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

Links234 wrote: »

either there's marriage equality or there's not! accurately representing what is in law is not "one perspective" it is the truth. :rolleyes:

to hell with this physics rubbish, I don't think that teaching should be baised towards one perspective of science! I say, teach the controversy, kids should be told a wizard did it!

or you know, a teacher willing to lie to kids about the country they live in and the laws that stand to suit their own prejudices, mightn't be too good a teacher?

The other possibility is that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. By definition that excludes many other relationships such as friendship, a brother / sister situation, boyfriend / girlfriend situations, or two 13 year olds going out, or the relationship between a man and his dog. All of which could be well established relationships but all of which don't satisfy the criteria for marriage.

There's no inequality whatsoever as the Iowa court recognised even as they were redefining marriage. All people can marry, there are reasonable limitations as to whom they can be married to. Marriage isn't a union that covers every single type of relationship, but it is the union between a man and a woman.

This is why I say to JimiTime and others who oppose redefining marriage buckle up, we're in for a bumpy ride and this is only the beginning. I want to stand up for the Gospel, that's what I'll do irrespective of its legality

Delirium

SoulandForm wrote: »

Yup.

Either way one group gets penalized.

Philologo's idea that we can have a friendly agree to disagree social neutrality on this is what I disagree with.

But that's due to your less than favourable attitude to same-sex couples. If same-sex couples are allowed marry, there is no penalty on male+female couples, whereas currently same-sex couples cannot marry.

philologos wrote: »

The other possibility is that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. By definition that excludes many other relationships such as friendship, a brother / sister situation, boyfriend / girlfriend situations, or two 13 year olds going out, or the relationship between a man and his dog. All of which could be well established relationships but all of which don't satisfy the criteria for marriage.

Has any of that happened in any other country where marriage equality has happened? And the age of consent in some countries, such as Spain, I understand is 13. I don't think its moral fibre has collapsed, has it?

Why do you get to tell two adults who want to get married what the 'criteria for marriage' is? Because a book told you so? That's not a good reason for denying people the right to marry in a state ceremony in a state building in a state ceremony.

I won't even dignify your comparison of two loving adults in a relationship built on trust, understanding and a desire to share a life together as being like me having a pet I like spending time with. That's an incredibly insensitive statement and shows your lack of understanding of what love is in a very clear light.

28064212

philologos wrote: »

How possibly could the Equality Act 2010 be applied to disagreement with something that is currently not legal (gay marriage)?

That's the claim I'm discussing.

What part of the Equality Act specifically is changed when gay marriage is legalised?

philologos wrote: »

Disagreement isn't bigotry. I can disagree with smoking for example without being bigoted towards smokers.

It's a poor argument.

Whether it's bigotry, stubbornness or courage has nothing to do with it, which is what I said with "regardless, individual teachers do not have the right to enforce personal beliefs over the syllabus"

philologos wrote: »

I disagree naturally. As do you.

I don't believe in postmodernism, I suspect you don't either.

Personal belief does not come into it. Someone who believes that only trees can marry cats does not have the right to withdraw their children from the current system because it doesn't match their beliefs

philologos wrote: »

Having different beliefs doesn't constitute a good reason as to why a good foster parent should be denied the right to foster a child.

This is where the line between discriminating against someone on the basis they are a Christian becomes a reality. I can't tolerate or support that.

Christianity doesn't come into it. There are atheists who believe marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a very specific belief that could dramatically affect the life of a child.

philologos wrote: »

As Aidan O'Neill has said they would be in their right to do so.

They have the "right" to throw churches out right now. They have not done so.

philologos wrote: »

The two concepts are radically different as has already been pointed out to you.

I do not deny gay and black are different. In this specific point, I want you to explain why that exact situation is different, and in what way.

philologos wrote: »

There is a real risk of litigation against those who disagree with same-sex marriage. I'd rather have legal protection rather than waiting to see if people disagree.

Why? Because freedom of conscience and religion is worth defending in society. It's rather simple.

Unless you have a specific concern under a specific law, it's not a concern at all. Churches could be litigated against under current laws. Should we scrap those laws now? It's an utterly nonsensical point.

philologos wrote: »

Actually, as a citizen in a democratic society I have every right to put across my view on whether or not teaching biased material on one perspective of marriage is right.

Well done on violating Godwin's law.

You realise Godwin's law has no bearing on the validity of the argument? Not to mention that Godwin's law is about comparisons to the Nazis and/or Hitler, and I brought up Holocaust deniers, so it isn't even remotely applicable.

I said nothing about your right to put across your views. You do not have the right to dictate the state-mandated syllabus, any more than Holocaust deniers do

philologos wrote: »

The other possibility is that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

IF that is what it is legally defined as, then that's what it is! But it either is, or it isn't. no room for "other perspectives" or some such nonsense

Links234 wrote: »

IF that is what it is legally defined as, then that's what it is! But it either is, or it isn't. no room for "other perspectives" or some such nonsense

And state and civil law always has the possibility of being changed. If an individual or club wants to base her, his or its rules on a 2,000 year old book, they can do so with all the freedom of a democracy. But their club rules should have no baring on laws that affect those outside that club. Anymore than the rules of Portmarnock golf club should impact on employment law.

Will I have the freedom to teach my children that homosexuality is evil?

Will traditional Christians have the freedom to adopt children?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No, it is not 'Either way one group gets penalized'.

It is either one side gets away with penalising the other side by forbidding them to have the exact same civil rights as everyone else.

You have the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit.
No-one is stopping you.

You are being told you cannot force others to conform to your religion - in short, they have the right not to be told what they can and cannot do by you.

Will the Bible be censored to remove "hate speech"?

koth wrote: »

But that's due to your less than favourable attitude to same-sex couples. If same-sex couples are allowed marry, there is no penalty on male+female couples, whereas currently same-sex couples cannot marry.

28064212

SoulandForm wrote: »

Will I have the freedom to teach my children that homosexuality is evil?

Will I have the freedom to teach my children that Christianity are evil?

SoulandForm wrote: »

Will traditional Christians have the freedom to adopt children?

If I espouse a belief that Christianity is evil, will I be allowed adopt?

SoulandForm wrote: »

Will I have the freedom to teach my children that homosexuality is evil?

Will traditional Christians have the freedom to adopt children?

Will I have the freedom to teach my children is doesn't matter whether they are gay or straight, I love them anyway?
Will my children have the freedom to adopt, regardless of their sexual orientation?

Delirium

SoulandForm wrote: »

Will the Bible be censored to remove "hate speech"?

Why would allowing same-sex marriage require censoring the bible? Or any other book for that matter?

SoulandForm wrote: »

Will I have the freedom to teach my children that homosexuality is evil?

Will traditional Christians have the freedom to adopt children?

HI SOULANDFORM ARE YOU CAPABLE OF RESPONDING TO PEOPLE AT ALL?!

Funnily enough, you scream persecution and hold up strawman arguments about what'll happen to poor christians, but nobody has stopped these lovely folks from "disagreeing":

fred_phelps-signs%283%29.jpg

Or for that matter, stopped them teaching their kids wonderful traditional christian values:

28064212 wrote: »

What part of the Equality Act specifically is changed when gay marriage is legalised?

Can you answer my question instead of asking me a question about the question?

How can opposing same-sex marriage be a violation of the Equality Act if it is not already legal?

28064212 wrote: »

Whether it's bigotry, stubbornness or courage has nothing to do with it, which is what I said with "regardless, individual teachers do not have the right to enforce personal beliefs over the syllabus"

It isn't bigotry. That's what I've been pointing out time and time again.

intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

In fact. I've tolerated disagreement on this issue. It is you and others who refuse to tolerate Christian perspectives on marriage on this thread. I have no issue whatsoever with people disagreeing with me.

However claiming that I am a bigot for merely disagreeing with you is intolerant in and of itself. That's never what that word actually meant.

28064212 wrote: »

Personal belief does not come into it. Someone who believes that only trees can marry cats does not have the right to withdraw their children from the current system because it doesn't match their beliefs

Yes it does. It comes into it for millions of people. Repeatedly saying this does not make it go away. Secularism does not mean ignoring Christians or Jews or anyone else in society who will have disagreements on this legislation. What it does mean is not making political decisions with blind deference to any religion. This does not mean that claims cannot be examined on merit.

I disagree with your interpretation of what secularism actually means in practice. I think that is the issue.

28064212 wrote: »

Christianity doesn't come into it. There are atheists who believe marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a very specific belief that could dramatically affect the life of a child.

On this thread it does. If the right of freedom of religion comes into conflict with the State, then you say that's OK.

I'm saying that if the State requires me to change my beliefs or my church or anything else, I won't do it. I'll stick to Christ and I'll accept the consequences.

You're essentially saying that every single viewpoint that disagrees with yours on this issue could harm a child. That's quite frankly nonsense.

28064212 wrote: »

They have the "right" to throw churches out right now. They have not done so.

No they don't. If the council did this now, they would have no legal justification in court.

28064212 wrote: »

I do not deny gay and black are different. In this specific point, I want you to explain why that exact situation is different, and in what way.

It is different because sexual preference and action and race are poles apart.

28064212 wrote: »

Unless you have a specific concern under a specific law, it's not a concern at all. Churches could be litigated against under current laws. Should we scrap those laws now? It's an utterly nonsensical point.

No they honestly couldn't.

28064212 wrote: »

You realise Godwin's law has no bearing on the validity of the argument? Not to mention that Godwin's law is about comparisons to the Nazis and/or Hitler, and I brought up Holocaust deniers, so it isn't even remotely applicable.

The mention of the Holocaust is an invocation of Godwin's law.

28064212 wrote: »

I said nothing about your right to put across your views. You do not have the right to dictate the state-mandated syllabus, any more than Holocaust deniers do

I disagree, as a free citizen in society I have every right to make my views known to my political representatives. I also have the right to vote on the basis of decisions that affect the freedom of religion in this society.

Those people are there to make Christians look idiots and to embaress people into "Liberalism". Look very conservative Christian women dont wear trousers and certainly dont wear shorts. Look at the Amish for instance. These people are obviously not super conservative Christians and if you have fallen for the routine it says a lot about your own ignorance.

SoulandForm wrote: »

Those people are there to make Christians look idiots and to embaress people into "Liberalism". Look very conservative Christian women dont wear trousers and certainly dont wear shorts. Look at the Amish for instance. These people are obviously not super conservative Christians and if you have fallen for the routine it says a lot about your own ignorance.

What makes their interpretation of the bible less correct than yours or any other sector of Christianity? I've watched the documentaries and read about them and they are very adept at quoting scripture to explain their views.

lazygal wrote: »

Has any of that happened in any other country where marriage equality has happened? And the age of consent in some countries, such as Spain, I understand is 13. I don't think its moral fibre has collapsed, has it?

I'm not referring to sexual relationships. Relationships cover a broader territory than the merely sexual.

lazygal wrote: »

I won't even dignify your comparison of two loving adults in a relationship built on trust, understanding and a desire to share a life together as being like me having a pet I like spending time with. That's an incredibly insensitive statement and shows your lack of understanding of what love is in a very clear light.

But who are you to say that the love that a man has for his black labrador isn't broadly equivalent to marriage?

If marriage is whatever we want to define it as why can't a man who loves his labrador express that commitment in a marriage?

Or is that the love that a man has for his black labrador is different from a marriage? Why is that any less "bigoted" in your view?

Perhaps the same is true of a union between a man and a woman and a union of two of the same gender?

SoulandForm wrote: »

Those people are there to make Christians look idiots and to embaress people into "Liberalism". Look very conservative Christian women dont wear trousers and certainly dont wear shorts. Look at the Amish for instance. These people are obviously not super conservative Christians and if you have fallen for the routine it says a lot about your own ignorance.

Ah, a good old no-true-scotsman fallacy...

but oh my, did you actually repsond to something? wonderful, we're making progress!

But you seem to be missing the point. The point is, if nobody stops THEM from holding their views and teaching their kids what they want, then nobody will stop YOU from doing the same. GET IT?

Now, can you reply to my question here?

What would your end-game be for people like me?

Seriously, presuming you brought in some Russian like measures against homosexuality, what would you like to see happen to me?

And my questions here?

That'd be super duper

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

It is you and others who refuse to tolerate Christian perspectives on marriage on this thread. I have no issue whatsoever with people disagreeing with me.

Well, well - lookie here.

'Christian perspectives on marriage' again - what about those Christians who do not agree with your perspective on marriage Phil?

Did you forget about them?

Strange as we so recently had a lengthy discussion about that very thing in this very thread.

philologos wrote: »

But who are you to say that the love that a man has for his black labrador isn't broadly equivalent to marriage?

Now you're just trolling. :rolleyes:

philologos wrote: »

I'm not referring to sexual relationships. Relationships cover a broader territory than the merely sexual.

But who are you to say that the love that a man has for his black labrador isn't broadly equivalent to marriage?

If marriage is whatever we want to define it as why can't a man who loves his labrador express that commitment in a marriage?

Or is that the love that a man has for his black labrador is different from a marriage? Why is that any less "bigoted" in your view?

Perhaps the same is true of a union between a man and a woman and a union of two of the same gender?

I think you're scraping the barrel by equating two loving adults in a committed relationship with a beloved pet for the second time. I think you know you are, too. I think that's offensive to the gay people who are reading this thread. I think its an incredibly hurtful comparison to make and as I said before such comments demonstrate the person making them doesn't understand real love between two adults who want to commit to spending their lives together and have that commitment recognised by a civil marriage.

Has marriage between humans and animals been made legal in any country with marriage equality?

Do you think me and my husband's marriage is affected in any way by our gay friends enjoying the exact same marriage rights as we do? I again ask why a state marriage ceremony, held in a state building, officiated by a state employee, would affect your life, or your marriage, should you ever be in a position to be married?

Links234 wrote: »

Now you're just trolling. :rolleyes:

It's a reductio ad absurdum.

However, it is to point out a flaw in your argument.

Is it that the relationship that a man has with his pet labrador is a different kind of relationship than the relationship that a man has with his wife?

Perhaps it could also be that a homosexual relationship is a different kind of relationship than a heterosexual one?

Why doesn't it suffice to leave civil partnership for the formalisation of homosexual relationships, and marriage for heterosexual ones?

NuMarvel

SoulandForm wrote: »

Will I have the freedom to teach my children that homosexuality is evil?

Do you already have that "freedom" for anyone who marries in a fashion that contravenes the Bible?

For example, are you allowed to call people who remarry after divorce evil? After all they're adulterers according to the Bible.

Or what about an unmarried couple with children? They have clearly engaged in sex outside of marriage. Does that mean you get to call them evil too?

This is what I don't get some of the Christian attitudes here. Some amongst you want to believe that you have the religious "freedom" to do or say anything you want, and that same sex marriage will be the first time that's limited. That is clearly NOT the case.

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps it could also be that a homosexual relationship is a different kind of relationship than a heterosexual one?

Perhaps it could be that two adults who love eachother and want to cement their union with a civil marriage, in a state building officiated by a state employee should be allowed to do so, and not prevented from doing so by those who oppose such unions on religious grounds?

Links I dont want to see people with sexuals disorders imprisoned or beaten up but when you ask what the endgame is I was tempted to answer gas chambers!

My hope and prayer is that you will be rescued from the space you are in now. Society should lovingly encourage that.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well, well - lookie here.

'Christian perspectives on marriage' again - what about those Christians who do not agree with your perspective on marriage Phil?

Did you forget about them?

Strange as we so recently had a lengthy discussion about that very thing in this very thread.

It involves ignoring Scripture, or warping Scripture with non-Christian assumptions of marriage.

lazygal wrote: »

Perhaps it could be that two adults who love eachother and want to cement their union with a civil marriage, in a state building officiated by a state employee should be allowed to do so, and not prevented from doing so by those who oppose such unions on religious grounds?

They can do this with civil partnership already. As I mentioned I supported this in 2009. Moreover, civil partnership does not have the same consequences for religious freedom as redefining marriage does.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

But who are you to say that the love that a man has for his black labrador isn't broadly equivalent to marriage?

If marriage is whatever we want to define it as why can't a man who loves his labrador express that commitment in a marriage?

Or is that the love that a man has for his black labrador is different from a marriage? Why is that any less "bigoted" in your view?

Perhaps the same is true of a union between a man and a woman and a union of two of the same gender?

well for a start how would they exchange vows? :P

What you seem to be missing is that people already accept same-sex couples as being as equally valid as male+female couples, with the distinction that some would not allow same-sex couples to be married much like a man and woman can be.

Generally no-one would suggest that if a man or woman got themselves a pet dog that they might one day marry the pet.

If two adults (be they gay/lesbian or hetero) start datingl, it's only natural that after a period of time people might wonder if they plan to get married.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

It involves ignoring Scripture, or warping Scripture with non-Christian assumptions of marriage.

Back to 'those who disagree with me are not true Christians' I see.

I do wonder what those Christians here reading you dismiss them think about that Phil.

philologos wrote: »

Why doesn't it suffice to leave civil partnership for the formalisation of homosexual relationships, and marriage for heterosexual ones?

Because that's discrimination. I don't want a church marriage. But I couldn't give a fiddlers if someone else does. I don't want to go on a backpacking holiday, or learn German, or go to mass at Christmas with my a la carte catholic parents. But I don't care if anyone else wants to do those things, because like gay marriage they. don't. affect. me. in. the. slightest.

Now, if there was a really enthusiastic backpacking club who's wise and noble head decided backpacking holidays were the only REAL holidays and all other holidays couldn't be called holidays, and in fact should be outlawed, and encouraged others to lobby to deny other people the right to go on non backpacking holidays, that would affect me and then I'd be annoyed. But right now, backbackers' freedom to go on their smelly trips has no bearing on the holidays I go on. Much in the way the rights of my gay friends to marry won't affect my marriage or family in the slightest. It might mean if my children are gay they will be seen as a normal married couple should they so chose to be, instead of some sort of speshul snowflake who can't know what REAL marriage is.

koth wrote: »

well for a start how would they exchange vows? :P

Loving whispers and barks I presume

koth wrote: »

What you seem to be missing is that people already accept same-sex couples as being as equally valid as male+female couples, with the distinction that some would not allow same-sex couples to be married much like a man and woman can be.

It's not about which is valid and which isn't. Both the relationship between a man and his dog, and a man and wife are valid.

There's probably better reason why we would want to formalise a relationship between a man and a woman, or between two of the same gender, but there's no reason why legally we can't define the formalising process differently if they are different relationship structures.

koth wrote: »

Generally no-one would suggest that if a man or woman got themselves a pet dog that they might one day marry the pet.

It was clearly a reductio ad absurdum to make a point, but I think it was a worthwhile one for exposing the flaw in your argument.

koth wrote: »

If two adults (be they gay/lesbian or hetero) start datingl, it's only natural that after a period of time people might wonder if they plan to get married.

I don't wonder if a man and a man are going to get married, because marriage isn't that kind of relationship.