Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…6667697172…218

Comments

  • #2042
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    lazygal wrote: »
    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.

    Treating different relationship structures differently is entirely valid if they are indeed different.

    In British law for example at present, a civil partnership and a marriage afford identical rights. Except civil partnership as a term refers to same-sex unions, and marriage to heterosexual ones.


  • #2043
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    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.

    Gas Chambers were already tried by people who shared your views.

    Guess what - it didn't work.

    But at least you have shown your true colours. Are you targeting Jews or Gypsies next?


  • #2044
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    philologos wrote: »
    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?

    Perhaps it could. But that's not enough to support your argument. You need to SHOW that they are different.

    So, can you point out how the relationship between a man and a women differs from that of two women, or two men. For that matter, can you even show that every heterosexual couple has the same kind of relationship?


  • #2045
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Now now, I'm sure gas chambers was a tongue in cheek remark, however distasteful and ignorant. I'm sure Christians couldn't possibly wish to see gay people harmed, or have them killed, or fund a "kill the gays" bill in Uganda or anything like that. ;)


  • #2046
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Perhaps it could. But that's not enough to support your argument. You need to SHOW that they are different.

    So, can you point out how the relationship between a man and a women differs from that of two women, or two men. For that matter, can you even show that every heterosexual couple has the same kind of relationship?

    Isn't it obvious?

    One has the union of two of the opposite-sex, and one has the union of two of the same sex. This has different consequences in terms of family in particular.


  • Advertisement
  • #2047
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »

    Treating different relationship structures differently is entirely valid if they are indeed different.

    In British law for example at present, a civil partnership and a marriage afford identical rights. Except civil partnership as a term refers to same-sex unions, and marriage to heterosexual ones.
    How are they different? Specific examples, that don't refer to religion.


  • #2048
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Links234 wrote: »
    Now now, I'm sure gas chambers was a tongue in cheek remark, however distasteful and ignorant. I'm sure Christians couldn't possibly wish to see gay people harmed, or have them killed, or fund a "kill the gays" bill in Uganda or anything like that. ;)

    On boards.ie in the last few days I've condemned mistreatment of LGBT people in the workplace, never mind advocating death.


  • #2049
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Links234 wrote: »
    Now now, I'm sure gas chambers was a tongue in cheek remark, however distasteful and ignorant. I'm sure Christians couldn't possibly wish to see gay people harmed, or have them killed, or fund a "kill the gays" bill in Uganda or anything like that. ;)

    LGBT people were sent to the gas chambers - so his remark, no matter how it was intended, is still in incredibly poor taste.
    Would he dare to say such a 'tongue-in-cheek' thing to a Jew?


  • #2050
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »

    Isn't it obvious?

    One has the union of two of the opposite-sex, and one has the union of two of the same sex. This has different consequences in terms of family in particular.
    It's not obvious. Should those who are unwilling or unable to have children be married or have a civil partnership? Gay couples have and can have children. Exactly whats different in terms of family?


  • #2051
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    Loving whispers and barks I presume :)
    :pac:
    that or the human needs psychiatric help :P
    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.
    The two relationships are generally loving, sexual relationships. But because a couple is of the same-sex they are to be denied recognition by the state. Not a good reason tbh.

    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.
    well it was definitely absurd, but you haven't really highlighted any flaws.

    I don't wonder if a man and a man are going to get married, because marriage isn't that kind of relationship.
    Of course you don't as you're religious beliefs preclude you from considering such a possibility. But for anyone who doesn't share your perspective, be they Christian or otherwise, it wouldn't be unusual for them to wonder if a same-sex couple might marry after a period of time dating each other.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #2052
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,052 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    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?
    Because no section of the Equality Act is dependent on the legal status of marriage.
    philologos wrote: »
    It isn't bigotry. That's what I've been pointing out time and time again.

    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.
    :confused: What are you talking about. I never called you a bigot, and I didn't say people who had a different view than me were bigots. I said that whether it was bigotry or integrity is totally irrelevant. The personal beliefs of individual teachers have no place in a classroom
    philologos wrote: »
    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.
    My interpretation of secularism has no bearing on the point. A particular philosophy on marriage is already "forced" into the education system. It has changed before and will change again
    philologos wrote: »
    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.
    No, I am not. Unless you are claiming that, say, liking football is somehow equivalent to a gay child having parents who believe homosexuality is evil
    philologos wrote: »
    No they don't. If the council did this now, they would have no legal justification in court.
    Of course they would. Do you think council buildings are free to be used by anyone whenever they like?
    philologos wrote: »
    It is different because sexual preference and action and race are poles apart.
    Why? You repeating it ad nauseum doesn't change anything. Unless you can explain why a registrar who refuses to marry inter-racial couples should not be protected, but one who refuses to marry gay couples should be, your argument has no basis
    philologos wrote: »
    No they honestly couldn't.
    Yes they could. Are you honestly saying it's impossible to sue the church at the moment?
    philologos wrote: »
    The mention of the Holocaust is an invocation of Godwin's law.
    Holocaust deniers. And once again, it has no bearing on the validity of the argument
    philologos wrote: »
    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.
    And? Other people have the right to point out the flaws in those views. And you don't get to enforce those flawed views in the classroom

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #2053
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    philologos wrote: »
    On boards.ie in the last few days I've condemned mistreatment of LGBT people in the workplace, never mind advocating death.

    Saw that, don't care. you're here making crass comparisons saying a man and his dog probably has the same love as a couple of the same sex, and that shows up what you really think.


  • #2054
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    philologos wrote: »
    Isn't it obvious?

    One has the union of two of the opposite-sex, and one has the union of two of the same sex. This has different consequences in terms of family in particular.

    That doesn't show that the relationships will be different. And you haven't even addressed how you show that all heterosexual relationships are the same.

    For example, can you say that the relationship you're in right now or were most recently in is exactly the same as the one you were in previously? Is the most recent partner exactly the same as your previous partner, in every respect? And if they are, do you really believe that it's the same for all heterosexual couples?


  • #2055
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Gay people were on the forefront of bringing the Nazies to power. The SA was an almost exclusively homosexual militia. Even today in Germany a large proportion of the neo-fascist scene and often its most violent elements are homosexual. In Japan you can see something similar. The homosexual writer Yuiko Mishima attempted a fascist coup in 1970 or 1969- he was also an admirer of Hitler.

    http://www.thepinkswastika.com/
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    LGBT people were sent to the gas chambers - so his remark, no matter how it was intended, is still in incredibly poor taste.
    Would he dare to say such a 'tongue-in-cheek' thing to a Jew?


  • #2056
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    My views? LOL.

    Hitler had no real problems with homosexuality.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Gas Chambers were already tried by people who shared your views.

    Guess what - it didn't work.

    But at least you have shown your true colours. Are you targeting Jews or Gypsies next?


  • #2057
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Links234 wrote: »
    What do you mean by "rescued" from the space I'm in? What if I'm perfectly happy where I am, and don't want to be "rescued"? Then what happens?

    Than as long as you dont flaunt your deviations you will be find.


  • #2058
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Gay people were on the forefront of bringing the Nazies to power. The SA was an almost exclusively homosexual militia. Even today in Germany a large proportion of the neo-fascist scene and often its most violent elements are homosexual. In Japan you can see something similar. The homosexual writer Yuiko Mishima attempted a fascist coup in 1970 or 1969- he was also an admirer of Hitler.

    http://www.thepinkswastika.com/
    You are really gullible and deluded..... Seriously, blaming every event in the world's history on gay people? History strongly disagrees with your evaluation of the rise of the Nazi party.....


  • #2059
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    28064212 wrote: »
    Because no section of the Equality Act is dependent on the legal status of marriage.

    Clearly Aidan O'Neill QC on the basis of actually knowing the ins and outs of this legislation disagrees with you. That's a concern for me and for others.
    28064212 wrote: »
    :confused: What are you talking about. I never called you a bigot, and I didn't say people who had a different view than me were bigots. I said that whether it was bigotry or integrity is totally irrelevant. The personal beliefs of individual teachers have no place in a classroom

    You claimed that it was bigotry a few posts ago to disagree with same-sex marriage.
    28064212 wrote: »
    My interpretation of secularism has no bearing on the point. A particular philosophy on marriage is already "forced" into the education system. It has changed before and will change again

    It has every bearing on this point. That's what's influencing your posting style. I disagree with your assumption that secularism essentially means that Christians don't have the right to campaign for freedom of conscience clauses for teachers in the light of this legislation.
    28064212 wrote: »
    No, I am not. Unless you are claiming that, say, liking football is somehow equivalent to a gay child having parents who believe homosexuality is evil

    Essentially you're saying if you hold Biblical Christian beliefs that the State should have the right to discriminate against you for holding those beliefs.

    So much for freedom of religion. I don't share your viewpoint that gay rights supersede the right to freedom of conscience.

    Naturally, this is exactly why I oppose this legislation at present.
    28064212 wrote: »
    Of course they would. Do you think council buildings are free to be used by anyone whenever they like?

    No, they would have no leg to stand on legally at present.
    28064212 wrote: »
    Why? You repeating it ad nauseum doesn't change anything. Unless you can explain why a registrar who refuses to marry inter-racial couples should not be protected, but one who refuses to marry gay couples should be, your argument has no basis

    I've explained to you why the race argument is extremely poor, I've even pointed you to an article. The article actually addresses the flaws in your argument if you took the time to read it.
    28064212 wrote: »
    Yes they could. Are you honestly saying it's impossible to sue the church at the moment?

    They would have no good legal basis for doing so at present.
    28064212 wrote: »
    Holocaust deniers. And once again, it has no bearing on the validity of the argument

    Yes it does, because it's absurd and ridiculous to compare a moral disagreement with a denial of historical fact.
    28064212 wrote: »
    And? Other people have the right to point out the flaws in those views. And you don't get to enforce those flawed views in the classroom

    I think if enough people made it aware to the Government that they don't want an education system which included propaganda that they would consider it.

    That's democracy.


  • #2060
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Gay people were on the forefront of bringing the Nazies to power. The SA was an almost exclusively homosexual militia. Even today in Germany a large proportion of the neo-fascist scene and often its most violent elements are homosexual. In Japan you can see something similar. The homosexual writer Yuiko Mishima attempted a fascist coup in 1970 or 1969- he was also an admirer of Hitler.

    http://www.thepinkswastika.com/

    just so people have an idea (as if they didn't already) of the type of person behind the book mentioned above.
    Scott Douglas Lively is an American author, attorney and activist, noted for his opposition to LGBT rights and his involvement in the ex-gay movement. Lively is the president of Abiding Truth Ministries, a conservative Christian organization located in Temecula, California.[1] Lively has called for the criminalization of "the public advocacy of homosexuality" as far back as 2007.[2][3] He is also directly linked to pending anti-gay legislation in Uganda, which would, if passed, make homosexual conduct punishable by a lengthy prison sentence or death.[4]
    source

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2061
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    You are really gullible and deluded..... Seriously, blaming every event in the world's history on gay people? History strongly disagrees.....

    You are denying the overwhelming homosexual character of the SA?

    It was an area that the political enemies of the Nazies used to mock them over.


  • Advertisement
  • #2062
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    koth wrote: »
    just so people have an idea (as if they didn't already) of the type of person behind the book mentioned above.

    A lot of the same information is covered in Males Fantasies by Klaus Theweleit who is some type of Marxist Freudian. Look the heavily homosexual Samuri culture in Japan, ancient Sparta and Knights Templar- death worship and cults of violence and cruelty often go hand in hand with homosexuality. That is just a fact.


  • #2063
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    First of all, The Pink Swastika is completely false, it's nothing more than propaganda (HI PHIL, THAT'S WHAT ACTUALLY PROPAGANDA LOOKS LIKE!)

    ...AND, the author of that particular piece of bogus history reimagining, Scott Lively, is one of the main orchestrator's of Uganda's "Kill The Gays" bill and helped bring about rising homophobia in their society that took the lives of David Kato and others.


  • #2064
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Gay people were on the forefront of bringing the Nazies to power. The SA was an almost exclusively homosexual militia. Even today in Germany a large proportion of the neo-fascist scene and often its most violent elements are homosexual. In Japan you can see something similar. The homosexual writer Yuiko Mishima attempted a fascist coup in 1970 or 1969- he was also an admirer of Hitler.

    http://www.thepinkswastika.com/

    Your point being?
    Looks to me as if it is:

    'There are Gay nazis so I can make a tasteless and offensive comment about LGBT people being gassed'.


  • #2065
    Silvio.Dante
    Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    So, if you get Gay marriage, whats next on the Liberalista list..?


  • #2066
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Silvio.Dante wrote: »
    So, if you get Gay marriage, what next..?

    Honeymoon


  • #2067
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Links234 wrote: »
    Honeymoon

    Steady on - have we done the speeches and cut the cake yet?


  • #2068
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Links234 wrote: »
    First of all, The Pink Swastika is completely false, it's nothing more than propaganda (HI PHIL, THAT'S WHAT ACTUALLY PROPAGANDA LOOKS LIKE!)

    ...AND, the author of that particular piece of bogus history reimagining, Scott Lively, is one of the main orchestrator's of Uganda's "Kill The Gays" bill and helped bring about rising homophobia in their society that took the lives of David Kato and others.

    Its not.

    If you hold on week or two I might be able to track down German neo-fascist pamphlets laying out the same information as a good thing. One of the leading Loyalists during the Troubles in Northern Ireland is now a big Gay Rights campaigner in Scotland- it ties in with the S and M thing.


  • #2069
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    A lot of the same information is covered in Males Fantasies by Klaus Theweleit who is some type of Marxist Freudian. Look the heavily homosexual Samuri culture in Japan, ancient Sparta and Knights Templar- death worship and cults of violence and cruelty often go hand in hand with homosexuality. That is just a fact.

    I hope you appreciate the irony of using a Christian who is campaigning to have homosexuals put to death as a source for information on homosexuality and violence. Seems violence and cruelty are also handmaidens of Christianity*.



    *I believe they're actually traits not limited to any creed, race, gender or sexuality.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2070
    Silvio.Dante
    Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    Links234 wrote: »
    Honeymoon
    :D


  • Advertisement
  • #2071
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    koth wrote: »
    I hope you appreciate the irony of using a Christian who is campaigning to have homosexuals put to death as a source for information on homosexuality and violence. Seems violence and cruelty are also handmaidens of Christianity*.



    *I believe they're actually traits not limited to any creed, race, gender or sexuality.

    Read your own link.

    He opposed the death penalty and harsh prison terms for it.

    But he did agree that it should be illegal. It was illegal in the Republic of Ireland until when?


Advertisement