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

aloyisious · 31-01-2013 11:43AM

koth wrote: »

for someone that complains about people misinterepting your posts, you're no slouch yourself.

I never pointed to Nero as a sign of being progressive, rather I was just pointing out that gay marriage existed long before the current debate on the topic began.

Why shouldn't a teacher be open to legal questions if they refuse to cover gay marriage when it comes to discussing relationships in the classroom? Teachers are supposed to give information to the students so they can learn and create their own opinions on such topics.

And it's my understanding that the CofE are potentially exposed to legal trouble because they're the state church. People are guaranteed the opportunity to marry in a CofE church irrespective of their religion. This is what has created the problem now that the UK are bringing forward the same-sex bill.

Maria Miller, the UK Govt Secretary responsible for the bill on gay marriage, has included wording in the bill to get around this legal point, apparently protecting the CofE and CofW from legal action.

philologos · 31-01-2013 11:44AM

aloyisious wrote: »

To philologos: can you lay out, in as short a space as possible, what legal requirements you feel the state should put into law to protect your religious beliefs in regard to marriage, should Gay Marriage be enacted into law here in this republic.

I don't live there, so I don't feel that I have a democratic say there anymore.

I've said numerous times in the current situation where I am that the State is free to legislate even if I disagree but I hope that they will protect the rights of those who disagree in law.

As this thread has become bedded down in a debate about a denial of rights to others in either camp, with regard to gay marriage, maybe it's about time that persons from other (non-christian) religions should get involved here and post on how they view the effect, in their opinion, gay marriage would have on their religions views and beliefs of marriage.

This is on the Christianity forum. Therefore you'll get primarily Christian views on this.

Peregrinus · 31-01-2013 11:46AM

philologos wrote: »

I don't live there, so I don't feel that I have a democratic say there anymore.

Well, then, can you say what protections you think should be provided in English law?

JimiTime · 31-01-2013 12:21PM

koth wrote: »

Why shouldn't a teacher be open to legal questions if they refuse to cover gay marriage when it comes to discussing relationships in the classroom? Teachers are supposed to give information to the students so they can learn and create their own opinions on such topics.

Depends how its being covered. In the states, there are some schools, from kindergarten onwards, that have a pro LGBT curriculum. In other words, its aim is to promote and indoctrinate pupils with LGBT idea's. Books like John has two daddies, and reversing gender roles etc. This type of thing is not just saying, 'Two members of the same sex can now enter into a state marriage'.

I myself believe, that this topic both implicitly and explicitly will result in authentic Christianity being driven into the closet (Something welcomed by a lot/most of you I'm sure). It was a tactical masterstroke of the LGBT lobby, to equate LGBT with race. Once you have people foolishly equating sexual behaviour with skin colour, and vilify a Christian as akin to the KKK, then you just need to say things like, 'Well what about a teacher who refused to teach that black people and white people can marry' etc. In Obama's inaugaration, he put the Stonewall Riots in with the great racial rights events of MLK etc. So the gears are turning. Racism is a most disgusting thing, and all reasonable people want it consigned to history. So being equated with it, how else can it possibly go? I know if I thought something was equal to racism, I'd certainly want to see it eradicated.

I'd be on the side of Dr Michael Brown (Author of A Queer Thing Happened To America) and the man speaking for authentic Christianity in the discussions here). "Reach out to our LGBT brothers and sisters with love and compassion, but resist the agenda with fervour."

Delirium · 31-01-2013 12:40PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Depends how its being covered. In the states, there are some schools, from kindergarten onwards, that have a pro LGBT curriculum. In other words, its aim is to promote and indoctrinate pupils with LGBT idea's. Books like John has two daddies, and reversing gender roles etc. This type of thing is not just saying, 'Two members of the same sex can now enter into a state marriage'.

But that's just teaching kids about another type of family unit. Unless they're deliberately excluding any information about heterosexual families, I don't see what the problem is.

I myself believe, that this topic both implicitly and explicitly will result in authentic Christianity being driven into the closet (Something welcomed by a lot/most of you I'm sure). It was a tactical masterstroke of the LGBT lobby, to equate LGBT with race. Once you have people foolishly equating sexual behaviour with skin colour, and vilify a Christian as akin to the KKK, then you just need to say things like, 'Well what about a teacher who refused to teach that black people and white people can marry' etc. In Obama's inaugaration, he put the Stonewall Riots in with the great racial rights events of MLK etc. So the gears are turning. Racism is a most disgusting thing, and all reasonable people want it consigned to history. So being equated with it, how else can it possibly go? I know if I thought something was equal to racism, I'd certainly want to see it eradicated.

I'd be on the side of Dr Michael Brown (Author of A Queer Thing Happened To America) and the man speaking for authentic Christianity in the discussions here). "Reach out to our LGBT brothers and sisters with love and compassion, but resist the agenda with fervour."

But there are parallels, in both instances people are being denied the opportunity to marry. One group because of skin colour and the other because of their sexual preference. Many people would see both of those as not being reasonable justifications to bar those people from marrying.

Bannasidhe · 31-01-2013 12:41PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Depends how its being covered. In the states, there are some schools, from kindergarten onwards, that have a pro LGBT curriculum. In other words, its aim is to promote and indoctrinate pupils with LGBT idea's. Books like John has two daddies, and reversing gender roles etc. This type of thing is not just saying, 'Two members of the same sex can now enter into a state marriage'.

I myself believe, that this topic both implicitly and explicitly will result in authentic Christianity being driven into the closet (Something welcomed by a lot/most of you I'm sure). It was a tactical masterstroke of the LGBT lobby, to equate LGBT with race. Once you have people foolishly equating sexual behaviour with skin colour, and vilify a Christian as akin to the KKK, then you just need to say things like, 'Well what about a teacher who refused to teach that black people and white people can marry' etc. In Obama's inaugaration, he put the Stonewall Riots in with the great racial rights events of MLK etc. So the gears are turning. Racism is a most disgusting thing, and all reasonable people want it consigned to history. So being equated with it, how else can it possibly go? I know if I thought something was equal to racism, I'd certainly want to see it eradicated.

I'd be on the side of Dr Michael Brown (Author of A Queer Thing Happened To America) and the man speaking for authentic Christianity in the discussions here). "Reach out to our LGBT brothers and sisters with love and compassion, but resist the agenda with fervour."

By a 'pro-LGBT' curriculum do you mean they state there is nothing wrong with being LGBT and have books available which show LGBT families as well as ones that have heterosexual families?

What exactly do you mean 'reversing gender roles'? Are they encouraging men to get pregnant?

Are there no schools that promote a Christian curriculum in the US?
Ohh - here's one

Southwest Christian School
8720 West Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ, 85037 United States
Map and Directions
Telephone Number: 602-877-2367
Additional Information:
Classes for preschool 3 and 4 years, Kindergarten and first through eighth grades. The school shares the building and facilities of the Southwest Church of Christ. Facilities include an indoor gymnasium, cafeteria, chapel, and playgrounds located on 20 acres at the Western end of Phoenix. An academic curriculum is pursued in all classes with particular emphasis on early reading skills. Daily chapel and Bible classes emphasize Jesus Christ and the Word of God. The school has been continuously blessed by our God since it's beginning in 1983 with dedicated Chrisian teachers and staff.

In fact here's a list - http://church-of-christ.org/schools/united_states/s_united_states.htm

Do they indoctrinate?

JimiTime · 31-01-2013 01:03PM

koth wrote: »

But that's just teaching kids about another type of family unit. Unless they're deliberately excluding any information about heterosexual families, I don't see what the problem is.

I know people like yourself wont see a problem. You have already been convinced that it is entirely appropriate. In the context of conscientious objection though (which is what you were discussing was it not?), it is most certainly an issue when, as a teacher, you are told to teach pupils morally questionable things from Kindergarten up.

But there are parallels, in both instances people are being denied the opportunity to marry.

Its not a parallel at all. If thats a parallel, then not allowing a person marry a truck is a parallel. Not allowing a black person marry a white person is based on the racist premise that a black person is a lesser being. The reason why a same sex couple couldn't marry each other, is the same reason why a person can't marry a cat. I.E. Its an institution for a man and a woman to enter into it together.

One group because of skin colour and the other because of their sexual preference. Many people would see both of those as not being reasonable justifications to bar those people from marrying.

Like I said, homosexuals were not singled out like black people were. A homosexual could have availed of marriage at any time, without discrimination. However, due to what marriage was, wouldn't (with exceptions of course).

JimiTime · 31-01-2013 01:08PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are there no schools that promote a Christian curriculum in the US?
Ohh - here's one

In fact here's a list - http://church-of-christ.org/schools/united_states/s_united_states.htm

Do they indoctrinate?

They are Christian schools, where parents CHOOSE to send their children to. The schools I'm talking about are not 'Gay Schools' but State schools who have decided to adapt a pro LGBT curriculum, usually with the help of GLSEN.

31-01-2013 01:13PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I know people like yourself wont see a problem. You have already been convinced that it is entirely appropriate. In the context of conscientious objection though (which is what you were discussing was it not?), it is most certainly an issue when, as a teacher, you are told to teach pupils morally questionable things from Kindergarten up.

Out of curiosity, what if the teacher was a militant gay that thought heterosexual marriage was morally wrong? Are they allowed "conscientiously object"?

Bannasidhe · 31-01-2013 01:15PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I know people like yourself wont see a problem. You have already been convinced that it is entirely appropriate. In the context of conscientious objection though (which is what you were discussing was it not?), it is most certainly an issue when, as a teacher, you are told to teach pupils morally questionable things from Kindergarten up.

Morally questionable?
I consider teaching small children that unless they obey what is written in an ancient book (or at least the bits now considered relevant - ignore the bits about slavery and marrying one's rapist) they will spend eternity in torment to be morally questionable.

I consider teaching small children that LGBT people are an abomination to be morally questionable.

Its not a parallel at all. If thats a parallel, then not allowing a person marry a truck is a parallel. Not allowing a black person marry a white person is based on the racist premise that a black person is a lesser being. The reason why a same sex couple couldn't marry each other, is the same reason why a person can't marry a cat. I.E. Its an institution for a man and a woman to enter into it together.

Nothing was stopping a black person marrying another black person either - what's your point?

And yes, a committed, monogamous, consensual relationship between 2 adults is exactly like bestiality.

Like I said, homosexuals were not singled out like black people were. A homosexual could have availed of marriage at any time, without discrimination. However, due to what marriage was, wouldn't (with exceptions of course).

'homosexuals were not singled out like black people were' -Singled out for what exactly?

I repeat Nothing was stopping a black person marrying another black person either - what's your point?

Delirium · 31-01-2013 01:15PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I know people like yourself wont see a problem. You have already been convinced that it is entirely appropriate. In the context of conscientious objection though (which is what you were discussing was it not?), it is most certainly an issue when, as a teacher, you are told to teach pupils morally questionable things from Kindergarten up.

They are told to inform the children about the various types of relationships. With regards to conscientious objections, what exactly are they objecting to other than informing children about same-sex relationships?

The teacher isn't asked to endorse it, merely educate the children.

Its not a parallel at all. If thats a parallel, then not allowing a person marry a truck is a parallel. Not allowing a black person marry a white person is based on the racist premise that a black person is a lesser being. The reason why a same sex couple couldn't marry each other, is the same reason why a person can't marry a cat. I.E. Its an institution for a man and a woman to enter into it together.

Entirely correct when talking about Christian marriage, not so when discussing civil marriage. Civil marriage in various parts of the world also includes same sex couples.

Like I said, homosexuals were not singled out like black people were. A homosexual could have availed of marriage at any time, without discrimination. However, due to what marriage was, wouldn't (with exceptions of course).

But black people could marry black people (but not a white person), therefore they could avail of marriage. You beginning to see the parallels yet?

Bannasidhe · 31-01-2013 01:16PM

JimiTime wrote: »

They are Christian schools, where parents CHOOSE to send their children to. The schools I'm talking about are not 'Gay Schools' but State schools who have decided to adapt a pro LGBT curriculum, usually with the help of GLSEN.

Define 'pro-LGBT'.

aloyisious · 31-01-2013 01:18PM

philologos wrote: »

I don't live there, so I don't feel that I have a democratic say there anymore.

I've said numerous times in the current situation where I am that the State is free to legislate even if I disagree but I hope that they will protect the rights of those who disagree in law.

This is on the Christianity forum. Therefore you'll get primarily Christian views on this.

Somehow I think that the legislators here will not throw the baby out with the bath-water when they get to creating a law from whatever their legal advisors and our Justice and Equality Minister (praise be his non-christian heart) put before them.

JimiTime · 31-01-2013 01:32PM

28064212 wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what if the teacher was a militant gay that thought heterosexual marriage was morally wrong? Are they allowed "conscientiously object"?

Not at all.

31-01-2013 01:33PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Not at all.

Why?

JimiTime · 31-01-2013 01:55PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I consider teaching small children that LGBT people are an abomination to be morally questionable.

You'll be pleased to know then, that a)Christianity don't teach such a thing and b) Schools don't neither.

Nothing was stopping a black person marrying another black person either - what's your point?

I've already explained it. If you don't understand the difference as per my previous post, then I'm not the person to explain it to you. It may be down to my lack of articulation, or failure to explain the point, or it may be down to your lack of understanding. Either way, I can't really make it any clearer.

And yes, a committed, monogamous, consensual relationship between 2 adults is exactly like bestiality.

I've been down this road with you before, and I don't think you have any desire to be anything but disingenuous and misrepresentative to your gain in spite of the facts.

'homosexuals were not singled out like black people were' -Singled out for what exactly?

In terms of marriage, marriage was a specific thing. It was defined by the fact that it was an institution between a man and a woman. A black man, and white woman could not marry in certain places, because the black man was seen as a lesser being. He was denied the right to enter into an institution on the basis that HE was a lesser being by virtue of the colour of his skin. A homosexual was not singled out in any such manner. Marriage was by definition, something that a man and women did. A homosexual has always been allowed to avail of the institution (Like I said though, they wouldn't want to as they did not wish to enter into such an institution). The issue now, is that they want the institution in question to be redefined so that it can mean something different to what it has meant. No such redefining was required to let a black man marry a white woman as the origin of the forbiddance was in the fact that black people were considered lesser.

Delirium · 31-01-2013 02:01PM

Not allowing a gay couple to marry is viewing either the gay couple or their love as something lesser than a male+female couple.

Institutions change to reflect society. There were times when women weren't allowed to own/control their own property. Society decided that it was no longer tolerable for that situation to continue to exist. Society is now changing its view on gay marriage. Why shouldn't society be allowed to do so?

Bannasidhe · 31-01-2013 02:03PM

JimiTime wrote: »

You'll be pleased to know then, that a)Christianity don't teach such a thing and b) Schools don't neither.

Some Christians do.

I've already explained it. If you don't understand the difference as per my previous post, then I'm not the person to explain it to you. It may be down to my lack of articulation, or failure to explain the point, or it may be down to your lack of understanding. Either way, I can't really make it any clearer.

Or it may be down to the fact that your point is null and void.
A black person was not allowed to marry a white person as the black person was considered inferior.

People like you view LBGT relationships as inferior and seek to prevent them being legally recognised.

I've been down this road with you before, and I don't think you have any desire to be anything but disingenuous and misrepresentative to your gain in spite of the facts.

Said the man who just raised the bestiality argument.

In terms of marriage, marriage was a specific thing. It was defined by the fact that it was an institution between a man and a woman. A black man, and white woman could not marry in certain places, because the black man was seen as a lesser being. He was denied the right to enter into an institution on the basis that HE was a lesser being by virtue of the colour of his skin. A homosexual was not singled out in any such manner. Marriage was by definition, something that a man and women did. A homosexual has always been allowed to avail of the institution (Like I said though, they wouldn't want to as they did not wish to enter into such an institution). The issue now, is that they want the institution in question to be redefined so that it can mean something different to what it has meant. No such redefining was required to let a black man marry a white woman as the origin of the forbiddance was in the fact that black people were considered lesser.

See those highlighted sentences - note your own use of past tense.
Marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. Just as in places marriage was defined as between a white man and white woman, or a black man and black woman. But the times, and the meanings, they are a changing...;)

JimiTime · 31-01-2013 02:04PM

28064212 wrote: »

Why?

Is this line of questioning assuming I am for conscientious objection clauses for all or something?

31-01-2013 02:08PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Is this line of questioning assuming I am for conscientious objection clauses for all or something?

No, it's for you to justify why one person's belief on the validity of particular types of marriage are acceptable grounds for conscientious objection, but another person's belief isn't

Benny_Cake · 31-01-2013 02:21PM

I've stated this already, but in case anyone missed it, posters should not bring bestiality into this debate. It is inflammatory, and will only drag this thread into a flame war even if no offence is intended. On a separate note, attention is drawn to the charter insofar as derogatory references to the Christian faith or the Bible are concerned. Let's try to show each other some respect even if we don't agree. I'm not singling out individuals here as both cases have arisen here a number of times.

JimiTime · 31-01-2013 02:54PM

koth wrote: »

Not allowing a gay couple to marry is viewing either the gay couple or their love as something lesser than a male+female couple.

Or different.

Institutions change to reflect society. There were times when women weren't allowed to own/control their own property. Society decided that it was no longer tolerable for that situation to continue to exist. Society is now changing its view on gay marriage. Why shouldn't society be allowed to do so?

You've changed the direction of the conversation from the original conversation of equating black peoples rights, and gay rights. Just FYI.

To deal with the question above, I'm not saying society shouldn't be allowed to do so, but as a member of said society, I foresee issues with the change, and will voice them and fight them when necessary. I wont be burning embassies or raising up arms, I'll just be appealing for what I see is the best course of action and hoping there are enough others who share my opinion. Presently, I don't see us standing a hope in hell, but I live in hope:)

Delirium · 31-01-2013 03:14PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Or different.

You've changed the direction of the conversation from the original conversation of equating black peoples rights, and gay rights. Just FYI.

well it seemed that our discussion had reached an impasse so I figure I might try a different angle.

To deal with the question above, I'm not saying society shouldn't be allowed to do so, but as a member of said society, I foresee issues with the change, and will voice them and fight them when necessary. I wont be burning embassies or raising up arms, I'll just be appealing for what I see is the best course of action and hoping there are enough others who share my opinion. Presently, I don't see us standing a hope in hell, but I live in hope:)

Nothing wrong with that, it's how a modern society should work.

But I can't agree that withholding relevant information in a classroom because of the personal beliefs of the teacher is a good idea. Nor with not allowing same sex couples to marry.

JimiTime · 31-01-2013 03:51PM

koth wrote: »

well it seemed that our discussion had reached an impasse so I figure I might try a different angle.

No worries.

Nothing wrong with that, it's how a modern society should work.

But I can't agree that withholding relevant information in a classroom because of the personal beliefs of the teacher is a good idea. Nor with not allowing same sex couples to marry.

Information is not what I'd personally have an issue with. Just like an atheist doesn't mind kids being thought religion in a 'These are Muslims, this is what they believe' kind of way. Its indoctrinating curricula that I'd have issue with.

Also, in terms of the same sex marriage thing, I presently (can't stipulate that word enough) don't see the difference between civil union and civil marriage in isolation. My issue certainly has nothing to do with the words. What follows on from it though, is where my concerns are. Adoption would be one thing, as I've stipulated before, and also, will it rid the unique relationship of a man or a woman of its importance and place in society. Also, the slippery slope argument in relation to incest, polyamory etc is a very valid one IMO. I do think that there is a risk that changing its meaning, will render it meaningless on a societal level. There may also be things I'm blind to in foresight. One things for sure though, the WORD marriage is not what I'm concerned about. I often see the quip from pro same sex marriage folk, 'What will happen if same sex marriage is legalised? Gay couples will get married.' If that truly is all that happens, then it wouldn't be a big deal for me. Now maybe that quip is just a tactic of undermining objectors, but if its not, then I really don't think people have truly given the issue enough thought.

Bannasidhe · 31-01-2013 03:53PM

JimiTime wrote: »

No worries.

Information is not what I'd personally have an issue with. Just like an atheist doesn't mind kids being thought religion in a 'These are Muslims, this is what they believe' kind of way. Its indoctrinating curricula that I'd have issue with.

Still not clear what exactly you mean by 'indoctrinating curricula' - can you specify?

MrPudding · 31-01-2013 04:00PM

philologos wrote: »

He also denied penal substitution a few years ago which also caused much controversy.

Penal substitution? Is that a lesbian thing?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Phil has already linked to a summary of a legal opinion by Aidan O’Neill QC obtained, I think, by the Coalition for Marriage, an “an umbrella group of individuals and organisations in the UK that support traditional marriage and oppose any plans to redefine it.”

For ease of reference, here’s the link again: http://c4m.org.uk/downloads/legalopinionsummary.pdf

It is a non-legal opinion of a legal opinion. It would be nice to see the original opinion, I don't lend C4M's summary of it much weight.

I don't have an issue with O'Neill, but I do have an issue with C4M, so I simply do not trust there interpretation of the, probably very good, legal opinion.

I have seen too much twisting and misreporting of legal matters by the media and those opposed to same sex marriage to trust anything other than primary sources.

MrP

MrP

Delirium · 31-01-2013 04:01PM

JimiTime wrote: »

No worries.

Information is not what I'd personally have an issue with. Just like an atheist doesn't mind kids being thought religion in a 'These are Muslims, this is what they believe' kind of way. Its indoctrinating curricula that I'd have issue with.

I'd be with you in general with regards to having a problem with indoctrinating curricula being taught in a classroom. Where I'm confused (and maybe I missed the clarification from yourself) is how can discussing same-sex marriage/couples be considered indoctrination?

It would be information regarding the reality of the world. It's up to the child (and their family) to make up their mind as to whether it's something they support.

To flip the thinking, you would be saying that schools are indoctrinating kids with an anti-gay marriage by excluding it.

Surely giving students information about the world and its people is a good thing. Are history classes to ignore any historical protests/conflicts as a result of people involved in working for civil rights for gay people?

Delirium · 31-01-2013 04:19PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, in terms of the same sex marriage thing, I presently (can't stipulate that word enough) don't see the difference between civil union and civil marriage in isolation. My issue certainly has nothing to do with the words. What follows on from it though, is where my concerns are. Adoption would be one thing, as I've stipulated before, and also, will it rid the unique relationship of a man or a woman of its importance and place in society. Also, the slippery slope argument in relation to incest, polyamory etc is a very valid one IMO. I do think that there is a risk that changing its meaning, will render it meaningless on a societal level. There may also be things I'm blind to in foresight. One things for sure though, the WORD marriage is not what I'm concerned about. I often see the quip from pro same sex marriage folk, 'What will happen if same sex marriage is legalised? Gay couples will get married.' If that truly is all that happens, then it wouldn't be a big deal for me. Now maybe that quip is just a tactic of undermining objectors, but if its not, then I really don't think people have truly given the issue enough thought.

regarding the adoption issue, surely that is problem already as single parents can adopt (AFAIK). This means that from an adoption agency sees one parent as being adequate in certain situations.

the slippery slope isn't necessarily valid concerning gay marriage. Marriage is a man +woman from your perspective. Why can't a father/brother + sister/mother marry then? That could happen even without gay marriage becoming available as it fits your criteria for marriage.

JimiTime · 31-01-2013 04:44PM

koth wrote: »

I'd be with you in general with regards to having a problem with indoctrinating curricula being taught in a classroom. Where I'm confused (and maybe I missed the clarification from yourself) is how can discussing same-sex marriage/couples be considered indoctrination?

It would be information regarding the reality of the world. It's up to the child (and their family) to make up their mind as to whether it's something they support.

If its age appropriate, I don't see the issue. Secondary school is usually where such things are broached, and I see no issue with that. I would object to a curriculum that aimed to form a childs opinion on the matter, be it implicit or explicit. Discussing same sex marriage/relationships etc in secondary school is not something I would discourage. It would be akin to sticking my fingers in my childs ears and shouting 'Na na na na'

At the end of the day, its arguably the hottest topic in town, and may change the social landscape of the western world. I would encourage it to be talked about.

aloyisious · 31-01-2013 05:01PM

The "indoctrinating curriculum" (with regard to marriage) argument will never go away. It's akin to the creation versus evolution argument, two humans (at least) having fixed beliefs arguing their ground.

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

Comments