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

JimiTime · 31-01-2013 05:08PM

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.

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

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.

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.

Zombrex · 31-01-2013 05:25PM

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.

How is it any different to racism? You object to something that you cannot demonstrate is harmful simply because you don't like it.

It is no different to someone saying black people shouldn't use the same toilet as white because its immoral because that's just the way I feel about it.

Demonstrate there is something tangibly harmful about "LGBT indoctrination", or you are just the white guy throwing a fit because you found out a black person once slept in your hotel room.

Delirium · 31-01-2013 05:26PM

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.

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?

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.

How will your relationships place in society change, other than being viewed as equal to that of a same-sex marriage?

And I know people are getting tired of the comparison to inter-racial marriage but the same arguments were made back then too:

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

And almost any other argument against same-sex is included in the linked page, e.g. detrimental to children, redefinition of marriage etc.

JimiTime · 31-01-2013 05:34PM

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.

Racism was nothing to do with harm. It is about the belief that due to a persons race or colour, they are lesser people.

Having a moral objection to the action of homosexual sex is not even close to such a thing.

JimiTime · 31-01-2013 06:00PM

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?

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.

There have been studies that show there is no negative impact on a child being raised by a gay/lesbian couple.

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.

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?

Not IMO. I believe exceptional circumstances exist.

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.

On what basis was this reasoned? Just saying that they used the slippery slope, does not mean their use had validity.

Zombrex · 31-01-2013 06:31PM

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.

The idea that mixing of races will result in harm to white people is a staple of racist societies. In the USA if a black person had slept in a bed used by white people the linen was destroyed. Black people were not allowed marry white people because this would harm the blood line of the white person and their children. Black people were forced to used black only toilets because they were considered disgusting creatures who would contaminate the white bathrooms. Blacks were not allowed eat with white people, and often could only serve food not prepare it.

And of course all this was based on nothing other than the notions some white people had about black people. No evidence, no rational argument, no demonstrative harm. Just some white people didn't like the idea of these things so they objected to them and attempted to get them stopped.

And now we are 40 years later and you are saying we shouldn't indoctrinate children with the LGBT agenda because .... what exactly? What happens when we do? Something bad happens ... ? That is what exactly?

JimiTime wrote: »

Having a moral objection to the action of homosexual sex is not even close to such a thing.

Having a moral objection to the action of homosexual sex with nothing tangible to back up why it is actually harmful or bad is pretty much the same.

Why shouldn't blacks use white toilets?
Well we don't like it.
Got anything tangible justifying that?
Nope, we just don't like it.

Why shouldn't gays get married?
Well we don't like it.
Got anything tangible justifying that?
Nope, we just don't like it.

tommy2bad · 31-01-2013 08:06PM

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

Why jimi? would facts cloud their judgment?

"Phfft! Facts. You can use them to prove anything.
-- Homer Simpson

Delirium · 31-01-2013 08:22PM

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.

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.

Not IMO. I believe exceptional circumstances exist.

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?

On what basis was this reasoned? Just saying that they used the slippery slope, does not mean their use had validity.

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?

philologos · 31-01-2013 08:26PM

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.

NuMarvel · 31-01-2013 08:30PM

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).

While I'm not sure if it was in direct response the C4M document (the C4M don't date their publication or say when they received O'Neill's opinion), the UK Government addressed some of the issues raised in the C4M document when they announced the same sex marriage bill.

For example, in their press release, they state:

“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.

They also published a factsheet which includes an example of how a teacher would deal with this issue in the classroom:

"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."

So, on the face of it at least, religious organisations would have no obligation to marry same sex couples if they don't wish to do so. And workers who have conscientious objections to same sex marriage have the same protections, and limitations, as they do now.

The position of the Church of England and the Church in Wales is a special one, given that they have an obligation to marry any of their parishioners. However, even then, the Matrimony Clauses Act 1965 states that the clergy of those Churches shall not be compelled by the Act to marry divorced people. The same sex marriage bill has a similar clause, stating: "Any duty of a member of the clergy to solemnize marriages (and any corresponding right of persons to have their marriages solemnized by members of the clergy) is not extended by this Act to marriages of same sex couples."

It really is a shame that C4M haven't released the full legal opinion. I've seen legal opinions on much smaller matters, and they ran to pages because barristers cover themselves by referring to the intention of the applicable legislation as well as relevant case law. I would be very surprised if O'Neill's legal opinion wasn't more nuanced than how C4M have summarised it. Even if he was as direct as the summary makes him out to be, it would be interesting to see what cases and legislation he put forward to support his statements

JimiTime · 31-01-2013 08:39PM

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.

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.

Delirium · 31-01-2013 08:54PM

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.

So you're posting a link to an article that offers one perspective on the gay and interracial comparisons, and then encourage people to ignore the topic?

Hardly conducive to a discussion

who do we direct questions to if Christians aren't going to respond on thread?

JimiTime · 31-01-2013 08:58PM

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.

It wasn't a government meeting, it was a thread on boards:) It was a simple appeal, in the hope that people could assess things honestly. The thing is, these people did the opposite of ignore them, and used them as conclusive proof of their position. At first, the impression was given that these studies are what had informed them, but on further probing, it was clear that they had already made up their mind and that these studies, which most/(maybe all??) hadn't investigated or at least read , were merely thrown into the ring as something that had the the term 'Science' and 'study' attached to them.

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?

Well, parents have rights too, and it is assumed that a biological parent will love and cherish their child. I would not suggest parents being forced to give up their kids due to the state believing they have a better place for them. The problem with this type of whataboutery, is that it can just get silly. 'What if this guy had a gimpy eye, and this other fella was gay etc.'
Adoption is a voluntary arrangement, or at least should be in all but very exceptional cases. So if a biological parent has custody of their child, then thats that.

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?

Read the article Philo posted, it covers a lot and is not that long.

What exactly is it about gay marriage that it makes incestous marriage more probable to happen in comparison to allowing interracial marriage?

Well, with marriage already redefined, and having no root in anything Godly anymore, the state is now exposed to any subjective view. 'Who are you to tell me who I can and cannot love. Its consensual.' etc. After redefining it for homosexuals on such basis, how could it be argued that incestuous couples should be denied.

What happens when a brother and a sister marry? A brother and a sister get married. Even the quips work for it.

Zombrex · 31-01-2013 10:29PM

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.

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 · 01-02-2013 12:22AM

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".

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:)

Zombrex · 01-02-2013 01:17AM

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.

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 objection to the redefining of marriage enters when Christians start realizing that oh maybe "Cause God says so, that's why!" might not be enough to actually win them the argument, or even make themselves feel secure in the correctness of their own position, and thus they start searching around for something they consider a bit more tangible, like when a racist group might actually try and find some statistics showing that yes blacks are stupid. Sure we knew they were, but its reassure to have this confirmed by the latest KKK census.

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.

Delirium · 01-02-2013 09:31AM

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:)

Can you elaborate on what "LGBT propaganda" is because the example gave was merely informing kids that same-sex families exist?

lazygal · 01-02-2013 10:01AM

koth wrote: »

Can you elaborate on what "LGBT propaganda" is because the example gave was merely informing kids that same-sex families exist?

+1. Is saying marriage is only between men and women "heterosexual propaganda"? Are you worried children in the classroom will be swayed in terms of their sexual identity by 'LGBT propaganda'?

philologos · 01-02-2013 03:25PM

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"?

Nobody should be glorifying or denegrating same-sex marriage in the classroom.

In RE class the perspectives of different faiths should be taught in a matter of fact way.

01-02-2013 03:28PM

philologos wrote: »

Nobody should be glorifying or denegrating same-sex marriage in the classroom.

So what exactly is "glorifying" same-sex marriage?

Zombrex · 01-02-2013 03:53PM

28064212 wrote: »

So what exactly is "glorifying" same-sex marriage?

Telling kids its ok and normal and not something to be ashamed of or to look down upon. You can't do that, because when the kids go home and their God fearing parents tell them nope it is an abomination to God, the poor kids might get "confused" :pac:

JimiTime · 01-02-2013 04:13PM

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!)

Again, thats muddling my argument, unintentionally I'm sure. The issue in terms of racism, is the insidious equating of moral objection to the act of homosexual sex to racism. NOT the issue of marriage. Are we clear on that now?

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. The de-classifying of the unique relationship of a man and woman, and its special place as the base as the building blocks of the family of which society is built on etc. It becomes just one of many forms of mutual agreements that people can make with each other. These are tangible things. Now, you may not see them as problems, but I certainly do, and it has jaff all to do with, 'I just don't like gays', and I resent your implications that it does. You may not tolerate such views, but they are valid, tangible and legitimate concerns about the future of our society. Redefining such a core part of the building blocks of society such as marriage should not be taken lightly or foolishly, or be based around a minority groups push for what they perceive should be their right.

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.

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.

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.

How flippant and disingenuous. I thought you were better than this, I genuinely did.

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.

Of course there are logical reasons to preserve marriage, and they've already been mentioned. You may not see them as issues, but they are valid and logical issues. And again, while God is alluded to in our nation, calling on his standard is also logical and valid.

Bannasidhe · 01-02-2013 04:28PM

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.

.

And sodomy was punishable by death in the US. In fact, Jefferson introduced a bill in 1778 which would have seen the punishment reduced to castration but this was rejected as too liberal.

Up until 1962 Sodomy was a felon in every US state - usual sentence was hard labour (same as happened to Oscar Wilde as it happens)

In the State of NY up until the late 1960s lesbians who were not deemed correctly dressed (ie not wearing women clothes) automatically spent a night in a detention centre.

Shall we talk about what was done to Alan Turing?

If you think there have not been, and continue to be, repressive laws against homosexuals you must be living under a rock.

There are moves in Uganda right now to make being gay punishable by death.

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?

tommy2bad · 01-02-2013 04:35PM

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?

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.

JimiTime · 01-02-2013 04:39PM

koth wrote: »

Can you elaborate on what "LGBT propaganda" is because the example gave was merely informing kids that same-sex families exist?

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.

01-02-2013 04:54PM

JimiTime wrote: »

seeking to normalise homosexuality to them

Homosexuality should be normalised. It. Is. Normal. Children should be aware that if they have homosexual thoughts, they should not consider themselves abnormal

Delirium · 01-02-2013 04:54PM

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.

It's not redefining marriage, as to state that is to ignore the countries where same sex marriage is available.

Allowing for same-sex marriage will only mean same-sex marriage is available to gay couples. The slippery slope of incest and polyamory is just an attempt to create an irrational opposition to same-sex marriage.

Bannasidhe · 01-02-2013 04:56PM

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,

Homosexuality is Normal.

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.

Should women not wear trousers in Jimiland?
Should men not cook, clean or do laundry in Jimiland?

Mould them into a Pro-LGBT future society, and that is the beginning.

And this is a bad thing why?

They want there to be gay history,

There is a Gay history - just like there is a Christian 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!

Ever hear of Lolita Jimi?
Should heterosexual pederasty also be mentioned?

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.

Because that's not a work of propaganda at all...

JimiTime · 01-02-2013 04:56PM

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.

I refer you to Paul, speaking as an apostle of Christ, the Lord you aim to serve. You should take note:

Galatians 1
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Morbert · 01-02-2013 05:02PM

Hey Jimi, just posting this to let you know that not everyone has the same religious beliefs that you do, so it would be kind of unfair to force everyone to adhere to the code of conduct your religion demands.

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

Comments