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

28064212 wrote: »

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

Define normal?

Morbert wrote: »

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.

Could you elaborate on this quip? Things have been relatively civil recently, and such quips have a tendency to make a discussion go south fairly quick.

28064212 wrote: »

Define abnormal.

Hey, don't wimp out You said it was normal, so tell me what you mean by it before I address your issue.

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.

For those that haven't read it, that article (from 'The Gospel Coalition') aims to debunk the idea that homosexual rights are comparable to racial rights on the basis that homosexuals are not a race.

It certainly succeeds in that regard - no doubt about it: homosexuals do not constitute a racial minority.

But then again, that's actually not at all what people mean when they say that the homosexual rights struggle parallels the civil rights struggle in question ('Gay is the new black').

There's also a slippery-slope argument in there involving a bisexual polygamist, presumably because the author felt that was relevant.

Quoting articles like this is not at all an effective way of shutting down an argument you don't like (and aren't winning), firstly because it doesn't represent a debate and is rather an appeal to authority (incidentally dubious in this case since the author is a pastor and not a sociologist), and secondly because the article doesn't even deal with the debate in question - nobody is forwarding that homosexuals constitute a race and therefore etc. etc.

philologos wrote: »

Other countries redefined it (past tense). It doesn't mean that it should be redefined or that it is the right thing to redefine it.

Ethical arguments aren't based on the fact that other people may be doing it.

Even if the state legalized something that doesn't make it moral.

So? has anyone said it dose? Whats immoral is the discrimination that exists now. It may be immoral to you and be moral for others, who's morality should the law enshrine.

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

Before this thread had the lull in activity a couple of weeks ago, I posted up a couple of cases and suggested that anyone using these arguments might want to have a read.

These arguments were used by the Proponents of Proposition 8 and they were found to be seriously lacking and almost completely without substance.

Jimi, they are bad arguments and they don't work. They have been deployed in courts of law and dismissed for what they are, bad arguments. Clearly you like them as they support your particular viewpoint, but that does not make them good. Please read the cases, they give an excellent analysis of the arguments and will hopefully show you why we don't accept them.

MrP

tommy2bad wrote: »

...who's morality should the law enshrine.

No one's.

MrP

Zombrex wrote: »

As for the "insidious" equating of a moral objection to the act of homosexual sex to racism, I'm sure the racists thought they had a moral objection to whites and blacks marrying.

They would have been wrong then wouldn't they.

Putting "moral objection" in front of something doesn't make it any less bigoted. If someone said they had a "moral objection" to black people sleeping in a hotel used by white people you wouldn't go "Oh well, so long as it is a moral objection, I respect that"

Eh no. Sex is an action that carries moral implications. Being black has no such equation. Come on Zombrex, you're smarter than this tripe.

Yes would be the answer to that question Jimi, and in fact many would argue it doesn't even require a redefinition. As I explained to PDN a while back, no one would genuine have a problem in comprehension if I said to you "John and Paul are married". No one would go "I have no idea what that sentence means", and more than they would if I said "Paul, Barry and Jane are firemen"

Like I have said (And its rather irritating that you repeatedly talk as if I haven't said it, and as if what you write is actually arguing with a position I hold.) The word means nothing to me. I asked PDN, as I asked all Christians here who start talking about the word, to explain if that was there big objection. I questioned PDN on why he'd insist on using a different term for a man - woman union for example. I also asked it respectfully, as in, Me, as a man of many ignorances, probably haven't seem something that PDN had seen in relation to the importance of the word.

So this "issue" is just a pathetic last grasp at trying to find something to try and make it seem like this would have negative consequences (oh no, words are being redefined, almost as if language is an evolving method of communication!)

So now you see, you are arguing against a position I have never held. Are you clear on that now?

No it isn't. The issue with miscegentation is that you could not marry the person you wished to marry, and that is exactly the issue with the restriction of marriage to man and woman.

Ehh, no. The Miscegenation issue was to do with singling out a race of people, and saying, 'You are beneath us, and we don't want you breeding with us superior folk'. So a race of people were being singled out. The issue in terms of homosexuals and marriage, is that they want the institution to be changed. If you can't accept this difference, and insist on conflating the two, then we are at an impasse, and I suggest we go our separate ways on it.

And more specifically the issue is that there is no good reason for this. miscegenation came about simply because white people didn't like the idea of blacks marrying whites. There was no tangible reasons justifying why this restriction was necessary.

Well, Marriage, as the basis of the family unit and in turn one of the core building blocks of society, there is obvious reason to approach any messing with it with caution. I would have thought that obvious. Miscegenation was based on not allowing blacks breed with whites because of picking on blacks, not based on the institution itself. It was recognised what the institution was, and they didn't want what they seen as lesser beings, breeding with what they believed superior whites. So breeding was seen as part of this institution. Another parallel that is obviously not applicable in terms of homosexuals.

And ban on homosexual marriage is simply because some religious people don't like the idea of men marrying men.

I know you like to keep saying it because it helps you in your quest to equate people with racists, but `i think you need a trip here

There is no tangible reasons justifying why this restriction is necessary, certainly not that it will "redefine" words.

Firstly, its not a restriction. Saying it is, gives the impression that it was somehow plotted with homosexuals in mind. It is what it is, and others want it to change. In that context we ask, well why is it the way it is, and why has it been so important? Will messing with it have any adverse effect that we can foresee? etc.

People should be allowed marry the person they want to marry unless there is a tangible identifiable negative argument otherwise. If Person A and Person B want to marry each other Person A being black isn't a reason to stop that. Person A being Asian isn't a reason to stop that. Person A being 9 years old probably is a reason to stop that.

So what is the tangible reason to stop it because Person A is the same gender as Person B

Because marriage is the states recognition of the unique, important place that a man - woman union holds in society as the place our future generations are born and nurtured. Its about family. Its about reproduction. Even the word husband is rooted in terms that mean 'to make fertile'. There is no other relationship like it. To define it away, is to make it simply a contract between two people. Nothing special. By very nature of the fact that a homosexual couple are sterile, why would they even want to redefine an ancient institution that has been rooted in reproduction?

No-fault divorce undermines a marriage. Adultery undermines a marriage. Abuse undermines a marriage, and allowing it to be simply any two people irrespective of gender undermines marriage in general as simply a union of two people.

I will concede, that marriage has been undermined in our society to the extent that its probably on life support in many respects. With sexual immorality promoted everywhere that even our young children cannot help but be exposed to it, so to a degree its a case of, 'Whats one more nail in the coffin'. However, I'd rather encourage a reassessment of marriage and what it is and should be instead of simply bashing it into its grave.

Allowing blacks to marry whites required the over throw of centuries long cultural stereotypes and bigot and a civil war.

Because it was a culture of racism against a people.

I think we can manage the redefinition of a word :rolleyes:

Do you believe in the quip that all that will happen, is that gay people will get married to each other?

I know the "consequences" presented so far are pathetic, yes.

Very well argued. I concede to your obvious brilliance.

What, you think the racists didn't have a list of dire consequences of what will happen if we let whites and blacks mingle? Of course they did, sure the whole world was going to crumble.

Again, so what. Who cares what racists said about it? When polyamorists, or incestuous couples or all manner of people present their cases, can we simply say, 'Well racists had a list of reasons to be racists, so if you are against incest marriage, you are the same as a racist'.

Seriously, its an absolute nonsense that you keep just saying, 'Well racists had their reasons', as if that somehow means anything to the arguments for preserving marriage as the recognition of the unique union of a man and a woman.

The point was these "consequences" were pathetic excuses. And so are the ones so far present.

Again, well argued

We will have to refine a word! By Darwins beard, not redefine a word! Sure we haven't change or updated the defintion of words since they were first invented. Oh wait, no actually we redefine words all the freaking time.

Again, do you believe in the quip that all that will happen is gay people will marry each other? And that will be that?

So pathetic excuse 1 debunked.

My word your standards are slipping.

We will have to allow gay adoption. Oh no! Not gay adoption. If only there was some areas of the world that have had gay adoption for decades, allowed the study of the effect that has on children. Oh wait we do. And the effects are insignificant. In fact the effects are strong if parents of one skin colour adopt a child of a different skin colour, something the racists warned us would completely tramatise children.

Feel free to present your studies, and in your own words detail what you think about them, their methods, if the sample populations were enough to be conclusive about all the multitude of relationship dynamics there are etc etc. Also, do you personally believe that a mother and a father are inconsequential in terms of child rearing? Completely interchangeable as long as they love the child?

So pathetic excuse 2 debunked.

Afraid not. Not only that, but it seems you DONT believe that it will simply be, gay people will 'marry' each other.

It will pave the way for incest. Really don't get that one. Surely heterosexual marriage paves this as equally as homosexual marriage. Because if I can marry a woman who is to day that that woman cannot be my sister. All the reasons against incest have nothing to do with either the man/woman definition of marry you claim exists, so how would changing that aspect of marry effect incest.

So pathetic excuse 3 debunked.

Man oh man Zombrex, I'm insulted that you're not even trying. Is that what I am reduced to? A few lines of unthinking scrawl? I thought we were frienemies

The slippery slop argument in this context is about the arguments used to change its definition. They are just as valid in the context of other types of relationships. Bisexual, incestuous, polyamorous, whatever. It seems that consent is what its all about. How could you reasonably repel any of the above in light of redefining marriage for homosexuals? All you then need is a few sentimental movies, think Brokeback Mountain, The kids are allright etc with bro and sis, or the foursome marriage etc. A few shows that feature such people/relationships to get people used to the idea and before to long you have people asking, 'Who are we to tell them who they can't love'. Mix a few references to racists, invent some good oul pejoratives, and you gotta case!

If they are valid tangible and legitimate how did I just easily debunk them, and why are you refusing to respond to the debunk, instead just complaining about how unfair all this is.

I must have missed the debunking bit. Was it somewhere in your post?

The reality is they are stupid arguments.

Oh THAT debunking

Y they aren't the source of your objection.

There is no THE source. There are a few. It is true that I believe that moving away from the Godly, in anything, is ultimately going to be bad for us all yes. Tangibly bad. As God is the source of morality, Love and wisdom, it would be stupid of me to think that going against him will be anything but bad. However, on this occasion, I actually foresee some the consequences that can arise. Though you said they were stupid, so they are obviously debunked now:)