koth wrote: » 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 wrote: » 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.
JimiTime wrote: » That bit in bold is the pertinent point. If not enough nuclear couples are adopting children, then I could hardly complain that children are been given to single or gay couples. I'd rather children are loved and cared for, and given a special place in a place they can call home. The issue, is when a gay couple are given equal footing to a mother/father dynamic, such that the child in question may be denied the chance of having both a mother and a father. That IMO, sacrifices the best interests of a child for the sake of the agenda of a very small minority of the population.
Just to clarify, simply having a man and a woman does not meet my criteria of marriage. Its more than that. For the sake of the context of this particular discussion, we are focussing on the gender element of marriage thats all. To deal with your point, you are right, anyone could possibly fight for a redefinition of marriage for the sake of their particular circumstance (incest, polyamory etc). However, if marriage is redefined/undermined by one lobby group, then it is like opening the gate. Up until now, the idea would have been absurd that polyamory and incest etc could be introduced to the marriage set-up. Just like there would have been a time when the idea of same sex marriage would have been absurd. However, if we now redefine marriage, we undermine it as an institution. You wont undermine my relationship with my wife. Our relationship will not change between us because of it. Our relationships place in society however, will. The same arguments made for redefining marriage by LGBT groups, can easily be made for other marriages and will be much harder, and probably illogical, to repel in light of marriage being redefined.
The slippery slope argument; by allowing same-sex marriage it will somehow lead to incest, paedophilia, bestiality, polygamy etc. ‘[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.’ ‘The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.’ ‘The State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.’Source
Zombrex wrote: » How is it any different to racism? You object to something that you cannot demonstrate is harmful simply because you don't like it.
koth wrote: » And what if down the line it's shown that gay couples are better adoptive parents than male+female, i.e. the best interests of a child mean that gay couples get preference over male+female?
There have been studies that show there is no negative impact on a child being raised by a gay/lesbian couple.
And what about same-sex couples that marry where one or both have children? Will only one of the married couple be recognised as the legal guardian of the children?
And I know people are getting tired of the comparison to inter-racial marriage but the same arguments were made back then too: And almost any other argument against same-sex is included in the linked page, e.g. detrimental to children, redefinition of marriage etc.
JimiTime wrote: » Racism was nothing to do with harm. It is about the belief that due to a persons race or colour, they are lesser people.
JimiTime wrote: » Having a moral objection to the action of homosexual sex is not even close to such a thing.
I've appealed for people to use their own minds on this matter rather than needing studies to inform them of a rather basic truth
JimiTime wrote: » In such a case, where it has been clearly established that the above is the case, then it would be silly to give the nuclear family precedence. I've appealed for people to use their own minds on this matter rather than needing studies to inform them of a rather basic truth (Didn't go down well. You probably recall ) I did question about them over yonder though, but people were not really in the mood of civil interaction. I do question their validity, and indeed, how such a conclusion can be drawn from such a tiny sample group with so many different dynamics Male - male, male - male where one is the biological father. Female - female etc, you get the picture.
Not IMO. I believe exceptional circumstances exist.
On what basis was this reasoned? Just saying that they used the slippery slope, does not mean their use had validity.
Peregrinus wrote: » But it means that the issue of rights of conscience remains a live one, and if nothing else at some point the British government is going to have to respond to O’Neills concerns either (a) by arguing that O’Neill is mistaken, or (b) by accepting that he may be right, and amending their own draft legislation to avoid the problems he points to, or (c) by accepting that O’Neill is right, but saying that these are desirable and proper outcomes of the legislation (or some combination of these, of course).
“Crucially, the Bill recognises the unique legal situation of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. Unlike any other religious organisation in this country, their clergy are subject to a legal duty to marry parishioners. To protect them from legal challenge, therefore, the Bill makes clear that this duty does not extend to same-sex couples. Both Churches have been clear that they do not currently wish to conduct marriages for same-sex couples. If they choose to do so at a later date, they will of course be able to.” The Bill’s ‘quadruple lock’: -Makes clear that a religious marriage ceremony of a same-sex couple will only be possible if: I. the governing body of the religious organisation has opted in by giving explicit consent to same-sex marriages; II. the individual minister is willing to conduct the marriage; and III. If it takes place in a place of worship, those premises have been registered for marriages of same-sex couples. -States explicitly that no religious organisation can be compelled to opt in to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises; and no religious organisation or minister can be compelled to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies. -Amends the Equality Act 2010 to make clear that it is not unlawful discrimination for a religious organisation or individual minister to refuse to marry a same-sex couple. -Ensures that the common law legal duty on the clergy of the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry parishioners will not extend to same-sex couples. It also protects the Church of England’s Canon law which says that marriage is the union of one man with one woman, so that it does not in conflict with civil law. The Bill contains specific measures to deal with the unique legal position of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. Unlike any other religious bodies in this country, their clergy have a specific legal duty to marry parishioners. The Bill also ensures that Anglican Canon law, which says that marriage is the union of one man with one woman, does not conflict with civil law. Both the Church of England and the Church in Wales have been very clear that they do not currently wish to conduct same-sex marriages. The Government respects this and the Bill provides the necessary legal protections for them, as it does for other religious organisations that do not wish to marry same-sex couples.
"teachers will of course be required to teach the factual position that under the law, marriage can be between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. There are many areas within teaching, particularly within faith schools, where this already occurs and where subjects such as divorce are taught with sensitivity. The guidance governing these issues is the same guidance that will govern how same sex marriage in the classroom will be approached. Equally, parents will continue to have the right, to withdraw their children from sex education lessons that they do not consider appropriate."
philologos wrote: » The inter-racial marriage point has been clarified in an article posted on this thread. It's highly disingenuous to make this comparison. I'd almost encourage ignoring it so we can actually talk about the crux of Christian objections to redefining marriage.
koth wrote: » I have to say, that I find this a strange attitude to take when forming social policy. To ignore studies that may have pertinent information to help a person have an informed opinion just seems nonsensical to me.
okay, but why does a biological link to a parent trump the needs of the child to have a mother and father figure? And why does that change when it's a gay couple with no biological attachment to a child they wish to adopt?
Zombrex pretty much has it. It's a question of why the arguments are valid now that you're using them over the anti-interracial marriage folk?
What exactly is it about gay marriage that it makes incestous marriage more probable to happen in comparison to allowing interracial marriage?
JimiTime wrote: » Good article. The problem is, that the equating the two is working. Its an insidious method, so I don't think those who use it care one way or the other. They WANT it to be valid, so you me or anyone else who points out the lack of logic, and plain stupidity of it does not matter to them, because it is working for them. It reminds me of an interview with a DR. Nathanson about abortion. He was one of the leading drivers of getting abortion introduced, but later in life completely turned to the other side. Talking about when they were trying to push abortion, he recalled 'Cooking the books' embellishing stats etc. Him and his cohorts justified it in their head, because they seen the ends.
Zombrex wrote: » The argument as to why it is different are very poor. To start the author of that article argues that well we can tell who is black, but sure we can't tell who is homosexual. What if someone pretends to be homosexual? Yes ... what exactly? They get the right to marry the person they want to marry which they already had being heterosexual? People pretend to be in love all the time to get married for various reasons and the State doesn't care, there is no attractiveness test in marriage. If you say you want to get married to someone you can get married to them. And since when do black people get tested as being black before they get special black rights? What kind of nonsense is that? And we don't "deny" 12 year olds the right to marry (see, discrimination is ok! :rolleyes:) As for homosexuals not being denied rights because they can marry someone of the different sex, that argument simply misses what the right actually is, which is to marry the person you want to. This is simply not an issue for the majority of heterosexuals because the person they want to marry is normally of the opposite sex. But that is what the right is, the right to choose the person you get married to. A racists could equally argue that since whites can only marry whites, and blacks and only marry blacks, everyone is equal. But that of course is nonsense, since the right to marry a person of the same race as you is not the right that is being oppressed, it is the right to marry the person you want to marry. And finally we come to the "Where will it all end" nonsense which has been debunked so many times it is getting annoying, and highlighting how disingenuous the claims that you guys have rational arguments for this stuff really is. Marriage from a civil point of view is the societal recognition of another person who person A has elected as their partner and thus the state recognizes this. This article's argument is like saying Well if we let people have women solicitors what happens when someone wants to have a donkey as a solicitor, or the Effile Tower. To which the reply isn't, well the word solicitor implies a man, and the Effile Tower isn't a man. The response is Can the Effile Tower carry out the responsibilities of a solicitor. No, being the answer. The question with relation to socially recognized marriage is can this other thing fulfill the role and responsibility the State recognizes in them. Can the Empire State building do it? No, so you cannot marry the Empire State building. Can a man do it? Yes. Can a woman do it? Yes. Then there is no reason why it must be a man/woman pairing, any more than my solicitor has to be a woman because I'm a woman. That article is terrible, and just highlights again you guys don't have any actual arguments as to why this shouldn't be allowed. Frankly it would be easier if you just said "Well its in the Bible, so there".
JimiTime wrote: » The issues are being muddled. The issue of the insidious moral objection to homosexual sex being equated to racism, and the issue of the redefining of marriage. They need to be separated for it to be coherent. For me anyway.
JimiTime wrote: » The issues are being muddled. The issue of the insidious moral objection to homosexual sex being equated to racism, and the issue of the redefining of marriage. They need to be separated for it to be coherent. For me anyway. For the record, I absolutely stand by the Christian view on the homosexual question, and it is absolutely at the fore as to why I believe we should not indoctrinate kids with the LGBT propaganda, or redefine marriage etc. Did you think I was hiding that fact? Your line about The Bible seems to suggest that you think I'm just appealing to some secular ideal. I'm absolutely of the opinion, that God should be sought as the objective source for Justice etc in the state. At the end of the day, most of the modern western world was founded on Godly principals, and as displayed at Obamas recent inauguration, God is still referenced (Though quite meaninglessly these days). 'In God we Trust' is still on their currency etc. So it is with validity, that people appeal to a standard established by this God who they trust. While God is still appealed to by our government, then appealing for his standards is still valid. We're not Godless yet folks:)
koth wrote: » Can you elaborate on what "LGBT propaganda" is because the example gave was merely informing kids that same-sex families exist?
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"?
philologos wrote: » Nobody should be glorifying or denegrating same-sex marriage in the classroom.
28064212 wrote: » So what exactly is "glorifying" same-sex marriage?
Zombrex wrote: » Ok. Christian objections to homosexual marriage are on the same par as racist objections to various black integration, ie they are vague objections based on the idea that it is some how "wrong" (we can't have blacks using white toilets!!!) but without any explanation that is grounded in anything tangible (sure everyone knows why blacks shouldn't use your toilet, we don't have to demonstrate this in any objective fashion! It is is JUST wrong!)
The very poor article above is an example of this, a list of pathetic excuses as to why gays aren't been treated as blacks once were, that this time it is all logical and rational.
Sure "marriage" means man and woman, we can't redefine that willy nilly! We don't just redefine words, you can't blame Christians for this, its just the way the world works. Its why women are not allowed by in the fire bridge, after all the word is fireman, and we can't just start redefine words, I mean if we can have women "firemen" we might as well just let cats marry dogs. Also look at all these examples where discrimination is actually good. We deny 12 year old's the right to marry, so again don't blame Christians for this, we didn't invent the idea of denying people the right to marry.
The comment about the Bible was frankly your side would come off better (or at least less silly) if you just dropped the rather ridiculous notions that there is some logical reason to prevent gay marriage outside of "Because God says so, thats why", just like I would actually have more respect (which isn't saying much) with the racists who just said "Yea I just don't like black people", than the one who tries to show me all the "evidence" that actually black people suck.
JimiTime wrote: » There is NOTHING pathetic and stupid about calling this stupidity as what it is. To quote American gay journalist Charles Winecoff: "Blacks in America didn’t start out as hip-hop fashion designers; they were slaves. There’s a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with the same sex partner of your choice – and not being able to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter, or use a rest room because you don’t have the right skin color.” Today, we have openly gay members of Congress, openly gay celebrities, openly gay CEO’s, openly gay financial gurus, openly gay sports stars, openly gay Hollywood moguls, and openly gay college professors, bestselling authors, scientists, and on and on. In the days of segregation in America, there were few, if any, blacks in such prominent positions" Equating the two is simply an insidious tactic. You can keep banging your drum, but it is tasteless and extremely stupid. .
Bannasidhe wrote: » Do I also need to point out that not only are there black members of congress, black celebs, black CEOs etc etc - the President of the United States is black?
JimiTime wrote: » seeking to normalise homosexuality to them
JimiTime wrote: » The marriage issue is something different. The homosexual marriage issue, is not if we should allow gays to marry. They can already marry. The issue is whether we should redefine marriage so that they can marry each other. That is a WHOLE different thing to miscegenation. In the black case, its a personal thing. Its a, 'You are a lesser being than this white person', and what was required was the removal of a anti-black bigotry. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” requires the redefinition of marriage. Now from my point of view, there are consequences to this redefinition. Its NOT, as you ignorantly assert, about 'I just don't like you'. Redefining marriage, whoever is doing it, and for whatever reason will have consequences beyond the quippy one liners. You appear to be a smart guy, so I'm sure you know this. Adoption rights is one consequence. Paving the way for polyamory, incest etc is another.
JimiTime wrote: » the example I gave you, was the beginning of a curriculum to last throughout school life that aimed to promote all things LGBT. The book I alluded to was a book for KINDERGARTEN kids seeking to normalise homosexuality to them,
and the game suggestions included cross dressing and taking on the different gender roles. All of this, with a view to getting the child implicitly taking it all in so to skew any natural instict they may have in relation to such thiings.
Mould them into a Pro-LGBT future society, and that is the beginning.
They want there to be gay history,
and that when people like Oscar Wilde are mentioned, his sexual orientation should be alluded to (Not his penchant for young teens of course). They mention famous people who were gay and want their sexual orintation to be alluded to, but not, in the case of many of them, their pederasty. If thats not a propaganda regime, then I don't know what is!
Seriously, if you are genuinely interested in whats happening in these things, get yourself A Queer Thing Happened To America by Dr. Michael Brown. Check the references, and even write to him. He does respond. You'll see lots of pro-lgbt groups speak out against the book, but most it is clear haven't read it, or they simply wimp out when asked to back up their accusations etc.
tommy2bad wrote: » Yes and by the logic of the anti gay marriage side he is black because we allowed right to blacks, not, he's president because..... Giving the right to marry to gay or straight doesn't take any rights from anyone else. It is not promotion of an agenda, it's recognizing the validity of an argument. You don't have to do it anymore than you have to eat pork or meat on Fridays.
