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

philologos · 02-02-2013 09:29AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

You're certainly right that the love and relationship that a person has with their parents and siblings is different from that with their friends, which is different again to that with their romantic partner. Anyone can tell you that from their own experience. There's research on it too.

But you haven't explained how gay couples have a different relationship from heterosexual couples. You've mentioned men and women complementing each other, but you base that on the Bible which isn't relevant to anyone outside the Christian faith.

I have done. The structure is different. A relationship with a man and a woman is a different structure to a relationship of two of the same gender.

I've been rather clear about that.

On this thread by the by, the Christian position on sexuality will come up. That's inevitable and it isn't outside of the remit of this discussion. If you don't want it to come up there are threads outside of this forum.

02-02-2013 10:35AM

philologos wrote: »

On this thread by the by, the Christian position on sexuality will come up. That's inevitable and it isn't outside of the remit of this discussion. If you don't want it to come up there are threads outside of this forum.

It has come up. Lots of times. And by and large, the consensus has been that the Christian position is one they're entitled to hold. The main topic of discussion on this thread is and has been why the Christian position should have any influence on the state's position

Zombrex · 02-02-2013 10:59AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

That door has been open nearly 25 years, ever since Denmark was the first country to legalise same sex unions in 1989. Has anyone stepped through it yet?

You can't support denying one group of people a right because you're afraid of what might happen with another group. If (and so far, that's a big if) another group start making a case, then you deal with them on the merits of the situation.

Exactly. This point is being ignored by Jimi (on purpose I suspect).

The door is no more open because we allow heterosexual marriage. I made the point that just because we allow me to marry a woman doesn't mean we allow me to marry my sister. And that is not because we have a specific restriction in the definition of "marriage" that excludes my sister. It is because the specific case of incest is considered wrong. I could marry my sister and live with her exactly as Christians say the Bible wants us to be, man and woman, there is nothing in the Christian definition of marriage that prevents this, incest in the Bible goes all the way back to the children of Adam and Eve.

So saying that keeping the traditional definition is necessary to prevent a free for all of bad types of marriage is both nonsensical since we treat each example on its own merits, but also more importantly highlights the underlying bigotry of viewing homosexual love and relationships as lesser than heterosexual love and relationships.

Zombrex · 02-02-2013 11:10AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

But you haven't explained how gay couples have a different relationship from heterosexual couples. You've mentioned men and women complementing each other, but you base that on the Bible which isn't relevant to anyone outside the Christian faith.

They are different, in the same way that a white man marrying a black woman is different to a white man marrying a white woman. A disabled person marrying an able person will be different to two able people marrying. A 20 year old marrying a 50 year old will be different to two 20 year olds. A marriage between a couple that can have children will be different to a marriage between a couple that cannot have children.

There is no point pretending they won't be different. The question is are they different in any fundamental or important way. And this is where the Christian argument falls down again, because it is easy to say they are different, point out the obvious differences, but much hard to point out why those differences should matter more fundamentally than any of the other numerous differences that appear in marriage.

And I suspect when pressed you will arrive at the answer that fundamentally they just don't think homosexual couples love each other the way heterosexual couples do, that the relationship is different, that allowing gay marriage means marriage becomes just an civil arrangement between two people who rationally choose to avail of the State benefits.

Ultimately if you view something as so alien that you cannot relate to it then you will never understand what it is about. All the more reason to ignore the Christian objections to homosexual marriage, in the same way you wouldn't ask an atheist what is the best way to perform a Catholic mass or a blind person their opinions on the best place to hang your new Picasso.

philologos · 02-02-2013 11:23AM

28064212 wrote: »

It has come up. Lots of times. And by and large, the consensus has been that the Christian position is one they're entitled to hold. The main topic of discussion on this thread is and has been why the Christian position should have any influence on the state's position

I disagree. The reason why this thread was created was to discuss Christian views on this subject.

If I'm asked about how a homosexual relationship is different from a heterosexual one I'm free to answer that question from a Biblical perspective. If you want a discussion with no reference to Christianity surely this forum isn't the right place.

I've made my position about the State crystal clear.

Bannasidhe · 02-02-2013 11:54AM

philologos wrote: »

I disagree. The reason why this thread was created was to discuss Christian views on this subject.

If I'm asked about how a homosexual relationship is different from a heterosexual one I'm free to answer that question from a Biblical perspective. If you want a discussion with no reference to Christianity surely this forum isn't the right place.

I've made my position about the State crystal clear.

Correct me if I am wrong, but am I correct to say that your position is that the Civil State should extend the same legal rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples but should reserve the term 'marriage' specifically for opposite-sex unions?

Your justification for this is that for many Christians the term 'marriage' is specific to opposite-sex unions.

If that is your position there are a number of issues with it:

The term 'Marriage' is a legal, civil, definition not a religious one. A marriage is legally valid only if it is recognised by the State. Although religious organisation do have a 'marriage' ceremony, the religious aspect of this has no legal standing and is purely ceremonial.

If one has only the religious part of the ceremony but not the civil - there is no legal marriage. Conversely if one has only the civil but not the religious - one is legally married.

Non-Christian marriages do not conform to Christian Biblical definitions either - are they to be allowed to 'marry' or must they also use a different term?

You seem to want to claim ownership of a term used to describe the legal partnership and union of two adults which results in those two adults becoming 'family' in the legal sense of the term. It is not exclusive to Christianity, it existed before Christianity and is legally valid only if sanctioned and approved by the civil State.

Perhaps Christians should be the ones to find a term to describe such unions as conform to Biblical interpretations and leave the term 'marriage' to continue to be what it is - the legal union of two adults recognised by the State?

philologos · 02-02-2013 12:22PM

I don't think the State should redefine marriage but I think it is free to decide otherwise, in the event that it does decide otherwise, I hope and expect that those who disagree will be given iron clad legal assurances to protect their right to freedom of conscience and religion.

In the country where I live, civil partnership rights afford the same freedoms as marriage. I don't see why it is necessary to redefine marriage and risk peoples civil liberties to disagree in the process.

That's my position.

aloyisious · 02-02-2013 12:27PM

On a by the by basis, there are gay people who identify as christian, are in same-sex fully-consensual relationships, and see no contradiction between both of those facts.

Silvio.Dante · 02-02-2013 12:34PM

There is a very vocal and organised Gay lobby in Ireland which may give the impression that more Gay people want Gay marriage than is actually the case.

Two prominent Gay people on the Late Late last night were trenchant in their opposition...

Bannasidhe · 02-02-2013 12:51PM

philologos wrote: »

I don't think the State should redefine marriage but I think it is free to decide otherwise, in the event that it does decide otherwise, I hope and expect that those who disagree will be given iron clad legal assurances to protect their right to freedom of conscience and religion.

In the country where I live, civil partnership rights afford the same freedoms as marriage. I don't see why it is necessary to redefine marriage and risk peoples civil liberties to disagree in the process.

That's my position.

But technically it is you who seeks to redefine marriage by insisting it should conform to a Biblical Christian interpretation when in it's currant format it is a legal contract recognised and sanctioned by the Civil authorities and available to Christian and Non-Christian alike.

With the greatest of respect, whatever about the country you live in, in the country I live in there are a great many differences between marriage and civil partnership and as this is an Irish site surely we should be devoting the bulk of this discussion to same-sex marriage in an Irish context?

I don't see why it is necessary to allow a religious interpretation of a legal term to deny people their civil liberties.

According to this site http://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/divorce_and_infidelity/should_i_get_a_divorce/how_should_a_christian_view_marriage_and_divorce.aspx

Marriage is sacred
God hates divorce
Marriage is designed to produce children of good character. (See Malachi 2:13-16)

So according to their Biblical view of marriage (which you may or may not share) 'God Hates Divorce' - should the civil State therefore repeal divorce legislation?

Zombrex · 02-02-2013 12:58PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

There is a very vocal and organised Gay lobby in Ireland which may give the impressin that more Gay people want Gay marriage than is actually the case.

Two prominent Gay people on the Late Late last night were trenchant in their opposition...

Plenty of heterosexuals don't want to get married, its not a reason to ban heterosexual marriage. Homosexuals should be free to marry each other whether they want to or not.

NuMarvel · 02-02-2013 12:58PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

There is a very vocal and organised Gay lobby in Ireland which may give the impressin that more Gay people want Gay marriage than is actually the case.

Two prominent Gay people on the Late Late last night were trenchant in their opposition...

So? There were women who campaigned against women getting the right to vote, or the right to run in elections. Does that mean we shouldn't have given women those rights?

Bannasidhe · 02-02-2013 12:59PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

There is a very vocal and organised Gay lobby in Ireland which may give the impressin that more Gay people want Gay marriage than is actually the case.

Two prominent Gay people on the Late Late last night were trenchant in their opposition...

Oh stop the press - 2 gays don't want marriage. Well, that's me convinced...

What the hell is a 'prominent Gay'?

JimiTime · 02-02-2013 01:23PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Exactly. This point is being ignored by Jimi (on purpose I suspect).

I don't do that tbh. That would be dishonest. If I have overlooked something, then I appreciate my attention being brought to it. Wouldn't it be stupid to stare truth in the face and then choose to avert ones gaze from it in favour of a deception?

The door is no more open because we allow heterosexual marriage. I made the point that just because we allow me to marry a woman doesn't mean we allow me to marry my sister. And that is not because we have a specific restriction in the definition of "marriage" that excludes my sister. It is because the specific case of incest is considered wrong. I could marry my sister and live with her exactly as Christians say the Bible wants us to be, man and woman, there is nothing in the Christian definition of marriage that prevents this, incest in the Bible goes all the way back to the children of Adam and Eve.

So saying that keeping the traditional definition is necessary to prevent a free for all of bad types of marriage is both nonsensical since we treat each example on its own merits, but also more importantly highlights the underlying bigotry of viewing homosexual love and relationships as lesser than heterosexual love and relationships.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/30/big-love-in-brazil-three-person-civil-union-approved-in-sao-paulo/

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301

http://www.vanpoly.ca/

There have also been cases I know in the past brought to court in relation to polyamory etc. So don't think that the will is not there.
Incest wise, I expect it to be a rarer phenomenon, although marrying cousins probably has a sizeable amount of advocates. TBH, just google it all, and you'll find the advocacy groups, and the arguments being mounted on the back of the same sex marriage arguments.
What I am in no doubt about, is that once marriage is reduced to being simply about Love and commitment (Which is what PM David Cameron said, and to which I agree are key COMPONENTS of a marriage), then why have limits on it at all? Once we rid marriage of its place as the environment that children are ideally brought up in, then there really is no logical reason not to allow varying consensual relationships. Government, rather than looking to water down the institution, should be looking at ways to strengthen it again and encourage it as the life long union that is the best environment for raising our future generations.

BTW, I have found the issue with this slippery slope argument in the past, is that people decide to be consistent and advocate all these relationships, and for some reason I thought you did too. Am I wrong in that recollection? Apologies if I am, but I thought it was you I was discussing it with in the past.

Bannasidhe · 02-02-2013 01:45PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Once we rid marriage of its place as the environment that children are ideally brought up in, then there really is no logical reason not to allow varying consensual relationships. Government, rather than looking to water down the institution, should be looking at ways to strengthen it again and encourage it as the life long union that is the best environment for raising our future generations.

I have a number of issues to raise:

1) As the raising of children is not part of the legal contract of marriage, nor is a childless marriage considered invalid, then this is not relevant to a discussion of marriage rights and responsibilities.

2.) Even considering the, irrelevant, issue of raising children - why exactly is marriage the best environment?

If it is a matter of stability:
Opposite sex marriages can be dissolved and frequently are - regardless of whether there are children or not.

Same-sex couples raise children - would these children not benefit by allowing their parents to raise them in this 'best environment'?

It it because 'Marriage' legally recognises two parents? Parents who, by the way, do not have to be biologically related to the children. Again, why should the children of same-sex couples be denied two legally recognised parents?

Government, rather than looking to water down the institution, should be looking at ways to strengthen it again and encourage it as the life long union that is the best environment for raising our future generations

is an argument against divorce - not same-sex marriage. Are you advocating the repeal of divorce legislation?

Do you think same-sex couples are incapable of making a life-long commitment?

Do you believe that all opposite sex couples who marry are, indeed, making life-long commitments and will therefore never seek to break that commitment?

Results just published from the most recent census in 2011 show that 87,770 people are now legally divorced.

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Divorce-rates-soar-in-Ireland-as-population-continues-to-expand-145121415.html#ixzz2JkFIrDaL
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

87,770 People in Ireland seem to disagree that they made a 'life-long commitment'.

Silvio.Dante · 02-02-2013 01:57PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh stop the press - 2 gays don't want marriage. Well, that's me convinced...

What the hell is a 'prominent Gay'?

A newspaper columnist...:)

All I'm saying there is more nuance within the Gay Community than the lobby would like us to believe...;)

Bannasidhe · 02-02-2013 02:03PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

A newspaper columnist...:)

All I'm saying there is more nusnce within the Gay Community than the lobby would like us to believe...;)

As a member of 'the Gay Community' I am well aware of, and involved in, the debates. That view is very much a minority one. This does not mean all Gay people want to get married* (no more than all heterosexuals do!) but the vast majority want the right to.

I am also a grandmother - would you like to tell me how to suck eggs?

If you look at any thread here on boards discussing marriage you will find people who believe it should be done away with - does that mean we should?

* I don't.

I don't watch the Late Late Show so really don't know who these prominent gays are...

NuMarvel · 02-02-2013 02:06PM

JimiTime wrote: »

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/30/big-love-in-brazil-three-person-civil-union-approved-in-sao-paulo/

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301

Ironically enough, according to those articles, the trios in question used civil union legislation and not civil marriage legislation. Perhaps that makes the case for same sex marriage stronger again?

In any case, two ceremonies in the last 8 years is not exactly opening the floodgates. In fact, you're more likely to find polyamrous mariages in countries that have very strong opposition to any kind of gay relationships, so the links between the two aren't exactly strong.

Silvio.Dante · 02-02-2013 02:16PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As a member of 'the Gay Community' I am well aware of, and involved in, the debates.

Debates that have never been broadcast until last night.

Before the Late Late, if we were to listen to the GM Lobby the Gay Community were wholescale behind 'marriage'.

Whereas the reality suggests otherwise...:)

aloyisious · 02-02-2013 02:16PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

There is a very vocal and organised Gay lobby in Ireland which may give the impressin that more Gay people want Gay marriage than is actually the case.

Two prominent Gay people on the Late Late last night were trenchant in their opposition...

If by very vocal and organized gay lobby in Ireland you mean MarriagEquality and NOISE, then yes, you are correct. We learned from others of the need for vocal representative groups. We also accept that those who do not believe in the need for Gay Civil Marriage are not intrinsically disordered. I suppose you. or others, do not want to demonize heterosexual people, including the parents of gay people, who believe it is right for gay people to have the right to marry their same-sex partners.

tommy2bad · 02-02-2013 02:22PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Debates that have never been broadcast until last night.

Before the Late Late, if we were to listen to the media reports of the GM Lobby the Gay Community were wholescale behind 'marriage'.

Whereas the reality suggests otherwise...:)

So if the debates were not broadcast then they didn't happen?
FYP, your welcome.

Silvio.Dante · 02-02-2013 02:28PM

aloyisious wrote: »

If I suppose you. or others, do not want to demonize heterosexual people, including the parents of gay people, who believe it is right for gay people to have the right to marry their same-sex partners.

Indeed...:)

aloyisious · 02-02-2013 02:28PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Debates that have never been broadcast until last night.

Before the Late Late, if we were to listen to the GM Lobby the Gay Community were wholescale behind 'marriage'.

Whereas the reality suggests otherwise...:)

Maybe that's because it was seen by others as not being in the public interest, and their own vested interests, not to have Revolting Gays the right to put across their point of view in public.

There's no use you pretending that those few Gays against the notion of that were on the show were hidden from view 'til now. Richard Waghorne is well renowned for his opposition.

Rolling them out now for use in your argument show's how fearful you are of losing the toss in any law voted on in the Oireachtas. that you have to resort to using Gay people to bolster your point of view.

The Gay is out of the bottle and not fearful any more. Get over it.

Edit: PS, if you're going to use/include my posts in a response, please do not censor them and mix some parts in your response.

NuMarvel · 02-02-2013 02:30PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Debates that have never been broadcast until last night.

Before the Late Late, if we were to listen to the GM Lobby the Gay Community were wholescale behind 'marriage'.

Whereas the reality suggests otherwise...:)

Damn. You caught us out... :rolleyes:

Just because you weren't aware of those people, doesn't mean they don't exist. I've come across them a few times before, so maybe you aren't doing enough research into the topic?

In any case, it's irrelevant. I don't care what the sexuality (or gender, or race, etc) of the person arguing for or against my point is. I only care about the merits of the argument.

JimiTime · 02-02-2013 02:52PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Ironically enough, according to those articles, the trios in question used civil union legislation and not civil marriage legislation. Perhaps that makes the case for same sex marriage stronger again?

Not at all. As NOW, civil union it seems is just the precursor for same sex marriage.

In any case, two ceremonies in the last 8 years is not exactly opening the floodgates. In fact, you're more likely to find polyamrous mariages in countries that have very strong opposition to any kind of gay relationships, so the links between the two aren't exactly strong.

Firstly, I didn't use the term 'floodgates' as I would find that a little sensationalist. Secondly, the argument is NOT about 'how many people have used the same sex scenario to argue for their relationship makeup' but rather, that it WILL be, as a logical progression, be done. The fact that it has already been done shows this. The argument that, 'yeah but not much' is irrelevant. The fact is, the door is open, and as society changes in light of how we view relationships etc, it will no doubt increase. As I said though, it shows that it DOES in fact, open the door.

Bannasidhe · 02-02-2013 02:57PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Debates that have never been broadcast until last night.

Before the Late Late, if we were to listen to the GM Lobby the Gay Community were wholescale behind 'marriage'.

Whereas the reality suggests otherwise...:)

There are more avenues for public debate than The Late Late Show.

Zombrex · 02-02-2013 03:04PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't do that tbh. That would be dishonest. If I have overlooked something, then I appreciate my attention being brought to it. Wouldn't it be stupid to stare truth in the face and then choose to avert ones gaze from it in favour of a deception?

You say you don't do it, and then in this very post you do it. So again your protest rings hollow. Have the honesty to actually tackle what people are saying to you, not some straw man that while easier to argue against is not the actual argument.

JimiTime wrote: »

There have also been cases I know in the past brought to court in relation to polyamory etc. So don't think that the will is not there.

Case in point. When did I ever argue that some people do not want this, or that there are not countries that allow polyamory (or incest, or marrying objects).

The point you are continuing to ignore, is that the case for polyamory is debated on the merits of polyamory. For example in the case in Brazil the argument was that polyamory helps if one of the spouces dies.

What is not happening is that gay marriage is approved and therefore people say well we have to allow polyamory without debate or discussion on the merits or disadvantages of polyamory.

If people want polyagmy the debate will be on the merits of polygamy. If people want incest they will argue the case of incest on the merits of incest. If people want to marry buildings the debate will be over the merits of marrying buildings.

The idea that we have to allow on of these things because we allowed another is both illogical but also designed to misdirect through scaremongering.

JimiTime wrote: »

What I am in no doubt about, is that once marriage is reduced to being simply about Love and commitment (Which is what PM David Cameron said, and to which I agree are key COMPONENTS of a marriage), then why have limits on it at all?

This is like Christians who say if you don't believe in God's punishment why are you atheists not out there murdering people and stealing. To which atheists just say "Is the only reason you aren't out murdering because you think you are going to be punished by God.

If the only reason you can think against marrying an animal or marrying a building is that it isn't included in the tradition dictionary definition of "marriage" you should have a rethink about these cases.

But again just like how the "why are you atheists not murdering people" question rings with dis-ingeniousness so does the slippery slope argument. I suspect that you can think of plenty of reasons that do not require a Biblical definition of marriage, but you are ignoring them because it is not advantageous to your argument.

Again the merits of each of these arrangements will be debated. There are reasons we don't allow incest, reasons that are unique to the situation of incest. There are reasons we don't allow marrying animals, reasons that are unique to the situation of marrying animals. There are reasons you cannot marry a building, reasons that are unique to the situation of marrying a building.

We can debate each of those cases on their merits or disadvantages. Some can argue that we should allow it. Many else would argue against it. But it will be argued on their own merits or lack of.

What doesn't happen is someone saying Well we allowed gay marriage, so now we must allow X irrespective of the merits or disadvantages of X.

You know this, so stop pretending otherwise just to bolster the slippery slope argument which has been debunked repeatably in this thread so far.

JimiTime · 02-02-2013 03:15PM

Zombrex wrote: »

You say you don't do it, and then in this very post you do it. So again your protest rings hollow. Have the honesty to actually tackle what people are saying to you, not some straw man that while easier to argue against is not the actual argument.

Like I said. I don't do that. AT ALL. EVER. (And btw, if in my stupidity, I happened to do something like that, I would have no issue eating humble pie in the face of it) If you cannot accept that, then this conversation is dead. I will, if you accept this (and I don't expect you to apologise, just to accept me at my word), deal with the rest of your post.

Zombrex · 02-02-2013 03:31PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Like I said. I don't do that. AT ALL. EVER. (And btw, if in my stupidity, I happened to do something like that, I would have no issue eating humble pie in the face of it) If you cannot accept that, then this conversation is dead. I will, if you accept this (and I don't expect you to apologise, just to accept me at my word), deal with the rest of your post.

I respect actions, not words Jimi. I'll accept that you are dealing with the points put to you when you deal with the points put to you.

JimiTime · 02-02-2013 03:33PM

Zombrex wrote: »

I respect actions, not words Jimi. I'll accept that you are dealing with the points put to you when you deal with the points put to you.

Your choice Zombrex. You accused me of something, you can accept me at my word, and I continue to talk to you, or you can maintain your stance on this particular poster and our interaction stops. Its your choice.

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

Comments