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

philologos · 04-02-2013 10:37AM

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think gay couples with children, however they have been conceived, deserve the same protection as heterosexual couples? If couples don't have children because they can't have or don't want them, why should children be a central part of whether they can be married or only have a civil partnership?

How can you live according to biblical principles when many areas of life are entirely untouched by what scripture says?

I've been clear on the first point already. Where I am this right already exists as part of a civil partnership.

I think your second point is extremely weak. I've pointed out already that there is a case for surrogate parenthood in Scripture. Moreover there idms nothing to claim that it is prohibited.

It looks like you're clutching at straws. Your point is wholly irrelevant to anything I've said so far.

philologos · 04-02-2013 10:39AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

You're making this up as you go along.

You were originally unable to provide anything to back up your "different structures" claim. Then you stated men and women "complement each other" (something else you were unable to explain). Then you claimed it said so in the Bible. Then you claimed it's because of the "biological issues around childbearing" (your words). And now you're changing that again.

Is there any reason in trying to have a discussion with you when you keep changing your points to suit yourself?

Focus on the points rather than any claimed strategy and the discussion will progress naturally.

If you want to make the discussion about the discussion rather than the topic there's no point in discussing any longer.

lazygal · 04-02-2013 11:05AM

philologos wrote: »

I've been clear on the first point already. Where I am this right already exists as part of a civil partnership.

I think your second point is extremely weak. I've pointed out already that there is a case for surrogate parenthood in Scripture. Moreover there idms nothing to claim that it is prohibited.

It looks like you're clutching at straws. Your point is wholly irrelevant to anything I've said so far.

I get it, you've run out of arguments for discriminating against gay couples in terms of civil marriage.

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2013 11:28AM

philologos wrote: »

Bannasidhe seems to treat sperm donors with scorn despite the fact that she would have never been able to have a family without them.

Scorn? Phil, I am beginning to think you have your own unique definition of words. Either that or are intent on taking umbrage.

I simply pointed out that while you are banging on about the rights of those men who donate sperm to lesbians and how essential it is that they are seen as the father, you are strangely silent about those men who donate sperm to heterosexual women via one night stands/affairs etc bar stating they shouldn't be having sex outside marriage.

Dare I ask you what rights men who 'donate sperm' via rape should have??

Can you please tell me what exactly is the difference between the two from a donors perspective apart from the method of delivery?

I can tell you one vital difference from my perspective - the lesbian wants to have a child. She wants sperm to procreate. Isn't that what your God wants us to do?

The straight couple are just being lustful...and your Holy Book says that is bad...

Can we expect a rousing chorus of 'every sperm is sacred' from you - although that would be a bit 'Catholic' wouldn't it.

Who said I used a sperm donor - at least in the way you think that means? There is no reason I cannot have heterosexual sex - I just don't like it.

NuMarvel · 04-02-2013 12:11PM

philologos wrote: »

Focus on the points rather than any claimed strategy and the discussion will progress naturally.

If you want to make the discussion about the discussion rather than the topic there's no point in discussing any longer.

We can't have a discussion when you keep moving the goal posts.

The 'difference in relationship structures' is the basis of your objection to same sex civil marriage. It's not some secondary point, its what your argument is built on. But instead of explaining what the differences were when you were first asked, you've been trying to retrospectively add to it.

How is anyone supposed to discuss your objections to same sex marriage in those circumstances?

lazygal · 04-02-2013 08:22PM

It's gone fierce quiet around these parts.

Links234 · 04-02-2013 08:57PM

lazygal wrote: »

It's gone fierce quiet around these parts.

I'm fed up and frustrated. it's almost impossible to debate with Phil, it's like he tries to win debates via attrition

philologos · 04-02-2013 09:07PM

Links234 wrote: »

I'm fed up and frustrated. it's almost impossible to debate with Phil, it's like he tries to win debates via attrition

If the intention of the debate is to convince me why I'm wrong on this issue its futile. Much as I think that it is futile in the other respect.

The major hope of this thread should be to promote understanding particularly about how most expressions of Christianity view sexuality and the objections that LGBT activists have against that position.

I agree wholeheartedly that the discussion we're currently having is a waste of space on boards.ie's MYSQL database.

digger58 · 04-02-2013 09:36PM

OK, Hands up who thinks homosexual behavior is "Natural", IT IS NOT NATURAL QED, It may be natural to some but it is NOT what nature intended, if so we would not have been successful as a species. OK AI is not a natural process but it is a means of replicating the natural process, the end result being (hopefully) a birth, not possible from homosexual behavior. Please don't try and glamorize an unnatural act, what consenting adults do to each other is none of my business and I don't particularly care what they do but I do object to marches and other public displays advertising their lifestyle, Why do it, the "straight" community don't march to prove their sexuality. Having said all the above, I am glad to see that the law pertaining to homosexual acts has been changed and that the greatest hypocritical institution, the RC church, has at least quietened about homosexuality, pretty rich considering all the abuse their deviant priests metered out.

Delirium · 04-02-2013 09:45PM

You actually think homosexuals are actually trying to reproduce when they have sex? so you not only think they engage in "unnatural acts" but that they're also very, very stupid?

PopePalpatine · 04-02-2013 09:50PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

So what was that about homosexuality being "unnatural"? :rolleyes:

Corkfeen · 04-02-2013 09:50PM

digger58 wrote: »

OK, Hands up who thinks homosexual behavior is "Natural", IT IS NOT NATURAL QED, It may be natural to some but it is NOT what nature intended, if so we would not have been successful as a species. OK AI is not a natural process but it is a means of replicating the natural process, the end result being (hopefully) a birth, not possible from homosexual behavior. Please don't try and glamorize an unnatural act, what consenting adults do to each other is none of my business and I don't particularly care what they do but I do object to marches and other public displays advertising their lifestyle, Why do it, the "straight" community don't march to prove their sexuality. Having said all the above, I am glad to see that the law pertaining to homosexual acts has been changed and that the greatest hypocritical institution, the RC church, has at least quietened about homosexuality, pretty rich considering all the abuse their deviant priests metered out.

*Puts hand up* A certain percentage of society is always gay. This has been true throughout history and everyone is not required to procreate.It is present in the majority of animals so that would make it entirely natural. Even if it wasn't natural, it shouldn't matter. It is not in any way harmful to society and the likelihood of humanity ceasing to exist is fairly low.

The straight community have never been treated as second class citizens so a straight march strikes me as unnecessary. Although lgbt rallies don't have any issues with straight people marching with them in support. Seeking acceptance in society, isn't a way to prove your sexuality. It's a fight against prejudice and the past two hundred years in particular have centered around portions of society seeking to be treated equally.

digger58 · 04-02-2013 09:52PM

No Koth, I think you are very very stupid to read that into my post, I am merely stating a fact, IT IS NOT NATURAL, if it were they would reproduce!!!!!!!!!

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2013 09:54PM

digger58 wrote: »

OK, Hands up who thinks homosexual behavior is "Natural", IT IS NOT NATURAL QED, It may be natural to some but it is NOT what nature intended, if so we would not have been successful as a species. OK AI is not a natural process but it is a means of replicating the natural process, the end result being (hopefully) a birth, not possible from homosexual behavior. Please don't try and glamorize an unnatural act, what consenting adults do to each other is none of my business and I don't particularly care what they do but I do object to marches and other public displays advertising their lifestyle, Why do it, the "straight" community don't march to prove their sexuality. Having said all the above, I am glad to see that the law pertaining to homosexual acts has been changed and that the greatest hypocritical institution, the RC church, has at least quietened about homosexuality, pretty rich considering all the abuse their deviant priests metered out.

You don't know what QED means, do you?

Delirium · 04-02-2013 10:00PM

digger58 wrote: »

No Koth, I think you are very very stupid to read that into my post, I am merely stating a fact, IT IS NOT NATURAL, if it were they would reproduce!!!!!!!!!

So infertile couples are engaging in "unnatural acts" also as they can't reproduce?

NuMarvel · 04-02-2013 10:01PM

digger58 wrote: »

OK, Hands up who thinks homosexual behavior is "Natural", IT IS NOT NATURAL QED, It may be natural to some but it is NOT what nature intended, if so we would not have been successful as a species. OK AI is not a natural process but it is a means of replicating the natural process, the end result being (hopefully) a birth, not possible from homosexual behavior. Please don't try and glamorize an unnatural act, what consenting adults do to each other is none of my business and I don't particularly care what they do but I do object to marches and other public displays advertising their lifestyle, Why do it, the "straight" community don't march to prove their sexuality. Having said all the above, I am glad to see that the law pertaining to homosexual acts has been changed and that the greatest hypocritical institution, the RC church, has at least quietened about homosexuality, pretty rich considering all the abuse their deviant priests metered out.

Dude, chill. Relax...

Don't have a cow

:D

Seriously though, where is all this aggression coming from? And what's this "unnatural act" you're so obsessed with?

e_e · 04-02-2013 10:06PM

Complains about "unnatural acts" while typing on a computer. :rolleyes:

NuMarvel · 04-02-2013 10:12PM

philologos wrote: »

If the intention of the debate is to convince me why I'm wrong on this issue its futile. Much as I think that it is futile in the other respect.

The major hope of this thread should be to promote understanding particularly about how most expressions of Christianity view sexuality and the objections that LGBT activists have against that position.

I agree wholeheartedly that the discussion we're currently having is a waste of space on boards.ie's MYSQL database.

LGBT activists? You're aware that alot of the posters disagreeing with you are heterosexual, aren't you? And participating in a discussion doesn't make one an "activist".

More importantly, most people aren't objecting to Christianity's views on sexuality, or homosexuality. The main topic is more focussed on why civil and legal rights for Christians and non-Christians alike should be based on this view.

Which you should know, because that point has been repeated over and over and over again.

Links234 · 04-02-2013 10:17PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Which you should know, because that point has been repeated over and over and over again.

that's what I find so frustrating... it's just tiring trying to find new ways to say that same thing

Benny_Cake · 04-02-2013 10:33PM

OK, Hands up who thinks homosexual behavior is "Natural", IT IS NOT NATURAL QED, It may be natural to some but it is NOT what nature intended, if so we would not have been successful as a species. OK AI is not a natural process but it is a means of replicating the natural process, the end result being (hopefully) a birth, not possible from homosexual behavior. Please don't try and glamorize an unnatural act, what consenting adults do to each other is none of my business and I don't particularly care what they do but I do object to marches and other public displays advertising their lifestyle, Why do it, the "straight" community don't march to prove their sexuality. Having said all the above, I am glad to see that the law pertaining to homosexual acts has been changed and that the greatest hypocritical institution, the RC church, has at least quietened about homosexuality, pretty rich considering all the abuse their deviant priests metered out.

For someone who thinks that the Roman Catholic Church is "the greatest hypocritical institution", some of your views on human sexuality appear to be a perfect match with those of the church. Very little about life in a modern, developed country is completely natural (if it was, the average life expectancy would be a lot lower) but everything seems to indicate that homosexuality (like heterosexuality) is an innate part of someone's identity, which they are either born with or develop so early in life that it's almost the same thing. Natural, in other words. Now if you have a moral disagreement with same-sex relationships then you're entitled to your opinion but don't expect people to accept that it is unnatural just because you say so.

philologos · 05-02-2013 12:16AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

More importantly, most people aren't objecting to Christianity's views on sexuality, or homosexuality. The main topic is more focussed on why civil and legal rights for Christians and non-Christians alike should be based on this view.

Which you should know, because that point has been repeated over and over and over again.

1) Most people are very much objecting to the mainline Christian view on sexuality.

2) This thread was explicitly started for the purpose of discussing Christian attitudes to homosexuality (although I wish it was for sexuality as a whole so a broader discussion could be had).

3) This thread isn't just about politics. If it were it would have its rightful place on the politics forum. Or indeed, if one wants to have a discussion from an atheistic perspective, here probably is not the best place to look.

tommy2bad · 05-02-2013 12:29AM

philologos wrote: »

1) Most people are very much objecting to the mainline Christian view on sexuality.

2) This thread was explicitly started for the purpose of discussing Christian attitudes to homosexuality (although I wish it was for sexuality as a whole so a broader discussion could be had).

3) This thread isn't just about politics. If it were it would have its rightful place on the politics forum. Or indeed, if one wants to have a discussion from an atheistic perspective, here probably is not the best place to look.

1) No most people are objecting to Christian attitudes being enshrined in law.

2) I wish it was too but for now we are stuck with discussing how the Christian attitude to homosexual sex is no sex. Not consensual sex in a committed relationship but no sex, ever at all, off the table for discussion.

3) it's a bit about politics and linguistics and cultural change and the slow changes in Christian viewpoints.

If you want to restrict the thread to discussing 'Christian attitudes' to homosexuality, boards isn't the place for that, maybe some synod forum or bible class but not a public discussion forum that is designed to flow free discussion of issues and topics.
Saying it's our ball and we get to set the rules is just stifling debate and creates the impression that you lack a response other than some variation of 'the bible said so'.

Bannasidhe · 05-02-2013 12:32AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

1) No most people are objecting to Christian attitudes being enshrined in law.

2) I wish it was too but for now we are stuck with discussing how the Christian attitude to homosexual sex is no sex. Not consensual sex in a committed relationship but no sex, ever at all, off the table for discussion.

3) it's a bit about politics and linguistics and cultural change and the slow changes in Christian viewpoints.

If you want to restrict the thread to discussing 'Christian attitudes' to homosexuality, boards isn't the place for that, maybe some synod forum or bible class but not a public discussion forum that is designed to flow free discussion of issues and topics.
Saying it's our ball and we get to set the rules is just stifling debate and creates the impression that you lack a response other than some variation of 'the bible said so'.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

philologos · 05-02-2013 08:03AM

So discussing Christian views on this subject isn't the point of this thread? Look to the first few pages of this thread.

I think its highly unreasonable to say that Christian points of view on marriage and sexuality shouldn't be discussed here.

Some people flip flop around both. I think there's not much to say other than extra wastage on the database concerning the law. I've been clear, others have been clear we just disagree.

What's left to discuss is how churches should regard it.

NuMarvel · 05-02-2013 09:03AM

philologos wrote: »

So discussing Christian views on this subject isn't the point of this thread? Look to the first few pages of this thread.

I think its highly unreasonable to say that Christian points of view on marriage and sexuality shouldn't be discussed here.

Some people flip flop around both. I think there's not much to say other than extra wastage on the database concerning the law. I've been clear, others have been clear we just disagree.

What's left to discuss is how churches should regard it.

Very early on this thread became less about the views of Christianity on homosexuality, and more about the views of individuals who are or aren't Christians. You yourself have often switched between the Biblical and the secular when discussing the issues. The mods seem okay with the way the discussion is going, so if you have feel the thread is off topic, you should take it up with them by PM.

NO ONE has said Christian views on homosexuality can't be discussed here. And I don't know how you managed to read that into tommy's post. Nor is there anything stopping Christians restricting their discussion to solely theological issues. But the issues raised so far in the thread have very real consequences on the lives of thousands of people. So it is only right that those views are challenged when people use them as a basis for stating what the law should be.

SoulandForm · 05-02-2013 10:12AM

If its is natural than why did God condemn it to the point that it carried the death penalty under the Old Law (and not just the Old Law but also in the Code of Justinian- and no Im not advocating the death penalty for it)? If it is natural than Christianity must be a false Religion.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

For someone who thinks that the Roman Catholic Church is "the greatest hypocritical institution", some of your views on human sexuality appear to be a perfect match with those of the church. Very little about life in a modern, developed country is completely natural (if it was, the average life expectancy would be a lot lower) but everything seems to indicate that homosexuality (like heterosexuality) is an innate part of someone's identity, which they are either born with or develop so early in life that it's almost the same thing. Natural, in other words. Now if you have a moral disagreement with same-sex relationships then you're entitled to your opinion but don't expect people to accept that it is unnatural just because you say so.

05-02-2013 10:40AM

SoulandForm wrote: »

If its is natural than why did God condemn it to the point that it carried the death penalty under the Old Law (and not just the Old Law but also in the Code of Justinian- and no Im not advocating the death penalty for it)? If it is natural than Christianity must be a false Religion.

Do you really want to use Leviticus as an argument? Most Christians have spent their time getting Leviticus as far away from this discussion due to the logical absurdity of having to assign the same importance to the rest of the rules in it.

Are eagles natural? Shellfish? If they are, why did God decree them "detestable"? What about a woman's menstrual cycle? Pretty natural, I would have said. Yet when she's having her period, she's "unclean", and no-one should touch her, and anything she touches is also "unclean"

aloyisious · 05-02-2013 12:48PM

If one was to do a poll of the Adult Irish female (straight) married or partnered population on a strictly-confidential basis (no name - no shame) I reckon it is possible that it would reveal the startling fact that they and their husbands or partners were not adverse to a bit of "back-door" nooky, and maybe on a regular basis to boot.

MrPudding · 05-02-2013 01:58PM

SoulandForm wrote: »

If it is natural than Christianity must be a false Religion.

The penny drops.

MrP

Bannasidhe · 05-02-2013 02:02PM

28064212 wrote: »

What about a woman's menstrual cycle? Pretty natural, I would have said. Yet when she's having her period, she's "unclean", and no-one should touch her, and anything she touches is also "unclean"

But if that stricture was adhered to who would make the sammiches?

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

Comments