give it credit for.

And to apply that to the wider topic of civil marriage rights, can someone please point to any of the countries introduced such rights and show how their societies have been ruined because of those rights.