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

Links234 wrote: »

Honeymoon

Careful now. Sounds like you want to redefine what honeymoon means...

28064212

philologos wrote: »

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.

Not clearly at all. The C4M included his opinion in a document about what they claim are the effects of gay marriage. The direct quote from him was: "under the Equality Act 2010 the NHS managers would have proper grounds for justifying their action". Nowhere does it say that this would only be true if gay marriage was legal

philologos wrote: »

You claimed that it was bigotry a few posts ago to disagree with same-sex marriage.

No, you misunderstood my post. I am saying that one person's "bigotry" is another's "integrity". No-one calls themselves a bigot. And whether it's bigotry, integrity, stubbornness or courage, it is totally irrelevant. The personal beliefs of individual teachers have no place in a classroom

philologos wrote: »

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.

Where did I say that? They have the same right as PETA have to campaign for Animal Farm to be banned from class-rooms. But until that clause is granted, they have no right to be exempt from the same rules as anyone else. A gay parent does not have the right to withdraw their children from the current system because they don't teach about gay marriage.

philologos wrote: »

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.

Not all beliefs are equal. If you believe eating pork is taboo, the government discriminates against you by allowing pork to be sold.

philologos wrote: »

No, they would have no leg to stand on legally at present.

If the council says to a church group, a youth group, an AA group, any group, that they do not want to rent the hall to them any more, they are perfectly entitled to do that. Under what law can they legally not do that?

philologos wrote: »

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.

I've read it. It does not. If you believe it does, point me to the exact lines in the article. Which lines address this exact situation, and have an argument that applies for inter-racial, but not for gay?

____ marriage was illegal
____ marriage was made legal
A registrar does not want to perform ____ marriages because of their personal belief that ____ marriages are not real

philologos wrote: »

They would have no good legal basis for doing so at present.

And? O'Neill does not say that they would have a good legal basis for doing so after the legislation was brought in

philologos wrote: »

Yes it does, because it's absurd and ridiculous to compare a moral disagreement with a denial of historical fact.

It's a personal belief. Holocaust deniers disagree with the teaching of history as it stands. Anti-gay marriage people disagree with the prospective syllabus. Neither have the right to have it removed from schools

philologos wrote: »

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.

I'm sure they would.

Benny_Cake

SoulandForm wrote: »

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

Banned for a week, and don't post in this thread again.

Let's try and keep some level of respect here, while accepting that people can have sincere differences of opinion.

philologos

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.

I agree that ot is actual propaganda. Glorifying same-sex marriage would also be propaganda.

My point about the man and his labrador is not to say that the relationships are the same. It is to show that marriage is different. That's my point. Marriage is different from a civil partnership. This doesn't mean that the relationship between a man and his labrador is the same as a civil partnership.

That's just what you want to assume.

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

I think their view is wrong. If the Bible clearly disagrees with a church or a denomination something has gone wrong in their teaching.

I contend for Biblical Christianity because its not ours to change. We are not God. The loving and caring thing to do is to point it out because false teaching has huge consequences.

Tonyandthewhale

SoulandForm wrote: »

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.

Is S & M a specifically homosexual phenomenon now?

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

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

I’m sorry, but we don’t know what Aidan O’Neill said on this subject. We only know C4M’s interpretation of what he said. Very often a person or group’s interpretation of legal opinion can bear little or no resemblance to what the opinion actually says.

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?

[/QUOTE]

Is the black Labrador capable of giving consent? No? Then it is not a valid comparision.

Has there been an increase on man on dog sex or relationships in countries where gay marriage has been legalised, or has marriage between a man and a dog been allowed in countries that has legalised same sex marriage? No? Then it is not a valid reductio ad absurdum. You can’t use reductio ad absurdum where you actually have evidence that the thing you are arguing against evidentially doesn’t cause the ridiculous thing you are claim that it theoretically might. Your argument is invalid.

philologos wrote: »

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

But why do you get to decide which is the correct structure? That is, in effect what you are doing.

philologos wrote: »

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.

You didn’t read the cases I posted up ages ago, did you?

Even where marriage and civil partnership offer identical rights and responsibilities (which I don’t think they do in the UK) the fact that the titles themselves are different results in a negative outcome for those for which use of the term marriage is barred.

philologos wrote: »

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.

You don’t know that. You don’t know what Aiden O’Neill QC agrees and disagrees with. You don’t know this because you have not read his opinion. You may very well be correct, but you are incorrect to assert that you know what he disagrees with.

philologos wrote: »

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.

Biblical christian can, do and should be able to hold whatever beliefs they chose to. Within their personal relationship, and within their church they should have the right to discuss those belief and lobby for a particular viewpoint, based on their beliefs. However, when they step into the public or political arena, or when they are dealing with other people in relationships outside of those in their personal lives or church lives, then opinions based on their religious beliefs should not be brought into play.

Law needs to be based on political reasoning, not reasoning (if you can call it that) based on a particular religious belief.

You can tell your church that the definition of marriage that it must use it that which you believe is found in the bible, but you are not entitled to tell the state that, unless you can come up with reasons that are not based on your religious belief.

philologos wrote: »

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

Freedom of religion is, as you are very well aware, a qualified freedom. No one is stopping you form believing a particular thing, but you are, to an extent and quite rightly, preventing from pushing that view, and any restrictions that may flow from it, onto other people who may not share your view.

You want to restrict marriage to the particular view that you have of marriage. You are basing this on your religious belief. How can you possibly hope to get someone that does not share your particular belief to agree to your imposition?

If you want to discriminate against someone you need to provide reasons that are accessible to them, reasons that they can’t reasonably reject. You want to discriminate against same sex couples, but you are unable to justify your reasons for this in an accessible way. The reason you can’t is that, ultimately, you have now reason outside of your particular interpretation of Christianity. These arguments can be reasonably rejected by those that either have a different interpretation or don’t follow Christianity at all.

Now, your “side” has made several attempts to move away from the religious justification and try to come up with politically accessible arguments, some of which you have used, but they are not good arguments. This was the reason why I referred to the Californian same sex marriage cases. All those arguments were deployed in those cases, were found to be lacking and it was explained why they were lacking.

You can hold whatever belief you want, but you can’t expect others, that don’t share your belief, to lie down and allow you to discriminate against them.

MrP

philologos wrote: »

I agree that ot is actual propaganda. Glorifying same-sex marriage would also be propaganda.

My point about the man and his labrador is not to say that the relationships are the same. It is to show that marriage is different. That's my point. Marriage is different from a civil partnership. This doesn't mean that the relationship between a man and his labrador is the same as a civil partnership.

That's just what you want to assume.

Much of what you say is propaganda on behalf of a particular religious ideology. You glorify it. You insist that only by following one particular religious path can a person be saved.

The difference is - you believe you have the right to proselytize but then accuse others of propaganda.

You believe that because something is against your religious beliefs the Civil State should be prevented from implementing it. Yet, it has been made clear that no advocate for gay marriage is calling for the civil State to impose it upon Religious institutions. Spin it any way you want Phil - but what you are advocating amounts to a religion/state relationship that you would be very unhappy with were that religion to be, for example, the Roman Catholic - or Islam - or Judaism - or Buddhism.

If we were to allow religious ideology to dictate civil legislation - whose ideology exactly will be allowed to do this Phil? Will we have Sharia Law?
Will we ban blood transfusions?

Or should it be the Civil State treats all citizens equally - including allowing religious organisations to determine their own internal rules.

A civil marriage is a legal contract of partnership between two adults. It has nothing to do with religion.

You would be offended if I were to conflate the relationship between a man and his God to that as between a man and his anti-depressants yet feel that you have the right to conflate the relationship between 2 adults with that between a person an their pet dog.

philologos wrote: »

I think their view is wrong. If the Bible clearly disagrees with a church or a denomination something has gone wrong in their teaching.

I contend for Biblical Christianity because its not ours to change. We are not God. The loving and caring thing to do is to point it out because false teaching has huge consequences.

As I have said countless times before - theological discussions are an internal matter for Christians.

You are the one claiming only those who agree with you are 'true' Christians. You can argue about that among yourselves.

I am simply pointing out once again that you do not speak for all Christians.

For the Liberalista brigade among us.

Why not advocate for the 'right' of a Gay Couple to get married in a church..?

28064212

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

For the Liberalista brigade among us.

Why not advocate for the 'right' of a Gay Couple to get married in a church..?

Why are you not advocating for the right to drink-drive, or the right to not pay taxes?

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

For the Liberalista brigade among us.

Why not advocate for the 'right' of a Gay Couple to get married in a church..?

Separation of Church and State, Silvio.

Perhaps you have heard of it but are unaware it works both ways.

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

For the Liberalista brigade among us.

Why not advocate for the 'right' of a Gay Couple to get married in a church..?

Why would people campaign for that right? What benefits would that bring that a couple wouldn't already get through a civil marriage?

MrPudding

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

For the Liberalista brigade among us.

Why not advocate for the 'right' of a Gay Couple to get married in a church..?

Because they should have the right to manage their own internal affairs, in the moral (or what their particular belief consider to be moral) sphere. This is a right the churches should and do have. The issue is they are not content with that.

MrP

28064212 wrote: »

Why are you not advocating for the right to drink-drive, or the right to not pay taxes?

Are you making a moral comparison between drink driving and a Gay marriage ceremony in a church?

Wow...

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Separation of Church and State, Silvio.

Perhaps you have heard of it but are unaware it works both ways.

So you'd have no problems with male only or heterosexual only Golf Clubs and the like..?

aloyisious

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

For the Liberalista brigade among us.

Why not advocate for the 'right' of a Gay Couple to get married in a church..?

That has as much sensibility as saying why not have Christian marriages in Synagogues, Mosques or Hindu temples, all being recognized places of Religious gatherings and prayer to those religions. The Christian religion does not have a prerogative on marriage and failure to recognize that is the fault-line in your argument. It's a ceremony open to all humans.

28064212

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Are you making a moral comparison between drink driving and a Gay marriage ceremony in a church?

Wow...

No I'm asking you to defend an action which you have not demonstrated any support for. No-one here has said churches must be forced to marry gay couples, yet you think we should give reasons for it.

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

So you'd have no problems with male only or heterosexual only Golf Clubs and the like..?

Are you equating golf with religion?

WOW....

Links234

philologos wrote: »

I agree that ot is actual propaganda. Glorifying same-sex marriage would also be propaganda.

and what pray tell would your definition of this nebulous term "glorifying" be?

how does someone go about "glorifying" same sex marriage? because it looks like you're saying teaching the curriculum would be "propaganda" to you, and so would be on the same level as writing a book that falsely blames LGBT people for the rise of the nazi party. does that seem about right?

28064212 wrote: »

No I'm asking you to defend an action which you have not demonstrated any support for. No-one here has said churches must be forced to marry gay couples, yet you think we should give reasons for it.

Hence my question, why not?

OK, lets say a gay couple wished to have their marriage ceremony in a church and were refused, would you refer to that as being a denial of their rights..?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you equating golf with religion?

WOW....

Dodging the question..?

So, in a Liberalista Utopia.

Heterosexual marriages only in Church = Acceptable

Heterosexaul only Golf Clubs = Unnacceptable

Links234

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

OK, lets say a gay couple wished to have their marriage ceremony in a church and were refused, would you refer to that as being a denial of their rights..?

Lets say an Atheist couple wished to have their marriage ceremony in a church... what then? Or a someone who had been previously married, but divorced? Or someone of a different faith?

'cos it's up to the church who they preform ceremonies for! You don't have christians demanding mosques do their ceremonies, do you?

and you do know that if a gay couple wanted to have a church ceremony, they couple simply find one of MANY christian denominations that would allow them to. simple

Links234

and what the hell is a "liberalista" anyway?

and what do you think of these shoes?

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Dodging the question..?

No. I am not dodging the question.
You are introducing a strawman.

The only way the two would be similar is if golf clubs were attempting to dictate to the State - as far as I am aware no golf club claims to be a moral authority or have issued any statements about Gay Marriage being a threat to humanity.

But once again I will indulge you and answer your question.

I have no issue with a privately funded golf club deciding it's own rules - but then I religiously hate golf.

If a private club avails of State funding in any form that is a different matter.

Taxpayers money should not be used to finance organisations which excludes some of those same taxpayers.

Nor should that club be allowed to insist that its private rules be extended to all of society.

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Hence my question, why not?

OK, lets say a gay couple wished to have their marriage ceremony in a church and were refused, would you refer to that as being a denial of their rights..?

What extra benefits would be conferred upon a couple who were married in a religious ceremony as opposed to a civil ceremony?

Links234 wrote: »

Lets say an Atheist couple wished to have their marriage ceremony in a church... what then? Or a someone who had been previously married, but divorced? Or someone of a different faith?

'cos it's up to the church who they preform ceremonies for! You don't have christians demanding mosques do their ceremonies, do you?

and you do know that if a gay couple wanted to have a church ceremony, they couple simply find one of MANY christian denominations that would allow them to. simple

Hey, don't shoot the messenger here.

I'm merely clarifying where you stand.

Inconsistant much?

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Hey, don't shoot the messenger here.

I'm merely clarifying where you stand.

Inconsistant much?

Care to point out the inconsistency?